Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

FRIDAY,  FEBRUARY 5,  2010

CORRECTION – AT 7:28 P.M. ET:  Our post yesterday arguing that there's no such thing as settled science got more reader reaction than anything we've written recently. 

Most was favorable, but a few readers pointed out an error, which I'm glad to correct.  I said that Einstein's general theory of relativity overturned hundreds of years of Newtonian science.  I should have been less grandiose and said that it expanded on Newtonian science, or used a similar construction.  Thanks to reader Walt Bussey for being the first to note the gaffe.  So did another reader, who prefers to remain anonymous.  And so did Frank J. Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University, who explains the argument as follows:

There’s been a great deal of discussion on the “science is settled” question.  Is science ever settled?  When Copernicus published, in 1543, his proposal that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the Solar System, he was attacked for bringing back a theory that had been proposed before the Common Era by the Greek Aristarchus of Samos. The science had been settled centuries before, Copernicus was told. Mr. Katz illustrates this point by writing: “Einstein's general theory of relativity overturned hundreds of years of Newtonian physics.”

Mr. Katz’s point is correct, but alas, his example is not.  In spite of what has been written in the popular books, even books written by professional  physicists, unfortunately Einstein’s general relativity did NOT overturn Newtonian physics. General relativity is a special case of Newtonian  physics, as Einstein (if not some physicists) knew.

Einstein gave a lecture in Leyden, the Netherlands, in which he argued that general relativity was just a form of ether theory, in which the gravitational effects of the ether are taken into account. Einstein also knew that gravity in Newton’s theory is curvature, just as it is in general relativity. The great French mathematician E. Cartan had proven this in the early 1920’s, and had corresponded with Einstein about it.  (Cartan’s proof is available in Chapter 12 of the book, "Gravitation," coauthored by my own teacher, the late Princeton professor John A. Wheeler, who was himself a post-doctoral student of Niels Bohr.)

I blame mainly the MSM for promulgating this error about general relativity.   The British astronomer Arthur Eddington wanted to end the hatred of Germany felt by many Britons in 1919, and what better way than for an Englishman to  test a theory of a German, a theory which, if correct, would overturn the  theory of the greatest English physicist of all time, Isaac Newton.  Eddington sold the MSM of his day a bill of goods, and they ran with it.  They are still running with it.

The climate frauds of today are doing what Eddington did in 1919.  Only they are lying for power and grant money.  Eddington, to his credit, was motivated purely by a desire for peace between nations.

COMMENT:   We have a very informed readership at Urgent Agenda.  It's a pleasure to be corrected by Professor Tipler.

There will be other comments on the "science is settled" issue at our Forum, later tonight.

February 5, 2010   Permalink 

BULLETIN - AT 6:22 P.M. ET:  Washington expected to get up to 30 inches of snow this weekend.

I used to live in Washington.  One inch of snow is a disaster.  Two inches a catastrophe.  Three inches and people prepare for the end.

Thirty inches?  No government for three years.

Celebrate now.

Love this global warming.

February 5, 2010   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 5:57 P.M. ET:  From Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, esteemed legislator, scholar of American history, and all around...well, you finish it:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), appearing before the Democratic National Committee winter meeting this morning, was illustrating the diversity of the Democratic party by painting the touching scene of FDR's final train ride from Georgia to Hyde Park. Then she stumbled.

"There were farmers and black Americans, whatever the name was in those days, Afric- uh -- large numbers of African-Americans, poor people, middle class people, everyone. . . they lined the tracks to pay their respects," Pelosi told an audience at the Capitol Hilton.

COMMENT:  Yeah, whatever the name was in those days.  What respect.  What reverence.  Imagine what she says in private. 

But she's a Democrat, so Jesse Jackson will undoubtedly give her a pass and offer to pray with her...on camera of course.  Hi-fi sound only.

February 5, 2010   Permalink

HE DID IT HIS WAY, UNFORTUNATELY – AT 4:14 P.M. ET:  Apparently, the president of the United States, the "yes we can" guy from Chicago, is throwing health care under the bus, keeping some space open for Eric Holder.  From AP:

WASHINGTON – No, maybe he can't. President Barack Obama, who insisted he would succeed where other presidents had failed to fix the nation's health care system, now concedes the effort may die in Congress.

The president's newly conflicting signals could frustrate Democratic lawmakers who are hungry for guidance from the White House as they try to salvage the effort to extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans and hold down spiraling medical costs. Obama's comments Thursday night came hours after Republican Scott Brown was sworn in to replace the late Edward M. Kennedy, leaving Democrats without their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and Obama's signature health legislation with no clear path forward.

"I think it's very important for us to have a methodical, open process over the next several weeks, and then let's go ahead and make a decision," Obama said at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser.

Why hasn't there been a methodical, open process for the last year?

"And it may be that ... if Congress decides we're not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not," the president said. "And that's how democracy works. There will be elections coming up, and they'll be able to make a determination and register their concerns."

It was a shift in tone for the issue the "Yes we can" candidate campaigned on and made the centerpiece of his domestic agenda last year.

COMMENT:  More than a shift in tone.  It's practically a surrender.  What this administration never learned is that the voice of the president, no matter how smooth, is not enough.  FDR was defeated on legislation, and he was an even better communicator than The One.  Moving a bill through Congress is a fine political art.  This crowd never mastered it.

It might have been wiser to pick a few reforms that have wide popular appeal, end the outrageous anti-trust exemption for the insurance industry, and proceed from there.  The American people wanted the car repaired.  They didn't volunteer to buy a new limo.

February 5, 2010   Permalink

HMM...INTRIGUING POLITICAL IDEA – AT 3:45 P.M. ET:  It's all speculation, but there's a certain fascination about this, from Ken Walsh of U.S. News, as he examines the potential Obama strategy for 2012:

Democratic strategists say that if President Obama's re-election prospects look shaky, he could dump Vice President Joe Biden from the 2012 national ticket and choose Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate.

It's inside-Washington speculation at this point, but the strategists make a good case for such a shift. "Biden was named in the first place to shore up Obama on foreign policy issues, and Obama doesn't need that anymore," says a former Clinton adviser. That's because Obama has learned the ropes and has assembled a strong foreign policy and national security team including Robert Gates as defense secretary, Jim Jones as White House national security adviser, and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.

Uh, yeah, but if I may interject something:  That foreign policy team hasn't produced one solid success, so bear that in mind as you read this.  As for Obama learning the ropes – he's been bouncing off them rather than learning them.  He's got a good part of the world laughing at him and his impotence.

Elevating Clinton to the vice presidential slot would accomplish several objectives: It would appeal to female voters and the still-powerful cadre of Clinton admirers, give Obama more of a pragmatic luster, and shunt the gaffe-prone Biden aside. And it would theoretically discourage Clinton, a former senator from New York, from challenging Obama in the 2012 primaries, Democratic insiders say, because as vice president she would be considered Obama's heir for 2016. Clinton would be 69 that year, the same age as Ronald Reagan when he won the presidency in 1980.

True, but Dems will have been in power for eight years, and she'd be a very old face, in the national spotlight for 24 years. 

An even more intriguing thought is that Obama may not run for a second term.  It's hard to imagine an ego like that pulling out of the race, but Lyndon Johnson's ego was also enormous, and he declined to run again in 1968. 

Everything depends, of course, on the condition of the country as we approach 2012.  If the economy is still in trouble, or in worse trouble, or if we're in a bad jam internationally, the Dem nomination may not be worth much.  If she can avoid blame, which means no major foreign-policy disasters, Hillary could fill the vacuum, cruise to the nomination if Obama takes a hike, and hope for the best in the general.

Just fun talk.  Let's get through 2010 first.

February 5, 2010   Permalink

NOW THE DUTCH WONDER ABOUT "GLOBAL WARMING" SCIENCE – AT 10:24 A.M. ET:  No doubt the global-warming industry is hoping for a respite from the relentless series of scandals that have rocked their world, reported meticulously in The Times of London.

They'll have to wait longer.  Now the Netherlands is getting into the act, as AFP reports:

The Netherlands has asked the UN climate change panel to explain an inaccurate claim in a landmark 2007 report that more than half the country was below sea level, the Dutch government said Friday.

According to the Dutch authorities, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be asked to account for its figures, environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart told AFP.

The incident could cause further embarrassment for the IPCC, which recently admitted a claim in the same report that global warming could melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was wrong.

IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level -- 26 percent -- to the area threatened by river flooding -- 29 percent -- Vallaart said.

"They should have been clearer," Vallaart said, adding that the Dutch office for environmental planning, an IPCC partner, had exact figures.

Correcting the error had been "on the agenda several times" but had never actually happened, Vallaart said.

The agenda?  The agenda?  That's what it's really about, isn't it?  They have an agenda, and those people who don't toe the party line aren't part of it.

The spokesman said he regretted the fact that proper procedure was not followed and said it should not be left to politicians to check the IPCC's numbers.

Yet, it's politicians, a few brave scientists, and some equally brave journalists who have raised the most significant questions about "global warming."

COMMENT:  With all that has been coming out, there is still not a single concession from the Obama administration that anything is wrong.  Global warming is the trendy cool thing, and remains so.  Most of the questions are now being asked in Britain and Europe, and by Fox News.  Others are invited to join.

February 5, 2010   Permalink

LESS BOUNCE FOR THE OUNCE – AT 9:57 A.M. ET:  We've been reporting here that President Obama received a polling bounce after his State of the Union message.  That bounce is now starting to fade away, as Rasmussen reports this morning.  Numbers are starting to return to their pre-speech levels:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove which Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12. The President received a modest bounce in his ratings following the State-of-the-Union Address, but today’s results suggest that the bounce is fading.

This proves that God is indeed taking care of the United States.

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.

That's pretty much where we were in overall approval before the speech.

This year, of course, the key polling will take place in individual states and Congressional districts.  It's much too early to be definitive – the election is nine months away – but so far the numbers seem to be heading in our direction, if not overwhelmingly so.

February 5, 2010   Permalink

BARACK, WE HARDLY KNEW YE – AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  President Obama, having been launched to power by his party's left wing, now learns how unforgiving that crowd can be.  And the moderates aren't too friendly either.  From The Politico:

President Barack Obama is running into resistance from congressional Democrats over several key economic proposals — blunting the party’s ability to send a clear message to middle-class voters that Democrats feel their pain.

Obama has run into friction from fellow Democrats over plans to freeze some federal spending, to use bailout funds for small-business lending and to limit the reach of big banks.

And Obama’s call for a jobs bill left Senate leaders pledging a vote as early as Monday — but offering no details of what a measure might include or how much it would cost.

All of this paints a picture of a governing party that faces uncertainty about the way forward on the economy, especially in the wake of a shattering defeat in the Massachusetts Senate race last month.

When the voters catch on to what you're doing, there is definitely uncertainty on the way forward.

The moderate Dems are panicking because many are up for reelection this fall, and the climate, despite global warming, has turned chilly.  And the leftist Dems, for whom bankrupting the country is collateral damage, see their dream of a new Utopia slipping away.

It's an unhappy party.  And we all know whose fault it is.  It's Bush's fault.

February 5, 2010   Permalink

NOW THE SPIN BEGINS – AT 8:42 A.M. ET:  The unemployment rate has dropped to 9.7%, which the Obama administration will use to tell us that things are improving.

But the devil, as usual, is in the details, which aren't so delightful.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Employers unexpectedly cut 20,000 jobs in January, but the unemployment rate surprisingly fell to a five-month low of 9.7 percent, according to a government report on Friday that hinted at some labor market improvement starting to take root.

The Labor Department said the economy shed 150,000 jobs in December, compared to 85,000 previously reported, but November was revised to a gain of 64,000, up from 4,000. Annual benchmark revisions to payrolls data showed the economy has purged 8.4 million jobs since the start of the recession in December 2007.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast payrolls gaining 5,000 and the unemployment rate to edge up to 10.1 percent in January from 10 percent. Median estimates from the top 20 forecasters expected payrolls to be unchanged last month.

A sharp increase in the number of people giving up looking for work helped to depress the jobless rate. The number of 'discouraged job seekers' rose to 1.1 million in January from 734,000 a year ago.

COMMENT:  So, the decline in the jobless rate isn't due to new employment, but to people just giving up.  We have a new army of the chronically unemployed.  Also, some of the new jobs come from the federal government, hiring thousands of workers to conduct the 2010 census. 

Not out of the soup by any means.

February 5, 2010   Permalink

THE SUPREME VERBAL GAFFE – AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  I wanted to comment on Mr. Obama's latest verbal gaffe, now making the rounds on TV and across the internet. 

If you haven't seen or heard it, it's here.

The president, in remarks about Haiti read from his brotherly teleprompter, makes three references to a Navy corpsman.  Incredibly, he pronounces it "corpse-man."

Is there anyone in America who doesn't know that the proper pronunciation is "core-man," and that the mission of the corpsman is to save lives? 

Now, several notes:  If this had been George W. Bush or Sarah Palin making the error, the mainstream media would have gone completely bananas (and I apologize to any yellow-skinned fruit that may be offended.)  Ignorant!  Moron!  Poor education!  But it's Obama, so it just passes by.

More important:  What does the gaffe tell you about the president's experience, the kinds of things he's read all his life, the kinds of films and documentaries he's seen, the people with whom he's spent time? 

To the pseudo-intellectual, it doesn't matter.  So he doesn't know how to pronounce a Navy term?  It's far more important that he understand and appreciate – let's see if I get this right – the multicultural, class, gender and racial issues involved in social conflict.  But I'm not so sure he's got much of a handle on that stuff either.

The fact is that the president, for all his eloquence, is a very narrow man, not well read and certainly not well experienced.  We went with an amateur, and an amateur is what we have.  He's going through on-the-job training, and, because of the generosity of the United States Government Corporation, receives full salary and benefits, along with public housing and transportation. 

Maybe some of the training will stick.  America's personnel managers, at the polls, will decide.  Among them will be a number of active and retired corpsmen.

February 5,  2010   Permalink

THURSDAY,  FEBRUARY 4,  2010

ANOTHER MAN OF THE YEAR NOMINEE EMERGES IN ILLINOIS - AT 9:02 P.M. ET:  Illinois likes to be known as the land of Lincoln.  If Lincoln were alive, he'd probably ask that they take down the sign.  The state's most important product these days is embarrassment:

On the same day Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn officially claimed the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, he found out that his newly-minted running mate has a rap sheet that includes alleged domestic battery and tax evasion. The revelation has shocked Democrats, leading to worries that his presence could taint the entire statewide ticket.

Yeah, I guess there are judgment questions. 

According to court records obtained by the Chicago Tribune, Scott Lee Cohen, a millionaire pawnbroker who prevailed with a narrow plurality in the crowded primary for lieutenant governor, was accused by his ex-girlfriend, a prostitute, of holding a knife to her neck in a 2005 domestic dispute.

Cohen said in a statement Wednesday that he had no intention of ending his bid.

“I have no intention of stepping down or stepping aside. When the facts come to light, after my ex-wife and ex-girlfriend speak, the people of Illinois can decide, and I will listen to them directly,” said Cohen.

When they speak?  Where?  In Wrigley Field?  The ex-girlfriend already charged him with holding a knife to her throat.   What will she say now, and how much will she be paid to say it?

“I tried to tell everyone about this early on. I wanted to talk about all of these issues, but everyone wrote me off, and said I didn’t have a chance to win. Now that I’m the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor, the day after the election, there are questions. I am happy to answer any and all questions; I just need time to do so,” he said.

Time?  Why would you need time?  Maybe to consult with a criminal lawyer?

Illinois Democrats, many of whom first found out about Cohen’s past from newspaper reports Thursday, are now scrambling to find a way to remove him from the ballot – a process that they acknowledge is far from simple.

Look, it's Illinois.  How much damage can a knife-wielding lieutenant governor do?

February 4, 2010   Permalink

THE MOMENT – AT 8:21 P.M. ET:  Scott Brown has been sworn in as senator from Massachusetts.  Joe Biden fluffed only once in administering the oath:

Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown was sworn in as a U.S. senator, filling the seat held for almost half a century by the late Edward Kennedy and ending Democrats’ supermajority that let them overcome stalling tactics on legislation.

“I want to get to work,” Brown said at a news conference after he was sworn in today. “There are a lot of votes pending that I would like to participate in.”

Vice President Joe Biden administered the oath of office to Brown in the Senate chamber. Brown, 50, who won a special election Jan. 19, had been scheduled to take office next week until he asked Massachusetts officials to certify the results so he could join the Senate today.

Brown’s victory over once-favored Democratic state Attorney General Martha Coakley emboldened Republicans and stalled President Barack Obama’s efforts to pass sweeping overhaul of the health-care system, his top domestic priority. Health-care legislation was Kennedy’s decades-long goal as well.

You can see the swearing in here.

And now, for another view of Scott Brown.  Two guys I admire, Michael Ledeen and Roger Simon, sent me this, from YouTube – Adolf Hitler learns that Scott Brown won the election. 

February 4, 2010    Permalink

HANSON ON THE FADING OBAMA – AT 7:10 P.M. ET:  It's widely remarked that never have we had a president who's fallen from grace faster than Barack Obama.  The impact of the crash-and-burn is now being widely felt in our foreign policy. 

Not only does this president no longer walk on the water connecting the world's continents, he's barely swimming.  Victor Davis Hanson, a historian of this kind of rise and fall pattern, examines the mess:

What’s gone wrong with Obama’s dream of multilateral cooperation?

For starters, the world’s tensions were not caused by, and remain far larger than, George W. Bush — and thus cannot be easily solved by his absence.

Obama also has apparently confused what people say with what nations do.

Yeah, noticed that.

...unfortunately, national leaders themselves do not behave like excited concertgoers or European intellectuals. Instead, they have only long-term self-interests — not temporary emotional crushes — and so seek to expand their influence whenever they can.

Obama had better understand that difference. A world without strong U.S. leadership really would become a far more dangerous place where the strong do as they please and the weak obey as they must.

Seems to me we're already getting there, thanks to The One, the Most Holy.

Hanson points out that, after World War II, the United States intervened to stabilize critical parts of the world, to prevent the kind of chaos that marked the 20th century.  Inevitably, that intervention brought some resentment, much of it tinged with jealousy.

And if allies sometimes derided America, privately they were mostly relieved that there was some sort of policeman — and that it was us and not an authoritarian nation like China, Iran, or Russia.

The tragedy is that, in many of our universities, students are taught that we are no better than China, Iran, or Russia.  They are taught by "scholars" who never lived under those regimes.

Obama may for practical and idealistic reasons believe that America should not or can no longer afford to play that pre-eminent role; he may even believe that such prominence was never really needed and was mostly counterproductive...

...But he should at least admit that in such a vacuum of American power and influence, the natural order of things abroad would be chaos. 

I want to hear the admission.  In fact, I want to see it in writing.

...broadcasting supposed past American sins; issuing meaningless deadlines to Iran; and snubbing allies such as Britain, Israel, Poland, and the Czech Republic won’t win over enemies or ease world tensions.

Amazing how past presidents understood that.  Well, maybe Jimmah didn't, but most did.

Right now the world’s bad actors confidently see “hope” for a vast “change” in the old world order — but not the kind Obama once so boldly promised.

COMMENT:  Is there any evidence that Obama has learned from the mess that his first year left all over the globe?  Not so far.  But there are 11 months left.  Jack Kennedy took office in January of 1961, flopped in his first year, then confronted the Soviet Union in October of 1962 in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  We came off pretty well, but that was 90 miles off our shore.  Enemies won't make it that convenient next time.  Iran means longer flight time than even Nancy Pelosi can tolerate.

The real tests are coming up.  Confidence in the president is not high.

February 4, 2010   Permalink

BUDDING SCANDAL – AT 4:48 P.M. ET:  This warrants further investigation, because if Bond's accusations are correct, it could turn into a major security scandal.  From Fox News:

The White House strongly rejected assertions by Sen. Kit Bond on Thursday that administration officials defied an FBI request for secrecy when it held a briefing with reporters Tuesday about Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's cooperation with authorities.

In a letter to President Obama, Bond, R-Mo., scolded the White House for revealing the details of the interrogations, saying the administration is undermining national security by providing details the FBI specifically asked not be revealed.

"FBI officials stressed the importance of not disclosing the fact of his cooperation in order to protect ongoing and follow-on operations to neutralize additional threats to the American public," Bond, ranking member of the Senate Intelligence committee wrote.

"FBI Director Bob Muller (sic) personally stressed to me that keeping the fact of his cooperation quiet was vital to preventing future attacks against the United States," he continued.

COMMENT:  The key sentence is the last one.  It's highly unlikely that Bond, an experienced senator, would go out on a limb and claim that the FBI director told him something, if it weren't true. 

The briefing Tuesday raised a battalion of eyebrows.  Informing the public, and thus the enemy, that the terrorist was cooperating is a major blunder.  Al Qaeda will make reasonable judgments as to what Abdulmutallab knew and how well he knew it.  Plans can be changed, even codes. 

Does the administration care, or is it just in the reelection business?  Given that the president seems to prefer campaigning to governing, maybe the question answers itself.

February 4, 2010   Permalink

LATEST ILLINOIS POLL – AT 9:35 A.M. ET:  From our favorite opinion analyst, Scott Rasmussen: 

Republican Mark Kirk holds a modest 46% to 40% lead over Democrat Alexi Giannoulias in the race for the Illinois Senate following Tuesday’s party primaries.

The first post-primary Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 telephone survey of the Kirk-Giannoulias race finds just four percent (4%) of likely voters in the state prefer some other candidate, while another 10% are undecided.

Among voters not affiliated with either of the major parties, the Republican holds a sizable 59% to 22% lead.

In December, Giannoulias was up by three points over Kirk. In October, the two men were tied at 41% each. In mid-August, Kirk held a modest 41% to 38% lead over Giannoulias.

And...

Kirk, a U.S. congressman, leads Giannoulias, Illinois’ current state treasurer, by a wide margin among male voters but trails his Democratic rival by 13 points among female voters.

COMMENT:  I'm baffled by the gender gap.  I hope future surveys try to explain it. 

The most striking figure is the independent vote, where Kirk leads 59% to 22%.  A Republican in Illinois, though, must overcome the large Democratic registration advantage, and the Democratic machine in Chicago, which churns out large numbers from voters living and dead. 

February 4, 2010   Permalink

MEDICAL ADVANCE, AND SOBER QUESTIONS ABOUT "SETTLED SCIENCE" – AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  We don't do many medical stories here, but I'm quoting this for good reason.  From The New York Times:

He emerged from the car accident alive but alone, there and not there: a young man whose eyes opened yet whose brain seemed shut down. For five years he lay mute and immobile beneath a diagnosis — “vegetative state” — that all but ruled out the possibility of thought, much less recovery.

But in recent months at a clinic in Liège, Belgium, the patient, now 29, showed traces of brain activity in response to commands from doctors. Now, according to a new report, he has begun to communicate: in response to simple questions, like “Do you have any brothers?,” he showed distinct traces of activity on a brain imaging machine that represented either “yes” or “no.”

And a few days ago, The Lancet, Britain's leading medical journal, withdrew a landmark study that seemed to link autism to certain vaccines given to children.

So, science progresses.  It changes.  Einstein's general theory of relativity overturned hundreds of years of Newtonian physics.  Many of us began life at a time when the advice to heart patients was to rest, and essentially withdraw from active work.  The advice is very different today.   

But you would never know that science changes from the true-believer discussions of "global warming."  You'd think it was somehow sinful to question anything with the label "science" attached.  It's settled, isn't it?  It's cast in stone, right?

No.  There is no such thing as "settled" science.  The very word is anathema to true scientists.  As scandal after scandal emerges from the murky world of global-warming "research," we're reminded that real progress begins with questioning.

So now we have an advance in brain-function research.  And we have a major study on autism withdrawn because it didn't stand up in the face of new examinations and probing.

Question, question, question!  Don't let science become political science. 

February 4, 2010   Permalink

THE PARTY OF "WIN" – AT 8:51 A.M. ET:  The Politico reports on a clear trend, thus far, in the GOP politics of 2010 – that Republicans are more interested in winning than in ideological disputes.  Good.  Become the party of "win."

The widely anticipated civil war within the Republican Party is off to a decidedly dull start.

Defying predictions from last year, early evidence suggests that party leaders and even most grass-roots activists are more interested in winning elections than in ideological bloodletting.

A spate of recent developments points to two conclusions about the modern Republican Party that were in doubt as recently as a few months ago.

The first is that for all the talk about tea party insurgents and fulminating radio and cable commentators taking over, the GOP remains above all an establishment party.

GOP leaders easily swatted down a proposed “purity test” for candidates at last week’s Republican National Committee meeting — an indication that party officials are no more willing to turn over the keys to right-wing activists now than they were during the Bush years.

In Illinois, Rep. Mark Kirk is hardly a conservative heartthrob — and some activists are openly contemptuous of what they perceive as his moderation — but he easily won the Republican Senate primary there Tuesday night, against a more conservative, underfunded opponent, in part because he is seen as having the best chance to capture President Barack Obama’s old Senate seat.

Recent elections also suggest a second trend: It may not be all that hard in a favorable political environment for skilled Republicans to bridge or blur the ideological divide between the conservative activists who dominate the party and the more moderate swing voters whom candidates need to win office.

COMMENT:  This is a good analysis, although I object to the term "right-wing activists."  When is the last time you saw a reference to "left-wing activists" when the mainstream media discusses the Democratic Party?

And we certainly insist on the right to debate within the party, and recognize that debates will occasionally become acrimonious.  But Republicans are learning that it's far better to get 75% of something, than 0% of nothing.  There are no prizes for second place in elections.  There is no "first runner-up." 

I'd love to see us win that Illinois seat, kept lukewarm by Barack Obama.  I want to see Obama deliver his next State of the Union address, look right down at that chamber and see Mark Kirk.  Calming pills are available.

February 4, 2010   Permalink

TODAY'S THE DAY – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  It's the day when Scott Brown, Massachusetts resident, becomes the 41st GOP vote in the Senate.  From Fox:

WASHINGTON -- Republican Scott Brown is poised to take over the late Sen. Edward Kennedy's long-held seat a week earlier than he had planned, ending the Democrats' Senate supermajority and giving the GOP 41 votes they can use to block President Barack Obama's agenda.

A swearing-in ceremony was set for 5 p.m. Thursday for the little-known Massachusetts state senator who shocked the nation with his upset victory last month over a favored Democrat and put the 2010 midterm elections in play for a possible GOP takeover of Congress. Originally, Brown had said he did not want to be sworn in until Feb. 11.

He felt he needed time to hire a staff.  But Brown, who will probably make the mistakes of a Washington newcomer, has learned that he's the senator, and that no one outside the Beltway cares about the staff.

But in response to criticism from conservative radio hosts and newspaper columnists, he pressed Massachusetts officials on Wednesday to certify his election for the hurry-up swearing-in to fill the last two years of Kennedy's term....

...Brown said Wednesday there were upcoming Senate votes he wanted to participate in, after saying earlier that he needed time before taking office to hire a staff and prepare for his new job.

COMMENT:  Welcome Senator Brown.  Now the real show begins.

February 4, 2010   Permalink

OH DEAR, OH DEAR, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DISCOVER THAT A GOD IS A GUY – AT 8:18 A.M. ET: 

Silvio Canto Jr., on whose radio show I often appear, alerts us to the quote of the day, from an article in the French newspaper Le Monde, as translated by a great website Silvio refers us to, No Parasan!:

Bush was not the problem. Obama is not the solution: one year after the arrival at the White House of a Democratic president, disenchantment is mutual on either side of the Atlantic. The Allies are discovering — if indeed they were unaware of it before — that misunderstandings go beyond individuals.

Having denounced Mr. Bush's imperialism, Europeans are criticizing Mr. Obama for his impotence. They are complaining of his not being able to bend China at the Copenhagen summit on the fight against global warming. "We overestimated his room for maneuver," said adviser to the French executive; "The Chinese were facing a weakling", said a person close to Mr. Sarkozy in an accusing voice.

COMMENT:  The Europeans feel snubbed by Mr. Obama, and maybe Europe needs a little healthy snubbing.  But the "facing a weakling" part should frighten us.  President Bush, who had failings, was never seen is weak.  The perception of weakness doesn't prevent wars, it leads to them.  That is one of the great lessons of the 20th century, a lesson many "analysts" would like to ignore because it interferes with the approved journalistic or university narrative.  But it remains valid with or without the support of the Georgetown parlor crowd.

February 4,  2010   Permalink