FRIDAY,  DECEMBER 11,  2009

A LESSON FOR THE NATION - AT 11:22 P.M. ET:  Some New Yorkers like to think of themselves as quite superior to mere humans.  You may have seen the old New Yorker cartoon depicting a map of the U.S. - New York on the right, a thin strip to the west, and then the huge Pacific Ocean.

Uh, that was then.  This is now.  New York is in pathetic shape, and the reasons should be a warning to the rest of the country.  New York is what happens when the left takes over, when small business is treated with contempt, and taxes are collected to benefit "the people," without regard to the effect on those same people five years down the road.  The New York Post, in an excellent analysis piece, has the sad story:

IT'S no secret what drives innovation, economic growth and job creation forward: It's entrepreneurs and investors taking risks and starting up, investing in and building businesses.
New York policymakers often talk a good game about all this -- but over the years they've worked hard to make the state one of the most inhospitable places in the nation to invest and do business.
Just consider what state lawmakers did this year. Facing huge budget deficits and a grim economy, they recklessly jacked up government spending and imposed big tax hikes -- including higher tax rates on upper-income individuals who tend to be business owners and investors and a new payroll tax on businesses to feed the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

And...

In fact, according to the just-published 2009 "Small Business Survival Index," New York has the fourth-worst public-policy climate for entrepreneurship among the 50 states and District of Columbia. Only California, New Jersey and DC rank worse.

And look at the shape they're in.  Do I see D.C. listed there?

And what is the result of New York's policies?

As it turns out, New York's biggest export in recent decades has been people. In terms of net domestic migration (that is, movement of people between the states, excluding births, deaths and international migration), from 2000 to 2008, New York ranked as the nation's top exporter of people, registering a loss of 1.6 million.

People both follow and create economic opportunity. It should be no surprise, given New York's dismal business climate, that so many are seeking and creating opportunities elsewhere.

COMMENT:  Will others learn from our mistakes?  I certainly hope so.  Will New York learn?  Possibly.  New York City hasn't elected a Democratic mayor in 20 years because of the damage the Dems did.  But there are still powerful interests who believe the state should just be a cash machine for special interests and "oppressed" communities.  The result has been that the oppression is worse, and other states gain from our losses.  Those leaving New York tend to be the most productive citizens. 

So, enjoy our exports.  They're excellent.  And they'll appreciate you.

December 11, 2009   Permalink

A CONFLICT OF INTEREST - AT 7:35 P.M. ET:  Don't think there are conflicts of interest in the "science" of global warming?  Reader Brian Kuhn alerts us to this CBS story that should open eyes.  And it deals with one of our great universities:

The scientist who will head the American Physical Society's review of its 2007 statement calling for immediate reductions of carbon dioxide is Princeton's Robert Socolow, a prominent supporter of the link between CO2 and global warming who has warned of possible "catastrophic consequences" of climate change.

Socolow's research institute at Princeton has received well over $20 million in grants dealing with climate change and carbon reduction, plus an additional $2 million a year from BP and still more from the federal government.

Ahem.  A bit of a problem:

"It is Socolow whose entire research funding stream, well over a million dollars a year, depends on continued alarm over global warming," says William Happer, a fellow Princeton University professor and head of the Happer physics lab who has raised the question of a conflict of interest. The reason: the ostensibly neutral person charged with evaluating a statement endorsing man-made global warming is a leading proponent of precisely that theory whose funding is tied to that theory.

That nails it exactly.  And we see these conflicts all over science.  We've noted that President Eisenhower warned about the influence of funding on scientific results in his farewell address to the nation some 48 years ago.  The problem hasn't been solved.

Hal Lewis, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara who has been an APS member for 65 years, says that he asked both the current and incoming APS presidents to require that Socolow recuse himself from a review of this subject, and both refused.

And...

Petr Chylek, a fellow at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and an adjunct professor at New Mexico State University, said in an open letter that climate scientists "have substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view." And 141 scientists have signed a statement at CopenhagenClimateChallenge.org that says actual evidence of human-caused global warming is lacking and "unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation."

COMMENT:  Nice, huh?  How many trillions will be spent, how much of our economy will be damaged, before we realize that climate-change "science" is shot through with conflicts of interest and political agendas.

And while we're at it, maybe it's time to take a look at some of our "leading" universities and the way they do business.  And remember:  It's a business.

December 11, 2009   Permalink

AND STILL ONE MORE - AT 7:20 P.M. ET:  We've noted the sheer number of terror incidents, and near-incidents, in the United States in the last year.  We haven't highlighted some strange occurrences aboard airliners.  Here's another, which occurred just this week.  From Canada Free Press:

It happened again on Wednesday, December 9, 2009, less than a month after the incident aboard AirTran Flight 297.

United Airlines Flight 227, scheduled to depart Denver International Airport at 1:50 pm Wednesday for Los Angeles was disrupted when several passengers who were described as Middle Eastern in appearance, confirmed by this investigator to be a group of Muslims traveling together, were removed from that aircraft due to suspicious behavior that originated in the terminal and continued to the airplane. Their behavior was consistent in some respects to the behavior of the Muslim passengers aboard AirTran Flight 297 on November 17, 2009 that caused a flurry of controversy over its legitimacy, and the now infamous case of the “Flying Imams” of 2006.

And...

According to information obtained by this investigator, seven men of Middle Eastern appearance, boarded flight 227. Two took their seats in coach, while five took their seats in the first class section of the plane. At a critical pre-flight point, the individuals appeared to act in concert with one another, changing seats and moving stowed luggage to very specific areas of the aircraft, often having to move the stowed bags of other passengers to do so. They disobeyed or otherwise ignored the admonitions of the flight attendants to remain seated.

The flight crew had those passengers removed.  There's a TV report here.

The passengers were put on another flight.  No criminal activity was found, but the pattern was similar, as the story notes, to one on a flight in November. 

These incidents tend to be downplayed, partly because of political correctness, and partly because of the commercial interests of the airlines. 

Two of the strangely behaving passengers were in coach, and five were in first class, but they all seemed to know each other. 

COMMENT:  We can't make any charges, of course, but we should be concerned.  The general excuse given for behavior like this is "cultural difference."  But there's another, more ominous explanation - testing the system and rattling flight crews.

We say we've been lucky so far, although we weren't so lucky at Fort Hood.  The American people are dozing.

December 11, 2009   Permalink 

THE FAST HUSTLE SLOWS DOWN - AT 10:29 A.M. ET:  A few days ago, Senate Dems were ready to hold tofu parties, believing they had health care nailed down because of a compromise over the "public option." 

Well, not so fast, fellas.  Apparently, there are people in the Senate who actually read things, and think about them.  I know that's dangerous, but they do it.  From The Politico:

Senate moderates who are the linchpin to passing a health care reform bill raised fresh worries Thursday about a proposed Medicare expansion, complicating Majority Leader Harry Reid’s hopes of putting together a filibuster-proof majority for the legislation in the coming days.

Two days ago, the Medicare proposal appeared to be the elusive bridge between liberals, who were being forced to give up a public health insurance option, and moderates, who said they couldn’t vote for a bill that included one.

But by Thursday, the shine had dimmed, as senators grew restless over a lack of information and declined to commit their vote until they could review the legislative language and the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate. Republicans also stepped up their criticism of the plan.

The three moderates — Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), whose votes could make or break health reform this year — expressed varying degrees of resistance to the Medicare idea.

Snowe said the Medicare expansion exacerbates an “already-serious problem,” with the low government reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals that serve Medicare patients. It could force her to vote no, she said.

COMMENT:  Every poll shows increasing public opposition to the Dem health plan.  You'd think they'd put it away for a while and go talk to their constituents.  But the "we know best" crowd is in charge, and they're headed over the cliff. 

December 11, 2009   Permalink

WHISTLING DIXIE? - AT 9:42 A.M. ET:  There is a disconnect between the statements of administration officials on Iran and facts on the ground.  From The New York Times:

ERBIL, Iraq — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said on Friday that he expected the United States and its allies to impose more stringent sanctions against Iran because the country had not followed through on promises it made in October to open its nuclear program to international inspection.

“I think you’re going to see some significant additional sanctions imposed by the international community, assuming that the Iranians don’t change course and agree to do the things that they signed up to do at the beginning of October,” Mr. Gates said during a question-and-answer session with American troops in Kirkuk, an oil-rich region north of Baghdad. He spoke before flying to Erbil, the capital of the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan.

Under a deadline imposed by President Obama, Iran has until the end of this year to show progress in engaging with the West to limit its nuclear ambitions. Mr. Gates’ comments were the first from a senior member of the Obama administration to say that tougher sanctions were now likely.

Well, actually Hillary Clinton has said pretty much the same thing.  The problem here is that, as administration officials speak, China and Russia are making it clear that they oppose any significant sanctions.  They both have veto power in the UN Security Council, which presumably would be asked to impose the sanctions.

True, we can act on our own, or in conjunction with real allies, but without Russia and China, sanctions will probably prove ineffective. 

Our ace in the hole may turn out to be Iranian dissidents.  It is possible that the Iranian hard-line government could be significantly weakened, or even toppled, by the street protests, which are growing by the month.  Please remember that it took many months to topple the Shah in 1979.  I'm told by Iranian experts that March is critical month, when the demonstrations may reach a new intensity.

If the mullahs can be weakened or swept away, that could, and probably would, have an effect on Iran's level of cooperation on nuclear matters.  Big if.

December 11, 2009   Permalink

THE KIND OF THING THAT DRIVES US CRAZY - AT 8:50 A.M. ET:  I cannot abide when public people refuse to describe their views accurately for fear of the consequences.  Thus, Betty Friedan, in "Feminine Mystique," misrepresented her Marxist background, knowing it would hurt the book.  Not excusable.

Now we have a more modern example, and the hypocrisy flows: 

ITHACA, NY — Nominations for the 2009 Izzy Award are officially open. The annual award for special achievement in independent media — named after legendary muckraker I. F. “Izzy” Stone — is a project of the Park Center for Independent Media (PCIM) at Ithaca College. Last year’s inaugural award was shared by blogger Glenn Greenwald and “Democracy Now!” host/executive producer Amy Goodman.

“The award honors journalists who follow in the independent footsteps of Izzy Stone,” said Jeff Cohen, PCIM’s founding director. “Our 2008 Izzy winners, Glenn Greenwald and Amy Goodman, personify the growing clout of independent media today in exposing government and corporate misconduct, media bias and human rights violations.”

Oh please.  Spare me.  Independent media?  Why don't they get an honesty attack and tell it like it is - these are far leftists.  I.F. Stone wasn't "independent."  He was a leftist, and, if the Venona intercepts are to be believed, his leftism may have drifted into something worse.  (I stress "may."  I'd want more confirmation.) 

Glenn Greenwald is a leftist.  Amy Goodman is way out there.  To describe these people as independent is an outrage.  But "independent" is one of those code words used on the left.  Like "progressive."

It's hilarious that this award is given at Ithaca College, a hotbed of the zanies.  A few years back, when challenged over the ideological imbalance in the school's political science department, the departmental chairman denied it, saying that Ithaca boasted a variety of "progressive" viewpoints.  That is absolutely self-indicting.  What she's saying is that Ithaca has intellectual diversity - a variety of leftist positions.

They are teaching our children.

December 11, 2009   Permalink

THE SPEECH - AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  There is still plenty of buzz about Obama's Nobel Prize speech, and plenty of praise, sometimes qualified, from conservatives.  That's the way it should be.  If the man says or does something right, we note it.  Karl Rove has commented that if you keep demonizing an opponent, no matter what he does, pretty soon people stop listening, and he's right.

Here, Abe Greenwald, at NRO, wonders whether the president has gone neocon:

During his Nobel Peace Prize–acceptance speech today, Barack Obama said, “For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world.” He cited the historical example of Adolf Hitler and the present-day example of al-Qaeda. This rounds out a year that has seen a succession of real-world object lessons that bear out the claims of the intellectual tendency known as neoconservatism: Iran has rejected a torrent of American obsequiousness and will not be charmed out of pursuing nuclear weapons; its population, meanwhile, is clamoring for a robust American defense of democracy; a far-left American president has determined that a significant surge of American troops is the only way to win a faltering war effort in a far-off Muslim land; that same president has acknowledged that “we’ve achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq” and is using the basis of those achievements as the model for his new ramp-up strategy.

Ah yes, we remember it well.

In these, three convictions often linked with neoconservative thought have been affirmed:

1. No matter how technologically advanced and interconnected the world becomes, there will be bad actors, and their obstinacy will remain intact...

2. Populations living under despotic leadership are at all times engaged in a desperate struggle for liberty. Moreover, these populations look to America, the world’s longest-running constitutional democracy, for moral and material support...

3. A willingness to apply overwhelming and innovative military force remains critical to America’s wars — regardless of their asymmetric natures...

The president's speech wasn't perfect, far from it.  But it was an important move in the right direction...if those words are translated into sustained action.

The key question is this:  Was Obama's Nobel Prize speech his own declaration of independence?  Was it his way of signaling to us that he is moving away from the claustrophobic confines of his party's rigid left wing?  Well, we hope so, but we'll require plenty of proof, week by week, to be convinced.  After all, in his first ten months in office, this president has often seemed to follow the Leninist principle - two steps forward, one step back.  We hope the speech wasn't just the step back, but a step forward.

December 11, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  Reader Errol Phillips alerts us to this quote from author Andrew Klavan, at frontpagemag.com:

Shame and guilt and self-hatred are universal.   Whether you chalk it up to original sin or to Oedipus or call it Jewish guilt or Catholic guilt or white guilt or black guilt,  every single one of us knows he is not the person he was made to be.  There are honest ways to confront that.  You can kneel before God and  pray for forgiveness and live in the joy of his love.  Or you can  drink heavily and make sardonic remarks until you destroy everyone you care about and then keel over dead – that’s honest too.  

But what a lot of people do is try to escape their sense  of shame dishonestly by constructing elaborate moral frameworks that allow them to parade their virtue and their lavish repentance without any real inconvenience to themselves while simultaneously indulging in  self-righteousness by condemning others for their impenitent evil.  That’s the bad version of religion – the sort of religion Jesus came to dismantle.  And that’s exactly the sort of religion leftism is:  an elaborate system for hiding shame behind a cheap mask of virtue.  That’s why they demonize any opposition.  To them,  we’re not just disagreeing with them, we’re threatening to tear off the  mask of their virtue and reveal them to themselves.  Which, without  God or sufficient whiskey, would be unbearable.  

COMMENT:  Beautifully said. 

December 11,  2009   Permalink

THURSDAY,  DECEMBER 10,  2009

PENNSYLVANIA LEANING RED - AT 9:51 P.M. ET:  One of the great battlegrounds next year will be Pennsylvania, where a Senate seat, currently held by Republican turned Democrat Arlen Specter, will be up for grabs.  Thus far the news for Republicans is good.  From The Politico:

There’s good news all around for Republican Pat Toomey in a new poll released Thursday from Rasmussen, which shows him leading both of his potential Democratic rivals.

The telephone survey of 1,200 likely Pennsylvania voters finds Toomey leading incumbent Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter 46 percent to 42 percent in a prospective general election Senate matchup next year. Four percent said they would vote for another candidate, while 8 percent were unsure.

Specter, who has held the Senate seat since 1980, left the Republican Party to become a Democrat in April, just as he was facing a primary challenge from the more conservative Toomey, a former representative and president of the anti-tax Club for Growth.

COMMENT:  Early polls also show Republican Rob Portman leading for the Ohio Senate seat being vacated next year by George Voinovich, but the incumbent is also a Republican, so a GOP victory would amount to holding a seat, which is fine. 

And look at this, also from The Politico, regarding one of the bluest of the blue states:

The Cook Political Report’s Senate race analyst Jennifer Duffy doesn’t think much of Chris Dodd’s (D-Conn.) re-election prospects, in her latest update on the Connecticut Senate race.

And she’s moving the race rating to “Lean Republican” – a very rare instance where the political insider publication has put an incumbent's chances of winning in such dire territory.

We stress that the election won't be held until next November.

December 10, 2009   Permalink

THIS IS AWFUL - AT 7:49 P.M. ET:  The History Channel, which began well, has, in recent years, become something of a joke.  I don't know what shows like "Ice Road Truckers" have to do with history, but apparently History Channel does.  Nor do I understand how some JFK assassination conspiracy theories have made it onto THC in the form of programs presented as straight history. 

But nothing that the channel has done equals the sheer bias, corruption, and incompetence behind a new History Channel program based on the work of "historian" Howard Zinn, the radical Marxist of Boston University.  Big Hollywood reports:

Zinn has spent a lifetime teaching college students about the evils of capitalism, the promise of Marxism, and his version of American history – a history that has, in his view, been kept from students. His controversial 1980-book The People’s History of the United States paints traditional American history as a façade – one that has grotesquely immortalized flawed leaders and is based on principles that victimize the common man. In 2004, Zinn wrote a companion book entitled Voices Of A People’s History Of The United States, which includes speeches and writings from many of the people featured in The People’s History.

These two books have now become the basis for a new documentary, entitled The People Speak, to be aired December 13th at 8pm on the History Channel. The trailer portrays the documentary as a collage of compelling one-person readings, told through the words of “ordinary” people who have struggled throughout American history against oppression. Produced by Zinn, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, and Chris Moore, the documentary appears to be cloaked, ironically (given Zinn’s admitted socialist agenda), in many of the traditional ideas that were behind our founding. The verdict is still out on the doc, but it is not for the books that inspired the film as well as the educational initiative associated with it.

What is frightening is that the program marks the launch of an educational campaign aimed at bringing Zinn's Communist teachings into American classrooms, down to the elementary-school level.  The clownish Hollywood actors involved in the production probably think they're performing a public service.  They don't realize that, if Zinn's preferred political system were ever adopted here, their artistic freedom would be out the window in a minute.

Please read the story.  Initiatives like this are being started around the country.  This one, because of the stars involved, gets a blast on the History Channel, which once had something to do with history.

December 10, 2009   Permalink 

TROUBLE WITH THE BASE - AT 6:59 P.M. ET:  Certainly one of the major political stories this week is the increasing tension between President Obama and "leaders" of the African American community.  Apparently, some of those "leaders" expected a bit more from the nation's first black president.  And they expected themselves to be in the spotlight.  From the Washington Post: 

The Rev. Jesse Jackson has joined black lawmakers in their push to get the White House to do more to directly help African American communities disproportionately hurt by the nation's severe economic recession.

Jackson, who noted that he was not invited to President Obama's recent jobs summit, said he has requested a meeting with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to talk about economic aid for depressed minority communities. No meeting has been set.

Hmm.  Not invited.  Which is what this is about.  You don't think Jackson wasn't invited because, during the campaign, he said he'd like to castrate Obama over something Obama said, do you?  You know, that could offend a guy. 

In recent days, Obama has pushed back at the idea that his administration should focus economic revitalization policies on specific ethnic and racial groups. In an interview with USA Today and the Detroit Free Press last week, the president said, "The most important thing I can do for the African American community is the same thing I can do for the American community, period, and that is get the economy going again and get people hiring again."

On that the president is right.  If only for political reasons, this president cannot be seen as favoring his own community.  In fact, no president can. 

When David Dinkins, a decent man, became New York City's first black mayor, he started, either because of pressure or instinct, to give special treatment to blacks.  The political results were catastrophic, and he was defeated for reelection by Rudy Giuliani.

December 10, 2009   Permalink

HEALTH PLAN HEAVILY OPPOSED BY PUBLIC  - AT 6:44 P.M. ET:  It is remarkable to see Congressional Democrats plunge ahead with health "reform" in the face of massive public opposition.  Just how opposed is the public?  Consider this:

The new CNN poll like many others finds greater support (53% to 46%) for a "public option" than for the Senate Health Care Bill which just 36% support, and 61% oppose. The smart conclusion is that the Senate Bill would be more popular if it included a Public Option. But an even smarter question would be to ask why the overall effort is so unpopular.

The worst statistic in the poll is the 22% that believe they or their family would be better off if Health Care Reform passes. Nearly half (46%) believe reform will help some people just not them. That less than 1 in 4 believe this effort is good for their family represents a colossal failure of reform proponents to design a plan that helps people and then explains what it will do for a typical family.

And yet, the Senate may well pass a bill, despite public opinion.  It would then have to be reconciled with the House version.  Theoretically, if that reconciliation succeeds, a final bill can be passed by both houses.

Will the public then get on board, something that sometimes happens when a bill become law?  Impossible to say, but the fact is that support for "reform" has consistently declined over the months.

December 10, 2009   Permalink

GRIM NUMBERS - AT 9:39 A.M. ET:  For the White House, I mean.  Public Policy Polling makes this point about its newest national poll:

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that's somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country's difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.

COMMENT:  The president is aware of these numbers.  This is pure speculation, but I wonder whether they influenced his Nobel Prize speech, which was decidedly more centrist than anything he's said thus far in his term.  We hope the president, and those around him, are realizing that this isn't a far-left or far-right nation, and that presidents who want to survive politically come to understand that.

December 10, 2009   Permalink

A FIGHTING SARAH - AT 9:04 A.M. ET:  As readers know, I've been a bit skeptical about Sarah Palin.  Yes, she was treated unfairly during the campaign, but she didn't meet our expectations either.  Now, though, she seems to be coming into her own.  Her speeches have been sharp, her interviews delightful, and her appearance at the Gridiron dinner in Washington over the weekend was a home run.

What I especially like is that Sister Sarah is snapping back at her critics, and doing so in well-written essays at Facebook.  Okay, I can't guarantee that she's writing these herself, but virtually all political figures have writing staffs.  What she's saying makes sense, and makes it well.  From The Politico:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin hit back at former Vice President Al Gore on Wednesday for calling her a global warming “denier.”

Speaking to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday, Gore criticized an op-ed Palin wrote for the Washington Post calling on President Barack Obama to boycott the global climate change conference in Copenhagen.

“The deniers are persisting in an era of unreality. The entire North Polar ice cap is disappearing before our eyes,” Gore said. “What do they think is happening?”

“It's a principle in physics,” Gore said of climate change. “It's like gravity, it exists.”

Palin took to her Facebook page late Wednesday to respond to Gore.

“Perhaps he’s right. Climate change is like gravity – a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it,” Palin wrote. “However, he’s wrong in calling me a ‘denier.’ As I noted in my op-ed above and in my original Facebook post on Climategate, I have never denied the existence of climate change. I just don’t think we can primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes.”

And then Sarah dealt with Climategate:

“Vice President Gore, the Climategate scandal exists,” she added. “You might even say that it’s sort of like gravity: you simply can’t deny it.”

COMMENT:  Good for Sarah.  Al Gore may soon be facing some inconvenient truths.

December 10, 2009   Permalink

THE SEEDY SIDE OF "CLIMATE" SCIENCE - AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  From the London Times, via Fox:

Britain's Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furor over leaked e-mails, referred to as "Climate-gate."

More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the "professional integrity" of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fueling skepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.

Now get this:

One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

If they're not in the field, why were they asked to sign?  This is another example of massing signatures to prove a "consensus" that may or may not exist.  This is science?  No, it's political science.

One scientist told The Times of London he felt pressure to sign. "The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming," he said.

President Eisenhower, in his 1961 farewell address to the American people, the so-called "industrial-military complex" speech, also said this:

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Right then, right now.

Be on guard.

December 10, 2009    Permalink

AND THE REALITY THAT WE FACE - AT 8:34 A.M. ET:  This is a follow-up to the final story we posted last night.  Once again, the words "terror" and "homegrown" are linked.  From Fox News:

ISLAMABAD — Five Americans arrested at a house linked to a militant group in eastern Pakistan have told investigators they came to the country to take part in "jihad" or holy war, police said Thursday.

U.S. officials believe the five are men who were reported missing more than a week ago by their families in the Washington, D.C., area. The families asked the FBI for help after finding a farewell video left by the men showing scenes of war and casualties and saying Muslims must be defended.

The men, ages 19 to 25, were picked up Wednesday at a house in the city of Sargodha that has been linked to the banned militant organization Jaish-e-Mohammed, officers said. Jaish-e-Mohammed, a Pakistan-based group, is alleged to have ties to Al Qaeda.

Police chief Javed Islam said authorities had shared findings of their probe with FBI officials who had arrived in Sargodha. The U.S. Embassy, however, would not confirm if the FBI had sent representatives to the area.

"These young Americans are in our custody," the police chief said. "They are telling us that they came to Pakistan for jihad."

COMMENT:  Let's now hope that our law enforcement authorities take this seriously, and don't engage in another embarrassing series of politically correct excuses or explanations.  There has been one incident after another in the last year involving American citizens.  Some law enforcement agencies have done a great job of nailing the would-be terrorists on our own soil, while others continue to spout the politically correct party line.  Americans have had it with that.

December 10, 2009   Permalink

AND THE WORDS - AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  Okay, our first post this morning was a little joke.  In fact, the president did say some things in his acceptance speech that were worthy and appropriate, and we're delighted by that.  We give credit where it's due here:

As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak –nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

Good.  Very good.  The California delegation to the House just fainted.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.

Very, very good.  I like this.  Is the man learning? 

The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest – because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

And...

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior – for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure – and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

And...

I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests – nor the world’s –are served by the denial of human aspirations.

And get this:

Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

COMMENT: The entire text is available here, through the courtesy of Andrew Malcolm at the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog.

This is the best speech Barack Obama has given as president, vastly superior to his minor effort at West Point last week.  In this speech he begins to confront the inanities of his political left.  Is it the start of some desirable change in the Obama administration?  Or is it just a ploy to boost poll ratings?  We cannot yet say.  But, on balance, this is a very worthy speech.  Many of the quotes could have come from Jack Kennedy or George W. Bush. 

For the first time, Barack Obama has gone to a foreign country and given a speech we can be proud of.  I hope it marks change we can believe in.  We'll look carefully, and judge sternly.

December 10, 2009    Permalink

THE MOMENT - AT 8:02 A.M. ET:  Barack Hussein Obama Jr. has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

And now on to the grown-up news.

December 10,  2009   Permalink