Ideas that flow

2007-02-28T15:37:00.000-06:00

So I know I never put anything on here anymore and I think I am going to take it all down, but before I go I have an alarming news article I read in Time that I want to share with people.

Follow this link to the June 24, 1974 Time article about Global Cooling.
Follow this link to a summary of Global Cooling on Wikipedia.

Now folks lets just think for one second. In 1974 were scientists making alarming predictions? Where they sure an ice age was coming? They appear to have been wrong. What will we think about global warming in 40 years? I hope we remember it by then; I aim to.

2007-02-07T09:45:00.000-06:00

This blog is going to go the way of Old Yeller - stay tuned.

2007-02-07T09:44:00.001-06:00

The Bush administration has agreed to provide House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with regular access to an Air Force passenger jet, but the two sides are negotiating whether she will get the big aircraft she wants and who she may take as passengers, according to congressional and administration sources.
A congressional source said that Rep. John P. Murtha, chairman of House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, which controls the Pentagon's spending, has telephoned administration officials to urge them to give the speaker what she wants.
The congressional source said Pentagon officials complained that Mr. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, is accusing them of sexism for not immediately heeding her request.
Megan E. Grote, Mr. Murtha's press secretary, said, "Mr. Murtha absolutely never said anything about being 'sexist.' We have no further comment."
Meanwhile, Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam of Florida said Mrs. Pelosi's request represents "an arrogance of office that just defies common sense" and called it "a major deviation from the previous speaker."
Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri called it a "flying Lincoln Bedroom," and Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican, labeled the speaker's plane "Pelosi One."
"This is a bullet point to a larger value -- Pelosi's abuse of power continues," Mr. McHenry said yesterday. "It began when the speaker denied minority rights to Republicans, continued with her 'TunaGate' scandal, and now she's exploiting America's armed forces and taxpayers for her own personal convenience."
"TunaGate" was a reference to Democrats exempting American Samoa from legislation to increase the minimum wage. Star-Kist Tuna, whose parent company Del Monte Corp. is based in Mrs. Pelosi's district, had lobbied against the wage increase.
An aide to Mrs. Pelosi, who is arguing she needs the jets for security reasons, yesterday referred questions to the Air Force, which is studying the California Democrat's request along with lawyers at the Pentagon and at the White House. "A lot of people are working this," an Air Force source said.
The congressional source said government lawyers are trying to reconcile Mrs. Pelosi's request with Defense Department policy and congressional travel rules.
The Washington Times first reported last week that Mrs. Pelosi's staff was pressing the administration for access to Air Force aircraft. Sources said the request went beyond what was offered to former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican.
Mr. Hastert used an Air Force commuter-type jet to travel to and from his district. Mr. Hastert gained the access for security reasons after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Previously, the House speaker, who is second in the line of succession to the presidency, used commercial flights for such trips.
Mrs. Pelosi wants a larger aircraft that can fly to her home district of San Francisco nonstop. She also wants to be able to ferry other members of the congressional delegation, family members and her staff.
The speaker's request is being handled by her chief counsel, Bernard Raimo, a veteran Democratic lawyer on Capitol Hill.
"Who she can take is being worked out, outside the Air Force," said Ed Gulick, an Air Force spokesman at the Pentagon.
He said the Air Force is studying what types of planes are available for long, cross-country flights. Currently, three planes assigned to the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base can make such nonstop flights year-round -- the C-32, C-40B and C-37.
Such VIP planes are in high demand.
"She's effectively taking a bird out of the fleet," said a defense source. "It will most directly impact the House, because they're the heavy users of the large aircraft. Congress looks at that Andrews fleet as their Hertz rent-a-car."
The congressional source said the speaker's office requested an Air Force plane to take her to a weekend Democratic retreat in Williamsburg, but the Pentagon declined.
The source said Mr. Hastert on one occasion used an Air Force plane for such an event. The Air Force later determined it was a mistake, and such flights were not repeated.
The source said the Pentagon will likely give in to Mrs. Pelosi's requests for a large plane and travel entourage, given her and Mr. Murtha's power over defense spending.
Mr. Raimo argues that Mrs. Pelosi needs a military aircraft, as opposed to commercial flights, for security reasons.
The defense source, who asked not to be named, termed her request "carte blanche," saying she wanted a plane that could carry an entourage just like President Bush, who flies on Air Force One, and Vice President Dick Cheney, who also always flies on military planes.

2007-01-24T08:52:00.001-06:00

"What was worth commenting on, however, was the contrast in blinks per minute between Pelosi and Cheney. While Pelosi clocked a good 25-30 blinks per minute, Cheney barely mustered 3 or 4. If energy conservation is a personal virtue—as he once said so dismissively—Cheney is a saint. The man functions admirably on standby power."

2007-01-17T09:53:00.001-06:00

2006-12-19T13:16:00.001-06:00

2006-11-09T15:09:00.000-06:00

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" — as MSNBC calls it — rather than the death throes of a dying party.

During eight years of Clinton — the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! — Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House — only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate — and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)

So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.

-AC

2006-11-08T10:40:00.000-06:00

Republicans Blame Election Losses On Democrats

November 7, 2006

—Republican officials are blaming tonight's GOP losses on Democrats, who they claim have engaged in a wide variety of "aggressive, premeditated, anti-Republican campaigns" over the past six-to-18 months. "We have evidence of a well-organized, well-funded series of operations designed specifically to undermine our message, depict our past performance in a negative light, and drive Republicans out of office," said Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, who accused an organization called the Democratic National Committee of spearheading the nationwide effort. "There are reports of television spots, print ads, even volunteers going door-to-door encouraging citizens to vote against us." Acknowledging that the "damage has already been done," Mehlman is seeking a promise from Democrats to never again engage in similar practices.

2006-11-07T21:03:00.000-06:00

2006-10-27T19:08:00.000-05:00

2006-10-22T23:20:00.000-05:00

2006-10-10T14:44:00.000-05:00

2006-09-16T15:14:00.000-05:00

Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a moving experience for me to stand and give a lecture at this university podium once again. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. This was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves.

We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties. Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas: the reality that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason-- this reality became a lived experience.

The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the whole of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical skepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on-- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara-- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian.

The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the three Laws: the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur'an. In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point-- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself-- which, in the context of the issue of faith and reason, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: There is no compulsion in religion. It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.

But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels,” he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words:

Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.

God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death....

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: "For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: In the beginning was the logos. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts with logos.

Logos means both reason and word-- a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist.

The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: Come over to Macedonia and help us! (cf. Acts 16:6-10)-- this vision can be interpreted as a distillation of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and declares simply that he is, is already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates's attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: I am.

This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature.

Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria-- the Septuagint-- is more than a simple (and in that sense perhaps less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act “with logos” is contrary to God's nature.

In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which ultimately led to the claim that we can only know God's voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions.

As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language (cf. Lateran IV). God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love transcends knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is logos. Consequently, Christian worship is worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).

This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history-– it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.

The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity-– a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the program of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.

Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the fundamental postulates of the Reformation in the 16th century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this program forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.

The liberal theology of the 19th and 20th centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this program was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal’s distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue. I will not repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization. Harnack’s central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favor of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. The fundamental goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ’s divinity and the triune God.

In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant’s “Critiques”, but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature’s capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.

This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology, and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.

We shall return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology’s claim to be “scientific” would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by “science” and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective “conscience” becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter.

This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.

Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.

And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvelous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which reflects one of the basic tenets of Christianity. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application.

While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology.

Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought: to philosophy and theology.

For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss”.

The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the program with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. “Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

2006-08-24T23:33:00.000-05:00

This year's Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick American voters into trusting them with national security.

To wit, they're claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and while they're all for the war against terror — absolutely in favor of that war — they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as "Iraqi civilians," even if they are from Jordan, like the now-dead leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). That war.

As Howard Dean put it this week, "The occupation in Iraq is costing American lives and hampering our ability to fight the real global war on terror."

This would be like complaining that Roosevelt's war in Germany was hampering our ability to fight the real global war on fascism. Or anti-discrimination laws were hampering our ability to fight the real war on racism. Or dusting is hampering our ability to fight the real war on dust.

Maybe Dean is referring to a different globe, like Mars or Saturn, or one of those new planets they haven't named yet.

Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.

They oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers. Spying on al-Qaida terrorists is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror!

Enraged that the Bush administration deferred to the safety of the American people rather than the obstructionist Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, one Clinton-appointed judge, James Robertson, resigned from the FISA court in protest over the NSA spying program.

Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold called for a formal Senate censure of President Bush when he found out the president was rude enough to be listening in on al-Qaida phone calls. (Wait until Feingold finds out the White House has been visiting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "MySpace" page!)

Last week a federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ruled the NSA program to surveil phone calls to al-Qaida members in other counties unconstitutional.

Democrats oppose the detainment of Taliban and al-Qaida soldiers at our military base in Guantanamo, Cuba. Democrats such as Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, have called for Guantanamo to be shut down.

The Guantanamo detainees are not innocent insurance salesmen imprisoned in some horrible mix-up like something out of a Perry Mason movie. The detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. You remember — the war liberals pretended to support right up until approximately one nanosecond after John Kerry conceded the 2004 election to President Bush.

But apparently, imprisoning al-Qaida warriors we catch on the battlefield is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has compared Guantanamo to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags, based on a report that some detainees were held in temperatures so cold that they shivered and others were forced to listen to loud rap music — more or less approximating the conditions in the green room at "The Tyra Banks Show." Also, one of the detainees was given a badminton racket that was warped.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert complained this week that detainees in Guantanamo have "no hope of being allowed to prove their innocence." (I guess that's excluding the hundreds who have been given administrative hearings or released already.)

Of course all the usual "human rights" groups are carping about how brutally our servicemen in Guantanamo are treating the little darlings who are throwing feces at them.

Democrats oppose the Patriot Act, the most important piece of legislation passed since 9/11, designed to make the United States less of a theme park for would-be terrorists.

The vast majority of Senate Democrats (43-2) voted against renewing the Patriot Act last December, whereupon their minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, boasted: "We killed the Patriot Act" — a rather unusual sentiment for a party so testy about killing terrorists.

In 2004, Sen. John Kerry — the man they wanted to be president — called the Patriot Act "an assault on our basic rights." At least all "basic rights" other than the one about not dying a horrible death at the hand of Islamic fascists. Yes, it was as if Congress had deliberately flown two commercial airliners into the twin towers of our Constitution.

They oppose profiling Muslims at airports.

They oppose every bust of a terrorist cell, sneering that the cells in Lackawanna, New York City, Miami, Chicago and London weren't a real threat like, say, a nondenominational prayer before a high school football game. Now that's a threat.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

2006-08-16T08:26:00.000-05:00

2006-08-12T10:30:00.000-05:00

i miss you

2006-08-02T10:11:00.000-05:00

2006-07-27T15:39:00.000-05:00

I could not make this stuff up. IT ALL HAPPENED ON THE SAME DAY.

Howard Dean compares Katherine Harris to Stalin during stop in WPB

By Josh Hafenbrack
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Posted July 26 2006, 5:20 PM EDT

West Palm Beach -- Democrat leader Howard Dean called the Iraqi prime minister an "anti-Semite" during an address before party loyalists on Wednesday, drawing a swift rebuke from Republicans. The Democratic National Committee chairman also called Republican Senate candidate Katherine Harris a "crook" and compared her to Stalin.....

Jul 26, 10:42 PM EDT

Dean Calls Iraqi PM an 'Anti-Semite'

By BRIAN SKOLOFF
Associated Press Writer

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) -- Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean on Wednesday called Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki an "anti-Semite" for failing to denounce Hezbollah for its attacks against Israel....

Jul 26, 5:23 PM EDT

Howard Dean Calls for End to Divisiveness

By BRIAN SKOLOFF
Associated Press Writer

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) -- Down with divisiveness was the message Wednesday delivered by Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean as he told a group of Florida business leaders that Republican policies of deceit and finger-pointing are tearing American apart....

2006-07-24T07:05:00.000-05:00

beth came to visit again and again. we had fun and fun.

2006-06-28T17:44:00.000-05:00

2006-06-26T15:48:00.000-05:00

Jay Mariotti's Year in Review

Since yappy Sun-Times sports columnist Jay Mariotti shows no interest in joining me in feasting on crow, allow me to take you, dear reader, back through the last 12 months of Mariotti's moody musings on the White Sox:

2004

November 17 --(I am) launching a campaign demanding that (Sox chairman Jerry Reinsdorf) sell the team to a group with the financial means and commitment -- the Comcast Sports empire, perhaps -- to compete for championships in a big market. Otherwise, the Sox might tumble into total irrelevance while The Ballmall Formerly Known as Comiskey Park becomes a sausage factory. Reinsdorf... might as well wave another white flag before next season..... Think I'm underestimating the Sox' chances next year? ... Hell, the Sox might be a .500 club....If (Reinsdorf's) franchise isn't dying, it never has seemed more irrelevant in this town...(What Smart fans) want to know is how the Sox plan to win a World Series. Answer: They won't, as long as Reinsdorf and his people own the team. Please sell it.

December 14 -- Oh, this makes loads of sense, building a slap-and-tickle team to play 81 games in the most power-friendly ballpark in the majors..... Ken Williams is trading mashers for midgets....Amazingly enough, a team that hit a major-league-best 242 homers in 2004 has lost four prime power hitters, including Jose Valentin. And the only attempt to fill the void was Williams' cheapskate signing of injury-hobbled Jermaine Dye, who will make $4 million next year ($10 million less than Ordonez made last season) and is a career .208 hitter with two out and runners in scoring position.....Don't be fooled by (Scott) Podsednik's 2003 National League Rookie of the Year award or his 70 stolen bases last year. This is a leadoff hitter who has trouble leading off, hitting only .244 last season with a lame .313 on-base percentage....When Juan Uribe is a team's third-best hitter, you again start hoping that Reinsdorf sells the franchise while wondering if the general manager has lost his lid.... As long as Jose Contreras is your No. 3 starter and Jon Garland is your No. 4, the Sox can't play OzzieBall.....They don't care about winning and only care about making money.

December 19 --If the Sox had given (former Cub Matt) Clement an extra $5 million and (pitcher Omar) Vizquel an extra year and $3 million, they would have a quality No. 3 starter behind Freddy Garcia and Mark Buehrle and a fielding wizard to anchor the infield. But because they bid low in both cases, they'll be a .500 team next year. Or worse.

2005

April 4 -- The Sox will win 84 games and miss the playoffs. In a season of questions about health, payrolls and elective styles of baseball, the only certainty is that both (Chicago) clubs will fall short of the St. Louis Cardinals and Minnesota Twins in their divisional races, extending the city's streak of collective seasons without a Series championship to 185. "I go into every season thinking we can win a championship," says Ken Williams, the loopy general manager of the Sox. "I think we have a chance to do great things." They tote the rhetoric. I bring the reality..... I do not believe in Jon Garland and his Cuban clone, Jose Contreras, who needs to make more pitches and tip fewer. .... With Johan Santana locked in (with the Twins) through 2008, the Sox may not win a division title for a while.

April 7 --(The Sox are) Winning Lucky. Groovy as Sox life seems right now, let me assure you that this is no formula for a division title. ...(Jerry Reinsdorf ) and (Ken) Williams have concocted this "new way" of baseball that actually is a euphemism for payroll-crunching.

April 18 -- I stand by my story that the Twins are better... .The Sox are a work in progress; the Twins are the polished product.... Are the Sox ready? I think not.

April 23 --If someone in charge doesn't muzzle Ozzie Guillen with duct tape, inject him with a horse tranquilizer or simply order him to shut the [bleep] up -- his favorite expression, not mine -- the man is going to talk himself out of a job and shame the city and ballclub he represents. .... Guillen's penchant for bizarre, unnecessary controversy is rising at the same approximate rate. ....Guillen is only confirming what his critics said: He's too nuts, off the wall and out of control.

May 6 --The happy news is, this team is 21-7 despite its offensive problems, which suggests Ken Williams' daring transition to thinking-man's baseball -- Small Ball, Smart Ball, Snail Ball, Ozzie Ball, Anti-Magglio Ball, Ducksnort Ball -- is his most successful gamble yet in an otherwise lukewarm career as general manager. ....Maybe this is a magically conceived team with purring chemistry and the perfect attitude. ...there are legitimate reasons to think the Sox will contend deep into September.

May 15 --(The Sox) have the sweetest rotation in the sport ....And while I'm not about to predict they'll be the first local team in 187 collective seasons to win a World Series, they are built to last deep into September.

May 19-- I've always asked the Sox to place their media-bashing energies into assembling a pennant contender. Now ... Ken Williams seems to have done that.

May 21 --It should surprise no one.. that the Sox would rise impressively.... the Sox seem poised for glory.

May 25 -- The Sox are the biggest overachievers in baseball.

May 30--You can't chip and dink out runs for 162 games and expect your starting pitchers to bail out the cause every time. ...Excuse me, but are those the Minnesota Twins only 3 1/2 games back now? Pardon me, but have the Sox sunk to ninth in the American League in runs scored after managing 17 in their last seven games?

June 7 -- I can safely say the Sox won't win a World Series as long as (Jerry Reinsdorf) owns them.

June 14 --I could .... concur that the rotation is the best we've ever seen, point out that the White Sox are the 12th team since 1996 to take a winning percentage of .673 or better into June, further point out that 10 of the previous 11 made the playoffs... and then conclude, This is definitely is the year!" But that would be a lie. And I sure don't want to lie to anybody.... Will (Ken) Williams recognize his Joe Crede problem and pursue Shea Hillenbrand?....The Sox still don't have enough offense, and given the struggles of the Yankees and Red Sox, Williams should be driven to spend the necessary money and make the bold deals.

June 21 -- I will state for the record today, on the bosom of Hawk Harrelson, that the Sox are crash-proof in this regular season. You may as well sit back and enjoy the next 31/2 months. They are not going to miss the playoffs. Hear me? The aren't choking. Got that?

June 24 -- Guillen's feistiness has a magical effect on the Sox.

July 4-- Destiny is a dangerous word at midseason. It connotes a contentment that shouldn't exist with a team that, realistically, isn't quite as good as its record. No doubt the Sox are heading to the playoffs....The hot debate among Sox fans is whether Ken Williams, Executive of the Half-Year, should be a major, minor or non-player in the trading period. That's easy. When you haven't won the World Series since dinosaurs roamed the earth -- or, in Carl Everett's non-Jurassic world, since Adam and Eve hooked up -- you only can be a major player. This will shock and anger many Soxheads, but as a public service, I will submit that the Angels and Red Sox are slightly more equipped to win the American League pennant.

July 19 --- I'm not saying the Sox can't win the pennant. I'm just saying they have to load up on reinforcements when the American League competition includes Boston, New York, Anaheim and Minnesota...History looms. It matters not if the Sox are 62-29 on July 19 if they lose three of five to a wild-card team -- the Red Sox or Yankees, I presume -- in the divisional round of the AL playoffs.

July 30-- Williams insists the Sox don't need major roster surgery, but I couldn't disagree more.

July 31--All I know is this: If 3 p.m. rolls around and Ken Williams has not made a significant trade, perspective will succumb to the usual paranoia in Sox precincts everywhere. Because this franchise will have jeopardized its best World Series shot in years... As presently constituted, I doubt the Sox are as equipped to win the pennant as, say, the Disneyland Angels, who have won a recent World Series and have the American League's most complete team. Or the Red Sox, who finally won it all last year and are so big on midseason shakeups that they're shopping Manny Ramirez after successfully dumping Nomar Garciaparra last summer. ...Today is the day the season is won or lost on the South Side.

August 15--- For all his talents as a skipper, Guillen is a loose-lipped disaster as a representative of his team, city and sport.

August 17-- You might be under the influence of Hawk Harrelson, but for non-homers who analyze baseball at face value, the Sox are vulnerable because their attack lacks punch. ....Remember that sick feeling in Seattle (in the 2000 playoffs) after the sweep? To avoid it again, Williams has to find a big bat.

August 20 --Only a fool thinks a scratch-and-tickle offense doesn't need Ken Griffey Jr.... A theme is emerging, and it isn't pretty for the South Siders. Barring an unforeseen deal by general manager Ken Williams, who is too protective of team chemistry and not focused enough on reality, the Sox will enter the postseason with one of the tamer offensive lineups in recent memory -- which places incredible pressure on starting pitchers to throw great games... I subscribe to a growing theory that the club's playoff fate is most dependent on Garland.

August 21-- When you see the Sox morph into a limp, feeble club that can't piece together a run, much less win a game -- I mean, is it wrong to mention early similarities to 1969? --....is it not fair to wonder if a vintage Chicago baseball gag is unfolding? Anywhere else, they'd call it a speed bump, a minor rut. In Chicago, it's reason for primal scream therapy. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!....Enough with the romantic concept of protecting four months of fine chemistry.

August 24 -- Tuesday night in Minnesota, the Sox lost their most agonizing game yet in what has been a maddening, unnerving skid in Choke City. ....This is supposed to be a season of history. Instead, the Sox are dipping into infamy. .... Serious baseball people have been waiting for them to fold all year, figuring they are playing over their heads because they haven't put together success against elite teams. At the moment, the Sox are making the doomsayers look smart.

September 1 --The final, final, final trading deadline passed late Wednesday night without activity, leaving the Sox with one of the flimsiest batting orders of any contender in years. (The Sox are) a downwardly spiraling imposter that has little chance to win a postseason series, unless ominous patterns unexpectedly turn bright in coming weeks...... Buehrle doesn't have his stuff. You don't know what you're getting from Garland. El Duque is fading. Dustin Hermanson still has an iffy back. The team looks tired. The defense has been woeful. The lineup has too many automatic outs. The Sox aren't playing well at home. Who is Geoff Blum, anyway?

September 18-- If there is any sense of mercy, the White Sox will be blacked out the rest of the season so a terminally cursed city needn't witness The Mother of All Collapses. .... I have been opining since the summer trade deadlines -- in this column, on national TV, on every media outlet not controlled by Soxaganda -- that the boys are vulnerable to a classic choke job because management didn't bring in reinforcements....(Ken) Williams was foolishly protective of clubhouse chemistry ....The Sox have been a house of cards all along ...It was unrealistic to think smart ball would hold up all season when the concept was so dependent on pitching. ... A recipe for October success, this is not. The next 14 days and nights will be hell for the Sox, their fans and a city sick of applying the Heimlich maneuver. Watch at your own risk.

September 20 --Other cities host the World Series. Chicago hosts Choke Job Theater....Part of our lot in life is that the local baseball teams are destined to tease, crash and burn.....The Sox are deluding themselves if they believe Bobby Jenks -- a 270-pound rookie reliever -- can stop a historic free-fall. Who do they think he is, Ricky [Wild Thing] Vaughn of "Major League" fame?.... The thing about chemistry is, sometimes the test tube explodes and leaves your dreams in pieces. .... Whether the Sox go on to finish the biggest regular-season fold in baseball history or somehow do a backdoor slider into the playoffs, it should be obvious now that the rampaging Indians are a much better team and are worthier of the American League Central title.

September 22 --The Wheeze Sox....(are) pressing and gagging, contrary to the protests of Ozzie Guillen and the pig-like wails of Hawk Harrelson, who should be put out of his misery.....Oh ye of too much faith. The Sox aren't good enough to think beyond the next game....So, this dark, doomsday drama inevitably careens toward a final three-game series in Cleveland ... Williams failed to make the club better at midseason and left the Sox vulnerable.... Yes, it was difficult to make deals this year. But the best organizations always get their man ... and the Sox only got Geoff Blum.

September 27 -- Do you honestly think this team can do the slightest damage in the playoffs, assuming the Sox don ' t squander what is now a two-game divisional lead and two-game lead for the wild card? ...Just why are the Sox playing for October when they clearly don ' t belong there?

October 2-- I can't see the Sox beating the Angels (in the playoffs).

October 3 -- What is impressive about the Sox is how unified they've remained through all the stress. Some teams would have divided and pointed fingers during a slide that saw a 15-game lead shrink to 11/2 games, but not once did we hear a peep of dissension.

October 4-- I've been trying to tell out-of-towners that Guillen has been a terrific manager.

October 5----Ozzie Ball isn't about an on-field approach as much as the unity he cultivates in the clubhouse. He has their backs, and they have his -- even when he's pulling a stunt.

October 6 ---I caution that the American League Division Series is not the World Series, euphoric as the feeling is right now.

October 11--one important Sox executive seems to have his head on straight at the right time. General manager Ken Williams has occasionally sparred with media and fans since inheriting the hot seat five years ago at age 36, but he has a mature perspective about the precious presen

October 12-- When they should have swatted away the Los Angeles Angels and turned these world travelers into road worriers, they instead blew a wonderful opportunity and returned to that wheezing mode we saw last month.But letting the Angels wiggle off the hook isn't a proud moment -- and might be remembered as the night that sunk the Sox and continued the futile postseason history of a city.

October 13 -- Maybe, dare I say, the rewards are finally coming.

October 16 -- You can feel the gathering eruption, a convergence of crashing and booming that comes when 45 years of frustration are trumped by rare autumn rewards. The White Sox, once a nondescript franchise of inferiority complexes and White Flag trades and fans who tackle umpires, are one victory from the World Series.... I never thought it would happen, and if you check your inner conscience, neither did you.

October 17-- The team that once fixed a World Series is now fixing to win one. Yes, the White Sox have proved me wrong. They've proved millions of others around the country wrong, too.....There's also no doubt they survived a lack of serious activity at the trade deadline, which could have been their undoing..... Williams received the most flak after huffing, puffing, dialing, roaming and ultimately missing on a couple of would-be deals, but no one was happier by the GM's whiff job than Guillen.

October 20 -- What they've accomplished so far is incredible stuff, having established a blueprint for how to overhaul a franchise culture in a single offseason and how to play the game in the post-steroids era. Williams gambled his professional reputation and pulled off a dramatic metamorphosis, making him Executive of the Year. Ozzie Guillen thumbed his nose at the world and became a players' leader for the new millennium, making him Manager of the Year. Reinsdorf proved a ballclub can reach the Series in a major market with a middle-market payroll.

October 21 -- They've won with the kind of smart, unselfish, high-character, pitching-and-defense charm that defies everything we've seen from baseball in recent seasons....The Sox are about pure baseball.

October 23 --Not only are the Sox in the World Series, they're up a game. No one, it's safe to say, has stopped believing.

October 26-- In the top of the 14th inning, well into the fifth hour, (Geoff Blum) lined a solo home run into the right-field seats at Minute Maid Park...Who was smiling more? Blum or Ken Williams, the general manager who traded for him, then had to defend it as his only move? All the while, the Sox are only one win away. Say it again: one win away.

October 27 --Wednesday night, the White Sox won the friggin' World Series....One of those fighting tears was Jerry Reinsdorf, who stood in the Sox clubhouse with his longtime friend and partner in crime, Bud Selig, and accepted the trophy. Have I sparred with Reinsdorf through the years? Yes. Was I happy the man finally won? Yes. ...Unlike the Cubs, the Sox didn't choke. They smoked, oozing of Ozzie and melding before our eyes in Williams' test tube.....What they did, thanks to the feisty leadership of Guillen and foresight of Williams, was write a new blueprint on how baseball might be played in the post-steroids era.

2006-06-21T11:25:00.000-05:00

2006-06-20T10:57:00.000-05:00

2006-06-19T16:04:00.000-05:00

this may be the funniest video i have seen.

2006-06-16T18:40:00.000-05:00

2006-05-23T19:36:00.000-05:00

2006-05-20T18:25:00.000-05:00

2006-05-19T21:49:00.000-05:00

computer crash, civ pro done. etc.

2006-04-29T01:13:00.000-05:00

check

2006-04-27T07:15:00.000-05:00

The Democrats' only objection to current gas prices is that the federal government's cut is a mere 18.4 cents a gallon. States like New York get another 44 cents per gallon in taxes. The Democratic brain processes the fact that "big oil companies" get nearly 9 cents a gallon and thinks: WE SHOULD HAVE ALL THAT MONEY!

When the free market does the exact thing liberals have been itching to do through taxation, they pretend to be appalled by high gas prices, hoping the public will forget that high gas prices are part of their agenda.

-A.C.

2006-04-25T20:59:00.000-05:00

check

2006-04-21T15:46:00.000-05:00

john dewey

2006-04-20T21:08:00.000-05:00

2006-04-18T21:45:00.000-05:00

looks like we will be needing these again

2006-04-17T17:07:00.000-05:00

while the cubs management is known for being retarded, the white sox management is making a run for it.

2006-04-15T17:35:00.000-05:00

TORNADO HITS IOWA CITY

2006-04-15T13:09:00.000-05:00

now we all await the hamwinkie

2006-04-14T12:03:00.000-05:00

2006-04-11T19:10:00.000-05:00

2006-04-10T15:00:00.000-05:00

another boring global warming article. i will do something better with my life soon.

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
(Filed: 09/04/2006)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

2006-04-02T16:33:00.000-05:00

The weather, like almost everything on this planet, works in cycles. We go through the different seasons of the year, and the seasons themselves vary from year to year. The AccuWeather.com Hurricane Center, led by Expert Senior Meteorologist Joe Bastardi, has been researching hurricane activity for years. Their research shows hurricane frequency also works in cycles. The graphic above is a simplified version of their findings. The average number of storms (Hurricanes and Tropical Storms) are denoted by the purple line across the middle, while the light yellow line shows the number of storms since the late 1800s (across the Atlantic Basin). The blue circles along the line (average number of storms) represent below-normal temperature departures (across North America) while the orange shows times when temperatures average above normal. Notice that a strong relationship exists between warmer-than-normal temperatures across North America and a higher number of storms; the same relationship exists between colder-than-normal temperatures and lower storm frequency. The current high storm frequency coincides with warmer-than-normal temperatures across North America.

2006-04-02T16:29:00.000-05:00

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

2006-04-01T17:38:00.000-06:00

Arguing that you are the vicitim when you punch a police officer.
The only thing missing is a reference to Rodney King.

Lawyer Says McKinney a Victim in Scuffle
Mar 31 4:08 PM US/Eastern

By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON

A lawyer for Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the Georgia congresswoman who had an altercation with a Capitol Police officer, says she was "just a victim of being in Congress while black."

McKinney awaited word Friday on whether she would be charged for apparently striking the officer after she entered a House office building this week unrecognized and did not stop when asked.

Two law enforcement officials said it was unlikely a warrant would be issued this week. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Her lawyer, James W. Myart Jr., said, "Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, like thousands of average Americans across this country, is, too, a victim of the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials because of how she looks and the color of her skin."

"Ms. McKinney is just a victim of being in Congress while black," Myart said. "Congresswoman McKinney will be exonerated."

A spokeswoman for U.S. Capitol Police did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Members of Congress wear identifying lapel pins and routinely are waved into buildings without undergoing security checks. McKinney was not wearing her pin at the time, and the officer apparently did not recognize her, she has said.

"Congresswoman McKinney, in a hurry, was essentially chased and grabbed by the officer," Myart said. "She reacted instinctively in an effort to defend herself."

Several Capitol Police officials have said the officer involved asked McKinney three times to stop. When she did not, he placed a hand on her and she hit him, they said.

Asked on-camera Thursday by WSB-TV of Atlanta whether she intended to apologize, McKinney declined to comment. A news conference scheduled for Friday morning was canceled. She had issued a statement late Wednesday saying she regretted the confrontation.

"I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, and I appreciate the work that they do. I have demonstrated my support for them in the past and I continue to support them now," she said in the statement on her Web site.

2006-03-29T19:43:00.000-06:00

bitch out

2006-03-26T14:18:00.000-06:00

Dolphins Evolve Opposable Thumbs

August 30, 2000

HONOLULU–In an announcement with grave implications for the primacy of the species of man, marine biologists at the Hawaii Oceanographic Institute reported Monday that dolphins, or family Delphinidae, have evolved opposable thumbs on their pectoral fins.

"I believe I speak for the entire human race when I say, 'Holy fuck,'" said Oceanographic Institute director Dr. James Aoki, noting that the dolphin has a cranial capacity 40 percent greater than that of humans. "That's it for us monkeys."

Aoki strongly urged humans, especially those living near the sea, to learn to communicate using a system of clicks and whistles in a frequency range of 4 to 150 kHz. He also encouraged humans to "start practicing their echolocation as soon as possible."

Delphinologists have reported more than 7,000 cases of spontaneous opposable-digit manifestation in the past two weeks alone, with "thumbs" observed on the bottle-nosed dolphin, the Atlantic humpback dolphin, and even the rare Ganges River dolphin.

"It appears to be species-wide," said dolphin specialist Clifford Brees of the Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Laboratory, speaking from the shark cage he welded shut around himself late Monday. "And it may be even worse: We haven't exactly been eager to check for thumbs on other marine mammals belonging to the order of cetaceans, such as the killer whale. Oh, Christ, we're really in the soup now."

Thus far, all the opposable digits encountered appear to be fully functional, making it possible for dolphins–believed to be capable of faster and more complex cogitation than man–to manipulate objects, fashion tools, and construct rudimentary pulley and lever systems.

"They really seem to be making up for lost time with this thumb thing," said Dr. Jim Kuczaj, a University of California–San Diego biologist who has studied the seasonal behavior of dolphins for more than 30 years. "Last Friday, a crude seaweed-and-shell abacus washed up on the beach near Hilo, Hawaii. The next day, a far more sophisticated abacus, fashioned from some unknown material and capable of calculating equations involving numbers of up to 16 digits, washed up on the same beach. The day after that, the beach was littered with thousands of what turned out to be coral-silicate and kelp-based biomicrocircuitry."

"My God," Kuczaj added. "What are they doing down there?"

It is unknown what precipitated the dolphins' sudden development of opposable thumbs. Some dolphin behaviorists believe that the gentle marine mammal, pushed to the brink by humanity's reckless pollution and exploitation of the sea, tapped into some previously unmined mental powers to spontaneously generate a thumb-like appendage. However, given that 95 percent of the world's dolphin experts have committed suicide since learning of the development, the full story may never be known.

"You must believe, sleek ocean masters, that many of us homo sapiens weep with shame and disgust over the degradation to which our species has subjected our All-Mother, the Great World-Sea," read the suicide note of Dr. Richard Morse, a Brisbane, Australia, delphinologist and regular contributor to Marine Mammal Science. "If you are reading this, I estimate that it is the day we know as August 31, 2000. Please be decent and kind masters to our poor ape-race. Oh, God, I'm so sorry about the tracking collars."

"Scientists once wondered whether dolphins, with their remarkably advanced social and language structures, are actually smarter than we are," said Aoki, ushering reporters out of the laboratory he claimed "will either be a smoking hole or a zoo exhibit in the coming Dolphin Age." "Well, we're not wondering anymore."

2006-03-25T21:21:00.000-06:00

I post cos i care.

I drove to chicago and back this thursday for the reggie and the full effect show at a bar called Schubas.

I will say only a few words about the show. Tremendous, tremendous and tremendous.

First up was two mimes (ie Reggie) miming the entire "trapped in the closet" song by R Kelly. Very funny.

Next was Fluxuation, playing the classic three.

we turned then to over an hour of Reggie

Finally Common Denominator, with blood everywhere. Upon leaving i discovered that there was blood all over my shirt and face. YUM. See john's blog for a picture of him con blood.

2006-03-22T17:32:00.000-06:00

more urinal fun!

2006-03-21T23:19:00.000-06:00

quiz yourself guys.

2006-03-21T20:46:00.000-06:00

The liberal baby bust

By Phillip LongmanTue Mar 14, 6:56 AM ET

What's the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here's one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs.

This curious fact might at first seem trivial, but it reflects a much broader and little-noticed demographic trend that has deep implications for the future of global culture and politics. It's not that people in a progressive city such as Seattle are so much fonder of dogs than are people in a conservative city such as Salt Lake City. It's that progressives are so much less likely to have children.

It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future - one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.

Today, fertility correlates strongly with a wide range of political, cultural and religious attitudes. In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.

In Utah, where more than two-thirds of residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 92 children are born each year for every 1,000 women, the highest fertility rate in the nation. By contrast Vermont - the first to embrace gay unions - has the nation's lowest rate, producing 51 children per 1,000 women.

Similarly, in Europe today, the people least likely to have children are those most likely to hold progressive views of the world. For instance, do you distrust the army and other institutions and are you prone to demonstrate against them? Then, according to polling data assembled by demographers Ron Lesthaeghe and Johan Surkyn, you are less likely to be married and have kids or ever to get married and have kids. Do you find soft drugs, homosexuality and euthanasia acceptable? Do you seldom, if ever, attend church? Europeans who answer affirmatively to such questions are far more likely to live alone or be in childless, cohabiting unions than are those who answer negatively.

This correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility portends a vast change in modern societies. In the USA, for example, nearly 20% of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and '70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of people who did raise children.

Single-child factor

Meanwhile, single-child families are prone to extinction. A single child replaces one of his or her parents, but not both. Consequently, a segment of society in which single-child families are the norm will decline in population by at least 50% per generation and quite quickly disappear. In the USA, the 17.4% of baby boomer women who had one child account for a mere 9.2% of kids produced by their generation. But among children of the baby boom, nearly a quarter descend from the mere 10% of baby boomer women who had four or more kids.

This dynamic helps explain the gradual drift of American culture toward religious fundamentalism and social conservatism. Among states that voted for President Bush in 2004, the average fertility rate is more than 11% higher than the rate of states for Sen. John Kerry.

It might also help to explain the popular resistance among rank-and-file Europeans to such crown jewels of secular liberalism as the European Union. It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as "world citizens" are also less likely to have children.

Rewriting history?

Why couldn't tomorrow's Americans and Europeans, even if they are disproportionately raised in patriarchal, religiously minded households, turn out to be another generation of '68? The key difference is that during the post-World War II era, nearly all segments of society married and had children. Some had more than others, but there was much more conformity in family size between the religious and the secular. Meanwhile, thanks mostly to improvements in social conditions, there is no longer much difference in survival rates for children born into large families and those who have few if any siblings.

Tomorrow's children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents' values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.

Many will celebrate these developments. Others will view them as the death of the Enlightenment. Either way, they will find themselves living through another great cycle of history.

Phillip Longman is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It. This essay is adapted from his cover story in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine.

2006-03-21T09:58:00.000-06:00

mercy me

2006-03-21T09:33:00.000-06:00

I'm boss, Hil tells Bill
BY KENNETH R. BAZINET

DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Monday, March 20th, 2006

WASHINGTON - After being surprised by her husband's role in the Dubai ports deal, Sen. Hillary Clinton has insisted that Bill Clinton give her "final say" over what he says and does, well-placed sources said.

The former President agreed to give his wife a veto to avoid his habit of making controversial headlines that could hurt her chances of returning to the White House, multiple sources told the Daily News.

"He knows it's Hillary's time now," said an adviser close to both Clintons who expects to play a key role in her likely 2008 presidential campaign.

Hillary Clinton's handlers are keeping a close rein on the former President's schedule to try to prevent another embarrassing screwup like their competing roles in the Dubai ports deal.

While she was blasting the Bush administration for allowing Dubai to run six of the country's ports, he was advising Dubai on how to sell the deal....................

"I'll be just like Hillary Clinton, only you know, without the penis. "
- Lois Griffin

2006-03-19T17:38:00.000-06:00

2006-03-17T13:42:00.000-06:00

down the memory hole

2006-03-16T14:54:00.000-06:00

i am a "liberal douche bag" according to the comments that were just posted.....

is anyone listening? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

2006-03-15T17:07:00.000-06:00

so i rarely write about myself, but what the hek.

today i do four thing.

1. i sleep
2. i eat bowl of left over chinee
3. i talk to a few friend on the telephone
4. i watch the illinois arizona game from last year. man was that supa sweet.

2006-03-13T19:57:00.000-06:00

this is what my city does

2006-03-13T14:01:00.000-06:00

so last night i learned that
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.

2006-03-13T10:20:00.000-06:00

2006-03-10T11:55:00.000-06:00

oh gc, you are so noble. is anyone else getting a little tired of how preachy he is?

2006-03-06T21:37:00.000-06:00

RIP

2006-03-06T08:16:00.000-06:00

it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good. it is not that good.

i only saw one of the movies nominated for best picture thus far and, if this was the best, i do not want to see any others.

2006-03-05T15:04:00.000-06:00

"I yield to the lessons of experience. The "congruence and proportionality" standard, like all such flabby tests, is a standing invitation to judicial arbitrariness and policy-driven decisionmaking. Worse still, it casts this Court in the role of Congress's taskmaster. Under it, the courts (and ultimately this Court) must regularly check Congress's homework to make sure that it has identified sufficient constitutional violations to make its remedy congruent and proportional. As a general matter, we are ill advised to adopt or adhere to constitutional rules that bring us into constant conflict with a coequal branch of Government. And when conflict is unavoidable, we should not come to do battle with the United States Congress armed only with a test ("congruence and proportionality") that has no demonstrable basis in the text of the Constitution and cannot objectively be shown to have been met or failed. As I wrote for the Court in an earlier case, "low walls and vague distinctions will not be judicially defensible in the heat of interbranch conflict.""
541 U.S. 509

2006-03-05T14:37:00.000-06:00

2006-03-04T16:49:00.000-06:00

what chris thought

2006-02-26T19:57:00.000-06:00

2006-02-25T16:13:00.000-06:00

a little while ago, a dear friend of mine told me the three things he wanted in a girlfriend. I wrote them down and am now able to let the world enjoy.

1. "Don't complain too much"

2. "Exist."

3. "Do some nice things."

2006-02-25T11:00:00.000-06:00

2006-02-23T09:20:00.000-06:00

OK kids, read carefully. This is a NY Times Editorial explaining why it did not publish the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed. [emphasis added for those too lazy to read the whole thing]

Those Danish Cartoons The New York Times February 7, 2006 Tuesday

The New York Times

February 7, 2006 Tuesday
Cartoons making fun of the prophet Muhammad that were published in a Danish newspaper last September are suddenly one of the hottest issues in international politics. Muslims in Europe and across the Middle East have been holding protests with growing levels of violence and now loss of life. The easy points to make about the continuing crisis are that (a) people are bound to be offended if their religion is publicly mocked, and (b) the proper response is not to go on a rampage and burn down buildings. If Muslim organizations want to stage peaceful marches or organize boycotts of Danish goods, they're certainly within their rights. The pictures, one of which showed the prophet with a bomb on top of his head in place of a turban, violate a common belief among Muslims that any depiction of Muhammad is sacrilege. The paper that first published them did so as an experiment to see whether political satirists were capable of being as harsh to Islam as they are to other organized religions. If that sounds juvenile, Americans still recognize it as within the speech protected by our First Amendment. The New York Times and much of the rest of the nation's news media have reported on the cartoons but refrained from showing them. That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words. The cartoons were largely unnoticed outside Denmark until a group of Muslim leaders there made a point of circulating them, along with drawings far more offensive than the relatively mild stuff actually printed by the paper, Jyllands-Posten. It's far from the first time that an almost-forgotten incident has been dredged up to score points with the public during politically sensitive times. The governments of the countries in which the demonstrations are occurring are responsible for keeping them nonviolent. Lebanese officials have rightly apologized to Denmark for failing to control a protest that ended with the torching of the Danish Consulate in Beirut. That's in stark contrast with what happened in Syria, a nation where there is no such thing as a spontaneous demonstration, yet where large crowds managed to assemble and set fire to the Danish and Norwegian Embassies. [emphasis added]

Are we still paying attention? Now three days later this was printed.

Artist: Chris Ofili
Title: The Virgin Mary
Composition: Paper collage, oil paint, glitter, polyester resin, and elephant dung on linen.

And yes, if you were wondering, those are what they look like.

what the hell is going on?

2006-02-22T19:22:00.000-06:00

cspan has the video of antonin scalia's speech regarding international
law use in constitutional interpretation cspan
i especially like the grad students trying
to show off their freshly acquired knowledge
that no doubt will stump a supreme court justice

2006-02-19T18:38:00.000-06:00

this is my snowboard, i bought it in highschool

2006-02-16T10:49:00.000-06:00

perhaps one of the best opening lines of a member of the opposition

2006-02-15T13:37:00.000-06:00

there seems to be rumors that evidence of wmds in iraq has surfaced....

follow up: did you hear about it? Prolly not, since the accidental shooting by cheney was far more important...

2006-02-12T21:35:00.000-06:00

2006-02-12T15:05:00.000-06:00

Peanuts actually grow underground, as opposed to nuts like walnuts, almonds, etc. that grow on trees (and are sometimes referred to as "tree nuts").
The peanut is not a nut, but a legume related to beans and lentils.
Peanuts are naturally cholesterol-free.
Peanuts account for two-thirds of all snack nuts consumed in the USA.
There are four types of peanuts are grown in the USA. - Runner, Virginia, Spanish and Valencia.
Four of the top 10 candy bars manufactured in the USA contain peanuts or peanut butter.
The average American consumes more than six pounds of peanuts and peanut butter products each year.
March is National Peanut Month.
Peanuts are planted after the last frost in April or early May.
Dr. George Washington Carver researched and developed more than 300 uses for peanuts in the early 1900s; Dr. Carver is considered "The Father of the Peanut Industry" because of his extensive research and selfless dedication to promoting peanut production and products.
Astronaut Allen B. Sheppard brought a peanut with him to the moon.
Tom Miller pushed a peanut to the top of Pike's Peak (14,100 feet) using his nose in 4 days, 23 hours, 47 minutes and 3 seconds.
Most USA peanut farms are family-owned and -operated.
The peanut plant originated in South America.
As early as 1500 B.C., the Incans of Peru used peanuts as sacrificial offerings and entombed them with their mummies to aid in the spirit life.
Peanuts contribute more than $4 billion to the USA economy each year.
The peanut growth cycle from planting to harvest is about five months.
The average peanut farm is 100 acres.
The peanut plant produces a small yellow flower.
Americans eat more than 600 million pounds of peanuts (and 700 million pounds of peanut butter) each year.
Peanuts flower above ground and then migrate underground to reach maturity.
Two peanut farmers have been elected president of the USA - Thomas Jefferson and Jimmy Carter.
Adrian Finch of Australia holds the Guinness World Record for peanut throwing, launching the lovable legume 111 feet and 10 inches in 1999 to claim the record.
A mature peanut plant produces about 40 pods that then grow into peanuts.
Peanuts are a good source of folate, which can reduce the risk of certain birth defects in the brain and spinal cord.
Ever wonder where the term "Peanut Gallery" comes from? The term became popular in the late 19th century and referred to the rear or uppermost seats in a theater, which were also the cheapest seats. People seated in such a gallery were able to throw peanuts, a common food at theaters, at those seated below them. It also applied to the first row of seats in a movie theater, for the occupants of those seats could throw peanuts at the stage, stating their displeasure with the performance.

2006-02-09T11:38:00.000-06:00

2006-02-04T13:14:00.000-06:00

"As the European press asserted its right to publish hostile cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed, anger in the Arab world reached boiling point in Gaza where gunmen converged on European Union offices and gave the Danish, Norwegian, French and German governments 48 hours to apologise."

update 2 days later:
"Iraqis rallying by the hundreds demanded an apology from the European Union, and the leader of the Palestinian group Hamas called the cartoons "an unforgivable insult" that merited punishment by death."

2006-02-03T16:16:00.000-06:00

2006-02-02T18:44:00.000-06:00

Ned... Ryerson. "Needlenose Ned"? "Ned the Head"? C'mon, buddy. Case Western High. I did the whistling belly-button trick at the high school talent show? Bing. Ned Ryerson, got the shingles real bad senior year, almost didn't graduate? Bing, again. Ned Ryerson, I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple of times until you told me not to anymore? Well?

BING

2006-02-01T16:42:00.000-06:00

KERRY: "53 percent of our children don't graduate from high school........" the folks who claimed bush was dumb, remain silent on this little gem.

2006-01-30T19:06:00.000-06:00

reggie, coming to town. excellent.

2006-01-26T15:34:00.000-06:00

"it is at least a little peculiar that we are told that scrutiny of 'judicial philosophy' is crucial to provide some democratic check on the Justices, but, at the same time, that the Court should not be responsive to political pressure or public protest."

2006-01-26T15:31:00.000-06:00

there really is no way for the Democrats to present themselves as being principled in any way whatsoever. Their argument is not simply: "follow precedent." If you asked the Democrats whether the Supreme Court should follow its precedents in Lopez v. U.S. (1995), U.S. v. Morrisson (2000), Seminole Tribe (1996), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), Alden v. Maine (1999), Garrett v. Alabama (2001), Boerne v. Flores (1997), Kimel (1999) and a whole host of other recent cases, they would say "hell no." All of those cases involved results that are highly unpalatable to Democrats, and they squealed about how bad they were during the Roberts and Alito hearings. What they mean when they say "adhere to precedent" is that the nominee should adhere to the precedents that they like ( i.e., Roe v. Wade, Casey, and Griswold). In other words, Mr. Alito, we want you to make a political judgment about which cases you will uphold and which you will overrule.

The Republicans, on the other hand, simply say, "interpret the Constitution without regard to political judgments or personal preferences." It's that simple.

2006-01-26T10:02:00.000-06:00

the alito hearings have got me thinking. do you think the senate has the authority to reject a nominee because he has political beliefs that certain senators do not agree with?

2006-01-24T16:58:00.000-06:00

One day my friend Brian Ross showed up at church with the lyrics to the song "gettin' jiggy with it." He spent the entire sermon reading and rereading those lyrics because it was "the coolest song ever." Boy did he love that album. He proceeded to buy other Will Smith items and view all the current Will Smith movies. Such as Independence Day.

2006-01-21T12:15:00.000-06:00

Please Don't Feed the Federalists
A Democrat's field guide to the conservative jurist.

Ladies and gentlemen, Democrats of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, welcome to this introductory tour of the North American federalist in his natural habitat. We hope that by getting to know the 10-toed American federalist a bit better this afternoon, you'll avoid, in the future, some of the errors and missteps that have thus far plagued your efforts to understand, question, and possibly impugn them at confirmation hearings. Sen. Feinstein, please do try to keep up with the tour. We ask that you listen carefully as we debunk some of the stereotypes and myths you may have heard about the cadre of conservative white men who worked in the Reagan administration. Sen. Biden—if you would please stop leaping out in front of the federalists in order to be seen at your best angle by the television cameras? It upsets the specimens. Once you acquaint yourself better with the federalist, it is our belief that you will come to love him as we do. You are free to pet the soft, luxuriant hair of any federalist you see here today. But Sen. Kennedy, please stop poking him with a pointy stick.

First, to the myths about the American federalist:

1.) Federalists are teeming with hate and rage: This is one of the most central, pervasive Democratic myths about federalists; particularly those who sit on the bench. It leads you Senate Democrats to believe that if you can just ask the right question of a federalist, he will erupt into a hissing, spitting parody of Bill O'Reilly and then try to strangle you with his bow tie on C-SPAN. As you observe the federalists here today, you will learn that they love their families and do not devote their careers to systematically holding back women, persecuting minorities, and stealing wheelchairs from the disabled. In their own offices, many of them have even worked to advance the careers of specific women and minorities. Attempts to tar the federalist as having dedicated his career to raging misogyny or racism will likely backfire. Most of them have better things to do.

2.) Federalists do not believe in "fairness": Again, a central myth about the federalist is that he seeks only to promote the interests of white men, big businesses, and the unborn; and that he is wholly unconcerned about "giving a fair shake to the little guy." The federalists you see before you cannot not be so readily caricatured. They simply don't accept the proposition that the courts exist to elevate the interests of the little guy above everyone else. This is a defensible constitutional theory that you might one day debate with a federalist on its merits. You may want to ask him pointed questions about the responsibility of the courts when the elected branches of government fail—as they have done on occasion—to protect minorities. You may want to press him on the possibility that the courts should do more than mechanically apply the law as written, when, say, a 10-year-old girl is subject to a strip search as a consequence. Such a conversation might prove enlightening for the American people. But asserting that federalists are inherently not fair or honest, no matter how many times you say it, remains reductive and untrue.

3.) Federalists do not have hearts: Federalists are human beings. They have hearts, although—as per John Roberts—they may not be able to cough one out onto the Senate floor on demand. Federalists also believe that the heart is not an organ relevant to deciding cases. They may not be wrong. Nevertheless, federalists do cry. Their wives cry. They worry about their homes and their children and the erosion of "traditional values"—including, evidently, the dangers of pernicious airborne child psychology. They should be closely questioned on what all of this might mean. But you should not use these hearings to prick them. They will bleed. Just as if you tickle them, they will laugh. Oh … and if you wrong them, they will revenge.

4.) Federalists devote all their energy to plotting for the reversal of Roe v. Wade: Not so. The American federalist has all sorts of wide-ranging hobbies and interests, including restoring power to the states, embracing the framers' ideals, and curbing federal and judicial power. The idea that all federalists are single-mindedly planning the demise of Roe is mistaken. As Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe reminds us this morning, Roe can be nicely hollowed out without ever being expressly reversed. They've largely moved on. So should you.

5.) Federalists have a monopoly on intellectually sound methods of judicial interpretation: Republicans in the Senate have urged, argued, and reinforced the notion again this week that conservative judges "apply the law" and liberal jurists "make it up." Theories of judicial interpretation from the political right initially sound very attractive: Conservatives judges read the statutes, study the precedent, and then mechanically deduce what the law is, without regard to their personal preferences. Americans have been told countless times this week that the only alternative to this approach is a reckless, wooly, ends-driven method, invariably involving "penumbras and emanations." As you gently pet the federalist here today, you may want to probe whether there are indeed "moral judgments"—to quote Yale law professor Anthony Kronman this morning—at the heart of their decisions. And if you suspect that all judges inevitably make such moral judgments, you might seek to uncover from where such moral judgments come. When your inquiry proves fruitless (i.e., you are stonewalled), you may wish to turn to other sources to refute the notion that nothing in a person's history or ideology is reflected in his (or her) moral judgments.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate judiciary committee, as we conclude today's tour, kindly remember these parting words: Not all federalists are as grumpy or hotheaded as Robert Bork. In fact, none of them are. They've watched those tapes too many times, and they're not about to play into your hands again. Federalists espouse a view of the Constitution and the allocation of government powers that largely differs from yours; it may indeed differ from that of most Americans. But they are not going to become bilious and malevolent in front of the cameras. They are not going to speak candidly about the more radical components of their legal project. Instead, their friends and colleagues will very truthfully attest to their "generosity," their "open-mindedness," their "brilliance," and their "compassion"; Supreme Court workers universally name Clarence Thomas as the kindest and warmest justice on the current court. That is irrelevant to how he decides cases. Very nice, very brilliant, and very well-respected jurists have sometimes been very wrong about what this country needs from its courts.

In short—and I am now going to ask you, Sen. Durbin, to stop waiting around for Sen. Coburn to apologize and go on home—it may be time for you, Senate Democrats, to get to know a few federalists, to focus on their ideas as opposed to their integrity, and to think of a better strategy for talking to them the next time around.

By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Friday, Jan. 13, 2006, at 1:35 PM ET @slate.com

2006-01-21T11:22:00.000-06:00

2006-01-19T21:08:00.000-06:00

I've heard on some online blog sites that Justice Stevens is putting his personal affairs in order. Justice O'Connor was doing the same thing at the end of last year's term. In other words, the speculation is that he plans to retire as soon as Rehnquist's and O'Connor's replacements are confirmed, or at the end of this term

gcs

2006-01-16T15:40:00.000-06:00

beth

2006-01-14T16:04:00.000-06:00

New source of global warming gas found: plants

Wed Jan 11, 1:06 PM ET

German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.

The culprits are plants.

They produce about 10 to 30 percent of the annual methane found in the atmosphere, according to researchers at the Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany.

The scientists measured the amount of methane released by plants in controlled experiments. They found it increases with rising temperatures and exposure to sunlight.

"Significant methane emissions from both intact plants and detached leaves were observed ... in the laboratory and in the field," Dr Frank Keppler and his team said in a report in the journal Nature.

Methane, which is produced by city rubbish dumps, coal mining, flatulent animals, rice cultivation and peat bogs, is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in terms of its ability to trap heat.

Concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere have almost tripled in the last 150 years. About 600 million tonnes worldwide are produced annually.

The scientists said their finding is important for understanding the link between global warming and a rise in greenhouse gases.

It could also have implications for the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for developed countries to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

Keppler and his colleagues discovered that living plants emit 10 to 100 times more methane than dead plants.

Scientists had previously thought that plants could only emit methane in the absence of oxygen.

David Lowe, of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand, said the findings are startling and controversial.

"Keppler and colleagues' finding helps to account for observations from space of incredibly large plumes of methane above tropical forests," he said in a commentary on the research.

But the study also poses questions, such as how such a potentially large source of methane could have been overlooked and how plants produced it.

"There will be a lively scramble among researchers for the answers to these and other questions," Lowe added.

2006-01-13T13:25:00.000-06:00

did china discover america before columbus?

2006-01-11T19:00:00.000-06:00

my first digital photo

2006-01-11T17:36:00.000-06:00

2006-01-09T08:04:00.000-06:00

2006-01-08T23:24:00.000-06:00

2006-01-06T10:41:00.000-06:00

This is an interesting back and forth between bill oreilly and david letterman.

2006-01-04T09:39:00.000-06:00

2006-01-02T12:37:00.000-06:00

a fun nite had by all.

2006-01-01T17:51:00.000-06:00

2005-12-31T10:43:00.000-06:00

2005-12-31T10:41:00.000-06:00