Weekend Pundit

I have to agree with Mark Steyn's sentiment on this one:

Speaking personally, I don't want to remake America. I'm an immigrant, and one reason I came here is because most of the rest of the Western world remade itself along the lines Sen. Obama has in mind. This is pretty much the end of the line for me. If he remakes America, there's nowhere for me to go - although presumably once he's lowered sea levels around the planet there should be a few new atolls popping up here and there.

(H/T Samizdata)

I linked to this WSJ opinion piece yesterday, but really should have dug into it a bit more than I did.

As Bret Stephens explains it, the true believers in anthropogenic global warming don't need proof or science or data, because they believe. They want it to be true. They need it to be true.

The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.

The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore - population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations - and global warming provides a justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific "consensus" warning that some looming environmental crisis could only be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to "patriarchal" science; curtains to the species.

These are the "watermelon" environmentalists - Green on the outside, Red on the inside. Any excuse to exert control over the great unwashed masses (that's you and me, folks) is just fine with them. If they can't sell outright overt socialism, then they can use global warming as a back door entry into the lives of the world's population.

A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.

And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence.

Hmm. Where have we heard this line of reasoning before? Could it be from folks like the Taliban, al Qaeda, and other militant fundamental religious cults of a number of faiths? They want us to return a few centuries into the past, eschewing the modern conveniences all in the name of saving the earth. But it wouldn't surprise me that they would exempt themselves from such restrictions because they would need much of that technology to keep an eye on the rest of us, right? Of course it would also mean we would then fall prey to illnesses and diseases we rarely see anymore because the means to treat them would be against God's will...except for them, of course.

Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?

As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.

This last one ties in closely with the second one, and makes me wonder what our ancestors from 100 or 200 years ago would say about this foolishness.

I have little doubt the Founding Fathers would be walking around dope-slapping the lot of these AGW believers. They would see it for the foolishness it is, as would anyone from back then. This need to 'voluntarily' dismantle a society based solely upon an over-hyped and unproven theory would be seen for what it is: stupidity.

In response to this post about anthropogeneic global warming, a commenter suggested I visit their blog and read their take on the issue of global warming. It is something I could have responded to immediately, but decided to hold off for a short while in order to gather my counter to the 'fact' of AGW.

My biggest problem with the whole AGW claim is that we are solely responsible for the climate change over the past 150 years or so, with too many of the so-called 'warmists' using temperature recordings over that period to prove what's happening and that it's all our fault. They conveniently ignore the previous 850 years of climate during which the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age occurred. During the Medieval Warm Period (approximately 700 through 1300 A.D.) global temperatures were warmer than they are today. The old canard about Leif Erikson conning Viking settlers to Greenland by calling it "Greenland" was disproved years ago. Greenland was actually green, with a temperate climate not unlike New England or the northern Mid-Atlantic states of today. It wasn't until the Little Ice Age descended upon mankind around 1300 A.D that Greenland became a cold and inhospitable place to live. The settlers finally had to abandon their homes when agriculture was no longer possible and fishing was too poor to sustain them.
 
How do we know this? Part of it is in written records kept by the Norse and part by archaeological research at the sites of the settlements, showing hundreds of years of agricultural work done by the settlers of the kind only possible in a temperate climate.
 
Looking back even farther in the past one must take into account the Roman Warm Period, when there was a lengthy time of well above 'average' temperatures. It was even warm enough for vineyards in northern England/southern Scotland. (The Romans never really tamed the rest of Scotland. The Picts saw to that.) Some vineyards were also prevelent during the Medieval Warm Period, but not to the extent seen during the earlier Roman Period.
 
Work done by Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute has postulated a direct tie in with the solar activity during those two periods as well as the cold periods between them and from the Medieval Warm Period and today. There are those who disagree with Svensmark's conclusions, but also plenty of climatologists that see there is something to Svensmark's theory.
 
I think my biggest problem is that too many are more than willing to ascribe climate change to a single cause, particularly the AGW proponents. Far too many people on both sides of the debate are willing to cast aside data or additional theories that are in direct conflict with their beliefs or try to minimize factors that may have as great or even greater affect on climate.
 
One chart used by my erstwhile commenter shows changes in the CO₂ and changes in temperatures. Does anyone else notice the same things I did?
 
First, it shows a somewhat regular cycle from the beginning of the chart to the end. Second, it shows both increases and decreases in both CO₂ levels and temperatures. What is driving those cycles? It sure as heck isn't likely to be human activity, is it? Obviously not. Could it possibly be driven by the sun's change in activity in a combination of the 11 year, 23 year, and 178 year solar cycles?
 
Regardless of the mechanisms driving climate charge - warming or cooling - there's far too much hysteria out there making debate difficult, if not impossible. The AGW folks seem to driven to neurosis, their cause taking on the characteristics of obsession, or worse, a religious cult.

Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited.
 
What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist otherwise, none more noisily than NASA's Jim Hansen, who first banged the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered with all the modesty of "99% confidence").
 
But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that "80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters," according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris.

This WSJ opinion piece goes on to claim that too much of the environmental/climate change movement has been hijacked by those with a political or ideological ax to grind, leaving the actual scientists out of the debate, except for those who are willing to trade their scientific objectivity for personal gain, political or monetary. (Let's face it, there are millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars out there for grants and research, particularly if you'll use the money to prove climate change, specifically warming, is All-The-Fault-Of-The-Evil-Humans™. That's one hell of an incentive.

Here's a little Carlin for you, ironically enough, speaking about death and address books.
 

While I do not agree with his view that there is no Heaven, he does bring up some questions that do need to be pondered.

Will Congress actually do something about energy prices, or will they continue making bleating noises while pointing fingers, and in the end, accomplish nothing? Unfortunately it appears the former is more likely than the latter. At least on Republican knows this and is trying to do something about it.

Senator John Sununu (R-NH) brings up some interesting points about what's really needed, reminding us of what's come before and how little has changed over the years since the last energy crunch.

I remember the oil spikes of 1973, 1980 and 1990. Time and circumstances may have changed, but families and small businesses in New Hampshire feel it just the same. Higher prices for heating oil, gas, and propane drain budgets and hurt the economy. This challenge, like those past, can and must be overcome.

While the date has changed, the proposals from the far left have not: Increase energy taxes, start a lawsuit, ignore the potential of nuclear power, and above all, oppose all new production of American oil and gas.

And to top it off, they'll try to convince us it's for our own good, but not actually get around to explaining why, other than to say we wouldn't understand. I guess that shows us what it is they think of the rest of us. You know...the un-enlightened. Never mind that most of the so-called un-enlightened are far more intelligent than they are because we actually understand the problems most of us face and know how to solve them without the help of the government and, most important, without them.
 
Maybe it's time to give them a dose of reality.

BeezleBub made it back from the WP In-Laws Friday and was back at his job at the farm first thing Saturday morning. He's now working his summer schedule, meaning Wednesdays through Sundays in the fields. I'm also starting my summer work schedule after Fourth of July, working 4 days a week - Tuesdays through Fridays - meaning BeezleBub and I will have Mondays off together all summer.

It's going to great summer!

********

I loved this "cheap shot" handed out by Tom Maguire during his Heller post because it's all too true:

The same folks who can read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and find an unassailable right to abortion and gay marriage can't find a right to possession of a firearm.

All too true.

********

It's been another NASCAR weekend here in New Hampshire. The new owners of the local track, New Hampshire Motor Speedway (formerly the New Hampshire International Speedway), have done a lot of upgrades and renovations in order to make the fan experience better. It would have been nicer if the weather had been a bit more cooperative, the rain on Friday delaying qualifying for the Lenox 301.
 
The race today was shortened by thunderstorms, ending after 280-some laps. That's how it goes in New England.

********

Have you wondered what's really driving the rising cost of oil? While some point the finger at the "greedy" oil companies, others to speculators, and yet others to simple supply and demand, the answer isn't necessarily all that simple. At least Coyote gives it a shot, and his ideas sound a lot more likely than some I've heard.

********

One not entirely unexpected side effect of higher oil prices is the move of some manufacturing from overseas back to the US. While many goods can still be manufactured cheaper overseas, the cost of transporting them to US markets has skyrocketed, making those goods more expensive than if they had been made here. If oil prices remain high, and it is expected they will, we may see a long lasting resurgence in American manufacturing.

********

First Chicago mayor Richard Daley goes ballistic about the Heller decision. Then San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom loses his mind, blathering about the rights of the housing authority versus the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
 
Is one of the requirements to be a mayor of a major city to have their common sense surgically removed?

********

Paul Marks asks whether collectivism is triumphing in Europe and the US?

...in the United States the totalitarians look set to take over soon. I have presented evidence that they (both key members of Congress and others) are totalitarians in a previous posting and I will not type it all out again - so I will content myself with wondering whether, when the spiritual son of Saul Alinsky becomes President of the United States, he will invite Bill Ayers (and the other comrades he left Harvard to join in Chicago) to his inauguration.

Let us pray it is not so.

********

Former New Hampshire Governor and Democratic US Senate candidate Jeanne Shaheen has pledged to severely trim oil company profits in an effort to lower fuel prices. Sounds like a great idea until you do the math and find out that even if the oil company profits were cut to 0%, it would only drop gasoline prices by approximately 36¢ at best (assuming gas is $4 per gallon). 36¢.

That's not a big drop in prices, is it? Like too many Democrats, Mrs. Shaheen has overlooked two important facts about the price of any product for sale: profits are usually a small percentage of the sale price; and what profits are made are used to pay stockholders and to invest in future projects.
 
A 9 percent profit margin is pretty common for just about any business. Some have higher margins, some lower. Do you hear anyone complaining about other businesses with 9% profit margins? I certainly haven't.
 
If Jeanne Shaheen gets her way, how will she explain it to the millions of stockholders why they'll now receive little or nothing in return for their investments?
 
Who are the biggest investors in oil companies? Retirement and pension funds.
 
How will she explain to millions of retirees that their retirement funds have been confiscated by the government? Oh, wait! I almost forgot. That's exactly what Democrats like Shaheen want. It gives them even more control over the American people. Control their money, control the people. After all, we aren't intelligent enough to spend our own money.

********

And that's the news from Lake Winnipesaukee, where the thunderstorms have been having their fun, the NASCAR fans have left until September, and where we're still wondering how we'll pay for heating fuel next winter.

There's been a quite a bit of fallout from the Heller decision, with some of the more vocal opponents of the Second Amendment squawking about blood on the streets even as a number of towns and cities have decided to suspend enforcement of their handgun bans. One commenter had an interesting take on it.

There's a little town up the street, Kennesaw, GA, that has a city ordinance REQUIRING homeowners to have a gun. After the ordinance took effect, burglaries ceased in Kennesaw, completely.

"An armed society is a polite society." Robert A. Heinlein

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." unknown

"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's goodbye to the Bill of Rights." unknown

"Hell, when the man said Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, I just thought he was making a delivery!" James Wesley Rawles

"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms should describe a convenience store, not a government agency." unknown

Guns: Keep 'em, shoot 'em, clean 'em. Git 'r done America!

Exactly.

You know it's got to be a bad idea when even the French say so.

Apparently Democratic Presidential Candidate To Be Barack Obama's plans to hike taxes should he gain the Oval Office shocks even the French, knowing it will make Americans "fiscal prisoners" in their own country, burdening them with taxes surpassing those imposed in the French Republic.

...make no mistake, taxes under a President Obama could be truly à la française. The top marginal tax rate, including federal, state and local levies, could approach 60% for self-employed New Yorkers and Californians. Not even France's taxes are that high now that President Nicolas Sarkozy has capped the total that high-earning Frenchmen like Mr. Ducasse can pay in income, social and wealth taxes at 50% of earnings.

When taxes go that high, people find ways to get out of paying them usually moving someplace else where they will be able to keep more of their hard earned money. If Obama wants to see even more American jobs and industries to go overseas, all he has to do is raise taxes as he's outlined during his campaign. If you think that won't happen should he implement his tax hikes, all one need do is look at what French President Nicolas Sarkozy discovered when he visited London earlier this year.

[Sarkozy] observed that the British capital is now home to so many French bankers and other professionals seeking tax relief that it's the seventh-largest French city. Those expatriates choose not to use their creativity and investment capital to benefit France and its economy.

So because French taxes were so high, the people needed to help the French economy to grow left France and put their talents to use in a place where they'd be able to keep more of their hard earned money. And why shouldn't they? Why stay in a place that punishes success? This also shows Obama's ignorance when it comes to easily foreseen consequences of confiscatory tax policies.

Senator Obama's plans to raise income, Social Security and capital-gains taxes amount to a belief that people don't react to punitive tax rates. If so, he needn't worry about people leaving the country and could let them pay taxes in whichever part of the globe they choose to live in.

A President Barack Obama will become all too familiar with the Laffer Curve, seeing tax rates go ever higher and tax revenues going lower and lower. He'll also oversee the once vibrant American economy looking more like the one experienced during the Carter Administration: in deep recession with little hope of recovering. The recession back then didn't end until Ronald Reagan took office and he did away with the taxes that were strangling the economy. You'd think an intelligent man like Barack Obama would understand the cause and effect of tax policy. But it's become evident with time he must have skipped more than one economics course during his time in college.
 
His tax plans will do far more harm to the American people than just about anything else I can think of short of a nuclear terrorist strike.

On more than one occasion I've had people ask me bout the use of certain phrases or words used by the Left when it came to them describing an event or the actions with which the Left agrees or disagrees. Far too often they'll use terms that sound like they mean one thing when they really mean something entirely different. It was while reading this comment to this post on Just One Minute that I found just what was needed.

At some point there needs to be an English-Leftist dictionary so that you can look up words and phrases used by the Left and find the conventional meaning of them.

Such a dictionary would help lessen the confusion when reading a diatribe or holding a one-sided "conversation" with a Lefty blogger, politician, or brainwashed drone.
I'm willing to give it a try, starting with a few of the more overused terms or phrases that fall from the lips of the anointed. Feel free to add a few of your own, or if need be, pull a few from George Orwell's 1984.

"Progressive" - this term sounds like it means the idea or the person(s) are for making progress on social and economic issues. Unfortunately this term often means the opposite, with Progressives usually standing for reversing two centuries of progress made in political and economic freedom in favor of their idea of freedom, which usually means the freedom to hold one's tongue should you disagree with them.

"Freedom" - Anything but. The Left believes the average person is incapable for making their own decision, therefore they will make them for you, "freeing" you from the burden.

"Free Speech" - You can say anything you want....as long as you agree with them. Otherwise, shut up.

"Fascist" - Anyone disagreeing with Progressive ideals, particularly Republicans and libertarians.

"Nazi" - See Fascist.

"Political Correctness" - An idea or thought that meets the approval of Progressives.

"Politically Correct Speech" - a more modern term for NewSpeak, a term coined in Orwell's 1984, which removes any negative connotation or terms from the language. It's purpose is to ensure that Progressive ideas cannot be described in anything but positive terms, even if the idea engenders horrors not seen since the Holocaust or the Inquisition.

"ChimpyMcBushHitler" - a rather poor attempt at satire by the Left, showing they really have no sense of humor at all.

"Obscene Profits" - profit of any kind is bad, therefore all profits are obscene. These obscenities are easily cured by taxing them out of existence.

"Rich" - anyone with a job making more than minimum wage.

"Racist" - any white male, particularly if he is a Republican. Men and women of other races cannot, by definition, be racists, even when they are.

"Multiculturalism" - placing other cultures before American/Western cultures, even those odious misogynist theocratic tyrannies who believe freedom is just a word in the dictionary.

"Green" - adheres to the AlGorista dogma that all climate change (warming or cooling) is All-Our-Fault. Has nothing to do with real environmentalism.

These are just a few of the terms and definitions I was able to come up with on the spur of the moment. There must be hundreds of others just as twisted and misdirecting as the few I've listed above. Feel free to contribute any you may have come across.

There's been a wealth of posts about the Heller vs. DC Supreme Court decision handed down today, where the Court found the Second Amendment applies to individuals, overturning the belief of many anti-gun advocates that the amendment is a collective right that does not allow the average citizen to keep and bear arms.

Frankly, I believe the Court made the right decision, putting the Second Amendment in the same frame of reference as the First Amendment - an individual right - along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. However I am surprised that a larger number of the justices did not support the majority opinion.

A number of anti-gun advocates voiced their dismay over the decision, including Chicago mayor Richard Daley, who seemed to think this decision would return us to the days when the Code of the Old West reigned supreme, meaning there'd be gunfights on the streets of the city. Unless he's been asleep at his desk, that's exactly what's been happening around cities that had heavy restrictions on gun ownership. Unfortunately the law abiding citizens were the ones required to dodge the bullets of rival gangs and other criminal miscreants. Now they'll be able to shoot back. (Hey, if Mayor Daley wants to overstate the case, then I'm allowed to do the same. See how ridiculous it sounds?)
 
I expect the hand-wringing and tooth-gnashing of the anti-gun groups to continue for some time, particularly as more gun-bans and ownership/carry laws are challenged in light of today's decision on Heller. Many of the anti-gun groups, including the Brady folks, aren't willing to admit that when law abiding citizens are allowed to protect themselves by carrying their own guns, the crime rates go down. Every state that has concealed carry and shall issue laws on the books tends to have lower crime rates than those states/cities that don't. There have been no bloodbaths on the streets, no showdowns at the OK Corral, and far more cases where a criminal predator has ended up being the prey for a citizen able to defend his/herself.
 
And that's just the way it should be.