No Oil for Pacifists

Stop the presses! A union slammed the New York Times for "pursuing and publishing what it openly declares to be information which may not be legally disclosed." By contrast, few on the left complained when Times stories compromised national security (Stuart Taylor, again, excepted).

Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences department at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has a PhD from Harvard, and authored hundreds of papers. So I guess he counts as having relevant knowledge and experience. But about that supposed consensus for immediately capping carbon emissions? Lindzen rejects it:

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface. Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man (Lindzen, 2007, Douglass et al, 2007). This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising (though inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community). . .

In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. . .

With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man, disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.

(via Watts Up With That?)

Jonah Goldberg on National Review:

Let us for a moment adopt the proposition that health care is in fact a "right," as pretty much every liberal politician has told us for at least a generation. . .

Now, imagine if the government had a body of experts charged with figuring out what your free-speech rights are, or your right to assemble, or worship. Mr. Jones, you can say X and Y, but not Z. Ms. Smith, you can freely assemble with Aleutians, Freemasons, and carpenters, but you may not meet in public with anyone from Cleveland or of Albanian descent. Mrs. Wilson, you may pray to Vishnu and Crom, but never to Allah or Buddha, and when you do pray, you cannot do so for longer than 20 minutes at a time, unless it is one of several designated holidays. Please see Extended Prayer Form 10-22B.

Of course, all of this would be ludicrous beyond words.

Which is the whole point. Health care cannot be a right, because rights cannot come from government. At best, they can be protected by government.

Despite its temporary setback, the healthcare "reform" movement has a legislative margin and media love:

Since the inauguration, the network news media have promoted President Obama’s attempts to muscle through health care reform legislation. From exposing the "unhealthy details" of the current system, to openly calling it a "national shame" that the U.S. does not have universal (government) health insurance, the three networks have joined Obama’s campaign for change.

In 224 stories on ABC, CBS and NBC, the networks favored proponents to critics by a margin of more than 2-to-1 (243 to 104). Networks also left out one major criticism -- the "exorbitant" cost of Democrat reform proposals -- from most reports.

ABC touted Obama’s proposals as the "UnHillary approach" on March 5, citing the diversity of groups represented at a health care summit that day. According to "Good Morning America" co-anchor Robin Roberts, the president was bringing "all the major players in health care to the table."

Only 9 percent of stories (21 out of 224) cited estimates of $1 trillion or more, even though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated one Senate proposal would cost $1.6 trillion.

The networks only brought up Massachusetts health care reform in one story and entirely failed to report the flaws of a government health care program in Hawaii. They also glossed over the shortcomings of Medicare -- a government-run health insurance program already bound for insolvency.

Each network had its own way of spinning the debate for Obama. On ABC, medical editor and longtime universal care proponent Tim Johnson blatantly cheered for big-government solutions. ABC also aired a primetime special giving Obama time to promote his health care agenda without debate. CBS, particularly the "Early Show," brought on administration officials to promote for government-run health care, but often didn’t supply an opposing view.

NBC, the best of the three, utilized a third approach: airing stories about extreme medical hardship or praising certain hospitals for already doing what Obama has called for -- like implementing electronic medical records.

On June 11 and 12, after Obama had spoken in Green Bay, Wis. at a town hall meeting about health care reform, the three networks gave a perfect example of how little substance mattered in their reporting. The three focused their health care stories on Obama’s "cool" factor rather than substantive policy.

In that speech, Obama admitted the cost of Medicare and Medicaid are "one of the biggest threats to our federal deficit" and promised Americans would be able to keep their doctors "no matter how we reform health care." He also promised that reform would not add to the deficit.

None of the networks examined those claims or pointed out the irony of looking to the government to cut costs since government programs are largely responsible for skyrocketing health care expenditures.

Agreed: the media mentions Medicare mainly when Obama points to it. But the press rarely reports how enlarging government could cure Medicare's march to bankruptcy.

The press analysis is from the Business & Media Institute--read the whole thing.

Today we perform a little Other McCain Rule 3 action, a little fisking of one Mark Weisbrot, Communist. In today's column, we will see how Dr. Weisbrot writes leftist propaganda for the so-called main stream media. He is co-director of a socialist think-tank, and he is president of an anti-war pacifist organization trying to pass itself off as centrist.

Leftist Propaganda for the Left Wing Machine

Mr. Weisbrot came to my attention as I was doing research for a column on "Op-Ed Roundup on Honduras". (By the way, I found it difficult to find all the major newspaper op-ed pieces on a given subject. Is there a central clearing house for Newspaper Op-ed articles? Yahoo isn't it...) Anyway, I read Mark Weisbrot in the Los Angeles Times Op-Ed pages decided I have to out him. He is either a tool or a fool, you be the judge. Here he is on Honduras:

Meet Lanny Davis... hired by a coalition of Latin American business interests to represent the dictatorship that ousted elected President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras in a military coup and removed him to Costa Rica on June 28.

Lanny Davis does not represent a 'dictatorship that ousted' Zelaya. Such is the typical circular reasoning of the left. First state a falsehood, assume it to be true. Then state another falsehood dependent upon the first falsehood and show it supports your point. In this case, the 'dictatorship' is the first lie. Zelaya was removed form power by the unanimous action of the supreme court of Honduras, an the near unanimous action of the legislature of Honduras. Moreover, Lanny Davis was not hired by any government, he represents legitimate business interests from Honduras.

Having dispensed with the opening paragraphs of Weisbrot's article as lie upon lie, I will simply let the near unanimous commenters at the Los Angeles Times no less, tell you what is wrong with the rest of his article. Here are the first five comments, in entirety (emphasis mine):

1. The editorial is highly questionable as it completely ignores much relevant information. The author incorrectly calls the referendum proposed by Zelaya a non-binding poll... This depiction is innacurate (more info at http://www.cuartaurna.com/noticias.php ). To state that Zelaya fought corruption could not be further from the truth, especially when his cousin, Marcelo Chimirri, was accused of taking a $1Million bribe while running the state telecom. In addition to this, Zelaya ran the goverment without submitting a budget to congress so that tracking expenses would be diificult. Submitted by: Hondurenovd, 4:13 PM PDT, July 23, 2009
2. I am a columnist for venezuelas major newspaper EL UNIVERSAL and a political analist. I have followed Mr Weisbrot since he became and agent for the regime of hugo chavez. And what he writes on certain subjects are first aproved by his contact in the regime, Mr. Samuel Moncada actual venezuelan ambassador to the UK. Maybe the IRS should check his income and the state dep demand that he register as an agent of a foreign government. Maybe he could write about the rampant antisemitsm of hugo chavez regime, but that would be asking too much. Submitted by: sammy eppel 3:53 PM PDT, July 23, 2009
3. I'm an American living in Honduras and ashamed of what you are peddling as journalism. Zelaya tried a Chavez style power grab plain and simple. He put himself above the law and thumbed his nose at his country's democratically elected institutions. He got caught in his scheme. As for violence and repression under the current government...haven't seen it. You should probably do some further fact finding before making blanket statements so you can present a more balanced point of view. Submitted by: J. Martin 3:36 PM PDT, July 23, 2009
4. As a Hondurean I am amazed that Mr. Mark Weisbrot don't get its facts straight. Yes, it was wrong the way Zelaya was ousted and sent to Costa Rica, he should have been declared an outlaw first, detained and judged for trying an "innocent" referendum to seek lifetime re-election. Zelaya was ousted because he wanted to go against the Hondurean Constitution, what he wanted to do is a punishable crime and by attempting this, he became subject to detention and prison. Too bad he is not in jail, that is what our Constitution says he should be. Submitted by: Andres Diaz 3:36 PM PDT, July 23, 2009
5. Honduras Attorney General, Supreme Electoral Court and Appellate Administrative Court all branded the poll “illegal”.UNANIMOUSLY impeached,removed from office,and Speaker Micheletti seated in his stead.Due process had been observed.His exile did lack legal cover,ergo his return must be allowed,even if to face charges of contempt of Court.Many who now show righteous indignation over Zelaya’s ouster are not as keen to condemn deserving democracy-bashers as the Castros in Cuba.Pray be more even-keeled on fingering human-rights miscreants everywhere,instead of heaping condemnation on one side,while keeping mum on the other side’s trespasses. Submitted by: Roberto Soto Santana 1:52 PM PDT, July 23, 2009

Commenter number two above accuses Dr. Weisbrot of being in Hugo Chavez pocket. It could be, as Mr. Weisbrot wrote this laudatory piece on the Venezuelan economy after ten years under Chavez Rule. I have not fact checked it, so I leave that as an exercise to the reader. However, I will note the conclusion of the document: "The main challenge for Venezuela in the next couple of years will therefore be to implement an effective stimulus package that can keep the economy on a steady growth path." Of course, Mr. Weisbrot calls for more government, bigger government, ergo he is looking more and more like a socialist.

You know that when someone is shouted down ten to one on the Los Angeles Times Opinion page they are really really out there. They are either a nut, or a right wing radical. We know he isn't the latter, so he is looking more like a communist fool.

The Center for Economic Policy and Research, a Saul Alinsky Think Tank

What else do we know about Weisbrot? He has a PHd in economics from the University of Michigan. That apparently qualifies him to be co-director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). CEPR is trying to pass itself off as a centrist organization "CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options." Who is on the Board of Directors for the CEPR?

• There is Peter Barnes, Founder, Working Assets, San Francisco, CA. Working Assets is a green company, "Supporting peace, equality, human rights and the environment is the reason we exist."
• Julian Bond, Chairman, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
• Heidi Hartmann, Director and President, Institute for Women's Policy Research, Washington, DC
• Brennan Van Dyke, Senior Advisor to CEO, Global Environment Facility (UNDP), Washington, DC
• Eileen Appelbaum, Professor and Director of the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University
• Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University (Pro-Union Economist)
  

A circle-jerk of left wing policy proponents. Having established the 'editorial board' credentials, let us take a look at a roundup of CEPR editorials:

• The CEPR is pro-minimum wage, even proposing to index the minimum wage to skilled salaries.
• The CEPR proposes to give homeowners the 'right to rent' a radical proposal to wipe out mortgage contracts and let homeowners rent from the mortgage holder at 'market rates'.
• Finally, the CEPR proposes a second (so-called) stimulus package.

This, in addition to the pro-Chavez piece... it doesn't seem to me they are presenting multiple views of any issue. That is OK though, by them, because "an informed public should be able to choose policies that lead to an improving quality of life, both for people within the United States and around the world." I take it back -- they do have two kinds of views, both communist and socialist views. Ha ha! Congratulations, CEPR passes the Saul Alinsky test, clearly a leftist propaganda machine.

Pacifist PAC President

Mark Weisbrot, (Dr. Wesibrot to you) is also the President of Just Foreign Policy. Just Foreign Policy is a 501(c)(3)-registered non-governmental organization founded in January 2007 which is dedicated to reforming U.S. foreign policy. Here is the stated Just Foreign Policy mission (emphasis mine):

Just Foreign Policy is an independent and non-partisan membership organization dedicated to reforming U.S. foreign policy by mobilizing and organizing the broad majority of Americans who want a foreign policy based on diplomacy, law and cooperation.

We have seen through the Iraq war that unnecessary military actions can undermine civil liberties and democracy at home, and can be used to remove pressing domestic issues like the economy from the political agenda to the detriment of the great majority.

Interpretation: It is an anti-war group. They say as much. Ok, fine. But to make the claim of being 'independent and non-partisan' is too much. They are clearly anti-war, no-guns-more-butter left wing radicals, trying to pass off as centrists. Does that sound familiar to anyone?

On the same page of the Mission Statement is this advertisement for Pro-Zelaya action. He gives you a little on-line interface to urge your congressman to support Zelaya's corrupt regime. They can be neither independent nor non-partisan since they take one side over another in this conflict.

Now we have come full circle on Mark Weisbrot: Communist Tool or Chavez Fool -- You make the call on that one. Several things are clear: The CEPR is a leftist propaganda machine, and Just Foreign Policy is anything but independent and non-partisan. It is a pacifist and socialist political action committee. Which makes Dr. Weisbrot a pacifist socialist PAC president, and a dangerous propaganda generator.

It's great to be governing. Just ask Senators Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.):

Despite their denials, influential Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd were told from the start they were getting VIP mortgage discounts from one of the nation's largest lenders, the official who handled their loans has told Congress in secret testimony.

Both senators have said that at the time the mortgages were being written they didn't know they were getting unique deals from Countrywide Financial Corp., the company that went on to lose billions of dollars on home loans to credit-strapped borrowers. Dodd still maintains he got no preferential treatment.

Dodd got two Countrywide mortgages in 2003, refinancing his home in Connecticut and another residence in Washington. Conrad's two Countrywide mortgages in 2004 were for a beach house in Delaware and an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck in his home state of North Dakota.

Robert Feinberg, who worked in Countrywide's VIP section, told congressional investigators last month that the two senators were made aware that "who you know is basically how you're coming in here."

"You don't say 'no' to the VIP," Feinberg told Republican investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, according to a transcript obtained by The Associated Press. . .

Both senators were VIP borrowers in the program known as "friends of Angelo." Angelo Mozilo was chief executive of Countrywide, which played a big part in the foreclosure crisis triggered by defaults on subprime loans. The Calabasas, Calif.-based company was bought last July by Bank of America Corp. for about $2.5 billion.

Feinberg's testimony includes:

Q And in your communications with Senator Conrad, whether the one phone call you identified or the e-mails you exchanged with his office, do you know whether he was aware that he was getting preferential treatment?

A Yes, he was aware.

Q And why did you say that?

A By preferential treatment, I mean specifically the suite of advantages, whether he's knocking the points off, knocking the junk fees. I have to preface it by that we were not allowed to tell anybody what the points were being waived, but we can tell everything else; and, any person, FOA, VIP, whatever they were that was coming through there, it was always instilled in them to let them know their sense of importance of where they were. And that you are, were a friend of Angelo's. You were referred by Angelo. You were approved by Angelo. There were many different ways of saying it, so the discount was there and we would let them know. . .

Q And do you know if during the course of your communications with Senator Dodd were his wife that you ever had an opportunity to share with them if they were getting special VIP treatment?

A Yes, yes.

Q You did communicate that to him?

A Yes, yes.

Even the New York Times is uneasy about Senator Dodd's ethics:

As Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut assumes a central role in the debate over health care, the pharmaceutical industry has helped finance efforts to bolster his image back home as he braces for a potentially bruising re-election contest.

The industry’s campaign-style push for Mr. Dodd, part of a larger effort to highlight the work of certain lawmakers around the country, portray him as a defender of ordinary citizens in brochures sent to more than 100,000 homes in Connecticut and in a 30-second television spot that ran for three weeks.

For Mr. Dodd, the support provided by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, the industry’s lobbying arm, comes at a politically sensitive, if not awkward, time. He is trying to combat a perception that he has become too close to powerful interest groups in Washington after 28 years in the Senate.

As part of that effort, Mr. Dodd’s own campaign has produced two videos, "Lobbyists Cry" and "The Blues," presenting him as a politician who has caused grief for Washington lobbyists. He also sent a fund-raising solicitation asserting that lobbyists do not have access to him.

"The lobbyists can’t get meetings with Chris," the solicitation says. "He won’t return their phone calls. He even yells at them during hearings."

But even as Mr. Dodd attempts to distance himself from these special interests, he is clearly relying on their help as he prepares for his re-election, a reality seized upon by his Republican critics.

He has not only benefited from the hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertisement courtesy of the pharmaceutical industry and Families U.S.A., a health-care advocacy group the industry teamed up with. But a few weeks ago, Mr. Dodd attended a $1,500-a-plate campaign fund-raiser sponsored by lobbyists representing U.S. Oncology, a provider of cancer drugs and services.

Two points:

1) Conrad's and Dodd's deal with lobbyists is a potentially unlawful variant of President Obama's approach: faux outrage to the press, followed by contacts and cash in practice.

2) The Times story on Dodd never identifies the Senator as a Democrat. Given the article's references to "Republican critics" and Dodd's recent appearance at "a retreat organized by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee," the "paper of record" clearly knows the Connecticut Senator's political affiliation. But somehow "Democrat" isn't considered "fit to print" this week--just as it vanished in March.

Conclusion: Join the Senate; see the world; win valuable prizes! Meanwhile, mandate socialism for the masses--pseudo-anonymously, at least to readers of the New York Times.

See Michael Ramirez at IBD for more excellent political truth.

Congress may recess before a vote on President Obama's proposal to socialize the health care system. He had been insisting to socialize health care by August. Well, that is not going to happen. And, guess what, the world didn't come to an end. Can you say Chicken Little? While the August battle may be won--thanks to the Blue Dog Democrats--the war is far from over. President Obama is engaging in the ancient Mongol ruse of a feigned retreat. (Right now, instead of pushing health care, the main-stream-media is trying to tie all right thinking people to the imaginary 'birth cert' brou-ha-ha.)

GatesGate as a diversion. Do not think for a minute that Mr. Obama accidentally inserted himself in the Boston race controversy Gatesgate. He did it to take the nation's attention off of the disastrous health care debate. Mr. Obama desperately needs a win. He hasn't had any. He sees his involvement as 'solving a racially charged incident.' His move is being touted as 'politically astute'. Let us be clear -- there is no issue to be settled by Mr. Obama. There is no bridging the gap between those that accuse Crowley of abuse of power, and those that accuse Gates of race-baiting. I disagree with those that say Mr. Obama made a mistake -- it is a carefully orchestrated move. If either Crowley or Gates blinks, Obama wins. If neither blinks, Obama wins just by having a beer with them, as he elevates himself above them.

As pointed out in this blog a few days ago, Mr. Obama is changing his story. It used to be about a 'basic right' to health care. That didn't work. Then it was about 'fixing a broken health care system.' That didn't work. Now he is trying to tie it to the economy, he is saying: Health Insurance Reform Will Strengthen Small Businesses.

Because they lack the bargaining power that large businesses have and face higher administrative costs per person, small businesses pay up to 18 percent more for the very same health insurance plans – costs that eat into their profits and get passed on to their employees... As a result, small businesses are much less likely to offer health insurance. Those that do tend to have less generous plans. In a recent survey, one third of small businesses reported cutting benefits. Many have dropped coverage altogether. And many have shed jobs, or shut their doors entirely.

So there you have it... now President Obama is 'fixing the economy' with his so-called health care plan, because his so-called stimulus plan didn't stimulate anything, except cronyism and hand gun sales. He continues:

What I’m concerned about is the damage that’s being done right now to the health of our families, the success of our businesses, and the long-term fiscal stability of our government. [Scare tactics.] I’m concerned about hard working folks who want nothing more than the security that comes with knowing they can get the care they need, when they need it. [False -- most hard working folks already have health care. It is the lay-a-bouts that are uninsured.] I’m concerned about the small business owners who are asking for nothing more than a chance to seize their piece of the American Dream. [Apparently seizing a piece of the American Dream involves seizing a tax subsidy.] I’m concerned about our children and grandchildren who will be saddled with deficits that will continue piling up year after year unless we pass reform. [More scare tactics-- something he accuses the opposition of doing.]

President Obama is like Mighty Mouse: Here he is to save the day!!

Freedom is not free. Sometimes the threats are external, sometimes, like now, internal. The war against government health care rationing and socialism is not over. Here are a few predictions and clues about battles yet to be fought in this war:

• If Mr. Kennedy passes, the tune will shift again, from 'saving the economy' to 'pass a health care bill in his honor.' No crisis too good to waste say the Democrats.
• President Obama's rope-a-dope change-my-tune drill will continue until he can buy blue dog democrats with favors. He will be back with a bigger, more bloated bill, if that is possible.
• The SEIU is joining forces with WalMart for a health care mandate. The SEIU is a union that stands to benefit substantially by the passage of any socialist legislation.

The SEIU has 400 people working full time on health care issues. How many do you have working on it? You have Carl Frank and BobInLosAngeles working on it. Anyone else?

Yes.

You have Hayek and Milton Friedman. You have Ann Coulter on your side (one of her best -- read the whole thing):

All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats' idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink.

Even two decades after the collapse of liberals' beloved Soviet Union, they can't grasp that it's easier and cheaper to obtain any service provided by capitalism than any service provided under socialism.

Isn't food important? Why not "universal food coverage"? If politicians and employers had guaranteed us "free" food 50 years ago, today Democrats would be wailing about the "food crisis" in America, and you'd be on the phone with your food care provider arguing about whether or not a Reuben sandwich with fries was covered under your plan.

Instead of making health care more like the DMV, how about we make it more like grocery stores? Give the poor and tough cases health stamps and let the rest of us buy health care -- and health insurance -- on the free market.

You have the Tort Reform Lobby on your side, trying to keep President Obama from starting a virtual litigation machine:

...it is anticipated that Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) will offer a manager’s amendment to the Medicare Secondary Payer Act that, according to the American Tort Reform Association, will create “a virtual litigation machine.”

“It’s bad enough that the congressional majority has resisted consideration of commonsense measures that would reduce costly litigation related to the delivery of health care in America,” said ATRA president Tiger Joyce. “But attempting to include provisions that will actually increase such litigation is beyond the pale. If comprehensive health care reform legislation is to succeed legislatively and in practice, it must be free of ‘trial lawyer earmarks.’”

Keith Hennessey is working for you: More health care stumbling by Team Obama. He has his own health care plan too.

The examiner.com is on your side. Go and see the list of things President Obama lied about or does not want you to know.

You even have CNN on your side. CNN wants you to know the five key freedoms you will lose under President Obama's socialism plan:

1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
5. Freedom to choose your doctors

CNN is directly contradicting President Obama, who told you that "you will keep your plan, you will keep your doctor." You will not keep your plan, or your doctor, something everyone knows now. CNN isn't the first to point out President Obama's blatant falsehood, but they are the most prominent.

Summary

You can expect this bill will morph into something uglier... something more sinister... more subtle. It may be less comprehensive, it will have the form of a 'watered down' bill, and be full of pork. The core if it will still be something called a "public option." But be assured, there will be a health care bill, because President Obama must get his hook into your mouth this year, before we vote out the democrats in the next national election.

A correction in the July 22nd New York Times:

An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkite’s career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated the date that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed and referred incorrectly to Mr. Cronkite’s coverage of D-Day. Dr. King was killed on April 4, 1968, not April 30. Mr. Cronkite covered the D-Day landing from a warplane; he did not storm the beaches. In addition, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon on July 20, 1969, not July 26. "The CBS Evening News" overtook "The Huntley-Brinkley Report" on NBC in the ratings during the 1967-68 television season, not after Chet Huntley retired in 1970. A communications satellite used to relay correspondents’ reports from around the world was Telstar, not Telestar. Howard K. Smith was not one of the CBS correspondents Mr. Cronkite would turn to for reports from the field after he became anchor of "The CBS Evening News" in 1962; he left CBS before Mr. Cronkite was the anchor. Because of an editing error, the appraisal also misstated the name of the news agency for which Mr. Cronkite was Moscow bureau chief after World War II. At that time it was United Press, not United Press International.

Other than that, the story was accurate.

(via Weekly Standard)

From Chuck DeVore's blog:

It is often said that California is a window onto America's future. Well, with a heavy tax and regulatory burden, a new greenhouse gas emissions law, and rapidly growing welfare rolls, perhaps America should pay close attention to the Golden State's mistakes. This email details the extent of California's burgeoning welfare rolls.

California accounts for 12% of the U.S. population but 32% of the welfare caseload. To demonstrate this enormous burden let's compare these numbers relative to other states across the nation:


source: California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, via HHS and Census data

(via commenter DAve at Assistant Village Idiot)

UPDATE: below

President Obama during his July 22nd press conference:

Then we had to pass a budget, by law. And our budget had a 10-year projection -- and I just want everybody to be clear about this: If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we've made it's going to be $7.1 trillion. Now, that's not good, but it's $2.2 trillion less than it would have been if we had the same policies in place when we came in.

The Congressional Budget Office, A Preliminary Analysis of the President’s Budget and an Update of CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook, March 2009 at 11:

From 2010 to 2019, the cumulative deficit under the President’s proposals would total $9.3 trillion, more than double the cumulative deficit projected under the current-law assumptions embodied in CBO’s baseline.

Readers are welcome to reconcile the two quotes--with each other and with reality.

MORE:

Surprisingly, even the New York Times can't square the circle:

The president continued to take credit for deficit reduction by making a claim that has been challenged by many experts.

"If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made," the deficit over the next 10 years would be $2.2 trillion greater, the president said.

In fact, $1.5 trillion of those "savings" are mainly based on an assumption that the United States would have had as many troops in Iraq in 10 years as it did when Mr. Obama took office. But before leaving office, President George W. Bush signed an agreement with Baghdad mandating the withdrawal of all American forces within three years.

So Mr. Obama is claiming credit for not spending money that, under the policy he inherited from Mr. Bush, would never have been spent in the first place.

Right Wing News posted its monthly "temperature check" of conservative bloggers, asking about Al Franken, Sarah Palin, Honduras and Iran. I was one of those surveyed. My answers: no, no, no, B, no, D.

Read the whole thing.

Recently, Assistant Village Idiot commented that man-made global warming "is socially settled, but not scientifically." In the July 24th London Times Times, Antonia Senior develops that theme, with analogies to the ideological battles of the turn of the last century:

The split between Right and Left is no longer ideological, but tribal. Are you a nice social liberal who believes in markets, or a nasty social liberal who believes in markets? Anthony Blunt’s memoirs, published this week, reveal a different age, one in which fascism and communism were locked in a seemingly definitive battle for souls.

Blunt talks of "the religious quality" of the enthusiasm for the Left among the students of Cambridge. There is only one ideology in today’s developed world that exercises a similar grip. If Blunt were young today, he would not be red; he would be green.

His band of angry young men would find Gore where once they found Marx. Blunt evokes a febrile atmosphere in which each student felt his own decision had the power to shape the future. Where once they raged about the fleecing of the proletariat and quaked at the march of fascism, Blunt and his circle, transposed to today’s college bar, would rage about the fleecing of the planet and quake at its imminent destruction. If you squint, red and green look disarmingly similar. . .

My desire to live a free, mundane life is a fundamental cog in our messy, glorious, capitalist democracy. It is built on millions of such small entrenched postitions. Red-filtered, my desires are despicable and bourgeois and must be beaten out of me with indoctrination or force. Green-filtered, my small desires are despicable acts of ecological vandalism. My house is a carbon factory. My desire to travel, to own stuff, to eat meat, to procreate, to heat my house, to shower for a really, really long time; all are evil.

The word evil is used advisedly. Both the green and red positions are infused with overpowering religiosity. Dissenters from the consensus are shunned apostates. . .

We are at the early stage of the green movement. A time akin to pre-Bolshevik socialism, when all believed in the destruction of the capitalist system, but were still relatively moderate about the means of getting there. We are at the stage of naive dreamers and fantasists. Russia was home to the late 19th-century Narodnik movement, in which rich sons of the aristocracy headed into the countryside to tell the peasants it was their moral imperative to become a revolutionary class. They retreated, baffled, to their riches when the patronised peasants didn’t want to revolt. Zac Goldsmith and Prince Charles look like modern Narodniks, talking glib green from the safety of their gilded lives.

Indulge me in some historical determinism. We, the peasants, are failing to rise up and embrace the need to change. We will not choose to give up modern life, with all its polluting seductions. Our intransigent refusal to choose green will be met by a new militancy from those who believe we must be saved from ourselves. Ultra-green states cannot arise without some form of forced switch to autocracy; the dictatorship of the environmentalists.

Agreed. Further evidence appeared last week, in the wake of George Will's provocative global warming column that quoted Mark Steyn saying: "If you’re 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life." Progressives promptly went nuts: Ezra Klein ("a misrepresentation of the clear trends"); Kevin Drum ("Charlatanism"); smartmonkey at Daily Kos ("Will is a shameless liar"); Brad Johnson at ThinkProgress ("fact-challenged screeds"); Ryan Avent ("This is moronic"); and Media Matters ("climate experts reject the notion").

I get it that a former Vice President, an ex-railway engineer and many scientists "reject the notion." But the data (along with many other scientists) support Will and Steyn:


source: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Satellite and Information Service, annual mean temperature in CONUS 1998-2008

As Jim Manzi says at The Corner:

It’s hard to dispute this. What Ezra, Kevin, and Ryan are arguing is the idiotic, moronic, or whatever notion that the past ten years of data disproves the theory of AGW. Their basic argument is "sure, but look at the long-term trend." I agree with them about the conclusion that the last ten years of raw data don’t falsify the theory (and have argued this at many times in many places), but I’m not sure any of them have thought through this question fully.

If I observe that it is cooler in New York today than yesterday, no reasonable person would take that as proof that AGW theory is wrong. On the other hand, if we had rapid growth of human population and rapid fossil-fuel-dependent economic development for the next 1,000 years with no increase in surface temperatures, no reasonable person would claim that AGW in anything like its current form had not been disproven. The question is at what point between 1 day and 1,000 years do I have enough evidence that I can reasonably reject the theory? It seems to me that you need a rational standard to answer this question before you simply call ten years "moronic" a priori. . .

But the instincts of those who are grasping for some way to hold the tools used to make temperature predictions accountable to reality in some way are sound, even if their method is somewhat misguided. They aren’t idiots or morons, they’re just not specialists, and the government they pay for, which in turn funds the model construction project, hasn’t bothered to do its job and provide the best feasible measurements of the value of these models.

I would add that AGW could be correct without necessarily justifying carbon cuts, the benefits of which no green has shown outweighing the costs.

Conclusion: An ancient proverb holds "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." Today, whom the liberals would destroy, they first label liar and moron. Group think and collective demonization is easier than fact-checking. (Some newspapers were so committed to warming they deleted the paragraph with Steyn's quote from Will's article!) Besides, fact-checking might disprove warming:

Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

Peer pressure, yes. Just don't call it science.

From the 'You Cannot Kill Cronyism' department as reported by the Denver Post, several weeks ago:

Gov. Bill Ritter turned down a $75-an-hour offer from the Colorado attorney general's office to handle legal matters regarding the disbursement of federal stimulus funds, instead hiring his former law partners for up to six times that cost.

The governor's lawyers told the attorney general's office in February that they planned to hire outside counsel to help with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money. Deputy Attorney General Geoff Blue told them his office was willing to do it, but his offer was rejected.

"They thought we didn't have the expertise or manpower," said Blue, who handles legal policy and government affairs. "We would've gotten the job done. But we told them, 'That's your call,' and we had nothing more to do with it."

A few weeks later, Ritter hired Hogan & Hartson through a no-bid contract. So far, the firm has been paid $40,000 from federal funds.

Apparently, spending money from the stimulus bill requires legal expertise. Several hundred hours of it. And, not just any legal eagles, no... the Colorado Attorney General's office is not good enough. They need the $400+ an hour lawyers for legal advice on how properly spend Stimulus dough.

Although Colorado has laws governing the circumstances under which the state can contract, the governor and other elected officials are exempt. In 1941, the state legislature buried a sentence in an unrelated section of the law that essentially permits elected officials to disregard procurement rules — including a requirement to seek multiple bids — when entering into contracts.

Although the firm is working at a discount, lawyers receive either $290 or $450 an hour, depending on who is working on the case.

So, not only does the government exempt itself from its own procurement laws, the governor is hiring his old law-firm buddies at outrageous rates, all in a mad rush to spend tax dollars borrowed from our grandchildren. The legal product -- is it a self-licking lollypop?

The claim: According to stefan at the climate-alarmist website RealClimate on June 21st:

Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago -- such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice. "The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007″, says the new report.

The rebuttal: By Roger Pielke Sr. at Climate Science on June 30th:

[T]he author of the weblog makes the statement that the following climate metrics "are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago";

1. "rising sea levels"

NOT TRUE; e.g. see the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change analysis.

Sea level has actually flattened since 2006.

2. "the increase of heat stored in the ocean"

NOT TRUE; see

Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions.

Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003.

3. "shrinking Arctic sea ice"

NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased.

The graphs: First, using the most recent University of Colorado satellite altimeter measurements, Bob Tisdale plotted monthly ocean levels by region since December 1992 at Climate Observations on July 22nd:


source: Climate Observations

Second, with the same dataset, Anthony Watts plotted the global numbers at Watts Up With That? on July 18th, using "no smoothing or trend lines":


source: Watts Up With That?

Watts concludes:

The newest one also looks "flat" to me since 2006, maybe even a slight downtrend since 2006. Let the wailing and gnashing begin anew.

Previous NOfP sea story wailing and gnashing here, here, here, here and here.

Rich Lowry at The Corner:

Democrats are having a tough time of it on health care and Obama's numbers are sinking, but they still have one enormous advantage, as E. J. Dionne reminds us today: raw power. No matter how incoherent the Democrats' health-care program is or how unpersuasive they are in selling it, they still have a lot of votes to play with.

The climate models used by James Hansen and the IPCC are way off, yet I can't remember the New York Times counseling caution about carbon caps. But compare Saturday's Times story dismissing the influence of solar cycles on temperature change:

With better telescopes on the ground and a fleet of Sun-watching spacecraft, solar scientists know a lot more about the Sun than ever before. But they do not understand everything. Solar dynamo models, which seek to capture the dynamics of the magnetic field, cannot yet explain many basic questions, not even why the solar cycles average 11 years in length.

Predicting the solar cycle is, in many ways, much like predicting the stock market. A full understanding of the forces driving solar dynamics is far out of reach, so scientists look to key indicators that correlate with future events and create models based on those.

Unlike climate prediction models, which are much more certain!

The same article insists:

The idea that solar cycles are related to climate is hard to fit with the actual change in energy output from the sun. From solar maximum to solar minimum, the Sun’s energy output drops a minuscule 0.1 percent.

Ok, but I don't recall the Times rejecting the carbon dioxide-forced warming hypothesis on the grounds that "[o]nly 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air are CO₂," which is 0.039 percent.

Plainly, skepticism in service of socialism is no vice. So, get over the giddy-ness about "restor[ing] science to its rightful place." For press and pundits, lefty slant routinely slays reason.

(via Planet Gore, Maggie's Farm)

Prior to her resignation, Governor Palin's odds at Intrade were bouncing around between 10 and 15%. According to Intrade, Palin's resignation caused a momentary blip where her odds dipped briefly to the single digits, but then bounced right back up to the 15% level, closing Tuesday at 16%.

It remains to be seen what the future holds, but according to Intrade, the announcement had no immediate lasting impact on her potential as a presidential nominee.

UPDATE: below

Nobel Prize-winning economist Thomas Schelling, interviewed in the Atlantic about climate change and the chances of reaching international agreements limiting emissions:

I do think that one of the difficulties is that most of the beneficiaries aren't yet born. More than that: Most of the beneficiaries will be born in what we now call the developing world. By 2080 or 2100 five-sixths of the population, at least, will be in places like China, India, Indonesia, Africa and so forth. And what I don't know is whether Americans are really willing to understand that and do anything for the benefit of the unborn Chinese.

It's a tough sell. And probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat. . .

I tend to be rather pessimistic. I sometimes wish that we could have, over the next five or ten years, a lot of horrid things happening -- you know, like tornadoes in the Midwest and so forth -- that would get people very concerned about climate change. But I don't think that's going to happen.

We've seen this movie before.

MORE:

Assistant Village Idiot in comments: "AGW is socially settled, but not scientifically." Agreed.

(via Watts Up With That?)

Having published the cartoon at the top of NOfP for years, Carl and I both support DayByDay with donations.

If you enjoy one of the only conservative daily cartoons, we urge you to do so as well.

Make a donation at DayByDay.

Immediately upon taking office, President Obama vowed to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within a year, saying that shuttering Camp X-Ray would make America safer. The first step was supposed to be a Justice Department report to the President in six months, but that task force finding has been delayed as much as a further half year, likely mooting the January 2010 deadline (though the White House fantasizes otherwise). The ACLU went nuts, though the media mostly gave the President the benefit of the doubt--in contrast to how they would have treated an analogous postponement under Bush.

There's no excuse for the partisan press. But the outcome is positive, as Don Surber says:

For two years, Barack Obama ragged on President Bush and Gitmo. Now that he has the responsibility for protecting the national security, he must be more cautious -- more Bush-like. . . But give the guy a break. He’s only been on the job 6 months. He is smart enough to realize now how nonsensical all his campaign trash talk about Gitmo was.

Campaigning is easier than governing, which Obama seems to understand regarding foreign policy. If only the media could nudge him away from the campaign toward the center on economic issues like healthcare and cap-and-trade.

(via Stop the ACLU, Doug Ross)

UPDATE: Zelaya now accused of theft of Millions from Honduras Central Bank. How long can the MSM, the UN, the EU, the OAS and the Obama Administration continue to support former Presidente Zelaya? If the main stream media, the EU, the UN, the OAS and Obama administration called for Rod Blagojevich to be reinstated, how would the people of Illinois react?
=====================================================================
There is a lot happening in Honduras right now, and the so-called Main Stream Media is only telling part of the story, as it lobbies for the left. The evidence continues to mount over Zelaya's traitorous acts, Honduras cuts off diplomatic relations as Chavez threatens military action and much, much more:

Zelaya: Massive Vote Fraud in Honduras--Forty five computers were seized, the computers had Zelaya's 'Referendum Results' pre-loaded. We can now add pre-canned vote fraud to the charges pending against former Presidente Zelaya. La Gringa, at Blogcito, a contemporary of NOfP, has a photo of the computers, and has this to say:

Agents of the DNIC (criminal investigation) discovered ballots, computers, and certified vote counts in an office rented by Enrique Flores Lanza, member of Zelaya's mediating team who you may remember made a L. 40 million cash withdrawal from the central bank two days before the election was to occur. The count sheets neatly tallied the yes and no votes, the blank or disqualified votes, and the totals for various mesas (polling places).

You won't be surprised to learn that Zelaya's proposal won heartily with approximately 80% affirmative votes.

Though this find was widely reported in the Honduran media, complete with reporters on the site of the investigation in process, here we are three days later and I'm willing to bet that you haven't heard about it yet from the media in your country.

Isn't it crazy that you have to read this in our tiny blog, and in a New Zealand newspaper?

Chavez Threatens Military Action, Honduras Government Expels Venezuelan Diplomats, Breaks Off Relations--Honduras has had enough meddling from Venezuela, and has expelled Venezuelan diplomats. This is a blow to the Chavez-supported socialist movement in Honduras. Chavez is apparently threatening military intervention to the point that the Honduran Government asked for UN Security Council intervention to respond to Chavez threats.

Honduras Sends Bi-Partisan Delegation to Lobby US--The Christian Science Monitor is reporting that Honduran President Micheletti sent a team of Hondurans to Washington to lobby the Obama administration. The effort is diverse and representative, including a Christian Democrat labor leader, businessmen, soldiers, and a university law professor who is in an opposition party. The main-stream media is still referring to Honduras as a Coup d'etat. Have you ever heard of a 'military coup' that sends bi-partisan delegations anywhere?

Arturo Valenzuela Nomination Withheld over Craptastic Nomination Hearing--Meanwhile, in the United States, it looks like Arturo Valenzuela blew up his nomination to a cushy job in Dept. of State. Boomberg reports that Senator DeMint is blocking his nomination based on his inconsistent answers to questions about Honduras. Bloomberg quotes the same contradictory and ignorant lines quoted in this blog from his nomination interview.

US, UN and EU Continue to Pressure Tiny Honduras--The Obama Administration threatens additional sanctions, Hillary Clinton personally calls President Micheletti to demand Zelaya's return and to warn him of consequences if he dismisses mediation efforts. The UN refuses to recognize Micheletti Administration of Honduras. The EU suspends budget payments.

Meanwhile, Honduras in Final Four of CONCACAF--Honduras advanced to the Final Four at CONCACAF. Honduras plays the United States on Thursday. Good luck to both teams.

Putting It All Together

Honduras is a beacon of democracy, standing firm, shining a blazing light of truth on the UN, the EU and the OAS. Those three organizations demonstrate what little regard they have for democracy and the rule of law. In the meantime, President Obama has been practicing his apology speech all over the world, it is about time he apologizes to the free people of Honduras for his proposal to re-impose a leftist fraud on them. And, La Gringa sums up the main stream media:

How can Honduras get a fair shot if none of the major media outlets are reporting the facts. It is NOT acceptable to dismiss news by saying, "Oh, it's coming out of the Honduran media therefore it must be false." Reporters, come down and find out for yourself, please! Our newspapers have political leanings just like all of yours. That doesn't mean that everything they report is false.

MORE: PJTV has an inside report from Honduras Pajamas Media says worst case outcome is civil war.

Still MORE: For the alternate view from the left wing, read this Huffington Post blog:

"No coup just happens because some politicians and military men decide one day to simply take over" says White upon hearing who Davis is working for. "Coups happen because very wealthy people want them and help to make them happen, people who are used to seeing the country as a money machine and suddenly see social legislation on behalf of the poor as a threat to their interests. The average wage of a worker in free trade zones is 77 cents per hour."

The author is blaming wealth for a "coup" (which didn't happen). The author says that one lobbyist paid for by a big company is evidence of a massive right wing dictatorship. If that is true then what does that say about the lobbying system in the United States? I'd like to spend an entire post dissecting the HuffPo blogger. It would give me great pleasure. He has one point that I agree with though -- socialism is a barrier to free trade. Just ask anyone from the former Soviet Union.

H/T to Instapundit

Labels: Honduras

From a July 21st Associated Press piece:

Congressional Democrats warned President Barack Obama on Tuesday that he sounded too much like George W. Bush when he declared this summer that the White House can ignore legislation he thinks oversteps the Constitution.

In a letter to the president, four senior House members said they were "surprised" and "chagrined" by Obama's statement in June accompanying a war spending bill that he would ignore restrictions placed on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Obama said he wouldn't allow the provisions to interfere with his authority as president to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with other governments.

The rebuff was reminiscent of Bush, who issued a record number of "signing statements" while in office. The statements put Congress on notice that the administration didn't feel compelled to comply with provisions of legislation that it felt challenged the president's authority as commander in chief.

Democrats, including Obama, sharply criticized Bush for his reliance on the statements. Obama said he would use them sparingly and only if authorized by the attorney general.

"During the previous administration, all of us were critical of the president's assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of congressional statutes he was required to enforce," the lawmakers wrote. "We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude."

(via Don Surber)

Summer in Washington can be brutal and boring, so the healthcare "reform" legislation has provided much-needed comedic relief. First, there was the claim that healthcare is a fundamental "right"--which the various draft bills would, uh, enforce, by trillions in new spending and tax hikes in the hundreds of billions, notwithstanding the Dems' distortions. Some "right." Then there was Republican Tom Coburn's amendment requiring all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan. The provision was OKed by a Senate Committee--barely--despite 11 Democrats voting "nay." Because "do as I say, not as I do" is the DNC's unofficial motto. And don't forget the low-level guffaws, like government healthcare will cut costs, pay for itself, and continue to foster top-flight medical technology--but President Obama himself will stick with private insurance for his family.

But the best joke of all is contained in HR 3200, which the House Ways and Means Committee approved last week. At 1,018 pages, I'm just now reading the text. Section 102 of HR 3200 is titled "Protecting the choice to keep current coverage," but sub-section (a)(1)(A) details (see page 15) a "limitation on new enrollment" of "grandfathered" private plans:

Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1 [the year the legislation becomes law].

Last year, Obama promised: "If you've got health care already, and probably the majority of you do, then you can keep your plan if you are satisfied with it." Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee said (grammar in original) "If an individual likes their current plan, they will be able to keep it." What they really meant: welcome to the government-provided plan. Investor's Business Daily rightly concludes:

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised -- with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

One upside: it's possible that changing jobs in three or seven years might undermine President Obama's desire to stick with private health insurance coverage. Still, his "public plan" probably will be better: he and his family are entitled to free medical care for life.

From the July 12th San Jose Mercury News:

City officials in Richmond [California] are snuffing out smoking in apartments, condominiums and public places, making it the hardest place in the San Francisco Bay area to smoke.

The City Council approved an ordinance this month that will ban lighting up in all multiunit housing by Jan. 1, 2011. Officials say smoking in multiunit housing exposes people to secondhand smoke, which can travel between apartments.

The city has already banned smoking in parks, farmers markets and other public places. Fines start at $100 for violating the bans.

Richmond was given an "F" by the American Lung Association in January, which got city leaders to move quickly to enact tougher restrictions to discourage smoking and reduce secondhand smoke.

Two years ago, btw, Richmond was the per-capita murder capital of California, suggesting the city has more important law enforcement issues about which to worry.

(via Protein Wisdom)

UPDATE: below

The good news: a delegation from the ultra-liberal Human Rights Watch visited Saudi Arabia, instead of inventing absurd and unlikely Israeli atrocities.

The bad news: HRW wasn't investigating the Kingdom's lack of religious freedom or equality for women. Rather, HRW was "mainly stressing the need for support to add to the credibility to our SA work." So, at the meetings, says Arab News:

HRW presented a documentary and spoke on the report they compiled on Israel violating human rights and international law during its war on Gaza earlier this year.

"Human Rights Watch provided the international community with evidence of Israel using white phosphorus and launching systematic destructive attacks on civilian targets. Pro-Israel pressure groups in the US, the European Union and the United Nations have strongly resisted the report and tried to discredit it," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of HRW's Middle East and North Africa Division.

Whitson pointed out that the group managed to testify about Israeli abuses to the US Congress on three occasions. "US President Barack Obama and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on Israel and the Hamas authorities in Gaza to cooperate with the United Nations fact-finding mission to investigate the allegations of serious Israeli violations during the war on Gaza.

In other words, HRW was highlighting its anti-Israel history to gain Arab help.

Of course, it's true that HRW doesn't take direct government funding. However, while in country it: "made presentations on our work to two private audiences in Saudi Arabia in May 2009 . . . These were receptions in private homes, hosted by people who were interested in Human Rights Watch and who invited other guests to learn more about us." This at a time, according to Arab News, when, "The group is facing a shortage of funds because of the global financial crisis and the work on Israel and Gaza, which depleted HRW's budget for the region." So HRW's Ms. Whitson defended soliciting Saudis, saying it should be "applauded."

No. To be clear, I wouldn't bar HRW from accepting money from private-sector Saudi individuals--presuming it screens out the numerous Royals and execs from nationalized businesses (such as oil). But HRW buttered-up petro-pockets by bashing Israel. That's not objectivity--it's the persistence of bias and prejudice HRW deploys to demonize the mid-East's most free democracy while downplaying terrorist atrocities and culpability.

Israel isn't always right; I presume there are some transgressions. But, after surrendering its integrity for 30 pieces of silver, HRW can't be trusted to know the difference.

MORE:

According to Ms Whitson, the critique of HRW is "fundamentally a racist one." To the contrary, as Ron Kampeas says: "I don't know how, after this, HRW is not fatally compromised when it comes to reporting Israel."

(via normblog)

From xkcd:


source: xkcd 612

Happy fortieth anniversary of the first walk on the moon--where men may never return.

Item: On July 8th, Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at Adelaide University, author of Heaven And Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science (2009), interviewed by James Delingpole in the Spectator (U.K.):

The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology.

I’m a geologist. We geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing AGW is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.

I’m a natural scientist. I’m out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.

Item: On July 13th, the abstract of a multi-author paper published in Nature Geoscience under the title "Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum warming" (footnotes omitted):

The Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks. The key feature of this event is the release of a large mass of 13C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the Earth's surface, although the source remains an open issue. Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5-9 °C within a few thousand years. Here we use published palaeorecords of deep-sea carbonate dissolution, and stable carbon isotope composition, along with a carbon cycle model to constrain the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 Pg C or less, with an isotopic composition lighter than -50permil. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.

Item: On July 13th:


source: Icecap via Deroy Murdock



Item: On July 17th, Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004, appeared in an article in the Salt Lake City Tribune:

[Tripp] was the subject of is listed as one of 450 IPCC "lead authors" who reviewed reports from 800 contributing writers whose work in turn, was reviewed by more than 2,500 experts worldwide. (Tripp, a metallurgical engineer, is the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.)

At Thursday’s [Utah Farm Bureau] convention, Tripp found a receptive audience among the 250 people attending the conference. He said there is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made. "It well may be, but we’re not scientifically there yet."

Tripp also criticized modeling schemes to evaluate global warming, but stopped short of commenting on climate modeling used by the IPCC, saying "I don’t have the expertise."

Item: On July 15th:


source: Doug Hoffman at The Resilient Earth

Hoffman also says:

The absorption frequencies of CO2 are already saturated, meaning that the atmosphere already captures close to 100% of the radiation at those frequencies. Consequently, as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the rise in temperature for a given increase in CO2 becomes smaller. This sorely limits the amount of warming further increases in CO2 can engender.

Item: On July 17th, speaking in Shanghai, America's Secretary of Commerce was quoted in the Wall Street Journal:

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said something amazing--U.S. consumers should pay for part of Chinese greenhouse-gas emissions. From Reuters:

It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America -- and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that.

Questions: On July 11th, asked by Australian Senator Stephen Fielding to Australian climate change minister Penny Wong, reprinted in the Telegraph (U.K.) (hyperlinks added):

How, since temperatures have been dropping, can [increased] CO2 be blamed for them rising? What, if CO2 was the cause of recent warming, was the cause of temperatures rising higher in the past? Why, since the official computer models have been proved wrong, should we rely on them for future projections?

(via James Lewis at Pajamas Media, Watts Up With That?, Reuters)