People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Saturday, February 09, 2008

Smoking Bans Are Only a Small Part Of It

You're too stupid to make a distinction between - and decide between - those restaurants where the air is clean and those where smokers are allowed/encouraged to freely enjoy themselves in the manner they most prefer. Thus you'll have to learn to accept all these banning efforts.

And if you're too stupid to know what's best for you when it comes to secondhand smoke, you sure as hell can't be trusted to make decisions when it comes to issues of vital import.

A book review:

Climate change threatens the future of civilization, but humanity is impotent in effecting solutions. Even in those nations with a commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions, they continue to rise. This failure mirrors those in many other spheres that deplete the fish of the sea, erode fertile land, destroy native forests, pollute rivers and streams, and utilize the world's natural resources beyond their replacement rate. In this provocative book, Shearman and Smith present evidence that the fundamental problem causing environmental destruction--and climate change in particular--is the operation of liberal democracy.

Having argued that democracy has failed humanity, the authors go even further and demonstrate that this failure can easily lead to authoritarianism without our even noticing. Even more provocatively, they assert that there is merit in preparing for this eventuality if we want to survive climate change. They are not suggesting that existing authoritarian regimes are more successful in mitigating greenhouse emissions, for to be successful economically they have adopted the market system with alacrity. Nevertheless, the authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power.

Coming to an internment camp near you.

Book cover courtesy of Amazon.
Click on image to enlarge.

So We're Not Going To Die From Global Warming

We're going to die from global cooling:
The Sun Also Sets
Investors Business Daily editorial

Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance. (link)
It stands to reason, then, that we need to be manufacturing a whole lot more protective (heat-trapping) greenhouse gases. And quick. Our lives depend on it.

While every politician on the planet dicks around with carbon offsets and curlicue lightbulbs ...

Where Else Are You Going To Go?

I'm amused by all the conservative pundits out there who are now turning to a discussion about the possible choices John McCain might make for a Veep running mate. Stephen Green's is typical:

... McCain’s pick for vice president might be the most important decision any nominee has ever made. If he picks the right person, he might just get my vote.

Wrong person: Mike Huckabee ...

Right person: Fred Thompson, or any other principled federalist who understands there’s a war on. This is a short list. Tom Coburn would make the cut, too. So would Duncan Hunter. I’m at a loss to think of another.
Principled federalist. John McCain.

Can we get real, just for a moment?

John McCain got what he wanted from you. He now has the Republican nomination locked up. And he got just enough (begrudging) conservative support to pull it off. He now no longer needs you. And he knows what Hillary and the Democrats know about the black vote:
Where else are you going to go come election day?

So don't look to McCain to find that quality conservative running mate. Look for some "centrist," some "unifier" to join him in the general election campaign. Probably female. Maybe a Democrat.

You're now his to do with whatever he pleases. Get used to it.

Getting To The Nut Of The Issue

In all the years I've been on this earth, the courts, along with legislatures high and low around the country, have been dancing around the issue. That issue: What exactly does the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights mean? Looks like we're going to find out. Finally. Once and for all.

Vice President Cheney, along with 55 senators and 250 representatives filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court Thursday on behalf of the respondent that posed the critical question most important to us all:


Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code
secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 —
violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals
who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia,
but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for
private use in their homes? (my emphasis)

They then take 58 (pdf) pages to answer the question with a resounding Yes!

Not being an attorney or a politican, I might have used the term Hell Yes! But that's why I'm here and they are there.

Anyway, we're about to resolve this issue. Exciting stuff.

The News You'll Not See ... In The News

Didn't the Republicans lose their majority in Congress (in part at least) over some incident involving a representative text-messaging lewd communications to underage boys? As I recall, Mark Foley left in disgrace and the GOP was sent to the hinterlands over it.

With that in mind, I wonder where this news about a top official in Massachusetts government ranks on the scale of "justice":
Key aide to Patrick accused of sex assault
By Andrea Estes, Boston Globe Staff

A top official in the [Devol] Patrick administration has been placed on unpaid leave because he was arrested in Florida and charged with sexually assaulting a 15-year-old male in a steam room at a $500-a-night Gulf Coast resort.

Carl Stanley McGee, 38, assistant secretary for policy and planning, is scheduled to be arraigned next week for sexual battery in Lee County, Fla. McGee helped draft Patrick's casino bill, life sciences legislation, and his plan to bring broadband Internet service to the farthest reaches of the state.

According to police reports, McGee was arrested Dec. 28 and accused of performing oral sex on the 15-year-old, who was a guest at The Gasparilla Inn & Club, a 95-year-old hotel and championship golf course in Boca Grande. McGee was held overnight on a $300,000 bond. (link)
What? It didn't even make the nightly news? Go figure.

Clintons Complain. NBC Grovels.

This is par for the course for the cowards in the mainstream press:

Reporter initially defended Chelsea comment
By Michael Calderone, The Politico

Before MSNBC's David Shuster was suspended by the network Friday for on-air comments he made about Chelsea Clinton, the television reporter engaged in a heated correspondence with a spokesman for Hillary Clinton in which he defended his appearance and refused demands to apologize.

On Thursday, Shuster guest-hosted Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show, "Tucker," and in referring to Chelsea Clinton's role in calling superdelegates on behalf of the Clinton presidential campaign, he asked if she was "sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"

Later that night, he heard from an outraged [Philippe Reines, "a longtime Clinton aide"], who called the remarks "absurdly offensive."

Shuster was unrepentant. He told Reines his commentary was justified because of the contrast between Chelsea Clinton's overt political role and the aggressive way campaign aides "jump down the throat" of reporters who seek to question her about it. (link)
Shuster, of course, mistook his role with NBC as being one involving journalism. In fact he, like all the other reporters for NBC, had been pimped out to the Clintons long ago. To be used as they saw fit.

David learns a lesson about "journalism" in modern America. The hard way.

- - -

A quote from National Review Online's Stephen Spruiell:

"Could it be that after his many, many fact errors and his blatant bias, the only thing that can get David Shuster suspended from MSNBC is the wrath of the Clinton campaign?"