Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Moribund U.S. economy turns frisky as women line up to claim affairs with Tiger Woods
Tiger Woods was braced for new trouble last night amid reports that at least two women are set to go public with claims that they had affairs with the world’s highest-earning sportsman.
RadarOnline.com a celebrity news website, reported that several women had come forward claiming to have had sex with the billion-dollar golfer, including one who purports to have “explosive” answerphone recordings.
Jaimee Grubbs, 24, a Las Vegas cocktail waitress, tells this week’s edition of Us Weekly magazine that she had a 31-month affair with Woods, starting in April 2007, and that she has more than 300 text messages — some of them described as “racy” — to prove it.
The magazine invites readers to log on to its website today to listen to a voicemail that Woods allegedly left Ms Grubbs on Tuesday of last week, “in which he suggests his wife might suspect he is having an affair”.
Meanwhile a nightclub hostess said to be at the centre of a violent showdown between Woods and his wife insisted yesterday that allegations that she had had an affair with him this year were “just dumb stuff”.
RadarOnline.com a celebrity news website, reported that several women had come forward claiming to have had sex with the billion-dollar golfer, including one who purports to have “explosive” answerphone recordings.
Jaimee Grubbs, 24, a Las Vegas cocktail waitress, tells this week’s edition of Us Weekly magazine that she had a 31-month affair with Woods, starting in April 2007, and that she has more than 300 text messages — some of them described as “racy” — to prove it.
The magazine invites readers to log on to its website today to listen to a voicemail that Woods allegedly left Ms Grubbs on Tuesday of last week, “in which he suggests his wife might suspect he is having an affair”.
Meanwhile a nightclub hostess said to be at the centre of a violent showdown between Woods and his wife insisted yesterday that allegations that she had had an affair with him this year were “just dumb stuff”.
Climategate: So much fraud, so little time and space
So many new developments: which story do we pick? Maybe best to summarise, instead. After all, it’s not like you’re going to find much of this reported in the MSM.
1. Australia’s Senate rejects Emissions Trading Scheme for a second time. Or: so turkeys don’t vote Christmas. Expect to see a lot more of this: politicians starting to become aware their party’s position on AGW is completely out of kilter with the public mood and economic reality. Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme – what Andrew Bolt calls “a $114 billion green tax on everything” – would have wreaked havoc on the coal-dependent Australian economy. That’s why several opposition Liberal frontbenchers resigned rather than vote with the Government on ETS; why Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull lost his job; and why the Senate voted down the ETS.
2. Danes caught fiddling their carbon credits. (Hat tip: Philip Stott) Carbon trading is the Emperor’s New Clothes of international finance. It was invented by none other than Ken Lay, whose Enron would currently be one of the prime beneficiaries in the global alternative energy market, if it hadn’t been shown to be (nearly) as fraudulent as the current AGW scam. It is a licence to fleece, cheat and rob. Still, jolly embarrassing for the Danes to get caught red handed, what with their hosting a conference shortly in which the world’s leaders will try, straight-faced, to persuade us that carbon emissions trading is the only viable way of defeating ManBearPig.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Exposure of global warming hoax topples Aussie pol; next election may turn on the issue
So the great climate e-mail fiasco has drawn blood – that of an opposition leader, no less, on the other side of the world. Australian Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull has been replaced by a climate sceptic, Tony Abbott, after ten of its most senior politicians resigned over its support for the Government’s plans for fighting global warming. They were, it seems, fired up by the hacked communications from the University of East Anglia (I really don’t want to call it Climategate, adding to the endless succession of ‘gates’ since the original one – and anyway Mark Steyn’s name, ‘warmergate’ is much wittier.)
As it happens I know Tony Abbott slightly, and once spent a very pleasant morning with him some years ago in his office in Manley, discussing green issues among other things. I even, at his request, gave him a line for a speech he was preparing. So it came as a bit of a surprise a little while ago when I heard that he had called the argument for climate change “absolute crap”. But, then it may have surprised him too, for this morning – in a quote to cherish – he said this “was not my most considered opinion”.
But this is not the end of it. The sceptics coup is likely to lead to a general election before long, fought on climate change. Global warming has been an election issue before – stronger action to combat it featured heavily in the new Japanese Goverment’s campaign which revolutionised the country’s politics, and indeed the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd used the issue to help unseat John Howard, George W. Bush’s strongest anti-Kyoto ally. But this would be the first climate election per se.
If so Australia is an appropriate place to hold it. Gripped by a 13 year drought, it is thought to be the rich country most vulnerable to global warming. Its climate is already hot and dry. Agriculture, so badly hit by the drought, is central to the economy. And most people and industry are concentrated on coasts, vulnerable to the rising seas and fiercer storms expected to accompany a warming world. On the other side of the coin, it also emits more carbon per person than any other country on earth.
As it happens I know Tony Abbott slightly, and once spent a very pleasant morning with him some years ago in his office in Manley, discussing green issues among other things. I even, at his request, gave him a line for a speech he was preparing. So it came as a bit of a surprise a little while ago when I heard that he had called the argument for climate change “absolute crap”. But, then it may have surprised him too, for this morning – in a quote to cherish – he said this “was not my most considered opinion”.
But this is not the end of it. The sceptics coup is likely to lead to a general election before long, fought on climate change. Global warming has been an election issue before – stronger action to combat it featured heavily in the new Japanese Goverment’s campaign which revolutionised the country’s politics, and indeed the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd used the issue to help unseat John Howard, George W. Bush’s strongest anti-Kyoto ally. But this would be the first climate election per se.
If so Australia is an appropriate place to hold it. Gripped by a 13 year drought, it is thought to be the rich country most vulnerable to global warming. Its climate is already hot and dry. Agriculture, so badly hit by the drought, is central to the economy. And most people and industry are concentrated on coasts, vulnerable to the rising seas and fiercer storms expected to accompany a warming world. On the other side of the coin, it also emits more carbon per person than any other country on earth.
Surveys show 14 % of scientists have witnessed misconduct by fellow scientists
The recent revelations of misrepresentation by CRU scientists about research on climate change should come as no surprise. Scientists, like all human beings, are sometimes tempted to lie or cheat and occasionally they succumb to those temptations.
Actually, scientists don't do too badly. According to a recent analysis of surveys of scientific misconduct:
In surveys asking about the behavior of colleagues, fabrication, falsification, and modification [of data] had been observed, on average, by over 14% of respondents, and other questionable practices [such as "dropping data points based on a gut feeling", and "changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressures from a funding source"] by up to 72%.
That's probably a better track record than sociologists or economists could muster. I shudder to think what the corresponding percentages would be for politicians or journalists.
But it's not good enough. Scientists are worthless if their data and reasoning cannot be entirely trusted. They have in effect signed a contract with society, pledging honesty and objectivity. When a scientist is caught in a lie, it should rarely, if ever, be forgiven or forgotten. Then why did the scientists at CRU indulge in such reckless, career-shattering antics?
Actually, scientists don't do too badly. According to a recent analysis of surveys of scientific misconduct:
In surveys asking about the behavior of colleagues, fabrication, falsification, and modification [of data] had been observed, on average, by over 14% of respondents, and other questionable practices [such as "dropping data points based on a gut feeling", and "changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressures from a funding source"] by up to 72%.
That's probably a better track record than sociologists or economists could muster. I shudder to think what the corresponding percentages would be for politicians or journalists.
But it's not good enough. Scientists are worthless if their data and reasoning cannot be entirely trusted. They have in effect signed a contract with society, pledging honesty and objectivity. When a scientist is caught in a lie, it should rarely, if ever, be forgiven or forgotten. Then why did the scientists at CRU indulge in such reckless, career-shattering antics?
71 % of voters unhappy with feds; 29 % to go
Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 46% who are Very Angry.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 27% are not angry about the government's policies, including 10% who are Not at All Angry.
Men are angrier than women, and voters over 40 are more angry than those who are younger. A majority of those over 40 are Very Angry. Only 25% of under-30 voters share that view.
The data suggests that the level of anger is growing. The 71% who are angry at federal government policies today is up five percentage points since September.
Even more stunning, the 46% who are Very Angry is up 10 percentage points from September.
Among the nation’s Political Class, just six percent (6%) are angry. However, among those with more Mainstream, or populist, views, 85% are angry. A majority of Americans today hold views that can be described as Mainstream or populist. Very few align with the Political Class (see more information on this divide).
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 27% are not angry about the government's policies, including 10% who are Not at All Angry.
Men are angrier than women, and voters over 40 are more angry than those who are younger. A majority of those over 40 are Very Angry. Only 25% of under-30 voters share that view.
The data suggests that the level of anger is growing. The 71% who are angry at federal government policies today is up five percentage points since September.
Even more stunning, the 46% who are Very Angry is up 10 percentage points from September.
Among the nation’s Political Class, just six percent (6%) are angry. However, among those with more Mainstream, or populist, views, 85% are angry. A majority of Americans today hold views that can be described as Mainstream or populist. Very few align with the Political Class (see more information on this divide).
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Call in the death panel; ObamaCare too sick to save
Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.
Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.
Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.
Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.
Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.
Senate rjeport: Osama bin Laden was within reach of U.S. forces in Tora Bora in 2001
Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.
The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for today's reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says.
Staff members for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Democratic majority prepared the report at the request of the chairman, Sen. John Kerry, as President Barack Obama prepares to boost U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for today's reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says.
Staff members for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Democratic majority prepared the report at the request of the chairman, Sen. John Kerry, as President Barack Obama prepares to boost U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Mark Steyn on Fort Hood shooter:"political correctness was his enabler, every step of the way"
,,,a constrained and regulated culture policed by politically correct enforcers leads to slaughter. I’m not being speculative here, as Commissar Lynch is about my murderous prose style. It’s already happened, just a couple of weeks back. Thirteen men and women plus an unborn baby were gunned down at Fort Hood by a major in the U.S. Army. Nidal Hasan was the perpetrator, but political correctness was his enabler, every step of the way. In the days that followed, the near parodically absurd revelations piled up like an overripe satire, but a two-panel cartoon at the Toronto blogger Scaramouche’s website provided the pithiest distillation:
“This is your brain. This is your brain on political correctness”—a small and shrivelled thing.
“This is your brain. This is your brain on political correctness”—a small and shrivelled thing.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
Obama pioneers a bold tactic in negotiations: when the adversary's argument blows up, concede
So, on the heels of a dramatic exposure of the scientfic fraud that has fueled the global warming hoax, hoax-master Al Gore salutes President Obama for pioneering a new American stance on the issue.
How did Obama do that? By announcing that he would be in Copenhagen on Dec. 9 to offer U.S. concessions. The U.S. will curb carbon emissions by 17 % from 2006 levels by 2020.
This will be the first time the U.S. has offered such concessions, which would raise the cost of doing business in the U.S., make U.S. manufacturers less competitive in international markets, and blaze a new trail in the annals of negotiation tactics. The new rule will read as follows: "As soon as your opponent's argument has been blown up beyond retrieval, concede to his demands."
Never mind that no other nation will follow the lead of the U.S. We will have won a place in the hearts of our nonfriends and enemies, and that's what counts. After all, the obvious goal of President Obama is to downsize America's role and standing in the world. Hobbling American business and the economy will do that.
This demonstrates, once again, that leftist certitudes never die; they just are reworked to fit altered environments. Even when yes becomes no, leftists seldom lose a step.
How can they pull this off?
Practice. Practice. Practice.
The godfather of modern leftist collectivism, in all its forms, is Karl Marx, a German intellectual who moved to England early in the industrial revolution. In 1848, he authored the Communist Manifesto, which explored in detail the miserable conditions of England's workers and theorized that the abused workers would eventually rise up and take control of the factories.
From this base, they would capture control of the government as well.
Over ths ensuing 161 years, this never happened anywhere in the world.
In semi-feudal Russia, in 1917, anti-czarists murdered Czar Nicholas II and his family, creating a power vacuum that was filled by expatriate intellectual Vladimir Lenin and motley associates who eventually set up a communist regime.
In China, Communists won a civil war.
Eastern Europe fell into the communist sphere through occupation by Russia.
In Cuba, Fidel Castro and his ragtag communist army overthrew the hated Batista regime.
in Korea, the United Nations fenced off the north, a Chinese sphere of influence, to enable journalists to deploy the phrase "lunatic leader" as often as they liked.
Nowhere did the workers rise up and seize control of a country, as Marx had envisaged.
To top it off, British historian Paul Johnson made an amazing discovery. Having carved out a niche through his exposure of the lies, distortions and depravities of famous intellectuals, Johnson searched for evidence that Marx had ever set foot in a factory.
He found none. So, Marx has his chapter in Johnson's book, "Intellectuals," along with Percy Shelley, Henrik Ibsen, Leon Tolstoy, Ernest Hemingway, Bertolt Brecht, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and Edmund Wilson.
Although Marxist theory failed utterly in the real world, it captured huge swaths in the worlds of theory and theology.
Few, if any, university departments of economics, political science and history have escaped Marxist inluence. In some English departments, literature now plays second fiddle to leftist politics. Whole new departments, featuring courses like postmodern studies, ethnic studies and women's studies have sprung up since the 1950s. David Horowitz has come up with a useful rule of thumb: any course name with the word "studies" in it should be regarded with suspicion.
Most, if not all, of those courses shared a purpose, which was to train students to think of themselves as victims.
Not surprisingly, university professors have been among the leading table pounders for global warming.
Now, they have a dilemma. Alarmists have claimed for many years that manmade global warming was going on now. It wasn't, and isn't. The hysteria was based on faudulent science. It's time to back down.
In the real world, marxists can keep right on dreaming of the belated revolution of the workers. Marx didn't put a time limit on his theory.
Gore, who won his Nobel in 2007 for his excellent propaganda on climate change, said that Obama "took an important step" by announcing he would attend the Copenhagen talks on a new climate treaty. Why they need a new treaty is puzzling because hardly anyone paid any attention to the old one, which lies there in pristine condition.
Gore's words may signify a downshift in Democrat expectations. It used to be that Democrats celebrated when they passed a bill growing government and spending more money. Now, Gore is declaring victory on grounds Obama is taking another trip.
Bear in mind that Obama's concession, like Marx's prediction, is on the come.
How did Obama do that? By announcing that he would be in Copenhagen on Dec. 9 to offer U.S. concessions. The U.S. will curb carbon emissions by 17 % from 2006 levels by 2020.
This will be the first time the U.S. has offered such concessions, which would raise the cost of doing business in the U.S., make U.S. manufacturers less competitive in international markets, and blaze a new trail in the annals of negotiation tactics. The new rule will read as follows: "As soon as your opponent's argument has been blown up beyond retrieval, concede to his demands."
Never mind that no other nation will follow the lead of the U.S. We will have won a place in the hearts of our nonfriends and enemies, and that's what counts. After all, the obvious goal of President Obama is to downsize America's role and standing in the world. Hobbling American business and the economy will do that.
This demonstrates, once again, that leftist certitudes never die; they just are reworked to fit altered environments. Even when yes becomes no, leftists seldom lose a step.
How can they pull this off?
Practice. Practice. Practice.
The godfather of modern leftist collectivism, in all its forms, is Karl Marx, a German intellectual who moved to England early in the industrial revolution. In 1848, he authored the Communist Manifesto, which explored in detail the miserable conditions of England's workers and theorized that the abused workers would eventually rise up and take control of the factories.
From this base, they would capture control of the government as well.
Over ths ensuing 161 years, this never happened anywhere in the world.
In semi-feudal Russia, in 1917, anti-czarists murdered Czar Nicholas II and his family, creating a power vacuum that was filled by expatriate intellectual Vladimir Lenin and motley associates who eventually set up a communist regime.
In China, Communists won a civil war.
Eastern Europe fell into the communist sphere through occupation by Russia.
In Cuba, Fidel Castro and his ragtag communist army overthrew the hated Batista regime.
in Korea, the United Nations fenced off the north, a Chinese sphere of influence, to enable journalists to deploy the phrase "lunatic leader" as often as they liked.
Nowhere did the workers rise up and seize control of a country, as Marx had envisaged.
To top it off, British historian Paul Johnson made an amazing discovery. Having carved out a niche through his exposure of the lies, distortions and depravities of famous intellectuals, Johnson searched for evidence that Marx had ever set foot in a factory.
He found none. So, Marx has his chapter in Johnson's book, "Intellectuals," along with Percy Shelley, Henrik Ibsen, Leon Tolstoy, Ernest Hemingway, Bertolt Brecht, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and Edmund Wilson.
Although Marxist theory failed utterly in the real world, it captured huge swaths in the worlds of theory and theology.
Few, if any, university departments of economics, political science and history have escaped Marxist inluence. In some English departments, literature now plays second fiddle to leftist politics. Whole new departments, featuring courses like postmodern studies, ethnic studies and women's studies have sprung up since the 1950s. David Horowitz has come up with a useful rule of thumb: any course name with the word "studies" in it should be regarded with suspicion.
Most, if not all, of those courses shared a purpose, which was to train students to think of themselves as victims.
Not surprisingly, university professors have been among the leading table pounders for global warming.
Now, they have a dilemma. Alarmists have claimed for many years that manmade global warming was going on now. It wasn't, and isn't. The hysteria was based on faudulent science. It's time to back down.
In the real world, marxists can keep right on dreaming of the belated revolution of the workers. Marx didn't put a time limit on his theory.
Gore, who won his Nobel in 2007 for his excellent propaganda on climate change, said that Obama "took an important step" by announcing he would attend the Copenhagen talks on a new climate treaty. Why they need a new treaty is puzzling because hardly anyone paid any attention to the old one, which lies there in pristine condition.
Gore's words may signify a downshift in Democrat expectations. It used to be that Democrats celebrated when they passed a bill growing government and spending more money. Now, Gore is declaring victory on grounds Obama is taking another trip.
Bear in mind that Obama's concession, like Marx's prediction, is on the come.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE) steps in to try to restore sanity at U of Minnesota
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a free-speech activist group that fights political-correctness codes on college campuses, has found plenty of problems with the University of Minnesota’s new requisites for students in its education program. And in fact, the problem is actually worse than first reported, as FIRE points out:
All signs are that the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities is planning to enforce a political litmus test for future teachers. The university’s College of Education and Human Development intends to mandate certain beliefs and values—”dispositions”—for future teachers. Yet that is not enough. It even intends to redesign its admissions process so that it screens out people with the wrong beliefs and values-those who it judges will not be able to be brought around to the correct beliefs and values of “cultural competence” even after remedial training.
All signs are that the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities is planning to enforce a political litmus test for future teachers. The university’s College of Education and Human Development intends to mandate certain beliefs and values—”dispositions”—for future teachers. Yet that is not enough. It even intends to redesign its admissions process so that it screens out people with the wrong beliefs and values-those who it judges will not be able to be brought around to the correct beliefs and values of “cultural competence” even after remedial training.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
