My Solstice
Posted here for 6-25-07

The big day was Monday, June 18th. I got a call in the morning that my new car (Pontiac Solstice, at right) was ready for delivery. I had been waiting since March for the notification.

Fearing my old car, a 1994 Dodge Stealth, might fail me (as it had done several times in the last few years), I hadn't driven it much at all since placing the order for the Solstice. I got in for the two-mile trip to the dealership, pushed in the clutch, and -- ohmygosh -- the clutch wouldn't release! I imagined getting a tow truck to haul the Stealth to the Pontiac showroom. I imagined the trade-in value sinking to zero. I imagined this exciting day turning into a disaster. I pulled out the clutch and tried again. It worked this time!

At the dealership, I was asked to produce the registration. Of course. I knew exactly where it was: in the glove compartment with all the other papers. I shuffled through the documents that had accumulated over 13 years, but couldn't find it. I looked again. It wasn't there. I knew it was in there somewhere. I was wrong.

"I'll need the title," the salesman said. Oh, no, I thought. I left it home. Darn! My "careful" planning and preparations were turning out to be total disasters.

As the salesman figured out ways to circumvent my oversights, I noticed my new car had been parked in the lot next to my old car. The sun was shining brightly and the Solstice looked absolutely beautiful. My excitement was building anew.

A few minutes later I looked out the window again. The Stealth was by then gone and the Solstice was all alone in the lot. And it was pouring rain. A storm had come out of nowhere. And the convertible top was . . . up! As were the windows! Thank goodness!

In a letter written in March, I had requested that the cheap, plastic dealership emblem not be affixed to my new car. The salesman had assured me: there would be no emblem. He reiterated the point as we were completing the paperwork. Then he said, "Now you know the frame is optional." What?!!

Apparently he had changed the subject to the license plate frame that also includes dealer identification. Oh! I'm okay with that!

As I met with the finance manager to sign dozens of sheets of paper and pay for my new vehicle, the salesman drove off in it to get a full tank of gas.

Finally, it was time to take possession. My Solstice was parked by the curb, I walked out of the showroom to get in, and there, big as life, was a cheap, plastic dealership emblem glued to the trunk for all to see. The salesmen hurriedly removed it . . . without, happily, removing any paint.

So it was with some degree of difficulty that I completed the steps to get my new car. (I retrieved my Stealth registration and title when I got home and delivered them to the dealership without delay.)

But in spite of the comedy of errors, I love my new car. I've never owned a convertible before. I've never driven a convertible before. Oh yes, there are only two seats, the trunk space is nil, so it's really rather impractical, but it's so beautiful!!

Explaining the Rise in Global Temperatures
Posted here for 6-18-07

I'd say this chart is pretty important. The dark red bars signify the average global temperature from 1950 to 2000 in degrees centigrade, using the scale on the left. The little blue boxes signify the number of weather stations used in the determination of that temperature reading, using the scale on the right. (Source.)



Notice that the temperatures take a big step up in 1990, at the very same time the number of weather stations takes a big step down. In a period of just two years, over 4,000 stations -- about a third of the total -- were excluded from the data. Many were located in cold, cold Siberia. (Others were elsewhere in Russia, in China, Africa and South America.)

Wouldn't you think the media would inform the public that the temperature "jump" is likely due to a reduction in the number of temperature-sensing stations? You would if the media were not biased. Wouldn't you think Al Gore would mention this little "inconvenient truth" just in the interest of giving the full picture? You would if Al Gore was interested in giving the full picture.

All sorts of people are buying into the idea that man is responsible for a "warming" of the globe. They are because that's the only side of the issue they hear. And those who offer any opposing view are ridiculed, belittled, and besmirched.

Science isn't a popularity contest where everyone votes to determine an outcome. And the scientific method rejects the notion that only one side of an issue can be discussed. That there are those who are anxious to close the debate should be evidence enough to doubt their position.

The PIG to Global Warming
Posted here for 6-11-07

I'm reading The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, by Christopher C. Horner (Regnery Publishing, 2007), and I think it's excellent. Here are a few excerpts:

Measurement of "global mean temperatures" [appears] to have been affected when hundreds of weather stations (many in the Soviet Union's Arctic) went offline at the beginning of the decade.

Historically, atmospheric C0₂ typically increases after warming begins, not before.

If [global warming "science"] is really settled, why don't the scientists forgo the $5 billion in taxpayer money they get every year to research climate?

The glacial retreat we read about is selective [. . .]. Glaciers are also advancing all over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating neighbors. If glaciers retreating were proof of global warming then glaciers advancing are evidence of global cooling: they cannot both be true and in fact neither is.

[The U.S. is not going it alone on Kyoto and "global warming."] The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol's energy rationing scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the world's population, economic activity, and projected future growth. Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom are in fact presently reducing their emissions."

[T]he planet is getting warmer. This warming seems to be mostly at night, in the winter, and at the North Pole. In fact, the Southern Hemisphere as a whole seems not to be experiencing any statistically significant warming.

Greenhouse gases have always been in our atmosphere, sometimes in far greater quantities than today, and are in fact a condition for human life -- without any greenhouse effect, our surface climate would be comparable to Mars's.

The modern environmentalist's motivation is generally not a love of biological diversity or horticulture, nor a desire to expand animal habitats and so on -- though these advocates certainly do exist, in obscurity. Instead, today's environmentalist is generally "anti" something, and that something is typically related to growth: economic growth, population growth, physical development, or simply the individual property rights necessary for growth.

Ecology offered liberal-minded people what they had longed for, a safe, rational and above all peaceful way of remaking society. . . [and] developing a more coherent central state. . . .

[E]nvironmental causes always include -- and often are primarily -- campaigns to gain more government control over the economy and individual activity. They are never fights for less control or greater liberty. When communism didn't work out, environmentalism became the anti-capitalist vehicle of choice, drawing cash and adoration from business, Hollywood, media, and social elites. [. . .] "[E]nvironmentalism" has matured into a nightmare for anyone who believes in private property, open markets, and limited government. Environmental pressure groups have no use for limiting governmental powers or expanding individual liberties. Instead, environmental claims are without fail invoked to advance the statist agenda.

What I like most about the book is that it paints the big picture; not just the scam of "global warming," but how that issue is being used by the Left as a tool to undermine capitalism, expand world government, and curtail individual freedom.

Seizing Power the New-Fashioned Way
Posted here for 6-4-07

You know where all this talk of carbon footprint and carbon dioxide reduction is leading us, don't you? Al Gore and his eco-maniac buddies are leading us directly to more taxation, more government meddling, and less personal freedom.

I calculated my "carbon footprint" and found I was using about twice as much CO₂ as the average person in the UK. Another calculator told me my CO₂ use was 18.15 tons per year, more than double the national average here of 7.5. (Other calculators: 1, 2, 3. There are many more.) Obviously, in the eyes of the greens, I'm a naughty boy.

The eco-maniacs have plans in store for me. British MP Colin Challen has proposed that everyone should be given a carbon allowance. Those who exceed their "fair share" because they drive "too much" or fly "too much" or heat their homes "too much" should be taxed. "Over [a] period of time you can adjust," he explains. "You can change your vehicles to a hybrid, you can insulate your house, you can do a whole range of those sort [sic] of technical fixes to reduce your dependency on carbon intensive energy. You might have more renewables, you may have a mini wind turbine on the roof and solar panels and you could have a heat exchange pump. You may decide to use public transport more. Or have a smaller car which is what I've done." (Source: "Capitalizing on Sustainable Development," by Joan M. Veon, The Women's International Media Group, Incorporated, Website.)

But it's not just the UK that is considering assessing penalties for energy use. The new Secretary-General of the UN has called for a global tax on 'greenhouse gas emissions' generated here in the good old U.S.A. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule shortly in a case to determine whether the Environmental Protection Agency should regulate emissions of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. You can already buy CO₂ offsets. ("[B]uy reductions for a loved one in the Gift Offsets section.") Congressman Pete Stark introduced a carbon tax just a few weeks ago. There are even recommendations for a "Footprint Tax," basically a tax on consumption. Time magazine suggests a flat 10% carbon tax.

In the final analysis, Al Gore and his minions want to prescribe what we can and can not do in our lives. They wish to replace America's freedom with their own demands and dictates. That's what liberals do. They can't tolerate the idea that free, responsible citizens can and should make life's decisions. They must impose their "superior" wisdom and intellect. The idea of man-made global warming gives them just the excuse they need to preempt individual choice. Maybe this time they're convinced enough people with their scam to do what they've always wanted: to rule the world.

Farewell, Falwell
Posted here for 5-28-07

At the passing of Reverend Jerry Falwell, many on the left can't relent on their bashing of the man. The crowd of compassion just can't let up with its barrage of vitriol.

Lest you begin to think no one can say something nice of the founding pastor of the Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia, the founder of Liberty University in 1971, and the co-founder of the Moral Majority in 1979, read the words of Rabbi Aryeh Spero:

"Though it has become today's fashion to assign moral value only to that which is politically correct or socialistic, Mr. Falwell represented those among us who still see the Ten Commandments and Bible -- the actual specifics laid out in Scripture -- as the definition for what is moral or immoral. More than almost anyone on the scene, he championed and kept reinforcing the centrality of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

"His unabashed love of America contrasted sharply with those of the 'religious left' who seem always tentative about America, those who have grotesquely redefined patriotism to mean dissent and constant criticism of our nation."

"Falwell's straight reading of specific moral and sexual mandates found in the Five Books of Moses was often more accurate than that of liberal rabbis and lay leaders who insisted on reshaping the Bible to conform to their Socialist and libertine views."

Note, too, the high praise from Ann Coulter:

"Falwell was a perfected Christian. He exuded Christian love for all men, hating sin while loving sinners. This is as opposed to liberals, who just love sinners. [. . .]

"For putting Christ above everything [. . .] Falwell was known as 'controversial.' Nothing is ever as 'controversial' as yammering about Scripture as if it's the word of God or something. [. . .] I ALWAYS agreed with the Rev. Falwell."

Falwell was outspoken in his defense of religious values and his dedication to God. Either one of those two attributes was enough for the Left to hate him.

Maintaining or Relinquishing Our Freedoms
Posted here for 5-21-07

The issues of multiculturalism, citizenship for illegal aliens, and open borders are somewhat confusing. Those on the left embrace multiculturalism. Various religious leaders and others are adamant about giving illegals citizenship. And segments of the left and right like the idea of open borders.

I think the following excerpt clarifies the issues and describes how dangerous their embrace is.

Imagine you have two [. . .] houses next to each other. In House A, the inhabitants have over a period of generations created a tidy and functioning household. They have limited their number of children because they wanted to give all of them a proper education. In House B, the inhabitants live in a dysfunctional household with too many children who have received little higher education. One day they decide to move to their neighbors’. Many of the inhabitants of House A are protesting, but some of them think this might be a good idea. There is room for more people in House A, they say. In addition to this, Amnesty International, the United Nations and others claim that it is "racist" and "against international law" for the inhabitants of House A to expel the intruders. Pretty soon, House A has been turned into an overpopulated and dysfunctional household just like House B.

This is what is happening to the West today. Europe itself could become a failed continent by importing the problems of Africa and the Islamic world. The notion that everybody should be free to move anywhere they want to, and that preventing them from moving into your country is "racism, xenophobia and bigotry," is the Communism of the 21st century. And it will probably lead to immense human suffering. [. . .]

Ideas matter. Individuals matter. Cultures matter. Truth matters, and truth exists. We used to know that. It’s time we get to know it again, and reject false ideas about the irrelevance of culture. We are not racists for desiring to pass on our heritage to future generations, nor are we evil for resisting to be treated as lab rats in social experiments on a horrific scale. We must nip the ideology of transnational multiculturalism and unlimited mass migration in the bud by exposing it for what it is: A Communism for the 21st century. [Source.]

The United States is a country founded on freedom. It is the most successful and greatest country in the world. Our enemies wish to subvert us and meld us into a world-wide egalitarian society where everyone is "equal" and no one is free. Some of our leaders are legislating in that direction. Our mainstream media are leading us in the direction. Our schools are indoctrinating our kids in that direction.

Our choice is simple: acquiesce, and watch our country deteriorate into shambles . . . or fight in every imaginable way to maintain and strengthen our freedom and our American way of life.

Hot and Cold Running Temperatures
Posted here for 5-14-07

Let's see if there's a pattern here.

DANGER: The Globe Is Cooling
- - New York Times, February 24, 1895: "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again."
- - New Your Times, October 7, 1912: "Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age."
- - Los Angeles Times, October 7, 1912: "Fifth ice age is on the way. Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold."
- - Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923: "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."
- - Washington Post, August 10, 1923: "Ice Age Coming Here."
- - Los Angeles Times, April 6, 1924: "If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age."

DANGER: The Globe Is Warming
- - Los Angeles Times, March 11, 1929: "Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer."
- - Chicago Daily Tribune, November 6, 1939: "Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities [throughout] the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades."
- - New York Times, August 10, 1952: "[W]e have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century."
- - New York Times, 1953: "[N]early all the great ice sheets are in retreat."
- - U.S. News & World Report, January 8, 1954: "[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."
- - New York Times, February 15, 1959: "Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures."
- - New York Times, February 20, 1969: "[T]he Arctic pack ice is thinning and [. . .] the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two."

DANGER: The Globe Is Cooling
- - Science News, November 15, 1969: "How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilization."
- - Washington Post, January 11, 1970: "[G]et a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters -- the worst may be yet to come." The article was titled, "Colder Winters Herald Dawn of New Ice Age."
- - New York Times, December 29, 1974: "[P]resent climate change [will result in] mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence."
- - Christian Science Monitor, 1974: "[T]he North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool."
- - Newsweek, April 28, 1975: "The drop in food output [as a result of climate change] could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from now. [. . .] [The] central fact [is] the earth's climate seems to be cooling down."
- - New York Times, 1975: "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable."
- - Science News, 1975: "[T]he cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."
- - New Scientist editor Nigel Calder, 1975: "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
- - The Cooling, by Lowell Ponte, 1976: "The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations."

DANGER: The Globe Is Warming
- - New York Times, August 22, 1981: "[Global warming of an] almost unprecedented magnitude [is predicted]."
- - Washington Post, January 18, 2006: "[Rising temperatures] could literally, alter the fundamentals of life on the planet."
- - Time, March 26, 2006: "Polar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than Ever . . . More and More; Land is Being Devastated by Drought . . . Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying Communities . . . By Any Measure, Earth Is at the Tipping Point; The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame."

Let me check my calendar. My guess is it won't be too long before we'll be worried to death about the next big cooling scare.

Quotations from "Fire and Ice," by R. Warren Anderson and Dan Gainor, Whistleblower, March 2007, pages 8-11, 13-16. Address: PO Box 2450, Fair Oaks, California 95628. Phone: 916-852-6300. Fax: 916-852-6302. Website.

An Inconvenient Lie
Posted here for 5-7-07

“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”

The man said "an overrepresentation of factual presentations.” Some might interpret such words as justifying lies to achieve a desired end result. And, yes, if you haven't guessed by now, the words were spoken by Al Gore.¹

So, when the former vice president says global warming will melt snow and ice and raise sea levels by 20 feet,² does he mean 20 feet? Or is that “an overrepresentation”? Does he really mean two feet? Or perhaps two inches?

Of course there's no way to know.

And since “scientist” Al seems to have neglected to mention that all the phenomena he describes in such hot (pun intended) rhetoric fall within the natural range of environmental change on Planet Earth,³ are we to assume that was merely an honest oversight? Or was it part of a deliberate indoctrination effort to misrepresent a true view of reality?

Many, no doubt, will excuse Al's enthusiasm and exaggeration as, well, enthusiasm and exaggeration. But his romancing of the facts could have catastrophic consequences. For he is intent on totally transforming this country's principles. He wants a “new ‘central organizing principle'” of society to be “the task of protecting the earth's environment while fostering economic progress.”⁴ Hello environmentalism. Hello global government. Goodbye capitalism. Goodbye freedom.

The world's top hurricane expert, Dr. William Gray -- a real scientist -- said April 6th in New Orleans that Al Gore is a “gross alarmist.”⁵ “He doesn't know what he's talking about.” In his study of the oceans' effect on climate, Dr. Gray, along with research associate Phil Klotzbach predict that “the last 30-year global warming trend will come to an end in the next 5-10 years.”⁵

Clearly the judgements and opinions of scientist Dr. Gray are a lost whisper in the avalanche of global warming propaganda. Meanwhile, the scare tactics of politician Gore are being force-fed into the innocent minds of school kids all across the country.

What's wrong with this picture?

¹ “Lessons of Napoleon,” Inside the Beltway, by John McCaslin, The Washington Times National Weekly Edition, February 12, 2007, page 6.
² “Al Gore Discusses 'An Inconvenient Truth',” by Amy Crawford.
³ “No Fan of Gore from Down Under,” Quick Quotes, The New American, April 30, 2007, page 11.
⁴ “Earth in the Balance,” by Al Gore, paperback, page xv.
⁵ “Storm Forecaster Calls Al Gore an Alarmist,” The New American, April 30, 2007, page 9.

Naughty Words Versus Naughty Actions
Posted here for 4-27-07

"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me."

I guess schools and parents aren't teaching that insightful wisdom like they used to. Pity. As a matter of fact, they are apparently preaching just the opposite. Don Imus makes some rude and crude remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team, and the poor little dears are scarred for life. For life! They're willing, nay, anxious to act as though the comments were other than the attention-getting ravings of a shock jock who has been making condescending and inflammatory utterances for his whole career!

Perhaps we need to review again what the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . ." This doesn't say that only kind, thoughtful, pleasant comments may be made. It says The People will be allowed to say whatever they want! Nasty. Biting. Vile. Reprehensible. Insulting. In addition to words that are sweet, lovely, inspiring, uplifting, and optimistic.

Yes, of course, Imus can be fired by his employer. Yes, of course, his words were harsh. But it's not as though he has never said controversial things before. Look up "name calling" in the dictionary and you're likely to find a picture of the shock jock as a definition.

We've endured language far more offensive, far more disgusting, far more outrageous in rap "music" for years. Why hasn't there been condemnation from our cultural "leaders" for these verbal assaults? It seems the reason is that Fair Lady Hillary decided she had had enough Imus bashings of her character and decided to take action.

Don't mess with the junior senator from New York. You'll pay a steep price. Smear and innuendo weren't sufficient punishments for Don Imus to endure. His career had to be destroyed. The man had to be broken.

Such is the way the game of politics is played by Fair Lady Hillary.

Founded on Christian Principles
Posted here for 4-18-07

We hear over and over and over and over and over again that this country was not founded on Christian principles and our Forefathers were not strong Christians.

I decided to investigate a little, and I came across this website which lists the religious affiliations of our Founders. Here they are:

Connecticut - Samuel Huntington - Congregationalist - Roger Sherman - Congregationalist - William Williams - Congregationalist - Oliver Wolcott - Congregationalist	Delaware - George Read - Episcopalian - Caesar Rodney - Episcopalian - Thomas McKean - Presbyterian	Georgia - Button Gwinnett - Episcopalian, Congregationalist - Lyman Hall - Congregationalist - George Walton - Episcopalian	Maryland - Charles Carroll - Catholic - Samuel Chase - Episcopalian - Thomas Stone - Episcopalian - William Paca - Episcopalian
Massachusetts - John Adams - Congregationalist, Unitarian - Samuel Adams - Congregationalist - John Hancock - Congregationalist - Robert Treat Paine - Congregationalist, Unitarian - Elbridge Gerry - Episcopalian	New Hampshire - Josiah Bartlett - Congregationalist - William Whipple - Congregationalist - Matthew Thornton - Presbyterian	New Jersey - Abraham Clark - Presbyterian - John Hart - Presbyterian - Francis Hopkinson - Episcopalian - Richard Stockton - Presbyterian - John Witherspoon - Presbyterian	New York - Lewis Morris - Episcopalian - Philip Livingston - Presbyterian - Francis Lewis - Episcopalian - William Floyd - Presbyterian
North Carolina - William Hooper - Episcopalian - John Penn - Episcopalian - Joseph Hewes - Quaker, Episcopalian	Pennsylvania - George Clymer - Quaker, Episcopalian - Benjamin Franklin - Episcopalian (Deist) - Robert Morris - Episcopalian - John Morton - Episcopalian - Benjamin Rush - Presbyterian - George Ross - Episcopalian - James Smith - Presbyterian - James Wilson - Episcopalian, Presbyterian - George Taylor - Presbyterian	Rhode Island - Stephen Hopkins - Episcopalian - William Ellery - Congregationalist	South Carolina - Edward Rutledge - Episcopalian - Arthur Middleton - Episcopalian - Thomas Lynch, Jr. - Episcopalian - Thomas Heyward, Jr. - Episcopalian
Virginia - Richard Henry Lee - Episcopalian - Francis Lightfoot Lee - Episcopalian - Carter Braxton - Episcopalian - Benjamin Harrison - Episcopalian - Thomas Jefferson - Episcopalian (Deist) - George Wythe - Episcopalian - Thomas Nelson, Jr. - Episcopalian

Yes, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson are shown as Deist, in addition to their Episcopalian affiliation, but if you read some of their writings, they hardly sound as anti-Christian as so many secularists would have us believe.

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" -- Benjamin Franklin

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep forever." -- Thomas Jefferson

This country is great because it was founded on Christian principles by Christian men. As is so often the case, those who hate America must rely on falsehood and deception to advance their cause. Facts and a true reading of history refute their charges.

We're in Deep Trouble
Posted here for 4-9-07

The incident happened last Tuesday (4-3). During a late-afternoon walk, I happened to stroll onto COSTCO property, which is right across the street from the community in which I live.

Skirting the edge of the parking lot, I found I was walking next to a good-sized Florida Power & Light Company transformer station. Various high-voltage power lines feed into and from the chain-link-fence-enclosed station. A small flat-bed truck with red cab was parked in front of the locked gate. As I walked by, a man with a yellow safety hard hat came into view. He opened the door and climbed into the driver's seat. A few paces further I saw another man, also with a yellow hard hat, but he had a pair of heavy-duty cutters in his hands. He took the tool and snipped through the chain-link fence, making a vertical opening from top to bottom.

Isn't that curious, I thought. Then I thought: "Ohmygosh! This isn't right! I've just witnessed someone breaking into a major power transformer site in Boca Raton, Florida!

I reported the incident to the guard house at the entrance to my community, then hurried home to call FPL.

I got the expected automated voice screening messages: "Press one for residential problems . . ." (Beep.) "Press one if you have a power outage. . ."

I finally reached a live operator and carefully explained my story. "This happened at about ten to six, about a half hour ago," I said.

"Let me connect you with someone who can help," she replied. (Click. Music. Wait.)

When the next voice came on the line, I explained the whole story once more. "Just a moment," she said. (Wait.)

"Thank you for reporting this," she said when she came back on the line.

"Ah," I began, "someone just cut through the chair link fence that protects one of your transformer facilities." (I was repeating myself.) "As far as I could see, he wasn't wearing an FPL uniform or any FPL identification. I saw no FPL insignia on the truck. It didn't look like an FPL truck."

"Well," she spoke curtly, "we don't keep track of who goes to each one of our stations. I've noted your report."

"Excuse me." My exasperation level was rising. "I doubt that FPL servicemen cut open fences when they service power stations."

"Are they still there?" she inquired.

"I'm afraid I don't know," I responded. "They cut through the fence a half hour ago!"

"Well, if you see this kind of conduct in the future, you should report it to the police."

"Do you want me to report the incident now?"

"No, that won't be necessary. But if you see it again, report it to the police immediately."

In this day and age with heightened security and with terrorist incidents going on all over the world, you'd think an electrical utility company might show a little concern about someone snipping through a chain-link fence that protects high-voltage power equipment. Even after repeated encouragement to investigate, FPL representatives had no interest whatsoever.

It's almost as if FPL was extending an open invitation to terrorists to strike anywhere and in any way they choose.

If this is the attitude at FPL and presumably at other power companies around the country, we're in deep trouble.

Supporting You Don't Say
Posted here for 4-2-07

Over the years -- in fact, since 1999 -- I've been willing to support this website technically, editorially, and financially, and I've thoroughly enjoyed doing so. Now, however, I've decided it would be wise to seek additional income to augment the expense of this undertaking. I may have found just the vehicle to do so.

A company called YTB, Your Travel Biz, has provided me with my own personal travel website. You can go there and make reservations for flights, hotels, cruises, rental cars, even send flowers anywhere in the U.S. It works just like the other on-line travel websites -- Travelocity, Orbitz, Expedia, etc. -- and the prices are comparable. Except when a booking is made, I'll get a portion of the commission. So if you're going to make a reservation, would you be willing to let me be a recipient of some of the commission income earned?

I've already made several bookings for myself -- to Bermuda, New York City, Washington, DC, Dallas -- and I've saved with package deals (flights and hotel). And I also earn a commission: 60% of the total commission for each trip!

Here's something else: If you'd like, you can get your own travel website, and earn commissions just like I have. Every time someone books travel on your travel website, you'll get 60% of the commission.

It's surprisingly easy to sign up. With just a couple of mouse clicks and a little keyed-in information, your travel website can be up and running. Mine was operational in less than a minute. Here's all you need to know.

Please tell your friends and neighbors about You Don't Say Travel. It sure will help me with expenses resulting from the You Don't Say website. Thanks!

Crossing the Line
Posted here for 3-26-07

I couldn't believe what I was hearing. The President of the United States, speaking on the record in front of numerous cameras and microphones, was quite clear. On the topic of "immigration", he carefully, decisively, intentionally used the word "migration". [Recently in Mérida, Mexico and Los Cabos, Mexico]

Mr. President, when people move from one country to another, that's immigration. When wildebeests move from Kenya to Tanzania and back again, that's migration. Migration means going where you want without consideration or concern about borders, national sovereignty, and country laws. My unabridged Random House Dictionary defines it as passing "periodically from one region to another, as certain birds, fishes, and animals." The dictionary says immigration is coming "to a country of which one is not a native". The deliberate use of the word "migration" tells me the Bush administration foresees and approves of an open-border policy. This is unacceptable! This is intolerable!

In the Federalist Papers, John Jay wrote:

"Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence."

Open the flood gates to massive, uncontrolled immigration and we invite criminals, non-English-speaking people, those with diseases, those with drugs, those with no skills, those with no fondness for the United States to flow freely into our midst. Apparently this is our present policy: welcome Third World immigrants who will sap our resources -- schools, medical, police, etc. -- attack our people, and live here without any intention of joining the "melting pot". James Madison would be outraged:

"I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege of citizenship, but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States."

Why do our leaders choose policies that will lower our standard of living, reduce our national security, dilute our language, faith, and culture, and allow ourselves to be invaded by those who clearly wish to overwhelm us? Ernesto Zedillo, former Mexican President, stated, "I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders."

The ongoing takeover of the southwest United States is no secret. As Pat Buchanan says, "'Anglos' are already a minority in California, New Mexico, and Texas." As Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez explained, "[W]e're changing the United States. . . . We're changing the language, the food, the music, the way of being. We're changing you into a Latin country."

Pat Buchanan sums up in his book, State of Emergency -- The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America [you must read this book!],

"Should America lose her ethnic-cultural core and become a nation of nations, America will not survive. For nowhere on this earth can one find a multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual nation that is not at risk. Democracy is not enough. Equality is not enough. Free markets are not enough -- to hold a people together. Without patriotism, a love of country and countrymen not for what they believe or profess but for who they are, 'Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.' [. . .]

"The crisis of the West is of a collapsing culture and vanishing peoples, as a Third World that grows by 100 million people -- the equivalent of a new Mexico -- every eighteen months mounts the greatest invasion in the history of the world. If we do not shake off our paralysis, the West comes to an end."

Mr. President, you are an accomplice in the destruction of this great nation.

Embracing Islamic Values
Posted here for 3-19-07

Multiculturalists have been quick to say that Islam is a good religion. It's just as noble and honorable as Christianity. Its precepts and practices are decent and respectable. And of course those supporting multiculturalism must say such things, because they believe all peoples, all religions, all governments are of equal merit.

I received a little booklet recently from the David Horowitz Freedom Center. It's titled, "What Americans Need to Know about Jihad," by Robert Spencer (copyright 2007 David Horowitz Freedom Center, PO Box 361269, Los Angeles, California 90036-9828), and it suggests Islam's Koran teaches oppression of women that even multiculturalists might object to. Here are some examples:

o Women are inferior to men. and must be ruled by them. [Koran 4:34]
o A woman's testimony is worth half that of a man. [Koran 2:282]
o A man may marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls as well. [Koran 4:3]
o A son's inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter. [Koran 4:11]
o A husband should beat a disobedient wife. [Koran 4:34]

But, you may protest, these teachings are meaningless unless they're practiced. Indeed! The Koran directs women to "draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands [and] their fathers" [24:31]. So what happened in March 2002 in Mecca when fifteen girls were trapped in a fire at their school? They shed their veils as they tried to escape the flames, but Saudi Arabia's religious police, the muttawa, wouldn't let the girls out of the building without the veils. The muttawa battled policemen and firemen who were trying to save the girls. The girls died. All fifteen.

The dictates of the Koran are also written into law, just as Biblical teachings are written in our law. For example, Article 340 of the criminal code of Jordan states that "a husband or a close blood relative who kills a woman caught in a situation highly suspicious of adultery will be totally exempt from sentence."

These are the values multiculturalists must embrace if they continue to assert all religions, all view, all disciplines are equal.

Solving Problems by Moving Them Out of the Country
Posted here for 3-12-07

Wouldn't it be nifty if the U.S. would send tens of thousands of its criminals out of the country? We could save billions of dollars in police and prison costs and make amazing reductions in crime rates. America would be a safer, more pleasant, more desirable place to live.

And while we're thinking of getting rid of those who harm the public, how about moving out people with dangerous diseases? Imagine how the health of our country would improve if folks with serious contagious diseases were simply "redeployed" outside of our borders.

What about ridding this land of the unemployed? Imagine how that would save money. Unemployment payments would be curtailed and our taxes could be lowered!

Let's send away the poor, too. If they left, don't you think federal and state treasuries would balloon? We could lower our debt, solve innumerable fiscal problems, and have money left over.

Let's export those with low IQs as well. Often the dumb are a drag on society. So why not have them "migrate" to some other country around the world?

I'm sure you're thinking: That's outrageous! We can't turn our back on those in need. We can't just export "undesirables" to reap financial or other gains. We can't impose our "problem" people on other nations and expect them to take care of them. We can't "offload" our criminals, our diseased, our poor, our unemployed, our less-intelligent. We can't rid the country of these burdens just to improve our economy, or make it better for the rest of us.

Well, that's what Mexico does.

Denying Reality
Posted here for 3-5-07

A friend of a friend of mine -- I'll call her Mabel -- has a grandson who has been arrested on drug charges five times. Recently, he was arrested again. The grandson called his grandmom and told her he needed money, about $1200. Mabel, being a dedicated but foolish grandmother, sent the money. This has happened dozens of times, and each request is quickly and without question fulfilled.

A few days later the grandson called again for money, this time $900. Mabel obliged, as she did when her son called a day or two later with a request for $1200 more.

When my friend confronted Mabel and accused her of aiding and abetting her grandson's illegal drug use, Mabel was outraged. "My grandson's not using that money for drugs," she snapped back. "He's using it for an attorney. My grandson told me so!"

When I heard the story, it made me think: Mabel's denial is total. She can't tolerate thinking her grandson is a good-for-nothing drug user, so in the face of overwhelming evidence, she sees what she wants to see and hears what she wants to hear. Her grandson on drugs? Her grandson in trouble with the law? Her grandson lying to her? Impossible! Unthinkable! It couldn't happen. Her grandson was never on drugs. He was framed. The police were corrupt for arresting him. Her grandson is a good, honest young man, and anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy.

Then I thought again. Ohmygosh! It's the same with liberalism. Liberals are so intent on realizing their vision for America and achieving their worldview, they'll accept anything, regardless of evidence, to support their vision. Their beloved United Nations is wonderfully effective, in spite of the fact the organization has been a catastrophic failure. The Kyoto Protocol is absolutely essential for world survival, in spite of the fact its constraints on U.S. productivity would severely damage our economy and degrade our lifestyle and all the while provide no beneficial effect on world temperatures. Nuclear energy is unacceptable, in spite of the fact it is perhaps the cleanest, most effective power source ever devised by man. Terrorists are just good, honest people who will treat us with respect if we only treat them with respect and negotiate with their representatives in good faith. Socialism is the preferred social construct, even though it has proven to be an absymal failure every time it has been tried. Diversity is America's strength, even though throughout history it has usually produced constant tension and often outright war. The U.S. Constitution is a "living" document, because it needs to be changed now and then to match liberal wishes, such as abortion on demand, gun control, government seizure of private property, and access -- even by children -- to pornography. And on and on and on.

Denial is the inevitable result when emotion triumphs over reason, common sense, and logic.

Ethanol: Unrealistic Expectations
Posted here for 2-26-07

If you listen to some folks, Ethanol is the answer to all our fuel needs. It's the magic potion that will power the world into the future.

Others, however, paint a less rosy picture. For example: Tom Randall, writing in a January 31, 2007 article titled: "CAFE and Ethanol: two Democratic dogs chasing each other's tail; has the President bought in?" (distributed with a 2-10-07 Fred Singer e-mail):

Issue: The new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill, joined by a handful of Republicans, is demanding higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards as well as dramatically expanded use of ethanol in gasoline, blithely ignoring the cold hard facts that the two demands are incompatible. The facts about ethanol and mileage:

Fact 1: Ethanol contains about 40 percent less energy than gasoline. Therefore, vehicles burning the touted E85 blend (85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline) will get approximately one third less mileage per gallon than vehicles burning regular gasoline.

Fact 2: To achieve a 20 percent increase in mileage, vehicles burning E85 would have to be built for more than a 50 percent increase in mileage.

Fact 3: Ethanol, despite misleading claims, does not significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It still involves combustion of a hydrocarbon, which burns the hydrogen, thereby sending the homeless carbon atoms off to glom onto the first available oxygen molecules, creating carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

Fact 4: Probably none of this really matters, anyway, since ethanol is unlikely to become a significant energy source. To replace one percent of our gasoline needs with ethanol would require a two percent increase in tilled land -- one percent on which to grow corn and one percent to grow the rotational crop. That's an additional 964,210 acres. Environmentalists are simply not going to let you use land in that manner. Cellulosic ethanol? Forget it, the yield per acre is far lower than corn and it is not commercially viable.

As is so often the case, the liberal solution to the problem is no solution at all. So who's blocking a real solution to the oil shortage, namely: drilling in Alaska and other spots around the U.S.? But of course: liberals.

Ceding Our Nation
Posted here for 2-19-07

I'm about halfway through Pat Buchanan's latest book, State of Emergency -- The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America. I think it should be read in every highschool in the country. Here are just a few excerpts:

"[T]he crisis of Western civilization consists of three imminent and mortal perils: dying populations, disintegrating cultures, and invasions unresisted. [. . .]

"What the Danube and Rhine were to Rome, the Rio Grande and Mediterranean are to America and Europe, the frontiers of a civilization no longer defended. [. . .]

"This [influx of immigrants into America] is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history. Nothing of this magnitude has ever happened in so short a span of time. There are 36 million immigrants and their children in the United States today, almost as many as came to America between Jamestown in 1607 and the Kennedy election of 1960. Nearly 90 percent of all immigrants now come from continents and countries whose peoples have never been assimilated fully into any Western country.

"Against the will of a vast majority of Americans, America is being transformed. As our elites nervously avert their gaze or welcome the invasion, we are witness to one of the great tragedies in human history. From Gibbon to Spengler to Toynbee and the Durants, the symptoms of dying civilizations are well known: the death of faith, the degeneration of morals, contempt for the old values, collapse of the culture, paralysis of the will. But the two certain signs that a civilization has begun to die are a declining population and foreign invasions no longer resisted. [. . .]

"What can be said for a man who would allow his home to be invaded by strangers who demanded they be fed, clothed, housed, and granted the rights of the firstborn? What can be said for a ruling elite that permits this to be done to the nation, and that celebrates it as a milestone of moral progress?

"We are witnessing how nations perish."

Pretty strong words. Pretty frightening words. Will enough people take them to heart?

Measuring Scientific Probabilities
Posted here for 2-12-07

I was interested to read an article by James Lewis, Why Global Warming Is Probably a Crock, that scientific global warming theory is dependent on a multitude of factors. Factors "like the amount of cloud cover over Antarctica, the changing ocean currents in the South Pacific, Mount Helena venting, sun spots, Chinese factories burning more coal every year, evaporation of ocean water (the biggest "greenhouse" gas), the wobbles of earth orbit around the sun, and yes, the multifarious fartings of billions of living creatures on the face of the earth, minus, of course, all the trillions of plants and algae that gobble up all the CO2, nitrogen-containing molecules, and sulfur-smelling exhalations spewed out by all of us animals." As you can imagine, there are hundreds of such factors that must be considered to make reasonable projections of weather phenomena we can expect in the future.

Mr. Lewis speculates about the accuracy of computer forecasting models when they must depend on great numbers of variables. He states that the overall accuracy of these models can be calculated by multiplying the certainty level for each variable. Thus, if there are only two variables, but each can be predicted with 90% accuracy, then the probability the resulting prediction is accurate will be 81% (0.90 x 0.90).

With a vast array of variables, however, the probability drops precipitously. Let's say there are only 100 weather factors necessary to predict weather patterns (we know that's an unrealistically low number). If each could be determined with 90% accuracy (an outlandishly high accuracy rate), then the probability of attaining accurate results will be 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 . . . one hundred times. That's (0.9)¹⁰⁰, or 0.00266 percent. Not too impressive.

Let's say there are 200 variables that must be considered and each is understood with only 80% accuracy (still a spectacularly high accuracy rate, given that weather forecasters have trouble predicting rain or sunshine for next week Thursday). Then the probability of accurate predictions drops to 0.80²⁰⁰ or an infinitesimally small 0.00000000000000000415 percent.

Al Gore and his buddies tell us global warming will cause the seas to rise 20 feet by the end of the century. What do you suppose the accuracy of that prediction is? I'm guessing: zero!

Minimum Temps
Posted here for 2-5-07

I suppose it's only fair to follow up last week's "Thoughts" item about high temperatures with a similar discussion of temperature lows. The following statistics were found here (last updated: August 2006).

State	Coldest Temp	Date	City	State	Coldest Temp	Date	City
Alabama	-27	Jan 30, 1966	New Market	Alaska	-80	Jan 23, 1971	Prospect Creek
Arizona	-40	Jan 7, 1971	Hawley Lake	Arkansas	-29	Feb 13, 1905	Pond
California	-45	Jan 20, 1937	Boca	Colorado	-61	Feb 1, 1985	Maybell
Connecticut	-32	Feb 16, 1943	Falls Village	Delaware	-17	Jan 17, 1893	Millsboro
Florida	-2	Feb 13, 1899	Tallahassee	Georgia	-17	Jan 27, 1940	N. Floyd County
Hawaii	12	May 17, 1979	Mauna Kea	Idaho	-60	Jan 18, 1943	Island Park Dam
Illinois	-36	Jan 5, 1999	Congerville	Indiana	-36	Jan 19, 1994	New Whiteland
Iowa	-47	Feb 3, 1996*	Elkader	Kansas	-40	Feb 13, 1905	Lebanon
Kentucky	-37	Jan 19, 1994	Shelbyville	Louisiana	-16	Feb 13, 1899	Minden
Maine	-48	Jan 19, 1925	Van Buren	Maryland	-40	Jan 13, 1912	Oakland
Massachusetts	-35	Jan 12, 1981	Chester	Michigan	-51	Feb 9, 1934	Vanderbilt
Minnesota	-60	Feb 2, 1996	Tower	Mississippi	-19	Jan 30, 1966	Corinth
Missouri	-40	Feb 13, 1905	Warsaw	Montana	-70	Jan 20, 1954	Rogers Pass
Nebraska	-47	Feb 12, 1899	Camp Clarke	Nevada	-50	Jan 8, 1937	San Jacinto
New Hampshire	-47	Jan 29, 1934	Mt. Washington	New Jersey	-34	Jan 5, 1904	River Vale
New Mexico	-50	Feb 1, 1951	Gavilan	New York	-52	Feb 18, 1979*	Old Forge
North Carolina	-34	Jan 21, 1985	Mt. Mitchell	North Dakota	-60	Feb 15, 1936	Parshall
Ohio	-39	Feb 10, 1899	Milligan	Oklahoma	-27	Jan 18, 1930	Watts
Oregon	-54	Feb 10, 1933*	Seneca	Pennsylvania	-42	Jan 5, 1904	Smethport
Rhode Island	-25	Feb 5, 1996	Greene	South Carolina	-19	Jan 21, 1985	Caesars Head
South Dakota	-58	Feb 17, 1936	McIntosh	Tennessee	-32	Dec 30, 1917	Mountain City
Texas	-23	Feb 8, 1933*	Seminole	Utah	-69	Feb 1, 1985	Peter's Sink
Vermont	-50	Dec 30, 1933	Bloomfield	Virginia	-30	Jan 22, 1985	Mountain Lake
Washington	-48	Dec 30, 1968	Mazama; Winthrop	West Virginia	-37	Dec 30, 1917	Lewisburg
Wisconsin	-55	Feb 4, 1996	Couderay	Wyoming	-66	Feb 9, 1933	Riverside

* The same temperature was also recorded on one or more earlier dates at the same or other places in the state.

The number of coldest days between 1997 and the present? One; Illinois. The number before 1950: 28. There were 36 hot temp records before 1950.

Wouldn't you think that if things were really warming up there would be more cold temp records and fewer hot temp records before 1950? The number of cold temp records since 1990: 7. The number of hot temp records since 1990: 5. With "global warming," shouldn't it be the other way around?

Maximum Temps
Posted here for 1-29-07

It seems to me that if the world is really heating up like the global-warming alarmists claim, we'd be seeing a lot of recent maximum temperatures in spots around the U.S. and around the world. Everyone keeps saying the summers are so much hotter and the winters so much warmer than they used to be. If that's really the case, then the hottest it has been in each of the states should be of recent vintage, certainly within the last ten years. Wouldn't you think so?

Okay, let's look at the record. I got these statistics from this website. Look closely to see when the maximums occurred. How many were during the last decade?

State	Hottest Temp	Date	City	State	Hottest Temp	Date	City
Alabama	112	Sep 5, 1925	Centerville	Alaska	100	Jun 27, 1915	Fort Yukon
Arizona	128	Jun 29, 1994	Lake Havasu City	Arkansas	120	Aug 10, 1936	Ozark
California	134	Jul 10, 1913	Greenland Ranch	Colorado	114	Jul 11, 1888	Bennett
Connecticut	106	Jul 15, 1995	Danbury	Delaware	110	Jul 21, 1930	Millsboro
Florida	109	Jun 29, 1931	Monticello	Georgia	112	Aug 20, 1983	Greenville
Hawaii	100	Apr 27, 1931	Pahala	Idaho	118	Jul 28, 1934	Orofino
Illinois	117	Jul 14, 1954	E. St. Louis	Indiana	116	Jul 14, 1936	Collegeville
Iowa	118	Jul 20, 1934	Keokuk	Kansas	121	Jul 24, 1936	Alton
Kentucky	114	Jul 28, 1930	Greensburg	Louisiana	114	Aug 10, 1936	Plain Dealing
Maine	105	Jul 10, 1911	North Bridgton	Maryland	109	Jul 10, 1936	Cumberland; Frederick
Massachusetts	107	Aug 2, 1975	New Bedford; Chester	Michigan	112	Jul 13, 1936	Mio
Minnesota	114	Jul 6, 1936	Moorhead	Mississippi	115	Jul 29, 1930	Holly Springs
Missouri	118	Jul 14, 1954	Warsaw & Union	Montana	117	Jul 5, 1937	Medicine Lake
Nebraska	118	Jul 24, 1936	Minden	Nevada	125	Jun 29, 1994	Laughlin
New Hampshire	106	Jul 4, 1911	Nashua	New Jersey	110	Jul 10, 1936	Runyon
New Mexico	122	Jun 27, 1994	Waste Isolat. Pilot Pit	New York	108	Jul 22, 1926	Troy
North Carolina	110	Aug 21, 1983	Fayetteville	North Dakota	121	Jul 6, 1936	Steele
Ohio	113	Jul 21, 1934	Gallipolis	Oklahoma	120	Jun 27, 1994	Tipton
Oregon	119	Aug 10, 1898	Pendleton	Pennsylvania	111	Jul 10, 1936	Phoenixville
Rhode Island	104	Aug 2, 1975	Providence	South Carolina	111	Jun 28, 1954	Camden
South Dakota	120	Jul 5, 1936	Gannvalley	Tennessee	113	Aug 9, 1930	Perryville
Texas	120	Aug 12, 1936	Seymour	Utah	117	Jul 5, 1895	Saint George
Vermont	105	Jul 4, 1911	Vernon	Virginia	110	Jul 15, 1954	Balcony Falls
Washington	118	Aug 5, 1961	Ice Harbor Dam	West Virginia	112	Jul 10, 1936	Martinsburg
Wisconsin	114	Jul 13, 1936	Wisconsin Dells	Wyoming	115	Jul 12, 1900	Basin

So how many were between 1997 and the present? I counted . . . zero. Hmmm. I found 36 before 1950!

I should point out that the latest date I see in the table is 1999, so it could be there aren't any readings for 2000 and beyond. However, the data, from the National Climatic Data Center (used by permission; thanks, Jan Null), is copyrighted 2005.

This listing shows temperature highs through August 2006. It shows one record high since 1997: South Dakota with 120 degrees. That ties but does not beat the July 5, 1936 record shown above. This is global warming?

What's Behind Global Warming?
Posted here for 1-22-07

Now, apparently, most people believe that as a result of greenhouse gasses produced by man-made devices, global warming is heating up our planet and, unless countered, will ultimately cause irreparable damage: dramatically higher sea levels, flooding of thousands of square miles of land, unbearably hot living conditions, eradication of numerous species, significant increases in natural disasters, and destruction of crops unable to tolerate elevated temperatures.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say the amount of C02 increases significantly. Let's say it doubles! Do all the plants in the world shrivel up and die? Well, not exactly. Early in the evolution of plant life on Earth, C02 was in much greater abundance than it is now. Studies show that if C02 levels doubled, plant productivity would actually improve an average of 32% across all species! ["Mr. Gore, Carbon Dioxide Is Not a Pollutant," Human Events, March 6, 1998, Page 22.] Tomato yields would increase up to 50%, grains up to 64%, corn and sugar cane up to 55%, potatoes up to 75%. Not only that, you might not need long johns and a parka when you go out shopping in the wintertime.

If the consequences of a warmer Earth would actually be beneficial, then why all the fuss? Some of those who dispense the fear provide a clue:

“We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” -- Timothy Wirth, 1990.

“Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.” -- Ross Gelbspan , July 2000.

“[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios [about global warming and destruction of the environment], make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts one might have . . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” -- Stephen Schneider, October 1989.

“A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” -- Richard Benedict.

“I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.” -- Charles Alexander.

“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” -- Al Gore, in an interview for Grist magazine.

These remarks sound to me like those who spoke them know man-made global warming is a hoax. But they're willing to perpetrate a massive deception if it will advance their agenda. What agenda? First, harm to the U.S. People around the world (and many on the far left here) hate America for its success and wealth and wish to inflict pain on this country and its residents. Second, immense redistribution of income. All the poor countries are salivating at the prospect of receiving a generous handout of dollars. Third, control. If you believe in the scam, you'll yield some of your freedom to the elites who say they have a solution to the "problem". Fourth, the advance of socialism. Most of the world is in the grip of socialism and we, too, are sliding off swiftly in that direction. Embracing the idea of global warming will quicken the slide. And fifth, pride. Liberals have much invested in the global warming lie. Their reputations and their honor are at stake. They must win the debate.

And so far they're doing just that.

Compassionate Giving
Posted here for 1-15-07

A few years ago I was being interviewed on the radio in Punta Gorda, Florida. The conversation was going very nicely until we got on the subject of differences between liberals and conservatives. At that point I wanted to say conservatives are better thinkers, they're better at showing compassion, they're better at upholding the principles and intentions of our Founders, they're better advocates for private property, limited government, free enterprise. But what came out of my mouth was: conservatives are better . . . people. Oops!

I was going to try to explain what I really meant, but right then we had to pause for a commercial. By the time we were back on the air the phone calls were coming in like rain in a hurricane. The outrage was thunderous. I never did get a chance to clarify my comment.

But now it seems my remark may have real statistical substance. In his new book, Who Really Cares? author Arthur Brooks says:

In 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more money to charity than households headed by a liberal ($1,600 to $1,227). This discrepancy is not simply an artifact of income differences; on the contrary, liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families, and conservative families gave more than liberal families within every income class, from poor to middle class to rich.

If we look at party affiliation instead of ideology, the story remains largely the same. For example, registered Republicans were seven points more likely to give at least once in 2002 than registered Democrats (90 to 83 percent).

The differences go beyond money and time. Take blood donations, for example. In 2002, conservative Americans were more likely to donate blood each year, and did so more often, than liberals. If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent.* (See also these statistics.)

Gosh, if you measure worth by compassionate giving, conservatives are better people.

The 'Most Evil'
Posted here for 1-8-07

Who would you say has been the most evil person in the history of civilization? Who has been the most wicked, vicious, and depraved?

My guess is that Adolph Hitler's name comes to mind. And evil he was! Estimates suggest that as a result of his actions, the lives of as many as eleven million human beings were snuffed out: Jews (5.1–6 million killed, including 3-3.5 million Polish Jews), other Poles (1.8–1.9 million), gypsies (200,000–800,000), disabled people (200,000–250,000), homosexuals (2200–25,000), Jehovah's Witnesses (950-2500), and other civilians (2 million were dispatched with machine guns, tortured to death, and/or hit and beaten until they died).

I'm pretty sure one name that did not come to mind was Rachel Carlson, author of Silent Spring, the 1962 book that facilitated the U.S. ban of the pesticide DDT in 1972.* Look how many lives were snuffed out as a result of her actions.

Wikipedia says, "Malaria afflicts between 300 million and 500 million people every year. The World Health Organization estimates that around 1 million people die of malaria and malaria-related illness every year. About 90% of these deaths occur in Africa, mostly to children under the age of 5." So, roughly speaking, in the 34 years since DDT was banned, approximately 34 million people have died as a result of the disease.

Certainly all 34 million can't be blamed on Carlson, but certainly a substantial number can. Here are a few examples:

In the period from 1934-1955 there were 1.5 million cases of malaria in Sri Lanka, resulting in 80,000 deaths. After the country invested in an extensive anti-mosquito program with DDT, there were only 17 cases reported in 1963. Thereafter the program was halted, and malaria in Sri Lanka rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969. After South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu Natal province rose from 8,000 to 42,000 cases. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400% increase in malaria deaths. Until the 1970s, DDT was used to eradicate the Aedes aegypti mosquito from most tropical regions of the Americas. The reinvasion of Aedes aegypti since has brought devastating outbreaks of dengue fever, dengue hemorrhagic fever, and a renewed threat of urban yellow fever.*

Contrary to Carlson's assertions, DDT is not a significant threat to humans or the environment. Reports state: "In humans, DDT use is generally safe; large populations have been exposed to the compound for 60 years with little acute toxicity apart from a few reports of poisoning. Doses as high as 285 mg/kg taken accidentally did not cause death, but such large doses did lead to prompt vomiting. One dose of 10 mg/kg can result in illness in some people."*

Perhaps Carlson's book resulted in the deaths of "only" 10 million people. That still puts her in the same league with Adolph Hitler.