Judicious Asininity

This is the Archive Page. Click Here for Main Page

Mon Jun 30, 2008

Sarah Palin for VP

Beldarblog makes a good case for her

Beldarblog makes the case for Sarah Palin, and a good case it is, too. Her determination to root out corruption in her own party, and work for the good of her state, is almost unique in today's political environment.
Beldar writes:

But Johnson reports that Gov. Palin has also been successful in pushing through substantive reform legislation. At her urging, for example, the Alaska Legislature has repealed an oil and gas severance taxation system that Murkowski had negotiated behind closed doors with BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips, replacing it with a slightly higher tax structure negotiated transparently and at arms' length. Gov. Palin has also worked with the legislature to encourage these three big oil companies — and others who are not already so heavily invested in Alaska — to compete in developing a natural gas pipeline that will bring cheaper and more reliable energy to Alaska's own consumers and eventually permit cheap export of natural gas to the Lower 48 states. Palin has shown herself to be simultaneously pro-environment, pro-development, pro-competition, and emphatically outside the pockets of either the corporate powers-that-be or their traditional politician allies.

With oil prices headed ever higher, the no-nonsense Governor of Alaska would enhance McCain's ticket. On the plus side, she would attract fiscal conservatives, ordinary Americans distressed by high gas prices, and women who backed Hillary because of her gender. Negatives? Inexperienced? Compared to Obama?

Sun Jun 29, 2008

All Energy is Solar

All that differs is the time scale

Solar:

A photovoltaic element captures solar energy and converts it to electricity. The energy required to create such a cell is a significant fraction of the energy it can produce.

Hydroelectric:

The heat from the sun evaporates water. When it falls into catchments at altitudes above sea level energy can be recovered as it flows back to sea level.

Ethanol:

Corn plants use photosynthesis to convert solar energy and CO₂ into oxygen and carbohydrates. After much expenditure of energy, some of the carbohydrates are made available as ethanol.

Fossil fuels:

The carbon in fossils fuels came from photosynthesis, the conversion of CO₂ in the atmosphere to carbohydrates and Oxygen.

Wind Power:

Winds arise because of the effects of the sun on the atmosphere and the rotation of the Earth.

Nuclear fission:

Big stars cook Hydrogen into heavier elements. When the stars go nova, they spread the rest of the periodic table across the cosmos. Some of that stuff coagulates into planets.

Nuclear fusion:

Big on the to-do-list. It still depends on elements and isotopes created since the Big Bang. I think the Big Bang qualifies as solar energy.

Whatever solution one proposes to meet energy needs, one always ends up with some form of solar energy. Do we tap what was stored in the past or rely on the present?

Fri Jun 27, 2008

Obama's major problem

Tacking to the center is going to take more political savvy than he can muster

Lately, Obama has been flip-flopping like a fish left high and dry on the deck of a fishing boat. Howard Kurtz, at the Washington Post, nails Obama on the Heller ruling. Back in November, the Obama camp had him saying:

' . . . believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'

Come the decision, and the Obama now claims:

'That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position,'

Mr. Eloquence speaks "inartfully"? Or is he just tacking with the political winds? He'd get much more respect if he'd disagreed with the Court's decision.

He was no better on FISA, when he voted for the evil Bush Administration's domestic spying program. The Politico:

But with his support of a government surveillance bill that offers retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies — a bill that he vowed last year to filibuster — the honeymoon has ended.

Disappointed over his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the online activists feel jilted and betrayed and have taken to questioning his progressive credentials. One prominent blogger, Atrios, has even given him the moniker “Wanker of the Day.”

We all know how quickly he distanced himself from his spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obama never took responsibility for the twenty years he spent at Wright's Church. Instead, he pleaded ignorance of what Wright had been preaching, and then attacked Wright. While Wright's sermons provide plenty of ammunition to use against Obama, Wright did everyone a service when he said:

I do what I do. He does what politicians do.

Obama is in a tough position politically. He has to move from his hard-left record towards the center if he is to win in November. But each time he's tacked, both ends of the political spectrum have had good cause to attack him. To the right, he's a political opportunist, while, to the left, he's a traitor to the ideals that attracted them to him.

McCain may be onto a winner with his Straight Talk Express because it contrasts him with Obama's double talk and evasions. The MSM has been frantically covering for Obama, but they can't keep it up through November.

Oh, and a memo to Obama. GOP voters don't care about the color of your skin but they do care about the color of your politics, whether they be the deepest red of your past or the faded red of your present political persona.

Mon Jun 23, 2008

Another huge problem with the Supreme's BOUMEDIENE ruling

Terrorists target civilian judges

Obama, in his infinite wisdom, said:

the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them in trial. They are currently in US prisons, incapacitated.

Andrew McCarthy pointed our how wrong the wise one was, in this NRO rebuttal.

But there is another huge problem with the Supreme Court's decision, as I pointed out in a previous post. From that post:

Bradford Berenson, former Associate White House Counsel, was on C-Span (Friday evening 3/23/06), explaining why military tribunals were appropriate for terrorists. He noted that U.S. District Judge Kevin Duffy, the judge who tried the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, has a 24-hour guard to protect him from revenge attacks by Muslim terrorists. That is a huge burden for a public servant and the public purse to bear.

A little googling confirmed that the judge is indeed under such protection:
Michael Bounds, 47, Jackson, deputy U.S. marshal:

Terrorists had been on his mind hours before two airliners smashed into the World Trade Center.

That's because Bounds was in New York City on a special detail, helping to protect U.S. District Judge Kevin Duffy, who presided over the trial involving the 1993 terrorist bombing of the center. "He has a lifetime detail protection based on the threats against him."

When the terrorist strike took place on Sept. 11, Bounds helped rush Duffy to a secure location.
Suppose we capture Osama bin Ladin and he is tried in a civilian court in New York. Suppose you are asked to serve on the jury. Suppose you receive threats against your life from Osama's supporters. Would you still serve? Suppose jurors at a previous terrorist trial had been decapitated by Muslim terrorists. Still willing to serve? Duffy received threats so serious that he has lifetime protection. Would civilian jurors get the same level of protection? Your call.

Muslim terrorists are at war with our society. You can be certain they will target the judges, prosecutors and jurors involved in prosecuting them. Can we give all those people 24-hour protection? Did the Supreme court even consider the danger that civilian judges will face if they convict terrorists.

The Supreme five will not need the protection that Duffy has. They gave our enemies the rights of US citizens. Obama was pleased with that decision. No doubt Osama is too.

Thu Jun 19, 2008

Even if drilling doesn't reduce gas pump prices...

It will keep trillions of dollars in US hands

Who would you rather buy oil from? The shareholders of American and European oil companies or the state-run oil companies of Iran, Iran, Venezuela, and Mexico? Who should get a share of the trillions of dollars the US spends on importing oil? Us or them?

I note this because I saw Gingrich on Fox last might, and the ever-stupid Alan Colmes kept saying that "studies" show that drilling in the US will only reduce gas prices by a few cents. Even if that was true, it misses the point that the wealth transfer from us to them would be considerably reduced. The current account deficit would move in our direction and the dollar would appreciate. Moreover, millions of new US jobs would be created and tax revenues would increase. What's not to like about expanding domestic oil production?

Unfortunately, Gingrich failed to make those economic arguments.

Wed Jun 18, 2008

More British Dhimmitude

How Muslims exploit PC legal systems

Mark Steyn and his publisher were hauled up before a kangaroo court (a.k.a. Human Rights Tribunal) in British Columbia by Muslims "upset" at a quotation from a Muslim imam that appeared in an extract from Steyn's book that was published in Macleans. That is a high profile case that will be fought in a real court room if the kangaroo court does not dismiss the charges.

The little people have less of a chance standing up to Muslim demands. Take this case in Britain, that Solomonia picked up on. A hair salon owner advertised for an assistant stylist. A Muslim woman applied. She wore a headscarf that covered all her hair to the interview. She wanted the job but she wouldn't take off the scarf while working. From the Mail report:

A few days later, Bushra duly arrived at the salon.

'I have to say I didn't take to her,' says Sarah. 'She waltzed into the salon and hung up her coat as though she already had the job.

'Naturally, I noticed her headscarf. But I presumed that, as she's a hairdresser, she'd take if off when she was working. In 16 years, I've never known any stylist cover their hair with a headscarf. And this particular headscarf came all the way down to her eyebrows and covered her entire hairline.'

Sarah broached the subject with Bushra, who said she would not be removing the garment.

After ten minutes, with the interview complete, Sarah said she would come back to Bushra about the vacancy.

'As she left, Bushra turned to me and said that she'd been turned down for jobs before,' says Sarah. 'And I admit I thought: "Well, what do you expect?"

'It was not a religious matter. If she'd come in wearing a baseball cap and saying she wouldn't take it off for work, then she wouldn't have got the job either.'

This sounds like that old Peter Cook/Dudley Moore skit about a man applying for the part of Tarzan:

Peter: I noticed that, Mr. Spigott. When you have been in the business as long as I have you come to notice these things almost instinctively. Now, Mr. Spigott, you, a one-legged man, are applying for the role of Tarzan — a role which, traditionally, involves the use of a two-legged actor.

Dudley: Correct.

Peter: And yet you, a unidexter, are applying for the role.

Dudley: Right.

Peter: A role for which two legs would seem to be the minimum requirement.

Dudley: Very true.

Peter: Well, Mr. Spigott, need I point out to you where your deficiency lies as regards landing the role?

Dudley: Yes, I think you ought to.

Peter: Need I say with overmuch emphasis that it is in the leg division that you are deficient.

Dudley: The leg division?

Peter: Yes, the leg division, Mr. Spigott. You are deficient in it — to the tune of one. Your right leg I like. I like your right leg. A lovely leg for the role. That's what I said when I saw you come in. I said ‘A lovely leg for the role.’ I've got nothing against your right leg. The trouble is — neither have you. You fall down on your left.

Dudley: You mean it's inadequate?

Peter: Yes, it's inadequate, Mr. Spigott. And, to my mind, the British public is not ready for the sight of a one-legged ape-man swinging through the jungly tendrils.

The British public (the non-Muslim, at least) aren't ready for an alternative hair sylist who won't show her own hair. But the PC police have done their best to destroy Sarah. She may well lose her business and livelihood over this case. Common sense has gone out of the window in Britain and Canada.

Steyn's "America Alone" looks more and more like a roadmap to the future.

Tue Jun 17, 2008

Obama is too ignorant to be Commander-in-Chief

Just how did jailing the fall guys for WTC I help us win the war Radical Islam declared against us?

Beldar Blog takes Obama to task for this mind-bogglingly ignorant claim:

And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, "Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims."

So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.

Mr. Obama, Sir, if they were incapacitated, how come they pulled off 9/11? Because, Mr. Obama, the Egyptian terrorist group that was responsible for the first WTC attack merged with Osama Bin Ladin's terrorist organization in the 1990s. Osama's deputy, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, came from the Egyptian wing. So, we might have jailed a few of the terrorists but we did not destroy their organization, their sources of funding, or their leadership. Based on your utter ignorance of the history of Al Qaeda, and the direct link between the two World Trade Center attacks, you have proven yourself to be unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.

I know all of America's enemies in the Muslim world are heads down, butt up five, times a day asking Allah to help you become President of the United States. God help America if that happens.

Sun Jun 15, 2008

Beldar Blog explains the Kennedy court power grab

One more step towards Judicial Fascism

Beldar concludes:

Look, folks, this wasn't really about George W. Bush. He'll head back to Crawford in January, but this problem won't be remotely close to being resolved by then. Rather, this case is about whether, and to what extent, the federal courts can fly-speck and then overturn both the Executive and Legislative Branches on matters that are absolutely central to the prosecution of war by our military forces. If you can only see this through anti-Bush goggles, you're blinding yourself to what's important.

It is bigger than that, however. Look how the Californian Supreme Court overruled the will of the people on the issue of gay marriage.

The Left cannot impose its will on the American people through the Democratic process. It is imposing its will by Judicial fiat. Unelected Judges are making decisions that thwart the constitution and the will of the people.

Most Americans would agree that America should exploit its own fossil fuel reserves. But the judiciary, in concert with the environmental lobby, have halted any attempts to do so.

Obama is the stalking horse for even larger power grabs by the judicial branch. Be afraid, very afraid, for America is on the verge of Judicial Fascism.

Fri Jun 13, 2008

Obama just stepped into a black hole

He supports the Supreme Court's legitimization of terrorism

From ABC News:

Barack Obama hailed the ruling, calling it "a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo," which he described as "yet another failed policy supported by John McCain."

The presumptive Republican nominee, by contrast, sounded a Bush-like note, and took issue with the ruling while pledging to abide by it.

Speaking to reporters in Boston, McCain allied himself with Chief Justice Roberts, who dissented in the case.

"These are unlawful combatants, they are not American citizens and I think we should pay attention to Justice Roberts' opinion in this decision," said McCain. "But it is a decision that the Supreme Court has made. Now we need to move forward. As you know I always favored closing Guantanamo Bay and I still think we ought to do that."

Obama is now wide open to the soft on terrorism charge. He could have agreed with John McCain, and altered the perception that he is the second coming of Jimmy Carter. But he swung the way we knew he would; hard to the left and against America's interests.

US Supreme Court legitimizes terrorism

Extends posthumous constitutional protection to Mohammed Atta & company

The Supreme Court has done the unthinkable; extended US constitutional rights to terrorists. If any Gitmo prisoner is freed by a US civilian court and goes on to kill anyone, then that blood will be on the hands of Ginsberg, Souter, Kennedy, Stevens and Breyer. They are the ones who have given aid and comfort to the enemy.

In that proud endeavor, they join the top legal firms, that have worked tirelessly on behalf of our enemies interred at Gitmo; our friends in the MSM, who have spread enemy propaganda as gospel truth, and slandered our troops at every turn; and the Democratic party, that has done all it could to lose this war.

Who knows, maybe some smart lawyer will sue the City of New York, on behalf of Mohammed Att'a family, for putting the World Trade Center in the way of Mohammed Atta's plane. If he got the OJ jury he'd win.

Congratulations, America. You have just given terrorists the world over legal protections previously reserved for US citizens and residents. That will go a long way towards stopping them from attacking us.

Tue Jun 10, 2008

Why offshore drilling has stopped

The US fell into the "everywhere versus nowhere" trap

Newt Gingrich has just returned from a trip to Norway where he observed great natural beauty alongside large scale off shore drilling. He writes:

Norway's annual output of 1.6 billion barrels of oil comes exclusively from offshore drilling. Oil and natural gas are transported through a network of sub seafloor pipelines. Norway is the home to the world's largest natural gas drilling platform.

And the truly remarkable fact is that Norway has built this robust offshore oil and gas drilling industry alongside large and thriving fishing and tourism industries.

And he explains how the Norwegians did this:

Norway has avoided the "everywhere versus nowhere" trap that has paralyzed U.S. offshore drilling through a common sense approach that is textbook Green Conservatism.

In Norway, strong environmental protections were part of exploration, drilling and transportation of oil and natural gas from the outset. This initial environmental emphasis has built the sense of trust necessary to allow Norway to move to a cooperative, performance-based model rather than a regulation-based model like we have in the U.S.

Norway has relatively few laws, regulations and government agencies that govern offshore drilling. Their equivalent of our Supreme Court - the Hoyesterett - reportedly declined jurisdiction over offshore drilling on the grounds that it lacks expertise!

The result is a policy in which environmental concerns are carefully balanced with energy needs. Norwegians have put some areas off-limits to drilling. In some areas, drilling is carefully circumscribed. But the point is that drilling occurs. Environmental concerns have informed - not pre-empted-Norway's oil and gas industry.

Back in the USA, that doesn't happen:

Compare that to the United States, where a series of congressional prohibitions and presidential moratoria on offshore drilling - fed by public mistrust and largely unfounded environmental fears - have placed virtually all of the offshore United States off limits to drilling.

Note, though, that oil is a fungible commodity traded world-wide. If the US ramped up its production, then it would expand world-wide supply. Prices would fall, due to increased supply, but it would take large increase in production to causes prices to drop significantly. The major impact of expanded US production would be to put pressure on OPEC to increase supply. Note also that Norwegians still pay a lot more than we do for gas. Back in 2006, Norwegians were paying $US1.21 per liter while Americans paid $0.77 per liter. With the fall in the dollar compared to European currencies, the gaps has probably narrowed.

Still, with no commitment to expand domestic production, the US has little influence over supply and prices.

Sun Jun 08, 2008

Where is planet Obama?

He is just creepy in his egocentric arrogance and ignorance

The guy doesn't seem to live on Earth. Check this extract from his victory speech:

“... I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.”

This is almost beyond fisking. Is he he saying the trillions spent on health care in America wasn't used to provide for the sick? Was it all spent on the dead, or just the healthy, or maybe only the wealthy? Our local Metro hospital is millions in the red caring for the uninsured, the illegal and the indigent. That story is repeated in every city in the USA. But on planet Obama, that money was never spent, those people were never cared for, and the universe was held in suspense waiting for Obama to win the Democrat nomination.

Now to the good jobs for the jobless. I think that being CEO of Google is a good job. Should Obama give it to a jobless person? Maybe the crack addict on the street corner looking for his next rush? On his first pay day at Google he'd be set for life. Maybe that's too much, and Google is in Obama's camp, or was that Osama's, so let's try something more reasonable. How about hiring him as a policeman? They have strong unions, get good pay, nice overtime, and perform a valuable service to society. But, there aren't too many vacancies, and there are some minimal requirements that disqualify too many of the jobless. Perhaps Obama should give the crack addict on the street corner first shot at that good job. Never mind the kids who stayed out of trouble, studied hard and met the qualifying standards. On Obama's planet, every jobless person deserves a good job. Be they lazy, be they stupid, be they illegal, be they addicted, be they alcoholic, be they criminal, be they incompetent, be they whatever, they deserve a good job. And, from this day hence they shall have one, according to the gospel of Obama.

I love the King Canute line: "the rise of the oceans began to slow". I suspect Obama has never heard of King Canute. The sea level has risen about 400ft since the end of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago. That rate of increase slowed dramatically about 8,000 years ago (that was just before Obama was born). Now, he is going to stop the oceans in their tracks. The ice will no longer melt. Heck, with any luck, the next ice age (big or little, who cares? We won't live long enough to know) will start on Obama's dime and he'll take the credit. Or maybe not. He's been pretty good at blaming others for his mistakes. It's called the graveyard under the bus.

And now to the coup de grâce. He promises to end the war as of the date of his nomination. Point one. The war is still going on, days after his effective nomination, albeit off the headlines, since America is winning. Point two. You don't end wars unilaterally. You don't even end poker games unilaterally. You win them or lose them. I'm guessing Obama wants to surrender to Osama and Iran and anyone else in the neighborhood. Just a guess. Obama thinks Iraq is irrelevant to the war that Osama declared on us. Osama thinks it is is the central front. At least they disagree on something.

Abraham Lincoln, a modest man of immense accomplishment, was not one to speak lightly of generations. Barack Obama, a great man of modest accomplishment, would have us believe that everything got better from the day he won the Democrat nomination. Sounds like Year Zero

Sat Jun 07, 2008

Environmental Footprints - Prudhoe Bay vs Sudbury Nickel Mine

Oil extraction vs Nickel mining - which has the bigger environmental impact?

The two maps, at the same level of resolution, show the Sudbury Nickel mine in Ontario and the Prudhoe Bay Oil field in Alaska. Which is which? Click "read more" for the answer.

a.

View Larger Map

b.

View Larger Map

You can see that one of the facilities has blighted the landscape surrounding it so badly that it is easily visible from space.

Read more »

Thu Jun 05, 2008

Another Haditha acquittal

Great news but at what cost

AFP reports that:

Lieutenant Andrew Grayson, 27, was declared "not guilty on all charges" by a jury, said a spokesman for the Camp Pendleton military base in southern California where the hearing started on May 28.

That leaves just two more marines facing charges trumped up by enemy propagandists, Time magazine, elements in the military overreacting to Abu Ghraib, and the repulsive Congressman Murtha.

Just remember that the brave Marines charged in the case have horrendous legal costs. You can help by contributing to Andrew Grayson's legal defense fund.

He's not the only marine in financial and legal jeopardy. Check this post for details on how to help Justin L. Sharrat and Frank D. Wuterich.

Mon Jun 02, 2008

Obama's mission is Black Liberation

God help us if he gets his hands on the Presidency

Stanley Kurtz, in NRO, ties all the threads of Obama's unsavory associations into a coherent whole. He is way to the left of mainstream America. Kurtz starts:

Having now left Trinity United Church of Christ, can Barack Obama escape responsibility for his decades-long ties to Michael Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright? No, he cannot. Obama’s connections to the radical-left politics espoused by Pfleger and Wright are broad and deep. The real reason Obama bound himself to Wright and Pfleger in the first place is that he largely approved of their political-theological outlooks.

Go read the whole article and share it with your Democratic and stay-at-home GOP friends.

Go to Main Page

Judicious Search

Asinine Stats

Most Popular Entries

Archives

Syndicate RSS

News Links

Contact Form

Your Email

Subject

Message