If Oliver Stone wants to contextualize mass murderers, maybe he should start with a mini-series on the AGW crowd instead

6:30AM GMT 14 Jan 2010

Forecasters conceded that they did not spot the widespread snow storms that caused transport disruption and a surge of weather-related accidents until it was too late. Up to six inches fell in parts of the South West, with drifts of 7ft in Wales.

Even when the full extent of the threat was realised, flaws in the Met Office's bad weather warning system meant that the public were not adequately informed, officials said.

Yet...

GMT 30 Dec 2010

For cold of a variety not seen in over 25 years in a large scale is about to engulf the major energy consuming areas of the northern Hemisphere. The first 15 days of the opening of the New Year will be the coldest, population weighted, north of 30 north world wide in over 25 years in my opinion.

I like EUReferendum´s summary:

So, the short-term forecasts – when it really matters – are garbage, and the warning system is inadequate. Then, as we already know to our cost, the seasonal forecasts, with their "barbecue summers" and "mild winters" are fantasy.

But don't worry, boys and girls. Their long-range forecasts, for 2030 and beyond are spot on. These geniuses know exactly what the weather is going to be like in 2050, 2060, etc. Their computer models have told them so.

When thinking of suggestions as to what they can do with their computers and computer models, unspeakable things come to mind.

The Daily Kos, all embittered about Maine rejecting gay marriage legislation, shows its own lifestyle biases, and continued ignorance of not only the issue, but the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans (or, maybe not; you tell me)

Updated (Bill´s response) below

In Bill´s (in Portland Maine) little 'Cheers and Jeers' anicdote about how unnecessarily antagonistic marriage laws are against (and only against) gays in the U.S., he both misses the point entirely and openly shows his own tendency toward personal prejudices. Apparently, according to Bill, there are numerous groups of people who should be discriminated against based on their choice of lifestyle only, regardless of the fact that their choices neither do (nor potentially do) anything to affect our constitutional right to the freedom to practice our religion of choice, nor do they contradict the historical social norm of marriage for the purpose of procreation and social cohesion. Neither do they, in any way, and possibly more important, preclude the exclusion of homosexuals in any of their respective companies. Bill´s group of those he believes are less worthy of being considered for legal marriage consist of:

Satan worshippers, divorcées, rapturists, crack addicts, axe murderers, neo-nazi anarchists, "schtuping" nuns, porn addicts, kitten-drowners, deadbeat dads and chain-smokers.

Now, with the exception of axe murderers, I don´t believe any other of these groups of individuals fall under the category of illegal behavior (I know it´s illegal to sell and buy crack, but I don´t believe it is illegal to be addicted to it), and, regardless, there are laws set up to punish them. What bearing it has on who should and who should not have a right to marry, I just don´t see. So, what exactly is the comparison Mr. In Portland Maine is trying to draw; that there are those who could do harm to the institution of marriage in general, and that we should do what we can to protect that institution from irreparable damage; and that we should strictly adhere to a constitutional definition of the institution that can in no way affect our other constitutional freedoms?

Well, in that case, good point, Bill!

Updated Nov. 12, 2009

And Bill had a response via email; reposted here, in its entirety (cuz I´m fair like that). You can read it below the fold and respond, or not, accordingly.

An update on Obama´s Chavez-style "smart diplomacy" in Honduras via POWIP

An update to this post.

Last summer’s action in Honduras, and some of the shameful acts by our own State Department and the Obama administration has been an on-going topic here at POWIP; most recently with Dan recounting the latest reports that Zelaya would be re-seated as President. But as Otto Reich observes at “The Corner” that may be an oversimplification of the upcoming process:

Contrary to press reports, Zelaya is not in any way automatically returned to office by the accord. First, there must be a vote by the entire Honduran congress on whether Zelaya is fit to return to office. Prior to that, the Honduran supreme court, which ruled against Zelaya in June by a vote of 15 to 0, must issue an opinion on the same.

He also points out that this very same arrangement could have been agreed to months ago except for the ideologues at the NSC and the White House’s increasingly apparent inability to admit when they make a mistake. Reich also relates concerns that Chavez will get involved trying to buy support for Zelaya in an effort to get him reseated; and in doing so be able to intimidate his [Chavez's] opponents as well as claim a victory of sorts. Kind of like the President is hoping he’ll be able to do with the Obamacare bill.

It’s funny, isn’t it, that the President and Chavez would use similar tactics? Funny strange, not funny ha-ha. I guess it’s that vaunted Smart Power! we heard so much about.

Visit POWIP here. You won´t be sorry.

Time to scratch that sheen. Olympics, part 2

If Republicans seize the governors' mansions in both states, the embarrassment will be acute. That is just what happened in both New Jersey and Virginia back in 1993 before the Republicans seized control of the US Congress the following year, dealing a crippling blow to the newly minted Democratic president of the time, Bill Clinton.

But even losing one of them next week will scratch the sheen of President Obama, who seems, one year on from his election, to be hovering in the view of most Americans between competent and fumbling, notwithstanding the high esteem in which he is still held abroad and, of course, in the minds of the Nobel committee.

And, apparently, also in the eyes of Douglas Brinkley, whom David Usbourne quotes for his report.

"Obama has created an atmosphere of no fear," Douglas Brinkley, a history professor at Rice University and political biographer, told the National Journal. "Nobody is really worried about the revenge of Barack Obama, because he is not a vengeful man. That's what we love about him; he is so high-minded, and a conciliatory guy, and he tries to govern with a sense of consensus – all noble goals, but they don't get you very far in this Washington knifing environment."

That while, to quote James Taranto (h/t to him for this post, btw), "this scrappy insurgency is waging war on at least three powerful institutions all at once: Fox, the AP and Sarah Palin's Facebook page!"

It´s not what you know, it´s who you know; and dictator types know the O

Law Library of Congress Report for Congress August 2009

Q. Was the removal of Honduran President Zelaya legal, in accordance with Honduran constitutional and statutory law?

A. Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system.

But, Obama never really gave a crap one way or the other, and essentially sided with whatever the OAS and UN said (some might equate that to voting present). Which is why today we see the results of Micheletti being strong-armed into signing an accord that allows Zelaya to return to his office in spit of the Due Process that was followed by the Honduran Government.

The New York Times is still cluelessly calling the legal ousting a "coup".

And Hillary Clinton is calling Honduras' being bullied by the Obama administration to ignore its Constitutional process and reinstate Chavez´s buddy as president a big step forward for Latin America.

Friendship with the U.S. still means something, just to different people.

And speaking of coups; when do we take these tea parties to the next level?

And that´s the waaay theyyy became the Public Option Single Payer Trojan Horse Transparent Deception Bunch

This is the best, albeit most distrubing, damn clip show I´ve seen in a lotta years!

From Verum Serum:

Watching these clips, and reflecting back on the past 6 months, I still find it hard to believe that this transparent deception hasn’t even warranted a mention outside of conservative media...As I noted in my recent post on the failure of the media, this deception would have been treated like Watergate had a Republican administration been implicated in peddling a deception of this magnitude on the American people...But given the track record of this Administration there will be more deceptions to come. More Trojan horses, and opportunities to expose them. The truth cannot be defeated, only suppressed for a time. And our work is not done.

Well put.

Just one year ago, would you have believed...

Today from Thomas Sowell

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Read the whole article.


h/t

Killer Conservatives - Run Away! Run Away!

*With nasty, pointy polling data.

I´ll take a million greedy MDs who can only take my tonsils if I let 'em, over one greedy Obama who wants to tell me how to live

The WaPo has an article today on what role Behavioral Economics (training grounds for the Thought Police, in my opinion - and it´s my blog, so I´m right) plays in Obama´s health insurance mandate. Here are a few exerpts that stood out to me (all the bold will be mine, btw):

And the question of whether people will follow a government order that they carry health insurance -- an issue that will help determine whether universal health care is a success or costly failure -- will depend on more than the penalty they would pay for refusing, many economists say. This, they say, is the lesson of behavioral economics, a school of thought that holds that people do not necessarily make decisions out of well-reasoned self-interest. It is an approach that has gained a powerful foothold in the Obama White House.

Shocker, huh? A theory that implies people need an outside source to tell them how to reason well plays heavily in policy making in the Obama White House (follow that link).

It's war against Fox News is very telling of the mindset and maturity of the Obama administration

As this photo is of mine:



But I don´t think Fox has too much to worry about.

As Charles Krauthammer points out in his column this morning:

News reporters need to start supplying us with the appropriate sound effects that should accompany their reports about president Obama and his administration

For example, these three reports I´ve read over the past couple days:

James Taranto reports the president hasn't yet chosen whether to choose not to decide to send more troops to Afganistan.

Uhhhhhhhh...huh?

Jake Tapper asks the White House where they get off designating Fox News a right-wing opinion outlet.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

And today George Will reports on an entitlement to which you are entitled even when you are not entitled to it.

Barack Obama has now established Mills's Social Security COLA as the capstone to the architecture of the entitlement culture that is modern liberalism's crowning achievement: It is an entitlement to which you are entitled even when you are not entitled to it. Obama says that 57 million Americans -- every Social Security beneficiary and some other recipients of federal entitlements -- are entitled to $250 apiece to assuage the disappointment of having not been injured by inflation. Because the cost of living declined 4 percent last year, the 57 million are not entitled to the actual COLA, but they evidently are going to be declared entitled to monetary consolation for the misfortune of not experiencing misfortune.

I think I´m entitled to a stiff drink right about now.

So, on behalf of all the sane people reading these reports, let me just say...

Woo Woo Nyuk Nyuk sound bite  The Three Stooges sound bites