Still Pissed Off About the Hawley-Smoot Tariff

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Bradford Berenson for President


This guy. Mrs. R thinks highly of him because he turned a very stupid question by Bob "I was important once, dammit!" Woodward around on him. Certainly I admire his smackdown, and I'd like to see more of that sort of thing. For example:

Tony Snow: "Interesting question, Helen Thomas, but let me ask you this: why should the administration take advice from a woman who looks like she puts her make-up on with a rusty masonry trowel?"

Donald Rumsfeld: "Mr. Krugman, you might find it a little harder to automatically gainsay everything President Bush does for cheap political points after I force-feed you an army-surplus traffic cone and a large bag of marbles."

Mitt Romney: "I'd be happy to respond to your snarky post about "Things the Mormons Want to Do That Will Offend Some People," Mr. SobekPundit, but I don't think you'll be able to hear my reply very well, when you're submerged in four feet of water in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car."

Presidential, baby!

All that said, I've got my eye on the Jack M candidacy. It's compelling. And rich. Almost as compelling as my own unstoppable electoral juggernaut. Which stings the nostrils -- in a good way.

Guster: Barrel of a Gun

That singer needs a haircut real bad. And the drummer looks like he's going to have a seizure. Other than that, great live performance.

Global Warming: Are Scientists Being Pressured for Political Reasons?!?!

I've heard that scientists are, in fact, being pressured concerning global warming research for political reasons. It's just that, unlike in this MSN article, the pressure is by liberal groups to support global warming dogma. MSN only cares about political pressure when it's against their own cherished beliefs.

Consider this article in last April's Opinion Journal. "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis." But wait, aren't scientists supposed to be more concerned with The Truth! than with attacking one another over unfalsifiable eco-propaganda? What a naive question. Seriously, it's cute when you ask things like that. So child-like. So innocent. Let me ask this question: if one scientist goes to Congress and yells "we're all gonna die!!!" and another goes to Congress and yells "everything is just fine!!!" which of the two will get federal funds for more research? That's right, let's follow the money:

"After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today."

Questions of money and intimidation aside, consider that even if you believe humans are causing global warming, you're still left with the quandary of trying to decide which doomsday scientist actually knows what he's talking about. NRO's Steven Hayward has an interesting article about the wildly conflicting theories of doomsday eco-warriors. Here's a key quote:

"Even the catastrophic scenarios painted by enthusiasts clash. In one extreme case, the Greenland ice sheet and much of the polar ice caps could melt, raising the global sea level by as much as 30 feet, inundating billions in coastal areas. (Keep in mind, though, that such a scenario would take decades to play out, unlike a tsunami.) But hold on: A variant of catastrophe theory holds that warming might cause the Greenland and polar ice sheets to thicken and bring on a new ice age — the scenario of the movie The Day After Tomorrow. Incidentally, the sea level would fall by several feet, creating new opportunities for beachfront development."

If even the true-believer eco-nuts are this far apart on their computer models, why give either of them any credence?

Also: a promo for Sarah Silverman's new film, "A Very Convenient Truth." It's meh at best. B- idea, C+ execution. Like this blog.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Iraqi Army Proving Itself

This article gives me warm fuzzies all over. A bunch of jihadis were planning on attacking pilgrims at a Shiite Muslim festival in Najaf. Then Iraqis got wind of it. Then the Iraqis brought the pain. An estimated 250 jihadis killed; they will not be missed.

All by Iraq's own defense force. Good on ya'.

I think this calls for a little celebratory gunfire:



Descision '08 -- the Scorecard

MSNBC has a story up about Mike Huckabee announcing his bid for the Repubican nomination in 2008. It's a good introduction for anyone who, like me, knows practically nothing about the guy. The article says he's a "staunch conservative," opposing abortion rights and gay marriage, but it also notes that he backed tax increases for school funding, expanded state insurance and, and opposed barring illegals from receiving state services. Of course, to an AP writer, anyone to the left of Chairman Mao is a "staunch conservative," so let's take our labels with a grain of salt.

The article also helpfully lists who has declared their candidacies for Democrat and Republican nominees:

John Edwards
Chris Dodd
Tom Vilsack
Dennis Kucinich
Barack Obama
Hillary! Clinton
(the list omits Bill Richardson)

Sam Brownback
Jim Gilmore
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Tommy Thompson
Duncan Hunter
Ron Paul
Tom Tancredo
(and Huckabee, of course)


Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Two Morals to One Story

Story here.

1. Chickens may well be the most retarded creatures on earth. Well, they might be tied with the Dutch.

2. No one who has ever complained about screaming children on airplanes realizes just how good they have it.

Labels: ,

For Michael, Who Doesn't Believe Birds Can Hop



Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Live-Blogging the State of the Union Speech

I didn't actually watch the State of the Union, so I'll just kind of make some stuff up. It's not like anyone's going to notice, right?

Update: Man, I can't believe he just said that.

Update: Dude, Nancy Pelosi makes me want to throw up my own vital organs, but I'm afraid she'd boost my taxes for doing it. I swear, when anthropologists excavate her emaciated corpse 3,000 years from now, they'll wonder why 21st Century Americans interred mannequins. At least it will give their anthro departments something to debate.

Update: I'm hungry. Thinkin' about maybe a burrito.

Update: Blah blah security blah blah amnesty blah blah I don't care about my base.

Update: It's be so cool if he started out his speech with something like "The State of the Union is ... not as nice as it will be when Ted Kennedy's liver finally kicks off."

Update: And then challenge Kennedy to a duel with spears.

Update: You'd think I would have had the foresight to buy some burritos or something before the speech started. You'd think that, but you'd be wrong.

Update: Make that nunchucks. Forget the spears.

Update: You know, I'd like his amnesty plan a lot better if he could even pretend that he would get serious about enforcing existing immigration laws.

Update: You never really see nunchuck fights, do you? I wonder why that is. I mean, sometimes you'll see one guy with nunchucks and the other guy has something else, like a sword, but never a nunchuck against nunchuck fight. Maybe the nunchuck guys figure they'll just get their nunchucks tangled, and make themselves look silly.

Update: You can call out for pizza, but not for burritos. Why is that? Maybe if you know someone at Del Taco, you can call and say "pick me up something on your way home from work." But once you graduate from college, it's just less likely that you're going to know people who work at Del Taco. Unless you got a degree in journalism or something.

Update: Okay, the speech is finally over. I'm going to go read up on the growing hamster menace.

State of the Blog

Pretty frickin' dismal, I'd say. Anyone got a problem with that?

I didn't think so.