More Climate Change Scandals
The Global Warming true believers continue to take it on the chin, as all credibility of the IPCC has dissipated in the face of scandal after scandal. Resulting from multiple cases of proven data manipulation, hiding of data not backing up climate change claims, as well as publishing data without any real science behind it (under the guise of “established science”), climate change evangelists have seen their dream of worldwide re-distribution of wealth and global socialistic governance meltdown.
If you recall, a few weeks ago it was revealed that high profile predictions of glacier meltings were essentially made up. Now comes word of two other examples, of more or less the same thing. The same IPCC report that fear mongered over the glaciers also stated “that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020…” However, Professor Chris Field, the lead author of the IPCC’s climate impact team, now tells reporters that he can find “no evidence” to support the claim. There is simply there is no serious, peer-reviewed evidence that the prediction is true. The IPCC has also taken heat the last couple weeks from the Dutch government, due to its erroneous assertion that half of the Netherlands is below sea level (the real amount is less than 25%).
Decades from now, people will look back at the Global Warming hysteria of 1990-2009 as yet another chapter in what Charles Mackay would call Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Popular faith in science has been badly damaged by those in science who promoted climate change as a political tool to draw funding and fame. Scientists who care about science need to take the lead to ensure this type of biased, unscientific madness never happens again, and should start by disowning and purging from their fields those who placed personal benefit ahead of science itself, as well as those whose devotion to a political end skewed their scientific vision and judgment.
Voters in the United States should also keep in mind those politicians who were fellow travelers in this scandal. Much of the Democratic establishment used these false studies to push their objectives of carbon taxes, cap and trade and income redistribution while imposing costly regulation on business throughout the United States. They have used fears of Global Warming to limit production of domestic energy supplies, pushing fuel costs up for all of us, and burdening the U.S. economy in a time of recession. These politicians (Obama included) tried to create a crisis, where none existed, in order to move more and more money and control from individuals/private industry to government. Yet another reason to punish them this November.
Honor Killing, Yet Again, Disgusting
In the latest example of Radical Islam’s method of dealing with women and girls (i.e., “Honor” Killing), a teenage girl in Turkey was killed by her father by being buried alive.
A postmortem examination revealed large amounts of soil in her lungs and stomach, indicating that she had been alive and conscious while being buried. “The report is blood curdling. According to our findings the girl who had no bruises on her body and no sign of narcotics or poison in her blood was alive and fully conscious when she was buried,” one official involved in the case told the Times. It also emerged that Medine had repeatedly tried to report to police that she had been beaten by her father and grandfather days before she was killed. “She tried to take refuge at the police station three times, and she was sent home three times.”
Her crime was having male friends. I sure wish women’s rights groups in the west would pay attention to the atrocities done to women throughout the Muslim world, instead of their 100% obsessive focus with abortion on demand in the United States.
Stooping a Bit with This Post, but Cannot Pass Up
According to Fox News, there seems to be a bit of a diplomatic scuffle between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, over an ambassador appointment.
A high-ranking Pakistani diplomat reportedly cannot be appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia because in Arabic his name translates into a phrase more appropriate for a porn star, referring to the size of male genitals, Foreign Policy reported.
The Arabic translation of Akbar Zeb to “biggest d**k” has overwhelmed Saudi officials who have refused to allow his post there.
As Instapundit and Powerline remind us, there is a scene from “Monty Python’s Life of Brian” that seems to have predicted this very occurrence.
Speaking of Women’s Progress in Islamic Society
Yesterday I posted some pictures visually highlighting the regression women’s rights have taken in Muslim countries over the last half century. Obviously plastic surgery for breast augmentation would be something that one would not expect to see in a Muslim country where women must hide behind burqa’s and are not allowed in public without male relatives/husbands. Yet, apparently, somewhere the Koran must provide an exception allowing women to augment their body, based on this headline today….
Bosom Bombers: Women have explosive breast implants
Agents for Britain’s MI5 intelligence service have discovered that Muslim doctors trained at some of Britain’s leading teaching hospitals have returned to their own countries to fit surgical implants filled with explosives…Women suicide bombers recruited by al-Qaida are known to have had the explosives inserted in their breasts under techniques similar to breast enhancing surgery.
Nice, cannot wait what the TSA come up with to check for this.
Recent Wines
Have not had too much of a chance to do much wine tasting the past few weeks, though have had a few as follows.
2004 Mitolo Cabernet Sauvignon Serpico (Australia, South Australia, Fleurieu, McLaren Vale): Deep, dense purple, with some red edging. Huge nose rises from the glass, with lots of cedar, milk chocolate/almond bar, green bell pepper and tobacco. Full bodied, yet light on its feet. Massive blackberry, cassis and some herbs on the palate. Has hints of sweetness. Really good stuff for the price. Lots going on as far as the nose goes, and though the palate is somewhat simple in that its size dominates, it is very tasty. This is the sort of wine that has fallen out of favor with wine snobs, but they are missing out when this big of a wine has the balance to match. Excellent QPR (quality-price ratio) at under $50, as this is world class. Wine Advocate gave it a 94, Wine Spectator an 88. I would give it a 92.
2004 Domaine Alfred Pinot Noir Califa Chamisal Vineyards (USA, California, Central Coast, Edna Valley): Very big pinot. Violet in color. Nose of forest floor, dark cherry and spice. Huge on front palate. Delicious. Lots of gorgeous fruit, vanilla and spice. Good purity of fruit. Still has years to go. This is very good, just down some points as it does not get any more interesting as you drink it. First sip is tasty, last taste you start to get a bit fatigued. Wine Spectator gave this a 96. I would give it a 91+. At around $50, not inexpensive, but very enjoyable.
2005 Zepaltas Pinot Noir La Cruz Vineyard (USA, California, Sonoma County, Sonoma Coast): Interesting wine that has put on some weight over the past couple years since my last try of it. Big funky nose of earth, cola, red fruits and wet socks. Visibly a bright red hue, not sure I have seen a wine so red. On the palate, much richer than I anticipated, almost syrah like in texture. Dark fruit, cloves, and oak. Decent complexity and finish, though palate wise would have been tough to nail it as pinot. Same score as two years ago, but clearly better (I think I overrated a couple years back). Wine Spectator gave this a 95, I would give it a 90. At the $45 release price, I would recommend, but at the current $100 re-sale price, a pass.
2004 Kumeu River Chardonnay Maté’s Vineyard (New Zealand, North Island, Auckland, Kumeu): Golden straw color. Lemon curd and butterscotch nose. Medium bodied, slightly oily in texture. Lots of lemon and green apple on the palate. Still young, lots of acid to give it a bit of backbone. Good effort, if a bit simple. Okay value at around $30. Wine Spectator gave this a 93. I would give it an 87.
N.V. Gloria Ferrer Brut (USA, California, Sonoma County): As good of a QPR (quality price ratio) as you can get for a sparkling wine. Very effervescent, light gold in color, nose of granny smith apples, nice palate presence with apples, pears and a little bit of bread. Does not rock your world, but if someone only wants to spend $12-14 on a sparkler, this is the choice to make. I would give this an 87, and a certain recommendation for value.
The Deficit, and Obama’s Solution for It
Looking at the chart below adds credence to the cartoon below it.
As mentioned here, in an excellent article by John Mauldin, “Obama offering to freeze spending by 17% in US discretionary-spending programs, after he ran them up over 20% in just one year, is laughable.” Neither Obama, or Congress, is serious about our deficit and debt. Populist rhetoric is not a solution. Taxes are not the problem. Spending is the problem, and only cutting spending will solve our crisis.
You are Rich (at Least in Terms of Tax Rates)
Reuters had a story today that seemed to disappear after some White House complaining, but Red State has the text. Surprise, surprise, when it comes to taxes, guess who is considered rich? You are!
The Obama administration’s plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families. .
The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.
If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.
Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 — though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.
It has always perplexed me how the class warfare thing ever works in attracting voters. Obama has pledged to end the evil Bush tax cuts for the rich mentioned above, yet it is not unlikely that most of the 55% of people who actually pay income taxes will actually pay substantially higher rates in 2011 then they did in 2010. Don’t believe for a second you are off the hook because you do not make over $250,000 a year. As I have said a million times, watch what Obama does, not what he says.
As an aside, an economy has never been stimulated by raising taxes. Increasing taxes by letting the Bush tax cuts expire is yet another reason that any economic growth this year will be short lived and the “recovery” mild.
Pictures Worth a Thousand Words
The following pictures tell you all you need to know about the regression in women’s rights in the Muslim world in the last fifty years (courtesy Pajamas Media). Notice the hijab (Islamic Veil), or lack thereof, on women through the years. Pictures are of Cairo university graduating classes.
First in 1959.
Below is 1978.
Finally, below is 2004.
This does not speak well for social progress and makes clear the progress Radical Islam has made in the Middle East during the past decades. The Middle East is heading for the Middle Ages, the only question is if they will take the rest of us with them.
A Headline for the Ages
From Instapundit:
Rahm Emanuel Compares Democrats to Retarded People, then Apologizes to Retarded People.
For Those Who Always Tell us How Good Canada’s Health System Is
It is a constant in debating anyone who desires socialized health in America for one to hear how all their Canadian friends just love their system. Yet, this story is just one recent example of where people in power actually go when they need to. If the care is so great, why do people who can always come here when they have a serious problem? “Free” care is great for minor ailments if you do not mind some lines and a bit of rationing, but is not so great for more serious ailments, or for anyone depending on technological progress or medical advances to come to their rescue. “Free” is not so good, when death is the solution offered.
Obama’s New Budget
Remember the State of the Union address, all of one week ago? Cut the deficit, spending freezes and other populist messages spoken from Obama as if he meant it (this time). Today, Obama unveiled his proposed 2011 budget. Some details here from a story written by AP:
1) It will boost the deficit to a record-breaking $1.56 trillion for one year (it was $454.8 billion in 2008 under Bush).
2) His new budget projects a spending increase of 5.7 percent for the current budget year and forecasts that spending would rise another 3 percent in 2011 to $3.83 trillion.
3) The administration is forecasting that deficits over the next decade will add an additional $8.5 trillion to the national debt, even if Congress adopts the administration’s package of proposals to trim future deficits starting in 2011 (which it likely will not).
4) The deficit for this year would be 10.6 percent of the total economy, a figure unmatched since the country was emerging from WWII.
5) Obama’s new budget assumes enactment of a comprehensive health care program. I am sure voters (and Democratic incumbents running in 2010) will have something to say about that.
Obama is not the only one not getting that people are really serious about being upset at the size of government. Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House Democratic majority whip said today “We’re not going to save our way out of this recession, we’ve got to spend our way out of this recession…”. Expect to see that in a lot of Republican campaign commercials this year. Bill Clinton’s campaign made the statement “It’s the economy, stupid” famous in 1992. I except we’ll see a lot of “it’s the spending, stupid” in 2010 and 2012.
Pelosi Utilizing Military Flights for Family Use
Pelosi appears to have arranged/used military passenger jets for her children, grandchildren and in-laws. While it now appears that the Speaker was on “most, if not all” of these flights, this is clearly abuse of the privilege the position of speaker has (since 9/11) of using military jets for travel. Pelosi will say that they reimburse the air-force $120-$400 per flight, yet military flights cost between $5,000 and $20,000 per hour to operate.
Posting a Bit Light through Feb 2
Posting has been a bit slow the last few days due to an overabundance of work from my real job, slogging through an extremely long James Madison biography and spending a couple quality, uninterrupted days with the kids. Posting will resume as normal by February 2nd. Please check back!
More State of the Union Comments
As expected, nearly every pundit has spent today writing about Obama’s State of the Union speech last night. I think it fair to say that a fair majority consider the speech a failure. Some of the more interesting comments today:
1) AP (yes, left liberal AP), did some fact checking:
- OBAMA: “Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years.” THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit – and that’s if the president can persuade Congress to go along.
- OBAMA: “I’ve called for a bipartisan fiscal commission…This can’t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem.” THE FACTS: Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.
- OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said, “Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan.” THE FACTS: Obama can’t guarantee people won’t see higher rates or fewer benefits in their existing plans. Because of elements such as new taxes on insurance companies, insurers could change what they offer or how much it costs. Moreover, Democrats have proposed a series of changes to the Medicare program for people 65 and older that would certainly pinch benefits enjoyed by some seniors. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted cuts for those enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans.
- OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have “outsized influence” over the government. He said his administration has “excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.” THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn’t absolute; seven waivers from the ban have been granted to White House officials alone. Getting lobbyists to report every contact they make with the federal government would be difficult at best; Congress would have to change the law, and that’s unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving.
- OBAMA: “Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. THE FACTS: The CBO says “It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.”
- OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress “to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve.” THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign – to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN…Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it’s acted upon.
- OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: “And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida’s fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed – far more than in 2008.” THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify.
2) Jonah Goldberg, in the New York Post, writes:
- There was no “pivot to the center,” no serious accounting for the Massachusetts miracle or his misfortunes. Instead, there was an innumerate, inaccurate and distinctly unpresidential whine — blaming George W. Bush for nearly all of his problems (leaving out, among other things, that the Democrats have been controlling Congress and crafting budgets since 2006).
- But Obama has a bigger problem: Aside from a few throwaway lines of self-deprecation, whenever he grew passionate, it was to blame others. His predecessor topped his list, of course. But also everyone else who disagrees with him. Obama insists that Americans need to muster the courage to agree with him, to sign on to his agenda. Just as at Omaha Beach and Bull Run, Americans need to show their mettle. “Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history’s call.” That “call” is the call of Obama. “I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone.” So come on, you slackers, fall into line. He decried the politicians who are in “permanent campaign” mode — the same week he brought into the White House his campaign manager. Other politicians are vain, cowardly and insubstantial. They need the courage to change. Meanwhile, Obama is great the way he is.
- So, he not only implored Democrats not to “run for the hills” on the health-reform bill, but insisted that as “temperatures cool,” hot-tempered opponents will, of course, realize they were wrong about the bill.
3) Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United saying it “reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.” Problem is, Obama has no idea what he is talking about and his claim is false (as explained by Powerline here). Citizens United did not disturb any principles that date back 100 years. Also, it “is quite clear that it (the Supreme Court decision) does not address whether the government can regulate improper foreign influence over our electoral process.” The Court also did not authorize direct corporate contributions to candidates. So, Obama also lied when he said the Court allowed corporate spending ‘without limit.’ As stated by Powerline,
Presidents should feel free to criticize important Supreme Court decisions with which they disagree. It’s bad form, however, to do so at an event where Justices are in attendance by invitation. And it is unconscionable to do so by blatantly misrepresenting what the Court has said.
4) Once again he talked (briefly) about our troops and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once again he goal was to bring the troops home, but not once was the word “victory” mentioned as an objective.
5) In his throwing Obama Money at those going to college, he said student loans would be forgiven after 20 years, 10 years is they choose a career in public service. Great, let’s incentivize more people to want non-productive, job and wealth destroying government jobs. Government already pays more, offers way too generous retirement packages, adds not a penny to our national wealth.
6) The Cato Institute has an excellent review of the speech, which if you have nine minutes, contains all you need to know!
Chris T. Adamson
Literature & Art Lover
Wine & Food Aficionado
Travel Addict
History Buff
Father of 3 Fantastic Kids
