Thank God for the british press.  From The Daily Mail:

for the past 15 years… there has been no “statistically significant” warming… according to Professor Phil Jones… former director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

Wait… I thought there was a “consensus” on warming.  Looks like there is a lot more complexity to the issue than people are willing to admit.

While it starts a bit on the slow side, this interview with Christopher Hitchens is superb.  One thing in particular that stuck me was how I feel his attitude towards religious believers — particularly Christian believers — has seemed to moderate somewhat over the past few years.  While Hitchens sill sees religion as a problem in the sense that he does not see how such beliefs can exist within a secular, democratic system without the danger of those very beliefs being “imposed” on everyone else, it seems to me he has found a certain bit of humility and has developed a curiosity of sorts at the scores of very intelligent people who have looked at the arguments in favor of and against the existence of God and have decided that they find God’s existence to be a more convincing argument.  Gone are the disparaging remarks about his intellectual equals (which are few and far between to be sure) who disagree with him.  Gone is the rhetoric about how religion is irredeemably destructive to society.  Perhaps there is still some hope for Hitchens after all!

Obama (acting through his Attorney General Eric Holder) has recently decided that we are going to try SOME (but not all) Guantanamo terrorists in civilian courts in New York.  When questioned about this decision, Eric Holder stated that “The Department of Justice will pursue prosecution in federal court of the five individuals accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks.”  He went on to say that he had confidence that trying these terrorists in civilian courts would lead to a “successful” outcome.

Now this comes as a surprise to all of us who distinctly remember Obama promising the American people that people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be given “full MILITARY trials”:

The vast majority of the folks in Guantanamo, I suspect, are there for a reason… I think there are a lot of dangerous people. Particularily dangerous are people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Ironically, those are the guys are going to get real military procedures…

Now let me just address a couple points that have been made on the other side. You’ll hear opponents of this amendment say that it will give all kidns of rights to terrorist masterminds like KSM. I want to repeat… that is not true. The irony of the underlying bill as it is written… is that someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is gonna get, basically, a full military trial…with all the bells and whistles… because the feeling is that he is guilty of a war crime and to do otherwise might violate some of our agreements under the Geneva Convention.

I think that is good that were goin to provide him with some proceedure and some process…. Justice will be carried out in his case.

Now, being the critical thinker that I am… a number of questions naturally occur to me.  First, Why are we only trying some (not all) of the Guantanamo terrorists in federal courts in New York?  I mean, if they are proper for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, why are they improper for the rest of the gang?  Secondly (and related to the first question), why are we only trying the terrorists that we are confident will result in a “successful” outcome?  I mean, if you think that the civilian justice system offers the fairest sort of justice… then wouldn’t you want to try suspects who have the weakest cases in civilian courts (to give them the most possible protections) rather than the strongest cases–the cases we are already were guaranteed to win??  And furthermore, if we are guaranteed to win our case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, why try him in a civilian court in the first place — especially when it is widely understood that a civilian trial of this sort is all but certain to publicize (and do irreversible damage) many of our national security (which is the very reason for military tribunals in the first place).  Finally, why do this when the military system has all the ample “bells and whistles” Obama assured us was good enough for  ”dangerous people” like  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

Well, I’m afraid only one explanation makes any sense:  Obama didn’t really think Military tribunals were fair back in 2006 and he doesn’t now.  He made us all believe a bill that granted constitutional rights to terrorists wouldn’t disturb the vital role of military tribunals– all the while demeaning those who’s criticism of the bill is now entirely validated by Obama’s own actions.  Obama is doing this for no other reason than to placate the far-left in this country who want to see the US government, the CIA, and the US Military on trial.  Obama wouldn’t dare put a terrorist on the stand and risk the public backlash should there be an acquittal.  Of course he wouldn’t… and that’s why he’s only bringing the “safest” cases… so he can claim the federal courts work for terrorists while making each and every one of the CIA’s practices and techniques front page material for the New York Times.

Anthony Dick summed it up well over at “The Corner”:

The strange thing about the Obama administration’s decision to hold these civilian al-Qaeda trials is that the project is flawed even based on the premises of its staunchest defenders: They talk about due process and the rule of law, but the trials can’t possibly provide anything close to the level of objectivity that applies in an ordinary criminal-law setting. There is no way the defendants will get an impartial jury in New York, and there is no way the government will actually release the terrorists if they are acquitted. Thus the courtroom proceedings in Manhattan will be, in a very real sense, show trials. They are designed purely for PR purposes, so that the Obama administration can pay lip service to the ideal of due process while implicitly rebuking the Bush administration for failing to respect the rule of law.

Meanwhile, it is the Obama administration that is truly making a sham out of the rule of law, by politicizing the trial process and pretending that these enemy combatants will be getting normal, neutral, dispassionate trials, as if the larger strategic context of the War on Terror will not affect the judge, the jury, or the actions of the government, which is sure to retain custody of the defendants in the off chance they are acquitted.

I ask you… what other explanation is there?

Brace yourself… it’s pretty excruciating to listen to Obama attempt to put a coherent thought together.  This man cannot survive without a tele-prompter.

Wow… what else is there to say… this guy can’t even bring himself to say that the decision that ended WWII was the “right” decision.  I suppose he would have rather we lost (or lost thousands more American lives invading the Japanese mainland?

Obama isn’t just uncomfortable with the notion of “victory” in Afghanistan… He’s uncomfortable with American victory PERIOD.

This is a really great speech.  Sort of sad Netanyahu needed to give it… but worth watching.  Here is a brief transcript:

BUT TO THOSE WHO GAVE THIS HOLOCAUST-DENIER A HEARING, I SAY ON BEHALF OF MY PEOPLE, THE JEWISH PEOPLE, AND DECENT PEOPLE EVERYWHERE: HAVE YOU NO SHAME? HAVE YOU NO DECENCY?” “WHAT A DISGRACE!

Did you guys read this??  It’s blowing my mind

Watson marshals the speeches and writings of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and the jurisprudence of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, among others, as evidence for his claim of the pervasive influence of social Darwinism in the intellectual cocktail that is progressivism. As Wilson demonstrates, the progressives sought to move the energy of government from the democratic branches to the bureaucracy. Insulated from politics and popular opinion, federal bureaucrats would engage in the scientific administration of government — the overriding ethos of progressivism. The expert and, in time, the judge would supply regulations and orders to fill the multiplying and unruly (i.e., unregulated) gaps of modern industrialized society. Thus, the real purpose of politics under progressivism informed by social Darwinism is not justice, or the preservation of personal and economic liberty — those worthless dregs of past history — but the infusion into federal and state governments of the substantive powers needed to achieve the perfection of government administration.

via The Undoing of American Constitutionalism by Richard M. Reinsch on National Review Online.

To the Editors at the New York Times:

I was entirely shocked to find that Thomas Friedman’s recent editorial on American Democracy was not only read by your editors… but thought good enough to publish. To borrow a bit of modern vernacular, WTF.

Friedman is, of course, entitled to his opinion — as are your editors. This does not, however, entitle them to their own facts, their own version of history, or their own logic.

In order to accept Friedman’s argument, one must conclude that there is some great difference from one-party rule in China… and one-party rule in America — as if the Chinese leadership never had a difference of opinion. He goes on to praise the expediency of the Chinese political system while neglecting to point out just how quickly congress can pass a 2+ trillion dollar ‘stimulus’ bill… or just how damaging political expedience can be for future generations. Embarrassing omissions if you ask me.

And if these gross omissions were not enough, Friedman had the audacity to blame Republicans for the legislative sluggishness–even though Obama doesn’t need one Republican vote to pass anything. Supposedly its twice as hard to pass bills with your political allies than with your adversaries (who knew!?). And I guess republicans are the bad guy for saying ‘no’ even though Obama was the one who shut them down originally by saying “I won”.

Friedman simultaneously says the GOP “used to be the party of business” and then hails Obama for stealing all their latest ideas (after campaigning against each and every one of them). He cries foul when Republicans “scream socialism” even while admitting that health care will be transferred from private businesses to government control. (I suppose it is the opposition to socialism Friedman finds so problematic — not the accuracy of the criticism). He imagines that Globalization has neutered the Republican party even though Republicans championed free trade and are now enjoying its benefits.

Oh, and I guess Republicans are hypocrites to vote against a socialistic health care bill if it in any way incorporates some abstract tax balancing notion they once championed.  McCain’s plan to tax both public and private insurance equally was contingent on the encouragement of private plans… not the expansion of a federal one… (a nuance lost of Friedman).  If Republicans were ever hypocrites, it was passing the prescription drug bill for seniors under the Bush administration, not standing up to massive government programs on this occasion.

And then there was the gratuitous dig on Sarah Palin’s “Drill Baby Drill” comment.  Mr. Friedman, please do us all a favor and grow up already.  I expect this sort of vacuous disparagement from insecure teens needing personal validation, not respected editorialists (oh wait…)

Next time you write or publish an op-ed piece in your paper, make sure it doesn’t insult the intelligence of your readers.  Hey, it might even help you sell a few more copies!

sorry you guys… I’m working in the office right now and filling out lengthy job applications in the meantime… and haven’t had much chance to blog… so in lieu of witty commentary by yours truely… why not try something completely different

sorry I haven’t posted in a while… but I have a good excuse;  I just put the finishing touches on my new online portfolio, MixedStudio.com.

mixedstudio.com

Will be back to blogging shortly!

As some of  you know, I’m from Northwest Ohio, and recently, one of our mayoral candidates had a really challenging tv spot to get through:

As Guy Benson over at National Review put it: “This has to be the most uninspired, yet relentlessly disruptive, heckling of a political candidate of all time:”

And for those of you who are wondering what king of politician Ben Konop is… well, let’s put it this way:  he’s the guy who was giving away restaurant gift certificates during a weight-loss challenge.   He’s also the candidate who promised he wouldn’t turn his run for county commissioner as a springboard to more glamorous political aspirations… who is now using his election as commissioner as a springboard to run for Mayor.  Yup, that’s Ben.

Obama isn’t being honest.  In other words, he either IS lying to the American People… or he WAS lying to the American people.  Which is it?

Sorry, but Steve Zizzou just came to my mind when I saw this picture on the Drudge homepage.