Tuesday, March 28, 2006

More on the nonsense of "global warming"

Via Iain Murray at NRO's The Corner, this article debunks the recent "global warming" nonsense being reported in Science. The article is kind of technical, but easy to follow. An example:

"In light of these several real-world observations, it is clear that the recent upswing in glacial activity on Greenland likely has had nothing to do with anthropogenic-induced global warming, as temperatures there have yet to rise either as fast or as high as they did during the great warming of the 1920s, which was clearly a natural phenomenon."

Global warming is a religion, not science.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Useful information (for me as well)

I just need to link to these articles because they sum up so much that I (and you) need access to to refute those liberals you encounter who tell you the liberal party line on some story, which you know is false, but will take you a while of 'net surfing to find all the necessary information. So here they are:

Exploding Liberal Myths 11: Home Spying Hogwash
Exploding Liberal Myths 10: The Plame Name Game
Exploding Liberal Myths 9: The Separation of Church and State
Exploding Liberal Myths 8: The Nazi Meme
Exploding Liberal Myths 7: Fidel Castro, Demigod?
Exploding Liberal Myths 6: A Less Safe Post-Iraq
Exploding Liberal Myths 5: The Moral United Nations
Exploding Liberal Myths 4: Runaway Global Warming
Exploding Liberal Myths 3: Outsourcing Woes
Exploding Liberal Myths 2: The Eeevil PATRIOT Act
Exploding Liberal Myths 1: Nigerian Uranium

Add this to your knowledge of the psyche of liberals

In reading the comments for this post at Right Wing News about the movie "V for Vendetta" (which I actually liked quite a bit - which I'll hopefully get around to explaining why in another post) I came across a comment from "Euclidean" with a brilliant insight into the psyche of liberals. There is no direct link, so I'll just cut-and-paste it below:

"Its the dangerous films that are going to save this country. Its the banned books. Its the obscene art exhibits. Its the gay illectuals with hedonistic tendancies. Its the godless heatens such as myself.

by SecHumanist on 2006-03-20 08:47:13

This is why I never turned liberal in college: they all seem obsessed with delusions of grandeur, believing that somehow, just somehow, dunking a crucifix in a jar of urine will 'save the country.'

And in the United States, there are no banned books. Try Canada the Leftist Utopia, where hate speech is a criminal offense."

Friday, March 10, 2006

My bold prediction: Barry Bonds will not break Hank Aaron's home run record

After reading this article from Doug Gamble on NRO, I wrote him the following email, which I'll document here so I can say "I told you so":

I hate to say it, but it ain’t cheating if it ain’t against the rules. Until last year, using steroids was not against MLB’s rules. It might have violated some laws, though.

I disagree that Bonds is a shoo-in to break Hank Aaron’s record. Bonds needs to hit 48 more home runs. Other than his 73 year, the most Bonds has ever hit in a season is 49. Last year, injury plagued, he hit only 5. What will happen this year? My prediction:

Bonds will continue to get injured and miss a substantial part of the season. Why? He’s old and necessarily off steroids (or, if he’s still on them, he’ll get caught and sit out 10 games, then get caught again and sit out the season). Steroids not only add muscle mass but they also significantly decrease injury recovery time. Without the ‘roids, Bonds will get injured just like other 40+ year olds and have the same difficulty recovering and miss many, many games.

Even if Bonds plays a relatively full season, I predict he’ll only hit home runs in the 20s, maybe low 30s, without the ‘roids. If that is all he does this year, he’ll have to play another full year, relatively injury free, after this to break Hank’s record – again, without the help of ‘roids. Barry will be 42 in July.

You heard it here.

Monday, March 06, 2006

I am impressed by Chief Justice Roberts

It is a tribute to his leadership abilities that he got a unanimous decision (8-0, as Alito did not participate in the decision, being too new) on the Solomon Amendment case. That is the case where liberal law professors tried to argue that it was a violation of the First Amendment to require law schools accepting federal funds to admit military recruiters on campus.

That argument never quite made sense to me. I guess they thought merely allowing recruiters from a group they didn't like somehow suggested they were "endorsing" their views, but that was always a nonsense argument, factually ridiculous, that the law professors used as a foothold to get their desired result - kick the military off campuses so their impressionable students would never be reminded that it's a dangerous world out there and not the liberals' fantasy land.

But I digress. The opinion is notable in that the basis for the decision is precisely what John Eastman and the Claremont Institute argued in their amicus brief - under Article 1, section 8, of the Constitution, Congress' power to create a navy and army allows Congress to mandate law schools give access to military recruiters directly without even dangling the carrot of federal funds. This avoided a potentially dangerous decision on whether the federal government could condition the receipt of federal funds on states enacting laws, or other groups doing certain things, that the feds could not legislate directly.

John Eastment rightly crows a bit.

Friday, March 03, 2006

I guess I can buy a BlackBerry now

Those patent laws sure have bite - $612.5 million in this case. A small Virgina company invented something extremely valuable. Another company took that idea, ran with it, and recreated an entire industry. Can't do that without paying the piper.

I'm sure that $612.5 million is quite satisfying for the patent holders. However, it also appears that the street likes the settlement on Reasearch In Motion's end as well. From the above-linked article: "Shares of RIM shot up $13.78, or 19 percent, to $85.70 during after-hours trading, when the settlement was announced."

Looks like everyone wins - NTP gets compensated for its invention, RIM gets compensated for its marketing, product development and service.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

What's next, testing my Friday night softball league for alcohol use?

This story I simply cannot believe.