Some things just make you shake your head in disgust, wondering how so many people could possibly be so stupid.  Rasmussen reports, “60% of Voters Say Supreme Court should Base Rulings on Constitution.”

During his acceptance speech last night at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota, John McCain told the audience, “We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law, and judges who dispense justice impartially and don’t legislate from the bench.” Most American voters (60%) agrees and says the Supreme Court should make decisions based on what is written in the constitution, while 30% say rulings should be guided on the judge’s sense of fairness and justice. The number who agree with McCain is up from 55% in August.

What the other 10% think should be used is a mystery - ouija boards maybe.  Don’t laugh, they couldn’t be worse than something as frightening as the “sense of fairness and justice” of a small group of judges.  If that’s how our law is to be decided, why even bother with a democracy?

There can be no greater stretch of arbitrary power than is required to seize children from their parents, teach them whatever the authorities decree they shall be taught, and expropriate from the parents the funds to pay for the procedure…A tax supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.

- Isabel Paterson

Britain shows once again the dangers of an overgoverned society:

A volunteer coastguard crew face disciplinary action after going to the rescue of a teenage swimmer in a boat that had recently been repaired and was awaiting a seaworthiness inspection.

The four crewmen were on duty at Hope Cove in South Devon when the 15-year-old girl was swept out to sea by a powerful rip tide. They braved heavy surf to launch their 17ft rigid inflatable.

The girl was rescued by a diver and the coastguard crew brought her ashore. But within hours their boat had been confiscated and the station officer and his crew had been threatened with disciplinary action.

The boat had been out of service since June and the 11-strong crew, fed up with waiting for it to be repaired by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), spent £2,000 of their own money on the work. But the repairs had yet to be approved and the boat - which has rescued more than 120 people since 2000 – was languishing in the boathouse at the pretty fishing village awaiting a further inspection.

These are the kinds of bureaucrats liberals want running our health care.  These are the kinds of bureaucrats liberals insist are not the cause for our failing schools.  When it comes down to it, these are the kinds of bureaucrats liberals want running all aspects of our lives.

Hat tip: Moonbattery

Racists, racists…everywhere!

Why isn’t Obama creaming his rival? Why is he, at best, just a few points ahead, and stubbornly stalled below 50 percent in every national poll?

The commentariat has countless other answers at the ready. Obama is aloof, elitist, lacks the common touch. He has failed to put forward a powerful economic message. He is cut from the same cloth as past Democrats seen as too weak, too effete, too liberal. His calculated dash to the center has left him looking, in the words of GOP consultant Alex Castellanos, like “an ever-changing work-in-progress … as authentic as a pair of designer jeans.”

Yet, as Castellanos admits to me, all these explanations “leave many things unspoken.” Or perhaps just one big thing. Obama, after all, isn’t having trouble with African-American voters or Hispanic voters or young voters. Where he’s lagging is among white voters, and with older ones in particular. Call me crazy, but isn’t it possible, just possible, that Obama’s lead is being inhibited by the fact that he is, you know, black? “Of course it is,” says another prominent Republican operative. “It’s the thing that nobody wants to talk about, but it’s obviously a huge factor.”

You old racist fossils! How dare you not help in the anointment of the Messiah? For shame.

Continuing their war against free choice, Democrats are ramping up their crusade to save people from themselves, this time by bringing tobacco under the control of the FDA.

The House voted 326-102 Wednesday to approve legislation granting FDA authority over tobacco products, paving the way for the Senate to possibly consider the bill in the fall.

Lawmakers have tried for more than a decade to place tobacco products under FDA purview in an effort to stem smoking.

The bill has wide bipartisan support, but Republican leaders and the Bush administration oppose it. They assert FDA would not have the resources to take on a new responsibility and argue agency oversight would give the public the wrong impression that tobacco is safe.

The administration threatened to veto the bill Wednesday, arguing the bill would disproportionately tax low-income Americans. The measure would assess user fees from tobacco companies to raise an estimated $5 billion over 10 years to underwrite FDA’s efforts.

The debate turned heated when House Minority Leader Boehner, perhaps the House’s highest profile smoker, took the floor.

“Most of my colleagues know that I smoke,” he said. “I know that smoking is probably not good for my health. Most Americans know cigarettes are probably not good for their health. Do we need the government to tell us? Do we need to spend $5 billion of smokers’ money for the government to tell us?”

Summoning the self-righteous hot air of all the liberal crusaders in this nation’s history, Dingus responded by patting himself on the back for his noble purpose.

“This legislation is on the floor because people are killing themselves by smoking these evil cigarettes,” Dingell said.

“The distinguished gentleman, the minority leader, is going to be amongst the next to die,” said Dingell. Then with a wide smile, he added, “I am trying to save him, as the rest of us are, because he is committing suicide every time he puffs on one of those things.”

What exactly makes Dingus more qualified to evaluate the risk versus reward of Boehner’s smoking than Boehner himself?

Some might be wondering why Phillip Morris broke from the rest of the industry and supported this legislation. The easy answer might be that they saw the writing on the wall and sought to mitigate the extent of the damage. I believe the answer is something else.

These kinds of regulatory interventions in the name of consumer protection are nothing new. What apparently only Phillip Morris realized, however, is that after do-gooders get what they want, they lose interest. The regulatory bodies they created are then free to be co-opted by industry, where they are then used to prevent competition.

When the uproar began against the railroad industry, far thinking railroaders realized they could use the federal intervention to their advantage. After the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission they were able to do just that. Because no one understood the railroad industry more than railroaders, the more regulatory power was granted to the ICC over railroads the more their own bureaucrats were drawn from the industry itself. By the time trucking became a major threat to the railroad industry, ICC was perfectly placed to defend the railroads from competition. The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 gave the ICC authority to regulate truckers (to protect the railroads), which they used to severely limit the ability of new truckers to enter the industry.

The story of the ICC is hardly unique. Indeed, it represents the natural history of government intervention, as described by Milton Friedman:

A real of fancied evil leads to demands to do something about it. A political coalition forms consisting of sincere, high-minded reformers and equally sincere interested parties. The incompatible objectives of the members of the coalition (e.g., low prices to consumers and high prices to producers) are glossed over by fine rhetoric about “the public interest,” “fair competition,” and the like. The coalition succeeds in getting Congress (or a state legislature) to pass a law. The preamble to the law pays lip service to th rhetoric and the body of the law grants power to government officials to “do something.” The high-minded reformers experience a glow of triumph and turn their attention to new causes. The interested parties go to work to make sure that the power is used for their benefit. They generally succeed.

The history of the FDA itself meets this pattern. Reformers were concerned about the conditions at meat-packing plants. Special interests quickly hoped on board. Meat-packers were more than happy to have government certify the cleanliness of their product, and have taxpayers pay for the process.

Today’s FDA does far more harm than good. It prevents the creation and distribution of valuable new drugs, benefiting manufacturers who face limited competition once they’ve established themselves. Phillip Morris is apparently more forward-thinking than other tobacco companies and has learned from this history. They realize government can grant them far more power than the market ever would allow, and they know that high-minded reformers are the vehicle through which they can successfully grab this power.

Lots happening on the global warming front recently.

Earth shaking testimony on the hill this Tuesday by one Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA and now the Principal research Scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. I say earthshaking - that’s what it would be if the media gave a crap about objectivity as opposed to ideology. Googling Roy Spencer and July 22 reveals no links to major media outlets. Compare that to googling Obama and July 22. I guess the messiah’s trek through the holy land is that much more important than the debunking of the entire anthropogenic global warming hoax in front of congress.

As I will outline in this lengthy post, there is a growing consensus - and I use the term flippantly - that human activity is NOT to blame for most of the climate change over the last 100 years. Spencer’s presentation can be found here. Some of the salient points:

Regarding the currently popular theory that mankind is responsible for global warming, I am very pleased to deliver good news from the front lines of climate change research. Our latest research results, which I am about to describe, could have an enormous impact on policy decisions regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC). Another way of saying this is that the real climate system appears to be dominated by “negative feedbacks” — instead of the “positive feedbacks” which are displayed by all twenty computerized climate models utilized by the IPCC. (Feedback parameters larger than 3.3 Watts per square meter per degree Kelvin (Wm-2K-1) indicate negative feedback, while feedback parameters smaller than 3.3 indicate positive feedback.) If true, an insensitive climate system would mean that we have little to worry about in the way of manmade global warming and associated climate change. And, as we will see, it would also mean that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural. Of course, if climate change is mostly natural then it is largely out of our control, and is likely to end — if it has not ended already, since satellite-measured global temperatures have not warmed for at least seven years now.

Like he says, good news for us, there is no crisis. But just like victory in Iraq, this isn’t good news for leftists looking to turn it into a power grab.

The support for my claim of low climate sensitivity (net negative feedback) for our climate system is two-fold. First, we have a new research article1 in-press in the Journal of Climate which uses a simple climate model to show that previous estimates of the sensitivity of the climate system from satellite data were biased toward the high side by the neglect of natural cloud variability. It turns out that the failure to account for natural, chaotic cloud variability generated internal to the climate system will always lead to the illusion of a climate system which appears more sensitive than it really is. Significantly, prior to its acceptance for publication, this paper was reviewed by two leading IPCC climate model experts - Piers Forster and Isaac Held– both of whom agreed that we have raised a legitimate issue. Piers Forster, an IPCC report lead author and a leading expert on the estimation of climate sensitivity, even admitted in his review of our paper that other climate modelers need to be made aware of this important issue.

He then goes on to outline the observational evidence which confirms his theory. I bet Barbara Boxer had a sort of dizzy feeling through the entire testimony.

Remember top NASA scientist James Hansen’s absurd claims that the Bush Administration tried to silence him on global warming before it turned out that he gave tons of speeches and made tremendous amounts of money speaking to manmade global warming? It turns out that the White House actually did try to silence dissenting voices on climate change. Except it was the Clinton White house.

On the subject of the Administration’s involvement in policy-relevant scientific work performed by government employees in the EPA, NASA, and other agencies, I can provide some perspective based upon my previous experiences as a NASA employee. For example, during the Clinton-Gore Administration I was told what I could and could not say during congressional testimony. Since it was well known that I am skeptical of the view that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are mostly responsible for global warming, I assumed that this advice was to help protect Vice President Gore’s agenda on the subject. This did not particularly bother me, though, since I knew that as an employee of an Executive Branch agency my ultimate boss resided in the White House. To the extent that my work had policy relevance, it seemed entirely appropriate to me that the privilege of working for NASA included a responsibility to abide by direction given by my superiors.

Yet another bit of information you will never hear about on the evening news.

More under the fold.

Continue Reading »

Why hasn’t anyone thought of this before?

Randi Weingarten, the New Yorker who is rising to become president of the American Federation of Teachers, says she wants to replace President Bush’s focus on standardized testing with a vision of public schools as community centers that help poor students succeed by offering not only solid classroom lessons but also medical and other services.

…“Can you imagine a federal law that promoted community schools — schools that serve the neediest children by bringing together under one roof all the services and activities they and their families need?” Ms. Weingarten asked in the speech.

“Imagine schools that are open all day and offer after-school and evening recreational activities and homework assistance,” she said. “And suppose the schools included child care and dental, medical and counseling clinics.”

How has nobody thought of this before? We’ll simply place all economic and social activities under the purview of these “schools.” Services will be allocated according to the discretion of “teachers.” Workers (everyone) will be told what jobs they must do within the “school.” In order to ensure fairness, private economic activity will be strictly prohibited. Besides, money will be abolished anyway.

I have a good feeling about this.

The outcry over the infamous New Yorker cover has provided snobbish left wing commentators yet another opportunity to confirm their own enlightened status by condemning all us plebes who cling to our guns and bibles.

Madison Powers at CQ Politics frets:

The potential consequence of a synoptic image of this sort explains why it’s the New Yorker’s own demographic who are upset. They get that this is but the latest instance in which the mainstream media unwittingly contribute to the perpetuation of a deliberately created myth emanating from the lesser regions of the new media.

What about those who perpetrate the laundry list of falsehoods? If they are supposed get their comeuppance, it’s really hard to see how. The defense is that it has to be seen in context, and that only those ignorant of the context are flummoxed. The problem is that the New Yorker’s context is not the same as the context in which others see it. The message travels far beyond the Hudson into places the messenger probably does not.

Not only is this an example of the kind of rejection of intentionalism which Jeff Goldstein observed, but the basic assumption behind the author’s view is that us simple folk are simply too stupid to get it.  Furthermore, it’s become automatic for these writers to state with authority that such views about Obama are widespread and more than just the usual internet nonsense found on all matters.  This view is entirely unsubstantiated.

On the flip side, none of these enlightened individuals express much concern over the pervasive belief on the left that Bush was behind 9/11, a view held for no other reason than that these people really, really want a good reason to justify their hatred of Bush.  Contrary to how their disinterested pretensions, these writers don’t care a whit about ensuring truth wins over rumors; they care about tarring republicans and protecting Obama.  But anyone who is familiar with the left side of the blogosphere knows that rumors and falsehoods are far more likely to gain the status of conventional wisdom within the left, while the right is actually willing to dispel and condemn such things within its own community.  Don’t let the snobs browbeat you into believing any different.

Is there any doubt that the biggest collection of thieves can be found in government? There shouldn’t be. From Club For Growth:

I already wrote about 2007 legislation in Wisconsin that would have mandated that the value of unused gift cards go to the state treasury. Apparently, Wisconsin is not the only state interested in seizing private property. A number of states have proposed or adopted legislation that would require the value of an unused gift card to revert to the state.

In New Jersey, A.B. 2603, introduced this year, would require abandoned gift card balances to revert to the state. In Nevada, the governor signed A.B. 279 in 2007, requiring a certain portion of an unused gift certificate to revert to the state where the funds will be used for educational purposes. In Rhode Island, H.B. 5777 became law without the governor’s signature in 2005. The legislation allows the Division of Taxation to take funds paid for unredeemed gift certificates.

Warning: Runaway liberalism is hazardous to a nation’s health.  Just look at Britain:

Toddlers who say “yuck” when given flavorful foreign food may be exhibiting racist behavior, a British government-sponsored organization says.

The London-based National Children’s Bureau released a 366-page guide counseling adults on recognizing racist behavior in young children, The Telegraph reported Monday.

The guide, titled Young Children and Racial Justice, warns adults that babies must also be included in the effort to eliminate racism because they have the ability to “recognize different people in their lives.”

The bureau says to be aware of children who “react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying ‘yuck’.”

“Racist incidents among children in early years settings tend to be around name-calling, casual thoughtless comments and peer group relationships,” the guide says.

Staff members are advised not to ignore racist actions and to condemn them when they occur.

Send the little buggers to reeducation camps!