An interesting discussion on the violence inherent in political correctness.
As noted there, when someone tells you how moral and upright they are, hold on to your wallet, and watch your back.
We saw Atlas Shrugged last night, and the Mouches of the world are classic examples.
[Update a while later]
Link was bad before, fixed now.
I never took very seriously the notion that the climate frauds had been “cleared” of any wrongdoing. This is one of the reasons. The whole business is far too incestuous to have scientific credibility.
The WaPo editorial board says that the president’s inaction on Syria is shameful. I don’t think he’s capable of shame.
The ultimate reason environmental conditions in the U.S. have improved so much is economic prosperity and technological innovation. Of course regulation has played a role, but the problem is that our style of environmental regulation relates to the improvements in real conditions in much the same way that police brutality pushes down the crime rate (in other words, the EPA is the environmental equivalent of rogue cops). If you drop back and look at the data for the whole world (as I do in the Introduction to the Almanac), you will see that the nations with the best environmental conditions are those with strong property rights, economic freedom, and prosperity — three things environmentalists hate or define so narrowly as to be meaningless. The nations with the worst environmental conditions are poor and without property rights and economic freedom.
They love the “earth” more than they do their fellow humans. And they indoctrinate our children in their religion under the guise of “science.”
[Update a few minutes later]
A penitent CNN reporter confesses to his eco-sins. But don’t call it a religion!
[Update Saturday afternoon]
Breaking up over religious differences:
Sam started writing on my Facebook wall and sent me flirty messages packed with our inside jokes. Soon, we were messaging every other day. It was like old times, except, you know, without the sex.
But one day, I logged on and saw that he had weighed in on a virtual debate and assumed a staunch position.
“Global warming isn’t scientifically proven,” he wrote.
WHAT??? Does he think the world is flat, too? I thought in horror. I’m from California. I’ve been recycling and saving dolphins since I was in the womb. Suddenly, memories came rushing back to me like a horrible movie montage: The arguments we had about hybrid cars—he contended that it didn’t make a damn difference, since car companies still pollute in other ways. I thought he was just defensive about his decidedly not-green race car. And the way he would constantly rib on Al Gore, even after “An Inconvenient Truth” won the Academy Award… He was always so skeptical about the merits of organic food, too. And, hey, did he even have a recycling bin?!
And poof! Just like that, my desire for him zoomed off into the sunset. We’re still in touch, but we’re not going to get touchy-feely again.
He’s better off without her.
[Bumped]
Why, the notion of living within our means is just crazy talk.
Thoughts from Dan Henninger.
I have to say that I’ve never found him that likeable. Of course, I saw through the con early on. I just didn’t realize how many others didn’t.
And I think he’s got this wrong, though it’s still the conventional wisdom:
In 2007-08, Obama’s high-toned, consistent persona was everything. What else was there? Barack Obama took a blank slate and wrote a masterpiece of a presidential campaign across it. From nothing, this fresh Obama persona defeated the familiar, experienced Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In the general election, he ran famously on “hope and change,” gave a stirring speech on race in America, and persuaded enough moderate and independent voters to turn 2008 into a “historic” American election.
I disagree that the campaign was a “masterpiece.” He beat Hillary because the Democrats wanted an alternative, and he beat McCain because he ran an awful campaign, and the voters were tired of Republicans after Bush. Not to mention the affirmative action factor. And as Henninger points out, 53% wasn’t exactly a landslide. Now that the voters have affirmed their non-racism by electing him once, they’ll feel no further need to validate it next year.
[Update a couple minutes later]
The Jurassic president.
Really?
My thoughts at the Washington Examiner.
Megan McArdle explains to Kevin Drum. Again.
Just when I thought he was starting to get it, off he goes on another ignorant piece about the “loss of expertise” at NASA, and the “inability” of the commercial crew providers to do it without them. He doesn’t seem to understand that companies and agencies don’t have expertise — people do. All of the people at NASA who know how to develop launch systems are dead or retired (because it’s been over three decades since NASA did one), and no one at NASA has ever known how to do one cost effectively. That experience resides at SpaceX, and other places. Clark Lindsey addresses the nonsense in comments over there.
Thoughts from Paul Spudis.