Folks,

My wife and I are heading off to Florida until about January 12 or so, to spend time with her family (her parents are having their 60th anniversary celebration, and on New Year's Day, Cynthia and I will celebrate our 3rd), and to just generally decompress and relax in the sun a bit.

Please note that I screen comments, and in my absence, comments you leave here won't post. While we'll have a laptop with us, I can't promise that I'll be able to post anything from the road, including any of your comments, until my return.

But meanwhile, I hope you've already had great joy during the holiday season -- and that 2008 will be your best year ever.

Warmest wishes,

I mean, Steve Green beat me to it.

I mean, now even Instapundit has linked to it.

Okay. So I tried to keep it low-key and quiet. Figured nobody would notice.

But I will be DAMNED if I'll allow myself to be scooped about publishing MY OWN MAGAZINE COVER:





Yeah!

So take THAT, you Ron-uluns. (Or is that Paulistinians?)

Oh yes...do you want to know what the article says about Ron Paul?

Sure you do.

Well, then, how about subscribing?

You can go to this secure online page to subscribe.

Oh...and you'll like the article on public nudity, too.

It's illustrated.

(Yes, I'm shameless.)


Appended, 12/22/07:

HOW TO JUDGE POLITICAL CANDIDATES

In the comments section to this entry, I was chided by a visitor for singling out Ron Paul for criticism. Why Paul, who so explicitly advocates laissez-faire capitalism? He goes on to list other judgments of political candidates made by Objectivists (of which I am one) in the past, and he can find no consistent pattern or rationale for these selections. How, he wonders, do we go about "distinguishing friend from foe"?  

Here is my reply.

The confusion arises because there are two distinct, often-overlapping criteria for "distinguishing friend from foe" -- one political, one philosophical.

There is one set of "friend or foe" criteria appropriate to employ when judging those running for public office as politicians.

There is quite another set of criteria appropriate to employ when judging purveyors of ideas (and that includes ideologues, even when they are also politicians).

Politicians mainly promote themselves and a haphazard set of only loosely related public policy prescriptions. What connects those policy recommendations (if anything) are usually just the vaguest of notions or platitudes, and not some overriding idea or principle (which is why those policies are typically so inconsistent). Since these people espouse no clear direction, one can only judge them based on their apparent personal character, and the wisdom of their specific policies, on balance. After all, we are filling a political office, not electing a philosophical guru.

By that criteria, supporting a Nixon or Ford in the face of far-worse alternatives can make perfect sense. Neither man attempted to push an "ism" on the nation; and in contrast to their opponents, their policies were, on balance, far less destructive. (Ford vs. Carter? Nixon vs. McGovern? No contest!)

To the extent that a politician adheres to and propagates some explicit philosophy or ideology, however, he must be judged by a different set of standards. And the reason is this: Philosophical ideas are much more basic, powerful, and important to the long-term future of the country and the world. If a public figure focuses on advancing not just specific policies, but an "ism," his potential to do good or harm is magnified a thousand-fold.

Thus, the more philosophically articulate and explicit a public figure or political candidate, the more he must be judged by his potential to do long-term philosophical good or harm to society. Even to the extent that a fairly aphilosophical candidate latches onto a specific idea or principle that may be significant, he opens himself to a more philosophical assessment of his capacity to do longer-term good or harm.

As I survey the current crop of candidates, the ones who would tend to be least important, for good or ill, are those who are the least philosophical. Ambitious, pragmatic careerists like Hillary, Obama, Richardson, Romney, and Giuliani will do little to change the philosophical direction of society or our political landscape. Their ambitions are personal, not intellectual. Each, however, advances specific policy proposals which must be assessed for their impact, on balance, to our national security, economic health, and personal freedom. They also must be assessed on the basis of personal character: Even pragmatists display varying degrees of intelligence, honesty, personal honor, strength of will, and commitment; and they also can be judged by their skills and sense of life.

However, candidates with more ideological axes to grind must be weighed by what they would do to frame the overarching principles that govern our politics and culture in the long term. There are matters of degrees here. In some cases, otherwise pragmatic politicians -- say, Edwards and McCain -- latch onto certain ideas with ominous long-term implications for the nation (respectively, populism and Progressivism).

However, the biggest potential for good or harm comes from committed ideologues with political ambitions -- e.g., Kucinich, Huckabee, and yes, Ron Paul. They advance a set of principles, and it is by those principles that they must be judged.

For this readership, I need not elaborate on the toxicity of the views of Dennis Kucinich or Mike Huckabee. The former doesn't merit comment or attention because he is regarded as a crackpot even within his own party, and he has no chance of changing, in principle, the terms of public debates or the national agenda.

The same cannot be said of Huckabee. He poses a real threat to the long-term direction of the Republican Party, because he melds into one agenda all of the worst principles and premises that have plagued the party: the wedding of Church and State; the wedding of Economics and State; nativism; "morality" legislation; and an incoherently altruistic foreign policy. Putting him forth as the GOP candidate would bequeath it to the religious right, reducing the future political alternatives put forth by the two parties to either Nanny State conservatism, or Nanny State liberalism. In short, a disaster for the nation.

But what of Ron Paul? He is arguably the most philosophical of all the candidates except Kucinich, and thus he must be judged not by his various specific positions and votes, taken in isolation, but by his overall guiding philosophy. That is what he has put at issue, front and center; so that is what I therefore believe we must assess.

And that philosophy is a complete mess. In principle, it weds the following: the economics of laissez-faire capitalism (which I emphatically endorse); a religious-based conception of individual rights that leads him to appalling positions on the separation of Church and State, abortion, immigration, and certain other social issues; and, most dangerous of all, a platonic, utopian notion of "noninterventionism" in foreign policy: a view derived directly from his philosophical misunderstanding of the implications of individual rights, which would render America completely vulnerable to its enemies, destroy the security infrastructure at the foundation of international trade, and thus impoverish the nation.

From the standpoint of personal character, Ron Paul is an unusually principled man, who boasts of his unwillingness to compromise. That is an admirable trait in a leader when he is right -- but ominous in a leader when he is wrong. Precisely because he is unwilling to bend or change direction, Ron Paul is the kind of man who -- facing the prospect of imminent disaster or altering course -- would fanatically drive the nation right over some cliff, in the name of "principle." That his irrational conglomeration of half-digested principles would aim the nation toward the cliff, I have absolutely no doubt.

If Paul had chosen to showcase and emphasize only domestic and economic issues, where his views and arguments are much better, I might be far less harsh toward his candidacy. But Paul has chosen to make foreign policy, where his views are completely irrational, the centerpiece of his campaign. His priority has been to try to shift the Republican Party's entire outlook on foreign policy toward his "noninterventionism" -- in other words, toward the view already championed by the cut-and-run Democrats.

More ambitiously -- and far more ominously -- he aims to cement in the public's perception an association between foreign-policy "noninterventionism" and the philosophical case for individual liberty. Whether widely accepted or rejected, that linkage would be an unmitigated disaster for the nation's future. If "nonintervention" came to be accepted by Americans as a necessary implication for liberty, that acceptance would lay our nation completely vulnerable to its enemies. If, however, Americans are persuaded by Dr. Paul and his supporters that this, indeed, is a valid ideological "package deal," but then reject the whole thing, it will be because they now think that a principled case for individual liberty is hopelessly, perilously utopian and foolish.

I cannot think of a worse outcome for the long-term prospects for individual liberty.

So, no -- I do not believe that Ron Paul can or should be judged as we do other, more pragmatic and conventional Republican candidates. It is he who has made a point of stressing his fundamental difference, in principle, from his rivals for the party nomination. I take him at his word, and judge him by the criteria which he himself has put forth as the basis for that distinction: his principles.

Those principles, as I said, are an abominable "package deal" -- a stew consisting of many vital, palatable elements, but with potent, deadly toxins stirred in. Any chef who would serve up such a meal -- however noble his intentions -- cannot be considered a friend, but must be regarded as a foe, if only a de facto foe.

If consumed, Mike Huckabee's social conservative porridge would put the GOP flat on its back for a generation. But Ron Paul's deadly dish would put the Republican Party -- and the nation -- on life support. Fortunately, judging by Paul's position at the bottom of the national polls, the American public is too smart to swallow what he is serving up.

The only remaining question is: Are the self-styled "intellectual" proponents of human liberty remotely as smart as their "non-intellectual" fellow Americans?

...by a year notable for record cold temperatures around the globe.

As the author, a geophysicist, notes: "In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up."

UPDATE -- Then there's this:

A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government.  If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

   * Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
   * Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
   * Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
   * Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto.

As the Blogfaddah, Glenn Reynolds, says, cheekily:

"They told me that if George W. Bush were elected, the United States would lag behind the rest of the world on greenhouse gases And they were right!"

Heh.

I have to tell you, the prospective candidates for this election cycle have me closer to slashing my wrists than almost any previous one I can recall.

Steve Green handicaps the Iowa caucuses, and his analysis sounds reasonable to me -- although this year's presidential race is so fluid that it seems any of the top-tier (and even a few second-tier) candidates could plausibly win his respective party's nomination.

Meanwhile, Brendan Loy describes his worst nightmare -- and mine, too. I mean, most politicians have a bit of the con man in them; but these two would make the election a competition between Huey Long and Elmer Gantry.

I'm still hoping for Rudy to pull out the GOP nomination. I could accept Thompson, but barely stomach Romney. I would consider opening my veins if McCain (doing his best to channel Teddy Roosevelt, but without the charisma) were to get the nomination. I would open my veins (subject to reconsideration pending last-minute begging from my wife and daughter) if Huckabee got the Republican nod. (No, dear libertarianoid readers, Ron Paul ain't gonna get the nomination; go dream your impossible dream. Neither is Duncan Tancredo. Or is that Tom Hunter Keyes? I forget. So will the voters.)

If somebody spikes the drinking water of Republican primary voters with a hallucinogenic drug, and Huckabee wins, I'd have to seriously weigh the unthinkable: voting for a Democrat. Hell, I might vote for Obama over Huckabee -- then go out and get drunk. And stay that way for four years.

I don't think even the numbing prospect of a four-year bender could ever prompt me to vote for Hillary -- unless the alternative were Hugo Chavez, in which case I'd cast my ballot, move to Montana, and join a militia group. But if the choice comes down to Huckabee vs. Edwards [alias "the Breck Girl"], I'd run for leader of the militia group, and plot the second American Revolution.

UPDATE #1, 12/18/07 -- The Republican primaries are still quite fluid. However, some reassurance for those in the GOP who worry about Huckabee's prospects: "While others may see evangelicals as dominating the party, the fact that Huckabee has yet to break 25% in any national poll suggests that they represent no more than a quarter of the party."

I agree with that. As I've written before, this is a party in ideological turmoil, searching for its soul. The liberal media (I know -- a redundancy) of course want to portray the GOP as overrun by a gang of wannabe theocrats, but that's absurd. Even many devout Christians are aghast at the prospect of a "religious right" takeover of the party. The straw poll results at the Conservative Political Action Conference last March -- where you would expect social conservatives to dominate -- indicated that the "religious right" is less influential among grassroots conservatives than we've been led to think. The religious right is probably better represented in GOP precinct and town posts than it is demographically, among the party rank and file.

So I suspect the nominating process will shake out like this:

First, Ron Paul, John McCain, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo aren't going anywhere. Hunter and Tancredo will be gone soon. Then McCain will fade because he won't get a win (therefore money) anywhere; his best early-primary numbers right now are in New Hampshire, where he's a distant second to Romney. Meanwhile, Ron Paul doesn't need to win anywhere. He'll stay in the race because his die-hard following will keep filling his coffers with the cash to continue all the way through the convention. But he won't break ten percent nationally in the polls, or capture more than a handful of convention delegates. He's in there to Make A Statement for the libertarian wing of the party, and he's accomplishing that objective in the media.

The only serious candidates are Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, and -- maybe -- Thompson. I keep Thompson alive, barely, because he is an appealing guy who (if he can figure out a strategy and stick to it) could sneak in if any of the top three come unglued -- which is a distinct possibility. Candidates always do something stupid at some point; and if any of them do their stupid thing at the wrong moment, they will be toast.

However, none of the top three guys is getting much above twenty percent in the national polls, and they're tightly bunched, all within a few constantly fluctuating percentages. That is a measure of a party deeply fragmented in its principles, and one that is lukewarm toward all the major contenders. So, any of these four could take this thing with some bold, compelling move or statement, which is why I don't rule out Thompson, not quite yet.

Given the primary schedule, here's how I see the sequence of events. Huckabee looks poised to take the Iowa caucuses, first up in the primary season. But then New Hampshire Republicans will go big for Romney. Michigan, which comes next, is now a toss-up between Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney. It will really help Giuliani if he can squeak out a win there; if he does, then the race remains completely muddled. If Huckabee or Romney win, that candidate will acquire some momentum. Then comes Nevada and South Carolina; the former will go Romney, the latter Huckabee.

So these first few weeks in January are likely to be a ping-pong match, with nobody acquiring momentum, and no decisive knockouts.

After that, I think Huckabee, the social conservatives' choice, will fade as the Republican Party's libertarians and economic conservatives coalesce around some candidate who can block Huckabee. Rudy is still poised to clean up in the bigger states -- New York, New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania, California. Should Thompson get on his game, he could do well in the South, stripping some support from Huckabee. But at this stage, Giuliani and Thompson have been running lackluster campaigns, and they'd better get their acts in gear soon if they want to be that alternative candidate. If not, the role goes by default to Romney -- alas -- although he won't do well with evangelicals in the South.

If this remains an undecided mess by the time of the convention, with nobody holding a winning hand, I see coalitions forming to find an alternative candidate to block Huckabee, who most Republican insiders know would be a disaster in November. He's carrying more ugly baggage than the underside of a cross-country Greyhound bus. Even John Edwards could beat him -- and that is SCARY, folks, just SCARY.

So, no way that I see Huckabee as winning the nomination. I don't think the party would let him. The question is, Where will his support go in a brokered convention? His base, which includes plenty of evangelical Christians, will have to decide between Rudy the Social Liberal and Mitt the Mormon. But which one? While one would think that Giuliani would be anathema to the Huckabee following, there's also no love lost between Huckabee's camp and Romney's, not after Huckabee's less-than-complimentary comments about Mormonism.

I have to think that with wins in the big northeast states and Florida, Rudy could have enough of the Big Mo after SuperDuper Tuesday to be in the lead by convention time, though perhaps not with enough votes to win on a first ballot. I figure that McCain will throw his support to Rudy, but that still might not be enough.

So then things become very interesting. If Rudy has the most delegates, but not a majority, and if Romney and Huckabee have sizable blocs themselves, that means either Romney or Huckabee can be kingmakers --  by either one throwing his support to the other or to Giuliani.

This is ONE possible scenario. But it is by no means the only possible one. Anything can happen in politics, and it usually does. One or more of these candidates is likely to implode soon, due to some dumb mistake or something in their past catching up with them. As candidates are eliminated, their support scatters among the remaining ones. But how?

We'll have to wait and see. Meanwhile, I'm laying in a lot of Shiraz and Malbec, just to help me endure the process and its outcome.

UPDATE #2 -- For those of you who love the "horse race" aspect, here's the page with all the latest polling results, updated daily. RealClearPolitics.com is the best hard-news election site out there.

UPDATE #3 -- Fred Thompson desperately needs to show his true character to the voters. This might help...



...or not.

But boy, would it be cool if he ran this and put some LIFE in his campaign. That would be the kind of "pro-life candidacy" I could finally endorse.

UPDATE #4, 12/19/07 -- The Tom Tancredo campaign has just put out a press advisory: "Presidential candidate Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) will hold a presser tomorrow [Dec. 20] to make a major announcement regarding the campaign." If it's what I expect, I wonder to whom his many tens of voters will shift their support now? [Update to the Update, p.m.: Fox News confirms tonight that Tancredo will drop out. You read it here first.]

UPDATE #5 -- More powerful arguments for Fred Thompson. How much longer can I resist this logic?

UPDATE #6 -- According to the TV evening news, Romney has been clobbering Huckabee in Iowa with TV ads in recent days exposing his clemency/pardons to over a thousand convicted criminals, including a dozen murderers, while he was Arkansas governor. Huckabee's favorable ratings in the Iowa polls are suddenly falling, and Romney is fast closing Huckabee's recent lead. Even McCain is sensing an opening in Iowa now.

Folks, I TOLD you that Huckabee's soft-on-criminals record would cut deeply into his religious-conservative base, which is seriously concerned about matters of morality and justice. Meanwhile, conservative talk-show hosts like Limbaugh are piling on, exposing Huckabee's economic and regulatory liberalism. The Iowa caucuses are still nearly two weeks away -- plenty of time for Huckabee's sorry "criminal history" to sink in with primary voters. If Romney beats him in Iowa, Huckabee's a goner -- because Romney will then win New Hampshire and, having established momentum, he'll use the crime issue to bludgeon Huckabee down South and finish him off.

I predict that the Huckster's campaign track will soon look like that of a Fourth of July firecracker: a dazzling launch upward, then, right at the peak of the trajectory, a sudden explosion...and a slow, fizzling fall back to earth, in smoldering pieces. Wait and watch, folks. I saw this happen with Dukakis.

UPDATE #7, 12/20/07 -- Huckabee can't even win over the Southern Baptists. That skyrocket is a dud, and it has already begun its plunge back to earth.

I was very pleased to notice this column published today on the blog of Information Week. The column profiles the host site of this blog, Journalspace, and it singles out Yours Truly and a couple of other writers here:

The site's better-known inhabitants include best-selling author John Birmingham, author and editor of The New Individualist, Robert Bidinotto, and Ellen Simonetti -- also known as the "Queen of Sky" -- the Delta flight attendant who was fired for her blog.

It's a nice little plug for this blog, link included, by a respected business-techology publication. Thanks to the Journalspace co-owner Dylan Rhodes for mentioning me to the reporter, and congratulations to him and his brother for the recognition his social-blogging site so amply deserves.

I've just received a message from a friend of Capt. Russ Corwin.

While Capt. Corwin is very grateful for the attention and well-wishing, he has requested that the link to his website be deleted. Apparently, it was a private website established for him by some friends, and it is not maintained by him. As a very private guy, Capt. Corwin is uncomfortable with his personal life being put under the spotlight of public scrutiny.

Obviously, I have no desire to cause this fine man any discomfort, and I'll of course honor his request. The entry about him has been deleted and replaced with this one; and the links to his website are no longer activated and publicly available.

I extend my apologies to him and to his friends for any inconvenience -- but also my continued well-wishing to him for his safety and success as he performs his mission.

Hat tip to Jeanne Assam, the brave private citizen who took down that armed Colorado mass murderer who was poised to slaughter dozens of church-goers.

I especially love the fact that the creep was taken down by a petite woman. Wonder what the advocates of gun control and feminism have to say about this?

I also wonder if the Supreme Court, now contemplating the meaning of the Second Amendment in its forthcoming ruling on the DC gun ban, is taking special note of this case. Just imagine if this had occurred in Washington...say, at the National Cathedral.

More about Jeanne and her heroic actions here, and here.

I think the NRA has found a new poster girl.

A lot of my friends certainly have.

UPDATE -- The latest news is that the mass-murderer creep finally took his own life with a shotgun...after Ms. Assam shot him full of holes.

UPDATE #2 -- Perhaps she's also becoming a trend-setter. I hope.

Here's a "man bites dog" story for you.

Maj. Gen. (Ret.) John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq -- and who soured on the war, joining VoteVets.org (a MoveOn.org front) -- has now switched sides.

In this Washington Post editorial, co-authored with Lt. Pete Hegseth of the win-the-war group Vets for Freedom, Gen. Batiste now declares that he supports the effort to win the war, and endorses the "Surge" effort of General David Petraeus as the "correct approach":

We are veterans of the Iraq war with vastly different experiences. Both of us commanded troops in Iraq. We, too, held seemingly entrenched, and incompatible, views upon our return. One of us spoke out against mismanagement of the war -- failed leadership, lack of strategy and misdirection. The other championed the cause of successfully completing our mission.

Our perspectives were different, yet not as stark as the "outspoken general" and "stay-the-course supporter" labels we received. Such labels are oversimplified and inaccurate, and we are united behind a greater purpose.

It's time to discuss the way forward rather than prosecute the past. Congress must do the same, for our nation and the troops. . .We believe America can and must rally around five fundamental tenets:

First, the United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism. We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option.

Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely to cause the violence there -- which has decreased substantially but is still present -- to cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis.

Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country. Ultimately, however, these military gains must be cemented with regional and global diplomacy, political reconciliation, and economic recovery -- tools yet sufficiently utilized. Today's tactical gains in Iraq -- while a necessary pre-condition for political reconciliation -- will crumble without a deliberate and comprehensive strategy.

Fourth, our strategy in fighting the Long War must address Iran. Much has been made this week of the intelligence judgments that Iran has stopped its weapons program. No matter what, Iran must not be permitted to become a nuclear power. All options should be exhausted before we use military force, but force, nonetheless, should never be off the table. Diplomatic efforts -- from a position of strength, both regionally and globally -- must be used to engage our friends and coerce our enemies to apply pressure on the Iranian regime.

Fifth, our military capabilities need to match our national strategy. Our military is stretched thin and will be hard-pressed to maintain its current cycle of deployments. At this critical juncture, we cannot afford to be weak. Numbers and capacity matter. . . .

Americans must mobilize for the Long War -- bolster our strained military, galvanize industry to supply troops with what they need right now and fund the strategy with long-term solutions. We have no doubt that Americans will rally behind a call to arms.

America's veterans -- young and old -- are resolved to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. This commitment, and nothing less, should compel us to stand together, in and out of uniform. Would that Congress finds the courage to bury its pride and do the same.

 
Do you think this prominent defection from the anti-war movement will make it to mainstream-media headlines, where all of Gen. Batiste's earlier anti-war statements have been trumpeted?

Ha.


UPDATE -- General Batiste is not the only person to have changed his mind about the War in Iraq. However, these people have flipped the other way -- and now, they would probably prefer that their past statements against Saddam's Iraq regime were not on the public record. . .like this (H.T. Instapundit):

Then, when General Petraeus's new counterinsurgency strategy was put into place, they issued statements like this.

They've even flip-flopped on the topic of "waterboarding" terrorists during interrogations.

Question: Are these blatantly poll-driven pols the people to trust to craft a foreign policy that's in the best national security interests of the United States?

Don't You Believe It."

With the clamour over global warming, it has become a magnet for an army of environmentalists and climatologists who have given Churchill an air of impending doom.

The Arctic ice-cap is shrinking fast, is their message, and as it disappears, so too will the polar bears.

Today, the polar bear population may hover healthily around 25,000 (they live in Russia, Alaska, Greenland, Norway and Canada).

Yet, we are repeatedly warned, if the planet continues to overheat at the present rate, within four decades our biggest carnivore will be extinct, starved to death as its natural hunting grounds disappear.

"Come up and see them while you still can," is the gist of their depressing refrain.

To some Churchill residents, who base their opinions on personal experience rather than fancy charts and computer models, this is so much nonsense put about by scaremongers for their own dubious ends.

When outsiders question whether anyone would be so cynical, they are reminded of that now-famous photograph of a polar bear which appears to be teetering precariously on an Arctic ice-floe, melting faster than ice-cream, in the depths of winter.

For a while, it became a powerful symbol of the perils of global warming - until it was revealed to have been taken three years ago and during the height of summer.

Read it all. A charming, wonderfully written article.

And here's that iconic photo of those poor polar bears, stranded precariously on an iceberg that's rapidly melting -- allegedly due to "global warming." So achingly, poignantly, heart-breakingly persuasive...except that the photo was taken during the SUMMER, when pack ice ALWAYS melts:




Just a little splash of cold water in the faces of anyone made faint by the hot air wafting this week from the Bali conference on global warming.

UPDATE, 12/10/07 -- Al Gore is "precious." But not in a way he'd find flattering. Meanwhile, for those of you who balk when I say that environmentalists are anti-human, here's another footnote to ponder.

UPDATE #2 -- One big reason not to worry about the fate of the polar bears pertains to those melting polar ice caps: They aren't.

UPDATE #3 -- "How Green Was My Bali?" Great title, and a terrific summary article about the current state of the politics and science of global warming.

UPDATE #4, 12/11/07 -- Hey gang! Want to do your personal bit to offset all the carbon emissions emanating from that conference of environmental champions in Bali? Well then, just go here and sign up. It's free; it's easy; and it won't affect your present lifestyle one wee little bit. And to boot, you get a certificate demonstrating your ecological sustainability. How can you resist?

This week's much-ballyhooed National Intelligence Estimate represented an astonishing about-face in its assessment of Iran's nuclear weapons program. Contrary to all past intell reports, this one declares that Iran halted its efforts to build a nuclear weapon back in 2003.

Oh really?

Robert Tracinski, my favorite current-events columnist, dissects the NIE report here. His conclusions:

In short, this is a stunning propaganda victory for the enemy, delivered by our own national intelligence establishment. But it is just propaganda, not backed by any actual, substantial new intelligence. It is an exercise in writing pro-Iran headlines over text that doesn't support it. . . .

This is an exercise in the power of a few top-level bureaucrats to shape the meaning of the work of hundreds of others, simply by re-writing the headlines. We should be used to this from the global warming reports periodically issued by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- reports whose body, which is prepared by scientists, is always far less alarmist than the "summary for policymakers" tacked on to it by politicians and diplomats and then amplified in the press. . .

[T]he authors certainly knew that their lines about Iran allegedly suspending its weapons program and not "rushing" to produce a weapon would be picked up by the media. And they must have realized that this would eclipse the rest of the substance of the report.

And the rest of that substance undercuts the story now being trumpeted by the mainstream media. The NIE acknowledges, for example, that it has no evidence that Iran has actually halted its entire nuclear weapons program: "Because of intelligence gaps..., DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program." It acknowledged that "Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so." And: "We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so."

But here is the real blockbuster concession in the report:

   "We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran's key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran's considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons."

. . .The full picture of Iran's activity over the past four years is that of a dangerous power seeking to assert regional dominance and to spread its ideology of radical Islam by encouraging the aggression of an "Islamist Axis" of terrorist militias across the greater Middle East. Yet all of this is completely evaded in the NIE's benevolent assessment of Iran's intentions.

And that, ultimately, is what makes this report an exercise in propaganda -- propaganda for a brutal Islamist dictatorship, composed and broadcast by the supposed guardians of the leading power of the free world.

You absolutely MUST read the whole thing -- then forward the link to everyone you know.

UPDATE -- Former UN ambassador John Bolton weighs in, and he echoes Tracinski's analysis in virtually every particular. Also a must read. He points out that even sources in the International Atomic Energy Agency dispute the NIE's conclusions. So do the Israelis, who have most cause to worry about Iranian nukes. Even France disagrees. [12/7/07 -- Add Britain to the list of NIE skeptics. The Brit Foreign Secretary: "They (Iran) have no nuclear power plants to put this enriched uranium into. That's why people have fears about what the enrichment is for. That's why they have fears about the dangers of weaponization." Here's Germany: "The German government said Wednesday that the international community needed to continue pressing Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program as Tehran remained in violation of international law. . . [by] failing to adhere to UN Security Council resolutions, German government spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm said. 'There remains a cause for concern,' the spokesman said, two days after a US intelligence assessment concluded that Tehran appeared to have suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. 'But you also know the reality that two UN Security Council resolutions have not been followed and that Iran has not yet stopped its uranium enrichment program.'"]

So, what the hell is going on in the U.S. intelligence community?

UPDATE #2 -- Another excellent dissection of the NIE, this time on the op-ed page of The New York Times:

The National Intelligence Estimate has been heralded as a courageous act of independence by the intelligence agencies, and praised by both parties for showing a higher quality of spy work than earlier assessments.

In fact, the report contains the same sorts of flaws that we have learned to expect from our intelligence agency offerings. It, like the report in 2002 that set up the invasion of Iraq, is both misleading and dangerous.

During the past year, a period when Iran’s weapons program was supposedly halted, the government has been busy installing some 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz. These machines could, if operated continuously for about a year, create enough enriched uranium to provide fuel for a bomb. In addition, they have no plausible purpose in Iran’s civilian nuclear effort. All of Iran’s needs for enriched uranium for its energy programs are covered by a contract with Russia.

Iran is also building a heavy water reactor at its research center at Arak. This reactor is ideal for producing plutonium for nuclear bombs, but is of little use in an energy program like Iran’s, which does not use plutonium for reactor fuel. India, Israel and Pakistan have all built similar reactors — all with the purpose of fueling nuclear weapons. And why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value? And why is Iran developing long-range Shahab missiles, which make no military sense without nuclear warheads to put on them?

Good questions -- which apparently didn't occur to the authors of the NIE. Again, read the whole thing.
   

Because if proponents of the theory of man-made global warming truly believed that it is a grave crisis, they wouldn't behave like this.

Scaring taxpayers to fund the jet-set lifestyles of the scaremongers has to be one of the best scams ever.

UPDATE -- Oh yes, and today's "global warming" updates: North Dakota breaks a snowfall record set in 1926, while Maine ties a snowfall record set in 1890. I bet lots of residents in both places are praying that the hot air from the bureaucrats in Bali will blow their way... So will people susceptible to flu.

UPDATE #2 -- You gotta love the blatant epocrisy:

A U.S. Senate committee has passed landmark legislation aimed at combating global warming by limiting carbon dioxide emissions. The vote was timed to coincide with the U.N. conference on climate change taking place in Bali, Indonesia. . . .

"We are facing a crisis that will hit our children and our grandchildren the hardest if we do not act now. Not to act would be wrong, cowardly, and irresponsible," said Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, chairwoman of the committee.

Senator Boxer. . .is expected to travel to Bali as part of a U.S. congressional delegation next week. . . .

UPDATE #3 -- Oh yes, about that global temperature record. . .

UPDATE #4, 12/6/07 -- Just how much hot air...er...CO2 will those 10,000 envirocrats emit in Bali? The same as 20,000 cars emit in a year.

I have a modest proposal to fight greenhouse-gas emissions: Ban all environmentalist conferences, and close the doors on all green groups. Just the transportation emissions prevented by these measures would probably equal the total annual emissions of a major city.

UPDATE #5 -- A new fable for our age: "The Boy Who Cried 'Hurricane!'" I guess if they keep predicting "more hurricanes" every year, some day Mother Nature will get the message and comply. (Actually, William Gray hasn't been taken in by the global warming hysteria; he's a leading critic of the GW alarmists.)

Back in July 1988, my article "Getting Away With Murder" in Reader's Digest exposed the practice by former Mass. governor Michael Dukakis of commuting the sentences of convicted criminals sentenced to "life without the possibility of parole." It chronicled the subsequent crimes of commuted thugs -- most infamously, the story of murderer William R. Horton, Jr. (whom the Republicans nicknamed "Willie" during the presidential campaign). Once commuted and freed from prison [on a weekend furlough], Horton went on to savagely attack a couple in Maryland.

Pundits say that my article cost Dukakis the presidency.

Now, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is climbing in the GOP primary polls, especially in Iowa. Huckabee's "compassionate conservatism" softly echoes the liberalism of Dukakis. It includes, apparently, compassion for convicted thugs.

And it appears that Huckabee is about to confront his own version of the "Willie" Horton scandal. Follow the link and read all about it.

UPDATE #1, 12/5/07 -- Somebody else has picked up this "Horton" angle -- and he's been linked by Instapundit. That means it will be worldwide news in about, oh, 24 hours.

What is this soft spot for criminals by politicians named "Mike": Dukakis, Castle (of Delaware), and now Huckabee?

My firm prediction about the political future of the latter:

Goodbye, Mike. And don't let the parole board's door whack your backside on the way out.

UPDATE #2 -- Ouch. It's now picked up by ABC.

The Huckabee parole story is shaking out exactly as did the Dukakis furlough story, with family members of the victims leading the charge to sink his presidential run. Huckabee had jolly well better believe in the power of prayer, because it will take a miracle for his candidacy to survive this undermining of his core appeal: the "moral values" issue. Folks, color him "gone."

UPDATE #3, 12/6/07 -- It just keeps getting worse for Huckabee. Compared to the records of surrounding states, it turns out that he's the leading granter of clemencies to criminals -- by a wide margin. Why bother having judges, juries, trials, verdicts, and prisons -- or criminal laws, for that matter -- if the state's chief executive is simply going to override the entire process because of his "compassion" for convicted thugs?

UPDATE #4 -- I told you so. This story is spreading like kudzu.

UPDATE #5, 12/9/07 -- While Huckabee's Iowa poll numbers are good, his campaign just seems to be imploding on a number of issues.

UPDATE #6, 12/10/07 -- This good summary of the clemency career of "Turn 'Em Loose Mike" got Drudge's attention today. And this June 8, 1998 article, detailing Huckabee's "religious right" ambitions, gives me ample additional cause to hope his candidacy is buried soon. A closet theocrat is the last thing that the GOP needs right now. If he were the Republican nominee, I would vote for the Dem. Yes. Really.

UPDATE #7 -- Anti-Huckabee bloggers everywhere.

UPDATE #8, 12/12/07 -- What's there not to love about Huckabee? wonders the Vodkapundit. Here's a list.
 

According to this news story,

U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in findings released on Monday that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons development program in 2003. Following are highlights of the National Intelligence Estimate's key judgments.

-- Iran had a nuclear weapons program but halted it in 2003 and had not restarted it as of mid-2007. The halt applied to design and engineering of an explosive device, such as fuses or shielding, and to covert uranium-conversion activities, according to senior intelligence officials. . .

-- The weapons program was halted in response to international pressure, meaning Tehran may be more susceptible to influence than previously thought.

-- Tehran's decisions on nuclear weapons are guided by a consideration of the costs and benefits of its actions, rather than "a rush to a weapon" regardless of political and other consequences.

Hmmm. If true, I think this means something else: that Iran was not eager to experience the same kind of "interventionism" that we practiced on its neighbor, Iraq, in March 2003.

If Iran was indeed intimidated into halting its nuke program by the prospect of U.S. military "intervention," do you think Ron Paul would characterize Iran's response as "blowback"?

UPDATE #1, 12/11/07 -- But is the NIE assessment valid? Serious questions are surfacing. Stay tuned.

UPDATE #2 -- You'd expect Israel to reject the NIE assessment. But France isn't buying it, either.

Okay...here's something fascinating.

Which way is this lovely lady spinning...clockwise, or counter-clockwise?

Look quickly, then register your vote in the comments.

Then come back here and look again.

And again.




I'll post a link to some information about this fascinating little "test" in the comments.

FINAL UPDATE to the posted info below:

While The New Individualist garnered quite an outpouring of votes in the final hours of the online entrepreneurship contest, it doesn't appear that we won. The contest folks are verifying the final vote tally, but the runaway winner seems to a very emotionally appealing entry by a nonprofit organization. They aim to buy a home in Orlando, Florida to give week-long vacations to young adult cancer patients and their families -- something akin to the "Make-a-Wish Foundation." Certainly a worthy endeavor, and certainly a formidable competitor in a contest like this. I want to extend to them my public congratulations.

Though we didn't win, I am quite encouraged and want to stress to all of you my deep gratitude for your support of the magazine. And let me reassure you that we are completing our new TNI website regardless, and that it will go online early in 2008 -- probably the beginning of February. It will contain cutting-edge interactive features, making it unlike any publication website you've ever seen.

So, thank you for taking the time to register your support. It means a whole lot to us that we have a large and loyal group cheering us on.

Anyone who likes The New Individualist and what we are doing is welcome to contact me directly. I'd be glad to discuss our objectives and plans, and tell you how you can help make them a reality. Write me at: rbidinotto (at) atlassociety (dot) org.

Again -- thanks to you for your support.

Here's the post from earlier this week:

----------------------------------------

Dear friends:

[UPDATE: IF YOU HAVE ALREADY READ THIS, TRIED TO VOTE, AND FAILED DUE TO PROBLEMS AT THE WEBSITE, THEY'VE FIXED THE TROUBLE.

[PLEASE TRY TO VOTE AGAIN TODAY (FRIDAY). THANKS SO MUCH!]

About a week ago, I asked you to help The New Individualist, the monthly magazine that I edit, win $10,000 to develop our new website. All you had to do was cast your vote for us in an online entrepreneurship contest.

Well, you responded. And thanks to you, we won last week's semi-final competition, propelling us into the final round.

Now, I'm asking you to vote again, one last time, in the FINAL round of the competition...before MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME THIS FRIDAY TODAY, NOVEMBER 30.

Even if you voted in the previous round, you can vote again this week -- and we urgently need every vote.

Here's the deal:

As I explained, we've entered an online entrepreneurship contest. We've submitted an idea of creating live, interactive news events for our forthcoming TNI website, which will go online at the beginning of 2008. If we win, the money will fund a cutting-edge "TNI TV" feature. This dazzling technology will present live, interactive shows that will feature our writers, editors, and special interview guests. Online audience members (like you) will get to participate by asking questions of the guests. Real-time polling will be conducted during the shows. And our advertisers will appear live, too, to share their wares.

Even though we won the semi-final round, we know that hundreds of people visited our online voting page without actually casting a vote. Some people later told us that our voting instructions weren't clear. So, maybe you tried, and couldn't figure out how to do it.

So here are the simplified instructions for online voting. If you have any problems, please call managing editor Sherrie Gossett at 800-374-1776 or on her cell at 571-926-0532. She'd be happy to walk you through the brief process.

Please do the following right away:


1. Copy and paste the following URL into your browser:

   http://ideablob.com/ideas/527- Interactive-web- based-news-even

(Note: you will see the name "MightyMouse" on this page. This simply the username managing editor Sherrie Gossett created. Also, the page make take a moment to load up -- no doubt because many people are voting. PLEASE BE PATIENT FOR A MOMENT.)


2. If you previously voted, go to the top of the page and LOGIN. Then skip to step 5, below.

3. If you have not previously voted, go to the top of the page and click on "register." (You can opt out of any future "spam" contacts.)

4. Follow the registration instructions; it will only take a couple of minutes. You will be sent an email to confirm your identity; click on the URL to send it back. Then you'll be sent back to our voting page again.

5. To vote, click on the green "thumbs up" box: (it reads: "Like this idea? Vote for it now")


That's all! Our victory in this final round will win us the grand prize. And it won't cost you a thing, except a couple of minutes of your time. But it will mean a great deal to us if we win.

Thank you once again for your "vote of confidence" in The New Individualist.

-- Robert Bidinotto
  Editor-in-Chief
  The New Individualist