In this respect, here are the latest "smartest" thoughts on Global Warming. Towit: the tipping point has arrived, only the point is that the whole kiboodle is a fraud. Here's Joanne Nova's handy (pdf) notes on the current research. Briefly, the best global warming computer models that predict anthropogenic warming indicate various dramatic "hot-spots", none of which have been observed. Hence the models are wrong. And the best ice-core reconstructions of temperature and CO2 definitively show that CO2 concentrations generally have increased *after* temperatures have risen - in fact, they've risen some 800 years (!!) after temps have gone up. And this data only goes back 400,000+ years!!

There's another discussion of this data at http://www.sepp.org . You'll have to scroll down to find the article titled  SEPP Science Editorial #10 (11/1/08)

But of course, according to The One, the oceans stopped rising only on 4 Nov 2008 when, conveniently, he was elected. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, as they say.

Milton Friedmen - Where Would You Find The Angels?

An you think this is just an outlier? Here's their article from Feb 1992 sobbing over the fun that was the Gulag Archipelago !! A Gulag Breeds Rage, But Also Serenity 

You can't make this stuff up.  (H/T to TimesWatch )

$150 Million in one month is not enough for the voraciously corrupt Messiah. He's even gonna tax the very media  (thanks, hotair) which put him on the untouchable thou-shallt-not-ask-about-Ayers/Acorn pedestal. Just think what he's gonna do to the rest of us.

   UPDATE:  Media spend more time investigating Joe’s tax problems than Barack Obama’s.  In what kind of nation, do the media investigate critics more than candidates?

Even Better - I AM JOE..Thanks Iowahawk:

...The viciousness and glee with which they set about the task ought to concern anyone who still cares about citizen participation, and freedom of speech, and all that old crap they taught in Civics class before politics turned into Narrative Deathrace 3000

 "leader(s) from the the Politburo, who gave the opinion: It must change. This is to say, we had no choice."

And note the classic communist desperation: "The reason was for the national interest. The child on camera should be flawless in image, internal feelings, and expression."

Yep, they're a totalitarian state, but they put on a good show!!

One convict, talking to a group of other cons - What are you in for?

• My business prices were higher than my competitors, so I was charged with price gouging
  
• My business prices were lower than my competitors, so I was charged with predatory pricing
• My business prices were the same as my competitors, so I was charged with collusion
  

Via ClubForGrowth....

Some notes for Nathan's performance. Since Jan 2001 when GWB was inaugurated:

• S+P annualized increase: 1.6%
• Dow Jones annualized increas: 2.5%
• NASD annualized increase: 8.4%    (see google finance)
• Increase in Housing prices, annualized:  5.5% (see Case-Shiller index)
  
• GDP annualized increase: 4.88%    (see BEA)
• Cost-Of-Living annualized increase: 2.7%
• Labor force total increase: 8 million jobs
• Labor force increase, total %: 7.1%
• US Population increase, total %: 6% 

There's another "57 States" Obama kerfluffle that the NYT is trying to paper over. Whilst McCain scores points by stating the facts, including that Obama wants direct unconditional talks with Iran, the NYT copies the lie from the Obama campaign:

Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But [Obama foreign affairs adviser] Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state.

Here's the direct link to Obama's Web Site:  http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran

As of 12:42pm 12 May 2008, that link still pointed to the following text:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

And While On The Topic Of Food….   [Andrew Stuttaford]

…in a splendid example of cults colliding, the Independent recently ran a piece asserting that ‘organic’ food was, among other crimes, bad for the environment. The whole article is well worth reading for any number of reasons, but here’s a sample:

The proponents of organic food – particularly celebrities, such as Gwyneth Paltrow, who have jumped on the organic bandwagon – say there is a "cocktail effect" of pesticides. Some point to an "epidemic of cancer". In fact, there is no epidemic of cancer. When age-standardised, cancer rates are falling dramatically and have been doing so for 50 years. If there is a "cocktail effect" it would first show up in farmers, but they have among the lowest cancer rates of any group. Carcinogenic effects of pesticides could show up as stomach cancer, but stomach cancer rates have fallen faster than any other. Sixty years ago, all Britain's food was organic; we lived only until our early sixties, malnutrition and food poisoning were rife. Now, modern agriculture (including the careful use of well-tested chemicals) makes food cheap and safe and we live into our eighties.

The Soil Association invariably claims that anyone who questions the value of organic farming works for chemical manufacturers and agribusiness or is in league with some shady right-wing US free-market lobby group. Which is ironic, considering that a number of British fascists were involved in the founding of the Soil Association and its journal was edited by one of Oswald Mosley's blackshirts until the late 1960s.

"...model outputs at annual and climatic (30-year) scales are irrelevent with reality....none of the models proves to be systematically better than the others."

• How many spam messages to you get on your cell phone? How many solicitations? And how many on your land-line?
• How is the picture quality of internet video? How much do you like waiting for "buffering" before watching? And what is the quality of  picture and buffering for cable TV? And, in fact, what was the quality of picture and buffering in the 1980's version of cable?

The point here is that there's a good case to be made for a corporate product which delivers content over dedicated channels. The internet was simply never designed for quality of real-time data transmission, was never designed to account for the commons of bandwidth, and never designed to enable strong guarantees of security. These are real failures of the current internet.

So, that said, it's outrageous to promote a federal ban on integrated channel/content products.

Ah, but the internet is a wonderful, open place of wonderfulness and opportunity. And all that will be destroyed by greed and whatever. Small sites won't be allowed equal access. Cats and dogs won't be allowed to live together! 

Frankly, no one had any idea we'd end up in this world, and no one can predict what tomorrow's world of technology will bring. No one can predict what a federal regulation constraining technology and corporate product planning will bring. Given the failures of the current public internet, there's no particular reason to believe that the felicitously named "net neutrality" ban will make things better.

This recalls Barack's similar story of fatigue. Last year, whilst conflating lack of emergency response with, what else, Iraq, he misstated the number of dead: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed,”  Turns out his oratory was just plain wrong. So he corrected himself, “There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes.”

Good to know when voting for a President that may need to take that 3AM phone call.