Real Women

It was 1936 and Mary, my mom, was playing high school basketball in Rochester, NY. Though only 5’4” she was quick and had a good two-hand set shot. And she loved the game. Her sisters Grace and Gloria also played sports and the three were good lookers to boot.

On the Lama side, my fathers sister’s all looked like German farm women. Francis was built like a linebacker but Dolly and Virginia were petite while Judy, Marie and Maybelle were tall, athletic, blond and beautiful. Aunt Bello was a ballerina and Broadway show star until she married and moved back to Rochester to raise her kids. To keep in shape she opened a dance studio and all my cousins, boys included, were required to take lessons. I was 10 and it was an experience I’d like to forget.

What got me thinking about these real women was the obit in today’s la times. She was called "the First Lady of Iron," "America's Barbelle" and "the Queen of Muscle Beach." Abbye "Pudgy" Stockton, a pioneer female weightlifter who helped put Santa Monica's Muscle Beach on the map died Monday at her home in Santa Monica. She was 88.

"In those days, lifting weights was considered unfeminine," Stockton told Sports Illustrated. "People used to say that if women worked out, they would become masculine-looking or wouldn't be able to get pregnant. We just laughed because we knew they were wrong."

These were women who grew up during the Great Depression, married and had children while their husbands went to war, and took jobs to aid the war effort. These were the women of the Greatest Generation.

The Santa Monica-born Abbye Stockton was a 19-year-old telephone operator in the late 1930s when she and future husband Les Stockton began frequenting the area just south of the Santa Monica Pier established for devotees of "physical culture." She had earned the nickname Pudgy as a young child, but she soon developed what many considered the most impressive female body on Muscle Beach. She and Les performed various routines, including the crowd-pleasing "high press," in which Pudgy lifted a 100-pound barbell over her head while balancing atop Les' upstretched hands.

My Mom and Aunts Grace and Gloria are still with us, as are Aunts Judy, Maybelle and Marie. Bless them and the other real women who never accepted that work and sports were unfeminine, or that raising children was unfullfilling.

All Are Entitled

Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law. Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, Democrat.

No wonder that fellow is smiling. He is Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who was Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard and is accused of conspiring against U.S. citizens from 1996 through 2001. He is not a good man, but he was likely a good source of information about his boss.

Madame Pelosi goes on to say that today’s decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration’s detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. Now she is equating terrorists with American citizens.

The decision written by LIBERAL Justice John Paul Stevens said the proposed military war crimes trials for Hamdan and about 450 other terrorists held at Gitmo were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.

Justice Kennedy who voted with the majority wrote in his separate opinion that concentration of power (in the executive branch) puts personal liberty in peril of arbitrary action by officials, an incursion the Constitution's three-part system is designed to avoid.

So we have five Supreme Court justices granting the protections of US law to those who have made war against our country and citizens using terror tactics. If one of the 9/11 terrorists had somehow survived the plane crash these judges would be prepared to grant him bail, and liberal lawyers (remember Ramsey Clark) would be lining up to defend his rights.

And in a moment of supreme irony, Justice Kennedy usurps the Constitutional authority of the executive branch under the pretense of protecting separation of powers. You have to wonder if these guys even understand what they are saying.

In a judicial preview on National Review Online a few days ago Andy McCarthy wrote that if this happens, the Supreme Court will have dictated that we now have a treaty with al Qaeda — which no President, no Senate, and no vote of the American people would ever countenance. The Constitution consigns treaty-making to the political branches, not the courts, but a conclusion that Geneva protects Hamdan (and, by extension, his fellow savages) would ominously mean that the courts, under the conveniently malleable guise of "customary international law" can rewrite treaties to mean whatever they like them to mean. It is likely that such a theory will not rest on a claim that terrorists qualify as honorable prisoners of war under the conventions. It is too obvious that this is not the case.

It is clear that a majority of the Supreme Court believes that it has the power to dictate war making policy to the President, run roughshod over the Constitution’s separation of powers, and endanger the country. We need one more Supreme (goodbye Ginsberg or Stevens) in order to avoid more such travesties of justice.

As for Madame Pelosi, all Americans are entitled to a federal legislature free of imbeciles.

Tom Cotton to the New York Crimes

At the gym Rose approached me with fire in her eyes. Damn that newspaper, she said, how dare they sell out America. You must write about it!!

Well, I don’t generally say no to Rose, and I am just as furious about it as she is. It is patently clear that the leaker(s) committed treason. He or she or they should be rounded up, tried and executed. The NY and LA Times may escape the technical commission of treason but they exposed top secret information that endangers our country and should be prosecuted to the limits of what the law allows. A couple of decades in Leavenworth seems appropriate for the publishers and reporters.

On Powerline blog I found this letter from Lt. Tom Cotton, a soldier in Baghdad, to the NY Times that captures my feelings.

Dear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen:

Congratulations on disclosing our government's highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program (June 23). I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevent me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.)Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato's guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months' salary.

As your story states, the (US government) program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.

Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion -- or next time I feel it -- I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.

And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others -- laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.

Very truly yours,
Tom Cotton
Baghdad, Iraq

PalosVerdesBlog readers: I think that we have found another brave soldier to befriend.

Brian's Latest

Thanks to the generosity of so many Palos Verdes area folks (Sue, Glen, Lori, John, Tom, Fred, Angela, Angelo, Melanie, Jill, Judy, Mark, Dr. Dave, Col. Dave, Kathryn, Marie, Maria, Gene, Pat ... forgive me if I've forgotten someone) I've collected 6 boxes full of baby and toddler clothes, toys - even a harmonica - and books for the Djibouti orphans, and the boxes will be shipped on Monday. Thanks to Dr.Dave we shipped 10 pounds of beef jerky - not for the babies - last week. And folks have promised more stuff for a second shipment.

What great Americans you are. And from another great American, here is the latest from our Brian Weiss.

So, its back to the story of the heat… the hot weather is here but its pretty random. From about 6 am when it hits 100 until about 1500 (3 pm) when its 140 plus with less than 10% humidity... then in about 5 minutes the wind shifts from off the ocean and we get 120 degree temps which seem cooler, but the humidity goes up to 50%, and then the sweating begins. The weather is still a huge factor in everything we do, but we are still completing lots of good missions.

I am about a week away from completing my next martial arts belt. We have 3 instructors in my section so there is always someone around to learn from. I should be testing for my belt next week sometime. We have just switched our schedule around and I will not have to work nights any longer. The night shift is cooler, but more humid, and it can really mess with our already abnormal and sometimes inexistent sleep schedule.

According to what we are being told we have surpassed the half way mark of the deployment. Our orders have us active until Jan. 8th 07… pray we are home before then.

A quick wildlife update: the snakes are coming out of the woodwork. We are seeing Carpet Vipers almost everyday. They are a small snake in comparison to the rattle snakes I'm used to dealing with in the California desert, but much more deadly. They are only 3-4 feet long and about the size of a permanent marker. These snakes tend to hang around humans because we provide food for the mice they love to eat. We see them mostly on or near our posts, as we eat lots of sun flower seeds and the mice help clean up what we drop.

The plans to expand the base to about 10 times the size have been approved and the construction is in the early phases. The Navy Seebees have been putting in a few roads to the east of camp. The expansion area is pretty rough land and was always considered to be a military zone. There are a couple of goat herders who go out there and let their animals graze but other than that it is pretty desolate. The Seebees had some rocks thrown at them a week or so ago by some local bushman that are mad about the expansion of the base.

My unit has to patrol out there more, to keep the Seebees safe. The Seebees are really good guys, but we had to remind them of their motto “we fight, we build”. Anyone that lives to the south of the base must walk all the way to the extreme east to get around the camp, and with the expansion they will not be able to go around from the east any longer.

As for what is going on with Somalia, we are only 10 miles from the border, and we are hoping for it to stabilize quickly as it presents a big threat to the camp. Don’t worry mom we will be all right. We get to see some of the news, and goings on over there from the internet and out of intelligence reports but there are still lots of things we don’t know. We hope that they stay on their side of the fence, as we stay on ours.

The killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a big deal around here and I assume across the entire American military. We all know that he wasn’t the key to the problems in Iraq, but one less bad guy is a step in the right direction(the glass is half full theory). We did get word about the Army guys who were kidnapped and murdered, and we mourn the loss just as the soldiers there do. As Marines we are always reminded of what will happen to us if we were kidnapped and we always take extra precautions to prevent it.

I have been receiving lots of goods in the mail for the kids at the orphanage, so much in fact my company Gunnery Sergeant made a comment about the quality of my friends and family back at home. Please keep sending what you can, remember that you can use the bulk military mail boxes from the USPS with a flat rate of $8.10 with any weight. Try to ship air mail, as the ground will take months to get here and I may not be around to receive it. Thanks so much for all the great things you have sent the kids at the orphanage and to me.

I have attached a picture from a trip I made in town. I hit the local market with a “NEED”. The market is pretty crazy, picture a farmers market in Cali, but with lots more people and better prices, not to mention you need a translator. My NEED is in the left hand side of the pic…limessssssssssssssss!!!! They are pretty cheap too, about 150 Djiboutian francs for 2 kilos. Now if I only had a cold case of Pacifico the world would be perfect!

I hope all is well with all of you.

Brian

Afterword

The National Academy of Sciences reported that the recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years; that average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century; and that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.

The Academy reported a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years.

I think it’s worth our while to examine that landmark statement. It appears that around 1606 it was as warm as it is now (most likely driven by CO2 emissions from scores of 600 HP oxen teams). But wait a minute. CO2 concentrations were not so great back then, and yet the temperature was “high” like it is today. But if it was high then, and is only now high again, guess what had to happen in the intervening time period. Can you guess?

OK, liberals have trouble with math so I will tell you. The global temperature DECREASED, it went DOWN (for the folks in Rio Linda) during the "Little Ice Age.” From Wikipedia: During the period 1645–1715, right in the middle of the Little Ice Age, solar activity as seen in sunspots was extremely low, with some years having no sunspots at all. This period of low sunspot activity is known as the Maunder Minimum. Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world also experienced heightened volcanic activity. When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. This ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Let’s see, less sun, lower temperature. Got it?

Interestingly, most temperature-time graphs used by the hysterics start around 1850, just after the Little Ice Age, when the warming of the interglacial period resumed its normal course. And guess what? It warmed right up to the level it was before the Little Ice Age. Amazing!

Anyway, I was finished with this silliness (“Last Words on Global Warming,” 6/20/06) but, like the capo in the Godfather, Every time I try to get out, they drag me back in. By “they” I mean my faithful readers. I want to thank Mel, Gary, Tex, Vic and a couple of Anonys for comments that drag me right back in.

Mel derided my ridiculous accusations that this issue is primarily a “leftist based historical notion. Hysterical, Mel, not historical. Mel said: Global warming is likely to cause major disruptions to our environment and the livability of much of the planet. What to do about it is a very complex question. Obviously, we have to substantially reduce the carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels. Using alternate energy sources such as nuclear, wind, and solar is one component of the solution. And major increases in gas mileage of our vehicles.

Gary said I’m still left with the question Bill wants me to confront, what to do, specifically, given my science-based belief in global warming. Of course, the “specifically” is a trap. And if I should have the temerity to advocate a $1 a gallon rebatable tax on gas, strong emission controls and alternative energy sources, well, forget it.

Tex offered these solutions: We should grab Kyoto and support it, accepting that, at the moment, it's a largely symbolic move. Also establish higher automobile mileage standards, tougher emissions regulations for automobiles, diesel engines and industry. The U.S. car industry is on its knees because it HASN'T embraced these principles.

Thanks, guys, for your advice: Increased gasoline taxes, higher mileage standards, tougher emissions regulations on industry and alternative energy sources. And drive the last nail into the auto industry coffin. It appears that California is going to try out this policy. Let’s see how it goes.

Oh, and embrace Kyoto, though it is largely symbolic. No Tex, Kyoto is dead, killed off by the Europeans who had no chance to meet their targets, and the likelihood of a successor of that nonsensical type is somewhere between zero and nada. Unfortunately, like a zombie, Kyoto is still roaming the globe scaring the children.

The Bush administration has warned that the proposed emissions controls would cost 5 million American jobs. Do you hear that Arnie? You might remember that the Clinton Senate voted 99-0 to reject Kyoto, so Bush is only continuing their good policy. Thank the Lord the adults are in charge.

American Heroes

Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, left, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Oregon were captured, tortured and murdered by al Qaida in Iraq.

Yesterday I received this note from my daughter Carolynne whose son Johnny is in the Army 82nd Airborne.

Dad,
Would you please keep these boys and their families in your prayers. I know Tommy's parents and my heart is broken for them. He was in the 101st Airborne. All the radio stations here are going to have a moment of silence tomorrow at 8:00 am.
Love, Carolynne

Dear Carolynne,
How horrible for their families. Please send me anything you know about Tommy. I will write a tribute to him, and will pray with you at 8AM tomorrow.
Love, Dad

We prayed and so did many PalosVerdesBlog readers. Some responses:

Bill, Thank you for this, from the bottom of my broken heart.... Haya

Evidently your grandson and daughter knew our killed, brutalized soldiers. I too, will remember at 8AM tomorrow..... Marie

My heart also is broken for these families. I cannot imagine enduring such tragic and barbaric information without faith. We will be praying for them..... Bob and Joan

So very sad.... I said a prayer and will keep praying.... Kathryn

Now this brings it closer to home, doesn’t it? My heart was very sad when they first went missing last week…knowing those horrible terrorists’ ways. Yesterday I first heard about finding the bodies and I cringed. I thank God for our military who selflessly give of their time and lives to guard our land and way of life. It’s getting more and more difficult for me to remain in control when dealing with some of the liberal ideas I face everyday. Keep looking up!... Dori

Oh Billy, this is so sad . If you think this is appropriate and would like to include this poem in the tribute, please do; it's my favorite..... Marianne

Who thinks we'll never meet again?
When even here . . .
Mere catepillars spin and die,
Yet fly again as butterflies.

So surely yet we'll meet and then,
Anew in heaven's sphere . . .
On wings of memory you and I,
We'll fly . . . and fly and fly.












From my dear daughter today:

Dad, Thank you for your prayers. I cried like a baby this morning... I know it's terribly selfish, but I couldn't help thinking that this could happen to Johnny.

Tommy joined the Army National Guard last summer. He is in the 101st Airborne.
His mom Meg and I teased about which was better (101st or 82nd). He went to Iraq in February.

He was a really good kid, into sports and worked hard. He did construction work for awhile and decided to join the Army. He wanted to do his part. His mom was worried about him and he told her not to worry and that he just needed to do his share and he would be okay!

Tommy is the 1st soldier from central Oregon to be killed in Iraq.

In an interview this morning on the Today show his dad Wes, had this to say...

Our son, as far as we’re concerned, has died for the freedom of everybody in the United States.

American hero.

Last Words on Global Warming

In my last post about the global warming religion, I asked what the global warming warriors are so worked up about, what drives them? I offered as one explanation a profound narcissism that replaces religiosity.

Gary Daily answered: Bill equates science coupled with concern and a desire to educate the public with religion. If only religion really worked this way the problems in this sorry world, past and present, would be considerably reduced…. Religions die hard or never die the deaths they deserve.

It appears that Gary has found something to replace his religiosity.

I thought that liberal narcissism is connected to a naturalistic pantheism that drives some of the global warming warriors. I mentioned that capitalism, globalization and America’s power lead many global warming warriors to seek a diminished America.

Even if we do think warming is a problem, I prefer the free market solutions offered by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

FAR agreed: Sane people don't wish to bankrupt our budget dealing with a "computer model" that may have some incorrect assumptions; perhaps we should proceed with a little caution. Perhaps we should look at what the U.S. Senate said in its 95-0 vote (including Gore)on the Byrd-Hagel Resolution: [Kyoto]"would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".

But Gary prefers "preventative anticipation, a willingness to take action in advance of scientific proof of evidence of the need for the proposed action on the grounds that further delay will prove ultimately most costly to society and nature, and, in the longer term, selfish and unfair to future generations.” Sounds like faith to me.

Mel was upset with the fact that this issue is vitriolic and so emotionally charged that rational discussion is no longer possible. But now the discussion has regressed to the point of questioning the religious faith and patriotism of the many people concerned with the possible degradation of our planet.

OK, I agree that the motives I attributed to the global warming warriors were not comprehensive. There are some who are narcissistic pantheists, some who wish to see America diminished, some who benefit from the global warming cottage industry. But there are others, too.

Dennis Prager wrote Why liberals fear global warming far more than conservatives do. Do conservatives handle heat better? Are libertarians better swimmers? Do religious people love their children less?

Dennis posed six likely explanations:

The Left is prone to hysteria. The belief that global warming will destroy the world is but one of many hysterical notions held on the Left.

The Left believes that if The New York Times and other liberal news sources report something, it is true.

The Left believes in experts.

The Left is far more likely to revere, even worship, nature. (That’s one of mine.)

Leftists tend to fear dying more. (A consequence of not believing in an afterlife)

People who don't confront the greatest evils will confront far lesser ones. The Right tends to fight human evil such as communism and Islamic totalitarianism. The Left avoids confronting such evils and concentrates its attention instead on socioeconomic inequality, environmental problems and capitalism.

Global warming meets all three of these criteria of evil. By burning fossil fuels, rich countries pollute more, the environment is being despoiled and big business increases its profits.

So I ask Gary, Tex, Mel et al, where do you find yourself in the pantheon of global warming warriors? What is it that drives you guys? And if you believe what you say you do, what do you propose? What should we do to avoid the catastrophe you expect? Please be specific.

Global Warming Warriors

Nothing I write about, not even America’s greatness, generates as much vitriolic feedback as my pieces criticizing the global warming religion. It makes me wonder what these guys are so worked up about, what drives them?

Someone wrote that as a society becomes more secular, faith in God is replaced by worship of self. A profound narcissism replaces religiosity. If global warming might hurt me, or reduce my happiness, then something must be done about it!

Furthermore, love of nature, as an extension of self, transcends love of fellow human beings. It’s the sort of spiritual pathology that led to the ban of DDT in Africa because American and European environmentalists thought that animals would be harmed and cared less about the human beings who consequently died of malaria. I think that this naturalistic pantheism drives some of the global warming warriors.

But that’s not all. Anti-Americanism is another strain of the dogma. The belief that capitalism, globalization and, particularly, America’s role in shaping the world are evil forces in an otherwise idealistic planet leads many global warming warriors to seek a diminished America.

There are many malign sources of the disease, but I’ll mention just one more. The environmental movement - having been wildly successful in cleaning up America - has nothing left to do.

Like the civil rights movement and the feminist movement, environmentalists have accomplished all their major objectives and public funding is going to dry up unless another catastrophe can be manufactured. In race relations, Hurricane Katrina did the trick and Jesse Jackson can rest easy that the money train will continue for some time yet. The feminists are left to complain about not enough women in college – no, that’s not right, they already number some 60%. It’s the number of women in leading positions on university science faculties that is the latest issue. You may remember that it drove liberal Harvard president Lawrence Summers out of a job.

The global warming business is the latest money train for the environmental entrepreneurs. At universities, the number of faculties supported at the public trough by the global warming lobby is huge. Interestingly, only a few are actually climate scientists, and these seem to be about evenly split on the issues. The vast majority of dependents are biologists, environmental scientists and a plethora of other -- ists who don’t know a thing about climate but sure can calculate what might happen to their own favorite species or bacterium if the world does overheat. This doom-saying has become a cottage industry of massive proportions.

I could deal with all that if only the warriors would make their points based on logic rather than feelings (another Lefty pathology). Back on June 6 I wrote “You Say Warming, I say Cooling” that presented several myths of global warming group think but I was criticized for using information provided by a conservative think tank - not actual scientists. Never mind whether the points made by the think tankers were accurate or not.

So on June 15 I wrote “Be Very Scared” that presented statements and facts from more than a dozen prominent climate scientists. This time the critics attacked the scientists as being oil company flacks. One critic said: Wibjörn Karlén? Come on! And referencing "scientists" from the Russian Academy of Sciences? Those are the same dudes that doubt evolution! Nice - mocking the foreign scientists now.

Mel who was critical of my scientists pointed to an article by Joel Achenbach, formerly Style writer and now global warrior, in the Washington Post. Mel also cherry picked a section by Achenbach that claims the global warming skeptics are on a “parallel Earth.” But I was more interested in the comments in the article by the folks at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Among other criticisms of the “facts” presented by the Algore acolytes is the baseline used to measure the warming trend. Why start in 1860? That was the end of the Little Ice Age. Of course the world has warmed since then. That's cheating with the baseline.

The CEI guys also make a reasoned case for free market solutions. Countries with thriving economies will be more adaptive to climate change and will find more technological solutions than countries that hamstring themselves by clamping down on greenhouse emissions. Rich societies are environmentally resilient; poor societies have dirty power plants and sooty huts.

Fortunately for the world and unfortunately for the global warming warriors, even the true believers are starting to see the movement as a religion. In Reason Magazine, Ronald Bailey, who calls himself a climate change convert, writes “An Inconvenient Truth: Gore as climate exaggerator.” Gore warns that "what is at stake [is] our ability to live on planet Earth, to have a future as a civilization." Gore claims to be presenting the "scientific consensus" on global warming. But is that so?

Take sea level rise for example. Gore spends a lot of time talking about how dramatic melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps could raise sea level by 20 feet by 2100. Well, the "consensus" of climate scientists as represented in the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that sea level is likely to rise between 4 inches to 35 inches. A new study in Science concluded if temperatures rose steeply that the Greenland ice sheet might melt away in 500 to 1000 years. So fortunately we don't have to worry about the impact of 100 million people fleeing relentlessly rising seas all at once.

What it comes down to is that the global warriors want to scare world governments into doing something silly. But what do they propose that might actually have an effect. Perhaps we could bomb China and India back to the Stone Age where they would not need oil for gasoline and other niceties. Is that too forceful? Then we could humbly ask them to stop burning so much coal and oil and drive their people back to the farms. Sure we could. Or we could ration gas in America. Remember how well that worked in the 70s? Or we could ration electricity use by industry and make those fat cats pay their fair share. So what if the unemployment rate shoots up to 30%. The Great Depression wasn’t so bad.

It’s all just so silly. We must find something else for these global warming warriors to do, something like picking up trash on the highways.

Football

What with the recent spate of global warming in Southern California, I find myself logy and uninspired to do the research for my daily blog post. I had planned to join the Starbucks crowd at a bar to watch the Italy-US World Cup match but decided to follow the game at home where I could cool my feet in the pool. The 1-1 tie was like kissing your sister, especially since the US team out-hustled les Azzurri for most of the match, and suffered two red-card ejections – blasted referees.

In fact, I was about to pass on the daily dose of blog, when I noticed a piece from a few days ago in the New Republic, the center-left journal published by Franklin Foer. In a piece called How Governments Nurture Soccer, Foer writes: There have been revolutions to create socialism, democracy, and authoritarian dictatorship. But humankind has yet to fight a revolution to guarantee one of the most vital elements--if not the most vital element--of the good life. That is, a winning soccer team. If we were to take up arms for this reason, what kind of government would we want to install?

Now there are those (mostly in America) who think that football is played with an oblong, pointy ball that is thrown more than kicked, and who wonder whether taking up arms to fight for a representative soccer team is up there on the level of fighting for a democratic way of life. But, never mind, for the moment let’s pretend we are citizens of the world and see what it will take to raise the US team out of football mediocrity. What are the political and economic conditions that yield soccer glory?

Foer first reaches back into the dustbin of history to note that Communism, despite its gulags, produced great players and rock-solid teams. He notes the notable Hungarians in the '50s and the Poles in the ‘80s, and then adds up the score against noncommunist countries: 46 wins, 32 draws, 40 losses. But still no Communist country has ever won a World Cup.

While Communism was limited, Fascist governments that subscribed to a cult of fitness and hygiene that leads them to siphon considerable national resources into sports programs performed rather well on the world stage. During the '30s, Il Duce's Italy claimed two trophies; Germany took third in 1934, as did Brazil in 1938. Overall, fascism compiled a record of 14-3-3 in that decade.

However, since the end of WWII, proto-fascist regimes like Francisco Franco's Spain or Juan Perón's Argentina presided over some of the great underachievers in the game's history. What accounts for the falloff? In the 1930s, fascist nations were the most ferocious regimes on the planet. After the war, this swagger vanished. Suddenly, the power of these nations rested on their alliance with the United States. Once you become lapdogs of the Americans, it's hard to muster the same will to win.

Next up the football hierarchy are military juntas that are historically superb at winning World Cups. The Brazilian and Argentine juntas presided over the most glorious victories in the tournament's history in the '70s and early '80s. It makes sense that juntas would excel at this. They are collective efforts, where even the strongmen are part of a broader apparatus. A good soccer team is, in a sense, a junta.

At the top are social democracies that deliver even more championships than the juntas--six in all. To understand this success, one must understand the essence of the social democratic economy. Social democracies take root in heavily industrialized societies, and this is a great blessing. And social democracy celebrates individualism, while relentlessly patting itself on the back for its sense of solidarity--a coherent team with room for stars.

Foer claims that his new football paradigm of political theory can not only help guide a revolution, but it can also help fill out a tournament-prediction bracket.

He categorizes the contenders this way:

1. EU means "experience unlimited."
2. Liberated and in a winning mood.
3. Colonizers over colonized.
4. Never invest hope in an oil-producing nation.
5. Neoliberal shock therapy is a buzz kill.
6. The caveat - whatever form of government has taken up residence in Brasilia that week.

So I guess that means the Auriverde of Brazil. And the US: It's football for us. Go Browns! Has LA got a team yet?

Resolved

HOUSE RESOLUTION: Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world;

Whereas it is essential to the security of the American people and to world security that the United States, together with its allies, take the battle to the terrorists and to those who provide them assistance;

Whereas ….

Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror;

(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;

(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;

(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;

(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown;

(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners; and

(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

Hugh Hewitt asks us to copy the resolution text and the vote specifics to an e-mail and send to everyone you know. When the vast majority of House Democrats vote against victory in the war, the American people should know.

In the House vote, 214 Republicans and 42 Democrats voted for victory. Sadly, 149 Democrats (including Jane Harman, Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha) and 3 Republican morons (Duncan, Leach and Paul) voted for defeat.

Be Very Scared

Time Magazine’s cover story was a Special Report on Global Warming: Be Worried. Be Very Worried. Al Gore’s new documentary movie on global warming could be a great campaign ad: Elect me or we will all die. So what is all this fuss about?

In a recent post (“You Say Warming, I say Cooling,” 6/6/06) I mentioned some of the myths of the global climate change religion and generated a firestorm of comments. JJ quoted a World Book Encyclopedia website that said: A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Mel wrote that the official position of nearly all scientific earth science and meteorological societies is that climate change is for real, it is caused primarily by human activity, and, if left unchecked, it will cause great problems.

Apparently either a majority or nearly all relevant scientists agree with Algore. Do you remember when he wrote Earth in the Balance, the passionate bestseller that detailed the dangers of global warming? We must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization, Al said.

In 1992 Gore claimed that 98 percent of scientists agreed with him on global warming. He was wildly wrong. For example, a survey that year found that a mere 17 percent of members of the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society believed in greenhouse-gas climate change. Now the number is higher than 17%, but when one asks the experts who actually specialize in climate change the opinion is sharply divided. Here are a few examples of prominent scientists who disagree with Gore.

Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center, told The Washington Post that global warming is "a hoax."

Climate scientist Robert Lindzen of MIT believes that clouds and water vapor will counteract greenhouse gas emissions.

Hurricane expert William Gray of Colorado State University believes the Earth will start to cool within 10 years.

Russian scientist Khabibulo Absudamatov predicts that a decrease in the sun's radiation beginning in 2012 will cause global temperatures to decline into the middle of the 21st century.

NASA scientist Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama believes that it is more likely that the higher temperatures increased carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around. It comes down to whether you believe the climate system is fragile or resilient, he writes.

Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences notes that the effects of atmospheric water vapor on global temperatures overwhelm the impact of carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activity.

The UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates human activity is responsible for just 7 billion metric tons of global carbon dioxide emissions out of a total of 157 billion tons released annually. That's just 4.5 percent, with 57 percent coming from oceans, 19 percent from decaying vegetation and 19 percent from plant and animal respiration.

N. Scafetta and B. J. West wrote in the latest issue of Geophysical Research Letters that the sun contributed some 46-49% of the 1900-2000 global warming of the earth, and depending on parameters, as much as 60% of the 20th-century temperature increase. The role of the sun in 20th-century global warming, according to Scafetta and West, has been vastly underestimated by the climate modeling community.

University of Winnipeg climatology professor Tim Ball wrote: These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios. Since modelers concede computer outputs are not predictions but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts.

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleo-climatologist Tim Patterson testified, There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and hundreds of other studies reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Boris Winterhalter professor in marine geology at the University of Helsinki takes apart the dramatic display of collapsing Antarctic glaciers. The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon. In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades.

Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor of Physical Geography at Stockholm University explains, The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems. Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect, Karlén concludes.

University of Virginia climate scientist Patrick J. Michaels adds: Antarctica has been gaining ice. There has been a cooling trend over most of Antarctica for decades. At the same time, one tiny portion of the continent - the Antarctic Peninsula - has been warming, and its ice has been melting. The peninsula constitutes only about 2 percent of Antarctica's total area, but almost every study of melting Antarctic ice you've heard of focuses on it.

In a 2005 study published in Science, Curt Davis used satellite measurements to calculate changes in the ice sheet's elevation, and found that it gained 45 billion tons of ice per year between 1992 and 2003.

University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years. Furthermore, there has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down.

The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001.

Regarding Arctic temperature changes, studies found the coastal stations in Greenland had actually experienced a cooling trend: The average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, have decreased at the rate of 4 degrees F per decade since measurements began in 1987. Add in Russian and Alaskan temperature data and Arctic air temperatures were warmest in the 1930s and near the coolest for the period of recorded observations in the late 1980s.

You get the idea: there is plenty of data and plenty of doubt. But how about the basic fact: that the overall Earth is warming up?

The consensus appears to be that mean global surface temperature has increased about 0.5 degree Celsius between 1850 and 1940 and by another 0.3 degrees since then. Note that most of the warming in the 20th century was in the period 1900-1940, when man-made greenhouse gases were considerably less influential. So can we agree on the roughly 0.8 degree Celsius rise?

Richard Morgan, climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. answers: Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator projection (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) then warming and cooling would have been almost in balance. Oh well.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees that half the observed 20th century warming occurred before 1940 and cannot be attributed to human causes, and changes in solar radiation can account for 71 percent of the variation in global surface air temperature from 1880 to 1993.
The IPCC Climate Science study concludes that computer models consistently project a rise in temperatures over the past century that is more than twice as high as the measured increase.

The IPCC study also concludes that projections of global warming over the next century have decreased significantly since early modeling efforts and that global air temperatures should increase by 1.5 degrees Celsius (and by about 0.6 degree Celsius in the United States) over the next hundred years.

Even is we accept this modeling scenario, is it something to get in a tizzy over?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia says about Al Gore’s scaremongering movie: Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention. The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot who know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.

There is a conceit among the American left that its side is all-science, all-the-time, yet the hysteria about global warming shows how unscientific -- and downright faith-based -- the left has become.

Science and Belief: The Human Genome

If you believe in the Judeo-Christian God, then it is the most natural thing in the world to search for His hand in nature. The natural wonders all around us reinforce our belief in the Creator and encourage the search for understanding, that grand journey of exploration we call science.

One may have the opinion that the Creator used the mechanism of the Big Bang, as far as it is understood, to initiate the creation process, that He imprinted the laws of physics and the values of the physical constants onto the fabric of His universe and then allowed nature to take its course. The emergence of life could be a natural consequence of physics and chance if He wanted it to play it that way. Or like Einstein, one might be of the opinion that God would not “play dice” with the universe. Either way, the scientist delights in the discovery of God’s chosen path.

One of the grandest explorations on the frontier of knowledge is the search for the nature of life. At the most fundamental end of the exploration front is the search for the mechanism by which life first arose, as well as the very definition of life. It turns out that the definition itself is a mystery and the origin mechanism is unknown.

The most popular scientific theories of life’s origin include the following three scenarios: (1) Life began with self-replicating genetic molecules (RNA), then metabolism was incorporated later through natural selection. After a lot of trying there has not yet been an experiment that demonstrates the plausible pre-biotic synthesis of the genetic molecules. (2) Life began with metabolism, then genetic molecules were incorporated later through natural selection. In this scenario life’s first building blocks were the simplest molecules and somehow a self-replicating chemical cycle was established. (3) Life began as some sort of cooperative chemical phenomenon arising between metabolism and genetics.

Whether one of these (rather vague) mechanisms or some other natural mechanism was at work, or whether God played an active role, we’re certainly glad that life came to be.

Farther along the complexity scale is the frontier of the human genome.

Completed in 2003, the Human Genome Project was a 13-year multi-national project aimed at (1) identifying all of the 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA, and (2) determining the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs (A, T, G, C) that make up human DNA.

Recall that cells are the fundamental working units of every living system and that the instructions needed to direct their activities are contained within the chemical DNA. The DNA sequence is the particular side-by-side arrangement of bases along the DNA strand (e.g., ATTCCGGA). This order spells out the exact instructions required to create a particular organism with its own unique traits. An organism’s genome is the complete set of DNA.

The DNA in the human genome is arranged into 24 distinct chromosomes - physically separate molecules that range in length from about 50 million to 250 million base pairs. Each chromosome contains many genes, the basic physical and functional units of heredity. Genes are specific sequences of bases that encode instructions on how to make proteins. Genes comprise only about 2% of the human genome; the remainder consists of noncoding regions, whose functions may include providing chromosomal structural integrity and regulating where, when, and in what quantity proteins are made.

The Human Genome Project was one of the great feats of exploration in scientific history -- an inward voyage of discovery. The Human Genome gives us the ability, for the first time, to read the complete genetic blueprint for building a human being.

From the Times of London (Steven Swinford, 6/12/06) we learn that the scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book The Language of God, explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.

Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, believes there is a rational basis for a Creator and that scientific discoveries bring man “closer to God”. “One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war,” said Collins.

For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to “glimpse at the workings of God”.

“When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it,” he said. “But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the Creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along.

“When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”

Collins joins a line of scientists whose research deepened their belief in God. Isaac Newton, whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe, said: “This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

Collins believes in “theistic evolution,” the theory that natural selection is the tool that God chose to create man. He argues that man will not evolve further.

“I see God’s hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way,” he says.

“I think that's incredibly elegant. And because God is outside of space and time, He knew what the outcome was going to be right at the beginning. It's not as if there was a chance it wouldn't work. So where, then, is the discordancy that causes so many people to see these views of science and of spirit as being incompatible?”

Science and Belief are entirely, naturally compatible.

Al-Zarqawi House -- Shoot Here

THE TARGET: The house, made of cinder blocks and reinforced concrete, was set back in a grove of date palms, about 1.25 miles (2 km) northeast of the village of Hibhib. On the roof is printed in large red block letters: AL-ZARQAWI HOUSE -- SHOOT HERE. (Thanks Col. Dave for the tongue-in-cheek picture)

THE GROUND TEAM: A small Delta Force team of perhaps half a dozen, together with a handful of Iraqi security personnel, watches the house and confirms that al-Zarqawi and Sheik Abdul-Rahman, his adviser, are inside. With darkness approaching and lacking enough forces to storm the house, the surveillance team calls for an air strike. Two Air Force F-16 fighters respond. A spotter on the ground illuminates the target with a laser.

THE AIR TEAM: The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a compact, light and versatile fighter jet. It is highly maneuverable and able to perform in both air-to-air and air-to-surface combat.

THE BOMBS: The first bomb is a GBU-12, a 500-lb smart bomb that follows the laser signal to its target. A guidance system in the nose of the bomb detects that spot and controls the movements of the airfoils in the rear to steer the bomb toward the target. The second bomb is a GBU-38 similar in weight to its counterpart, this one finds its target using GPS coordinates and satellite guidance. Nice touch, don't you think?

A Time Magazine story tells the inside story of how al-Qaeda informants turned on Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi, led U.S. forces to the terrorist's lair and ended a frustrating hunt for Iraq's most wanted man. What al-Zarqawi could not have known was that U.S. and Jordanian intelligence officials had been tracking the movements of Abdul-Rahman for weeks. The net around al-Zarqawi tightened significantly in the weeks leading up to the strike, boosted by the cooperation of al-Qaeda informants willing to betray their leader.

The U.S. scored the war's biggest triumph since catching Saddam Hussein thanks to the determination of a small group of American hunters and to a Jordanian King's desire to avenge the November 2005 suicide attacks on three hotels in Amman, Jordan which killed 60 people.

The violence is not only al-Qaeda, said a Jordanian security official. But this weakens one important link. It's a warning to all these groups that they are not immune. If we can get Zarqawi, we can get you too.

Well done!!

And the Democrat's response?

This is just to cover Bush's (rear) so he doesn't have to answer questions about things in Iraq, said Rep. Pete Stark, second ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. This insurgency is such a confused mess that one person, dead or alive at this point, is hardly significant today, said Rep. Jim McDermott, formerly the lead Democrat on the House ethics committee. The deceased, said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for the 2004 presidential nomination, was a small part of a growing anti-American insurgency.

Michael Barone writes: The Stark-McDermott-Kucinich reaction, echoed and amplified, often scatologically, by dozens of commenters on the popular dailykos.com and myDD.com left-wing websites, tells us something disturbing about the Democratic Party. It comes down to this: A substantial part of the Democratic Party, some of its politicians and many of its loudest supporters, do not want America to succeed in Iraq.

We are in an asymmetrical struggle with vicious enemies who slaughter civilians and bystanders and journalists without any regard for the laws of war. But too often we and our enemies are portrayed as moral equivalents. One or two instances of American misconduct are found equal in the balance to a consistent and premeditated campaign of barbarism.

All of this does not go unnoticed by America's voters.

Zoned Out

The 2006 Zoners convention (the tenth annual) is over and I’m more than a little sad. For three fun days I played bridge and socialized with a group of wonderful people, many of whom I knew but none I had ever met in person. These were the folks from the MSN Zone bridge site. There were Maurice and Pam from British Columbia, Jim and Peg from North Carolina, Gothichouseman from Wisconsin, Chickadee from Texas, Doc from Newport beach and Glowie from Tampa bay, Richardrls from Kansas, Nancybt (our gracious host) from California and many more. Best of all was meeting Maggie.

Marianne from South Carolina is one of my two regular partners on the Zone (Judy from Texas is the other) and we had a ball. Maggie stayed over a day to see the sights and I showed her Palos Verdes: We hiked down to the beach at Ocean Trails and lunched at “The Donald’s” golf course; toured the Peninsula Center Library and Maggie took my picture in front of my (Trustee) picture; visited the Point Vicente Interpretive Center; dined with Lee at Aimee’s; sweated in the spa, and she left on the red-eye last night. Maggie called it “Pala Verdae” in the style of a Southern belle. Memorable!!

We’re all bummed out because MSN Zone is shutting down and we need to find another site to play bridge at. What’s wrong with that Bill Gates? We’re hoping that the yearly Zoners convention will continue under a new name.

One of the treats of the convention was the ability to zone out the messy world of politics and war. We knew that the Zarqawi guy was bombed (Way to go US and Iraqi military!!) but did not care to know the details.

The Mounties in Toronto had just busted a cell of Muslims planning a bombing three times more powerful than Oklahoma City. The ACLU was fretting about the interception of the bomber’s emails, but that’s just the ACLU.

Al Gore was telling whoppers again, but somehow it didn’t matter. The World Cup was starting and America has a team in it. I heard that Mexico was playing Iran in the first round. Interesting, I guess.

Then I stopped at Starbucks this morning. Davey tells me about the Allan Colmes contention (on Hannity’s show) that the world is worse off with Zarqawi dead. Now the Islamo-fascists are going to get really mad. My blood pressure is rising.

In the LA Rag, I find that questions remain about Zarqawi's final minutes, and the U.S. denies accounts saying that the terrorist was beaten by American troops before he died; three prisoners at Gitmo were found hanging in their cells and human rights advocates are again urging an immediate shut-down.

Also, the U.S. foot-dragging fuels global warming; by the time we get proof of climate change, it will be too late to reverse course. But pollution from Chinese coal casts a Global Shadow. It makes your head hurt.

And Gita, the 48-year-old female elephant (who had become the focus of a controversy over whether the giant animals should stay in zoos), died yesterday. Finally, something I care about.

And Mexico just beat Iran 3-1. Ahmadinewhackjob can stay home with the Ayatollahs.

You Say Warming, I say Cooling

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. The resulting famines could be catastrophic: “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Thanks to son John for sending me the 1975 Newsweek story excerpted above on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels.

Yet the current hysteria about global warming sounds ominously similar.

In 1997, H. Sterling Burnett, an environmental policy analyst with the National Center for Policy Analysis, wrote an analysis called Myths of Global Warming. Here are some findings.

Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.

Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. The scientific experts most directly concerned with climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin. A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions.

Myth #3: The Government Must Act Now to Halt Global Warming. The belief underlying this myth is that the consequences of near-term inaction could be catastrophic. However, a 1995 analysis by proponents of global warming theory concluded that the world's governments can wait up to 25 years to take action with no appreciable negative effect on the environment.

Myth # 4: Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic Environmental Problems. Reputable scientists, including those working on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reject these beliefs. For example, sea levels are rising around the globe (natural between ice ages) though sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years - far predating any possible human impact. The current rate of increase is slower than the average rate over the 18,000-year period.

As Algore promotes his global-warming movie, College Republicans ridicule the movie with Global Warming Beach Parties. Freeze out cataclysmic environmental scare tactics with a little humor. The Oklahoma University College Republicans gave out free snow cones to students for an event they called "Global Cooling Day." Stage an event like this one to grab the attention of your campus and raise awareness on the real facts of the global warming phenomenon. Engage with students and debunk some of the myths and cool the hyperbole surrounding the issue. The facts are on your side.

Meanwhile the Democratic National Committee reports: The College Republicans actions demonstrate the misplaced priorities and short-sightedness of the future of the Republican Party. As College Democrats continue to fight for issues that young Americans care about like an affordable college education, pot legalization and sociable medicine, Republicans continue to push their out of touch agenda. The College Republicans' ignorance toward the seriousness of global warming and climate change shows a Party more focused on partying than talking seriously about the issues facing young people across America.

Party on kids!!

I’ll be off for a few days playing in a bridge tourney. Fill up the comments. By the way, I hope you voted against the children of illegal aliens babysitting bill, also known as the Meathead pre-school bill.

LAUSD versus the Mayor

I have been invited by the Alliance for School Choice to write an opinion piece on the battle over control of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The Alliance is dedicated to improving K-12 education by providing options such as school vouchers, tuition tax credits, and public charter schools. If my article is accepted it will be published in edspresso, the blogosphere arm of the Alliance.

If you live outside of California or have been hiding your head in a pile of books (a good thing) I should explain that the new-ish mayor of Los Angeles, the Honorable Antonio Villaraigosa, is attempting a hostile takeover of the LAUSD. In this fight AV is joined by other mayors of the cities served by the school district and he is opposed by the school board and the teacher’s union.

Since my own children are grown up and they attended parochial schools in the East, I have little detailed knowledge of the California public school system. (But I have heard things!) Thus I needed to do some research. I found a splendid web site called School Matters, operated by Standard & Poor, that provides detailed information on every school and school district in the country. Instead of giving a long list of statistics about LAUSD without any context, it will be more informative to compare LA to the district where I live, Palos Verdes, and to the state as a whole.

Most of my friends in Palos Verdes have children who are in or have graduated from the schools here. They include parochial, private and public schools, and the general opinion is that these schools are uniformly good. I have some personal experience with the teachers, administrators and PTAs and have found them to be universally dedicated to educational excellence. I have heard that the schools are not as uniformly good in Los Angeles.

The following table lists important demographic, financial and educational performance statistics for the three public school cases studied.


-------------------Palos Verdes---Los Angeles----California
Students------------11,800----------741,000--------6,400,000
Spending ppupil----$6740------------$8570---------$7550
Classroom ppupil---$4390------------$4980---------$4590
Econ Disadvant------2%---------------75%------------48%
English Learners-----6%---------------44%------------25%
Ethnic major-----White 65%----Hispanic 73%---Hispanic 45%
English Proficiency---83%------------32%------------45%
Math Proficiency-----85%------------38%------------48%

The data are quite revealing. In terms of demographics, LAUSD is huge, largely Hispanic, with a high percentage of English learners, and economically disadvantaged compared to Palos Verdes and even compared to the state.

In terms of school spending, the per-pupil operating expenses are lowest in Palos Verdes and highest in Los Angeles. LAUSD spends 13% more than the state and 27% more than Palos Verdes. Note, however, that LA spends only 58% of the operating dollars on classroom instruction compared to 64% in Palos Verdes. The Alliance for School Choice is promoting a Sixty-five Percent Solution.

The difference in performance is stark. In Palos Verdes, 83%/85% of students are performing at grade level. In Los Angeles it is 32%/38%, well below the state averages of 45%/48%. The high school dropout rate in Los Angeles is 50%. There is no denying that the schools in Los Angeles (and statewide) are largely failing. The question is what to do about it. Since the spending is already substantial (for such abysmal results), is it realistic to think that spending even more is the solution? Will mayoral takeover solve the problems?

Clearly the high rate of English learners in LA is a huge hurdle to overcome. The answer, of course, is English immersion at the earliest age and religious-like dedication to the basics, particularly English and math. There are other impediments too and the Public Agenda 2006 Reality Check national survey of students, parents and teachers points to some of the problems. High dropout rates, kids promoted without learning, profanity and disrespect for teachers, fighting, drug and alcohol abuse are "very serious" problems in schools, according to large numbers of the nation's black and Hispanic students. So who is responsible?

It is revealing that four in 10 black parents say they feel a teacher has unfairly punished their child. When I was in school, I was happy to be unfairly punished by a teacher as long as my father didn’t hear about it, or there would be hell to pay at home. The parents must demand discipline and must support the teachers if education is going to work.

Teachers, meanwhile, are troubled by parents who don’t hold their children accountable or control TV and video game time. Again this falls on the parents. If kids are not doing enough homework, if they are skipping classes or disrupting class, it is the parent's fault, and no amount of money or teacher dedication is going to fix it.

What about a change at the top? Some folks wonder: How could it be any worse than it is? I must admit that the LA district needs to be taken by the collar and seriously shaken, but is the mayor the one to do it? I spoke with a friend who serves on the LA School Board who was worried about (1) school funds being lost to City projects, (2) conflict of interest over new school sites that are desired by private developers who contribute to political parties and (3) management churn that occurs whenever the City government changes. Those seem to be valid issues, but none get to the heart of the student performance problem. And neither does anything I have heard from the Villaraigosa side.

I fall back on the basics. What works in every other area of life ought to work in K-12 education and that is freedom. One size does not fit all in hats or in education. Parents ought to have the right to choose the school and the curriculum they want for their children. English learners need a different kind of focus than kids who already know how to read when they get to kindergarten. Some kids will thrive in a professional career and need advanced math and science or language arts, while some kids would be better off and happier pursuing a trade. Some kids need a school where discipline is the foremost priority. (My Jesuit high school would suit them well.) These different kids should be in schools optimized for their needs.

For these reasons, and many more, I believe that school vouchers, tuition tax credits, and public charter schools are the keys to the education vault. Expanded parental choice in education has led to the creation of more than 3,600 charter schools that educate more than a million students and offer some of the most innovative instructional models in the country. Vouchers or tax credits will expand this academic freedom to the private sector; then watch the American students take off like a rocket.

America is a Great Country

America is a great country wrote Gary Daily in his comments on my previous post (Europe's Cultural Future). I couldn’t agree with him more. Unfortunately, that is the only sensible thing that Gary said. He immediately stepped in it: “Measuring Europe by our standards is not just arrogant, it can be downright embarrassing that we don’t always measure up.”

And his acclaimed Tony Judt is full of BS up to his Europhile eyeballs. Judt makes clear that America and Europe are not way stations on a historical production line but are moving in divergent directions. He sees the European path as the more enlightened and that the United States is trapped in the past. His evidence: America's cultural peculiarities including our religiosity, selective prurience, affection for guns and prisons and embrace of the death penalty.

We are a nation of believers, we pray and our religious creeds inform our lives. To European intellectuals and, sadly, to many common folks across the pond, this is all peculiar. By our selective prurience Judt contrasts the Janet Jackson breast flip with Viagra commercials on TV. I’d say it’s more about our abhorrence of obscenities like the Dutch political party devoted to pedophilia. Judt thinks we are barbarians to have a Second Amendment and real punishment for crime. If these are our differences, I’ll be happy to remain on the US side of the Atlantic.

Daily sights a reference where Judt reviews three books that compare Europe and America. These are The United States of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy by T.R. Reid, The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream by Jeremy Rifkin and Free World: America, Europe, and the Surprising Future of the West by Timothy Garton Ash. I must say that Judt’s reviews certainly shook me up. In his words:

America is in trouble and the "American way of life" cannot be sustained. The American pursuit of wealth, size, and abundance — as material surrogates for happiness — is aesthetically unpleasing and ecologically catastrophic. The American economy is built on sand. For many Americans the promise of a better future is a fading hope. No wonder so many Americans turn to the church for solace.

Do you see what I mean? This is grim!!! But wait just a minute. I seem to recall a Harris Interactive (2003) poll of American and European attitudes that reveals a very different reality. (See Europe’s Sickness, 10/18/05)

In response to the question “How satisfied are you with your life?” 57% of Americans answered “very satisfied” as opposed to 14% of Frenchmen, 17% of Germans and 16% of Italians.

To the question whether “success is determined by forces outside our control” only 32% of Americans agreed as opposed to a majorities in France (54%), Germany (68%) and Italy (66%).

When asked “Do you expect your personal situation to improve in five years” only 20% in Germany, 42% in France and 53% in Italy (those wide-eyed Italian optimists) expected improvement. In America, 63% were counting on improvement of an already satisfying existence.

Compared to America, these European countries have a poverty of hope. Only one in seven is very satisfied with his life, less than half expect improvement and nearly two thirds have little faith in their own ability to achieve success. The sickness of the European spirit is manifest in much of its social life. (see Our Culture, What’s Left of It by Theodore Dalrymple.)

I’m reminded of G. K. Chesterton who wrote about the secular Europeans: “You hard shelled materialists are all balanced on the very edge of belief – of belief in almost everything.” Multiculturalism, same sex marriage, the drug and sex culture, socialism, an irrational fear of global warming,… Europeans will believe in nearly anything except the future.