Democrats aren't about rational discussion

See, it's not just you arguing with your friends and co-workers. With progressives, it's not about rational discussion. Never has been. This from a good article by CNN's lovely Gloria Borger.

... back in 1987, when Judge Robert Bork came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he did answer questions. He also came with a long, scholarly record that outlined an obviously conservative judicial philosophy. He lost. And he lost ugly.

Looking back, Bork told CNN's Campbell Brown this week, his honest approach was a big mistake.

"I think I could have been more intelligent in my approach and more aware of what was taking place," he said. "I kept responding to questions as if it was a rational discussion, which it wasn't. I think I would have taken that into account more if I were to do it over again."

Why I Like Palin

I'm a bit politcally exhausted now, as you can see by the paucity of recent posts compared to my clip in the previous weeks.

But there was this facebook "poll", you see, asking if you would support Palin for President in 2012. I saw one facebook "friend" answered it "No". And like I said I try to stay away from politics for the most part on facebook ... but when I see stuff like this, I feel the need to not Shut Up. To Stop an Echo. Not everybody thinks Palin's a crazy idiot.

Like me, for instance. Perhaps I should just lay it all out in one place.

So why do I like Palin?

• She is against government waste, and has demonstrated a willingness to take it on -- and win
• She is anti-big-government
• She is for stronger States' rights, as originally outlined in the constitution
• She is practical about energy independence
• She defends the second amendment
• She is for tough foriegn policy with countries that intend to do us harm
• She respects our military men and women in far more than just lip service
• She doesn't look down on people of lower social class
• She respects human life
• She generally pisses all the right people off (militant feminists, government expansionists, socialists, people playing the corruption game in politics in either party, anti-Christians, and the all-abortion, anytime for any reason people....)

And why do people hate her so much?

• She's Pro-Life (that's probably #1 on their beef list)
• She's a successful woman who has done it with out denouncing men, and is not one of the militant feminist crowd.
• She is popular and is a danger to progressives in both parties because of it

This is why she was targeted for destruction by the Left and their propaganda arm in the mainstream media, and it's also why some Republicans are also involved in the pirhanna fest.

But what do we read from people commenting on why they dislike her?

• She's an idiot (based on ... ???)
• She's only popular because she's pretty (only ugly women need apply, I guess)
• She dresses like a slut (really????)
• She's not her son's mother (not true)
• She's a Christian (so? And hasn't about every other president at least claimed to be one?)
• She banned books (not true)
• She said she's had foriegn policy experience because "I can see Russia from my house." (never said that)
• She slashed the budget for special needs children (that would be her predecessor, whom she defeated)
• She cut funding for pregnant teens (she cut the amount of proposed increases but still increased funding)
• She's a hypocrite because her daughter had sex out of wedlock (how does that make her a hypocrite?)
• She spent $250,000 on a wardrobe for campaigning (not true)
• She doesn't read the news (based on her being skiddish about the question in the Couric interview once she realized this was a hatchet-job. There would be no 'correct' answer.)
• She didn't know what Charlie Gibson's freshly coined "Bush Doctrine" meant (of course, nobody but Gibson knew what it was because he made it up for the interview)
• She abused her office to force a police officer -- who had threatened one of her family members - to be fired. (apparently not)
• a host of other charges which were also not true
• and now, of course, "She's a quitter."

And of course none of the stuff that's actually true has anything to do with the merits of her stances on issues, except that her stance on issues is opposite of those who used these "arguments" ad nauseum . I've never seen so much fake dirt dug up on a person, and at the same time any real dirt on Barack Obama got swept under the rug via the Race Card. And we got that brilliant Joe Biden for a vice president instead.

I understand the knee-jerk "she's a quitter" response. She did quit. But if you listen to her reasons and not the political punditry's speculations ... the constant stream of frivolous ethics complaints was crippling her ability to govern, bogging down the state government, and bankrupting her family (half a million in legal fees defending herself against all of these things, all of which she was cleared of - but she still owes the money for defending herself).

And imagine going to a baseball game with your 14 year old daughter while in town for a charity, and some nationally broadcast late night TV host jokes about you dressing like a slut and your daughter getting knocked up at the game. This was coming from everywhere. Political activist organizations ... probably people active in the DNC, and some people in the RNC, news papers, "entertainment" shows. These aren't reasons to quit, mind you, but they also weren't the reasons she gave. The reasons she gave are consistent with letting the governor's chef go, getting rid of the governor's private jet, and refusing the "bridge to nowhere" funding ... while she was the governor. She quit because it was the best thing for Alaska, and the best thing for her and her family. Can't argue with that reasoning.

She may not be the most articulate person in the world. But if we wanted articulation, style over substance, we probably would have elected someone like Barack Obama, heaven forbid.

But the fact is barring a bunch of the country waking up to all this, she probably won't be running in 2012 if ever, at least not for President. She will be organizing and otherwise being politically active, using her pull to garner support for conservative political candidates.

What's not to like?

The main difference

... between the State of California and the Federal Government today is ... the State of California isn't allowed to print up money to "pay" for its excesses.

The federal government isn't following California, it's already there, but it has printing presses.

This is going to end ugly.

Well I Sure as Hell Hope So

2010 Will Be a Political Earthquake - Peter Ferrera

A SotomaObservation (an observation)

Sonia has had time to work on her story, and all she cold come up with was something along the lines of it was a rhetorical flourish gone wrong.

It went so spectacularly wrong that she used it several other times in prepared speeches to hoards of people -- because, of course, that's what you want in a Supreme Court Apointee. Good judgement. "Hey, I shouldn't have said that, that went wrong." Followed by "Oops, I did it again ... and again ... and again ... and again."

No, she believes what she said, or it wouldn't have come up so much.

But following in the recent American tradition of completely ignoring candidates' records and associations and rhetoric and going ahead and putting them in office anyway to do as they please ... she should obviously be approved immediately.

She's a trojan horse, just like Obama.

The Alinsky-ites have bubbled to the top of our system. It's only over if we let it be over. Wake Up, America.

Phil's Ten Commandments for Conservatives arguing with Progressives

Inspired in part by Morgan's similar post. Only mine is by a conservative, for conservatives.

1) Be polite
2) Remain as calm as possible
3) Stay away from ad hominem. It's their favorite, and they'll look pretty petty in short order if you refrain from it. They can't help themseleves.

These first three will quickly reveal a glaring deliniation between the rational one and the emotional one. I learned this as a kid from my brother Jeff. He "got it". I didn't. At the time. If people would just stick to these three, it would be enough 80% of the time. Your opponent's head will likely behave like a boiled egg in a microwave.

The next few are about fairness. They're really related to the first three, though, as your opponent's idea of "fair" is "I get to make zingers, and if you do you're mean and stupid."

4) Don't let them put words in your mouth. If they claim you said something you have not said, call them out on it.
5) Don't put words in their mouths. Argue with what this person is saying right now, not the other 10,000 self-described liberals you've argued with over the years.

The last ones are wrong turns you don't want to travel down. They'll get you off topic and mired down in things that have nothing to do with the point you're attemptint to make.

7) Don't let them get away with massive generalizations, like "Fox News Lies" or "you're being mean". Make them give you examples, or tell you how you're being mean.
8) Of course, this means you shouldn't use them either. But don't worry. You shouldn't have to. The facts are on your side. Use them to back up your observations.
9) Speaking of facts, bone up on them. Get informed.
10) Remember that ultimately they want to force their moral code on all of the rest of us, while accusing anybody with a moral code, especially a Christian-based one ... of trying to foist their moral code on everyone else. Point this out to them and don't let them forget it.

All the while, never, ever forget the first two rules, especially. Calm. Polite. Firm, but calm and polite.

More on Palin

The headlines are all over the place. And she went fishin'. Which tells me she made the right choice.

This story was good, though, from the sarcasm angle....

Really, where would we be if a bumpkin like Palin were president? With her brainpower, we probably would be stuck with a Cabinet full of tax cheats, retreads and moralizing social engineers.

And this one, a bit more serious, sums things up pretty well. Here's a couple of good snips from it:

Palin likes gambles. Her career is filled with firsts. In 2006, Palin became the first woman governor in Alaska history (as well as the youngest). In 2008, she became the first woman to appear on a GOP presidential ballot. And on July 3, she probably became the first governor with a 54-percent approval rating to resign from office for reasons having nothing to do with scandal or appointment to another job.

[...]

Last year, in the space of eight weeks, the media said Palin was a Buchananite (she wasn't), a member of the Alaska Independence Party (nope), a book-banner (wrong again), and a biblical literalist who believed dinosaurs roamed the Earth several thousand years ago (an utter fabrication). When it wasn't mangling facts, the press did its best to undermine Palin's accomplishments, from selling Governor Murkowski's jet to finally pulling the plug on the Bridge to Nowhere to pushing through a natural gas pipeline with bipartisan support. The denizens of leftwing fever swamps accused Palin of infidelity and questioned her most recent pregnancy. Feminist activists denied Palin her womanhood because she did not share their politics. Comedians made fun of her accent, clothes, smarts, and good looks. And in a craven attempt to preserve their ties to the media, the campaign operatives who had promoted Palin to John McCain later turned on her, telling reporters (on background, of course) that Palin was an incompetent "rogue" "diva" who may have been suffering from postpartum depression.

Palin-hatred is visceral and unrelenting. "Our state was inundated with opposition researchers trying to dig up dirt, the Democratic blogosphere up here making stuff up," Palin told me. The file on my desktop labeled "Insult List" is an attempt to track every foul thing that's been said about Sarah Palin since she rose to national prominence. At the moment, the list is seven single-spaced pages long. Palin's been called, among other things, a "bimbo," a "cancer," a "farce," a "jack in the box," a "provincial," a "maniac," an "airhead," "Lady Gaga," and "political slime." And that's just a small taste of the G-rated stuff. The blue material is far worse.

Why, oh why are conservatives so mean?

The Party of Hate™

Andrew Brietbart has a nicely worded summary of what we've witnessed with regard to Sarah Palin since last October ... using No Go Maureen Dowd's most recent spate of name-calling as a platform.

Exposed in the relentless Palin attacks is not just political bias, but unmitigated class bias. The American mainstream media in its current free-fall is begging for more comeuppance when it continues to berate the values and lifestyles of the folks in flyover country who in simpler times used to be considered valued customers.

While "empathy" and "tolerance" may be liberalism's highest values, Miss Dowd offers her conservative victims none. They are caricatured, demeaned and dehumanized. They are to be mocked and ridiculed to the point where the other students point and laugh. The MoDo template is so simple and repetitive it could be written into a software program.

I don't think we'll be hearing much more from Palin until after her last day in office. Then she'll probably expound. My guess is that she is honestly protecting her family, doing right by her state by getting out of the way -- the barrage of firepower from the Left was interfering with her job, and she could no longer govern the way she was elected to govern before extraordinary events decended upon her last fall. Plus I'm sure she has another role for herself in mind, it's just not clear what that is. My hunch? Still the Public Speaking circuit.

So it's official. I subscribed to Twitter ... to follow her Twitter feed.

Confirming my suspcions

• You've got rabid lies about the "real mother" of her son Trig
• You've got Katie Couric getting snippy with her on national TV as she dug for damning soundbites
• You've got Matt Lauer's Charles Gibson's condescending interview looking over his glasses
• You've got jealous Republicans stabbing her in the back
• You've got David Letterman casually calling you a slut and joking about your daughter's sex life
• You've got $500,000 in legal defense expenses defending herself against frivolous lawsuits, none of which has stuck except by harassing her and putting her half a million dollars in debt.
• You've got the recent Vanity Fair article ...
  

But did you hear about the firebombing of her Church ... the doors ... with people inside?

If I were a parent I think I just might be worried about my kids -- just a little.

I have one progressive family member who often asks why Conservatives (Limbaugh, Coulter) have to be so "mean". As if her side is all angelic peaceniks.

Are We Hosed?

Two of my favorite opinion writers hail from north of the border. Both apparently love America a lot more than a lot of progressives even pretend to.

This is a sobering assessment from David Warren of the Ottowa Citizen.

How can Americans fight this?

I don't think they can. For not only has the Democrat party - committed in the main to the "second American revolution" I began to sketch above - control of the White House and both Houses. The Republican party is pulling itself apart. Only half of it is willing to fight: the other half thinks the only way back to power is to accommodate this revolution.

Frankly, I think the harassing lawsuits and legal bills had much to do with Palin resigning, but I think this is really the crux of it.

The half that is willing to fight are involved in the Tea Party movement, and are probably "r"epublicans rather than "R"epublicans. And that half really has no leader, although I'd say most probably look to Sarah Palin for at least some of their inspiration. It's these people that made her campaign rallies bigger than Obama's at some of the same venues.

I'm not quite sure what Mrs. Palin has in mind. To take her at her word, she's not interested in running for office, higher or otherwise. And that may be true right now, and not true later. But I think as she said there are other ways to lead, and she likes speaking. And people like to hear her speak. Sounds like a match made in capitalism heaven. And the message she's selling is the right one, or at least solidly on the right track in my opinion. So more power to her.

To fight what David Warren is talking about will take real grassroots people, not politicians. Only a strong, loud, unified voice from a large part of the population will change those politicians, or which politicians get elected. Which is why I also begun to speak, firmly but politely -- on these issues to awaken some of the lemmings following the progressive leaders' movements. Most of them aren't deep thinkers. They're just following the people they perceive are the deep thinkers. We need to change their perception.

This is what Glenn Beck is trying to do with his re-incarnated version of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", and his tour this summer. I think that's what Palin is hoping to do on a larger scale, if only by inspiring the rest of us to do what some of us little people have started to do.

I guess it's an ounce of "Hope" for "Change" ;-) But it's going to take more than us "Hoping". We're going to have to work for change. Heh. In more ways than one.

Is Helen Thomas a Closet Libertarian?

I doubt it. But, exhibit "A"....

Another Gibbs/Whitehouse press conference dustup. This time a reporter from CBS News ... and Helen Thomas of all people, are a bit irked about the "setup".

“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

Totalitarian states don't work that way, Ms Thomas. The sections of the coral are moving in to place one by one, slowly, so as not to scare the cattle. But it looks like even some in the MSM are even starting to notice that something's amiss.

Ms. Thomas should look up the nearest Tea Party and go voice her concerns with the rest of us.

Limited Government & Social Conservatism

As far as I can see, we have allowed the opposition to frame the arguments, and now many in the GOP want to jetison social conservatism from the party platform.

I'm not sure what all the evil laws are that the Social Conservatives have gotten passed as far as cramming their ideals down "America's" throat -- even though all the polls keep saying we're a center-right population. So what do people mean when they talk about social conservatism?

Defense of marriage and pro-life, basically. And where social conservatives lose is by making the wrong arguments and allowing the opposition to frame the debate.

Most social conservatives are also pro-limited government. But the opposition frames it as wanting to "force" your values on the rest of the country. The key is to frame your socially conservative arguments in the context of limited government. And stay consistent with the Constitution.

Here's the Defense of Marriage soundbite we should stake out and stick to as conservatives, as it is philosophically consistent with our limited government position:

Marriage is not a government institution and therefore government, [especially the Federal government] has no business defining it one way or another.

We can expound from there, but that is the base position that is consistent with the Constitution and limited government.

Why is the government involved in marriage to begin with? Why do I need permission from the government to marry as a consenting adult? The government adopted what has been understood worldwide, for the most part since history began as the nucleus of a family, I would say mostly for legal purposes. Spouses have obligations to one another that are recognized as contractual, and they have obligations to their children. The government has flipped this on it's head by requiring that I get a license to do it. My church, my community, my family ... they are the ones who should be doing the approving or disapproving.

I have no legal problems with gays saying they have adopted a similar social convention which involves a similar contract between same-sex couples. Same tax breaks (whole other discussion, though, really)... anything the government should be involved in as far as contractual obligations go.

Whether or not private sector employers or insurance companies or hospitals want to consider them family should be left to those institutions. It is none of the government's business what my definition of a family will be.

Which brings me to point #2 on the matter... this isn't about rights. It's about acceptance. The gay movement says it wants tolerance -- and it has that. What it wants is acceptance, by force if necessary. Take the word "Marriage" out if it in the legal documents, and I'm good with it. Domestic Partnership is fine by me, and they can even call Marriages "Domestic Partnerships" and gay people can even call their Domestic Partnerships "Marriage" if they so desire -- that's fine. Free speech and all. They can call it whatever they want. And I can call it whatever I want.

What I DON'T want is a law that says "Marriage means this". Once this is done, the door is open for me to be tried for a "Hate Crime" if I say that it is something different, or especially if I teach my kids that it is something different. As Andy Rooney said once, thinking gay marriage is wrong is not hate, it's an opinion.

Tolerance and acceptance are not synonymous. In a free country, my point of view, my culture, my religious beliefs, whatever you want to call them should never be put in the position of being outlawed if they don't directly interfere with someone else's life, liberty, or property.

All consistent. Not cramming my values down anyone's throats.

And on the pro-life issue ...

Is it really such a stretch to have the opinion that life begins at conception that it is lumped in with belief about walking on water and reincarnation? I mean, we are talking about an observable, physical event here. But bring to bring that up as an argument is grounds for immediate dismissal as a religously zealous hack. Progressives have shut the pro-lifers out of the debate on that end. As well as the other end. To ask for an inch on either end in the Progressive handbook is akin to them being asked to give up the entire battle.

I don't think kids having to get permission from their parents to get an abortion is a bad thing, and I definitely (like most of the rest of America) think late-term abortions ... when it's not a choice between mom's life and the baby's ... are just wrong. And that's where the line in the sand is. It is not social conservatives who haven't been willing to compromise on this issue. Our esteemed president apparently doesn't think it's wrong even to let a baby die outside the womb after a botched abortion attempt. If we can't even ban partial birth abortions -- who is cramming whose values down everybody's throats?

And whose throat is ultimately being sacrificed in the process?

Again, we're not talking about whether or not we believe there was a big bang or an old bearded spirit waved his hand and created everything. We're talking about something that is undeniably alive, and undeniably .... human.

SCOTUS Shifts Right?

Headline in the NYT:

Roberts Court Shifts Right, Tipped by Kennedy

With 60 Democrats in the Senate now, I'd say that's the last refuge of hope.

In the article we read how Chief Justice Roberts is "planting seeds" and is "increasing mastery of the judicial machinery". Comfortingly, it says that foreshadows "a widening gap between the Democratic-led political branches and the Supreme Court. Indeed, the court appears poised to move to the right in the Obama era."

Well as my wife would say (mimicking a former southern friend of ours) "Thank the Sweet Baby Jesus."

The argument seems to be that Roberts is coaxing Kennedy to the right. The evidence? Kennedy votes with Roberts 92% of the time.

It couldn't just be that they happen to agree on these things, I guess.

It does mention Thomas and Scalia might be the two justices most "in play" -- and to back this up, it notes "Justices Scalia and Thomas are apt to follow what they understand to be the original meaning of the Constitution, even when the consequences might not align with their policy preferences."

I dunno about you, but it sounds to me like the Bushes chose wisely. A very concise job description, really.

But the very last bit in the article stuck out to me. It says:

"The Constitution, it turns out, means what Justice Kennedy says it means."

I know what he's saying, but he has to agree with at least four other justices. So it's not really that simple. If Roberts is successful in persuasively arguing for a more originalist interpretation of the Constitution .... there may be hope.

You Mean Bush Wasn't Just a Power Crazy "Fascist"?

Huh. All that flap about holding detainees indefinitely, and how EEEEEVIL BushCheneyHalliburton was for doing it. Huh. No kiddin'? Terrorist Prisoners of war who don't belong to any nation's army are tough to deal with??? Really?????

Thank you, John Kerry

More evidence that Democrats think we're all idiots:

“Too bad,” Kerry said, “if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.”

Really, John? The governor of Alaska is Sarah Palin? Wow. Thanks for clearing that up. I mean, if you hadn't added that, we wouldn't have known who the heck you were talking about. And of course, it wouldn't have been nearly as hilarious. Look out George Carlin!!! Whoops. Looks like your path to the top is clear, Sir Senator.

On the other hand, John, maybe its best for you she doesn't disappear. 'Cause ya know, then you wouldn't know where she was. And as any good "war hero" knows, it's good to know where your enemy is. Otherwise, you have to spend a lot of time looking behind you.

Heh... #Two Hundred Forty Somethin'

Palin responds to Kerry.

When it's not her daughter on the chopping block, this is the way to respond!

My Two Bits on Sanford

I wasn't really going to say anything. Another politician having an affair. Yes it's bad. No, I don't approve. There is the whole "let the man who is without sin throw the first stone" bit, and the "walk a mile in a man's shoes before you judge him" bit -- which aren't about letting people off the hook. They're about the humility of the observer(s).

The only reason I am commenting is I've seen and heard time and time again ... "yes, Democrats have affairs too BUT .... they don't run on family values." When a Democrat is caught, it's ok because he or she didn't run on family values and it isn't relevant to their job. But when a Republican is caught, it's a scandal because he or she did (presumably) run on family values.

Never mind the fact that Democrats play the family values card as well when campaigning to get votes, and then turn around and vote not to uphold them; to assist their erosion. Because the party platform dictates it.

Here's the deal. How'd the family values runners vote? Did they work to encourage family values, you know, at work? Did they stand up for those values in public even while they failed to uphold some of them in private?

If no, then, you're right. Hypocrites.

If yes, here's what I say. Give me the imperfect man who supports my ideals over the imperfect man who says they don't matter anyway.

Because they do matter whether we manage to live up to them or not.

"Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in. " - Hub, from Second Hand Lions

Update: Yeah. Crap like this.

Ah, That Non-Partisan ACORN

Right. Just take a look at this ACORN memo.

Message: Progressives in general, and Democratic candidates in particular, need to be out front and public on an issue that is 1) progressive; 2) popular with a broad electorate; and 3) separates Democrats from Republicans. Raising the minimum wage scores in all 3 categories.

In addition we will work in 2005 to institutionalize the high school senior voter registration project we tested in the spring of 2004. By working with and through local school administrators, their national associations (including the Council of Great City Schools and the American Association of School Administrators), and the two major national teachers’ unions, our methodology is to gain access to high school seniors in minority communities through assemblies, English classes (since all high school seniors take English), and school cafeterias to register them to vote and, where possible, create volunteer voter registration opportunities for them in the larger community.

Impact the post-2010 Congressional redistricting process by building progressive electoral majorities in swing state legislative districts in states where partisan control of legislative bodies is potentially in play.

Sounding like a general "just get out the vote, we don't care if you're Democrat or Republican" kind of "Community Organization" to you?

Basically, they're going in to places where there are high proportions of liberal-leaning people, or gullible people -- who wouldn't normally get involved in politics because they don't feel they know enough -- and pushing them to go vote to cram their ideals down the rest of our throats. They give the appearance that they're not partisan by not (or I'm sure they're not supposed to) mentioning parties, but they know where they are and the demographics of the area they're working. So what if they register 3 conservatives for every 7 progressives? If 10 of them go vote, they still win net votes.

On top of that, I have a friend who actually volunteered to drive people to the polls for the Obama campaign, and he did it. That's right, we can't get the unmotivated people who would vote for Democrats because "they'll gimme stuff" to get up off their tuchuses and go vote, so we'll go pick 'em up and drive 'em.

Oh, there's more. And it gets my taxpayer money. This has got to stop.

M-heh! (BISHORL?)

Read this in the comments section on a post with about a 2006 NRC press release allegedly vindicating Mann's infamous "hockey stick" chart used by the IPCC after his team's methodology were discredited. I read the press release several times and can find nothing in it that vindicates the chart. As a matter of fact, it appears to me that it supports the critics. But that's not the point of this post.

There is a commenter named "Per" ... that fortunately has the nads and apparently the scientific background (and understands scientific method) to go toe to toe with the believers with narrow focus and their constant resorts to name calling and doing about anything but refuting what he says.

But I found this close to one of his posts rather amusing, and wanted to file it away:

If only you hadn't got your words completely wrong, and if only the words didn't mean something completely different, you would be right.

Per, here, gives an excellent example of how I feel conservatives ought to argue (just do searches for "posted by: Per"). Don't get abusive. Stick to the subject at hand. Argue facts and logic about the points without relying ad hominiem attacks against people who have made those points, and just ... give them enough rope to hang themselves. They'll come unravelled pretty quickly and become unnerved by your cool.

And you're allowed to be amused as they dangle. They're not actually hanging, after all. Just pushed from their comfort zones.

Oh, Wow! On that ...

Could Australia Blow Apart the Global Warming Scare?

Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive….

As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct.