Chairman John

Nothing red-flags desperation in a modern Democrat's campaign quite like class warfare rhetoric. It's a variation on a theme that goes something like this: a rich white guy starts railing against all the rich white guys who are getting richer by the nanosecond and promising that he'll do whatever he can to get rid of the rich white guys. The prerequisite political pilgrimage for Democrats involves taking full advantage of all the opportunities for wealth this country has to offer for twenty years then vowing to make sure such a travesty never occurs again. Irony, you'll note, is never discussed in Democratic politics.

Few in recent memory have followed this plan more diligently than former Senator John "Fluffy" Edwards (D-Unreality). He's made tens of millions of dollars as a trial lawyer and now wants to make sure that everyone knows he thinks that it would be bad if someone else were to do the same. His campaign trails Hillary Clinton's by so much that he needs the Hubble telescope to keep her in sight now so he's hopping on the Class Warfare Express.

It's always striking to note what a disconnect there is between what's actually important in the world and what John Edwards thinks is going on. While most people who can tie their own shoes agree that Iran presents many problems to the free world Edwards has a slightly different view. After new sanctions against Iran were announced last week, Edwards rushed in with this pronouncement, "We need to stand up to these people. We need to stop them and we need to be strong in our opposition." Was he talking about the leaders in Iran? Of course not, he was speaking of the Republicans. In Johnny Land there are no terrorists or hostile nations. The real enemies are greenhouse gases and Republicans. Rich, puppy-hating Republicans who are secretly working on an SUV Death Star that's going to kill all your Social Security.

Today Edwards unveiled his plan to make everything better for everyone all the time. Forever. Yes, Fluffy truly believes that he and the government have that kind of power. I guess they don't teach much history in pre-law. The programs are being referred to as "New Deal-like" in the hope that invoking FDR will obscure their "Old Marxism-Like" qualities.

After a trip to the salon for a haircut and pedicure, Edwards says that his first priorities as President will be losing the war in Iraq, enacting universal (code name for "Government Run") health care and overhauling the energy system. "Those are three things instantly I would do," said Edwards. Instantly? Looks like President Fluffy comes with a magic wand too!

Back to the irony: Edwards was a personal injury lawyer. He can afford good health care because he devoted his career to helping drive health care costs through the roof. One could see how Fluffy's head would start spinning were he to come back to reality.

The best part of today's lecture on socialism from Edwards was his heartfelt desire to have the government fund kindergarten and "college for everyone." Few things make a Democrat salivate harder than the prospect of getting to indoctrinate school children through a government funded education system. It's the real reason they keep telling us that studies show that kids who begin preschool in the womb do better throughout life. The longer you can make them talk about Earth Day and not talk about Christmas the better this kind of nonsense Edwards is spouting has a chance of being believed. "We simply can't have children exposed to their parents too much. They might start praying or something!"

Why am I making such a fuss about a guy who is 17000 points behind Mrs. Clinton in all the polls? Because he's young and will probably be made part of any plans in a (shudder) Democratic administration. And he may run for president again. Mostly, it makes me very nervous when an ambulance chaser smiles and tells me he's got my back.

Cross posted at The Grizzly Groundswell

The Kruiser Climate Manifesto-Part I

Sitting here in LA, breathing all the smoky air, I promised myself this morning that I'd avoid writing about the Climate Commies today. It's difficult, as global warming is my favorite battleground these days and it's come up ad nauseam during the news coverage of the fires this week. As soon as I decided this I started reading another Halloween scare report from the United Nations. Few things this side of Harry Reid annoy me more than the UN dispensing reports about how we're all going to die next Thursday if Al Gore isn't crowned Intergalactic Ruler at once. They get me so worked up I write really long sentences like that.

My first response, as always, is that we could start helping the environment by getting rid of the UN and putting a lovely park in its place.

I've gotten into a few discussions on climate change this week and watched more than a few during the wildfire coverage and noticed that some of the same crap keeps coming up from the Left. What I'm going to do here, and it might take a post in two or three parts, is stake out my territory in this debate and simply refer people to it later when they challenge me with wild-eyed fervor. My hope is that pausing and reading something will take everything down a notch and foster some reasonable debate. I know I'm crazy, but we'll let my therapist worry about that.

I feel so strongly about this that I am going to use bullet points. I don't trot out the BPs unless I'm feeling very formal. I probably should drink some tea and do something special with my pinkies. More on that later. Here are the first of the points I would like to make:

• Nobody denies that climate changes. Whenever I express skepticism about the Climate Commie Party line on climate change the first question I'm invariably asked is, "So you don't believe in Global Warming?" And it's always asked in a jump-down-your-throat, "nanny-nanny boo-boo" kind of way, as if they can't wait to bury me with quotes from Al Gore. It's been a whole 24 hours since someone last asked me that. I heard Alan Colmes ask it while interviewing a scientist from the CATO Institute last night. The one thing I've never heard, however, is someone saying "I don't believe in Global Warming" before being asked the question. What I don't believe in is hysteria. Or speculation (computer models) regarded as absolute fact. What is still up for debate is the level of human contribution to the greenhouse gas problem. It's up for debate unless you're Al Gore or one of his followers. These people take a more Stalin-esque approach to debate and simply tell everyone that there will be none. That's what I don't believe in.
  
• Hysteria based on speculation is ridiculous. What usually gets reported are think-tank and computer model projections about the fate of the planet that are worse-case scenarios. Why? Because the Climate Commies feel that's the best way to get everyone's attention. Don't believe me? Here's a quote from St. Al Gore in Grist magazine: "Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." (Italics mine) Let me get this straight: it's OK to lie if they end up listening and on your side. Is this an environmental debate or a "How-To" primer for frat boys to get laid? You want to get my attention? Present all of the facts and get a spokesperson who isn't unhinged. People who are more insane than I am make me nervous.
• International communism isn't going to save the planet. You almost have to admire the capacity for denial on the Left. No matter how many times they see socialism or communism fail and capitalism work they just close their eyes, plug their ears and hum until the free-market bogeyman goes away. Their solution to mitigate climate concerns isn't to let free enterprise work more of its magic but to enforce a set of international protocols that wouldn't do more than screw up the US economy. Then they get into this weird "carbon credit" trading thing that sounds more like the Catholic church in the days of Martin Luther than 21st Century business. The companies that invested in economically ruinous eco-friendly technologies could sell their credits to the evil polluters and feel better. Then after lying to their stockholders they could buy some plenary indulgences from the Cardinal and-oh wait-we're back to the 1500s again. At least we know they won't be burning any witches. The smoke would be bad for the environment.
  
• Somebody needs to talk about the cow farts. Why? Because they are the biggest contributors of methane gas on the planet. And because it would be fun to see "cow fart" on the front page of the New York Times.
  

Enough for today. You've all been very patient. The nurse is here and telling me that my "outside time" is done for the day.

Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell

The Eco-Stalins Spread Hysteria Like Wildfire

Southern California is weird and not just because I live in it. You see, we have long, dry summers but, for some reason, stuff still grows here. I find that odd because I grew up in the Sonoran Desert where nothing but air conditioning bills grew during the long, dry periods. In California, it never rains but trees and weeds abound.

When these long, dry summers are over we're treated to sustained high winds that are, strangely enough, named after St. Ann. But in Spanish. Which doesn't have much to do with the wildfires. Climate change may or may not have more to do with the fires here than St. Ann but the Eco-Stalins in the media are reporting it as fact.

While most of us saw tragedy unfolding as we watched news about the wildfires, some in the media saw an opportunity to pimp global warming hysteria. Hotter Planet=More Fires. Seems like a sensible equation, right? That's the route NBC went with it's reporting. They jumped right over the fact that some of these blazes were the result of arson and one was started by some guys welding around some dry brush. Global warming/global welding, they're kind of the same, aren't they?

Anderson Cooper, the weather girl at CNN, was a bit more shameless. He hosted a new special called "Planet In Peril" and practically wet himself in his excitement to use the fires as promo.

“At the top of the next hour, as I said, the big picture. These fires are really a piece of it. Fire, drought, global warming, climate change, deforestation, it is all connected, tonight, 9:00 p.m. Eastern…‘Planet in Peril’ starts in just 30 minutes.”

Thankfully, all one had to do was listen to the responsible opposing viewpoints that both networks presented...oh, wait...there weren't any.

What the pieces dealt with were more predictions and speculation being reported as fact.

What we know for sure is this. California has had problems with wildfires for a very long time. Even before Al Gore. The real equation is: Sun+High Winds+Dry Vegetation=Oops!

After everything burns we get treated to mudslides because there is nothing holding the hills together. In days past this wasn’t as big a problem. Why? No global warming, right? Wrong. It’s because people didn’t used to live in these places.

You see, the very combination that creates the wildfire environment, i.e. lots of sun and little rain, also makes everyone want to move to Southern California. The areas affected by the current disaster have around 20 million people living in them. If this portion of California broke off it would be the third most populous state in America. A far more logical conclusion would be that a rapidly expanding population would constantly increase the chance of accidental fires. Many of these fires were caused by downed power lines. Guess what? There aren't any descriptions of endless miles of power lines in the histories left by the Spanish. They sort of showed up recently.

Another problem is that Californians absolutely love to show off status by building homes in places that they shouldn't. You never hear of a low-income family's home sliding down a hill during a rainstorm here. "Hey look, honey: it's a dry, wind swept cliff with all kinds of dehydrated brush surrounding it but look at that ocean view!"

It's just like the increase in hurricane damage in coastal regions. The hurricanes didn't used to have that much to damage. Now more people can afford to build houses by the beach. The hurricanes touch down in the same places and the fires burn through the same areas. The only thing that's measurably changed is what gets in their way now.

This isn't a lesson so much about Climate Change as it is about arrogance. Modern, secular society likes to think it can scientifically control everything. We have no sense of awe (or God) any more and keep giving the finger to nature. Nature, it would seem, has an arrogant streak of her own and likes to send out not-so-subtle reminders about where the real power is.

Almost sounds like I was describing the Clinton marriage at the end there, doesn't it?

The Nobel Prize For Stupidity Goes To...

Score another publicity victory for the Eco-Stalins: Al Gore and his UN bitches have won the Nobel Peace Prize. The award comes as no surprise, it was one of the worst kept secrets since Pamela Anderson's cleavage. That sound you hear along with all the fanfare is Alfred Nobel groaning and spinning in his grave. Despite all the advance warning, it's still hard to see what the rantings of this hysterical ninny and his frothing army of ideologues have to do with promoting peace in the world.

Next up: the Nobel Prize for Chemistry goes to George Clooney and that hot babe he got in the motorcycle wreck with because they certainly looked like they had a lot of it going on.

I do agree that the planet is in danger but it's from Al Gore, who now looks as if he could eat the Western hemisphere in one sitting. His international "redistribution of communism" campaign continues almost unabated. He makes a long political commercial full of distorted facts and calls it a movie so...let's give him an Academy Award! He flies around, burning fuel and maniacally shouting down anyone who dares disagree with him so...let's give him a Nobel Peace Prize! Hey, it's 360 feet around the bases. If Al Gore can travel that far without burning any fossil fuel why don't we give him a World Series ring? Come on, naysayers, it's October. Get in the spirit of Gorefest already!

And the Nobel Prize for Achievement in Medicine goes to: the Hooters Girls, because they sure do make me feel good.

Naturally, I remain skeptical of Gore because anyone who does is paid millions by Big Oil. Still waiting for that check though.

Watch your wallets, kids, this Gorecrap isn't going to end any time soon. His propaganda machine so effectively silences dissent that it's got a bunch of old Russians weeping with nostalgia for the KGB. Even Gore's co-winners, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have harbored a skeptic or two. Ever heard of them? Of course you haven't. Why not? Because Gore starts screaming "Consensus!" like a victim of Tourette Syndrome whenever the panel releases a report to make sure you don't. Al Gore is the lead lunatic and the IPCC is his chorus of idiots. If you try to engage them in substantive debate they just get angry because you're stealing some of their dog and pony show.

We posthumously award this year's Nobel Prize for Physics to: Jane Taylor, the composer of "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star," because she got us all thinking about the universe.

No one is saying that climate doesn't change. The debate, when one can actually be found, is about the level of human contribution to climate change, specifically greenhouse gases. There is plenty of reasonable evidence out there that it may not be all our fault. If you say that, however, the Climate Commies react as if you just said you wanted to spend the rest of your days killing puppies. It's hysteria, pure and simple. And the Nobel committee has just help perpetuate it.

The Nobel Prize for Literature is given to: anyone who has ever sung the alphabet in the proper order.

Here's the part that's hard to reconcile if you decide to use even a portion of your brain. We've seen terrorists blow things up and kill people. A lot. However, the idea that the Atlantic Ocean will swallow New York City is based on the most extreme of many computer models that were run to predict the future. The Climate Commies want you to believe that terrorism is nothing more than a scare tactic that the Bush administration likes to use but their computer predictions are real and imminent.

If your horoscope says you're going to find love and financial reward, will your bank give you a home loan based on that and your future spouse's income?

Too bad they don't award a Nobel for irony. They could give that to Gore as soon as he gets on the plane to fly back here.

Our Worst Ex-Everything

James Earl Carter, the little peanut farmer who could, is at it again. His single biggest achievement as an elder statesman these days is making Bill Clinton look like the classy ex-president from the Democratic party.

Whenever I meet some foaming-at-the-mouth liberal who says that George W. Bush is "our worst president" I do one of two things. If they've come of political age since 1980, I explain the Carter years to them. When you describe them out loud it sounds like a horrible reality show that was ahead of its time. If they're older than that I suggest several clinics where selective amnesia is treated and wish them the best.

Face it, one of Carter's most enduring legacies was having the drunk brother (Billy Carter) who paved the way for a future Democratic drunk brother (Roger Clinton).

Carter is a dizzying study in contrasts. A devout Christian, he made his biggest campaign splash in Playboy magazine. A true big-government Democrat, he's shown that real change is best affected through the private sector by founding Habitat for Humanity. Even ardent detractors used to refer to him a "nice guy." Now he spends his time spewing as much vitriol as he can when speaking publicly about the current administration.

It was sort of assumed (again, even by his detractors) that this somewhat quiet man would contribute to the dignity of the very small ex-president club. How he became the Rosie O'Donnell of the bunch remains a mystery.

One of Carter's more disgusting recent habits is bad-mouthing America and the current administration in the foreign press. Shove a BBC microphone in his face and he instantly becomes Hugo Chavez with a Georgia accent. His latest bout of verbal diarrhea found him referring to a sitting Vice-President as a "disaster" in an interview with our British friends.

Once more, the bitter irony whenever Carter starts babbling is that his choice of words make you swear he's describing his own tenure in the White House. This is the same man who earlier in the year proved he's never stood in front of a mirror by declaring President Bush the "worst in history."

There's almost something pathological about the current crop of Democratic elder statesmen. Al Gore at least has the decency to outwardly look and act like a lunatic so people can see his true colors (or his leopard stripes, as he would say). Sure, he's revered by the Climate Commies but I still know plenty of people on the left who would lock away all the sharp stuff if Gore were coming to dinner.

With Carter it's more disturbing. He still has that quiet Southern gentleman aura about him that can lull people into believing that he's reasonable. Gosh heck, he's the smiling peanut farmer granddaddy! But he seems to be driven by a compulsion to make his horrible presidential legacy look good by comparison so he begins spewing garbage about the current administration. Worse yet, it's as if he knows that he won't win this battle in history here so he wants to take it overseas where America-bashing is always in season (until, of course, they need disaster relief or military assistance). One minute he's sweet ol' Jimmy then the camera turns on and he shows all the measured calmness of a MoveOn.org staffer who has just been given the chance to dry off George Soros after a bath.

Unable to make his mark on America as president, it seems that James Earl Carter wants to redefine being an ex-president. It's a fraternity so unique that it's made friends out of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. If you'd told anyone eight years ago that those two would be palling around you would have been handed a Dixie cup for your drug test. The former chief execs tend to stick together though. They also try to be restrained in their public assessments of current presidents. Until Jimmy the Mouth hit the scene, that is. Even Bill Clinton, while campaigning for his-um-wife, has been more muted in his criticism of Bush than Peanut Jim.

Wow, twice in one post I've been moved by Jimmy Carter to remark on Bill Clinton's class. That crafty old farmer really is making a difference in the world, isn't he?

The Liberal Army Of Idiots

The increasingly nonsensical American Left has spent the post-Viet Nam era defining itself as peace loving and only willing to fight "just" wars. Defining a just war can get a little tricky sometimes. The War on Terror seems very just to those of us who, you know, read and keep our blood alcohol contents low at work. To others, it's merely a slogan to scare people or a good reason to move to France and forgo bathing. But, hey, it's America and we're all entitled to our beliefs. That is, of course, until we lose something like a War on Terror and our enemies inform us that they're removing our rights along with our heads. They're focused that way, the terror guys.

These notorious peace lovers over there at Nancy Pelosi's house don't exactly embrace the whole concept of peace. It doesn't simply mean an absence of war, it also implies harmonious relations all around. Oops, that doesn't sound like anything Harry Reid's unstoppable mouth has ever endorsed.

The fact is that the Democrats absolutely love wars, just not the kind that are fought with guns. Against real enemies. Who have publicly stated that they would like to kill us.

A quick look around this week and you can see the Liberal Army of Idiots engaged in battle on several fronts. Their enemies? Other Americans, of course. Oh, and that pesky Truth stuff.

The most recent targets include Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, among others. You don't have to like all of these guys, I don't (you'd probably be surprised at which one it is), but a critical (key word here) look at what's being done to each of them reveals just how bloodthirsty these war mongering libs really are.

The continued war on Justice Thomas is by far the most shameful as he can't continually defend himself. He's too busy engaged in the monumental struggle to ensure that the courts don't take over America before the terrorists do.

Justice Thomas has finally gone public about the circus surrounding his nomination. How can anyone forget the bloated Senator from Massachusetts grilling Thomas about sexual harassment? ("Excuse me, Senator Kennedy, your question got kind of drowned out.") So, after sixteen years, Thomas has decided to avail himself of his right to defend himself.

The Left won't have any of that. You see, the "right to choose" that's spoken of over there doesn't extend to choosing to vote Republican, especially if you're an African-American. Threaten to destroy our civilization or blow up a bunch of our citizens and the Left would prefer to give you a free pass. Try to be a Black Republican, however, and they're coming after you. There won't be a draw-down of their media troops until you're destroyed.

The execrable New York Times could barely contain its glee at having a reason to trot Anita Hill out again (I think she lives there). (I'm investigating a rumor that nine out of ten dog breeds will begin crapping immediately upon seeing any section of the Times on the floor.) They gave her some space today over on their Opinion page. Apparently Maureen Dowd gets Tuesdays off to practice actually sounding bitchy in print.

In the editorial, Professor Hill vowed not to "stand by silently" while Justice Thomas "in his anger" reinvents her. Another quick search of the Times archives shows that she's in no danger of being silent any time soon. In her defense, she hasn't gotten a shout out on the Opinion page since June of this year so she may have been feeling a little muzzled. I think the word processing software at the Times automatically inserts "Anita Hill" and "sexual harassment" after any mention of Clarence Thomas.

As long as the New York Times remains the scum of record in this country, your silence will be almost impossible, Prof. Hill.

The two other battle fronts for the Army of Idiots this week involve taking things out of context and letting those little Che Guevaras at MoveOn.org and Media Matters distort them. These particular idiots deal almost solely in out of context stories that are turned into complete lies. Why? Because that's easier than original thought. You know why they need a Fairness Doctrine? Because talk radio is a free-market airing of ideas and you can't survive there if you don't have any. So they need the government (or George Soros-same thing if any Democrat wins the White House now) to ensure that they can broadcast a bunch of dead air that no one was listening to in the first place.

It was a relief to see Harry Reid all over the place condemning Rush. He was so silent during the MoveOn.org/Gen. Petraeus controversy that I thought he'd taken ill.

That's not really sarcasm. I truly don't want anyone on the Left to get sick or die. I just want them to start thinking. After they do that for a while they might open their eyes and identify our real enemies. After that we might, just might, start winning the actual wars with the blessing of our elected leaders.

I know, it sounds crazy. But then, I am.

I don't think I'm done with this one yet.