Blue Crab Boulevard

Lynn Davidson, writing at Newsbusters points out the latest global warming hypocrisy. The sudden increase in the ice sheet between western Greenland and Canada - a substantial increase - is only weather according to the true believers. While, of course, any melting is a sign of global warming.

Well, isn't that what some “skeptics” have been saying about the recent temperature spikes? That climate changes over time, and it has been warming since the Little Ice Age?

Interestingly, Sermitsiak published an article the same day, reporting scientists are “almost certain,” based on satellite data, Greenland is “sweating” and has “lost twice as much ice last year as it did three years ago.” Of course, there are no admonitions that this decrease in overall Greenland ice could just be part of weather's “phenomenon which changes from year to year” and “next year the situation can look completely different.”

There was no mention of the increasing Western Greenland ice in this second piece, even though it was updated the day after both articles were published. But to be fair, once published, articles are rarely edited in a way that alters the original slant, and in the paper's favor, most of the other media ignored the story altogether. At the end of the article about a melting Greenland, the qualification that the scientists are “almost certain” about the Arctic island's ice melt was buried at the bottom with the expected standard superfluous global warming alarmism:

If all the inland ice on Greenland was lost, the oceans would rise about seven metres. Antarctica contains about ten times as much ice.

Global warming skeptics wouldn't be so skeptical if these double standards weren't employed to support a popular theory. It's hard to believe in global warming when warm weather and shrinking ice is certain evidence of global warming, but cold weather and ice growth is either dismissed or chalked up to the all-encompassing “climate change.”

Here is the Cryosphere Today website side-by-side comparison of arctic ice. (Enter 2/15/1980 and 2/15/2008 to see the data on the day I posted this.) Pay attention to the west coast of Greenland. That is some weather. Here is an image that shows departure from "normal" temperatures for much of the Middle East and Asia. Again, that is some weather. Here's an example of the data collection that is being used to "prove" global warming." (Last two links courtesy of ICECAP.)

You can claim you "understand the science" or you can believe your own lying eyes. Wake up. 

Tom Maguire looks at Barack Obama's appeal. He contends that it is the projection of people's internal desires onto the surface of a mirror. That is the problem for Hillary Clinton.

Allow me to expand on my notion that Obama is the Mirror of Desire (Mirror of Erised to you Harry Potter fans out there) in which people see what they most want to see.

Obama's basic message is that he is a smart and reasonable guy who will reach out to people representing a wide range of views and bring them together to bring about "change".

But what people actually hear is something somewhat different, namely, "Obama is smart and reasonable and he will listen to me; since my ideas are smart and reasonable, he will ultimately embrace them as his own".

This creates a very different dynamic from the typical political campaign.  Rather than trying to convince a majority of voters (primary or general election) that his ideas are superior, Obama simply needs to convince a majority that their ideas are superior.  Should be doable!

And how has Hillary been combating this?  Not effectively.  Her basic approach has followed the traditional campaigner's plan of marshaling programs tailored to appeal to 51% of voters.  By and large, the upshot will be that folks who agree with her will figure they will get their way with either candidate; folks who disagree with her will favor Obama.  Not helpful.

But what happens when the reality doesn't meet the image the viewers have projected onto the surface? What happens when their heart's desire is not there in the real world when they turn away from the mirror?

What happens? Even better, what happens if the mirror of the supporter's desires is shattered by backroom deals or by another Messiah? 

What happens to all those souls? 

Al Gore on the second ballot.

Al Gore on the second ballot: A scenario that a few weeks ago seemed preposterous is beginning to look plausible to some nervous Democrats looking for a way out of the deadlock between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It goes like this: We love them both, but neither is a sure bet when it comes to electability. It's not about gender and race, each has more mundane vulnerabilities. Hillary's negatives will drive white men to John McCain; Obama's inexperience will require a gut check on the part of voters. What if the super delegates decide not to decide, denying either candidate the requisite number of delegates to secure the party's nomination. Democrats want to win. The new rallying cry: Gore on the second ballot.

That should focus some people's attention. Sorry about the nightmares tonight.

An eight year old typo is still haunting a woman in Tennessee. Laura Todd says that when a woman died eight years ago, a mistake was made in typing in the dead woman's Social Security number. Ever since, Todd has been informed that she is dead. This has made her life an unliving hell, so to speak.

She said her problems started when someone in Florida died and her Social Security number was accidentally typed in.

Todd said she thought the problem had been straightened out, but when she went to refinance her house in 2002, “SunTrust called and said, ‘Your credit report says you're dead.’"

She straightened that incident out, but in 2006 the Internal Revenue Service refused to process her return.

"The IRS says I’m dead. Everybody says I'm dead,” she said.

She said being dead off and on has made everyday life a hassle. She said her bank closed her credit card account and attached a note of sympathy: “Please accept our condolences on the death of Laura Todd.”

She said the last straw came recently when the IRS once again refused to let her file her taxes electronically because she's dead.

She said that at one point it was funny, but now it’s getting old.

“I'm tired. I've been fighting this for eight years, and it never ends,” she said. “I'm very much alive, and would like to live out my life in peace without having this problem."

The IRS said it would research the problem and try to get it straightened out. Social Security said it has updated its computers and that the fix should also fix the problems with her credit reports.

Think about this for a moment. This is a simple typo that should have been resolved in - at most - a few phone calls and maybe a couple of mailings. It has been dragging on for eight years.

And there are people who are agitating to have the same government take over health care. Do you really want these folks in charge? Really?

It does not surprise me that Harold Ickes believes this to be the case, but it frankly stuns me that he would say it so baldly. He has openly stated that he believes the superdelegates will decide the nominee and that their choice will be Hillary Clinton. What is truly ironic here is that Ickes is the one who set up this whole scenario back in 1988 when he negotiated the current proportional allocation rules.

A top Hillary Clinton adviser on Saturday boldly predicted his candidate would lock down the nomination before the August convention by definitively winning over party insiders and officials known as superdelegates, claiming the number of state elections won by rival Barack Obama would be “irrelevant” to their decision.

The claims no doubt will escalate the war of words between the campaigns, as Obama continues to argue superdelegates should vote the way of their districts. But the special class of delegates, which make up about 20 percent of the total delegate haul, are not bound to vote the way of their states and districts, as pledged delegates are.

Obama leads handily in the pledged delegate count and has won more states but trails Clinton in superdelegates, making them potential and controversial deadlock-breakers if the race ends up a dead heat come convention time.

Harold Ickes, a 40-year party operative charged with winning over superdelegates for the Clinton campaign, made no apologies on Saturday for the campaign’s convention strategy.

“We’re going to win this nomination,” Ickes said, adding that they would do so soon after the last contest on June 7 in Puerto Rico. “You’re not going to see this go to the convention floor.”

Ickes predicted Clinton and Obama would run “neck and neck” in the remaining states and that there would be a “minuscule amount of difference” between the two in pledged delegates.

But he said superdelegates would determine the outcome and side in larger numbers for Clinton, as they “have a sense of what it takes to get elected.”

Even though averages of head-to-head polls on RealClearPolitics.com show Obama beating presumptive GOP nominee John McCain in a general election and Clinton losing, the Clinton camp is stressing the electability argument.

Ickes said superdelegates must “exercise their best judgment” about who can win the White House.

Oh man. Is this going to get ugly. If the scenario plays out the way Ickes thinks it will, there will be real, devastating and lasting harm to the Democratic party. Like I said, I'm stunned he is saying this as openly as he is. 

While the delegates that Mitt Romney won in the Michigan will officially be designated as uncommitted at the Republican National Convention, 18 of the 23 have now officially stated that they will back McCain. Only three have decided to back Huckabee.

Romney's 23 delegates will go to the national convention as uncommitted, but 18 now say they'll back McCain. McCain already has 10 Michigan delegates that he won in the state's January 13th primary.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee will get two delegates based on those primary results. Plus at least three Romney delegates now say they will also back Huckabee.

Michigan Republicans met Friday and Saturday to nominate delegates to the national convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul in September.

It really is time for Mike Huckabee to fold his campaign.  

One commenter has made several comments favoring taxing the "rich" at a 90% rate. He speaks glowingly of the tax rates of 90% during the Eisenhower years. Actually, it is just a tad more complicated than the commenter explains it. Using the historical tax rate tables from this site the highest tax bracket was reached in 1952-53. The rate of 92% applied to incomes of $400,000 or more. Here's where the fun starts. Using this official inflation calculator published by the US Federal Reserve, that $400,000 income in 1953 would be $3,105,617.98 in 2007 dollars. 

But the latest tax proposal already on the table from Charlie Rangel declares that anyone with an income of $150,000 is "rich" today. That is somewhat less than $20,000 in 1953 dollars.

So that "fair" 90% tax rate would take all but of $15,000 from today's "rich" leaving them with an after tax income close to the poverty line.  Actually less than poverty level for a family of four, as mine is. You would literally be better off quitting work and going on welfare.  

Fair? Or enslavement to the state?  

Due to European Union environmental regulations as well as British law subservient to those rules, a local council in Britain had to spend a little money to relocate four newts before a building project could go forward. How little a sum, you ask?

£60,000. To move four newts which are locally plentiful.

Legislation protecting an endangered species of newt is to be challenged after a council was forced to spend £60,000 moving four of the creatures.

Officials at Cheshire County Council are writing to the Government and European Union chiefs to challenge the rules governing great crested newts.

Councillor Barrie Hardern, who has written to Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, said the newts had to be given a new habitat as a part of a planning application for building work at Fallibroome High School in Macclesfield.

He said: "Around £15,000 per newt seems a ludicrous sum of money to me.

"They are a legally protected species under EU regulations because there are parts of Europe where they are quite rare.

"However, in Cheshire we have in the order of 16,000 ponds and newts are widespread and locally abundant.

"The EU regulations together with UK legislation carry substantial fines if we do not protect the newts as part of planning applications. I am very concerned about taxpayers' money being used in this way."

There are an estimated 400,000 of that particular species of newt in Britain. Around $120,000 of taxpayer's money thrown away to send four of the newts to a new location.

Utter madness. 

From the Telegraph comes this report on amazingly obvious science. That is to say, science that is so obvious that it should be a crime that research money was diverted to fund the studies.

If you give kids more toys they'll play more

Scientists have recently hit upon an extraordinary method for cutting levels of childhood obesity: give kids toys that make them run about.

The US study concluded that supplying infants in childcare centres with balls, skipping ropes and hula hoops can encourage them to exercise more at playtime. Surely this must have crossed someone's mind before?

The researchers from the University of North Carolina went one step further, however, surmising that the best toys for getting children to run around are non-stationary ones. Whilst climbing frames can help 'motor skills', they don't incite children to charge around with gay abandon as much.

Surely the main conclusion from this study is that some childcare centres need to be given a good kick up the backside for not giving their children the opportunity to goof around with a tennis ball.

These days even zoo animals are given toys to play with so that they remain fit and healthy. And since you can't expect a four-year-old to take themselves off on a five mile jog any more than you can a mongoose, surely the provision of toys is a bit of a no-brainer.

The stories in the article are from the website Null Hypothesis, the Journal of Unlikely Science where you can learn about even more insane wastes of money, read spoofs of science and discover the top ten most deadly vegetables. None of which are Brussels  sprouts, however. It's a fun site.

Sir: Yours of this date proposing Armistice, and appointment of Commissioners, to settle terms of Capitulation is just received. No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted.

I propose to move immediately upon your works.

I am Sir: very respectfully
Your obt. sevt.
U.S. Grant
Brig. Gen.

(Reply by U.S. Grant to Confederate Brig. Gen. Simon Bolivar Buckner's letter requesting surrender terms at Fort Donelson, February 16, 1862)

On February 16, 1862, somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000 Confederate troops surrendered at Fort Donelson, Tennessee to a Union Army commanded by Ulysses S. Grant. A breakout attempt on the previous day had failed when Grant rallied the troops and pushed the Confederates back inside their besieged fort. The victory earned Grant a new nickname "Unconditional Surrender Grant" and cost the Confederacy any hope of splitting Kentucky away from the Union. Most of Tennessee soon fell under Union Control.

Here's a history of the battle. Here's the Wikipedia article and here is the National Park Service website on the battlefiled park.