As some of you know, I've been interested in earning a spot on the American Thinker blog. Visually speaking, the site is reminiscent of something you'd expect to see coming from the Soviet Union if they'd had the Internet back then, but what AT lacks in style, it makes up for in cogent commentary.
The reason I'm pointing that out is because the other day, I was surprised to read a piece by John Lewis defending President Bush., for whom there is no defense, and I was doubly troubled after reading it because it was anything but cogent in my estimation, so being irritated, I wrote a response... which I then spiked for two reasons:
1) The people who commented on the Lewis piece reminded me of America c2c in that they saw Bush accomplishments where there were none, and they were quite willing to vociferously defend the guy who sold them out, and...
2) I felt that writing a rebuttal to a commentary that would be anything but kind to one of American Thinker's mainstay personalities would not be a great way to endear myself to the organization.
So I'm posting that response here, and I should note that AT did post a negative assessment of Bush subsequent to the Lewis piece, but it was directly addressing what Mr. Lewis had said, and while it did get the kind of knee-jerk response I'd expect from conservatives now, I was surprised at how many people see Bush the way I do - as weak, as a bad guy, and as a traitor to country, party, and... well, I can't say he's a traitor to conservative ideology, since he has never been accused of being a conservative. So then why do conservatives defend someone who is not one of them and who has sold them out so completely that they may never recover?
With that, here's what I wrote...
As conservatives, we seem to easily recognize when liberals are being irrational in their criticisms and assessments of George Bush. After all, it has become part of their essence to be irrational and unreasonable. But many on the right seem incapable of doing a cold, hard, objective assessment of the President in terms of how he stacks up against conservative values and ideals, as well as what he's delivered in terms of furthering both, and they continue to attribute and impute qualities in Mr. Bush for which there is little or no evidence that he actually possesses them.
I had hoped John Lewis's commentary might provide insight as to why I should support a President who has turned his back on conservatives and their principles and in the process, I hoped to gain some understanding as to why so many conservatives still support him. Instead, what I read was a general, emotional, and virtually fact-free plea which was nothing more than a compilation of value judgments that conservatives employ when preaching to the choir. What made it so disappointing was that conservatives will have to discard these rose-colored glasses if they ever again hope to see their ideology ascending.
There is no doubt that conservative principles - and only conservative principles - can get America back on track, but conservatives have to stop making excuses when they are ignored by their own representatives, for it's not just the principles that matter, to borrow from a tired election slogan, it's the backbone, stupid. Conservatives have not only had none when it counted, they also seem to prefer not even dealing with the uncomfortable issues that ultimately determine their own success or failure. Bush's facilitation of socialism doesn't seem to trouble them much, but when an atheist puts a poster next to a Christmas display in Washington State, then they're furious.
I was teary-eyed when the Supreme Court blocked Al Gore's attempt to steal the election, I was proud and reassured when Bush stood tall in the wake of 9/11 and told the countries of the world that they were either with us or against us, and I even speculated about where they would locate his likeness on Mount Rushmore at the height of his early success in Iraq, but I did all this amidst early signs of trouble.
One was that prior to us being attacked, Bush had big plans for amnesty for illegal aliens, and they would have been implemented long ago had the towers not fallen. Then, even as we were rolling into Baghdad, there were signs that we were not prosecuting the war all-out - that as in Vietnam, we were pulling punches, and the biggest eye-opener was when we let Iraqis throw down arms and run away. Did we assume they'd been converted?
And we didn't actually let them run away, we simply didn't have the manpower to stop them. Then, as the insurgency took form and al Qaeda moved in, we, and by "we" I mean he, George Bush, seemed almost oblivious to what was happening, and it took the disaster in Fallujah to wake him up - but only for a while, because let's remember, for all the credit conservatives want to lavish on the President for the surge, it wasn't his idea. He was virtually forced to do it by people like McCain and by poor election results. It was either that of give the liberals what they wanted - defeat.
As this was happening internationally, at home Bush not only refused to follow his oath and enforce the border, but he openly derided critics who demanded he do so, and all this reached its nadir with the subsequent conviction of Ramon and Compean - and Bush's steadfastness in refusing to consider a pardon. Even if he grants one now, it's too late, even though it will relieve the agents and their families of suffering. As a headline On WorldNetDaily so aptly put it, Bush pardoned drug dealers while allowing the Border Patrol agents to rot, and this must have a devastating effect on the morale of those doing the thankless job of patrolling our borders.
When conservatives attempt to defend Bush, their big fall-back line is that "he kept us safe," but there are two big problems they don't apparently want to account for:
1) He didn't keep us safe. Unless you think his term started on Sept. 12, 2001? At best, he kept us safe after the biggest attack ever, and he has not only not kept us safe from financial disaster, he's contributed greatly to it. Then...
2) Keeping us safe is his job. If you do your job, you don't get praised for it, you simply get to keep it. People get praise and rewards for doing things over and above their duties. So one could argue that Bill Clinton did his job properly, but not doing one's job is a reason to criticize him, and possibly reason for one to lose his job... and Bush hasn't done his job, and he especially hasn't done his job in accordance with conservative tenets.
Which is why I wonder how it is that conservatives cannot bring themselves to criticize Bush for his many enormous failures that have resulted in McCain-Feingold, open borders, financial chaos, Republicans losing Congress and conservatives losing their bearings? Do they not realize that it's Bush himself who is mainly responsible for Democrat majorities and now, a Democrat President? Or do they still think that, for example, John McCain is responsible for McCain-Feingold?
The worst part is that the longer it takes for conservatives to face facts, the worse off we'll be, and the longer any possible recovery will take. Because right now, despite the way some see it, there is not a single conservative leader in the wings - not Palin, not Jindal, no one. People like Goldwater and Reagan were not shy about standing up and forcefully advocating conservative principles. Sarah Palin has come close, but when push came to shove, she was depressingly weak.
And your average conservative is weaker still. He not only can't find the courage to call a spade a spade, he seems to lack the ability to distinguish fact from fantasy. Conservatives can't figure out what's important and what's not - who's with them and who's against them.
Which reminds me, what do you call a President does his job with one armed tied behind his back and who's become the biggest socialist ever? That's right, Lefty.
It seems to me that small minds are like transistors - they get smaller with each passing year so more of them can be crammed into the same space.
-----
Too many atheists and religious people are equally disturbing. Both are amazingly arrogant in their beliefs without any basis whatsoever, and both try to bring you down if you don't subscribe to their idea of what's true. I tend to side with Bible believers because they advocate ethical and moral behavior, but if you don't accept either side's arguments, at least atheists only express disdain instead of threatening you with eternal damnation. Although that may be simply an atheist's recognition of the limitations of his theory. And I hasten to add that if you're an atheist... and you believe in global warming, I shudder to think what a conversation with you would be like.
-----
Speaking of religion, an interview with Glenn Beck has been removed from the Focus on the Family website because of the many complaints it generated. It's not that Beck said or did anything wrong, it's because Beck is not Christian enough (which was news to me). See, he's Mormon, and that is apparently as threatening as atheism. Here's how one complainer so very aptly put it:
"It is disturbing to hear the amount of calls coming in from "Christians" who extend that term to Mr. Beck. Unfortunately, there are many confused or just plain ignorant people who don't know the Bible or the tenants of Mormon." - Fran
And Fran wasn't done yet:
"To lump them both into the category of Christian does injustice to truth. You may or may not espouse the gulf between the two, but I am glad to see that the difference was indeed made by reporting the comments in your article. It is too bad that Focus On the Family did not make that important distinction initially and had to withdraw the interview."
Wouldn't you love to hear Fran "espouse" the actual "tenants" of injustices done to both? And note that, to Fran, it wasn't so important what Beck might have said, it was only important that Focus on the Family came to its senses, however tardy it may have been.
-----
This has been an eye-opening year for me vis-a-vis other conservatives, and I can now say with complete confidence that the left and the right are virtual equals. As a group, both are stupid, ignorant, biased, vicious, and above all, unworthy of trust. I had hoped that the conservatives from whom I'd fled several years ago were an aberration, but looking back, they were actually much better than ones I've encountered here and over at America c2c in recent months.
-----
For many years, I've been asking how people were buying these houses and cars at these prices, and how they're getting so much credit, and now I know. I'd been operating under the assumption that the old rules were still in effect where people had to actually qualify to borrow money. Because I hadn't tried, I didn't know that all you had to do over the past few years was name your amount. And with respect to a house at least, you didn't even have to start paying it back right away. That's why flipping shows proliferated. Somebody with zero experience in remodeling would buy a house for five hundred grand, and I'd sit there with my jaw on the floor trying to figure out how they did it. The point is, I kept saying that this bubble had to burst, but I wasn't confident in my pronouncement because I had no clue as to what was actually happening. Now that I do, it seems to me that any expectations of a quick recovery are unrealistic at best.
-----
If you haven't noticed, my interest and motivation in this sort of thing has faded considerably. So much so that I find myself wondering not just why I do this, but why I did this. As I get older, the biggest difference between Howard Hughes and me is a wooden airplane... and of course the money it takes to indulge in such things. By way of contrast with Mr. Hughes (though actually, it may be a similarity), the other day, my wife and I nearly died laughing at something Judge Judy said to the latest woman in the enormously long line of dumb females who give money to shiftless men and then sue to get it back.
-----
And regarding Madame Sheindlin, I can't credit her directly, but I do think she's the reason why I relish watching Lifetime's movies. It's become a game now with my wife and me... we're watching, watching, waiting, and she's quietly trying to guess the point at which I finally can't stand it anymore and I yell at the bad guy (now the good guy), "That's it, get the bitch!" But see, that almost always ends in frustration when, no matter how stupid she is, the woman emerges triumphant. Not so on Judge Judy (who my wife loves specifically because JJ does my yelling for me). In fact, I so wish I would have become a judge. They may be the only people who can tell someone she's an idiot right to her face without the slightest fear of consequences.
-----
In the past, we've called the transition from one President to another "the changing of the guard." This time however, I think a computer term is far more appropriate - GIGO.
-----
I'm concerned about the possibility that you might regard one or more of the above comments as being somehow positive, because I had hoped this entire entry would be unremittingly negative. See, I'm neither an atheist, nor am I religious, so this is the only way I know to bring you down.
We're watching a Fox & Friends Christmas special on this Christmas Eve evening, and they are about to play charades (yes, this passes for high entertainment in our household)
So Steve Doucy shows the guy what he has to get his group to say and the fellow says, "OK, five words" as the screen caption says "Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy."
Me: And the guy says FIVE words!?
Wife: Is that from Cracker Nuts?"
Me: Y... huh?"
Wife: The Nutcracker? Sorry, it just came out...
Me: (Laughing uncontrollably as I nonchalantly reach for the keyboard):
(long pause)
Wife: Are you writing about what I said?
Me (Shaking head in the affirmative):
Wife: On Christmas?
Me: Mmm-Hmm.
Wife: Damnit...
Now it occurred to me that you didn't catch the conversation in which I explained my wife's use of Damnit, so here's my Christmas gift to you...
A Conversation With The Wife About Kings And Countries
(I think to fully appreciate this, you need to realize how my wife says "Damn it." It's not the way you do all day, everyday, as an exclamation - "DAMN IT!" No, hers is soft, almost apologetic - "Daaamn iiiit."
So the Final Jeopardy subject was: Country Names (not to be confused with Country Roads)
And the questions was:
"Some people in this Asian country named for a European king now want to call it by an indigenous name, Maharlika"
Me: Let's see, it's gotta be... down... there...
Wife: Malaysia.
Me: There's a European king named Malaysia?
Wife: I don't know.
(Pause as the music plays)
Me: The Philippines
Wife: No.
(Time expires)
(Only the Champion gets it right)
(And the answer is...)
(The Philippines!)
Wife: Damn it.
Now, would you care to guess where my wife is from?
Wife: How did you know that?
Me: King Philip... ?
Wife:
Me: Of Spain...?
Wife: Damn it
Me: How come you didn't know?
Wife: I probably did...
Me: Oh yeah, that "no" you gave me meant it was right on the tip of your tongue?
Wife: They probably taught us that in grade school
Me: And you forgot it?
Wife: Damn it.
Me:
Wife: I'm glad they didn't change it to Maharlika...
Me: They're THINKING ABOUT IT!
Wife: Damn it.
Me: That would make you a Maharlikan?
Wife:
It seems that the biggest reaction coming from the White House in over seven years is its response to the New York Times article which blames Bush for the mortgage crisis. And that's precisely the problem.
Defenders of the worst President that history will ever see are saying that the Times itself blamed the Clinton administration and other factors ten or so years ago for what would then be the coming crisis, and my response to that is - so what?
Yes, Clinton and people like Barney Frank were and are to blame, by Bush knew that there were big problems ahead, and yet he did nothing , as is his custom (has any President done less?). He could have and should have been at the podium on a daily basis warning of what would happen, but he wasn't. Had he done so, he'd have avoided virtually all blame. And today, he's the biggest socialist this country will hopefully ever see.
My own feeling is that there's nothing now that Bush doesn't deserve blame for. Even things he did right went badly and he responded by doing too little, too late to correct the little he has corrected, not to mention that he's acted unilaterally in bailing out the auto industry, when he could have been hailed, as Reagan was, for breaking the back of a union.
I hope you'll all forgive me, but this seems to be the easiest way to reach everyone who responded to my other entires on this subject.
One of the amazing things about blogging is that you often don't know what will pique people's interest. In this case, I thought I'd be writing to the air, and instead, it's turned out to be the most interesting (to me anyway) discussion I've had in quite some time. So I'd like to sum up what I got from it and try to address the individual points made, but again, your perceptions may vary.
The first thing of interest was what seems to be the enormous price difference between Apple and MSFT-based PCs. An Apple would have to really be something special to cause me to jump ship - and it may be, but it appears that I have no way of knowing without buying one, and I've been disappointed by inflated expectations too many times now, not to mention how upset I'd be over spending a lot of extra money for a minimal ROI.
I'm also concerned that I'd be giving up some conveniences in favor of others, and I hate when that happens even with program upgrades I get for free. I mean, when you get used to something, you don't want it to vanish, you want it to be replaced by something even better. And in that respect, my first line of interest is the browser. I can't imagine that Safari even approaches Maxthon in terms of features and convenience. I've tried the others - Firefox, Opera, even that Google crap, and I found Firefox to be second best (for me), and I hasten to add that there are some things I thought FF did better. However, overall, I felt it didn't match Maxthon.
But see, I like the way Maxthon has the auto-hiding favorites sidebar as shown in the photo. As I recall Firefox has that too, but whether it was the bar itself or the way you access or manage your favorite links, as I recall, Firefox was clunkier, while Maxthon can be made sleek and fluid (note the narrow top bars. And since browsing is what I do the most by far, even minor annoyances are unrelentingly disconcerting.
Then, as I mentioned elsewhere, there's the enormous array of free programs. I've downloaded five today, mostly upgrades, and that's fairly typical. But owing to the comments of Mac proponents, I wonder if some of what I "need" is peculiar to PCs? I ask because a lot of what I grab for free involves tweaking and maintenance - programs that remove unnecessary and outdated registry items, for example. or the half dozen different spyware detectors I use. And maybe Apple computers don't need their disks defragged? There's a lot of maintenance I do almost daily. Unfortunately, a lot of it has become compulsive, and I probably only need to do it weekly at best - and it may be a contributing factor to the re-installation troubles I've had, one just doesn't know, and I may not be able to stop myself it it does.
What I do know is that when Vista runs well, it runs well. Or as Jeff puts it, "It's not that bad." In fact, since this last reinstall, I'm amazed at how well things are going. I still use dialup, having not yet been able to justify broadband expenses, but suddenly, pages are loading noticeably faster than ever. And I find I'm now motivated NOT to tweak anything, especially because I've learned that the more you learn about Windows, the more you don't know. As I've said, people seems to have wildly different ideas as to what constitutes an optimum tweaking value, and so this becomes the biggest and most vague area involving individual customization.
I'm especially impressed though by the fact that whether we use PCs or Macs, there seems to be an attitude that we're all in this together - not to mention that I've come to realize that what I think everyone else knows is not necessarily the case (I was very surprised that people didn't know about Maxthon, for instance). So Jeff has offered to be of assistance, and Schomer has even gone so far as to offer his discount. That's amazing to me. It makes me wish we could work this closely on life's bigger issues.
For my part, it will probably be a while before I buy another computer, and then there's the problem of networking should I be interested in ever switching to a Mac, and that's another problem I hadn't even dealt with in my previous entries. In fact, I hadn't even thought of it until now.
But I want to say that regardless of where this leads me, this has been a very enjoyable discussion. Although it has also caused me to realize why I discourage responses. It's not only hard to address everyone individually, and then it's even harder to be as detailed as you may want to be since what may be interesting to me could be very tedious to others.
Which is why I try to break the tedium at times with personal threats and insults. I figure that while it might make someone angry, he or she is at least no longer disinterested?! Then again, maybe that just what holds my interest?
Seriously though, I hope you all have a great Christmas, and your responses have been a marvelous gift to me.
Ted
Oh, and Jeff, yes, it was talking about the icon tray on the bottom right. Some icons just don't retain the status you assign them (show or hide)
Hat tip to Zak for advice on embedding pictures!.
I want to own a Mac.
I just don't think I can justify it.
I know Apple computers are more stable, but, and this may only be my impression, PCs are far cheaper, and they have infinitely more programs available by actual count... because I'm still counting.
And never having used a Mac, I don't know how much easier it is to use on a daily basis, but I do know that Vista is unnecessarily complicated, though once you get through the learning curve, it's not so bad, I think... but I'll have to let you know for sure when I do.
There's a Microsoft ad running now that tells how people were given Vista to use and they were apparently told it's a future operating system in development - and the loved it. The point apparently is that the wonderful new operating system is available right now, so rush out and get one.
Except that the ad has me screaming every time I see it, so it's fortunate that I've only happened upon it a few times.
First, you know these ignorant morons were thoroughly coached, something that Microsoft doesn't do for people who actually buy their product, and second, the ad talks about some great features and things you can do with Vista, but it doesn't tell you that you can't do them with the system as it comes installed on your computer. At minimum it requires add-ons and upgrades.
And on the other hand, I thought I needed Vista to take advantage of all the news technology that's out there - and I do, but only because Microsoft abandoned Windows 98 and XP, and so outside developers must as well.
But here are the bigger problems in switching to a Mac, at least as I perceive them:
1) The cost is prohibitive. last May, I bought the Dell with a 2.4g processor, 320g hard drive, Blu-ray ready video card, and a 24" monitor for $750. delivered. My belief is that a Mac of similar configuration would have been fifty percent more?
2) I haven't bought a program for my computer since the early nineties. Everything is available for free, and more comes out everyday, and I marvel that I paid forty bucks for Print Shop in like 1990, and now you get programs that would have cost hundreds back then, and they cost nothing.
And I probably install two or three on an average day (which is likely one of the big reasons I have problems). There are programs for literally everything - sticky notes, checking all your email accounts, web and POP3 from one program, and other utilities that wake your head spin with delight, a lot of which you didn't realize you needed until you see them and read what they do.
And then there are the tweakers - which are probably another huge reason why I have to reinstall Vista every other month, but some of them work shockingly well, such that I bet I've sped up and already fast system by a third to fifty percent.
In other words, I think I'm going through a painful period of readjustment, and that when I find what works, and what doesn't destroy the system I'll be a lot happier. So I expect some problems, it's just that I'm never prepared for the size and scope of some of them.
Regarding the Mac, I'd be willing to pay more if it could do all that I can do with a PC, but only marginally more - like fifty bucks, and I'd go a hundred for something dazzling. Otherwise, Dealing with Vista is both painful and stressful, and the help screens are worthless, but I can usually find answers on the Net, and when I can't, I know it's because I've done something no one else is experiencing, and yes, that means I take responsibility for causing a number of my problems...
But I'd never tell Dell that.
Besides, I like those darn Indians, and I get to talk to them for five more months. I'll tell ya, if I didn't already have a wife... who better than an Indian woman who knows Vista?!
I'm finally almost back to normal in my re-re-installation of Vista, but that "almost" is a huge qualifier. See, the first thing you want to do when you start in on a fresh Vista install is to turn off all the "security" features, and it's a race to do that before they drive you completely nuts. And even when you turn them off, they're never completely turned off; you still get a question every time you open a new .exe file which asks you if you really, really want to open it. I turned off the firewall, and the "defender," and UAC, which if you don't know what that is, you're in for a treat when you do get Vista because that's where all the fun begins. And I discovered that some programs wouldn't run after I turned everything off. That's because when you do turn off UAC, it apparently turns off in the state it was in when it was last on, so if it had stopped something from running, well, it's still stopped. Except that when I tried to turn UAC back on, I couldn't. And what's even more irritating are the messages you get to 'contact your administrator." I did - he's me! And I didn't know what the hell to tell myself, much less do anything to correct it. So it's hello Indians. One hour later, the problem was seemingly solved. I mean, I got UAC turned back on, shut everything back off again "in the proper order," and the program I'd wanted to run but couldn't before now ran like a charm. All it took was a registry hack. Most everyone probably knows now that a registry hack is something no average person would ever think of much less know how to do, but in this case, all it took was to change a 1 to a 0, and I was good to go. As long as you realize that means there was no control panel applet that dealt with the problem, so if I didn't have the Indians in the Dell, I'd be rampaging around the Internet reading technical forums where those idiots think everyone knows as much as they do, so they literally write in a foreign language that consists of English words arranged in such a way that Chinese would make more sense. Anyway, Now I was on to setting my email accounts back up, and ... I want to get this exactly right... "Windows Mail can't be opened. A software restriction policy is preventing Windows mail from opening. Contract your system administrator for more information." Do you think if I had an administrator cap specially made it would make a difference? So I headed back to Dell, where I got an Indian named, interestingly enough, Julie, with whom I spent twenty minutes on the phone and got absolutely nowhere. In fact, I don't think I was ever completely successful in getting her to understand the problem, and so she finally uttered those most dreaded words... Wanna guess what they are? That's right, "You should contact Microsoft." As a reasonably knowledgeable Vista user and Microsoft shareholder, I can tell you without reservation that you should never attempt to contact Microsoft, and it's not just because they don't want to hear from you. No, it's because if you ever do get through, that's where your problems really start, beginning with proving that you actually own a Microsoft product. Anyway, I told "Julie" that if she couldn't help me, she should just say so, and I would call back later and hopefully get someone who could. That's when Julie began to explain the limits of their training and how this is not a Dell problem, it's a software problem. And that's when I lost it. I informed Julie that it was Dell who sold me the computer - which included the operating system, and so it was their problem, and I demanded to know who told her to say what she said. She responded by asking me to detail the exact problem again, and rather than swear at an Indian maiden, I hung up. So Windows Mail still won't work, and I had to download Dream Mail as a temporary solution, but it lacks some of the nuances I had in Windows Mail, and so I will be calling Dell back - once I've calmed down. Now the question has been asked, "Why do I put up with this?" And the answer for me is threefold, but I'm no scientist, so I'm open to suggestions... First, there are a boatload of programs, including tiny utilities, that do what Mac and Linux operating systems apparently cannot. Second, Dell computers are half the price on Macs, and third, as I mentioned, I own Microsoft stock, and I probably will forever because it's at about half where I bought it at. Plus, I learned that if you yell loud enough and you have a legitimate beef, Dell hands you money. For example, when I bought this computer, a woman talked me into opening a Dell preferred account. I figured, why not? Then if something went wrong, I would actually have leverage since I would owe Dell directly. But what she'd neglected to tell me is that my $100. Dell gift card was not redeemable with a Dell account, so when the bill arrived, it was precisely $100. more than I'd expected - which, one way or the other, I wouldn't be paying. Of course, that's easy for me to say, since I used to be a credit manager and I have long experience in consumer related matters, and to prove it, I'm going to dig out a conversation I had with the wife regarding a local grocery store and that will be my next entry. But first, I called Dell customer service, and after going through a few people, I again explained the details to one fellow about how I hadn't gotten credit for my gift card, had it explained back that the gift card was a nonentity with Dell accounts, and it was then I asked the big question: "Is there any way the representative didn't know that when I gave her the card number?" And the guy I was talking to simply said, "No." Now I've long demanded that businesses be accountable for their mistakes, especially when they create needless nuisance and even damage their customers, and in this case, I was damaged to the tune of hours on the phone trying to get to someone who understand the problem - and near as I can tell, this is it: Dell reps get some sort of bonus for opening Dell accounts, so that was of paramount importance to the woman who took my order. And in fact, she hadn't even taken my order. I had already placed the order online and put in on a credit card, so my Dell gift card had been accepted. But I had to call Customer Service because I discovered that there was a deal I discovered after I placed the order that allowed me to get more and better memory for a mere twenty bucks. When the woman made the correction, she actually made two in the course of "converting" me to a Dell account. But the guy I was speaking to got it. he ended up crediting me the hundred bucks - and telling me to keep the gift card for another purchase. See, that's why I put up with this. I used that card two weeks ago to buy my wife an MP3 player that ended up costing the same as a player with a quarter of its capacity would have if I didn't have the card. So my wife has the player she's long wanted, and which has now sat idle since she opened the package ten days ago. So all is well... and usual.
I used to just make jokes about the warmalarmists, but when they started to want to act on their absurd and arrogant theories, things got serious. Now, of course, they are worthy only of contempt for clinging to a belief that is preposterous at best, and life threatening at worst.
I'm not talking about warming being life threatening, I'm talking about their proposed "cure," which would impose more than just economic hardship on a great many people.
As I've said many times, when I first became aware that there were idiots who wanted to actually do something about so-called "anthropogenic global warming," I knew almost nothing about the subject other than the fact that man wasn't causing anything. The reason I knew that is because I gave it the "Judge Judy Test" - if it doesn't make sense, it isn't true.
And the more I read, the less sense it made, except in one sense - a whole bunch of people stood to gain from promoting panic.
I don't mean people like the poor saps here on Vox who mindlessly believe the hype, I'm talking about criminals like Al Gore, and the many "scientists" who signed onto what is not only a false premise, but and obviously false one. They've set science back and they now have the credibility on the same level as politicians.
What prompted me to write about this again were several recent articles. The first was a shrill and panicked piece by, who else, the AP, in which the fool writer claimed that it's so cold that we've got to act fast to curb the warming.
I wish that was my weak attempt at a joke, but it's not. It was simply the biggest leap yet to keep people in fear, and the good news is that the AP was widely ridiculed for the article.
That's because more real scientists are finally stepping forward to label the warming sham what it is.
But it's important to note that by "real scientists," I don't mean to imply that they are more qualified than the UN climate panel bunch, I only mean that they put science above personal gain, and I think that's obvious since they put themselves at risk simply by speaking up.
They also demonstrate what real scientists do - they doubt. because science doesn't rely on consensus. that means nothing. That's why I'm so hard on people here who invoke "peer review," which actually means less than nothing, but it sounds so good, not only to laymen, but to those people who have a little scientific training and are so desperate to belong.
They belong all right - I won't say where. I don't need to. There's only one place that's home to wildly delusional people.
And there's no doubt they are that because of the second article that points to such fallacious thinking that causes people who should be objective in questioning just about everything to believe that "scientific consensus" equals "true."
It happens that Earth has sprung a leak. Maybe even two. And if true, there's even less we can do about it than we can about climate change. According to Space.com, "Scientists have found two large leaks in Earth's magnetosphere, the region around our planet that shields us from severe solar storms."
Oh heck!
And these leaks are:
"defying many of scientists' previous ideas on how the interaction between Earth's magnetosphere and solar wind occurs: The leaks are in an unexpected location, let in solar particles in faster than expected and the whole interaction works in a manner that is completely the opposite of what scientists had thought."
Completely the opposite?!
And up to now, scientists believed the opposite of the opposite? How could that be?
It be because almost nothing is certain in science, if for no other reason than the universe isn't static. But probably an even bigger reason is that we don't know what we don't know. In other words, despite the desire on the part of scientists to be regarded as we regard doctors, they actually are only one step ahead of you and me in what they know... and that can be dangerous.
And what they don't even realize is that doctors themselves are in the same boat. I bet everyone has had a doctor tell them something as gospel, and they find out later it was... well... just the opposite. And when you question doc about it, he still believes he has the right info.
So now it's not enough that the fraud of "global warming" is exposed because an awful lot of people believe it, and a lot of people have an interest in keeping them believing in it - just like all religions do.
Luckily, there are more non-believers relative to believes with respect to religious warming than there are when it comes to conventional religion, but no one should expect that warmalarmist efforts to impose their beliefs, their programs, and their taxes on you will end, much less that they will disappear.
I said back when that it was wrong to point to unexpectedly cold weather as evidence that warming isn't happening, and that's because not only does that put people in the position of having to react to and justify every little temperature anomaly, but because the Earth, in fact, may be warming, but that's not a crisis, and if it is warming, the proper reaction should be to welcome it and make it work to our advantage.
In the meantime, if ever there was an argument to be made against freedom of speech, it should resemble a group picture of the UN's climate committee.
