Environmentalists outraged at good news

Steve Hayward, author of "Index of Leading Environmental Indicators" writes

Elizabeth Rosenthal reported in the New York Times of a recent estimate from the Smithsonian Institution research in Central America suggesting that “for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster. . . The new forests, the scientists argue, could blunt the effects of rain forest destruction by absorbing carbon dioxide, the leading heat-trapping gas linked to global warming, one crucial role that rain forests play. They could also, to a lesser extent, provide habitat for endangered species.” The next sentence, however, has a drearily predictable beginning: “The idea has stirred outrage among environmentalists,” not because it might be untrue, but because it might blunt support for “vigorous efforts to protect native rain forests.”

Never let good news get in the way of one's agenda!

Getting Thrashed

My one victory in the tournament shown below was erased because my opponent withdrew from the tournament. The best I could do a tie for last. After analyzing my games using a computer, I was amazed to find that each of my opponent's moves was confirmed to be the best move. The possibility of this happening by chance on each and every move is essentially zero. So it appears my opponents were using a computer. Technically, it is against the rules to use a computer. I am getting wiped out in my other tournament games as well, so I suspect the same thing is happening. I will finish out my commitments in the other tournaments, but I think I will not play any more correspondence chess. If I wanted to play against a computer, I would just play against my own computer. Click on the image to enlarge.

Making Conservatism a Crime

It appears that many liberals and many in the Obama administration are not satisfied with an electoral victory, they want to send conservatives to prison. The recent push to criminalize essential policy differences has led President Obama to hint that he is open to the idea of bringing criminal charges against the Justice Department lawyers who wrote opinions that support waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods that could legally be used on al Qaeda detainees. So Obama is contemplating having lawyers prosecuted because s/he wrote a legal analysis with which the current administration disagrees. This is outrageous. Whether one agrees with the legal opinion written by the lawyers is immaterial. It is the naked attempt to criminalize the opinion that is astonishing.

The Real Pirates

Click to enlarge.

PC Police Gone Wild

So pirates should now be referred to as "voluntary coast guard."

Most Polarizing President Ever

Bush was often criticized for his my-way-or-the-highway politics, but Obama has already surpassed Bush is polarizing the country.

Note that Carter initially had good support from Republicans, and Nixon initially had good support from Democrats. Carter served only one term and Nixon didn't finish his second term.

Anarchy! Yes we can!

It seems even anarchists look to Obama as a comrade of sorts, but these anarchists have Obama all wrong. Obama doesn't want to overthrow any government. He wants to vastly expand its size and power.

Politicizing the Department of Justice

The Bush administration was often accused of politicizing the Justice Department (in many cases, the Bush administration was just doing the exact same thing the Clinton administration had been doing).

Today, the Washington Post reported that Attorney General Holder has rejected the legal opinion of the Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that the D.C. voting rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional. The new OLC is led by deputies selected and appointed by the Obama Administration. The current OLC reached the same conclusion that the OLC has since the early 1960s, i.e., that the bill is unconstitutional.

Holder was apparently unhappy with that conclusion and he asked the Solicitor General's office whether it "could defend the legislation if it were challenged after its enactment." Holder didn't ask whether the bill was constitutional, but whether a non-frivolous argument could be made in defense of its constitutionality. The SG's office concluded that one could be made.

This shows that Holder is keenly aware that the bill is unconstitutional, and Holder is sworn to uphold the Constitution, but he reversed the OLC decision based only on advice that a contrary view of the Constitution is not frivolous, which has little to do with constitutionality. It appears that Holder is aiming for political ends that favor his view of the world. Of course, we will hear nothing about politicization of the Obama DOJ from the media.