Michelle Malkin: al Qaeda on the run

Michelle Malkin: al Qaeda on the run

One Hand Clapping � Blog Archive � More on ethanol fantasies

One Hand Clapping � Blog Archive � More on ethanol fantasies

One Hand Clapping � Blog Archive � Wal-Mart video download - not ready for primetime

One Hand Clapping � Blog Archive � Wal-Mart video download - not ready for primetime

Cafe Hayek: Let's Have Less Hot Air About Global Warming

Let's grant (if just for the sake of argument) that environmental scientists have proved that Earth's ideal average temperature was reached about a century ago and that the temperature is rising because of human activity ("Just the facts," Op-Ed, yesterday).

The truth remains that these scientists have no expertise to judge whether government can be trusted with the power and resources to "combat" global warming. Nor can these scientists tell us how a free market likely would deal with global warming's consequences.

Contrary to widespread belief, environmental scientists can legitimately say nothing about whether, or how, to respond to global warming.

DONALD J. BOUDREAUX
Chairman
Department of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax

Cafe Hayek: Let's Have Less Hot Air About Global Warming

CHARMING, JUST CHARMING: Something to Think About...

CHARMING, JUST CHARMING: Something to Think About...: "'A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.' .....................by Marcus Tullius Cicero"

CHARMING, JUST CHARMING

CHARMING, JUST CHARMING: "Charles Krauthammer has made the right call in THIS COLUMN. The 'hate America'..'blame America'..crowd is quick to criticize anything that our forces do in Iraq. But as Krauthammer writes:

We have made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. But when Arabs kill Arabs and Shiites kill Shiites and Sunnis kill all in a spasm of violence that is blind and furious and has roots in hatreds born long before America was even a republic, to place the blame on the one player, the one country, the one military that has done more than any other to try to separate the combatants and bring conciliation is simply perverse.

It infantilizes Arabs. It demonizes Americans. It willfully overlooks the plainest of facts: Iraq is their country. We midwifed their freedom. They chose civil war."

CONTROLLED GREED.com: Book Values: Self-Help

The four books I've enjoyed are:

The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, by Benjamin Franklin. Some dispute this even being considered a "Self-Help" book. I include it because Old Ben offers more wisdom for living life and dealing with people in a few pages than most could offer up in volumes.

How to Win Friends & Influence People, by Dale Carnegie. I read this book in 1996 when I took The Dale Carnegie Course: Effective Communications & Human Relations. One of the best things I ever did. If I owned a company, it would be mandatory that every employee took this course. If you don't care to take it, reading this book is the next best thing.

Succeeding, by John T. Reed. This gem isn't available in book stores or on Amazon. You have to buy it from Reed's website. Reed is a West Point grad, former Army Ranger, Harvard Business School grad, football coach, former real estate investor and author of numerous books, mostly on real estate investing. His style might not appeal to some, and you or I might not agree with all his views, but we can all find this work worthwhile.

The Templeton Plan, by John Marks Templeton and James Ellison. Yes, this is the same John Templeton who made global investing a household term. No stock tips. Just 21 steps to personal success and real happiness.

Of course, you may have benefited from works by folks like Norman Vincent Peale, Stephen Covey, Les Brown and many more. Like I said, the bookstores are packed this time of year with people looking at bookshelf after bookshelf of these books. I could never begin to read them all -- I'd never have to time to read anything else. Or do anything, either.

But getting a bit of inspiration here or there, and gaining a few nuggets of wisdom, can only impact our lives for the better. And wouldn't that have left Samuel Smiles with a grin on his face? ;-)

CONTROLLED GREED.com: Book Values: Self-Help

Herb Greenberg

Herb Greenberg: "'No. We've been here before, and the consequences -- though not always immediate -- have invariably been bad. There is not a single instance in historical data since 1871 when the S&P 500 traded above 18-times record earnings and there was not a low a year or more later that erased every bit of advantage over Treasury bills. Not one.'

He concludes, 'Simply put, there is no investment merit to the stock market at these valuations.'"

: "Sex and Intoxication"

See the info for young girls and boys after the story!

.:. WitNit .:.: Another Scientist Speaks Out Against Global Warming

.:. WitNit .:.: Another Scientist Speaks Out Against Global Warming

Another Scientist Speaks Out Against Global Warming

n case you missed it, check out this article written by a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Here's a sample:

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

And more interesting material from The Wall Street Journal:

Take rising sea levels. In its 2001 report, the U.N.'s best high-end estimate of the rise in sea levels by 2100 was three feet. Lord Monckton notes that the upcoming report's high-end best estimate is 17 inches, or half the previous prediction. Similarly, the new report shows that the 2001 assessment had overestimated the human influence on climate change since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.

Such reversals (and there are more) are remarkable, given that the IPCC's previous reports, in 1990, 1995 and 2001, have been steadily more urgent in their scientific claims and political tone. It's worth noting that many of the policymakers who tinker with the IPCC reports work for governments that have promoted climate fears as a way of justifying carbon-restriction policies. More skeptical scientists are routinely vetoed from contributing to the panel's work. The Pasteur Institute's Paul Reiter, a malaria expert who thinks global warming would have little impact on the spread of that disease, is one example.

U.N. scientists have relied heavily on computer models to predict future climate change, and these crystal balls are notoriously inaccurate. According to the models, for instance, global temperatures were supposed to have risen in recent years. Yet according to the U.S. National Climate Data Center, the world in 2006 was only 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer than it was in 2001--in the range of measurement error and thus not statistically significant.

The models also predicted that sea levels would rise much faster than they actually have. The models didn't predict the significant cooling the oceans have undergone since 2003--which is the opposite of what you'd expect with global warming. Cooler oceans have also put a damper on claims that global warming is the cause of more frequent or intense hurricanes. The models also failed to predict falling concentrations of methane in the atmosphere, another surprise.

Meanwhile, new scientific evidence keeps challenging previous assumptions. The latest report, for instance, takes greater note of the role of pollutant particles, which are thought to reflect sunlight back to space, supplying a cooling effect. More scientists are also studying the effect of solar activity on climate, and some believe it alone is responsible for recent warming.

Posted by witnit at February 5, 2007 3:12 PM

CHARMING, JUST CHARMING

CHARMING, JUST CHARMING

Forewarned is forearmed!

Econbrowser: Cantarell in decline

Econbrowser: Cantarell in decline: "im Puplava (of Puplava Securities and financialsense.com) mentioned back on 13 January 2007 that Cantarell was declining at around 14%/year, Ghawar at around 8%/year, and Burgan (in Kuwait) at around 11%/year. The WSJ article's figures make Cantarell's drop more like 25% over the past year or so."

Econbrowser: Cantarell in decline

Econbrowser: Cantarell in decline: "From Saturday's Wall Street Journal ($$$): Mexico's biggest field declining significantly!

The virtual collapse at Cantarell-- the world's second-biggest oil field in terms of output at the start of last year-- is unfolding much faster than projections from Mexico's state-run oil giant Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex. Cantarell's daily output fell to 1.5 million barrels in December compared to 1.99 million barrels in January, according to figures from the Mexican Energy Ministry.

Mexico made up for some of the field's decline. Mexico's overall oil output fell to just below three million barrels a day in December, down from almost 3.4 million barrels at the start of the year. It marked Mexico's lowest rate of oil output since 2000....

The field's decline is expected to continue, if not worsen, this year, according to most estimates."

The real deal?

The real deal on GLOBAL WARMING?

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The real deal?

The real deal on GLOBAL WARMING?

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The First Post : Robert Fox: Gulf stands on brink of all-out war

The First Post : Robert Fox: Gulf stands on brink of all-out war: "his is not the only threat facing the allies as they stare defeat in the face in Iraq. Tensions are rising between the Americans and the British.

American officials, particularly in the CIA, have criticised the British approach to dealing with the Iraqis, particularly the Shia militias in the south of the country.

A confidential British briefing paper says this is now a major bone of contention. 'The Americans believe the British should take out the Mahdi Army "

Bill Rempel, a.k.a. NO DooDahs! - � My Stock Screens

Bill Rempel, a.k.a. NO DooDahs! - � My Stock Screens

Stockpickr! OIH Components Most Correlated with Crude Oil Portfolio

Stockpickr! OIH Components Most Correlated with Crude Oil Portfolio

Financial Times Business News: Tyson warns on food versus fuel conflict - MSN Money

Blogs of War � Video: John Kerry Calls the U.S. an “International Pariah”

Blogs of War � Video: John Kerry Calls the U.S. an “International Pariah”

Ignore links above

Article by Geo Tag

Issue Date: January 2007, Posted On: 12/28/2006 It's the Tribes, Stupid by Steven Pressfield

Forget the Koran. Forget the ayatollahs and the imams. If we want to understand the enemy we're fighting in Iraq, the magic word is "tribe." Islam is not our opponent in Baghdad or Fallouja. We delude ourselves if we believe the foe is a religion. The enemy is tribalism articulated in terms of religion. For two years I've been researching a book about Alexander the Great's counter-guerrilla campaign in Afghanistan, 330-327 B.C.E. What struck me most powerfully is that that war is a dead ringer for the ones we're fighting today—even though Alexander was pre-Christian and his enemies were pre-Islamic. In other words, the clash of East and West is at bottom not about religion. It's about two different ways of being in the world. Those ways haven't changed in 2,300 years. They are polar antagonists, incompatible and irreconcilable. The West is modern and rational; its constituent unit is the nation. The East is ancient and visceral; its constituent unit is the tribe. What is a tribe anyway? The tribe is the most ancient form of social organization. It arose from the hunter-gatherer clans of pre-history. A tribe is small. It consists of personal, face-to-face relationships, often of blood. A tribe is cohesive. Its structure is hierarchical. It has a leader and a rigid set of norms and customs that defines each individual's role. Like a hunting band, the tribe knows who's the top dog and knows how to follow orders. What makes Islam so powerful in the world today is that its allembracing discipline and order overlay the tribal mind-set so perfectly. Islam delivers the certainty and security that the tribe is used to. It permits the tribal way to survive and thrive in a posttribal and super-tribal world. Am I knocking tribalism? Not at all. In many ways I think people are happier in a tribal universe. Consider the appeal of post-apocalyptic movies like The Road Warrior or The Day After Tomorrow. Modern life is tough. Who can fault us if now and then we entertain the idea of going back to the simple life? The people we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan live that life 24/7/365 and they've been living it for the past 10,000 years. They like it. It's who they are. They're not going to change. How do you combat a tribal enemy? Step one is to recognize that that enemy is tribal. We in the West may flatter ourselves that democracy is taking root in Iraq when we see news footage of blueink thumbs and beaming faces emerging from polls. What's really happening has nothing to do with democracy. What's happening is the tribal chief has passed the word and everybody is voting exactly as he told them to. What is the nature of the tribe? What can sociology tell us about its attributes? The tribe respects power. Saddam Hussein understood this. So did Tito, Stalin, Hitler. So will the next strong man who ultimately stabilizes Iraq. The tribe must have a chief. It demands a leader. With a top dog, every underdog knows his place. He feels secure. He can provide security for this family. The tribe needs a Tony Soprano. It needs a Godfather. The U.S. blew it in Iraq the first week after occupying Baghdad. Capt. Nate Fick of the Recon Marines tells the story of that brief interlude when U.S. forces were still respected, just before the looting started. Capt. Fick went in that interval to the local headman in his area of responsibility in Baghdad; he asked what he needed. The chief replied, "Clean water, electricity and as many statues of George W. Bush as you can give us." The tribe needs a boss. Alexander understood this. Unlike the U.S., the Macedonians knew how to conquer a country. When Alexander took Babylon in 333 B.C.E., he let the people know he was the man. They accepted this. They welcomed it. Life could go on. When we Americans declared in essence to the Iraqis, "Here, folks, you're free now; set up your own government," they looked at us as if we were crazy. The tribal mind doesn't want freedom; it wants security. Order. It wants a New Boss. The Iraqis lost all respect for us then. They saw us as naive, as fools. They saw that we could be beaten. The tribe is a warrior; its foundation is warrior pride. The heart of every tribal male is that of a warrior. Even the most wretched youth in a Palestinian refugee camp sees himself as a knight of Islam. The Pathan code of nangwali prescribes three virtues—nang, pride; badal, revenge; melmastia, hospitality. These guys are Apaches. What the warrior craves before all else is respect. Respect from his own people and, even more, from his enemy. When we of the West understand this, as Alexander did, we'll have taken the first step toward solving the unsolvable. The tribe places no value on freedom. The tribe is the most primitive form of social organization. In the conditions under which the tribe evolved, survival was everything. Cohesion meant the difference between starving and eating. The tribe enforces conformity by every means possible—wives, mothers and daughters add the whip hand to keep the warriors in line. Freedom is a luxury the tribe can't afford. The tribesman's priority is respect within the tribe, to belong, to be judged a man. You can't sell "freedom" to tribesmen any more than you can sell "democracy." He doesn't want it. It violates his code. It threatens everything he stands for. The tribe is bound to the land. I just read an article about Ariel Sharon (a tribal leader if there ever was one). The interviewer was describing how, as Sharon crossed a certain stretch of Israeli real estate, he pointed out with great emotion the hills where the Biblical character Abigail lived out her story. In other words, to the tribesman the land isn't for sale; it's been rendered sacred by the sagas of ancestors. The tribe will paint the stones red with its own blood before letting itself be evicted from the land. The tribe cannot be negotiated with. Tribes deal in absolutes. Their standards of honor cannot be compromised. Crush the tribe in one century, it will rise again a thousand years from now. We're seeing this now in a Middle East where the Crusades happened yesterday. When the tribe negotiates, it is always a sham—a stalling tactic meant to mitigate temporary weakness. Do we believe Iran is really "coming to the table?" As soon as the tribe regains power, it will abrogate every treaty and every pact. The tribe has no honor except within its own sphere, deriving justice for its own people. Its code is "Us versus Them." The outsider is a gentile, an infidel, a devil. These are just a few of the characteristics of the tribal mind. Now: what to do about this? How to deal with the tribal mind. You can't make deals with a tribal foe; they won't be honored. You can't buy them; they'll take your money and despise you. The tribe can't be reasoned with. Its mind is not rational, it's instinctive. The tribe is not modern but primitive. The tribe thinks from the stem of its brain, not the cortex. Its code is of warrior pride, not of Enlightenment reason. To deal successfully with the tribe, a negotiator of the West must first grant it its pride and honor. The tribe's males must be addressed as warriors; its women must be treated with respect. The tribe must be left to its own land, to govern as it deems best. If you want to get out of a tribal war, you must find a scenario by which the tribe can declare itself victorious. The tribal mind is canny; it knows when it's whipped. But its warrior pride is so fierce, it cannot admit this. The tribe has to be allowed its face. How Alexander got out of a quagmire. It took Alexander three years, but he finally got a handle on the tribal mind. (Perhaps because so many of his own Macedonians were basically tribal.) Alexander produced peace by marrying the daughter of his most powerful enemy, the princess Roxane. The tribe understands such an act. This is respect. This is honor. Alexander made the tribesmen his equals. He acknowledged their warrior honor. When he and his army marched out to their next conquest, Alexander took the bravest of his former enemies with him as his Companions. They rode at his side in stations of honor; they dined at his shoulder in the royal pavilion. (Of course, he also beat the living hell out of the Afghans for three years prior, and when he took off, he left a fifth of his army to garrison the place.) The outlook for the U.S. in Iraq. In the end, unless we're ready to treat them the way we did Geronimo, the tribe is unbeatable. They're just too crazy. They're not like us. Tolerance and open-mindedness are not virtues to them; they're signs of weakness. The tribe is too rigid to bend, and it can't be negotiated with. Perhaps, in the end, our leaders, like Alexander, will figure some way to bring the tribal foe around. More likely, in my opinion, they'll arrive at the same conclusion as did Lord Roberts, the legendary British general. Lord Roberts fought (and defeated militarily) tribesmen in two bloody wars in Afghanistan in the 19th century. His conclusion: get out. Lord Roberts' axiom was that the farther away British forces remained from the tribesmen, the more likely the tribesmen were to feel warmly toward them; the closer he got, the more they hated him and the more stubbornly and implacably they fought against him. Steven Pressfield's most recent book is "The Afghan Campaign: A Novel." © 2006 Steven Pressfield