Thursday, May 17, 2007
Global Warming Trifecta
Last night, I blogged about a parade of scientists coming out against global warming hysteria. If you'd like to read about a politician and a major publication doing the same, follow the links. I only wish the latter two were American!
That last link, which I learned about through the Harry Binswanger List, discusses an article in Der Spiegel which includes a balanced discussion of the pros and cons of changing global temperatures, even going so far as to discuss the possible advantages of warming (and pitfalls of cooling) and to mention that our climate fluctuates (gasp!) naturally.
OList ... List
Jim Woods recently posted a list of eight blogs he has encountered through the new mailing list for Objectivist Bloggers. Other blogs whose authors have made their introductions since include:
- An Objectivist in Vancouver
- Darren Cauthon
- We Stand Firm
- Try Reason!
- Allen's Image Adjustment
- The Crucible and Column
After being away from his blog for over a week, Myrhaf has returned to make some intelligent comments on Jerry Falwell and the Democrats' failed congressional power grab. From that second post:
I find this fascinating for two reasons. First, it shows the New Left's contempt for our parliamentary heritage from the 19th century and the traditions of liberty. In the end all their rhetoric about "democracy" is empty. Power is everything to them, and if a 200-year old rule is in the way, these two-bit Robespierres swat it aside without blinking.He also points to a quiz in his earlier post, in which the reader has to decide whether Osama bin Laden or either of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson said a series of statements.
Second, the reason they wanted to get rid of this rule is so they could expand state power without individual names going on record. Once again, they want power without the disadvantage of being held responsible. One gets a palpable sense from these people that they feel entitled to power without having to answer to the American people, whom they must consider beneath them.
Bolton on Iran
It really says something that one of the few people openly saying that we may have to attack Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons is John Bolton -- and it says much more that he is widely regarded as a "hawk":
Mr Bolton said: "It's been conclusively proven Iran is not going to be talked out of its nuclear programme. So to stop them from doing it, we have to massively increase the pressure."All else" failed long ago. I know I have linked to these numerous times already, but ....
"If we can't get enough other countries to come along with us to do that, then we've got to go with regime change by bolstering opposition groups and the like, because that's the circumstance most likely for an Iranian government to decide that it's safer not to pursue nuclear weapons than to continue to do so. And if all else fails, if the choice is between a nuclear-capable Iran and the use of force, then I think we need to look at the use of force." [bold added]
On the off chance that anyone happens by who doesn't already know what a real hawk sounds like, or does not think we have been pursuing the proper course regarding Islamofascism in general and Iran in particular, he should read John Lewis's timely outline of how we ought to wage the war (of which Iran's latest antics are but a part) and his brilliant defense of the use of overwhelming force against barbarism.
Their respective titles, by the way, are, "'No Substitute for Victory' The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism", and "The Moral Goodness of the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima". Aside from being grateful to Dr. Lewis for providing desperately-needed intellectual ammunition to the West, this author also finds his courage inspirational.
Banking in the Magic Kingdom
Through Isaac Schrodinger, I have learned quite a bit about how unbelievably backward and outright bizarre life in Saudi Arabia can be. And yet, my jaw drops open with each new story anyway. He recently passed on a link to an Englishman's account of his attempt to open a bank account over there.
I call the number again. I press 2 immediately and to my shock and delight I get through to someone. I explain I want to open a bank account. I expect him to ask me why I am calling him if I am standing in a branch of the bank. But he doesn't. Instead he asks me for some details. He wants to know my Iqama number, Iqama expiry date, Iqama place of issue, name, and nationality. I blink rapidly. I have just filled out this information ten times! Read my damned form for crying out loud! Is this some sort of sick joke?!Read it all.
In a tired, resigned voice I repeat the details I now know by heart. Everything has to be repeated three times. My patience astonishes me.
I don't hear the clicking of a keyboard through the phone. Is he actually taking these details down? Or does he have all his friends around the phone, having a laugh at the stupid Englishman who thinks he has to call the bank whilst standing in the bank so he can open a bank account?
The phone conversation is over. I'm given a number and instructed to go back to the queue and complete my application.
With sagging shoulders I go and get another ticket and sit down.
There are six numbers ahead of mine. There is fifteen minutes to prayer time. It's going to be close. People in thobes push in front of me. By now I understand why. It's going to very close. It's going to be.... Damn. I don't believe this.
I will return tomorrow in the hopes that they honour me with a bank account. I'm
worried. If it is this hard to give them my money, how hard is it going to be to get it back?
Today: Corrected section on OList. I blame weak coffee for the mistakes!