Obama vs. iPad

I was torn.  Which was more important?  The State of the Union or The iState of the Nation?  In the end I watch the highlight reel.

John STEWART was funny but Mark STEYN nailed him.

• Talking, talking, talking. He talked for 90 minutes at the State of the Union.
• Like any gifted orator, the president knows how to vary the talk with a little light and shade. Sometimes he hectors, sometimes he whines, sometimes he demands. He hectored the Supreme Court.
• He does Nixon impressions, too: "We do not quit," he said.  Boy, you can say that again! So he did: "We don't quit. I don't quit," he said. 
• As President Obama sees it, whatever the problem – from health care to education, banking to the environment – the solution is more Washington.
• Obama blames "Washington" – a Washington mired in "partisanship" and "pettiness" and "the same tired battles" and "Washington gimmicks" that do nothing but ensure that our "problems have grown worse." Washington, Obama tells us, is "unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems."
• So let's have more Washington! In our schools, in our hospitals, in our cars, in everything!
• Which raises the question: Does even Obama listen to Obama's speeches?
• Obama and the Democrats have decided, in the current cliché, to "double down."
• What's the end game here? President Obama gave it away in his student-loan "reform" proposals: If you choose to go into "public service," any college-loan debts will be forgiven after 10 years.
• Because "public service" is more noble than the selfish, money-grubbing private sector. C'mon, everybody knows that. So we need to encourage more people to go into "public service." Why?
• Like most lifelong politicians, Barack Obama has never created, manufactured or marketed any product other than himself. So, quite reasonably, he sees government dependency as the natural order of things.

Meanwhile, Steve JOBS looks tired - poor guy, this looks to me like his last hurrah.

Andrew WEAVER - IPCC Canada Editor decamps

The heat is on and it is time to get out of the kitchen - at least that is the conclusion given in this Commentary by Terrance CORCORAN in the Financial Post.  Mr. Weaver has been a major IPCC science insider for years. (He is Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria)

Fast on the heels of Climategate in November 2009, we have now heard of another catastrophe - Glaciergate.   It is now clear that the much vaunted "peer review" of the IPCC  Reports was nothing more than sycophantic preening and the odd Chair of the UN appointed IPCC Committee, Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri (who is after all only a railway engineer) will be forced to step down.

SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION?  by Joseph D’Aleo & Anthony Watts | January 27, 2010

A QUESTION OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE

Recent revelations from the Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia showed how all the data centers, most notably NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than, in reality, they actually did.

This has inspired climate researchers worldwide to take a hard look at the data proffered by comparing it to the original data and to other data sources. This report compiles some of the initial alarming findings.

15 main factors presented by IPCC Reports are contentious.  These factors all lead to significant uncertainty and a tendency for overestimation of century-scale temperature trends. A conclusion from all findings suggest that global data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or rankings or validate model forecasts. And, consequently, such surface data should be ignored for decision making.

It has often been suggested by the Al GORE and IPCC supporters that "the debate is over".   That claim is  a typical tactic proposed by many left-wing groups on topics they wish to end debate.  It is an appalling conceit.

In 2007 UK Minister of the Environment, David Miliband was greeted by cries of “Rubbish!” when he told a conference that the science of climate and carbon dioxide was simple and settled. Yet Miliband was merely reciting a mantra that has been widely peddled by politicians such as Al Gore and political news media such as the BBC, which has long since abandoned its constitutional obligation of objectivity on this as on most political subjects, and has adopted a policy of not allowing equal air-time to opponents of the imagined “consensus”.

The claim of “consensus” rests almost entirely on an inaccurate and now-outdated single-page comment in the journal Science entitled The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Oreskes, 2004). In this less than impressive “head-count” essay, Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science with no qualifications in climatology, defined the “consensus” in a very limited sense, quoting as follows from IPCC (2001) –

“Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Oreskes (2004) said she had analyzed  "928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords ‘climate change’."  She concluded that 75% of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the “consensus” view; 25% took no position, being concerned with palaeoclimate rather than today’s climate.   It is not clear whether Oreskes’ analysis was peer-reviewed, since it was presented as an essay and not as a scientific paper. However, there were numerous serious errors, effectively negating her conclusion, which suggest that the essay was either not reviewed at all or reviewed with undue indulgence by scientists who agreed with Oreskes’ declared prejudice.

Finally "35 Inconvenient Errors"  by Lord MONKTON - debunking Al GORE's movie.

Global "Climate Change" is now henceforth known as "Climate Fooling".

The Road to Damascus - via Kabul

This article is an extraordinary tale - not because it supports the popular viewpoint and cleaves to the left's "party line" that America should "withdraw from Afganistan" - but because it doesn't.   It is the frank disclosure of an ideological rift within a powerful radical feminist group in the US called Code Pink - with close ties to Democratic President Barrack Obama - who have been heavily campaigning for America to withdraw their military from Afghanistan.

Among the interesting titbits learned:

• Code Pink has never actually asked Afgani Women what they want, until this trip in Dec 2009.
• Code Pink has never actually visited the country to observe first-hand events that have taken place.
• Code Pink leader, Jodie EVANS (show in pink shirt) exhibits a number of remarkable conceits, with one prominent female board member who dressed in wholly inappropriate (considering the cultural modesty required of women in Afghanistan), and highly visible brightly coloured clothing (ideal for Taliban target practice) admits "not being able to take direction well".
• Code Pink is shocked to find 90% of women (and 70% of men) are illiterate and that they treasure the NGO's that teach reading and writing. Afgani women begged Code Pink visitors not to lobby for withdrawal of the military as it would no longer be safe for them to walk anywhere.
• Only Kabul is barely secure. In the country the Taliban reign and have established an effective grass-root government in all small villages and towns.
• Canadian Norine MacDonald describes the huge restless demographic of young men aged 15-20 who just want to build a "Love Shack" and get married.   A program for them - would she believes - reduce the probability of successful Talib recruitment. (This appears to be an "reverse Lysistrata" policy!) 
• There are no simple answers.

Other Canadian resources - http://www.cw4wafghan.ca

[Sara DAVIDSON has a long writing career and has recently published a book about how to embrace change late in one's life called "Leap".]

GONGO's - Government Organized Non-Government Organizations

Following a shocking revelation about the sudden death of Mr. Remy BEAURGARD, President of Canadian Government funded Human Rights advocacy organization - was this article in the National Post.

Ezra LEVANT also weighs in on the controversy the has overwhelmed the organization due to perceived interference by newly appointed directors of the minority Conservative Government.

Assertions by staff that this interference directly contributed to Mr. BEAUREGARD's  death are serious, but  more relevant is if the alleged "interference" was true.    If so then the distress that perhaps caused BEAUREGARD's heart-attack may have been in some way self-inflicted by poor management oversight and control.  In no way should this be considered criminal, just difficult.  Obviously Mr. BEAUREGARD took the criticism hard.    In that way the staff should perhaps consider their role in helping to crucify their own boss.

Ultimately, this organization is collapsing under it's own ineptitude.  The Board SETS policy and staff execute - not the other way around.   If the staff do not like that, they are free to quit and find another job elsewhere.   If they have legitimate concern about operations they will have to think long and hard about what exactly their criticism is.  What appears to be happening is that the radicalised staff have gone rogue.  They believe that they are the final arbiters of Human Rights decision, not unlike Jenny LYNCH at the CHRC.  A revolt like this must be put down at once.    These kinds of actions - like countless other similar brushfires at the CWB, CBC, Canadian Nuclear Regulatory Branch and elsewhere - are a Liberal fifth column and are foiling the governments legitimate will.

LEVANT has marshalled quite alot of evidence to suggest that this group has drifted a long way from it's initial goals - and that perhaps since these goals were formed, the landscape has changed significantly.   However as Mr. LEVANT has so well documented in his book, we have become overrun by these "do-gooders".  I now believe that ALL GOVERNMENT HUMAN RIGHTS organizations have outlived their usefulness and have become part an industry of radicalised government sponsored bullying - sowing discord, distemper and anxiety where little or none existed before.

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

I support the wholesale retirement of Rights & Democracy on that basis.  It is no longer useful for Government to fund Advocating for Human Rights - that job is best left to private citizens advocating on their own.   I advocate shifting funding to local communities and groups who have broader mandates - like Edmonton's Heritage Days Festival or funding sports, cultural and educational exchanges - will do more to encourage racial harmony in Canada and elsewhere than these NGO's.

John STEWART on Thurs Jan 21, 2010

Jon Stewart mocks Keith Olbermann for his attacks on Scott Brown and other conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin.    I think refutation of VAWA charge was especially good.

Recreation of Sully SULENBERGER Hudson River Ditch

Reach out and touch someone

It looks like we are on the same track for once as America.   Now that the holidays are over, I hope some kind of response will occur Re: The BRAIDWOOD Inquiry.  Similarly, the non-replacement of RCMP watchdog - Robert KENNEDY, the commissioner for public complaints against the RCMP reinforces this idea.  2011 may be the year we swap our Military in Afghanistan for the RCMP across the country.

The use of Tasers as compliance tools — means for compelling behavior — has generated a huge amount of protest. For many, the famous “Don’t Tase me, bro” incident, in which student Andrew Meyer was Tasered at a political debate, signaled an alarming new form of oppression. 

Perhaps the distinguishing feature of the Taser, compared with other forms of enforcing compliance, is that it can be used with one finger. Police have always been able enforce their wishes using batons or manual force, but a Taser is a much easier option, and perhaps this makes it more prone to abuse. Whether it’s zapping an unruly student protester, an uncooperative 11-year-old or an abusive driver, the trite observation that power corrupts may have some truth here.

Also, these developments:

A new electroshock weapon being developed by Taser could zap people up to 175 feet away — and keep on applying pain for as long as three minutes in a row. Which is pretty tough to take, since it only takes a second or two of shocks to make most people cry out in agony.

The new 40mm projectile resembles a super-sized version of the shotgun-fired XREP Taser projectile. And like the XREP, it will attach itself to the target and incapacitate him or her with a series of electric jolts.

The new projectile might continue shocking for as long as three minutes. The duration of the shock is also likely to be a significant issue.  In Taser training, a one-second shock is administered. It has been described by those experienced the test. “It was brutal - like sticking your finger in a socket over and over and over again. I screamed in pain as he zapped me. I screamed some more after it was over,”.  The standard Police Taser gives a five-second shock for each trigger pull.

Perhaps it's not surprising that Taser Int'l has also developed this product to go with new taser sales - the Axon Headcam.   At the ned of a shift the officer just downloads the day's work onto a secure server run by Taser.  Oh and there is a optional "kill switch" to stop recording activities that the officer wants to keep private.