Apparently, flying over to the Middle East and playing at being a diplomat shows that you can command the armed forces of the most powerful nation Earth.

As if this wasn’t funny enough as it is, McCain’s camp was quick to discredit this trip by saying it was “politically motivated”. No, really? Something done by a candidate for President is politically motived?

I hope we don’t have to sit through another four months of this. Can’t we get something other than McCain’s “Old Politics” and Obama’s “New Politics: Same as the Old, But Black!”?

However, looking past the obvious we see what is perhaps a more serious issue. While the UN didn’t actually “do” anything in this situation (as per the usual), I think they still might be overstepping their boundaries.

Supporters of the UN are so happy when we go in and tell some little Third World Country what to do. But what happens when it comes home to us?

I thought I would take a look at google to find out what to expect.  First I encountered the official position: 2008 is likely to be normal or above normal - a 90% chance of either, and only a 10% chance of below normal.

What is normal?  11 named storms, with around 6 hurricanes in the North Atlantic.

I then checked out this neat page which looks specifically at storms that have hit Orlando (guess where we’re going?)  Nicely broken down into 30 year increments, suggesting that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is largely responsible for whether or not a hurricane hits Orlando.  Still, even in peak periods, the odds of a hurricane hitting Orlando are pretty low - 1 in every 3 or 4 years.  (This is low because if you’re only going for a week, and hurricane season has about 20 weeks, then basic math tells you the odds of a hurricane hitting the same week you’re there is 1 in 60-80.  You wouldn’t take those odds on an NFL team winning the Superbowl… so why worry about a storm?)

But then I thought, what do the experts know?  In the same chain of google hits I encountered this CTV report from May 2006 - “Major Hurricane Season Brewing in the Atlantic“.

In what could signal a frightening new fact of life in the age of global warming, Canadian and U.S. forecasters are warning that another major hurricane season is brewing in the Atlantic Ocean.

…”Last year we were looking at 12 to 15 storms and this year the forecast is for about 17. No one would go out on a limb and say it is going to be just as bad as last year, but the indications are there that it is still going to be another active season, almost twice as active as normal.”

Last year’s hurricane season was the most destructive on record.

Sounds scary right?  Especially mixed in with all the panicky global warming jargon.

Then right there on the same google page, I have Wikipedia’s 2006 storm season. 

“It was less active than the previous year’s Atlantic hurricane season; the first since 2001 in which no hurricanes made landfall in the United States; and the first since 1994 that no tropical cyclones formed during October.^[1]“

Hmm.  If they were sensationalizing that much in 2006, I think we have to ask ourselves, what else are they sensationalizing?

I will say this: it wasn’t the NOAA that issued the breathless notice for panic - it was the Associated Press.  But I am still not worried.  Kind of makes you think though doesn’t it?

Every adult should be forced to use a ‘carbon ration card’ when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say.

The influential Environmental Audit Committee says a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain’s CO2 emissions without penalising the poor.

Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.

Someone forgot to tell British Environmental Audit Committee about the fact that theses carbon trading schemes are a scam.

Update:
More carbon trading fraud:

Billions of pounds are being wasted in paying industries in developing countries to reduce climate change emissions, according to two analyses of the UN’s carbon offsetting programme.

Leading academics and watchdog groups allege that the UN’s main offset fund is being routinely abused by chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies who are claiming emission reduction credits for projects that should not qualify. The result is that no genuine pollution cuts are being made, undermining assurances by the UK government and others that carbon markets are dramatically reducing greenhouse gases, the researchers say.

No surprisingly, the UK government rejects the criticism:

The UK government last night defended the CDM. “We completely reject any assertions that [it] is fundamentally flawed,” a spokeswoman said. “We’ve worked consistently for and seen improvement in CDM processes over the past few years of its operation. We believe the CDM is essentially transparent and robust, though we will continue to press for the environmental integrity of projects.”

The Associated Press news agency quoted Moscow Communist official Andrei Andreyev as saying: “It is very disturbing if talented directors want to provoke a new Cold War.”

Their argument: Other letter grades — A, B, C and D — are broken down in increments of 10 from 60 to 100, but there is a 59-point spread between D and F, a gap that can often make it mathematically impossible for some failing students to ever catch up.

“It’s a classic mathematical dilemma: that the students have a six times greater chance of getting an F,” says Douglas Reeves, founder of The Leadership and Learning Center, a Colorado-based educational think tank who has written on the topic. “The statistical tweak of saying the F is now 50 instead of zero is a tiny part of how we can have better grading practices to encourage student performance.”

John Gruber, from Daring Fireball, pretty much sums up my feelings on this topic:

This is so profoundly stupid it’s hard to believe it isn’t from The Onion. That F covers 0-59 doesn’t make it six times more likely that a student will get an F than any other grade, unless test scores are based on random numbers rather than actual performance.

Article II of the constitution states: “No person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

The framers of the constitution didn’t define “natural born citizen.” The phrase was added without any clarifying debate. The Supreme Court has never been asked to definitively settle the issue. And so we are left with a phrase just ambiguous enough to cause controversy.

So this lady got fired for giving away a Timbit. Then the big company made her bosses rehire her. Next thing you know, we have a gazillion “news” stories about it.

Perhaps the Star, The Chronicle Herald, CTV and the other rags reporting this garbage should team up with the RCMP and go inquire about the relationship between Michael Chamas and former Prime Minister Chretien.

Someone should tell those Asian bankers.

Nobody cares if people are starving as long as we can stave off ferns growing in the Arctic.

Because if the earth were to get warmer, dinosaurs might re-emerge to terrorize the planet, and then we all know what happens then: (besides hungry dinosaurs hunting the polar bear into oblivion faster than ice melt ever could)…

ASTEROIDS AND EXTINCTION!

Finally something from the NDP that makes sense but unfortunately, the Conservatives object. Damn. Pat Martin brought this up last year too.

Getting rid of the penny will save minting costs. Furthermore, retailers will stop counting and rolling the wasted metal. The only people who stand to gain by maintaining the penny in circulation are the people who work at the Royal Canadian Mint.

Anyway, if the Mint does not eliminate the penny, consumers will eventually. With enough time, the face value of the pennies will be worth less than the metal. People will haul them over to scrap-metal yards to have them melted down.

——–

You know what perplexes me the most? Retailers can get rid of the penny themselves. They can quote after-tax prices in round numbers.

I get pissed off every time a cashier asks me “Do you have an extra penny?” or “two cents?” or “three cents” or whatever to round out the change that I receive. They want to avoid depleting their register of petty cash. I think: “You are the one quoting the dorky prices!” Retailers should quote prices with taxes included and round up their prices to the nearest nickel. We should not be wasting one iota of effort handling pennies.

The other day I went to the hardware store to buy a custom-sized nut and washer. Not only did this little washer cost more than the nut but it cost more than a dime. After handing over my change to the cashier the following hit me: I could have just taken a nickel or a dime and drilled a bloody hole through the middle!!!!!

That aside, I also have to consider the reality that blogging has kept me away too long from my friends, people I’ve grown distant from, and from focusing on the marriage I hope to one day share with someone special to me. In other words, it’s time for me to move on. I’ve done my best here, and feel that I can’t do any more. All the best to everyone out there. It’s been real!

ORLY Update: As some had guessed, the post above was my contribution to April Fools! Day, although I have to confess that I was touched when reading all the nice comments left for me and I truly appreciate the kindness that others have shown me here; in fact, I kinda feel like a fool myself now because of the sincerity that I received after writing a prank post. I hope that everyone who truly thought that I was a goner can share my actions in jest and if I have truly offended you, please know that it was not my intention to do so! Regards- Matthew

I plan on turning on every appliance and lighting fixture in my place: the first hour will be to rebuke some poor soul who thinks that sitting in the dark singing koombiya will somehow prevent polar bears from sailing on ice floats; the second hour will be for the power I’d normally use during the two hours anyway; the third hour is to use more electricity than would’ve been used if the self-righteous ecowarriors didn’t bemoan their poor Gaia’s condition to the rest of us to begin with.

I mentioned this tonight when at a friend’s house; my friend (who knows me well), was probably trying to pick a fight and asked me what I would be doing during tomorrow night’s antics. After explaining the above, and hearing the expected lament on how horrible I was, I asked her why a province like ours — one whose two main sources of electricity are hydroelectric and nuclear — is awash with people going through with a silly exercise that won’t really affect the environment one way or another. Her response? “To raise awareness.” When I inquired who or what would be more aware after she conducted the above-mentioned powwow, she said that it would make me more aware. And you know what, I think it might just do that. After playing Smash while listening to some good old metal from the ’80s tomorrow night, I think I’ll be more aware of how sheepish people are as they follow through with the latest guilt-suppressant fad to come along…

UPDATE: I don’t even need to try! The Globe has a list of tweedy ways to pass through this loathsome lovefest. I especially like numbers 9 through 12 — let me know how the debate turns out guys! Of course, 24-26 is what this agenda is really all about to begin with, now isn’t it?

“We would be concerned by any kind of acquisition of Yahoo by Microsoft,” Chief Executive Eric Schmidt told reporters.

“We would hope that anything they did would be consistent with the openness of the Internet, but I doubt it would be.”

Which is pretty laughable coming from anyone who cooperates with Chinese censors to limit freedom of speech in China in exchange for access to the lucrative Chinese market.

Online search engine leader Google Inc. has agreed to censor its results in China, adhering to the country’s free-speech restrictions in return for better access in the Internet’s fastest growing market.

The Mountain View, Calif.-based company planned to roll out a new version of its search engine bearing China’s Web suffix “.cn,” on Wednesday. A Chinese-language version of Google’s search engine has previously been available through the company’s dot-com address in the United States.

By creating a unique address for China, Google hopes to make its search engine more widely available and easier to use in the world’s most populous country.

Schmidt isn’t worried for the Internet, he’s worried about the potential for loss of market-share…

Mr. Gomery also admitted he was annoyed, even hurt, by an “ungrateful” Conservative government. He said the commission’s work and his report deserved better treatment at the hands of the Conservatives, who probably wouldn’t be in power today if it weren’t for the sponsorship inquiry.

“I think they owe the fact they are in office to the work of the commission. That wasn’t the objective, but it was the consequence and I think they are ungrateful to treat me that way,” he said.

Boo hoo. Actually, Gomery has it backwards - the backlash from the sponsorship scandal is one of the primary reasons the electorate turned away from the Liberals, not the actual sponsorship inquiry. The Auditor General’s report, the infighting between Martin’s and Chretien’s people and finally the media frenzy that followed was more than enough to remove the Liberals from office.

“I find it extraordinary that the government commissions a commission of inquiry to conduct a study and then, when recommendations are made, they don’t even tell you they received them … My feelings are hurt, if you must know, all that effort, thought and good intentions.”

The Liberal Government (under Paul Martin) called the inquiry, not the Conservative Government. What exactly did Gomery want… an award for doing his job?

I recommend the NEP-erals.

Sparing me from such burdens is the revelation from an Israeli researcher who now claims that Moses really went to a “high” place to get the 10 Commandments. I know of a few other Bible-bashers who will take exception to the Law actually being authored by Moses (not to mention PZ’s little echo chamber crowd, who probably think that they just eroded onto the surface of Mount Sinai), so I’m sure everyone’ll understand that I’m very confused and need some help with this problem: whose attacks on the Bible are correct? Is it the crowd who think that psychedelic and mineral concoctions magically led the Israelites out of Egypt and gave them a legal code that we use as the foundation of our laws today? Or is it the group that doesn’t even think there was an Exodus and just think that this legal code just appeared out of nowhere some time around the third century B.C.? Don’t trip over yourselves to offer me the answer kids!

* - I use this term VERY loosely…

Follow the links:

Bwah ha ha ha ha!

Postcript: Ha!

This insightful political commentary provided by Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party of Canada.

And to think.  I was hearing rumblings that the LPC were considering forcing an election over this.

I think we all have a strong objection to the money that we earned by our own sweat being used to fund programs that we find offensive or objectionable.
For any Christians who think that this is a step in righting the wrongs of past Liberal governments who have used taxpayer dollars for Christianophobic material is that the shoe will eventually get onto the other foot; not if, WILL! A Liberal government in the future need only redeclare the program as serving to protect minority voices and volia, feminazis will be the typical type of group getting film funding.

The same goes for those on the left who are self-professed agnostics, atheists and the like. Think of how you would feel if this program in its current form went through. Not nice to know that your money is funding ignorant, intolerant hate-speech, or whatever you’re describing religious opinion as these days, is it? As I said, the shoe will always go on the other foot in a democracy like ours, so why are we taking turns being offended when we should just let the people who make the money such programs are greased by make the decisions themselves…with their dollars?

In extension, my only hope is that now that we’ve woken up the socialites to the notion that group-specific funding can be divisive, they won’t be as hypocritical as to call for programs like the Court Challenges Program to be reinstated. Just some food for thought…

(h/t to Bene Diction Blogs On)

I have not seen the movie yet but I first encountered Ben Stein’s blog last Summer when he started the promotion. It smacked of too much statism. I am just going to quote him directly:

In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.

Did you catch that?
Here it is in plain language: Ben Stein is linking grants to freedom.
Is he suggesting that Einstein or Newton or Galileo were entitled to grants? or that they needed grants?

You see, I agree with very nearly everything he says except he makes a huge mistake. Just because a person does not get a grant, it does not mean his freedom to study is suppressed. Certainly things are pretty unfair if everybody else gets grants but that is a different battle. Nobody is entitled to grants.

The “freedom of inquiry” is not suppressed if grants are being denied. The Intelligent Design believer can go study on his own and pay for it himself.

Ben Stein should be careful when he uses the word freedom but coming from a person who made money writing talking points for U.S. Presidents, it does not surprise me that his sense of entitlement is a little bit tarnished.

—-

Hold on! Scratch everything I just wrote.
Come to think of it: if only there was a grant to study underwater basket-weaving, my freedom of inquiry could flourish!

Why are we rehashing this discussion? Oh, yeah! We have to pump some more life into this pre-release promotional campaign!

Anyway, over at the Expelled movie website, a little tidbit was revealed today that explains that the Professor of the West might be trying to hide some skeletons of his own (much akin to the dogmatic types who insist that we acknowledge macroevolution’s reality, or else). I’m a good sport though and I’m feeling generous so here’s a proposal: Prof. PZ Myers,you have until 5:30 pm (your local time) to fess up to these accusations and explain yourself. Otherwise, you will forever be cast as having no credibility! Looking forward to hearing the response…;)

Everyone’s favorite good guy is hot on the trail of Victor Bergman:

Plot Summary:

Using a fake (German) Rat Patrol, Dietrich abducts an Arab holy man that he will then “rescue” so that the Arabs will give their help to the Germans. The real Patrol is captured by the Arabs, though, and when they convince the Arab leader — who is a friend of Moffitt’s — that they aren’t guilty, Troy and Moffitt go to find the holy man. To do so means a horse trip across the desert. (Airdate: 2-13-1967)

Parting is such sweet sorrow.

The first tobacco ban was imposed by the Nazi Party under direct orders from Adolf Hitler. (Follow the Wikipedia entry to footnote 1).

(From the good folks at Wikipedia):

The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.^[1] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits. ^[2]

According to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, the term originates in Morris Cohen and Ernest Nagel’s book Logic and Scientific Method.

Illustrative Example for those who may have failed their logic course:

From Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer, Third Edition p. 36:

“You’re not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don’t you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice.” There may be reasons why people may not wish to wear wedding rings, but it would be logically inappropriate for a couple to reject the notion of exchanging wedding rings on the sole grounds of its alleged sexist origins.

This accusation has also been directed John Tory’s way, first when he was fighting in the 2004 leadership campaign and now that he is insisting on continuing at leader, no matter the consequences. Indeed, we probably wouldn’t have seen Tory become a Liberal if one of his opponents got the crown instead of him, but the only reason I can be assured of that is because of his closeness to the Bill Davis establishment in the party and not because of anything the man represents himself.

The argument goes that Tory is void of any principle and is actually quite the egomaniac (something that has been evident to anyone who has followed his career). Tory apologists strongly deny this, and also attack anyone who dares to speak out these days against the leader-in-limbo as being disloyal to the PC Party.

Case in Point: Meet Joan Tintor, Tory apologist and self-appointed defender of the PC Party’s image. Joan just finished a post today of *how dare they*s claiming that the Yes campaign is hurting the party by accusing the Grassroots PC campaign of agreeing with McGuinty on something. Now, aside from the irony of a pro-Tory individual claiming that the other side is too cozy with the McGuinty government or that the release she quotes doesn’t confirm such an accusation, Joan also goes on at length about how members are hurting the party by not agreeing with the implied argument that anything, ANYTHING the McGuinty government does is either inherently wrong or not enough. Apparently Dalton’s government, despite winning a second majority, is the first in history to do everything wrong in four years! Imagine if this were true; what would that say about the alternative people saw in John Tory then?

Of course Joan, thanks to your guy, we’ve got another three-and-a-half years of McGuinty as of today; I don’t think that a past-president of the PC Party agreeing that McGuinty did some obscure thing properly (and the release does not clearly state that!) will cost us the election in the same way that John Tory’s leader-knows-best platform full ‘o’ gems did. Maybe if Tory let us vote on that stuff in June, your crew wouldn’t have to be going through this stresses of this review right now. But he did, and as a real leader, U.S. President Truman, stated on his desk: “the buck stops here”. It was from Tory’s desk that the campaign staff appointments, the policies and the strategies came from, not to mention the verbal gaffes or this. Maybe when the Tory Tory crowd can properly convince the rest of us, PCs and general public, that Tory isn’t as inept as we all saw him as during the past 12 months, then you guys can play Chicken Little and claim that every deviation from the John Tory Script hurts our chances of getting a PC government in Ontario.

H/T to Five Feet of Fury 

Addendum: Visual Aid:

Romney also benefited from his Mormon religion, the poll results show. Romney captured 94 percent of the voters who identified themselves as Mormon, which made up 25 percent of all Republicans participating in the GOP caucuses.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints estimates there are 170,000 members living in Nevada.

So, in a similar light-hearted vein, I tip the hat to the lovely and talented Miss Shaidle for this link - “The Ezra Levant Monster“!

Oh wait, when its liberals/Christianophobes doing the talking, it’s only “ridicule”, not hatred, right?