Heretics Unite, you have nothing to lose.....

I wish I could say that this will be my final word on Global Warming.
Frankly, I think that the Copenhagen Conference (Dec. '09) was a turning point for the entire issue as it coincided with the "e-mail debacle" in Britain (true or not). That is one reason, and the other is the realization by everyone lately that not only can banks default and beg for bailouts, but whole countries can default on their bonds (loans) and need to be bailed out too. Obviously the economic ideas that have prevailed in recent times across the governments of the Western world will need to be revised. I hope that happens soon, but I think more severe pain will have to be endured before the poop really hits the propellor.
So I give you The Great Global Warming Swindle, (found on Facebook) a rather lengthy piece of video (get the popcorn) that is a compilation of the other side of Global Warming. Is it true? Well, maybe it is or maybe it's just another point of view.  Some things are for sure, you don't have to watch it, and if you watch it, you don't have to believe it, and if you believe it, you can't force anyone to do something about it; because there is nothing to do. So gather your children........I don't think it's your fault.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#
  

TIME looks at Rand and Ron Paul

The recent Senate primary win for Rand Paul in Kentucky is having repercussions throughout American politics. Apparently Kentucky Republicans like what Rand Paul is saying, much the same as Galveston Texas area voters have liked Ron Paul for a dozen years now.

Ron Paul is arguably the world's best know libertarian, and his son shares many but not all his father's views. Is Rand's win significant? Well, TIME magazine thinks so, and so does CATO. Many libertarians dismiss Rand as "libertarian-light" with some statist ideas, but for me close-to-libertarian is better than almost any other option. As the TIME article mentions Ron Paul's views don't seem so wacky now:

"Twenty years later, Paul's views no longer seemed kooky: government spending soared even under a Republican Congress and President, leaving many conservatives fed up. At the same time, the human and financial toll of the Iraq war, which Paul decried as an act of imperialism, left some Republicans angry with the so-called neocon wing of their party."

The CATO-at-Liberty article is worth a read, because coming from a libertarian perspective it places the Paul's in the American context and gives us all a hopeful message for the future.

Obama is responsible for BP oil disaster. Who knew?

Yup that's right: “I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down,” Obama declared at a news conference in the East Room of the White House. Gee I thought it was BP’s fault. When Obama swore to “protect and defend….etc.” I don’t think this is what the framers of the US Constitution meant. In fact this seems to take some responsibility off the shoulders of BP, but Obama went on calling the spill an “unprecedented disaster” and pointed to the “scandalously close relationship” he said has persisted between Big Oil and government regulators. 

Well that does it; I can’t believe that government regulators had anything to do with this. Aren’t US government regulators supposed to be regulating stuff on behalf of the American taxpayer? I thought they worked for the government, the people, by the people and all that shit. I guess I was wrong. Of course NOW Obama is in charge, and yes he is part of that same government he just blamed a couple of lines back. So I guess we can trust them now because it’s a different branch of government. Don’t you feel better?

The good news is that it is oil, and there is lots of sun and heat down there in the Gulf. With the help of “oil eating” microbes the mess gets cleaned up….eventually.

Big Government Canadian style and the right questions

When political parties give up their principles, bad things happen. Of course once in power, the operating principle of almost any political party becomes hold onto power - damn the principles.
In Canada if you belong to the Conservative Party then you know the truth of that last statement.
This morning in the Globe and Mail, Tom Flanagan points to just three issues (I think there are so many, many more) that have created unnecessary debate and discussion, all of them related to the Conservative government's increases in the size and responsibility of the state.
Issue one: the Jaffer-Guergis affair involving alleged lobbying of the federal state to garner subsidies for "green" businesses. Flanagan dismisses the affair then asks the right question: why has a conservative government created a $1-billion Green Infrastructure Fund? Why indeed? Here is a giant plum ripe for the picking by lobbyists and insiders who would scam their own family for financial gain. How is creating this fund being fiscally responsible or conservative?
Issue two: Abortion in the Third World.
First let me say this to those who think abortion should be banned in Canada or anywhere. The only banning that should go on is your power to force anyone to do anything against their will as long as no one's rights are abrogated. If you think a fetus has rights over and above the mother that is carrying it, then you need to take that fetus and bring it to term yourself, good luck. Or should we lock up that pregnant female and force her to carry the fetus? Would you do that to your daughter? The current law in Canada on abortion is the one that is appropriate, that is, no law.
Now that you know my position lets see what Mr. Flanagan said. The Conservative government refuses to fund abortion in the health care part of Canada's foreign aid package. This angers many at home and abroad (including Hilary Clinton) and threatens to become an issue in the G8/G20 summits coming to disrupt your summer plans in Southern Ontario this June. Again Flanagan asks the right question: why is the Conservative government promoting government-to-government foreign aid? He points to scholars that have shown that government-to-government foreign aid (except for immediate disaster relief) actually impedes economic growth and good governance in the Third World. I hope Stephen Lewis reads Flanagan's article.
Issue three: Gay Pride. The Conservatives have decided not to fund this year's Gay Pride Parade in Toronto while continuing to fund a variety of other parades and festivals across the country. Is Harper pandering to the homophobic part of the Conservative Caucus? Probably, but again Tom Flanagan asks the right question: why should the federal state subsidize any parades or festivals anywhere? How is that being fiscally responsible? Well, it isn't and it's too bad that Flanagan stops at three, but it is a start and I recommend the article to you. Flanagan ends by suggesting that today's economic realities will of necessity shrink the size and scope of government, I can't wait.