________ does not understand how fully-grown adults can still believe in God.

This must put the guy into a perpetual state of confusion, considering the vast majority of the people on this planet believe in God.  Of course, the arrogance implied here is that any fully-grown adult should be mature and intelligent enough to not believe in God.

Really?  If you’re a fully-grown adult, you’re not supposed to believe in God?

Many times, atheists say “well, if there is a God, the burden of proof is on the believers!”

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Unmoved Mover argument (essentially: that things move, that an infinite regress of movers is impossible, therefore there must be an unmoved mover) is good enough for me.  I still have never heard a satisfactory counter-argument, and doubt I ever will.

Of course, usually when the world agrees on something (like the existence of God), the burden of proof actually falls to those in the minority who have a new assertion.  Atheists have nothing to offer here.  Don’t fall for atheists’ pretense of intellectual superiority.  After all, imagine if Galileo’s argument for a Sun-centered universe was “the Sun revolves around the Earth?  Prove it!”

If you’re a fully-grown adult and you believe in God, you deserve kudos, not the snobbery.

Check out the CEI report (PDF form) here.  It notes that there is “no net warming” in the 21st Century despite an increase in CO2 levels, and that saying there’s been a decline in temperature would be more accurate.

Now, back to the original post….

Hey, good news!  The Earth isn’t warming anymore.  Go home, tree hugging, Earth-worshipping, cap-and-taxing liberals.   That’s right!  Global warming is now a thing of the past, like the threat of AIDS to western heterosexuals.

Since the Earth isn’t warming anymore – global warming “science” was considered so ironclad that people ignored how wrong the alarmists were in the 1970’s – the official term seems to have changed to “climate change.”

Here in Wisconsin, climate change is very alarming.  In fact, since January 1st of just this year, I’ve noticed that the climate has gone from frigid and snowy to warm and sunny – heck, even the days are getting longer!

No, Dan.  They’re talking about climate change on a longer point of view.  You know; year to year?  Decade to decade?

It’s amazing to me that the VAST SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS that was considered so infallible in recent years can essentially change its mind from “the Earth is warming; we need to stop pumping CO2″ to “well, maybe the Earth isn’t warming but the climate is changing!” without losing many followers of Gaea.

Oh, wait.  That’s not amazing to me at all.

That’s because this whole “climate change” thing has been hooey from the start.  A lot of countries are seeing political shifts that reflects a new mindset – they generally agree with my “hooey” theory – and are starting to come to their senses.

You see, since 2001, temperatures on a global have remained pretty steady, despite our continual pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere – which is supposed to drive temperatures up according to VAST SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. Hey, a quick reminder:  guess what the chief “greenhouse gas” on Venus is.  It’s water vapor.  (Also known as BLEEPING STEAM.)  Back in the day, CO2 was considered good for the atmosphere – plants need it for a little thing called photosynthesis.  Today, it’s considered a pollutant.  I really, sincerely hope liberals don’t start a cap-and-tax initiative for steam.

Says Kimberly Strassel in the Wall Street Journal:

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Now, we’re seeing former global warming believers become believers in “climate change.” Well, it’s hard to argue with climate change, considering the climate changes all the time and was changing before humans even arrived on the scene.  But why the name change?  If the name change is necessary because they truly believe people are effecting the climate, but that they were wrong about the Earth warming, then why not simply admit that “global warming” was a horrible, horrible name for it?

VAST SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS told us the globe was warming.  It didn’t take long for us to realize that was wrong.

What else do they have wrong?

In reality, Michael Jackson’s death wouldn’t be bigger than that news story.  But it is big enough to draw attention away from what’s being called the largest tax on Americans in history.

It’s been called both cap-and-trade and cap-and-tax, and what it does is essentially “caps” energy usage and levies a tax when that energy has hit the cap.  Needless to say, it already sounds like a disaster.

Obama ran for President on the premise that 95% of Americans wouldn’t see taxes go up, but his being President avoids a veto for what basically amounts to a tax on every single American.  It’s a direct blow to American industry and energy – and anyone who likes consuming energy.

All of this, according to the administrator of the World Climate Report, only to lower the global temperature by .05 degrees Celsius.

By the year 2050.

And there you have it, the environmental philosophy of the left.  Cripple the economy for the sake of minimal environmental change.

They’ve gone after cars; cars make up a minority of pollution.

They’ve gone after toilets for water usage; toilets don’t use as much water as irrigation.

Now, they’re going after everything – all of the energy.

And trying to do it while you’re distracted.

Conclusion?  Most Presidents see this kind of thing – the honeymoon period fades.  But to think that only Fox News commentators are the dissenters obviously isn’t the reality.

Makes you wonder how we’re going to handle North Korea.  Put that away, dictator!  Hey!  Put that down!  Don’t you dare load that missile.  Now you’re going to get it.  Hey!  Don’t fuel it.  We’re serious now.  You’re going to get a timeout.  Well, fuel it as long as you don’t launch – hey!

Listening to Chuck Todd, you’d think that rhetoric was all you needed to get things moving.

“[Obama's people are] frustrated that they’re not getting credit for what’s going on Iran,” said Todd on Sunday’s Meet the Press.  “They think that Cairo speech did help supporters of Moussavi sort of see light at the end of the tunnel…they want a little more credit here for sort of helping to spark the enthusiasm that you’re seeing…”

Really?  Obama’s Cairo speech is what inspired this?

They’re rioting against Ahmadinejad because Obama said this?

There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect.

Are you kidding me?  The Iranians are rioting after Ahmadinejad won, so I’m assuming they don’t like him very much.  Obama’s Cairo speech essentially said that he’s willing to work with the guy.  If anything, I would assume that Iranians are revolting so that what Obama said won’t happen – in that way, maybe the Cairo speech did have a big impact.

There is another issue here.  Iran borders Iraq.  Iraq isn’t exactly a place where I’d build my winter home, but with greater access to Democracy, the entire area has probably seen its standards for government rise.

I don’t know a whole lot about Iran, but I’m guessing that these riots aren’t taking place because Obama went to Egypt and talked about how much Muslims contributed to Algebra.  I think it’s more likely that these riots take place because people get sick of an authoritarian government that keeps on provoking the West.

Jessica McBride, a 39-year-old journalism lecturer at UW-Milwaukee, and Ed Flynn, the 61-year-old Milwaukee Chief of Police, had an affair according to this morning’s Journal Sentinel.  Normally I think affairs of the heart would be their business, but here’s the thing – McBride (who, I believe, has once linked to this illustrious site) once wrote a glowing article for the guy!

Needless to say, that’s not exactly responsible journalism.

Here are some quotes from supposed e-mails between the two:

“Perceived you instantly – knew you were a good person who does things for the right reason…As a result, I began to struggle with the story – having to give time to vitriolic baseless attacks.  [This one was signed Jessica]

…

I think there was something from the moment we locked eyes in [MPD spokeswoman] Anne’s [Schwartz] office

…

Just felt a little protective.  Knew I didn’t want to do you wrong [I'm assuming this was re: the article]

…

I honestly had myself almost convinced that we were going to talk about the police department at [Brocach Irish Pub/Restaurant] last night!  Now that sounds so naive.  But something special happened between us that night; I will always cherish it.  A complete meeting on all levels – mind, body, heart that I have never experienced.  You completed me that night.

Not to make any mention that McBride also apparently steals her romantic prose from the movie “Jerry Maguire,” normally this would be the kind of thing I wouldn’t want to touch.  If you’re having an affair, that’s really you and your family’s business.  Unless, of course, you’re the President having an affair in the White House, or have some other public function that isn’t supposed to be disturbed by personal, romantic feelings.

You know, like journalism.  Guess one of the things McBride teaches at UW-Milwaukee!  Are you ready?  I hope you’re sitting down.

Journalistic ethics!

Get it?  Because that’s the exact opposite of – oh, you get it.

So I’m using this story to once again point out that while you may think you’re getting a high quality education at a public university, you’re sometimes getting taught about journalistic ethics by Jessica McBride, or economics from some Keynesian, or English by someone who thinks it’s a philosophy class.

By the way, Jessica McBride is something of a conservative, but we missed the warning sign that she was a failure as a journalist:  she taught journalism at a state university.

“You know, do me a favor,” an irritated Boxer said. “Could say ’senator’ instead of ‘ma’am?’”

“Yes, ma’am,” Walsh interjected.

“It’s just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it, yes, thank you,” she said.

“Yes, senator,” he responded.

Barbara Boxer, you jerk.

You worked hard to get that title, maybe.  BUT THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA GAVE IT TO YOU.  IT IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL REWARD FOR HARD WORK RENDERED.  THEY HAVE (STUPIDLY) ASSIGNED A ROLE OF THEIR REPRESENTATION IN THE SENATE TO YOU.

Barbara Boxer wants to be called by her job title because she earned it.  It’s not yours, Boxer.  You might say “well, I’m elected by the people, I want some respect,” but that’s what the general was attempting when he called you “ma’am.”  I honestly feel bad for this guy – who works directly for my defense – that he had to put up with such blatant, self-indulgent BS.

Americans, don’t forget that government officials are here to serve you and under you.  The role of Senator isn’t some cushy, tenure-laden piece of garbage academia position.

But at least I know what I’ll call her now.

“Jerk.”

I remember being taught about the “McDonald-ization of America” in a sociology class in college – this was before I knew much about politics – and hearing the assumption that McDonald-ization was a bad thing.  But how do they figure?  McDonald’s, left alone by the government, came to success by offering easy, predictable, convenient, hot food nearly any time you needed it, almost anywhere in America and certainly anywhere along the interstate systems.  When people complained that it made them too fat, McDonald’s catered to customers by offering salads and fruit dishes.

If McDonald’s is an example of what capitalism does to society, isn’t that a good thing?   A really good thing?

I bring this up in the context of public health care because Obama’s pushing it.   The idea is that having government involved will lower prices, though someone has to explain the economics of that to me.  And I shudder to think about what a government-run McDonald’s corporation would look like (”you can have a number one or a number one!  It will be ready in just half an hour!”), and would much prefer to see what a McDonald’s-like health clinic could do.

Obama claims that the public competing with the private sector would stimulate quality, but the private sector competing with the private sector is what works.  For a federal government that loves busting up monopolies, they fail to see that competing with the government is a little like having a sucking contest inside a vacuum.

It’s not that the government does a better job.  It’s that the government has the power to regulate and private companies do not.  I fail to see how competition would help if one of the contestants can change the rules whenever he wants.

Obama has put such a high priority on health insurance that he calls it a moral imperative – gee, that sounds familiar.  Cough Global Warming Cough.  Until Democrats figure out that they’re for the legalization of killing babies, I won’t listen to them about moral imperatives.

What’s “moral” about government-run health care?  That you’re being compassionate to the people who can’t afford it?  Please.  Liberals try to monopolize compassion as if government money were the only solution to any problem.

Some say that health care is too important to be left to anyone but the government.  But I say it’s too important to be left to the government.  The federal government is already grabbing companies it has no rights taking over – we’re supposed to trust them with our bodies, too?

Here in Wisconsin, Aurora Health Care is a great example of a private medical company that has spread like McDonald’s – remember, that’s not a bad thing, it’s a good thing.  I can go to Hibbity Jibbity County and expect to receive similar health treatment as I’d receive here in southeastern Wisconsin because it’s the same company.  And thanks to cheap, private insurance and the help of a (private) health savings account, I could pay for it, too.  It’s that simple – the company that wants the most health business is going to have to be the most accessible and as affordable as possible.  If not, all of the patients go to the company that is.

Lest you think total privatization of the health market would drive up prices because of “greedy corporations,” remember that high prices often mean less business, unless you can justify a high price with high quality.  The government has shut down private medical operations that allowed people to have any treatment they wanted for some sixty dollars a month.  Tell me:  can poor people afford sixty dollars a month to have comprehensive coverage?  Since many of them are already spending that much on Happy Meals, I think they could cover that.

Well, maybe not Henrietta Hughes, but she couldn’t afford a candy bar with five bucks in her pocket.

What’s best about privatization of the health care market?  It doesn’t cost the government anything – in fact it saves them billions upon billions of dollars.  Of course, trying to convince a party that needs people to be old, sick, and poor in order to secure votes that privatization is a good idea is like pulling teeth, but at least you’re hearing it now.

I want drive-through health care.

Time Magazine called Bush the “Love Him, Hate Him” President – and that was before his second term.  These days, the phrase “The Last Eight Years” have apparently become synonymous with some sort of tyrannical reign of terror in which Bush enslaved Americans to build monuments to himself.

The problem?  As time moves on, “The Last Eight Years” includes more and more of Obama’s policies.  And the more and more we see of Obama’s policies, the more his policies look like George W. Bush’s.

Let’s examine.

Foreign Policy:

-Iraq.  It was a telling moment during the campaign when none of the major Democratic candidates – Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama – could promise to have troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term.  Suddenly, for all of the talk of “bringing our troops home,” we realized that Democrats had no real intention of doing anything like that.

Obama retained Bush’s Secretary of Defense and has essentially retained the Iraq policy of a slow withdrawal – Bush was going to do it, Obama’s doing it.  In fact, when it comes to our two international wars, Obama has ramped up the war in Afghanistan.

A “surge,” if you will.

-Military tribunals.  Obama called them an “enormous failure” during the campaign and suspended them once he became President.  As Charles Krauthammer notes, “They’re back…the military commissions flip-flop is accompanied by the usual Obama three-step: (a) excoriate the Bush policy, (b) ostentatiously unveil cosmetic changes, (c) adopt the Bush policy.”

Obama has tried to flee from Bush policies when it comes to Guantanamo, but not even his own party believes in that departure, blocking funding for the decision with support of some 90% of U.S. Senators.

According to Victor Davis Hanson of the National Review, Democrats in office have kept up a list of Bush policies.  “The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq (i.e., slowing the withdrawal), Afghanistan (i.e., the surge) — and now Guantanamo.”

Domestic Policy:

-Stimulus.  The insane idea of government spending as “stimulus” was pioneered in 2008 under George W. Bush and Nancy Pelosi, and simmered to a debt-ridden stew under Obama/Pelosi in 2009.  The stimulus didn’t stimulate anything in 2008, and it’s not stimulating anything in 2009.  One could call this type of federal intervention in the economy a “Bush/Obama” policy.

Bush’s famous quote?  “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”  Obama hasn’t simply abandoned free market principles; he’s totally ignored them.  But both Bush and Obama saw the role of government in the same light: their difference was simply a matter of degree.

-Deficit spending.  For all of the admonishing of George W. Bush as a deficit spender expanding the national debt, Barack Obama has once again taken the Bush policy and injected it with steroids.  If you claim that “the last eight years” were a problem, how does expanding a policy like this help?  The idea is that the spending will help us get out of a recession – but of course, the recession would have ended with or without government spending.

Obama likes to draw a contrast with himself and the Bush administration, but people who actually watch what’s going on realize that not every policy is different.  If you really hated Bush for these policies, maybe you should ask yourself why you don’t also hate Obama.