Why Don't Ask Don't Tell Won't Change

This photograph was taken during the time President Clinton was wrangling with Senator Sam Nunn about homosexuals serving in the military. Senator Nunn was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The photo was on the front page of my local paper - it probably made the front page of most papers in the nation. It devasted Clinton's efforts to allow gays to openly serve in the military. What was once just a military policy, that could have been overturned by the president, became the law of the land.

The reason the law won't be overturned anytime soon has nothing to do with what the Generals or Admirals think (there are probably enough now who would support overturning the ban, if not for the law, just to curry favor with a liberal president). The reason the law will remain in place is parents don't want their eighteen year old sons and daughters sleeping next to a homosexual. Those parents vote. Incidentally, I'm with the parents on this one.

Cross-posted in Anatreptic

Ignorance of the Journalists

“I tell you I have been in the editorial business going on fourteen years, and it is the first time I ever heard of a man's having to know anything in order to edit a newspaper.”
- Mark Twain, How I Edited an Agricultural Paper Once

Last week the Guardian broke a story that had been in the blogosphere for at least two years:

A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced

It is interesting that the “evidence” the Guardian relies on is the email discussion by CRU scientists that the non-CRU researcher responsible for the data “screwed up”. The actual argument for the screw up is in this 2007 paper written by Douglas Keenan. Sans Keenan’s paper, the email exchange is meaningless. But the Guardian didn’t give any credence to Keenan’s thesis until the “establishment” scientists were shown, via the climategate emails, to have done so. Keenan’s paper speaks for itself, but the Guardian journalists do not exhibit any ability to make their own independent judgment. Now that they can’t trust the establishment, where will the Guardian go for critical analysis?

RELATED:

The march of the poodles. Steyn notes the failure of journalism in the climate debate. The point I'm trying to make above is that failure is largely due to the ignorance of the J-school types who must rely on others for their critical thinking. Considering the liberal bent of their training, it is not surprising these journalist tend to trust the views of their liberal ("establishment") climate scientists - especially when opposing views are labeled heretical by the same establishment.

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

Behind the Scenes

While there is no doubt that voter anger and disgust over Obama's leftist agenda is fueling support for Scott Brown's senate campaign, I thought this was interesting:

Largely overlooked in assessing Brown’s prospects: the hidden hand of Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor headlined at a fundraiser for Brown last October. And Romney has helped Brown raise money outside the state as well. “I know Scott and how determined he is to win. I've campaigned for him, raised money on his behalf, and we're doing all we can to help him over the finish line,” Romney wrote supporters last Monday. Brown, 50, raised $1.3 million that day.

But lest anyone accuse Romney of being a Johnny-come-lately—stepping up only as Brown has vaulted from sacrificial lamb to serious threat—the 2008 presidential hopeful has lent crucial support behind the scenes from the start of Brown’s campaign. Ever since he entered the race to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, Brown has been counseled by members of the Shawmut Group, a Boston-based consulting firm that acts as the Romney political brain trust in exile. Among the many Romney disciples running Brown’s campaign are Beth Myers, the campaign manager of Romney’s presidential run; Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s chief spokesman; Peter Flaherty, Romney’s “go-to-guy for conservatives”; and Rob Cole, Romney’s 2008 deputy chairman manager. Beth Lindstrom, another player in Romney World, is working as Brown’s campaign manager. Lindstrom’s ties to Romney go back years; she started working with him in the Massachusetts State House as director of consumer affairs.

It also doesn't hurt that the former Massachusetts governor cut his political teeth running for the same seat directly against Kennedy.

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

What can Brown do for you?

Michael Graham, of the Boston Herald,tallys the upside.

Scott Brown, the Republican candidate running for the Massachusetts senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy, is making the Democratics earn the seat this time. He even has a shot at winning. If the Democrats didn't think Obamacare motivates opposition, they need to mull over yesterday's campaign moneybomb. The Brown campaign sought to raise $500K in a one day drive - they more than doubled their goal at $1.3M.

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

Happy New Year!

Earth could plunge into sudden ice age

And it's still your fault:

In the film, "The Day After Tomorrow," the world gets gripped in ice within the span of just a few weeks. Now research now suggests an eerily similar event might indeed have occurred in the past.

Looking ahead to the future, there is no reason why such a freeze shouldn't happen again — and in ironic fashion it could be precipitated if ongoing changes in climate force the Greenland ice sheet to suddenly melt, scientists say. Starting roughly 12,800 years ago, the Northern Hemisphere was gripped by a chill that lasted some 1,300 years. Known by scientists as the Younger Dryas and nicknamed the"Big Freeze," geological evidence suggests it was brought on when a vast pulse of fresh water — a greater volume than all of North America's Great Lakes combined — poured into the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans.

This abrupt influx, caused when the glacial Lake Agassiz in North America burst its banks, diluted the circulation of warmer water in the North Atlantic, bringing this "conveyer belt" to a halt. Without this warming influence, evidence shows that temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere plummeted.

...This kind of scenario would not discount evidence pointing toward global warming — after all, it leans on the Greenland ice sheet melting.

"We could say that global warming could lead to a dramatic cooling," Patterson told LiveScience. "This should serve as a further warning rather than a pass."

A pass on what? Kyoto, "Cap and Trade", Copenhagen?. If only cavemen had climate scientists they could have been warned about the dangers of cooking meat.

What a racket. Our modern soothsayers have now predicted our SUV's will lead to Global Cooling or Global Warming - whichever comes first. Send more money and remember, when the future happens - they predicted it.

Addendum: If you are worried about the ice sheets of Greenland melting, read this to see what passes for science among the Anthropormorphic Global Warming crowd.

Cross-posted at Anatreptic

HHS Death Panels

Who ya gonna believe?

... The Department of Health and Human Services recommended women not get mammograms until age 50, and then only every two years.

It's a stunning reversal and a break with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position. What's more, the panel said breast self-exams do no good, and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

Dr. Brett Parkinson, the medical director of the Breast Cancer Center at IMC, says, "I think the important thing women can do is to look to the organizations that have proven trustworthy." At Intermountain Medical Center, 20 percent of their breast cancer patients are between the ages of 40 and 49; that's the age the new guidelines discourages from getting mammograms. That's the big reason why the medical director of the Breast Cancer Center at IMC does not agree the new recommendations.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government panel of doctors and scientists is getting swift pushback:

The recommendations were based on commissioned studies, but Parkinson says, "not one breast cancer expert was on the panel. Nobody in the imaging world, the people who work with mammography, was involved in this project.

...For most of the past two decades, the American Cancer Society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40, and it reiterated that position on Monday.

...Susan G. Komen organization and the American College of Radiology agree with the American Cancer Society.

With government controlled healthcare on the horizon, one won't be sure if a government recommendation is for your health or their budget. But hey, everyone else is doing it:

The panel's new recommendations are more in line with international guidelines, which call for screening to start at age 50; the World Health Organization recommends the test every two years, and Britain says every three years.

How's that working for Britain?

Politically this has got to be a bonehead move on the part of HHS. Didn't anyone tell them that the boss is trying to get socialized medicine through Congress. Ixnay on anything that smacks of death panels until it's a lock.

UPDATE: HHS's Sebelius finally gets the memo.


Cross-posted at Anatreptic

The Non-Combatant Status of Major Nidal Malik Hasan

After the Fort Hood massacre, one of my friends was surprised to learn our military bases are actually gun free zones. Another irony of military life. Chances are, if Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire off post, there might have been a concealed weapon available. In 1991, a gunman did open fire in a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen - the town outside Fort Hood - and killled 23 people. Suzzanna Hupp, a patron who lost both her parents in that massacre, had left her gun in her car because she did not have a concealed carry permit. As a result of the Luby massacre, Texas reduced the restrictions for concealed carry permits.

Another thing that non-military experienced folks might not be aware of is that as a medical officer, Major Hasan is considered a non-combatant. Despite the image of Frank Burns brandishing a firearm, medical personnel may not use arms against enemy forces acting in conformity with the law of armed conflict. Of course there is that caveat "acting in conformity with the law of armed conflict" - since when has America had an enemy oblige? Nonetheless, the U.S. conforms to the law. Speculation that Major Hasan was conflicted about fighing Muslims is baseless. He wouldn't have been permitted to even if he desired.

Cross-posted in Anatreptic

Nothing to do with Islam

One day after the Fort Hood massacre, my local TV station, KSL, is telling us nothing to see here, move on:

Reaction from Utah's Muslim community to Thursday's deadly shootings at Fort Hood is one of sadness and regret that the gunman is of their faith. Their leaders are anxious for people of other faiths to understand what he did has nothing to do with Islam.
(emphasis added)

Many devout Muslims are horrified about the Fort Hood massacre, but the idea that violence has "nothing to do with Islam" is fiction. Just in 2009, the world has endured at least 1673 incidents of terrorism, honor killings, and religious executions - all in the name of Islam.

7,869 deaths and 15,394 injuries. This year.

Ignoring Iraq and Afghanistan still leaves 4,046 murders in 36 countries. The level of violence associated with Islam dwarfs that associated with the world's other leading religions. Despite KSL's report, there are many adherents who do find violence an acceptable expression of Islam. To state or imply otherwise is misleading.

Cross-posted in Anatreptic

Sure Iran can't be trusted

A reader at Instapundent comments about Iranian duplicity with the Obama administration:

Now we know why Obama turned his back on Iranian protesters. Note that the secret negotiations began in June. What else went on in June in Iran? Oh yeah… those pesky election results protests.

Basically, he turned his back on the Iranian people because that whole free election fight of theirs wasn’t nearly as important as the nuclear deal he was working out with Iran’s regime. Too bad the regime couldn’t be trusted to actually live up to its end of the bargain. Big surprise there, that you can’t trust political leaders who believe in silencing their own people…

Maybe that should serve as an object lesson to us about Obama…

Object lesson noted, however, when the President is willing to mislead Americans (deficit neutral health care comes to mind) and renege on allies (Eastern Europeon missile protection anyone?) why would Iranian leadership be expected to trust Mr. Obama?

Cross-posted at Anatreptic