Oh, I'm sure he didn't mean that. What did he mean? I have no idea, and I doubt he does either. Captain Bullshit's words do not necessarily accord with any sort of coherent reality.

But what does this mean?

"The danger ... is that we are constantly fighting the last war, responding to the threats that have come to fruition, instead of staying one step ahead of the threats of the 21st century."

Ermm... wasn't that Bush's rationale for waging a "war of choice" in Iraq? to stay ahead of threats before they came to fruition?

Even if Obama wants to claim that Bush's judgment was inaccurate, he seems to agree with the basics of the idea -- and he, like anyone else, must accept that prophecy is a very difficult business, unless you're actually the Lamb of God, which I guess Obama is, so maybe it won't be so hard for Obama to see the future.

Posted by: Ace at 08:51 AM | Comments (36)
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

I suspect that we'll look back on this year as the tipping point when the theory of anthropogenic global warming begins to go the way of the dodo. Aside from the mountain of contradictory scientific data, the theory was just too convenient. People want to believe that they are the most important things on the planet. Like the old geocentric model of the universe, anthropogenic global warming places humans at the center of everything.

But the times are, well, as changeable as the weather. Here's the latest in global warming news:

First, David Evans, formerly of the Australian Greenhouse Office has become a skeptic.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

He goes on to discuss four inconvenient truths about carbon dioxide: (1) scientists can't find its "greenhouse signature" in the atmosphere, so they're fudging the data; (2) nor have they actually observed carbon emissions having an effect on global temperature; (3) measurement of global temperature is seriously flawed; and (4) Al Gore's much ballyhooed arctic ice cores do not show what he says they show. Read the whole thing.

Second, the American Physical Society has acknowledged that there is "considerable presence within the scientific community" of anthropogenic global warming skeptics. APS is an organization of physicists, not atmospheric scientists, but it is nice to see them having the debate. No matter how much they try, global warming alarmists cannot credibly claim that the science is settled.

Third, the idea that the Sun has a more important role on climate than was previously thought is gaining attention. Recently, the Sun has displayed unusually low levels of sunspot activity. There is some conjecture that this will lead to a cooling trend on Earth. The latest news is that the solar flux is at a near record low. I have no idea what that means, but I liked this observation:

Expert forecasts that have called for the sun to be regularly active by now have been falsified by nature, and the question of the day is: how long before the sun becomes active again?

Calling to the sun? They sound more like sun shamans than experts to me.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:36 AM | Comments (206)
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.

Police say the case is "baffling." Actually, it's pretty clear-cut.

When Caylee's mother, Casey, was contacted by officers, it was determined that she apparently never told anyone that her daughter was missing.

Detectives said Anthony said she was doing her own investigation into her daughter's disappearance over the past five weeks, Local 6 reported.

The woman also said she saw movies and reports that if people in similar situations went to police, they had gotten hurt.

Just wondering what the hell movie she claims she saw this in. There is the old kidnapping trope of "Don't contact the police or the kid dies," but there is no ransom demand here. So she thinks that when a kid goes missing, if you report it to the cops, the cops... beat the shit out of you?

Anthony said her daughter was with a babysitter at the Sawgrass apartments but on June 9, the sitter did not answer the door.

Detectives said they checked with apartment management and learned that no one has lived in the apartment for five months.

Late Wednesday, Caylee's alleged baby sitter was tracked down by detectives and the woman said she has never cared for the missing child.

Investigators also said that Casey does not work where she initially clamed to be employed.

Officers said she admitted to lying throughout her interrogation, von Ancken reported.

"It is difficult to sort through what we are being told," Orange County sheriff's Sgt. John Allen said.

Also, detectives said Anthony did not show any emotion over the loss of her child. She did not cry or give any indication she was legitimately worried.

Since investigators cannot get a straight story, they are focusing on finding Caylee.

The mother has reportedly contacted O.J. Simpson, also a noted amateur detective with some experience at "finding the real killers."

Corrected: I was got some parts of this story confused, confusing the alleged babysitter for the mother; I've deleted that.

Posted by: Ace at 08:25 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm sure the ACLU will be all over this. Yep. Any minute now.

In celebration of Ramadan, Global Publishing Solutions (GPS) is offering a limited edition of the 2009 Mosques in America Wall Calendar. This 12-month calendar is perfect for Muslim outreach efforts, as well as office and event giveaways.

No word yet on a "Churches of America" calender.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:41 AM | Comments (53)
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

Say what you want about the death of broadcast news, it's still a powerful forum. The fact that all three network anchors are going to be with Obama at some point during his upcoming trip to Iraq, the Mideast and Europe is going to generate coverage for Obama. Coverage that was lacking when McCain traveled abroad.

Even the NY Times notices the disparity.

Executives at the three traditional networks say they generally devote the same resources to the candidates. But they do not dispute that Mr. Obama has received more coverage this year, not only because of the historic nature of his campaign and his newness to the political scene relative to Mr. McCain, but also because of the protracted nature of Mr. ObamaÂ’s primary battle with Mrs. Clinton, which was at a peak when Mr. McCain last went to Iraq.

The imbalance has appeared in various analyses of the news coverage. The Tyndall Report, a news coverage monitoring service that has the broadcast networks as clients, reports that the three newscasts by the networks — which have a combined audience of more than 20 million people — spent roughly 114 minutes covering Mr. Obama since June. They spent about 48 minutes covering Mr. McCain, who made the rounds of the evening newscasts in satellite interviews last week.

...The large news media contingent that will travel with Mr. Obama will be a help if the trip goes wonderfully. But any gaffes will take place before a larger megaphone.

The media is going to cover Obama gaffes? Like they did the 57 states line, the Great Seal of Obama Land and the need for Arab translators in Afghanistan, just to name a few? Yeah, the next story in the Times or on the networks about any of those things that would have sunk a mere mortal (aka a Republican) will be the first.

Cover up gaffes? Sure but actually cover them, as in report on? Oh, they have a wry sense of humor at the Old Gray Lady!

One of McCain's supposed advantages was his ability to generate free coverage because of the access his gives reporters on his bus and plane. Looks like new Messiah trumps the King of Earned Media.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:42 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 409 words, total size 3 kb.

Bureau of Land Management clears the way for explortion and drilling on almost 4 million acres in Alaska (not ANWR).

Here's the plum:

But the Bureau of Land Management, an agency within the US Department of the Interior, said the Alaskan land that will now be offered requires no other approvals and will be up for leasing in the autumn.

Note that the area was approved for exploration decades ago, but lawsuits from environmentalist groups held it up. Keep that in mind whenever you hear Democrats cry that the oil companies aren't exploring on the (pick your number, it changes) 58, 68 or 104 million acres they have now.

It's not just about the economics of where to invest money to explore, "setting aside the land" isn't the end of the process. Marxist Environmental groups have been given standing in Federal courts to sue to block everything, and they do.

The public is becoming more informed on this, obviously because of the pain they're feeling at the pump. Republicans have started turning the amps up to eleven, but they're not there yet, and if they don't keep up the pressure, the Dems could outflank em. Some of them are already starting to figure out their past positions are becoming politically untenable.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:52 AM | Comments (31)
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

There had been some speculation that the Obama camp's slow reporting of its June fundraising numbers might mean the total wasn't going to be very impressive. Well, it didn't work out that way.

Obama raised $52 million in June alone. That's his second best month ever and only $3 million shy of his record take in February.

In an e-mail to supporters, campaign manager David Plouffe said the Obama campaign raised the funds with an average donation of $68. The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee have a combined total of $72 million in the bank, Plouffe said.

"But more impressive than the number is how you did it," Plouffe wrote. "Hundreds of thousands of ordinary people contributed to building our campaign for change. Many were first-time donors, giving only what they could afford -- and the average donation was just $68."

By comparison, McCain raised $22 million in June and that was his best month ever.

On the upside for McCain, the RNC has plenty of money, a lot more than the DNC ($68 million to $22 million respectively), but that money comes with a lot of strings in terms of what it can be used for and how much coordination there can be with the McCain camp. Apparently someone wrote a law about that.

Obama is certainly going to play in a lot of states he has little to no chance of winning simply to make McCain spend money in those 'safe' states and divert resources from true battlegrounds. Money isn't everything but it sure helps.

(I updated the DNC number from $4 million to $20 million to reflect the newly released number from what's in the story I linked to.)

Posted by: DrewM at 05:18 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

It looks like we're beginning veto season early this year. House Democrats passed their version of the 2009 intelligence budget today. The exact amount is classified, but the public version contains provisions limiting how the money can be spent. President Bush pointed out some dealbreakers:

The bill, which passed on a voice vote, would block two-thirds of the federal covert operations budget until each member of the congressional intelligence committees is briefed on all secret operations under way. Panel members also would be granted access to any other details necessary to assess the value of intelligence operations.

The White House has threatened to veto the bill because it says it would go too far and infringe upon the president's right to protect intelligence. In a statement Wednesday, the administration said the bill could expose information previously protected under executive privilege, including pre-decision legal opinions, risk assessments and cost estimates.

The legislation "would undermine long-standing arrangements between Congress and the president regarding reporting of sensitive intelligence matters," the statement said. [...]

Other provisions in the House bill that provoked a veto threat include a prohibition on the use of contractors to interrogate detainees and a demand that the CIA inspector general audit all covert operations every three years. The administration contends that the required audits would "interfere with the independent judgment" of the agency.

The president also objects to the Senate version, which has yet to pass, because the proposed text prohibits the intelligence services from using any interrogation tactic not listed in the Army Field Manual. At present, the CIA has broader discretion to use other tactics so long as they do not constitute "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment." In March, the 2008 intelligence authorization was vetoed because it contained the same provision. Congress failed to override.

Certainly these are just the first steps in a lengthy back-and-forth about next year's budget. Still, I wonder if Democrats are trying to keep national security arguments away from the general election. Last year, they were handily and repeatedly embarrassed by the President and congressional Republicans on things like war funding, timelines for withdrawal, and defense appropriations. They also bowed to Republicans on domestic issues like SCHIP and stem cell research. For a lame duck president and a failing party, we sure are giving congressional Democrats a hard time.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:43 PM | Comments (16)
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

This list isn't just funny, or just nostalgic, or just informative, but it also happens to have been written by an AoS coblogger under a psuedonym.

Any guesses? (Not me.)

Alexei Vayner, the guy who shot himself in a foot while explaining gun safety, and karate-flip face-plant guy. (Turns out the last guy is actually a professional stuntman, and that was his audition tape. He got the job!)

Good stuff.

Posted by: Ace at 06:05 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

What the media didn't bother reporting. They reported, accurately, that the attack resulted in the highest number of US casualties since a helicopter was downed and all 16 lives aboard lost.

They lost interest in the story when the US won, in an engagement Jeff Emmanuel calls an Alamo with a better ending.

International newswire activity spiked two mornings ago when word came from Afghanistan that nine U.S. troops had been killed in an attack on a remote coalition base.

...

Had those mainstream reporters continued paying attention, chances are they would have noted something remarkable about Sunday's battle.

Three days before the attack, 45 U.S. paratroopers from the 173d Airborne, accompanied by 25 Afghan soldiers, made their way to Kunar province, a remote area in the northeastern Afghanistan-Pakistan border area, and established the beginnings of a small Combat Outpost (COP). Their movement into the area was noticed, and their tiny numbers and incomplete fortifications were quickly taken advantage of.

A combined force of up to 500 Taliban and al Qaeda fighters quickly moved into the nearby village of Wanat and prepared for their assault by evicting unallied residents and according to an anonymous senior Afghan defense ministry official, "us[ing] their houses to attack us."

Tribesmen in the town stayed behind "and helped the insurgents during the fight," General Mohammad Qasim Jangalbagh, the provincial police chief, told The Associated Press. Dug-in mortar firing positions were created, and with that indirect fire, as well as heavy machine gun and RPG fire from fixed positions, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters rushed the COP from three sides.

The attackers quickly breached the outer perimeter, and, under a withering barrage of supporting fire, a contingent of a mere 70 U.S. and Afghan soldiers combined were forced to fight for survival on their own outpost against the all-out assault from nearly 100 assailants.

The overwhelmingly outnumbered U.S. troops called in artillery, as well as fixed and rotary-wing air support, to help the repulse the attacking forces.

As recounted by the AP and other media outlets, nine U.S. paratroopers lost their lives -- a full fifth of the American contingent.

Further, fifteen U.S. and four Afghan soldiers were also wounded in the attack, meaning that, against an assault and support force of nearly 500 militant fighters, only 21 U.S. and 21 Afghan soldiers were able to fight at full strength -- and they succeeded not only in killing dozens of attackers, but in repelling the onslaught completely.

The media's narrative on war is as simple as it is simple-minded: If the enemy attacks at all, they win. If American troops are attacked at all, we lost.

The actual objective outcome of the engagement -- who really won? -- is irrelevant. The simple fact that the enemy is even able to mount an attack counts as a victory for them, and the fact that we have not been able to kill or neutralize every single enemy in the world shows that we have suffered, and will continuing suffering, catastrophic defeat.

The bar of success for our troops, in the media's telling, has been raised to an impossibly high level while the bar for success for our enemies has been reduced to simply being able to mount an attack at all.

Posted by: Ace at 04:46 PM | Comments (58)
Post contains 565 words, total size 4 kb.