Shocker.

Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades. This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory.

It follows a tumultuous few months in which public opinion on efforts to tackle climate change has been undermined by events such as the climate scientists' emails leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit.

"I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change," said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. "The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful."

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is "modern democracy", he added. "Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."

You know what's not like a war which would require some adjustments to normal democratic practice? Actual war. I certainly don't endorse repealing the Constitution because of war, but look at the left's reaction to Gitmo, or the idea of ethnic profiling.

But something like a war, on the other hand, requires that all of democracy be put "on hold."

Posted by: Ace at 11:27 AM | Comments (194)
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

Above the Post Update: Erik Brown has announced that he will return the money.

Excellent. No story here at all. Except why he thought this was a kosher expense to bill for, who he was with at the club, what they spent $2,000 on, and who approved it at the RNC. When you get those mailers asking for money, you might send the RNC a note asking about it.

And no, I don't think it's too much to ask that this type of thing be condemned by the leadership at the national committee. Saying, "well the DNC does it, too" doesn't cut it. The Democrats are liars, thieves, and villains. That doesn't mean we should be.

Original Post:
Alright, Slublog did some digging and found that the charge in the FEC filing at Voyeur was actually reimbursed to one Erik Brown. Go to page 1781 of the March filing and note the transaction IDs and amounts. What did Brown buy at Voyeur that cost $1946.25 on February 4, 2010?

A glance at Brown's twitter page reveals that he seems pretty buddy-buddy with the RNC chairman.

Enjoying the football game with RNC Chairman Michael Steele. (Eagles vs Redskins at FedEx Field) 8:28 PM Oct 26th, 2009 via Tweetie

So at least we have more info on the faux lesbian S&M the RNC donors are paying for.

But this just raises more questions. Why did the RNC reimburse Brown, termed a "non-committee staffer" by its defensive spokesman this morning, for "meals" at Voyeur? Meals that cost almost $2,000. Does the typical "non-committee staffer" get to expense thousand-dollar outtings to the RNC? Also, where can I sign up?

Update: Via Cuffy Meigs, Erik Brown just deleted his twitter account. I think we've got our fellow.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 10:26 AM | Comments (243)
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

Actually, the headline is:

Someone got yelled at in the morning, I reckon.

Posted by: Ace at 10:09 AM | Comments (92)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

More ethical than the average Congressman, too, but that's barely even notable.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress. Only 30% believe that those in Congress have a better understanding of the key issues facing the nation.

When it comes to those issues, 47% think that their own political views are closer to those of the average Tea Party member than to the views of the average member of Congress. On this point, 26% feel closer to Congress.

Posted by: Ace at 10:02 AM | Comments (39)
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

The minority Congressman in question is Jewish Republican Eric Cantor.

Click over to see his YouTube videos, and the not-news-at-all fact that he's an Obama donor.

Posted by: Ace at 09:27 AM | Comments (138)
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

The man, Norman Leboon posted a YouTube rant in which he threatened to kill Congressman Cantor and his family. The FBI determined that the threat was credible and arrested him. Cantor was informed over the weekend.

Norman Leboon, a resident of Philadelphia, was charged in a two-count complaint with threatening to kill Cantor and his family. Leboon made the threat in a YouTube Internet video sent to Google earlier this month, according to a Justice Department news release.

Neither Cantor nor his family were harmed as a result of Leboon's threat, the release noted.

If convicted, Leboon would face a sentence of up to 15 years in prison and a $500,000 fine, according to the release.

Michelle Malkin has a copy of the probable cause affidavit. It's not pretty. The man threatened:

“Remember Eric…our judgment time, the final Yom Kippur has been given. You are a liar, you’re a Lucifer, you’re a pig, a greedy fucking pig, you’re an abomination, you receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads. You and your children are Lucifer’s abominations.”

JammieWearingFool did some digging and guess what? Norman Leboon is an Obama donor.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:22 AM | Comments (67)
Post contains 219 words, total size 2 kb.

With 46% disapproving.

And, as usual, this is with adults, not voters, and definitely not likely voters.

Obama is among those waiting eagerly to see what's in the health care bill. Maybe there's an extra 5% approval for him lurking around in those 2200 pages.

Clinton's Prediction... Of a ten point bounce for Obama upon passage of the socialist health care plan seems in error.

Corrected! Another screw-up. I clicked on "Job Approval" and came up with a chart showing it 46-48 -- in fact, that was from two weeks ago. The current poll numbers are the reverse of that, 48-46. I have corrected the post to reflect this.

Posted by: Ace at 09:19 AM | Comments (43)
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

Gore weeps! laughs all the way to the bank. Notice the suggestion that maybe, maybe there are natural cycles at work in the world around us:

The Gulf Stream does not appear to be slowing down, say US scientists who have used satellites to monitor tell-tale changes in the height of the sea.

Confirming work by other scientists using different methodologies, they found dramatic short-term variability but no longer-term trend.

A slow-down - dramatised in the movie The Day After Tomorrow - is projected by some models of climate change.

The stream is a key process in the climate of western Europe, bringing heat northwards from the tropics and keeping countries such as the UK 4-6C warmer than they would otherwise be.

The satellite record going back to 1993 did suggest a small increase in flow, although the researchers cannot be sure it is significant.

"The changes we're seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle," said Josh Willis from Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California.

"The slight increase in overturning since 1993 coincides with a decades-long natural pattern of Atlantic heating and cooling."

So let me get this straight. Simulations by some of the most well-known and important climate scientists tell us that global warming is slowing the Gulf Stream and could render the UK and northern Europe a frozen wasteland unless we return them, and ourselves, to pre-industrial sustainable societies. But some yahoos with a satellite actually went out and measured the thing?

Well, I know who I'm gonna believe.

Thanks to commenter, erm...Upscale Community Organizing Thought Criminal.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:05 AM | Comments (44)
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

You knew this and I knew this and the vast majority of voters knew this. Now health insurers are saying it out loud.

Jim Geraghty spotted it in an interview with Aetna's CEO:

Will insurance premiums go up?
The answer is yes, and some of the things that will drive those premiums are significant additional taxes the industry will ultimately have to pay in the first year.

The President said that this bill would not have any impact on people who already had coverage, that it was about the uninsured, that there would be no change. Will this legislation change the coverage of people who are already paying for it?
My perception is, yes, things will change. You might not have a plan that includes the exact same doctors. You might have plans that have richer benefits, and therefore you're going to pay more for benefits you may or may not want. It would have been a better message to say, we're going to make certain you maintain your eligibility.

Watch out, Mr. CEO man, I'm sure Waxman and Stupak will be happy to add you to their list of people to mock, slander, and abuse at their congressional "investigation" next week.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:45 AM | Comments (94)
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

Okay, so the Times doesn't say "lie" and it strongly implies that this is somehow insurers' fault (link is to the Corner). But the options are really quite limited. Either (1) Obama lied; or (2) Obama was freaking ignorant about what the ObamaCare bill did.

Contrary to the what President Obama told crowd after crowd, the Affordable Care Act does not immediately mandate that insurers offer coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. It only says any coverage that is offered to children cannot include exclusions for the treatment of such conditions.

HHS Secretary Sebelius says she will issue regulations clarifying that the law guarantees access to coverage. But again, it is far from clear that the law does any such thing, and federal regulations have no force if they go beyond or against that law (sort of like executive orders!).

This is what you get when you rush thousand-page bills through without giving anyone a chance to look at them, adding amendments and alterations in legislative-ese up until the last minute.

ObamaCare says that starting this year if an insurer issues a policy for a child (most likely as part of a family policy), the insurer must cover the child's preexisting conditions. But it does not say that insurers must issue policies for all children (or children as part of family policies) who want them.

HHS can regulate all it wants, but "guaranteed issue" doesn't kick in until 2014, even for children.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:34 AM | Comments (56)
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.