Hierarchy Of Trust

One of the interesting dynamics of the war in Iraq is where people get the news that forms their views on the conflict. The diffusion of sources and outlets for war news has never been as broad as it today and there's no such thing as "the story" on the war in Iraq. There are many different stories, often contradictory, competing for an audience. And who you trust to give you the news from Iraq probably says a lot about how you feel about the war.

Here's what I call my "Hierarchy of Trust" for reliable, accurate information about what is really going in Iraq:

At the top: Troops on the ground.
Even though they can only report on the sector they're in, sometimes not being able to see the larger picture, they still provide the most honest assessment of the good, the bad, and the ugly.

One level down: Reporters who have been in Iraq for extended periods of time, have a deep understanding of the military and history, and spend most of their time in the field. Michael Yon is an obvious example and I would also put John Burns from the The New York Times in this all too small group.

Next level down: US military commanders and spokespeople in Iraq. Overall, a pretty good record of not sugar-coating things.

Next level down: The balcony brigade of reporters who spend most of their time in their hotels in Baghdad as well as reporters who may get out where the action is, but are not trustworthy because of their obvious anti-American and anti-military biases.

At the bottom: Politicians from either party who spend one of two days in Iraq and then come back to tell us how things are going. Please. It's like visiting the Mall of America and then making pronouncements about crime in Minneapolis. Don't misunderstand, I applaud those politicians who travel to Iraq and believe there are good reasons for doing so. However, their views of Iraq are by necessity very narrow and limited in scope and scale.

Here's a graphical representation:

You just leave this long haired country boy alone...

You think the Left hates Wal-Mart now? Just wait 'til they get a whiff of their "Threat Research" Operation (WSJ sub req):

The Wal-Mart Stores Inc. worker fired last month for intercepting a reporter's phone calls says he was part of a larger, sophisticated surveillance operation that included snooping not only on employees, but also on critics, stockholders and the consulting firm McKinsey & Co.

As part of the surveillance, the retailer last year had a long-haired employee infiltrate an anti-Wal-Mart group to determine if it planned protests at the company's annual meeting, according to Bruce Gabbard, the fired security worker, who worked in Wal-Mart's Threat Research and Analysis Group. The company also deployed cutting-edge monitoring systems made by a supplier to the Defense Department that allowed it to capture and record the actions of anyone connected to its global computer network. The systems' high-tech wizardry could detect the degree of flesh-tone on a viewed Internet image, and alerted monitors that a vendor sharing Wal-Mart networks was viewing pornography.

The long-haired undercover man was my favorite part of the tale:

In late spring 2006, Wal-Mart learned that several anti-Wal-Mart groups might protest at the annual shareholders meeting in June. Company executives were concerned the civil-rights group Acorn (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and local Up Against the Wal members would disrupt its meeting. Wal-Mart sent a long-haired employee wearing a wireless microphone to Up Against the Wal's Fayetteville, Ark., gathering, and eavesdropped from nearby, says Mr. Gabbard. "We followed around the perimeter with a surveillance van," he says.

Hey Stevens, you look like a hippie instigator. We're gonna mike you up and send you to a rally tomorrow. Oh and Stevens, don't shower okay?

When Tommy Comes Marching Home

For the fifteen British sailors and their families, news that they will be released tomorrow is most welcome. But for the British people (and the West as a whole) this should not be an occasion for celebration.

No parades

No fawning media coverage

No describing them as "heroes"

If there ever was a time for the Brit's stiff upper lip and legendary reserve, it is now. A brief and understated, "Welcome home lads, glad that you're okay" will suffice. Anything more will just reinforce the impression that the British have become as weak, as soft, and as unserious as the rest of Europe.

Assumes Facts Not In Evidence

One of the most troubling aspects of the on-going climate change debate (despite claims to the contrary, it's far from over) is the tendency of proponents of man-made warming to never move their arguments beyond presenting evidence of said warming, as if that alone was enough to win the day. I guarantee the first time the temps here in Minnesota reach the upper-nineties this summer, some local wag will dismissively say something along the lines "And some people still deny that there's global warming..." When would-be Vice Presidential candidate (don't laugh) Amy Klobuchar chats about climate change with Al Gore in the Senate, she recites one anecdote after another about dried-out ducks, early ice outs, and drowning penguins (okay, you can laugh at that).

99% of the discussion preaching on climate change is about what impact global warming is having now, how it will be thousands of times worse in the future (curiously enough, the positive impacts of warming are given scant attention), and what MUST DO NOW to prevent this impending catastrophe.

But, despite the way the debate is often framed, the central core of contention is not whether there is some warming occurring (there is disagreement about how much). It's whether that warming is caused by man-made CO2 emissions and, more precisely, how much of the warming is anthropogenic (a fancy word for man-made).

Is it 100% anthropogenic? 90% anthropogenic & 10% natural? 80-20? 70-30? 50-50? 20-80?

That is key question and, as Holman Jenkins points out in today's Wall Street Journal, one that has so far not been conclusively answered at all (sub req):

In any case, evidence of warming is not evidence of manmade warming.

It would surprise the public, and even the Supreme Court, to know how utterly the science of global warming offers no evidence whatsoever on the central proposition. What fills Mr. Gore's film, books, speeches and congressional testimony are scientific observations and quasi-scientific observations, all right. They concern polar bears, mosquitoes, hurricanes, ice packs and everything but whether humans cause global warming.

Some of this evidence may suggest, weakly or strongly, the existence of warming trends in particular parts of the world (such local trends, both cooling and warming, have been observed in many places and many times). More dubiously, some may indicate a generalized warming. But none offers any evidence that carbon dioxide is causing warming. Mr. Gore's method is the equivalent of trying to prove that Jack killed Jane by going on and on about how awful it was that Jane was killed.

Or in this case, how awful it was that those cute little penguins drowned.

Sanctuary

FCC: 'No' to cell phones on planes:

Striking a blow for cell phone haters everywhere, a government agency on Tuesday said it will keep a rule in place that requires the divisive devices to be turned off during airline flights.

The reasoning behind the decision was technical. But the avalanche of comments the Federal Communications Commission has logged from airline travelers have been nothing short of visceral.

"These days it's impossible to get on a bus without at least one person hollering into their cell phone, invading the private space of everyone around them," one member of the public wrote in an e-mail to the FCC. "That's bad enough when one can get off in 10 minutes. To have to suffer through HOURS of such torture, with nowhere to go and miserably cramped conditions--someone is going to explode."

Amen brother. You could add that 99% of all cell conversations are nothing but inane blather over trivial matters. Thank you FCC.

Get your Tommy T-shirts and your stickers

Like a typical Wisconsin resident leaving the bar at closing time, Tommy Thompson stumbles badly out of the gate in the race for '08. At least with our readers. 97% of you who bothered to respond to our poll indicated little or no interest in Thompson's announcement that he was entering the contest.

A Heartbeat Away

Klobuchar, Pawlenty on veep list:

One of the country's most quoted political scientists labels U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Gov. Tim Pawlenty as potential vice presidential candidates.

Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia Center for Politics said the Minnesota governor is a conservative who offers a "Midwest twist, executive experience." It is good that Republican Pawlenty, whom he called a "McCain favorite," is from a swing state.

However, Sabato said, on the downside it is "questionable whether he could carry MN after weak 2006 performance."

I would say very questionable.

Klobuchar has been mentioned as a possible running mate, but not nearly as much as Pawlenty is linked with U.S. Sen. John McCain.

Klobuchar, in office just three months, would be a "good counter-move to Pawlenty," Sabato wrote last week. She also earns marks for "some legislative and law enforcement experience."

I can see how Pawlenty makes some sense as a potential VP, but Amy Klobuchar? I know that office of Vice President isn't all that important in and of itself, but don't you have to DO SOMETHING(ANYTHING!) before being considered for it?

Pure Conjecture

It must be great to be a Supreme Court justice. Not only are you the highest authority in the land on vexing Constitutional issues, you get to be an expert on just about anything. Some times it's theology. Sometimes medicine. And now, even climatology.

From today's Wall Street Journal Court Rulings Could Hit Utilities, Auto Makers (sub req):

In a decision that could mark a turning point in the national debate over climate change, a divided Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and that the Bush administration broke the law in its refusal to limit emissions of those gases.

The 5-4 decision was a victory for environmental groups, which had pushed for such a ruling, and a blow to the nation's auto and utility industries, among others, as well as the White House. The Bush administration has steadfastly opposed mandatory curbs on the emission of greenhouse gases, which most scientists believe contribute to global warming.

The key words there are "contribute to" not cause.

Whenever a Supreme Court decision comes down, the first thing I want to know is what the vote was and how each Justice voted. That should be covered in the first or second paragraph in all such stories, since it tells you a lot about the decision. In this case, we are told early on that it was a 5-4 decision, but have to wait until the TWENTY-THIRD paragraph to learn:

The court's majority opinion, which was written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, rejected all three claims.

Surprise, surprise, surprise. The usual suspects and the guy who seems more and more willing to blow with prevailing winds, Anthony Kennedy. But remember, the debate on climate change is not a partisan issue folks.

In any case, the slow pace of the nation's regulatory machinery, the potential for congressional or legal challenges to future regulations, and the lead time industry would need to comply with them effectively ensure that no significant changes in regulating emissions will take effect during the remainder of Mr. Bush's time in office.

Thank God for red tape.

That doesn't mean that Congress, now controlled by Democrats, won't press the issue. The House is already gearing up for action on climate change through a special committee set up by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to focus and coordinate work by the different panels with oversight of energy and the environment.

The Senate also has taken up the cause. "This decision puts the wind at our back," Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement. She promised to call the EPA before her committee to explain how it intends to comply with the ruling, while also pushing for additional legislation.

Hearing those words from Barbara Boxer should send a chill down the spine of anyone who believes in the free market.

The Journal also has an editorial today taking the Jolly Green Justices to task (sub req):

They showed no such modesty. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, a narrow majority managed to diminish the rules of judicial standing, rewrite the definition of "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, and dramatically curtail the decision-making authority of the executive branch. And judging from Justice John Paul Stevens's 5-4 majority decision, they did so because the five Justices are personally anxious about rising temperatures. As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in dissent, the "Court's alarm over global warming" has led it to substitute "its own desired outcome" for the EPA's judgment.

The five Supreme climatologists granted Al Gore's fondest wish by declaring that "the harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized." The majority warned about a "precipitous rise in sea levels," "severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems" and "increases in the spread of disease."

Three claims which have been grossly exaggerated by climate change scaremongers.

Perhaps most distressing is the way the majority made a hash of traditional "standing" doctrine, which determines when a plaintiff has a right to sue. To justify its global warming afflatus, the Justices simply asserted that the Massachusetts coastline faces imminent threat from rising seas. Not even Mr. Gore goes that far. But the Court cites climate models to suggest future harm in order to claim the threat of immediate injury, and thus standing by the Bay State.

"Aside from a single conclusory statement, there is nothing in petitioners' 43 standing declarations and accompanying exhibits to support an inference of actual loss of Massachusetts coastal land from 20th century global sea level increases," writes Chief Justice John Roberts in his dissent. "It is pure conjecture."

Another item that fits into that category is the majority citing Hurricane Katrina in their opinion:

18-In this regard, MacCracken's 2004 affidavit—drafted more than a year in advance of Hurricane Katrina-was eerily prescient. Immediately after discussing the "particular concern" that climate change might cause an "increase in the wind speed and peak rate of precipitation of major tropical cyclones (i.e., hurricanes and typhoons),"

This is unbelievable. The Supreme Court of the United States making a link that even the most die-hard, Al Gore-worshipping climate-change doomsayers would admit is unsupportable. There is NO evidence that global warming had any impact on Hurricane Katrina. None. Maybe Justice Stevens can explain how his theory on global warming causing more numerous and severe storms can explain the 2006 hurricane season.

In fact, the entire notion that a warming planet will cause more storms of greater severity is very much in dispute. If you look back at climate history, most records indicate that warmer periods had fewer catastrophic storms.

Writing for Canada's National Post, Terence Cocoran warns of the dangers of governments trying to play both sides of the climate change issue:

Nobody at the EPA or within the Bush administration spent much effort challenging the science the court heard on hurricanes. The preference in government among politicians in power is to lie low on the science and play out the political game for as long as possible. Maybe it will go away or take care of itself.

Foot-dragging on climate-control policy is a national priority for all developed nations, including most of Europe but especially in Canada and the United States. Avoiding major and dramatic policy action--such as tough regulations, massive carbon taxes, and job-killing cutbacks--is actually sound policy.

But politicians and governments cannot have it both ways forever. You can't fund the climate-science industry, a vast self-interested global community of subsidized players, and expect to be able to ignore the effects of their work. The science will bite back. This is a dangerous game being played out across the world, but especially in the industrialized West. Without the West's billions in funding, the great UN-backed climate control industry would not exist.

...the politicians are playing with fire. At some point, carried along by the subsidized official state science, they will find themselves imposing costs and burdens on the economy that will cause a lot of harm but do little good.

That's your cue Barbara.

Gorillas In The Mist?

A forwarded e-mail warns us to expect ferocious chest-beating, loud scowling vocalizations, and pungent odors in Saint Paul tomorrow afternoon.

Please join us tomorrow to say no to the war on Iraq. We appreciate your support!

PROTEST TOMORROW:
Stop the War on Iraq: Demand that Senator Coleman Represent MN in Congress!

Tuesday, April 3
4:30pm
Senator Coleman's office, 2550 University Ave. W, St. Paul

For eight Tuesdays local activists have sat in Coleman's office demanding that he vote against the surge & funding for the war. But Coleman refuses to represent the majority of Minnesotans. Demonstrate at one of the busiest intersections in the Twin Cities (280 & University) to bring attention to Coleman's voting record. There will be speeches, bannering, & "guerrilla theater".

Organized by the Anti-War Committee & the Twin Cities Peace Campaign. Endorsed by the Anti-War Organizing League.

Since when did "bannering" become a word anyway? You're going to be holding banners, okay? We're happy for you.

Saturday In The Park--Update

Quick update on the struggle of "one guy in his basement against City Hall." It appears that the City of St. Louis Park is still intent on sponsoring a couple of showings of "An Inconvenient Truth" at the taxpayer-funded Westwood Hills Nature Center on Saturday April 14th at 2:45pm and Saturday April 21st at 12:30pm (details here).

However, they do seem open to the idea of having an alternative viewpoint presented as well. Whether this would be a showing of The Great Global Warming Swindle video or some other format hasn't been determined yet. While a couple of city council members have been in touch, I'm still waiting to be contacted by the mayor.

Meanwhile, I'm working with a couple of local scientists to prepare a presentation offering a few counterpoints to "An Inconvenient Truth." Al Gore's not the only one who throw some slick-looking slides together. Stay tuned.

Straight Shootin'

Scott Jonson, the transformer who puts the power through the line, posts an e-mail with a pessimistic assessment on Iraq and draws our attention to nine-sixteenths, a mil-blogger in Iraq who's not afraid to shoot from the hip:

Before you write me off simply as a disgruntled soldier take a look at the rest of my blog. You'll see that I was, and still am, an ideological support of the war. I'm a college graduate who, having already completed eight years of active and inactive service, volunteered to come to Iraq. I still think removing Saddam was the right thing to do, and I don't disagree with the concept of nation building here in Iraq. What gets me is how badly we have run the reconstruction effort. How hard so many people work, and how much so many people sacrifice only to have their efforts squandered by incompetent generals and politicians. The stupid institutional mindset of the careerists in the army and DOD. The promotion of Gen Casey who reigned over this mess is just galling.

The cheerleading has made many conservative commentators, who I respect as intelligent individuals and who I have read for years, almost unreadable. The left is, and has been from the start, idiotic and incoherent on Iraq and I expect nothing better from them. The right though is doing itself no favors trying to be the good news fairies on Iraq.

Voice of Summer Passes

Herb Carneal dies at 83:

Longtime Twins radio broadcaster Herb Carneal died this morning of congestive heart failure at his home in Minnetonka, the team announced.

Carneal, 83, who received the highest honor in baseball broadcasting in 1996 when he was named the recipient of the Ford C. Frick award, had spent six weeks in the hospital this winter battling a variety of ailments.

Thanks for the memories Herb. R.I.P.