Talking Points are not bad, I conclude.

Because I have taken a take-no-prisoners approach to political debate on Facebook, it has been suggested that all I post is right-wing talking points, and, as such, these are not worthy of debate.

Which brings me to this question.

What's wrong with talking points?

I mean, politicos like them so much there is a left wing website named after them (the liberal Talking Points Memo, or tpm.com).

They are so useful that when Susan Rice was going around lying about Benghazi, she proudly declared that her talking points had been prepared by the State Department, and she really didn't know anything about them (note to future Dem voters, this is why Susan got this task, because Hillary wouldn't be able to claim the same thing).

We all know they clutter vthe fax machines of liberals and conservatives alike.

Heck, I'll admit it, I get about 10 email "newsletters" from various conservative organizations and writers, and more than a handful from military-friendly organizations, plus, I check Drudge multiple times a day for news.  It's basically his "talking points."

So, what's wrong with talking points?  They're basically the PowerPoint view of the world, and all those newsletters I get include links to much more background information about the subject than you are getting in your standard, MSM-fed 90 second news report.

So, I say talking points! Bring them on!

Besides, if all I am is a TP spewer, wouldn't debating such an ill-prepared and stupid man be easy? 

Because I knew you'd ask, here are some good places for your daily talking points:

- Jim Gerety's daily newsletter from National Review Online - always topical, always funny, always filled with links to fun stuff.

- Jonah Goldberg's weekly G-File.  Ok, it's not daily, but it is always funny. And in a world of humorless lefties who can't laughter at themselves (and think I'm always serious, too), it's a necessity.

- Defense News' Early Bird - a necessity for those who work in, or care about, national defense.  Military Times does one, too (may be same content).

- The Daily Caller has a daily blast which is sometimes useful, and also pithy.  

I also get some private mailings (these are defense related) that are very specific, but if you're on the right, you might sign up for Erik Erickson's daily RedState briefing.  I find I disagree with the Tea party faction on tactics, but we're together in philosophy, so, good to know what your brethren are thinking.

From the MSM, there's nothing I want to know, although I get a NYTimes daily email.  It's boring, though, as it's not all politics.

Oh, and I have google alerts for things work related. That's something you should consider.

Ok.  The end.

Climate Change Fascists!!

I am so sick of the "climate change" religionists.  Their latest tactic is rolling out the decaying carcass of Bill Nye (the "Science Guy"), as though having a cartoonish buffoon who's legacy is explaining science to toddlers, is going to win the day for them.

He's soundly mocked. See links, here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/16/nye-goofs-holds-up-pic-of-arctic-while-talking-about-antarctic-watch-bill-nye-debate-gop-rep-marsha-blackburn-nye-hold-up-pic-of-arctic-and-then-asks-if-antarctic-has-less-ice-climate-depot-answ/

I have posted all over this blog, and there are links galore to articles debunking both the correlations and the strength of the correlations between man and "climate change."

A lot bothers me about those who hold this religious (and I mean that in the most derogatory sense possible) view that Man is responsible for all climate activity on this planet, but, in no particular order here are some:

1. Their claim that the science is "settled."  That, my friends, depends on what you mean by the "science."  If you mean is CO2 increasing, and is Man a contributor to that, then yes, that is settled.  If you mean, is CO2 a greenhouse gas, then, yes, the science is settled.  But, that's science on the order of "water is chemically H2O" level stuff.  This argument from the CC Religionists attempts to paint you as a bumpkin who believes the Earth is 5000 years old and Man roamed it with the dinosaurs.  In other words, they want you to think you're stupid, (and they're smart and enlightened).  

For most CC'ers, their knowledge of the "science" ends here.  That's because that's all they hear from AlGore or MSNBC or the MSM, and it's about all they can comprehend.  They don't understand that the Church of Climate Change typically ignores important things that also impact the science, like other greenhouse gases (um, water vapor, for example), natural events (volcanic eruptions, for example), natural climate variability, or that big ball of heat in the sky we call the Sun.

They don't understand (or willingly ignore) that the Church of Climate Change is built on models developed by "scientists" who often have a vested financial interest in the Church's future.

2. The "consensus" of scientists means you "deniers" need to shut up.  Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Joe Bastardi and the thousands of others who don't ascribe to the man-caused fear mongering theories of the religionists don't count, as they're not in the consensus.  Well, the consensus is not as great as they want you to believe, and I would encourage you to root around the Internet, and you find a lot of people who find the science problematic, and not so settled at all.  If you have an engineering, science, or math background, some of the crap the religionists are passing off as science should seriously concern you.

3.  Even if you cite experts in the field who produce research that contradicts the party line, and even if it's peer reviewed and well documented and truthful, well, they'll attempt to smear it was "funded by big oil."  This is where Bill Nye devolved to on MTP today.  

4. Extreme weather events are caused by "climate change" and are proof of "climate change."  This is the absolute most maddening claim.  No responsible climate scientist, and not even the most rabid in the "consensus" category will even touch an attempt to tie a specific weather event to "climate change."  The fact is these links can not be proven, not least of all because there is no link.  All you'll really get from them is that extreme weather is a possible result of climate change.  

This is clearly an attempt to influence public opinion,  but when everything is caused by climate change, nothing is.  The new religion's name, "climate change," is even used to be as expansive as possible.  Is there someone alive who thinks the climate hasn't always changed?  The Earth has survived through numerous periods of warming and cooling.  The climate has ALWAYS changed.  This is the very nature of things.  Don't fall for this tactic.  This is entirely meant to distract from the incontrovertible fact that global temperatures have remained the same/fallen slightly since 1998, and their models can not explain "The Pause."  This occurring despite global CO2 emissions continuing to increase.  

Us skeptics say this is because something else is going in here.  These people built their careers (I don't blame anyone for wanting a steady job, but in academia, it's important to be right) on this religion.  Their models were designed to make the most of Man's activities.  Why? Because if you can't say the sky is falling, why should any policy maker fork over the nation's treasury to you to study it more?

That's one group of the believers.  Those are the cash hounds, who need this charade to continue to keep the money flowing.  The harder group are those who know this is a charade, but see it as an opportunity to bring down Western Civilization,  something they've been trying to do for generations.  These were the communist fellow-travelers and the same people who 40 years ago were whining about a new ice and the population explosion.  

Regardless of the cause of the man-caused catastrophe, their proscriptions are all the same - it's the West's fault, stop development, and you people in the 3rd world who'd like to be rich - get back to your caves.

Opposing these people is both a Pro-Science and Moral obligation for me.  That's why I am so passionate about it and find this group to be so dangerous to not just what the West has accomplished but to mankind and what our friends in Brazil and India, and other developing nations may accomplish.  

Obamacare to kill small biz next

Just returned from my eye doctor and he's one of these small businesses who extended their plans discussed in this NBC report (
Workers at auto dealership come face to face with Obamacare trade-offs).

They won't be impacted until 2014, like many of us in the employer provided market.

As many of us on the Right told you,  Obamacare would result in increased costs for most, and worse coverage for nearly everyone already covered.

That is exactly what is happening to those in the individual market and those in the small group market.  Yes, there will be "winners" amongst the previously uninsured and underinsured, at the low end of the spectrum, due to subsidies.  The problem is that people who had health insurance, the vast majority of whom liked their plans and doctors, are being displaced.

We told you so.

American Hustle

We don't do many movies in the theaters any more, so, our Christmas Day was spent at Golden Corral (yech) and a movie.

American Hustle is already being pushed for Oscars, and has garnered something like a 94% favorable score on Rotten Tomatoes.

It's got a 2013 all-star cast with Christian Bale, Jennifer Lawrence, Amy Adams (mostly her B cups), Bradley Cooper, and a short appearance (taking a break from his bad movies) from Robert DeNiro.

If you're old enough to remember The Sting, that's what this movie is, updated to the '70's with today's cast.  In fact, since none of these kids have seen that, I'm trying to find it online.  Any help?

American Hustle is a little slow at first, sort of heavy with the love triangles, but satisfying in the end.

If you're going to invest 2 hours in an outing, you'd do well with this one.

Jonah Goldberg on Reality TV

I think Jonah Goldberg sums up the Phil Robertson mess the best: 

"Maybe the best way to avoid such problems in the future is to demand that all reality-show casts be made up of professional actors. That way, reality will never disappoint us."

Read the whole thing: 

http://nationalreview.com/article/366799/real-rednecks-jonah-goldberg 

Gayest Obamacare Video Ever?

There is barely 24 hours left for people to sign up for Obamacare and be covered by January 1.

I hate to share this, but, your tax dollars and this administration is hard at work pushing Obamacare by trolling gay bars and via gay videos.

If you have young kids around, or you're at work, hide the screen and turn the volume down, but, this is how the O Admin thinks they're hoping to get gays to "get covered."

http://bit.ly/1fyryDg

Piers Morgan Will Decide What's Right & Wrong

This is Piers Morgan's entry into the Phil Robertson kerfuffle.

I like it, because it gets so much wrong about our Constitution, describes Liberalism to a tee, and even brings some clarity to those who may wonder why 2nd Amendment defenders are so serious about that one.

What Morgan and Liberals in general fail to understand is that the First Amendment exists specifically to protect vile speech, and the "bigots" (with "bigot" being a term wholly defined by the user) who utter it. Yes, the Founders were primarily concerned with political speech, but, this protection extended to anyone, saying essentially anything.

You can see the problem for the mythical Everyman here - if we don't have such protections, then WHO will be the arbiter of speech?  WHO will define what's vile?  WHO will point to the bigots?

Leftists are none to happy to stand up and say, gleefully, "We will!!!!!"

And that's the problem, and that's why we have a First Amendment, and that's also why the Founders gave us the Second Amendment.  Because they had lived through a world where their weapons were threatened, and they lived at a time when the only thing standing between them and an oppressive government were their rifles.  So, the Second Amendment should, and does, protect assault rifle devotees.  The Left has had far more success in limiting that Amendment, but those who defend it are doing God's work just as much as those who defend the First.

To my left-leaning friends - if you don't like the Constitution, the Founders gave us a process to change it.  Instead of judge shopping, or electing presidents willing to ignore it, try to change it.  If your ideas are so damn great, can't you convince people on the merits?

BTW - this is my first post using ifttt.com to simultaneously post to Facebook an Twitter.  Let's see how it works...

I Stand With Phil

Do I?

Unless you live unepder a rock, you already know Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson was "suspended" today by his employer, A&E for statements he made in a GQ interview echoing traditional Christian beliefs about homosexuals (and plenty of other sinners, but the prostitute, beastiality, slanderer, and swindler lobbies are thus far silent).

This is a free country and Phil was only expressing his views, which are based in his religion (and mine, by the way).  A&E can do whatever they want, they owe him no platform, and he wasn't using the show directly as that platform.

But, let's face it, to express traditional Christian views these days about homosexuality in particular puts you in the cross-hairs of the biggest grievance lobby extant.  Emboldened by their success in turning traditional marriage into something new, this lobby has decided that anyone who finds their behavior abhorrent and anti-God must be squelched.  You shall not know that a major religion considers homosexuality a sin, punishable by death!

OOOOOOOPS!  Wrong religion there!  That's Islam which considers homosexuality a sin, punishable by death.  Christianity considers it a sin, but offers the sinner a path to redemption via God's amazing Grace.  That's Mr. Robertson's religion.  

Were he a Muslim, would A&E had been so quick to suspend him?

I'm guessing not.