Kathleen Parker Throws Fit, Walks Off Set?

What happened, she ran out of Sarah Palin stories to talk about? Seriously, can’t you picture this drama queen walking off the set in a huff? She’s an attention whore and she’s clearly upstaged by Elliot Spitzer, who really runs the show.

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker actually stormed off the set of the “Parker Spitzer” show during a pre-taping a few weeks ago — furious that her co-host is continually allowed to take charge of their nightly CNN chat-fest, the insiders said.

Although still fuming, Parker did return to wrap up the segment, they said.

But she’s angry that the show’s producers are allegedly doing nothing to play up her strengths on the ailing show, the sources said.

What “strengths” would those be? I’ve seen the show. She can’t even manage what little she does now. She’s boring. She’s annoying. You end up wondering why she’s there to begin with. I’m not Spitzer fan but he’s far better at his job than she is at hers. The show is just bad. And she’s the worst of two bad hosts on a bad show.

Jane’s Editor: Yeah, That Was A Missile

Despite the new common wisdom about jet contrails, an editor for Jane’s Defence Weekly says that missile-like objected spotted off the coast of California was definitely a missile.

But Doug Richardson, the editor of Jane’s Missiles and Rockets, examined the video for the Times of London and said he was left with little doubt.

“It’s a solid propellant missile,” he told the Times. “You can tell from the efflux [smoke].”

Richardson said it could have been a ballistic missile launched from a submarine or an interceptor, the defensive anti-missile weapon used by Navy surface ships.

For its part, the military says the object wasn’t a missile but, contrary to speculation elsewhere, isn’t ready to conclude that it was just a jet’s contrail. So…what else could it be? Well, it may have been a private missile. Although the FAA, which issues licenses for commercial launches, says no launch was scheduled for that day.

I honestly don’t have a clue what this was. You have the military denying it was a missile but then they would do that if it was supposed to be a secret launch, right? Then you have some people say it’s a jet’s contrail. And then you have an editor for Jane‘s saying it was definitely a missile.

Here’s what I do know: More than 24 hours after this thing was spotted, there’s no definitive explanation. And that’s a little worrisome.

Biden: FDR Got on TV in 1929 And Explained Why the Market Crashed

A nice catch by a reader of Michelle Malkin’s. During his interview with Katie Couric on CBS News, Joe Biden (AKA Gaffemaster) had this to say:

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed. He said, ‘look, here’s what happened.’”

Where to start. First of all, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected 1932 — the market crashed in 1929. Second of all, Philo Farnsworth created the first working television in 1928. Again, the market crashed in 1929. FDR got on a device nobody had at a time when he wasn’t president? Joe, get a history book. Good Lord.

Update: Another commenter says that FDR was on television when he gave his inaugural address in 1933. Oy. From Wikipedia:

Commercially available since the late 1930s, the television set has become a common communications receiver in homes, businesses and institutions, particularly as a source of entertainment and news.

Emphasis mine. The first televised inaugural address? President Harry Truman’s in 1949.

Update (10/2): I’ve closed the comment section. The spin got just downright pathetic. Folks, even Jon Stewart took the time to make fun of Biden for the comment. Biden was wrong. FDR didn’t get on TV in 1929 to explain the stock market crisis. He wasn’t president and almost no one had a TV. It was a gaffe. Move the hell on.

Huckabee: Let’s Close Gitmo Because the World Doesn’t Like It

MIKE HUCKABEE: I’ve been to Guantanamo, I was there, I guess it’s been about a year and a half ago. I think the problem with Guantanamo is not in that its facilities are inadequate. It’s the symbol that it represents. It’s clearly become a symbol to the rest of the world as a place that has become problematic for us as a nation. I was quite frankly impressed with the quality of the facilities and even the attention to care that was given to the detainees, but that aside, it doesn’t alter that Guantanamo to the rest of the world is a symbol that is not in our best interests to continue pursuing.

Never mind the fact it’s been a valuable source of information. No, he thinks it’s a bad symbol, so it should now be closed.

After the Iowa poll showed that Republican voters like him but found him much less “presidential” and “electable” than Romney, Huckabee sought to build his foreign policy credentials, meeting with a group of retired generals who are in Des Moines to urge the 2008 candidates to commit to opposing torture. After the meeting, Huckabee joined Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in declaring his opposition to the interrogation procedure known as “waterboarding,” and said he would support closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a contrast with the other leading Republicans.


That paragraph suggests that you’re easily swayed by a single meeting on important issues that have been before the American people for years…

My take: He’s putting symbolism over substance and putting worldwide condemnation ahead of the security realities. Those are not good qualities in a commander in chief who’ll lead a country that was globally envied and reviled long before the war even started.

Paul Mirengoff:

I suspect that Huckabee required little lobbying. Waterboarding and long-term detention aren’t very “Christian”; they merely keep terrorists out of action and, in special circumstances enable us to find out where we’re going to be attacked next and/or where we can find those who are planning the next attacks. But if Huckabee actually did reach his position based on the views of a handful of generals, and without consulting the people actually charged with protecting this country from terrorists, then he’s even less qualified to be president than I suspect.

With any luck, this will be the end of Huck’s presidential chances.

TNR: We Can’t Stand by Beauchamp’s Stories

I’m getting emails left and right about this. TNR, publisher of Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s fabrications, standing by him for months, says they can no longer stand by them.

In retrospect, we never should have put Beauchamp in this situation. He was a young soldier in a war zone, an untried writer without journalistic training. We published his accounts of sensitive events while granting him the shield of anonymity–which, in the wrong hands, can become license to exaggerate, if not fabricate.

When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.

This is actually only a taste, with the full report being 14 pages and around 10,000 words. All of the fodder to say: He’s full of crap.

Interesting note by Allah. The date for this report is December 10, with the only way to access it being a direct url.

More: Bryan (or AP?) points to this on page 10:

But we also found some reason to doubt Beauchamp’s reliability: In 2006, he had written a personal blog, Sir Real Scott Thomas, which we only discovered after the controversy erupted. He appeared an angst-ridden young man prone to paroxysms: “I shoot, move, communicate, and kill … the deaths that I inflict secure the riches of the empire.” With his excited prose and tendency toward overstatement, his blog did not inspire journalistic confidence. We had good reasons never to assign Beauchamp another piece.

More at Michelle’s and Bob Owens’.

I’ll probably have more in a bit.

PA Coal-Powered Power Plants to Close Thanks to Obama Regulations

Five coal-powered power plants in Pennsylvania will now close thanks to new regulations by the Obama Administration.

GenOn Energy Inc. plans to close five of its older coal-fired power plants in Pennsylvania over the next four years.

The company, based in Houston, said Wednesday that tough new environmental rules make it unprofitable to operate the plants, which generate a total of 3,140 megawatts of electricity. The plants are in Portland, Shawville, Titus, New Castle and Elrama. Two plants in Ohio and one in New Jersey will also be closed. The company said the timeframes are subject to further review based on market conditions.

Hey, at least he’s living up to his 2008 promise to bankrupt coal-powered power plants. “Obama lives up to a promise” is a rare enough headline to justify notation.

Hacked Emails Expose Global Warming Conspiracy

Computers at a major global warming alarmist center in the United Kingdom were hacked the other day, resulting in private emails being posted on the internet. What was found contained within those emails has set the internet ablaze.

The organization in question is the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, considered a leading organization in the promotion and “study” of anthropogenic global warming. So what was so damaging in those emails? This:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers, Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

That correspondence dates back to 1999 and it shows a scientist for the organization, who happens to still work there, admitting to forging data and manipulating results so as to hide declines.

Other emails talk about deleting data that’s considered inconvenient for the global warming alarmists:

From: Tom Wigley […]
To: Phil Jones […]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer […]


Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects.

My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.

So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)

This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.


In yet another email the scientists admit that they can’t even locate the global warming they’ve been warning the world about.

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

In other words, they can’t account for the fact that the world is experiencing some of the coldest days on record even as they’re warning about impending doom from global warming.

The last email is from last month, the first is from 1999. That establishes a ten-year conspiracy to manipulate data, forge results, and mislead the public — all in the pursuit of spreading the word about global warming and trying to get people to believe them.

As I said before, the center has already confirmed that the emails are authentic. There’s no suggestion that the correspondence printed above was faked. We’ve been lied to, plain and simple.

Global warming can’t be found, and scientists can’t account for its non-presence. It’s a sham.

Black Panthers Intimidating Voters in PA Updated: Video Added, Black Panther Party Talked About It; Video?

Two Black Panthers have been blocking the entrance to a precinct with a night stick in an attempt to stop people from voting, witnesses tell Fox News. The one Black Panther is actually still there, but police were dispatched to the scene.

Motive? Witnesses say that the men were telling them that the era of white supremacy is over and that a black man would be president. If I get any more information I’ll update.

Update: I’m hearing that the one Panther is also a poll watcher.

Update: Alright. Thanks to reader “D” and The Corner, here’s video of the Fox News report:

I’ll update as more information becomes available.

Update: Via Michelle Malkin, the New Black Panther Party had promised to send out members to ensure its interests.

Minister Najee Muhammad, national field marshal for the New Black Panther Party, and Uhuru Shakur, local chairman of the Atlanta chapter of the party, took turns reading statements from Dr. Malik Shabazz, leader of Black Lawyers for Justice and attorney for the party (yes, that Malik Shabazz)…

…”We will not allow some racists and other angry whites, who are upset over an impending Barack Obama presidential victory, to intimidate blacks at the polls,” Muhammad said. “Most certainly, we cannot allow these racist forces to slaughter our babies or commit other acts of violence against the black population, nor our black president.”

Muhammad added, “We must organize to counter and neutralize these threats using all means at our disposal. This is a great time for our people, and we must ensure that peace prevails for our people.”

Shakur said the New Black Panther Party does not hate white people, but it does not like racist white people who try to harm the black community…

…Shakur added, “We warn you, leave Barack Obama alone and leave our babies alone because black people are a spiritual people and a people who are trying to do right, and we will not hesitate to take up our legal rights of self-defense.”

Shakur said the New Black Panther Party believes the plot that was foiled in Crockett County was not an isolated incident and that the party will do what it can to protect members of the black community on Election Day.

“We will be at the polls in the cities and counties in many states to ensure that the enemy does not sabotage the black vote, which was won through the blood of the martyrs of our people,” he said.

As members of the New Black Panther Party said “Black Power,” Andrew Chirwa, an Alamo resident and native of Malawi in Southern Africa, urged everyone at the press conference to shout “Black Power” together.

More info as I get it.

Update: Is this the actual video of the Panthers wielding a billy club/night stick? The guy on the right-hand side appears to be the same guy appearing in the Fox News report.

Edwards Would Force You to Go To The Doctor

Democrats always claim that President Bush and the Republicans are taking away their freedoms. You know, they’re doing crazy stuff like monitoring questionable financial transactions from people they’ve been monitoring for a while. And then there’s those damn wiretapping suspected-terrorist phone calls. Yet, they go out and support a man who would force you to go to the doctor. Not recommend. Force. That’s freedom?

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

“It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care,” he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. “If you are going to be in the system, you can’t choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.”

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat “the first trace of problem.”

Hear that ladies? You want to get an abortion? That’s up to you. You want to decide not to go to the doctor? He’ll force ya to. Oh the freedom! How much is this craptastic, freedom-sucking, socialist medical plan going to cost Americans each year? According to Edwards, who lives in his own world, over $120 billion a year. How will he pay for this? Why, by ending Bush’s tax cuts, of course!

Craptastic! So craptastic, that even the Associated Press stops just short of calling Edwards a hypocrite, reminding people of his idiocy on SUVs. (Edwards, who wants you to give yours up, owns 2).

NYT: “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” in Constitution

Note: Commentators John Plunket, BarrySanders20, and The Den Mother point out that the 14th Amendment gives “life, liberty, and property”. Something comical to think over: BarrySanders20 points out:

Can you imagine the mischief that could be created through judicial interpretation of a “happiness” clause in the 14th Amendment?

I shudder to think.

Note: This wasn’t just an opinion piece. It comes straight from the Editors:

It is an eminently good thing that the anti-suicide measure would require medical specialists to keep track of veterans found to be high risks for suicide. But that’s to care for them as human beings, under that other constitutional rightto life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Respect for the grave sacrifices by veterans requires the Senate to strike down the Coburn ploy and hurry this vital measure to President Bush.

Oy vey. Attention Editors: “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is in the Declaration of Independence, among the inalienable rights of man – not the Constitution. Being a “constitutional right” would imply that it is in, you guessed it, the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment gives the right to the pursuit of happiness, and consequently to privacy. However, all three are not a constitutional right together.

Remember, though, we need to leave the real reporting up to the real media outlets, like the New York Times. We simply don’t have their fact-checking capabilities.

H/t Glenn Reynolds.

Update: Welcome to my fellow InstaPundit readers! Pull up a bar stool and grab a beer.