The Associated Press reports:

The number of tropical storms developing annually in the Atlantic Ocean more than doubled over the past century, with the increase taking place in two jumps, researchers say.

The increases coincided with rising sea surface temperature, largely the byproduct of human-induced climate warming, researchers Greg J. Holland and Peter J. Webster concluded. Their findings were being published online Sunday by Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.

An official at the National Hurricane Center called the research “sloppy science” and said technological improvements in observing storms accounted for the increase.

In other words, the NHC thinks the storms were always there but they just didn’t have the means to detect them. They didn’t use aircraft to check out storms until 1944 nor have satellites up there looking for storms until 1970, so it seems reasonable to me that some of them could have been missed.

But Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, points out that the increases in the number of storms occurred in 1930 and 1995, which is inconsistent with the 1944 and 1970 upgrades in storm detection capability. What Emanuel doesn’t emphasize, though, is that neither can the incremental increases in the number of storms be tied directly to climate change. I’m unaware of any sudden significant increases in the earth’s temperature occurring in 1930 and 1995. In fact, as late as the 70s scientists believed the earth was cooling.

It seems that now any observed change in the earth’s climate is attributed to global warming — whether or not there exists any tangible evidence to support that conclusion. I read that even the trouble in Darfur has been blamed on global warming. Do you think the fact that I can’t keep the grass in my yard cut as well as I used to is due to glowarm?

I just went slumming over at Daily Kos. The trash on that site always amazes me. One contributor called Trapper John had this to say:

Although we’re theoretically getting to the point in the cycle where the Cattle Calls should start coming at a faster clip, I just don’t think a lot has changed in the Republican race in the past month-and-a-half. The way I see it, there’s still a sucking vacuum at the top. On the Democratic side, we have three bona fide, top-shelf, single malt candidates vying for the nomination. It’s probably the strongest Democratic field since 1968, when you had giants like Humphrey, McCarthy, and RFK running — and that was after the incumbent Democratic president withdrew from the race.

Now let’s see. Which of these three Democrat giants won the 1968 election? Oh, that’s right, none of them did. Robert Kennedy was assassinated and Hubert Humphrey was nominated, but lost the general election to Richard Nixon, the Republican nominee. It’s interesting that he chose to compare the 2008 crop of candidates to a losing field.

(Coincidentally, while I’m writing this Bill O’Reilly is attacking the Daily Kos for posting a disparaging photoshopped picture of Joe Lieberman and George Bush. I couldn’t find the picture.)

If you have any interest in old warplanes, or you like inspirational stories, you might enjoy reading this.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has a huge advantage over the other Democrat candidates. That is, unless the others can produce a brother with the potential to embarrass them if they get elected President. Every Democrat President in the last 40 years has been embarrassed by a brother. Well, actually there have only been two Democrat Presidents in almost 40 years, but that’s another story.

Billy Carter set the bar high for embarrassing presidential brothers. He launched “Billy Beer” hoping to capitalize on his exposure as the President’s brother and his reputation as a beer drinker. He traveled to Libya several times and became a paid, registered agent for Libya at a time when relations between the US and Libya were tense. He once urinated on an airport runway in full view of the press and dignitaries. He was always ready to offer his opinion on any subject. (Now, I’m convinced that Billy would have been a better President than Jimmy.)

But Roger Clinton moved the bar up a notch or two. He formed a rock band that went nowhere. He appeared as a guest on several television shows and had a role in some obscure movie. He was arrested for cocaine possession and served time in prison. Bill pardoned Roger for that crime before he left office. There are allegations that he had a role in obtaining pardons for several other shady characters.

From The New Republic on Tony Rodham’s involvement in Bill Clinton’s pardoning of some carnival operators convicted of bank fraud:

Tony’s Carneygate trial could hardly come at a worse time for Hillary Clinton. Not that she’s unused to her brothers being a liability: Throughout the Clinton presidency, the bizarre antics of second-born Hugh and baby brother Tony often left Hillary chagrined and apologetic. From wacky business schemes to ill-fated Senate runs, the Brothers Rodham–as they were known among White House staffers–engaged in one embarrassing shenanigan after another, often brazenly cashing in on their connection to the Clintons. As one former White House official recalled in 2001, “You never wanted to hear their name come up in any context other than playing golf.”

Given that having an embarrassing brother seems to be a prerequisite for a Democrat President, I would argue that this comes at the best time for Hillary. And if one embarrassing brother is an asset, just imagine what she can do with two.

If you haven’t seen the video of Senator Robert Byrd’s Barbaric speech on the Senate floor you need to watch it. If you have any doubt that the man is senile you won’t after viewing it. His speech is about the ’sport’ of dogfighting and was prompted by the recent arrest of Michael Vick, an NFL quarterback.

What is this man doing in the Senate? He will be 90 years old before the year is out. He has served in the House and Senate since 1953 — 54 years and counting. Why do the people of West Virginia keep electing him? Probably because they think he can bring home more pork than a new senator. Surely it’s not their idea of a cruel joke on the rest of us.

Sadly, this is not the most egregious case of voters sending a senile senator to Washington. South Carolina sent Strom Thurmond to the Senate for 48 consecutive years. He was 100 years old when he quit. If the man had decided to run again would they have re-elected him again at the age of 100? Probably; he had to have been at least 94 when they re-elected him the last time. I remember seeing him on C-SPAN sitting in a wheel chair and appearing to not know who or where he was.

Mississippi gave us John Stennis for 42 years and to the ripe old age of 88 (well, compared to Thurmond, Stennis was practically a spring chicken). He retired voluntarily too, so we don’t know what the Mississippi voters would have done either.

So what’s up with voters sending goofy old farts to the Senate? Are they so pessimistic in regard to politicians that they don’t think it matters if their senator doesn’t know what day it is — or nods off at the podium? A better question might be: If that many states are sending senile senators to Congress, how many are electing senators that are totally incompetent in less obvious ways? I’m afraid that a lot of them are.

Do these politicians not have close friends or relatives who can convince them that they’re too old to serve? They’re obviously past the point of being able to realize that themselves. A potential argument: Since you’re unable to dress yourself now, perhaps your effectiveness as a senator is also degraded. This gives us another argument for term limits: to prevent politicians from embarrassing themselves.

How long before a senator dies in his seat and no one notices? How long before some state unknowingly re-elects a dead senator?

(I decided to retire when I was 62 for several reasons, one of which was that I didn’t want my colleagues to remember me as a doddering old fool. I wanted you, the readers of this blog, to remember me as a doddering old fool. Now, five years later, I tend to forget what…)

The following was forwarded to me by a nephew who is a fireman in Tennessee:

Like a lot of folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to get that paycheck some employers require employees to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test. Don’t you think they should have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check? After all, I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand. I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with someone sitting on his or her ass and buying dope and booze with my hard earned money. Can you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Sounds good to me. Often simple logic makes more sense than anything the ‘intellectual elite’ can come up with. Sometimes even bumper stickers trump the output of the elite:

• If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
• Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

It seems that the ability to apply a little common sense is severely lacking in this country. A couple of days ago an airline prevented an eight-year-old boy from flying home because his very common name was on the TSA’s no-fly list. Yesterday Michael Fekete was arrested in Massachusetts for “stuffing” his two young daughters into the trunk of his car. Read the AP report here and watch the MyFoxBoston.com video here.

Creates a horrible image in your mind doesn’t it? A father stuffing his nine- and eleven-year-old daughters in the trunk, slamming the lid shut and driving off in 90 degree heat. Except that it didn’t happen that way. Fekete says that it was just a game. He says that the girls were curious about whether the light in the trunk turns off when the lid is closed and wanted to get inside to find out. The girls crawled inside on their own and he held the lid closed without locking it for a few seconds and then let them out. A witness, probably the one that called the cops, admitted that after closing the lid on the children he let them out and put them in the back seat.

But because of this harmless little experiment the children were taken from Fekete and he has to appear in court in Massachusetts. What is this world coming to? What kind of person calls the police over an incident like this? Parents now must watch their backs anytime they appear in public with their children. They can’t just depend on their own judgment, they have to consider the judgment of all those around them.

What law was broken that allowed the police to arrest Fekete? Probably child endangerment — another of those laws that mean whatever the ‘authorities’ want it to mean at any given time. Is transporting the children in a car from Washington DC to Massachusetts not child endangerment?

Why didn’t the policeman on the scene just let Fekete go after seeing how harmless the incident was? Probably to cover his ass. The person who reported the incident would most likely make trouble for him if he didn’t make an arrest.

We are headed toward a nanny state. Not only does government want to look after you, it wants to raise your children too. How long will it be before every parent has to periodically deliver their children to some ‘authority’ for an evaluation of their progress and the parents’ child-rearing abilities? How long before ‘authorities’ will periodically examine your home to see if it meets their standards? I’m sure Mr Fekete will be subjected to that for several years now.

How long before our free an open society is in the toilet?

Fox News reports:

An 8-year-old boy expecting to catch a plane home is denied entry for appearing on a terrorist no-fly list, reported MyFoxKansasCity.com.

Bryan Moore was set to catch his first plane trip when he arrived at an airport in Cortez, Colorado to fly home after visiting his sister, said the report.

“They almost got me scheduled in and then the lady just bowed her head and said, ‘We can’t get you on this plane, you’re a terrorist,’” Moore said.

…

“It’s not really fair that I couldn’t get home because another man in the world was a terrorist,” Moore said.

Great Lake Airlines eventually cleared up the situation, but the plane had already left, making him wait another day to come home.

It seems that the soon-to-be third grader has more common sense than anyone at the Transportation Security Administration or Great Lake Airlines. How can an airline official not quickly conclude that the Bryan Moore on the no-fly list must be a different Bryan Moore than the 8-year-old Bryan Moore trying to board an airplane? Does Great Lake Airlines use robots as gate keepers?

Why would the TSA even put the name Bryan Moore on a no-fly list without further identification? There must be hundreds of people named Bryan Moore in this country. There is at least one in my small town. In fact, he lives just down the road from me. Perhaps I should keep my eye on him.

I suspect that the reason the TSA puts any name on the no-fly list is to cover their asses; if someone named Bryan Moore blows up an airplane they can say that we were warned. They can’t possibly believe that it will deter a determined terrorist. Almost all terrorism incidents are perpetrated by young (but usually not 8-year-old) middle eastern men. Not many of them are named Bryan Moore. Middle eastern people seem to change their names with the weather anyway; when you read about some middle eastern suspect he usually has several aliases.

To be effective, and to prevent stupid inconveniences, a no-fly list has to contain more about the person than just a name. The approximate age of the person is a no-brainer. Lacking a photograph a physical description would be helpful: dark hair, swarthy complexion, angry eyes — in other words, looks like a terrorist. If the TSA doesn’t have more information about a person than just a name, the name shouldn’t be on the list.

Radical Islamic jihad is clearly a threat to the security of our country. The jihadis openly acknowledge that they intend to destroy us. They have already shown that they can kill thousands of Americans in a single operation. They most likely are planning attacks that might kill many more. They will succeed if we don’t maintain an extraordinary level of vigilance of the threat they pose, and attack them swiftly and decisively when their nefarious activitites are uncovered.

The insidious Islamization of our country is underway. Islam is not nearly as pervasive in America as in Europe, but the Islamists are making progress here. A CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) spokesman* is on some television or radio show almost every day demanding an apology for some perceived offense. New mosques are being built every year. Muslims are demanding more and more concessions to accomodate their religion. They want a place to pray at school and at work. They want facilities to wash their feet. Taxi drivers don’t want to accept passengers carrying alcoholic beverages or dogs. Some brands of Islam want their women to be allowed to fully cover themselves in all public places, including banks.** All this underscores the fact that Islam is incompatible with our culture.

Many Americans would probably agree that radical Islamic jihad is a very real threat to our national security. But how many would agree with me that the insidious Islamization of our country, and the rest of the world, is a much greater threat to the survival of our free and open secular society?

The jihadis can inflict a lot of pain and suffering but they don’t have the slightest chance of bringing down our country through their overt acts of violence. Even if they succeed in killing millions by detonating a nuclear weapon in one of our major cities, it will not cause Americans to surrender to their demands. If you think our regime change actions against Afghanistan and/or Iraq after 9/11 were a bit over the top, just wait until you see what will happen if we suffer a nuclear attack. The politicians will have to retaliate in kind for one good reason: They know they will be thrown out of office if they don’t. Yes, the jihadis can hurt us but they simply don’t have the capacity to destroy this country.

The Islamization of our country, though, is a whole different story. Its approach seems to be death to our culture by a thousand paper cuts. No single act is enough to draw much attention, yet the collective effect of thousands of these single acts is enough to cause real change. This week a story broke about a school in San Diego that has set aside a period during the school day for the students to pray and worship. The students are segregated by sex and religion. It appears that this was done to accomodate the Muslims, but it would be too egregious to allow just the Muslims to pray. Until now we thought that the public schools were no place for the practice of religion.

I believe it’s possible that the insidious approach is the real plan of the Islamists and that the overt jihadi acts are a smoke screen. Islamists aren’t stupid. They know that we will stumble over one another trying to be the first to prove that we don’t blame Muslims in general for the violent acts of a few. One way to do that is to accede to the demands of the Muslims not directly affiliated with the jihadis. Another way is to call Islam a “religion of peace.”

I might be wrong about the grand plan but I’m fairly certain that Muslims believe that it is their duty to try to convert others to Islam. Of course, Christians are proselytizers too, but I haven’t heard any tales lately of Christians trying to force people to convert. Muslims have been known to restrict the behavior of non-believers. Christians also have a history of attempting to impose their standards on others — the so-called blue laws come to mind — but their influence has been waning for decades.

I’m just not ready for another religion to gain a foothold and start eroding our freedom to live our lives as we see fit. We need to be vigilant of covert attacks on our culture as well as overt attacks on our person.

Related post

_______________

*My first thought was to use the term ’spokesperson’, but then realized that is not necessary when referring to a Muslim organization.

**How many banks have been robbed by people masquerading as Muslim women?

First, jounalists started using ‘lead’ when they mean ‘led’. Now they’re using ‘plead’ when they mean ‘pled’. I suppose they think that because ‘read’ is both the present and past tense of the act of grasping the meaning of printed text, then ‘lead’ and ‘plead’ must also represent both forms. It’s as if they think the English language has an ounce of consistency. If so they should consider the fact that ‘pleaded’ can be substituted for ‘pled’, but ‘leaded’ can’t be substituted for ‘led’. ‘Leaded’ means that a substance contains some of the metal element ‘lead’ — which is pronounced ‘led’.
_______________

It’s amusing to me how political factions grab labels to help promote their ideologies. A few years ago big-government liberals started calling themselves ‘progressives’. Who can be against progress? Well, that should depend on what the faction is progressing toward. A faction promoting the subjugation of our people to a monarchy could be considered ‘progressive’ by those that support that goal. The big-government liberals took a generic term and tried to redefine it as if it only applies to their goals. The principal function of such labels is to disguise the goals of the factions.
_______________

I’ve said before that I think racial preferences, such as those implemented in the name of diversity, are themselves racist — because they inherently assume that any member of a minority race is more like other members of that minority race than members of a majority race. They don’t allow for the fact that a child of a white, rural, redneck family in the South would add more diversity to an Ivy League university than a child of a black, urban lawyer from the North. George Will addressed this today in the best and most colorful way I’ve seen:

Although progressive people would never stoop to racial stereotyping, they evidently believe that any black or other minority child, however young, or from whatever social background, makes a predictable and distinctive — you might say stereotypical — contribution to “diversity.”

(Diversity) allows white majorities to feel noble while treating blacks and certain other minorities as seasoning — a sort of human oregano — to be sprinkled across a student body to make the majority’s educational experience more flavorful.