Filed under: Freedom, Law, The Constitution | Tags: Democrat Demagogues, Freedom of Speech, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
Under a recently introduced bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 1966, bloggers would face up to two years in prison if they “harass” public figures by criticizing them in a “severe repeated, and hostile” manner, and thereby cause them “substantial emotional distress.”
Will someone please explain to me why Leftists cannot stand to have anyone disagree with them and feel that disagreement must be prevented by law? Isn’t freedom of speech the first and most important of all our rights in America? Political speech, especially, is protected by the Constitution. Did they never read the Constitution? Do they know no history?
Greg Pollowitz goes on to explain:
U.C. L.A. Law Professor Eugene Volokh, the author of a First Amendment treatise, has concluded that the bill is unconstitutional. …As a federal appeals court noted in DeJohn v. Temple University (2008), “there is no harassment exception to the First Amendment’s free speech clause.” Speech that causes emotional distress can be protected as the Supreme Court made clear in barring a lawsuit by Jerry Falwell over an offensive parody.
Did no one read about Mark Steyn’s experiences with Canada’s human rights nazis? Did the travails of Salman Rushdie make no impression? Do people not realize how precious our Bill of Rights is?
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Law | Tags: Democrat Demagogues, National Debt, Spending
All those zeroes are hard to understand. Millions and billions and trillions all sort of melt together. Can you write $1.8 trillion with the correct number of zeroes? That is the projection for the 2009 budget deficit. Polls suggest that the public tolerates these large deficits because they believe them to be temporary. Dream on.
Here’s another video that attempts to put the spending in comprehensible terms.
Filed under: Environment, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear | Tags: Culture War, Global Warming
If you are wondering about “cap-and-trade” or “carbon taxes” or “carbon sequestration” or “global warming” or “climate change,” here is all you need to know. [from Steven Milloy's new book Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them].
There is no scientific evidence indicating that carbon dioxide, much less man-made carbon dioxide emissions, control or even measurably impact global climate.
Global Warming hysteria is based on hypothetical computer models that have never been validated against real world experience. The fact that many scientists accept the hypotheses does not make them true. For that matter, many scientists actively dispute those same hypotheses.
When you are confronted with hysteria about climate change, you might remember these four factual sentences.
Filed under: Economy, Environment, Science/Technology | Tags: Global Warming, IPCC, The Scientific Method
The Scientific Method
- Observe a phenomenon carefully.
- Develop a hypothesis that possibly explains the phenomenon.
- Perform a test in an attempt to disprove or invalidate the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is disproven, return to steps 1. and 2.
- A hypothesis that stubbornly refuses to be invalidated may be correct. Continue testing.
The Scientific Computer Modeling Method
- Observe a phenomenon carefully.
- Develop a computer model that mimics the behavior of the phenomenon.
- Select observations that conform to the model predictions and dismiss observations as of inadequate quality that conflict with the computer model.
- In instances where all of the observations conflict with the model, “refine” the model with fudge factors to give a better match with pesky facts. Assert that these factors reveal fundamental processes previously unknown in association with the phenomenon. Under no circumstances willingly reveal your complete data sets, methods, or computer codes.
- Upon achieving a model of incomprehensible complexity that still somewhat resembles the phenomenon, begin to issue to the popular media dire predictions of catastrophe that will occur as far in the future as possible, at least beyond your professional lifetime.
- Continue to “refine” the model in order to maximize funding and the awarding of Nobel Prizes.
- Dismiss as unqualified, ignorant, and conspiracy theorists all who offer criticisms of the model
- Repeat steps 3. through 7. indefinitely.
This succinct explanation of the way things work was written by Roy Tucker.