DON'T BELIEVE IN ELF'S!

What with the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, the War on Terror, bombing raids in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, as well as various covert operations around the world, it would be quite easy to forget that, here in America, we have our own homegrown terrorists.

Some of them are radicalized Muslims. Tim McVeigh is often blamed on the Right, although not even the militia movement would have him. And Liberals and other Pro-Choicers love to point to the two or three cases where a Pro-Lifer shot an abortion doctor or planted a bomb in an attempt to prove it is the Right that is violent.

These cases, however, pale before another loosely affiliated group. This group is estimated by the FBI to be responsible for more than 1,200 "criminal incidents (vandalism, terrorism, theft, destruction, etc.) with damage estimates into the tens of millions of dollars. Indeed, this group is regarded by law enforcement and Homeland Security officials to be the leading domestic terror organization in the country. In fact, just this morning, they made the headlines once again with the destruction of five luxury homes in Woodinville, northeast of Seattle, Wa.

This group is none other than the Earth Liberation Front., or ELF. I really don't know why, but when you Google ELF you have to follow a link for Viagra. So please ignore the ad at the top of their site.

Begun in England as an offshoot of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the terrorist organization quickly spread throughout Europe, eventually arising in North America. The organization is very loose, with individuals or cells working independently and rarely seeking public attention. This is to avoid scrutiny and surveillance by the authorities.

Although there has yet to be a fatality attributed to ELF, that is merely a matter of pure luck. They are known to drive spikes into trees meant for harvest as lumber, jeopardizing the life and limb of the poor lumberjack who hits said spike with his chainsaw.

Arson and explosives are also a favorite weapon of these "eco-terrorists", as they have become known. Car dealerships that offer SUV's, ski lodges, fur farms, laboratories, almost anything that they can claim is injurious to the Earth and its inhabitants, can be a target. The term they use for their vandalism and violence is "monkeywrenching".

Early acts were rather small: gluing the locks on a neighborhood McDonald's while defacing the property with their mottoes. Spiking trees soon followed, as did actually living in the trees to prevent their harvest. Laboratories were trashed as their animals were "rescued", setting back years of medical research. In one case, dozens of minks were released into the wild, the Elves, as they call themselves, not realizing that the minks would turn on each other resulting in painful death for most of the animals they "saved".

The began to set their sights on bigger targets as time went by. Car dealerships are destroyed on a regular basis. In 1998, they burned down a ski resort in Vail, Co.

They tageted a 200-plus unit condominium in San Diego, Ca., leaving behind posters saying "If you build it, we will burn it" and "The ELF's are mad". This act caused some $20 million of damage and required the heroic efforts of more than 100 firefighters. As noted before, it was only a matter of luck that no one was injured or killed.

The blaze today northeast of Seattle, Wa, comes as Briana Waters' trial for eco-terrorism begins for her role in the destruction of the Center for Urban Horticulture, at the University of Washington's Tacoma campus. Not only are these enviro-weenies dangerous, they aren't too terribly bright. Apparently, they were under the mistaken assumption that the lab they destroyed was engaging in genetic modification of trees for an urban environment. They mistook breeding for gene modification.

The Woodinville homes were showcases of luxury homes that are actually friendly to the environment. They were "Built Green", as the practice is called, using technologies such as water permeable sidewalks, extra insulation, and recycled materials. Unfortunately for the Northwest division of Centex Homes, the builder of the destroyed homes, that wasn't good enough for ELF, which left behind a banner reading ""Built green? Nope black! McMansions in RCD's [an acronym for "rural cluster developments"] r not green. ELF"[sic]

Not only are the ELF's environmentally conscious, they are also only semi-literate.

One thing that should be noted is that firefighters were kept away from the burning homes for fear of booby traps. Again, it is only a matter of luck that no one has been hurt yet by these vicious idiots.

It should come as no surprise that these eco-terrorists are Leftist anarchists, closely related to ideologically to the sort of Marxist bombers represented by Bill Ayers, a friend of Saint Obama (see It's An Obama-nation!) Indeed, their goals are almost identical: the destruction of American economic power, the radical redistribution of wealth, and the institution of socialist Utopian ideals.

Nor should it be news to anyone that their acts of arson and violence are usually more destructive of the environment than their targets themselves. After all, how much worse is a raging inferno, pollution wise, than a McMansion or an SUV left unmolested?

Years ago, Rush Limbaugh coined the term "watermelons" to describe the modern environmentalist movement. For, you see, just like the favorite summer snack, the modern environmentalist is green on the outside, but red on the inside.

Truer words have never been said!

Copyright March 3rd, 2008

IT'S THE ENERGY, STUPID!

Without a doubt, there are a few troubling signs for the American economy, although we have yet to have one quarter of decline, rather than the three consecutive quarters required to qualify as a recession.

At the top of the list of troubles is the price of energy. Oil now goes for $90 to $100 a barrel. The cost of electricity and natural gas is climbing. Gasoline prices are hovering at over $3 a gallon.

Naturally, this puts an upward pressure on the prices of just about everything else, since we need that more expensive energy to either make, transport or preserve that everything else.

Meanwhile, the money we are forking over for imported oil funds such delightful folks as Hugo Chavez and the Saudi royal family. In other words, we are funding the enemies of the United States.

Most Liberals like to blame Republicans for the imbroglio. After all, the Bushes are an oil family. Vice President Dick Cheney was an executive for the much-maligned Halliburton. And everyone on the Left is spouting that happy nonsense that we went to war for oil.

Of course, if you talk to a Liberal long enough, he'll get around to talking about over population, Global Warmism, the greed of Big Oil, the gluttony of the American people, etc. Basically, what these Leftists want is for the masses, unlike their favorite elitists like Al Gore, to have a reduced standard of living with fewer and fewer children, and fewer and fewer Liberties.

So what do the Leftists suggest as solutions? Well, they are quite fond of energy taxes, renewable energy, solar and wind power and the like. So let's look at a few of these.

Energy Taxes:

During the 1990's many Liberals were looking to Europe as an example of "sensible" energy policies. They gleefully pointed out that our then $2 a gallon gas was "spoiling" us, whereas Europe's $5 a gallon prices made sure that there was enough to go around and that we wouldn't pollute as much.

There are any number of problems with that, however. For one thing, it strictly limited the ability of Europeans to travel, one of the Liberties we Americans enjoy. Another issue is the kinds of cars they drive. For the most part, they are little more than glorified go-karts.

And then, there is the European economy.

France, Germany, Britain, all have inordinately large percentages of the populations on the dole. Germany, for instance, in recent years has been posting unemployment rates of 12-13%. In France the rate was 9.8%. Which might explain one of the ostensible reasons for such high rates of taxation: it's awfully expensive to support such a large fraction of your population when they are out of work.

In recent years, Liberals have taken to denigrating Big Oil for their "obscene"profits, conveniently ignoring that pesky fact that government (which produces no gasoline or energy for that matter) gets a bigger slice of the price of a gallon of gas than Big Oil takes in profits. If the politicians, of every stripe, were as serious about reducing the cost of energy as they claim to be, they'd cut those taxes. Of course, then they'd have to find another way to cut our production of carbon dioxide, since that would limit carbon taxes.

As the history of the last forty years in America has shown, cutting taxes will increase economic activity, thereby reducing unemployment. But Liberals pathologically refuse to see this simple fact. Besides, that would reduce their power over the American people. Remember Montag's Immutable Law of Nature # 7: "Liberalism is nothing short of an insatiable appetite for power".

Nuclear Power:

On the other hand, Europe is a lot more sensible when it comes to producing electricity. Most of their power is generated by nuclear power. Nuclear power is clean, non-polluting, and highly efficient. The trouble is, here in America, we've successfully miseducated our people into fearing nuclear power. Lacking a sane tort situation has also tied the hands of power companies, who can't even propose a new nuclear plant for fear of the endless litigation. Court challenges end up actually costing more than the plant itself.

Ethanol and bio-fuels:

What about so-called bio-fuels? Again, here we have absolute evidence of a national psychosis. What are these renewable fuels made of? Mostly corn. We are now burning our food! With this reduction of supply, naturally, the price of our food goes up. And this is true of all our foods.

And bio-fuels aren't all that environmentally friendly either. The fact of the matter is, ethanol production involves the use of diesel and other oil products to drive the various chemical reactions needed to produce it. Then, it has to be shipped by truck to where the markets are, since it cannot be transported in a pipeline, like gasoline and natural gas. Furthermore, it can easily be ruined, made useless, if water gets into it.

In short, ethanol costs more to produce than fossil fuels, uses more fossil fuels to produce than it replaces, and requires even more fossil fuels to transport.

And we're still burning out food!

Solar power:

Well, there's solar power, isn't there? Sure, if you can afford to coat your house with solar panels, and if you don't get much cloudy weather. Seattle, for all its Liberalism, doesn't have much use for solar power. Even then, we're talking about 15 to 25% efficiency here. Even if you could afford all the technology, you'd have to cut back your energy use dramatically. In other words, while you're being taxed into the ground and forced to burn your food, you'd have to have a lower standard of living.

A while ago, I saw an article about an experimental solar power plant that used computer-controlled "smart" mirrors to focus sunlight on a fluid which was used to power a generator. This is marginally better, but it still requires covering vast areas with mirrors, and it's still not as efficient as nuclear or fossil fuel fed power generation.

The fact is, if solar power were all it's claimed to be, we'd have it today. We don't and that's because it costs more than it's worth.

Wind power:

This isn't all that bad an idea. It's not the most efficient source of energy, but it does have the advantage that it doesn't need fuel. Once again, however, you need vast areas dotted with these giant, high tech windmills. This becomes a problem for environmentalists, since birds often collide with the spinning blades with catastrophic results. Then you have to get past the very elitist Liberals who want to shut all us little people down. The Kennedy's, for instance, recently squelched a wind farm off Nantucket, claiming that the windmills built out in the ocean (an otherwise ideal spot, since it is near the users of the energy and the wind is unimpeded over the ocean) would be an eyesore and a navigational hazard. The Kennedy's, you see, are both avid yachtsmen and avid drinkers!

Hydrogen:

This would be an almost ideal fuel. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe. It burns completely at a very high temperature. And its ash is nothing but water. It can either be burned directly (like natural gas) or used in a fuel cell to produce electricity chemically.

The problem is, since hydrogen is so highly reactive, it can't be found outside of molecules such as water. Currently, the only way to produce hydrogen is to "crack" water, releasing the oxygen and the hydrogen into separate containers. This requires huge amounts of electricity, which, like ethanol, requires fossil fuels or nuclear power. There may be ways to harness genetically engineered bacteria or algae to produce hydrogen, but this has yet to be achieved in a commercially viable manner.

Another problem with hydrogen is that we don't have the infrastructure to transport, store and sell it. For it to be practical our entire gasoline distribution system would have to be supplanted. And that can't happen unless there's a market. This is a classic Catch 22.

Hybrid vehicles:

Nothing annoys me more than to see a Prius at a Citco gas pump! First, owning a Prius is a way for some pointy headed elitist to flaunt his superiority over us mere mortals, proclaiming his greater concern for the environment. Citco, of course, is owned by that little tinpot dictator, Hugo Chavez.

Hybrid vehicles may use a little less gasoline than standard autos in their day to day operation. But it's in the details that we have a problem.

The batteries are made of nickle and cadmium, both highly poisonous and polluting. This is mined in Canada, in a region made to resemble the Moon due to the heavy metal poisoning of the land. These poisonous materials have to be shipped to Europe for some of their transformation into batteries, then shipped to the US for the rest. Once manufactured, the batteries are then shipped to Japan to be installed in the Prius, which, in turn, is shipped to the US to be purchased by those very same pointy headed elitists.

In short, from beginning to end, buying a Prius actually burns more fossil fuels than if you'd just bought a Hummer right from the beginning and drove it as long as you drove your Prius.

And what do you do with the battery when it finally goes bad, as all batteries do? More heavy metal for the landfills? Or do you have to pay for its proper disposal?

Compact Florescent light bulbs:

Congress, in its abysmal stupidity, has banned the manufacture and sale of the old incandescent light bulb, mandating a total conversion to compact florescent bulbs. This is actually less than useless. It's actually worse than excess carbon dioxide.

First, while they use slightly less energy than incandescent bulbs, they also emit less light. This means you'd have to use more florescent bulbs to get the same amount of light and, therefore, more electricity.

And if you are unfortunate enough to break one of these newfangled bulbs, you are now at risk of mercury poisoning. In fact, you have to go through all sorts of expensive mercury abatements before you can use the room in which the bulb broke. Replacement is also problematic, since recycling these little abominations is also expensive.

So here is where we are today. We have politicians who decry our dependence on foreign supplies of oil, as well as the vastly exaggerated maladies of pollution. Meanwhile, we can't touch our own proven reserves, since that would upset the Sierra Club and the radical environmentalists. That doesn't stop China, Venezuela, Mexico and Cuba tapping our reserves off the coast of Florida, though. To add further insult to these injuries, we can't build nuclear power plants, new refineries, or wind farms.

But we are forced to burn our food, use all that fossil fuel to transport and create the ethanol, and poison our homes with nickle-cadmium batteries and compact florescent bulbs.

If we don't get our heads straight about our energy problems, America will be in a state of decline. Conservation isn't the answer, since it precludes growth.

To all the politicians who are strangling our economy with their idiotic policies and their punitive taxes: A POX ON ALL YOUR HOUSES!

Copyright Feb. 25th, 2008

HOT AIR

"Hot Air" is a recurring title here at Montag's World. Usually, it is applied to the subject of Global Warming. I want to stress that I am a big believer in Global Warming. I am also a big believer in Global Cooling. In fact, I am a big believer in Montag's Immutable Law of Nature No. 5: "The only thing about the climate and the weather that stays the same is that it just keeps changing."

Generally speaking, when one uses the phrase "Global Warming", we are not talking about an Indian summer or a heat wave. Nor are we talking about natural fluctuations in the Earth's average temperature. No, it has been drummed into our heads that "Global Warming" -- always capitalized, never lower case -- refers to Man-made Global Warming.

My problem is with that man-made part. You see, I just can't see how we are changing the environment to any great degree. Nor do I understand how Al Gore and Arnold Scharzeneggar can claim that any changes we make are all that bad. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that Modern Environmentalism has become the new home of the Marxist Left. Follow along with me here, folks! You'll understand as we go along.

Author's note: I receive no money from oil companies, nor am I in the pay of anyone funded by the oil companies. The conclusions of this column are totally and exclusively my own!

I decided this evening to write this column when I was going through my e-mail. My good friend, Bill, from Colorado sent me a link to a Global Warming Test. Well, I took the test, and guess what? I got every answer right. Now I don't agree with anything Al Gore has to say about the climate, other than that the Earth has gotten a little over half a degree warmer in the last 100 years. But I'll bet that Al Gore would have gotten only one or two of these questions right.

Why am I so skeptical about Man's part in climate change? Well, there are several reasons. First and foremost is a bit of humility. I'm not talking about personal humility, but humility about Man's place on this Earth. You see, I just don't think we're all that big enough to really harm our world. In fact, if we are making any changes at all, then we are no different than any other species that has ever evolved.

For example, there's a composite photo of the Earth floating around the Internet, that shows the Earth at night from the point of view of someone in space. The continents and the oceans are all marked out with the lights of Man's cities. But there's one thing that struck me: never mind the oceans, which cover 75% of the Earth's surface. most of the dry land is absolutely dark! That's right, the vast majority of the Earth's surface has no lights from human activities. So what does that mean? Well, usually, where there are no or very few people, there are no lights to be seen from space. What the Paul Erlich's of the world call over population is really just a matter of everybody wanting to live in just a few places.

It has been demonstrated mathematically that, if you really wanted, you could split the entire population of the Earth into groups of four people, give each group of four a house on a quarter acre of land, and then fit them all into the State of Texas, without going off the dry land area. Now, no one is suggesting that this would be a good idea, but it does put things a bit into perspective, doesn't it?

Get ready to shake the wrinkles out of your brain: Name one species that evolved on Earth that didn't change the environment, did not wipe out some other species, and did not make new homes for new species that evolved with the changes that weren't madeby that first species.

Try Google or some other search engine and get back to me. If you can't find the answer to this question, that's only because there hasn't been a species that appeared on Earth that didn't change the environment, didn't wipe out other species and didn't make new homes for new species. It is call evolution and it's happening all the time. Get used to it!

The point is, there is no difference between our hypothetical species and us. We've had some impact on our environment, we've wiped out some other species. But we've also made homes for other species. Take the common house fly. It first appeared in Africa, millions of years ago. But it never left Africa, until humans took it with them. Now, it thrives everywhere. That's just one example. You could find many, many others.

Is a warmer Globe all that bad? Well, let's look at history: 1000 years ago, the Vikings found a place that had plants growing all over it. In fact, it had so many plants that they named it Greenland. At this time, vineyards were growing all over England and Scotland, places that hadn't seen them before, and which don't have them today. But 1000 years ago, there were streets and towns named for these vineyards, names they still hold today. Historical documents from the time tell a story of relatively easy living, with little famine and much higher living standards.

By the way, the polar bears did just fine, thank you, during these warmer years. I know you'd be concerned.

Just a few hundred years later, we entered into what we today call the Little Ice Age. Suddenly, things got really tough for people. The Vikings lost their colonies on Greenland and Newfoundland, due to sea ice that didn't melt in the summer. In Europe, those who didn't learn to grow potatoes and other cold resistant crops simply starved. Beer and hard liquor replaced wine in northern areas, since grapes would only grow in Southern Europe. George Washington wintered at Valley Forge during the Little Ice Age, daring a frozen Delaware River to attack the Hussein troops on the other side.

The Little Ice Age didn't end until the early years of the 19th Century. Is it any wonder that the Earth's temperature is still rising? We haven't gotten back to the heights of the Greenland days.

What about all our greenhouse gases? Aren't they helping to warm the planet? In a word, no. One volcanic eruption spews out more greenhouse gases than all of human activity throughout the past. And just how many erputions occur each and every year? Once, I would have said twenty or thirty. But then I learned differently. Just visit Prof. Robert W. Felix's web site, Not By Fire But By Ice. This is just one of the places that, apparently, Al Gore has never heard of. For instance, did you know that snowfall in Antarctica has doubled over the last 150 years? Or that Global Warming is going on right now on Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Triton, Saturn, and Pluto? And what are we to make of the palm trees in China, right now, that are covered in snow? Oh, yeah! did you know that there are some 3 million active volcanoes on the ocean floor? Could that be, maybe, just maybe, what is warming the oceans?

Al Gore refuses to debate anyone who might take an opposing view towards Global Warming. "The science is settled," he says. "There is a clear consensus that Global Warming is happening and that it is man-made." Well, then, perhaps Al should take a look at the list of scientists Prof. Felix has compiled who beg to differ. I'm sure that not all of them are in the pay of Big Oil.

John Stossel, of ABC News did a report on the skeptics. The BBC did a full documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming Hoax. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find an extant copy of this piece online, however, the link will get you to the BBC's page about the film.

OK! So maybe the science isn't really all in on Global Warming, and maybe humans aren't the cause. But how do I make the link between Global Warming and Marxism? Well, let's look at the proposed solutions to the threat of Global Warming:

• Al Gore tells us -- from his private jets, huge mansions, and lengthy limosines -- to cut back on everything we use, most especially electricity and oil. He's so serious that he took mass transit to his Nobel Prize Award ceremony. Of course, his luggage went by limo, but it's a start.


• Bill Clinton: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."


• The Herald Tribune headline: California Wants To Control Home Thermostats

Do I need to list more? This is only the beginning of a list of infamy. The politics of Global Warmism are all about control of you and I. The only way to get us to surrender our Liberty in such an atrocious fashion is to frighten us. We no longer believe the nonsense of the workers versus the capitalists, and we've seen the horrors of the Socialist Revolution, so they need something else, something a little more scientific, if you will. It's just too bad that many of the premier Global Warmists were known purveyors of the idea of the impending Ice Ages only thirty years ago!

Well, that's today's look at Hot Air. And that's enought hot air out of me. I'll revisit the topic from time to time.

HOT AIR

Of course, I am sure, some of my friends on the political Left would say that hot air is exactly what I am full of. None the less, I will press on and give my two cents worth of hot air on the issue of global warming.

When you turn on the news, watch the nature shows on the Discovery Channel, or read any of the science magazines -- either for scientists or the lay public -- you would think that global warming, at least that made by mankind, was an established fact. Sort of the like the sky is blue, water is wet, gravity attracts, and Liberals like high taxes. You would think that our climate had never changed in five billion years, until, that is, evil mankind appeared on the scene to cook the planet and destroy all the good life.

The situation is so desperate that Koffi Anan took time out from coddling antisemitic dictators and blaming the United States for, well, everything to hold a summit in Nairobi, Kenya on the threat to planet from George "Dubya" Bush. Sorry, I got my summits mixed up. I meant to write, "global warming".

Unfortunately, AP reports, there was one scientist that wasn't exactly reading from the party line. This Nobel Laureate, Paul J. Crutzen from the Max Planc Institute of Chemistry, has the heretical idea that pollution might actually stave off global warming. He says that putting a layer of sulfur compounds high in the atmosphere can serve as a sort of global parasol, blocking the suns rays and preventing run away warming.

Now, I'm confused! Sulfur compounds are pollution. Pollution, we are told ad naseum, causes global warming. So if a little is no good, a lot is great? What about shutting down American industry and our mobile lifestyle? And does that mean we don't have to shut down all the hot air Al Gore has been spewing for the last decade?

Reality check, folks! Sure, the world probably is getting warmer. In fact, just 230 years ago, the world was emerging from what historians call the Little Ice Age. Major climate change doesn't happen all at once. And just because our Industrial Revolution began as the Little Ice Age ended, doesn't mean that we are the cause of that end.

Looking back into the past, we find that the earth has been warm and it has been cold. In fact, there were a couple of times that the entire world was frozen under a sheet of ice from pole to pole. The Sun itself goes through relatively warmer and cooler periods as well. NASA recently announce that the ice caps on Mars were shrinking. How did Halliburton get their polluting plants there? I'll bet Dick Cheney had something to do with that!

This is called Nature. And in Nature, everything keeps changing. It would not be stretch to say that the only thing about Nature that doesn't change is the fact that it keeps changing. Nature keeps changing whether or not mankind is there to blame itself for what Nature does naturally -- which is change.

Look, either the atheists are right and mankind and all life evolved or God created all and gave it to mankind to hold dominion over it. Personally, I fall somewhere between the two camps, but that is neither here nor there. Let's just take as a given that mankind is a product of Nature.

If humans were destroying the climate, then Nature made a very bad mistake. Left to its own devices, Nature could never come up with a species that is too stupid not to soil its own nest.

But if that were the case, then how did mankind get smart enough to destroy Nature? We cannot both be too stupid to clean up and too smart to avoid making the mess in the first place.

I defy anyone to show me anything that mankind makes or does that doesn't occur in Nature. Everything we do, we learned from Nature. And Nature does everything we do, only bigger, badder, and messier. And when Nature makes a mess, say with some crude oil leaking from the ocean floor, no one comes along to save the otters with Dawn dishwashing detergent and de-gum the feathers of waterfowl.

Mankind, on the other hand, does clean up its messes. We showed up with boron impregnated concrete to seal up Chernobyl after it blew up. We used steam jets to clean up after the Exxon Valdez, something a few researchers found actually delayed recovery from the oil spill.

There is another way to show that the Chicken Littles of Global Warming are full of hot air. Just look at their solutions: curtail American lifestyle, legislate what kind of car you can drive and how far, shut down American industry, etc. In other words, the solution is to take away your Liberty. If that were the right way to solve the "problem", than the old Soviet Union would have been the return of the Garden of Eden, rather than the environmental basket case it proved to be. China would be the exemplar of environmental stewardship to the world.

Do you see where I am going with this? Liberty is the answer, not a Nanny State. China and the Soviet Union both promised cradle-to-the-grave security for the masses. Unfortunately, the land became no one's responsibility.

Private property rights, not government intervention, will be the cure for our environmental woes. The Left understands this, of course. That is why they are crying global warming, using fear to get what reasoned discourse cannot. And those in charge of the purse strings for scientific research have been cutting the funding of the global warming apostates. Is it any wonder why there seems to be so little dissent among scientists?

If you think that can't be the explanation, let me remind you of a scientific theory that would save all mankind from disease, poverty, racism, idiocy, birth defects, and Republicans. Well, all but that last, anyway. All serious thinkers became proponents of this wonderful set of ideas. Anyone who diverged from the orthodoxy was scorned and defunded. The inventor of the transistor was a believer. So were the most important social scientists. H.G. Wells and major politicians around the world believe.

And then, one day, one guy actually put those ideas into practice.

Who was that visionary, that savior of mankind from itself? A fellow with a little mustache and delusions of grandeur, Adolph Hitler. He took the principles of a brave, new science, eugenics and sought to remake mankind for the better. And we all know how his story went, don't we?

The Left is constantly warning us poor benighted fools about the dangers of religious orthodoxy. What happened in the Holocaust was scientific orthodoxy run amok. I doubt Judeo-Christianity can hold a candle to that abattoir!

Nowadays, no one seriously believes in eugenics. Taken to its logical conclusion, it was one bloodbath too many for the Western World. Communism, on the other hand, tried a sort of economic eugenics, with even more disastrous results.

Today, though, we have folks like Al Gore trying to scare us into revoking as many of our Liberties as they can while silencing or defunding any dissenting voices. Are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of the Twentieth Century?

So, call me a skeptic, but I really don't buy all this global warming nonsense. In fact, I wish it were true!

No! Really! I just love summer. I'm a beach bum at heart. And I despise the cold. So global warming would be just fine by me!

What I want to know is, precisely which globe is warming and why can't we go there?

Copyright Nov. 17th, 2006