Kevin on June 29th, 2006

When the issue of gay marriage is in the news in Massachusetts, we
bring on the leaders from both sides for a civil discussion of the
issues.

Chris Mineau of Vote on Marriage and Marc Solomon of Mass Equality
were our guests.

What is Pundit Review Radio?

Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin and Gregg give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Hailed as “Groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening at 8pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Leader.

We had the honor of speaking with retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters today about the war on terrorrism. Ralph spent 22 years in the US Army as an enlisted man and then an officer. He is the author of numerous books including Beyond Baghdad and Beyond Terror. His new book, Never Quit The Fight is available for pre-order at Amazon.

We discussed many aspects of the war, the good and the bad. One theme that came up throughout the hour was the connection between Saddam and AlQaeda. Listener Chris from New Hampshire was nice enough to send us a few links that explain the connection,

Harmony Database

Saddam Hussein’s Support for International Terrorism

Ralph will join us again on Sunday July 16th, in the eight o’clock hour.

What is Pundit Review Radio?

Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin and Gregg give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Hailed as “Groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening at 8pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Leader.

Kevin on June 29th, 2006

Today we had the pleasure of speaking with Ann Coulter about her #1 best selling book Godless.


We were also the first to ask Ann about today’s SCOTUS decision. We talked about our mutual affection for the Grateful Dead and our mutual distaste for liberalism. It was great fun and we look forward to having her back on the show July 9th at 8pm est during our regular Sunday evening slot.

What is Pundit Review Radio?
Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin and Gregg give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Hailed as “Groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening at 8pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Leader.

Kevin on June 27th, 2006

The Boston Herald’s Jules Crittenden, who was embedded in Iraq during the invasion, wrote a great article today titled, The Good War.

A ‘fisking’ in the blogosphere is described by Wikipedia, as “ruthlessly detailed point-by-point criticism that highlights errors, disputes the analysis of presented facts, or highlights other problems in a statement, article, or essay.” What is it called when you praise line after beautiful line, a McMahon, as in Ed McMahon?

The Good War by Jules Crittenden,

Some people just donâ??t get it…

The lack of U-boats attacking the shipping lanes has lulled some people into thinking this is not actually a war. Not a real war, certainly not a good war, not like World War II. They mock the very notion that it is a war, having fun with the name â??Global War on Terror.â? They put forward the notion that, like almost everything else in our American lives, this thing that has been called a war is a choice. A bad choice.

We saw this in spades last week. As expected, Maureen Dowd summed up the conventional wisdom of the left by cracking that the Miami 7 could not find a Sears let alone the Sears Tower.

George Bush, while announcing that we were at war five years ago, made a decision to encourage Americans to go about their business as usual. Rather than mobilizing the country for war, he decided he could fight this unconventional war by unconventional means, and with the forces already at hand. Normalcy had its uses as a weapon. It showed that our enemy could not hobble us.

It is pretty amazing to think about how normal our daily lives are. Remember after September 11 feeling like nothing would ever be the same again? Remember the trepidation at the first few big events, like the Madison Square concert for New York or the World Series? That is all ancient history now.

Ironically, Bush has been so effective with his approach, that there has not been an attack on the mainland United States since 9-11. That has allowed his opposition to maintain that all the unpleasant things Bush has had to do domestically and abroad are unnecessary, or the very least excessive. Theyâ??ve had the freedom to nitpick at the execution of the war, expressing indignation at every misstep, while ignoring major accomplishments, which they see after all as the accomplishments of an unnecessary war based on global intelligence failures that, in hindsight, they cast as lies.

Jules is much too kind to the domestic insurgents. The anti-war, anti-Bush left has been dishonest in their criticism and disgraceful in their conduct.

The New York Times editors are hiding behind the idea of freedom of the press. That has been slowly evolving in recent decades into a freedom without responsibility — the overarching new American value. It is the value that allows seemingly reasonable people to think we can wish away our problems. It is the value that allows seemingly reasonable people to see our elected president as the enemy.

Have truer words ever been written? For more on the
Times, check out Patterico

…the fabled Good War – belongs to another time. A simpler time. It is probably something that only exists in the rearview mirror anyway.

There are some people who will never get that. Their actions show that they are not worthy of the freedoms that American soldiers have died to give them. Those freedoms are theirs anyway, the birthright of even the most despicable self-centered coward who is born American. But there comes a point when you have to ask, which side are they on? There comes a point when even professional capriciousness and misguided idealism – to be charitable -have to be labelled for what they are: Giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Treason.

Bravo Jules Crittenden. Thank you for a great column.

Kevin on June 27th, 2006

courtesy of Powerline

You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion — or next time I feel it — I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.

And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others — laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.

Very truly yours,
Tom Cotton
Baghdad, Iraq

Read the whole thing, because I doubt it will make the Letters page in the Times.:)

Kevin on June 27th, 2006

If you ever wondered what the scum of the earth looks like, Solomonia has photos of a recent rally in Boston.

HT: CarPundit

Gregg on June 26th, 2006

Richard S Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT has a brilliant piece in the Wall St. Journal today entitled: “There Is No ‘Consensus’ On Global Warming” in which he debunks the popular myth among liberal-left academicians, Hollywood actors, and politicians such as Al Gore and Bill Clinton who perpetuate the notion that global warming is taking place which is the result primarily of man made activity.According to Gore, “the debate in the scientific community is over.”

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended — at least not in terms of the actual science.

While most scientists do concur that there has been a about a 1 degree Farenheit warming trend over the past century it is far from clear that this is the result of man made activity:

Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early ’70s, increased again until the ’90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

It is also important to note that the greatest mean temperature increase coincided prior to the period of greatest industrial activity (prior to 1940) which contradicts the common notion among warming alarmists that man made activity is the primary cause of the earth’s “warming.”

As to Gore’s claim that “warming” is real and caused by man as representitive of the “consensus view” Professor Lindzen cites the following:

More recently, a study in the Journal of Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words “global climate change” produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.

The eco-hysterics such as Paul Ehrlich have claimed that the American people are “a cancer to the planet.” and that the problem with the “environment worldwide was the Western way of life: capitalism, consumption, industry, and technology.” The current “global warming” movement we all know is nothing more than a way for the socialist-left in our country to further regulate private business and redistribute wealth. Indeed the new home for the Communist Party in America, as I have written in my book “Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies,” is in the “environmentalist movement.”

Unfortunately for the eco-hysterics like Al Gore the science does not back up their claims. Let’s consider some of the facts from my book.

For starters, carbon Dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas produced by burning fossil fuels is not a toxic pollutant.

Global warming is a theory that has been contradicted by evidence of a cooling trend. Scientists with the National Science Foundationâ??s Long Term Ecological Research project in Antarctica have published a paper that reveals that the snow-covered continent has cooled over the past 35 years. The researchers â??argue in the paper that long-term data from weather stations across the continent, coupled with a separate set of measurements from the Dry Valleys, confirm each other and corroborate the conditional cooling trend,â? says NSF.

According to Accu-Weather, the worldâ??s leading commercial forecaster, “Global air temperatures as measured by land-based weather stations show an increase of about 0.45 degrees Celsius over the past century. This may be no more than normal climatic variation…[and] several biases in the data may be responsible for some of this increase.”

Clinton Administration officials conceded that global warming was not conclusive. President Clinton’s top advisor on economic issues Tim Wirth admitted, “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

The National Academy of Sciences report from 2001 which was used by the environmental left as proof of a global warming trend, stated that there is no conclusive link to human activity and â??global warming.â? According to the report: â??Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and the observed climate change during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but does not constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale.â?

The vast majority of the scientific community does not support the claim that there is a link between human activity and â??global warming.â? A Gallup survey indicated that only 17% of the members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society thought the warming of the 20th century was the result of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Although there has been about a 1 degree Farenheit increase in mean global temperature, the evidence is far from conclusive that this diminutive temperature increase is attributable to man and is considered by many to be nothing more than normal fluctuations in the mean temperature of our planet.