Rockefeller University's Jesse Ausubel is a 'green' who has committed heresy.

Here's how he explains the dangers of renewable energy.  From JunkScience.com:

Ausubel calculated the amount of energy produced by various renewable energy sources — including hydroelectric, biomass, wind and solar power — in terms of power output per square meter of land disturbed.

If you could collect the average annual rainfall of the 900,000-square-kilometer Canadian province of Ontario — about 680,000 billion liters of water — and store it behind a dam 60 meters tall, you would produce about 11,000 Megawatts of electricity — which is only about 80 percent of the output of Canada’s 25 nuclear power stations, Ausubel says.

In other words, this works out to a power production rate of 0.012 watts per square meter of land. It would take 1 square kilometer of land to provide enough electricity for about 12 Canadians, according to Ausubel, who says this inefficiency is a key reason for the reduced demand for hydroelectric power.

Biomass is an even worse renewable source of energy than hydroelectric power in terms of ecological harm.

Large-scale power generation from biomass would require that “vast areas be shaved or harvested annually,” Ausubel says. It would take 2,500 square kilometers of prime Iowa farmland to produce as much electricity from biomass as from a single nuclear power plant.

“Increased use of biomass fuel in any form is criminal,” Ausubel stated in a media release. “Every automobile would require a pasture of 1-2 hectares.” He added.

Wind power? While it’s much less land intensive than biomass, that’s not saying much. A 770-square-kilometer area would only produce as much electricity as a single 1,000 Megawatt nuclear plant.

A wind farm the size of Texas would be required to extract, store and transport annual U.S. energy needs. “Every square meter of Connecticut” would have to be turned into a wind farm to provide all of New York City’s electricity demands.

Solar power is also quite a land hog. As photovoltaic cells are only 10 percent efficient and have seen no breakthroughs in 30 years, U.S. electric consumption would require a 150,000-square kilometer area of photovoltaics, plus additional land for electricity storage and retrieval.

The photovoltaic industry would have to step up its production by 600,000 times to produce the same amount of power as that generated by single 1,000 Megawatt nuclear plant.

Aside from land misuse, Ausubel also raises the other undesirable consequences of renewables: wind power produces low-frequency noise and thumps, blights landscapes, interferes with TV reception, and chops birds and bats; dams kill rivers; and solar power would require that large areas of land be essentially “painted black” with photovoltaic cells.

In terms of resource use, the infrastructure of a wind farm takes five to 10 times the steel and concrete used in a 1970-vintage nuclear power plant.

How's that for an inconvenient truth.

Lets' check his report card shall we:

• 100% from Planned Parenthood
• 100% from NARAL
• 0% from the Illinois Association for Right to Life
• 0% from Americans for Tax Reform
• 100% from the NAACP
• 8% from the American Conservative Union
• 100% from the NEA [teachers union]
• 100% from Children's Defense Fund [Hillary's old group]
• 100% from NOW
• 88% from the American Immigration Lawyers Association
• 0% from the Federation for American Immigration Reform
• 100% from the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees
• 100% from Americans for Democratic Action [gold-standard of old lefty groups]
• 0% from NRA
• 'A' from Illinois Citizens for Handgun Control

He's about as centrist as Heidi Cullen is objective.

More here.  (H/T: Newsbusters)

Paulbots on the move!  You have to take a look at this in response to my Ron Paul rally photo essay:

Townhall Blogger Under Attack - Sort of.

I call them Paulbots for obvious reason.  If you head over and read their responses to my post, not only will you see justification for the label, but you should have a good laugh too

Maybe instead of the Ron Paul Revolution (where honest brokers of his ideas are at), these types of folks should be called 'The Paulbot Individuality Collective'.

Funny, funny stuff!

Wait for the outrage and indignation on my use of the term jihad.  Maybe I'll get a Paulbot fatwa issued against me!

Let the Paulbot Virus Alert commence!! 

The case of a 'scientist' who's fallen in love with her own hype.

Here's and excerpt from a NYT interview:

Q: Your coverage of global warming has been controversial. Are you surprised?

A: In a way, yes. To me, global warming isn’t a political issue, it’s a scientific one. But a lot of people out there think you’re being an advocate when you talk climate science. Last December, I wrote a blog about how reticent some broadcast meteorologists are about reporting on climate change. Meteorologists — they are the forecasters — have training in atmospheric science. Many are certified by the American Meteorological Society. I suggested there’s a disconnect when they use their A.M.S. seal for on-camera credibility and refuse to give viewers accurate information on climate. The society has a very clear statement saying that global warming is largely due to the burning of fossil fuels.  The next thing I knew, I was being denounced on the Web sites of Senator James Inhofe, Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh. The Weather Channel’s own Web site got about 4,000 e-mails in one day, mostly angry. Some went, ‘Listen here, weather girl, just give me my five-day forecast and shut up.’

Mrs. Cullen is still hiding behind, "It's a scientific issue".  If it's a scientific issue, why is it that she NEVER addresses skeptics, other than to dismiss them or excoriate them?  What does having a one sided opinion have to do with the scientific method?  If you aren't even willing to look at the 'other' side, how is that objective science?  If it isn't objective, is it really science or politics?

Notice the diversionary statement about the AMS seal.  She's accusing others of doing exactly the same thing she does..  Also, look at her objective statement about "the society has a very clear statement saying that GW is largely due to the burning of fossil fuels."  This one statement is so abjectly biased it throws her previous argument about "science not politics" into the garbage.

Q: Rush Limbaugh accused you of Stalinism. Did you suggest that meteorologists who doubt global warming should be fired?

A: I didn’t exactly say that. I was talking about the American Meteorological Society’s seal of approval. I was saying the A.M.S. should test applicants on climate change as part of their certification process. They test on other aspects of weather science.  A lot of viewers want to know about climate change. They are experiencing events they perceive as unusual and they want to know if there’s a connection to global warming. Certainly when Katrina hit, they wanted to know if it was global warming or not. Most Americans get their daily dose of science through their televised weather report. Given that fact, I think it’s the responsibility of broadcast meteorologists to provide viewers with scientific answers.

She "didn't say exactly that" which is exactly what she said.  AMS applicants should be tested on climate change to see what?  If they hold the proper view on it?  What's the proper view?  Hers?  Now we get the we're doing it for the "viewers".  When I read this I saw the scene in "Apocalypto" where the priests were conducting the human sacrifices with the populace screaming for blood.  Is Mrs. Cullen the priestess to provide the masses their 'science'?  To address the last sentence, I think it's the responsibility of broadcast meteorologists with their weather forecast, not political activism disguised as science.  Call me crazy.

Q: What do your ex-colleagues from academia think of your new career?

A: Oh, they’re so funny. Some of them claim that they haven’t seen me on television because they don’t own one. But when I was being denounced by Matt Drudge, they were all, ‘Hey, saw you on Drudge!’ Actually, a lot of my friends are relieved that there’s at least one scientist out there doing this.

Now she crawls up on her 'cross', "a lot of my friends are relieved that there's at least one scientist out there doing this."  Doing what?  Spreading activist propaganda?  Misinformation?  And she's the only one out there doing this?

Well thank you Heidi Cullen for being the 'lone voice' in the world of climate alarmism.  Or has she ever heard of Al Gore?  Of course the Goracle isn't a 'scientist' like she is.  Frankly, I believe in this statement she made above:

‘Listen here, weather girl, just give me my five-day forecast and shut up.’

Video.  Also loves his stance on AGW and how he deals with those weirdos:

Do one photo essay about Ron Paul and, man oh man, how the weirdness comes out.

I have apparently raised the ire of a fellow Townhaller about my Ron Paul posts.  So much so there is a forum he created to 'expose me' or something. 

Well, he doesn't want me to expose myself!

Since I just found this out, I headed on over to see what I could see.  I have to say, I'm pretty impressed by what they had to say.  And by impressed I mean I'm LMAO and crying right now!

Take a look at this from the first entry on the forum, written by my compatriot here at Townhall:

In the last several days there have been at least three anti-Paul articles featured on Townhall, including two by one "Cattmman" who is ranked No. 6, irked with me, and who is now in the process of putting up a photo essay on a Ron Paul Rally in San Antonio--with the assistance of another top ten blogger Josue, a member of the Townhall Officialdom. They seem to be ganging up over there. They are about to post his essay on the Top of the Blog page there as a featured article.

Anyway to prevent prevent Cattmman's rating from soaring above our own by our own visits, I suggest we present our comments in one collective (I hate that word too) big boo via collection of comments here.

Those who don't want let me indulge in my newly-discovered Narcissicism (see avatar); and those who want to see his essay or comment on it directy, go to directly his photo essay: http://robertsteely.townhall.com/g/0...b-4807a71d43ce.

There are several other anti-Paul essays he has written. I will post those here soon. (One them resulted in an Anti-Paul Virus Alert.)

Here is the text of Cattman's photo essay blog, which seems not too bad for Neo-Con work, but I haven't read it carefully. He had a history of trying to sound so reasonable.

Emphasis mine above.

Now if you haven't already, head over and take a look at my post about the Ron Paul rally here.  Make up your own mind as to my intentions.

What I liked is that, true to form, a Paulbot thinks there is some grand conspiracy between me and our illustroious Josue, our Townhall online community manager.  I had no idea my post was going to go up in the Features section.  I am flatterd and honored.  I have read many a blog post from this area and I count myself lucky.  Thanks, Townhall.  Oh, and I thanked Josue because of his post on how to post photos to your Townhall blog.  He had the tip on Photobucket and it worked.  Thanks again Josue.

Yep, us RP haters are "ganging up".  Of course the fact that we aren't and two of the three critiques he sites are from my blog only gives me more credit than I'm worthy of.  And just a quick note:  I thought RP's were all about freedom and individuality, yet one of them writes stuff like this:  "I suggest we present our comments in one collective  "  Collective?  Hello, Borg Queen, Hello!  

I like the last sentence above:  not too bad for a neo-con (my first label -he, he) and that he hasn't read my post carefully.  Yet he besmirches it in the very next sentence - "had a history of trying to be so reasonable."  This just shows he can't read anything even remotly critical of RP or his supporters without the shields going up.  And I'm the one who is biased.

It is true I have written many critiques of RP in my blog.  I have tried to debate Ron Paul supporters in the comments section and through my e-mail.  I have blogged about all of this.

But after reading the comments over at Ron Paul Forums.com maybe i have been wasting my time.  I don't mean to stop, but come on!

I am going to post one entire echange from just one commenter.  It was pretty good.  After you read it and if you've read my post, who do you believe is the more open minded, objective, unbiased and fair:  (I hope you can follow this ok)  The post is by a person called bygone.
 

Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley

I have been especially critical of his maybe unintended support of 9/11 'Trutherism'.

This is blatantly false

Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley

I don't agree with his stance on foreign policy (the whole isolationist vs. non-interventionist semantics) and how Mr. Pauls support by some 'kook fringers' is the reason he is looked at in the way he is.

He's not wrong that this is a problem. It's more than semantics, but that must be made clear, and it better be done soon. It's also about as objective and unbiased as it is fair and balanced.

Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley

I also don't agree with his stance on drug legalization, nor to I support his policy on Iraq withdrawal.

Linking these two topics is not an accident. However, you're either for or against these things and that's that.

Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley

I was pleasantly surprised by the lack of overt kookiness at the rally. There were no 'truthers', drug legalizers or what would be considered outright nutrootery in evidence out in the open as has been observed at other Paul venues. There may be several reasons for this:

1. Downtown San Antonio on a Saturday is chock full of active duty AF personnel. Having graduated basic military training the day before, they are given a "town pass" and a lot of them spend their day downtown. In addition to that, the other presence of retired and other active duty personnel in SA on the weekends would make for a volatile situation to say the least with anti-war loons and truthers in active presentation.

2. The rally was held literally across the street from the Alamo grounds. Now as a native Texan and one who believes in his heart in the ideals fought for by the Alamo defenders, this ground is hallowed and sacred. I know it has been corrupted as a tourist trap, but to someone like me, I would have been arrested before I would let such ground be desecrated by unhonorable scumbags.

3. It's Texas! The state, by and large is pretty conservative and again SA is a pretty pro military town, so the type of nutroot nonsense at other Paul venues would not have been tolerated, even by the general public.

More linking of topics, intentionally, with a dash of patriotism and marginalizing issues that are not important to the author. Poor writing that barely qualifies as propaganda.

Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley

Paul volunteers were also doing a pretty good job of 'policing' the crowd as well.

For his first visit to a political event, he seems to be pretty sure of himself.

Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley

Allright, enough of that. Lets get to the details:

Originally, I was informed by a commenter that Mr. Paul would be in town for a dinner. Further investigation revealed a cost element I wasn't willing to partake in. I figured, dang, that's that. That was Friday night.

About 1100 on Saturday morning, I did a google search on Paul activities figuring maybe there would be other stuff going on besides the dinner. I was right. I learned there would be a public rally and press conference, all free beginning at 1200 and running until 1800. I figured this was what I was looking for so I rounded up my wife and youngest daughter and headed off downtown.

1400:

We found the Paul 'headquarters, as seen in these photos:

Pretty dead as you can see. But my wife, daughter and I ventured forth to see what we could see:

An obvious drug legalization sign. But this was the only one we saw through the entire afternoon, which I thought was good..

This is news? What is interesting here is that this event in Texas is dead. That can't be good.

Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley

My daughter thought this was a clever sign.

Inside the Cavalry Museum (Paul's Rally Headquarters) we had a PC playing you tube video of Mr. Paul.

I didn't understand this sign at first. I can only surmise it's message is to support Paul since he votes no on a lot of stuff.

Wife my gathered some campaign material, some which only campaign volunteers had access too (God bless my wife). We spoke with some of the volunteers, asking when things would start up, etc, Just some general chit-chat The only obvious 'nutrootery' going on at this time was they had a recording of what I'll call 'conspiracy radio' talking about the anthrax vaccine. Seems the broadcasters were touting the negatives of it and stated: "We know the Generals will never take this stuff. They just make the 'expendable soldiers take it." and other such wackiness. This is patently false as I've witnessed firsthand. Music or anything else would have been a much better way to entice people in off the street.

I take it that the author is a "decider" when it comes to what is "nutrootery". The fact that people are free to say what they want to say should tell you something about the difference between this candidate and many others.

Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley

At this point it was about 1430. It was hot and muggy. We decided to head inside for some chow and check back on the goings on around 1530. Se we did.

The obligatory "Me in front of the Alamo" pic. Obviously with a giant distended belly full of Mexican food and a few 'beverages'. Seriously, I never tire of this sight and love walking the Alamo grounds.

1525: Still dead. They did take my advice and put some music on. This guy played a great acoustic guitar. Too bad there wasn't really anyone there to hear it.

Due to lack of action at the Ron Paul camp, we decided to take part in the Houston St. Festival which was also going on in SA.

This wouldn't have anything to do with that lack of action, though?

Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley

Couple of pics of the Alamo Defenders Memorial - Awesome!

Street performer. Not too bad. In the background is the Buckhorn Saloon where Mr. Pauls fundraising dinner was held later that night.

1700: After partaking in the street festivities, we head back to the Paul camp. Crowd has begun to show. Again not much kookiness on display, which was nice. But there was some:

Band at play...

Crowds forming. Dreadlock boy was talking up a 'connection' on the phone. I kid you not.

Pretty much self-explanatory...

That this article isn't fit to be read.

Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley

Probably the best case of overt weirdness.

Yay Overt Wierdness! We found some! And we weren't even looking for it!

Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley

Obvious Guy Fawkes fans, Bexar County Ron Paul volunteers, and a Code Pinker all rolled into one. In case your wondering, I asked just to be sure he wasn't just wearing a pink shirt. In my notes I wrote: "V for Vendetta? WTF?" then the reference clicked. Duh.

It was now about 1710 with 200-300 people al told.

1712: Ron Paul arrives...

My wife was snapping the picks at this time. I was taking notes. Yep, we were that close, which even though I don't support the guy, was kinda cool. Being so close to a Presidential candidate and all...

He began his speech talking about living in San Antonio back in the 60's and how the Vietnam era impacted his life. He spoke about non-interventionism and tied it all into war and how we need to stop the war and actually talked as if there was a draft right now. I thought that was odd..."We don't need the draft right now." were his words. He spoke how he is determined to stop the Iraq war now, (no mention of Afghanistan at all in his remarks BTW). And tied it all together into the economic impact of the war, how do we pay for the war, the Federal Reserve system getting rid of the IRS and taxes.

Not a bad speech as far as it goes, but no real mention of specifics. It was what I would think a standard 'stump' speech would be.

LMAO. Go to a few other events please. I do think that RP could clarify some of the issues better. You can't expect everyone to read 200 page books about things, you gotta break it down into easily digestible and regurgitatable (is that a word, lol?) form.

Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley

A lot of the problems he's talked about caused me to think, "This guy has been in Congress for twenty years, yet we still have these problems." I know he's only one guy, but this waxed a little to liberal for me. If you are speaking against a system which is as broke as you say it is, how do you justify being part of that system for so long without having fixed it?

This author either needs to think a little more or a lot less.

Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley

I did like his few quick remarks on the 2nd amendment though - kudos.

Yeehaw! Bang Bang!

Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley

He also spoke about the spontaneity of the internet and the effect younger people are having on his campaign as a result. This is something the other Republicans may want to take note of before dismissing the You Tube 'debates'. Just a thought.

I wonder what the guy behind Mr. Paul here is thinking? What part of his platform does he support? Yeah, I went there.

The Code Pinkers appear! Notice the sign at the left. My wife double checked, just to be sure. At least they weren't vocal.

Crowd listening to the 'stump'

Paul finishes speech. No Q&A here. We move onto the press conference location.

The obligatory "fist in the air". Also, the guy holding the banner on the right was probably the most annoying moron at this event. Once the rally began moving towards the press conference location, he would not shut up about, "Who's gonna end the Iraq War?" over and over and over.

And why in the world would he do that? It's not an important issue. (sarcasm)

Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley

Right in front with the media. Fielding more or less softball questions about leaving Iraq. "Staying will just cause more chaos, more Americans are going to die. We need to go." direct quote.

Was asked a nutball question about his policy of using depleted uranium in Iraq. Asked about Darfur. Stated, "It is chaos. But we need to do more than just drop in food. We use food as a weapon.", but offered no substantive response beyond that.

Weak. RP needs to work on this.

Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley

One thing also he was very happy about how we get along with Vietnam now, "We get along so much better nowadays with Vietnam. Trade and everything else. We don't intervene and we get along so much better." - direct quote.

Leaving the press conference and heading off to the fundraising dinner.

Well, that's it.

I can say that nothing he said changed my mind in not supporting the guy. I've stated my reasons. But the fact that there was very little overt nutroot weirdness at this rally made me feel good. Honest supporters of Ron Paul hopefully can start getting beyond the 'kooks' who began to undermine his message.

Even though we tried really hard to portray it that way in this article.

Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley

I've given what I hope my critics would see as a fair appraisal of Mr. Paul I tried to go in as open minded as possible and to be as unbiased as possible. Now, if nothing else, you can't fault me for giving your guy a listen in person and hearing his viewpoint literally face to face.

Those of you who are Ron Paul supporters who are honest brokers in his ideas need to do the same if given the opportunity to see other candidates other than Ron Paul. At least except your own challenge as I did. It won't hurt anything. Go in as I did and try to be open minded, if for no other reason than to cement your own opinions about your guy.

I've always said I was open to both sides of the story, but wasn't given the benefit of the doubt by most. Now, you can't complain. Take your own advice.

As a side note, this was a good time my wife, daughter and I had. It was especially good for my daughter. It exposed her to political viewpoints free of weirdness (mostly) and din an up close and personal way. She asked many questions about America's political process. It was not only a learning experience, but a good time for our family.

This is the best part of the article. It's somewhat honest, but if he expected me to get the impression that he went there with an open mind he failed.

This article fails with an F.

There you go.  I know that was long, but I wanted to get it all in there.

I could go in for the line by line refutation, but why bother?

I will say a few things though.  I am not a journalist.  I was critiqued by another poster to that forum for my lack of journalistic something:   "Nothing says serious journalism like calling someone an annoying moron."

Well let me say it again, I'm not a journalist moron!  I never said I was nor intinmated such in my blog.  Read my stuff.  I am indeed no journalist.

Yes it was my first political rally and I am pretty confident in myself.  I'm confident to take a challenge issued in good faith and do the best I thought I could do for the sake of the free exchange of ideas.  What did you do?   Tried to be bitingly sarcastic about just some guy writing a blog post and making fun of my poor writing skills.  Wow.

A post chock full of everything I've been accused of doing.

I went to the RP rally and had every opportunity to yell loaded questions at your man and try to call him out to make a mockery and circus of his events.  But I didn't.  If you've actually read the post, you saw the pictures, I was definately close enough.  I could hav ethen cried foul as Paulbots do when the ambush political candidates.

I have more respect for the political process.  And I also am very patriotic thank you very much.   I've bled for my country and have served her honorably since before Mr. Paul went to Congress.  I throw that in there since my firsthand experience with military affairs in SA is apparently beyond this persons ability to discern. 

But you Paulbots are entitled to your opinion.  Go ahead and keep turning your accusing eye at me, for who am I?  No one in particular, just a guy with an opinion. 

And to close this post, I am humbled to be considered in the same boat as the names listed below (amongst others), all of us BSR's:

Why do you bother with Townhall?

The main writers there - Hugh Hewitt, Dean Barnett, Mary Ham, and Patrick Ruffini - all think Ron Paul is a kook.

All of the editorial writers, with the exception of Williams and Buchanan, think Ron Paul is a kook.

IMHO, the main writers and most of the bloggers/posters over there are serious BSRs (Brown Shirt Republicans). Trying to talk with them is a waste of time.

Maybe if they could turn their eyes inward, they would think I were the one wasting my time engaging that type of derision.

At least that's what Kansas Congresswoman Nancy Boyda did.

Yeah.  She didn't like hearing any good news from Iraq as she was being briefed by Army General Jack Keane during an Armed Services Committee meeting.

She just up and walked out.

Nothing like trying to maintain an objective mind on Capitaol Hill nowadays I guess.

From Newsbusters:

"I was certainly hoping that General Keane would be able to be here as well. Let me say thank you very much for your testimony so much, Mr. Korb, and I just will make some statements more for the record based on what I heard mainly General Keane. As many of us, there was only so much that you could take until we, in fact, had to leave the room for a while, and so I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things that after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to."

"But let me just first say that the description of Iraq as if some way or another that it’s a place that I might take the family for a vacation, things are going so well, those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying here’s the reality of the problem and people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue."

Note that she:

• Is almost certainly mischaracterizing the general's testimony -- unless someone can find Iraq described by the general as a suitable family vacation destination (good luck).
• Is afraid of positive news becoming known (this would appear to be a smoke signal to Old Media to ignore this testimony).
• Is, in effect, calling an multi-star general a liar, even though he was likely under oath.
• By walking out on a general's testimony, is showing that SHE is more interested in keeping opinion on Iraq divided than getting at the truth.

But she supports the troops. (/sarcasm)

Let's visit her campaign web site's home page, shall we? Going to the last paragraph:

Now our challenge is to turn the promise of our campaign into action in Congress. Kansans cast their ballots on Election Day to end the era of one-party rule, so I am working every day in Washington to replace partisanship with leadership.

Nancy Boyda's (possibly contrived?) hearing cut-and-run act was surely not an example of leadership.

From a Google cache of her "issues" page during her 2006 campaign (click on "Foreign Policy" to see the text; backup stored here in case Ms. Boyda has Google cache scrubbed):

"Stay the course" is a political slogan, not a military strategy.

The administration must establish a responsible, realistic plan for dealing with the insurgency and a timeline during which the Iraqi citizens must establish a viable government for themselves.

I received this in response to a post entitled Why I don't Support Ron Paul:

Commenter is AMack
Isolationism...
is characterized by both economic protectionism and military nonintervention. Dr. Paul is very pro-market. He is not, however, in favor of preemption. Thus, he is not an isolationist.

Yes, any country could nuke us in moments, but the concept of mutual assured destruction (MAD) cannot be ignored. The Russians could have nuked us, yet we didn't preemptively attack them. Iraq was, and Iran is, significantly less of a threat than Russia ever was. The fact is, staying on the offense is not a form of defense. Perimeter security is the absolute best form of defense, yet we are not terribly committed to that, as the border with Mexico continues to be undefended.

And on top of that, we cannot even afford this war against Iraq. We take out nearly 3 billion dollars per day in loans in order to fund it. We should have stayed and finished the job in Afghanistan, killed Bin Laden, and come home. Many Americans, myself included, are not willing to drive our country into extreme debt and inflation simply to preemptively attack nations which are no threat to us.

I know what Mr. Pauls stance on foreign policy is, I heard it from the mans mouth face to face last Saturday.  Mr. Paul may be a learned man as far as that goes, but his idea of foreign policy is fundamentally naive.

To respond to your comments:

You assume a nation like Iran, a fanatical islamist theocratic state, cares about MAD.  Right now you are correct that Iran is less of a threat than the Soviet Union was at it's height.  But here's what's wrong with your assumption.  We dealt with the Soviets with kid gloves, a hands off attitude after WWII.  We didn't think much of them.  Until they got the bomb.  Then their starved populace and shattered economy had to be dealt with on an equal basis.  We dealt with the Soviets as we did for so many years because we had too.  The Soviets were perfectly capable to overrun Europe with their sizable military, a military armed with the bomb.  That alone was the reason for the Cold War.  But the Soviets are a bad example.  They were governed by 'western' principles by and large.  They had much to lose in a nuclear exchange with us.  The Soviets, even though they were thought to be crazy about a good many things, were very reasoned when it came to nuclear poker with us.  The Iranians are governed by no such thought.

What about North Korea?  We deal with them diplomatically because we have little to lose in doing so.  Even if the DPRK doesn't have nukes, we deal with them as they do.  But sizable though their military is, they are regionally isolated.  Economic pressures work better on them since they are dependent on the outside world for almost everything.  This is only limitedly so with Iran.  They also have little to offer the world to hold hostage.  They don't control a sizable portion of the worlds petroleum reserves as the Iranians do.  We also have regional neighbors who have good reason to fear DPRK and work with us to keep them contained.

Iran (as other islamist states) is not governed as these other nations are or were.  The don't follow reason.  Rational thought escapes them.  They constantly refuse to abide by the words of the international community.  They harbor terrorists.  They sponsor terrorism.  The evidence is there that these guys are certifiable wack jobs.  How would you have us deal with them?  More words?

They also control a sizable portion of the worlds oil supply.  If we leave the Middle East, they would most certainly control almost all of it.  What then?  Who would be dealing from a position of strength in any negotiations?  Who would hold the upper hand?  Could we then trust them to just leave well enough alone as they have yet to demonstrate any capability to do or would they hold the world ransom?

Staying on offense is the only kind of defense!  Don't you watch football?

And to continue with my analogy, playing prevent with an adversary is not going to work.  It never works.  

Are you suggesting we should we wait until Iran does become a threat? 

Here's the new spin which hurricane forecasters hope will deflect attention from their now two year losing streak on alarmist hurricane forecasting trends:

I answered my critics challenge!  

Actual "Live Blogging" from a Ron Paul rally I attended here in San Antonio on Saturday 28, July.  Repost from yesterday: 

Well, now that I've figured out how to get the pics my wife and I took yesterday to post on my blog, we can get started.  (Thanks Josue on the old blog posts.  Photobucket worked!)

First off, this is really the first political rally for a Presidential candidate I've ever attended.  I explained I would go into it without preconceived notions and I wanted to be as objective and unbiased as possible.

I have been pretty critical of Mr. Paul, his campaign and his supporters over the last few months.  I have received some pretty decent threats from Paul supporters as has been blogged about in these pages.

I have been especially critical of his maybe unintended support of 9/11 'Trutherism'.  I don't agree with his stance on foreign policy (the whole isolationist vs. non-interventionist semantics) and how Mr. Pauls support by some 'kook fringers' is the reason he is looked at in the way he is.  I also don't agree with his  stance on drug legalization, nor to I support his policy on Iraq withdrawal.

I was pleasantly surprised by the lack of overt kookiness at the rally.  There were no 'truthers', drug legalizers or what would be considered outright nutrootery in evidence out in the open as has been observed at other Paul venues.  There may be several reasons for this: 

1.  Downtown San Antonio on a Saturday is chock full of active duty AF personnel.  Having graduated basic military training the day before, they are given a "town pass" and a lot of them spend their day downtown.  In addition to that, the other presence of retired and other active duty personnel in SA on the weekends would make for a volatile situation to say the least with anti-war loons and truthers in active presentation.

2.  The rally was held literally across the street from the Alamo grounds.  Now as a native Texan and one who believes in his heart in the ideals fought for by the Alamo defenders, this ground is hallowed and sacred.  I know it has been corrupted as a tourist trap, but to someone like me, I would have been arrested before I would let such ground be desecrated by unhonorable scumbags.

3.  It's Texas!  The state, by and large is pretty conservative and again SA is a pretty pro military town, so the type of nutroot nonsense at other Paul venues would not have been tolerated, even by the general public.

Paul volunteers were also doing a pretty good job of 'policing' the crowd as well. 

Allright, enough of that.  Lets get to the details:

Originally, I was informed by a commenter that Mr. Paul would be in town for a dinner.  Further investigation revealed a cost element I wasn't willing to partake in.  I figured, dang, that's that.  That was Friday night.

About 1100 on Saturday morning, I did a google search on Paul activities figuring maybe there would be other stuff going on besides the dinner.  I was right.  I learned there would be a public rally and press conference, all free beginning at 1200 and running until 1800.  I figured this was what I was looking for so I rounded up my wife and youngest daughter and headed off downtown.

1400:

We found the Paul 'headquarters, as seen in these photos:





Pretty dead as you can see.  But my wife, daughter and I ventured forth to see what we could see:



An obvious drug legalization sign.  But this was the only one we saw through the entire afternoon, which I thought was good.



My daughter thought this was a clever sign.



Inside the Cavalry Museum (Paul's Rally Headquarters) we had a PC playing you tube video of Mr. Paul.



I didn't understand this sign at first.  I can only surmise it's message is to support Paul since he votes no on a lot of stuff.

Wife my gathered some campaign material, some which only campaign volunteers had access too (God bless my wife).  We spoke with some of the volunteers, asking when things would start up, etc, Just some general chit-chat  The only obvious 'nutrootery' going on at this time was they had a recording of what I'll call 'conspiracy radio' talking about the anthrax vaccine.  Seems the broadcasters were touting the negatives of it and stated: "We know the Generals will never take this stuff.  They just make the 'expendable soldiers take it."  and other such wackiness.  This is patently false as I've witnessed firsthand.  Music or anything else would have been a much better way to entice people in off the street.

At this point it was about 1430.  It was hot and muggy.  We decided to head inside for some chow and check back on the goings on around 1530.  Se we did.



The obligatory "Me in front of the Alamo" pic.  Obviously with a giant distended belly full of Mexican food and a few 'beverages'.  Seriously, I never tire of this sight and love walking the Alamo grounds.





1525:  Still dead.  They did take my advice and put some music on.  This guy played a great acoustic guitar.  Too bad there wasn't really anyone there to hear it.

Due to lack of action at the Ron Paul camp, we decided to take part in the Houston St. Festival which was also going on in SA. 





Couple of pics of the Alamo Defenders Memorial - Awesome!



Street performer.  Not too bad.  In the background is the Buckhorn Saloon where Mr. Pauls fundraising dinner was held later that night.

1700:  After partaking in the street festivities, we head back to the Paul camp.  Crowd has begun to show.  Again not much  kookiness on display, which was nice.  But there was some:



Band at play...





Crowds forming.  Dreadlock boy was talking up a 'connection' on the phone.  I kid you not.



Pretty much self-explanatory...





Probably the best case of overt weirdness.  Obvious Guy Fawkes fans, Bexar County Ron Paul volunteers, and a Code Pinker all rolled into one.  In case your wondering, I asked just to be sure he wasn't just wearing a pink shirt.  In my notes I wrote: "V for Vendetta?  WTF?"  then the reference clicked.  Duh.

It was now about 1710 with 200-300 people al told.

1712: Ron Paul arrives...





My wife was snapping the picks at this time.  I was taking notes.  Yep, we were that close, which even though I don't support the guy, was kinda cool.  Being so close to a Presidential candidate and all...

He began his speech talking about living in San Antonio back in the 60's and how the Vietnam era impacted his life.  He spoke about non-interventionism and tied it all into war and how we need to stop the war and actually talked as if there was a draft right now.  I thought that was odd..."We don't need the draft right now." were his words.  He spoke how he is determined to stop the Iraq war now, (no mention of Afghanistan at all in his remarks BTW).  And tied it all together into the economic impact of the war, how do we pay for the war, the Federal Reserve system getting rid of the IRS and taxes.

Not a bad speech as far as it goes, but no real mention of specifics.  It was what I would think a standard 'stump' speech would be.

A lot of the problems he's talked about caused me to think, "This guy has been in Congress for twenty years, yet we still have these problems."  I know he's only one guy, but this waxed a little to liberal for me.  If you are speaking against a system which is as broke as you say it is, how do you justify being part of that system for so long without having fixed it?

I did like his few quick remarks on the 2nd amendment though - kudos.

He also spoke about the spontaneity of the internet and the effect younger people are having on his campaign as a result.  This is something the other Republicans may want to take note of before dismissing the You Tube 'debates'.  Just a thought.



I wonder what the guy behind Mr. Paul here is thinking?  What part of his platform does he support?  Yeah, I went there.





The Code Pinkers appear!  Notice the sign at the left.  My wife double checked, just to be sure.  At least they weren't vocal. 



Crowd listening to the 'stump'



Paul finishes speech.  No Q&A here.  We move onto the press conference location.







The obligatory "fist in the air".  Also, the guy holding the banner on the right was probably the most annoying moron at this event.  Once the rally began moving towards the press conference location, he would not shut up about, "Who's gonna end the Iraq War?" over and over and over.



Right in front with the media.  Fielding more or less softball questions about leaving Iraq. "Staying will just cause more chaos, more Americans are going to die.  We need to go." direct quote.

Was asked a nutball question about his policy of using depleted uranium in Iraq.  Asked about Darfur.  Stated, "It is chaos.  But we need to do more than just drop in food.  We use food as a weapon.", but offered no substantive response beyond that.

One thing also he was very happy about how we get along with Vietnam now, "We get along so much better nowadays with Vietnam.  Trade and everything else.  We don't intervene and we get along so much better." - direct quote.





Leaving the press conference and heading off to the fundraising dinner.

Well, that's it.

I can say that nothing he said changed my mind in not supporting the guy.  I've stated my reasons.  But the fact that there was very little overt nutroot weirdness at this rally made me feel good.  Honest supporters of Ron Paul hopefully can start getting beyond the 'kooks' who began to undermine his message.

I've given what I hope my critics would see as a fair appraisal of Mr. Paul  I tried to go in as open minded as possible and to be as unbiased as possible.  Now, if nothing else, you can't fault me for giving your guy a listen in person and hearing his viewpoint literally face to face.

Those of you who are Ron Paul supporters who are honest brokers in his ideas need to do the same if given the opportunity to see other candidates other than Ron Paul.  At least except your own challenge as I did.  It won't hurt anything.  Go in as I did and try to be open minded, if for no other reason than to cement your own opinions about your guy.

I've always said I was open to both sides of the story, but wasn't given the benefit of the doubt by most.  Now, you can't complain.  Take your own advice.

As a side note, this was a good time my wife, daughter and I had.  It was especially good for my daughter.  It exposed her to political viewpoints free of weirdness (mostly) and din an up close and personal way.  She asked many questions about America's political process.  It was not only a learning experience, but a good time for our family.

I guess there aren't enough people out there to make up stories about climate alarmism, but it is Sunday so maybe they had the day off and had some space to fill

Anyway, I ran across this while going to check my e-mail:  Global Warning: The World's Endangered Destinations.

Interestingly enough, the first photo looked amazingly familiar to me: (Here's the photo from the page today)


And here's why: A Refutation of GW Alarmism.  (Exceprt below from my blog post on April 23rd)

Photo #1:  The Everglades, Florida.

Original caption:  "Perhaps no region of the country is as vulnerable to climate change as Florida. Even a slight increase in temperature and water level could prove devastating to popular destinations like the Evergl