Have you noticed that the global warming alarmists are constantly insisting that the debate is over and that there is a consensus among scientists on the subject?  If the debate is over why do they keep debating it?  If  a consensus exists why do they keep pronouncing it?

We don't see many pronouncements that everyone now agrees that the earth is spherical in shape and orbits the sun. Jay Leno doesn't have to remind people that he is generally known to be funny.  Bill Gates doesn't spend much time insisting that everyone knows that he is rich.  (Donald Trump does, but that's an aberration.) 

Once something is known to be true there is no need to keep insisting that it is.

---

The Associated Press reports that "Cuba's communist government is trying to shake off the yoke of at least one capitalist empire -- Microsoft Corporation -- by joining with socialist Venezuela in converting its computers to open-source software." They want to phase out their dependence on the Windows operating system and phase in the use of Linux instead.

Open-source roughly means that the software application is ostensibly free of cost and that the user has access to and the right to modify the source code in order to customize the behavior of the software. Linux is an open-source computer operating system originally developed by a Finnish programmer, Linus Torvalds, but extended and improved over the years since by many volunteer programmers. Its use and operation is similar to the Unix operating system but was designed specifically for personal computers. Although Linux can be downloaded and installed at no cost, most users purchase a packaged version from a vendor to avoid the trials and tribulations of trying to install it themselves. The vendors charge for the packaging and the installation software, not the Linux software itself (how convenient).

Using the collective efforts of many unpaid programmers to produce software which is then made available to anyone that wants it is said by some to be a socialistic endeavor. Technically it is but dissenters need to understand that open-source software is developed by private individuals doing what they choose to do with their time -- not by a government bureaucracy. Perhaps the 'collective efforts' thing is why socialist regimes seem to be attracted to open-source software.

I do believe, though, that some of the open-source contributors are a bit misguided. One of the reasons often given for their efforts was to produce an alternative to Microsoft's monopolistic Windows operating system and Office applications. That sounds good but Microsoft has never enjoyed a monopoly. Apple offered an OS before Microsoft did and it is still available as an alternative. There was OS2 and several other less well known alternatives. There have always been alternatives to Microsoft's Office applications. Remember Word Perfect and Lotus123? The reason Microsoft overwhelmed its competition is that they offered products that best suited users in terms of cost, capability and ease of use.

It is good that Linux is out there but I think its development was motivated more by the egos of the contributors than a real desire to do something for the people. There is also the fact that many of the contributors eventually profited handsomely from their efforts.

Besides the packaging and installation charges by the Linux vendors, some experts believe that the operation and management costs are greater for open-source than for commercial software. They believe that commercial software comes with better technical support than does open-source.

It might be good for us that the communist dictatorships to the south of us want to rid their countries of commercial software.

---

Power Line has posted the sixteen slides used by officers in Iraq to brief the press on the evidence that Iran is supporting the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq.  Click on each thumbnail to view the slides.

The liberal media are expressing doubt that the evidence is authentic.  They apparently believe that the Bush Administration is trying to build a case for attacking Iran.  Why is it so hard to believe that Iran is meddling in Iraq?  They have made it quite clear that they want to destroy us.  And why wouldn't they want to help their fellow Shiites?

Anyhow, we don't have to attack Iran if they are in Iraq.  We can attack them there wherever we find them.  And when they cross the border is the best place to find them.

---

Some scientists and former astronauts are saying that an asteroid about 800 feet in diameter may crash into Earth in 2036. You can find stories on this here and here. The good news is that now we can stop fretting over global warming. The bad news is that we may all go the way of the dinosaurs about 30 years from now.

More immediate bad news, and probably the worst news, is that the scientists and astronauts are calling for the UN to take charge and do something about it. They want to create some new governmental agency and spend billions of dollars developing means to deflect the asteroid from its path into Earth -- all this when the actual chance that it will strike Earth is only 1 in 45,000. Those are better odds than winning the lottery but not nearly high enough to get excited about. I suspect that this is just one more insidious way to enhance the role of the UN and bring us closer to giving up our sovereignty to a worldwide governing body.

Al Gore must be saddened by all this; he might be replaced on the world stage by some Bruce Willis wannabe. Seriously, even this unlikely calamitous event clarifies the absurdity of all the hyperventilating about global warming. We could spend billions of dollars every year trying to manage warming and then all be wiped out in a heartbeat.

---

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (or Gerald Fitzpatrick; I can never remember which) has spent three years and millions of dollars investigating a non-crime. And he is complaining because today he only has three hours to make his closing arguments to jurors after a month-long trial.

Fitzgerald was appointed to determine if a crime had been committed in the 'outing' of Valerie Plame as a covert agent of the CIA. Plame is married to Joe Wilson who, after a trip to Niger to investigate the White House's claim that Saddam Hussein tried to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger, wrote an op-ed that said there was no evidence for the claim and that the supposedly supporting documents were forgeries. The media and Democrats insisted that some White House insider (Karl Rove, they hoped) revealed her identity in order to cast doubt on Wilson's credibility. He was sent to Niger by the CIA and some believe that his wife was instrumental in setting up the trip.

Here is what I find wrong with this case:

• Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA agent at the time she was 'outed.' She had not operated covertly for several years before the Niger trip took place. According to her friends and neighbors it was common knowledge that she worked for the CIA. So how can it be a crime to reveal the identity of a CIA employee when it is already commonly known? Fitzgerald apparently believed that it was because her identity was revealed by a government official without the authority to do so and because she was still 'officially' considered to be covert. (I'm charging you with theft for taking a mattress from the public dump because the original owner still believes that the mattress belongs to him.)

• Though Fitzgerald apparently felt that a crime had been committed (he pursued it for three years), he was unable to bring charges against anyone for revealing Plame's identity as a covert CIA agent. But he did charge a staff member of the Vice President, I. Lewis Libby, with lying to a federal investigator about when and what he knew about Plame and when and what he told someone else about when and what he knew (makes my head spin). Libby says that he didn't intentionally provide false information; that he may have mispoken due to his poor memory of how events unfolded.

• It was discovered -- but not by Fitzgerald's investigation -- that someone other than a White House insider was the person who first mentioned to a reporter that Plame worked for the CIA. Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, admitted that he was the leaker. Armitage was certainly no insider; he was known to oppose many White House policies. The media and Democrats were surely devastated by this news, but silent. But none of this deterred Fitzgerald; he proceeded as if nothing had happened. Libby was charged with lying to cover up a crime that he didn't commit. And Fitzgerald took him to court knowing that he nor any of his closest associates were responsible for the leak and he is still vigorously pursuing his prosecution. (Well, I know now that you had nothing to do with the bank robbery but I'm still going to charge and prosecute you for telling me there were only three male robbers when actually there were three male robbers and one female robber.)

The crime in this case is the one foisted on the taxpayers by the media and Patrick Fitzgerald. He's another out-of-control prosecutor.

---

Florida Senator Mel Martinez sent me an e-mail boasting about all the pork he has delivered to his Florida constituents. He apparently thinks this is what most Floridians want -- and he might be right. But it's certainly not what I want. Here are his announcements:

• Florida will receive more than $63 million in homeless program grant funds.
• Four Florida Housing Authorities have received U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development grants totaling more than $1 million.
• The Department of Homeland Security has awarded the lease for a new immigration facility in Orlando (the funding amount was not given).
• The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has awarded more than $8 million for hurricane preparedness and disaster relief grants.
• The Florida Division of Emergency Management in Volusia County will receive more than $2 million in federal funds.
• The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has awarded $999,925 in grants to four Florida fire departments and rescue services.

Of all the above only the immigration facility is legitimate federal government business. But if we would do a better job of protecting our borders we probably wouldn't need it.

Martinez needs to take a lesson from Representative Ron Paul* from Texas. He always votes against these pork earmarks and yet his winning margin has increased each time he is re-elected. You may be proud of yourself Mel, but I'm certainly no fan.

You can read more about his 'accomplishments' here.
_______________

• Ron Paul is running for President.  I'll be giving him serious consideration.

---

We are constantly bombarded with news stories about parents complaining about what their children are seeing, hearing or doing in the public schools -- or what their children are not seeing, hearing or doing. Some want more religion in the schools, some want less. Some want the school curriculum to be more liberal, some want it to be more conservative. Here are some recent instances:

• One teenage student's father is upset that his child's school has allowed a visiting speaker to pass out what he deems "anti-Muslim literature." He insists that such material is not free speech, but hate speech. Read the story here.
• An Islamic group is pressuring a school board to remove Jewish and Christian holidays from the school calendar. The group believes that since there are no Muslin holidays there should be no Jewish or Christian holidays. Read the story here.
• A public school student was not allowed to wear a Jesus costume to a school Halloween function. The school officials thought it would be seen as promoting a particular religion. Read the story here.

My point here is not to argue who's right or wrong in these instances. The point I want to make is that all this could be avoided if governments weren't operating the schools. If we had more private schools and fewer government-run public schools then these parents could find a school more suitable for their children. A private school can hand out whatever literature it chooses and if someone can't live with that they can find another school. A private school can observe whatever holidays it chooses and if someone can't live with that they can find another school. A private school can let all its students wear a Jesus costume every day if it wants and if someone can't live with that they can find another school.

I have argued before that we need to shut down our public education system and rely on private enterprise to fill the gap. Private schools can avoid the 'one size fits all' approach to education that the public schools are forced to follow. Private schools can choose to indoctrinate or not to indoctrinate; public schools will always have to indoctrinate. There should be no question that private schools serve their students and parents better than public schools. Why else would the wealthy send their children to private schools?

---

The American Spectator reports:

In a nail-biting 38-37 vote last week, Utah's heavily Republican House of Representatives passed the nation's first universally available school choice program. The Senate followed, by a vote of 19-10, and Governor Jon Huntsman signed the bill into law on Monday. Under the program, every family in Utah will receive a voucher worth between $3,000 per child (for the lowest income families) and $500 (for those with the highest incomes). Parents will be able to redeem these vouchers at whatever private school they deem best for their kids.

Well, it looks like some progress might be made toward privatizing education. The Utah law has some drawbacks but it is a step in the right direction. Perhaps it will lead other states to experiment with universal vouchers.

Flashpoint led me to the article. Read Brian's comments.

---

Can you imagine the embarrassment a father must feel to turn on his computer and learn that his son is interested in who Al Gore is wearing to the Academy Awards? The Washington Post has published a fawning article by William Booth about how Gore has become a rock star:

In the annals of vice presidential history, tonight will be something different. In his black tux, the man known to his most fervent fans as "The Goracle" will arrive by hybrid eco-limo and, surrounded by fellow Hollywood greenies Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio, will stroll down the red carpet at the Academy Awards to answer the immortal question: "Al, who are you wearing?"

It would be bad enough to learn that a son is interested in what Gore is wearing, but who!? Perhaps Booth is poking fun at Gore or the Oscars, but I don't think so. Anyway, I'm embarrassed at what a sissy nation we've become. There was a time when men had better things to do than talk about clothes -- especially what some other man is wearing.

No matter what he's wearing I think that Al Gore strongly believes in what he's doing. In fact, I think that is why he was chosen for the role. He is the global warming alarmists' suicide bomber. Suicide bombers are chosen because they can be convinced that their mission is worth more than their life. Fortunately for Gore he only has to sacrifice his credibility for his mission. After a few years people will become bored with global warming, the climate will swing in another direction or another 'crisis' will take its place, and Gore will again be regarded as a dunce. There is the possibility that Gore is just doing it for the money. In that case he's not dumb, just devious.

Booth mentions that Gore "is on first-name basis, for real, with Ludacris." On first-name basis with a man with only one name? Perhaps he is poking fun at Gore.

Booth says that Gore is "totally carbon neutral." How does that square with this?:

Gore worked the premieres in Edinburgh, Helsinki, Oslo, Stockholm, Sydney, Hong Kong, Amsterdam, Zurich, Brussels, Berlin and Tokyo. In France, he not only attended the film opening, but presented his 90-minute Apple Keynote lecture to the National Assembly. He did the slide show at the United Nations, the American Geophysical Union, and before conservative activist Grover Norquist's regular Wednesday meeting.

Does his airplane produce no carbon? No, what they probably mean by 'carbon neutral' is that Gore is buying 'carbon offsets' to compensate for the carbon his transportation (and several large houses) are producing. To offset carbon one has to consume carbon equal to that produced. An example of a carbon offset is planting trees. It seems that a global warming prophet like Gore would want to do better than just carbon neutral. He could plant all those trees and still not burn all that jet fuel in the atmosphere. (Would that be carbon positive or carbon negative?)

Gore needs to plant a lot more trees than those needed to offset his carbon production because he wants to produce ethanol from wood chips instead of corn. Plant trees for one purpose, cut them down for another and make both seem like saving the planet. That Gore is a clever guy -- at least he thinks he is.

---

Dear Alaa Halasa,

Thank you for your comments on my recent post, Chavez, Castro Throwing Microsoft Out. I decided to reply this way to give your comments (and my reply) more visibility. Here is your first comment:

(Linux) it is a great success for us in the open source community. Dear Mr. Castro I always respect you, you are a great person, and I am proud with your eager for freedom to all of the Cubans even in the software. I hope all the development countries follow Chavez and Castro.

I applaud your effort to learn the English language. You're doing a lot better with English than I am with your first language. You might, though, want to spend a little time researching the meaning of 'freedom' and comparing Castro's brand of freedom with that of, say, Lech Walesa. You can start here.

The article that I read, and linked to in my post, said that Castro planned to convert Cuba's computers to open-source software and phase out dependence on the Windows operating system. Perhaps I misread his intentions but I just assumed that 'phasing out dependence' means that Linux would eventually replace Windows on Cuba's computers. But if Castro is "eager for freedom to all of the Cubans even in the software" then 'phasing out dependence' must mean that Castro just wants to give computer users in Cuba an alternative to Windows. Knowing how totalitarian regimes work, I'll go with my first impression.

I don't share your admiration for Castro but I don't condemn you for respecting him. You won't be thrown in jail in the USA for praising Castro. Does a blogger in Cuba feel free to praise George Bush? You won't be thrown in jail in the USA for criticizing Bush. Does a blogger in Cuba feel free to criticize Castro?

In the USA, freedom means that individuals, and even government employees, are free to choose the computer operating system they want to use. In Cuba, freedom means that Castro chooses the operating system. Real freedom is about individual choice not government restriction.

Here is your second comment:

Dear Blogger, the linux operating system is more powerful more stable. You can use it as a user and as a developer and as a technical, you can dive at what level you want. I respect your opinion but I wish you can see Linux in more specific eyes apart from marketing issues that make people blinds.

I didn't denigrate the Linux operating system itself; I just questioned the motives of some of its developers. In fact, I said that I was glad that it exists. Options and choices are what the free market is about.

Your last statement seems to imply that users of commercial operating systems are just blinded by their marketing, that these users didn't make an informed choice based on their particular needs. I have to strongly disagree with you on this. People have good reasons for choosing Windows or the Mac OS over Linux. Those that choose Linux also have good reasons. I don't question your decision to use Linux, nor do I have a problem with you advocating Linux based on its merits.

Before retirement I worked for a small company (400 employees nationwide, 30 at my location) that provided engineering and analytical services to the US Department of Defense. We used both Windows and Linux. The employees made the choice; it was not mandated by management. Some chose Linux because it better suited the highly technical nature of their jobs. Some chose Windows because it better suited the management or clerical nature of their jobs. Some chose one or the other because they were more comfortable with it and didn't want to take the time to learn a new OS. Some chose to use both. At the time, I considered it good news to learn that a competitor mandates the universal use of one particular OS.

Alaa, I believe that a free market works to the advantage of the people and that a managed market works to the advantage of the managers. And I believe that choice is the essence of a free market.

Sincerely,

Carson Sasser

---

• <-- Previous page
• 1
• 2
• Next page -->