About Me

Name: Musing Minds
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Global Warming

Neil Cavuto had two guests today to discuss the Weather Channel's Dr. Heidi Cullen's firing meteorologists who don't believe in global warming. The guests were Larry Cosgrove, a meteorologist and John Passacandanto, executive director of Greenpeace USA.


Cavuto: Crippling snow in Denver, unseasonable warmth in the east, and a deep freeze in Texas. Climate expert Heidi Cullen over at the Weather Channel says that anyone paid to do the weather who does not blame all of this on man made global warming should be out of a job. Now meteorologist Larry Cosgrove says that Heidi needs to come in from the heat a little bit, but Greenpeace, USA executive director John Passacantando says that the Weather Channel woman actually has it right. Ms. Cullen was unavailable to come on today, but if she were here Larry, you'd be saying, what?

Cosgrove: She would say that I should not have an AMS Seal of Approval for radio or television because  I do not espouse the global kool-aid line of the American Meteorological Society. Now, I like many people, believe in global warming. You can't refute that. Temperatures are warming around the globe. But, the question is what's causing it. Is it purely man made as the American Meteorological Society and Dr. Cullen espouse or is it a combination of events, namely what's happening on the earth and 'some help' so to speak, from man kind.

Cavuto: So, because you're not with her on this, she is essentially saying take your license away.

Cosgrove: Exactly. Any certification you have, or seal of approval. And that's very important to the livelihood of being a meteorologist. You can't do that.

Cavuto: All right, John, what do you make of this?

Passacantando: Well Neil, it's quite fine if Larry goes on the news and is just telling us whether or not we need an umbrella tomorrow. Meteorologists don't even need to be scientists. [ed note: A person can't be called a meteorologist unless he or she has at least a bachelor's degree in either meteorology or atmospheric science - I'd call that a scientist. Your average TV weather person (Nicole Kidman's character in To Die For comes to mind) doesn't have to be a meteorologist, but more and more actually are these days.] Heidi Cullen, however, she's a superstar. She's a trained climatologist and she's got the most informative show on television today on the Weather Channel 5 o'clock on Sunday nights called The Climate Code and she really is teaching people about climate change and the human input, the burning of fossil fuels and how that's giving us all these record temperatures. Now, whether or not these guys should be fired for not believing in global warming, well that's sort of beyond me.

Cavuto: So would you be as praise full of her if she didn't share your view?

Passacantando: Well, it's not "my view". The science is in on global warming. Global warming is happening here.

Cavuto: Well actually it is a little debated. The issue isn't so much that the earth's getting warmer, you're quite right it is, but, as Larry I think you're trying to point out, the debate is over what's causing it.

Cosgrove: Exactly. There are still some points we don't understand. We know, again the earth has been warming tremendously in the past 25 years. We know that by seeing the shrinking ice caps, the loss of snow in Mount Kilimanjaro and temperature rising too.

Passacantando: And Larry we know there is a human contribution that is huge to this and if you don't understand this and the science that's coming out this is the whole reason Ms. Cullen says - Dr. Cullen - says you shouldn't be talking about global warming on a news program.

Cosgrove: I disagree about that. Simply because you take that credential away, you stifle debate. There's still plenty to debate about what we do not understand about global warming.

Passacantando: Just don't represent yourself as a scientist.

Cosgrove: I do represent myself as a scientist. How do you come across telling me about Dr. Cullen being a "superstar" and all these wonderful things you're saying about her when she's stifling debate. Saying "take away this person's credential, they don't know what they're talking about." I know full well what I'm talking about...

Passacantando: {interrupting} You're wrong.

Cosgrove: I'm not espousing some right-wing idea about global warming. You are, I think, going the exact opposite there saying you shouldn't have debate.

Passacantando: I don't think your debate is being stifled, you're actually quite vocal right now. I'm just saying that you're wrong and nobody should have you on a news program misrepresenting science.

Cavuto: John, John you're saying he's wrong simply because he disagrees with you and you know there are others in the scientific community who also respectfully disagree with you and Al Gore on this subject right?. That doesn't mean you... look, you know, we might disagree with you. You're here. You're making some very credible points but the fact of the matter is you're here. We're not shutting you out, I'm not shutting you out on this show. So you're essentially saying because he might disagree with you that you would shut him out. Is that fair?

Passacantando: I'm not saying to shut them out. I'm saying the public should know that this debate has to be grounded in peer reviewed science.

Cavuto: What is your educational background?

Passacantando: I'm trained as an economist, but...

Cavuto: Wait, wait...

Cosgrove: There you go.

Cavuto: Trained as an economist. This guy is licensed in this stuff. You're an economist. God bless you. If I want to check on the growth of the money supply you're the guy I'm going to call. If I want to know what's happening with the climate, he's the guy that I call.

Passacantando: We're talking about the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and not if you should carry an umbrella...

Cosgrove: John get back on topic here. It's more than that. It's more than that John, it's more than that. We're a bridge to public, the meteorology community....

Passacantando: ...or if you need sunscreen....

Cavuto: I wish we had more time, but we don't.

Passacantando: Then be accurate Larry, be accurate or get off the program.

Cavuto: I think that's a little gratuitous and a little childish. All right. But I want to thank you both.

I'm of the school that believes that climate change happens on a regular basis and man may have some to do with it, but not all. I actually think that the great big object in our daytime sky (that is 93 million miles away) has a bit more to do with it than man does.

I do do my part to conserve energy. Most of the light bulbs in my house are fluorescent bulbs. They've finally come out with bathroom vanity globes that are fluorescent (I got them at WalMart!). I turn lights off in rooms when I leave them. I keep my heat temperature low and my air conditioning temperature high and I have open windows every chance I get.  

Sticking one's fingers in one's ears and saying na-na-na-na-NA-na just isn't conducive to real debate.

Cross-posted from Musing Minds.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Congressional Term Limits

I think it's time to discuss congressional term limits once again.

There are way too many old fossils in the House and in the Senate in both parties.

Terms were set by the Founders at two years for the House and six years for the Senate for some very good reasons.

The Founders wanted to minimize the disruption to a person's life and livelihood while he (or she) served the people in the House of Representatives. They didn't set a limit on the number of terms, but expected that citizen representatives would serve a term or two and go back to their regular lives.

The Senators were appointed by the states until 1913 when the 17th Amendment instituted direct election of Senators. The term has always been six years. This ensured some continuity. Each state had four continuous years of the same two Senators (barring death, impeachment, or resignation) and each Senator had six continuous years (to go with the two years for each House Representative).

The Twentieth Century brought with it career politicians. Gerrymandering districts aided re-election of incumbents. No one in Congress wants to give up their perks.

This is my new idea. Term limits, but they are only continuous.

It would work this way: A member could serve in the House of Representatives for no more than six continuous terms (12 years). Then he or she would be required to take at least one term off, at which point the (former) member could run for the post again.

In the Senate, the same 12 years would apply, but in this case it would be two continuous terms and he or she would have to take a break. The (former) Senator would have to take the entire six year term off - no fair running for the other Senator's seat when it may come up...

Just my opinion, but getting some new blood in the House and Senate may help real things get done. Ethically it may help as well. If you can't promise more than 12 years out...

Then, of course, there's my wish that for every new law an old, obsolete law is actually repealed and taken off the books, but that's another story...

cross-posted from Musing Minds
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Constitution Day

On September 17, 1787 the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met for the last time to sign the document they had created. The National Archives and Records Administration celebrates this important day in our nation's history by presenting the following activities, lesson plans, and information. We encourage teachers and students at all levels to learn more about our Constitution and government.

The First Amendent reads as follows: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Let's break this down into it's constituent parts shall we?

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of religion.
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
4. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
5. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
6. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let's also remember that the rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. Restrictions can - and in a place that follows the rule of law, must - be placed. For example, your right of free speech is restricted in that you may not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Your right to peaceably assemble ends when you try to assemble on my private property. 

And a final point: Congress herein means federal House and Senate (and bills signed by the President into law). States can make all sorts of laws regarding each of these six issues as long as making such laws is not contrary to that state's own constitution.

The Vermont Constitution states:

Article 3rd. Freedom in religion; right and duty of religious worship (notes)

That all persons have a natural and unalienable right, to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings, as in their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God; and that no person ought to, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of conscience, nor can any person be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship. Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.

So, you can be whatever religion you want, but if you are Christian, you should go to Church on Sundays.

1. Congress (federal) can not make a law to establish the Church of the United States. (In my mind that would include the first church of atheism). This clause was added so that United States would not follow England's example and have a Church of England situation with a King or Queen as titular head of said church.

2. Congress (federal) can not make a law to prohibit the free exercise of religion. (Legal restrictions can, again, be placed on this. For example human sacrifice is against the law. You may not practice that even if your religion calls for it. Polygamy is against the law. You may not practice it even if your religion calls for it.)

3. Congress (federal) can not make a law abridging the freedom of speech. (There are legal restrictions. As noted above, one can not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The safety of the patrons outweighs your free speech rights).

Alaska's Constitution says this best I think:

SECTION 5. FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

So, say or write what you will, but be prepared to take responsibility and the consequences should you abuse that right. 

4. Congress can not make a law abridging the freedom of the press. The press have the right to print what they want. This is restricted by laws regarding libel and slander. The press do not have the right to get in your face and ask questions. If they are on your property (or other private property) you can tell them to go away. If they won't, you can have the police remove them. They can ask questions but do not have the right to an answer. There is no special privilege for journalists to keep secrets. Doctors/Patient and Attorney/Client relationships are covered by privilege. Journalist/informant relationships are not.

5. Congress (federal) can not make a law abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Once again, the federal government can not make a law. A municipality has the right to require a permit if they so desire. A municipality may want to know when and where an assembly may be held in order to schedule police presence and perhaps even close off streets to accomodate crowds.

6. Congress (federal) can not make a law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. One is able to petition the Government without fear of reprisals.  

These are all my own thoughts on the First Amendment, memories of High School civics courses (lo these many years ago), and recent readings all over the Web… 

Originally Posted at Musing Minds
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Freedom of the Press

1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law is the pertinent part of this amendment.
I was watching “Saved” on TiVo the other night. The episode was originally broadcast 8/24/2006 and is titled: A Shock to the System. In the episode, a TV crew comes to talk to the character Wyatt Cole regarding a lawsuit that has been filed against him. Wyatt doesn’t want to talk to the TV crew and becomes a little belligerent.

saved.jpg

click on image for video

The owner of the ambulance service comes out of his office and tells the news crew, “Remove your equipment and yourselves.”

The TV guy says, “We have a First Amendment right to be here.”

The owner says, “You have a First Amendment right to be across the street. This is private property.”

The owner is right.

Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of the press.

This means that Congress can not make a law that punishes the press for criticizing the government, just as they can’t make a law that punishes you or I for speaking our minds about the government.

The media don’t have a First Amendment right to ask you questions.

They don’t have a First Amendment right to get an answer from you.

They seem to think that they do.

On the other hand, the Democrats in Congress seem to think that they can make a law to punish Disney/ABC for criticizing the government regarding “The Path to 9/11?. Via Hugh Hewitt we are pointed to AmericaBlog which has a copy of the letter:

September 7, 2006

Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger,

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader [Richard] Durbin [ed.note: the usual diminutive for Mr. Durbin's given name was kicked back by the Townhall blog software as an unacceptable word].
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan

The Government (or representatives thereof) threatening a broadcaster with the loss of their license because said representatives aren’t happy with said broadcaster’s portrayal of certain current and former members of the Government.

The Reagan biopic originally scheduled for CBS and then moved to Showtime was protested by real people and relatives (Patti Davis’ op-ed in Time here). Congress, even though a majority Republican then as now, didn’t get involved in any way, shape or form and certainly didn’t threaten CBS with a loss of their broadcasting license. They didn’t even do anything to CBS over Rathergate (fake but accurate - and timed to sway an election).

Nothing was done to Michael Moore over Farhenheit 9/11. He has the right to free speech.

Captain Ed and The Anchoress have more.

Sensible Mom has some thoughts as well.

hmmmm.

Welcome Wizbang! readers. Thanks Lorie. Read her Thwack! Townhall column!


Hang Right Politics - Archives is musing with Go Ahead, You Punks!

Originally posted at Musing Minds.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

When is Terrorism not Terrorism

Terrorism isn’t terrorism when a Naveed Afzal Haq is charged with a hate crime for killing and wounding Jews at a Jewish center in Seattle. This after he announced, “I’m a Muslim American; I’m angry at Israel,”

haq.jpg

Terrorism isn’t terrorism when the Deputy Secretary of the UN, Mark Malloch Brown, says

that he does not think that Hezbollah, the Syrian- and Iranian-backed group currently fighting Israeli Defense Forces, is a terrorist organization.

“It’s not helpful to couch this war in the language of international terrorism. Hezbollah employs terrorist tactics; it is an organization, however, whose roots historically are completely separate and different from Al Qaeda,” [emphasis mine] he said, according to a transcript of an interview.

And I think therein lies the problem. The press and the left seem to think that it’s terrorism only if Al Qaeda is involved. If Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Ladin aren’t involved, if Osama Bin Ladin isn’t pulling the strings or sending out the orders, then it isn’t terrorism. The press and the left had a very hard time even considering that Zarqawi was Al Qaeda in Iraq (because Al Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq dontcha know).

Somehow, the word terrorism for the left and the press is narrowly defined and limited to Al Qaeda. That needs to be changed. Terrorism knows no particular ideology or ethnic background. Currently the main force of terrorism is Islamofascists, but there are others. MS-13 comes to mind as one (see Michelle Malkin’s coverage of this group).

Thanks to Hang Right Politics for pointing me to the Malloch Brown story.

Originally posted at Musing Minds

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Somebody Throw in the Towel

Right about now I bet the Old Media is longing for the days where it didn’t have to engage in a public dialogue and simply told us how things were.

Watching the boys at Powerline reminds me of a young prize fighter taking on an old man who should have left the boxing ring years ago.

Jeff1999

Cross posted from Musing Minds
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Conservative Superblog has Arrived

The new Townhall.com is up and running. The conglomerate of conservative radio hosts, columnists and bloggers offers up a one-stop location for all your conservative intellectual needs. Impressive indeed.

The conservative superblog has arrived.

Jeff1999
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Starting at Townhall

Since Townhall is kindly allowing blogs here, Musing Minds has decided to try to have a presence here. We will cross post occasionally from our regular site.

kimsch
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »