Monthly Archives: May 2011

Palin on 2012

Is there really any question who should be the next president of the United States?

Clois and Smallville – the deepest tv love story, ever?

Every once in a while, a young actress comes along who has the capacity to wrap you in a warmth of companionship and love through her acting, in a way that is without parallel in the modern tv/screen idiom.

For the millennium decades, I think that actress is none other than the re-defined, re-invigorated, re-invented character of Lois Lane, as so beautifully portrayed and expressed by the equally stunning and affable Erica Durance.

Erica Durance, as Lois Lane

Quite apparently as beautiful on the inside as she is on the outside, Durance may have redefined the most intense and enduring love story to come along since the beginning of film. I’m old enough to have seen them all, none compares to the sheer radiance expressed by this young woman.

This past Friday was the concluding episode, after a 10 year run, of Smallville, a quirky offbeat story of the iconic Superman legend, set in his formative years, but with a modern placing. Like many, I didn’t discover Smallville until about the 6th or 7th season. Caught a couple glimpses early on, dismissed it as too coy, and moved on. But for some reason, I started watching a few episodes of the second half of the run a few years ago, and found myself utterly hooked. I started buying the DVD sets, then a complete collection -started at the beginning, and over a 2 year period, ploughed my way through every episode. Quite simply, I don’t ever want this series to end. With regard to the finale, comments from the web are, of course, all over the map. I was satisfied (as much as I can be with a finale), but would have like to have seen at the end, an in-front-of-the-curtain theatrical cast-off, with the actors assembled saying their goodbyes – it would have been a nice touch for a series in which the personalities have become, well, so personal.

Everything in this series is crafted slightly (ok, sometimes way..) over the top, from the stylish and delicious production values, to the suspend-reality-here story lines, but the interplay between the characters always remains grounded and real. While the story may be about the young Clark Kent (played by Tom Welling), the real story is the growth of a collection of very capable teenagers growing into young adulthood together onset – finding themselves, their strengths and their passions. While Alison Mack as Chloe Sullivan has woven whole cloth from a character that doesn’t exist in the print version, and is much revered and loved around the world for her portrayal, and while Lana (Kristen Kreuk) ably evoked all of the angst of teenage and young adult passion, it is Erica as Lois, introduced in season 4, who is allowed to freely evolve a character into full, mature adult romance. And boy, does she pull it off.

It takes more than acting to create a convincing portrayal of true romance, however. It takes a pure and open inner soul to provide the ingenuousness and naivete that characterizes an enduring love story. If you watch Durance’s various interviews, its pretty obvious that the character of Lois is cut from the character of Erica Durance, but Lois Lane is not Erica Durrance. As she admits in the interviews, she personally believes in this love story, and it is that respect that carries her so exquisitely into the role.

Smallville comes with a lot of “stuff”. Its easy to lose focus of the character interplay amongst all of the freaks, gadgets, CGI and special effects that drives the comic book aspects of the story. Having a run of 10 years however, has allowed the writers and actors to build their characters completely. When you are able to strip away the fluff, you are left with something like the following youtube video which unequivocally uncovers a remarkable character, a remarkable actress, and a remarkable performance. I don’t ever want this series to end. Most especially, I don’t ever want this couple to end.

These excerpts from the finale won’t allow embedding, but the opener and the through-the-door scene are quintessential Lois and Clark. The through-the-door scene may be the finest love seen to come along in several decades, brilliantly executed. This may be fantasy, but God, it feels good to watch. (Clois, btw is twit and youtubespeak for “Clark and Lois”)

Holding Truth Hostage to Agenda.

As those who have done their homework know, the line between science and ideology on the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) meme is now hard, sharp and clear. The science is extraordinarily in disrepute, the principal scientific advocates demonstrable charletans, and the motives of the funders and hangers-on unabashed clear. It was never about science; it was always about money, social engineering and ideology, but mostly about money, and continues to be so. Living high on OPM (Other People”s Money) is an addiction that is very hard for leftist ideologues to shake. Like the promise of free heroin clinics, NGOs continue to look for ways to set up OPM clinics for their fix.

So its not surprising that the focus on money extends to the labelling of their detractors – the Deniers of AGW – that disparate rag-tag bunch of social outcasts and scientific butterfies who dare to challenge the apparently interminable establishment groupspeak about CO2 and carbon in general. The following article from WUWT, published in its entirety, illustrates the pervasive and malignant tactics of a sub-culture high on OPM, and the fact that the targets are not going to stand for it. As you browse the article, review the credentials of the “deniers”… Truth is becoming a casualty of yet another war. Pick your side carefully, your future will depend on it.

Smear job by “The Carbon Brief”

The website “populartechnology.net” decided to ask the questions the smear publishers didn’t. I’ve been authorized to reproduce this in full here, and reposting at other blogs is encouraged. AGW proponents seem hell bent on trying to repeat this “linked to” nonsense at any cost, why just the other day I found out I was apparently funded by a “Pacific Island Development Company” (according to comments on another website). Heh, I’ve yet to see that check or any from Exxon-Mobil or any other energy or development company. Somebody must be stealing checks out of my mailbox. /sarc – Anthony

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?

In an article titled, “Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil” from the environmental activist website The Carbon Brief, former Greenpeaceresearcher” Christian Hunt failed to do basic research. He made no attempt to contact the scientists he unjustly attacked and instead used biased and corrupt websites like DeSmogBlog to smear them as “linked to” [funded by] ExxonMobil.

To get to the truth, I emailed the scientists mentioned in the article the following questions;

1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

Their responses follow,

John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, California State University (1973); M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1984); Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1987); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996); Member, Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board (1998-2001); Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (2002); Panel Member, Official Statement on Climate Change, American Geophysical Union (2003); Member, Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization, Space Studies Board (2003-2004); Member, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, National Research Council (2006); Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present); Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2000-Present); Contributor, IPCC (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

Christy: “No.”

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

Christy: “I don’t believe so.”

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

Christy: “No.”

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

Christy: “The connection between industrial interests and me is given by describing me as a “Marshall Institute expert”. I spoke at a luncheon sponsored by the Marshall Institute, free of charge, to about 30 people. My remarks were incorporated into a booklet. That is the extent of my connection – hardly evidence to accuse one of being an industry spokesman.”

David H. Douglass, B.S. Physics, University of Maine; Ph.D. Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1959); Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1959-1961); Member, Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1961); Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Chicago; Associate Professor of Physics, University of Chicago; Professor of Physics, University of Chicago; Fellow, American Physical Society; Professor of Physics, University of Rochester (1968-Present)

1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

Douglass: “No funds from Exxon Mobil or any other fossil fuel industry.”

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

Douglass: “No.”

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

Douglass: “No.”

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

Douglass: “I have no research funds from the fossil fuel industry or any governmental body.”

Bruce A. Kimball, B.S. Soil Physics, University of Minnesota (1963), M.S. Soil Physics, Iowa State University (1965), Ph.D. Soil Physics, Cornell University (1970), Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service (1969-1991), Certificate of Merit, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974, 1992, 1998), Associate Editor, Soil Science Society of America Journal (1977-1982), Associate Editor, Transactions of the ASAE (1984-1987), Fellow, American Society of Agronomy (1987), Fellow, Soil Science Society of America (1987), Associate Editor, Agronomy Journal (1989-1991), Research Leader, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service (1991-2006), National Program Leader for Global Change, U.S. Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service (1999), Fellowship, Science and Technology Agency of Japan (2000), Collaborator, Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service (2007-Present), ISI Highly Cited Researcher; Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2007)

1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

Kimball: “No.”

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

Kimball: “Of course. There are a number of experiments I would like to do that I have not been able to get funded.”

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

Kimball: “No.”

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

Kimball: “Almost all of my work co-authored with Sherwood Idso has been about the effects of elevated CO2 concentrations on the growth of plants, and I have never published on whether elevated CO2 affects climate. Further, all of the CO2 work was funded by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy.”

Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics Magna Cum Laude, Harvard University (1960); S.M. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961); Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964); Research Associate in Meteorology, University of Washington (1964-1965); NATO Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965-1966); Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967); Visiting Lecturer in Meteorology, UCLA (1967); NCAR Outstanding Publication Award (1967); AMS Meisinger Award (1968); Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972); Summer Lecturer, NCAR Colloquium (1968, 1972, 1978); AGU Macelwane Award (1969); Visiting Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel Aviv University (1969); Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1970-1976); Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983); Visiting Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975); Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Hebrew University (1979); Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983); Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamical Meteorology, Harvard University (1982-1983); AMS Charney Award (1985); Vikram Amblal Sarabhai Professor, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India (1985); Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship (1986-1987); Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA (1988-Present); Sackler Visiting Professor, Tel Aviv University (1992); Landsdowne Lecturer, University of Victoria (1993); Bernhard Haurwitz Memorial Lecturer, American Meteorological Society (1997); Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow, American Geophysical Union; Fellow, American Meteorological Society; Member, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Member, National Academy of Sciences; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1983-Present); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

Lindzen: “No.”

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

Lindzen: “My only funding has been from the government funding agencies: NSF, NASA, and DOE. They actually do influence scientific work.”

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

Lindzen: “No. My objections date back to the 80′s.”

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

Lindzen: “I have never received any compensation from the Annapolis Center. I briefly served on the board as a favor to Harrison Schmitt. Since they never asked me to do anything, I resigned.”

Ross McKitrick, B.A. (Hons) Economics, Queen’s University, Canada (1988); M.A. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada (1990); Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada (1996); Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (1996-2001); Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (2001-2008); Member, Academic Advisory Board, John Deutsch Institute, Queen’s University, Canada; Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute, Canada; Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (2008-Present); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2007)

1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

McKitrick: “No, I have never sought or received funding from Exxon or any other oil company. My research funding comes from SSHRCC, a peer-reviewed federal granting agency, and from internal university funds. In many case I don’t have any external funding for research projects since I don’t incur any costs. The theory that Exxon generates the academic research that contests climate alarmism is one of those tired cliches that appeals to stupid, lazy people who can’t be bothered reading the papers and understanding the arguments.”

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

McKitrick: “No of course not. If I was willing to change my views to ingratiate myself with a funding source I would by now be on the global warming alarmist bandwagon.”

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

McKitrick: “No, to the extent my scientific position on climate change has developed and changed over the years it has been due to the research I have seen and done, and the data that has been published. My views, and the arguments that support them, are copiously documented in my writings.”

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

McKitrick: “It is noteworthy that the article omits the fact that I am a tenured full professor at the University of Guelph, and only describes me as a Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute. For an article obsessed with funding sources, they neglect to point out that my salary comes from the University, not the Institute, and my external research funding comes from SSHRCC. With regard to the Fraser Institute, to say it is “Exxon Funded” betrays the ignorance of the article authors. The Fraser Institute is the largest and most influential economic policy think tank in Canada and one of the most influential think tanks in the world. It is supported by annual donations from over 6,000 individuals, foundations and organizations, none of whom have any editorial control over research. I do not know which corporations donate in any given year, since I am not involved in fundraising and it does not affect me, since the Institute does not do any contract research, either for industry or government or anyone else, in order to maintain its editorial autonomy. The Institute has never had any involvement with my academic journal articles, either in the form of funding or collaboration.

The article’s dishonesty is also revealed by their comment about the Global Warming Policy Foundation — “funders unknown”. Had they checked http://thegwpf.org/who-we-are/history-and-mission.html they would see that it is funded by individuals and charitable trusts, and does not accept donations from energy firms or from any individual with a significant interest in an energy company.”

S. Fred Singer, BEE, Ohio State University (1943); A.M. Physics, Princeton University (1944); Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1948); Research Physicist, Upper Atmosphere Rocket Program, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University (1946-1950); Scientific Liaison Officer, U.S. Office of Naval Research (1950-1953); Director, Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and Professor of Physics, University of Maryland (1953-1962); White House Commendation for Early Design of Space Satellites (1954); Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cal Tech (1961-1962); First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964); First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967); Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970); Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971); Federal Executive Fellow, The Brookings Institution (1971); Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994); U.S. National Academy of Sciences Exchange Scholar, Soviet Academy of Sciences Institute for Physics of the Earth (1972); Member, Governor of Virginia Task Force on Transportation (1975); First Sid Richardson Professor, Lyndon Baines Johnson School for Public Affairs, University of Texas (1978); Vice Chairman and Member, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres (1981-1986); Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation (1982-1983); Member, U.S. Department of State Science Advisory Board (Oceans, Environment, Science) (1982-1987); Member, Acid Rain Panel, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (1982-1987); Member, NASA Space Applications Advisory Committee (1983-1985); Member, U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Panel (1984); Visiting Eminent Scholar, George Mason University (1984-1987); Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987-1989); Member, White House Panel on U.S.-Brazil Science and Technology Exchange (1987); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Space Science and Technology (1989-1994); Guest Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Guest Scholar, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University (1992-1993); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University (1994-2000); Commendation for Research on Particle Clouds, NASA (1997); Research Fellow, Independent Institute (1997); Director and President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project (1989-Present); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001)

1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

Singer: “Yes. An unsolicited and unexpected donation of $10,000 more than a decade ago.”

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

Singer: “None Whatsoever.”

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

Singer: “No.”

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

Singer: “1. We are funded almost 100% by private donations from individuals.

2. I note that Exxon and other companies are funding supporters of AGW with direct grants to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

3. I note the common smear tactic of such terms as ‘linked to’ in the final analysis, since Exxon pays taxes to government, the multi-billions of tax money suporting AGW science are ‘linked to’ Exxon ect.”

The following gave a general statement,

Indur M. Goklany, B.Tech. Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India (1968); M.S. Electrical Engineering, Michigan State University (1969); Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Michigan State University (1973); Julian Simon Fellow, Property and Environment Research Center (2000); Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute (2002-2003); Julian Simon Award (2007); Rapporteur and Principal Author, Resource Use and Management Subgroup, IPCC (1988-1992); Reviewer, WGI, II, and III Reports, IPCC (1989-1991); U.S. Delegate, IPCC (1988-1992, 2003-2004); U.S. Technical Advisor, Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for UNFCCC (1990-1992); US Delegate, UNFCCC (2007); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2005-2007); Assistant Director of Programs & Science & Technology Policy, U.S. Department of the Interior (Present)

Goklany: “As its name reveals, Carbon Brief’s entire raison d’etre hinges on the notion that carbon dioxide is a harmful substance. Therefore it is hardly surprising that it would attack any individual or organization that would dare suggest that CO2 is not as harmful as it would have us believe.

Readers can judge for themselves who has a greater financial stake in the man-made global warming issue: I, who has never taken a sous from Exxon-Mobil, or Carbon Brief whose very existence depends on perpetuating the notion CO2 is a harmful, if not downright dangerous, gas.

What’s interesting about Carbon Brief’s “analysis” is that it is devoid of intellectual content. It doesn’t present any science, data or reasoned argument refuting – or even questioning — the contents of the papers cited in Popular Technology. Instead it uses that time-honored technique used by those who have no arguments: guilt by association. This is first cousin to an ad hominem attack. The irony is that on its web page, ABOUT US, it has a Comments policy which states:

- Stay on-topic: stick to the subject of the blog you are commenting on. Off-topic comments (even if reasonable, polite and interesting) may be deleted. Comments which contain links to inappropriate, irrelevant or commercial sites may also be deleted.

- Advance the discussion: we welcome evidence-based comments and links to useful resources. Persistent comments along the lines of “this is just alarmist/denier nonsense” with no supporting evidence may be deleted.

- Be polite: comments which contain swearing or which abuse other participants in the debate may be deleted. No ALL CAPS shouting please. Particularly:

- No ad hominem attacks: vigorous debate is fine, but not personal attacks or accusations (Underlining is added).

So will Carbon Brief follow through on its policy and delete its blogs that refer to its so-called “analysis”?

Normally when I have the time, I am happy to discuss and debate my views, science, reasoning, etc. But in the case of Carbon Brief, I’ll make an exception and refuse to engage, since its “analysis” reveals its lack of intellectual content.

Although I cannot, and have not avail myself of Exxon-Mobil’s munificence, since the vast majority of my career has been in government, I have no doubt that some of its dollars have found their way into my pocket, via the moneys Exxon-Mobil pays in taxes. I have no idea who or what funds Carbon Brief, but I hope it keeps away from any government largesse: that’s contaminated with tax payments from all kinds of companies that produce and use fossil fuels.”

Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics Cum Laude, University of Minnesota (1964); M.S. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1966); Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1967); Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962); National Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967); Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974); Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1972-1993); Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974); Vice-Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975); Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001); Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976); Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977); Secretary, Sigma Xi – The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980); President, Sigma Xi – The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982); Member, Task Force on “Alternative Crops”, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983); Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2007); Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present); Member, Botanical Society of America; Member, American Geophysical Union; Member, American Society of Agronomy; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)

Idso: “I presume that all of the original basic scientific research articles of which I am an author that appear on the list were written while I was an employee of the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service; and, therefore, the only source of funding would have been the U.S. government. I retired from my position as a Research Physicist at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in late 2001 and have not written any new reports of new original research. Since then, I have concentrated solely on studying new research reports written by others that appear each week in a variety of different scientific journals and writing brief reviews of them for the CO2Science website. In both of these segments of my scientific career, I have always presented — and continue to present — what I believe to be the truth. Funding never has had, and never will have, any influence on what I believe, what I say, and what I write.”

Conclusion:

The scientists unjustly attacked in the Carbon Brief article are not “linked to” [funded by] ExxonMobil. The Carbon Brief and any other website perpetuating this smear should issue a retraction.

Cowards in the face of truth

This fall, the Ontario Progressive Conservatives will vie for Ontario’s vote in an ernest attempt to oust the egregiously scurrilous McGuinty Liberals from Queen’s Park. Brian Lilley of the Sun News Network raised the spectre, based on pronouncements from PC party leader Tim Hudak this morning, of the Ontario Human Rights Commission pretty much surviving his government, intact.
I am watching Randy Hillier, PC MPP, and once the firebrand of the Landowner’s associations of Eastern Ontario, in an interview with Lilley, backpedal his butt so fast about OHRC reforms that it was difficult to tell which part of his body was doing the talking.
Well, Mr Hillier and Mr. Hudak, my vote just evaporated, as will a substantial part of your base. The Ontario Human Rights Commission is an abhorrent stain on the body politic of Ontario. There was a time when the practical matters of discrimination were appropriately within the realm of their oversight, but the expansion of their private agendas to corralling fundamental freedoms has turned their mandate into a repudiation of the 1000 year history of western civilization. Its not acceptable that they continue, and it won’t be acceptable after a washed-out PC massage.

Globe & Mail: CBC appears to break Elections Act, broadcasts results before polls close

Developing story…

“As election results started to roll in from Eastern Canada, a website calling on plugged-in politics junkies to tweet their dissent by publishing early elections results pulled back – and it was Canada’s public broadcaster that appeared to break the Elections Act by mistakenly broadcasting results in time zones that still had polls open.

CBC Newsworld went live with results from Atlantic Canada shortly after 9 p.m. ET, half an hour before polls closed there. The broadcast was pulled after about four minutes, replaced with a message that noted “technical difficulties.”

CBC spokesman Jeff Keay said the mixup was the result of a “switching error.”

“At approximatesly 9 p.m. EST, CBC experienced a technical error which resulted in early election results from Eastern Canada being brodacast on CBC News network. The error was resolved within several minutes and normally scheduled programming resumed,” he said. “As soon as we could get the error fixed, we fixed it.”

“Mark Freiman, a lawyer representing the CBC and CTV in their Ontario Superior Court challenge of the Elections Act ban on “premature transmission” of election results, said Monday he can’t speak for the broadcaster in this instance. “

“Premature transmission”? Does he know Jack Layton?

For Canada, finally, a Conservative majority, and the demise of the Bloc

A Stunning Conservative Majority

And a repudiation, finally, of the Liberal party as the “natural governing party”. Canada’s perennial saddle sore, the Bloc Quebecois, is gone, below the necessary members (if any, at this time) to sustain support funding. The NDP climbed unbelievably; it may be vote parking as an expression of that repudiation. The NDP may yet again diminish to their usual relative unimportance. You’ve got to love Quebec – elected a non-french speaking woman currently vacationing in Las Vegas during the campaign… Vive le Quebec!

Kate Middleton: Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus

Arms of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

… Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Phillip Louis, Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor, and future Queen Consort of England, the British Isles and the Commonwealth. After a picture perfect, fairy tale wedding

that followed a long and no doubt deeply introspective courtship, Britain (and Will!) has, I think, acquired a most regal, most beautiful, and entirely capable Queen for William V, upon his ascension to the throne.

Watching her closely through the service and in various videos, this is no wallflower and shrinking violet. Kate demonstrated in presence, poise and performance, that while she was the star of the show and this was hers and Will’s wedding, she wasn’t “along for the ride”. She shared the spotlight graciously with all close to her that had a hand in bringing it all together, most especially with her exquisitely presented maid of honour, sister Pippa, and all of the kids. Without question, another jewel has been added to the British crown.

While it is fashionable amongst some to denigrate the monarchy for basically being who they are; these are working royals. Unbeknown to most, in the days previous to the wedding, William as Flt Lt. Wales, SAR pilot, attempted to rescue with his helicopter, a woman who fallen down a cliff, by trying to get a paramedic to her on the heli’s hoist. They were unable to rescue her in time.

As all Search And Rescue personnel know and understand, this is the truly difficult part of SAR – not being able to complete the mission, despite all best efforts, and so, William will depend heavily on his beautiful and capable new bride, to fulfill not only the pomp and foolery that comes with the trappings of royalty, but in those most private of moments, to comfort and sustain him in the other reality in which he lives. My read is that they have chosen each other wisely and carefully, and Britain may come to revere their new queen-in-waiting.

The following video from youtube is an excellent compendium of web images of Kate over time, and makes for a stunning portfolio of a stunning woman. Enjoy.

Steyn: The Hand of Fate /Election News – Canada

By Mark Steyn,  Sunday, 01 May 2011

Here’s an unusual stroke of luck: On the eve of election day, all that stands between Canada and an historic political realignment is Jack Layton’s “happy ending” in a Toronto massage parlour. It’s not unusual in election campaigns for something to pop up at the last minute but I hadn’t expected it to be the NDP leader’s …oh, never mind, you don’t really need a professional for this, do you?

Before the revelations of Mr Layton’s encounter with Toronto’s vice squad, the Grits were on course to an unprecedented defeat. The Liberal Party of Canada is the most successful political party in the western world: It governed the nation for over two-thirds of the 20th century – a grip on power in a G7 nation unmatched by the US Democrats, the British Tories or anybody else. Its worst election result was the Dominion of Canada’s very first, back in 1867, when its share of the vote was a smidgeonette under 23 per cent. It was all but certain to do worse than that tomorrow night. And for the first time in the nation’s history the Liberals would be neither the Government nor the Official Opposition, but down in the also-rans vying with the Bloc Québécois for third place.

And then suddenly Happy Jack’s happy hour at what he calls a “community clinic” came along and put a big question mark over the NDP’s happy ending. When something unexpected breaks on the weekend before an election, it’s not an accident, and it always happens to the party doing well: You put it out there, there’s no time to poll, there’s barely time to do all but the most perfunctory damage control. Andrew Coyne, Jonathan Kay and, of course, Catsmeat Kinsella are among the media types bragging that they knew all about this story two years ago but, unlike Mr Layton, decided to keep it buttoned up. Mr Kay says it was a “Liberal fixer” who told him, and certainly this last minute leak has the Grits’ sticky fingers all over it. I mean, I’d like to think the Tory oppo-research hit team were nimble enough to plant this and frame the Liberals, but there’s not a lot of evidence they’re anywhere near that good. Whereas a party of such renowned “ass-kickers” as the Liberals would surely be savvy enough to figure out that if they broke this on Sun TV they might easily damage both their political opponents. Either way, poor old Jack never saw it comi …oh, forget it.

In normal circumstances, the revelation that a party leader had been found naked during a police raid on a house of ill repute would surely put a dent in his chances of being either Prime Minister or Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. But in this instance I’m not so sure Jacked Layton won’t enjoy a sudden last-minute surge. The dominant narrative of this election campaign has been the shrinkage of the post-Chrétien Liberal Party, and Masturgate (or Wankerquiddick, according to taste) doesn’t so much arrest it as confirm it. As I wrote six years ago:

Every week or so I get an e-mail along the following lines: “I was wondering if you could tell me what are the beliefs and philosophy of the Liberal Party of Canada.” It’s usually from a student of politics in America, Britain, New Zealand, India or Denmark, raising his eyes from the local scene and momentarily stunned into fascination by the dominance, unmatched in the free world, of the deranged Dominion’s ruling party. But that’s looking at it the wrong way. In a one-party state, the one party in power attracts not those interested in the party, but those interested in power.

So, when the “natural governing party” finds itself in the unnatural state of not governing, it has a huge number of hacks, opportunists, careerists and other mediocrities frantic to get back to enjoying their perks. The more high-minded ones think the answer is a philosopher-king like Trudeau. But there are none to hand within the jurisdiction, so they import a philosopher-king across the water from Harvard and the BBC. Alas, seeking to find a message that resonates with the people, the philosopher-king, unlike Mr Layton’s masseuse, can’t quite put his finger on it. And so the less high-minded hacks and opportunists decide that, with the once powerful party machine rusting up before their eyes, they might as well take it out for a spin one last time.

I gather the NDP spokeslady pointed out that, apropos Mr Layton’s Saturday night special, no charges were laid. Isn’t that an old vaudeville routine? Because the evidence wouldn’t stand up in court? Oh, well. “I went for a massage at a community clinic,” Layton told reporters in Burnaby, BC. “The police advised it wasn’t the greatest place to be, so I left and I never went back.”

Sure. Pity they didn’t say the same thing about his appointment at CASMO. Either that, or this is the new Islamist massage parlour and the otherwise attractive hostess has a faint touch of five o’clock shadow as she presents Jack with a souvenir clock showing the time he promised the Taliban he’d pull out by.

When this whole sorry episode is over, Iggy will be telling pretty much the same story to US Immigration about his long vacation: “I went for a quickie in Canada. Shortly after 7pm on Monday night I was advised it wasn’t the greatest place to be, so I left and I never went back.”

This is the way the Liberal world ends, not with a bang but a …oh, to hell with it.

Steyn: Choc and Awe

Mark Steyn: Steyn on America
Sunday, 01 May 2011
I am looking this bright Easter morn at a Department of Homeland Security “Custody Receipt for Seized Property and Evidence”. Late last night, crossing the Quebec/Vermont border, my children had two boxes of “Kinder Eggs” (“Est. Dom. Value $7.50″) confiscated by Customs & Border Protection.

Don’t worry, it’s for their own safety. I had no idea that the United States is the only nation on the planet (well, okay, excepting North Korea and Saudi Arabia and one or two others) to ban Kinder Eggs. According to the CBP:

Kinder Chocolate Eggs are hollow milk chocolate eggs about the size of a large hen’s egg usually packaged in a colorful foil wrapper. They are a popular treat and collector’s item during holiday periods in various countries around the world, including those in Europe, South America and even Canada. A toy within the egg is contained in an oval-shaped plastic capsule. The toy requires assembly and each egg contains a different toy. Many of the toys that have been tested by the Consumer Product Safety Commission in the past were determined to present a choking hazard for young children.

And yet oddly enough generations of European and Latin American children remain unchoked.

Gotta love that “even Canada”, by the way: Is that an implied threat that Kinder Egg consumption is incompatible with participation in NORAD or membership of NAFTA?

The Food and Drug Administration has issued an import alert for Kinder Eggs, because they are a confectionery product with a non-nutritive object imbedded in it. As in years past, CBP, the Food and Drug Administration and CPSC work in close collaboration to ensure the safety of imported goods by examining, sampling and testing products that may present such import safety hazards. Last year, CBP officers discovered more than 25,000 of these banned chocolate eggs. More than 2,000 separate seizures were made of this product.

Let’s see – CBP, FDA, CPSC. I’m impressed it takes a mere three agencies from the vast alphabet soup of federal regulation to keep us safe from the menace of confectionery products with non-nutritive embeds.

As Janet Napolitano would say, the system worked. I hope America’s chocolate soldiers are enjoying their seized eggs this Easter.

Bonus prediction: What’s the betting that the first jihadist to weaponize a Kinder Egg makes it on to the plane?

PS My kids asked the CBP seizure squad if they could eat the chocolate in front of the border guards while the border guards held on to the toys to prevent any choking hazard – and then, having safely consumed the chocolate, take the toys home as a separate item. This request was denied. Could have been worse. Could have been a $300 fine, plus a $250 fee for seized-egg storage.

PPS The real choking hazard is the vise-like grip of government.

from National Review’s The Corner