JOHN....JOHN...

John, wouldn't your "Mad Conservative" piece be better as a comment to Winston's original article, rather than a post of your own? Let's not turn the blog into a flame war shall we? Can't we all just get along?

MAD CONSERVATIVE
Winston, Winston, Winston. Your blog/rant about beef was revealing. You are obviously free to buy what meat you want. But your beef (couldn't resist) with organics is obviously an emotional-political one. You seem to have missed the fact that organics are going mainstream, including the farmers who produce it. Would you feel better if Archer-Daniels-Midland and big agri-business were profiting from the rise in the popularity of organics? Your tirade about hippies needing to comb their hair suggest so. ADM and others are beginnig to explore the organic market BECAUSE OF THE PROFIT MOTIVE! So buy what what you will, and let others do the same without making it sound like a crusade. By the way, I don't have to go to any Whole Foods market to get my organic beef, soy yogurt, or meusli. And why is that? Because Farm Fresh has revamped most of the stores in my area to include a huge organic section. Why? Profit motive once again. God Bless capitalism and its ability to trump short-sightedness caused by emotional-political blinders.

THE GLOBAL WARMING CONSENSUS -- BULLSHIT
Scientific fact is not determined by a vote. In this excellent speech from last January at Caltech, Michael Crichton explains how "concensus" science is a sham and a fraud upon the public and its legislators. Some of the fraud:

Global Warming is caused by Man.
Second hand smoke can kill you.
A nuclear war would cause a nuclear winter.

It's funny, just the other day I was listening to some moron answering listener questions on NPR. The caller asked if Global Warming was real. The "expert" immediately talked about a "consensus" among the scientific "community" that man is responsible to an increase in world temperature. No surprise from NPR.

Read the whole thing, but here's a good paragraph.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

And more specifically, a little bit on Global Warming:

The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."

My emphasis. Lucky for us, Crichton is working on a book about this.

Speech found thanks to Instapundit.

LIKE BOY SCOUTS
According to The New York Times, Britain Says U.S. Planned to Seize Oil in '73 Crisis. I'm glad to see were prepared. Good quotes:

. . . the United States was unwilling to abide threats by "underdeveloped, underpopulated" countries.
. . .
The U.S. government might consider that it could not tolerate a situation in which the U.S. and its allies were in effect at the mercy of a small group of unreasonable countries.

ROAST BEAST
I enjoyed a fine standing rib roast with my family at Christmas, purchased from my local megacorporate grocery chain. Damn tasty stuff. Plenty of insectide-protected garlic. I chased it with a rather well rounded, slightly tannic Cabernet. What a fine meal.

A couple of days later, I found myself at the Wendy's drivethru, where I purchased a succulent Big Bacon Classic with a square-shaped patty distributed by Big Beef. Chased with a Diet Coke, because who needs that extra 150 calories.

Then I discover that I should have been at the Whole Foods Market, mingling with the Che Guevera t-shirt wearing unshaven and unclean, to buy my free-range non-steroidal organic cow. So, I thought I'd check out the The Washington Post to see what it says about this organic beef thing. Here are some prime cuts:

These differences cannot guarantee that a cow raised organically will not develop mad cow disease, however, because some of the ways the disease is transmitted are still unknown. And non-organic cuts of beef are considered safe, according to federal food-safety officials who note that the disease has never been found in muscle meat from an infected cow -- such as steaks and roasts.

Never! The emphasis is mine. So, steaks and roasts are safe. But there's more:

Nevertheless, food scares can cause consumers to change their habits quickly, often without regard to actual science or true risk.

"without regard to actual science of true risk" huh? I guess that's why no one has fallen ill and there hasn't been an epidemic spread of crazy cow disease. But there's more. From a rather intelligent sounding organization:

"Food has always been considered special in terms of risk factor," said Elizabeth M. Whelan, executive director of the American Council on Science and Health, a New York-based nonprofit organization that tries to educate consumers on issues related to food, nutrition, the environment and health. "People are willing to choose alternatives even if there's no rational basis for it."

No kidding. And with cattle futures falling, the gap between the cost of Big Beef beef and Organic hippie beef is growing. We probably need some government subsidies to offset that.

And remember, no one has been infected. The offending cow came from Canada (have they banned all Canadian beef now?). There seems to be no spread among the cattle population at large. It seems to me that existing government regulations have been sufficient to protect the American people from Mad Cow Disease. Certainly, they are at least "minimally necessary." Can't see how we need more regulation than necessary, even minimally.

Now, if the government would just find a way to get those Whole Foods people to wash-up, comb their hair and introduce their tie-dyes to some Tide, maybe more health risks can be eliminated.

ANGRY BOVINE
Its a good time to vote with your pocketbook, America. If you want to see more mad cow problems, just keep buying beef. The Secretary of Agriculture, who erred in her initial assurances about the extent of the states exposed via their processing plants, is a former huckster (sorry, lobbyist.........I'm not sure which is the more pejorative term) for the beef industry. Even at a time of record prices and profits for the beef industry, it is resisting the sorts of measures that would need to be put in place to prevent and successfully test for mad cow. And please spare us the sob-stury about how "devastating" the loss of exports is to the industry: 90% of the beef raised in the U.S. is sold here, only 10% is exported. This is no crippling blow.

Yes, America, it costs more to do it right and be safe. Organic beef already costs more because it has an inherently higher cost structure, but there has never been a case of mad cow from an organic beef farm. Buy organic beef (it tastes better), or give up beef for a while, or keep your whining traps shut when the next outbreak of mad cow occurs. You cannot count on this adminstration - favored by the industry - to do any more than is minimally necessary to assure the safety of beef. You can bet your bottom dollar, however, that the industry would respond very quickly if enough people took this seriously enough to vote with their pocketbook. The choice is ours.

CAN HE GOVERN?
Ahnuld has until January 10th to (finally) show his hand. Delusional Kaleefornyans elected someone popular in the hopes that the person was the problem. Did they really buy his I-have-a-plan schtick? Fools. Bend over, Kaleefornya, you are about to get the governator you deserve. After cutting the car tax (and therby deepening the fiscal hole the state is in) - an easy, please-the-fools gesture, Ahnuld must now do some heavy lifting. Where will he get the $15 billion in cuts he has to find? The answers are going to be just as painful when delivered by a popular figure as they would have been by Gray Davis. The simple truth is that CA needs a combination of more revenue and less spending.. Creating either of these is not going to be popular, no matter how many movies you made, who your wife is, or how successfully you groped. Stay tuned.

STUPID THINKS EDWARDS
Eric Alterman has this thing called Stupid Corner. I don't know if it's a regular feature or not. I don't read much of this guy, maybe because he thinks the Washington Post is a tool of the Republican Party. Yes, the Republican party.

Anyway, Stupid of Stupid Corner thinks that John Edwards will emerge as the main challenger to Dean. Well, I guess that's why they call him Stupid. This is just now occurring to him, at a time when it's looking more and more likely that this so-called challenger doesn't exist. And won't. The Democrats may be on the Dark Side, but always two there aren't, until the master selects his apprentice. Dean may well be the last Democrat standing after South Carolina.

I GUESS THE "E" STANDS FOR "EVIL"

Internet auction site eBay last week refused to allow the sale of T-shirts "intended as a print tribute to the U.S. Army infantry unit that captured Hussein in Iraq earlier this month," according to the Associated Press.

The drawing by cartoonist Bill Lunsford featured a muscular Uncle Sam in battle fatigues bearing the Fourth Infantry patch, holding a smoking .357-magnum, and backed by drawings of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Text accompanying the drawing reads: "One down, one to go."

According to the article, Ebay pulled the item because it has a policy against, "items that 'promote or glorify ... violence.'"

Oh...really?

Playing a hunch, I decided to search Ebay for other items that might be generally perceived as promoting or glorifying violence. In less than five minutes, I found CDs by violent "rap" artists, such as Eminem, 50 Cent, and Ice T, whose infamous song "Cop Killer" contained this deathless prose:

I got my black shirt on.
I got my black gloves on.
I got my ski mask on.
This shit's been too long.
I got my twelve gauge sawed off.
I got my headlights turned off.
I'm 'bout to bust some shots off.
I'm 'bout to dust some cops off.
I'm a COP KILLER, better you than me.
COP KILLER, f**k police brutality!
COP KILLER, I know your family's grieving,
(F**K 'EM!)
COP KILLER, but tonight we get even, ha ha.

There's also violent video games, such as Grand Theft Auto, and even purported "snuff films."

All of which is, apparently, not promoting or glorifying violence.

Apparently, to the management of Ebay, supporting the troops is more offensive than cop killing and general murder.

Remember that, the next time you want to buy something from them.

THAT TOLKIEN DUDE'S A RACIST
The net's abuzz today about some bonehead article posted on the Paris Indymedia site, entitled: "The Racist Tapestry of Lord of the Rings!" Really.

Here's some links:

Instapundit
FoxNews
The Force.net

Of course, it is not to be taken seriously, as it is racist itself -- saying that the Uruk-hai look like American Indians. Oh my. Just as racist as when some folks saw the floppy eared, long-tounged alien Jar Jar Binks in the Phantom Menace, and then their small, racist brains thought they saw a black guy. Our intrepeid racialist at Indymedia also has time, while bashing Tolkien, to mention that "homicidal maniac from Texas." Wow, how insightful.

Remember we pointed out the lovely political discourse at this Indymedia network just the other day.

Anyway, read the actual story by one Lloyd Hart (if that is his real name), just for the comments below the article. Many are a riot, offering information on international politics and what Mr. Hart can go do with himself. Other reasonable rebuttals to claims that Tolkien is racist can be found at an IMDB message board, from Jonah Goldberg and at this Faq.

THANKS TO BILLY THE BLOGGING POET "tm"
It's not often that we receive a nice compliment, usually just hate mail for being (a) nazis or (b) communists, but this site got one from BILLY THE BLOGGING POET "tm", and we wanted to say a hearty "Thanks". We'd have done it over on Billy's site, but he's not set up for comments. Here's what Bill said.

You know, I don’t read many newspapers-- mostly a local conservative newspaper called The Rhinoceros Times, and a couple of local entertainment rags-- and I never watch television, but I manage to keep up with the issues by listening to National Public Radio and the British Broadcasting Corporation, and by surfing various news and information sites I’ve found on the Internet.

A site I discovered recently is The Federal Review. I won’t proclaim the site to be to the left or the right, but somewhat to the center, were all of us should hope to be someday soon. I find it interesting that this particular blog site manages to stay so well informed of what’s going on in our political world. I hope all of you will take the time to check it out and I’ll add a permanent link so you can get back to it later.

WHO'S NUMBER 2?
I've long maintained that the second most-likely Democratic nominee is John Edwards. It's not that he's electrifying or that his campaign is some model of organization, but the primary math works in his favor. After Dean extinguishes Gephardt in Iowa and Kerry and Lieberman in New Hampshire, the only possible alternative would appear as the winner in South Carolina. That winner would be the "electable" alternative to Dean and would have a chance in the midwest and the west.

That South Carolina "winner" was going to be Lieberman, then it was going to be Edwards, then Clark, then Edwards.

But what happens if Dean wins South Carolina on February 3? Then, even the second place finisher looks like a loser and Dean locks things up by March.

And that's what may be happening. A recent poll shows that SC voters, who previously preferred Lieberman, Edwards or Clark, now prefer Dean. In one poll, by 4% over co-number twos Al Sharpton and John Edwards. In another, by 1% over Clark and 6% over Sharpton/Edwards (who tend to poll evenly).

Sure, many SC voters are still undecided, but Edwards has spent more time in South Carolina than any other candidate, except Sharpton, and he's fading, while Dean is surging ahead. If Edwards wants to have an effect on this race, now would be the best time to pull out and endorse a challenger to Dean. If no one rallies support for an alternative, Dean becomes the nominee and doesn't win a single southern state in November. Clark would have a better chance in the south. If Clark becomes the alternative to Dean by winning South Carolina with the help of John Edwards selfless withdrawal, then the Democratic primary will become a two man race between Al Gore's Man and Bill Clinton's Man. And John Edwards becomes kingmaker and tops of the the veep list.

UPDATE: ToddtheBlog (HippyHillNews) notes that Edwards has bagged the coveted 2-out-of-4-members-of-Hootie-and-the-Blowfish endorsement.