Does anybody read this any more? I haven't updated it in over six months. I'm going to give "serious blogging" another try, this time over at dixielandblog.blogspot.com. Who knows--maybe if I wind up staying in Alabama for a while, I'll turn this into a commentary specifically about Alabama politics. Until then...please comment if you ever do look at this thing.

James Spann linked on The Drudge Report

I always liked James Spann...and I like him even more now for standing up and saying this:

ABC TV Meteorologist Claims He Does Not Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'...

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them.

This comes on the heels of The Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen calling for the American Meteorological Society to "revoke the 'seal of approval' that it normally extends to broadcast forecasters in the US in cases where they have expressed skepticism about man's role in pushing up planetary temperatures." Typical...

On a related note, I had to hear about "global warming" in church, of all places, this past Sunday. Luckily, the context was somewhat acceptable (we're supposed to take care of God's creation because He cares about it and so should we), but the insinuation that it's our (mankind's) fault that the polar bears are losing some of their habitat due to man-caused global warming was a bit much. I'm going to have to go Church of Christ or Presbyterian (PCA) if this kind of crap keeps up...like the Saudi Arabian flag flying (along with other nations, of course) in the sanctuary on "World Communion Sunday." Do they not realize that people are executed in Saudi Arabia for the crime of apostasy (that is, when it involves leaving islam for another religion)? But I digress.

On the global warming topic...I have never said, and will never say, that we shouldn't be good stewards of the earth. We should recycle and work to reduce pollution. But to attempt to use 150 years' worth (at most) of climate data--when the planet is 4 1/2 billion years old--to influence and create public policy is absurd. Worse yet is the fact that the global warming kool-aid drinkers won't even debate it. Fanatics like Al Gore speak of "global warming deniers"...are they like "holocaust deniers?" I don't think anybody is denying the fact that the earth's temperature is experiencing a warming trend. But some of these same alarmists were worrying about "global cooling" in the 1970s. It seems that "global warming" has been hijacked by anti-industrial (and some anti-human) environmentalists and animal-rights wackos and eco-terrorists as well as some liberal do-gooders and nanny-state nincompoops as an excuse to attempt to more heavily regulate the way we live our lives. The sooner they all shut up, the better.

The 2006 Ballot

I should have done this earlier, but I neglected to pick up a sample ballot from the courthouse until today. To that end, here are my selections for tomorrow’s voting:

Governor: Bob Riley (Republican)

• While the state of Alabama could certainly do better than Riley, his challenger, Lieutenant Governor Lucy Baxley, has no real platform other than her “We Love Lucy” signs and a promise to eliminate annual real estate appraisals. I figure the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t (not that I think Riley is evil, but you get the idea).

Lieutenant Governor: Luther Strange (Republican)

• Strange is a former D.C. lobbyist, which does give me pause. However, given the fact that this office is essentially powerless, I won’t hesitate to cast my vote for Strange over his challenger, Jim Folsom Jr., who tries to take sole credit for bringing the Mercedes plant to Alabama.

U.S. Representative, District 7: Daniel L. Maguire (Independent)

• Incumbent Democrat Artur Davis has no challenger. Therefore, I’ll be writing in my own name…and running against him if we’re still here the next time around. (You should write me in, too!)

State Senator, District 21: Phil Poole (Democrat)

• Poole, the incumbent, has a good record—plus an A+ rating from the NRA. His challenger, Joe Saxton, didn’t even bother to fill out the NRA’s questionnaire…so I imagine my rights as a gun owner are not very high on his list of priorities.

Attorney General: John Tyson, Jr. (Democrat)

• Tyson is the current District Attorney for Mobile County, and an honorable man by all accounts. While I like Troy King personally, I think he is more concerned with positioning himself for a future run at the governor’s office than he is with doing a good job as Attorney General.

Secretary of State: Beth Chapman (Republican)

• Chapman currently serves as state auditor, and her record in that position is spotless. Her opponent, incumbent Nancy Worley, has been a lightning rod for controversy and criticism—notably from members of her own party. Good riddance to Worley.

State Treasurer: Kay Ivey (Republican)

• I trust Republicans more with my money than Democrats (at least on the state level).

State Auditor: Samantha Shaw (Republican)

Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries: Albert Lipscomb (Republican)

Chief Justice, Alabama Supreme Court: Drayton Nabers, Jr. (Republican)

• Nabers is the incumbent; Sue Bell Cobb is the choice of Alabama’s trial lawyers--enough said.

Associate Supreme Court Justices:

Place #1: Champ Lyons, Jr. (Republican)

• Lyons has no challenger in this race.

Place #2: Tom Woodall (Republican)

• Woodall is the incumbent, and I see no reason to replace him with a Democrat.

Place #3 – Lyn Stuart (Republican)

• Stuart currently serves on the court and, like Woodall, I see no reason to replace her with a Democrat.

Place #4: Glenn Murdock (Republican)

• Murdock and John H. England, Jr. are vying to replace the retiring Justice Bernard Harwood. Murdock is a conservative, and I’d rather have more conservatives on the court.

Court of Civil Appeals Judges:

Place #1: Terry Moore (Republican)

Place #2: Craig Pittman (Republican)

Place #3: Terri Willingham Thomas (Republican

Court of Criminal Appeals Judges

Place #1: Greg Shaw (Republican)

Place #2: Kelli Wise (Republican)

• Wise is the incumbent. Plus, she’s hot (for a 44-year-old mom, at least!) and she once told me I had beautiful eyes (at a state College Republicans convention when I was an undergraduate).

Place #3: Sam Welch (Republican)

Public Service Commission

Place #1: John Rice (Republican)

Place #2: Perry O. Hooper, Jr. (Republican)

Amendments

Amendment 1: NO

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, authorizing the governing body of the city of Prichard to establish an Alabama Foreign Trade Investment Zone as a special tax district for the purpose of importing duty free and quota free articles eligible under the United States General System of Preferences and the Africa Growth and Opportunities Act; would specify that the value of land and improvements on the land within the district would be assessed and taxed for ad valorem tax purposes by county tax officials under a single site valuation system; and would provide further for the contractual powers of nonprofit organizations.

I’m not entirely sure why Prichard needs to establish this Foreign Trade Investment Zone, but (without doing exhaustive research) I would speculate that it would grant tax breaks to foreign companies for doing business in Prichard.

Amendment 2: NO

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to require the levy of an additional local ad valorem property tax in those school districts of the State in which local ad valorem property taxes for general public school purposes totaling less than 10.0 mils are otherwise levied, so as to ensure that such taxes totaling at least such amount are levied for such purposes in every school district in the State of Alabama.

First off, this is taxation without representation. Why should I, a citizen of Tuscaloosa County, decide how residents of Lamar or Hale Counties should be taxed? This amendment has been touted by its proponents a means for districts to reduce their sales taxes once their ad valorem taxes are at least 10 mils. I hope, dear reader, that you weren’t drinking anything carbonated when you read that last statement, because it probably came out of your nose. What do you think is the likelihood of any local government in this state reducing sales taxes without being absolutely forced to do it? I think this “justification” for the amendment is a load of B.S. But it’s still not as big a reason for me to vote against it as the fact that it equals taxation without representation

Amendment 3: NO

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide for the election of the Macon County Board of Education from four single-member districts and the county at large, and to provide for staggered six-year terms of office.

This doesn’t necessarily sound like a bad thing, but since I don’t live in Macon County and I don’t know the entire story, I’m voting No.

God, I hate Alabama’s constitutional system, which requires constitutional amendments for local laws. Some—like Amendment 1—require the whole state to ratify the amendment for one locality. Others, which are only ratified by the applicable county, still take the form of amendments to the state constitution. This is where the real constitutional reform needs to take place.

I won’t bother going into the Tuscaloosa County amendments, but I’ll be voting No on at least numbers two and three. (Number One might have some merit.)

We’ll see how it goes tomorrow!

Politics at the University of Alabama Wesley Foundation

I've noticed something since being back in school. There is a fair amount of political information being disseminated at Wesley Foundation, and it comes invariably from the left of center.

I have several examples:

Wesley has hosted at least two Sunday-evening forums on constitution reform in Alabama, and literature remains on the tables in the lobby for anyone to pick up. All of the literature comes from Alabama ARISE, a left-leaning group that seeks to influence the rewriting of the constitution in such a way that more money will be taken from income earners and given to low or non-earners. This is all well and good; but there is no information available from any other perspective.

If I'm not mistaken, there was a campaign sign in front of the building in 2003 favoring the Riley tax increase proposal. I do not believe political yard signs belong in the yard of Wesley Foundation, regardless of affiliation. I should have said something then, but I didn't have activist leanings yet.

Congressman Artur Davis has spoken at Wesley twice in 2006 alone. Davis is a left-leaning Democrat. (He's nowhere near as liberal as teddy kennedy, but still.) Why not invite Spencer Bachus, just for balance?

Then there are the magazines. On every table in the Not-So-Greatroom, as well as in the lobby, you can find copies of Sojourners, a self-described "progressive" Christian magazine. Many copies of Christian Century are also available; it's more moderate, but hardly conservative. I recently bought Wesley a subscription to the slightly right-leaning Christianity Today, just for balance.

Now for the latest. This Sunday afternoon, beginning at 4:00, two films on global warming will be screened: Davis Guggenheim's An Inconvenient Truth (the Al Gore vehicle), and the HBO documentary Too Hot Not to Handle. Now, I am not aware of any documentary films that attempt to debunk the global warming alarmists, but there is a significant portion of the scientific community that does not believe there is cause for such alarm--and furthermore, many of the claims Gore makes and statistics he uses in An Inconvenient Truth have been shown to be misleading if not false. I'm also willing to bet that the ensuing discussion will be centered around such things as the Bush administration's refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty, evil SUV drivers, and how the government should force us all to sacrifice for this fanatical hippie cause. You get the idea.

Is this appropriate for a campus ministry center? Wesley is supposed to be a welcoming, inclusive place...are conservatives supposed to be the exception to this?

Never Forget

Today marks five years since nineteen savages attacked our country in the name of a pagan god and killed 2,996 innocent people. I am afraid too many of us have already forgotten about the danger these fanatics pose.

At any rate, I agreed a couple of months ago to honor one of the victims of the September 11 attacks on a blog I recently created at townhall.com. I was assigned one Brian Edward Sweeney, 29, of Merrick, New York. You can read my post about him here.

To read other tributes to the victims of September 11, 2001, visit the 2996 Project.

A Lesson in Character

Almost a year ago in this space, I did something stupid. I wrote something foolish and out of character. I was angry, and my words were borne not of reason and logic but of passion and emotion. It was one of those times when I should have slept on the issue before publishing my thoughts. I was called out on the post by friends of both political stripes, and I wound up editing the passage and issuing an apology (after all, even if only a handful of people read this, it was still the right thing to do).

Thanks to that episode, I have learned a few things—not the least of which is that some people you consider friends are really not your friends at all. I have gained some insight into the character of liberal extremists, who seem to have no problem putting partisan politics above a friendship. Fortunately, I have also come to realize who my true friends are.

I have recently come to suspect that a small number of people (two or three), which I considered friends (not necessarily very close friends, but friends nonetheless) read that foolish bit of prose and decided that, rather than speak to me about it directly, they should archive the page and keep this volatile bit of heated commentary in case I should ever decide to seek public office. It has been hinted that “certain documents would be leaked” if I were to seek office in Alabama (or possibly elsewhere). Granted, these “warnings” came in the form of thinly-veiled jokes, but I had suspected that the page might have been archived, and now I have very little doubt about it.

This raises some questions for me about the character of liberals. What would you expect a true friend to do if you were in my position? I would expect a real friend to confront me privately—in person or by phone, whatever—and pull no punches about the irresponsibility of my actions. Friends who care about one another can and should be honest with one another without ulterior motives. Were one of my liberal friends to do what I did, the idea of keeping the incriminating paragraphs on the off chance that I could smear them with it later on would never cross my mind.

Apparently these folks think I am the next Timothy McVeigh or something. Almost a year later, the topic still comes up in conversation. I'd love to be fly on the wall at one of their little progressive powwows to see what else is said about their conservative "friends."

Needless to say, I am perplexed by this situation. I would like to continue being friends with these people (for what it's worth), but I am afraid that their true colors have been revealed and that they have not truly considered me to be their friend. I suppose the answer will reveal itself if one of them reads this and relays it to the others.

Another thought…these folks must not have much real faith in their own ideas (or, at least, their ideology) if they’re constantly on the lookout for ammunition to shoot down their opposition—even a friend—in some future election that might not even happen. I wonder if that means there’s some slight glimmer of hope for liberals after all?

CBS's "The Unit" portrays concealed carry in a positive light

I've become a regular watcher of "The Unit" on CBS. It's an interesting look at both the lives and missions of men in a top-secret special forces unit (based on Delta Force) and the lives of their women at home. I think this lends depth to both the characters and the stories in each episode.

Last week CBS ran two episodes back to back--"Unannounced" and "Exposure." I taped both of them because I had a meeting in Birmingham. We finally got around to watching them last night, and I was pleasantly surprised by the way the first episode ("Unannounced") turned out. Around three-fourths of the way through the show, Kim Brown (Audrey Marie Anderson) is at the radio station where she works, and her boss Rory (Gale Harold) notices that she has a gun in her purse. She explains that her husband Bob (Scott Foley) got it for her, and got her a concealed carry permit. He claims that he "doesn't believe in them"--that he's "a poet" and not a fighter--but doesn't pursue the issue any further. Near the end of the episode, a young private shows up at the station after having spoken to Kim on the phone while requesting a song. They are the only ones in the building, and the soldier assaults Kim, attempting to rape her. Rory shows up before the grunt can do anything; he gets Kim's pistol out of her purse and rescues her from the would-be rapist. No shots are fired; the assailant leaves the building, but is apprehended by the police--who tell them that he was suspected in several rapes and a murder.

It took me a minute to realize that Hollywood--and CBS, of all networks--had just presented guns in a positive manner! Mike (the radio station guy) is not a military man, and would have been no match for the soldier/rapist without the gun. He used it to save Kim without firing a shot--which is a lot like what often happens in real life: the mere presence of a gun in the hand of an confident citizen is often enough to dissuade a would-be criminal from carrying out his intentions. I am very pleased to see such a depiction on mainstream, prime-time television. I sure hope it's not the last time.