Wednesday, February 28, 2007

More Heat On Global Warming Kookery

This article by NASA's Roy Spencer is one of the clearest and most powerful explanations of what we don't know about global climate change. Dr. Spencer is a guy who's job relies on climate models. He doesn't reject them or have any reason to reject global warming advocacy. But he's honest enough to acknowledge that the models we have don't work.

He also expresses clearly something that I've often wondered about: In a harsh universe like ours, earth's climate sticks out as unusually pleasant. Venus is a deadly sauna. Mars is brutally cold and barren. Earth is strangely just right and, once again given how inhospitable the universe appears to be, our planet has stayed "just right" for a long time and through many cosmic changes (like variations in solar output). Why?

Computerized models of our climate have had a habit of "drifting" too warm or too cold. This because they still don't contain all of the temperature-stabilizing processes that exist in nature. In fact, for the amount of solar energy available to it, our climate seems to have a "preferred" average temperature, damping out swings beyond 1 degree or so.

I believe that, through various negative feedback mechanisms, the atmosphere "decides" how much of the available sunlight will be allowed in, how much greenhouse effect it will generate in response, and what the average temperature will be.

Finally, remember that phrase, "the Earth's greenhouse effect keeps the Earth habitably warm?" I'll bet you never heard the phrase that is, quantitatively, more accurate: "Weather processes keep the Earth habitably cool." Were it not for weather, the natural greenhouse effect would cause the surface of the Earth to average 140 degrees. Wonder why we never hear that fact stated? [emphasis added]

Once again, the end of the world could be right around the corner. But before I support returning America's economy to the Stone Age, I'll have to have some proof.

"What Did You Call Me?"

Illegal immigrants and their advocates are upset by, uh, well...the English language, I guess. They object to laws and government documents that refer to "illegal aliens" as "illegal aliens." The fact that this is the proper legal designation for a non-resident in a nation without permission is irrelevant.

Leading the charge to ban the phrase is Florida state senator Frederica Wilson. "I personally find the word 'alien' offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children. An alien to me is someone from out of space."

I wonder what her phrase is for someone out of their minds?

How scary is it that this woman gets to help make laws...based on her limited vocabulary? Where is her law ordering dog breeders to drop the word "bitch" because it makes her think of her husband's ex-wife? Will she remove the phrase "handicapped" from parking legislation in deference to the differently-abled?

Meanwhile, these illegal alien/undocumented worker/alternately-citizened people are costing Florida millions of tax dollars, committing tax fraud and stealing American jobs.

What does Sen. Wilson plan to do about that? Nada.

Who Will Kill More Americans This Year? Insurgents in Iraq or Illegals Here At Home?

The fact that the most liberal citizen in Massachusetts knows the answer--illegal aliens--shows just how dishonest the Left is on the issue of illegal immigration.

Every time the illegal immigration issue (
a.k.a. "entrant rights") comes up, the Left concedes the facts: yes, they're breaking the law; yes, their costing taxpayers billions; yes, they contribute to violent crimes and gang violence in our cities; yes, they clog our classrooms and hospitals.

Then they drop back to the same, two arguments: 1) "You're a racist," or 2) "You're a racist and there's nothing we can do about illegal immigration, even if we wanted to."

Obviously, both these arguments are nonsense. People who support deporting illegals from Mexico, Africa, China and Ireland obviously aren't racists, unless they're what--pro-Eskimo? And there is no evidence at all that America is the one nation in the world that can't have secure borders. All you have to do is enforce the law. That's what they do right now in Mexico, Africa, China and Ireland--and nobody in America is calling THEM racists.

Meanwhile, up to 2500 Americans are murdered every year by illegal aliens in the US. This is, apparently, an acceptable price that Sen. Kennedy, Sen. McCain and Gov. Patrick believe we must pay for the "right" to immigrate to the US illegally.

But if the Left is correct, and 3,000 dead American soldiers over 4 years is too high a price to pay to transform the Middle East, then aren't that many dead American civilians every 18 months too high a price for our open borders? How can Sen. Kennedy say "We must abandon our Iraq policy" over the deaths of men who volunteed to fight, but simultaneously push for open borders while innocent Americans who oppose open borders are murdered?

I know: My mistake is trying to make sense out of the political views of Ted Kennedy.

What Al Gore DOESN'T Want You To Know

...probably because he doesn't know it himself. Read the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and then tell me that you can honestly support spending trillions of dollars and killing millions of jobs based on what we know now.

If you can, then there's one word for you: Kook.
Actually, there's something else Al Gore doesn't want you to know, and that's the fact that he consumes as much energy in a month as the average American household does in a year. And that's just at ONE of his homes.
This is limousine liberalism at its best: I'll push for legislation to kill your blue-collar job and drive up the price of your home heating oil, but I won't sacrifice even a single watt of the electricity that powers my elite lifestyle. Oh, sure--the Left believes in people making sacrifices to save the earth.
They just don't believe that THEY should be those people.

General Petraeus's Message To The Troops

To the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Civilians of Multi-National Force-Iraq:

We serve in Iraq at a critical time. The war here will soon enter its fifth year. A decisive moment approaches. Shoulder-to-shoulder with our Iraqi comrades, we will conduct a pivotal campaign to improve security for the Iraqi people. The stakes could not be higher.

Our task is crucial. Security is essential for Iraq to build its future. Only with security can the Iraqi government come to grips with the tough issues it confronts and develop the capacity to serve its citizens. The hopes of the Iraqi people and the coalition countries are with us.

The enemies of Iraq will shrink at no act, however barbaric. They will do all that they can to shake the confidence of the people and to convince the world that this effort is doomed. We must not underestimate them.

Together with our Iraqi partners, we must defeat those who oppose the new Iraq. We cannot allow mass murderers to hold the initiative. We must strike them relentlessly. We and our Iraqi partners must set the terms of the struggle, not our enemies. And together we must prevail.

The way ahead will not be easy. There will be difficult times in the months to come. But hard is not hopeless, and we must remain steadfast in our effort to help improve security for the Iraqi people. I am confident that each of you will fight with skill and courage, and that you will remain loyal to your comrades-in-arms and to the values our nations hold so dear.

In the end, Iraqis will decide the outcome of this struggle. Our task is to help them gain the time they need to save their country. To do that, many of us will live and fight alongside them.

Together we will face down the terrorirsts, insurgents, and criminals who slaughter the innocent. Success will require discipline, fortitude, and initiative — qualities that you have in abundance.I appreciate your sacrifices and those of your families. Now, more than ever, your commitment to service and your skill can make the difference between victory and defeat in a very tough mission.

It is an honor to soldier again with the members of the Multi-National Force-Iraq. I know that wherever you serve in this undertaking you will give your all. In turn, I pledge my commitment to our mission and every effort to achieve success as we help the Iraqis chart a course to a brighter future.

Godspeed to each of you and to our Iraqi comrades in this crucial endeavor.

David H. Petraeus

General, United States Army


Al Sharpton, You're No Strom Thurmond

Read my latest column in the Boston Herald here.

Monday, February 26, 2007

What Have They Done With Our Governor?

Who is this man, and what has he done with our governor?

This guy--who has announced that his administration is going to actually enforce Massachusetts laws against illegal immigration--cannot be the same Deval Patrick we elected in November.
O. My. God. Halliburton got him! They've kidnapped Deval Patrick and replaced him with some kind of law-abiding, rational POD PERSON!

OUR Deval Patrick would never have admitted that state law makes it a crime to hire illegal immigrants. OUR Deval Patrick would never have agreed to enforce the law, just because it's the law.

No, the real Gov. Patrick would have announced that ", undocumented workers" are entitled to live in Massachusetts if they want to, and in taxpayer-subsidized housing if possible. The real Governor Patrick would say "Screw the law!" Just like he did with the marriage amendment.

So, the question is, where is our governor and who is this impost...wait! This just in: Gov. Patrick wants to use tax dollars to pay for $360 vaccinations for nine-year-old girls to protect against a sexually-transmitted disease.
Whew! I was getting scared there for a moment.
UPDATE: Governor, if you're willing to pony up public money to help fight the spread of human papilloma virus among girls, how about the boys? This inexpensive procedure reduces the chance of catching AIDS by 60%. Just ask Dr. de Cock.

Friday, February 23, 2007

They Like Us! They Really Like Us!

A British group has gotten together and launched ads reminding their Euroweenie neighbors just how bad a World Without An America would be.

It's a great ad, and speaking on behalf of the nation that has fed, freed and fought for more people than any other in the world (including Muslim people, by the way), it's nice to hear a "Thank You."

If You Were Massachusetts

Governor Deval Patrick has announced his latest round of tax increases because, as he repeats ad infinitum, we're facing a $1 billion deficit he "inherited" from his predecessor." We're broke, the Cadillac of Governors says, because the people and businesses of Massachusetts just aren't ponying up our fair share.

We're losing money! We're going broke! We need new taxes! H-e-e-l-l-p-p!


Actually, the people and businesses of Massachusetts have given the commonwealth more money year after year, every year, for just about forever. Since 2002, Massachusetts' government has gotten
an average yearly raise of 6.2%. At the same time, the number of citizens (i.e. "customers) has actually fallen. More money, but fewer people using state services.

In the private sector, that's called "good news." In Massachusetts, we're told it's a disaster.

The problem with numbers like this is that it's hard for the average person to understand what they mean. So try this: Imagine YOU are Massachusetts.

Let's say that you were earning $60,000 a year in 2002--slightly above the average household income for the commonwealth. If you were the state of Massachusetts with your annual 6.2% raises, your paychecks would have looked like this:

2002: $60,000

2003: $63, 720

2004: $67670

2005: $71865

2006: $76,321

2007: $81,053

How could this possibly be a fiscal crisis? Only if you're spending the money even faster than it's coming in. Only if you have ridiculous pensions for politicians, or are giving away money to illegal immigrants.

Anyone who tells you Massachusetts needs more money is simply not telling the truth. We just need less spending. But from the
$58,000 DPW worker who doesn't work; to the $200,000 cop earning overtime to watch construction workers filling in holes; to the $114,000 pension for the part-time city pol; to the $72,000 personal secretary for the governor's wife--all we are doing is spend, spend, spend.

Which is why the Cadillac of Governors must tax, tax and tax.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

9/11: What We Don't Know And When We Didn't Know It

If Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh gave the CIA and the 9/11 Commission a cover story--then what WERE they hiding?

Sen. John McKennedy, The Illegal Amigo!

Sen. John McCain and Ted Kennedy are once again doing the bidding of President Bush (the W stands for "Juan"), teaming up with pro-open borders lobbyists to push through yet another amnesty bill for illegal immigrants in the US. They plan on having it ready for a vote in April.

And if you agree with me that the previous Senate version of amnesty was a disaster, here's the bad news: The Washington Times reports that this one is worse. Specifically, it appears there will be greatly restricted workplace enforcement.

Now, if you're asking yourself "WHAT workplace enforcement," you're already smarter than John McCain. Believe it or not, the miniscule efforts of ICE at a handful of the worst-offending businesses in the past few months is too much for Kennedy and McCain. For a nation that busted a whopping total of THREE businesses for hiring illegals in all of 2004, you'd think workplace enforcement couldn't get any lamer.

Ah, but you underestimate McKennedy. They've got a task force writing the enforcement provisions of the new law. It's members are: the (pro-illegal) Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC) and the (pro-amnesty) U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the ACLU, the (pro-amnesty) National Immigration Law Center, the Service Employees International Union and the (pro-racism) organization La Raza.

Which once again raises the question for John McCain and every amnesty advocate in America: If you get amnesty today, what will you do to the first immigration criminal to sneak across the border tomorrow?

Answer: Amnesty for them, too. No enforcement + no consequences + taxpayer-funded incentives to break the law = no borders.

No borders = No America.

Designers for Deval?

They may not understand his tax hike proposals, but interior designers LOVE Gov. Patrick's "bell pleats."

And while the governor has never been a fan of "more neutral palettes" (particularly in hiring or school admissions policies), his fashion-design fans sure are!

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

"We Are NOT Methuen"

This casual statement, made by Cambridge Mayor Ken Reeves during our interview, could be the slogan of the limousine liberal class current running amok over the citizens of Massachusetts. Just four words, but they say so much.

It describes the mentality of the governing political/media class that can say, without shame, "Hey, you voters are morons. You don't know what the income tax rate should be, you don't know what the marriage laws should be, and we don't care WHAT the Constitution says, we're going to ignore you. After all, you're just from Methuen. We're from Cambridge/Beacon Hill/Milton, etc., etc."

Massachusetts voters are regularly dismissed by the Limo Lords as they gather on Beacon Hill for yet another round of tax increases, pay raises and luxury drapes. And why shouldn't they? After all, they're so much better than us peons that what they choose to do immediately becomes "good" thanks to their tireless, unchallenged liberalism.

That's what the Mayor meant by "We are NOT Methuen." We're better. We're smarter. We're morally superior. And therefore we can do what we want. No matter how much it

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Another Cadillac Kook Runs Down The Taxpayers

First it was Deval Patrick--The Cadillac of Governors!-- and his million-dollar coronation, art house helicopter trips and $1200 a month DTS.

Now it's Cambridge Mayor Ken "No Receipt" Reeves, living large on the taxpayer dime. The title "mayor" is largely ceremonial, but that hasn't stopped Reeves from becoming the highest-paid mayor of a mid-sized city in America. If $92,000 sounds like a lot for a ceremonial position, remember that his fellow Cambridge city councilors are also America's highest paid--$62k for a parttime job.

But even that isn't enough bling for Big Time Reeves. In less than six months, he's spent more than $11,000 on trips, travel and perks--including a $521 dinner in New York City. It's all official business, Reeves assures us, but he won't say who it was he actually had this official lunch with. He also tossed all his receipts. No documentation. No paperwork. Just a city-provided credit card and--thanks to a recent vote by his fellow Cambridge councilors--a new travel budget of $40,000 per. (All of last year, the mayor of Boston spent less than $9k on travel).

When asked for documents and details about his travel, Reeves' spokesflak made the kind of statement one only hears these days from the diehard devotee of the loony Left:

"The public should take Reeves at his word. The mayor doesn't spend any money that doesn't directly related to the city of Cambridge...the electorate of Cambridge elected Mayor Reeves...because they trust him to use city funds accordingly."

Right. Especially after that incident when Reeves "accidentally" collected an extra $30,000 in his paychecks in the 1990s. Once the "error" was discovered, Reeves paid it all back. He says.

Imagine the reaction of kooky Cambridge if a conservative was racking up $250 dinners on the taxpayer dime, didn't bother to keep the receipts and then told the taxpayers "Paperwork? Records? C'mon--you can trust me!"

The same people who are so paranoid they believe Haliburton blew up the World Trade Center want me to take Ken Reeves word for it when he says "I am not a crook."

Friday, February 16, 2007

"Coupe" Deval's New Caddy Condemned By...

...who else? Deval Patrick:

In my administration, state government will model what it asks of its citizens. As the state replaces its vehicle fleet, for example, new purchases will be hybrid or other fuel-efficient vehicles. Our public buses, subways, and trains will be as clean as technology can make them.

So said candidate Deval Patrick. Of course, GOVERNOR Patrick is more than happy to drive a gas-guzzling Cadillac that gets 19 mpg, particularly when you and I are picking up the tab.

Deval Patrick: Man of the People!

Flying in the People's

Riding in the People's Caddy!

Living in the People's 24-room mansion in the Berkshires!

Collecting the People's tolls on the Mass Pike!

Charging the People higher taxes for their kids' Happy Meals and hot lunches!

Raising the price of the People's electric bills!

Boy, I'm sure glad we didn't elect some out-of-touch elitist snob who didn't care about the People. Imagine what would have happened to us then.

Instead, we've got Cadillac Coupe Deval, Man of the People!

Thursday, February 15, 2007

The Biggest Loser?

Congress or Boston City Council?
Tough call, I know.

Both have debated irrelevant, non-binding, "look at me, I'm standing up the George W. Bush" resolutions. Both have done their part, however miniscule, to undermine the chances of victory for modernity in Iraq. Both have revealed they are weaselly, gutless wonders.

But the BIGGEST losers? Congress, by far.

Yes, it's true that, unlike the morons on City Council, debating Iraq policy is actually part of Congress's job. But that's why Congress's "this vote means nothing" vote is even more shameful. Because Congress actually has the power to DO something. They could force the troops home tomorrow, or (more realistically) start the process.

Instead, members of Congress run to the nearest TV camera and away from their responsibilities. It's disgusting and indefensible. If the Mainstream Media weren't suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, they'd be making that point, too.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Michael, You Can't Say That about...JOE WILSON!

I'm accustomed to getting into trouble for on-air comments, and I'm extremely accustomed to getting angry reactions from the loony Left. But even I am taken aback by the reaction to my fairly pedestrian description of failed foreign-service lackey Joe Wilson as a "bag, fat, lying sack."

What's the big deal?

Thanks to the
Moonbat Media, you can watch (listen?) to my comments on the Imus show this morning. But the MBM don't explain exactly what they object to. Did I say something that was factually incorrect? If so, nobody has told me what it was.

Here are a couple of emails I've received on the subject:

Mr. Graham:

I heard you on Imus calling Joe Wilson a LIAR ?

Why do you and your "ilk" i.e. rightwingnuts hate America so much ?

If you truly believe Wilson was lying then you must be getting [another talk show host]money from the Bush crime family eh? Or is it that you just like the thought of sucking on Bush/Cheney's little pee-pee's ?

If I didn't think you actually believed all the crap you spew it'd be funny.


Where is your proof that joe wilson is a liar? cause from what ive seen, everything he said is the truth. and, the administration ruined his wife's career because he called them the liars they are. so, spare us the indignant outrage and baseless accusations. i want proof tough guy. you're just a hot air balloon like hannity, like [still another talk show host]. your audience are [sic] probably borderline retarted, which is why you still have a job.

Why the angry Lefties feel the need to attack my listeners, and even other talk show hosts, when they're mad at me, I have no idea. But note the utter absence of facts, or even arguments.

I'm not surprised people are unclear on the Joe Wilson story. The media have worked overtime to bury the obvious facts (like those I laid out on the Imus show today) in order to sell the "Karl Rove Outed 007 Plame To Punish Hero Joe Wilson" story. Too bad it's not true.

You can read an excellent wrap up of the Wilson debacle
here. A funnier but less detailed account is here.

Bottom line: Joe Wilson lied. About how he got the Niger gig, about what happened while he was there, about what he told the CIA afterwards, and about the non-existent "conspiracy" to get him--pretty much everything that matters.

The Natural Truth is, a hack like Joe Wilson was never worth getting.

Just In Case You've STOPPED Laughing At The Nitwits Who Run Boston...

The City Council is scheduled to embarrass itself yet again. Having already solved the problems of illegal immigration (be declaring all immigration criminals "legal") and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Boston's local councilors are going to fix America's foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No doubt Gen. Petraeus is sitting by the phone waiting to hear from Chuck Turner and Felix Arroyo where he should deploy the 101st Airborne. I'm sure the White House will immediately abandon the war on terror in the Middle East now that the communities of Allston and Roxbury have been lost.

As council Sol LaMattina points out, there's plenty of violence in the streets of Boston for the local government to confront. Of course, that would involve putting more of their constituents in jail and more cops on the streets. That's hard. But bitching about George Bush is easy.

So there WON'T be a debate over adding jail time to criminals caught with guns, but there will be one over whether we should abandon Afghanistan to the Taliban.

Everyone in America should be laughing...except congressional Democrats trying to pass a similar "do nothing but complain"
resolution of their own.

Guys, it's called "leadership." You know--doing the hard stuff that matters?

The Most Important News Story Of The Day?

This breaking news from Boston is on my short list.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Save Boston Now!

Click here.

(Hat Tip: Jonah at NRO)

Monday, February 12, 2007

Fight The (White) Power!

Would you elect a president who attended a church that preached the "White Values System?" How about a church who's members were called on to be "soldiers for WHITE freedom?" Or a church that disavowed the "pursuit of middleclassness" because being black means you don't have middle class values?

I wouldn't vote for that candidate, either. Then again, I'm not voting for
Sen. Barack Obama.

His church, Trinity United Church of Christ, preaches the black version of all the of the above, and more. Sen. Obama defends his continued membership in this race-based religious institution and--other than the Chicago Tribune article linked above--have you heard anything about it in the mainstream media?

You're not going to read it in the Boston Globe-Democrat, that's for sure.


Deval Patrick Can't Resist A Man In A Uniform

Particularly when it's an orange jump suit.

First he spent years lobbying to get
a rapist/torturer out of prison and back on the streets. (Then tried to cover it up during his gubernatorial campaign);

Then he used his authority in the Clinton administration to repeatedly sue prisons over
chilled tuna and inflated basketballs for felons.

Now Deval Patrick wants to
keep employers from finding out about the criminal records of prospective employees. The Patrick plan will make it easier for criminals to get jobs...through deception. Right now, the convict can apply for any job, but the employer gets to know who he's hiring. That's the only thing Patrick would change: What the employer gets to know.

Who wins? Crooks. Who loses? Taxpaying business owners trying to protect themselves and their customers by making informed hiring decisions.

Classic Deval Patrick.

Friday, February 09, 2007

The New President Of Harvard

Is Professor Faust. Gee, I wonder who she had to make a deal with to get that job?

(Feel free to pass this on to your English major friends)

Read The Manipulated Pre-War Intelligence Here!

Want to read the (variously described) "false," "illegal" and "reprehensible" pre-war intelligence that was doctored to falsely allege a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda? Why, I've got a quote from an actual, evil US government pre-war document right here:

Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Oh. My. God. Who made this stuff up about "agreements" and "weapons development" between Al Qaeda and Iraq?

It was that evil, war-mongering CLINTON Administration, that's who! This is a direct quote from their indictment of Osama bin Laden in...1998!

No War For Oil, Bill! No War For Oil!

Oh, and for those of you who absolutely cannot sleep at night until you prove that there was NO CONNECTION! NONE! BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED! between Iraq and Al Qaeda, you should probably avoid reading this news article featuring comments from notorious right-winger, Democrat Bob Kerrey.

"Except For The 'Dead' Part, We Did Great!"

Those are the sentiments of Massachusetts DSS Denier-In-Chief Harry Spence, reviewing the case of Rebecca Riley.

Here are just a few of his comments:

Spence said his agency, which had been involved with the Riley children since December 2002, is still examining how it handled Rebecca's case, but that so far it appeared his workers did not fail the girl. "We have certainly not found a terrible failure," he said at a press conference at the agency's headquarters in South Boston. "This child did not fall through the cracks nor did Haleigh Poutre fall through the cracks."

Haleigh Poutre, in case you don't know, was the 11-year-old girl in DSS "protection" who, after 16 reports of abuse by her step-losers, was left in the home by DSS. The 17th incident involved a baseball bat and Haleigh ended up in a coma. After less than a week, and with contradictory medical recommendations, DSS went to the state's highest court to demand Haleigh be taken off her feeding tube and allowed to starve to death. Unfortunately(?) for DSS, Haleigh lived anyway. DSS's employees were wrong, their doctors were wrong, and they actively tried to kill a little girl without adequate information. Harry Spence's reaction:

''I believe the department has nothing to be ashamed of," he said.

Everything's OK, nothing to see here, move along, folks. That's what DSS Chief Spence says today. But what did he have to say to the Boston Herald five years ago when he first took the job?

Spence took over at DSS five years ago as the agency was under fire for the cases of other children who died while under its watch, flatly declaring then that he would push for reform. “We make mistakes once, but twice is inexcusable,” he told the Herald at the time. “You have to step up every time.”

By "you," Spence apparently meant "people other than me." Spence won't be stepping up to anything, other than a microphone to protect his job.

If Gov. Patrick lets him keep it, we'll know that Patrick agrees that no cracks were fallen through, no mistakes were made and that, in a Patrick administration, a couple of dead or crippled kids at DSS is just part of the job.

Thursday, February 08, 2007

UPDATE: Gov. Patrick, Fire This Man!

Haleigh Poutre was beaten into a coma on his watch. Rebecca Riley was killed. He reacted by praising the government employees who oversaw these cases. "We have nothing to be ashamed of."

His name is Harry Spence and he's still the head of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services. Why, Gov. Patrick, why?

UPDATE: If you need more reasons to fire this bumbling bureaucrat, just read today's papers. A few, "lowlights":

The state Department of Social Services received a report raising concerns about whether Rebecca Riley was taking too many powerful prescription drugs last summer, but dropped the issue after receiving assurances from her mother and [her] doctors that the treatment was appropriate.

Despite the concerns raised by a therapist, the agency did not seek an independent review of the child's treatment until after the 4-year-old died from an overdose on Dec. 13.--Boston Globe- Democrat.


DSS spokeswoman Denise Monteiro said the agency did not remove Carolyn and Michael J. Riley’s three children last fall because as far as caseworkers knew, “He was out of the home, there was a restraining order against him, and we don’t punish mothers because they’re victims of domestic violence. We don’t punish families twice.”

But Michael Riley was not out of the home at all, nor was there a restraining order in place against him, as DSS was told by Carolyn Riley...We believed her. We did not check,” said Monteiro. -- Boston Herald.


In July 2006, a social worker filed two 51A allegations of abuse or neglect with the Department of Social Services. The first was based on her observations during a visit that Carolyn Riley was neglecting her children and appeared heavily drugged. The therapist stated she filed a second 51A after another visit when Rebecca’s 6-year-old sister disclosed that Michael Riley had hit her. She stated that DSS later reported to her that both reports were unsupported. --Boston Herald.

You can reach Gov. Patrick here.

Or use this information:

Office of the Governor
Room 360
Boston, MA 02133
Phone: (617) 725-4005
(888) 870-7770 (instate use only)
FAX: (617) 727-9725

Headline: Cancer Causes Smoking!

I love the Boston Herald, but they're really got to do something about their headline writers. Their story today about the Great Boston Lite-Brite Panic of '07 bears the headline:


The "story" is that a hit-and-run victim in Dorchester had to wait 31 minutes for an ambulance because Turner Broadcasting forced the city to deploy Boston's EMS units to their pre-determined emergency-homeland-security-panic locations.

Uh, no. If the headline were correct and it was the Hasbro toys delaying ambulances, then there would be at least one ambulance delayed in at least one of the other 10 cities where these "sophisiticated electronics devices" were "deployed," right? But there were none. Zero.

The lite-brites didn't jump down from the walls of comic book stores and fling themselves into the path of oncoming emergency vehicles. The lite-brites did in Boston what they did in every other city: Looked odd in public places.

One city decided to declare them "hoax bombs" and treat them like a major threat. One city decided that the risk of stopped traffic, closed bridges, slowed ambulances, diminished police presence in other parts of the city, etc. was justified by the lite-brites. One city put an injured man at risk by reacting the way it did to the Lite-Brites.

A far more accurate headline for the Herald story would be: "Panicky City Officials Delay Ambulance Half Hour," or "Decision To Treat Toy Like Potential Suitcase Nuke Nearly Kills Taxpayer."

But the "prank" (what prank?) didn't do anything in Boston that it didn't also do in New York and L.A.

PS: I also wouldn't use the word "disgraced" to headline
this article, and my own Herald column today doesn't argue that the "Globe [is] not warming," rather that we don't know enough about what's happening to justify spending trillions of dollars to try and do something to change the weather. Like I said, I love the Herald--but I would write different headlines.

"Is Insanity A Sign Of Global Warming, Too?"

That's the question I ask in the Boston Herald today.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

I'm No Fan Of John McCain, But...

...this exchange with Sen. Harry Reid utterly flays the "non-binding" resolution offered by weasely Democrats to undermine American soldiers in Iraq.


Once again, an innocent young girl is repeatedly abused by the adults who are supposed to love and care for her.

Once again, the Massachusetts DSS had this family under their "care" for years.

Once again, there were repeated reports of abuse, and obvious physical evidence that the child was hurting.

And once again, the outcome is horrific.

There is one major difference between the case of Rebecca Riley and Haleigh Poutre: Haleigh is still alive. Rebecca saved DSS the trouble of trying to kill her after the fact, as they did with poor Haleigh.

Rebecca was so sick, according to school nurses and neighbors, that they could observe it casually, without any investigation or interrogation. Her level of medication was so high, and the amount of drugs the parents were getting from the pharmacist so alarming, that even non-medical professionals were alarmed.

DSS? Last summer, one of their brilliant medical professionals (the same ones that tried to starve Haleigh to death?) checked it out and said it was A-OK. That "public servant" is still overseeing the care of DSS children today.

Which is the one unchanging part of this story that should enrage every rational person: The same people who nearly killed Haleigh Poutre were still running DSS when it left Rebecca in the hands of these psychos to die.

DSS Director Harry Spence--who said DSS had "nothing to be ashamed of" after almost killing Haleigh--still has his job. The DSS state jobber who oversaw Haleigh still has her job, and children in her care today. The DSS stooge in charge of Rebecca is no doubt visiting children right now.

How many children do you have to kill before somebody loses their state paycheck? Under Mitt Romney, we learned (sadly) that the answer to that question is "more than one."

Governor Patrick, at DSS it really IS time for a change.

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

From The James Brown "Good News" Wire

It's the economy (and it's great), stupid!

Blinding You With "Science"--UPDATE

The media love the global warming panic for all the obvious reasons: It sells papers, it makes Al Gore look smart, and the proposed solution to climate change is a direct assault on capitalism.

The media and the loony lefties who want to cripple our economy also love never having to debate the issue. As soon as you ask a question about "global warming," Senate Democrats and editorial page editors declate "the debate is over!" And since it's over, there's no reason to explain why, for example, the earth hasn't evidenced any measurable warming AT ALL over the past five years.

C'mon, people! Al Gore says we've got to get Manhattan under water by the year 2100! Five years of no warming is NOT going to get the job done!

The fact is, most global warming alarmists simply aren't capable of debating the issue. They will point to evidence that supports their panic--which is fine--but they blindly ignore any and all facts that question it. No wonder there's a "consensus." The University of Alabama under George Wallace had the same "consensus" about college admissions, too.

The three things that global warming alarmists will not discuss:

1--How lousy we are at predicting our future climate.

2--How little human activity impacts that future.

3--How expensive the alarmists' proposals are, and how little impact they are likely to have on the global climate.

If you're a Chicken Little climate kook, I challenge you to do just one thing: Read the following articles by
George Will Mark Steyn and the Wall Street Journal . They're not scientific abstracts, they don't try to blind you with obscure debates about surface temperature vs. atmospheric temperature, etc.

Instead, they ask common sense questions that any rational person should answer before suggesting that we intentionally lower our GDP and put at least 5 million people out of work.

That's right: 5 million jobless Americans to drive the global temperature down 0.5 degrees over the next hundred years. Maybe. If we're lucky. And that temperature may go up or down anyway. We just don't know. Are you really willing to fire 5 million people over that?

This is the conversation about global warming the media NEVER covers: the cost. The "natural truth" is that, if the price of this climate crap shoot were a few billion a year, a few bucks on the monthly energy bill, etc. etc., there would be no debate. Just about everyone would say "better safe than sorry."

But it's not. Because human beings generate just 2% or so of greenhouse gases, we have to have dramatic reductions to have any measurable impact at all. The Kyoto number is a 5% decline in economic activity. We can't just lower future emissions (which America is already doing, thank you) or hold steady. We have to reduce our emissions 20 years from now back to what they were nearly 20 years ago. That means power plants have to CLOSE. Industries must shut down. Cars must be parked....all while our population and economy are growing.

The only way to get there--assuming we don't invent a machine that magically transforms carbon into car-powering fuel cells--is to either get rid of people or jobs. 100 million workers, less 5%, is 5 million non-productive, non-energy-consuming, non-emitting citizens.

We're not sure there's a problem. We're not sure we're causing the problem. We're not sure we can fix the problem, and you're willing to bet 5 million jobs on it?

There's a word for this position that even the blondest of weatherbabes can understand: Insane.

UPDATE: Here's another excellent overview of the global warming scare from MIT's Richard Lindzen.

Saturday, February 03, 2007

Overreaction? WHAT Overreaction?

Friday, February 02, 2007

To Act, Or Over React

That is--or rather, should be--the question facing the citizens of Boston today. As the echoes of laughter from every other major urban center in America slowly begin to fade, we'd like to believe they're laughing with us. They're not.

And so, having been humilated in public, needlessly spending $1 million to fight of the terrorist scourge of children's toys in public places, Boston's leaders are reacting with anger in their attempt to cover up their embarrassment. The Boston media--who also look pretty foolish in their crazed, over-the-top coverage--are happily stoking that anger by forwarding Mayor Menino's argument that the ONLY city that handled the Lite Brite Invasion correctly was his own.

The mayor and the media make their defenses in many different ways, but the argument is essentially the one offered by Paul Martinek in the
Boston Herald today: "I'm not sure there is such a thing as overreacting in this day and age."

In other words, the only appropriate reaction is OVER reaction.

According to Police Commissioner Ed Davis, appearing on FOX25 this morning, people like myself who are critical of the city's reaction wanted the cops to do nothing. He and the Mayor live in a binary universe where either a) “we’re not going to show up at these calls," as Commissioner Davis put it; or b) we're going to shut down the Charles River over an unattended D cell battery.

This is nonsense. There was clearly another option, one chosen by the other nine cities where these "devices" were on display.

You investigate them. You check them out. You discover that they are completely and utterly harmless. You DON'T shut down entire interstate highways over a device the size of a family portrait picture frame. You DON'T hold panicky press conferences hours after you've blown one of the "devices" up.

And, having realized that you've stuck your foot right in it, you don't become the only city affected to throw people in jail.

Somewhere between no reaction and idiotic over-reaction is the normal person's reaction. It was on display in Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles and even terror-stricken New York City.

If you think Boston reacted the right way, then obviously you think these other cities got it wrong, that their leaders screwed up. If you lived in Austin, TX or San Francisco, you'd be outraged today that the terrorist hoaxters in your city weren't in jail, dammit!

And yet, they're not. The cops in Chicago talked to the local "guerrilla marketers" and let them go. In at least three cities, the cops haven't even bothered to track the "devices" down.

So, do you think the people in New York and LA are really bummed out that THEY didn't spend an hour stuck in traffic or trapped on a stopped subway train? Do you think the taxpayers in Portland and Seattle wish they had blown a million bucks chasing Lite Brites on Wednesday?

Or do you think they're thinking their lucky stars that their mayor isn't named Menino?

UPDATE: Check out
Jack Bauer vs. The Lite Brites.

1-31-07: Never Forget

I know I never will. Boston, this was our moment.