No, not Al Gore.

Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.

Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.

His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.

Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.

But this father of a movement has some scolding for his children. In a previous interview, he noted, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” This was in acknowledgement of the fact that global temperatures just haven’t gone up the way the computer models predicted. Acknowledging that error is certainly a step in the right direction, but let’s not forget that the massive drain on our economy that Greens the world over would have wanted to implement based on those flawed models would have made this recession even worse.

Now, he’s not renouncing man-made global warming, but he is asking folks who do agree with him to just calm down a bit and look at some realities. His advice?

• He’s for more nuclear power and natural gas "fracking".
• Ratchet back the whole green "religion" guilting.
• Modern economies will not be powered by windmills and "so-called ‘sustainable development’." That is "meaningless drivel".
• No, the science isn’t settled. That’s not how science works.

Read the whole thing.

Just the higher-profile ones.

The Arizona Immigration Law: The court struck down 3 of the 4 provisions, and upheld the portion that requires police to check the immigratio status of someone they think is here illegally. However…

The court struck down these provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers, making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.

Governor Jan Brewer is trying to put the best face on it, by saying:

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens,” Gov. Brewer said in a statement. “After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.”

This, however, isn’t necessarily the end of the road for legal challenges of this particular provision, and the Justices said as much. So the governor is really trying to do damage control.

I understand that we don’t necessarily want 50 different standards on immigration to this country, but the federal government, in picking and choosing what laws it will enforce, forces states to do the job that the people’s representatives said the Fed ought to be doing. Arizona may have overstepped its constitutional authority somewhat, but I expect (I hope) that this will get the people to start electing a federal government that will indeed enforce the laws that are passed.

No automatic life without parole for juveniles: This does not mean that life without parole entirely; only that states cannot impose that penalty automatically for certain crimes. The liberal justices said it was "cruel and unusual", the conservatives ones said, "Neither the text of the Constitution or our precedent prohibits legislatures from requiring that juvenile murderers be sentenced to life without parole." Tough call. Constitutionally, can see both sides, but in practice, it does seem that life for a minor without the possibility of parole is very harsh. But since the ruling does allow it for individual cases, I can get behind it.

Rejects corporate spending limits: This was basically a reaffirmation of the Citizens United case from 2010, but saying that it applies to the states as well. Corporations have interests in how elections go, and should be allowed to contribute to issue-oriented campaigns. Restricting speech, especially political speech, is a slippery slope away from government accountability. Money is a corrupting influence in Washington, no doubt, but that’s mostly what politicians can do with taxpayer money. Political speech, should it be restricted by Washington, could make it more corrupt, since it would then get to decide what others say about them. The solution to bad speech is more good speech, not curtailing all speech.

Coming Thursday, the big ObamaCare ruling. Expect a frenzy around 10am Eastern Time on Thursday.

When I set up the post category hierarchy originally (see the Categories box over there?), I put Mormonism under Christianity because, while it may be considered to have many serious errors according to most Christian denominations, I figured it was the best place to put it since they use the Christian Old and New Testaments (or at least their version of them) as one of their foundational scriptures. Justin Taylor, however, pointed out a New York Times opinion piece by a devout Mormon who insists that he is "emphatically not a Christian".

Now, what the writer means by "Christian" varies between a theological definition and a cultural one. Taylor deals with some of the points in the article, but then goes on to describe some of the key differences between Mormonism and historic Christianity. I think it’s a good start at understanding the religion of the likely Republican nominee for President.

And as clarification, while I think that a candidate’s religion is fair game for scrutiny during an election, it is mostly as a gauge to understand how he may act politically. I’m not electing a national pastor; I’m electing a political leader. To the degree that his religion affects his politics and policies, I think it’s worth understanding. However, this particular examination of the Mormonism is for the purposes of understanding it as a religion; disassociated from politics. Just an FYI.

Indeed, I’ve been blogging for a decade. Couldn’t believe it when I went to find out how long for this post. It’s been fun and interesting, though, even if most of my readers have been either friends or the occasional visitor whom Google sent my way.

But there’s something else I’ve dipped my toe into a couple of times; podcasting. Audio programs that you can either subscribe to (usually with iTunes, but there are others programs for that) or just listen to them on their web page. In both cases, I didn’t have to deal with all the elements of the entire process (web site, getting the proper subscription feeds set up, writing and producing the show, etc.), I was just responsible for some portions and someone else dealt with the other details.

But since the end of Shire Network News, I’ve really wanted to get back into it. So I’ve made the plunge and started this new experiment.

Setting it up has taken some time, which is why I haven’t been posting much to the blog in the past couple of weeks, but I don’t intend to give that up. In fact, reading current events and coming up with blog posts has been the main source of material, such that I have 3 episodes written, and one that is now available.

In iTunes. I’m actually listed in iTunes. How cool is that?

And so begins “Consider This!”, a political and cultural opinion podcast that I want to be more of a dialog than just a monologue. Click here to go to the website for the show, where you can play the episodes right on the web page, or subscribe to it via iTunes or your “podcatcher” of choice. You can also contact me in a number of ways; comments on a particular episode, e-mail, and Twitter. I’ve set this up so that this show could be one of a number of different shows in the “Consider This! Podcasting” network, but for now, it’s just the one.

Let’s see what happens.

I say "uncool" only so that I don’t get accused of racism by the Congressional Black Caucus.

Angela Rye, Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus, argued that President Obama has struggled during his first term due to racially-motivated opposition from conservatives who dislike having a black president.

"This is probably the toughest presidential term in my lifetime," Rye said during CSPAN’s Q&A yesterday. "I think that a lot of what the president has experienced is because he’s black. You know, whether it’s questioning his intellect or whether or not he’s Ivy League. It’s always either he’s not educated enough or he’s too educated; or he’s too black or he’s not black enough; he’s too Christian or not Christian enough. There are all these things where he has to walk this very fine line to even be successful."

She said that "a lot" of conservative opposition is racially-charged, citing the use of the word "cool" in an attack ad launched by Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS superPAC.

"There’s an ad, talking about [how] the president is too cool, [asking] is he too cool? And there’s this music that reminds me of, you know, some of the blaxploitation films from the 70s playing in the background, him with his sunglasses," Rye said. "And to me it was just very racially-charged. They weren’t asking if Bush was too cool, but, yet, people say that that’s the number one person they’d love to have a beer with. So, if that’s not cool I dont know what is.

She added that "even ‘cool,’ the term ‘cool,’ could in some ways be deemed racial [in this instance]."

The definition of what is racist just keeps changing too fast for me to keep up. Doesn’t Ms. Rye remember how Bill Clinton was called a "rock star"? Would calling Obama that also be racist? I’m honestly asking, because I have no idea what is and isn’t permissible these days.

This is just another example of every, single disagreement with the President being turned into a racial incident.

Israel’s Prime Minister lays out the case.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it accurately recently in an American TV interview. He said that the world holds Israel to a "triple standard." Not a double standard, but a triple standard. He explained that there is one standard for the world’s dictatorships, a second standard for the world’s democracies, and a third standard for Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu added that the "triple standard" for Israel has meant that Israel does not have the right to defend itself from all the terrorists and rocket attacks hurled against them over the years by their Arab Muslim neighbors.  Netanyahu went on to say that the world would never expect any dictatorship or democracy to “show restraint” had they been the victims of more than 12,000 explosive rockets and missile attacks having been continually hurled across their borders by terrorists killing and maiming thousands of innocent civilians.

"What would the democracies do if 12,000 rockets were fired into their land?" he asked. "They would undoubtedly defend themselves and retaliate if more than one rocket hit them. But when Israel wants to defend itself, we are accused of being the villains, rather then the victims." He added, "No other nation would tolerate that."

Honestly, what other country gets held to the Israeli standard when it comes to defending themselves?

“I would not have you exchange the gold of individual Christianity for the base metal of Christian Socialism.” – Charles Spurgeon. He had quite a bit to say on economic and political issues of the day, applicable to that day and this.

For those still blaming Bush for our economic situation, Paul Mirengoff reminds us that the housing  market collapse was the main cause of it, and the Bush administration tried to keep it from happening. Democrats would have none of that.

"The New York Police Department, the mayor and the city’s top prosecutors on Monday endorsed a proposal to decriminalize the open possession of small amounts of marijuana…." But the real scourge, Big Gulps, will not be tolerated.

A cautionary tale about hyper-partisanship.

Remember those advertisers that left the Limbaugh show after his remarks about Sandra Fluke? One big one tried to come crawling back, and Limbaugh just said No.

The Obama administration is against voter ID laws, but Michelle Obama herself required IDs to get a book signed. Irony. Meter. Pegging.

Austerity works, when it’s actually implemented. Just ask the European country who’s economy outpaced the average growth in the euro-zone by 500%, and has the only budget surplus there.

Obama actually was a member of a socialist political party while in Chicago. Stanley Kurtz of National Review has the documentation. Where was the mainstream media on this 4 years ago?

In case you heard otherwise, no, the Boy Scouts are not changing their policy on gay scouts and scout leaders.

A restaurant owner can’t refuse to serve people based on their race or gender. It is considered a public business. But how about a photographer? Not just one with a studio open to the public, but one who you would hire to come out and photograph your wedding?

A New Mexico judge now says that they can no longer pick and choose which weddings they will work at.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A professional photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple’s commitment ceremony violated state anti-discrimination laws, the New Mexico Court of Appeals has ruled.

The court on Thursday agreed with a previous ruling, in which a district court judge said the photo studio is considered public, similar to a restaurant or store, and cannot refuse service based on sexual orientation, the Albuquerque Journal reported (http://bit.ly/JSAdE5 ). The photography studio had argued that its refusal was not an act of discrimination but a reflection of the owners’ religious and moral beliefs.

The state (New Mexico here, but all over the country) is trying to freeze out businesses that don’t toe the liberal line. Catholic adoption agencies who have the same religious objection, in many places, now have to either violate their principles or shut down to avoid lawsuits. Now we have photographers who have to do much the same thing. Sensing a trend here?

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Washington, D.C.-based legal alliance of Christian attorneys and others that represented the studio, plans to appeal. Elane Photography argued that it provided discretionary, unique and expressive services that aren’t a public accommodation under the Human Rights Act.

The studio asked hypothetically whether an African-American photographer would be required to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

The court responded: “The Ku Klux Klan is not a protected class. Sexual orientation, however, is protected.”

So, you have human rights only if you’re one of the classes with special rights. Don’t we always hear how homosexuals just want equal rights, not special rights? Watch what they do, however. If you’re a Christian photographer, you can now be targeted, even if there is a photographer right next door who is more accommodating and doesn’t have the same moral qualms. This is fair?

Yeah, haven’t posted in a while. I’ve been working on another side project that may or may not pan out. We’ll see. In the meantime, it’s time to play some catch-up on the wrap-up.

No, I don’t believe Obama was born in Kenya, but he certainly let that image get out years ago, and only recently stopped that. As late as 2004, even the Associated Press was referring to "Kenyan-born" Barack Obama. Laugh all you want at the birthers, but they at least had this sort of thing to back them up (for a while).

The Family Research Council has a count of the number of states that have legislated against same-sex marriage. Depending on how you choose what kind of legislation (law, constitutional amendment, etc.), the number changes, but here’s the biggie. "Number of states which currently (May 2012) grant marriage licenses only for unions of one man and one woman:   44" Remember that when you see polls about what people supposedly think about it.

And don’t try to press Martin Luther King into service to that particular cause. He followed his religion in this regard.

“The Iranian nation is standing for its cause that is the full annihilation of Israel.” Their words.

Civility Watch: "Union Leader Takes Bat to Pinata Depicting Gov. Nikki Haley (R-S.C.)"

Michael J. Fox realizes that stem cells, as good as they are, were never some magic cure-all.

Advances in the war:

A record-low 41 percent now identify themselves as “pro-choice,” down from 47 percent last July and 1 percentage point down from the previous record low of 42 percent, set in May 2009. As recently as 2006, 51 percent of Americans described themselves as “pro-choice.”

And speaking of the war, the actual, physical war on women by Planned Parenthood gets exposed by hidden camera videos. Predictably, the media yawns.

Further, "Congressional Black Caucus Upset By Pro-Life Black Americans". Those tolerant folks.

The Washington Post took 20 years to realize that Dan Quayle’s argument against the TV show Murphy Brown was right. It took Candace Bergen 10 years herself. And of course some of us knew that from the beginning.

And finally, oh, that liberal media.

One person can’t comment on every idea, or every person expressing an idea, which sometimes causes others (who’s particular axe to grind wasn’t touched on by a particular blogger) to say that someone is "strangely silent" on the matter. Sometimes that charge is warranted, especially when the target has been vociferously vocal on the subject in general.

I recently participated in a blog comment thread noting that the same Democrats and pundits, who have been extremely vocal about a supposed Republican "war on women", have been silent on the actual war on women that goes on worldwide, usually in Islamic countries. As I’ve said many times, for the Left, it’s always political. Principle, when it shows up, usually takes a back seat.

Today, however, I want to publicly state that a particular opinion, expressed by a Baptist pastor, is most certainly not what I believe, and am totally against this expression even though I suspect my opinion on the overarching topic is the same as this pastor. I can’t catch every situation like this, but this particular expression has gone viral and needs to be addressed.

A North Carolina pastor’s supposedly vehement anti-gay sermon is making its way around the blogosphere. According to a YouTube description, the man depicted in the clip is named Charles L. Worley and he is the faith leader at Providence Road Baptist Church in the town of Maiden. In his address, the faith leader discussed, among other themes, “a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers.”

In the two-minute video, which appears to be a portion taken from a longer sermon, Worley condemns Obama’s recent endorsement of gay marriage, and makes a shocking statement about homosexuals — that they should be placed inside of an electrified pen until they die off. Call his words mere hyperbole or pure hate — at the least, taken in the minimal context they’re presented in, they are stunning.

“Build a great, big, large fence — 150 or 100 mile long — put all the lesbians in there,” he said in the sermon, which was allegedly filmed on May 13. “Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out…and you know what, in a few years, they’ll die out…do you know why? They can’t reproduce!”

While both Pastor Worley and I likely have the same view of homosexuality (i.e. that God considers such acts a sin), this is awful, mean-spirited, and unbecoming of a Pastor, let alone a Christian. I find it completely against the idea that we should love the sinner, even if we hate the sin. How does this build up the kingdom of God?

It doesn’t, and should be condemned. I do condemn it.

Chris Matthews, a Catholic Democrat, isn’t sure, at least about the bishops, and neither was Sister Simone Campbell, executive director at the National Catholic Social Justice Lobby. While discussing the requirements that the Catholic Church must provide insurance for contraception (against its teachings), Matthews asked if the bishops were all aligned with a certain political party, based on their views on this.

MATTHEWS: Do you think they’re all Republican, the bishops?

CAMPBELL: I don’t know if they’re all Republican, but it sure seems that they’re speaking from the, the playbook, sort of possibly as surrogates for the Republican Party, I don’t know. But they certainly are engaged in politics that seem much more aligned with the Right.

Noel Sheppard, covering this for NewsBusters, comes up with the numbers regarding Catholics and political party.

Catholics in this country historically have been solidly Democratic, although this has waned in recent years.

As EWTN News reported in February, a 2011 Pew study found 48 percent of Catholics surveyed said they were Democrat or Democrat-leaning compared to 43 percent claiming to be Republican or Republican-leaning.

As such, it seems absurd to think all Catholic bishops are Republican.

So no, the Pope isn’t necessarily Republican, but he is Catholic. Matthews ought to know that. But for the Left, everything is political. Even religion.

From CNS News, the gauntlet has been thrown down.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, and 42 other Catholic dioceses and organizations around the country announced on Monday that they are suing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for violating their freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The dioceses and organizations, in different combinations, are filing 12 different lawsuits filed in federal courts around the country.

The suits focus on the regulation that Sebelius announced last August and finalized in January that requires virtually all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, including those that can cause abortions.

The Catholic Church teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong and that Catholics should not be involved in them. Thus, the regulation would require faithful Catholics and Catholic organizations to act against their consciences and violate the teachings of their faith.

Earlier, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had called the regulation an "unprecedented attack on religious liberty" and asked the Obama administration to rescind it.

“We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress–and we’ll keep at it–but there’s still no fix," Cardinal Dolan, who is also president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a statement released by the conference this morning.

Mitt Romney, a real community organizer.

Record-breaking attendance at Canada’s March for Life. Over 19,000 people participated. Support is growing.

Around the world, Obama has become something of a disappointment. He talked a good game, but was a bit short on follow-through.

However, the President has certainly had his share of ‘firsts’ while in office. Doug Ross enumerates 3 dozen of them.

If you personally know thieves that otherwise live their lives with "goodness and holiness", does that mean thieving is, therefore, condoned? This press release from the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, DC seems to suggest that.

RIP OWS. We hardly knew you (and I think you hardly knew yourself).

After being voted down unanimously in the House, Obama’s budget is unanimously voted down in the Senate. One word: Leadership.

An admission that environmentalists sat on their hands during the BP oil spill because Obama was in the White House. Again, for the Left, it’s always political. Principle always gets the back seat.

And finally, what’s next to "evolve"? (Click for a larger version.)

Rarely do you get a pair of situations so similar at the same point in time that allows you to compare and contrast the policies used to deal with it. But we have one with California and New Jersey.

In his January 2011 inaugural address, California Gov. Jerry Brown declared it a "time to honestly assess our financial condition and make the tough choices." Plainly the choices weren’t tough enough: Mr. Brown has just announced that he faces a state budget deficit of $16 billion—nearly twice the $9.2 billion he predicted in January. In Sacramento Monday, he coupled a new round of spending cuts with a call for some hefty new tax hikes.

In his own inaugural address back in January 2010, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie also spoke of making tough choices for the people of his state. For his first full budget, Mr. Christie faced a deficit of $10.7 billion—one-third of projected revenues. Not only did Mr. Christie close that deficit without raising taxes, he is now plumping for a 10% across-the-board tax cut.

It’s not just looks that make Mr. Brown Laurel to Mr. Christie’s Hardy. It’s also their political choices.

Each had a huge deficit going in, but New Jersey is coming out of this looking far, far better than California.

Hard economic times bring their own lessons. Though few have been spared the ravages of the last recession and the sluggish recovery, those in states where taxes are light, government lives within its means, and the climate is friendly to investment have learned the value of the arrangement they have. They are not likely to give it up.

Meanwhile, leaders in some struggling states have taken notice. They know the road to fiscal hell is paved with progressive intentions. The question regarding the sensible ones is whether they have the will and wherewithal to impose the reforms they know their states need on the interest groups whose political and economic clout is so closely tied with the public purse.

The same goes for the next presidential election.

In Europe, it is supposedly "austerity" measures that are killing their economy. Now, let me ask you this, does this look like austerity to you?

No, me neither. And yet ballot after ballot in Europe is turning out those who pushed for fiscal responsibility. When you’re in a hole, especially a financial one, stop digging. Call Dave Ramsey and cut up your credit card. But experiments with socialism always sound like the Pied Piper, until the bill comes due. By then, everyone is addicted to the "freebies" and there’s no turning back.

Austerity is the answer, but liberal economists always seem to think that government spending is the answer, not the problem, and that austerity leads to all sorts of problems. Except that, when the United States tried it, against the liberal naysayers’ warnings, it worked.

This is what austerity looks like.

After the huge spending during World War II, the US got seriously austere, with regards to government spending. What happened?

Superstar economist and devout Keynesian Paul Samuelson—later to become the first American to win the Nobel Prize in economics—predicted such shock austerity would cause “the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced.” That dire, disastrous prediction was widely held by his fellow Keynesians, with one even predicting an “epidemic of violence.”

Except the doomsayers were wrong, even though Washington obviously ignored Samuelson’s call for gradual spending reductions. Despite cuts which dwarfed those seen in the EU today—not to mention those Republicans are calling for here at home—the U.S. economy thrived. There was no mass unemployment despite rapid demobilization of the armed forces.

(Yeah, another Keynesian, Nobel-prize-winning economist predicted doom. How much more of a parallel with Paul Krugman do you need?)

Don’t say that austerity won’t work, when you haven’t really tried it, and it’s worked in the past.