Ah, what a wonderous thing is global warming – it even causes glaciers:

The glaciers on Mount Shasta in California are growing because of global warming, experts say.

“When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking,” said Slawek Tulaczyk, a University of California, Santa Cruz, professor who studied the glaciers.

But the seven glaciers on Shasta, part of the Cascade mountains in northern California, “seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean,” he said.

As the ocean warms, more moisture evaporates. As moisture moves inland, it falls as snow — enough on Shasta to more than offset a 1 C temperature rise in the past century.

The three smallest of the Shasta glaciers are more than twice the length they were in 1950.

Other glaciers in Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and Pakistan were in the same position as Shasta, but are now shrinking because rising temperatures have more than offset the increased snowfall.

Of course, they go on to say that 90% of the world’s glaciers are shrinking – which sounds like a made-up stat simply because most glaciers are in pretty inaccessible areas and thus can’t be measured and, more importantly, haven’t really been measured for any length of time which would permit us to say, definitively, that Glacier A is getting smaller overall than it used to be.

But is there anything that global warming can’t be used for? I heard on the radio the other day that global warming is causing a rise in kidney stones…I fully expect that global warming will eventually be blamed for literally everything…and the coolest thing about it is that no matter what happens, the global warming zealots can say it proves they are right…glaciers shrinking? Global warming. Glaciers growing? Global warming…and no fair pointing out that is some are growing and some are shrinking, wouldn’t this tend to indicate a cyclical nature of our climate rather than a theory that we’re all gonna die unless we listen to Al Gore?

Can’t say it any clearer than this:

Over the last year, Senator Obama and I were part of a great debate about the war in Iraq. Both of us agreed the Bush administration had pursued a failed strategy there and that we had to change course. Where Senator Obama and I disagreed, fundamentally, was what course we should take. I called for a comprehensive new strategy — a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible.

Today we know Senator Obama was wrong. The surge has succeeded. And because of its success, the next President will inherit a situation in Iraq in which America’s enemies are on the run, and our soldiers are beginning to come home. Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy…

…In wartime, judgment and experience matter. In a time of war, the commander-in-chief doesn’t get a learning curve. If I have that privilege, I will bring to the job many years of military and political experience; experience that gave me the judgment necessary to make the right call in Iraq a year and half ago. I supported the surge because I believed it was our only realistic chance to reverse the disaster our previous strategy had caused, and the right thing to do for our country. And although events have proven me right, my position wasn’t popular at the time, and I risked my own political ambitions when I took it. When I tell you, I will put our country’s interests — your interests — before party; before any special interest; before my own interests, every hour of every day I’m in office, you can believe me. Because for my entire adult life, in war and peace, nothing has ever been more important to me than the se curity and well-being of the country I love. Thank you.

Obama was wrong about the surge – there is no way around that. More than his being wrong, however, there is now his rank dishonesty – his claims that he didn’t say the surge would fail, his Orwellian excising of his old Iraq position from his website, his attempts to spin himself into an architect of victory when he was singing the siren song of defeatism for the past 18 months. A dishonest man who can’t come up with the right solution – this is not the sort of man we want as President.

John McCain promises us that he’ll put country before everything – and we have the absolute proof that he’ll do that. He really did jump out in front of nearly everyone – including the President – in advocating one of the most unpopular acts our government has ever undertaken, and it worked…and our nation, and the world, is better off for it. All honor to those who saw the way clearly – and let us leave those who wanted to surrender in the dark recesses of our national memory, not elevated to the most powerful office in the world.

Pretty stark:

A new Gallup Poll claims to show that registered voters who say religion is important in their lives tend to support presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain by a margin of 50 to 40 percent, while those who say religion is unimportant to their lives tend to support presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama by a margin of 55 to 36 percent.

About two-thirds of the registered voters surveyed by Gallup said that religion is important to them.

According to the Gallup Poll, which surveyed 95,000 registered voters from March through June 2008, the divide in voting preference is not confined to white Protestants but is manifested among non-Hispanic white Catholics as well.

Non-Hispanic white Catholics who say religion is important in their daily lives support McCain over Obama by 53 percent to 37 percent. Those who say religion is not important slightly favor Obama by a margin of 47 percent to 45 percent.

Hispanic Catholics, black non-Catholic Christians, and those who do not have a specific religious identity reportedly tend to support Barack Obama, but their support apparently is little affected by the importance of religion in their lives.

Hispanic Catholics who say religion is important in their lives support Obama over McCain 57 to 31, while those who say religion is not important support Obama by a margin of 63 to 30 percent.

Meanwhile, among the 12% of respondents who have no religious identity, Obama cleans up with 65% to McCain’s 26%. Obama will, of course, try to move some religious voters his way; McCain, meanwhile, will try to expand his appeal to religious voters…and the election may very well turn on just who shows up…believers, or unbelievers.

There is a sad note in this, however – we are, in many ways, a house divided against itself, just as we were in the 1850’s – and just as it was back then, we will not forever remain divided, but will become all one thing, or all the other. Our fervent hope, of course, is that the passions which divide us never lead us to view those who disagree as our enemies.

This election may settle a lot of things, one way or the other – an Obama Presidency would cement ultra-liberal control of the judiciary while the Obama plan to massively increase government may place such a large number of Americans on government dependency (in one form or another) that we’ll have an European style electorate wedded to welfare and unwilling – even at the cost of national destruction – to modify their demands. On the other hand, the election of McCain will cement a conservative majority in the judiciary, while McCain’s proposals to reign in government spending and end pork would get government further out of Americans’ lives, and thus retain in America that sense of independence which is one of the two mainstays of our national strength (the other is our continued strong religious belief, especially as relative to the rest of the western world).

It is a crucial election, and pettifogging complaints that the candidate isn’t pure on ideology are worse than stupid – for each side, to stand aside is to give up the fight, perhaps for good and all.

Looks like Barack Obama is taking some cues from Big Brother, by turning his website into his own Ministry of Truth:

Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.

“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks – not U.S. military muscle – for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.

It praises G.I.s’ “hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.”

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is “not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.”

Or, more accurate to reflect his flip flops and false predictions.

Too tired late on a Monday evening to put together a good morning thread. Have at it, boys and girls.

Deal Hudson writes an open letter to Prof. Doug Kmiec, a prominent Catholic who has endorsed Obama:

…Abortion, infanticide, and marriage — Obama’s positions on these issues alone make it impossible for me to support him. McCain, on the other hand, is reliable. His position on embryonic stem cells does not create equivalence between him and Obama on the life issue – the difference between the two candidates on life and marriage is stark.

I have noted, of course, your concern about the Iraq War. You argue that Catholic voters should reevaluate their support for President Bush, the GOP, and John McCain because of the war. You have come close to saying, but not quite, that support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq weakens any claim that Bush, McCain, or the GOP are closer to Catholic social teaching than the Democrats or Obama.

On this, once again, I cannot agree. President Bush has been the most committed pro-life president since Roe v. Wade. The abortion rate in the United States is at its lowest since 1974. The achievement of Bush and the GOP controlled Congress in limiting abortion cannot be offset by the Iraq War.

Whatever you think of the war, it is within the prudential prerogative of the president and the Congress, according to Church teaching, to make this decision (Catechism of the Catholic Church #2309). At the time of the invasion, Democrats as well as Republicans supported it.

There is no official Catholic position for or against the Iraq War…

…Some Catholics have argued that if Obama and McCain were compared on prudential matters only – health care, poverty, minimum wage, energy, taxes, immigration, national security, war & peace – Obama would be their choice. If Obama and McCain held exactly the same positions on abortion and marriage, I would still opt for McCain on prudential grounds, but that is not, I believe, where the argument lies.

The argument between us is about those positions the Church has taught should not be compromised by our political judgment. In all that you have written and said, I still have not found a compelling reason that justifies your public support for Barack Obama.

Much is made in Democratic attempts to woo Catholic voters about how Democrats care about the poor and in keeping with the “seamless garment” urged by the US Bishops on such matters, the fact of Democratic support for abortion rights pales in comparison to an alleged GOP disdain for the poor. This is an arguable point, but my contention is that the social spending Democrats wish to apply to poverty actually deepens poverty – it takes the suffering poor and makes them the parasitic, suffering poor. A brother or sister who needs a hand is magically transformed by the welfare State into a shiftless leech.

Given the failure of the Democrats’ poverty plans to actually alleviate poverty, we’re left then with the Democrats views on abortion, marriage and infanticide – without a counterbalancing reality of helping the poor, the evil of Democratic support for the Culture of Death is just that much more stark, and Obama’s fawning devotion to the most extreme of pro-abortion positions makes it impossible for me, as a Catholic, to ever consider casting a vote for him. It doesn’t at all surprise me that many Catholic Democrats are backing Obama – these are the same Catholics who yammer on about women priests, married priests, birth control and other positions in direct opposition to Church teaching. Its expected – but what wasn’t ever expected was someone like Kmiec falling for the Obama delusion.

In the end we all must do what we think is best – I hope that Kmiec has thought this through carefully and that his decision is based entirely upon his convictions about what is best for society in accordance with Church teaching. My conscience, instructed by our mutual faith, leads me to a very different conclusion, and I do wonder if any Catholic who fully considers everything in relation to the whole can really justify a vote for Obama.

Victor Davis Hanson notes the shrinking of Obama:

think McCain will incrementally continue to close the lead for four reasons:

The hope and change rock-start moments are waning, and replaced by a new Obama composite:

1) Obama flips in furious fashion; the only controversy is over when the mutations will stop, and how well he can convince his base that they are only cosmetic adjustments of limited duration necessary for election and the implementation of their shared European-like agenda.

2) Obama is proving messianic; all the lectures about fainting, the Brandenburg Gate, his new seal, open-air address in Denver, oceans receding, etc. are cementing a portrait of a megalomaniac. Almost everyone has by now “disappointed”, or “disrespected” Obama, or is not the fellow prophet that Obama “knew,” “remembers”, or “recalls”. His sermons on our SUVs, lack of language fluency, diet etc. are as hypocritical as they are sophomoric, and confirm Michelle’s summation of the rest of us as “unaware, uninformed.”

3) Obama is ruthless — the numbers of those thrown under the bus — Wright, his grandmother, Ms. Power, former aides — are now resembling speed bumps. This is not unusual in politics, but contradicts the Sermon on the Mount imagery, and confirms the past narrative of his take-no-prisoners political ambitions.

4) Obama has a poor grasp of history, geography, American culture, and common sense — whether the number or location of states in the Union, basic facts about WWII or where Arabic is spoken, or his sociological take on Pennsylvania, etc. His advisors realize this, and are playing 4th-quarter defense by keeping him out of ex tempore, non tele-prompted hope and change venues, where his shallowness can manifest itself in astonishing ways.

Hanson wisely goes on to note that Obama is still the favorite in Campaign ’08 – but it is clear that the bloom is off the rose. The big question is whether or not Obama’s handlers can keep him locked away from the electorate until November. If the election were held today, Obama would probably win – but the election is in November and Obama has nearly four months in which to continue stumbling from one gaffe to another. The key for McCain is to figure out a way to draw Obama out – either by goading him (he has a large amount of pride and might be snookered into going into an unfavorable venue with McCain) or by chipping away enough at Obama’s lead (which is already happening) to the point where Obama’s people understand that defeat looms and only a direct confrontation with McCain can possibly save the day.

What stuns the seasoned political observer is the vaporous nature of Obama – he’s really got nothing except a pretty good, set piece speaking style. I think we have to go back to the Wilke phenomena in 1940 (another political zero raised up as the next big thing) for a comparison. Every now and again in American politics someone comes along who is hailed as the saviour of a worn out America – the aforementioned Wilke, but also William Jennings Bryan, John Fremont…people who came out of nowhere to shake up American politics, only to be brought down to earth by the realities of life. We’ll see if Obama is different – but for him to be different he’s going to have to get down and dirty and fight this thing out like a man, not walk around like he’s already President-elect.

…but will Congress take the next step to lower gas prices?

President George W. Bush said today he’s lifting a presidential ban on drilling for oil and natural gas on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, setting up a showdown with Congress over a separate ban it put in place in the 1980s.

“Today I’ve taken every step within my power to allow offshore exploration of the OCS,” Bush said in a statement at the White House. “This means the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action by the U.S. Congress.”

Democratic leaders in both houses of Congress rejected the president’s call, saying the move to end the moratorium would have no effect on prices and better options are available.

The Democrats once again reveal their stupidity and their hypocrisy. Steny Hoyer, who has come out opposing Bush’s actions today, said the following last week:

Now, of course, bringing new resources to market might have, hopefully will have, and we want them to have a reduction in prices.

Why do Democrats want gas prices to stay high? They haven’t proposed anything to address the energy problems we’re facing… All they know how to do is blame Bush for want to do something to lower gas prices.

Isn’t this rich?

Green Party delegates have selected former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia as the party’s presidential nominee.

Ruth Weill, the party’s national convention coordinator, said the delegates selected McKinney as they wrapped up their national convention here on Saturday.

McKinney tapped Rosa Clemente, a hip-hop artist, journalist and activist, as her running mate.

The sad thing is, she’s more qualified than Barack Obama.

Think she’ll be invited to any debates?

We’re tied up in diplomatic knots with the Iraqi government over what to do regarding US forces in Iraq. As this news story notes, we’re not able to come to a complete agreement on how many troops will be in Iraq; for how long; where based; legal issues regarding the independent actions of US forces…pretty much the whole ball of wax, and so what is looked for now is a temporary arrangement to carry the US/Iraqi relations through from the end of the UN mandate on December 31st and the end of 2009. This, of course, will leave the final disposition of Iraq to President Bush’s successor. This means that whatever President Bush envisioned is at least partially set aside and that we don’t know for certain what a President McCain or Obama will do – its all rather up in the air. Here’s what I hope for:

1. A defensive military alliance with Iraq. This will have to be carefully scripted for Iraqi benefit vis a vis our alliance with Israel, but we’ll want an agreement that Iraq will maintain, at least, a benevolent neutrality should we engage in war with Iran, that Iraq will engage in no offensive combinations against Israel, and a right of US intervention should Iran ever attack Iraq. The Iraqi army should be re-equipped, as far as we can convince them to do so, on the American pattern and we should greatly encourage Iraqi military, air and naval officers to train in the United States. We’re trying to build a long-term friendship here.

2. At least two semi-permanent military installations with no more than 50,000 total US personnel based in Iraq – preferrably out in the middle of the Iraqi nowhere and up in Kurdistan. The idea here is two-fold. To provide a “trip wire” should either Iran or Turkey seek to upset the post-war Iraqi settlement and, of course, to secure the military purpose of going into Iraq at all – the ability to project American power into the heart of the middle east. I would still keep our primary miltiary focus on the Persian Gulf – with basing in Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates being far more important given (a) the relative weakness of these States and thus their dependence on a de-facto US protectorate against Iran and (b) our ability to keep major forces outside of the main Arab lands.

3. A bi-lateral free trade agreement.

4. A pledge of US diplomatic support for Iraq in all non-military conflicts with Syria, Iran and Turkey.

That would suffice because, remember, the ultimate point of liberating Iraq is to place into the middle east a functioning, democratic government able to sustain itself against internal and external threats…in the end, it doesn’t matter if the Iraqis vote against us, as long as they vote. The key to winning the War on Terrorism has always been in a free choice by the Arab people to renouce terrorism – and the only way to get that action is by setting up a system where Arabs can choose. Our bet, as it were, always has been that given a free and fair choice, the peoples of the Arab world will choose to live and build rather than kill and destroy.

Keep in mind that as we transition from war to peace in Iraq, there will be bumps in the road – the Iraqis, justifiably, will want to stand up to us and be seen by the world – especially the Arab world – as standing up to us. We must be patient – and always approach the Iraqi people with a sense of understanding for their desire to be proud of their own nation. It is their country – we are in the process of a noble act and nothing can take away from the United States the fact that we sent our best thousands of miles from home to fight for the liberty and dignity of a foreign people. Are reward is the knowledge that after a half century of playing the cynical game of real-politic, we finally went out as Americans and did the completely right thing.