News

Global warming supporter James Cameron backs out of debate

2 Comments

Here’s a letter from one of the people who wanted to debate Cameron. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

Cameron said was itching to debate the issue and show skeptical journalists and scientists that they were wrong.

“I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads,” he said in an interview.

Well, a few weeks ago Mr. Cameron seemed to honor his word.

His representatives contacted myself and two other well known skeptics, Marc Morano of the Climate Depot website and Andrew Breitbart, the new media entrepreneur.

Mr. Cameron was attending the AREDAY environmental conference in Aspen Colorado 19-22 August. He wanted the conference to end with a debate on climate change. Cameron would be flanked with two scientists. It would be 90 minutes long. It would be streamed live on the internet.

They hoped the debate would attract a lot of media coverage.

“We are delighted to have Fox News, Newsmax, The Washington Times and anyone else you’d like. The more the better,” one of James Cameron’s organizers said in an email.

It looked like James Cameron really was a man of his word who would get to take on the skeptics he felt were so endangering humanity.

Everyone on our side agreed with their conditions. The debate was even listed on the AREDAY agenda.

But then as the debate approached James Cameron’s side started changing the rules.

They wanted to change their team. We agreed.

They wanted to change the format to less of a debate—to “a roundtable”. We agreed.

Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage. We agreed.

Bizarrely, for a brief while, the worlds most successful film maker suggested that no cameras should be allowed-that sound only should be recorded. We agreed

Then finally James Cameron, who so publicly announced that he “wanted to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out,” decided to ban the media from the shoot out.

He even wanted to ban the public. The debate/roundtable would only be open to those who attended the conference.

No media would be allowed and there would be no streaming on the internet.  No one would be allowed to record it in any way.

We all agreed to that.

And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an email that Mr. “shoot it out ” Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was cancelled.

I think this should give anyone who believes in global warming because of Al Gore and James Cameron pause. If they won’t debate (Al Gore ducked out of a debate, as well), then why should you believe them? Isn’t it a good idea to be open-minded when searching for truth – to listen to experts on both sides? One of the reasons why Christians like being Christians so much these days is because we have all of these amazing debaters with multiple-PhDs. Isn’t it better to hold your opinions a bit more humbly and to be aware of what the other side can say against your side?

News

Palin-endorsed tea party candidate up 51-49 in Alaska

4 Comments

Story here.

Excerpt:

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski fought to save her job Wednesday, locked in a stunningly tight Republican primary race against a political novice backed by Sarah Palin and tea party activists. The outlook was far brighter for another incumbent, Sen. John McCain, who won handily in Arizona.

With 98 percent of election day precincts counted, Murkowski trailed Joe Miller by 1,960 votes out of more than 91,000 counted. The race was too close to call, with as many as 16,000 absentee votes and an undetermined number of provisional or questioned ballots, remaining to be counted starting on Aug. 31.

Murkowski would be the seventh incumbent — and fourth Republican — to lose in a year in which the tea party has scored huge victories in GOP Senate primaries and voters have shown a willingness to punish Republicans and a handful of Democrats with ties to Washington and party leadership. Miller is a Gulf War veteran and self-described “constitutional conservative.”

It also was an outsider’s night in Florida’s GOP primary for governor, with big-spending upstart Rick Scott toppling veteran insider Bill McCollum, the state’s attorney general who had the support of national party chiefs.

Lisa Murkowski is pro-abortion and fairly moderate.

And of course we won in Florida, but there the establishment Republican was not as bad. Still – new blood means new ideas. It will encourage the Republicans to keep doing what they’re doing and to be bold.

News

Ontario man arrested for defending his home with a firearm

18 Comments
Political Map of Canada

From the Winnipeg Free Press. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

A Port Colborne, Ont., man whose home was attacked has ended up facing charges himself.

Niagara Regional Police say a man emerged from his home with a handgun and fired it after several Molotov cocktails were thrown at the home.

Police say three suspects wearing dark clothes got away in a car after the cocktails were thrown early Sunday morning.

There is nothing to suggest any of them were injured when the gun was fired.

By the time police and firefighters arrived, the homeowner had already doused several small fires and damage to the home was minimal.

Ian Thomson, 53, is charged with careless use of a firearm.

The point is that this is yet another step in undermining the traditional roles of men as being protectors and providers and moral leaders in their homes. Men are viewed as being unreliable because the responsible men are being passed over by young unmarried women, and when things don’t work out, they turn to government. It’s another step in the long march to turn men into immature wallets and sperm-donors who have no role in the family at all and just work at menial jobs, drink beer, watch sports, and sit around on the couch, while all-female arrangements (or the government-run day care system) raise the children.

What are the traditional roles for men?

Provider

Every time that the government taxes a man and redistributes his wealth, it removes the need for a man who can provide, and so women don’t have to choose good men to be providers. And that removes the responsibility of making good choices about men from a women. Moreover, if there is no father needed because the government pays for everything, then women don’t get the benefit of having a man to moderate them (which works in reverse, of course), and to help them to raise the children to have moral standards and a sense of accountability. The man gets the authority to do these things by being the primary breadwinner. Democrat dream programs like nationalized day care only marginalize men even more.

Protector

Every time the government passes restrictions on home defense with legally owned firearms, and even worse, on concealed-carry of firearms, it takes away the need for a woman to choose a man who is able and willing to protect his family. If a woman doesn’t have to depend on her husband to protect her (as a last resort), then she doesn’t have to court carefully and choose a man who has protective instincts, no criminal record, and who has a legally-owned firearm and the freedom to use it to defend her and the children. (Note: women should have concealed-carry permits and firearms, too – there is no difference between men and women here, both have to defend the nest and the chicks)

Moral/spiritual leader

Every time the government passes restrictions on smacking, school choice, mandatory sex education, etc., or undermines morality and religion in any other way, it undermines the role of the father as spiritual and moral leader, and makes it less important for a woman to choose a man who will be the spiritual and moral leader in the home. She won’t have to court as carefully, because it’s now the government’s job to educate the children on morality and spirituality. And the government will be there to undermine anything he does tell the kids with public schools, speech codes, etc.

The point of this is to show what happens when men and women vote for bigger and bigger government to provide more and more things. If women have sex with men too early and then develop the view that they are unreliable, then they vote for bigger government for security, then government will take over traditional male responsibilities. Similarly, the worst kind of lazy, cowardly, ignorant men will freely abdicate their obligations to work hard so that they can share with their neighbors and lead families. My point is to show how this can be be sped up or slowed down based on the policies people vote it. If you want men to have a BIGGER role in the family, then get rid of the safety net, cut taxes, and stop the courts and the police from penalizing men for acting like… men. You get the men you vote for. So vote wisely!