Mars Experiences Ice Ages, Warming Periods

According to researchers published in the journal Nature, climate change on Mars may illuminate our understanding of climate change here on Earth:

In recent years extensive amounts of ice have been discovered below the surface of Mars. Much of the ice mysteriously survives far from the planet's poles. (Related photo: "'Frozen Sea' Seen on Mars [February 23, 2005].)

Schörghofer suggests that this ice is newer than previously believed.

"Earlier theories have tried to explain this ice with snowfall that would have happened some five million years ago [but struggle] to explain how that ice could have stayed there," Schörghofer said.

"I'm saying it didn't stay. It went away and then came back many, many times..."

Mars, like all planets, experiences small "wobbles" in its axis as it orbits the sun.

Such variations change the amount of sunlight falling on a planet's surface, which can cause major climate shifts, Schörghofer said.

Earth's wobbles, known as Milankovitch cycles, occur in 20,000- and 100,000-year periods and are thought to impact the waxing and waning of the planet's ice ages.

According to Schörghofer, this means both planets have an ice record that tracks the activity of the sun.

Given that we clearly do not entirely understand the nature of climate change here on our planet, does it hurt to wait 10 or 15 years to see if we develop a better understanding? Given the apparent dramatic effect on Mars of the sun and of Mars's own rotation, it's reasonable to look into whether the same is true of Earth. If it is, it could conceivably go a long way to understanding climate change here on our planet.

Giuliani & Thompson Tied

Can you imagine how Fred would be doing if he hadn't had what everyone considers to have been a truly terrible month or two?

The latest ARG poll has Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson tied nationally (change since August in parentheses):

Giuliani: 24% (-3)
Thompson: 23% (+7)
McCain: 14% (+1)
Romney: 9% (-7)

While Fred Thompson cuts into Rudy Giuliani (and reduces him to co-frontrunner status), I maintain he poses the biggest immediate threat to Mitt Romney — social conservatives no longer have to sign up with a "convert" from Massachusetts; they can now go with a more traditional southern conservative. Look at that 7-point drop; it could be a funny sample, or it could be something much more serious. Let's see how Mitt holds up in Iowa.

Jim Moran: Antisemite? (Chapter 74)

Do you get the sense that Jim Moran and Pat Buchanan swap stories over beer?

From the 'Takes One to Know One' File...

Madeline Albright says that George Bush must think we're all idiots:

'I mean, I think he must think we're all idiots," she exclaimed to laughter and applause from the crowd of about 200 at a community center in West Des Moines. Albright cited Bush's optimistic predictions of safety in Al Anbar province, as well as overestimations of support among coalition nations, as signs of Bush's unrealistic perceptions of the foreign policy "mess" in Iraq.

This is Madeline Albright, under whose leadership at State Department we may have passed up the chance to take Osama bin Laden off the hands of Sudan (depending on whom you believe).

It's Madeline Albright, who negotiated the 'deal' with North Korea to keep them from developing nuclear weapons, only to find that they cheated:

Signs of cheating were abundant by 2000. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright flew to Pyongyang that October to put lipstick on the pig. She offered dictator Kim Jong Il a relaxation of economic sanctions if he'd limit North Korea's missile development. Kim took those carrots too, but kept building missiles.

It's Madeline Albright, who wondered why we did not invade China or Russia before they had nuclear weapons:

Albright is correct about one thing: During her tenure, the United States sent troops into Bosnia and bombed Serbia. Neither had nuclear weapons. But she’s wrong in attempting to compare our approach to North Korea with what we did to handle China or the Soviet Union.

Sure, we never invaded either nation, but we could have -- before they had nukes. Probably the biggest reason we didn’t is that they both were giant countries with huge armies. An invasion of either one would have cost tens of thousands of American lives and probably resulted in a quagmire. On the other hand, while North Korea boasts a large army, it’s a relatively tiny country, and our military could overwhelm it quickly.

Madeline Albright's resume is tarnished enough that she ought to be careful the way she tosses around the 'idiot' label.

Superb Photos of New York City

The latest Smithsonian has an article on the photography of Eugene de Salignac, who worked for New York City's Department of Bridges in the early 1900s. Salignac had a fantastic eye, and took some very memorable pictures of construction around the City in an era when it changed from horse and buggy to internal combustion engine:



Here's a good collection of several photos from Salignac. Who cares if it's at the BBC, and in Portugese.










I really like this one; it's identified as a photo of the 'W' before it went up onto the Williamsburg Bridge.



You can also see more here -- as well as get information about the book of the photo collection -- here at New York City's records site.

Netroots Pose Problem for Democrats in 08

Jeanne Shaheen is the top choice of Democratic leaders to take on John Sununu in 2008. She's seen as having a great chance to knock Sununu off next year:

If Shaheen is the nominee, it would create a rematch of the 2002 contest, which Sununu won 51-47 percent. Since then, the political landscape in New Hampshire has changed, and initial polling has showed Shaheen leading Sununu. Republicans, including the free-market Club For Growth and the centrist Republican Main Street Partnership, have already rallied behind Sununu. One GOP strategist said Sununu is highly vulnerable if the contest is only about Iraq. "If the issue becomes the issue of taxes then the advantage shifts a little bit to John Sununu," the strategist said.

It ought to concern Democrats that having landed a top challenger against a targeted Republican incumbent, the first reaction from the Netroots is disappointment and disillusionment. From Open Left:

[T]o be perfectly frank, I feel like Shaheen is one of the many, many Democrats who first helped lead the party into simultaneous minority and pro-war status back in 2002-2003, but who is now capitalizing on the favorable electoral stage that was prepared mainly by the progressive movement during four years of intense guerilla warfare against conservatism from 2003-2006. While the Jean Shaheen’s and Rahm Emanual’s of the party were supporting things like the Bush tax cuts, the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and legislation to support Terry Schaivo, it was the netroots who were doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in opposition to Republicans. I feel like they are capitalizing on what we rightfully earned, and both dissing us and preparing to destroy all of our work in the process. They are pretenders to the new Democratic majority.

Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake uses the occasion to slam Rahm Emanuel:

Rahm supported the war and didn’t want Democrats to talk about it during the last election. He thinks immigration — which desperately needs addressing as a matter of conscience and has the added benefit of splitting the Republican party into little splinters every time it comes up — should not be addressed until a new President’s second term. After the last election people said the thing they care about most is seeing corruption addressed, and as Kagro X noted, Nancy Pelosi said the most important thing about gaining majority status was getting subpoena power. Now Rahm has decided to render that limp and useless as well.

Rahm then has the arrogance to run around and crow about orchestrating the Democratic victory in 06 as if my dog could not have done a better job, considering all the money he dumped into loser races and the way he ignored those that probably could have inched to success had they had just a little bit more help from the DCCC.

I think we’re all a bit tired of cleaning up Rahm’s messes (watch the YouTube above and remember, this is the guy who’s in charge of Democratic messaging for the House). And yes, it is irritating to watch them all ride in and take advantage of a favorable electoral stage that was set in the wake of their open hostility to those who were doing all the heavy lifting to set it.

A big reason the Democrats won the Congress in 2006 was that the prevailing attitude on the Left was: whoever it takes to win. It led the Netroots to back Jim Webb, Heath Shuler, and a host of more moderate-to-conservative candidates. Now things seem to have changed.

If the Netroots imposes purity tests in 08 -- and there's every sign that they intend to do so -- it will be a big crimp in the plans of people like Rahm Emanuel.

Update: Don Surber also has some good commentary on Democrats' fear of MoveOn in 08.

University of Arkansas Returns Hsu's Cash. Will the New School?

The Wall Street Journal reports that the University of Arkansas's Clinton School of Public Service is returning the $75,000 it got from Norman Hsu:

While Mrs. Clinton and other politicians have pledged to return or donate to charity donations associated with Mr. Hsu, Mr. Rutherford initially said the graduate program -- aimed at students seeking a career in international aid, politics, law, or philanthropy -- would keep its donation. After questions from The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Rutherford said "it's just not worth it" to keep the money and that he would return it to Mr. Hsu. "We believed it had been given in good faith," Mr. Rutherford said.

Rutherford suggests an inappropriate test for whether or not to return the money. Given in good faith or not, it's still stolen.

No word yet on whether the New School will return his donations -- which ran into the tens of thousands. The Associated Press reports that Hsu even served as chairman of a major New School fundraiser event last October, where Bill Clinton singled him our for praise:

Hsu sat on the board of trustees of The New School, whose president is former Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb. He was co-chairman of a gala New York benefit last October in honor of the late Robert F. Kennedy. Bill Clinton, there to receive an award, thanked the evening's benefactors, "especially our friend Norman Hsu."

Bob Kerrey -- head of the New School -- is considering a run for Senate in 2008. He ought to have the good sense to have returned the money already.

Why the delay?

Globe Warming Much Faster Than Predicted

I'm stealing this observation from... I can't remember, so sorry.

But if the globe is warming so much more quickly than expected, doesn't it suggest we don't really understand climate change as well as we are being told that we do?

About 40 percent of the floating ice that normally blankets the top of the world during the summer will be gone by 2050, says James Overland, an oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. Earlier studies had predicted it would be nearly a century before that much ice vanished.

"This is a major change," Overland said. "This is actually moving the threshold up."

The finding, to be published Saturday in Geophysical Research Letters, adds to a growing body of evidence that the ecosystem around the North Pole is rapidly transforming, says Mark Serreze, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado. He goes even further than Overland, predicting the Arctic Ocean will be completely ice-free in summer by 2030.

"If you had asked me a few years ago, I would have said it wouldn't happen until 2070 or 2100," said Serreze, who was not involved in Overland's project.

The article notes that shipping could become much more efficient with the opening of a northwest passage. So Henry Hudson was on the right track; he just needed to wait a few hundred years.

Update: Lest you think I treat this too cavalierly, note the less-reported story: the South Pole ice cap has reached its expanse since measures began in 1979.

Novak: Kerry's Vulnerability

Today Bob Novak has his typical interesting Saturday read - if perhaps a little skimpier than usual. The most noteworthy item covers the apparent weakness of John Kerry to a GOP challenge:

Homeland security consultant Jeff Beatty, new to Republican politics, arrived in Washington this week with a Zogby poll showing him in a virtual tie with Democratic Sen. John Kerry in Massachusetts.

Republicans had not listed the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate as even faintly vulnerable for re-election in 2008. The Zogby poll gives Kerry 48 percent to Beatty's 45 percent -- a tie with a 4.1 percent margin of error.

That signifies Beatty's strength rather than Kerry's weakness, with Zogby showing Kerry far ahead of other possible Republican candidates. Kerry leads Andrew Card, President Bush's former chief of staff, 61 percent to 29 percent. Beatty -- a veteran of the FBI, the CIA and the Army's Delta Force -- frequently appears on television commenting on security questions.

The poll is not brand new; it was reported some weeks ago:

Mr. Beatty is the president of TotalSecurity.US, a company that specializes in strategic security and with clients including the Super Bowl, Rose Bowl, Olympics, MBTA and the Statue of Liberty...

In a poll released on his Web site yesterday, the public’s support of his campaign is growing, according to Mr. Beatty. The Zogby organization is showing that if the election were held today, Mr. Kerry would get 48 percent of the public’s vote and Mr. Beatty 45 percent.

“The electors have shown that they are ready to welcome a well-qualified Republican,” said Mr. Beatty.

He said he believes people will vote for him because they know Mr. Kerry was wrong on the war. He also said that the current senator is wrong on taxes, and that neglect has led to jobs leaving the commonwealth.

The full poll data is available on Beatty's website here. Note that in a simple 'horse race' question, Kerry beats him 58%-23%. It's only after being read Beatty's bio that the gap narrows so dramatically.

Beatty has run for office before; he was soundly beaten when he challenged Congressman Bill Delahunt just last year (by 65%-30%) . In his favor in this race however, is that Kerry isn't especially popular in Massachusetts anymore anyway. In the most recent approve/disapprove poll I can find (from April), Massachusetts voters approve of the job he's doing by a margin of just 54%-41%.

One thing is for sure: Kerry's opponent won't have much trouble raising money nationally. There are plenty of Republicans who would love to see his smug condescension and knee-jerk liberalism off the national stage.

More Trouble for Ted Stevens

A running theme here at Influence Peddler has been to ensure that the 2008 race isn't a repeat of the 2006 race -- at least insofar as ethics charges against Republicans go. In 2006 candidates were constantly answering questions about Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, and others. In 2008, will they find themselves defending... Ted Stevens?

Former VECO Corp. CEO Bill Allen admitted Friday to using company funds to pay some of the construction costs associated with Sen. Ted Stevens’ (R-Alaska) home remodeling project as well as using a small number of company employees to do the work.

Stevens’ attorney Brendan Sullivan, could not be reached for comment at press time.

Allen, testifying in federal court as part of a state-level bribery case, also said he gave Stevens furniture for the home. Additionally, Allen admitted to paying Stevens’ son, Ben, $4,000 a month while the younger Stevens served in the state Senate.

Although Ted Stevens has acknowledged VECO’s involvement in the home remodeling in the past, he has insisted the company’s role was limited to reviewing bills from contractors. He repeatedly has stated that he personally paid outside contractors for the work done on the house...

“I gave Ted some old furniture ... I don’t think there was a lot of material. There was some labor,” Allen said, according to The Associated Press, adding that between one and four VECO employees worked on the house for up to six months during 2000. Allen also admitted to visiting the work site every month or two.

OK - 'some labor,' 'some old furniture...' sounds like some buddies helping a pal set up a new apartment, right? What's the harm? Stevens probably bought beer and pizza for some friends, and that was it. After all, the place doesn't look like a palace.

I suppose that's a possibility.

But with ethics charges hovering over Stevens, Craig, Young, Doolittle, and others, Congressional leaders cannot afford to have faith in old friends. In each case, they better make sure that there's nothing to the charges, or that primary challengers are lined up.

More at the Politico, where there's more attention to the question of whether Stevens' son was bribed:

Allen told the court that that "he recruited Stevens in 1995 for work on behalf of VECO, well before Stevens was appointed to the state Senate in 2002, and that Stevens maintained a consulting contract with the company through 2006," the AP reported. Ben Stevens is former president of the Alaska Senate.

As long as it stays in the family...

Pelosi & Reid Forget: They Agree With the President

Read it at the Standard.

NRCC: Together We Will; Together We Can

House Republicans are trying to step up their outreach effort and build stronger outreach on the web. Part of that effort will be a series of videos, the first of which is below. I'm encouraged:



I think this is a great effort. I expect that the reaction from the blogosphere will be strong. I'll look forward to the dialogue.

Impeachment: the Cure for Every Problem

Dan Riehl has the story.

The rules of the House of Representatives feature a mechanism called a discharge petition to prevent popular legislation from being bottled up in committee. If 218 Members sign a discharge petition, the Speaker of the House must schedule the legislation for a floor vote.

House Republican leaders should consider a discharge petition on the impeachment legislation sponsored by Congressman Kucinich. As the legislation approached 218 signatures, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer would be forced to decide whether to schedule a vote, or to insist that their Members not sign the petition. It would force Democrats to choose between the Netroots and America.

When Republicans held the majority, they forced Democrats to take politically difficult votes on reinstatement of the draft, and an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In the same way, Democrats in the minority used discharge petitions to force debate on alternate proposals for Iraq.

Turnabout is fair play. Should House Republicans force Democrats to take up impeachment?

No War for Oil

Tigerhawk argues that we have pretty clear proof that the US did not topple Saddam Hussein for the oil:

I never thought the claim that we invaded Iraq "for oil" made sense for the obvious reason that the straightest path to the oil would have been to cut a deal with Saddam Hussein. We were essentially at war with Iraq all along, flying 10,000 sorties a year to police the war zones and strangling it with economic sanctions so tight that the NGOs claimed that the West was "responsible" for tens or hundreds of thousands of excess deaths a year from economic deprivation. If the point was to "get" the oil for American companies, why not trade the lifting of American sanctions for drilling concessions? Well, a wealthy Texas oilman is on trial right now for acting on precisely that idea. He had a close relationship with Saddam Hussein, and tried to influence the United States government against attacking Iraq:

Read the whole thing.

Via Instapundit

Al Qaeda Cell Busted in Vienna

Vienna waits for you.

The Genius of Capitalism

Found it!

I've been trying to find this short for months -- years, maybe:

Powered by AOL Video

As a child, I thought this was brilliant. As an adult, I'm surprised at how well it holds up. This cartoon and several others were produced by the Sloan Foundation and were intended to help kids understand the underpinnings of the US system.

The second short in the Sloan Foundation series was 'Heir Conditioned," which focused on the importance of investment. The best part runs from 5:35 to 6:10 or so.

Powered by AOL Video

The third and final one was "Yankee Dood It," about how business runs :

Powered by AOL Video

No mention of Joseph Schumpeter or David Ricardo, but still a great view. Each runs 7-8 minutes.

I sure wish they made stuff like this nowadays. Perhaps one on international trade...

Voters Trust Giuliani over Hillary in Handling Terrorist Attack

Read it at the Standard.

Time to Ditch Organic Farming

Bad for you, bad for the environment (just like the Prius):

If chemical pesticides are hazardous to health, then farm workers should be most affected. The results of a 13-year study of nearly 90,000 farmers and their families in Iowa and North Carolina — the Agricultural Health Study – suggests we really don't have much to worry about. These people were exposed to higher doses of agricultural chemicals because of their proximity to spraying, and 65 per cent of them had personally spent more than 10 years applying pesticides. If any group of people were going to show a link between pesticide use and cancer, it would be them. They didn't.

A preliminary report published in 2004 showed that, compared to the normal population, their rates of cancer were actually lower. And they did not show any increased rate of brain-damaging diseases like Parkinson's. There was one exception: prostate cancer. This seemed to be linked to farmers using a particular fungicide called methyl bromide, which is now in the process of being phased out. According to James Felton, of the Biosciences Directorate of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, who also chairs the study, "The bottom line is the results are coming out surprisingly negative. It's telling us that most of the chemicals we use today are not causing cancer or other disease."

I'm not going to excerpt the whole thing; go over and read Ron Bailey's post. In short, if you think that organic food will make you healthier or the world greener, you're mistaken.

Gingrich vs. Hillary?

Read it at the Standard.

Why Lobby? Because Lobbying Pays

Business Week has done some research on the return received by companies on their lobbying expenditures. The results are frightening -- BW concludes that dollars spent on lobbying are returned many times over:

The results suggest a startling conclusion: On average, companies generated roughly $28 in earmark revenue for every dollar they spent lobbying. And those at the very top did far better than the average: More than 20 companies pulled in $100 or more for every dollar spent. By any standard, that's a hefty ratio: The companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index brought in just $17.52 in revenues for every dollar of capital expenditure in 2006. Or look at the results in direct marketing, where an extremely successful campaign might bring in $5 in revenue for every dollar spent. "If mainstream American businesses got a 28-to-1 ratio in sales, they'd be ecstatic," says Steve Zammarchi, president and CEO of Wunderman New York, a sales and marketing firm.

According to Citizens Against Government Waste, Congress spent about $30 billion on earmarks in 2006. Significant as that is, it's just a drop in the bucket -- the US government spent about $2.7 trillion in 2006, so earmarks were only about 1 percent of federal expenditures.

The bulk of federal spending is on entitlement programs -- primarily Social Security, Medicare -- consume about 40 percent of federal spending. The federal government also maintains farm programs, commodity price supports, welfare programs, subsidies for product research and development and a myriad of other programs -- all of which are heavily lobbied. The AARP, AFL-CIO, NEA, Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and a host of other organizations also lobby for spending in this area of the budget. They spend millions of dollars, but in contrast to earmarks, the cost to the taxpayer is far harder to quantify.

Further, while a business such as Raytheon or Boeing represents only itself, its employees, and stockholders, those mass organizations listed above collectively represent tens of millions of Americans. As such, they have far more clout than any single company. Plus, they're far harder to demonize than any one of those companies -- because just about every American is represented by several of the groups listed above -- either directly or indirectly. So while the lobbying of specific companies for earmarks rightly attracts attention, the lobbying for more costly benefits will forever be downplayed.

Hat Tip: Rob Bluey