Mohammed Liked Them Young

The First Amendment is an absolutely brilliant piece of legal work. Considering that lawyers are known for being overly verbose, the simplicity of the First Amendment compared to the complexity of its far-reaching implications is nothing short of amazing. I have a hard time deciding which amendment I like better - the First or the Twenty-First. I'll let you know when I figure it out.

Anyway, our country has gone to great lengths to ensure that every citizen's First Amendment rights are rigorously protected - to the point of allowing speech that the majority of the population would find offensive and inflammatory. Granted, the PC movement has done much to rid "offensive statements" from everyday speech, but that doesn't stop countless books, magazines, comedians, and several other outlets from pushing the buttons of various groups of people.

That is, until the radical end of Islam figured out how to abuse and exploit political correctness while throwing in a side of violence and death threats. In the latest example of fear preventing the publication prophet Mohammed-related material, Random House has indefinitely postponed a book about Mohammed and his 6-year old bride, entitled The Jewel of Medina by Sherry Jones. I guess in the spirit of this, I will 'indefinitely postpone' comments about pedophilia...

The only part of radical Islam that threatens the American way of life more than this widespread intolerance is their seemingly hairpin trigger for violent reactions and affinity for issuing fataw's against anyone and everyone who dares criticize or even draw a picture of Mohammed. Interestingly enough, the two seem to follow each other.

Because I believe in the universality of the Bill of Rights, I have no problem with Muslims practicing their religion here in the States. However, there should be no tolerance of a group of people that openly use fear, the threat of violence, and actual violence to prevent freedom of speech. It's an outrage that "How is the Muslim community going to react?" is even a consideration when deciding to publish a book or not.

For whatever reason, the powers that be at Random House lack the testicular fortitude to stand up for the First Amendment, at least in this case. I'm almost certain that they've published material that fundamental Christians and Orthodox Jews would find quite offensive.

Regardless, Random House is nice enough to allow the author to sell the book to another publisher, and I sincerely hope this happens.

Global Warming Crowd: Just Go With It, OK?

The Boston Globe published an Op-Ed from John P. Holdren who is a professor at The Kennedy School of Government and also teaches in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard (I guess we're supposed to take that John is smart and, therefore, beyond reproach from us simpletons). The Globe put the piece in the Op-Ed section because they apparently don't have a "Just Do As We Say You Stupid Retards" section.

The good professor maintains that global warming / climate change is, in fact, a reality, and that the "...the few climate-change 'skeptics' with any sort of scientific credentials..." are merely suffering from a three-step version of the 5-step grieving process. Here's how Professor John says it goes: Step 1 - climate change simply doesn't exist; step 2 - climate change exists, but humans aren't responsible; and step 3 - ok, you environmental nut jobs are right, but it's too late to do anything about it.

Awesome - there are few better (and more cowardly) ways to marginalize your opponent's position than to chalk it up to some simple mental disorder. We've all done it at some point, either as a joke or in an actual debate. One usually accomplishes this by saying, "You're just in denial." At which point, the target denies being in denial, and the hilarity ensues. Instead of arguing the original point, the aggressor effectively forced the victim to go off-topic and explain why he isn't in denial. It's a cheap shot.

I had higher hopes for a Harvard professor. In attempting to convince the skeptics that global warming is not only a man-made phenomenon, but poses a serious threat as well, I would think that he would bring some hard science. How about explaining why the warmest year in history was in 1934 and not any of the past 20 years? Or why the ocean's have been getting colder since 2003? Or why 2007 was the coldest winter in the US in decades?

Instead he goes with yet another intellectually-void argument of demanding the opposition prove a negative. John states that the skeptics "...have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed..."

In other words, John and the global warming crowd are saying "prove to us that global warming is not man-made." Apart from being logical nonsense, that approach is a complete antithesis to the scientific process. Science should constantly test it's assumptions and theories for validity. And nothing should be taken as a cold-hard fact when it is not yet fully understood - we can't accurately predict the weather more than 48 hours in advance, how could we possibly know everything that goes into the planet's entire climate?

The rest of the article consist of John dropping names - "Well, these people believe it's real, and they're way more important than you, so you have to believe it to." He also states that all global warming skepticism is "unfounded." This is akin to putting your hands over your ears, shutting your eyes, and shouting "SHUT UP! YOU'RE WRONG!" Also known as a temper tantrum.

For a good balance to Professor John's little diatribe, check out this article from The Australian. Now, if you'll excuse me, I broke a couple compact fluorescent light bulbs over the weekend, and I'm only 1 step into the day-long 4-step clean-up process.