/cue applause

You may participate in this totally unscientific survey here: Human Nature & Political Leanings. And lest you be concerned as to how much time you might actually waste/lose by participating, the survey consists of a whopping two questions:

1. Do you think humans are basically good, with a few bad tendencies? Or basically bad, with a few good tendencies?
2. How would you classify your political philosophy: liberal, conservative, or libertarian?

The near-realtime results are after the jump. Enjoy ;)

• Fred Thompson will run, advisers say
  (hat-tip to Argus-reader/Uncle BuzzFan)
• Thompson says he plans to run, wants to be 2008’s outsider

The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on “the authorities” for protection.

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas‘ military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the willingness by some lawmakers to talk with Syria “is proof of the importance of the resistance against the US.

“The Americans know and understand they are losing in Iraq and the Middle East and that their only chance to survive is to reduce hostilities with Arab countries and with Islam. Islam is the new giant of the world,” he said.

I can’t add much to that.

(hat tip to the Emperor)

“The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized,” said judge John Paul Stevens as the ruling was carried by five votes in favor to four against.

Reeeeally. A recent documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (Google Video, YouTube, Wikipedia info) offers some of the most compelling counter arguments to the manmade global warming meme that I’ve come across in quite a while.

What makes the Supreme Court story so ridiculous is a) the idea that our esteemed USSC judges are even remotely qualified to evaluate the case for manmade global warming and then issue judicial decrees based on their evaluations and b) it makes heavy use of the idiotic “consensus of scientists” argument. I won’t even touch a), but I’ll address b) …loudly, for those of you in the cheap seats: REAL SCIENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSENSUS. Wake up, before it’s too late.