Mark Steyn of Canada’s National Post has a very good take on the recent Environmental shindig in Johannesburg. The folks there were complaining that current development around the world is unsustainable. Mr. Steyn agrees…well, sort of. His analysis exposes what the “greens” are aiming for. What’s really sneaky is that he uses their own words to expose them.

CBS News did a study of airport security, and found that, generally, 70% of bags that could not be X-rayed (lead-lined film bags that block X-rays) were let through without hand checking. In some airports, that number was 100%. A year after 9/11/01, and CBS gives airport security, under the watchful eye of the federal government, an “F”.

Enjoy your flight.

Well, the environmentalists weren’t happy with the outcome of the latest Earth summit in Johannesburg, and for good reason; freedom still exists. “What?”, you may ask. “Do you really believe they want to end freedom in pursuit of environmentalism?” Read for yourself:

Richard Navarro, chaiman of FoOEI, stated that instead of “protecting the environment and fighting poverty and social destruction,” the summit was “hijacked by free market ideology, by a backward-looking, insular and ignorant U.S….”

Aside from the absurd notion that the meetings were hijacked by a country that did not attend, they consider free markets to be a step back, and consider it “ignorant”. The only alternative to free markets are state-controlled markets (read: “socialism” or even “communism”). Considering that, what were the track records of communist countries like East Germany and the USSR compared, for instance, to the US? (Answer: Abysmal.)

Any environmentalists out there, consider this: Your cause has been hijacked by radicals. They are the ones representing you to the world. If this isn’t what you want, you had best speak now, or forever hold your peace (and the government will make sure you hold your peace).

Oh, and there are such things a “conservative environmentalists”. Read about Rob Gordon, Peter Huber, and James Glassman. Additionally, Gordon Durnil, while technically fitting the label, and who wrote a book on conservative environmentalism in 1995, might not be the best example, but an example nonetheless.

French President Jacques Chirac has come up with a unique, novel idea on how to end world poverty…taxes! Not just any tax, mind you, but a world tax! Imagine that; a tax that would eliminate poverty. Why didn’t we think of that in this country?

Oh wait, we did. Yeah, and it should work great on a planetary scale since we’ve eliminated poverty here….

…haven’t we?

Once again, we find another classic example of how, when government fails at one thing, it never stops doing it, it just expands the scope (and the cost). The solution is still smaller government.

Intellicast has a great article rebutting a CBS sweeps week special on the warming of Alaska. According to their data, this is all part of a well-defined and well-known cycle of warming and cooling. In fact, you’ll find a chart that shows that the mean annual temperature of Fairbank, Alaska was higher in the early 1940s than it’s been for the past 8 years. In the interim the temps dropped right in line with what’s called the PDO; the “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” which is the large-scale flip-flopping of ocean temperatures. If increase industrialization causes global warming, then one has to wonder why the mean temps fell on average from the 1940s to the 1970s.

The last line of their report says it all:

It has been around half a century since the last PDO warm phase and it is not surprising that most people do not remember the concerns about the declines in arctic ice and warm temperatures then. More people remember the widespread speculation about the impending ice age during the cold and snowy 1960s and 1970s. Now we are led to believe this current warm spell is just a start of what could be a disastrous climate change.

This too will probably pass. Perhaps a lot sooner than most people could imagine.

Certainly sooner than CBS, Al Gore and the UN summiteers in Johannesburg imagine.

Michael Newdow, the plaintiff in the “Under God” Pledge of Allegiance case, is at it again. Now he’s trying to sue Congress to end Capitol Hill chaplain posts.

Newdow represents the classic misinterpretation of “separation of church and state”. Chaplains have been a part of Congress since 1789 (at least that’s when they started getting paid). Those Congressmen were far closer to the writing and debating of the Constitution that we are, and thus knew far better than we what they meant when they said that government shouldn’t establish an official religion. Yet Newdow contends that, within a couple years of writing the Establishment Clause, they went about tearing it down and ignoring what so many of they and their fellow countrymen had fought and died for. And somehow that makes sense to him and so many others.

Psst, Mikey. Jefferson said the “wall of separation” between church and state would prevent government from getting involved in religion. Not a word from Thomas on religion being involved in government. Consider that. And consider reading David Barton’s “Separation of Church and State” article, fully footnoted, as to what Jefferson really thought about religion and government. (It’s one article of a number of his that deal with religion in American government, including one specifically dealing with chaplains.)

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has a great article on how bad off governmental accounting is, in spite of all the self-righteous finger-pointing it’s been doing at the likes of Enron.

What would happen if government would first do an honest house cleaning itself before looking outward? Well, it won’t happen, and it’s not all their fault either. Those in the “what’s in it for me” constituency, who vote for the folks who’ll give them the most government money for whatever purpose, would hold sway with politicians who wouldn’t want to rock their boat. Conservative principles in government (in this case, fiscal responsibility) don’t get a chance if the voters don’t understand the principles. It’s more comfortable and much easier to understand (alleged) “free” money, “free” services and throwing cash at every nifty idea that comes along than it is to understand why it’s best to restrain government to its constitutional duties.

Of course, politicians that preach “free” money and “free” services aren’t helping, and could be considered the root of the problem.

Another blogger (Paul Cella) has posted results from The American Enterprise magazine detailing the incredible lack of diversity in thought at American universities. It’s been known for decades that they were liberal, but now, armed with cold, hard numbers, we know how liberal they are. Professors of the liberal persuasion outnumber conservatives by margins of up to 27 to 1 at some universities, and in some departments, there are no conservatives at all.

When liberals talk about promoting diversity, remember they’re only looking skin deep.

Rates going through the roof. Billing for work not done. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the hallmarks of government control have now quickly and predictably taken over the airport passenger screening industry. It happens with everything it touches, and we punish it by…giving it more things to screw up.

And somehow this makes us feel better.

Gary Larson of the Washington Dispatch points out how liberal “research” is placing the blame for 9/11 squarely on Bush’s head thanks to their assumption that everything that could have been done could only have been done after January, 2001. TIME magazine seems to be on a crusade to absolve Clinton.