GEORGE SOROS LOSES IT.

No, you are not seeing things. He said de-Nazification. He is not saying, in the traditional manner of liberal alarmists, that the United States is now where Weimar Germany was. He is saying that the United States is now where Germany after Weimar was. Even for Davos, this was stupid. Actually, worse than stupid. There is a historical analysis, a moral claim, in Soros’s word. He believes that the United States is now a Nazi country. Why else would we have to go through a “certain de-Nazification process”? I defy anybody to interpret the remark differently. The analogy between Bush’s America and Hitler’s Germany is not fleshed out, and one is left wondering how far he would take it. Is Bush like Hitler? If it is “de-Nazification” that we need, then in some sense Bush must be like Hitler. Was the invasion of Iraq like the invasion of Poland? Perhaps. The more one lingers over Soros’s word, the more one’s eyes pop from one’s head. In the old days, the Amerika view of America was propagated by angry kids on their painful way to adulthood; now, it is propagated by the Maecenas of the Democratic Party. . . . In the same conversation at Davos, Soros announced that he is supporting Senator Barack Obama, though he would also support Senator Hillary Clinton. So my question to both of those progressives is this: How, without any explanation or apology from him, will you take this man’s money?

More here.

WHAT’S HAPPENING IN BAGHDAD: A roundup from The Mudville Gazette.

HE CHOSE POORLY.

HE CHOSE POORLY.

SCIENTOLOGY CRITIC KEITH HENSON has been arrested. The whole story seems rather fishy to me, as is so often the case where these guys are involved.

There’s also a Free Keith Henson blog.

PRINCEBLOGGING the Super Bowl.

UPDATE: I think the Robert Goulet commercial from Emerald Nuts was the best. Follow the link to see it.

So far, Bill Richardson and Rudy Giuliani are the runaway favorites among InstaPundit readers.

TOM MAGUIRE: “One might have hoped that, two weeks into the Libby trial, the basic facts of the case would be clear to the reporters and editors at the Washington Post.”

BIZZYBLOG HAS MORE on the spitting denial issue that I linked to earlier.

FROM BROADCAST TECHNOLOGY TO BETTING: A Super Bowl roundup at Popular Mechanics.

FRANCE INVADED by Islamic Creationism. I think we’ve also discovered the Islamic Max Headroom, judging by the author photo.

UPDATE: Reader John O’Connor emails: “While I appreciate the reference to Max Headroom in your post regarding Islamic Creationism, doesn’t another pop culture reference better apply to an Islamic creationist who has adopted the name Yahya? Think about it, Monkey Boy!”

It all makes sense, now. And Frank Wilson has a question.

IT’S HARDER TO DO this sort of thing in the days of the Internet.

DOG TALES FOR EVERYKID.

COMPACT FLUORESCENT UPDATE: I noted a while back that I was getting good results with the GE compact fluorescent 75, a 75-watt “equivalent” bulb that produces attractive indoor light. On a reader’s recommendation, I also ordered some of the 100 watt equivalent bulbs in the same line. I installed a couple last night and they look fine — as good as the 75s, just a bit brighter.

I’m gradually replacing bulbs in the house, and have now switched about a dozen to fluorescent lights. According to these numbers, if everyone did that it would be the equivalent of taking about 15 million cars off the road. Most importantly, it’s a fairly painless change. The bulbs cost a bit more, but if they save me the trouble of changing lightbulbs all the time it’s worth it. And the light quality is entirely acceptable. This is what I meant in my post below about non-hairshirt approaches.

UPDATE: Reader Fred Butzen writes:

Thanks to your recommendation, we’ve been replacing our incandescent bulbs with fluorescents, at least in areas where we turn on the lights and leave them on for extended periods – principally the kitchen, porches, and bedrooms. The quality of light is almost as good as with an incandescent bulb; in the kitchen, we use the fluorescents mixed with a single incandescent, and the quality of light is excellent.

In Chicago, Commonwealth Edison is subsidizing the bulbs – you can get what’s the equivalent of a 60- or 100-watt bulb for about a buck. Given the cost of building peak capacity, the subsidy makes a lot of sense for ConEd.

However, we have had a bum bulb, which conked out after less than a month.

You get bum bulbs with incandescents, too, though you’re not out as much. Unless Comm Ed is subsidizing you! And yeah, this does make sense for them.

Related thoughts here.

MICKEY KAUS: “Do ‘hate crime’ laws lower racial tensions or raise them? I’m not sure it isn’t the latter.”

I’m not sure that’s entirely accidental: “Chaos umpire sits, And by decision more embroils the fray By which he reigns.”

ANN ALTHOUSE: “Where’s the photograph of the bear chomping down on a cute baby seal?”

UPDATE: This is interesting.

WOMEN INSIST THEY GET BETTER WITH AGE: Actually, as someone who’s married to a woman who gets a day older with each passing day, I’d say that’s true. My wife was delightful when I married her, but she’s only gotten better with the passage of time.

DAVE HARDY NOTES THE THUNE-NELSON national CCW reciprocity bill. (PDF version of the bill is here.) Of course, as one of his commenters notes, it would have been better to have pushed this when the GOP was in the majority. Heck, if they’d pushed it then, they might still be in the majority. On the other hand, the bill has bipartisan sponsorship, so it’ll be interesting to see how many more Democrats jump on board. It’s certainly a moderate alternative to laws involving compulsory arms-bearing.

THE FIRST BLOG SCANDAL of Campaign 2008.

GLOBAL WARMING ambivalence: They were for jet travel before they were against it!

HILLARY WON’T RULE OUT USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAN.

MY EARLIER POST ON GLOBAL WARMING AND THE NEED FOR A BAN ON PRIVATE JETS led one reader to ask me for some constructive thoughts, as opposed to snark. Fair enough, though if things are as bad as they say, a ban on private jets would be constructive, no? Or, if not, it’s probably because it’ll never happen, as the fatcats take care of their own. Which raises other issues . . . .

But, that said, I suppose I should offer more than criticism of media hype and celebrities’ and politicians’ posturing, even if mocking those things is itself a major and constructive contribution, and one at which the blogosphere excels.

Do I “believe in ” global warming? In the sense that the world seems to be warmer now than in recent history, yes. The more apocalyptic scenarios seem to me to remain unproven, but certainly cause for concern.

Do I believe that global warming is anthropogenic? Not so clear. Plausible, but still far from certain.

Does this matter? Probably not. Regardless of what you think of the above, burning carbon is a lousy idea. Coal and oil are, over the long term, far more valuable as chemical feedstocks than as fuels anyway, and burning them is unacceptably filthy regardless of greenhouse issues. We should replace them as soon as possible with nice, clean, greenhouse-friendly nuclear plants and other environmentally friendly power technologies. Burning less carbon is good planetary hygiene, and good practice generally, regardless of what you think of global warming. So, I suppose, in a way we should be pursuing global warming remedies regardless of what you think about global warming.

Over the medium-term, things like the above can make a big difference in the amount of carbon that America produces, especially when connected to other carbon-friendly technologies like plug-in hybrids, electric cars, etc. Over the longer-term, things like nanotechnology are likely to render the problem moot, but it will be several decades before that happens.

In the short term, there’s a lot of low-hanging fruit. I’ve been looking at compact fluorescent lights, which save a significant amount of power, and I’ve written a column on some related ideas for enhancing energy efficiency that are worthy of more attention than they’ve gotten.

What about a carbon tax? In principle, it might be an okay idea — though I note that claims that it will spur technological advance are iffy, as Europe, which has very high gas taxes, hasn’t been a hotbed of innovation in automotive efficiency. What’s more, I worry that the advocates of a carbon tax are in fact often more excited about the “tax” part than the “carbon” part. If something like this is enacted, it should be revenue-neutral, with offsetting cuts elsewhere. Eliminate the income tax in favor of carbon taxes? On that, we can talk.

At any rate, Kyoto — despite the way it has been misrepresented in the press — could never pass even when the Democrats were in charge, and wouldn’t make much difference even if the U.S. was a party, and if Europe wasn’t engaged in rampant cheating. (“In truth, Europe’s CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the U.S. since Kyoto, three times as fast since 2000. “) The fastest-growing producers of CO₂ are in Asia, and won’t slow their economic growth significantly in order to fight the greenhouse effect — and they would have difficulty in doing so even if they wanted to. Short of Bush nuking the Saudi and Iranian oil fields (defunding terrorism and stopping global warming in one blow!) no single change we can make is going to make a big difference. I’m all for more research on more efficient technologies, but that takes time.

One thing that I think is important: Energy conservation needs to be something positive. Nothing sells on a “suffer for the future” model very well. Too many environmental activists are hair-shirt types (at least when the hair-shirt is for other people) and that stuff is poor salesmanship. Martin Eberhard, of Tesla Roadster fame, is right when he says that many early electric cars were “punishment cars,” predicated on the notion that driving was inherently suspect. Make electric cars fun, and useful, and people will want them. This lesson applies to lots of other things, too. Neo-puritanism, on the other hand, has a certain personal and political appeal to some people, but it doesn’t sell beyond its niche. The less scold, the more sold.

Of course, none of this is to say that a ban on private jets wouldn’t help, too . . . .

UPDATE: On the other hand, Donald Sensing wonders what if global warming is a good thing? Interesting argument. It wouldn’t change my position — nothing short of a Fallen Angels scenario, in which human greenhouse gases are all that’s holding off a new Ice Age, would — but that’s because my position doesn’t turn on global warming one way or another.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Is the AEI buying climate scholars? Doesn’t sound any worse than what the Joyce Foundation does on gun studies. I eagerly await Big Media outrage on that topic . . . .

But the beauty of things from my perspective is that it doesn’t matter, because my position doesn’t turn on global warming one way or another.

MORE: “JetBusters?” Heh. Why not? Stay tuned . . . .

A PHOTO-ILLUSTRATED VERSION of my lamb-stew recipe. Looks good!

UPDATE: And here’s how it turned out.

BUT IT’S NOT A CIVIL WAR (CONT’D):

Ignoring a truce and Arab mediation offers, Hamas and Fatah fighters exchanged gunfire in upscale beachfront neighborhoods Saturday, and Hamas gunmen threatened to attack high-rise buildings unless residents force rival snipers off their rooftops. . . .

Nasser Mushtaha, who owns a high-rise near President Mahmoud Abbas’ compound, said members of Abbas’ Presidential Guard were posted on his roof and at the entrance to the building. He said he received phone calls from Hamas members, who warned they would blow up the building unless the troops left. Some of the guardsmen refused.

Mushtaha complained about his building being used as an outpost. “Who will protect us? What is our fault? We are neither Fatah nor Hamas,” he said, adding that dozens of windows had already been shattered by bullets.

If the Israelis were doing this, instead of Hamas, we’d already be hearing charges of “war crimes.”