Here

The scientific consensus on prospects for global warming has become much more pessimistic over the last few years. Indeed, the latest projections from reputable climate scientists border on the apocalyptic. Why? Because the rate at which greenhouse gas emissions are rising is matching or exceeding the worst-case scenarios.

And the growth of emissions from China — already the world’s largest producer of carbon dioxide — is one main reason for this new pessimism.

China’s emissions, which come largely from its coal-burning electricity plants, doubled between 1996 and 2006.

Unfortunately I doubt this will spur much left-right debate; Krugman makes no inferences about the causality or consequences of man-made global warming.  Which is a good thing: he can get into trouble when he wanders away from economics.  Still, more evidence to promote nuclear :)

19 arrested at Notre Dame protest against Obama

Nineteen demonstrators were arrested at Notre Dame University on Saturday as they protested against President Obama's scheduled commencement speech Sunday, campus police said.

this kind of thing starts turning up ... <shakes head in disbelief>

<open arms to the sky as if speaking to God> Oh the humanity!

Meta: This post is illustrating the absurdity of the left by mimicking their absurdity.

You all remember Victoria Toensing, right?  From the faux liberal Valerie Plame flap?  She is the former chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee and deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration who effectively put the stake through the heart of the meme that Republicans "outed" a CIA operative.  As she so effectively pointed out in Congressional hearings Valerie Plame was not  a "covert" operative of the CIA at the time that her name made it into national prominence.  Other than making Henry Waxman almost literally foam at the mouth in anger, nothing much else came out of the matter after her testimony.

Now she is tackling the substance of the claims from the liberal surrounding the so called "Torture Memos".  What she has to say will likely lead to a repeat performance of Waxman's outrage from somewhere within the liberal camp.

Critics Still Haven't Read the 'Torture' Memos

The Justice Department lawyers wrote two opinions totaling 54 pages. One went to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, the other to the CIA general counsel.

Both memos noted that the legislative history of the 1994 torture statute was "scant." Neither house of Congress had hearings, debates or amendments, or provided clarification about terms such as "severe" or "prolonged mental harm." There is no record of Rep. Jerrold Nadler -- who now calls for impeachment and a criminal investigation of the lawyers -- trying to make any act (e.g., waterboarding) illegal, or attempting to lessen the specific intent standard.

The Gonzales memo analyzed "torture" under American and international law. It noted that our courts, under a civil statute, have interpreted "severe" physical or mental pain or suffering to require extreme acts: The person had to be shot, beaten or raped, threatened with death or removal of extremities, or denied medical care. One federal court distinguished between torture and acts that were "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment." So have international courts. The European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ireland v. United Kingdom (1978) specifically found that wall standing (to produce muscle fatigue), hooding, and sleep and food deprivation were not torture.

The U.N. treaty defined torture as "severe pain and suffering." The Justice Department witness for the Senate treaty hearings testified that "[t]orture is understood to be barbaric cruelty . . . the mere mention of which sends chills down one's spine." He gave examples of "the needle under the fingernail, the application of electrical shock to the genital area, the piercing of eyeballs. . . ." Mental torture was an act "designed to damage and destroy the human personality."

The treaty had a specific provision stating that nothing, not even war, justifies torture. Congress removed that provision when drafting the 1994 law against torture, thereby permitting someone accused of violating the statute to invoke the long-established defense of necessity.

The memo to the CIA discussed 10 requested interrogation techniques and how each should be limited so as not to violate the statute. The lawyers warned that no procedure could be used that "interferes with the proper healing of Zubaydah's wound," which he incurred during capture. They observed that all the techniques, including waterboarding, were used on our military trainees, and that the CIA had conducted an "extensive inquiry" with experts and psychologists./p>

But now, safe in ivory towers eight years removed from 9/11, critics demand criminalization of the techniques and the prosecution or disbarment of the lawyers who advised the CIA. Contrary to columnist Frank Rich's uninformed accusation in the New York Times that the lawyers "proposed using" the techniques, they did no such thing. They were asked to provide legal guidance on whether the CIA's proposed methods violated the law.

Then there is Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who declared that "waterboarding will almost certainly be deemed illegal if put under judicial scrutiny," depending on which "of several possibly applicable legal standards" apply. Does he know the Senate rejected a bill in 2006 to make waterboarding illegal? That fact alone negates criminalization of the act. So quick to condemn, Mr. Robinson later replied to a TV interview question that he did not know how long sleep deprivation could go before it was "immoral." It is "a nuance," he said.

Thank you, Ms. Toensing, for once again laying out the actual facts of the case in such clear terms.

Meta: This post is a serious comment.

Paul Mirengoff of Powerline Blog predicts a steep decline of the Catholic Church 

 I was quite surprised how harsh the reaction was to what Paul perceived as Obama's efforts to undermine authoritarian rule of the Catholic Church. 

  Talk about your zero tolerance. Wow!

  I expect Powerline blog to be consistently hard right, but in this case I was astonished how harsh a criticism was leveled at the President and the University, in an effort to appease the authoritarian structure of the Catholic Church.

I would be curious what other's think about his, Paul's, critique. 

if you have the time to read it, here is the link.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023584.php

  Obama hopes to drive a wedge between the leaders of the Catholic Church and rank-and-file Catholics in order to substantially reduce Church leaders and their teachings as a moral force in the United States. Such a reduction, in turn, will remove a barrier to Obama's left-wing agenda, especially his left-wing social agenda, just as the steep decline in the authority of Catholic Church paved the way the leftist agenda in certain European countries.

Huh!? 

  It is entirely reasonable and proper for him to seek to undermine Catholic authority, in furtherance of his interests, through lawful activitiy such as giving a speech and accepting a degree. Nearly all of the blame surely lies with Notre Dame for partnering with Obama in his mission, and thereby violating the command of the U.S. Catholic Biships not to honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.

 Following Christ means opening your heart, helping the poor, reaching out a hand to others, and does not have much in common with free market principles. Liberal Christians, Liberals Jews, fair words, and kind acts are just too much to bear hearing. Again Wow! 

 Following the teachings of Christ is a left wing agenda, potentially leading America down the path to hell, according to Paul. 

 Say a prayer Paul, it will be okay. And for those of you who missed it the President was very well received. Salt on Paul's wounds apparently.