Science fiction cost pennies. The Global Warming science fiction cost hundreds of billions and calls the nations to sacrifice trillions of dollars to combat a no-problem with uncertain causes and solutions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gathered all the usual culprits whose models and predictions universally failed. Time and again accused of scientific fraud, these pundits keep resurfacing. Apocalyptic ecologic scenarios call for government intervention, and everyone in power, from leftists to imperial hawks loves ecologists. Ecological scares were common throughout the history. They gained popularity since Malthus. Who cares that he repudiated his earlier conclusions about the overpopulation threat? Ecologists (what kind of education is that?) warned of global cooling, global warming, ozone hole, asbestos threat, extinction of some rare butterfly and the fish you have never seen in supermarkets, anyway. European forests and American buffalos are extinguished - so what? Europeans live far better than their ancestors; Americans, too. Alpine and Alaskan glaciers are intensely melting since nineteenth century, well before the first electric bulb, gas heater, or car appeared. The Ice Age ended only 10,000 years ago, and the Little Ice Age - just a century ago. The temperatures are rising now because they were historically low 150 years ago. Ice caps are melting because they hugely increased since sixteenth century. Ice ages come and go in cycles, apparently related to solar activity. Mechanisms are entirely unclear: for example, periods of low sunspots often surprisingly correlate with volcanic activity on Earth.

Current temperatures are historically low, and their increase is normal. What is the increase, anyway? The ecologists debated it at the conference. That's right, the conclusions are based on debate; estimates ranged several times. Good for leftists, bad for scholars. Theories are expected to be proven with something more sound than vociferousness. So perhaps global temperatures will increase a few degrees over the century. I love warm weather. People in cold countries would enjoy the change. Africans, they are technologically unable sustain the exploding population whatever the climate. Jews, we developed Gaza and Negev, and would bear a few more degrees. Rising sea levels? Dutch people built dams for centuries. It's better to be warm than to suffer the energy consumption levels of Neanderthals.

Carbon dioxide increase coincided with industrialization. Cause-and-effect relationship is dubious. In warmer periods, carbon dioxide increases about 50% from the glacial levels. Current concentration is slightly above that norm, but the norm is average. Most likely, in some periods the average increase was greatly exceeded. On the geological time scale, the current carbon dioxide levels are very low. Humans contribute hardly 3% to the natural output of carbon dioxide, at least half of which gets regenerated in plants and dissolved in oceans. To claim that a system so well balanced and adaptive as Earth could be destabilized by 1% change is preposterous.

It is unlikely that the ecological hype would cause significant reduction in oil purchases from Muslim countries, but worth trying.

(Face it: with no good lake around, where to drown a Jew?)

Specifically, Venezuelan socialism in the amount of approximately $80 million per day in oil imports. Venezuela cooperates with Iran, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and supports leftist movements throughout the Western Hemisphere. Latin Americans, in the best tradition of Hispanic culture, are not exactly workaholics, to say the least, but love good life as everyone else. Here comes socialism.Chavez is not entirely off the mark. International oil corporations indeed rob Venezuelean people. Foreign speculators who invested in CANTV make more money than the telecom's retirees. American AES isn't a benefactor of Venezuelean energy sector.Oil price hike, predictably triggered by the invasion of Iraq, provided windfall for Venezuela. Chavez enjoyed the same kind of boost as Clinton: both were popularly credited with economic bonanza which they did not create. Gluttony of the 2005 budget revenues led to Chavez' reelection.The US had good sense and unpleasant resolution to support military dictators in Latin America. With demise of the USSR, the US relaxed its grip on Latin American affairs, and socialists resurfaced. The good news, the Soviet sponsor of economically inefficient socialist nations is dead. Now it's the US time to stop sponsoring socialism. Options include developing the suspended oilfields, importing oil from Russia, or just reducing oil consumption while introducing more nuclear energy and electric cars.

So far, Ethiopia has been remarkably successful in defeating Islamic troops in Somalia. Ethiopian boots on the ground, tolerant of losses and ready to injure hostile civilians, achieve more than the hi-tech US army fighting the warlords. Whether the Muslims will succeed in launching a guerrilla war remains to be seen. The US ally Qatar, a minor Arab state long implicated in supporting Islamic terrorists worldwide, vehemently supports the Somalian Islamists.

Interestingly, the US supported the Ethiopian preemption of the Somalian guerrillas. Technically, Ethiopia cooperated with the Somalian government to provide a shred of legitimacy to the invasion, but in reality Somalia is governed by Islamists. Israel, in a similar situation, continuously worries about US reaction to its invasions of Lebanon and Gaza. The lesson is there: America, a country of reasonable people and a not stupid government, supports necessary defensive measures so long as they are effective, not widely seen as atrocities, and kept short.

The conflict in Somalia came from the colonial powers drawing arbitrary borders (ethnic Somalians live also in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti). Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq also have arbitrary, unsustainable borders.

[Ethiopia formally resumed war with Islamic Somalia.]

In 1993, Clinton refused to retaliate for the Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia. Since, in his opinion, the world knows that the US could flatten Mogadishu, there was no need to enact the already credible threat. Events proved him wrong.

The First Battle of Mogadishu was a great encouragement for Muslims worldwide; it also changed the regional balance of power.

Ethiopia, a country friendly to Israel, was locked in a struggle with Somalian Islamic militants. Given money and weapons, Ethiopia could have dealt them a lasting blow. When the US decided to run from Somalia, it covered the evacuation with the UN-sponsored “peace process” (America similarly pushes Israel to acquiesce to the hostile Palestinian state to divert attention from the Iraqi fiasco). The peace saved the core of the Islamic militia which mushroomed in the extensive system of Islamic courts. Eventually, Somalia became a fundamentalist Islamic state and stepped up the subversion of Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti, its neighbors. For a decade, Ethiopia tolerated Somalia according to UN policies instead of thrashing the Islamic state.

Somalia is less dangerous than Afghanistan, and many Arab mujahedeen choose it for jihad (against Christian Ethiopia). Eritrea, a long-time rival of Ethiopia, provides the Islamic guerrillas with funds, plenty of light weapons, and logistical support. Tribal war in Somalia, which America chose to overlook rather than brutally extinguish with Ethiopian help, grew into a full-blown jihad. Some problems go away when forgotten; radical Islam doesn’t.

The Battle of Mogadishu was not even a setback but an overwhelming success with a kill-to-loss ratio of more than 100. Whatever minor losses the US troops suffered could have been avoided by involving Pakistanis and Ethiopians.

The stable state of Turkmenistan died along with its bizarre ruler Saparmurat Niyazov. He knew his people. The world saw him as an insane narcissist, but Niyazov’s policies conformed to the local mentality. Turkmens proudly speak of his statue covered in gold that turns to follow the sun. The movie Borat is not far off target: Central Asians are visibly less civilized than the Westerners.

Niyazov annihilated the opposition, disregarded liberalism, democracy, and the rule of law. He appropriated much, perhaps most, of the country’s oil and gas revenues. On the positive side, Turkmenistan was safe.

Now America will push for democratization. Turkmeni progressives will achieve quasi-free elections and eventually lose to Islamists. Alternatively, Moscow could install another tribal despot, and the US would lure him with more money.

Turkmenistan is a test case for leftists. According to their views, international corporations will now bankroll this or that clan to obtain huge oil and gas concessions. That won’t happen. The least princeling exercises more power in his country than does the largest foreign corporation. Commercial wars were common in the past and might reappeare in the future, but now corporate military influence is limited to small-time financing of rival factions and lobbying for army contracts. For all the profits Turkmenistan offers, Western corporations won’t try to prevent it from slipping into democracy.

Blair was wrong saying at the Latvian summit that NATO’s credibility is on the line in Afghanistan. NATO was created to contain the communist threat and did that marvelously. NATO all but failed in the essentially police action in Yugoslavia and during peacekeeping operations. NATO cannot succeed fighting guerrillas in the Afghan mountains.

Vietnam did not discredit the US army, and Afghanistan won’t discredit NATO. Both were created for large-scale total wars. The best sledgehammer cannot be used to make even the worst furniture.

NATO is a thing of the past, and would better be honorably discharged.

In the Talmud, “If [the judge] says to [the accused], ‘Take a chip from your teeth,’ he will say, ‘Take out the board between your eyes.’” Christianity has a similar notion in Matthew 7, but many Christians tend to forget it. The witch-hunt after evangelist Haggard is an example.

Haggard never posed as a saint. So, yes, he tried methamphetamine, perhaps took it several times. Millions of responsible adults do the same. It’s not a mind-boggling drug that causes strong addiction but merely a social drug, no worse that alcohol.

Perhaps Ted Haggard had sex with a man. That’s not prohibited in the Christian canon. In Matthew 8, Jesus healed the centurion’s male lover. Paul criticized homosexuality only to the Roman Jews, and his homophobic pronouncement in 1 Corinthians 6 is similar to the one in the forged Timothy, thus likely interpolated.

All of us have sinful inclinations. Suppressing them to zero is a feat for saints. The rest of us should keep sins to a minimum. The stronger a sinful desire, the greater the courage and strength required to keep it at bay. If Haggard indeed enjoyed social drugs and male sex, the rarity of the alleged sins—a few times a year—testifies in his favor.

Haggard showed himself a man of honor when he stepped down amid unsubstantial allegations. In a similar situation, neither Clinton nor Katsav resigned (nor should they). What is Haggard being chastised for, being less than a saint? Private hypocrisy? Homosexuality? Rather, leftists strike at Haggard because he opposes gay marriage, and conservative idealists join. Haggard, even if a hypocrite, a drug addict, and a homosexual, is an efficient political leader who fights for the right thing. If the devil fought gay marriage, I would shake his hand.

Occasional using drugs is qualitatively different from being a drug addict. Occasional male sex is poles apart from gay marriage which Haggard vehemently opposes. Haggard’s flock would be silly not to reinstate him.

The Emperor Manuel II was wrong to say that Islam brought nothing new except jihad. All ethical notions were formulated in antiquity, but new teachings appear continuously. Islam introduced many practical innovations and redefined many customs. Islam is not a groundbreaking theory, but a solid legal codex.

Pope Benedict was right. He illustrated his thesis of the strictly non-violent spread of religion with a pertinent quote. He brought a Byzantine Christian authority to testify against jihad.

The pope might seem politically incorrect, but religions are intolerant. There is no room for compromise. If Islam is right, then Christianity is wrong. The world was surprised by Dominus Iesus, but the future pope was only honest: he can’t but think Christianity is the only truth. Accordingly, other religions are lies, and Islam is a harmful lie. Fair enough. Jews didn’t protest.

Muslims expect special treatment. They act like mischievous children: praise me or I will misbehave. Go misbehave. Who cares? Break something and be punished. The West chooses appeasement.

Muslims of all ranks pour obscenities on Israel and America and call Christians crusaders at best. If Christians are crusaders, then Muslims are, guess who—jihadi. That part of the pope’s speech they didn’t like. Whatever.