This morning, NASA administrator Michael Griffin told NPR, “I am not sure that it is fair to say that [global warming] is a problem we must wrestle with.”

I love NASA. I have three Apollo mission pins on the bulletin board above my desk. I have read book upon book about the space program. I’ve seen The Right Stuff about a million times. And I’ve advocated for increased funding for manned space flight.

So it saddens me that the administrator of an agency that I strongly support seems to be a moron.

Can we all just agree that global warming is happening? I mean, with every passing day, the doubters sound sillier and sillier. The science is overwhelming.

Now, the science about the impact of global warming is less settled. Who knows how much the oceans will rise or the average temperature will go up?

But this guy is saying that it’s arrogant to try and do anything to stop it? Give me a break.

Don’t believe me? Ask NASA’s top climate scientist, James Hansen, reacting to his boss’s comments for ABC News.

“It’s an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement. It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change.”

Righto. And I like that Dr. Hansen through the word “arrogant” right back on Mr. Griffin.

Jim: Rarely do I so strongly disagree with Marshall. For starters, read Griffin’s entire quote:

I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change. First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.

Marshall, you ask, “Can we all just agree that global warming is happening?” in objection to a comment where he says, “I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists.” He agrees with you.

Second, global warming may have some upsides, much to the surprise of many, including longer growing seasons and previously cold climates becoming accessable for agriculture. (The growing season in the portion of Greenland open to cultivation is already two weeks longer than it was in the 1970s. Source.) Because of shorter and milder winters, we may see fewer some health problems (exposure, winter cold and flu, etc.) to counterbalance exacerbated health problems in equatorial climes. There would be less demand for heating oil and require less energy to keep homes warm from November through March. This is not to dismiss the problems that global warming would create, only to say that when we decide to try to reverse climate change, we may actually be hurting some folks who are in position to benefit. I’m sure those in cold climes sitting on potentially-valuable real estate would find that policy arrogant.

Thirdly, I think Griffin is being very realistic about our limited options in dealing with global warming; the Al Gores and Laurie Davids of the world aren’t. While we’re currently the largest producer of greenhouse gases, China is going to overtake us in the very near future and then accelerate way ahead, and India’s on a similar pace. With a billion people each, and huge chunks of their population aspiring to move from third-world lifestyles to first world, they’re going to produce staggering amounts of pollution and greenhouse in the years ahead. Persuading them to keep their masses mired in peasant living conditions to save the polar bears will be a tough sell at best. In fact, telling the Chinese and Indians to stay poor so that our environment doesn’t change is probably going to spur accusations of… arrogance.

Americans could adopt a carbon tax, mandatory flex-fuel cars, and the most draconian environmental restrictions and still end up having only a marginal effect because our reductions would be miniscule in comparison to the growth in China and India. As the world continued to heat up, despite a huge economic downturn and “lowered expectations” that made the Carter era feel like the roaring 20s, some would say that the belief that one country could undo the climactic impact of the Industrial Revolution was indeed… arrogance.

My view? Reduce pollutants where we can, because of the immediate impact, not because of some theory about what the impact will be a hundred or two hundred years down the road. The upside of economic growth in India and China is that rich countries tend to hate living in polluted wastelands, and thus put resources into cleanup and cleaner fuels. (Rich and free countries, that is; no force on earth abused the environment the way communists did.)

As we’re seeing from Gulfstream Environmentalists, a lot of global-warming talk is empty posturing. I’m not going to wag my finger at the head of NASA over some healthy skepticism.

Marshall: Jim, as always, you make a compelling argument. And, in the way that you have addressed it, I agree with you — we can only do what we can do. But it seems to me, you implicitly agree with my point — we ought to do something. And why? Because there’s more to global warming than the potential benefits you’ve articulated. At the end of the day, we don’t know with certainty what the specific impacts of global warming will be, but overall, I think we can all agree that humans are the cause of climate change and that the net impact for our own existence — not to mention the countless other species that will simply disappear — will be negative.

To be sure, we can’t control China and India. We can’t mandate behavior. But we can all do better. At the end of the day, fighting global warming starts with individuals and businesses making decisions to behave differently. And best of all, we’re now seeing definitely that when individuals choose to behave differently, the market will reward businesses who behave differently. Just ask the countless companies that have discovered the upside to be found in doing well by doing good.

So, it looks like Senator Thompson will be announcing his campaign sometime after July 4. I have to say that I’m pleased he’ll be in the race.

There’s lots of good discussion about Thompson’s candidacy today, especially Jonathan Martin has an interesting piece looking at how Thompson’s entry affects the GOP big three.)

Thompson has also already demonstrated that he is miles ahead of the his GOP competition in Internet / new media savvy. And that endears him to me as well.

Jim: So I’ll be covering Thompson a great deal at the day job blog, so I want to be a little circumspect. My job is to tell readers what’s going on, with a little analysis here and there, not necessarily tell people what to think about it.

Having said that… Look, Fred Thompson gives off all kinds of signals of being a very, very strong candidate. He is likely to be, as Marshall suggested, the best communicator in a field that has some other good ones.

What I would like to see from FDT is… something a little innovative in the policy arena. Right now he’s running as the Conventional Conservative who has no beefs with anyone in the GOP. Fine. Great. But I don’t think that’s what it will take to win in 2008. It feels a little too “safe.” I thought David Frum had some great advice for the Big Three GOP candidates.

So what would I like to see from FDT? Something in the vein of (I know this is lame) “Rebooting for Results.” Newt talks about this a lot - the Bush administration has been stumbling since early on because large portions of our federal bureaucracy don’t get the results they promise. Why is there such anger over immigration? Because many Americans have concluded the government has failed at one of its primary duties - securing a border. I love our men in uniform, but high-profile cases of waste, fraud, and mismanagment make the defense contracting process sound like a joke. We’ve thrown tons of money at education, but the results have been meager. I know many fine people at the State Department, but we’re still getting our butts handed to us in the message war with al-Qaeda. We know about our intelligence failures, and our successes must remain secret. We saw the Gonzales mess, preceded by the Brownie mess, preceded by the Harriet Miers mess…

I want to hear Thompson talk about the kind of people who will end up in his cabinet. He doesn’t need to name them (although it wouldn’t hurt to throw some names around), and suggest, “I’m gonna give these people a lot of leeway, with one clear instruction: Get results. If they do, I’ll be singin’ their praises from the rooftops. If they don’t, my foot’ll be up their keister.” I want to hear him spell out how he would bring a better sense of accountability throughout our bureaucracy. His message - a thoroughly conservative one - ought to be something in the vein of - “My opponent says government should take on more duties and responsibilities. I say it needs to start meeting the ones it already has… If you’re not keeping the promises you made yesterday, making more promises today doesn’t do either one of us any good.”

Again - just my two cents…

Cam: I think this will be fun. I just hope that Thompson continues to do what he’s been doing, which is fresh, fun, and very different from what the other candidates have been doing to date.

Testing testing… is this thing on? Is Marshall here? Jim? I feel so all alone.

Shempu: You always have me, Cam!

Cam:: Great. An imaginary whale and a bald talk show host. That’s a stellar blog lineup.

Marshall:: Sorry gang. Took a little unannounced blogging breather. Sort of lost my muse for a couple of weeks. But I’m back, and will be posting more frequently, especially next week. Check back often.

Jim: Yup, life just got busy. I debated blogging about my shopping for a car here, but I figured it would end up with a million folks second-guessing my choice (a 2007 Subaru Forester Premium edition), and I get enough of that offline.

Cam: I’m just glad y’all are here. And Jim, we’d never mock you for your choice of car… though I might have to reconsider that statement if you had actually purchased the PT Cruiser you were thinking of earlier.

Over at Volokh, Dave Kopel reminds us that today’s the anniversary of the attack of Senator Charles Sumner by Senator Preston Brooks. While this was a rather one-sided affair (Brooks approached Sumner and began bashing his head with a cane while Sumner was still seated at his desk), I’m always a fan of celebrity boxing.

So which two politicans today would you like to see duke it out in a boxing ring? Personally, I think I’m gonna have to go with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Marshall: So this post is like 2 weeks old, but it’s still a fun question. I’d like to see Sen. Chuckie Schumer take on Sen. / Ms. Hillary Clinton. Call it a Big Apple Throw Down. And my money is on the Hillster.

I’m having a discussion/argument with my wife, who feels it’s incredibly stupid to spend $250 for a VIP ticket to the Virgin Music Festival coming up in August.

My argument is that $250 is a fair price for really good seats to see the Police, Fountains of Wayne, Modest Mouse, and Cheap Trick (all bands I would really like to see live).

Agree? Disagree?

Shempu: Wheeeee! You know how Shempu hates to be the bearer of bad news, but that’s the weekend you’re celebrating your wedding anniversary! Moot point, chump! Wheeeee!

Cam: I hate to admit it, but Shempu’s right. Oh well, instead of being at the Virgin Festival… I will be celebrating my non-virgin-ness.

Jim: I’ll begin with the obvious answer: Get three tickets - one for you, one for your wife, and one for her friend who would enjoy the concert the most. Make the day about her.

As for whether $250 for a concert ticket is too much, well, it all depends on what you’re willing to pay. I’m not a huge concert guy, so I’m not all that interested in spending $250 a head. I’ll spend about $30 a seat on tickets to a ballgame. If it were, say, a Yankees-Red Sox series, I would pay more… and probably end up spending a lot more. I’d spend bigger money on a road trip to see the Jets play somewhere, but football tickets are a different economy - only sixteen games for the season.

The Mrs. and I have traditionally splurged on our anniversary with a trip to some far-off land. Every two years, the vacation coincides with my “whew, I’m exhausted from six months of the Kerry Spot” or “whew, I’m exhausted from hawking my book while the GOP implodes” nervous breakdowns.

Another thought - is there any way you can think of making $500 fast to balance out the expenditure? Sell something on E-Bay or Craig’s List or something?

Finally, I don’t believe what I’ve just been told. Shempu LOVES being the bearer of bad news.

Cam: Good idea Jim, but Elaine wouldn’t go. She hates crowds. Plus, like I said, I realized I’m already committed to that weekend.

But 30 bucks? Damn dude, you’re cheap. I don’t go to many games, but when I go I like to have good seats, so I’ll pay a decent amount of money (or mooch off of Marshall).

Story here.

The good news is, Pat Robertson’s still leg lifting 50 bajillion pounds.

With his little toe.

I’ll be honest, I’m a little hesitant to talk much about this (though after vasectomy-blogging, I suppose delving into religion’s no big thing). I’m not a big fan of televangelists. I’m also not a big fan of telling others how to live their life (just allow me the freedom live mine without hurting anyone else). So it’s not like I got a Christmas card from the Falwell house every year.

That being said, I’ve met several graduates of Liberty University, and they’ve all struck me as very bright, very personable, very good people. I know the university has an incredible debate program as well, and a good academic reputation. I wonder if ultimately the school, not the Moral Majority, might be Falwell’s lasting legacy.

Marshall: Just as Cam isn’t a big fan of blogging about religion, I’m not a big fan of using this blog for real-time reactions. I prefer a little contemplation. That said, I will throw out two thoughts:

(1) Love him or hate him, you can’t suggest that Falwell was anything but a significant and important force in America over the last thrity years. He helped build a movement that will be a key player in American politics for at least another generation.

(2) Let’s dispense with the derogatory labels. The first AP write-thru of the story includes the words “religious right” in the headline. Let’s try to stay away from that. Jerry Falwell, among others, helped being a lot of good people into politics — people who care deeply about their principles and love America. Falwell had his faults, to be sure, but let’s not denigrate the movement that he helped begin.

Jim: Okay… trying to figure out the best way to put this. Over the years, I’ve bounced between a traditional social conservative view and a more libertarian one. I don’t like abortion and like seeing fewer of them each year. I want television fare that parents will be comfortable with their kids watching before, oh, nine o’clock. I like more adult entertainment choices, but I like the idea that I have to make a deliberate choice to seek them out; it doesn’t suddenly spring up, say, during halftime at the Super Bowl. I’d like a society where the values I want to teach my children are reinforced by the society around them, instead of contradicted by it.

There were times, particularly early in his career, Jerry Falwell was a great credit and asset to those who wanted to preserve traditional values in America. In fact, it seems safe to say he was one of that movement’s strongest voices. And then there were times when he undermined that effort by sounding rediculous, such as when he suggested that Tinky-Winky was gay, or his statement that attributed the 9/11 attacks to pagans, abortionists, feminists, and gays and lesbians. During moments like that, it was easy for one to suspect that his eagerness to be in front of the cameras overcame his common sense.

At a time like this, it’s probably just best to offer prayers to his family, and salute the parts of his life that were undeniably admirable - his dedication, organizational skill, and willingness to stand strong in the face of criticism to stand up for what he believed.

So Friday afternoon I went to the hospital to have surgery. Specifically, I had a vasectomy.

Yes, I know what you’re thinking… “why the HELL would you have that done?”

Well, it’s simple. I’ve got five kids. I’m 32. I’m not having any more kids, and I’m not through having sex with my wife yet.

“But why didn’t your wife get her tubes tied?”

Because she’s had five kids. And, realistically, it’s much easier for me to have a vasectomy than it is for her to have a tubal ligation. Basically I’m on the couch or in bed for the rest of the weekend, but if my wife had her tubes tied, she’d be out of commission for two weeks. That’s just not feasible with my schedule.

“But why not condoms, the pill, IUD, etc.?”

That’s probably the best question. The answer varies for what type of birth control we’re talking about, but ultimately vasectomies have a success rate that’s better than those other types of bith controls.

“Okay, so did it hurt?”

Actually, not that much. For those that want to know, here’s how it went down. I got to the hospital about two hours before my surgery and was whisked to a room where I had to strip down, put on the backless gown, footies, and for some reason a hairnet (yes I did look as ridiculous as you imagine I did). An IV was inserted into my wrist, and fluids were given to me, in addition to an antibiotic.

When it was time for my surgery, I was wheeled to the OR holding area, where I met my doctor and my ana… my ana… the guy who knocked me out. Yep, that’s right. I had a general ana… knockout given to me. So ultimately, I didn’t feel a damn thing.

I was home about 4 hours after the surgery (with a local it would have been closer to two), and I’ve been hanging out on the couch ever since.

Honestly, I feel pretty good. A little sore, but it doesn’t even feel as bad as getting kicked in the nuts. The worst was feeling a little nauseous from the lack of food and the general anesthetic (yes, I finally looked up the spelling). I had to lay down because I thought I was going to be sick, but once my head hit the couch, I started feeling better.

**Update**

I wrote that last night but didn’t want to post anything while I was under the effects of Tramadol. I’m still feeling pretty good today. Actually the pain’s not bad at all (probably a 2 on a scale of 1 to 10). It’s the loopiness from the pain medication that’s the biggest thing.

Jim: You’e a brave man, bud. I think you ought to get “A Man Came At My Privates With A Knife and I Lived To Tell The Tale” embroidered on a throw pillow.

Does anybody else feel like that whatever went wrong, their weekend doesn’t seem that bad in comparison?

Just how personal do we want to get on this here blog? Because I have a feeling I could post something extremely blog-worthy tomorrow evening.

Jim? Marshall? Thoughts?

Marshall: I think you should post whatever you’re comfortable with.

Jim: Go for it, man. I suspect it will end up being a must-read.

I had these thoughts while reading a thread on Ace of Spades about the report that a majority of the Iraqi Parliament has signed on to a letter by al-Sadr asking U.S. troops to leave the country.

A commenter writes, “I’m sympathetic to Ace’s view that we don’t really owe the Iraqis anything at this point.  [But]… We owe it to ourselves to maintain the perception worldwide that America means what it says.” I presume he means that the U.S. has publicly committed itself to getting Iraq to a stable, united, and democratic entity before withdrawing U.S. troops; if we leave before that is completed, we suggest that we are willing to abandon our allies (like the Iraqis working with us) and reward our enemies (Syria, Iran, al-Qaeda in Iraq, Sadr, etc.).

Here’s the problem: America doesn’t mean what it says.

Leaders of foreign countries, our allies and our enemies and everyone in between, can read the papers. They know Americans were iffy on the war in 2004, and were ready to give up, pull out, and let the chips fall where they may by 2006. They know Congressional majorities don’t want to fight this war anymore. They know the American public wants the whole mess to just go away and get off their television screens.

Not enough Americans believe that there will be dire consequences if we abandon Iraq to whatever fate awaits it without us. Too many Americans believe that whatever Iraq can become, it is not worth additional sacrifices in blood and treasure. This country had gotten used to low-casualty combat missions in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Haiti, Gulf War I, Panama, bombing runs on Qaddafi, our “tanker war” with Iran in the late 1980s, Grenada. (In Somalia, the country said “to hell with it” after the Black Hawk Down incident, giving Osama bin Laden a useful example for his propaganda.) Americans were conditioned to believe wars could be fought with servicemen’s fatalities in the low three figures or less. When the KIA total in Iraq hit, oh, say, 1,000, the country began to wonder if the price was too high, an unanswerable calculation. Is transitioning Iraq from postwar chaos to a stable democratic ally worth 900 lives, but not 1100? 50 but not 500?

In the end, America’s isolationist tendencies always come back, and polls indicate Americans eventually conclude, “Aw, the hell with it.” Was there really much recrimination in the United States over Saddam’s smashing the Shia and Kurds after the first Persian Gulf War after the United States encouraged them to rise up against the dictators? Few care, in this country at least. The Turks felt they were promised certain policy concessions for putting their troops on the border during Gulf War I and taking in refugees. Clinton came into office, and the promises were forgotten. Administrations change; if a promise isn’t written into a ratified treaty, it’s written in disappearing ink.

The world knows that any country that crosses the United States does so at great risk, but only for the duration of the attention span of the American people.

Twelve aspects of American life  - particulary, Washington D.C. and its surrounding suburbs — that have changed in my absence…

1) When I left, the D.C. Metro system was in the process of installing electronic platform signs. That system is now complete, and tells me the scheduled arrival of Metro trains in some alternate dimension, because it rarely if ever aligns with the arrival of the trains at the station I’m at.

2) When I left, every other Metro escalator was broken. Now… okay, that’s pretty much the same.

3) Everyone has an Ipod.

4) Everyone has a PDA, and is addicted to it. It seems like very few people carry a laptop computer.

5) D.C. has a baseball team… that wants 20 bucks a ticket to watch one of the all-time most painful rebuilding seasons.

6) My local Harris Teeter appears to have roughly eighty different kinds of mustard. The prices at Harris Teeter are high, but I can usually balance that out from all the free samples they offer.

7) I now have a stunning variety of cable channels and shows on-demand. And there ain’t %#$^% on that I want to watch. The price of flat-screen televisions is strikingly inexpensive compared to a few years ago, but before I make the expense, I have to ask myself, just what am I going to watch that I need the big screen for? Law and Order episodes? Yeah, Jack McCoy’s self-righteousness loses its nuance on the smaller screen.

On a related note, if you click through the channels, and you hear the phrase, “Is that how it happened when you raped her?” in an accusatory tone, there’s a 99.8 percent chance you’re watching an episode of “Law and Order: SVU.” Also, “We found the bucket of severed ring fingers and pigtails over here, Lieutenant.”

There’s now vitamin-infused Coke. If I’m drinking a Coke, I’ve pretty much decided that I’m not interested in vitamins.

9) What the hell happened to George Michael? I’m used to a ludicriously over-the-top homer with a combover doing the sports, the kind of man who would say, “Last night’s thrilling 9 to 6 overtime win over the Houston Texans, a fantastic start in the first preseason game, has everyone at Redskins Park saying the same thing: This is our year to win the Super Bowl.” Now I’ve got some perky young blonde woman. Thank God Jim Vance and Doreen Gentzler are still there to do the local news.

10) Tony Kornheiser doesn’t write a column anymore, but the Post transcribes bits of his show with Wilbon. Talk about phoning it in. Great. No more of his sports columns, which were actually funny, and more of his wocka-wocka Fozzie Bear schtick on Monday Night Football.

11) Cam, you would know this - any local talk radio besides Washington Post radio?

12) There’s a schlocky done-in-twenty-minutes-with-a-budget-of-four-dollars-and-eighty-cents horror movie coming out every week.

Marshall: Wow. Great post, Jim. It’s amazing how much things have changed around here in just the couple of years you’ve been gone. Mind if add a couple?

13) One of the greatest restaurants on the east coast — the Labratorio del Galileo — is closed while its building is razed and rebuilt.

14) There’s a new director and a new panda at the national zoo, and the zoo is poised for a remarkable turnaround after several years of tough times.

15) The Democrats control Congress. But the less said about that, the better.

16) The old Wilson Bridge was brought down by explosive charges, not careening traffic, and one of the two spans of the new bridge is now complete.

17) The Air Force Memorial, sitting atop a ridge overlooking the Pentagon, officially opened to the public.

18) The Redskins suck. Oh. Wait. Nevermind.

19) The Washington Capitals… Oh. Wait. Nevermind.

20) National Review has expanded its lineup of three or four blogs to something approaching a million.

21) The massive new addition to Tyson’s Corner Center opened, complete with movie theater and food court.

22) Katie Couric took over the anchor desk at CBS and promptly returned the network’s flagship evening newscast to the cellar where it belongs.

Cam: Local talk radio? I think Michael Graham might still be doing his show on WMAL, but honestly I haven’t listened.

I think there’ve been a coupel of other changes since you left… I have two more kids now. And a dog. You can actually have the dog as a housewarming present if you’d like.

Let’s see… other new things…

- Red Zebra broadcasting. I hate the fact that ESPN radio is all static-y now.

- Wegman’s has moved into the area (and is worth the drive).

I might think of some others later. I just wanted to show that yes, I am still contributing (feebly) to the blog.