Al Gore is retarded.

"An Inconvenient Truth" is the latest attempt by Hollywood, the liberal media, environmentalists and every fear-monger from here to Timbuktu to perpetuate the "disaster" of global-warming, which is supposedly upon us. Despite the title, which alludes to some sort of wisdom it might impart to anyone who would see it, there is no truth contained within. In fact, the only thing that's truly inconvenient about this movie is that it was released in the first place.

Before I attempt to convince you into unbelieving the "truth" of global warming, you first need to understand that those in favor of destroying America's economy, industry and your lives in the name of "science" will stop at nothing from pretty much inventing proof.

As where legitimate scientists follow the scientific method (they form a hypothesis, perform experiments and then gather data to prove or disprove their hypothesis), environmental nuts (or as Al Gore calls them, a consensus of the scientific community) automatically announced that global warming was indeed a fact, and then point out that every thing that goes bad in the world as continued proof of global warming.

If that logic shocks you, then you should know it's not the only time such reasoning is employed. Much like global warming, evolution is proved by and the same.Can we really afford to use that kind of backwards, and wrong, logic? Trillions of dollars are at stake in American business and personal interests, so wouldn't it seem to reason that we make sure we know what exactly is going on before we start?

Therein is the fallacy with global warming. Proponents of global warming state that Hurricane Katrina, hot temperatures, floods, droughts, wildfires, death, famine and Ted Kennedy's blood-alcohol level are all effects of global warming. These are true not because they have been proven to be, but because they have to be, that's the only answer, end of story. Yet these are the claims made in "An Inconvenient Truth."

Is the world getting warmer? Most likely. That's an easy answer. Is that warming a bad thing? Absolutely not. Earth's climate changes frequently and has so for a few billion of years (although much of the data Gore generates in his documentary only goes back to the early 1880s when records began to be kept, but hey, who's counting?).

So why does climate fluctuate? Most legitimate research indicates that climate is more influenced by changes in the amount of solar radiation generated by the sun than anything else. But that kind of research isn't important in a movie like this. The point of this movie is to scare and intimidate you into allowing the environmentalists to strip your life away.

"An Inconvenient Truth" is a lie. Al Gore should refund the money of every person who has had to endure his movie, and his books should be recycled and made into toilet paper. If he was truly concerned about the welfare of the world, he would be focusing on fixing problems that matter instead of peddling the 21st century version of alchemy. And to think, this man almost became president.

Kim Jong-Il...Kim Jong-Dead

You can hardly go a week in the world without a world leader pretending they're a child. Once again we're at a standoff with a foreign country over a known weapons program, and once again lawmakers and diplomats are at a loss for the next step. North Korea refuses to talk with us, insisting that their missile program is their right as a sovereign state (it's like a teenager turning 16 and demanding to have a driver's license).

The key word around Washington and in discussions across the globe is diplomacy. You remember diplomacy, right? Diplomacy prevented the first Gulf War, it's the same diplomacy that prevented the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, the attacks of Sept. 11, the attack in Madrid, the Iraq War (at least we took the initiative in solving that situation), and last year's attacks in London. Diplomacy is great. Although it worked in years past, that was before the United Nations turned into the international version of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

Instead of using military power to dictate proper behavior (if dictators are going to act like children, they should be treated as such), the U.N has resorted to using the back of their hand to slap faces around the globe with "sanctions" and "resolutions". Ever since Saddam Hussein started ignoring the edicts and commands of the United Nations, its usefulness as an international policy maker and political body have failed, and with it diplomacy will fail.One has to look no further than the current crisis in North Korea. China is floundering on putting pressure on North Korea to abandon their missile program.

Despite the missile tests taking place last week, the U.N. has been virtually unresponsive. The strongest language we can get from the U.N. is the chance of a "potential" vote on sanctions from the U.N. Security Council. (This is notwithstanding that China has publicly stated that it would consider using their veto power on the security council if any resolution comes to vote.) The rest of the world that has a vested interest in defeating evil and terrorism around the globe has a responsibility to do so.North Korea's missile ambitions must be ended, immediately.

With the possibility of a long-range North Korean missile having the potential to reach the Western United States coast, we can't afford the same risks we took with Islamic terrorists in the late 90s (we all know how that turned out). It's time to get back to the original foreign policy President Bush set-out to accomplish following the attacks of Sept. 11. It's our duty to rid the world of potential threats to America and her allies. We've taken out the Taliban and Saddam, Kim Jong-Il communist regime should be next.

The Daily Show

So I woke up this morning and decided to read some stuff on the uwire (the news wire of college newspapers). I came across an article from the Daily Texan at the University of Texas called "A 'Daily Show' political education". All I can say is, this guy's an idiot. The Daily Show is liberal trash, but I already knew that. The guy that wrote the article (as any good college liberal would) gives the Daily Show grandiose praise in statements such as "The program informs a significant portion of the youth population on the happenings of the world".

Great, most informed Americans read a newspaper, read an internet site, or watch the news. But the youth (and presumably the future) of America watch The Daily Show. My favorite part of the column though, is where the author cites the Daily Show as the reason for more youths voting in the 2004 election.

"The Census Bureau reports that voting turnout for 18- to 24-year-olds was 47 percent in the 2004 election, up 11 percent from four years prior. This time period directly corresponds to the first four years of Jon Stewart's tenure on "The Daily Show."" That's one hell of a conjecture. I'd like to make my own. I changed from boxers to boxer briefs in 2001, three full years before the 2004 election. I think that's why voting turnout for youths rose 11 percent. Honestly, I don't know how liberals manage to put clothes on in the morning.

Eminent domain now up to city.

The framers of the Constitution were marvelously remarkable in their ability to enumerate specific powers to the government. Powers, which to this day, are essential to its everyday business. Eminent domain allows the procuring of private lands when needed, and with proper compensation, to benefit the public. The power of eminent domain is specifically laid out in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the final portion of which reads, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." In most cases, the key battling point when it comes to decisions in eminent domain come from how much compensation should be given for the amount of property being taken.

That is the issue in the current eminent domain battle between the city of Lubbock and the Faith Assembly of God church. The church, which lies between Bangor and Chicago Avenues on 50th Street, is in the way from a planned widening of 50th Street west of Slide Road.

Initially the church had been told it would only lose approximately six-square-feet of land to the expansion and the city offered $250,000 in compensation. However, after closer examination of the projected expansion, the church realized that would literally put them right up against the newly constructed 50th Street. In order to ensure safety for the building and its worshippers the church will have to be moved back 30 feet from the street, at an estimated cost of around $1 million.

After notifying the city, a court-appointed commission rendered a decision that the dislocation would be worth $510,000. While the church agreed to that amount, the city rejected it and instead filed for eminent domain. After seeing the situation, City Councilman John Leonard (who was unavailable at the writing of this column) stated that it seems the city was "looking at the market value instead of the replacement value". He told KAMC News Channel 28, that he was "a little uncomfortable with where we are at."

I spoke with the Pastor of Faith Assembly of God, Terry Nesmith, and he informed me that his church's situation will be the first item on the agenda at the July 10 City Council meeting. It's good to see Councilman Leonard staying on top of the situation and getting this item up for discussion. Now, hopefully, the dilemma of a few of Lubbock's citizens can be appropriately solved.

Yes, 50th Street needs to be expanded. Lubbock is a continuously growing city, which means construction and infrastructure expansion are all too necessary. That expansion, however, cannot come at the expensive of its private citizens. The operable words outlying eminent domain in the Bill of Rights is "without just compensation". If you're going to force someone to relocate buildings and lose land, then make sure they can do so as easily as possible. For Lubbock to know of the $1 million price tag of relocation and cause them to invoke eminent domain (and retain the original $250,000 offering price) is absolutely ludicrous. It's now up to the city to make the right choice.