Howie Carr thinks that it’s time to stick a fork in Imus. And he seems pretty happy about it.

Iain Murray has some good news on the environmental front–the restoration of the Aral Sea. And as Iain points out, this was unquestionably a tragedy caused by man–not by global warming, but by a Stalinist command economy. And it reminds me of the fatuousness of the Pope’s comments the other day, that “no good came out of the war in Iraq.” (Michael Novak has his own thoughts on that.)

One could probably write a book on the many good things that have come out of removing Saddam from power, but just one is the reversal of another environmental catastrophe, also caused by oppression and a Stalinist-style government–the draining of the Euphrates marshes. With Saddam’s removal, plans to restore them began almost immediately, and the progress has been impressive, if not perfect:

The restoration of southern Iraq’s Mesopotamian marshes is now a giant ecosystem-level experiment. Uncontrolled release of water in many areas is resulting in the return of native plants and animals, including rare and endangered species of birds, mammals, and plants. The rate of restoration is remarkable, considering that reflooding occurred only about two years ago. Although recovery is not so pronounced in some areas because of elevated salinity and toxicity, many locations seem to be functioning at levels close to those of the natural Al-Hawizeh marsh, and even at historic levels in some areas.

Nothing good from the Iraq war? Ask a Marsh Arab.

It’s sad that Popular Mechanics has to waste any bandwidth and pixels responding to Rosie O’Donnell’s incandescent idiocy, but that’s the world we apparently live in. How much longer is ABC going to embarrass itself with this moron?

[Afternoon update]

The steel industry is running scared, now that Rosie is on to their scam, that has been going on for well over a century.

Heh. As a commenter notes, the Iraqis must be part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. Well, it is vast, after all.

Yesterday’s Lileks Bleat (which went up late, so I didn’t see it until today) is fully screedy goodness, against overprivileged and cynical haters of civilization. Especially that pinnacle of evil–western civilization:

Over lunch I read the local free newspaper; the editorial page had two opinion pieces. One disparaged dog sweaters. I have no love for dog sweaters either, but they don

Well, I don’t miss Glenn all that much.

Yet.

I mean, it’s just been a few days.

But without the all caps intros, it’s just not Instapundit, so that’s how I voted. It does have exactly the grating effect on the eyes that Tigerhawk notes, and who the hell is Tom Maguire to desecrate it in such a fashion?

If you love me, and my blog, you’ll do the same. Particularly since it’s currently in last place.

Dan Rather, on net neutrality:

Rather: Neutrality is an emotionally charged word for the Internet. I’m not an expert, but I believe in equality all the way around. If someone’s going to have high speed, then everybody ought to have access to high speed. I recognize that there’s an argument the other way, that you can’t have it for everybody, but I just don’t buy that argument. To me, it’s akin to saying, “Well, there’s this new invention called the telephone, and only a few people should be allowed to have it, because everybody can’t have it at once.”

Funny thing, though. That’s exactly how it happened. Any new technology is going to be available to the wealthy first. This is as mindlessly egalitarian as the old schoolteacher saying that you shouldn’t bring candy to class unless you bring enough for everyone. That kind of thinking ensures that everyone is equal–in poverty.

[Update at 9:40 PM EDT]

I should also not that this kind of attitude would prevent space tourism from getting off the ground. Which means preventing space development from getting off the ground. After all, if we can’t all go right now, why should anyone be allowed to?

Dan Rather, on net neutrality:

Rather: Neutrality is an emotionally charged word for the Internet. I’m not an expert, but I believe in equality all the way around. If someone’s going to have high speed, then everybody ought to have access to high speed. I recognize that there’s an argument the other way, that you can’t have it for everybody, but I just don’t buy that argument. To me, it’s akin to saying, “Well, there’s this new invention called the telephone, and only a few people should be allowed to have it, because everybody can’t have it at once.”

Funny thing, though. That’s exactly how it happened. Any new technology is going to be available to the wealthy first. This is as mindlessly egalitarian as the old schoolteacher saying that you shouldn’t bring candy to class unless you bring enough for everyone. That kind of thinking ensures that everyone is equal–in poverty.

[Update at 9:40 PM EDT]

I should also not that this kind of attitude would prevent space tourism from getting off the ground. Which means preventing space development from getting off the ground. After all, if we can’t all go right now, why should anyone be allowed to?

Dan Rather, on net neutrality:

Rather: Neutrality is an emotionally charged word for the Internet. I’m not an expert, but I believe in equality all the way around. If someone’s going to have high speed, then everybody ought to have access to high speed. I recognize that there’s an argument the other way, that you can’t have it for everybody, but I just don’t buy that argument. To me, it’s akin to saying, “Well, there’s this new invention called the telephone, and only a few people should be allowed to have it, because everybody can’t have it at once.”

Funny thing, though. That’s exactly how it happened. Any new technology is going to be available to the wealthy first. This is as mindlessly egalitarian as the old schoolteacher saying that you shouldn’t bring candy to class unless you bring enough for everyone. That kind of thinking ensures that everyone is equal–in poverty.

[Update at 9:40 PM EDT]

I should also not that this kind of attitude would prevent space tourism from getting off the ground. Which means preventing space development from getting off the ground. After all, if we can’t all go right now, why should anyone be allowed to?

Lorie Byrd writes about the media myth that won’t die, in the Plame/Wilson affair:

For almost four years now, the public has been fed a steady diet of Joe-Wilson-truth-teller exposing President Bush