Seven and a half month into the new Democratic control of Congress and their new strategy on ending the war is a sleepover. Are the Democrats really serious about ending the war?
No. Granted it is difficult to push through controversial legislation with a razor-thin majority but there are reasons that the Democrats do not want the war to end.
Democratic strategists are sure that the war is why they won control of Congress in 2006. They hope to leverage the same voter anger in 2008. If the war ends before 2008 then it will be ancient history. This means that Democrats will dance around the issue but will never force Bush to withdraw the troops. At the same time, Democrats will use the issue as a fund-raiser. Their all-nighter was accompanied by action parties which mainly raised funds.
This is also being used as a wedge to try to defeat marginal Republicans. I've gotten two anti-Pryce phone messages in the last two of weeks. These are similar to the anti-Pryce calls I was getting just before the 2006 election when Pryce was almost defeated.
All of this means that the Democrats have to make war support a Republican issue. According to a Newsweek article, Democratic leaders are discouraging alliances with wavering Republicans. A bipartisan effort to end the war would ruin the Democrats' plans.
This will also cause problems for the Republican presidential candidates. It is unlikely that an anti-war candidate will win the primaries but that means that the winner of the nomination will be running on Bush's record. Most of the Republicans want to distance themselves from Bush right now.
While the Democrats have every reason to want the war to continue, they have to appear against it. If the public senses that the Democrats have been continuing the war on purpose then they lose their advantage.
They also have to keep the anti-war left from calling for their heads. Cindy Sheehan already realized that the Democrats betrayed her and announced that she will run against Pelosi. This trickle could turn into a gusher as the Democrats' most active supporters bleed away.
Maybe this is why Nader is running again. As usual, he insists that there is no difference between the parties. If the Democrats have no intention of ending the war then he is correct and he could siphon off enough support to give the election to the Republicans.
Stunts like the all-nighter are supposed to make the anti-war left think that the Democrats really are opposing Bush. In the movie Chicago, the defense lawyer is shown doing a dance as he dodges difficult questions and eventually gets two clients freed. The Democrats are trying to do this dance now - distracting people with fancy footwork while approaching their real goal.
They may well fail. There are a lot of stumbling blocks. I can't imagine the anti-war left having enough patience to wait until after the 2008 election for the war to end. They expect success by the end of the year.
A worse nightmare for the Democrats is that Iraq might stabilize. Most of the frustration against the war comes from the nightly death toll. The networks tell us how many troops died in the last 24 hours. If none died or were injured then they list Iraqi fatalities. They never mention terrorists or insurgents killed.
What if that turns around? What if the tribes continue to make peace with the US and to turn against al Qeada?
The ultimate nightmare would be for Bush to fold and start withdrawing the troops. Everyone except John Murtha is sure that this will bring an increase in violence. This could turn public opinion around. The Republican presidential candidate would not be supporting the war, he would be running against genocide.
The Republicans may own the war but the Democrats would own the defeat and its aftermath. This could lead to a Republican sweep.
So the Democrats have to make a show of being against the war but they cannot afford to actually stop it.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
What Should Al Do?
Al Gore wants the developed world to cut CO2 emissions by 90% by 2050. My feeling is that I want to see Al go first. I'm serious. We just had a huge rock concert attended by celebrities who have no intention of cutting back on their lifestyle but want to send the rest of us back to the stone age. Gore made the news last Winter when his power bills came out. He burns more energy than a block of regular folks. His apologists say that he is a rich man (currently estimated as being worth $100 million) so he is entitled to live like the rich do.
I disagree. Someone who asked millions of people to pledge to push for a 90% cut in CO2 should be willing to lead the way. Here are some steps I would like to see Al make. All are doable.
Turn off the air conditioning. It makes life pleasant but people lived without it for thousands of years. Heck - I grew up without it and Al certainly didn't have air conditioning when he plowed fields behind his uncle's mules.
Turn off most of the heat. Al has a huge house but he can only occupy one room at a time (even if he has put on weight). Put in zone heating so that the room he is in has a little heat. Do the same for his wife and maybe some of the staff. He can heat the rest of the house enough to keep the pipes from freezing in the Winter but otherwise don't waste power heating rooms that aren't used. This is how the rich lived for centuries. Al can survive. He can afford heavy clothes and he's put on some natural insulation of his own.
Turn off the lights. Forget Compact Fluorescents. Our forefathers often lit a room with a single candle. Al could use one or two white LEDs per room that would more than equal a candle. He could use an LED-based book light for reading. Oh - and don't light empty rooms.
Scrap a jet. I don't know if Al owns a private jet or just leases one. If he owns one he should have it cut up for scrap. If he doesn't own one then he should buy one and cut it up. The idea is that private jets are one of the biggest emitters of CO2 that an individual can have. It's not enough to sell one so that someone else can use it. Al has to take one off of the market - maybe two.
Cut back on travel. Al travels a lot. He jets all over the world telling people to stop creating CO2 even as his travels dwarf their own emissions. Al should do more teleconferencing. If he has to travel he should be driving a Prius or a Smart Car. He should also install a governor on his cars so that they cannot be driven faster than 50 MPH. A Prius loses its advantage over other cars as it goes faster. At 100 MPH it will get terrible millage. While he's at it, Al should plan his speaking trips so that he can do one long road trip across the country per year.
Switch to Windows 98. A modern Intel dual-core chip with two gig RAM and a high-end graphic card uses a lot of power. A PC or MAC made ten years ago can do just about everything the newer PCs can do and not much slower. They just don't look as flashy doing it.
Condemn the Kennedys. At Live Earth RFK jr proclaimed that anyone who denies global warming is a traitor and should be treated as such. These are strong words coming from someone who opposes a major wind farm. His uncle Ted is against the wind farm, also. Why? Because they don't want to see it in the distance from their expensive properties. This makes them bigger hypocrites than Gore (although consorting with RFK jr raises Al's hypocrisy points). If Al is serious about cutting emissions then he should condemn anyone standing in the way of a wind farm.
Until Al does something from this list (or something similarly radical), I'm not going to alter my lifestyle. Why should I?
I disagree. Someone who asked millions of people to pledge to push for a 90% cut in CO2 should be willing to lead the way. Here are some steps I would like to see Al make. All are doable.
Turn off the air conditioning. It makes life pleasant but people lived without it for thousands of years. Heck - I grew up without it and Al certainly didn't have air conditioning when he plowed fields behind his uncle's mules.
Turn off most of the heat. Al has a huge house but he can only occupy one room at a time (even if he has put on weight). Put in zone heating so that the room he is in has a little heat. Do the same for his wife and maybe some of the staff. He can heat the rest of the house enough to keep the pipes from freezing in the Winter but otherwise don't waste power heating rooms that aren't used. This is how the rich lived for centuries. Al can survive. He can afford heavy clothes and he's put on some natural insulation of his own.
Turn off the lights. Forget Compact Fluorescents. Our forefathers often lit a room with a single candle. Al could use one or two white LEDs per room that would more than equal a candle. He could use an LED-based book light for reading. Oh - and don't light empty rooms.
Scrap a jet. I don't know if Al owns a private jet or just leases one. If he owns one he should have it cut up for scrap. If he doesn't own one then he should buy one and cut it up. The idea is that private jets are one of the biggest emitters of CO2 that an individual can have. It's not enough to sell one so that someone else can use it. Al has to take one off of the market - maybe two.
Cut back on travel. Al travels a lot. He jets all over the world telling people to stop creating CO2 even as his travels dwarf their own emissions. Al should do more teleconferencing. If he has to travel he should be driving a Prius or a Smart Car. He should also install a governor on his cars so that they cannot be driven faster than 50 MPH. A Prius loses its advantage over other cars as it goes faster. At 100 MPH it will get terrible millage. While he's at it, Al should plan his speaking trips so that he can do one long road trip across the country per year.
Switch to Windows 98. A modern Intel dual-core chip with two gig RAM and a high-end graphic card uses a lot of power. A PC or MAC made ten years ago can do just about everything the newer PCs can do and not much slower. They just don't look as flashy doing it.
Condemn the Kennedys. At Live Earth RFK jr proclaimed that anyone who denies global warming is a traitor and should be treated as such. These are strong words coming from someone who opposes a major wind farm. His uncle Ted is against the wind farm, also. Why? Because they don't want to see it in the distance from their expensive properties. This makes them bigger hypocrites than Gore (although consorting with RFK jr raises Al's hypocrisy points). If Al is serious about cutting emissions then he should condemn anyone standing in the way of a wind farm.
Until Al does something from this list (or something similarly radical), I'm not going to alter my lifestyle. Why should I?
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Losing to the Terrorists
In the next three years we could see al Qaida make a major come-back. By my count, four different countries are at risk of takeover by a Taliban-style government that is friendly to al Qaida. In order of increasing probability, these are:
Iraq.
Recently the New York Times ran an editorial admitting that a troop pull-out from Iraq would lead to increased violence, possibly even genocide. They called for a pull-out anyway. Even if Bush manages to hold against congressional Democrats, there is a good chance that the next president will order a pull-out. Al Qaida is hoping that they will be able to use the ensuing chaos to create a new Islamic government. They have invested a lot of time and effort in this project.
Somalia
This has been a failed state for decades. The closest that they have come to stability since the US pulled out was the establishment of the Islamic Courts. While some on the left insisted that this was not what it sounds like, a; Qaida says that it is. They have officially aligned themselves with the Islamic Courts and hope to re-establish themselves there.
Afghanistan
This is supposed to be the "good war" but it is dragging on. The left is beginning to call for a pull-out from here, also. All of the reasons for pulling out of Iraq can be applied here. There is a direct link between Afghanistan and 9/11 but this is often forgotten. Michael Moore insisted that we are only there to build an oil pipeline.
Worse, the left has been announcing that we already lost Afghanistan except for a small area around the capitol as part of the drum-beat calling for a withdrawal. If we leave the Taliban will be back.
Pakistan
The reason the Taliban is still active in Afghanistan is that they have a safe harbor in Pakistan. The government has ceded two provinces to them. Comparing the current government tot he Shaw of Iran, the New York Times is calling for us to withdraw our support. No good can come of this. Pakistan is a nuclear-armed nation.
Regardless of our support, the government in Pakistan might not be able to hold on much longer. There is a very real danger that the Taliban will take over. This is the ultimate nightmare. Pakistan has come close to a nuclear exchange with India already. It has also shared nuclear secrets with Iran. and both of those happened under a moderate government. A radical Islamic government in Pakistan will threaten world stability.
Iraq.
Recently the New York Times ran an editorial admitting that a troop pull-out from Iraq would lead to increased violence, possibly even genocide. They called for a pull-out anyway. Even if Bush manages to hold against congressional Democrats, there is a good chance that the next president will order a pull-out. Al Qaida is hoping that they will be able to use the ensuing chaos to create a new Islamic government. They have invested a lot of time and effort in this project.
Somalia
This has been a failed state for decades. The closest that they have come to stability since the US pulled out was the establishment of the Islamic Courts. While some on the left insisted that this was not what it sounds like, a; Qaida says that it is. They have officially aligned themselves with the Islamic Courts and hope to re-establish themselves there.
Afghanistan
This is supposed to be the "good war" but it is dragging on. The left is beginning to call for a pull-out from here, also. All of the reasons for pulling out of Iraq can be applied here. There is a direct link between Afghanistan and 9/11 but this is often forgotten. Michael Moore insisted that we are only there to build an oil pipeline.
Worse, the left has been announcing that we already lost Afghanistan except for a small area around the capitol as part of the drum-beat calling for a withdrawal. If we leave the Taliban will be back.
Pakistan
The reason the Taliban is still active in Afghanistan is that they have a safe harbor in Pakistan. The government has ceded two provinces to them. Comparing the current government tot he Shaw of Iran, the New York Times is calling for us to withdraw our support. No good can come of this. Pakistan is a nuclear-armed nation.
Regardless of our support, the government in Pakistan might not be able to hold on much longer. There is a very real danger that the Taliban will take over. This is the ultimate nightmare. Pakistan has come close to a nuclear exchange with India already. It has also shared nuclear secrets with Iran. and both of those happened under a moderate government. A radical Islamic government in Pakistan will threaten world stability.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Just Sick
A few weeks ago Andrew Speaker learned that he had a rare form of tuberculosis while in Italy. Warned that he would be barred from flying back to the US, he went to Germany where he caught a flight to Canada and drove back to the US.
Square this with Michael Moore's new film Sicko which quotes a WHO study showing that the US is ranked number 37 in health care, between Costa Rica and Slovenia (and two spots ahead of Cuba). This means that Speaker left Italy (#2), and went through Germany (#25) and Canada (#30) before coming back to the US( #37). Speaker was quoted as saying that he was sure he would die if he didn't get back to the US.
Was he crazy? Or does he know something that Moore doesn't want you to know?
Well... It turns out that the WHO studies are not really based on a nation's health. There are other factors including "fairness" and payment method. In fact, the same study that ranks the US #37 overall puts us at #15 for overall health attainment. This WHO paper admits that, given the uncertainty factor, Switzerland (#2) could be doing worse than the US (#15). We lose points overall because we are ranked #54 in "fairness" (defined as government payments to health care). On the other hand, we are first in responsiveness and expenditure by a wide margin!
We are only ranked #32 in equality of child survival but this is misleading since it depends on member countries to define live birth. In the US, we rank many babies as premature live births where other countries would rank the same child as a miscarriage.
We are ranked #25 for live expectancy but, again, the uncertainty interval is big enough that we could actually be higher.
None of this is really meaningful in a policy debate. By including fairness of financial contribution as 25% of the total score, the people writing the report assured that countries with socialized medicine would score high, regardless of the quality of medicine received.
One thing that should be addressed in the US is the cost. We pay more than anyone else. While this results in high-quality care, much of this cost is wasted. Personally, I blame trial lawyers whose baseless suits have caused innumerable unneeded tests. Presidential candidate John Edwards personally raised the number of Caesarian Sections through class-action suits. Unfortunately, there has been no corresponding rise in health so this is wasted pain and money.
The last thing in the world that is likely to improve health care is a government take-over. This was tried in England 60 years ago. The result is that their medical system is overloaded and 40% of their doctors are from overseas (including a few jihadists). Canada tried this a couple of decades ago. When a bi-partisan panel looked into health care during Bush (41), they liked the Canadian system. A couple of decades later, it is showing its cracks. The waits for treatment, including life-saving treatment, are legendary. Many doctors living near the border have a thriving practice treating Canadians who don't want to wait (or cannot wait) for their number to come up at home. since health insurance is illegal in Canada, these people are paying for treatment out of their pockets.
My father was a doctor and I grew up with stories about how difficult it was to file with Medicare. Their reporting requirements are much worse than insurance companies. This is to be expected. The insurance companies have to process the paperwork on the other side so they also suffer financially if there is too much paperwork. The government has no such limitations. Converting everyone over to a single-payer system would mean putting everyone on Medicare.
The British have recently discovered something else about government-run health care. In the US we look at someone with an unhealthy lifestyle and assume that it is between him and his insurance company. When the government becomes the insurance company then this equation changes. The government has power than no insurance company will ever wield. Just look at some of the excesses done in the name of public health in the last year. New York City banned trans-fats on shaky grounds. Imagine how much more of this we will see if government officials think that it will save public funds.
A few months ago a medical center in England announced that it would stop doing certain procedures on overweight patients. They are strapped for cash and someone needed to be cut. So much for universal health care.
Tort reform and easing testing requirements for new drugs would do more for people than socialized medicine.
Square this with Michael Moore's new film Sicko which quotes a WHO study showing that the US is ranked number 37 in health care, between Costa Rica and Slovenia (and two spots ahead of Cuba). This means that Speaker left Italy (#2), and went through Germany (#25) and Canada (#30) before coming back to the US( #37). Speaker was quoted as saying that he was sure he would die if he didn't get back to the US.
Was he crazy? Or does he know something that Moore doesn't want you to know?
Well... It turns out that the WHO studies are not really based on a nation's health. There are other factors including "fairness" and payment method. In fact, the same study that ranks the US #37 overall puts us at #15 for overall health attainment. This WHO paper admits that, given the uncertainty factor, Switzerland (#2) could be doing worse than the US (#15). We lose points overall because we are ranked #54 in "fairness" (defined as government payments to health care). On the other hand, we are first in responsiveness and expenditure by a wide margin!
We are only ranked #32 in equality of child survival but this is misleading since it depends on member countries to define live birth. In the US, we rank many babies as premature live births where other countries would rank the same child as a miscarriage.
We are ranked #25 for live expectancy but, again, the uncertainty interval is big enough that we could actually be higher.
None of this is really meaningful in a policy debate. By including fairness of financial contribution as 25% of the total score, the people writing the report assured that countries with socialized medicine would score high, regardless of the quality of medicine received.
One thing that should be addressed in the US is the cost. We pay more than anyone else. While this results in high-quality care, much of this cost is wasted. Personally, I blame trial lawyers whose baseless suits have caused innumerable unneeded tests. Presidential candidate John Edwards personally raised the number of Caesarian Sections through class-action suits. Unfortunately, there has been no corresponding rise in health so this is wasted pain and money.
The last thing in the world that is likely to improve health care is a government take-over. This was tried in England 60 years ago. The result is that their medical system is overloaded and 40% of their doctors are from overseas (including a few jihadists). Canada tried this a couple of decades ago. When a bi-partisan panel looked into health care during Bush (41), they liked the Canadian system. A couple of decades later, it is showing its cracks. The waits for treatment, including life-saving treatment, are legendary. Many doctors living near the border have a thriving practice treating Canadians who don't want to wait (or cannot wait) for their number to come up at home. since health insurance is illegal in Canada, these people are paying for treatment out of their pockets.
My father was a doctor and I grew up with stories about how difficult it was to file with Medicare. Their reporting requirements are much worse than insurance companies. This is to be expected. The insurance companies have to process the paperwork on the other side so they also suffer financially if there is too much paperwork. The government has no such limitations. Converting everyone over to a single-payer system would mean putting everyone on Medicare.
The British have recently discovered something else about government-run health care. In the US we look at someone with an unhealthy lifestyle and assume that it is between him and his insurance company. When the government becomes the insurance company then this equation changes. The government has power than no insurance company will ever wield. Just look at some of the excesses done in the name of public health in the last year. New York City banned trans-fats on shaky grounds. Imagine how much more of this we will see if government officials think that it will save public funds.
A few months ago a medical center in England announced that it would stop doing certain procedures on overweight patients. They are strapped for cash and someone needed to be cut. So much for universal health care.
Tort reform and easing testing requirements for new drugs would do more for people than socialized medicine.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Why are they so upset about Libby?
The Huffington Post is buzzing. Keith Olbermann is calling for Bush's resignation. Why? Because he commuted the unusually harsh sentence given to Scooter Libby. Why so much anger?
By the standards used to excuse Clinton (everybody lies), Libby didn't do anything. Even the special prosecutor on the case admitted that no crime had been committed but he still charged Libby with having obstructed the investigation of the non-crime.
Again, why does this upset the left so much?
The left seems to be suffering from a combination of collective amnesia and an extra case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
The facts of the case - Former ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Husein was trying to buy yellow cake (unprocessed uranium) to restart his nuclear program. Months later Wilson wrote a column for the New York Times saying that he had been sent by the Vice President, that he found the reports were false, and that he immediately knew that a separate report was a forgery. This ignited a firestorm. Along the way, it slipped out that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Wilson cried foul - his wife was classified undercover and exposing her identity was a crime. Wilson went on to write a best-seller claiming that the Bush administration deliberately exposed her identity in order to put her life at risk and as a warning to others.
This is all that the left remembers. What they have forgotten is that Wilson later admitted under oath that his report indicated that he had been sent at his wife's suggestion, that Iraq was inquiring about yellow cake, and that he had never even seen the report he claimed was a forgery. It also eventually turned out that the leak came from a Bush critic in the State Department, not from the White House.
What is more, since the whole thing involves Iraq and WMDs, the left sees this as the thin edge of the wedge that will pry open the secrets about the run-up to the war.
During the investigation they were convinced that the leak must have come from Cheney or Karl Rove. They were in ecstasy over Easter weekend, 2006 when it was rumored that either Cheney or Rove was about to be arrested. The left-wing bloggers couldn't wait for one of these men to be frog-marched out of the White House.
Of course it didn't happen. The investigation ended. No charges were filed except against Libby for giving conflicting dates.
But the left wants blood. Someone has to go to jail to satisfy them. Plus some of them are under the impression that an investigation is still going on and that Libby will cut a deal if he has to serve jail time.
Yesterday Olbermann went on about Libby's victim (how can there be a victim if there was no crime?). Today he went further:
Then there is Hillary. When asked about the pardon she insisted that it was much worse than the 140 that her husband made in his last days in office. These were unrepentant felons and at least one got on the pardon list by making a substantial donation to the Clinton Presidential Library and two more hired Hillary's brother to defend them.
This alone should disqualify Hillary from the presidency but the left has selective outrage. They don't care what the Clinton's did, only what Bush did.
Update: I had forgotten that Clinton pardoned his own half-brother who had a drug conviction.
By the standards used to excuse Clinton (everybody lies), Libby didn't do anything. Even the special prosecutor on the case admitted that no crime had been committed but he still charged Libby with having obstructed the investigation of the non-crime.
Again, why does this upset the left so much?
The left seems to be suffering from a combination of collective amnesia and an extra case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
The facts of the case - Former ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Husein was trying to buy yellow cake (unprocessed uranium) to restart his nuclear program. Months later Wilson wrote a column for the New York Times saying that he had been sent by the Vice President, that he found the reports were false, and that he immediately knew that a separate report was a forgery. This ignited a firestorm. Along the way, it slipped out that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Wilson cried foul - his wife was classified undercover and exposing her identity was a crime. Wilson went on to write a best-seller claiming that the Bush administration deliberately exposed her identity in order to put her life at risk and as a warning to others.
This is all that the left remembers. What they have forgotten is that Wilson later admitted under oath that his report indicated that he had been sent at his wife's suggestion, that Iraq was inquiring about yellow cake, and that he had never even seen the report he claimed was a forgery. It also eventually turned out that the leak came from a Bush critic in the State Department, not from the White House.
What is more, since the whole thing involves Iraq and WMDs, the left sees this as the thin edge of the wedge that will pry open the secrets about the run-up to the war.
During the investigation they were convinced that the leak must have come from Cheney or Karl Rove. They were in ecstasy over Easter weekend, 2006 when it was rumored that either Cheney or Rove was about to be arrested. The left-wing bloggers couldn't wait for one of these men to be frog-marched out of the White House.
Of course it didn't happen. The investigation ended. No charges were filed except against Libby for giving conflicting dates.
But the left wants blood. Someone has to go to jail to satisfy them. Plus some of them are under the impression that an investigation is still going on and that Libby will cut a deal if he has to serve jail time.
Yesterday Olbermann went on about Libby's victim (how can there be a victim if there was no crime?). Today he went further:
And now, when just one cooked book gets corrected by an honest auditor, when just one trampling of the inherent and inviolable fairness of government is rejected by an impartial judge, when just one wild-eyed partisan is stopped by the figure of blind justice, this President decides that he, and not the law, must prevail.Again - Libby was convicted of knowingly giving the wrong dates for when he first found out what Wilson's wife did for a living and in a very unusual move, was told that his jail sentence would not be suspended while he appealed. This hardly counts as a "cooked book" or a "wild-eyed partisan". But Olbermann's rants raise the ratings so NBC encourages him.
Then there is Hillary. When asked about the pardon she insisted that it was much worse than the 140 that her husband made in his last days in office. These were unrepentant felons and at least one got on the pardon list by making a substantial donation to the Clinton Presidential Library and two more hired Hillary's brother to defend them.
This alone should disqualify Hillary from the presidency but the left has selective outrage. They don't care what the Clinton's did, only what Bush did.
Update: I had forgotten that Clinton pardoned his own half-brother who had a drug conviction.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Gore's assault on truth
Al Gore wrote an editorial for sunday's New York Times. In it he makes this claim:
Now - here's the thing. Live developed in the oceans. Without life, according to Gore, the Earth was like Venus. But if the temperature was 867 degrees, or even 300 degrees, then there would be no oceans and therefore no life. There's just no way around this.
This may not be what he meant but it is what he said. either Gore himself doesn't understand that Venus was always different from the Earth or he is willing to make mis-statements in order to scare people. Neither option is very comforting.
A lot of environmentalists make this comparison but there is a major flaw hidden in it. When Gore says that Earth's carbon was deposited in the ground over 600 million years he implies that prior to that it was in the atmosphere and that Earth had Venus-like temperatures.Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground — having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600 million years — and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.
As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It's the carbon dioxide.
Now - here's the thing. Live developed in the oceans. Without life, according to Gore, the Earth was like Venus. But if the temperature was 867 degrees, or even 300 degrees, then there would be no oceans and therefore no life. There's just no way around this.
This may not be what he meant but it is what he said. either Gore himself doesn't understand that Venus was always different from the Earth or he is willing to make mis-statements in order to scare people. Neither option is very comforting.
Scooter Libby
Obama has this to say about the pardon:
Obviously presidential pardons should be reserved for major campaign contributors and clients of the First Lady's brother. The presiding judge wanted to make an example of Libby so the sentence was disproportionate and the insistence on jail time while the appeal is being filed was just mean. That Bush would reduce Libby's sentence down to something more proportionate is fair but the left cannot see that. For example, tomorrow MSNBC's Keith Olberman plans to call for both Bush and Cheney to resign (conveniently leaving President Pelosi).
"This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law. This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people's faith in a government that puts the country's progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years."
Obviously presidential pardons should be reserved for major campaign contributors and clients of the First Lady's brother. The presiding judge wanted to make an example of Libby so the sentence was disproportionate and the insistence on jail time while the appeal is being filed was just mean. That Bush would reduce Libby's sentence down to something more proportionate is fair but the left cannot see that. For example, tomorrow MSNBC's Keith Olberman plans to call for both Bush and Cheney to resign (conveniently leaving President Pelosi).
Sunday, July 01, 2007
CAFE Craziness
Last week the Senate reached an agreement on raising the CAFE standards by 40%. This is the average fuel economy ratings of all cars and light trucks that a manufacturer sells. I mentioned this in a previous post but I want to go into more detail.
Currently the standards are different for cars and trucks with trucks getting a slight break. Also the definition of a truck is loose enough that, for CAFE purposes, my PT Cruiser is classified as a truck. This offsets Chrysler's bigger SUVs.
The new standards will establish a single standard for everything - cars, trucks, vans, and hybrids.
There are some serious problems with the new standard. There is no way to wring much more efficiency out of the gasoline motor. The only way to increase fuel economy is to make the car lighter or to give it a weaker motor.
Note - hybrids do not change this equation. Most of the hybrids on the market disguise the smaller gasoline engine by giving a short-term boost from an electric motor. The electric motor is powered by batteries which are charged by the gasoline motor. The net result is a fuel savings but nowhere near the new CAFE standards. The exception is the Prius which does average substantial fuel savings but mainly for city driving. The Prius runs on its electric motor and uses the gasoline engine to charge the batteries. During stop and go driving which is the worst for fuel economy, the gas motor doesn't even run much of the time. The Prius is not for everyone. It is slow and its expected life is half of conventional cars. Also, all of those batteries are heavy and take up a lot of room. In addition, on the highway, the Prius's economy drops and it is comparable to any other under-powered car.
This is the big problem. Current fleet economy is what it is because of consumer choices. If everyone put economy at the top of their priorities then no one would be buying SUVs.
The new standard is pretty high - 35 MPG. I just saw a Honda ad promoting their fuel economy being 34 MPG. Car makers will have trouble raising cars past 35 MPG. That means that they will have to cancel the less-efficient models.
I'm sure that ecologists are thrilled with this news. They would like nothing more than to outlaw the SUV. But they speak for a small minority of car-buyers.
Congress is dictating the the car manufacturers will have to make cars that the consumers do not want to buy and will fine the car makers if consumers buy too many of the wrong car.
This is not how a free economy works.
Worse, it probably will not save much fuel. By raising fuel efficiency, Congress is lowering the cost of driving. simple economics says that when the cost of something goes down, the demand goes up.
If Congress really wants to increase fuel economy, they should raise gas taxes. If people were paying $6/gallon they would reevaluate their car-buying priorities and driving habits. The Democrats would probably lose the next election but they would have the satisfaction of knowing that they made a real, direct difference.
Instead, the most likely result will be the death of the American car manufacturer.
Currently the standards are different for cars and trucks with trucks getting a slight break. Also the definition of a truck is loose enough that, for CAFE purposes, my PT Cruiser is classified as a truck. This offsets Chrysler's bigger SUVs.
The new standards will establish a single standard for everything - cars, trucks, vans, and hybrids.
There are some serious problems with the new standard. There is no way to wring much more efficiency out of the gasoline motor. The only way to increase fuel economy is to make the car lighter or to give it a weaker motor.
Note - hybrids do not change this equation. Most of the hybrids on the market disguise the smaller gasoline engine by giving a short-term boost from an electric motor. The electric motor is powered by batteries which are charged by the gasoline motor. The net result is a fuel savings but nowhere near the new CAFE standards. The exception is the Prius which does average substantial fuel savings but mainly for city driving. The Prius runs on its electric motor and uses the gasoline engine to charge the batteries. During stop and go driving which is the worst for fuel economy, the gas motor doesn't even run much of the time. The Prius is not for everyone. It is slow and its expected life is half of conventional cars. Also, all of those batteries are heavy and take up a lot of room. In addition, on the highway, the Prius's economy drops and it is comparable to any other under-powered car.
This is the big problem. Current fleet economy is what it is because of consumer choices. If everyone put economy at the top of their priorities then no one would be buying SUVs.
The new standard is pretty high - 35 MPG. I just saw a Honda ad promoting their fuel economy being 34 MPG. Car makers will have trouble raising cars past 35 MPG. That means that they will have to cancel the less-efficient models.
I'm sure that ecologists are thrilled with this news. They would like nothing more than to outlaw the SUV. But they speak for a small minority of car-buyers.
Congress is dictating the the car manufacturers will have to make cars that the consumers do not want to buy and will fine the car makers if consumers buy too many of the wrong car.
This is not how a free economy works.
Worse, it probably will not save much fuel. By raising fuel efficiency, Congress is lowering the cost of driving. simple economics says that when the cost of something goes down, the demand goes up.
If Congress really wants to increase fuel economy, they should raise gas taxes. If people were paying $6/gallon they would reevaluate their car-buying priorities and driving habits. The Democrats would probably lose the next election but they would have the satisfaction of knowing that they made a real, direct difference.
Instead, the most likely result will be the death of the American car manufacturer.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Poison Ivy
There's a news story going around that poison ivy is becoming more hazardous due to global warming. I saw similar stories on NBC and ABC. Here' s ABC's story on it. This is an example of the sort of global warming spin being put on nearly everything.
The story itself is that two studies have been published in the last year on the effects of carbon dioxide on poison ivy. They showed that the plant grows faster in the presence of elevated CO2 and that the amount of oil the plant produces is higher but not significantly so.
Here is how the story is being spun.
This confuses global warming and climate change. The writer thinks that global warming caused the increase in CO2 instead of CO2 causing global warming. (1)
NBC hasn't posted a version of their story so you will have to take my word on this part - the NBC story began by telling about a young teenager who didn't used to react to poison ivy but does now. We were left to conclude that poison ivy is now stronger than it had been. The teaser for the story implied the same thing. Notice that the quote above says that the oil did not increase significantly. we are not growing super-ivy that can infect the previously immune.
All of this is obvious and superficial. The real spin is focusing on poison ivy. There have been numerous studies showing that all plants grow faster with increased CO2. This means more food with less fertilizer. This is a very strong up-side to the increased levels of CO2 but it is usually ignored. After all, we can't let people think that something good might come from carbon dioxide.
There have literally been hundreds of these studies done since the early 1980s. The results have been so consistent that I'm surprised that anyone is still doing them.
But two studies showed that an undesirable weed is also affected by CO2. None of the other studies made the national news, just the ones that make increased plant growth seem like a bad thing.
(1) There actually is some evidence that warming is causing some of the increase in CO2. In Al Gore's movie, he shows slides of temperature increases and CO2 increases. These are on separate slides because the CO2 increases follow the temperature increases. I suspect that the reporter who wrote the article was not aware of this and simply got his cause and effect reversed.
The story itself is that two studies have been published in the last year on the effects of carbon dioxide on poison ivy. They showed that the plant grows faster in the presence of elevated CO2 and that the amount of oil the plant produces is higher but not significantly so.
Here is how the story is being spun.
The study examined how the increase of carbon dioxide in the past 50 years, brought on by climate change, has affected the growth of poison ivy.
This confuses global warming and climate change. The writer thinks that global warming caused the increase in CO2 instead of CO2 causing global warming. (1)
Although the amount of the rash-causing oil produced by the plant didn't increase significantly, the amount of the oil produced per plant did increase, according to the study.
NBC hasn't posted a version of their story so you will have to take my word on this part - the NBC story began by telling about a young teenager who didn't used to react to poison ivy but does now. We were left to conclude that poison ivy is now stronger than it had been. The teaser for the story implied the same thing. Notice that the quote above says that the oil did not increase significantly. we are not growing super-ivy that can infect the previously immune.
All of this is obvious and superficial. The real spin is focusing on poison ivy. There have been numerous studies showing that all plants grow faster with increased CO2. This means more food with less fertilizer. This is a very strong up-side to the increased levels of CO2 but it is usually ignored. After all, we can't let people think that something good might come from carbon dioxide.
There have literally been hundreds of these studies done since the early 1980s. The results have been so consistent that I'm surprised that anyone is still doing them.
But two studies showed that an undesirable weed is also affected by CO2. None of the other studies made the national news, just the ones that make increased plant growth seem like a bad thing.
(1) There actually is some evidence that warming is causing some of the increase in CO2. In Al Gore's movie, he shows slides of temperature increases and CO2 increases. These are on separate slides because the CO2 increases follow the temperature increases. I suspect that the reporter who wrote the article was not aware of this and simply got his cause and effect reversed.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Progressive or Liberal?
My local paper carried a column today about how many Democrats are calling themselves Progressives instead of Liberal. The common wisdom is that the two terms are the same but Republicans have poisoned the term Liberal. I disagree.
For years I've seen people on the left refer to progressive values and they are not the same as classical liberalism. Progressives are much more influenced by folk-Marxism.
Back in the 1970s when I was deciding which side really appealed to me I saw things in both the Democratic and Republican parties that were appealing. In short, I preferred the Democrats' hands-off social policies and the Republicans' fiscal policy.
Then Jimmy Carter messed everything up so bad that the Republicans were the only real choice.
The things I admired in the Democrats are long gone. The Progressives have taken over. Here are some examples:
Classical liberals stood for freedom of expression - "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Progressive are for outlawing an ever-expanding definition of "hate speech".
Classical liberals said that you should be judged by your abilities, not your race. Progressives only care about racial quotas.
The goal of Progressives is to insert government into every corner of life in order to control it in the hope of making it better. Classical Liberals would have called that fascism.
Just look at the presidential candidates. They all have some sort of health care proposal. Some of them (Obama) simply propose making it illegal to be uninsured. A young person with little risk of major illness might disagree with this but the government knows best.
Last week the Senate passed a measure requiring a 40% increase in fuel economy. This will outlaw SUVs and raise the price of all other vehicles. It might very well put Ford and GM out of business. It will not produce the type of cars that people want to drive.Again, the government knows best.
The funny thing about Progressives - they never spell out where they are going, just that they are making "progress".
For years I've seen people on the left refer to progressive values and they are not the same as classical liberalism. Progressives are much more influenced by folk-Marxism.
Back in the 1970s when I was deciding which side really appealed to me I saw things in both the Democratic and Republican parties that were appealing. In short, I preferred the Democrats' hands-off social policies and the Republicans' fiscal policy.
Then Jimmy Carter messed everything up so bad that the Republicans were the only real choice.
The things I admired in the Democrats are long gone. The Progressives have taken over. Here are some examples:
Classical liberals stood for freedom of expression - "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Progressive are for outlawing an ever-expanding definition of "hate speech".
Classical liberals said that you should be judged by your abilities, not your race. Progressives only care about racial quotas.
The goal of Progressives is to insert government into every corner of life in order to control it in the hope of making it better. Classical Liberals would have called that fascism.
Just look at the presidential candidates. They all have some sort of health care proposal. Some of them (Obama) simply propose making it illegal to be uninsured. A young person with little risk of major illness might disagree with this but the government knows best.
Last week the Senate passed a measure requiring a 40% increase in fuel economy. This will outlaw SUVs and raise the price of all other vehicles. It might very well put Ford and GM out of business. It will not produce the type of cars that people want to drive.Again, the government knows best.
The funny thing about Progressives - they never spell out where they are going, just that they are making "progress".
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Jetpacks and Flying Cars
Every now and then, someone remembers the old predictions of the future. By now we were supposed to have jetpack, rocket belts, or some other form of personal flight. For longer travel were were to have flying cars. Both were featured in the 1960s cartoon the Jetsons.
So what happened? Where are they?
The problem is that both technologies require one or two breakthroughs and neither has happened. In order to get individuals off the ground we need a new means of propulsion or a much more efficient energy source.
While there has been progress on top-end speed, the technology at the bottom end hasn't changed in fifty years. The cheapest way of getting someone off the ground involves a propeller and an airfoil - in other words, an airplane. The next option is the helicopter which is much more complex and takes a lot more energy. In fact, nearly all helicopters are propelled by turbines which are first cousins to jets. A regular internal combustion engine just doesn't have the power to weight ratio to power a helicopter.
On the energy side, the most common fuel continues to be distilled petroleum. None of the other alternatives are new either. This is just too heavy for personal flight.
Here is an example of the problem. Two companies are now offering rocket packs. Flight time is around 30 seconds. A different company is planning to offer a true jetpack in the near future. It is more efficient than the rocket packs so it can offer flight times approaching 20 minutes. While this is long enough to be entertaining, I would not like to depend on that for the morning commute.
We have possibly hit against the limits of physics. We made the easy advances in propulsion and energy storage decades ago and there are no good alternative in sight.
The same thing is happening in computers. There is something called Moore's Law which says that the complexity of computer chips will keep doubling every couple of years. Some people treat this as an iron law but it started out as an observation. Intel's marketing department grabbed a hold of this and pushed the engineers to treat it as a requirement. They started running into the laws of physics with the last generation of chips. Instead of coming up with a new generation that breaks the previous generation's clock speed, they went for dual core. This is a slower chip with two processors. In theory it can process nearly twice as much as the same speed. Future generations are supposed to add additional cores instead of increased speed.
This strategy will probably fail. Multiple processors are not new, even if putting them on the same chip is. But adding a processor requires special software that can split the instructions into tasks that can be executed out of order. In practice, adding a second processor speeds things up by 50% instead of 100%. The gains go down as you add more cores.
All of this will probably keep another of the predictions for the future from happening anytime soon - artificial intelligence. No HAL 9000.
So what happened? Where are they?
The problem is that both technologies require one or two breakthroughs and neither has happened. In order to get individuals off the ground we need a new means of propulsion or a much more efficient energy source.
While there has been progress on top-end speed, the technology at the bottom end hasn't changed in fifty years. The cheapest way of getting someone off the ground involves a propeller and an airfoil - in other words, an airplane. The next option is the helicopter which is much more complex and takes a lot more energy. In fact, nearly all helicopters are propelled by turbines which are first cousins to jets. A regular internal combustion engine just doesn't have the power to weight ratio to power a helicopter.
On the energy side, the most common fuel continues to be distilled petroleum. None of the other alternatives are new either. This is just too heavy for personal flight.
Here is an example of the problem. Two companies are now offering rocket packs. Flight time is around 30 seconds. A different company is planning to offer a true jetpack in the near future. It is more efficient than the rocket packs so it can offer flight times approaching 20 minutes. While this is long enough to be entertaining, I would not like to depend on that for the morning commute.
We have possibly hit against the limits of physics. We made the easy advances in propulsion and energy storage decades ago and there are no good alternative in sight.
The same thing is happening in computers. There is something called Moore's Law which says that the complexity of computer chips will keep doubling every couple of years. Some people treat this as an iron law but it started out as an observation. Intel's marketing department grabbed a hold of this and pushed the engineers to treat it as a requirement. They started running into the laws of physics with the last generation of chips. Instead of coming up with a new generation that breaks the previous generation's clock speed, they went for dual core. This is a slower chip with two processors. In theory it can process nearly twice as much as the same speed. Future generations are supposed to add additional cores instead of increased speed.
This strategy will probably fail. Multiple processors are not new, even if putting them on the same chip is. But adding a processor requires special software that can split the instructions into tasks that can be executed out of order. In practice, adding a second processor speeds things up by 50% instead of 100%. The gains go down as you add more cores.
All of this will probably keep another of the predictions for the future from happening anytime soon - artificial intelligence. No HAL 9000.
Friday, June 15, 2007
How to hype your movie
Three years ago, shortly before Michael Moore's new movie came out, it was announced that his distributor, a Disney subsidiary, didn't want to be connected with the movie and pulled it. Obviously the movie was released anyway. The spat got the movie a lot of free publicity and it made a fortune.
Moore has a new movie out so he has started up the publicity machine. Stories have been going out for a few weeks about how he violated the travel ban on trips to Cuba and is being investigated. When the stories die down, he revives them by issuing a press release that the investigation is politically motivated. Possible penalties for breaking the travel ban include fines and confiscation of all film shot in Cuba.
I predict that he will pay a fine (which will be charged off as a cost of making the movie) and nothing further will come of it.
Also, several months ago the guy who runs one of the anti-Moore web sites got an anonymous contribution to help with is wife's health. A few weeks before Moore's movie was to be released, Moore reveled that he was the donor.
While it is a good think for the guy running the web site, it is a calculated move by Moore who is not otherwise known for charitable giving. The idea that Moore gave money to help a sick woman for the sole purpose of helping his movie is vaguely disquieting. This is the sort of thing you find half-way into a Frank Capra movie when the hero (for example George Baily) has to ask the heavy (for example Old Man Potter) for help. In this case, Old Man Potter is likely to win. Moore will get a wider audience for his call for socialized medicine at the expense of a detractor.
One question that Moore's movie is not likely to bring up - would he be satisfied with the sort of health service he is advocating? Moore is a wealthy man who gives himself and his family the best.
One of the medical centers in Britain recently announced that it will no longer do hip or knee replacements for people of Moore's body type. They admitted that this was a pure cost-saving move. If Moore needed a new knee, would he just shrug and start using a walker, knowing that his sacrifice was for the greater good? Or would he take a jet to India and get a new knee there?
Moore has a new movie out so he has started up the publicity machine. Stories have been going out for a few weeks about how he violated the travel ban on trips to Cuba and is being investigated. When the stories die down, he revives them by issuing a press release that the investigation is politically motivated. Possible penalties for breaking the travel ban include fines and confiscation of all film shot in Cuba.
I predict that he will pay a fine (which will be charged off as a cost of making the movie) and nothing further will come of it.
Also, several months ago the guy who runs one of the anti-Moore web sites got an anonymous contribution to help with is wife's health. A few weeks before Moore's movie was to be released, Moore reveled that he was the donor.
While it is a good think for the guy running the web site, it is a calculated move by Moore who is not otherwise known for charitable giving. The idea that Moore gave money to help a sick woman for the sole purpose of helping his movie is vaguely disquieting. This is the sort of thing you find half-way into a Frank Capra movie when the hero (for example George Baily) has to ask the heavy (for example Old Man Potter) for help. In this case, Old Man Potter is likely to win. Moore will get a wider audience for his call for socialized medicine at the expense of a detractor.
One question that Moore's movie is not likely to bring up - would he be satisfied with the sort of health service he is advocating? Moore is a wealthy man who gives himself and his family the best.
One of the medical centers in Britain recently announced that it will no longer do hip or knee replacements for people of Moore's body type. They admitted that this was a pure cost-saving move. If Moore needed a new knee, would he just shrug and start using a walker, knowing that his sacrifice was for the greater good? Or would he take a jet to India and get a new knee there?
Thursday, June 07, 2007
What Terrorists? part II
Arianna herself entered the fray with this post.
Olbermann's conclusion is inevitable if you start with the premise that there are no home-grown terrorists. Of course, once you start down that road you quickly find yourself part of the 9/11 Truth crowd who believe that the US government killed 3,000 of its own citizens.
Arianna is at least closer to reality but she misses a couple of important points. This is the first one:
The other point is related and is really important. Six years ago a group like this one could have hooked up with al Qaeda and gotten some expert advice. Since the invasion of Afghanistan, al Qaeda has broken up into numerous small cells. I don't know how many news reports I have seen telling what a disaster this is - with a decentralized structure we will never find all of the cells.
It works the other way, also. With smaller cells and no over-all structure, there is no one for the home-grown terrorists to turn to for training and expertise. They are left on their own, making it up as they go along and getting caught when they make basic mistakes.
This is something you will never hear Huffington admit. To Arianna and her crowd, there was never any threat in the first place so it cannot have been reduced. She quotes New York Mayor Bloomberg as saying "You can't sit there and worry about everything. Get a life. You have a much greater danger of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist."
That may be true, but thunder storms don't sit up late nights thinking of ways to kill more people. 9/11 happened because the authorities assumed that nothing bad could ever happen.
There was no set plan. There was no financing. They didn't have any explosives -- and yet government officials were quoted calling the amorphous plot "one of the most chilling plots imaginable" that almost "resulted in unfathomable damage, deaths, and destruction." And people wonder why the public has become cynical about how the war on terror is being used for political purposes.Keith Olbermann on MSNBC Countdown went even further, speculating that the arrests were made to distract the country from the real story of the weekend - the second Democratic debate. Note to Olbermann - I'm a political junkie and I'm not bothering to watch the debates. The candidates will be chosen by the time Ohio has its primary.
Olbermann's conclusion is inevitable if you start with the premise that there are no home-grown terrorists. Of course, once you start down that road you quickly find yourself part of the 9/11 Truth crowd who believe that the US government killed 3,000 of its own citizens.
Arianna is at least closer to reality but she misses a couple of important points. This is the first one:
The damage to people and property itself would have been minimal - it was the intention that was grand. These men hoped for an act of destruction so great that it would actually minimize the devastation and dwarf the trauma of 9/11.
The other point is related and is really important. Six years ago a group like this one could have hooked up with al Qaeda and gotten some expert advice. Since the invasion of Afghanistan, al Qaeda has broken up into numerous small cells. I don't know how many news reports I have seen telling what a disaster this is - with a decentralized structure we will never find all of the cells.
It works the other way, also. With smaller cells and no over-all structure, there is no one for the home-grown terrorists to turn to for training and expertise. They are left on their own, making it up as they go along and getting caught when they make basic mistakes.
This is something you will never hear Huffington admit. To Arianna and her crowd, there was never any threat in the first place so it cannot have been reduced. She quotes New York Mayor Bloomberg as saying "You can't sit there and worry about everything. Get a life. You have a much greater danger of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist."
That may be true, but thunder storms don't sit up late nights thinking of ways to kill more people. 9/11 happened because the authorities assumed that nothing bad could ever happen.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Terrorists? What Terrorists?
The news over the weekend was freighting - a group of home-grown terrorists were planning to ignite the pipeline that feeds fuel to JFK airport. If things had gone as they hoped, the entire airport would have been destroyed as well as part of Queens. JFK was targeted in part because of its name. One of the plotters was quoted as saying, "If you hit that, the whole country will be in mourning. It's like you can kill the man twice."
A bit of reality - their plot would not have worked. There are safeguards to keep a fire from spreading through the pipeline. The most they could have actually accomplished would be to blow up a storage tank or two. That would have been significant but nothing compared to what they wanted to do. The real issue is the goals of the would-be terrorists. They wanted to cause more destruction than 9/11.
There is a logical disconnect in the left when it comes to terrorism. They don't believe it exists. This pattern has been repeated many times. When a group of people was arrested in Miami for planning to buy guns and start shooting people, the left insisted that they were just teenagers talking big (most of them were in the same age range as army recruits). When Britain announced a plot to blow up airplanes with binary explosives, the left insisted that there was never any danger and suggested that the Bush administration had made up the entire plot to distract people from the real news of the day - Ed Lamont winning a primary.
So how did the left react to this newest revelation? The New York Times buried the article on page 30. John Murtha insisted that the plot was inspired by Bush's invasion of Iraq and that no terrorist would every want to hurt Americans had it not been for Bush's war.
Posters at Huffington went further. David Goldstein picked up on a comment from the New York Times article, " off the record, a federal law-enforcement official admits that the suspect seemed more like a "sad old guy who's got a lot of spit and vinegar in him." but admitted that there might be something to it in which case it would be best left to the police. Nora Ephron went a step further, suggesting that there was never a plot int he first place. A paid informer invented it in order to keep getting paid.
The common thread here is that we don't need to worry about terrorists. Why? Because the real enemy is Bush, of course! Bush invented the War on Terror in order to distract us as he set up a fascist dictatorship. The distraction was so successful that we haven't noticed it. As an additional distraction, Bush allowed the Democrats to take over Congress (the Republicans control the voting machines so they must have manipulated the election) and, for some reason, they expect BusHitler to turn over power at the end of his term.
Like I said - a logical disconnect. They are too busy worrying about conspiracies that don't exist to acknowledge the real ones.
A bit of reality - their plot would not have worked. There are safeguards to keep a fire from spreading through the pipeline. The most they could have actually accomplished would be to blow up a storage tank or two. That would have been significant but nothing compared to what they wanted to do. The real issue is the goals of the would-be terrorists. They wanted to cause more destruction than 9/11.
There is a logical disconnect in the left when it comes to terrorism. They don't believe it exists. This pattern has been repeated many times. When a group of people was arrested in Miami for planning to buy guns and start shooting people, the left insisted that they were just teenagers talking big (most of them were in the same age range as army recruits). When Britain announced a plot to blow up airplanes with binary explosives, the left insisted that there was never any danger and suggested that the Bush administration had made up the entire plot to distract people from the real news of the day - Ed Lamont winning a primary.
So how did the left react to this newest revelation? The New York Times buried the article on page 30. John Murtha insisted that the plot was inspired by Bush's invasion of Iraq and that no terrorist would every want to hurt Americans had it not been for Bush's war.
Posters at Huffington went further. David Goldstein picked up on a comment from the New York Times article, " off the record, a federal law-enforcement official admits that the suspect seemed more like a "sad old guy who's got a lot of spit and vinegar in him." but admitted that there might be something to it in which case it would be best left to the police. Nora Ephron went a step further, suggesting that there was never a plot int he first place. A paid informer invented it in order to keep getting paid.
The common thread here is that we don't need to worry about terrorists. Why? Because the real enemy is Bush, of course! Bush invented the War on Terror in order to distract us as he set up a fascist dictatorship. The distraction was so successful that we haven't noticed it. As an additional distraction, Bush allowed the Democrats to take over Congress (the Republicans control the voting machines so they must have manipulated the election) and, for some reason, they expect BusHitler to turn over power at the end of his term.
Like I said - a logical disconnect. They are too busy worrying about conspiracies that don't exist to acknowledge the real ones.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Confused About CO2
A lot of people are totally confused about what CO2 is. Take this example from Joseph Palermo writing on the Huffington Post:
What Palermo is describing is a combination of ozone, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (tiny specks). That's what makes up smog and what can be seen in large quantities.
It is not surprising that Palermo is confused. Al Gore and the news confused him. When they talk about CO2 emissions they show a graphic of a smokestack belching visible clouds. There might be some CO2 along with the smoke but you will never see it. But TV and PowerPoint presentations demand graphics so they show something visible.
For those who are not paying attention, this gives the impression that you can see the carbon dioxide building up.
As for being overcome by the CO2, that can't happen either, at least in the amounts found in California. You can test this one, also. Just breath into a paper bag for a while. It will not take long for the levels of CO2 in the bag to exceed anything found in California but you will not be overcome. You may calm down a bit. You might even cure the hiccups. If you put a tight plastic bag over your head you will eventually die, but from lack of oxygen, not from CO2.
So how can anyone have a rational conversation with Palermo when he misunderstands the basics?
I live in the heart of California's largest valley. On a clear day I can see the majestic snow-capped mountains of the Sierra Nevada. But on brown, sooty, smoggy days I can't even see past the horizon. Luckily, the local news tells us when we're having a bad smog day so the elderly know they should stay indoors. Not far from my home is the intersection of four major freeways, a perennial haze hovers over the elevated concrete interchanges. On hot days you cannot roll down your car window or you'll be overcome by the CO2 entering your lungs.Here is someone who has no idea what CO2 looks like or what makes up air pollution. Carbon Dioxide is colorless and tasteless. You can verify this for yourself - just exhale. Except for cold days when the moisture in your breath condenses, you cannot see your breath. You can smell components of it (last night's garlic pizza) but not the CO2.
What Palermo is describing is a combination of ozone, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (tiny specks). That's what makes up smog and what can be seen in large quantities.
It is not surprising that Palermo is confused. Al Gore and the news confused him. When they talk about CO2 emissions they show a graphic of a smokestack belching visible clouds. There might be some CO2 along with the smoke but you will never see it. But TV and PowerPoint presentations demand graphics so they show something visible.
For those who are not paying attention, this gives the impression that you can see the carbon dioxide building up.
As for being overcome by the CO2, that can't happen either, at least in the amounts found in California. You can test this one, also. Just breath into a paper bag for a while. It will not take long for the levels of CO2 in the bag to exceed anything found in California but you will not be overcome. You may calm down a bit. You might even cure the hiccups. If you put a tight plastic bag over your head you will eventually die, but from lack of oxygen, not from CO2.
So how can anyone have a rational conversation with Palermo when he misunderstands the basics?
Bush and Warming
President Bush revealed his new anti-global warming plan today. It involves talks between the top emitters, sharing technology, and allowing nations to set their own strategies. It is unlikely to go anywhere for a few reasons. A big one is that Bush is a lame duck and none of the Democratic challengers are going to support Bush's plan. A second reason is that most of the world prefers the Kyoto Protocols.
The world has good reason to prefer Kyoto. China and India get a pass on doing anything. That leaves the US to make the cuts. If we had signed it, we would be expected to make 60% of the cuts. We do not emit anything near 60% of the world's CO2 but we would have to shoulder the lion's share of the cuts.
That's why Congress voted unanimously (with a few abstentions) on a resolution warning President Clinton (this was long before Bush) not to even bother submitting the treaty.
Kyoto was flawed from the start. It was meant as a down payment on CO2 cuts with stricter cuts to follow. It is implemented through a cap and trade scheme which totally failed. Countries were asked how much CO2 their industry emitted and were issued credits for that much minus the cuts. In order to save themselves pain, most countries in Europe exaggerated how many credits they would need. As a result, no one needs any credits and the credit market collapsed.
Even if everything had gone as planned, the amount to be cut is meaningless. This is especially true since China and India are allowed to expand their emissions under the treaty.
Bush's proposal stands a good chance of actually making cuts in emissions. Kyoto will not. Guess which one will win?
The world has good reason to prefer Kyoto. China and India get a pass on doing anything. That leaves the US to make the cuts. If we had signed it, we would be expected to make 60% of the cuts. We do not emit anything near 60% of the world's CO2 but we would have to shoulder the lion's share of the cuts.
That's why Congress voted unanimously (with a few abstentions) on a resolution warning President Clinton (this was long before Bush) not to even bother submitting the treaty.
Kyoto was flawed from the start. It was meant as a down payment on CO2 cuts with stricter cuts to follow. It is implemented through a cap and trade scheme which totally failed. Countries were asked how much CO2 their industry emitted and were issued credits for that much minus the cuts. In order to save themselves pain, most countries in Europe exaggerated how many credits they would need. As a result, no one needs any credits and the credit market collapsed.
Even if everything had gone as planned, the amount to be cut is meaningless. This is especially true since China and India are allowed to expand their emissions under the treaty.
Bush's proposal stands a good chance of actually making cuts in emissions. Kyoto will not. Guess which one will win?
Monday, May 28, 2007
Cindy Finally Get It
Cindy Sheehan celebrated Memorial Day by retiring from the anti-war movement. On her way out she posted a scathing rebuke to the Democrats. Her complaints include that they were mainly interested in her while she was attacking the Republicans. When she started doing the same to the Democrats they lost interest in her. She even noticed that the "Democratic Underground" is partisan.
No kidding. Cindy originally got attention when she camped out near Bush's farm. She was demanding that he meet with her and explain what grand reason her son Casey died for. The press gave her a lot of coverage and the left drooled over her. Here was someone who came across as an ordinary woman motivated by understandable outrage. Pundits announced that she had moral authority over the President. She quickly became the face of the anti-war movement.
Then the Summer ended. Camp Casey was dissolved. Cindy had served her purpose. She no longer had the press lining up to cover her.
Worse, her real politics came out. An old email surfaced indicating that she was anti-Israel and possibly anti-semitic. She started hugging anyone who was anti-Bush including neo-communist Hugo Chavez. By this point she was no longer someone who helped the Democrats.
Then the Democrats took over Congress. This is where they broke completely with Cindy. She is anti-war. They are against "Bush's war" but they also have to look at the bigger picture. If they pass an immediate surrender resolution they will lose a lot of support.
The surprising thing is that it took until now for Cindy to recognize all of this.
Plus, Cindy discovered that the anti-war movement is as much about personalities as anything. Again, this is true of any ideological movement.
It is probably a measure of Cindy's devotion to her cause that she managed to ignore reality as long as she did.
This, along with the recent compromise on the emergency funding bill, is good news for President Bush. For the last three years the anti-war movement made common cause with the Democrats on the basis of Bush hatred. Now that is no longer enough. The anti-war Democrats are not strong enough to force an end to the war. The anti-war people cannot forgive them for this. The anti-war movement is collapsing on itself. That makes Bush stronger.
Possibly it will give him enough time to actually win the war, or at least make enough progress as to make withdrawal undesirable.
No kidding. Cindy originally got attention when she camped out near Bush's farm. She was demanding that he meet with her and explain what grand reason her son Casey died for. The press gave her a lot of coverage and the left drooled over her. Here was someone who came across as an ordinary woman motivated by understandable outrage. Pundits announced that she had moral authority over the President. She quickly became the face of the anti-war movement.
Then the Summer ended. Camp Casey was dissolved. Cindy had served her purpose. She no longer had the press lining up to cover her.
Worse, her real politics came out. An old email surfaced indicating that she was anti-Israel and possibly anti-semitic. She started hugging anyone who was anti-Bush including neo-communist Hugo Chavez. By this point she was no longer someone who helped the Democrats.
Then the Democrats took over Congress. This is where they broke completely with Cindy. She is anti-war. They are against "Bush's war" but they also have to look at the bigger picture. If they pass an immediate surrender resolution they will lose a lot of support.
The surprising thing is that it took until now for Cindy to recognize all of this.
Plus, Cindy discovered that the anti-war movement is as much about personalities as anything. Again, this is true of any ideological movement.
It is probably a measure of Cindy's devotion to her cause that she managed to ignore reality as long as she did.
This, along with the recent compromise on the emergency funding bill, is good news for President Bush. For the last three years the anti-war movement made common cause with the Democrats on the basis of Bush hatred. Now that is no longer enough. The anti-war Democrats are not strong enough to force an end to the war. The anti-war people cannot forgive them for this. The anti-war movement is collapsing on itself. That makes Bush stronger.
Possibly it will give him enough time to actually win the war, or at least make enough progress as to make withdrawal undesirable.
A Free Press?
There were protests this weekend in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez pulled the broadcasting license from the nation's most popular TV station because it consistently spoke against him.
The Senate Foreign Relations committee has passed a resolution condemning this action and, to their credit, both senators Clinton and Obama voted for it.
One wonders how the senators feel about freedom of the press in their own country? For some time the Democrats have been hoping to revive the Fairness Doctrine. This required that equal time be given to both political sides. Under this, a radio station could lose its license for carrying Rush Limbaugh unless it also carried an equal number of hours of Air America programming.
Liberals say that this is needed to bring balance back to AM radio. At least, that's what they say in public. In private they call this the Flush Rush Act and admit that their aim is to break up a conservative power base.
How is this different from the actions of Hugo Chavez? In both cases, a political party is taking action against broadcasters for giving a voice to the opposition. Granted, the Fairness Doctrine has not actually passed yet and is not likely to survive a presidential veto. On the other hand, if the Democrats take the White House and hold onto Congress then this measure is a near certainty which brings us back to Chavez.
They should think twice, maybe three times, before foisting this on the public. As the Heritage Foundation points out, the original Fairness Doctrine was used by both sides to silence their opponents. Neither side should be trusted with this much power. It is too likely to be abused.
The Senate Foreign Relations committee has passed a resolution condemning this action and, to their credit, both senators Clinton and Obama voted for it.
One wonders how the senators feel about freedom of the press in their own country? For some time the Democrats have been hoping to revive the Fairness Doctrine. This required that equal time be given to both political sides. Under this, a radio station could lose its license for carrying Rush Limbaugh unless it also carried an equal number of hours of Air America programming.
Liberals say that this is needed to bring balance back to AM radio. At least, that's what they say in public. In private they call this the Flush Rush Act and admit that their aim is to break up a conservative power base.
How is this different from the actions of Hugo Chavez? In both cases, a political party is taking action against broadcasters for giving a voice to the opposition. Granted, the Fairness Doctrine has not actually passed yet and is not likely to survive a presidential veto. On the other hand, if the Democrats take the White House and hold onto Congress then this measure is a near certainty which brings us back to Chavez.
They should think twice, maybe three times, before foisting this on the public. As the Heritage Foundation points out, the original Fairness Doctrine was used by both sides to silence their opponents. Neither side should be trusted with this much power. It is too likely to be abused.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Olbermann Over the Top
MSNBC Countdown's Keith Olbermann is easily outraged. When this happens he does a special commentary, often with bits of spittle flying from his mouth and often containing the words, "How dare you?" A few weeks ago he launched one of these at Condi Rice after she made a Nazi reference to Saddam Husein. Olbermann pointed out that Iraq was no Nazi Germany. Ok, Condi's off-the-cuff statement was a bit of a stretch although not on the scale Olbermann would have it.
Olberman must have seen this but instead he did a commentary accusing the entire government of betraying the American people.
The interesting part is here:
I could launch into a "Mr. Olbermann, how dare you?" but the whole Bush/Hitler thing is so widespread that he isn't the slightest bit original. A poster of Bush as Hitler poster was hanging in a BBC newsroom for months.
Never the less, Olbermann's objections to Condi apply to Olbermann himself. Saddam killed thousands of political opponents, some with poison gas and killed millions more in his war with Iran. Bush has He openly admired and emulated Hitler. If it is an insult to compare Saddam to Hitler then how can Olbermann compare Bush with Hitler?
Dr. Rice spoke 42 words. She may have made more mistakes in them, than did the President in his State of the Union Address in 2003.More recently he wrote about Congress's compromise on the emergency funding resolution for the troops in Iraq. After more than three months of posturing, Congress passed a measure that does not end the war. Everyone should have seen this coming from the beginning. Bush made it clear that he would not accept any bill that set a timetable for withdrawing the troops and the anti-war Democrats do ot have enough votes to override a veto. Congress only had three possible resolutions - continue to stall and be accused of abandoning the troops, refusing to pass legislation without a demand for withdrawal (which again would open them to accusations of abandoning the troops) or to pass the law that Bush asked for from the beginning.
There is, obviously, no mistaking Saddam Hussein for a human being, but nor is there any mistaking him for Adolf Hitler.
Invoking the German dictator who subjugated Europe; who tried to annihilate the Jews; who sought to overtake the World -- is not just in the poorest of taste, but in its hyperbole, it insults not merely the victims of the Third Reich, but those in this country who fought it. And, defeated it.
Saddam Hussein… was not Adolf Hitler.
Olberman must have seen this but instead he did a commentary accusing the entire government of betraying the American people.
The interesting part is here:
"We seem to be very near the bleak choice between war and shame," Winston Churchill wrote to Lord Moyne in the days after the British signed the Munich accords with Germany in 1938. "My feeling is that we shall choose shame, and then have war thrown in, a little later…"If I read this right, Olbermann is saying that the deal with Bush is comparable to Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler.That's what this is for the Democrats, isn't it?
Their "Neville Chamberlain moment" before the Second World War.
All that's missing is the landing at the airport, with the blinkered leader waving a piece of paper which he naively thought would guarantee "peace in our time," but which his opponent would ignore with deceit.
The Democrats have merely streamlined the process.
Their piece of paper already says Mr. Bush can ignore it, with impugnity.
I could launch into a "Mr. Olbermann, how dare you?" but the whole Bush/Hitler thing is so widespread that he isn't the slightest bit original. A poster of Bush as Hitler poster was hanging in a BBC newsroom for months.
Never the less, Olbermann's objections to Condi apply to Olbermann himself. Saddam killed thousands of political opponents, some with poison gas and killed millions more in his war with Iran. Bush has He openly admired and emulated Hitler. If it is an insult to compare Saddam to Hitler then how can Olbermann compare Bush with Hitler?
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
It's not all about Bush
Jimmy Carter recently claimed that Bush was the worst president ever, in part because of international relations. Obama is insisting that he is the person to rebuild the international trust that Bush shattered. The rest of the Democratic candidates are saying similar things.
But is there anything to all of this? Not really, for several reasons.
When liberals talk about international relations, they usually mean two countries - France and Germany. Interestingly, both France and Germany have changed governments and now have more US-friendly people in charge. This was especially true in France where the opposition labeled Sarkozy as the "American" in order to discredit him. Instead, he embraced the title.
Canada changed governments a couple of years ago and went from anti-US to pro-US. In their last elections, both Britain's Blair and Australia's Howard had to run in elections that were seen as referendums on their pro-US and pro-Iraq war policies. Both won.
Even China has warmed since Bush took office in 2001.
So what's going on?
Some of this is a failure to distinguish between anti-American rhetoric and actual policies. The US is too big for the rest of the world to go off in a snit.
Some of it was France's Jaque Chirac. He dreamed of elevating a French-dominated Europe as a counter-weight to America's status as the world's only remaining super-power. This started years before Bush came to office.
Then there is the Kyoto treaty. Supposedly we lost the respect of the world when we failed to ratify the treaty. The fact that it was never submitted under Clinton is always overlooked and Clinton is never criticized. Everything is laid at Bush's doorstep.
A common complaint is that we had the world's sympathy on 9/11 but lost it because of Bush. Again, this is untrue and unfair. Yes, the world was shocked and expressed sympathy for the US (except for groups like the Palestinians who were shown dancing in the street). This didn't really change anything. Within days, most of the world had returned to normal.
The problem is a side-effect of the well-documented Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). People suffering from BDS tend to view the entire world as fellow-sufferers. Since Bush drives them crazy in general and the war in Iraq makes them particularly loony, they assume that this reflects the rest of the world's priorities.
The MSM which as a profession is heavily infected with BDS tends to slant coverage on foreign nations to match their expectations. This is reinforced by foreign intellectuals who, like their domestic brethren, do despise Bush. As the elections I quoted make clear, this attitude is not shared by the majority of the population, at least not enough to tip an election.
The point is that not everything is about Bush or Iraq. The Democratic candidates think that all they have to do for foreign policy is to not be Bush. If one of them wins, he will be in for a surprise. The rest of the world may dislike Bush's Iraq war but they strongly prefer his trade policies to anything the Democrats are floating.
But is there anything to all of this? Not really, for several reasons.
When liberals talk about international relations, they usually mean two countries - France and Germany. Interestingly, both France and Germany have changed governments and now have more US-friendly people in charge. This was especially true in France where the opposition labeled Sarkozy as the "American" in order to discredit him. Instead, he embraced the title.
Canada changed governments a couple of years ago and went from anti-US to pro-US. In their last elections, both Britain's Blair and Australia's Howard had to run in elections that were seen as referendums on their pro-US and pro-Iraq war policies. Both won.
Even China has warmed since Bush took office in 2001.
So what's going on?
Some of this is a failure to distinguish between anti-American rhetoric and actual policies. The US is too big for the rest of the world to go off in a snit.
Some of it was France's Jaque Chirac. He dreamed of elevating a French-dominated Europe as a counter-weight to America's status as the world's only remaining super-power. This started years before Bush came to office.
Then there is the Kyoto treaty. Supposedly we lost the respect of the world when we failed to ratify the treaty. The fact that it was never submitted under Clinton is always overlooked and Clinton is never criticized. Everything is laid at Bush's doorstep.
A common complaint is that we had the world's sympathy on 9/11 but lost it because of Bush. Again, this is untrue and unfair. Yes, the world was shocked and expressed sympathy for the US (except for groups like the Palestinians who were shown dancing in the street). This didn't really change anything. Within days, most of the world had returned to normal.
The problem is a side-effect of the well-documented Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). People suffering from BDS tend to view the entire world as fellow-sufferers. Since Bush drives them crazy in general and the war in Iraq makes them particularly loony, they assume that this reflects the rest of the world's priorities.
The MSM which as a profession is heavily infected with BDS tends to slant coverage on foreign nations to match their expectations. This is reinforced by foreign intellectuals who, like their domestic brethren, do despise Bush. As the elections I quoted make clear, this attitude is not shared by the majority of the population, at least not enough to tip an election.
The point is that not everything is about Bush or Iraq. The Democratic candidates think that all they have to do for foreign policy is to not be Bush. If one of them wins, he will be in for a surprise. The rest of the world may dislike Bush's Iraq war but they strongly prefer his trade policies to anything the Democrats are floating.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Worst President?
Last week Jimmy Carter suggested that George Bush is the worst president. This is ironic when Carter's own administration is examined.
Carter is best remembered for the peace he negotiated between Israel and Egypt. While this was significant, he was the least important of the three involved. Also, the peace has held to the extent that no Egyptian tanks have tried to invade Israel but most of the violence in Gaza is committed with arms smuggled in from Egypt, a fact that the Egyptian government does little to stop.
What else happened in the world during 1977-1980? Three million people died in Cambodia. South America became generally unstable due to communist rebels and coups. Many of these were inspired by Catholic missionaries who taught "liberation theology". This held that Christ was the first Marxist and that his talk if heaven was actually a call to create a secular heaven on earth through communist revolution. Carter did nothing to stop any of this.
Then there were two events whose repercussions are still with us. The first was the Iranian revolution. This was in two parts. The first part overthrew the Shah and created a democratic government. This was in 1978. In January, 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeini announced that he was returning to Iran. The new government ordered the army to stop him but, at Carter's insistence, Khomeini was allowed in the following month. The democratic government collapsed immediately and the current theocratic government was created. In a few months and with Carter's encouragement, Iran went from a pro-US government to an anti-US one.
A major news story over the weekend was about violence between the groups Fatah and Hamas. Violence between the PLO and Hamas has been going on in Gaza for the last few weeks, also. This is relevant because Hamas was created and is funded by Iran
Then there was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Carter's only response to this was to boycott the Moscow Olympics and to cancel a said of grain to the USSR (which hurt US farmers more than the Russian army). The invasion of Afghanistan started a chain of events that led directly to 9/11. Many liberals have tried to blame President Reagan for supporting the Islamic groups that eventually created the Taliban but Carter was the first to aid them.
No discussion of the Carter years would be complete without mentioning the US economy. Inflation was the highest in my lifetime - around 12% annual with monthly surges of 1.5% (18% annual). Inflation has been below 3% for so long that people forget how devastating high inflation can be to a lifetime's savings. Productivity was at a low point and unemployment was high.
It is hard to think of a president who had so many failures during his administration and whose successes have been so mixed. Carter's current reputation as the best ex-president comes mainly from his work building houses for Habitat for Humanity. His recent book "Peace not Apartheid" and his recent comments about Bush show that the years have not increased his understanding of world affairs.
Carter is best remembered for the peace he negotiated between Israel and Egypt. While this was significant, he was the least important of the three involved. Also, the peace has held to the extent that no Egyptian tanks have tried to invade Israel but most of the violence in Gaza is committed with arms smuggled in from Egypt, a fact that the Egyptian government does little to stop.
What else happened in the world during 1977-1980? Three million people died in Cambodia. South America became generally unstable due to communist rebels and coups. Many of these were inspired by Catholic missionaries who taught "liberation theology". This held that Christ was the first Marxist and that his talk if heaven was actually a call to create a secular heaven on earth through communist revolution. Carter did nothing to stop any of this.
Then there were two events whose repercussions are still with us. The first was the Iranian revolution. This was in two parts. The first part overthrew the Shah and created a democratic government. This was in 1978. In January, 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeini announced that he was returning to Iran. The new government ordered the army to stop him but, at Carter's insistence, Khomeini was allowed in the following month. The democratic government collapsed immediately and the current theocratic government was created. In a few months and with Carter's encouragement, Iran went from a pro-US government to an anti-US one.
A major news story over the weekend was about violence between the groups Fatah and Hamas. Violence between the PLO and Hamas has been going on in Gaza for the last few weeks, also. This is relevant because Hamas was created and is funded by Iran
Then there was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Carter's only response to this was to boycott the Moscow Olympics and to cancel a said of grain to the USSR (which hurt US farmers more than the Russian army). The invasion of Afghanistan started a chain of events that led directly to 9/11. Many liberals have tried to blame President Reagan for supporting the Islamic groups that eventually created the Taliban but Carter was the first to aid them.
No discussion of the Carter years would be complete without mentioning the US economy. Inflation was the highest in my lifetime - around 12% annual with monthly surges of 1.5% (18% annual). Inflation has been below 3% for so long that people forget how devastating high inflation can be to a lifetime's savings. Productivity was at a low point and unemployment was high.
It is hard to think of a president who had so many failures during his administration and whose successes have been so mixed. Carter's current reputation as the best ex-president comes mainly from his work building houses for Habitat for Humanity. His recent book "Peace not Apartheid" and his recent comments about Bush show that the years have not increased his understanding of world affairs.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Jamestown and Christianity
I did a Google News search on Jamestown a couple of days ago and I ran across a complaint about the festivities (actually there were several but most were from Native Americans). This site WorldNetDaily complained that President Bush had ignored Christianity in his speech about Jamestown.
A friend of mine refers to some people as "perpetually outraged". These people are already upset over something and spend their time looking for justification. WorldNetDaily spends time and energy looking for slights to Christianity.
This is a case where there is no slight. Jamestown was founded by private investors with the goal of making money. Along the way they were given a list of goals including spreading Christianity (specifically the Church of England) but this was not a priority nor was it practiced until years after the colony was founded.
This does not mean that the colonists were not religious. They were. Their first act when they reached the Chesapeake was to plant a large cross. Shortly after deciding on Jamestown Island, they constructed a make-shift church from a large piece of canvas which they held a service in. Short services were held daily and long services were held on Sunday. There were harsh penalties for missing a service.
Despite these actions, they were slow to try to convert the Indians. When some natives asked why they had nailed a cross to a tree (it was meant to mark the English territory) they told an outrageous fiction about the arms of the cross symbolizing the meeting of the two cultures.
Because the best-known colonists were the Pilgrims, there is a tendency to see all English colonists as extensions of that group. Even the Pilgrims were not as religious as is often believed. Only half of the Mayflower passengers were Separatists. The rest were Church of England people who wanted to seek their fortune in America. The Pilgrims never made a serious attempt to convert the Indians. The Puritans of Massachusetts Bay did include an Indian school as part of Harvard which was to teach interested Indians about Christianity.
Like the New England colonies, Maryland was founded on a religious basis but it was intended to be a refuge for English Catholics.
The French were probably the most serious about bringing Christianity to America (rather than just bringing Christians). Catholic missionaries were given control of the fur trade through the 1660s. They used this to finance a series of missions. Other missionaries branched out from the missions.
Even here, there is a little question about motives. Many of the missionaries were hoping to become martyrs. One sure way of doing this was to be killed while spreading the word of God. This led some of them to take great risks, often meeting a grisly end.
In the meantime, the English at Jamestown were more likely to display Indians than convert them.
A friend of mine refers to some people as "perpetually outraged". These people are already upset over something and spend their time looking for justification. WorldNetDaily spends time and energy looking for slights to Christianity.
This is a case where there is no slight. Jamestown was founded by private investors with the goal of making money. Along the way they were given a list of goals including spreading Christianity (specifically the Church of England) but this was not a priority nor was it practiced until years after the colony was founded.
This does not mean that the colonists were not religious. They were. Their first act when they reached the Chesapeake was to plant a large cross. Shortly after deciding on Jamestown Island, they constructed a make-shift church from a large piece of canvas which they held a service in. Short services were held daily and long services were held on Sunday. There were harsh penalties for missing a service.
Despite these actions, they were slow to try to convert the Indians. When some natives asked why they had nailed a cross to a tree (it was meant to mark the English territory) they told an outrageous fiction about the arms of the cross symbolizing the meeting of the two cultures.
Because the best-known colonists were the Pilgrims, there is a tendency to see all English colonists as extensions of that group. Even the Pilgrims were not as religious as is often believed. Only half of the Mayflower passengers were Separatists. The rest were Church of England people who wanted to seek their fortune in America. The Pilgrims never made a serious attempt to convert the Indians. The Puritans of Massachusetts Bay did include an Indian school as part of Harvard which was to teach interested Indians about Christianity.
Like the New England colonies, Maryland was founded on a religious basis but it was intended to be a refuge for English Catholics.
The French were probably the most serious about bringing Christianity to America (rather than just bringing Christians). Catholic missionaries were given control of the fur trade through the 1660s. They used this to finance a series of missions. Other missionaries branched out from the missions.
Even here, there is a little question about motives. Many of the missionaries were hoping to become martyrs. One sure way of doing this was to be killed while spreading the word of God. This led some of them to take great risks, often meeting a grisly end.
In the meantime, the English at Jamestown were more likely to display Indians than convert them.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
America at 400
400 years ago a group of Englishmen on three small ships were looking for a place to settle. On the 13th they settled on a swampy but defensible island and started building a fort. The settlement was originally called James Fort but as it grew the name was changed to James City or Jamestown.
Our government is a direct result of this settlement.
It is unfashionable today to speak of American exceptionalism. According to modern multicultural thought, no nation is better than any other and anyone who says otherwise is a nationalist which is first cousin to being a racist.
I don't accept this. I think that America is unique and is better in most ways than other countries. A lot of this comes from our unique heritage.
When the English landed in 1607 they had no concept of religious freedom, freedom of speech, or the other freedoms that make upp the Bill of Rights. They didn't come here to found a new nation or even for religious freedom. They came here to make money.
At first they didn't The colony lost money for years. By the time John Rolf bred a form of tobacco that would grow in Virginia but was mild enough to smoke, the King had revoked the charter and made it a royal colony.
While John Smith and Pocohontas make a good story, nether was around very long. In fact, most of the colonists died within months of when they arrived. Those who did come usually sold themselves as indentured servants for seven years to pay for their passage. Once that period was worked off, they often had to sign up for another seven years in order to earn land.
By the 1650s, the urge to leave England for new lands had passed. Virginia needed a constant supply of new farmhands so they started importng them from Africa. Within a couple of decades there were so many Africans that it started to change the ethnic balance. To keep the status quo, they stopped treating the Africans as servants and kept them as slaves.
Through all of this, they still thought of themselves as English and stayed current on English thought.
By the 1770s several new ideas were popular in England. A big one was that the government should be responsive to the people. The colonies learned from England's mistakes as well as its successes. Freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly were considered fundamental rights.
Our government reflects the structure of the English government as it existed in the 18th century. Where it had a king and two strong houses of Parliament, we set up a president and two houses of Congress. We also added a separate judiciary.
In many ways I think that our system is better than when the English system evolved into. At its best, the parliamentary system gives a great deal of power to a single ruling party. At its worst, there is no ruling party, just a weak coalition government. Our separation of the White House and Congress smooths over a lot of the lurches back and forth that the parliamentary system is subject to. In fact, our electorate seems to prefer dividing power between the parties.The Democrats held the House for most of the 20th century while the Republicans held the White House most of the time following FDR. The Senate has shifted back and forth several times.
The American system has avoided or minimized many of the problems that have crippled the rest of the world. Our version of the European social contract may seem harsher but the economy it produced is the envy of the world. Corruption in the US is minor and punished when found. In most of the world, it is the way things are done. Up until the last decade, we assimilated our immigrants and we continue to do a better job at it than Europe.
Slavery may have been a stain on American history but we ended it a century and a half ago. It continues on many countries to this day. Other nations may decry American racism but many of them have a permanent underclass.
The English, dying of hunger and foreign disease 400 years ago had no idea that their sacrifice would eventually build something the world had not seen before.
Our government is a direct result of this settlement.
It is unfashionable today to speak of American exceptionalism. According to modern multicultural thought, no nation is better than any other and anyone who says otherwise is a nationalist which is first cousin to being a racist.
I don't accept this. I think that America is unique and is better in most ways than other countries. A lot of this comes from our unique heritage.
When the English landed in 1607 they had no concept of religious freedom, freedom of speech, or the other freedoms that make upp the Bill of Rights. They didn't come here to found a new nation or even for religious freedom. They came here to make money.
At first they didn't The colony lost money for years. By the time John Rolf bred a form of tobacco that would grow in Virginia but was mild enough to smoke, the King had revoked the charter and made it a royal colony.
While John Smith and Pocohontas make a good story, nether was around very long. In fact, most of the colonists died within months of when they arrived. Those who did come usually sold themselves as indentured servants for seven years to pay for their passage. Once that period was worked off, they often had to sign up for another seven years in order to earn land.
By the 1650s, the urge to leave England for new lands had passed. Virginia needed a constant supply of new farmhands so they started importng them from Africa. Within a couple of decades there were so many Africans that it started to change the ethnic balance. To keep the status quo, they stopped treating the Africans as servants and kept them as slaves.
Through all of this, they still thought of themselves as English and stayed current on English thought.
By the 1770s several new ideas were popular in England. A big one was that the government should be responsive to the people. The colonies learned from England's mistakes as well as its successes. Freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly were considered fundamental rights.
Our government reflects the structure of the English government as it existed in the 18th century. Where it had a king and two strong houses of Parliament, we set up a president and two houses of Congress. We also added a separate judiciary.
In many ways I think that our system is better than when the English system evolved into. At its best, the parliamentary system gives a great deal of power to a single ruling party. At its worst, there is no ruling party, just a weak coalition government. Our separation of the White House and Congress smooths over a lot of the lurches back and forth that the parliamentary system is subject to. In fact, our electorate seems to prefer dividing power between the parties.The Democrats held the House for most of the 20th century while the Republicans held the White House most of the time following FDR. The Senate has shifted back and forth several times.
The American system has avoided or minimized many of the problems that have crippled the rest of the world. Our version of the European social contract may seem harsher but the economy it produced is the envy of the world. Corruption in the US is minor and punished when found. In most of the world, it is the way things are done. Up until the last decade, we assimilated our immigrants and we continue to do a better job at it than Europe.
Slavery may have been a stain on American history but we ended it a century and a half ago. It continues on many countries to this day. Other nations may decry American racism but many of them have a permanent underclass.
The English, dying of hunger and foreign disease 400 years ago had no idea that their sacrifice would eventually build something the world had not seen before.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Why I Don't Trust the IPCC
I was reading a new climate blog hosted by Nature Magazine. One of the early entries is about examination of the Hockey Stick. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is in the process of releasing their fourth assessment report. The Hockey Stick was the center piece of their third report.
I started studying history, especially 17th century history, in detail in the 1980s and I was rather surprised to find out how variable climate has been. The world was in a warm state a thousand years ago. Starting around 1400, a long-term cooling period began. Known as the Little Ice Age, it lasted into the middle of the 19th century.
This is one reason that I have always been very skeptical about global warming. It isn't proving much to say that the world is the warmest now that it has been in the last 600 years if most of that period was colder than normal. It is like becoming alarmed because July is so much hotter than the previous six months.
Then the IPCC released their 3rd assessment report with the Hockey Stick. According to the new figuring, the Little Ice Age was just a localized phenomena limited to the northern Atlantic. When considered on a global perspective, it faded into the background. According to the new figures, the world's climate was amazingly stable until industry ramped up in the mid-19th century. After that, the world's temperature rose like the blade on a hockey stick.
Global warming was proved by the Hockey Stick. The IPCC was so impressed with their new graph that they featured it on the cover of their report and even on their letter head.
But people started questioning the hockey stick. Where had it come from and how did it go from obscurity to icon in a few months? Who did the peer review on it? What about conflicting evidence?
For a time these questions had to be asked quietly because no one would publish them. Finally the dam broke and the detractors had their say.
It turned out that the hockey stick was basically someone's doctoral thesis (specifically Michael Mann). It was never given a vigorous peer review. It was simply adopted.
The IPCC has stopped using the hockey stick as a symbol. Their newest assessment now uses a blended temperature chart.
The IPCC gains some of their credibility from their association with the UN but most of it comes from its reputation as a gathering of scientists interested in truth. The sad truth is that they are just people. While scientific method is supposed to provide a buffer to keep personal opinion from coloring results, it has to be applied.
When Mann presented his temperature reconstruction to the IPCC, they were so enchanted by the results that they didn't stop to check it. They needed it to be true and it confirmed their prior beliefs so they gave it a cursory check and made it their centerpiece.
This leads to the big question - how often have they done the same thing with other studies? How often have they accepted work that verified their mission or rejected something at odds with their pre-defined results?
The thing about trust is that once you know it has been abused, you are less likely to trust again. That's my position on the IPCC.
I started studying history, especially 17th century history, in detail in the 1980s and I was rather surprised to find out how variable climate has been. The world was in a warm state a thousand years ago. Starting around 1400, a long-term cooling period began. Known as the Little Ice Age, it lasted into the middle of the 19th century.
This is one reason that I have always been very skeptical about global warming. It isn't proving much to say that the world is the warmest now that it has been in the last 600 years if most of that period was colder than normal. It is like becoming alarmed because July is so much hotter than the previous six months.
Then the IPCC released their 3rd assessment report with the Hockey Stick. According to the new figuring, the Little Ice Age was just a localized phenomena limited to the northern Atlantic. When considered on a global perspective, it faded into the background. According to the new figures, the world's climate was amazingly stable until industry ramped up in the mid-19th century. After that, the world's temperature rose like the blade on a hockey stick.
Global warming was proved by the Hockey Stick. The IPCC was so impressed with their new graph that they featured it on the cover of their report and even on their letter head.
But people started questioning the hockey stick. Where had it come from and how did it go from obscurity to icon in a few months? Who did the peer review on it? What about conflicting evidence?
For a time these questions had to be asked quietly because no one would publish them. Finally the dam broke and the detractors had their say.
It turned out that the hockey stick was basically someone's doctoral thesis (specifically Michael Mann). It was never given a vigorous peer review. It was simply adopted.
The IPCC has stopped using the hockey stick as a symbol. Their newest assessment now uses a blended temperature chart.
The IPCC gains some of their credibility from their association with the UN but most of it comes from its reputation as a gathering of scientists interested in truth. The sad truth is that they are just people. While scientific method is supposed to provide a buffer to keep personal opinion from coloring results, it has to be applied.
When Mann presented his temperature reconstruction to the IPCC, they were so enchanted by the results that they didn't stop to check it. They needed it to be true and it confirmed their prior beliefs so they gave it a cursory check and made it their centerpiece.
This leads to the big question - how often have they done the same thing with other studies? How often have they accepted work that verified their mission or rejected something at odds with their pre-defined results?
The thing about trust is that once you know it has been abused, you are less likely to trust again. That's my position on the IPCC.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Campaign Coverage
The Democrats running for president seem to be getting a lot more coverage than the Republicans. I'm not just talking about coverage generated by their first debate. That is understandable. It's that they are getting more coverage in general.
I'm depending on a summary of wire-service reports on MyWay and on MSNBC and things might be different on other news sources but I don't think so. This fits previous patterns.
In the last few days there have been featured stories about Barack and Clinton, both criticizing Bush. Biden got a story on Iraq. There was also a story about McCain trying to convince a Republican convention that he really is conservative. In addition, Keith Olbermann posted one of his scathing "how dare you sir?" editorials about a speech that Giuliani gave. I didn't see the speech itself covered. If it was, it scrolled off of MSNBC's headlines a long time before Olbermann's editorial did.
Keep in mind that there are more Republicans than Democrats running. They are out there making speeches. They just aren't getting any coverage.
Why? The normal reason given is that Republicans are so orderly that there is little to cover compared to the raucous Democratic primaries. This isn't the real reason but it is what reporters tell us when asked.
There are a several factors that really affect coverage.
The first is that reporters prefer covering Democrats. They are Democrats themselves and they are interested in who they will be voting for, November 2008. This is not only true for the reporters covering the Democrats but also for the editors who decide which stories will get links, and, for that matter, which stories are even posted.
Then there is the assumption that the Democrats will win so the Republicans are just going through the motions. The assumption is that the 2006 election represented a permanent shift in voting patterns (or at least one that will last through 2008). Ohio is considered especially important. All the Democrat needs to do is win the states Kerry won plus Ohio to win the White House. Since Democrats won the Governor's office and a Senate seat, the assumption is that Ohio will go to the Democrat.
The final reason is that editors like the message that the Democrats are giving. They are criticizing Bush. Few reporters or editors like Bush. It is against editorial ethics to directly criticize the President day after day except in the editorial pages but they can get around this by quoting someone else as criticizing Bush. In fact, unless the candidates spend their entire speeches attacking Bush, the reporters and editors are going out of their way to pull anti-Bush quotes.
So does this matter? Yes. This is the first open election in my lifetime (unless you count Hillary as being a continuation of Bill's presidency). By over-covering one side, it gives the Democrats an aura of inevitability.
The big question is if a Democratic victory is really inevitable? Not according to the polls. Several polls have Republican front-runner Giuliani beating both Hillary and Barack. In fact, as things stand right now, he has a good shot at willing both Ohio and picking up Pennsylvania.
This means that fair coverage is important. The election is not a forgone conclusion. Not that this will make any difference to the MSM.
The good thing here is that the press might over-cover the Democrats. The Republican candidate may well seem fresh by the time the nomination is settled.
I'm depending on a summary of wire-service reports on MyWay and on MSNBC and things might be different on other news sources but I don't think so. This fits previous patterns.
In the last few days there have been featured stories about Barack and Clinton, both criticizing Bush. Biden got a story on Iraq. There was also a story about McCain trying to convince a Republican convention that he really is conservative. In addition, Keith Olbermann posted one of his scathing "how dare you sir?" editorials about a speech that Giuliani gave. I didn't see the speech itself covered. If it was, it scrolled off of MSNBC's headlines a long time before Olbermann's editorial did.
Keep in mind that there are more Republicans than Democrats running. They are out there making speeches. They just aren't getting any coverage.
Why? The normal reason given is that Republicans are so orderly that there is little to cover compared to the raucous Democratic primaries. This isn't the real reason but it is what reporters tell us when asked.
There are a several factors that really affect coverage.
The first is that reporters prefer covering Democrats. They are Democrats themselves and they are interested in who they will be voting for, November 2008. This is not only true for the reporters covering the Democrats but also for the editors who decide which stories will get links, and, for that matter, which stories are even posted.
Then there is the assumption that the Democrats will win so the Republicans are just going through the motions. The assumption is that the 2006 election represented a permanent shift in voting patterns (or at least one that will last through 2008). Ohio is considered especially important. All the Democrat needs to do is win the states Kerry won plus Ohio to win the White House. Since Democrats won the Governor's office and a Senate seat, the assumption is that Ohio will go to the Democrat.
The final reason is that editors like the message that the Democrats are giving. They are criticizing Bush. Few reporters or editors like Bush. It is against editorial ethics to directly criticize the President day after day except in the editorial pages but they can get around this by quoting someone else as criticizing Bush. In fact, unless the candidates spend their entire speeches attacking Bush, the reporters and editors are going out of their way to pull anti-Bush quotes.
So does this matter? Yes. This is the first open election in my lifetime (unless you count Hillary as being a continuation of Bill's presidency). By over-covering one side, it gives the Democrats an aura of inevitability.
The big question is if a Democratic victory is really inevitable? Not according to the polls. Several polls have Republican front-runner Giuliani beating both Hillary and Barack. In fact, as things stand right now, he has a good shot at willing both Ohio and picking up Pennsylvania.
This means that fair coverage is important. The election is not a forgone conclusion. Not that this will make any difference to the MSM.
The good thing here is that the press might over-cover the Democrats. The Republican candidate may well seem fresh by the time the nomination is settled.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Surrendering for Votes
A few days ago I expressed the opinion that the electorate will turn against the Democrats if they are seen as surrendering in Iraq. The next day I saw a poll that showed around 57% of the population does support a quick pullout from Iraq. I also saw a quote indicating that Senate Majority Leader Reid's private pollster had come up with similar numbers.
That explains why Reid has done such a turn-around. Not long ago he was assuring people that he was not pushing for an immediate pull-out (there's no other way to describe a pull-out that starts in five months).
I still think that the Democrats will regret this and that they will regret it even more if they prevail. There were similar conditions in the early 1970s. A Democratic Congress acted against an unpopular president and cut funding for an unpopular war. There were loud voices insisting that our presence was only making things worse and that a pull-out would bring peace.
Things didn't work out so well in Viet Nam. The short-lived peace turned into slaughter. Many anti-war activists apologized for their part in ending the war.
But that's just stuff that happened to foreigners. Liberals have a long history of ignoring atrocities committed by communists. More important (to the Democrats), the American electorate lost faith in their ability to lead in a crisis. From the 1980s through the 2004 election they kept asking why the voters didn't trust them in a war. The simple answer is that they don't believe in war. They think that everything can be solved through "continuing dialogs", addressing "root problems" and, as a last resort, using law enforcement. Many liberals insisted at the time that the reaction to 9/11 should have been a law enforcement issue. More of them insist that now. It is the accepted opinion of the left that 9/11 was hardly worth noticing and that Bush seized on an excuse to implement his authoritarian (some call it fascist) agenda.
So, if we pull out in October, 2007 or January, 2009 and things get worse in Iraq, who is the public going to blame?
Several events are likely. Iraq will erupt into a full-fledged civil war; Iran and possibly Syria and Turkey will get involved and annex portions of Iraq; and things will get worse in Afghanistan - a lot worse. The Taliban will know for certain that they can win against America if they just keep the casualty count high enough.
All future wars will be tougher, also. Right now we are trying to prove that Viet Nam was the exception and that Americans are tough enough to win an occupancy. Failure in Iraq will prove that a small force that fights dirty enough can always outlast Americans.
And the public will blame the Democrats. They may win the presidency and increase their majority in Congress in 2008 but it will catch up with them soon enough and it will stick for decades.
That explains why Reid has done such a turn-around. Not long ago he was assuring people that he was not pushing for an immediate pull-out (there's no other way to describe a pull-out that starts in five months).
I still think that the Democrats will regret this and that they will regret it even more if they prevail. There were similar conditions in the early 1970s. A Democratic Congress acted against an unpopular president and cut funding for an unpopular war. There were loud voices insisting that our presence was only making things worse and that a pull-out would bring peace.
Things didn't work out so well in Viet Nam. The short-lived peace turned into slaughter. Many anti-war activists apologized for their part in ending the war.
But that's just stuff that happened to foreigners. Liberals have a long history of ignoring atrocities committed by communists. More important (to the Democrats), the American electorate lost faith in their ability to lead in a crisis. From the 1980s through the 2004 election they kept asking why the voters didn't trust them in a war. The simple answer is that they don't believe in war. They think that everything can be solved through "continuing dialogs", addressing "root problems" and, as a last resort, using law enforcement. Many liberals insisted at the time that the reaction to 9/11 should have been a law enforcement issue. More of them insist that now. It is the accepted opinion of the left that 9/11 was hardly worth noticing and that Bush seized on an excuse to implement his authoritarian (some call it fascist) agenda.
So, if we pull out in October, 2007 or January, 2009 and things get worse in Iraq, who is the public going to blame?
Several events are likely. Iraq will erupt into a full-fledged civil war; Iran and possibly Syria and Turkey will get involved and annex portions of Iraq; and things will get worse in Afghanistan - a lot worse. The Taliban will know for certain that they can win against America if they just keep the casualty count high enough.
All future wars will be tougher, also. Right now we are trying to prove that Viet Nam was the exception and that Americans are tough enough to win an occupancy. Failure in Iraq will prove that a small force that fights dirty enough can always outlast Americans.
And the public will blame the Democrats. They may win the presidency and increase their majority in Congress in 2008 but it will catch up with them soon enough and it will stick for decades.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Dropping the F-Word
No - not THAT F-word. I mean Fascist. Naomi Wolf thinks that America had a fascist takeover but somehow she's the only one to notice.
Her proof? She starts out with this list:
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
Name a war in the last 200 years that didn't have some place to keep POWs. With a very few exceptions, the people in the prisons she lists are foreign combatants caught under arms. No, we are not granting them the full rights of Americans in court. This is an impossibility with POWs. They have been held for years without a hearing because liberals held the hearings up in court.
What we do not have is a system of prisons for holding political dissidents. If we did then there wouldn't be anyone left to spew venom on Kos.
3. Develop a thug caste
Most of this point is just silly. Near the end it gets outright offensive.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
We are at war in several different ways. Surveillance to look for terrorists is not the same as snooping on political foes.
5. Harass citizens' groups
The IRS was actively used to harass the Clintons' political enemies. Wolf gives a few isolated examples that happened under Bush. If this is fascism then it got better when Bush took office.
She also complains about protest groups being infiltrated. Considering how many protests are organized by communist-affiliated groups and the level of rhetoric, I hope that the government is keeping an eye on these people. This is nothing new nor is it unique to America. All governments keep potentially violent groups under surveillance.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
The TSA's watch list needs reform but it's a long way from the arbitrary arrests she describes in actual fascist countries.
7. Target key individuals
She doesn't have much to offer here. Academia actively represses conservatives. An independent conservative movement to bring balance is misrepresented. A few other examples are given but not accurately.
8. Control the press
Obviously she has not read the New York Times or watched Olberman on MSNBC or watched any network news.
9. Dissent equals treason
She goes out on a limb here. The President has the authority to declare citizens enemy combatants. From there they still get a trial. She is sure that this will change. Her proof? Well.. she's really sure.
10. Suspend the rule of law
One of the reasons that it took too long for aid to reach Louisiana after Katrina was the difficulty in declaring martial law. The response to that is given as evidence of a fascist takeover.
All of this is a example of the well-documented Bush Derangement Syndrome. The left is sure that Bush is evil. After the 2004 election they insisted that the Republicans had taken over the elections and that they would never allow the Democrats to win again. That was forgotten after the 2006 election.
Wolf could have made the same case against Clinton. The left was sure that Reagan was going to take over the government to say nothing of Nixon's planned coup.
There will be a new president elected in 2008. Bush will leave office quietly in 2009 and a new set of conspiracy theories will start.
Her proof? She starts out with this list:
Last autumn, there was a military coup in Thailand. The leaders of the coup took a number of steps, rather systematically, as if they had a shopping list. In a sense, they did. Within a matter of days, democracy had been closed down: the coup leaders declared martial law, sent armed soldiers into residential areas, took over radio and TV stations, issued restrictions on the press, tightened some limits on travel, and took certain activists into custody. hey were not figuring these things out as they went along. If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship. That blueprint has been used again and again in more and less bloody, more and less terrifying ways. But it is always effective. It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy - but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps.I have yet to see armed soldiers in my neighborhood, the press is still firmly in private (and anti-Bush hands), etc. Regardless, she goes on to give a ten-point list of things that have happened in America. I'm not going to copy the whole column, just points:
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a severe danger; of course it is. I am arguing rather that the language used to convey the nature of the threat is different in a country such as Spain - which has also suffered violent terrorist attacks - than it is in America.Her logic here is strained. She admits that there is a threat but she ignores that the US is the designated enemy of Islamic terrorists. Spain thought that they were too small to be a target then assumed that they were immune because they changed governments. America does not have that luxury. We have been a target since the 1980s, across four presidents. As with many liberals, Wolf pretends that all we have to do is dump Bush and Israel and the terrorists will love us. Any language to the contrary is fascist.
2. Create a gulag
Name a war in the last 200 years that didn't have some place to keep POWs. With a very few exceptions, the people in the prisons she lists are foreign combatants caught under arms. No, we are not granting them the full rights of Americans in court. This is an impossibility with POWs. They have been held for years without a hearing because liberals held the hearings up in court.
What we do not have is a system of prisons for holding political dissidents. If we did then there wouldn't be anyone left to spew venom on Kos.
3. Develop a thug caste
Most of this point is just silly. Near the end it gets outright offensive.
Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000.There were a lot of questions about how the Gore people conducted the recount. Bush supporters staged a demonstration against this and Wolf inflates this into brownshirts. Contrast this with the people on the left who think it is ok to trash a city for daring to host a meeting of the WTO.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
We are at war in several different ways. Surveillance to look for terrorists is not the same as snooping on political foes.
5. Harass citizens' groups
The IRS was actively used to harass the Clintons' political enemies. Wolf gives a few isolated examples that happened under Bush. If this is fascism then it got better when Bush took office.
She also complains about protest groups being infiltrated. Considering how many protests are organized by communist-affiliated groups and the level of rhetoric, I hope that the government is keeping an eye on these people. This is nothing new nor is it unique to America. All governments keep potentially violent groups under surveillance.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
The TSA's watch list needs reform but it's a long way from the arbitrary arrests she describes in actual fascist countries.
7. Target key individuals
She doesn't have much to offer here. Academia actively represses conservatives. An independent conservative movement to bring balance is misrepresented. A few other examples are given but not accurately.
8. Control the press
Obviously she has not read the New York Times or watched Olberman on MSNBC or watched any network news.
9. Dissent equals treason
She goes out on a limb here. The President has the authority to declare citizens enemy combatants. From there they still get a trial. She is sure that this will change. Her proof? Well.. she's really sure.
10. Suspend the rule of law
One of the reasons that it took too long for aid to reach Louisiana after Katrina was the difficulty in declaring martial law. The response to that is given as evidence of a fascist takeover.
All of this is a example of the well-documented Bush Derangement Syndrome. The left is sure that Bush is evil. After the 2004 election they insisted that the Republicans had taken over the elections and that they would never allow the Democrats to win again. That was forgotten after the 2006 election.
Wolf could have made the same case against Clinton. The left was sure that Reagan was going to take over the government to say nothing of Nixon's planned coup.
There will be a new president elected in 2008. Bush will leave office quietly in 2009 and a new set of conspiracy theories will start.
Democrats Gone Wild
As I have pointed out before, the Democrats ran their 2006 congressional campaign on "a new direction in Iraq" and fiscal responsibility. Between the election and taking office, Speaker-elect Pelosi promised that she would keep a lid on direct attacks on the President. The goal was to show that the Democrats are ready to govern the country.
Less than five months after they assumed control of Congress and things are a mess. Committees are investigating the Attorney General and now one is investigating the claim that Saddam was trying to get yellowcake. uranium and is planning to subpoena Secretary of State Rice.
Articles of impeachment of both the President and the Vice-President are being prepared.
On Iraq, the House originally tried to appear fair by giving Bush a year and a half to stabilize Iraq before withdrawing the troops. The Senate called for a less-than-reasonable 12 months. The compromise calls for a pull-out starting in five months and ending in 11.
In order to pass the Iraq deadline, the Democrats abandoned all pretense of fiscal restraint.
Speaker Pelosi herself went to Syria to offer a "Democratic-alternative foreign policy".
This will end badly for the Democrats. They are paying too much attention to Bush's approval rating and not enough to their own. While Bush's ratings are low, there is nothing to indicate that the country is thrilled with the job that the Democrats are doing, either.
Congress is considering a bill co-sponsored by Barack Obama that would allow people to sue for comparable worth.
Here's where they are going wrong:
They may yet get the head of the Attorney General, but their investigation into the yellowcake claim is futile. The British already investigated this and found that there was credible reason to assume that Saddam tried to purchase some. Even Ambassador Wilson admitted this when under oath.
The Democrats may have enough votes for impeachment but they are a long way from enough for a conviction. They have no cause except spite and too many years of listening to their own propaganda. The attempt to impeach Clinton helped him and made the Republicans look petty. It is unlikely that this will come out any better.
Republicans are starting to quote troops in the field as saying that Congress's antics hurt them. The Democrats in Congress are unwilling to get progress report from the generals in charge. They are leaving themselves wide open to the charge that they cannot be trusted with the nation's security. I suspect that many Democrats are supporting the five month pull-out because they know it will will be vetoed and they need to satisfy MoveOn. There is no way to interpret the five-month pull-out as anything but a non-binding surrender by Congress.
Foreign policy is set by the President and the State Department. The House has no say at all in the process.
Finally, comparable worth never gained traction when feminists first pushed it. The idea of having a trial judge set your pay strikes at the heart of free-enterprise. Even most feminists gave up on it as study after study proved that women make less because they value other employment factors over pay.
I will be very surprised if any of this goes anywhere. Most likely it will turn into a train crash that the Republicans can use in 2008.
I wonder if Karl Rove is behind it?
Less than five months after they assumed control of Congress and things are a mess. Committees are investigating the Attorney General and now one is investigating the claim that Saddam was trying to get yellowcake. uranium and is planning to subpoena Secretary of State Rice.
Articles of impeachment of both the President and the Vice-President are being prepared.
On Iraq, the House originally tried to appear fair by giving Bush a year and a half to stabilize Iraq before withdrawing the troops. The Senate called for a less-than-reasonable 12 months. The compromise calls for a pull-out starting in five months and ending in 11.
In order to pass the Iraq deadline, the Democrats abandoned all pretense of fiscal restraint.
Speaker Pelosi herself went to Syria to offer a "Democratic-alternative foreign policy".
This will end badly for the Democrats. They are paying too much attention to Bush's approval rating and not enough to their own. While Bush's ratings are low, there is nothing to indicate that the country is thrilled with the job that the Democrats are doing, either.
Congress is considering a bill co-sponsored by Barack Obama that would allow people to sue for comparable worth.
Here's where they are going wrong:
They may yet get the head of the Attorney General, but their investigation into the yellowcake claim is futile. The British already investigated this and found that there was credible reason to assume that Saddam tried to purchase some. Even Ambassador Wilson admitted this when under oath.
The Democrats may have enough votes for impeachment but they are a long way from enough for a conviction. They have no cause except spite and too many years of listening to their own propaganda. The attempt to impeach Clinton helped him and made the Republicans look petty. It is unlikely that this will come out any better.
Republicans are starting to quote troops in the field as saying that Congress's antics hurt them. The Democrats in Congress are unwilling to get progress report from the generals in charge. They are leaving themselves wide open to the charge that they cannot be trusted with the nation's security. I suspect that many Democrats are supporting the five month pull-out because they know it will will be vetoed and they need to satisfy MoveOn. There is no way to interpret the five-month pull-out as anything but a non-binding surrender by Congress.
Foreign policy is set by the President and the State Department. The House has no say at all in the process.
Finally, comparable worth never gained traction when feminists first pushed it. The idea of having a trial judge set your pay strikes at the heart of free-enterprise. Even most feminists gave up on it as study after study proved that women make less because they value other employment factors over pay.
I will be very surprised if any of this goes anywhere. Most likely it will turn into a train crash that the Republicans can use in 2008.
I wonder if Karl Rove is behind it?
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Sheryl's "Joke"
Last week Sheryl Crow suggested that one piece of toilet paper should be enough.
Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.Her little suggestion got world-wide coverage. Now she says that it was just a joke.
Was it? Granted it was inane but so was everything else she posted during her tour. Maybe the whole thing was a joke?
Then there was the run-in with Karl Rove.
Sheryl reached out to touch his arm. Karl swung around and spat, "Don't touch me." How hardened and removed from reality must a person be to refuse to be touched by Sheryl Crow?
Obviously he read Sheryl's blog and was concerned about what else that hand had touched.
There is a certain irony in Sheryl and Laurie's encounter with Rove. Early in the tour Laurie was upset that someone dared to question her view of reality yet she does not allow anyone else the same privilege. After all, she produced An Inconvenient Truth in which Al Gore declared that the discussion is closed. As is Laurie's mind.
Or maybe they were having another joke.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Who to Blame?
The normal human response to a tragedy such as last week's shootings at Virginia Tech is to find someone to blame. A lot of criticism was directed at the school administrators for not going into lock-down immediately. Given that it first appeared to be a simple domestic dispute with the wrong assumed suspect, there was little reason for a lock-down. It is also questionable how much good an earlier email would have done.
Video games were quickly blamed for inciting Cho to violence. This is unlikely as he did not seem to even own a game console.
Easy access to guns has been given as a reason. There are several problems with that. Last week was the anniversary of two other major tragedies - Columbine when two students tried to explode a bomb in a lunchroom and Oklahoma City where a crazed person did explode a bomb. Clearly someone who is bent on murder does not need firearms.
One part of the debate has been glossed over when talking about Cho's background. Over a year ago he was declared a danger to himself and others which should have disqualified him from firearms purchases. The part that no one seems to be talking about is that he could not be held because of how difficult it is to institutionalize someone involuntarily. If Cho had been locked up and getting treatment then he could not have killed anyone. This should be part of the national dialog but is not.
Everyone who knew him talks about how quiet he was. After hearing the videos he sent to NBC I can see why. He was ashamed of his thick Korean accent. Some accounts say that kids used to make fun of this. Clearly this was a major factor.
This raises a new set of questions. Cho came to America at the age of eight. Why didn't he speak better English? I know someone whose parents only spoke Chinese. He entered Kindergarten without knowing a word of English but when I met him as an adult he had no accent. Possibly Cho was enrolled in a Korean-language class for years and only learned English later.
Drudge put a copy of one of Cho's plays on-line. It is very disturbing. A well-meaning but not too smart Dick McBurger is trying to make peace with his step-son. The step-son accuses McBurger of awful things until Dick finally kills the step-son.
As far as I know, Cho was not adopted so where did the issues with an adopted father come from? My guess is that Dick McBurger was symbolic of Cho's adopted country. Seen in this light, Cho was predicting his own death by his adopted "father".
When all is said and done, the responsibility rests with Cho. Lots of people had a tough childhood without resorting to murder. It is not satisfying for the rest of us. We want someone to punish but the person really at fault is dead by his own hand.
Video games were quickly blamed for inciting Cho to violence. This is unlikely as he did not seem to even own a game console.
Easy access to guns has been given as a reason. There are several problems with that. Last week was the anniversary of two other major tragedies - Columbine when two students tried to explode a bomb in a lunchroom and Oklahoma City where a crazed person did explode a bomb. Clearly someone who is bent on murder does not need firearms.
One part of the debate has been glossed over when talking about Cho's background. Over a year ago he was declared a danger to himself and others which should have disqualified him from firearms purchases. The part that no one seems to be talking about is that he could not be held because of how difficult it is to institutionalize someone involuntarily. If Cho had been locked up and getting treatment then he could not have killed anyone. This should be part of the national dialog but is not.
Everyone who knew him talks about how quiet he was. After hearing the videos he sent to NBC I can see why. He was ashamed of his thick Korean accent. Some accounts say that kids used to make fun of this. Clearly this was a major factor.
This raises a new set of questions. Cho came to America at the age of eight. Why didn't he speak better English? I know someone whose parents only spoke Chinese. He entered Kindergarten without knowing a word of English but when I met him as an adult he had no accent. Possibly Cho was enrolled in a Korean-language class for years and only learned English later.
Drudge put a copy of one of Cho's plays on-line. It is very disturbing. A well-meaning but not too smart Dick McBurger is trying to make peace with his step-son. The step-son accuses McBurger of awful things until Dick finally kills the step-son.
As far as I know, Cho was not adopted so where did the issues with an adopted father come from? My guess is that Dick McBurger was symbolic of Cho's adopted country. Seen in this light, Cho was predicting his own death by his adopted "father".
When all is said and done, the responsibility rests with Cho. Lots of people had a tough childhood without resorting to murder. It is not satisfying for the rest of us. We want someone to punish but the person really at fault is dead by his own hand.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Can Climate Change be Predicted?
Most of the case for global warming comes from computer models. The question is, if computer models have trouble predicting the weather a week from now then can they predict the climate fifty years from now?
RealClimate has an answer to this here. This is an influential climate blog. Al Gore recommends it and it has a relationship with Michael Mann, the creator of the Hockey Stick paleo-temperature reconstruction.
To summarize what RealClimate says, weather prediction is hard but climate is easy. Summer and winter are predictable. You can predict that it is cooler at high altitudes. Some local areas have distinct climates such as Northern Europe. Also, the greenhouse effect is demonstrable and carbon dioxide is known to absorb heat.
So - case closed? Not in the least. Yes, the seasons are predictable but this is nothing but statistical averaging. It is not a model that uses all known factors and computes the climate. It is not testable - you cannot roll it forward and backward and compare it to actual measurements (because that's all it is). And you cannot predict change with a statistical average.
It is also possible to predict the same climate using an invalid model. In the Middle Ages philosophers spent a lot of effort computing how the world worked but they started with the assumption that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
For that matter, a 10-year-old could make the same predictions based on nothing but his own experience.
What RealClimate was trying to say and many of the comments say is that local weather is subject to too many random fluctuations to be reliably predictable but these tend to cancel each other out when figured over a large enough area (a hemisphere for example). This allows a simplification in climate models so that it can be reduced to basic forcings. Since CO2 is a forcing, all we have to do is add in the heat gain from additional CO2 and we have the future climate.
Is this true? No. If it was then temperatures for the 20th century would show a smooth climb. Instead there is a climb through the 1930s, a dip that lasted into the 1970s, and a climb again.
The truth is that there are significant unknowns. Not all forcings are known nor is their effect. There are a numerous substances being released into the atmosphere constantly, both from nature and human-derived. These have different effects, some canceling out others.
There are also natural rhythms that are not well-understood. Both the Atlantic and Pacific have multi-decadal oscillations that warm and cool the oceans. El Nino and la Nina cycles are not at all understood but have a major effect. The effects of solar variations may be underestimated.
Then there are what Donald Rumsfeld called "unknown unknowns". If you push a car down a hill and measure it's speed over the first hundred feet you will see it accelerating. From this you would conclude that it would continue to accelerate. In fact, the faster the car goes the more friction is generated. Eventually the friction balances the acceleration and it reaches a stable speed... until you run out of hill.
Unless the driver pops the clutch and the engine starts, speeding the car up even more.
Water vapor and the effect of clouds are the unknown unknowns here. Global warming theory holds that as temperature increases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will increase until it reaches a tipping point. This would be equivalent to popping the clutch. Or it might cause more clouds, trapping even more heat which would also correspond to popping the clutch.
On the other hand, more clouds might reflect heat, stabilizing the temperature, corresponding to friction.
Or there might be other warming factors that have not yet been discovered but are subject to cycles. That would be running out of hill.
So, climate projection is possible if you know all of the forcings but impossible if you don't.
Do we know all of the forcings? No. That's where being able to roll the models forward and backward is important. If the models are accurate then they will match historic climate. They don't. The programmers have never solved this. They have forced their models to match the real world but that means that there is no guarantee that they will continue to match when predicting the future.
RealClimate has an answer to this here. This is an influential climate blog. Al Gore recommends it and it has a relationship with Michael Mann, the creator of the Hockey Stick paleo-temperature reconstruction.
To summarize what RealClimate says, weather prediction is hard but climate is easy. Summer and winter are predictable. You can predict that it is cooler at high altitudes. Some local areas have distinct climates such as Northern Europe. Also, the greenhouse effect is demonstrable and carbon dioxide is known to absorb heat.
So - case closed? Not in the least. Yes, the seasons are predictable but this is nothing but statistical averaging. It is not a model that uses all known factors and computes the climate. It is not testable - you cannot roll it forward and backward and compare it to actual measurements (because that's all it is). And you cannot predict change with a statistical average.
It is also possible to predict the same climate using an invalid model. In the Middle Ages philosophers spent a lot of effort computing how the world worked but they started with the assumption that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
For that matter, a 10-year-old could make the same predictions based on nothing but his own experience.
What RealClimate was trying to say and many of the comments say is that local weather is subject to too many random fluctuations to be reliably predictable but these tend to cancel each other out when figured over a large enough area (a hemisphere for example). This allows a simplification in climate models so that it can be reduced to basic forcings. Since CO2 is a forcing, all we have to do is add in the heat gain from additional CO2 and we have the future climate.
Is this true? No. If it was then temperatures for the 20th century would show a smooth climb. Instead there is a climb through the 1930s, a dip that lasted into the 1970s, and a climb again.
The truth is that there are significant unknowns. Not all forcings are known nor is their effect. There are a numerous substances being released into the atmosphere constantly, both from nature and human-derived. These have different effects, some canceling out others.
There are also natural rhythms that are not well-understood. Both the Atlantic and Pacific have multi-decadal oscillations that warm and cool the oceans. El Nino and la Nina cycles are not at all understood but have a major effect. The effects of solar variations may be underestimated.
Then there are what Donald Rumsfeld called "unknown unknowns". If you push a car down a hill and measure it's speed over the first hundred feet you will see it accelerating. From this you would conclude that it would continue to accelerate. In fact, the faster the car goes the more friction is generated. Eventually the friction balances the acceleration and it reaches a stable speed... until you run out of hill.
Unless the driver pops the clutch and the engine starts, speeding the car up even more.
Water vapor and the effect of clouds are the unknown unknowns here. Global warming theory holds that as temperature increases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will increase until it reaches a tipping point. This would be equivalent to popping the clutch. Or it might cause more clouds, trapping even more heat which would also correspond to popping the clutch.
On the other hand, more clouds might reflect heat, stabilizing the temperature, corresponding to friction.
Or there might be other warming factors that have not yet been discovered but are subject to cycles. That would be running out of hill.
So, climate projection is possible if you know all of the forcings but impossible if you don't.
Do we know all of the forcings? No. That's where being able to roll the models forward and backward is important. If the models are accurate then they will match historic climate. They don't. The programmers have never solved this. They have forced their models to match the real world but that means that there is no guarantee that they will continue to match when predicting the future.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Missing From the News
Yesterday while we were waiting for word about who the Virginia Tech shooter was, my wife mentioned that he was Asian. "What?" I asked. I had just read an updated wire service account and it said nothing nothing about his ethnicity.
It turns out that this was suppressed. The Asian American Journalists Association issued this advisory:
Those people who didn't assume that the shooter was a terrorist probably assumed that he was a white guy. By suppressing the actual ethnicity of the shooter, the AAJA temporarily reinforced the stereotype that he was white. Thanks AAJA.
Of course the truth came out this morning. The shooter was Korean.
A different bit of news that has been dropped is so subtle that you probably didn't even notice it. Which party does New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine belong to? This is normally given any time a politician is in the news with one exception - it is dropped when a Democrat does something that might reflect poorly on the party. Just try to find a reference to Corzine's party in a news account. Now, do you think that this would be dropped if it had been a Republican governor?
So, yes, it was relevant.
It turns out that this was suppressed. The Asian American Journalists Association issued this advisory:
As coverage of the Virginia Tech shooting continues to unfold, AAJA urges all media to avoid using racial identifiers unless there is a compelling or germane reason. There is no evidence at this early point that the race or ethnicity of the suspected gunman has anything to do with the incident, and to include such mention serves only to unfairly portray an entire people.They are wrong about the race and ethnicity not having anything to do with the story. I'm sure that many people's first thought was that this was the work of a terrorists. The fact that the authorities withheld any information for so long gave the impression that something was being covered up. It's happened before. At least three Moslems have either attempted or succeeded in mass murder in the last few years. In these cases, the authorities have downplayed the attacker's religion until it was determined that he was "not a terrorist" (defined as not being affiliated with terrorist groups).
Those people who didn't assume that the shooter was a terrorist probably assumed that he was a white guy. By suppressing the actual ethnicity of the shooter, the AAJA temporarily reinforced the stereotype that he was white. Thanks AAJA.
Of course the truth came out this morning. The shooter was Korean.
A different bit of news that has been dropped is so subtle that you probably didn't even notice it. Which party does New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine belong to? This is normally given any time a politician is in the news with one exception - it is dropped when a Democrat does something that might reflect poorly on the party. Just try to find a reference to Corzine's party in a news account. Now, do you think that this would be dropped if it had been a Republican governor?
So, yes, it was relevant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)