In a follow up to my last post, I have a great Global Warming update for you, my beloved reader. Dr James Hansen who heads up NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and happens to be one of Al Gore's chief allies on the global warming crisis, announced that this past October, was the hottest October on record. This was shocking news, mostly because his claim was totally and demonstrably false. HotAir.com did a great summation of a UK Telegraph article that completely blasted Al Gore, Dr. James Hansen, GISS and the IPCC, funny how this story didn't get any attention at all from the media. Here's a few choice snippets for your viewing pleasure or distress, depending on the circumstances.
"GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running."
"The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious “hockey stick” graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year."
"A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others."
"Yet last week’s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen’s methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s."
"Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising “very much faster” than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped."
So lets recap here ladies and gents, GISS's numbers were wrong about Russia being 10 degrees hotter than normal because the numbers were not accurately being reported; indeed they were simply carried over from the last month, for TWO months. When the error was found GISS tried to deflect the criticism by saying they found a new hot spot in the Arctic even though there was already evidence that said that Arctic sea-ice had been forming so fast and so extensively that it was 30% more extensive than last year. Doesn't sound like good evidence of a hot spot to me. Not that it matters because apparently GISS doesn't even do it's own numbers according to their own spokeswoman, despite the fact that they are one of the 4 data sets that the UN's IPCC uses to further their global warming policy plans. Oh yeah GISS's numbers are also the most quoted. It's a good thing they have some sort of quality control system in place to guarantee their numbers.. oh wait, they don't. As if that wasn't bad enough, Dr. James Hansen who heads GISS was found to be demonstrably and irrefutably lying about global warming and the same can be said for his partner in crime, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. Yet these are the people that 20/20 and 60 minutes will have on their shows to tell you that "the Earth has a cold," or something similarly foolish. The next time someone begins hyperventilating and/or foaming at the mouth about environmentalism, and the dangers of global warming, kindly direct them to this blog, and invite them to read, learn and perhaps use the intelligence that God gave them to do a little bit of reasoning for themselves. In any event, we've got a lot of ground to cover today, even without going back to previous topics/posts.. and a 1, 2, 3.. HAJIME!
Bailout Bust:
Is it finally kosher to say that the so-called "bailout" has been a complete and unmitigated failure? If not, please just tell me when it's okay, and I promise to be right there to to say, "I told you so" when reality can no longer be obfuscated to the point of absurdity. Lets take a look at the current situation with the bailout as pertains to the automobile industry. It seems that the most recent proposal to take 25 billion dollars from the 700 billion dollar "rescue" plan has been dropped by Senate Democrats. Finally, some good news! But just so that we don't get confused, the Big 3 auto-makers already have 25 billion dollars coming in the pipeline that the White House and Congress have already signed off on. What they were asking for now, is an additional 25 billion from the socialist bailout plan administered by Bush's Treasury Secretary none other than Democrat Henry Paulson. Bet you didn't know that the purportedly harshly partisan President Bush had and continues to have many Democrats on his cabinet and staff.. yet another example of selective reporting by the media. Anyway, the word from the White House is basically this, allow the auto-makers to use the original 25 billion to cover day to day expenses and remove any mandates for re-tooling for making "green" cars. The original 25 billion was given under those restrictions and the Democrat Congress now rejects any attempt to change the allocation of the funds, because obviously they know how to run a business better than Auto Executives do, and it's not like it was government regulation that led to the downfall of American Manufacturing.. yup that sounds about right. So basically we have members of Congress who have never run a business in their life, now designing the business model for American auto-makers. The Wall Street Journal has a great article on the debacle that unfolds daily in Washington, here's a quick excerpt that I think is particularly relevant.
"Once Congress starts investing in its green visions for Detroit, it isn't likely to give up easily or stop at $50 billion. If the Environmental Motor Company's cars don't sell well enough to earn a profit, then something else would have to be done to vindicate the investments. Taxpayer loans and other subsidies would have to float the companies until Americans wise up or Congress forces consumers to buy them. Taxpayers should get ready to own a piece of Detroit for a very long time."I'm going to go with Mitt Romney on this one, I am of the mind that the only solution to this current crisis is bankruptcy for the Big 3 just like any other company. It'll let one or more of them merge, hopefully come out of bankruptcy leaner and meaner, re-do union contracts, etc. Essentially it's the only way they can really re-organize, a bailout of any kind is really just delaying the inevitable.
The past 2 days have amounted to another huge drop on Wall Street, just about 800 points down, which is about 9-10% off the Dow. Anybody care to guess why? I've said it before, and I stick by it, the market is responding to the upcoming Obama administration and what he says hes going to do to the economy, most of which has shareholders running for the hills. To be fair though, let's take a look at what Bush's Democrat Treasury Secretary already HAS done with the help of Democrats in Congress, such as, panicking during economic hard times, bailing out one company and not the other, not allowing the market to find it's natural bottom, no transparency etc. All of that coupled with what Democrat's are planning to do going forward is turning what was once a relatively small recession into what looks to be a full fledged depression by ushering in what they call "The New, New Deal." Remember how I often lament about how no one really knows their history anymore? Well here's another great example of why history is important and how it is being demonstrably re-written to the point that it turns reality on it's head. FDR's New Deal policies DID NOT get the US out of the Great Depression. Let's take a look at some real facts about that time period; unemployment was nose diving to 20% by 1938 after 7 years of The New Deal. It was a complete failure; WWII got people working again, but it didn't get the economy going again. We didn't recover from the crash of 29' until the late 40's early 50's really, and that had nothing to do with the new deal. In 2004 a study out of UCLA came to a similar conclusion and offered this timely piece of wisdom.
"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
I only wish that someone had payed some attention to them before we hit a point where we are faced with the option of a "10-15 year economic slump" because of "ill-conceived economic stimulus policies." Indeed everything that has caused this problem so far is a result of what happened in the first part of this century with government intervention. The Federal Reserve being created allowing the government to create fiat money, Fanny Mae was a creation of The New Deal, compulsory unionism and the UAW born in 1935, demanding inflexible work rules for the Big 3 which is now catching up to them, this idea that everyone should own a house and sub prime lending, Social Security and Medicare, Social Security is going to go bankrupt by 2017 when they have to cash in treasury IOU's that nobody knows where the government will get the money, Medicare is already bankrupt, taking money out of the general fund, not from payroll taxes, these are all creations of what? The New Deal. Granted, New Dealism, that last bunch would fall under "The Great Society" which came about in the mid 60's but that was just a reincarnation of The New Deal. If you want to know the reason why we are stuck in an economic malaise right now, it can be summed up in three words. TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT. Do we really need to go into another depression before I'm proven right, or can we just save ourselves a lot of grief and just do what needs to be done now, which is to let the market correct? Only time will tell..
Prop 8 and Marriage:
The topic of Gay Marriage has been making headlines since Prop 8 passed in my home state of California on November 4, amending the Constitution of California to legally define marriage in California as between a man and a woman. To be honest I really don't know what the surprise was or why people were so outraged, seeing as how similar measures had passed before easily, it seems like such a non issue to me. I am not a lawyer, that's my brother and sister in law's profession but here's my layman's take on it. A lot of people liken gay activists struggle to that of the civil rights movement in the 60's, interracial mingling and integration. That analogy is wrong on a number of levels. First off, since the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was ratified everyone was protected under the equal protection clause and almost no one these days thinks that it should be otherwise, and if they do they are in violation of the US Constitution. Why is that important? Well it sets the stage for a fundamental distinction, that of condition vs. behavior. You can't legislate based on the condition of race or gender as those are inherent conditions of a human being. The only thing that you can legislate on is behavior, and whether or not those behaviors are inherent in a persons condition is not important if their actions or behaviors are the only way they are manifest. For the purposes of this example lets take polygamy as an example. A person may claim to have an inherent condition that predisposes him or her to engage in polygamy and a government can not legislate against that condition, but as soon that individual takes action in that regard then it becomes an illegal act. Gay Marriage really does represent a slippery slope, because it is based on the unprecedented premise of allowing a behavior to be treated like a condition inherent in a person, which should certainly not be the case.
To be honest, I look at this issue almost the same as I do abortion. I'm strongly morally and politically against it, but at the end of the day, I'm more worried about bears. (my brother often says this phrase, to denote that getting eaten by a bear is a more pressing matter in his life than whatever we happen to be talking about that is threatening or worrisome) I'm more than willing to leave both issues to the state legislatures and let democracy and federalism do their thing. The thing that is troubling though is the fact that people can not abide by the results of a vote without rioting in the streets. I thought the liberals among us were the enlightened ones, the people who were more tolerant and accepting of things than me. I find it personally amusing that I survived Obama becoming President Elect without rioting in the streets and liberals and gay activists want to live by minority rule. The fact is that we live in a filtered democracy where it comes down to a majority rule. We had minority rule once before, it was called a monarchy, we fought a war over it so we could live by the laws that we choose. We should not trade the minority rule of a King for that of a few judges, the people voted and the Constitution has been amended. Of course there is always a worry about abuse of power but that is why there are checks and balances and ultimately the best form of redress is the ballot box. The marches, protests, vandalism and violence do not speak very eloquently for the proponents of Gay Marriage, because the best way to tell the character of an activist is to observe how they set about attaining their goals. Here's some interesting statistics for you. Over 90% of the black vote went to Obama in California, no surprise right? Here's the shocker, 70% of the black vote went in favor of Prop 8. Now those same blacks who are lauded for bringing Obama to power are being targeted by Rosanne Barr who said, those black voters "showed themselves every inch as bigoted and ignorant as their white Christian counterparts." Not quite the love fest that one would expect after the liberals big win on Nov. 4th huh? One of my favorite talk show hosts Michael Medved wrote an interesting blog on the subject of gay marriage and I wanted to highlight this excerpt.
"The “previously legal same sex ceremonies” (authorized by four justices of the state supreme court in a divided decision a mere five months ago) have not been “outlawed.” Contrary to the tenor of the report, no jack-booted state troopers will come crashing down doors to bust-up the tender and loving commitment ceremonies of same sex couples. Even before the court decision, civil unions were available with identical rights to marriage, and those civil unions are still available after Proposition 8. The voters cast their ballots to eliminate confusion in the Constitution (confusion introduced by meddling jurists), not to interfere with private behavior of any kind. It’s absurd and dishonest to suggest that the proposition “outlawed” anyone’s relationship or expressions of love."
I couldn't agree more. The point is that marriage is a civil institution that has always been between one man and one woman. The fact that gay and lesbian activists want to change thousands of years of tradition for a title, when in California at least they already have the same rights as married couples in Civil Unions borders on baiting of the worst kind. It's a really sad day when I have to quote Sir Elton John, but here we go.
“David and I have a civil partnership in England. We have complete rights between the two of us, we’re protected completely. I think the word ‘marriage’ puts a lot of people off in this country. If they got over the word ‘marriage,’ I think it would be a lot easier for gay people to get together.”
Here's something that you won't here me say every day, Elton John has a point. If rights are all that the gay community are after, then seek them through legislation and leave the institution of marriage alone. If that's not enough, then you aren't really seeking "civil rights" it's more of a vendetta against a society that does not look at your lifestyle as a social norm and that's a whole different animal altogether. In the final analysis, gay rights activists aren't looking for equal rights, they are looking for EXTRA rights. Everyone, gay or straight, above the age of consent, has a right to enter into a marriage contract between one man and one woman. Similarly everyone has a right to enter into a civil union between two consenting adults. What some gay rights activists want is an extra right for two people of the same sex, above the age of consent, to enter into a marriage contract, something that has never happened until the past few decades. Marriage is one of the foundations of our society, and is something worth fighting for in this era of moral relativism, I hope that at least on this one issue we can keep traditional definitions rather than dishing out new politically correct terms to everything that can be done or described under the Sun.
Pirates?! Arr!?:
Okay, by now I'm sure that everyone has heard about the pirates attacking ships off the Somali coast. On Saturday those pirates captured a Saudi Arabian super tanker carrying about 100,000,000 dollars in crude oil and in the following days a number of smaller ships have also been taken. Finally an Indian Navy warship sunk a Somali pirate mothership in the Gulf of Aden. The fascinating part about this is it's connection to American Politics. Am I stretching a connection a bit far here? Perhaps not. Has anyone ever heard phrase, "shores of Tripoli?" President Jefferson dispatched the Marines in the early 1800's to stop the pirates off the Barbary Coast, does that ring any bells? In any event that's how that phrase ended up in the Marines' anthem. We've had problems with pirates going back since day one, in fact pirating is one of only 3 crimes specifically mentioned in the Constitution. By the way, when President Jefferson dispatched the Marines to get the pirates, he did not consult with Congress, nor did he get a UN resolution, (nevermind that the UN was not in existance at the time) he acted as Commander in Chief and he decided to make war, even if Congress was going to declare war. It's called energy in the executive. But wait, I'm just about to get to the best part. What are we supposed to do with the pirates once we get them? Do we charge them with a crime? Well we can't charge them with a crime if the military captures them because under international law you can't send out the military to enforce a criminal code for all practical means and purposes. Are they members of a naval or an opposing military force? Well no, they don't wear a uniform, they don't have insignia, you really can't distinguish them from civilians. One of the reasons why the military wear uniforms is to distinguish themselves from civilians so that when they are shooting people they know they are shooting soldiers and not civlians, because the military is not supposed to target civilians. Well the pirates don't abide by those rules. They don't wear a uniform, they don't target only military members, they are not abiding by the rules of war or international law, so they are not PoW's covered by the Geneva accord, and of course they are not criminal defendants (common criminals can not be apprehended by the military). Is any of this starting to sound familiar yet?! So what should we do with these pirates if and when we get them? How about we try them as unlawful enemy combatants in a military tribunal? But wait, we've had a great debate about that, and the Democrats and liberals all say that the military tribunals that we've used since the founding of the nation are illegal. So now Obama says he wants to shut down Guantanamo Bay and bring those unlawful enemy combatants within the borders of the United States to stand trial in a criminal court. What's more, classified information won't be protected in a criminal trial. But that's neither here nor there. On the subject of the pirates, wouldn't Guantanamo Bay be a great place to detain those pirates and try them in a military tribunal? Too bad Obama and the rest of them want to shut it down as soon as he gets into office. The irony of the parallels were way too delicious to pass up. Figured I'd give you some food for thought, if we get off the politically charged subject of terrorism, can common sense and logic win out where "compassion" and ignorance have largely taken over? I certainly hope so.
An Ending of Sorts:
I know I covered a lot of topics today and probably got more than just a little bit long winded, but perhaps you can draw some comfort in the fact that as long as it takes you to read my posts, it takes me at least 50x as long to write them. That being said I thank you, the reader, for taking the time to struggle through my somewhat random and unfocused writing style to gain what kernels of knowledge that I have to share. If you disagree with any of the points that I post in any of my blogs, feel free to start up a discussion with me. I do not hide from debate, as long as the arguments are well reasoned then to my mind, it would be well worth the time spent. In any event there are a lot of myths and misconceptions to deal with and I hope to eventually address them all through this blog, in this greatest nation on God's green Earth.
Video/Audio Clip(s) of the Entry:
My brother sent me this video clip earlier in this week, and while it is really funny I have to say that I understood his story and his plight a little more than I'd care to admit. We all deal with our demons in our own way, and I wish Mr. Ferguson the best of luck in continuing along the path that he has chosen for himself. That aside, it's the funniest, yet most depressing story I've yet to see.
As you know, I'm a huge fan of live performances, and this man happens to do some of the best in the business. Take the time to watch and enjoy. Don't blame me if you watch it again, and end up buying tickets when he next rolls through your town.. in fact you should probably thank me, it's well worth the investment.
Random Thoughts:
Beautiful days are long gone,
I can't seem to breathe,
Feels like it hasn't been that long,
Since you walked away from me..
Now I can try to act real strong,
But you and I both know,
I still think of you that way,
And you should know, that,
The beautiful lights, the star filled nights,
They don't mean a thing..
'Cause you were my star,
So it don't seem right,
Without you here with me..
Now I can try to act real strong,
But you and I both know,
It's hard for me to say,
You were my soul..
Now I could say that I don't love you no more..
And I could say that I've closed the door, for our love..
And I could tell you I feel it's time for us to go our separate ways..
But baby I just wouldn't be the same..
'Cause girl your love is still on my brain..
Quote of the Entry: “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
- Barry Goldwater, American Politician and Senator (1909-1998)
My brother sent me this video clip earlier in this week, and while it is really funny I have to say that I understood his story and his plight a little more than I'd care to admit. We all deal with our demons in our own way, and I wish Mr. Ferguson the best of luck in continuing along the path that he has chosen for himself. That aside, it's the funniest, yet most depressing story I've yet to see.
As you know, I'm a huge fan of live performances, and this man happens to do some of the best in the business. Take the time to watch and enjoy. Don't blame me if you watch it again, and end up buying tickets when he next rolls through your town.. in fact you should probably thank me, it's well worth the investment.
Random Thoughts:
Beautiful days are long gone,
I can't seem to breathe,
Feels like it hasn't been that long,
Since you walked away from me..
Now I can try to act real strong,
But you and I both know,
I still think of you that way,
And you should know, that,
The beautiful lights, the star filled nights,
They don't mean a thing..
'Cause you were my star,
So it don't seem right,
Without you here with me..
Now I can try to act real strong,
But you and I both know,
It's hard for me to say,
You were my soul..
Now I could say that I don't love you no more..
And I could say that I've closed the door, for our love..
And I could tell you I feel it's time for us to go our separate ways..
But baby I just wouldn't be the same..
'Cause girl your love is still on my brain..
Quote of the Entry: “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
- Barry Goldwater, American Politician and Senator (1909-1998)
