The article linked
below is an interview with the Kurdistan Regional Government's High
Representative to the US. In it she reveals that all military shipments to
Iraqi Kurdistan are first landed in Baghdad for inspection and only after
inspection are the given to the Kurds. This is ridiculous. The Kurdish
Peshmerga in Iraq and the Kurdish YPG in Syria have proven their combat
effectiveness in every battle they've fought as long as their ammunition held
out. Even in retreat, they never abandon any weapons for ISIS to capture. The Iraqi Army, on the other hand, was one of
the main sources of arms for ISIS. They abandoned all of their US supplied
equipment and ran away before ISIS could even get to them. Iran is supplying
the Shi'ite militias around Baghdad with all of the weapons they need. Why aren't we doing the
same for the Kurds?
Translate
A Call for Healing
Democrats Call for Healing the Country
Feb 28, 2015
Feb 23, 2015
Ranting About Rudy, A Double Standard
The liberal press game
of gottcha is getting ridiculous for hypocrisy.
Both George W Bush and Scot Walker have been called Hitler. Democratic
National Committee chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) confirmed in
the link below that the Democratic campaign message for the midterms was
Republicans are worse than Ebola and ISIS. Dick Cheney was accused of starting
the Iraq war to make money for Halliburton. There are no limits when it comes
to liberal Democrats attacking Republicans. The Pravda Press should not be
allowed to enforce this blatant double standard. Nobody claimed these attacks
on Republicans were unacceptable. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is at the front of
the pack denouncing Giuliani's remarks. She should be slammed for being the hypocrite
that she is. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/10/26/wasserman_schultz_republicans_are_scarier_than_ebola_isis.html
Article I was reacting
to:
Feb 22, 2015
My Personal Exposure to Paleoclimatology and Global Warming
My problem with the whole argument for man-made global warming
is the narrowness of the time frame of observations being used. My
reservations are based on my personal experience. I grew up in Missoula,
Montana. It was a prehistoric lake. I was painfully aware of this
as a kid, because anytime anybody tried to dig a hole to plant something there
was about an inch of topsoil, an inch of gravel and then a seemingly infinite
layer of big smooth boulders, most much bigger than the original size of the hole, that had
to be removed. It turns out that Lake Missoula got filled repeatedly as
the result of ice dams on the Clark's Fork River 15,000 to 13,000 years ago.
Periodically the dams would break up suddenly and flood everything
downstream with the contents of the Lake Missoula.
This personal experience and subsequent
exposure to paleoclimatology led me to understand that climate varies quite
widely over geologic time based on natural processes. I believe that the
state of our understanding of these natural processes is exceedingly
incomplete. We have had the computational power to study these processes
for less than 30 years. This is really not enough time to build all of
the relevant factors into the models and then run them enough to understand the
bugs and fix them. If we are going to take action that requires drastic
expensive changes to our economy, the burden of proof is on the people calling
for the drastic expensive changes. We should be sure beyond a reasonable
doubt that the changes are necessary. It is not enough to find warming.
It has to be shown that the warming is caused by increased CO2 emissions
or other alterations to the ecosystem that are the result of human activity. At
this point, I think even showing the warming is a stretch. It is definitely
not proven that human activity is causing any warming observed.
I think the 135 year time span of the
primary detailed observations leaves a lot of room for reasonable doubt,
particularly since the satellite record for the last 36 years shows no change.
The obvious political motivations of the people behind the global warming
movement, who seek unchecked absolute power through the control of all energy
use, makes me believe they have the motive and opportunity for falsifying the
data. The fact that Michael Mann's famous hockey stick did not show the
Medieval Warming Period at all should make everyone think that something is
fishy. When the Climate Research Unit refused to share the raw data and
fought off a Freedom of Information Request by saying they accidentally erased
the data, I really became suspicious. Science is supposed to be open and
reproducible. Accidentally erasing the data is the scientific equivalent
of "the dog ate my homework." I have provided a link for the
erased data incident.
Personally, today I am dealing with 10
degree F weather in Chicago. I have found global warming to date
extremely disappointing. Last year there was a 35 foot high pile of snow
extending 100 feet along the edge of the parking lot where I work. When I
posted a picture of it on my Facebook page, one of my friends wanted to know if
it was Montana or Illinois. I know some legitimate scientists take this very seriously.
But I believe that the planet is a very big place with a huge amount of
water that is going to buffer whatever man does in the short run. I think
AGW is a political movement disguised as science. I don't think AGW has
met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Feb 21, 2015
Internet Neutrality: Regulate Like It's 1887
The
latest atrocity in the ever expanding regulation of everything by the Obama
Administration is regulating the internet as a common carrier justified by enforcing
internet neutrality. The putative
purpose of the regulation is to make sure that all internet traffic is treated
equally. No company should be able to
buy a fast track for its traffic. The
problem is especially acute in “the last mile,” where local municipalities have
sold monopoly positions to cable and telephone companies which have jacked up
prices. If the problem is geographical
monopolies on the last mile, then the solution is a federal law that outlaws
them because they are an illegal local burden on interstate commerce. This
would be a use of the Commerce Clause as it was actually intended.
The solution is not to allow the
Feds to regulate the internet based on a law passed in 1934 for regulating
telephone companies as common carriers, which itself was based on common
carrier railroad regulation which was originally passed into law in 1887. The
Interstate Commerce Commission powers to regulate railroads bankrupted a lot of
them. Railroads were deregulated in 1980 and the ICC was abolished in 1995.
Jimmy Carter signed the bill in 1980 and Bill Clinton signed the 1995 bill. The
ICC was such bad news two Democrats signed bills to dismantle and kill it. Why
would we want to resurrect this mess for the internet?
As a side comment, a nice
Constitutional Amendment would be to make all laws expire in 50 years. If
Congress doesn't see fit to reenact them, they should be gone. We could avoid
80 year old laws being used as excuses to regulate us. Why 50 years, you might
ask? Because we might need Democratic
votes to get the 2/3 majority of votes in both Houses of Congress needed to propose the amendment.
Truth in Spending: Outlaw the Current Services Budget
Sorry,
but it’s time to get a little wonky.
There’s a spending bias that built into how the government budgets
called the current services budget. This
calculation is a baseline cost of doing next year exactly what the government
did this year. Then budget "cuts" are measured from this base. If it
would take $90 billion more to duplicate the current activities of the federal
government next year, then spending $80 billion more next year than this year is a "cut" of $10
billion. As you can see, this builds in a bias for increased spending every
year. What needs to be done is simple. No money should be spent by any federal
agency to make a current services budget calculation. All budget baselines will
be calculated based on current year actual spending. No need for a 50 page
comprehensive bill. Stick it in a budget bill and let the Smartest President
Ever try to explain why these two lines make the rest of the bill something he
has to veto. I'm sure low information voters will love it.
Death By Terrorism Unlikely, So No Worries?
Some
people say that since the odds of being killed by a terrorist right now are
much less than being killed by lightning, we shouldn’t spend much time worrying
about it. This position, that we don't
need to fight terrorism because so far the odds of being killed by a terrorist
are very, very low, reminds me of a bad joke. A man jumps off the Empire State
Building. Half way down he comments, "OK so far!"
Feckless Policies May Leave No Time To Recover
In
the article linked below, Professor Thomas Sowell remarks that today’s feckless
policies mirror similarly feckless policies of the 1930’s. The Isolationism in the US and the appeasement
of Hitler in Europe lead to World War II.
He then notes that during the war, the Allies took a long time to make
up for the position their feckless policies left them in. He commented that in a modern nuclear war we
may not get the chance to make up for our mistakes. I would like to explain further why that’s
the case.
During
World War II the Allies were able to trade space for the time needed to build
up the armed forces we needed to win. In those days, flying across the Atlantic
or Pacific was done in a B-17 bomber with a cruising speed of 182 miles per
hour. Since the bombers range was only 2,000 miles you needed refueling bases
to get all the way across. The need for airbases was the reason for the island
hopping campaign in the Pacific. Today, a B-2 bomber has a cruising speed of
560 miles per hour and, with air to air refueling, can fly nonstop from its
base in Missouri to anywhere in the world. While the distances are the same,
the time you can get for a given distance is much less. And, as Professor
Sowell says, the destructive power of nuclear weapons also destroys military
forces much more quickly than conventional weapons did in World War II. War
today is a come as you are affair with very little room for second chances.
Feb 15, 2015
Sequencing DNA and Combinatorics Yield Intelligent Design
I don’t see much conflict anymore between intelligent design
and natural selection. Now that we are
sequencing DNA we know that the genetic possibilities are not infinite and they
are not random. Applying a field of mathematics
called combinatorics to DNA sequences, gives us a very, very large but finite
number of genetic combinations that are mathematically possible. Of those,
there are likely a lot smaller but still very large number of combinations that
are biologically viable. At this point, if you want to consider the
biologically viable genetic combinations intelligently designed I don’t think
the science is changed at all. The natural selection of Darwin chooses which of the biologically
viable designs survive and which don't. There's no scientific conflict between
intelligent design and survival of the fittest, but there is also no evolution
driven by random events. The laws of genetics were all baked in the cake before
the natural selection began with the original set of biologically viable
designs.
The open questions have to do with the exploration of which
of the mathematical genetic combinations are biologically viable. At the
moment, we are in the early stages of genetics and can only glimpse that these
questions will exist once we get further information. However, I would expect
that eventually we will have models that will be able to explore the
biologically viable combinations for clues as to hidden aspects of extinct
lifeforms. If you want to dwell in the past conflicts of pre-genetic Darwinism
versus creationism, enjoy yourself.
The
creationists believe G_d designed man. The Darwinists believed man evolved
through natural selection. At this point, our knowledge of genetics is leading
us towards the position that both are right. So from a scientific point of
view, we can stop arguing and get on with more interesting questions. The only reasons left to argue this are
political, not scientific. The argument allows Liberals to feel superior to
Conservatives for being "scientific." But the science involved has
moved on from the original argument.
Evolution
is in the news lately, because Scott Walker refused to answer a question about
it. I think somebody should ask if
belief in Darwin is a religious test for holding office in the US. Because any
religious test for holding office is unconstitutional. Since Scott Walker
refused to answer the question, I think they are assuming he has to answer the
question and demonstrate a religious belief in Darwin in order to hold the
office of president. They are saying failure to answer the question is
disqualifying.
Feb 1, 2015
Netanyahu's Speech: Diplomatic Niceties or Nuclear War?
There is a lot of shocked reaction to Speaker John Boehner inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to give a speech to Congress and Netanyu accepting without either of them notifying the White house in advance. Diplomatic niceties were not observed. I think we need to put this in perspective.
Our Dear
Leader’s deal at all costs behavior with the Iranians is paving the way for a
general war in the Middle East, a nuclear war. Only the US Air Force has the
capability to deliver a non-nuclear 30,000 pound bunker buster bomb capable of
knocking out Iran's centrifuges in their deep underground bunkers. The Smartest
President Ever is not going to order that attack even if the Iranians test
several nuclear devices. The only Israeli weapons that have a chance at doing
the job are nuclear weapons. The absolutely brilliant diplomacy of Barry the
Magnificent is leaving Netanyahu with a preemptive nuclear strike as the only
way to stop Iran from getting the bomb.
It seems to
me that the existence of Israel is threatened. Iranian leaders have called Israel a "one bomb country." It also seems to me that the
White House has decided that a good relationship Israel is surplus to
requirements and that our relationship with Iran is more important. The White
House believes that an agreement with Iran which will prevent Iran from getting
a nuclear weapon is very close. I believe that they have spent too much time in
Colorado weed parlors, and that the administration's legacy in this area is
going to be widespread nuclear proliferation and a general, nuclear, war in the
Middle East. At that point, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu giving a speech to Congress without Obama's permission is a nice alternative
to an Israeli preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. It seems to me that diplomatic
protocol is a lot less important than preventing a nuclear war in the Middle
East.
Also, let’s get
real. The Chicago Machine Prodigy treats Congress like the Chicago City Council
and Prime Minister Netanyahu like the head of the Republican Party in Cook
County. Our Dear Leader is arrogant and rude early and often. Nobody should be shocked when his behavior is returned in kind.
If our Dear
Leader punishes Israel for this breach of protocol, it will cost Democrats votes.
People have started to figure out that the jump from anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism
is very short. Voters are also noticing that the friends of Israel tend to be
those right wing Republicans that liberal voters have been taught to hate,
while Israel's enemies tend to be liberals with a narrative of Palestinian
entitlement. The solidity of the liberal Jewish vote is cracking. My Jewish
friends are asking me to explain my politics where before they just tried to
avoid talking about politics. They have noticed who Israel's friends are. It's
early yet, but the Chicago Machine Prodigy is alienating a lot of his former
supporters with his antagonism against Israel.
Big Government and War, Not Swearing Women, Hukabee
Women
swearing is not important enough to be talking about. The fact that we are
talking about it means that Huckabee is not presidential material. My
grandmother, a Methodist minister's daughter born in 1898 who grew up in Rifle,
Colorado, swore like a sailor, smoked, drank and taught me how to play poker
when I was an 8 year old kid. As far as I know, none of this was a threat to
the Republic.
The crises the country faces are big
expensive government at home and war overseas. Social issues are irrelevant to
our national survival. Worse emphasizing social issues costs us votes. Some of
the most conservative gun nuts I know are gay. Generally they vote Republican,
but they don't vote for social conservatives. Huckabee has nothing to offer on
anything that's important either to the economy or foreign policy. Therefore,
he should go back to work as a TV personality. In his spare time he should
watch Free to Choose TV and learn some economics.
As an Air Force veteran, I am
familiar with a concept called target servicing. Basically, you shoot first at
the most threatening targets. To me, the most threatening targets are Iran with
nuclear weapons, Jihadist terrorists and economic collapse brought on by
overspending. None of these is a social issue.
Huckabee’s view of the family is
nice but perhaps reverses cause and effect. The reason for the collapse of the
family is a welfare system that subsidizes family collapse. It pays more if
daddy ain't in the house. It pays more if nobody works. Once work requirements
were added, the welfare expense went down. If we restructure entitlements and
quit subsidizing idleness, we'll get less of it as well as prevent economic
collapse.
I don’t see how gay couples threaten
the family structure at all. All my gay
friends seem to want is middle class respectability and the rights and privileges
granted to married couples. If anything,
their desire for admittance to the structure of marriage shows their admiration
of it, not any desire to tear it down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)