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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)