Political Angst In America

Location: Pantego, Texas, United States

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Here are some intesting articles on Global Warming. This article by Roy Spencer is very good in describing how precipitation is the key to climate, but is not well predicted in the IPCC global circulation models.


This next article describes problems with large numerical simulations. My experiences with numerical modeling was in a different field, but were similar. We always had to use experiments and tests to validate the models so that we could trust the predictions. One problem I have with the IPCC models is that they faked the data that they validated the models with.


It appears to me that the global warming true believers are getting more frantic to get their socialistic policies in place. The UN is talking about putting a carbon tax on nations now. I suspect Democrats would like that. I suspect the true believers are getting frantic because of the inconvient truth that the Earth has not gotten warmer and sea levels haven't risen as their Global Circulation Models predicted. And more climatologists are beginning to chllenge those who are predicting gloom and doom.

It turns out that Al Gore creates a lot of carbon dioxide in all of the hot air he spews out. He claims to be carbon neutral because he purchases credits to off-set the carbon dioxide he generates. People are charging him with hypocricy because of the carbon dioxide he uses. I don't think his carbon dioxide generation is not of much interest. I think he is a hypocrite because I suspect that he is smart enough to realize that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not really a driver in climate change.

I was not surprised to learn that Hillary Clinton failed to include a charity fund that she and her husband established in 2001 in her financial report to the Senate. Just an oversight, but still a felony. If she were a Republican a special prosecutor would be expected by the media. As it is, the media will ignore it, just as they ignore Majority Leader Reid's real estate dealings. This sort of thing is why the Republicans are known as the "stupid" party and Democrats are known as the "evil" party.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Liberals and Democrats (usually being one and the same) like to accuse Republicans of desiring to set up a totalitarian government in the United States. This seems odd because it is the opposite of the traditional individualism of the Americans that Republicans want to preserve. I have not seen any signs of the establishment of a Bush theocracy that the Democrats predicted in the last two Presidential election. In fact, despite the warnings from the MSM and the Democrats (again, the same thing) I haven't heard about any infringement on the rights of individual citizens; no imprisonment, no tax audits of Bush's critics, etc. It may be that Liberals worry about these things because that is what they do when in power. Bill Clinton (or Hillary) sent out private investigators to talk to the many women Bill had been involved with. I saw one of the PI's interviewed on TV and he said they didn't try to intimidate the women, but they did point out that would pay a price if they went public, etc., but no intimidation. Bill had the Secret Service detain for hours people who yelled unpleasant things at him, the sort of things that Reagan and the Bush's shrugged off. Hillary had the Secret Service interview a student at Stanford who criticized Chelsea. I haven't heard of Bush doing anything like this, and he has arguably had worse things said about him; even a movie made in which he is assassinated. Hillary is probably worse than Bill. Privately she is vulgar, and thoroughly disagreeable. In this blog by Tammy Bruce, who is a liberal, but not on the far left, there are some choice quotes by Hillary.


I think it is far more likely that a Democrat would try to set up an imperial form of government, and Hillary is the most likely person to try it. If she could get elected President I expect her inaguration would appear to be a crowning, even more so than when Pelosi became Speaker of the House.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

According to Fox News the Democrats in the Senate are trying to fashion a bill that would limit the activities of the US Forces in Iraq to training the Iraqi Army and Police and fighting al Queda. Harry Reid and his merry band give more evidence that they are dumber than dirt. Do they think Sunni's will quit attacking the US Army because the Senate says the Army must quit fighting them? Are they going to allow the US to fight back if attacked? This is so ridiculous it boggles the mind. This would truly make sitting ducks of our soldiers. The soldiers and all Americans deserve better from our government. It seems unlikely that this bill could get passed, particularly with enough of a majority to override a veto. But it shows what a craven lot the Democrats are. This is the same sort of mickey mouse stuff the Democrats ordered in Vietnam. I think that if we fight, we fight to win. Fighting to not lose or giving up is for losers. Sadly for us, we have a bunch of losers in the Senate.

Here is a discussion of "global warming" by a Prof. who voted for Al Gore for President, and says he would vote for him again. I pretty much agree with this guy's view on "global warming," though I probably wouldn't agree with him on most other political issues. "Global warming" shouldn't be a political issue, but it is. There are a lot of more important environmental issues that need to be addressed. Anyway, as this article says there is not much we can do about the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.


Wednesday, February 21, 2007

I'm pretty much a conservative, and I have never understood the liberal's desire for having people "apologize." I remember when Bill Clinton apologized for slavery in Africa; his African hosts couldn't understand why he apologized for something he had nothing to do with; in fact they were sort of insulted since their ancestors had been the ones who did the enslaving. This love of apology must reveal some fundamental difference in liberals and conservatives. I don't understand the demands for Hillary Clinton to "apologize" for her vote to go to war in Iraq. She has said she now regards it as a mistake. Some may feel that going to war was a mistake, but there were good reasons for deposing Saddam. In fact, the Bill Clinton Administration had made regime change in Iraq the US policy. It will be years before we know if it was a mistake, and even then there will be dispute. For example, I think most people would agree that Carter made serious mistakes in Middle East policy, particularly with Iran. Mistakes that are the root cause of our problems there now. But I'm sure Carter's advisors would disagree. In fact, Carter and his advisors think Bush should adopt policies similar to what they did despite the obvious failure of those policies with regard to both Iran and Israel. Actually Carter failed pretty much in all ways. He is now as much an embarrasment as an "elder statesman" as he was as President.

UPDATE on 22 February:

This morning I heard on the news that Hillary wants Obama to apologize for something some Hollywood mogul said about her. Apparently Obama couldn't understand why he should apologize for something someone else said. He must not understand the liberal need for apology.

UPDATE on 24 February

The Virginia Legislature must now be controlled by Democrats. They have decided to apologize for slavery. This despite the fact that no one who was a slave or owned a slave is still alive. I don't see how this helps anyone, but maybe the Democrats expect to gain some votes.

Virginia General Assembly Passes Resolution Expressing 'Profound Regret' for State's Role in Slavery
Saturday, February 24, 2007

sponsored by

RICHMOND, Va. — Meeting on the grounds of the former Confederate Capitol, the Virginia General Assembly voted unanimously Saturday to express "profound regret" for the state's role in slavery.

Sponsors of the resolution say they know of no other state that has apologized for slavery, although Missouri lawmakers are considering such a measure. The resolution does not carry the weight of law but sends an important symbolic message, supporters said.

"This session will be remembered for a lot of things, but 20 years hence I suspect one of those things will be the fact that we came together and passed this resolution," said Delegate A. Donald McEachin, a Democrat who sponsored it in the House of Delegates.

The resolution passed the House 96-0 and cleared the 40-member Senate on a unanimous voice vote. It does not require Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's approval.

The measure also expressed regret for "the exploitation of Native Americans."

The resolution was introduced as Virginia begins its celebration of the 400th anniversary of Jamestown, where the first Africans arrived in 1619. Richmond, home to a popular boulevard lined with statues of Confederate heroes, later became another point of arrival for Africans and a slave-trade hub.

The resolution says government-sanctioned slavery "ranks as the most horrendous of all depredations of human rights and violations of our founding ideals in our nation's history, and the abolition of slavery was followed by systematic discrimination, enforced segregation, and other insidious institutions and practices toward Americans of African descent that were rooted in racism, racial bias, and racial misunderstanding."

In Virginia, black voter turnout was suppressed with a poll tax and literacy tests before those practices were struck down by federal courts, and state leaders responded to federally ordered school desegregation with a "Massive Resistance" movement in the 1950s and early '60s. Some communities created exclusive whites-only schools.

The apology is the latest in a series of strides Virginia has made in overcoming its segregationist past. Virginia was the first state to elect a black governor — L. Douglas Wilder in 1989 — and the Legislature took a step toward atoning for Massive Resistance in 2004 by creating a scholarship fund for blacks whose schools were shut down between 1954 and 1964.

Among those voting for the measure was Delegate Frank D. Hargrove, an 80-year-old Republican who infuriated black leaders last month by saying "black citizens should get over" slavery.

After enduring a barrage of criticism, Hargrove successfully co-sponsored a resolution calling on Virginia to celebrate "Juneteenth," a holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the United States.

I have some comments about this article. It is curious that they want to celebrate June 19th (called Juneteenth) which is date Texas slaves celebrated independence. In the South the date celebrated was May 8th (back in those days it took longer for news to reach Texas). The stuff about the poll tax keeping blacks from voting is simply not true, or at least wasn't true in Texas. I remember when I was young my Grandfather was an election judge. Almost all of the voters were black even though I had heard that blacks were denied the vote. My Grandfather explained that the party (that would be Democrats) paid the poll tax for the blacks, and told them who to vote for. (In those days, the Democrat primary was the real election, since there were few Republicans in Texas back in the 1940's.) Another disclaimer: one of my ancestors died in Jamestown in 1621. He was a knight, so he may have been well off. I don't know if he owned slaves or not, but I'm not apologizing for him in any event.

About the time I was born over 70 years ago, GE stock was about $35 per share, the same as now. But one share bought then would be 288 shares now due to stock splits. That represents an average gain of 8.45%, a bit less than the gain of the market average over that period. $1000 invested in GE stock then would be worth $288,000 now. But, the stock also paid dividends through that period. If the average dividend was 3%, it would net 2% after taxes. If the 2% were reinvested in GE stock, that would give a total yield of 10.45%. The value of an initial $1000 investment would now be $1,051,000. (This is approximate since the market had ups and downs that would affect the number of shares bought, nevertheless it is a good approximation.) Of course, when I was born my Dad only made about $1000 per year (in a good year), so he didn't have $1000 to invest for me. In conclusion, it appears that reinvesting dividends is a good idea. I do that.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

I wonder why not much is written in the MSM about the Canadian Maurice Strong. He appears to be a mystery man in the US. He seems to be the main mover and shaker behind the UN IPCC global warming hysteria. He appears to be another rich socialist who is a buddy of Kofi Annan and Al Gore. (It's easy to get to be these guy's buddy if you are willing to donate a lot of money; Strong's large contributions to both Democrats and Republicans were probably illegal, but no one is concerned about it.) Strong was also a buddy of Bill Clinton and thought George Bush was his buddy. But, like Kenny-boy Lay, he found that President Bush went his own way. (The fate of Kenny-boy and Enron was sealed when President Bush didn't support the carbon trading system that Lay hoped would save Enron. The MSM doesn't seem to understand this at all; or they don't want to.) But, if Democrats gain complete control of the government in 2008, the disastrous carbon trading scheme which has failed in Europe and New Zealand will no doubt be implemented. Companies like Duke Energy, GE, and Exxon-Mobil are chomping at the bit to get this program implemented. They expect to make a fortune out of it, and with their lobbying clout, to destroy their competitors with arcane regulations. Back to Strong, he appears to be one of the most dangerous foes of capitalism in the World. It's funny that nothing is written about him in the US MSM given the threat he poses to us. (Maybe this is because the MSM really doesn't like capitalism.)

The Bush "no child left behind" initiative gets a lot of criticism. One of the main points I have heard is that it hasn't "closed the gap" between average score of whites and blacks (and Mexicans). There have been some politically incorrect books published that point out that the gap is due to inherent IQ, and so can't be closed. As I recall, the book "The Bell Curve" pointed this out, and warned that public policy must account for it. Liberals don't accept that some group of people could have a higher average IQ than another group despite all of the data which shows that. (It is interesting to me that white people have no problem with the fact that Northeast Asians and Central Europeans have higher average IQ's than whites.) Regarding "no child left behind," it appears to me that raising the average scores of black students, as it has done, is a good thing. And, it is not bad that it also raised the average scores of whites. A better educated populace is good for all of us.

A court recently upheld a Texas law that says the license plate holder on automobiles cannot cover any of the writing or symbols on the license plate. Most dealers install on new cars a license plate frame that has the dealer's name and logo on it. Most of these frames cover up some of the words or symbols on the plate, but not the numbers. The legislature offered some gobble-de-gook explanation for why this law was necessary. The real reason is to give more discretionary power to the police. Most people won't take the trouble to remove the dealer nstalled license plate frame from the car. This means the police have the authority to stop whomever they like for no real reason, power all police desire. What could mess this up for the more serious police departments would be some ambitious municipality that starts issuing citations for this infraction to raise revenue, another thing police departments like. I don't expect that to happen in large cities since it would cause most people to take the trouble to remove the dealer installed frame, thus eliminating some of the police discretionary power. Texas also has a law that there has to be a light bulb illuminating the rear license. Years ago I was stopped by the Dallas police. They searched me and my car but didn't find anything. They told me they stopped me because the light over my license plate was burned out, but they were just warning me this time. There was a gas station about 100 feet from where they stopped me. I pulled into the station to buy a new bulb for the light, but, when I checked the light bulb already there was not burned out. But, if they had found drugs on me, they would have had an explanation for why I was stopped. Black people often complain about being "racially profiled" and stopped for driving while black. I'm white, but during the two years I lived in Dallas I was stopped by the police for no reason three times. I've never been stopped by the police for no reason anywhere else. I guess I was lucky because back in the early 60's the Dallas police were well known for planting drugs on people.

Monday, February 19, 2007

One of the things which makes me suspicious of the current "global warming" warnings is the lack of free and open debate about it. The believers say it is proven and there is no need for further study. I saw a black woman lawyer on Al Gore's staff say that about ten years ago, about the time the average temperature stopped going up. Skeptics are now called Deniers, like people who deny that Hitler killed ten million people in concentration camps, including six million Jews and all the Gypsies he could round up. But, isn't there a difference in denying something that is historical fact and doubting the prediction of a computer model of a complex dynamic system that often exhibits chaotic behavior. There has been an effort to prevent publication of studies that do not support some part of the global warming myth. (Al Gores movie is a myth, even though it seems likely that man is having an effect on climate.) The people who write papers advancing the global warming story are often unwilling to share their data. And many of the peer reviewed papers apparently are reviewed by paople not familiar with the subject. I'm not the only person who has noticed this. Here is an interesting paper that disusses these issues.

Douglas Keenan

[Those who have followed the story of Mann's Hockey Stick and the fraudulent manipulation of data which that episode revealed, will be interested in the following analysis by Douglas Keenan of a paper published in Nature on vineyard records of grape harvests in Europe. The paper purported to demonstrate that current warming is unprecedented and thus in accord with IPCC claims. Keenan found otherwise. Since The Lavoiser Group listed this article, we have received an interesting, short response from Graham Due. It has been added at the foot of this page.]

On 18 November 2004, Isabelle Chuine and co-workers published a research paper on global warming. The paper appeared in Nature, the world's most highly-regarded scientific journal. And it gathered some publicity. Chuine et al. claimed to have developed a method for estimating the summer temperature in Burgundy, France, in any given year back to 1370 (based on the harvest dates of grapes). Using their method, the authors asserted that the summer of 2003 was the warmest summer since 1370, in Burgundy.
I had been following global warming studies only as a disinterested outside spectator (and only occasionally). Someone sent me the paper of Chuine et al., though, and wondered what I thought of it from a mathematical perspective. So I had a look.
To study the paper properly, I needed to have the authors' data. So I e-mailed Dr. Chuine, asking for this. The authors, though, were very reluctant to let me have the data. It took me eight months, tens of e-mails exchanged with the authors, and two formal complaints to Nature, before I got the data. (Some data was purchased from Météo France.) It is obviously inappropriate that such a large effort was necessary.
Looking at the data made it manifest that there are serious problems with the work of Chuine et al. In particular, the authors' estimate for the summer temperature of 2003 was higher than the actual temperature by 2.4 °C (about 4.3 °F). This is the primary reason that 2003 seemed, according to the authors, to be extremely warm.
There is also another reason. The three warmest years on record, prior to 2003, were 1945, 1947, and 1952. (The instrumental record goes back to 1922, or even 1883 if we accept some inaccuracies.) The estimate of Chuine et al. for the summer temperature in each of those years was much lower than the actual temperature.
That is, the authors had developed a method that gave a falsely-high estimate of temperature in 2003 and falsely-low estimates of temperatures in other very warm years. They then used those false estimates to proclaim that 2003 was tremendously warmer than other years.
The above is easy enough to understand. It does not even require any specialist scientific training. So how could the peer reviewers of the paper not have seen it? (Peer reviewers are the scientists who check a paper prior to its publication.) I asked Dr. Chuine what data was sent to Nature, when the paper was submitted to the journal. Dr. Chuine replied, "We never sent data to Nature".
I have since published a short note that details the above problem (reference below). There are several other problems with the paper of Chuine et al. as well. I have written a brief survey of those (for people with an undergraduate-level background in science). As described in that survey, problems would be obvious to anyone with an appropriate scientific background, even without the data. In other words, the peer reviewers could not have had appropriate background.
What is important here is not the truth or falsity of the assertion of Chuine et al. about Burgundy temperatures. Rather, what is important is that a paper on what is arguably the world's most important scientific topic (global warming) was published in the world's most prestigious scientific journal with essentially no checking of the work prior to publication.
Moreover---and crucially---this lack of checking is not the result of some fluke failures in the publication process. Rather, it is common for researchers to submit papers without supporting data, and it is frequent that peer reviewers do not have the requisite mathematical or statistical skills needed to check the work (medical sciences largely excepted). In other words, the publication of the work of Chuine et al. was due to systemic problems in the scientific publication process.
The systemic nature of the problems indicates that there might be many other scientific papers that, like the paper of Chuine et al., were inappropriately published. Indeed, that is true and I could list numerous examples. The only thing really unusual about the paper of Chuine et al. is that the main problem with it is understandable for people without specialist scientific training. Actually, that is why I decided to publish about it. In many cases of incorrect research the authors will try to hide behind an obfuscating smokescreen of complexity and sophistry. That is not very feasible for Chuine et al. (though the authors did try).
Finally, it is worth noting that Chuine et al. had the data; so they must have known that their conclusions were unfounded. In other words, there is prima facie evidence of scientific fraud. What will happen to the researchers as a result of this? Probably nothing. That is another systemic problem with the scientific publication process.
See also Peer review and the IPCC
Chuine I., Yiou P., Viovy N., Seguin B., Daux V., Le Roy Ladurie E. (2004), "Grape ripening as a past climate indicator", Nature, 432: 289c290. doi: 10.1038/432289a.
Keenan D.J. (2007), "Grape harvest dates are poor indicators of summer warmth", Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 87: 255c256. doi: 10.1007/s00704-006-0197-9.
Douglas J. Keenan

We hear a lot about the number of people in the US who have no health insurance. Usually I see and hear the estimate of 47 million people. Liberal Politicians see this as a major problem which requires immediate and draconian action. The implication is that the people with no insurance do not receive health care. This is not true, though it is true that they have to use basically charity service in most cases. It appears that the service they receive is more prompt and much better than what would be received under a socialistic healthcare system such as that in England or Canada. (In Dallas babies born to illegal alien Mexicans get free baby formula and car seats, something that indigent native born Americans do not receive. At present there is a financial problem in New Orleans where 85% of babies are being born to illegal immigrant Mexicans, Mexicans having come to the city to take jobs at $20 per hour that Americans won't take.) If I understand the liberal's position they think that everyone should have the same healthcare as everyone else. (Of course that is not the case even in Canada where private doctors are effectively outlawed, so the people come to the US for health care.) But, back to the uninsured. I suspect that many of them would be unwilling to pay anything for insurance. The politicians don't like to face that reality. The solution, of course, is to impose a socialistic system that covers everyone whether they like it or not with no other option. Really rich people and politicians would be able to get better care than the masses, of course.

Sunday, February 18, 2007

I keep seeing the comment that John Murtha wants to "undermine" the US policy for Iraq, and for National Security. That is astounding to me. I saw a young lady spokesperson for the Democratic Party on TV, and she had only one thing to say, which was "the war is lost." This was her response to all questions. She said everyone knows the war is lost, so the only logical thing to do is leave. I haven't been able to find the specific "undermine" comment. Here is what Mark Steyn's column says.

So "the Murtha plan" is to deny the president the possibility of victory while making sure Democrats don't have to share the blame for the defeat. But of course he's a great American! He's a patriot! He supports the troops! He doesn't support them in the mission, but he'd like them to continue failing at it for a couple more years. As John Kerry wondered during Vietnam, how do you ask a soldier to be the last man to die for a mistake? By nominally "fully funding" a war you don't believe in but "limiting his ability to use the money." Or as the endearingly honest anti-war group MoveCongress.org put it, in an e-mail preview of an exclusive interview with the wise old Murtha:

"Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president's foreign and national security policy."

"Undermining"? Why not? To the Slow-Bleed Democrats, it's the Republicans' war. To an increasing number of what my radio pal Hugh Hewitt calls the White-Flag Republicans, it's Bush's war. To everyone else on the planet, it's America's war. And it will be America's defeat.

©Mark Steyn, 2007

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Here is an idea for cooling the planet that I have talked about before.


This idea will work. When a volcano erupts much dust is ejected and goes to high altitude. The earth then cools for a year or so. This has been observed many times. This caused the famous "year without a summer" in the early 1800's. I don't think anyone would do this unless the earth actually started getting much hotter because it would be relatively easy to put the earth into another ice age. (Just based on history we may be nearing the start of another ice age anyway. In the past the ice ages have developed over a very short time such as 20 to 50 years.) One aspect of this is that it is relatively inexpensive, especially compared to the cost and economic losses associated with draconian reductions in carbon dioxide politically imposed. But, the socialists wouldn't like this approach because it would eliminate the need for them to regulate life.

I hear a lot about Joe Kennedy getting oil for his non-profit company at a cut-rate price from Hugo Chavez to help poor Americans. Some people seem to think we shouldn't take the cheap oil and others say we should. It is obvious that Chevez is doing this for propaganda purposes, and Kennedy is helping his effort. I saw Kennedy on TV and he made the point that Exxon and Chevron are buying oil from Chavez, so what is the difference. He also pointed out that the oil companies were making a profit on the oil. The profit part appeared to particularly irk him. Some of his critics say that we should quit buying oil from Chavez, while others say oil is fungible, so it doen't matter since Chavez will just sell the oil to someone else and we will buy the oil that the other group is no longer buying. This is an interesting debate. One point I would make is that oil is not as fungible as money because crude oil is not all the same. Refineries that are set up to process the heavy crude from Venezeula would have to be modified to handle oil from another source. So it is not a simple matter to change suppliers. Regarding Kennedy, I suspect that he, like most of the liberal Democratic Party leadership and big contributors, including Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George Soros, and the Hollywood crowd, never met a socialist dictator they didn't like.

Friday, February 16, 2007

On the News I heard the Salt Lake City mall shooter referred to as a Bosnian. On the internet I learned that he is a Muslim, one of those saved by President Clinton's effort to stop "ethnic cleansing" of Muslims in Bosnia. It appears he was not grateful. I gather it is not "politically correct" to point out that he was a Muslim. The same thing happened earlier with the fellow who shot Jewish women while shouting "death to Jews." The authorities and the media appear to be in denial about the tendency for Muslims to become terrorists.

The news channels were in continuous coverage of Anna Nicole Smith. They must know what their audience is interested in. It amazes me that so much air time would be devoted to a decesed celebrity. But, it seems like people still have a lot of interest in Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe. The American people really like celebrities. Some of the celebrities appear to be famous for being famous. For example, what did Paris Hilton ever do?

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

This was my day for medical checkups.

First I went for a nuclear stress test, the first one since right after my heart attack. The waiver I had to sign said there is one chance in 10,000 of dying during the test. I guess those odds are not too bad. I did have one friend who had a heart attack during the test and died the next day as I recall. The first time I did it you had to lay on a 2 X 4 for 45 minutes while a slow moving camera takes photos of the heart, then exercize while some nuclear substance is injected into the blood, then do the 45 minute photo thing again. The equipment is better now; the tray you lie on is more comfortable, and the photo taking is over in 15 minutes now. It still took all morning.

Then I went to have my recent skin cancer surgery checked on. The doctor found two more spots. Skin cancer is one of the hazards for someone of Irish descent living in Texas. I wonder what the chances are of dying of old age before heart trouble or cancer gets me.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

It looks like the troop surge may be doing some good in Iraq. Mugtada al Sadr has bugged out and is now in Iran with his buddies. Apparently Sadr was afraid a JDAM was headed his way. I wonder what happened to the martyr thing with 72 virgins and all. I thought those guys loved death like we love life. Maybe they just love death for their henchmen and not for themselves. The real reason may be the arrest of his buddy in government who was knocking off other government officials. In Iraq that could cause some concern about relatives seeking revenge. My guess is that Sadr was more concerned about other Iraqi's than the US. If the Mahdi army now disintegrates then the troop surge will be a success. How will the Democrats react to that. Will they still want to surrender, or will they take credit somehow.

I think that we have changed the rules of engagement, and that is more important than the additional troops. I think the ROE have been our problem all along. We need to be killing more of them. It is a war, not a police operation. All Iranians fighting us need to be dealt with, and that includes some not in Iraq.

Update: Strata-sphere now says the Lincoln quote is an internet hoax. My comment that Lincoln exiled a copperhead legislator to Canada for providing aid and comfort to the South is true. The guy's name was Vallandingham or something like. I remember that from College history from over 50 years ago, so I may not have the name spelled correctly. My liberal (aren't they all) history prof thought Lincoln had essentially suspended the Constitution during the Civil War. He did think the north winning was a good thing.

Here is a quote from A. Lincoln that I picked up from the Strata-sphere blog.

Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
— President Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln had one legislator arrested and exiled him to Canada. The Democrats in Congress during the Civil War wanted to stop the war. They wanted to stop the killing; they didn't care about slavery all that much. They were called "copperheads." Sadly today's Democrats act like the copperheads of old. It's too bad that Bush hasn't sent Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, Obama, and others to Canada. (I'll bet Canada would be glad to have them.) But, Bush isn't like that. The Dixie Chicks claim victim status, but as far as I can tell Bush has ignored them. And Cindy Sheehan too.

Here is Fred Thompson's comment on the Libby trial. Notice the snarky AP editorial comment at the end that this is the same complaint that Democrat's made about the Special Prosecutor that investigated President Clinton. There is one difference: Clinton was guilty while it was known from the beginning that Libby did not leak the name of a covert CIA agent did; if Plame was indeed covert, Libby was not the person who revealed it. Based on what I have seen of the trial I'd say that Tim Russert is more probably the liar. Russert is certainly revealed as a weasel who criticized other reporters for talking to the FBI when he had done it himself, but not admitted it.

Fred Thompson contends Libby prosecutor out of control

WASHINGTON Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson today criticized Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's handling of the C-I-A leak investigation.

The Republican former lawmaker said the prosecutor had to have known from the start that it was not a crime to disclose Valerie Plame's identity as an agent.

That isn't what Libby is charged with.

The C-I-A asked for a Justice Department inquiry into possible violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which led to the five-count indictment charging Libby with perjury and obstruction of the F-B-I investigation.

A fundraiser for the defense of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Thompson depicted Fitzgerald as out of control, telling A-B-C News there was "no brake and no check and no balance" on the prosecutor.

Thompson's objections are the same ones Democratic politicians made in the 1990s about independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who spent six years investigating President Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Here is something on another vote in that corrupt and dangerous organization, the UN. I remember reading about the wonderful founding of the UN when I was in the sixth grade: I didn't think it was a good idea as it was started when I was twelve years old.

Well w.t.f. IS Islam associated with? Helping little old ladies across the road, maybe? "The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has called on the international community to open a global dialogue to combat the defamation of religions, citing specifically the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities after the terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September 2001. In a resolution adopted yesterday by 31 votes in favour, 16 against and five abstentions, the Commission expressed deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still in evidence parts of the world. Specifically, it voiced deep concern that Islam was frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

The UN apparently has fialed to notice that Islam calls for the subjugation of the entire world, and killing all who don't embrace their religion.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Mrs. Obama played the race card by saying something to the effect that she doesn't worry about her husband's safety due to running for President, since as a black man, he is in danger at the gas station. I wonder if black people realize how ridulous and racist this attitude is. I kept statistics on murders in Ft. Worth for a few years back in the 80's. It appeared that about half of the people murdered were killed by someone they knew, and that was usually someone of the same race. For white people about 90% of the other half were killed by a black person. For black people it was very unusual for the killer to be white. (In some cases it was not possible to tell race from the newspaper account, or the killer was not known.) I haven't kept up with this recently, but since the late 80's several million Mexicans have come into to Texas, and now it appears that a high percentage of murders involve Mexicans based on the names of the people. (According to info I've read in Steve Sailer's blog, black men are about 8 or 9 times as likely as white men to commit murder, and Mexican men are about 4 times as likely to commit murder as white men. A few years ago people complained that even though black people were only one-eighth the population of Texas, half of those on Death Row for murder were black. But half is about right based on the statistics. This probability of killing for a classification of people is the reason that over half of the population, women, are rarely on Death Row. That is obvious to everyone except Liberals.)

I have never liked George Soros, the billionaire moneybags for the Democrats. Soros says the US needs a de-nazification process to get rid of all of us right wing Republican supporters of President Bush. Soros should know about nazi's since he admits to being a nazi collaborator in Hungary during WWII. He says he doesn't lose any sleep over it, since someone else would have done it if he didn't, so those people would have died anyway. It is interesting how former nazi's call conservative Americans nazi's.

Now Obama says people who disagree with his politics are racists. That makes me a racist in his view. I guess it makes Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice racists. Actually I haven't seen many white Democrats I'd vote for, but there are many black Republicans I'd vote for.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

The Libby trial is looking more and more like another case where the Prosecutor has taken liberties with the facts. First there was Ronnie Earle indicting Tom Delay for something not against the law (though Earle said it should be). Then Nifong the Incompetent assured a grand jury that DNA results would confirm the guilt of three Duke Lacrosse players, but then withheld the data when it didn't confirm. Now in the Libby case we have FBI agents who misrepresented what Libby said in their written reports (at least acording to other agents), the FBI has lost notes on the original discussions with Tim Russert, and Tim Russert presented a false affidavit to the Court. (Since Russert is a Democrat, I assume he won't be charged with anything.) It also turns out that Russert, the primary witness against Libby, claims he has a good memory, but it is quite selective. Russert recalls minute details of a brief conversation with Libby, but has absolutely no recollection of angry converations he had with a reporter who had criticized him. Russert says he was not particularly pleased when Libby was indicted, but at the time he said it was "like Christmas." On his TV show Russert berated other reporters who had talked to the FBI, but now it turns out that he did the same thing, but didn't reveal it to anyone. No matter what happens to Libby, this case has revealed that Russert is a weasel.

Now Barack Obama is officially in the race for President of the United States. (I still wonder how we know he isn't the Manchurian Candidate.) In his announcement speeech he compared himself to Lincoln, and said that like Lincoln he wanted to unite the nation. As I recall reading about what happened, Lincoln did in fact re-unite the nation at the point of a bayonet after over a million people had died. Obama says that the current administration has blamed problems like the rising death toll in Iraq or Katrina on the Democrats, gays, or immigrants. That is a mind boggling statement; I listen to discussions of politics a lot, and I can't recall that ever happening.

For the last two elections I've heard Democrats say that President Bush has a secret agenda to establish a fascist theocracy in the United States rather than doing what he actually was campaigning on. I even heard Democrats say that he was going to have hinself declared dictator, in the mode of Hugo Chavez. But, so far I see no signs that he is even attempting to carry out the alleged hidden agenda. In fact he has been more consistent than most politicians in attempting to do what he said he would do.

Friday, February 09, 2007

I read a lot now about the growing economic gap between the rich and the rest of us. I think the situation is being mis-represented. The rich have a lot more money than the poor, but do they have a lot more stuff? When I was born back in the depression my Dad was a share cropper. We lived an uninsulated shack without indoor plumbing, running water, a telephone, or electricity. My Dad did odd jobs to make more money, since the share cropping didn't make a profit, but there weren't many job opportunities. He made about $200 to $300 a year. We barely had enough to eat and couldn't afford new clothes or shoes. I don't know if there was a government program that would have helped us, but my Dad wouldn't have taken government help anyway. Most of the people were in the same condition that we were in. People who made $5000 per year were like they were in a different world. They had large houses, nice clothes, good cars, radio's, plenty of food, and other stuff. The gulf between rich people and poor people is not as great now in terms of stuff as it was then. Now most families below the so-called poverty line have more living space than well-off Europeans, central heat and air conditioning, two cars, cell phones, cable and two color TV's, a computer, a playstation, good clothes, $150 pairs of Tennis shoes, and too much to eat. And there are jobs available. Poor people watch the same TV shows, see the same movies, etc., as rich people. The Democrats like John Edwards seem to want to slow economic growth to achieve more equality. They are willing to reduce the amount of pie we have to insure that every one's slice is the same size, as opposed to the current system in which the poor have more pie even though most people have even more. I remember reading about a Chinese soldier who said communism has made us all equal; we are all equally bad off. The Chinese decided that wasn't a good system, and have dumped communism for free markets. Cuba is an example of where the people are still equally bad off, and Venezuala is about to move to that condition. (I wonder if in order to achieve greater equality, John Edwards would be willing to give up the millions of dollars he has acquired by convincing juries that Doctors had made mistakes even though they hadn't?)

I forgot something in my original post. When I was a child my grandfather's pocket watch was a family heirloom. It cost upwards of $100, about half a year's income. Now, anyone can buy a watch for $12 that keeps time as well as one of $80,000 wristwatches that rich guys wear. And does anyone suffer because they are not weighted down with gold chains and diamond ear-rings like millionaire ball players? A lot of the stuff rich guys have is just to puff up their egos or to brag about how well off the are. Functionally it does nothing for them. Who needs that sort of stuff anyway?

I see that Hillary Clinton says she would like to take all of the profits of Exxon-Mobile. Presumably she would also take the profits of all other oil companies. I guess that is supposed to be different than nationalizing the companies as Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela, but it seems to be about the same thing to me. Taking the profits of the oil companies will make the stock of those companies essentially worthless, which will have a major impact on the equities market. That will destroy a lot of pension funds and make even more people (and particularly the hated middle class) totally dependent on the government; that's long been a Democratic Party objective. I think Hillary will have a harder time getting Congress to make her dictator than Hugo had. No doubt this will increase her support with the large collectivist branch of the Democratic Party.

Hillary also says she will end the war in Iraq, and presumably against all Islamic terrorists. (Since one side cannot stop a war without total surrender, I can't help but wonder how she plans to do it.) That policy position should lock up the Muslim vote in addition to the anti-war vote.

These policies should gain her support of at least two-thirds of the Democratic Party. That would get her the Democratic Party nomination. After that I would expect some major shifts in these policies before the general election.

Here is an email I sent to Hannity and Colmes about a discussion they ahd on the IPCC report of climate cahnge.

The discussion you had on the latest IPCC Global Warming Summary Report was a waste of time. The lady you had on in support of draconian measure to “stop” global warming obviously knew nothing about the subject, and recited “talking points.” I couldn’t tell if the guy in opposition knew anything or not because Colmes kept asking an irrelevant question about some offer of $10,000 for anyone writing an article debunking something; I’m not sure what.

I’m an engineer, not a scientist, though in the media I would be a “rocket scientist,” but let me tell you about something called “The Law of Scientific Contention.” That law states that in cases of scientific debate, the consensus is always wrong. For example, few scientists believed that Einstein was correct in his theory that gravity could bend light. After it was proven there was no dispute. Later, Einstein didn’t believe in the quantum theory because he didn’t believe “God would play dice.” But now everyone accepts the Heisenberg Uncertainty Theory because it can be proven. Global Warming is an entirely different situation. It involves science, but is not a scientific theory. The IPCC work is based on computer models of the Earth’s Eco-System called Global Circulation Models. It is almost certain that people expert in many different disciplines have made input to the models, but it is doubtful that any single individual is knowledgeable about all of the disciplines involved. In fact, I would wager that not all of the important factors have been included in the models, because not all of the necessary experts have been involved. (The statement that 3000 scientists or whatever number all agree with the work is meaningless since any one of them is an expert in only a limited field, and has no idea of the quality of the other’s work.)

I think part of the problem is that the IPCC starts with a few simple concepts that no one disagrees with. The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere has been increasing. Carbon dioxide absorbs energy in some infrared wavelengths (around 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns). The temperature of the average annual temperature of Earth has increased around 1.2 F over the past century. (Actually there is some debate about this due to paucity of measurements in some locations, accuracy of measurements, and the “heat island” effect at some measurement locations, but most agree that the temperature has gone up.) These facts suggest that increases in temperature are due to the increased Carbon Dioxide level in the atmosphere. But, correlation is not causality. For one thing, temperature had already been going up for some time without a significant increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

With the increasing power of computers it became possible to make GCM’s of the Earth’s eco-system, and then to make predictions of future climate changes. But, computer power is still not great enough so that the GCM’s do not still require some gross simplifications. The GCM’s do not do well in predicting cloud formation, something with obvious importance in temperature at the ground. The GCM’s do not model the past without addition of what we call “fudge factors.” Freeman Dyson has pointed to this as an obvious problem. The actual temperature in recent years has not acted as the GCM’s predict. For example, the GCM’s predict a monotonically increasing annual average temperature, that the Poles would heat much more than the mid-latitudes, that the effect would be more pronounced in the winter than in the summer, and that the primary effect would be an increase in minimum night-time temperatures rather than an increase in day-time temperatures. None of these things have happened. The Temperature has not increased since 1998, the Artic temperature has been rising, but the Antarctic temperatures have fallen significantly, and night-time winter temperatures have not increased (except in urban areas due to the heat island effect). There is evidence that the Artic temperatures have been influenced by underwater volcanic activity (which I would guess is not in the models) and there is evidence, backed by some repeatable experiments that solar activity influences cloud behavior. I suspect that is not in the models either, since it is not well understood. Another minor problem is that concentration of the greenhouse gas methane in the atmosphere has been declining rather than increasing as being predicted.

The lady you had on as an expert; at least I guess that was what she was supposed to be, couldn’t even name James Hansen as the best known proponent of cataclysmic climate change. (By the way Mr. Colmes, I’ve read that Mrs. John Kerry’s foundation gave Hansen $250,000 for something. Maybe you could chase that down for us, and give us the politically correct spin on it.) The lady couldn’t name any critics of the IPCC. There are a lot of them that have better qualifications than the IPCC experts. Such as Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, Iain Murphy, Madhav Khandekar, and John Christy to name a few. Then there is Pat Michaels, who believes that man is affecting the climate, but doesn’t agree with the IPCC conclusions. See his book “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.”

Personally, I’m pretty much with Pat Michaels’ position. It is obvious that man has had an impact on the environment; I’d say it is 100% certain rather than 90 % as the IPCC says. But it is much less certain that carbon dioxide has had the major impact, and that the draconian measures being proposed by the UN would be beneficial. I think there is a greater than 50 % probability that temperature will fall over the next 30 years rather than increase. We need to be looking at new energy sources, but with a 50-year timeframe rather than immediately.

There are some IPCC actions that are quite troubling to me. Why publish a summary written by politicians while the underlying report by the actual workers is being revised under rules that technical changes must support the summary? The IPCC report emphasizes the negative impact of global temperature increase, asserts some impacts that are not scientifically supportable, and ignores that warmer has historically been better than colder for humans. The assertions of more catastrophic weather events because of increased temperature are not supported and history indicates that cooling causes worse weather events than warming does. (See the book “The Little Ice Age.”) The idea being tossed about by the left that people who disagree with the IPCC, the so-called Global Warming Deniers, should be silenced, fired and subjected to Nuremberg style trials is frightening, and illustrates the fascist tendencies of the left

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

The Democrats invited an IMAM who supports Hizbollah to give the invocation at the Democrats Winter Meeting. Here is Robert Spenser's discussion on the prayer.


I suppose the Democrats had to be respectful as he prayed for our destruction. My question is, who was responsible for asking this enemy of America to offer a prayer at the Democrat's gathering? Was it Obama?

Monday, February 05, 2007

In the MSM there is a lot of discussion of radical Islam and estimates of the percentage of Muslims who are radical and what are moderate.I've read some about Muslims, and it seems to me that we have the issue backwards. The radical Muslims are the ones who don't want to kill us. The Koran is quite clear that Muslims are obliged to kill or subjugate all infidels in the World. And they will receive honor in the afterlife if they die killing infidels. So, it seems to me that those who are willing to die to kill us are the mainstream, not radicals. WE are making a grievous error in not recognizing this.

Tonight on the program "24" the liberal writers in Holltwood put forth the idea that most of the Muslims are really good guys, and would help us in the fight against terrorism. People like to refer back to the incarceration of Japanese during WWII, and how that was a grave injustice. We'll never know for sure, because we didn't get to find out what damage some of the Japanese would have done if left free. Since 10% of them were subsequently found to be loyal to Japan, and returned there after the war, we may have avoided a lot of trouble with the incarceration.

I have noticed that the popular blogs on the left use a lot of vulgarity, while those on the right don't. Those on the left are also much angrier than those on the right. (I have noticed this in discussion with some of my friends who are hard left.) Others have noticed this as well. Here is a piece from the blog IAMO on the subject.

Amanda Marcotte of the popular liberal blog Pandagon was hired by the John Edwards campaign. When Marcotte's posts were subsequently scrutinized, many were surprised to see that her writing consisted solely of a combination of angry swearing and casual swearing. Those more familiar with liberal blogs were not so surprised as profanity laced rants has always seemed to be the norm on that side of the blogosphere. This may seem odd to some as it would be expected that the most popular political blogs would contain intelligent analysis of the issues of the day, and both anger and the use of vulgarity often indicative of the opposite of careful analysis. The right side of the blogosphere conforms with this, as the most popular political blogs there are seldom angry or vulgar. In fact, the only time I've seen Glenn Reynolds go off into a stream of obscenities is when I met him in person.

Now, this isn't just a moral issue, as many of the right-wing blogs are not socially conservative and it's assumed the authors have no moral problem with swearing. Thus, those who eschew vulgarity seem to do so more out of societal expectations that the liberal bloggers seem immune to. Now, there are bloggers on the right who do use vulgarity and rant and there are liberal bloggers who do calm analysis that could be read on national TV, but if you look at the most popular blogs on both the right and the left, one is left with the feeling that angry swearing harms ones credibility on the right while it's expected on the left. Obscenity by them is used in everything including hot button issues, fiscal analysis, and cat-blogging. Looking also at commenters for the various sites even drives this point home further. While swearing is more common on both sides from commenters, the left almost seems incapable of writing a sentence without using vulgarity. Were one to use Democratic Underground;s forum as an example, you'd think liberals are incapably of understanding simple nouns unless they use vulgarity.

I have read the blod Pandagon, and found nothing of value in it. It deos consist of angry tirades of vulgarity.

Saturday, February 03, 2007

Here is an article about the temperature at the South Pole for the last 50 years. Note that the temperature has been going down even as carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased. Note the temperature level. How is the ice melting, as we are so often told, when it is 40 degrees below zero? I've always wondered why the ice melts in places where the temperature never gets above zero. I've read that at the North Pole below water volcanic activity locally warms the water. And, I read where one guy asserted that global warming was going to cause more volcanic eruptions, tsunami's etc. It was not clear how increased carbon dioxide concentrations would cause that, but I guess it was good enough for true believers.


I go this quote from Hugh Hewitt's blog. It was made in 1940 as Parliment debated the need to replace the architect of Nazi Appeasement, Chamberlain.

"We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all," Amery told the House. "We cannot go on being led as we are."

"Somehow or other," he argued, "we must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory."

The English found Churchill. It looks like we are about to get a Democrat, and I don't see any of them who have a "thrist for victory" over our enemies. They do have a thirst for power. I still fear that we will retreat until the Islamists attack so vigorously that even the Democrats realize we have to fight back. At that point, as in WWII, millions will die.

General Wesley Clark is one of the people who thinks he should be President. People I know who served with him say he is smart, ambitious, and they don't like him. That seems to be a widely held opinion as indicated by this piece I lifted from the Ace of Sapdes blog:

Interviews with a wide variety of current and retired military officials reveal that Clark was disliked by only three groups: Those whom ranked above him in the chain of command whom he ignored, his peers at the same rank whom he lied to, and those serving beneath him whom he micromanaged. Other than that, everyone liked him.

I recently read about a teacher in Great Britain who was fired for saying that most suicide bombers were Muslims. It seems to me that it is political correctness run amok when a teacher is fired for stating something that is true. Political Correctness, Multi-culturalism and moral equivalence threaten to destroy Western Civilization. It is interesting that the Muslims who would like to destroy us believe in none of those things, but like to take advantage of their "victim" status as they work against us.

Friday, February 02, 2007

Hillary Clinton has announced that she will end the war in Iraq as her first act after she takes office as President in January 2009. This is similar to the promise Eisenhower made to end the Korean war in the 1952 election. He didn't say how he would do it, but we had a good idea. He ordered increased attacks on the Chinese (the North Korean army had been destroyed or captured earlier), and told them that he would use nuclear weapons if they didn't agree to an armistice. (This is depicted to some extent in the war movie "Pork Chop Hill" starring Gregory Peck.)It is hard to imagine that Mrs. Clinton has anything in mind similar to what Eisenhower did. I suspect she is thinking of withdrawal. I don't think Iran would be impressed by threat of using nuclear weapons on them; the President is suicidal anyway. I could be wrong because some of Mullahs seem to be intent on acquiring fortunes for themselves and their families. She could just remove US Forces from the scene, but that would not stop the war in Iraq. More than likely a regional war would erupt with Iran and Saudi Arabia continuing the fight in Iraq. And it would not stop the Islamic Jihadists attack on the West. It may be more likely that she would pull a Kennedy. Kennedy ran on a platform that Russia had more ICBM's than the US, which he called the "missile gap," something that he knew was untrue. After he was elected he just said to the effect, Oh well, it turns out there was no missile gap after all.

It appears that out politicians running for President don't want to accept that Islamic Jihadists want to destroy us. It has nothing to do with anything we have done. Their religion demands that they subjugate or kill all non-believers, and they have been working on that for 1300 years. The politicians seem to think that only a small percentage of the Muslims are radical to the extent that they are willing to die to kill us. That may be true, but the vast majority of them would like to take over the world by more peaceful means, like by immigration and out reproducing us, and then voting in Sharia Law. Sharia Law is incompatible with our Constitution in that it subjugates minorities rather than protecting minority rights. Ironically they use our protection of minorities to attack us.

Here is a video on Global Warming prepared by Canadians. Al Gore wouldn't like this. One of the things proponents of man as the cause of climate change have done is to try to eliminate the Medieval Warming Period, and to imply that climate has been more or less constant throughout the time man has been on Earth. That was discussed widely among the proponents before the famous Mann Hockey Stick graph was published. (Our Arlington, Texas Congressman, Joe Barton, forced Mann to release the data and statistical analysis that was the basis for the graph; subsequently the graph has been debunked. Barton has been reviled for forcing Mann to release his notes. One of the curious things about the science behind the theory that man is causing irreversible climate change is that the basis won't be given out for independent researchers to evaluate. A scientific theory that is not duplicated by independent researchers is not proven. Actually man as the cause of climate change is not a scientific theory at all; it is the output of computer simulations that attempt to model the Earth's ecosystem.) Another thing that I have noticed is that proponents never mention that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, that clouds have an important impact on Earth's temperature, and that the models do not do a good job of predicting cloud action. If you haven't seen it, take a look at the Canadian video; it is 25 minutes in length.