Political Angst In America

Location: Pantego, Texas, United States

Saturday, January 31, 2009

Obama has determined that the bonuses paid on Wall Street are excessive. I wonder why he didn't comment on that when high-powered Democrats were dropping out of government and into financial institutions, and collecting huge bonuses. Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, and Robert Rubin come to mind. It is hard to imagine what these politicians contributed to deserve tens of millions in bonuses. Robert Rubin was paid a fortune for advising Citi to increase their leverage. Rubin deserved to be paid the hundreds of millions he got for that brilliant insight. Raines and Gorelick increased the leverage of Fannie Mae to 70 to one. Apparently they also advised not publicizing what they were doing. It is hard to believe that they were rewarded for such a moronic strategy. From what I can tell, most of the high-fliers in the financial companies are Democrats, and they sound like socialists while discussing politics. Of course, their own compensation is a different matter; they deserve a lot because of their sheer brilliance. Watching them on TV, it appears that they have ego's like those of movie stars.

Obama says what is important is not the size of government but, rather, whether it 'works.' This is an interesting thought. Communist and purely socialist governments have been large, and haven't worked very well. There is an exception; the German government of the National Socialist Party, otherwise known as Nazi's, worked very well, though most Americans would not say that their agenda was appropriate. (I recently saw where an Islamic clerical leader applauded the Nazi's handling of Jews, so not everyone saw the Nazi's as bad.)

Here is a good description of what is wrong with AGW science.


What has most impressed me about the AGW hypothesis is how the supporters act in such unscientific ways. They present data that they know are flawed. They distort weather events, claiming that all unusual weather events are caused by increased Greenhouse Gas levels. They admit that they exaggerate consequences to gain attention from the media, who are only interested in reporting disasters. They issue ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with them rather than addressing arguments. They rely on spokesmen like Al Gore, Laurie David and Leonardo De Caprio, people who have no scientific knowledge, and who couldn't engage in a meaningful dialog about the subject. And they refuse to have any sort of honest debate about the subject.

Friday, January 30, 2009

Here is an example of why large companies like regulation; it drives their smaller competitors out of business. The ability to get regulations like this is why rich guys becomes socialist fascists; they get the government to lock them into position where they no longer have to work hard to get business, and they can punish their competitors. This example is from California, of course.


The proponents of global warming don't actually know that the earth is warming, though they think it is based on faith rather than science. They actually are more interested in politics and science, and use science to achieve political aims. They deliberately obfuscate the data and analyses that they assert 'prove' that CO2 emissions are destroying the climate of Earth. That is why they consistently refuse to debate the issue with people who are knowledgeable about the subject, hiding behind an assertion that 'the science is settled.' Their attitude should make any open-minded person suspicious. Here is an article that discusses the validity that the Bush Administration tried to silence James Hansen, something that clearly did not happen despite Hansen's claims. There is also information on the relationship between Hansen and Obama.


Here is an analysis of what Obama's inaugural speech really meant by someone from the old Soviet Union where people are very familiar with collectivism. The author likens Obama to Don Quixote. (I knew that Don Quixote was the Man from la Mancha, but I didn't know or had forgotten that Mancha meant horse's ass.) This article paints Obama as a collectivist of some sort. I see him the same way, and his actions so far as President have not changed my assessment.


Thursday, January 29, 2009

It appears that, as expected, Samantha Power has joined her husband in the Obama Administration. I hope this article is correct in the speculation that Power will be part of Hillary Clinton's travelling team. Hillary will no doubt enjoy having Samantha keeping tabs on her, and reporting back to 'The One.'


Clinton probably doesn't care one way or the other, but Power and Susan Rice are not friendly toward Israel. I still think Obama will throw Israel under the bus. Iran will have a nuclear bomb soon according to most observers (last year's NIE that Iran had stopped developing a nuclear bomb was recognized as a political move intended to paralyze Bush into inaction.) I suspect Obama will cut a deal with Iran that damages Israel immediately and the US in the long run.

The cult of personality that has sprung up around Obama disturbs me a lot. I wonder if it bothers liberals who are always ranting about Bush being a would-be fascist dictator. Probably not yet. Here is a story from Las Vegas (I got this from the blog 'knowledge is power:'

A parent in the Clark County School District of Las Vegas, Henderson area reported today that his son, who is in 1st grade, came home yesterday saying that he didn’t want to go back to school anymore.

When asked why, the boy said that during the Pledge of Allegiance the teacher put up a large image of Obama next to the flag.

Thinking that the boy might be exaggerating, the man asked his son if he was sure, and suggested that by “large” he might mean an 8x10 photo of the president. The boy apparently said “No, it is a large picture of Obama and when we are done, the teacher turns off the image.”

The same thing was not done for President Bush last year.

After investigating this morning, the other parent reported that what the boy said was true.

At least three of the five classrooms have an overhead projector and as the children stand to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the teacher turns on the classroom overhead and a full body image of Obama, with six U.S. flags behind him, comes up about 4 feet away from the flag that hangs on the wall. The screen is apparently around five feet by six feet.

In the image, President Obama appears to be staring straight out with no facial expression, just a serious look. All of the kids in each class faced the President, instead of the flag that hangs in the corner......

Based on a stupid decision by the Supreme Court, the EPA now has the power to regulate most business in the United States. The EPA is an aggressive organization with decidedly liberal leanings that was restrained a bit by the Bush Administration. With the leadership provided by the Obama team, the EPA will now attempt to take command of the American economy, and to move toward the fascist state that the Democrats long for. The only restraint on Browner and the other socialists who want to reduce the standard of living in America will be Obama's desire to get reelected. (He appears to desire that, based on reports that his campaign is still active, and he is trying to give $5 billion to Acorn in the so-called stimulus package.) Here is an article on the EPA situation from someone who sees the situation as I do:


Tuesday, January 27, 2009

I saw a headline that said Obama is reaching out to Muslims, breaking with the past. He makes a lot of gratuitous comments about Bush that totally misrepresent what Bush did and said. That is Obama's Modus Operandi. I guess he learned it in his study of the techniques of Saul Alinsky. The MSM will never catch on to this, so it may be a long time before the public catches on to his sly game. Here is an article from the WSJ on this phenomena.

Meet the New Tone, Same as the Old Tone

"In an interview with one of the Middle East's major broadcasters, President Barack Obama struck a conciliatory tone toward the Islamic world, saying he wanted to persuade Muslims that 'the Americans are not your enemy,' " the New York Times reports. "The interview with Al Arabiya, an Arabic-language news channel based in Dubai, signaled a shift--in style and manner at least--from the Bush administration."

Obama also addressed Muslims directly, saying, "We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful." Can you imagine George W. Bush saying anything like that?

Oh wait, sorry, Homer nods: That last quote was from Bush's speech on Sept. 20, 2001.

Still, the pace of change is just dizzying! OK, so it's not so much what Obama said, but where he said it. Bush would never have given an interview to Al Aribiya.

Darn it, we messed up again! The Associated Press reports that "Obama's choice of Al-Arabiya network, which is owned by a Saudi businessman, follows the lead of the Bush administration, which gave several presidential interviews to that news channel."

Even so, change is all around us! As the AP notes, the new president's policies are completely different:

Obama's predecessor, former President George W. Bush, launched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which prompted a massive backlash against the U.S. in the Muslim world.
Bush just went around launching wars for no reason! It's not as if these wars were provoked by an attack on America or an invasion of a neighboring country, or else the AP would have mentioned it. Obama, by contrast, just wants to give peace a chance, as another Associated Press dispatch notes:

Obama is expected to double the number of American troops in Afghanistan this year, as the country becomes one of his foreign policy priorities.

The Washington Post reports that "the change in Washington appears to have rattled al-Qaeda's leaders, some of whom are scrambling to convince the faithful that Obama and Bush are essentially the same." Good luck with that, guys!

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Here is a new term for supporters of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis; anti-carbonists. Here is an article from American Thinker that discusses the political implications of anti-carbonism.


Lord Monckton has written another paper on the misinformation put out by the IPCC regarding AGW:


Here is another critique of the catastrophic global warming hypothesis by Lord Monckton.


There have been recent reports that the Antarctic is actually warming after all. For a long time one criticism of the AGW hypothesis was that the Antarctic was not warming as would be required. The AGW proponents came up with a lot of odd, and often humorous, explanations for how Antarctic cooling actually supported the AGW hypothesis. Now they have come up with their old standby approach that they used to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period, the existence of which discredited the AGW hypothesis. That approach was to use computer algorithms that were not revealed to modify the record. Now the same thing has been done with regards to the Antarctic temperature. In this case some sort of algorithm has been used to fill in the temperature in the large expanse of the Antarctic where there are no weather stations (which in the Antarctic is most of the continent). Surface temperature does not follow any sort of normal distribution, so it is hard to see how this approach could be reliable, and like most of the AGW activity, it certainly cannot be verified. The temperature increase for the Antarctic by this latest feat of legerdemain is 1F over the last 50years. That is, then, an average temperature now of -49F rather than -50F. It is hard to see how that increase, even if true, would cause anyone to expect the Antarctic ice sheet to melt any time soon. Here is an article on this subject from the UK:


Not much is known about Kirsten Gillibrand, the new Senator from New York. She has much less experience than, say, the governor of Alaska. But, from what is known she sounds much better than the Princess Kennedy. No doubt she is a strong supporter of Roe v. Wade, as any Democrat from New York would be. But the NRA supporter her, and Numbers USA, the anti-illegal immigrant group, has given her a grade of B. That is much better than we would expect from a New York Democrat.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

According to the MSM, when Bush did something liberals didn't like, that was divisive. When Obama does something conservatives don't like, that is inclusive, and conservatives need to just get over it.

The catastrophic global warming scare was originally propelled by the IPCC with the Mann hockeystick curve of 1998 (called MBH98) that showed the world is now warmer than at any time in the past. The reason for the higher temperature was proclaimed to be due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere that came from 20th century industrialization. It is true that CO2 does absorb infrared radiation in wavelengths of about 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns. It is also true that correlation is not necessarily causation. Over time other researchers tried to reproduce the results of Mann, et al, something that was not easy since they were not forthcoming with either their data or their methodology. After much work other investigators found serious issues with MBH98. Here is a paper that discusses the investigation into MBH98.


I am seeing a lot of Democrats on TV saying to Republicans, "Can't we all just get along?" It is funny that they didn't think that was a good idea last year, but are saying that now that Obama is President. I wonder if Nancy Pelosi still thinks that, "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism." Probably not. I suspect she may now favor incarceration for dissenters.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Here is a good quote:

“The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” –Margaret Thatcher.

The Soviet Union communists tried to overcome this problem by taking over neighboring countries, but eventually they couldn't continue that because of the evil United States organizing countries to resist them.

Democrats wanted to prosecute President Bush for warrantless eavesdropping on terrorist's lawyers. I suppose that was just politics since Obama is supporting Bush's position.


Here is an article about a New York Times party to honor the inauguration of President Obama. Note the the neat Poster of Obama's Profile with New York Times at the bottom. I am amazed that Obama uses posters that are so much like those used by fascists and Marxists. It is clear that the Democrats and Obama are trying to develop a culture of personality. I am frightened by what is happening. Liberals always accuse Republican Presidents of trying to set up a "monarchy," based on their projection of how they would react in the Republicans position. There have never been any actions by Republicans to support the Democrats accusations. Now, it seems to me that there are indications that the Democrats would like to set up a socialistic dictatorship. At least all of these totalitarian government-like posters, goofy videos by celebrities professing adulation of Obama, and Democrat's latest attempt to repeal the 22nd Amendment so Obama can be elected for more than two terms are disconcerting. How long until we hear the "President for Life" talk to begin?

Here is Naomi Wolf's amusing analysis of how Bush was planning to conduct a coup to set up a fascist government in the uSA. Ms. Wolf doesn't seem to know that fascists are socialists, and Republicans are free market capitalists, the mortal enemies of fascists such as Hitler. (At least that is what Hitler said.)


Obama's executive order closing Gitmo is a cheap political trick. He issues an order saying he will close the prison in one year; in the meantime he has teams studying the problem to determine how to proceed. He likens himself to Lincoln: Lincoln would keep the prisoners locked up for the duration based on what he did during the Civil War. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and threw people who criticized him into prison. He is now regarded as our greatest President.

I have written a lot about how environmentalists are basically rent seekers and socialists whose objective is for most people to live in poverty. Many people do not agree with this assessment. Here is a discussion of the matter that those who disagree should read.


Thursday, January 22, 2009

I hear a lot of people talking about how George Bush's policies caused all of the world's problems. When I ask about specifics, I don't get an answer. One common response is that he deregulated too much. But, no one can name something he deregulated. In fact he wanted more regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, but was not able to get more regulation of them because of Democratic Party opposition. A lot of people have also noted this phenomena. Here is a post on the subject by the blog "Gay Patriot:"

Leah’s comment to my post, Bush-Hatred and the Bush Legacy that “Obama worship is the flip side of Bush hatred,” reminded me how much Obamania resembles the 1970s teen craze for singer Bobby Sherman. Like those teenagers in the 1970s (many of whom all but certainly became partisans of the Democratic candidate), Obama’s fans love their man without really knowing what he’s going to do in office.

At a party shortly after the election, a woman who has worked on the Democrat’s campaign told me she supported him because we needed someone to undo the “damage” of the Bush years, yet she couldn’t identify any policies her guy backed, except that he promised to change the way things are done in the nation’s capital. Only she couldn’t say how he planned to effect that change. She’s not alone.

But, just as their support for Obama is based more on their own emotions than their candidate’s political philosophy and positions on the issues so too was their Bush-hatred emotionally-based. At a holiday party in December, a Democratic acquaintance raged against Bush and the “right-wing” for creating the mess we’re in.

What policies, I asked, had he enacted which created this mess? He couldn’t answer, but just said “they’d” been in power. I pressed my point. He replied that he didn’t want to have this conversation with a Republican and stalked away.

Others, when pressed, have cited the deregulation of the Bush years. So, when I ask them to identify particular laws the Republican Congress enacted and the Republican President signed to deregulate the financial markets, I was met with a similar silence. Indeed, the claims of Obama and his supporters “notwithstanding, the Bush Administration was hardly about deregulation.” Bush, according to George Mason University’s Veronique de Rugy “was the biggest regulator since Nixon.”

Which brings me back to Leah’s point that Obama worship is the flip side of Bush hatred. They love the one without knowing what he stands for and loath the other while mispresenting his record.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Obama showed lack of class in his attacks on Bush in his inaugural address. It faulted Bush for not being willing to make "hard decisions." Bush obviously made many hard decisions, so apparently what Obama meant was that he didn't agree with Bush's decisions. Obama also said he was humble. I guess he felt he had to tell us since he so obviously has a mammoth ego. My guess is that he is going to be humbled when he sees the results of his "soft power" initiatives. Whatever ones politics, I think most people would agree that Bush is a class guy, while Obama, like the Clinton's, is a no-class guy. It is not a matter of their origins; Ted Kennedy was born rich, but he is low class.

Here is a view of Obama from an English writer, Melanie Phillips. She does not like Obama's "soft power" approach to diplomacy. I agree with her. The idea that silver tongued Obama can talk Islam out of its goal of destroying the West. Their religion demands that they convert, subject, or kill all infidels. Obama apparently has an enormous ego that enables him to believe his rhetoric can end a war that has been going for almost 1400 years. Her are Melanie's thoughts:


Monday, January 19, 2009

Here is a guy who thinks that George Bush's legacy was that he was too soft on Democrats and let them run over him without responding. I agree with this assessment.


I love it that the Democrats and leftists are now saying we are all in this together, and the nation must now come together. I guess they rely on the better instincts of Republicans and conservatives. I say Republicans should be as disrespectful to Obama as they were to Bush. I would draw the line at international affairs, which the Democrats don't do. But internally I see no reason why Republicans should not fight everything Democrats want to do. If they think that is wrong, then they can change their behavior the next time Republicans are in control. Besides, Bush has done enough to support socialism; I see no reason to do any more to help the Democrat-Socialists advance their agenda.

One aspect of the Anthropogenic Global Warming issue is that the supporters are lying when they say that there in a consensus of scientists supporting the position of the IPCC, Al Gore and James Hansen. I am astonished that they continue with that obvious lie. Here is a log from Cheat Seeking Missiles regarding the growing list of the skeptical.

More AGW Dissent

- This Time By Scientist Fired By Gore
Posted by: Laer at 10:00 am

Senator James Inhof continues to build his list of prominent scientists who have come out of the closet and now stand proudly against anthropogenic global warming hysteria. His latest catch of 10 such scientists includes Dr. Will Happer, of the Department of Physics at Princeton University, more noted as the scientist Al Gore fired in 1993 for not going along with global warming hysteria.

The latest Inhof post on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works minority page, Happer says:

“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. … I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy. … I did not need the job that badly.

“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow. Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

Also new to Inhof’s list - which now numbers more than 650 - are:

Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Dr. W. M. Schaffer, Ph. D., of the University of Arizona - Tucson, past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, who has authored more than 80 scientific publications and authored the paper “Human Population and Carbon Dioxide.”
CNN (CNN!?) Meteorologist Chad Myers, an meteorologist for 22 years, certified by the American Meteorological Society.
Engineer and Physicist J.K. “Jim” August, formerly of the U.S. Navy nuclear power program, and former chair of professional standard committees in both the American Nuclear Society and the American Society of Mechanical Engineering.
Biologist and Neuropharmacologist Dr. Doug Pettibone, who has authored 120 scientific publications and holds ten patents and is a past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller, former weather forecaster at Amsterdam’s Royal Dutch Weather Bureau whose “Polynomial Regression algorithm is embedded in every high-end Texas Instruments calculator sold today.
MIT Scientist Dr. Robert Rose, a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching various scientific courses.
Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the Department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers.
German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber, a Consulting Meteorologist.
Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as zone-wide QA Manager on a $300 million EPA Superfund contract, is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm and a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS).
Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich, who has more than 30 years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government, specializes in the application of optical remote sensing (ORS) to a wide range of air-related issues. Minnich has worked with EPA as a Superfund contractor, is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. Minnich, who holds a masters degree in meteorology and taught courses at Rutgers University and University of Michigan, is a past member of the American Meteorological Society, specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone and has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.
You can read each of these scientists’ statements about AGW here. But do remember, please, the debate is over. All that’s left to do is to squander trillions of dollars in a phony war against global warming that is really little more than a massive wealth redistribution scheme.

Today on Bloomberg News I saw an oil expert suggest that it would be a good idea to buy oil stocks now. The reason is that the Democrats are going to block drilling for more oil everywhere, and they are going to try to ban hydraulic fracturing. Without hydraulic fracturing it is not economical to extract oil from the Bakken Shale or natural gas from any of the many shale fields. He also pointed out that there is a glut of natural gas in the US at present, so the natural gas companies are not a good buy. It seems to me that it is highly unlikely that Obama's alternate energy programs will produce much over the next few years, so oil is quite likely to go back up again. In particular Obama's plan to produce 2 Gigawatts of electricity from alternative sources within three years has no chance.

Many think that conservatives threw around the word "socialist" too much during the election last year. Personally I don't think so because I think Obama is fundamentally a socialist, but I understand that he wants to get re-elected, so he has to go slow on his socialist agenda. Socialists have taken over the "green" movement, and are now using it to try to achieve their goals of equality. They would like to achieve a situation of equality that has been attempted in all socialist and communist states, that is, where everyone is equally bad off. Carol Browner is the person the left currently has their hopes pinned on to bring about this happy state where the standard of living in the US is that of a third world nation. Carter tried to achieve that, but was voted out of office before achieving success; Obama is trying to profit from Carter's experience by not going too fast.


Obama has nominated John Holdren to be his chief science adviser. Holdren has a remarkable record of being wrong in his predictions about future developments in society in general and the climate in particular. He also does not suffer kindly those who disagree with him, and would like to silence them. Here are some questions that Jeff Jacoby thinks he should be asked in his Senate confirmation hearing.


James Hansen says that all people who disagree with him on the issue of glbal warming are kooks, in the pay of oil companies, or criminals who ought to be tried for crimes against humanity. Here is comments of another prominent scientist.

"Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that's a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.... All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide.... Science is one of the great triumphs of humankind, and I hate to see it dragged through the mud in an episode like this." --William Happer, former chief scientist at the Energy Department and the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton

Sunday, January 18, 2009

It was rumored that there would be an attempt to revoke the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution so that Obama could be elected to a third term. After all, he is the One, but it would be better if he could get elected for a third term rather than having to do something controversial such as declaring himself President for Life. It probably won't be enacted, but the amendment has been submitted. I got this from the blog "Ace of Spades:"

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:


‘The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’

These rich folks that gave a lot of money to Obama don't want anything in return: they just want good government.


Saturday, January 17, 2009

It didn't take long for those who support the apocalyptic global warming hypothesis are blaming global warming for an airliner engines ingesting birds, causing the airliner to crash land in the Hudson River. I'm surprised that they didn't blame George Bush, since he causes everything bad that happens. Here is an article that suggests that it would be more reasonable to blame Chuck Schumer.


There has been a lot of discussion about the rumblings from the Obama camp about creation of some sort of civilian force loyal to Obama rather than the state. This independent force loyal only to the leader is the hallmark of a dictator. Here is a comment from the blog "Ace of Spades."

In what would be another unprecedented step, Obama's political staff is deciding whether to create a service organization that would use the vast corps of its grass-roots campaign supporters. As described by one source knowledgeable with the discussions, this nonprofit arm would be used to help victims of natural disasters, but would do so under the Obama umbrella while continuing to build the overall network's massive e-mail database.

At least Obama plans to arm his troops with email databases rather than weapons. Well, at least initially.

Obama has some interesting friends that he is putting into control of American life. His energy czar, Carol Browner, wants to make the American economy like that of third world nations. Samantha Power wants to have the UN take control of Israel. Her husband, Cass Sunstein, the popular Harvard Law Professor is slated to be some sort of legal issue czar, and is often mentioned as a likely appointee to the Supreme Court by Obama. Sunstein has some unusual ideas. He would like to make it possible for animals to file lawsuits to file lawsuits against humans. (It is not clear to me how one would know for certain that an animal desired to file a lawsuit given what appear to me to be some communication issues; I suppose we would have to rely on someone who can "talk to the animal.") Sunstein also wants to ban hunting and eating meat. I would guess that he also wants to protect "sea kittens." Here is an article about this legal genius.


Friday, January 16, 2009

Here is some interesting news from the blog "Greenie Watch:"

Hansen comes clean at last?

Maybe the attack on his numbers by Lubos Motl and others was the last straw. I am advised by email that NASA's Hansen has at last released his "data adjustment" computer code to Steve McIntyre -- after a lot of pressure from Steve to do just that. I assume it is FORTRAN code -- a la Michael Mann. It would be a lot simpler if Hansen had just released his algorithms but the FORTRAN code should eventually reveal what they were/are. As I know from experience, backtracking through someone else's FORTRAN code is very difficult at any time, however, and I hear that Hansen's code is far from elegant, so it will be some time before we know much.

I think there is a strong possibility that Hansen has simply adjusted his code from time to time in an ad hoc way rather than setting up a systematic theory first -- and there is much potential for cumulative errors in doing that. I don't envy Steve his disentangling task. Hansen may be relying on it being impossible.

The one who has not released his methods is Phil Jones of CRU.

Back when my Congressman, Joe Barton, forced Michael Mann to release his data and algorithms it was found that the famous Mann Hockeystick was not valid. (The hockeystick curve was used by the IPCC as the scientific basis for claims that late 20th century global warming was caused by mankind, but they ignored the loss in credibility in their primary data.) It may be some time before we know if there are any serious deficiencies in Hansen's data, since figuring out the FORTRAN code will take some time. Phil Jones did the work that says that the urban island heat effect is not significant in the late 20th century. Jones has said he will not give his data to other researchers because "they only want to prove him wrong." That is a curious position for a scientist to take. Usually scientists want other researchers to review their work. One of the problems that has been suggested regarding Jones's work is the location of the temperature monitoring stations used in the study. It is know that several of the stations were moved over time, in some instances to new locations on the outskirts as towns grew. This obvioously calls into question the validity of using these data to say that urban temeratures have not significantly increased. For example here in Texas, it is usually hotter in Dallas than in the nearby but smaller Fort Worth, and hotter in both of those cities than in the surrounding rural areas.

Carol Browner, James Hansen, Maurice Strong and Al Gore believe that there is a global climate crisis that can only be solved by a world socialist government. American capitalism and Western economies must be destroyed in order to make creation of this new world government possible. Strong, the UN mover and shaker, is very rich, and Browner and Gore are taking advantage of their activities in spreading global warming hysteria to get rich through involvement in rent-seeking renewable energy and carbon trading companies. Here is another article about Browner and her position as an advisor to Obama, where she will instruct him on how to reduce the economy of America to third world status. (Carter failed in his attempt to convert America to third world status, and now Obama and Browner will get to make another attempt.) Here is the article from the Washington Times:


Thursday, January 15, 2009

It has been reported ad nauseam on the news that there was one case of torture at Gitmo. It is sort of a subjective call, since all of the techniques used were authorized, but in the judge's opinion the interrogators were too aggressive and too persistent. The decision was made not to put this individual on trial even though he was involved in the 911 plot. I wonder what they will do with him? here is a discussion on this situation from Powerline.


It is clear to me that terrorist activities originating and supported by nations must be dealt with as war rather than police action. Obama has talked about using the Nuremberg trials after WWII as a model. He doesn't seem to realize that those were a military commission just like what we are now doing at Gitmo. Obama seems to be remarkably ignorant of history.

It appears that the people wanting to put Bush and Cheney on trial have lost one of there issues. At least an Appellate Court has ruled that Bush had the authority for his "eavesdropping" program. Maybe they will push on to the Supreme Court, but I doubt they would win there either. Here is the story from Powerline.


I wonder if Obama will suspend the proogram now?

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

I keep seeing people criticizing President Bush for engaging in an "optional" war in Iraq. It seems lost on them that all wars are optional. A nation can always avoid war by surrendering to their enemies. I recall during WWII there were friends of my parents who thought it was wrong of the US to fight Japan and Germany. Some of them felt strongly that we should just let Japan do whatever they liked to people in the Pacific. I recall another guy who said he thought we should fight Germany when their troops were invading Texas from Mexico. I can understand that some people may think that invading Iraq did not advance the cause of security in the US. I think those who disagree should at least acknowledge that a case can be made for President Bush's position. That the Muslim's are barbarians opposed to all democracy and the civilized world. And that they work together against our interests, and that offensive action is an effective form of defense.

Here is more about Obama's proposed energy czar, the socialist Carol Browner. It turns out she is a board member of a carbon trading company. That is no surprise. No conflict of interest there is there?


The MSM seem to be uninterested in the situation in Mexico. I see very little in the newspapers or on TV news about the drug war being fought there. More people were killed in the drug war in Mexico in 2008 than the US army has lost in Iraq in two wars. Here is an article that suggests that the Mexican government could collapse suddenly.


The Obama Administration wants to have a "cram down" on home mortgages which are "underwater." They want the people who loaned the money on homes to reduce the principle on the loan. I'm wondering how that works in a fair manner. (To Democrats the only thing that is "fair" is something that re-distributes wealth.) How much write down would be required on the $500,000 home loan in Los Angeles for an illegal alien with an income of $15,000 per year. The loan would have to be reduced to $40,000 or so for the person to be able to make payments. Suppose the next door neighbor bought a few years earlier, and owes $200,000. It seems that the only fair thing would be to reduce his principle to $40,000 also. But, is that fair to the investors who loaned the money? Maybe not, but they are rich guys, so they should expect to lose some money. Of course, the actual investors are not the ones who loaned the money: that was workers at a financial institution that in effect misled the investors. The government was involved in this, since they actually coerced the financial institution workers into loaning to people who were credit risks as part of the governments "social engineering." So far this plan has worked well for the Democrats. It is achieving their desired result of re-distributing wealth. Poor guys are getting houses they couldn't afford paid for by rich folks. And, as a side benefit, Democrats can say free market capitalism has failed, so the government must take over financial institutions. And, as soon as Carol Browner can announce that CO2 is a pollutant, the government can use the need to control emission of CO2 to take control of all production in the US. Thus the liberal fascists will have achieved their goals of central control of the economy, and re-distribution of wealth. The poor people who failed to take out a loan they couldn't afford are the losers I suppose.

One factor in the anthropogenic global warming debate is the unwillingness of many of the bureaucratic based supporters (which is most of the ones who have scientific knowledge) to conclude that their results do not support the hypothesis when that is the fact. One area in which the models have failed is in the prediction of formation of low level clouds as water vapor in the atmosphere increases. Actually the fact that the general circulation models fail at this is the reason the modelers use cloud formation as an input parameter. The assumption the modelers make becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy for higher temperatures. (It appears that the low altitude cloudiness increases as water vapor is added to the atmosphere, which increases the amount of solar energy reflected to space, and is a negative feedback rather than a positive feedback as the modellers assume.) Here is a discussion of this by Dr. Roy Spencer.


Tuesday, January 13, 2009

I have often written that Carol Browner is one of the most dangerous people in America. She is a socialist and her agenda is to destroy the economy of America, and Obama is giving her an opportunity. At the end of the Clinton Administration she wiped out her computer records in violation of the law, but no one did anything about it. She clearly does not want a record of who she talks to and her activities. I'm not the only one who is aware of the danger she presents to the American way of life, but I doubt that the Senate will question her closely, and she is certain to be approved to be czarina of energy. I expect she will have CO2 declared a pollutant early on in the Obama Administration; something is is completely ludicrous since human life cannot exist on Earth without atmospheric CO2. Here is a view from the blog "Flopping Aces."


Here is a comment from Powerline about the global warming hypothesis that is similar to stuff I have previously written in this blog.


In Europe there is now a move to ban plasma TV sets to "save the climate." This type of socialism will soon come to America.


Monday, January 12, 2009

One problem with the General Circulation Models used by the IPCC and NASA/GISS to project unprecedented high temperatures in the future are that all feedback's are considered to be positive. In other words, the relatively small temperature increase that may result from higher atmospheric CO2 concentration levels will cause other changes that will cause further temperature increases. These include higher concentrations of the greenhouse gas water vapor and reduction in the amount of polar ice, so less sunlight is reflected to space. People have pointed out some flaws in this, such as more water vapor in the atmosphere results in more low level clouds that increase reflection to space. Here is a paper that discusses the polar ice issue. It turns out that Antarctic ice is more important than Arctic ice, and the amount of Antarctic ice has been increasing.


There are some climatologists who are more concerned about the likelihood of another ice age than runaway higher global temperatures. Based on history the Earth is about due for another ice age. The following article was published in Russia, a country where another ice age is more threatening than warming of a few degrees.


GM says they may need more bailout money.


I'm shocked, shocked to here that GM may need more money.

Here is an interesting comment attributed to Steve Sailer that I picked up from the blog of Englishman Chris Brand.

From Steve Sailer's blog: In 2000 a U.S. finance firm sent an email to executives, as follows, "Isn't California full of Latinos? Can Latinos really pay back these giant mortgages we're handing them? If Latinos can't, then who is going to pay even more to move to a neighborhood that we just helped tip Latino? As long as we can bundle them up into CDOs, and sell them them on to some dumb European bankers, who cares if they can't pay off their mortgages?"

This indicates that people in the financial industry were aware of the looming financial crisis. Surely the leaders of the large institutions were aware of the scope of the problem. For example, I was aware that loans were being made to some people who were a questionable credit risk, but I had no idea that people were making $500,0000 no money down mortgage loans to illegal aliens whose income was $15,000 per year. Note that the email talks about Latino's: I have heard that George Bush was the person who had encouraged giving subprime loans to Latinos. For those who do not recall, Bush was not President in the year 2000. It seems to me that the author of the email should be put on trial since he acknowledges in the email that people who buy CDOs will lose their money.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Here is a good discussion of the role of CO2 over the history of the planet Earth. It clearly shows that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and the average temperature on Earth. Also, life on earth has done well with much higher atmospheric CO2 levels than those at present. One serious question I have, which I have never seen answered, is how Hansen and other AGW believers determined that 350 ppm(v) was the proper level for CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. Here is the article:


I’m really worried about the economy. I don’t trust government, and don’t like what we are seeing now with cram-down and letting judges reduce principle on home loans. We are moving away from the rule of law; that is the socialist's dream. Obama’s idea of investing hundreds of billions in “green” technology is just nuts. As I listen to Obama’s spokesmen it seems clear that they are unaware of the difficulties with wind power in Europe. I see that California has new regulations that will put chicken and egg producers in that state out of business. Carol Browner as the energy czar will probably push the plan to tax farm animals because they produce methane. And Harry Reid, who is about the dullest tool in the shed, has the Senate working on Sunday on a law that will prevent drilling for oil and gas on Federal land.

Regarding energy, I saw an Obama spokesman say that they plan to move to alternative energy, even if it is much more expensive than fossil fuel. Suppose that they actually did that and managed to reduce the consumption of oil in the US by 10 million barrels of oil per day. That would drive the price of oil back to $15 per barrel. That would harm our enemies, but it would also make US industry totally uncompetitive with the rest of the world. That would result in economic isolation of the US since tariffs would be required to keep US industry from collapsing.

I have been thinking about the efforts to appoint Princess Caroline to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate. I have been thinking about, you know, all of the reasons why, you know, Princess Caroline deserves to be in the Senate. You know, her Dad and two Uncles served in the Senate. And, you know, her Uncle, the Grand Duke Ted, is, you know, the Lion of the Senate. But, you know, he is not well, and, you know, may not be able to serve much longer. That would, you know, result in the intolerable situation, you know, of no Kennedy in the Senate. And, Princess Caroline has, you know, a law degree, so she must be, you know, fairly smart. I mean, you know, how smart do you have to be to be a Democrat in the Senate considering that they are lead by, you know, Harry Reid, who doesn't appear to be, you know, the sharpest tool in the shed. It is true, you know, that Princess Caroline has a few hundred million dollars. But, despite that, you know, she understands the plight of poor people. And, she is a liberal, who, you know, is pro-choice and, you know, favors gay marriage. She will, you know, vote the party line, and will not, you know, cause any problems for the leadership. She is definitely rich enough and inflential enough, you know, to raise a lot of money for the party. It seems to me, you know, that she is the perfect candidate for appointment to, you know, Hilliary's Senate seat.

Senator James Inhofe is working hard to stop the US government from embracing the suicidal movement to stop Anthropogenic Global Warming. He points out that many people are beginning to realize that the AGW hypothesis is based on unvalidated computer models rather than science. Here is a speech Inhofe made to the Senate this week.


Recently I saw something in the newspaper about a UFO striking a windmill in Great Britain. The liberals in Great Britain have bought into the global warming hype, and have put their nation into grave danger of electricity brownouts and blackouts. Obama and the Democrats are trying to do the same thing here in America. Peter Hitchens doesn't think much of the windmills for electricity generation in Great Britain.


Saturday, January 10, 2009

Those in favor of global warming expect a lot from the incoming Obama Administration, and the people Obama has selected are all advocates of taking draconian action to reduce CO2 emissions. Here is a comment on the prospect of draconian action in an email from Fred Singer (a real climatologist). I get this from the blog "Greenie Watch."

An email from S. Fred Singer [mailto:singer@sepp.org]

So here we have them: Obama's three scientistsªSteve Chu, John Holdren, and Jane Lubchenco. All with sterling credentials - a Nobel laureate in physics, a recent president of the AAAS, a recent head of the International Council of Scientific Unions - but with minimal knowledge of climate science, except what they may have gleaned from reading the IPCC summary. Yet all three seem supremely confident that they will drastically change US climate policy. Well, let me be the first with the bad (for them) news: Within a year or so, they are going to be an awfully frustrated bunch.

My fearless forecast for 2009: Big amount of activity by Congress, with lots of 'Cap&Trade' bills to limit CO2 emissions. Waxman, Markey, and Pelosi in the House; Boxer, Lieberman, Bingeman, and maybe even McCain in the Senate. It will take off, but it won't fly: There is the prohibitive cost of any real C&T, raising energy prices and killing jobs -- while the economy is in the dumps. There is the horrible example of the European emission-trading brouhaha, falling apart even as we go to press. And after ten years, the climate is still refusing to warm. I am not even considering the threat of a filibuster in the Senateªwith Democrats from 'fly-over' states joining Republican opponents of C&T.

I think that Obama is much too smart to devote political capital to doomed climate legislation. He has more important priorities, and must also be thinking of 2010 and, of course, the 2012 elections. Being a 'one-term' president just doesn't look good. He will certainly go through the motions and come up with great rhetoric. He'll trot out his science team - but to no avail. Climate science isn't going to figure prominently in the Congressional debates - alas; it's all about economics and politics.

Now for the real action: Once legislation stalls, Carol Browner, the supreme ideologue and strategist, will go the regulatory route. EPA will try to treat CO2 as a 'criteria pollutant' under the terms of the Clean Air Act. But there will be litigation. EPA must demonstrate 'endangerment' and make a persuasive case that CO2 is a threat to 'public health and welfare.' Perhaps even show that there is a critical level of CO2 and demonstrate convincingly - in a court-of-law -- that its regulatory program will succeed in keeping CO2 from reaching that level. EPA will be required to respond to all the scientific evidence now in its docket that says CO2 is not a threat - including the NIPCC report. Here is where climate science will finally become all-important - but Obama's science team will be of no help once cross-examination starts.

How much better if the three team members lay off climate and devote their efforts and expertise to genuine problems: Holdren can handle nuclear proliferation and the rising threat of nuclear terrorism; Lubchenco can try to stem the over-exploitation of ocean resources, and look after fisheries and whales; Chu should be thinking about the inevitable transition from fossil fuels to various forms of nuclear energy and foster research that assures adequate and low-cost supplies of fissionable fuel for the more efficient and safer reactors of the future.

While this may be best use of their considerable collective talents, they will probably be pressed into service to back up Browner on her dubious climate science -- where they have negligible expertise.

I suppose it is possible that the issue could wind up in Court. That troubles me. I see no way that judges or juries could determine the merits of this of any scientific debate. The legal system does a poor job in medical malpractice cases, where for example John Edwards obtained huge judgements based on completely fallacious science. Often in Court cases the outcome depends strictly on the ability of the lawyers on either side. Truth and Justice are not considerations at all. O.J. can go free even though he murdered two people because his team "outlawyered" the prosecution. I recently saw an article in which it was opined that Coleman could not claim the Senate election had been stolen from him in Minnesota because Franken had simply "outlawyered" him. I suppose the thought is that the vote is so close, and trying to figure out the intention of a few confused voters is actually impossible, so the side with the best lawyers should win. Based on this, I think Singer is an optimist in thinking that if he could get the global warmists into a coutroom, that the truth will out. Lawyers are uninterested in truth, they are interested in winning. I doubt that the federal government lawyers can be beaten in a civil case. (Criminal cases are a bit different.) For a case on Global Warming being caused by CO2 emissions, the Jury selection would be interesting. People who had any scientific knowledge would be exempted, so a vital issue would wind up being decided by the least informed people that could be found. I am not optimistic.

Friday, January 09, 2009

One of the curious things about the recent Presidential election was the characterization of President Bush as a de-regulator. Bush was probably second only to Richard Nixon (another non-conservative Republican) in terms of regulation. Here is an article that discusses regulation, and mentions that Bush was not a de-regulator.


Recent news is that Robert Rubin has resigned from Citigroup. Rubin was the Treasury Secretary under Clinton and was the guy who pushed the deregulation that led to the current financial crisis. Democrats blamed that deregulation on Bush, and, with the aid of the media, made it stick in the minds of the public. At Citigroup Rubin pushed for ever more leverage to be employed to increase return. That also increased risk, which was ignored. Congress is talking about "clawback" to recoup the bonuses paid to people like Rubin, Raines, and Gorelick. I doubt that happens since most of the people who got those undeserved payments were Democrats, and
contributed a lot of their ill-gotten gains to the Democrat Party.

There is a lot of debate at present about the role of unions in the decline of the US auto industry. There is a lot of discussion about pay and benefits. It turns out that the foreign owned plants in the US pay slightly more than the Detroit manufacturers, but that the benefits are much less. The major way in which unions have harmed the Detroit manufacturers are with work rules. Here is an article that discusses the demise of the British auto industry, which, like Detroit, had a lot of non-productive work rules that doomed the industry.


Unless the Detroit manufactures manage to get more reasonable work rules, the industry cannot be saved. I have seen estimates from people who worked in Detroit that the car manufacturers only get about 5 hours of work from an employee each day. There are a lot of anecdotes about union leaders having a "chat" with workers who work too fast, advising them to slow down.

There are indications that sales of guns are very high. At last that can be implied by the shortage of forms that have to be filled out by gun purchasers.


I haven't seen any analysis of why gun sales are up. I suspect there is fear that with the Democrats now in firm control of the government, there will be laws passed to stop or at least impede sales of guns.

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

A lot of consevative commentators said that if bail-out money was given to Auto companies then evryone would line up at the trough to get a handout. And, it looks like they were corrct:


Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Temperature in the US has been declining for some time. The peak was in the 1930's around the time I was born. James Hansen of NASA/GISS has applied some magic algorithm to the historical data that no one else understands but it reduced past temperatures a lot from what was actually recorded. Worldwide the number of recording stations has been significantly reduced, particularly in Russia, since 1990. Some of the evil people in the pay of Big Oil and flat-earth kooks have noted that surface temperature took a big uptick about that time. But, Hansen and other warmers assure us that they make adjustment to the record to accurately reflect what those inoperative stations would have recorded. And, of course there is no possibility that they suffer from "confirmation bias" as they make the adjustments. (In my career as an engineer I saw many examples of smart guys with PhD's being afflicted with confirmation bias; it can happen to a group of bright people.) Here is an article that compares the raw surface temperature data for the US with Hansen and companies adjusted data. Note that the raw data show a cooling trend while the adjusted data show the warming trend expected by Hansen. (North America is the only place with reasonably accurate temperature monitoring stations covering the entire region, so probably gives a better view of the actual trend than the purported world wide data, which involves interpolation over huge regions.)


The media say that a bipartisan group of Senators blocked Burris from taking a seat in the Senate. That is curious since Republicans don't have much to say about the matter.


Democrats like to talk about President Bush "shredding the Constitution" and arresting citizen's and holding them indefinitely without charging them, listening in on all phone calls without warrants, ad nauseum. They can't provide any examples of these excesses, but say Bush plans to do it after he takes over the country. At the same time, the Democrats under Bill Clinton did much to undermine the rights of ordinary citizens. Eric Holder was one of Clinton's and the DOJ's primary agents in harming citizen's rights. (Jamie Gorelick helped a lot also, mainly by actions to prevent investigation of President Clinton.) Here is an example of how the Democrats operate:


Here is another example of media bias. Of course in this case, maybe Reuters doesn't know the difference between a defensive flare and a rocket. Why is it that the liberal media support the terrorist Muslims? Is it because the Muslims are attacking the hated Israelis and Americans?


The media are biased and in many instances are willing to print outright lies in order to advance their agenda. This is probably true of most the left and the right, but seems more prevalent on the left. This may be simply because 90% of the media is biased to the left. Here is an example of an outright lie:

French TV Shows Gazans Killed By Hamas, Blames Israel
January 6, 2009
Posted by John at 3:28 PM

Public television network France 2 has admitted that earlier today, it showed photos of dozens of bodies of members of Hamas and civilians who it said were killed in an Israeli bombing raid on January 1. Only problem: the photos were actually taken in 2005, and the people depicted were killed not by Israel, but when "a truck full of explosives blew up in the Jabaliya Refugee Camp." The terrorists, in other words, blew themselves up accidentally and took a number of civilians with them.

Obama has decided to appoint Leon Panetta as head of the CIA. That is a really weird choice. Panetta was the guy in charge of dirty tricks for Clinton. He had his hands full with handling "bimbo eruptions." Obama says that he wants the CIA to tell him the true situation, not what they think he wants to hear. That sounds good to me because I have seen a lot of CEOs who surrounded themselves with yes-men, to their eventual detriment. Obama said that with veiled criticism of President Bush; he has bought into the myth that intelligence agencies told Bush what he wanted to hear. The Democrats have erased from memory that the intelligence agencies told Clinton the same thing they told Bush.

Some of the right wing bloggers think Panetta will be the one in charge of Obama's brownshirts. That seems unlikely since the CIA doesn't operate inside the US. But, there are some Democrats who don't thank much of Panetta as head of the CIA.


What do "greens" really want. A lot of us think that what they really want is government control over all aspects of people's lives. James Hansen spells out what he would like:


I don't know what Hansen thinks about politicians, but I am certain that politicians will not return money obtained in a carbon tax to the people. Politicians know that they can put money to better uses than the people can.

Sunday, January 04, 2009

Here is a good brief summary of what is wrong with the man-made global warming (or is that CO2 induced climate change)hypothesis from the Huffington Post:


I don't know who Harold Ambler is or what his expertise is, but this is a good summary. In my opinion, whether or not global warming is actually happening at present, the AGW hypothesis of Al Gore is one of the biggest frauds in history. The computer projections of general circulation models are simply not science in any accepted sense, and statements that most all competent climatologists agree that "the science is settled" is an outright lie.

The Democrats tend to believe in a government of men rather than a government of laws. Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats have no legal basis for not seating the Governor of Illinois's appointment to fill Obama's seat, yet they are attempting to do it. On the other hand there is good reason not to seat Al Franken based on the irregularities of the election in Minnesota. It seems odd to me, for example, that the recount of votes in heavily Democratic precincts is what increases the Democrat vote total. A cynic might say that is because that is where the Democrats can get their hands on the ballots with limited oversight. It is also odd that in all election recounts, the Democrats vote total always goes up. In the 2000 election Gore lost when the Supreme Court ruled that all precincts had to be recounted with the same rules. That was not done in Minnesota this time, and the Democrats are opposed to doing that.

Recently Raul Castro made a speech in which he bemoaned the fact that many Cubans do not want to actually work at jobs that pay them $20 per month. I don't know why anyone would be surprised at that situation. In the worker's paradise of Cuba, the state provides shelter, food, and medical care to all people. (It is true that some debate about the quality of these things is possible, with American movie stars thinking the Cuban welfare state is marvelous, but many of the ingrate recipients risk their lives to depart the paradise of Cuba.) Cubans have state provided food, shelter, and medical care, so why work for a mere $20 per month. Actually that seems like a rational decision.

Saturday, January 03, 2009

There is a movement in the nation funded by liberals such as George Soros to increase the cost of ammunition. Efforts to ban guns have not been successful in most of the nation, so they current approach to eliminating weapons in the hands of private citizens is to ban ammunition. One approach to making ammo more expensive is to require each bullet to have a code etched in the base with a laser. Some states currently require an empty shell casing from each pistol to be filed so police can identify the owner of the gun that fired casings found at crime scenes. These efforts are futile in deterring crime for obvious reasons, so it is clear that the actual intent is to deter honest people. (Criminals use stolen info, or info obtained with fake IDs, and if they didn't do that, they could simply remove the bullet from the cartridge, cut off the base with the etched code, and put the bullet back into the cartridge. And, what do they do about hand loaders, who could cast their own bullets?) It is clear that the intent of the proposed legislation is something other than the deterrence of crime. Here is an article from the blog "Knowledge is Power:"