Global Warming Alarmists vs. Reality

I have argued for many years that Global Warming is a hoax.  The goal of the hoax is to transfer more power and money to government - to save the planet, don't you know.  Climate scientists go along for the funding.  Note how government has little interest in funding scientist on the other side of the debate because that doesn't advance the need for more power/money to go to government.

 

It appears that reality is proving the skeptics right.  An article in the Australian notes that there has been a 20 year hiatus in global temperature rises.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.

Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

Here is the link to the whole article:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980

Infrastructure!

Yet again, President Obama is calling for more spending on infrastructure.  The $800 billion stimulus was such a glowing success (it projected an unemployment rate under 5% by now) despite the president eventually admitted, somewhat sheepishly, that shovel ready wasn't as shovel ready as he thought.  Better still, he says that additional spending won't add a dime to the deficit.  Sigh.  Really?  Is he going to sell this same snake oil again?  The only good thing about this new stimulus plan is that it is a tiny fraction ($21 billion) of the original.

 

As I have mentioned before, the government has no money.  Every dime that the government spends, it must first extract from taxpayers.  Now, if that money was left with those taxpayers, what would they do with it?  Presumably they would spend it, save it, or invest it.  And since it is the taxpayer's money, he will probably use it wisely to get value for his money (i.e. he probably won't fund a Star Trek parody like the IRS did, or fund a lavish Las Vegas conference like the GAO, etc.).

 

Imagine a man with two wallets: one in his right pocket (we'll call that his private wallet) and one in his left pocket (we'll call that his government wallet).  If he transfers half the money from his private wallet to his government wallet, then stimulates his private wallet by transferring money from his government wallet, is he richer?  Obviously not, but politicians will argue otherwise, because they control the government wallet.  The government cannot create wealth, only transfer it.  All wealth creation must come from the private sector.

 

How does this added spending not add to the deficit?  If you spend more, the deficit must rise.  It is like saying we will add 5 to 100 but the result will be 100, not 105.  Huh?  Are we subtracting 5 somewhere along the line?  No.  Is there a tax increase of 5 to make up for the added spending? No.  Then the deficit MUST go up.  As the president has said on other subjects, it's simple math.

Marriage Matters

As mentioned before, I have no qualms about people living in committed relationships, whatever form that may take.  But the Gay Marriage debate is about gaining a change in law with which to bludgeon those who disagree.  Will it become bigotry for the Catholic Church to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples?  Probably.  Will there be lawsuits?  Certainly.  We have already seen religious hospitals stripped of conscience exemptions with regard to abortion thanks to Obamacare.  We’ve seen Catholic adoption centers close up shop rather than be required to place children with same sex couples.  It is pretty obvious how this will play out if the Supreme Court declares gay marriage to be a Constitutional right based on the Equal Protection clause (I suspect the men who wrote that amendment in the 1860s would be surprised that they had enshrined gay marriage into the Constitution).  This is all the more interesting since the federal government required the Mormons to outlaw polygamy in order to gain statehood.  If we say that any two people can marry – doing away with the state interest of procreation – then why not 3 people?  The basis for two in a marriage is because there are two sexes.  If both need not be represented, then why limit marriage to two people?  If love is the only prerequisite, then marriage becomes whatever any combination of loving people want to call it.  Again, that’s fine with me as long as these same people tolerate those who disagree.  But that’s not going to happen.  Failure to embrace gay marriage is already being painted as bigotry.

So, what should happen with the two cases: California’s Prop and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?  On Prop 8, the court should let the vote of the people stand.  The country is clearly moving in the direction of allowing same sex marriage (i.e. those who oppose it are old and those in favor are young, wait a few years and it will be approved by voters).  If the court allows it to be struck down, it is negating the voting rights of the people and taking us further down the path of juristocracy (why bother voting if the courts will just overturn it to their preferences?).  In any case, marriage is a state issue and the Feds have no place in it.  As for DOMA, the Feds have no say in marriage and it should be struck down.  The federal government needs to respect the Tenth Amendment, which says all rights not DELEGATED to the federal government are reserved for the state or the people.  Nowhere does the Constitution provide the feds with marriage law authority (I looked!).

Perhaps the best thing that state governments could do would be to repeal laws regarding marriage.  The purpose of marriage laws was to 1) encourage procreation to keep the population growing and 2) force men to support their wives and children.  Neither of these applies to same sex couples.  The laws are antiquated and often contradicted by other laws (e.g. the marriage penalty in tax law – you get more money back if you are just living together).  Women are more likely to be college educated than men, so they can take care of themselves a heck of a lot better than when these laws were first passed (this is doubtless part of the reason why we see an increase in single mothers).  If the states get out of the marriage business, everyone is free to do as they please.  Everyone can sign contracts and powers of attorney and such to deal with what marriage law did, thus making the law entirely disinterested in family composition but still providing law to enforce the ‘marriage’ contract.  That’s liberty!

Faster than I expected!

As if to confirm yesterday's ramblings on the world of the future, I came across these two stories today:

China is genetically engineering babies.

http://www.vice.com/read/chinas-taking-over-the-world-with-a-massive-genetic-engineering-program

The saber-tooth tiger could come to a zoo near you though some think it's not such a good idea.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2013/03/de_extinction_isn_t_a_good_idea.html

The future is arriving faster and faster.

The March of Science

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-03/scientists-resurrect-bonkers-extinct-frog-gives-birth-through-its-mouth

An extinct frog has been brought back to existence by some scientists.  I have expected this ever since Jurassic Park was released in 1993.  It was only a matter of time.  A hundred years from now, it will probably be common to see saber-toothed tigers and mammoths at the zoo, maybe even dinosaurs.  Extinction is not as permanent as we've been led to believe.  Now when Greenpeace or the Sierra Club claim that so many species are going extinct every year because of this or that, we don't need to worry.  We can bring them back, if we need to.  In fact, we get the benefit of seeing how things go without this or that species.  Maybe things are better without the banana slug or the snail darter.  If not, bring it back.

 

Eventually, we will understand the genetic code to such a degree that mythical beasts will be made.  How hard will it be to create a unicorn?  A dragon?  A pegasus?  I recall a book I read - by Robert Heinlein, I think - in which a character asked to have a pegasus made and the geneticist explained that it wouldn't be able to fly on account of physics; but he could make it.  It won't be long after that when we start creating mutant humans.  Maybe splice dog olfactory senses into a human to do away with police dogs.  How about the eyes of a hawk?  May sound crazy now but it will happen.  Perhaps not in the US, but certainly in other countries.  The super human is coming.  Who needs steroids when you have engineered genes?  How will that affect sports?

 

Not only genetically-enhanced, but probably also cybernetic.  Much of technological innovation has been shrinking the distance between people and technology.  The smart phone is very nearly an appendage already.  Google glasses are here and will bring a whole new angle to reality TV.  I've read of nanobots in the blood stream that will keep track of one's health.  Imagine a nanobot that cleans out your arteries: it's coming.  There is a web series called H+ that suggests these nanobots will be vastly more versatile than just keeping you healthy; you might become your smart phone.

 

Sure, much of this may be decades away, some might come in the next few years, and a lot is already here.  But all of it is just a matter of time and I'm probably underestimating what will be possible.

The Republican Voter Opinion Poll

My opinion poll arrived yesterday.  The party sends me one - even though I have been registered as a Libertarian for many years now - annually.  You see, they are desperate to know what I think.  There are 29 questions that run the gamut of political positions, offering me the opportunity to say that I agree, disagree, or am undecided.  Wow, maybe my answers will shape the party!  Gosh, I should fill this out and send it back.  Let's see, what's the first question?

1. Do you think that as a political party, Republicans are headed in the right direction? Yes/No/Undecided

Hmm, that's a tough one.  Let's see, it just lost the Presidency and lost ground in both the House and the Senate.  That seems like a pretty obvious no.

2. Do you believe the Republican Party Leadership should be more aggressive in promoting the Republican Agenda to the public?  Yes/No/Undecided

More aggressive?  So, they have been aggressive but maybe not aggressive enough?  So, the party just lost nationwide and - in theory - I'm a Republican voter and you're asking if the party should do more to promote itself?  Why are No & Undecided available choices?

13. Are you concerned that our federal deficit - presently over $16 trillion - will seriously jeopardize our nation's economic security for future generations?  Yes/No/Undecided

Hey, moron, the DEBT is over $16 trillion.  The deficit is an annual figure and is projected to be just under $900 billion this year.  Correcting for that and again assuming I am a Republican voter, why are No & Undecided options?

19. Are you in favor of revamping, restoring and strengthening our armed forces to meet the new needs and challenges of the 21st century?  Yes/No/Undecided

Let's see, a no would mean I want the military to be unready to meet the challenges and selecting undecided would indicate I didn't understand the question.  Hmm, tough one.  Let me think on that and get back to you.

 

23. Should Republicans in Congress put more pressure on the Obama administration to enforce our current immigration laws, reaffirm the authority of states and local governments to assist in enforcing immigration laws and continue to fight for increased funding for securing our nation's borders?  Yes/No/Undecided

 

Once again I find the more adjective.  See, we are putting pressure (and failing) so do you think we should use more pressure?  Well, that's a good question.  No, Congress should let the President ignore existing laws, disregard the authority of state and local governments, and cut funding to secure the border.  What, that's not what you were expecting?  You know, I'm starting to think my opinion isn't really being polled here.  This seems a lot more like a rally in which I'm supposed to shout 'Yes!' when the speaker asks a question.

 

At the end of the survey, there is the opportunity for me to contribute money to the party by check or credit card.  Obviously, this is nothing but a fund raising letter that includes the poll to convince the voter that he has a say and the party is interested.  I find it rather sad since it demonstrates that those who sent the poll have a low opinion of the intelligence of their voters.  And they wonder why I am no longer in the party.

The Double Edged Sword of Liberty

Gay marriage is in the news again because Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) has come out in favor.  He says that government shouldn't deny two people the right to marry.  A couple weeks ago, John Stossel said pretty much the same thing at a Libertarian forum.  Libertarians are for leaving people alone so why should they interfere in who marries whom?  Interestingly, if we had a libertarian government, I would be in complete agreement.  Let them marry.  But we don't live in a libertarian state.  We live in a state where the government decides whose beliefs are enshrined in law and whose are to be trod upon.

The libertarian opposes the use of force by government to inflict a set of beliefs in either direction.  Thus, if two men or two women  want to live together and call it marriage, I don't care.  As Thomas Jefferson might say, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my bones.  But on the other side of that coin, if Achmed the Muslim landlord refuses to rent to homosexual couples, I am okay with that too.  It is his property so he gets to decide.  And there's the rub.  Those in favor of gay marriage as civil right and freedom and liberty will gladly strip away Achmed's freedom of conscience.  We have already seen Catholic adoption agencies shut because they refused to consider gay couples.  We've seen eHarmony forced to match gays.  Thus, so long as Achmed, the Catholic Church, eHarmony and others will be obligated to bow to government coercion, I am opposed to gay marriage.

If the religious people are to tolerate gay marriage, then the gay marriage folks should likewise tolerate the right of religious people to live by the tenets of their religion.

Vikings

The History Channel has a new show about the famed raiders of Scandinavia.  It premiered last week and the 2^nd episode was last night.  So far, I’d say it is quite good compared to other efforts at Viking fare.  The central character is Ragnar Lothbrok, an experienced raider who longs to raid richer lands to the West.  Earl Haraldsson, ruler of the region in which Ragnar lives and owner of the raiding ships, refuses Ragnar’s suggestion.  Thus, Ragnar commissions a ship to be built and sets sail.  He lands at Lindesfarne in 793, the traditional starting date of the Viking Age.

The look of the show is good.  There aren’t horned helmets and swords are scarce; only a rich man can afford a sword.  These Vikings use axe and shield.  The long ship is very cool.  On its voyage across the North Sea, it is run through its paces and shows how the men lived, navigated, sailed, and rowed. 

That said, the show has its faults.  The writers do not seem to know Viking law.  Vikings didn’t have a death penalty that an earl would impose.  In the first episode, a man is accused of murder and found guilty.  He is beheaded the following day.  Viking law would have sought a wergild – a man price – to compensate the murdered man’s family.  Failing that, a man was likely to be declared an outlaw.  Outlaws could be killed on sight without fear of retribution.

On another point, Ragnar’s wife, Lagertha, is declared to be a shield maiden.  Previews of future episodes have her in the shield wall (fighting formation) with all the men.  Though Nordic women had much higher standing that their fellow European sisters, they were not generally on the front lines of battle.  Shield Maidens are more legend than history and doubtless related to the Valkyries who carried valiant dead to Valhalla.  It seems no historical era can exist on film unless there are women warriors.  If this was airing on anything other than the HISTORY channel, I’d probably be less annoyed by the bow to that current fad.

Lastly, the grand coincidence that makes Ragnar’s journey to England possible is grating.  He has recently come into possession of two navigation aids, both given to him by ‘a wandering traveler.’  We learn nothing more of this wandering traveler so the items are otherwise inexplicable.  Then there is Floki the shipbuilder.  Apparently, his is the ship design that is now widely known.  He is a genius shipbuilder who can build a ship alone in a short period of time.  The shipbuilder was like a foreman who guided the building, but Floki chops the trees and cuts the planks and all the rest.  He seems to have no assistance.  So, it wasn’t that Ragnar was the first to dare a crossing; he was the first to even have the tools to make the crossing.

This may be History’s answer to the successful Game of Thrones on HBO.  I am quite hooked on that show and they both air on Sunday night.  I’ll be watching both.

Filibuster

Senator Rand Paul (Kentucky) did an old fashioned filibuster the other day to protest the Obama Administration's non-answer on drone strikes within the United States.  How did that come to pass?  A few days earlier, Senator Ted Cruz (Texas) asked Attorney General Eric Holder if the government could use a drone strike on a US Citizen who was not an imminent threat within the US.  Holder ducked and dodged and said it wouldn't be "appropriate" to use a drone strike.  There's a lot of stuff that isn't appropriate that the government does anyway, so that provides little reassurance.  Thus we have the filibuster of the CIA Director nominee to highlight the issue.

 

Here is the amazing thing: a US Senator demands that the government confirm that it would be unconstitutional to kill an American within the United States who was not currently bearing arms against the US and only one Democrat sided with him.  So, are the Democrats saying that the President should be able to target US citizens within the country?

 

Senator Graham (South Carolina) responded after the fact that the filibuster was pointless since the President obviously wasn't going to have a drone strike on a US Citizen in Kentucky or Texas.  Normally, I'd agree but, as noted, Attorney General Holder dodged the question when it was put to him.  Rather than say, "Don't be an idiot, Senator.  Clearly, it would be unconstitutional for the government to kill a citizen who didn't pose an imminent threat to the country," he talked of appropriateness and hypotheticals.  The administration fumbled an easy question and Rand Paul picked it up and scored some political points.