A lot of credence is given to climate models. However, climate models--at least as far as I understand them--assume to know (or at least approximate) all variables.
Based upon what happened then, compared to what's happening now, this will happen next.
A height model of me, with data taken from ages two through eight and another from eight through 16, would project me as much taller than I am today (since I stopped growing at age 16--the fault of my mother's vertically challenged genes).
A model projection of casualties in the Civil War, taken after 1st Bull Run, Ft. Henry, and Ft. Donelson could never have foreseen the catastrophic losses of life at Shiloh, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania Courthouse, or Cold Harbor.
The reason why these model projections would fail is because they do not account for unexpected changes and because they do not assess enough.
Climate is supposed to be about long-term weather/temperature patterns, and we have scientists talking about the last fifty years.
In the life-span of a human, fifty years is admittedly long-term. However, in the life-span of the Earth, it's not even a drop in the bucket.
I've said this many times, but I'll say it again. The most likely culprit for the most recent trend of warming is the same culprit for the warming that brought us out of the last Ice Age. Since that culprit could not have been man, this culprit cannot be man.
This truth sucks only for those who wish to coerce others into living their lives according to a strict "green religion" doctrine that will one day label me a heretic. Fortunately, they will not burn me at the stake, for I will certainly emit many "greenhouse gasses."
By the way, if methane is a greenhouse gas, then I just contributed to global warming.
Oops, I did it again.
And again.
And--damn, I've got to take a shower and change my shorts now.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Silver Lining
There is some hope in what Obama has thus far pledged to do. My wife dislikes my following line of argument because she finds it "just plain cynical." I say "cynics of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your cynicism!"
Here's why Obama's economic policy may bring hope.
What Obama has thus far suggested will lead to a further decline in the dollar's value. This will be coupled with an increase in taxes.
A decline in the dollar's value hurts people because it reduces their money's purchasing power.
Increased taxes hurt people because it reduces their overall supply of money.
As things get worse, Obama will order massive public works projects in order to employ people (this will be similar to the CCC of FDR's New Deal). This will add to the tax burden on the people or the debt burden on the government.
As the government continues to spend money that it doesn't have, the value of US currency and the marketability of US bonds will decline.
Here's where the hope comes in.
Since the democrats control both houses of congress and the presidency, all the blame should fall in their laps--just as blame for what's going on now is rightfully leveled against republicans (for republicans are wrong about the economy et al. as well).
One of two things must come from this. Either things get even worse--and we'll need to rent Mad Max for educational purposes--or people might actually consider that none of this government-intervention crap has worked in the past, it isn't working now, and it won't work in the future.
Sometimes it takes a case of cancer to make a smoker quit.
My wife dislikes that I seem to be actually rooting for things to get worse. However, I don't want things to get worse. I just think that they will, and I think that the worse times may become a catalyst for real change.
And now a question for Obama and his supporters:
Can you really screw up this country worse than it already is?
And they answer:
"Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!"
Here's why Obama's economic policy may bring hope.
What Obama has thus far suggested will lead to a further decline in the dollar's value. This will be coupled with an increase in taxes.
A decline in the dollar's value hurts people because it reduces their money's purchasing power.
Increased taxes hurt people because it reduces their overall supply of money.
As things get worse, Obama will order massive public works projects in order to employ people (this will be similar to the CCC of FDR's New Deal). This will add to the tax burden on the people or the debt burden on the government.
As the government continues to spend money that it doesn't have, the value of US currency and the marketability of US bonds will decline.
Here's where the hope comes in.
Since the democrats control both houses of congress and the presidency, all the blame should fall in their laps--just as blame for what's going on now is rightfully leveled against republicans (for republicans are wrong about the economy et al. as well).
One of two things must come from this. Either things get even worse--and we'll need to rent Mad Max for educational purposes--or people might actually consider that none of this government-intervention crap has worked in the past, it isn't working now, and it won't work in the future.
Sometimes it takes a case of cancer to make a smoker quit.
My wife dislikes that I seem to be actually rooting for things to get worse. However, I don't want things to get worse. I just think that they will, and I think that the worse times may become a catalyst for real change.
And now a question for Obama and his supporters:
Can you really screw up this country worse than it already is?
And they answer:
"Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!"
Friday, November 28, 2008
To Be A Man
It has been said that the primary difference between humans and other animals is intelligence. By far, human beings are more intelligent than other animals--yes, even dolphins (who haven't the wits to avoid tuna nets).
According to this logic, then, the more intelligent the man, the more human he is.
Hogwash.
While intelligence is a huge difference between humans and other animals, it is not the only thing--or even the most important thing--that sets them apart.
Human beings know the difference between good and evil. Blame it on Adam and Eve (especially Eve) if you like, but we've eaten from that tree, and we know.
When a bear kills a man in the woods and eats him, that bear should be considered dangerous, but no one calls the bear a murderer. When a man kills another man in the woods and eats him, that man is considered more than dangerous. He is a murderer--and even worse (what with having eaten his victim and all).
This is why ignorance is bliss. If you don't know the difference between right and wrong, then you are not accountable for your actions (or at least not as accountable).
Combined with the intelligence factor, we come to this. The more intelligent the human, the more good or evil he may be depending upon to what he sets his mind.
No one whom I know questions the intelligence of Barack Obama. However, its what he plans to do with his intelligence that will define him as a man.
For that matter, I tremble.
According to this logic, then, the more intelligent the man, the more human he is.
Hogwash.
While intelligence is a huge difference between humans and other animals, it is not the only thing--or even the most important thing--that sets them apart.
Human beings know the difference between good and evil. Blame it on Adam and Eve (especially Eve) if you like, but we've eaten from that tree, and we know.
When a bear kills a man in the woods and eats him, that bear should be considered dangerous, but no one calls the bear a murderer. When a man kills another man in the woods and eats him, that man is considered more than dangerous. He is a murderer--and even worse (what with having eaten his victim and all).
This is why ignorance is bliss. If you don't know the difference between right and wrong, then you are not accountable for your actions (or at least not as accountable).
Combined with the intelligence factor, we come to this. The more intelligent the human, the more good or evil he may be depending upon to what he sets his mind.
No one whom I know questions the intelligence of Barack Obama. However, its what he plans to do with his intelligence that will define him as a man.
For that matter, I tremble.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Civics Quiz
Bob Murphy posted a link to this Civics Quiz on his blog, Free Advice.
He notes from another source that elected officials who have taken the quiz average a mere 44%.
That's shocking, but it's not really surprising.
I scored 32/33 correct.
I missed the last one.
But I don't really understand why my answer was wrong.
Take the quiz and post your scores as comments.
He notes from another source that elected officials who have taken the quiz average a mere 44%.
That's shocking, but it's not really surprising.
I scored 32/33 correct.
I missed the last one.
But I don't really understand why my answer was wrong.
Take the quiz and post your scores as comments.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Irony
People seem to be content to concede power over the economy to the same people who planned the war in Iraq.
Why not set up Michael Jackson with an all-boys Junior High?
Why not set up Michael Jackson with an all-boys Junior High?
Mark's Question
My five year old son, Mark, asked yesterday, "Dad, how come alcohol doesn't kill grown ups?"
He asked this because I had just finished making rum and cokes (rum and Diet Coke for me--down 30 pounds in about 50 days)for some dinner guests.
I told him that alcohol can indeed kill grown ups, but since they're bigger it takes a lot more to do so.
"Well," he asked, "then how old do you have to be to drink whisky without dying?"
I told him that 21 is the legal drinking age.
"Is that how old you are when you grow hair around your penis?" he replied.
I nearly wet myself--hair and all.
He asked this because I had just finished making rum and cokes (rum and Diet Coke for me--down 30 pounds in about 50 days)for some dinner guests.
I told him that alcohol can indeed kill grown ups, but since they're bigger it takes a lot more to do so.
"Well," he asked, "then how old do you have to be to drink whisky without dying?"
I told him that 21 is the legal drinking age.
"Is that how old you are when you grow hair around your penis?" he replied.
I nearly wet myself--hair and all.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Oswald: Guilty
At msn.com, the newest big question is who killed JFK.
The answer is unsatisfactorily simple. Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. Gerald Posner argues this well and impeachibly in Case Closed..
The only problem with admitting that Oswald assassinated the president is that to do so admits that a nobody, a nothing-to-society, can nonetheless have a profound impact on history.
If Oswald had killed Joe Blow, no one would hypothesize about gunmen on the grassy knoll.
However, Oswald killed the president.
That's the only reason why there's a controversy.
The answer is unsatisfactorily simple. Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. Gerald Posner argues this well and impeachibly in Case Closed..
The only problem with admitting that Oswald assassinated the president is that to do so admits that a nobody, a nothing-to-society, can nonetheless have a profound impact on history.
If Oswald had killed Joe Blow, no one would hypothesize about gunmen on the grassy knoll.
However, Oswald killed the president.
That's the only reason why there's a controversy.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Why I Haven't Posted
I haven't posted in awhile, and some might wonder why. The answer is simple. There are only so many ways that I can say that the federal government caused this economic situation, and the government's policies to get us out of it will only make things worse.
How many times must I say that while we do indeed need change, Obama's brand of "change" isn't what we want or need? Hitler was a change for Germany. Enough said about "change" insofar as people think that it is intrinsically good.
If I were to post something now, it would be mean, nasty, and borderline seditious. Ergo, I defer.
How awful must it have been for the Russians to have to wish for the Soviet regime to fail? It's sad when patriots must actually oppose their country.
How many times must I say that while we do indeed need change, Obama's brand of "change" isn't what we want or need? Hitler was a change for Germany. Enough said about "change" insofar as people think that it is intrinsically good.
If I were to post something now, it would be mean, nasty, and borderline seditious. Ergo, I defer.
How awful must it have been for the Russians to have to wish for the Soviet regime to fail? It's sad when patriots must actually oppose their country.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Grizzly Man
I recently rented the film Grizzly Man. It's a documentary about a man, Timothy Treadwell, who--in my estimation--was desperate to find meaning in his otherwise meaningless life.
In his attempt to matter, Treadwell turned to Alaskan grizzly bears. Without a doubt, Treadwell was passionate for bears--in both protecting and understanding them. And all critics, myself included, must confess that he had an uncanny ability to socialize with them. That is until one of them killed and devoured much of him and his girlfriend.
The film consits mostly of footage shot by Treadwell himself, but this footage is intermixed with interviews of friends, family, associates, and wildlife experts.
Even before I saw the film, I had a feeling that it would be yet another chapter in the lengthy anthology of stories that depict naive environmentalist/wildlife enthusiasts who think of mother nature as kind, and man as the sole source of violence/problems in this world.
For proof that he was, at best, naive:
It made me recall Christopher McCandless , who renamed himself "Alexander Supertramp" and made his way into the Alaskan wilderness in order abandon the corruptions of society and to commune with nature. Hunters found his decomposing body months later.
Grizzly Man is definately worth watching. While I was not surprised that Treadwell died at the hands of the bears whom he loved, I was rather amazed at how long it took for it to happen. He lived with bears every summer for over a decade. He watched them. He named them. He interacted with them--even going so far as to touch them.
In the end, however, the lesson is clear. This romanticized view of nature is a fictional product of urbanization and especially sub-urbanization.
Enjoy this (you might remember it). Between me and the drummer from Def Leopard--three thumbs up!
Friday, November 07, 2008
The Will of the People!
I was never happy about this election. However, the people spoke overwhelmingly, so it must be good, right? Let's read this article from the New York Times and toast to the will of the majority.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Change?
I cannot be the only person who looks at the current economic situation and notices that the proposed "solutions" are little other than more--a lot more--of the same.
Chronic alcoholism has serious symptoms in people. The solution is not increased alcohol consumption.
The government's influence in the economy has been and currently is the problem. And yet, they're grasping for even more power.
What kind of person calls for more power, however undeserved? A tyrant. That's who.
Ever since the Panics of the late 1830s, ignorant people have called for more government in economic matters. History proves that this does not work. At best, the government seems to be able to create a very temporary "bubble" that inevitably "bursts," and ends up leaving things worse than before.
Isn't it about time we tried something else? Less government in the economy would be nice, but let's try no government in the economy. This hasn't been tried in the United States. Not ever.
However, the wealth in the United States correlates to the fact that, for the most part, people have had relative freedom in matters of trade. This means that the key to economic prosperity is less government involvement. Why not try the least government involvement? If it doesn't work, then we can always change.
By the way, "change" means--in verb form-- "do something different." In noun form, "change" means "something that is different." However, to most people who vote, it seems that "change" means to "do the same thing but more earnestly."
You can't change things by doing the same things, and you cannot vote for change by voting for the same lying bastards from the same lying parties who have been doing the same BS for decades.
Chronic alcoholism has serious symptoms in people. The solution is not increased alcohol consumption.
The government's influence in the economy has been and currently is the problem. And yet, they're grasping for even more power.
What kind of person calls for more power, however undeserved? A tyrant. That's who.
Ever since the Panics of the late 1830s, ignorant people have called for more government in economic matters. History proves that this does not work. At best, the government seems to be able to create a very temporary "bubble" that inevitably "bursts," and ends up leaving things worse than before.
Isn't it about time we tried something else? Less government in the economy would be nice, but let's try no government in the economy. This hasn't been tried in the United States. Not ever.
However, the wealth in the United States correlates to the fact that, for the most part, people have had relative freedom in matters of trade. This means that the key to economic prosperity is less government involvement. Why not try the least government involvement? If it doesn't work, then we can always change.
By the way, "change" means--in verb form-- "do something different." In noun form, "change" means "something that is different." However, to most people who vote, it seems that "change" means to "do the same thing but more earnestly."
You can't change things by doing the same things, and you cannot vote for change by voting for the same lying bastards from the same lying parties who have been doing the same BS for decades.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
My Leader?
In reference to Barack Obama, one of my local news programs just posted a promo asking what people from our state want from our new leader.
Let me make this clear. Barack Obama is not legally our leader. According to the Constitution, he is the head of the executive branch.
That's it.
He's a well-publicized cop, whose job is to enforce the laws passed by congress.
If you think that Obama is this country's leader, then you need to change your party affiliation to (M)--for monarchist.
For freaking sake, read Article II of the United States Constitution. That includes you, "aconservativeteacher," who has lent his pragmatic support to a candidate who does not value the constitutional limitations of a president (just look at what the guy said that he'd do as "president".)
Even if the president can be considered a leader, can he be considered my leader? I didn't vote for him! If government exists by the consent of the governed, then I don't have a freaking government because I don't freaking consent to it.
If you think that Obama is my leader nonetheless, then you must think of me as a slave who has no say in who his master is.
I decline to be a slave, and if you insist that I must be one, then I challenge you to a private meeting in a dark, out of the way place. I will defend my freedom, and you will know the meaning of the motto "Sic semper tyrannis."
This is not a boast. I dare you to try to make me a slave.
See what happens.
What's your defense--that he won the election? As if tyrants have never been elected! Check German political history. See that Adolf Hitler was ELECTED to the chancellorship.
Seriously, meet me in that dark, out of the way place. As far as I am concerned, it will mean one less tyrant for this world. My conscience can live with that.
Brutus was not a traitor. He was a hero.
This world didn't need a Caesar then, and it doesn't need a Caesear now. And if he looked at me and said, "Et tu, brute?" I would answer "Etiam!"
Nemo me impune lacessit.
Let me make this clear. Barack Obama is not legally our leader. According to the Constitution, he is the head of the executive branch.
That's it.
He's a well-publicized cop, whose job is to enforce the laws passed by congress.
If you think that Obama is this country's leader, then you need to change your party affiliation to (M)--for monarchist.
For freaking sake, read Article II of the United States Constitution. That includes you, "aconservativeteacher," who has lent his pragmatic support to a candidate who does not value the constitutional limitations of a president (just look at what the guy said that he'd do as "president".)
Even if the president can be considered a leader, can he be considered my leader? I didn't vote for him! If government exists by the consent of the governed, then I don't have a freaking government because I don't freaking consent to it.
If you think that Obama is my leader nonetheless, then you must think of me as a slave who has no say in who his master is.
I decline to be a slave, and if you insist that I must be one, then I challenge you to a private meeting in a dark, out of the way place. I will defend my freedom, and you will know the meaning of the motto "Sic semper tyrannis."
This is not a boast. I dare you to try to make me a slave.
See what happens.
What's your defense--that he won the election? As if tyrants have never been elected! Check German political history. See that Adolf Hitler was ELECTED to the chancellorship.
Seriously, meet me in that dark, out of the way place. As far as I am concerned, it will mean one less tyrant for this world. My conscience can live with that.
Brutus was not a traitor. He was a hero.
This world didn't need a Caesar then, and it doesn't need a Caesear now. And if he looked at me and said, "Et tu, brute?" I would answer "Etiam!"
Nemo me impune lacessit.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Don't Vote!!!
Although most of my readers will probably get this message after the fact, I am now nonetheless compelled by conscience to post it.
You don't have to vote for President.
If you don't like McCain or Obama--and you know, having read the Constitution, that neither one is philosophically qualified for the job--then you don't have to vote for one of them. You don't have to vote at all.
My friend, BAR, argues that you should in the least vote for someone else (e.g. Bob Barr or Ralph Nader) in order to demonstrate clearly that you vote but will not vote for the republican or democratic candidates.
I see his point.
You might abstain from voting as a form of protest over the absolutely repulsive choice of candidates, but that is not clear to others. You might not have voted simply because you were too lazy to get to the polls or because you figured that your one vote didn't count in the end.
The truth is, however, it's not important what the country thinks of your non-vote. What's important is that you did not support something bad. As Thoreau stated (and I quote it from memory--so it's probably more of a paraphrase) "It is not a man's duty to devote himself to the elimination of evil, but it is his duty to wash his hands of it."
Don't play a part in this farce. Don't vote for president if no man running fulfills the guidelines stated in Article II of the Constitution. (You'll find that both McCain and Obama can be elected constitutionally, but you'll also find--based upon what they've said that they're going to do if elected--that neither will be a constitutional president.
As Thoreau pointed out, the government has no right over you and your property excepting what you concede to it (another paraphrase/quote). If you vote, then you concede.
So I say don't vote for president.
And next time, when a candidate like Ron Paul comes around--a man who knows and respects the Constitution--for God's sakes lend him your support!
How sick is this country that so many laughed at and chided the man who based his platform upon the constitution?
You don't have to vote for President.
If you don't like McCain or Obama--and you know, having read the Constitution, that neither one is philosophically qualified for the job--then you don't have to vote for one of them. You don't have to vote at all.
My friend, BAR, argues that you should in the least vote for someone else (e.g. Bob Barr or Ralph Nader) in order to demonstrate clearly that you vote but will not vote for the republican or democratic candidates.
I see his point.
You might abstain from voting as a form of protest over the absolutely repulsive choice of candidates, but that is not clear to others. You might not have voted simply because you were too lazy to get to the polls or because you figured that your one vote didn't count in the end.
The truth is, however, it's not important what the country thinks of your non-vote. What's important is that you did not support something bad. As Thoreau stated (and I quote it from memory--so it's probably more of a paraphrase) "It is not a man's duty to devote himself to the elimination of evil, but it is his duty to wash his hands of it."
Don't play a part in this farce. Don't vote for president if no man running fulfills the guidelines stated in Article II of the Constitution. (You'll find that both McCain and Obama can be elected constitutionally, but you'll also find--based upon what they've said that they're going to do if elected--that neither will be a constitutional president.
As Thoreau pointed out, the government has no right over you and your property excepting what you concede to it (another paraphrase/quote). If you vote, then you concede.
So I say don't vote for president.
And next time, when a candidate like Ron Paul comes around--a man who knows and respects the Constitution--for God's sakes lend him your support!
How sick is this country that so many laughed at and chided the man who based his platform upon the constitution?
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Entitlements
If you don't grow, raise, or hunt your own food for a living, then you had better do something that can be traded for these things or exchanged for something that those who grow, raise or hunt food want.
Similarly, if you cannot or will not build your own home, then you had better do something that can be traded for the building of a home or exchanged for something that those who build homes want.
In the same way, if you are not a doctor, then you had better do something that can be traded...
This is only right. However, there are countless numbers of people who think that they are entitled to the goods and services of others without due compensation.
The last time in American history when a group of people thought that they were entitled to work without paying for that work, we were a nation of slaveholders.
Socialism is slavery. Obama has not come to set you free. He has come to tighten your chains.
McCain is no different, he just talks a gentler version of the same story.
Similarly, if you cannot or will not build your own home, then you had better do something that can be traded for the building of a home or exchanged for something that those who build homes want.
In the same way, if you are not a doctor, then you had better do something that can be traded...
This is only right. However, there are countless numbers of people who think that they are entitled to the goods and services of others without due compensation.
The last time in American history when a group of people thought that they were entitled to work without paying for that work, we were a nation of slaveholders.
Socialism is slavery. Obama has not come to set you free. He has come to tighten your chains.
McCain is no different, he just talks a gentler version of the same story.
I Know What the "F" in "FDA" Stands For
Somehow, the FDA claims to exist because it and only it can protect people from bad medicine (but not your love). This suggests the following: if the FDA disapproves, then it's bad. If the FDA approves, then it's OK.
Then why can't people sue the FDA for approving bad medicine?
The answer is simple. The FDA doesn't exist to protect the people. If that were the reason why it existed, then it would be accountable when it didn't.
If the FDA was a mere mall security company and it allowed burglers* to enter and exit with large amounts of merchandise, then that company would be held accountable. In the very least, it would be fired and replaced with a new company.
This is not true with the FDA or any government organization for that matter. When government organizations fail, we give them more money and power.
*In my original post, I left out the "r." It seems when I make typos, they're always ridiculous. Nice catch, Bob.
Then why can't people sue the FDA for approving bad medicine?
The answer is simple. The FDA doesn't exist to protect the people. If that were the reason why it existed, then it would be accountable when it didn't.
If the FDA was a mere mall security company and it allowed burglers* to enter and exit with large amounts of merchandise, then that company would be held accountable. In the very least, it would be fired and replaced with a new company.
This is not true with the FDA or any government organization for that matter. When government organizations fail, we give them more money and power.
*In my original post, I left out the "r." It seems when I make typos, they're always ridiculous. Nice catch, Bob.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)