Wednesday, November 6, 2013
The movement, religion, political philosphy and science of what use to be called "Global Warming" but is now usually referred to as "Climate Change" is summarized by what can be called "The Quintessence of Warmerism", which appears below.
1. The earth is getting warmer. Minor deviations from this trend are meaningless anomalies used by the enemies of climate science to stir up trouble and slow down the implementation of “solutions” —see item #2.
2. The principal cause of warming is human activity, especially the creation of “greenhouse” gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. To suggests that solar activity or long and short weather cycles can explain this is dangerous and subversive since man made global warming is “established science”.
a. The scientists who study this are honest, infallible and only care about the people of the earth. After all, their conclusions are based on carefully crafted computer models.
b. The politicians and others who pay climate scientists care only about the people of the earth and are not attracted to or influenced by the immense increases in their power associated with “solutions”.
3. For the earth to get warmer is a bad thing that will ultimately lead to catastrophic results.
a. The earth was perfect around 1975, being blessed with perfect year round temperatures from Siberia to Sri Lanka.
b. It is senseless to discuss how large the temperature increase need be to create catastrophe. Any increase is quite dangerous.
c. To suggest that some places might benefit from warming is naïve and dangerous. The fact that Vikings once grew grapes in Greenland is a myth.
4. Changes in human activity can abate or mitigate this warming.
a. These changes in human behavior will require an immense increase in state power and the scope of bureaucratic control of human activity, hence forth known as expert control.
i. Expert control means the creation of less energy and energy at a higher cost.
ii. Energy is the ability to do work — that is, expert control will lead to lesser quantities of goods and services being created, higher prices, and sacrifice by the masses.
iii. The masses would never behave this new way without expert “advice” since they are ignorant and fail to grasp the big picture. For that reason the costs of the solutions mandated by experts should never be explicitly brought to the attention of the masses. They are easily confused.
iv. Past experience in the Soviet Union and Communist China show how effective expert control can be.
b. It is senseless to discuss the tradeoffs between the loss of freedom and wealth and the effects of warming since the alternative is catastrophe.
c. Pointing out that previous periods of warming did not produce catastrophe is irresponsible and dangerous.
5. Listen to the climate scientists, experts, and politicians who know exactly what you need.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
The war on terrorism is over. The Islamists have won. The Islamists’ enemy is what used to be called “the American Way of Life” —essentially freedom from government control and intrusion, liberty, the protection of privacy and other rare and profound rights associated with a constitutional republic. The U.S. government (most especially the current regime and its apparatchiks) has basically agreed with the Islamic terrorists that this way of life is disposable. Why?
The only credible, consistent, and truly dangerous terrorist threat to the U.S. and its interest is posed by Islamists. Everyone knows this. Sure, there will be an occasional uni-bomber with Al Gore’s book on his nightstand, a Tim McVeigh motivated by who knows what, or other widely dispersed in time nut jobs engaged in senseless acts of violence. These characters pose no real threat to the U.S. or our once cherished way of life. In a country in which 92 people are shot over Fourth of July weekend in Chicago they are merely a nuisance.
So why, instead of focusing on Islamists, is every American treated as if he were a terrorist? Why is everyone’s mail photographed? Why is everyone’s email read and saved? Why is everyone’s cell phone tapped and listened to? Why does the government have to know and identify who has boarded every plane that takes off? Since the Islamists are the only credible threat to our national interest, why are these extraordinary intrusions made? In a phrase: why has American been turned into an Orwellian surveillance state an old line Soviet would enjoy?
Why has America and have Americans surrendered to the terrorists? On the immediate level, the answer to the question is: the elites who preach political correctness and multiculturalism have from the beginning insisted that the attacks against U.S. interest, persons, and way of life have nothing to do with Islam or Islamist. In spite of the fact that Islamists announce to everyone who will listen that they hate America, what it stands for and anything remotely connected to individual freedom the PC elites insist that all varieties of terrorists abound AND EVERY AMERICAN MUST BE TREATED AS A CRIMINAL —actually worse since criminals have constitutional rights.
The PC fifth column is the wedge used to pry Americans’ freedoms from their grasp. In place of selective surveillance and prudent efforts to thwart Islamists a huge and complex Orwellian monster has been created since anything short of that would be unfair and discriminatory. Succinctly: it might make some Muslims feel bad to say or act on the truth. It is not my fault or any American’s fault that virtually every act of terrorism committed anywhere is committed by Muslims. Sticking one’s head in the sand will not change that. Islamo-terror is here to stay for a very long time. Giving up every American freedom except the right of Muslim’s to never feel offended will not end the terrorist threat. It only makes it worse by distracting those that are “protecting” us. But the PC elites have made a rational defense policy impossible.
Even the wise (many of whom I respect) seem to think an Orwellian surveillance state is “essential to our safety”. This is apparently necessary in spite of the fact that terrorists have killed on U.S. soil fewer American’s than were slaughtered on one day at Omaha beach? Have we become such cowards that a few thousand American’s killed means we must cease being Americans?
Perhaps all of this is merely a smokescreen. The statist use the PC elites to justify the surveillance state — a state in which the Attorney General was reluctant to categorically say that the regime could not use drones to kill Americans on American soil. What will happen when the Orwellian surveillance state is in the wrong hands? Will the people always be wise enough to select leaders not inclined to use this apparatus for their own purposes? They will know where the guns are. They will know the names of those who oppose them. Or maybe it will be enough to just data mine these troves of information to ensure winning enough elections to control the state?
Monday, February 18, 2013
The MacArthur Fellows Program, nicknamed the “MacArthur Genius Awards", currently awards each recipient $500,000, paid as quarterly installments over five years. That is $100,000 per year. The average U.S. welfare family receives over $50,000 per year in total benefits. In a nutshell: for every two welfare families taken off the rolls, one MacArthur Genius Award could be funded. So, if we kick two million families off welfare we can create one million MacArthur Genius Awards.
The logic behind subsidizing the laziest, least educated, least intelligent in the U.S. — paying them to have babies, vote for Obama, and watch Oprah —is the most irrational social policy one could dream up. If someone arrived here from outer space (or 300 BC Athens) they would be dumbfounded.
As the nation gets dumber and dumbed down we wonder why. What could be achieved with one million MacArthur Genius Awards per year? Who knows? And how would they be selected? At random would be a huge improvement over the current policy. At least that way you could count on some geniuses being selected. Some creators. What might they accomplish? We will never know. Even though we know what the present system produces.
Of course this dream of funding one million Genius Awards is Alice-in-Wonderland backwards. The current policy would not exist unless we were dumb and dumbed down already to a point from which there is no return. Just a relentless downward spiral into ….
Saturday, August 11, 2012
The US is the last significant and safe place on Earth in which liberty and opportunity still exist. That is why Obama is focused on destroying free enterprise, liberty, the right to property and opportunity here. In a world populated with states in which the little grey people (think the EU and France where the socialists plan to confiscate 75% of the earnings of the rich) or dictators or committees of dictators run the lives of the people, the US remains the last safe place. What does the last place represent that Obama wants to end? Competition and a safe haven.
President Reagan knew that the key to defeating Soviet socialism was competition. Socialist states, and in particular totalitarian socialist states, cannot in the long run compete with free enterprise states. What if there had been no free enterprise (capitalist) super power to compete with the Soviets? Would they still rule Easter Europe with an iron hand? Very likely, yes. The Soviet Union did not collapse from within. In a world in which all the major economies are more or less socialist, economic competition (and ultimately military and political competition) is severely circumscribed (don’t confuse this with peace, the desire for peace, or the absence of war —I am speaking only with respect to resources and capabilities). Socialist states do not wither away. The forces of international competition drive them out of business. In a world order in which all of the major players are socialist and operate in a competition refereed by the United Nations these slow or no growth leviathans will persists for centuries, stagnating, tightening their control, suffocating their people.
Obama knows this. And that is one reason why destroying free enterprise in the US is uppermost on his agenda. He knows that this is a key element in establishing an international socialist order. Little and not very powerful islands of freedom will be easy to intimidate or destroy.
Coupled with this is the notion of the safe haven. The US is still the last hope for many. If not for themselves, for their moveable assets (capital). When the America that has existed for centuries is replaced by an Obama leviathan run by busy-body bureaucrats (apparatchiks) deciding who gets what and who gets to keep what, of what island of freedom will the rest of the world dream of escaping to? When the US is no longer free, there will be no place to go to.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
What is troubling to me it that the mayor of a city (the murder capital of the US) is using his political office to threaten and punish a business for the political and religious beliefs of the company’s executives. This is patently illegal and fascistic – but right in step with the liberal left’s (starting with Obama’s) response to anyone who disagrees with their ideas: no matter how goofy. It is their utter and self-righteous intolerance that makes them so dangerous and obnoxious. The idea there can be only one correct idea about same sex marriage is lunacy. Here we have basically a brand new idea that is inconsistent with virtually all of human history (apart from the late Roman emperor who married his horse) being elevated to a position of such sanctity that merely saying you disagree is a crime. Where is the good old gang of four that terrorized China when you need them? They seem (classically) liberal compared to the intolerance of the new liberal. What makes this truly ridiculous is the way Chick-Fila operates. There is one down the street from me. There can be a line of 50 cars at lunch and you will be served almost immediately. That’s how efficient and well trained the staff is. But then, that’s just one more thing that annoys liberals: a well-run business that doesn’t need an Obama bailout.
PS: Suppose that the mayor of a city refused to allow shops with United Colors of Benetton clothing to be permitted because the mayor thought that their advertising promoted inter-racial marriage. What would the “liberal” reaction be?
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Living in a country in which liberals have dumbed down education to the point at which we are surrounded with ignorant numbskulls can be exasperating! The president proclaims that sex accessories such as birth control pills and “preventive” procedures such as colonoscopies are to be provided by insurance plans without even a modest copayment. The idiots that swim in the sea of stupidity think: free stuff. Isn’t Obama a great guy! NOTHING IS FREE. Ordering that selected procedures, products or medical services have no copay is simply cost shifting. When selected copays are removed then either insurers reduce other benefits or raise premiums —or taxpayers foot the bill. Somebody is paying. As with everything this president ordains economics is replaced with politics. The votes of those receiving the no copay benefit are purchased with money from others. While this may seem reprehensible and immoral, it is the second play in the liberal political playbook (after racism). The tragedy is that the suckers being conned (those paying for these “free” goodies but not receiving them) are too dumb to realize that someone is paying and the “generosity” of the anointed one is sleight of hand. Wouldn’t it be refreshing were the hustler-in-chief to say to the American people: “I know what’s best for you. And what’s best for me. Certain medical goodies should be free to certain people whose votes I want. The rest of you will have to pay more for your coverage. Hey, that’s life in Obamastan. Later maybe I will give something to you.”
Sunday, May 13, 2012
One can discuss Roe v Wade and abortion on demand without considering its moral aspects; one can discuss Roe v Wade without considering its legal aspects. Both are grave. You cannot live in an era in which 50 million babies were casually snuffed out without wondering what impact this has had on people’s (particularly young people’s) attitude toward the sanctity of human live. You cannot live in an era in which courts create constitutional rights out of thin air without wondering what impact this has had on people’s views regarding the constitution’s relevance and our future as a constitutional republic. However, these are both in some sense problematical considerations since arguments have been raging off and on about these two aspects of abortion on demand for several decades. Typically one believes one side or the other. Or one drifts back and forth between the two.
One aspect of Roe v Wade and abortion on demand is indisputable. It was the greatest demographic event of the last forty years. 50 million is about 16% of the current US population. In some respects it is no different than some medieval plague that has snatched a million babies a year from their cribs. None of the weeping, none of the sorrow attendant to plagues —at least not until later; often much later. But demographic events and their effects operate not on the emotional plane but in the tangible world. The US has its largest foreign born population since the turn of the twentieth century. Had fifty million more native citizens been born during this time would there have been demand for labor that subjected the country to the stresses attendant to a volkerwanderung? Now one might speculate as to whether the nation is better off with native born persons or by substituting a huge infusion of foreigners. Is large scale adoption of foreign born babies good for the country or not? I leave that to others. But that there is an effect is what is indisputable.
Would liberal Ponzi schemes which are the basis of their socialist nanny state be collapsing had fifty million babies been born since 1973. A cohort of these unborn would have started work lives in the mid 1990s. Paying in. Paying in. Instead liberals have struck a blow at the base of the triangle that supports these Ponzi schemes. All Ponzi schemes require a large and ever expanding base. I cannot understand why they can never make the connection between this and their stand on population.
The tragedy is that in the greatest constitutional republic in history the real consequences of abortion on demand were never discussed. There was no serious discussion of the demographic implications. None. Even now everyone prattles on about the sanctity of life and the right of a woman to choose. This entire time bomb was lobbed at us by a court —a court that had neither the background nor the inclination to consider the consequences of their actions.
Someone once told me that 75% of everything is determined by demographics. 25% is associated with all other causes. Perhaps he was right. At this stage, who cares? A nation of children deserves what it gets.