Global Warming Part IX?

Obama on Rick Perry: “Governor Whose State Is on Fire Denying Global Warming.”
So Obama and liberals make the claim Republicans don’t believe in science because they don’t buy the media/Al Gore position that the science is settled, consensus, etc…  IMO, science is never settled, you have a few “Laws of Science” with a LOT more theories(like evolution).  Does “global warming” cause wildfires?  Sure seems to me wildfires have been around a lot longer than global warming.  Again, IMO, global warming began around the time of our civil war, with the end of the “Little Ice Age”.  Perspective, when it warms enough the Thames river in England or the Hudson in New York stop freezing several feet thick, it has warmed! (In England, they had winter carnivals on the Thames, so very THICK ice from very cold winters) And I think Obama has done what politicians do, twisted words and meanings around.  I have never heard Perry say AGW is bulldookey, and damned few Republicans for that matter.  And wasn’t this Bushes fault a couple years ago????

Is Obama right?  Is there a link between AGW and wildfires?  I thought the warming was pretty recent, tied to our industrialization and pollution.  No research here, but I remember wildfires being in the news since “news” has been on TV?  Add to that, didn’t the “Dust Bowl” happen in the thirties?  The AGW crowd gets very vocal with every drought and then claims the record snows that follow are just weather patterns.  Well OK, I’m in an agreeable mood, I will stipulate hot summers and cold winters are simply what we describe as weather, so topic closed, science settled?  No?  Some still believe mankind is causing the earth to heat?  If you live in Texas, I would understand you having that opinion, but Texas is not the world (don’t tell a Texan that)(or a New Yorker).    Lets look at some world weather….

The USA just endured its hottest summer in 75 years and the second-hottest summer on record, according to data released Thursday afternoon by the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

The average U.S. temperature during the summer of 2011 was 74.5 degrees, which was 2.4 degrees above the long-term (1901-2000) average. Only the Dust Bowl year of 1936, at 74.6 degrees, was warmer.

Four states — Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Louisiana — had their warmest summer ever recorded, the climate center also reported.

Average temperatures for the summer in Texas and Oklahoma, at 86.8 degrees and 86.5 degrees, respectively, exceeded the previous statewide average temperature record for any state during any season.

Texas also suffered through its driest summer on record. The state is in the midst of its worst drought since the 1950s. More than 81% of the state is listed as experiencing extreme drought, the worst category, according to Thursday’s U.S. Drought Monitor.

The drought monitor also reported that a third of the contiguous USA is currently in a drought.

A total of 15 states in the South and East sweltered through one of their top 10 warmest summers on record.

” Based on a government index using residential energy demand as an indicator of temperature, “the contiguous U.S. temperature-related energy demand was 22.3% above average during summer,” the climate center noted in an online report. “This is the largest such value during the index’s period of record, which dates to 1895.”

On the flip side, two states — Oregon and Washington — had a cooler than average summer, while California had its wettest summer on record.

U.S. climate data go back to 1895. The climate center defines summer as June 1-Aug. 31. It will release global temperature data for the summer of 2011 next week.(1)

And across the pond (‘ello Bob)

UK summer the coolest for 18 years

Met Office says average temperature was 13.6C, the lowest since 1993, with forecasts for a wetter and colder September than usual

Bank Holiday weather

Hopes of a sunny summer to offset the UK’s economic misery have been dashed by confirmation that the holiday season has been the country’s coolest for 18 years.

Chill and damp on a scale not seen since 1993 may also break further doleful records if Met Office forecasts are right in predicting a wetter and colder September than usual.

The letdown follows delightful false starts in April and June, which raised hopes that belt-tightening breaks in the countryside or on the coast might be blessed by the sort of weather more usually found in Spain or southern France. The nearest any part of the country came to that, in the event, was the sunniest July on record in Northern Ireland and an unusually dry spell across the Midlands in England and East Anglia.

The average temperature for the summer so far has been 13.6C (57F), which needs very little further gloom to take it below the previous low of 13.4C in 1993. Last year’s summer was wetter but just above 1C warmer, although there has not been a “good” holiday season even by the UK’s modest standards for five years.

The Met Office used the most familiar term in British forecasting by summing up the pattern as changeable, a word which recurs in predictions up to the end of September.

A spokeswoman said: “Sunshine in August has been about three-quarters of what you would normally expect. We have had some very hot spells, such as back in June when temperatures reached 33C. But equally we have seen much cooler and wetter spells. It has been a changeable summer.”(2)  Update, after a cold summer, the UK has a fall heatwave…(3)

Well, a very warm summer for the USA and chilly for the UK.  We know Al Gore is becoming a billionaire off exploiting global warming carbon credits.  Maybe we need a calm, sincere voice to lead us to a better path.  Like the future King of England, ladies and gentlemen, Prince Charles!  My fellow humans, I want to warn you today about the coming sixth extinction! (4)   Sorry, my words there, not Charlies.  But he is warning about a sixth extinction.  Is this a royal prince more heavily medicated than Michael Jackson?  If you believe in science, don’t just repete what they say on the telly.  The earth has been warmer in the past than it is today, such as Roman times.  And mass extinction of species did not occur.  Just the opposite, it was a time when life thrived!  (we could even argue that the polar bears did not become extinct back then since they are still around eating the occasional COKEtm drinking liberal tourist)

So what is the science on AGW?  Computer models!  I remember one of the first things I was taught in a computer class, garbage in, garbage out.  Computers do not think, they just do what a human tells them to do, humans are supposed to provide the guidance.  And there is where the problem is, humans frequently have bias.  Science is supposed to nullify that tendency by testing as hard to disprove a theory as they do to prove it, but when politics, grants and money get mixed in, it makes me respect a hooker.  At least she’s honest about what she will do for how much pay.

I admit, I only have a layman’s knowledge of science.  But that doesn’t invalidate my right to an opinion.  Show me where I am wrong and I will admit it.  I do not think WTC7 was brought down by thermite explosives.  I cannot prove my belief, nor do I wish to spend hours justifying my stance.  I simply THINK the event was of a scale modern science has not yet dealt with, sorry Flagster, you have yet to convince me on your view of 9/11.  BUT on AGW, damned if you didn’t nail it! full credit, Black Flag gave this answer months or years ago when global warming was brought up, that cosmic radiation influences cloud formations, which causes cooling. (5) The sun’s activity affects how much cosmic rays reach earth, solar flares create strong magnetic fields which shield us from the cosmic rays, making it hotter.

weak sun=strong cosmic ray bombardment=massive cloud formations=cooler earth

strong sun=weak cosmic ray influence=fewer clouds=warmer earth

Aurora picture: Green glow over the Yukon

My earlier personal understanding was limited to the sun and it’s actions with emphasis on the sun’s “weather”, being sun spots/solar storms, that have proven links to earths weather.  Black Flag knew about a theory that totally explains global warming/global cooling before it was ever verified by experiment, but now it has been confirmed.  It’s also interesting to note, the cloud experiment was kept from being researched for years by AGW influences.  Seems some only want to allow “science” that meets their agenda.

Agenda, agenda….  Should I be using that word?  By doing so, I am not just judging their actions, but their also the reasons for the actions they take as well.  Is it “fair” for me to accuse groups of having an agenda?  You judge!

In response to a report that could lead to questions about the credibility of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling for hearings to investigate. The report — from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the EPA — reveals that the scientific basis, on which the administration’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases hinged, violated the EPA’s own peer review procedure.

In a report released Wednesday (at the request of Inhofe, dating back to April) the inspector general found that the EPA failed to follow the Data Quality Act and its own peer review process when it issued the determination that greenhouse gases cause harm to “pubic health and welfare.”

“I appreciate the inspector general conducting a thorough investigation into the Obama-EPA’s handling of the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases,” Inhofe said. “This report confirms that the endangerment finding, the very foundation of President Obama’s job-destroying regulatory agenda, was rushed, biased, and flawed. It calls the scientific integrity of EPA’s decision-making process into question and undermines the credibility of the endangerment finding.”

Inhofe lambasted the EPA for its failure to adhere to its own rules, outsourcing the science to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — and refusing to conduct its own analysis of the science — in the period leading up to its final endangerment finding.

“The endangerment finding is no small matter: Global warming regulations imposed by the Obama-EPA under the Clean Air Act will cost American consumers $300 to $400 billion a year, significantly raise energy prices, and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is not to mention the ‘absurd result’ that EPA will need to hire 230,000 additional employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement its [green house gas] regime. And all of this economic pain is for nothing: As EPA Administrator [Lisa] Jackson also admitted before the Environmental and Public Works] committee, these regulations will have no affect on the climate.”

According to Inhofe, Jackson has failed in her 2009 vow to commit the Agency to high transparency standards. The senator will instruct the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to hold hearings to investigate the EPA’s failings.

“Given what has come to light in this report, it appears that Obama-EPA cannot be trusted on the most consequential decision the agency has ever made,” Inhofe added.“I am calling for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the committee of jurisdiction over the EPA, to hold immediate hearings to address EPA’s failure to provide the required documentation and have the science impartially reviewed. EPA needs to explain to the American people why it blatantly circumvented its own procedures to make what appears to be a predetermined endangerment finding.”

The inspector general’s full report can be viewed  here.(6)

I titled this Global Warming, Part Nine, nine being a random number and my belief that AGW or AGCooling, the debate will and never should be settled.  I think Flag was/is right but lacked proof.  Now after the cloud experiment, there is proof, but it’s only proof that the science is not settled.  I also think it and the EPA not applying science to their guidelines strongly argues we should not be wrecking economies in the name of climate change.  Ps, the polar bears are fine.(7)
(1)http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/extremes/story/2011-09-08/US-sweltered-through-the-hottest-summer-in-75-years/50323566/1
(2)http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/31/uk-summer-coolest-18-years
(3)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8799739/Britain-to-bask-in-hottest-October-ever-as-heatwave-continues-through-the-weekend.html
(4)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8749863/Prince-Charles-warns-of-sixth-extinction-event.html
(5)http://wottsupwiththat.com/2011/08/29/breaking-news-%E2%80%93-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-cloud-seeds/
(7)http://www.npr.org/2011/10/14/141365935/polar-bear-researcher-to-be-re-interviewed-by-feds
other sources not used
Advertisements

Comments

  1. Good morning, LOI. Interesting article,,,,I do, however, remain unconvinced that global warming/cooling/wet/dry… is nothing more than cyclical phenomena. I do not believe that it is man made……but I can offer no proof or conclusions to what I believe and feel. Computers are only as good as the programmer….and there is no way that Al Gore carries any credibility with me. SO……I guess that leaves me on the outside of this discussion except that I will follow it and will offer whatever I can to it….(may have to keep Mathius in check a little….if that is possible).

    Hope your day and week goes well..,I am finishing up on the article on the Texas border and hope to have it posted shortly.

  2. “The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960’s and 70’s were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people’s lives and for financial gain.”

    Can this be explained away?

    • “Can this be explained away?”

      I think ignored is a better description of whats taking place. Global warming was such a constant headline, but now doesn’t get any mention. There are several studies that largely debunk the theory, but Obama is still campaigning on green energy and how it will spur job growth. No one will question him about how it’s failed and how his administration used it to buy supporters.

      • How To Make Morning Joe Panel Shut Up: Say ‘Solyndra’

        By Mark Finkelstein | November 16, 2011 | 08:15

        Ever been watching Morning Joe, and wished you could stop the steady stream of liberal blather? Simple. Say the magic word—Solyndra—and watch the gabby guests fall suddenly silent.

        Today’s show offered a prime example of the phenomenon. For the first ten minutes, the panel had a great old time cackling and crowing on the theme that the Republican presidential field is a mass of morons. They laughed at the mere mention of Herman Cain, likened the GOP field to a vaudeville show, dragged out the shopworn “bar in Star Wars” simile, and called the Republican candidates “jokes,” “clowns” and “stupid.” But then, 13 minutes in, Mika Brzezinski mentioned a story reporting that the Obama admin had suppressed the announcement of layoffs at Solyndra until after the 2010 elections. Despite Mika looking around the table at her guests as she wondered out loud “why this story hasn’t picked up more,” there wasn’t a peep out of the quickly clammed-up crew and Brezinski breezed on to another topic. Video after the jump.

        Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/11/16/how-make-morning-joe-panel-shut-say-solyndra#ixzz1dsujp7Hi

        • COPENHAGEN – When Denmark’s new government ministers presented themselves to Queen Margrethe II last month, the incoming development minister established his green credentials by rolling up to the palace in a tiny, three-wheeled, electric-powered vehicle. The photo opportunity made a powerful statement about the minister’s commitment to the environment – but probably not the one he intended.

          Christian Friis Bach’s electric-powered vehicle was incapable of covering the 30 kilometers from his house to the palace without running out of power. So he put the electric mini-car inside a horse trailer and dragged it behind his petrol-powered Citroën for three-quarters of the trip, switching back to the mini-car when he neared the television cameras. The stunt produced more carbon emissions than if he had ditched the electric car and horse trailer and driven a regular car the entire distance.

          The full article is well worth the read……

  3. OR this?

    “The truth is that CO2 is a beneficial trace gas that exists in such small quantities in our atmosphere, that the idea of it playing any significant role in determining our climate is simply silly. CO2 comprises less than half of 0.1% of our atmosphere, and only 4% of it comes from human activity. That’s 16ppm, or 1 part in every 62,500 parts of our atmosphere. CO2 is plant food, and a key component in all life on earth. Plants need CO2 to grow and produce oxygen. They feed animals (including ourselves). Animals in turn consume oxygen and plant-based foods, and exhale CO2. Without CO2, nothing could be green! ”

    OR this?

    “And if increases in atmospheric CO2 are the primary cause of warming, why, from the 1940’s through the mid 1970’s, was the earth cooling when increases in our use of fossil fuels were at their greatest?”

    Even this?

    “And why is it that Mars and Jupiter, and Neptune’s moon Titan, have all followed the exact same warming and cooling cycles as the earth during the 20th century? Does anyone think that our SUVs and power plants are causing the same climate change on other planets and moons in our solar system, or is it more likely that the changes there were caused by the fact that we’re all in the same solar system? I.e., “It’s the sun, stupid!”

    This is interesting…”Now, since the warming stopped 12 years ago, the alarmists are finally beginning to admit that the earth has started cooling again. And what are they telling us is the reason why? In what’s got to be one of the most mind-boggling displays of chutzpah ever seen, they’re actually saying that the reason that it hasn’t been warming for the last 12 years is that China and India are now burning such a massive amount of coal, that it blocks the sun’s rays from reaching the earth and warming it. That’s right! Our use of fossil fuels is warming the earth, while China’s is cooling it?”

    However, I am sure that I will hear how technology has improved to the point that “new” data suggests otherwise…….sign….follow the money.

    • In addition CERN has confirmed that cosmic rays do nucleate clouds as the Danish scientist predicted a dozen years ago. Such cloud formation is not in the computer models. It has been shown that the earth bound temperature sensors used for much of the temperature tracking have been slowly engulfed by metropolitan areas thus causing local warming. The modelers attempted to correct for this but fudge factors are fudge factors. Solar output does not follow Gaussian statistics but Levi statistics. This means the solar radiation does not obey the central limit theorem hence has no defined average radiation loading. Since the earth is warmed primarliy by the sun, this means that the earth’s average temperature will also not obey the central limit theorem hence there is no statisically defined global temperature.

      Also, from experience, I have learned that in complex systems with large variance in the data, never to believe that I know enough about the hidden systematic errors to believe that the true value “represented” by averaged results with their statistical uncertainty are anything but precise. The variance in temperature data is huge compared to the calculated uncertainty in the average global temperature. It is folly to believe these numbers are significant give the complexity of the problem. There have to be unknown systematic errors buried in the data and in theory.

      Off to work and to statisical battle with much better defined data.

    • Not going to argue this issue one way or another – as I’ve said before, I’m undecided and unqualified to judge – but there is a serious problem with the way you are thinking about this issue (and it is a flaw I see repeated ad nausium by others who also reject the idea of man-made climate change)

      CO2 comprises less than half of 0.1% of our atmosphere, and only 4% of it comes from human activity. That’s 16ppm, or 1 part in every 62,500 parts of our atmosphere. The problem with this is that the fact that something is a small percent does not mean that it cannot have a disproportionately huge impact on the greater system. For comparison, consider that there are trace amounts of arsenic in your body right now. Arsenic comprises 0.000026% of your body. That is .26ppm. The dangerous level (thank you, wikipedia) is 1mg/kg/day. Doing some math.. that’s 1ppm/day above base levels. Such a tiny amount, but adding just one ppm to your system it will kill you.

      Just because something comprises a tiny amount of a complex system does not mean that making it a tiny bit more cannot shock the system. Complex systems frequently require very intricate balances* and altering those balances even slightly can upset the whole thing dramatically.

      And again, just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that we are adding a dangerous amount, that a slightly higher amount will shock the system, that any of this is man made or not – I DO NOT KNOW – but I think it’s dangerous to assume that it’s ok because the change is so “small.”

      *Yes, Mr Flag, I know that it is entirely possible that there are feed-back mechanisms to maintain this balance. It is also possible that there are not. Again, I am not making any claims, but without knowing one way or another, I think it’s too simplistic to just assume that a “small change” won’t hurt.

      • Mathius

        “*Yes, Mr Flag, I know that it is entirely possible that there are feed-back mechanisms to maintain this balance. It is also possible that there are not.”

        I GUARANTEE you that there IS.

        The question is WHAT is BALANCE.

        The environment on our planet is constantly changing at various scales. What appears to be “balance” to most of us is actually very small and slow change. It is interrupted from time to time by large events. Then it reaches some dynamic “balance again”.

        So the ONLY meaningful question that should be asked is WHAT are the expected changes and HOW does that affect our ability to live on this planet.

        • Yes, total agreement.

          For purposes of this conversation, I’m treating “balance” as the idea of a world which is conducive to human life and modern society blah blah blah blah blah.

          And yes, of course, there is some tolerance. And the question is how much tolerance.

          And yes, of course, things are always changing.. veeerrrrrrrryyyyyy sllllloooooowwwwwwlllllyyyy….

          But my assertion stands – the idea that “it’s just such a small change to such a small percent that it can’t possibly do much of anything” is badly flawed and dangerously naive. Again, I don’t make any assertions one way or another, but this is not the right way to think about complex systems we do not completely understand.

      • And just to keep things in perspective just a little bit more. doing some more math, the dangerous level of arsenic intake is .07gm in one day for a 155 lb man. A stamp weighs approximately 1gm. But surely, it’s so small (only 1/14th of a stamp) that it can’t do any harm to such a huge and complex and robust system as a human being, right?

      • Matt,

        “Not going to argue this issue one way or another – as I’ve said before, I’m undecided and unqualified to judge –”
        Will you agree the science is not settled? According to the EPA, particulate pollution has decreased over the last 30 years. They have ignored their own requirements on how to research and determine what and how to protect and improve the environment. They are imposing their agenda on the citizens of this country without regard of the cost. Consider the impact the cross air contamination rules will have, shutting down many power plants. When your electric rates go up and you suffer frequent brown/black-outs, will you care that a largely discredited theory is the foundation for you discomfort? Environmentalists have again stopped the Keystone pipeline. Oil prices started rising right after Obama announced the delay. The green movement does not want that oil used by anyone, but so far can only stop it from expanding into the USA. Will you care when gas prices continue to rise, and China buys all that oil instead of us? The consequence of the green movement has been to shift the employment, manufacturing and pollution to China and India. IF this is a contributor to climate change, they are not having any effect to reduce it, just make it so countries that are less responsible have the advantages.

        A great article with links I just found.

        http://isthereglobalcooling.com/

        • Interesting how you switch from “science is not settled” to “largely discredited”…

          I’m not qualified to say. It doesn’t seem settled or discredited to me. But, for the N-th time, I am not a climatologist. Neither, by the way, are you.

          Of course I don’t want my energy prices to rise, but the downside risk the the global warming advocates are right is a world that is far less hospitable to human civilization. The downside if they’re wrong is that my energy bill increases. Personally, I generally try to err on the side of caution.

          Put it in a grid. There are four options (of course, there are also shades in between, but I’m simplifying). GW is real and we act, GW is real and we do nothing, GW is wrong and we act, GW is wrong and we do nothing. Assuming (big assumption) that acting will have an impact on the outcome, the results are:

          A. Economy takes a hit.
          B. Wholesale death and disaster, four horsemen kind of stuff.
          C. Economy takes a hit.
          D. Nothing.

          Seems to me that A and C are not great, but B should be avoided at all cost. D is best of all, but is it worth risking being wrong and having B instead?

          IF this is a contributor to climate change, they are not having any effect to reduce it, just make it so countries that are less responsible have the advantages. I’m pretty sure the US is a massive producer of these gasses. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. And just because your neighbor refuses to act responsibly does not mean that you should excuse yourself to act the same way. Didn’t your mother ever teach you that “everyone else is doing it” is not a viable excuse?

          • Mathius

            Same mistake of central planners. You assume a catastrophic outcome and then use that in your matrix which leads you to an irrational set of choices.

            Change B to: Warming produces more food and human starvation declines.

            You also make the effects of taking action for no reason innocuous. Yet they could be just as devastating as your option B. You see, spending massive amounts of money in non productive activities could increase starvation and spread of disease. It might prevent the next development that would create cheap clean energy.

            Don’t forget the broken window.

            • Yes, it could increase crop yields. I could kill crops. I DO NOT KNOW.

              But that’s the point. We should not be meddling in a system we do not understand.

              And to the fullest extent possible, we should mitigate the impact our actions have on that system unless or until we do know what those actions will result in.

              If you didn’t know anything about what to eat or not to eat and you came upon some berries, you would have two choices, eat/don’t eat. Maybe they’ll feed you, maybe they’ll kill you. Who knows? So do you just grab a fistful and take your shot? Or do you take them to your lab, feed them to a rat, see what happens, then act accordingly?

              Until you know, you should do nothing. If you are going to do something anyway, you should do as little as possible.

          • “Seems to me that A and C are not great, but B should be avoided at all cost. D is best of all, but is it worth risking being wrong and having B instead?” But what is the risk? What happens when those who are warning you about these catastrophic outcome’s are caught lying?

            “the inspector general found that the EPA failed to follow the Data Quality Act and its own peer review process when it issued the determination that greenhouse gases cause harm to “pubic health and welfare.”

            They ignored their own rules for studies and acted in an illegal manner. And you seem OK with this????

            • Of course not. But the EPA aren’t the only ones studying this. Again, I am not informed enough to make a judgment on the truth or falsity of the claims.

              I know that BOTH SIDES have been full of it. BOTH SIDES have lied, manipulated and contorted data, or at least walked dangerously close to the line.

              I know that “Climate-gate” was bulldookey and I know that a freak snow storm in October left me without power for 6 days last month. But I also know that local weather is not the same global climate.

              There’s too much noise and dis- and mis-information out there for me to figure it out without really digging in. I am not ok with shoddy science or manipulation of the facts by interested third parties. As Joe would say, “just the fact.”

              But since I don’t have the facts, I will decline to opine.

              • “It’s about time that I asked this from the media: Stop being afraid of this president,” said Rep. West. “Stand up to him and call him out on the shirking of his duties and responsibilities. The House Republicans are passing pieces of legislation, after pieces of legislation about jobs.”

                “And here we got a president that’s gone off to Australia, playing golf in Hawaii, and you guys allow him to make this decision to shut down this Keystone XL project,” said West. “The media needs to call out this president and stop coming over here to the House Republicans and telling us what we’re not doing. We’re the ones taking action. The guy sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is destroying this country.”

                The 1,661-mile, $7-billion pipeline, which would run from Alberta, Canada south to U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast, was under review by the State Department until last week when President Obama announced that a decision on whether to approve the project would be postponed until early 2013. The White House said it wanted to consider a new route for the pipeline.

                The Keystone project, if approved, would have created an estimated 20,000 jobs.

                “This is the most important thing we have to understand, America needs leadership right now and America does not have that,” said Rep. West on Tuesday.

                “America needs a commander in chief, instead we have a campaigner in chief, and that’s exactly what continues to happen,” said West. “Whether it’s the decision to go to zero troops in Iraq, which gives a green light to Iran, or whether it’s the decision to shut down what you have heard is a win-win situation for the United States of America and for a new trading partner, which is Canada.”

                “We cannot continue to send the hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to OPEC — nothing but despot dictators, autocrats and theocrats,” West said.

                Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/elizabeth-harrington/2011/11/16/rep-west-blasts-media-being-afraid-report-job-killing-policies#ixzz1dt7LM1R6

        • So what has changed? CO2 concentrations continue to increase yet temperatures have been falling since 2002? Polar ice is growing. Storm intensity is in decline. One reason may be that solar activity is at the lowest level in almost a Century. link link link See what the sun looks like with and without sunspots link In the past periods with fewer sunspots and lower solar activity were ones with cooler temperatures. It is believed by some scientists that lower solar activity increases cloud formation and this has a cooling effect. If the past is a predictor of the future, these changes in solar activity will cause a 30 year period of cooling temperatures on earth and in fact it appears that this has already begun. See solar activity charts here link

          See the combined impact of ocean and solar cycles on global temperatures link

          Europe, North America and many other areas of the Earth have recently experienced a score of unusually low temperatures. So where is the global warming that we are preparing for?

          Is a carbon cap and trade system that would raise hundreds of billions of dollars each year for the government necessary if in fact the slightly warmer temperatures of 1978-1998 were caused by natural forces such as the Sun’s increased activity in that period, and that many scientists are now becoming skeptical of the theory of man made global warming (AGW)? link Is the re-engineering of society to reduce CO2 emissions necessary when in the geological history of the planet warming temperatures were never preceeded by rising CO2 levels? Did you know that if this country eliminates 100% of its CO2 emissions China will replace it within in 2 years due to their high growth rate? It appears to me that the man made global warming theory is looking more and more like the Y2K scare of the late 1990s.

          If you have doubts about the conventional beliefs of global warming and want to learn more please do read on.

  4. Ya’ll are being tricked into asking the wrong question in order to argue over the wrong thing: Climate change no excuse for tyranny

    • Uncouple AGCC from the agendas and pretend for a moment that it is absolutely factual. Pretend also that climate change would be wholly bad rather than the more likely reality that it would be a mixed bag of good and bad effects. Do you have the right to prevent someone else from doing things that might contribute in some unspecified, non-quantifiable way to AGCC? How do you calculate the exact amount of damage any specific individual’s actions are causing to your property? Almost any action taken by people, and most other forms of life, could be claimed to cause some damage to the planet. It is wrong to criminalize human life.

      Your only ethical option is to convince people to do what you believe they should do rather than using collectivism and initiating force to impose your will. Present the best evidence for your position and admit the unknowns. Don’t lie to be more persuasive; that will only harm your argument when it is discovered. Make the best choice you can, setting the best example possible, with the information you have.

      Change is inevitable. Tyranny isn’t.

      Well I keep saying I won’t be fooled again, seems I say that a lot….. Great article but I think the average American has too little awareness of natural rights to keep their attention. An Englishman in the 16oo’s would have greater comprehension with what common law meant at that time. Now if you could get it worked into the plot line of a few episodes of the Simpsons or Glee, maybe a few will wake up. That is my reason for attacking the lie, even though I do agree with you, it’s not really the point.

  5. One thing to consider.

    Even those scientists that have stood tall against the AGW frenzy have admitted that man caused CO2 production will “increase” global temperatures.

    It is the “amount” of increase that is in dispute.

    The opponents claim it is so small as to be insignificant. Something in the neighborhood of 1 degree.

    • But, again.. the environment is a large and complex system. 1 degree sounds small, but is it?

      1 degree temperature change in a human is a slight fever.
      7 degrees is a life threatening fever with a very real risk of brain damage.

      Is it so hard to believe that a 1 degree change could increase ice melt which could raise ocean levels which could blah blah blah blah blah and make it the world far less hospitable for humans?

      AGAIN, (I’m just going to keep repeating this) I don’t make any assertion either way. But I just find it irresponsible to assume that minor changes to complex systems have inherently negligible affects.

      • *****slap***** get back in line….quit repeating yourself. Sigh…..the things a Colonel must do.I have absolutely no idea on GW stuff……just have not been convinced yet. Too many smoke and mirrors……

        • Huh wah huh.. who… how did I get her? Who wrote that? Where am I, and why is there blood everywhere?

          What is going on!

          .. and why does my face hurt all of a sudden?

      • Mathius

        Yes, 1 degree would be insignificant. According to the AGW models themselves.

        But here is a very important point. There is NO SUCH THING as an AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMP.

        So while a 1 degree change could be insignificant to the Global Climate, it might be a serious thing to those living in Los Angles

        • Yeah….but that is California.

          • d13

            Good morning sir.

            YES, and that is why I wouldn’t give one hoot in hell if their temp increased a little. Besides, the next major tectonic shift would overshadow the inconvenience of AGW.

            • HEY! I like California!

              It’s the only thing keeping this country from being overrun by crazy people like Texans.

              • LOL….too late…the crazy people are in charge. We emptied Texas…….admittedly we missed a few….(Bush, Paul, Bernice Johnson, etc) but we got most of em……if Perry does not change a couple of things……he will join the crazy list.

              • Mathius™ says:

                That’s it.. I’m moving to Texas!

                I will restore balance.

                BWA HA HA HA HA!

        • There are many ways to slice and dice an “average”.. I agree.

          According to the AGW models themselves. So now believe the models?

          All I’m saying is that it’s complicated. That 1 degree could mean a glacier calves off Antarctica which means the ocean currents change which blah blah blah blah. IT’S COMPLICATED. Let’s not assume anyone has any idea what a “small change” means. Even the wise cannot see all ends.

          And if you acknowledge that it could be a “serious thing in LA”, why couldn’t it be a “serious thing” in the Midwest, giving rise to a new Dust Bowl, starving millions? Or flooding the entire East Coast? I don’t know and neither do you, and that’s the point. Small changes MAY affect minor/insignificant changes or they MAY NOT.

          Without knowing one way or the other for sure, doesn’t it make sense to err on the side of caution?

          • A question-is what is being pushed erring on the side of caution? Or going overboard on an unproved theory?

          • Mathius,

            No, because you would be reversing the null hypothesis on which all science and human action depends.

            I do not have to prove “no harm” – there is nothing to prove, as it does not exist – this is the “null” side.

            You are claiming something that is “not-null”, that there is harm. Harm is a reality situation, therefore, must exist – so you must prove it exists.

            But you can’t – you want to sit on the null hypothesis with a non-null hypothesis and claim its truth.

            Utterly contradictory, hence, evil.

            • Mathius™ says:

              You don’t have to prove that it won’t hurt. But it would probably be a good idea to have some kind of scientific consensus on the matter anyway that it probably won’t hurt.

              Go into the woods and eat the first berries you find. Why not? You can’t prove that they won’t hurt you, therefore you should be good to go.

              The point – the whole point – I am trying to make is this: Earth’s climate is complicated and not perfectly understood. If it were perfectly understood, we would know what the weather will be tomorrow instead of “30% chance of precipitation.” We would know if this is going to be a very cold or snowy winter. We don’t.

              And our actions, of course, impact the world around us. Just existing uses energy, takes in oxygen, emits co2, etc, affects the world. But technology amplifies everything. Instead of just emitting the gas we do from breathing, we burn coal and emit 1,000,000x as much, we drive cars and emit 1,000,000,000x as much. Do we know what CO2 does? You (below) seem to think we know EXACTLY what it does. But do you? I sincerely doubt you believe that you know exactly how a specific gas interacts in unknown quantities in a barely understood chaotic system I understand how you doubt the existence of positive feedback mechanisms, but it doesn’t have to be a run-away it could just shift to 10 degrees and settle into a new negative feedback, no? Or that the feedback mechanism is so slow that billions would die before it had a chance to compensate, no? Maybe we trigger a new ice age? Maybe it’s just a few years where it’s too how and all our crops die. I don’t know – and neither do you.

              Caution is never a bad idea.

              Until the scientists get a predictive model together that actually works with some accuracy, I’ll continue to believe that we shouldn’t be messing around with things we barely understand where the potential for disaster is cataclysmic.

              • Mathius,

                But it would probably be a good idea to have some kind of scientific consensus on the matter anyway that it probably won’t hurt.

                Let me help you with your (*cough*) understanding of science and reason.

                I do not need to prove a null hypothesis.
                You need to prove your non-null hypothesis.

                If I find fact which disproves your non-null hypothesis, your non-null hypothesis is flawed and must be discarded and you can try again.

                I do NOT need to find such a fact – but when one appears that disputes your hypothesis, that is the end of your hypothesis.

                Indeed, I do not need to find such a fact in 1 hour, a day, a week, months, 5 years, 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years…. but if a 1000 years later, it appears, your hypothesis is wrong and must be discarded

                Go into the woods and eat the first berries you find. Why not? You can’t prove that they won’t hurt you, therefore you should be good to go.

                I can prove they won’t (or will) hurt me because other people have done the necessary “experiment” and tested them first.

                The point – the whole point – I am trying to make is this: Earth’s climate is complicated and not perfectly understood.

                Not “perfectly”??
                You mean you understand most of it?!

                Come on down and get your Nobel Prize, because mankind does not understand climate very well at all!

                If it were perfectly understood, we would know what the weather will be tomorrow instead of “30% chance of precipitation.” We would know if this is going to be a very cold or snowy winter. We don’t.

                FALSE

                IT CANNOT BE PERFECTLY PREDICTABLE – the system is CHAOTIC, and therefore FAILS DETERMINISTIC PREDICTIONS.

                It cannot be done – impossible – never ever never ever.

                If this is your measure, you have really missed the mark in your understanding.

                And our actions, of course, impact the world around us. Just existing uses energy, takes in oxygen, emits co2, etc, affects the world.

                Spitting in the ocean raises the sea level.

                Your statement is a stupid as mine above.
                Do you know why?

                I sincerely doubt you believe that you know exactly how a specific gas interacts in unknown quantities in a barely understood chaotic system

                Holy cow – you really don’t get it do?

                Yes, we do know how EXACTLY a specific gas interacts with radiation in the atmosphere THIS IS NOT CHAOTIC and IS DETERMINISTIC.

                Because you do not understand thermodynamics and its effects on fluid flows, does not suddenly mean what we DO KNOW is wrong or misunderstood.

                That is the AGW zeolts problem – they are all confused between what we do know and what we don’t know and gets them absolutly backwards.

                Greenies KNOW AGW exists and it is BAD – but “we” do not know any of this at all – it completely in the realm of speculation and has no part in science.
                Greenies KNOW man influences climate – but “we” do not know much about climate at all, let alone determining causation of man.

                But Greenies DO NOT KNOW how Co2 effects warming – but “we” DO KNOW how Co2 effects warming, and no matter how many times you show them the math and the physics they utterly ignore you

                I understand how you doubt the existence of positive feedback mechanisms, but it doesn’t have to be a run-away it could just shi ft to 10 degrees and settle into a new negative feedback, no?

                You do not understand postive feedback loops.

                To cause such a shift requires energy inputs as I have already explained.

                Therefore, you have now come up with another up to know totally unknown, unseen, unmeasured, never recorded energy system on top of the one that created the feedback loop in the first place

                So, now you need TWO impossible feedback systems to make the first one “work” as you just described.

                Or that the feedback mechanism is so slow that billions would die before it had a chance to compensate, no?

                So, it is so slow now when the effect is at its most minor.
                But it did not exist when the effect was at its most major

                Please explain.

                Maybe we trigger a new ice age? Maybe it’s just a few years where it’s too how and all our crops die. I don’t know – and neither do you.

                You are right, I don’t know – but I do know this.

                You have to prove your bizarre hypothesis – I have none to prove.

                Caution is never a bad idea.

                Any action, including caution, based on fantasy and irrational thinking is in itself very dangerous

                By doing things believing you are avoiding what is fantasy makes you do actions that are utterly pointless.

                All action has consequences

                Therefore, you are creating consequences that would not exist because you are chasing a fantasy.

              • PS – more on this point:
                So, it is so slow now when the effect is at its most minor.
                But it did not exist when the effect was at its most major

                Please explain.

                Your speculation above is equivalent of saying that the closer the microphone was to the speaker, the effect did not happen, but as we moved the microphone away, the effect started slowly and built up.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        From the morning to the afternoon, the temperature changes by around 15 to 20 degrees Celsius. It does this virtually every day of your life.

        An increase in the “global average temperature” (whatever the hell that made-up number is) of approximately 1degree Celsius is NOTHING. We have already increase about 1 degree Celsius in “average global temperature” from 1850 to present, and the only thing that has happened is that people have become healthier, crop yields have gone up, and people are generally better off.

  6. Harris and Broun, members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology – and both chairmen of subcommittees — asked Sunstein to respond to their concerns that the agency is using junk science to support regulations.

    “In many cases, these required cost-benefit analyses appear designed to provide political cover for a more stringent regulatory agenda rather than objectively inform policy decisions,” the congressmen wrote.

    The letter cites EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s claim before the House energy committee in September that “if we could reduce particulate matter to healthy levels, it would have the same impact as finding a cure for cancer” as “baseless and unsupported by science.”

    Jackson’s statement implied that reducing fine particulate matter — pollution found in smoke and haze, usually from forest fires, power plants and automobiles — would prevent approximately 600,000 deaths per year, about 20 percent of all U.S. deaths. The letter noted the EPA’s own data showing that fine particulate matter levels had actually fallen nearly 30 percent in the last 20 years.

    Harris and Broun also blasted EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy’s September 15 statement before the science committee that the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule would prevent “up to 34,000 premature deaths a year.”

    “Ms. McCarthy could not explain the cause of these premature deaths, did not account for any uncertainty in this and other statements, and has subsequently failed to provide the underlying data behind such claims,” the congressmen wrote.

    The Clean Air Act, first passed in 1970 and updated in 1990, gives the agency permission to regulate U.S. air pollution, but most regulations must be backed up by scientific analyses known as Regulatory Impact Analyses. These analyses, Harris and Broun charge, are hardly scientific at all.

    The pair claim the agency used a counting trick to claim that fine particulate matter caused more than 300,000 deaths in 2005, up from 80,000 before the calculating measure was used.

    Harris and Broun also accused the EPA of understating costs of regulatory compliance, ignoring health benefits, failing to analyze and communicate uncertainties in their data, and lacking transparency.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/16/epa-using-press-release-science-to-justify-regulations-congressmen-say/#ixzz1dt1b6K00

  7. Mathius,

    You error – badly – in the above post regarding “the effect of Co2”.

    We do know the effect – it is SCIENTIFIC FACT, it is calculable, to 100+’s of decimal points precision.

    It is a logarithmic influence – that is 10x more is necessary to double its effect.

    Here is the graph – as per atmospheric concentrations

    There is NO mystery here – this has been know for over 250 years.

    So don’t be trying to pretend mankind is all stupid regarding Co2 – this is a matter of FACT, not fiction.

    The problem presented by the Greenies is that it did NOT explain they (doubtful) increase in global temperature – its effect is simply too small.

    So the AGW Greenie crowed made up a story, claiming Co2 created an additional, even until now in 2011, never seen nor measured forcing!

    Yes, they made up story, more or less claiming “magic” that a little Co2 caused a series of catastrophes which magnified its effect greater then what Physical Law says.

    The problem with the theory – that there exists an unknown, positive feedback loop is….

    ….where is it?

    Positive feedback loops cannot hide – their nature is going utterly chaotic nearly instantly (test it with microphone/speaker feedback) – and unless there is MORE force into the system, Positive feedback’s loops go totally out of control (if you leave the microphone where it is beside the speaker, and do not add a force … that is touch it…. the speakers will blow up… You need to touch it and physically move it (add energy to the system) to reverse the positive feedback)

    So this is a big problem for the Greenies.
    Co2 increase causes nearly no effect, so there is a positive feedback loop that magnifies it, but the increasing concentrations of the past when the Co2 impact was the greatest did NOT create such a positive feedback, and further, the feedback loop has STALLED, which means something with energy had to interrupt it, and we can’t find that energy system either!!!!

    In other words, Santa Claus is more likely to exist today then the AGW theory and its necessary feedback loops.

    • PS

      Here is the calculation, if you ‘d like to do it yourself

      Delta F = 5.35 \times \ln {C \over C0}~\mathrm{W}~\mathrm{m}^{-2}

      where C is the CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration.

    • But…but….Santa DOES exist……………………………………………………doesn’t he?

      • Mathius™ says:

        Of course, D. Of course. But his workshop is melting, so he won’t be delivering toys for much longer.

        Very sad. Very sad.

      • It’s not even December, but Santa has already been fired from Charleston’s Hollings Cancer Center.

        For each of the past two years, hospital volunteer Frank Cloyes spent one day as St. Nick, spreading good cheer and snacks to patients sitting through chemotherapy treatments. The 67-year-old James Island resident, a retired insurance executive who calls himself a “gregarious guy,” paid for his own costume rental.

        On Tuesday morning, a volunteer coordinator told Cloyes his services no longer were needed.

        “Because of our state affiliation, we decided not to have a Santa presence this year,” Hollings spokeswoman Vicky Agnew said. Hollings is a part of the Medical University of South Carolina.

        Decorations will be “more secular and respectful to all beliefs,” Agnew said. “We don’t want to offend a volunteer with good intentions, but we need to think of the bigger picture. People who are Muslim or Jewish or have no religious beliefs come here for treatment,” she said.

        Bah humbug, said Cloyes, a self- described libertarian with no religious affiliation.

        “Santa is a tradition and everyone loves him,” Cloyes said. “It’s just something that makes people happy for a while. Kids liked it, staff liked it. People took pictures.”

        Santa still will visit the Children’s Hospital, which has a different board of directors than Hollings, although both are MUSC facilities, spokeswoman Heather Woolwine said.

        The director of the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union declined comment but pointed to the association’s national website. It said while “some limited governmental celebrations of Christmas are not per se unconstitutional … the burden for the government to show that its activities do not have the purpose or effect of endorsing a religious message is high.”

        Hollings still will have wreaths, poinsettias and garlands, Agnew said.

        The decision is “not meant to be cold,” she said.

        Cloyes said he wonders where “political correctness and overregulation will end.”

        “Let’s have a little joy in our lives,” he said.

  8. You do this on purpose, don’t you BF. How are you, sir? Hope your ailments are still healing and the scar tissue has not set in.

  9. President John F. Kennedy’s nephew, Robert Kennedy, Jr., netted a $1.4 billion bailout for his company, BrightSource, through a loan guarantee issued by a former employee-turned Department of Energy official.

    It’s just one more in a string of eye-opening revelations by investigative journalist and Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer in his explosive new book, Throw Them All Out.

    The details of how BrightSource managed to land its ten-figure taxpayer bailout have yet to emerge fully. However, one clue might be found in the person of Sanjay Wagle.

    Wagle was one of the principals in Kennedy’s firm who raised money for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. When Obama won the White House, Wagle was installed at the Department of Energy (DOE), advising on energy grants.

    From an objective vantage point, investing taxpayer monies in BrightSource was a risky proposition at the time. In 2010, BrightSource, whose largest shareholder is Kennedy’s VantagePoint Partners, was up to its eyes in $1.8 billion of debt obligations and had lost $71.6 million on its paltry $13.5 million of revenue.

    Even before BrightSource rattled its tin cup in front of Obama’s DOE, the company made it known publicly that its survival hinged on successfully completing the Ivanpah Solar Electrical System, which would become the largest solar plant in the world, on federal lands in California.

    In its Securities and Exchange Commission filings, BrightSource further underscored the risky nature of the Ivanpah venture and, more broadly, the company’s viability:

    Our future success depends on our ability to construct Ivanpah, our first utility-scale solar thermal power project, in a cost-effective and timely manner… Our ability to complete Ivanpah and the planning, development and construction of all three phases are subject to significant risk and uncertainty.

    Ironically, in 2008, Kennedy wrote a CNN article praising Obama as reminiscent of his famous father and uncle. The article, titled “Obama’s Energy Plan Would Create a Green Gold Rush,” proved prophetic. However, the “green gold rush” came in the form of $1.4 billion of taxpayers’ money flowing into the pet projects of rich venture capital investors like Kennedy, not average citizens.

    What’s more, BrightSource touted the Ivanpah project as a green jobs creator. Yet as its own website reveals, the thermal solar plant will only create 1,400 jobs at its peak construction and 650 jobs annually thereafter. Even using the peak estimate of 1,400 jobs, that works out to a cost to taxpayers of $1 million per job created.

    As Schweizer writes in Throw Them All Out, “A billion dollars in taxpayer money being sent to wealthy investors to bail them out of risky investments—does this sound familiar to anyone?”

  10. Mathius™ says:

    ::sigh::

    But it would probably be a good idea to have some kind of scientific consensus on the matter anyway that it probably won’t hurt.

    Let me help you with your (*cough*) understanding of science and reason.

    I know that you cannot prove a null. But we have some things that we’re pretty sure about anyway. We understand a system and the way the things in it interact and we can be reasonably sure that x will happen when we do y. The environment is not such a system (yet, anyway). We do not know what will happen when we do y, because it is too big, too intricate, too complicated. Before we go around making changes to it (however seemingly innocuous) we should get a better grip on the system and have a higher scientific confidence in what the results will be.

    Of course it can all come crashing down with new data. But we know, for example, what will happen when I drop this rock. It will fall toward the most massive object around (namely your ego) and hit you in the head. And if, just one time, that rock just sits there in mid-air, I’m going to have to reevaluate everything. So I can’t prove that it WON’T bounce off your extra-thick skull, but I can be reasonably confident that it (probably) will.

    I do not need to prove a null hypothesis.
    You need to prove your non-null hypothesis.

    If I find fact which disproves your non-null hypothesis, your non-null hypothesis is flawed and must be discarded and you can try again.

    I do NOT need to find such a fact – but when one appears that disputes your hypothesis, that is the end of your hypothesis.

    Kill me. I know how science works. I learned this in elementary school. You know what I’m saying and you’re deliberately obfuscating.

    I’m not suggesting that we should prove the negative (that emitting CO2 won’t cause global warming). That is impossible. I’m suggesting we get a predictive model together which SEEMS TO ACCURATELY REFLECT REALITY and which is tested and verified until we are pretty sure we have a good grip on the concept of “climate.” And until we have that, we should try to minimize what we spew into the atmosphere. Yes, the model could still be wrong as disproven by any single data point which is inaccurate at any point (therefore it will always remain a theory), but we can be confident that it’s (probably) right.

    I can whip up some random chemical in a lab. I don’t know if ingesting it will be harmful. So I don’t eat it. I test it on lab mice, then pigs, then monkeys. If they all survive, I might try a small dose for myself. If I’m fine afterward, I can be comfortable thinking it’s (probably) safe. THEN and only then should I feel comfortable eating it freely.

    But one day, I might eat some and BOOM, dead. Seems I was wrong. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Yes, it is still possible, but after year of study, hundreds of subjects, etc, if nothing bad happens, we can feel ok. Would you suggest we should start by just swallowing fistfuls of the chemical to see what happens FIRST, and waiting around for someone to come up with a detailed lab study to prove it’s harmful SECOND?

    Go into the woods and eat the first berries you find. Why not? You can’t prove that they won’t hurt you, therefore you should be good to go.

    I can prove they won’t (or will) hurt me because other people have done the necessary “experiment” and tested them first.

    NO YOU CAN’T! That’s directly contrary to your previous (and correct) point. You can’t prove they’re safe. You can build up a track record which SUGGESTS that they’re safe. But you can never know for sure. Maybe you’ll eat one tomorrow and it will kill you because your theory was wrong.

    The point – the whole point – I am trying to make is this: Earth’s climate is complicated and not perfectly understood.

    Not “perfectly”??
    You mean you understand most of it?!

    No, not at all. I understand barely a fraction. Yet you claim to know exactly what affect an unspecified amount of a chemical released into the atmosphere will do. And you state it with such abject certaintly (“down to hundreds of decimal places”) – it’s preposterous.

    We don’t understand the climate well enough to predict squat. So how can you be so sure you’re right about CO2 being harmless?

    Shouldn’t we be careful about what we do until we DO understand things a little better?

    Come on down and get your Nobel Prize, because mankind does not understand climate very well at all!

    I’ll get my Nobel later on when I figure out how your alien brain works.

    If it were perfectly understood, we would know what the weather will be tomorrow instead of “30% chance of precipitation.” We would know if this is going to be a very cold or snowy winter. We don’t.

    FALSE

    IT CANNOT BE PERFECTLY PREDICTABLE – the system is CHAOTIC, and therefore FAILS DETERMINISTIC PREDICTIONS.

    It cannot be done – impossible – never ever never ever.

    FALSE

    It can and will be done. Every time someone says something cannot be done, we seem to keep finding ways to do it. It’s a system. It is made up of parts. These parts are made up of other parts. These parts interact in simple and predictable ways governed by laws of physics and probability. We will get this down to a science.

    Man will never fly.
    Man will never eradicate an entire disease.
    Man will never be able to transplant a heart.
    Man will never build a machine that can win a Jeopardy!
    Man will never break the sound barrier.
    The Beatles will never make it big.
    Television will never be commercially viable.
    “The ordinary ‘horseless carriage’ is at present a luxury for the wealthy;
    and although its price will probably fall in the future, it will never, of
    course, come into as common use as the bicycle.”
    High speed passenger rail travel is impossible.
    Man will never split the atom.
    Lord Kelvin had a bunch of good ones.
    “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will be
    obtainable.” That one was Einstein
    Submarines are impossible in reality – HG Wells
    Copernicus is a fool – Martin Luther
    “Fooling around with alternating currents is just a waste of time” Thomas Edison

    Get the point? Or would you like me to continue? I can, you know.. I could do this all day. I’m not bored.

    And our actions, of course, impact the world around us. Just existing uses energy, takes in oxygen, emits co2, etc, affects the world.

    Spitting in the ocean raises the sea level.

    Your statement is a stupid as mine above.
    Do you know why?

    But that’s also the point. Spitting in the ocean raises sea levels. But technology gives us the impact to do more. Maybe not (yet) ocean levels, but we can certainly create man-made lakes or worse, drain natural ones dry. Read up on the original LA aqueduct – it fed from a lake which nobody thought would ever run out. Then it did. Oops. But without technology? We never would have been able to do such a thing.

    Technology amplifies man’s actions. Where something was “impossible,” it becomes plausible.

    I sincerely doubt you believe that you know exactly how a specific gas interacts in unknown quantities in a barely understood chaotic system

    Holy cow – you really don’t get it do?

    Yes, we do know how EXACTLY a specific gas interacts with radiation in the atmosphere THIS IS NOT CHAOTIC and IS DETERMINISTIC.

    So now the climate is deterministic? I thought you said it wasn’t…? You’re contradicting yourself..
    FALSE

    IT CANNOT BE PERFECTLY PREDICTABLE – the system is CHAOTIC, and therefore FAILS DETERMINISTIC PREDICTIONS.”

    So it’s not deterministic because you know what a gas interacting in the atmosphere will do, but it is because you don’t know what that means will happen next?

    ::sigh::

  11. 😐

  12. Mathius,

    But we have some things that we’re pretty sure about anyway.

    Yes we do, the secret is appears is knowing what we do and what we do not know.

    We do not know what will happen when we do y, because it is too big,

    EXACTLY

    Puny man is too small to do anything!

    Just because it is complicated does not change our size or its size.

    That is the spitting in the ocean – there are so many incredibly larger things going on that mankind’s inputs are completely lost in the variations.

    too intricate, too complicated. Before we go around making changes to it (however seemingly innocuous) we should get a better grip on the system and have a higher scientific confidence in what the results will be.

    So you say that before we spit, we better know how the whole system of climate works just in case our spit raises the ocean.

    NO!

    You prove to me that the spitting does something, and then that something is “bad”, then I will stop

    . I’m suggesting we get a predictive model together which SEEMS TO ACCURATELY REFLECT REALITY and which is tested and verified until we are pretty sure we have a good grip on the concept of “climate.”

    None exists, nor can exist. So waiting for such a model before we do anything means we go extinct.

    And until we have that, we should try to minimize what we spew into the atmosphere.

    If such spew is essentially harmless to humans – as in “not poisonous”, we must spew to the level our prosperity demands.

    I test it

    You do experiments and learn from them.

    You do not assume something that is not true.

    We don’t understand the climate well enough to predict squat. So how can you be so sure you’re right about CO2 being harmless?

    Because that part we know – it is SCIENTIFIC FACT, proven by experimentation.

    Shouldn’t we be careful about what we do until we DO understand things a little better?

    Sure! Blasting nuclear weapons in the atmosphere is not a good thing, I think after reviewing the physics of the beast.

    BUT we do understand Co2 — that is what is so bizarrely funny.

    The thing we do understand is made to be what we don’t, but the things we don’t understand is made out to be something we do!

    FALSE

    It can and will be done.

    It cannot be done and the mathematical proof says so.

    You can try to get 4 out of 5 minus 3 until the end of time, claiming “if I work hard enough, I can do it!”, but I can prove to you will not.

    If you want to continue to try, be my guest.

    • Mathius™ says:

      It cannot be done and the mathematical proof says so.

      It seems that I needed to continue my list of examples a little further as you did not see to get the point.

      “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”

      I could sit here all day giving you example after example of things that otherwise intelligent and informed people said were permanently beyond our reach, things that they said were impossible, economically infeasible, contradictory of the basic laws of physics.

      Yet time and time again, we do it anyway.

      “The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.”

      Man will never fly. Except that he did. Well he will never fly far. Except that he did. Well he will never cross the Atlantic. Except that he did. Well he will never fly faster than sound. Except that he did. Well he will never leave the atmosphere. Except that he did. Well he will never go to the moon. Except that he did. Well he will never go to Mars.

      And I say: wait for it. It will be done. It will be done and more beyond that.

      So you say “we will never be able to establish a good predictive model of the climate.”

      And I laugh at that. You are such a student of history, yet you cannot see the pattern of wise men claiming things are beyond our reach only to find that we somehow get it done anyway. Time after time after time after time.

      And you stand there and insist that “this time I’m right.” How often have you ridiculed others for using that same logic? How often has someone said “government will be able to fix X” and you laugh in their face saying it failed this time and that time and this other time, but now you think it will work? And you follow this up with some snide comment. Yet you see no irony in taking this same tact.

      This time I’m right. I say it’s impossible and I’m right. History doesn’t apply.

      And you can believe this because you are looking at the limits of our current understanding. This has always been the fatal flaw of people like you. Your thinking is so limited.

      “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

      • Mathius,

        You completely do not understand this point.

        The system is chaotic, which means it cannot be deterministic – period. You can know EVERYTHING about such a system and you would NOT be able to determine the next data point.

        Example: marble in a can shaker.

        You simply cannot predict where that marble will be at any point in time in the future.

        All you can do is tell where it has been in the past.

        You confuse technology with systems – pointing to one as if it defeats the other.

        We already have a “good” model – but it is only good out to about 4 days and the chaos of the real system distorts it so we can’t do much better.

        You need to brush up here:Chaos: Making a New Science
        by James Gleick

        Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos / Edition 2 by Ian Stewart

        The Universe: Order Without Design
        by Carlos I. Calle

        The Art of Modeling Dynamic Systems: Forecasting for Chaos, Randomness and Determinism
        by Foster Morrison

        In the Wake of Chaos: Unpredictable Order in Dynamical Systems
        by Stephen H. Kellert

        The End of Certainty: Time’s Flow and the Laws of Nature
        by Ilya Prigogine , I. Prigogine

        and finally,

        Thermodynamics of Chaotic Systems: An Introduction / Edition 1 by Christian Beck, Friedrich Schogl, Boris Chirikov (Contribution by), Predrag Cvitanovic (Contribution by), Frank Moss (Contribution by)

        • Mathius™ says:

          I’ll be sure to read those in my spare time.

          In the meantime, however, I point again to the fact that you do not know what science and and will be able to do.

          Science defeats all.

          I tell you that we will be able to calculate the future path of a marble a can shaker.

          I tell you that we will be able to calculate the future path of a dust mote in a hurricane a year before the hurricane happens.

          Chaos be damned, science will find a way to compensate. It has at every obstacle in history found some scenic route around the established beliefs of why something is impossible. Where it cannot confront a challenge head-on, it sneaks in through the back door laying waste to a million prophecies such as yours.

          Predictions of things that will never be lay in ruins, scattered on the dust-heap of history, you are surrounded on all sides by evidence that the great naysaying thinker of the past were short-sighted fools.

          But you know better. You will be the one to buck the trend.

          It must be lonely being the only person who knows everything.

          • Mathius,

            Science defeats all.

            I tell you that we will be able to calculate the future path of a marble a can shaker.

            I tell you that we will be able to calculate the future path of a dust mote in a hurricane a year before the hurricane happens.

            Impossible.

            You can’t even predict where the heck an electron will be around an atom, let alone something really complex like 10^38 atoms in a hurricane.

            • Mathius™ says:

              I can’t.

              But 15 years ago, I wouldn’t have been able to do calculus on my hand-held calculator.

              Future Mathius will one day wonder about the path of a dust mote. He will pull out his iPhone400… turns out: There’s an app for that!

    • Mathius™ says:

      “Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil?
      You’re crazy.”
      — Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill
      for oil in 1859

      “Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.”
      — Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929

      “Louis Pasteur’s theory of germs is ridiculous fiction”.
      — Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872

      “No one will ever be able to measure nerve impulse speed.”
      — Johannes Muller, German Physiologist, 1846

      “The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the
      intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon”.
      — Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed
      Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria, 1873

      “We are probably at the limit of what we can know about astronomy.”
      — Simon Newcomb, 1888

      “That the automobile has reached the limit of its development is suggested
      by the fact that during the last year no improvements of a radical nature
      have been introduced.”
      — Scientific American, 1909

      “Everything that can be invented has been invented.”
      — Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

      “Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for
      future improvements.”
      — Julius Frontenus, 10 A.D.

      “640K ought to be enough for anybody.”
      — Bill Gates, 1981

      “Heavier than air flying machines are impossible.”
      — Lord Kelvin

      It seems there are some smart people on this list whose crystal balls were malfunctioning.. but yours is working perfectly, right? When you say we’ll never do something, you’re right because you know better.

  13. Mathius,

    “Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.”
    — Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929

    You know Fisher was a crackpot economist, right?

    Did you know he invented the Rolodex?

    Made himself a millionaire and lost it all, and his sister-in-laws fortune plying bizarre economic theories.

    Did you also know Keynes based his theories on Fisher???

    How the worm wiggles…..

  14. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    As a scientist, let me remind y’all of a few things here:

    Scientific consensus is almost always dead wrong. Ask Galileo, ask Einstein, ask any “great” scientist. Great scientists are the ones who were laughed at, excommunicated, or suffered death threats (or even death itself) for bucking the “consensus”… that is, until the consensus folks realized that they were dead wrong and the “great scientists” were on to something!

    There are no “LAWS” in science. Some scientists misname something as a “law” but the best they really should call it is a “really solid hypothesis within a limited framework which seems to accurately describe reality within that limited framework”. Science is made up of FALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESES, not “laws”. Anything which is taken to be “gospel truth” is not a falsifiable hypothesis, and therefore it ISN’T SCIENCE, it is merely religion masquerading as something else.

    The first hypothesis which one MUST work from is called the “Null Hypothesis”. First, you must choose the correct Null Hypothesis for the system which you are attempting to observe and describe. For example, a possible suitable hypothesis for climate change would be as follows:

    Climate changes all of the time. It has been several degrees warmer at times in the past, is has been several degrees cooler at times in the past. These changes appear to be at least quasi-cyclical in nature. As a null hypothesis we postulate that such changes will continue into the future regardless of what man does.

    In order to REPLACE the NULL HYPOTHESIS with another, different hypothesis, it is NECESSARY to FALSIFY THE NULL HYPOTHESIS and show that the Null Hypothesis is INADEQUATE TO DESCRIBE THE CURRENT SITUATION! That (clearly) has not been done. No one has shown that the Null Hypothesis has been sufficiently falsified that it needs must be replaced with a more complex hypothesis!

    Also, once again for review, here is the actual scientific method!

    1. Form an hypothesis to describe a phenomenon or set of phenomena.
    2. Design an experiment to test the hypothesis (proper design and accounting for variables!!!)
    3. Make and record observations and data from the experiment.
    4. Analyze the data (properly!!!)
    5. Share your experimental design, observations, data, and data manipulations with others so that the experiment can be DUPLICATED!
    6. If others cannot duplicate your experiment, your experiment was hogwash and cannot possible support your hypothesis.
    7. Even if others CAN duplicate your experiment, this does not PROVE your hypothesis (since you CANNOT PROVE an hypothesis!)
    8. If enough independent experiments support your hypothesis, it may become theory, or even “law”
    9. Even if your hypothesis becomes a scientific “law” there is about a 99.999% chance that at some point in the future (either tomorrow or 100,000 years from now) some guy is going to come along and show that your hypothesis is false, so learn to live with that!

    The problem with the CAGW cabal is that they want us to believe that there is a reason to disregard the null hypothesis (there isn’t), and that their hypothesis is 100% correct and a law. The problem is, in almost all cases, they haven’t even followed the scientific method! Their experiments are not properly designed, they have no way of properly accounting for all variables, their observations and data are questionable (see any studies on just how poorly thermometers are sited… in the United States alone, nearly 70% of all “official” thermometers fail to meet proper siting criteria BY A LONG SHOT!). Further, the CAGW cabal fails to share their experimental designs, observations, data, and (most especially) their data manipulations, thus making it impossible for real scientists to attempt to duplicate their work. They make excuses such as “Why should I share my experimental data and design with you when all you want to do is poke holes in it?” (Direct quote of Dr. Phil Jones of Climategate fame!!! A real scientist would understand that it is the JOB of other scientists to try to poke holes in his experimental design, observations, and data… THAT IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS!!!!) Lastly, the CAGW cabal ignores real data where it conflicts with the output of their models…….. I’m sorry… WHAT WAS THAT???? For a scientist to assert that real data is faulty because it conflicts with model output is simply a reflection of just how farcial the whole “science” of CAGW has become! These “scientists” treat model output as if it were real data, and perform statistical manipulations with the model output AS IF IT WERE REAL DATA?!?!?!

    If any of you are still convinced that any of that even RESEMBLES actual science, well, there is no help for you I am afraid.

    As Kent points out (indirectly), those that wish to control the lives of others count on the fact that 99% of all people have no real understanding of “science” and will believe that “scientists” and “the government” are “experts” who are looking out for “the greater good” and as such can be trusted to make sound, informed decisions. THAT, my friends, is the well-paved road to tyranny which Kent is referring to!

  15. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    One other note as a follow-up to Black Flag’s discussion of positive feedback loops. Positive feedback loops do exist in nature, but where they exist, the result is invariably quick and disastrous destruction. If ANY part of contains a positive feedback loop which leads to continuous heating of the atmosphere, then we never would have been here in the first place. The Earth would have been so hot as to be completely uninhabitable millions of years ago, and it would be even hotter than that now! THINK about it!

    • Let me toss something in as well. Flag stated:

      You do not understand positive feedback loops.

      To cause such a shift requires energy inputs as I have already explained.

      When talking about CO2 and it’s effect on warming, where is the discussion on the actual “energy”? Either sunlight or cosmic rays are the energy source and I think it’s been proven they are not constant. How can any intelligent discussion be had on feedback loops if you exclude the energy source?

  16. This debate is like a professional tennis match. The ball is speeding back and forth over the net so fast it makes my neck hurt!

    Anyone have some Excedrin?

    🙂

    PS – Interesting debate.

  17. For those who would like a slight change of pace from the Null Hypothesis discussion. From electriccity weblog.

    Alas, The Unitary Executive
    Written by Dave Budge on 16 November 2011

    I’m sure that George W. Bush’s detractors haven’t forgotten their worry about the expansion of power under his megalomaniacal neo-con administration. To be sure there were times when even conservatives blushed at executive over-reach in such areas as 4th Amendment protections. Of course the flap at the time was not so much Executive Orders but a great deal of hyperbolic flap over signing statements. I does make one wonder where, and why, their concern about abuse of executive power has dissipated under the current regime.

    Perhaps it’s simply my libertarian underpinnings that have me seeing the current administration even more cavalier in its lack of respect for the law. There seems so few instances where, when the law rubs hard against ideology, the President doesn’t simply find a rationale to ignore it. In the matter the GM bankruptcy the administration found it wise all but invalidate 230 years of precedent in bankruptcy law. In the Solyndra loan the administration illegally subordinated the taxpayer interest to private risk capital. The president commits U.S. resources to war – which he defined as not a war – without the approval of Congress. Underwriting standards are redefined by executive fiat for the FHA. The only real noise coming from the left concerns orders to target U.S. citizens for death by drone.

    The most recent flagrant disregard for the law is reflected in how Mr. Obama plans to handle parts of the implementation of the heath care law. As reported by the WSJ:

    This is where the glitch comes in: ObamaCare authorizes premium assistance in state-run exchanges (Section 1311) but not federal ones (Section 1321). In other words, states that refuse to create an exchange can block much of ObamaCare’s spending and practically force Congress to reopen the law for revisions.

    The Obama administration wants to avoid that legislative debacle, so this summer it proposed an IRS rule to offer premium assistance in all exchanges “whether established under section 1311 or 1321.” On Nov. 17 the IRS will hold a public hearing on that proposal. According to a Treasury Department spokeswoman, the administration is “confident” that offering premium assistance where Congress has not authorized it “is consistent with the intent of the law and our ability to interpret and implement it.”

    Such confidence is misplaced. The text of the law is perfectly clear. And without congressional authorization, the IRS lacks the power to dispense tax credits or spend money.

    It would appear the Nancy Pelosi was somewhat wrong. Yes, it’s true that they had to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. But from a practical standpoint it makes no difference since Mr. Obama simply chooses to disregard the inconvenience of the law.

    I’m not making a case that any of these actions are bad policy. That’s a different discussion. But we’ve come to the point where one wonders why we even bother to elect, no less pay, Congress. Obviously Mr. Obama thinks we can do without them.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I[t] does make one wonder where, and why, their concern about abuse of executive power has dissipated under the current regime.

      Where indeed.. where indeed…

      A perfectly fair question.

      Where indeed…

      I’ll admit I’m not as concerned about signing statements and executive orders while President Obama is in the big chair as I was when it was his predecessor.. I’ll have to consider what that says about me…

      But.

      One might ask a converse question: With the appearance of the Tea Party and a sudden and extreme (not saying wrong, just that it’s wildly different from the status quo, and quite staunch) call to austerity and limited government in the US amid big government and massive debt, I wonder where these people were when President Bush II was in the big chair. The difference on these particular issues between the two is not very pronounced.

      • Mathius

        Why is it that those on the left constantly ignore the fact that the Tea Party STARTED when Bush was still President.

        His proposed TARP was the tipping point. Along with his “I have to destroy Capitalism to save it” comment.

        The small govt views of the Tea Party have been around for a very long time. In my youth it was called THE SILENT MAJORITY.

        Ask McGovern what happened when they felt a real threat and choice!

        This questioning of “where were they when” has been a propaganda ploy by the DNC since day one. It is used to say that the Tea Party are nothing but RACISTS, because they didn’t oppose Bush II so vocally. Of course the irony is that in making this claim, you/the DNC/etc, are ADMITTING that Mr. Obama is just another FASCIST PROGRESSIVE, like his predecessor.

        Full Disclosure: I voted for Bush II BOTH times. The Dems could have run anybody but a Clinton, Kerry or Al Gore and I would have probably voted for them. But they didn’t. And it was obvious WHO was running the Gore and Kerry campaigns. BUT, I complained about Bush II’s policies, especially his lack of fiscal restraint, constantly. Until the bubble busted, however, there were few who cared to listen. On either the left or right, I should say Dem or Repub. Those of us on the RIGHT don’t need to be convinced.

  18. Mathius™ says:

    Did I scare everyone off…?

    I guess I’ve got SUFA alllll to myself…

    Hmm… well let’s see…

    Obama is the best President ever!

    Communism > Libertarianism > VDLG-ism > Anarchism

    D13 is actually a corporal.

    Gay marriage morally equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

    California and New York are the best states. Period.

    Keynes is better than Smith.

    The universe is deterministic.

    Canine Weapon is a Teacup Yorkie.

    Republicans hate America!

    DPM is a doo doo head.

    Bachmann is crazy.

    Boy this is fun.. . let’s see if anyone bites..

  19. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/arts-post/post/obama-kisses-chavez-in-new-benetton-ad/2011/11/16/gIQAB91oRN_blog.html?wprss=arts-post

    Okay, this is just silly-but it irritates me because it is being done under the Banner of UNHate-and that is not any where close to their actual intent. 😦

    • YUK! I couldnt even read it!

      • “Later today, the company announced that the ad featuring the Pope will be pulled. The AP reports: ”The Benetton clothing company has withdrawn an ad showing Pope Benedict XVI kissing a top Egyptian imam on the lips after the Vatican denounced it as an ‘unacceptable’ provocation.” Wonder who they were scared of offending-want to bet it wasn’t the Catholic Church.

        • Uh oh! That puts the pope in the crosshairs.

          Side note: Did you watch the Gabby Giffords interview? WOW! Go Gabby

          • No , I didn’t see the whole interview just clips-but yes I am VERY glad that she is alive and improving everyday 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 Figure that needs at least a 6 smile response.

            • Yes indeed… I watched it at abc,com ..tried to post a link but it came up with a youtube video. if you’re interested just search abc for Gabby Giffords interview.

  20. Zuccotti Park protester arrested after threatening to burn down city
    Urges Molotov coctail strike on Macy’s

    BY Joe Kemp & Rocco Parascandola
    NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

    Wednesday, November 16 2011, 7:03 PM

    A protester was arrested in Zuccotti Park Wednesday after he threatened to set the city on fire — and his rant went viral on YouTube, police said.

    Nkrumah Tinsley, 29, was busted after cops saw his tirade at Zuccotti online, where he was recorded on video claiming he would torch the city during Thursday’s mass protest.

    “On the 17th [of Nov.\], we’re going to burn New York City to the f—ing ground,” an angry Tinsley told a crowd of demonstrators in the video posted on Tuesday.

    “In a few days, you’re going to see what a Molotov coctail can do to Macy’s.”

    Tinsley, of Harlem, was charged with making terroristic threats.

    In October, Tinsley was arrested on Barkley St. for punching a cop in the face and kicking him on the ground during a protest. He was later released without bail.

    He’s being held Wednesday night in the 7th precinct.

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/zuccotti-park-protester-arrested-threatening-burn-city-article-1.978770#ixzz1dv7N5ARm

    The video of his rant is available if you go to the link. Hmmmm- watched this earlier today during a break-never considered him being arrested. Will have to think about this one! He was sounding pretty crazy though.

    • I saw that rant too. Hmm..wonder what the big Thursday surprise is going to be.

      • Who knows-I did think it was funny-when they started the crap about they were going to have a celebration, a party to mark the two month point-OH okay, a party-all is forgiven.

        • Sounds like a Detroit hoedown..molitov cocktails and all. Speaking of Occupy Detroit..The tent city got kicked out but they have been offered indoor headquarters at an empty warehouse..plenty of those to go around in the D!

          • If I wasn’t worried that people are really gonna end up hurt-I would want them to stay-the longer they are out there-the more people would recognize who they actually are-and what following them will bring to this country. Night.

    • So now we are arrested for what we say rather than what we actually do.

      The left screams about the erosion of free speech, ignoring the fact that it was the Progressives who decided that Govt could have a compelling interest that supersedes our “rights”.

  21. http://www.breitbart.tv/occupy-protester-govt-should-sieze-all-housing/

    Just for fun-I must post this-and NO-I’m not painting everyone who supports this crap thinks this way-just most of those walking behind a banner that says Death to Capitalism. 🙂

    And now I must go eat-have a nice evening.

    • If anyone ever had doubts about the difference between the charter of the USA vs. the charter of the United Nations, this professor put it to rest with her conclusion.

  22. They are Penn State …

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/open-the-records-at-penn-state.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=penn%20state&st=Search

    And did Joe Pa really sell his house to his wife for a buck just before this investigation began? Right now it’s a rumor, but it sure is looking like there’s a TON of evidence suggesting Sandusy didn’t retire at all in 1999 … that’s looking more like a deal every day … if Penn State wants to begin repairing its now horrific reputation, it sure should open those investigations to public scrutiny. If it doesn’t, it just means that have more to hide …

    • When I saw the house sale I didn’t think it was a rumor because sale price and owner/seller are public record.

      • This thing is about to explode … again. It is starting to look even worse than a week ago. It seems there are a ton of people involved in the coverup. Now the mother of one of Sandusky’s 5 adopted kids (ones he met through the 2nd Mile pedophiles-R-Us campe he founded) is speaking out.

        Ugly stuff.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          This will not endear me to many…….but IF it is demonstrated that there was a systemic/institutional level cover-up of any proven crimes (e.g. Sandusky is found guilty) then I believe that the Penn State football program should be dismantled – they should be given an SMU-like death penalty and completely eliminated for at least 10 years.

          It is inconceivable that Paterno AND numerous others (other coaches, administration, even some players) had NO IDEA what Sandusky was up to. Even with what Sandusky has admitted to with showering with boys – I simply don’t buy this bullshit excuse that he was still that teenage/young jock in an old man’s body snapping towels and other nonsense.

          What also an overall sad commentary on our state of affairs –

          a revered institution permanently tarred and feathered by the behaviors of a creepy rotten-toothed man who was revered in his own right because of a effing game (Penn State Football),

          GOP Presidential candidates who (a) cannot remember basic talking points in their own agenda (Perry), (b) seem annoyed by any suggestion that they have an opinion on foreign policy (Cain), (c) can’t seem to shake loose from rumors of their own sexual misdeeds years ago (Cain), (d) gladly eat their own shit sandwiches while trying to convince the public that it is indeed….yummy (Newt), (e) seem to think that the key to recovering the greatness of our Country is ensuring the State defines what everyone does with their tallywhackers and with whom (Santorum), and (f) are earmarked as the “likely nominee” yet cannot seem to marshal more than 25% support (O’Romney);

          a media who salaciously chases after the attention-whore Kardashians – who, mind you, are “famous” merely because the least ugly of them made a crappy porn tape with a C-list celebrity. In fact – lets not call it the media/press anymore – I cannot even turn on the goddamn Today show anymore without some bullshit National Enquirer-esque story. Let’s call them the Idiot Makers.

          A President who may win in 2012 simply because the GOP is too goddamn dumb to put forth a strong candidate who actually has a plan and message that is something more than “Obama sucks….elect me”;

          A President who does not understand that we’re watching…..yessir we’re all watching……we’re watching you take a bad situation (really most all situations he has had to handle) and make it worse.

          We have met the enemy – he is in the mirror staring at us

          • Ray nails it. We are America.

            Capitalism has ruined a beautiful thing.

            • Charlie,

              Capitalism made America the richest, most prosperous nation in human history.

              To declare is has “destroyed America” only betrays the utter confusion you have with it, and in economics.

              • BF, you only count the less than 1% … which is consistent with everything you do; whatever is good for the rich, is good for the country. assumptions made from on high.

                No thanks, we’ll deal with reality, pal. America is the richest most prosperous nation in human history because of all that government support you claim you hate; it kept third world countries in poverty and feasted off the bounty of others. I seem to remember you speaking this way too, come to think of it … only when it fits your alleged “anti-government” rants, though …

  23. The Obama administration’s new proposal to double the fuel efficiency of cars by 2025 may cost up to $157 billion and add $2,000 to the price of passenger automobiles, according to two federal agencies.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/16/obamas-new-fuel-standards-to-add-2000-to-car-prices-cost-157b-agencies-say/#ixzz1dyHGyeAT

    So is everyone eager to spend an extra two grand for their vehicle? Remember, you’re helping save the planet!!!
    And when this impacts the poor more than everyone else, it will be because of that greedy one percent.

    • Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe is pushing for an investigation into alleged human rights abuses committed abroad by companies looking to tap into the emerging carbon credit market.

      In a letter sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week, Inhofe demanded an investigation into crimes allegedly committed Africa and Latin America in the name of mitigating climate change — as sanctioned by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

      Inhofe’s concern stems in part from a September Oxfam International report that detailed how The New Forest Company, a firm that grows tree plantations in order to sell carbon credits, violently evicted more than 20,000 people from their homes and land in Uganda to make way for one of their forests.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/16/inhofe-demands-probe-into-possible-abuses-wrought-by-carbon-credit-market/#ixzz1dyIp3NUQ

      Our tax dollars at work.

    • LOI,
      If you double the fuel economy, most people will save more than $2000 a year on fuel.
      So the added $2000 is paid for in the first year, and the savings after that is cash in your pocket.

      Feel better now?

      • Mathius™ says:

        Why stop at doubling? Why not triple or quadruple?

        Ooh! Maybe we can make cars that run on happy thoughts and mouse turds.

      • Todd,

        Isn’t that based on the price of gasoline? Is Obama promising it won’t be $8-10 a gallon, like he promised unemployment wouldn’t exceeded 8%. Consider also he wants the FLEET average to be higher than a Prius gets today. They don’t know what it will cost because they have yet to develop the technology. How small can they build them and still meet the increasing demands for safety? Airbags and crush space take weight along with all the anti-pollution devices. And all this will impact the poor much greater than the everyone else. Think OWS’ers are angry now, weight a few more years…..

        • LOI,
          Yes, it’s based on the price of gas, but the higher the price of gas, the more you save each year…so I’m sure that’s why Obama is working to raise the price of gas…

          Consider also he wants the FLEET average to be higher than a Prius gets today. They don’t know what it will cost because they have yet to develop the technology. How small can they build them and still meet the increasing demands for safety? Airbags and crush space take weight along with all the anti-pollution devices.

          It’s called innovation and American know-how. Yes, it’s a challenge. But should we just sit on our butts? Or should we set a goal and try to reach it?

      • I won’t speak for LOI-but it doesn’t make me feel any better. 🙂 All the goings on around the auto industry makes me feel worse not better.

        Clunkers-I don’t see anything it did but cause the price of used cars to go up
        Bailing out the industry-usurped current laws on bankruptcy-put a lot of distributors out of business(which created a lot of questions on how they decided who would be Allowed to stay in business) made us owners of what was supposed to be private business-and from what I have been reading cost us a lot more money than originally admitted too.

        As far as people saving on gas-one has to be able to afford the car-to take advantage of that plus-and whether or not it is a plus really depends on what bailing them out cost us as it relates to the overall economy. We have companies that we just had to bail out and your gonna make them double the standards NOW-do they Want to have a reason to bail them out again.

        On a personal experience-my son just bought his first New car-he was going to buy a used car to save money-but he quickly found out, that the cost of used cars was so high-that with a good credit rating -it made more sense to take out a loan and buy a new one. Not sure how that information fits into this overall discussion-but I found it interesting. 🙂

      • Todd,

        No, you do not save $2,000 if you double you mileage.

        Energy is a zero sum game. To go further on the same energy requires a fundamental change in design – you do not get something for nothing.

        Thus, the car must be made lighter – that means using incredibly more expensive materials, driving the cost of the car higher.
        or
        The car is simply made with less materials, and becomes a death trap, thus you trade an increase in death and injury for your “saving”.

        The choice of which or what should be the right of the individual, not of government. If I want to drive a tank of a car for my safety, no one should have the right to say differently.

        • Black Flag,
          Lighter-Stronger-Faster-Cheaper. It can be done.

          And if they double the gas mileage of your Tank, you still win! 😉

          • Todd,

            Lighter-Stronger-Faster-Cheaper. It can be done.

            No sir.

            You can get two, maybe three, but never four of these things at the same time.

            • Black Flag,
              I didn’t say you need all four. Those are just the types of things that improve all kinds of products.

              And I think two or three would do the trick!

  24. Just to emphasize my point that the future is going to be awesome:

    Link.

    And Flag thinks we will never have the power to predict “something really complex like 10^38 atoms in a hurricane.”

  25. 😦

    Health care law threatens to cripple medical device companies
    Published: 11:34 PM 11/16/2011 | Updated: 6:20 AM 11/17/2011
    By Neil Munro

    President Barack Obama’s health care reform law is already bleeding jobs from the nation’s high-tech, high-wage medical device industry, but Senate Democrats aren’t trying to close the wound, says Minnesota Republican Rep. Erik Paulsen.

    The 2010 law imposed a crippling 10-year, $20 billion tax on revenues — not on profits — earned by companies that make medical devices, such as catheters, artery-clearing stents, scalpels and pacemakers.

    The tax is prompting American companies to shed jobs, move factories overseas and reconsider niche-market research projects, said Paulson, whose district include medical device companies.

    No Senate Democrats are supporting his tax-repeal bill, even though many have medical devices companies in their districts, he said. “They’re the ones digging to protect Obamacare,” he told The Daily Caller.

    “The administration will dig in and protect Obamacare at all costs, even if it looks like it is going to cause the layoff of 10 percent of the medical-device workforce, or 43,000 jobs,” said Paulson, who has gathered 218 House signatures for a bill to repeal the tax.

    The pessimistic forecast is echoed by Kem Hawkins, president of Cook Medical, a family-owned firm in Bloomington, Ind., that employs 10,000 workers, most of them in the United States.

    “Companies are already moving jobs, they’re already moving products, they’re not investing in the U.S.,” he told TheDC. “If we don’t stop it now … it will be too late” to preserve the United States’ leading role, he said.
    Hawkins said he’s free to speak about the damage caused by the tax because Cook is privately owned, and safe from Wall Street sell-offs or stock-pickers’ pressure to cut U.S. employment.

    Still, he added, by protesting the law, “we do recognize that we do put ourselves in harms way, especially with the regulatory agencies.”

    “We’re trying to represent the patients [and] if you have to be be afraid of your government, you’ve already lost,” he said.

    The medical device sector is not the only victim of the controversial law.

    The percentage of uninsured Americans has risen from 14.6 percent to 17.3 percent over the same period, Gallup reported. In October, Wal-Mart announced that new part-time employees would not be allowed join the company’s health insurance plan.

    Washington has also wrecked other high-end industries.

    The U.S. yacht industry was slashed — along with more than 7,000 jobs and federal tax revenues — following the 1990 imposition of a 10 percent “Luxury Tax.”

    The U.S. small aircraft industry was hit hard by lawsuits from the 1980s, causing aircraft production to fall from 17,000 aircraft in 1979 to 954 aircraft in 1993, and forcing the layoff of 100,000 workers. Obama’s recent criticism of executive jets also added to the sector’s looses, and Piper Aircraft announced October 26 that it was laying off 150 engineers and workers because it had canceled plans for a business jet.

    But other industries have defeated Democratic legislators and allied interest groups.

    Silicon Valley united in the 1990s to fend off lawyers who prospered by suing companies when their stock prices fell, the firearms-industry won legal protections via a Supreme Court decision in 2010.

    The medical device tax has to be paid starting in 2013, but companies are planning ahead, Hawkins said.

    “If you look at all the companies that have announced that they are moving to China, Ireland and Canada, you’d be shocked by the number of jobs that have already left or that are leaving,” he said.

    For example, this year Boston Scientific announced in July that it would invest $150 million in a Chinese factory, New Jersey-based C.R. Bard announced 200 layoffs from a factory in Queensbury, N.Y.., Massachusetts-based Covidien announced it would cut U.S. expenses by roughly $200 million per year and also expand overseas, while Indiana-based Zimmer Orthopedics laid off 100 workers.

    The 2.3 percent excise tax on revenues has a big impact, partly because the competitive international market means U.S. companies can’t pass the price on to customers, but also because it deeply cuts into profits and deters investors, especially for niche products that have only a few thousand patients, Hawkins said.

    For example, the company makes an a high-tech device that allows the body to repair gaping holes in internal organs, such as the intestinal tract. “We don’t sell many of them, and it’s not that big of a revenue for us,” said Hawkins, but it is enormously valuable for American kids and teenage African mothers whose lives are blighted by “anal fistulas,” he said.

    The excise tax is just another burden on top of existing hindrances, which include a slow regulatory review process for new products, high corporate taxes, extra taxes on repatriated profits, and constant portrayal of company executives as “crooks,” Hawkins said.

    The slow pace of regulatory review is especially painful, because the company needs approval for all of its 16,000 products, he said. In practice, slow approvals ensure that overseas competitors can sell new products into emerging markets faster that U.S. companies. he said.

    One obvious solution, he said, is for U.S. companies to move factories and design teams to overseas sites. By moving overseas, he said, “we can still do business, but he problem is, we don’t employ Americans.”

    The U.S. government, he said, is “doing everything [it] can possibly do to run medical-device companies out of this country.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/16/health-care-law-threatens-to-cripple-medical-device-companies/#ixzz1dz1F4HQ0

    • Yep, this is starting to hit real close to home as my husband’s job is in this area of the health care market.

  26. The Judge is sharing this on FB today.

    http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/

    • Kathy

      Great find.

      Todd: from within the text and along the lines of your question the other day.

      “As Morris R. Cohen has remarked: “The notion that we can dismiss the views of all previous thinkers surely leaves no basis for the hope that our own work will prove of any value to others.”* “

      • Mathius™ says:

        JAC,

        I sincerely look forward to a time of sufficient advancement that the thoughts of our generations will be looked upon as quaintly as the thoughts of the great thinkers of the 1800’s.

      • JAC,
        I never said we should dismiss the Founding Fathers, but we should not base every decision in our current society on their writing. Our thinking needs to evolve, because the world has evolved (sorry, couldn’t resist that one!).

        I did start writing a reply to you, but never finished it.

        • Todd

          I hope we get a chance to explore your response some day.

          As for what the Founders meant by the words in the Constitution specifically, I think they matter IF we accept the concept of the importance and function of a Constitution. There was great wisdom in their thinking. There were also many contradictions.

          I do agree that we should not try to live by their words JUST BECAUSE they are their words. We must THINK.

    • Could someone please explain the difference between private property and personal property?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Personal property is your sole property. No one else has any claim to it. It is also private property.

        Private property may be owned jointly by more than one person, which would mean that it isn’t necessarily “personal property”.

        That’s my simplistic explanation, but I believe it is essentially correct.

        • Thanks Peter-that was indeed the question I asked-but I was leaning more towards-what distinction does one think this man was trying to make -and how it would be implemented- when personal and private property are basically the same thing.

      • V.H.

        Peter has it wrong, but then his explanation doesn’t address what the goof was saying.

        In a world where everyone has the RIGHT to all the material goods, that property which you have is “personal property”, but your ownership exists by permission of society.

        But here is the answer:

        All personal property IS private property.

        Not all private property is personal property.

        “personal” = YOU.

        “private” = YOU, THEY, MANY, SOME, person, company, et; = NOT PUBLIC

  27. I find this whole discussion interesting. First its “Global warming science is not settled,” but it quickly turns into “Global warming science is discredited.”

    Then there’s the “question” about evolution, while at the same time saying the GOP believes in science.

    And Tea Partiers wanting to “Take our Country Back”…I think I’m getting an idea of where they want to take our country back too…Rick Perry and Herman Cain provide “clues”…

    I think it was a few months ago – or last Spring – when someone asked “If evolution is real, how come I’m not seeing it happening right now?” (I think it was either Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin, but that just might be wishful thinking on my part!!).

    Of course the answer is because evolution is a slow process, it doesn’t happen all at once, and it doesn’t happen on a consistent basis.

    But actually evolution is happening – right here, right now. You’ve all heard the term “Liberal Elite,” right? But have you ever heard of “Conservative Elite?” No, because evolution doesn’t happen on a consistent basis, and the conservatives are getting left behind.

    But don’t worry, us “Liberal Elites” will keep explaining it to you to help you understand all of these big complicated issues that make your (tiny little undeveloped) (ooops – did I say that out load?) brains’ hurt.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Tell you what.

      Everyone who doesn’t believe in evolution can use the same flu shot as last year and treat infections with penicillin. I mean, if there’s no evolution, these should be equally effective as when they were first used, right?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        Actually, penicillin is still far more effective in treating BACTERIAL infections than most new antibiotics (it won’t do anything for the flu though). The problem with penicillin is that a lot of people are strongly allergic to it. But back to your actual point, yes, the development of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains indicates that adaptation can occur very rapidly in single-celled organisms, which would support the evolutionary hypothesis.

        I personally tend to believe that “God’s six days of universal creation” was more like 6 billion (or more) years (each day being a billion years or so) and God made (and continues to make) changes as the process goes along. If there is a supreme being, I believe that he would give life a natural mechanism for survival AND improvement and not merely make his creations static and unable to adapt and change. THAT; however, does not even rise to the level of a real scientific hypothesis as of yet, as far as I know 🙂

        • Mathius™ says:

          IF there is a god (big IF), I support the clockmaker theory. He set everything in motion, built the gears, wound the springs. And then he stepped back and watched it run like a clockwork.

          If there is a “originating” being with god-like powers, he likely set the big bang in motion, and that is the extent of his involvement in the evolution of our species.

          My humble opinion.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            I believe in Pascal’s wager. To paraphrase:

            If you do NOT believe in God, and are WRONG, the consequences could be very bad for you indeed!
            If you DO believe in God, and are WRONG, it really isn’t going to cause you any harm in the end!

            So, by that argument, all liberals should believe in God, because it fits the precautionary principle and supports the greater good 🙂

            • Mathius™ says:

              I do not believe that if there is a God, and if he cares about me and how I lived my life, that he will be fooled by false protestations of faith.

            • Peter,

              Ah, you have fallen into the Great Trap of Pascal’s Wager.

              The trap: you forgot about God.

              If you are merely “pretending” to believe in God just in case, and God really exists, he will know you were a hypocrite, and damn you anyway.

              There is only one way to bet with Pascal.
              “Be honest with yourself.”

              • BF

                Peter wasn’t falling for the trap. He was poking fun at Mathius for his theory of “select the option that prevents some unknown future catastrophe”.

                At least that is what I think he was doing.

              • Mathius,

                I agree that the “law” of thermodynamics best fits our current understanding of the universe of any available theories of which I am aware.

                *blink*

                I see we need to go even more fundamental.

                Can an object be white and be black at the same time?

                Maybe the same thing will turn out to be true of the “law” of thermodynamics.

                No.
                The laws of thermodynamics is fundamental, for it rests on the existence of a consistent universe.

                If you disagree with thermodynamics, you are saying this:

                I have more than I have

                Such a position is a contradiction … Less is NOT greater then more.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I think you posted this in the wrong threat…

                Can an object be white and be black at the same time?

                I don’t know. Can it? Maybe. Is it in a box and unobservable? What is black? What is white? ::shrug::

                I have more than I have

                Such a position is a contradiction … Less is NOT greater then more.

                And why not? Again, this is somewhat esoteric and off-subject, but the point is simply that you do not know everything and the tide of history suggests time and again that the “impossible” is, in fact, possible.

                Clarke understood.

              • Mathius,

                And why not? Again, this is somewhat esoteric and off-subject, but the point is simply that you do not know everything and the tide of history suggests time and again that the “impossible” is, in fact, possible.

                Clarke understood.

                But you do not

                He understood that contradictions do not exist.
                You haven’t even got that far yet.

                However, I understand YOU better, which is unfortunate, because it will mean a serious reduction of our dialogues.

                If I man refuses the required tenant of reason, there ends the point of reasoning with him.

          • Mathius

            I have never know a clock master who could resist tinkering with his clocks. Trying to make them better or different.

            • Mathius™ says:

              And your assumption is the God is anthropomorphic? That we can predict his behavior based on your experience with other humans?

            • Mathius

              It was YOU that declared belief in the clock master theory.

              So you assume the theory to be true and then try to claim the rules of the theory do not apply.

              Or in other terms, you declare God to be a clock master but then claim he/she would not have to abide by the same laws that apply upon ALL clock masters. Thus making God an interloper into the affairs of the universe, when ever it suits him/her/it. Thus overturning your theory that God only got the ball rolling and then stepped back.

              Since you indirectly questioned my assumption I will share it with you.

              God can not act outside the laws of the universe.

              • Okay, I may regret doing this, but….

                God can not act outside the laws of the universe.

                If God created the Universe and the laws governing it, can He not act outside of those laws?

              • Plainly,

                As always, one needs to start with your definition of God, before one begins attributing such properties to it.

              • oops….add “why” before “can”. sorry

              • BF,

                Considering they were discussing God as the master clockmaker, I presumed they were talking about God as the creator of the universe.

              • Plainly,

                So, as a Creator, why would you create a Universe that by its core design prohibits contradictions, and then contradict that design by becoming the manipulator?

              • Nope, nope, nope……I asked the question why can He not if he created it. And before you say it, why would it be a contradiction?

              • Plainly,

                ope, nope, nope……I asked the question why can He not if he created it. And before you say it, why would it be a contradiction?

                Ok, so let’s step thru this, and you are God.

                You create this Law of Gravity, and because you are God it is immutable and universal. That means it applies to all things everywhere all the time.

                You then “step in”, and in a particular case, you twist this Law of Gravity to a different outcome – well, just because you are God.

                Well, now the Law is NOT immutable, nor universal – but that was the fundamental premise at the beginning. You’ve contradicted yourself, thus, you can’t be God.

                But…you still want to muck with things… SO!….

                …..you -as God- would make another Universal Law, and that’s just fine, call that one Law of Thermodynamics … hot air rises. But this Law has all the necessary conditions that still do not contradict the first law, and itself, cannot be contradicted. But you can’t muck with that either, or else you violate the premise again. But you still want to muck….

                So, you create another Universal Law that modifies that, but still fulfills the primary Laws without contradictions… so on and so forth.

                You end up with a whole bunch of Laws, all Universal and Immutable – and self-consistent – while mucking around all you want…with the catch – you can’t violate any of the previous Universal Laws, or else you destroy the self-consistency

                So it is not much of question of can He or can He not. The question is how does he do it and remain consistent in doing it?

              • BF,

                How can we say that the tinkering isn’t required to make the law immutable and universal?

              • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

                Let me summarize BF’s position succinctly……

                God = Congress?

              • Carbon,

                Not quite.

                God does not contradict himself, whereas Congress does nothing else.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Todd,

      See my post above on the Null Hypothesis and the Scientific Method. Your liberal elite brain might find it educational. Since you (like 99% of everyone else) probably didn’t take many “hard science” classes, you probably weren’t taught that (incredibly important) stuff at your high-quality liberal-elite “learning facilities”.

      The problem with a large number (though not all) people who claim to be climatologists is that THEY either weren’t taught about null hypotheses or the scientific method either, or they were taught about it but either intentionally or unintentionally completely fail to apply it to the study of Earth’s climate. Whether their failure is intentional or unintentional is irrelevant. Either way it only produces junk science.

      One good thing to note, the upcoming IPCC AR5 report seems to be addressing previously unaddressed topics such as uncertainty and maybe even a little actual science this time:

      http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/leaked-text-of-ipcc-extreme-report.html

      • Peter,

        Your liberal elite brain might find it educational. Since you (like 99% of everyone else) probably didn’t take many “hard science” classes, you probably weren’t taught that (incredibly important) stuff at your high-quality liberal-elite “learning facilities”.

        Your assumptions about my education are completely inaccurate, therefore rendering your entire post NULL.

    • Todd,

      I find this whole discussion interesting. First its “Global warming science is not settled,” but it quickly turns into “Global warming science is discredited.”
      ( As I stated in the beginning, the debate on climate change will never be settled unless we admit there are just too many variables for us to predict what will happen. I think the theory of AGW, or mankind being enough of an influence to cause warming or cooling has now been debunked. Maybe I am getting ahead of myself in saying that, but in several ways, it truly has been shown to be false. The computer models have been shown to be wrong with the COOLING period we are in now. CO2 has been shown to follow warming, not lead/cause warming. And the topper, the CLOUD experiment provides a theory that does explain climate change. Note I say theory, not THEORY, nothing has been proven, but it does point us in the right direction to research.)

      Then there’s the “question” about evolution, while at the same time saying the GOP believes in science.
      ( You do understand Evolution is a THEORY still? Isn’t it funny it still hasn’t been proven and been upgraded to a scientific LAW? My question on evolution is not about how species evolve, but what the theory leaves out. How did life first begin? It had to become a living organism before it could evolve, so how did that happen? What is the Liberal Elite theory of how life began? And what does that possibly have to do with the GOP?)

      And Tea Partiers wanting to “Take our Country Back”…I think I’m getting an idea of where they want to take our country back too…Rick Perry and Herman Cain provide “clues”…(so you prefer where OWS’ers want to take us??? and I do like Cain)

      But don’t worry, us “Liberal Elites” will keep explaining it to you to help you understand all of these big complicated issues that make your (tiny little undeveloped) (ooops – did I say that out load?) brains’ hurt.

      (gee, have you read and understood what you just wrote? “But don’t worry, us “Liberal Elites” will keep explaining it to you” So what did you explain? Sarcasm is now considered explaining? Is that what all the liberal teachers now use as their teaching method? Maybe that explains why the liberal education system is such a failure.)

      • Mathius™ says:

        What is the Liberal Elite theory of how life began? And what does that possibly have to do with the GOP?)
        Al Gore created it, duh.

      • LOI,

        As I stated in the beginning, the debate on climate change will never be settled unless we admit there are just too many variables for us to predict what will happen.

        So you’ve already decided on the out come? It’s too complicated, so we just give up. Which means the deniers “win”, because then we do nothing, right?

        That’s a cop-out. If previous generations had followed that “logic”, we’d still be living in caves. Do you think the internal combustion engine was easy at the start? Or the airplane? Or the internet?

        I think the theory of AGW, or mankind being enough of an influence to cause warming or cooling has now been debunked.

        Yes, because it would be too much effort to continue the research. So let’s just give up.

        The computer models have been shown to be wrong

        Yep, they need more work.

        with the COOLING period we are in now.

        Huh? Maybe you should reread your own article:

        The USA just endured its hottest summer in 75 years and the second-hottest summer on record

        You do understand Evolution is a THEORY still? Isn’t it funny it still hasn’t been proven and been upgraded to a scientific LAW?

        Yes, it’s still a theory. And no, it’s not FUNNY. Is that Sarcasm?

        There are lots of “accepted” theories out there. Do you think they’re all invalid because they haven’t been declared “LAW”?

        My question on evolution is not about how species evolve, but what the theory leaves out. How did life first begin? It had to become a living organism before it could evolve, so how did that happen?

        The theory of evolution does not leave out how life started. Check out abiogenesis or biopoesis.

        What is the Liberal Elite theory of how life began? And what does that possibly have to do with the GOP?

        The first question answers the second. You think evolution is a Liberal Elite theory, which probably explains why the GOP objects to it.

        So what did you explain?

        I didn’t say “I am explaining” anything. I said “We will explain” – as in future tense. I guess we’ll have to start with some remedial English. 😉

        Sarcasm is now considered explaining?

        Well at least you catch my Sarcasm. That’s a START!

        Is that what all the liberal teachers now use as their teaching method?

        Hmmm, I don’t know. I haven’t talked to ALL of them. But those I’ve talked too don’t. It’s my warped sense of humor.

        Maybe that explains why the liberal education system is such a failure.

        I doubt if that’s really the issue.

    • Todd

      If science has been discredited then has it not also been found to be unsettled?

      Don’t you agree that consensus alone does not make science “settled”? Flat earth, for example.

      If these are true, then why the reaction to the discussion about he accuracy of AGW?

      • JAC,
        I do not agree the science has been discredited.

        • Todd

          I did not say that you did.

          My question to you was one of simple logic regarding your original comment.

          You make it sound like unsettled and discredited are exclusive. I am simply pointing out that they are inclusive.

          • JAC,
            I didn’t understand you were referring back top my previous comments. Too late – and typing too fast.

            Unsettled means we disagree on something, but we are basically “even”. You have your opinion and I have mine. Both supported by some – but incomplete – facts.

            Discredited means one of us has provided evidence or “proved” that the other is wrong. It means one of us has “won” or is “winning”.

            So unsettled and discredited are not the same thing. They are “different levels” of disagreement. First something is unsettled – we disagree. Then as more information becomes available and one of our theories is discredited, the issue is “settled”.

            They are steps in the process. You move from unsettled to discredited to settled.

            Now in the case of Global Warming, its more complicated. You argue AGW has been discredited. I disagree. I argue your position has been discredited. You disagree. So it’s unsettled. We each think we’ve discredited the other’s position, but until we agree, the issue remains unsettled…

            This scenario exists in most large, complex theories. Relativity. Big Bang. Evolution. You can’t really prove or disprove these. You can only gather more and more evidence (either for or against) until they become accepted or discredited. Until then, they are unsettled (at least to some degree).

            For smaller problems, its more clear cut. There’s a rattle when driving the car. I think it’s something loose in the trunk. My wife thinks it’s the transmission. It’s unsettled. But upon further investigation, one of our theories (usually mine, of course!) is discredited and the issue is settle.

            So I would say they are exclusive.

            I agree that consensus alone does not make science “settled”. For big issues, it requires constant testing and evaluating to move towards “settled”.

            Why the reaction to the discussion about he accuracy of AGW?

            Just pointing out how a conversation can slide from “not settled” to “discredited” with no change in facts.

        • Todd,

          I do not agree the science has been discredited

          I guess if you hold a junk science understanding, junk science continues to be valid.

          However, if you use science, Climate science barely makes it but continues to race to total failure.

          As far as the AGW hypothesis, it has been falsified – and should you still retain the hypothesis regardless, your “science” will be discredited.

    • Todd,

      I’ll not take offense at your satirical comments. Just to set the stage, I am 4 years into working on my PhD in Physics.

      Evolution: While some people discard science because they think their belief necessitates it, don’t lump us all into the same boat. Micro-evolution has been proven. Yes, Matt, flu strains change slightly over time. Human beings are somewhat taller than they were 500 years ago, etc. Macro-evolution is a theory. We have no recorded evidence of an animal changing species. We have lots of evidence to suggest that this is true, but no “missing link.” I believe that evolution is probably true, but it is so irrelevant that I don’t really care one way or the other. Now, where does that conflict with my faith? God says he created the earth and life and people, but He doesn’t say how. Tell me, what did God mean when he said “dust of the earth?” Would Moses have understood if he described microorganisms and evolution? Maybe it was dust or maybe it was primal goo. I don’t really care. In terms of a time frame, He says He did it in 6 days, Peter says “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,” 2 Peter 3:8. God exists outside of space-time so why do we confine Him to it. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but nowhere do I see a contradiction. I do not fear science because I am a man of faith, else I could not call myself a true Christian.

      AGW: I honestly cannot understand for the life of me why people are so belligerent on this topic! When I present my data at a conference, there are lots of people asking lots of questions about how I collected my data, what are the sources of uncertainty, what are the error bars, why is my model correct, can I really make those assumptions, can I really make those conclusions. Why on earth should we not do so with this? When I see that stupid hockey stick graph, I realize it means NOTHING, because the error bars would swamp the whole thing! Can we really measure the global temperature of the earth before people actually recorded it using sensitive equipment? Are you certain that the measurements from the present time are untainted? I saw once that several measuring stations were shut down but the measurements were not adjusted to take into account that the average position was shifted southward, thus showing WARMING!

      No scientist should ever say, “there is a consensus” to quash debate. On the other hand, we should not just throw out the science because we don’t like the conclusions. It’s high time we start acting like the intelligent beings we pretend to be.

      Finally, please, oh PLEASE, do not lump me in with those ridiculous GOP candidates. They will say whatever they can to get press. Whoever believes in a certain stance because of the people who state it needs to start thinking for themselves. Republicans liked the principles of Obamacare in the 90’s… Oh now I support it!

      • JB,

        On evolution – thank you, you’ve stated my beliefs as well.

        On AGW – I’m just a country boy, no science degree so all I can do is wade through the information from both sides and go with my gut instinct (and aspirin for the headache).

        On GOP – one of two reasons why I am an independent (the other being the Dem Party).

      • Good post, JB.

      • JB

        Great commentary.

        I would like to point out, for Todd and others who think we skeptics are nuts, this statement of yours is the key. At least to most of my complaints against the AGW crowd.

        “No scientist should ever say, “there is a consensus” to quash debate. ”

        It is not the existence of supposed consensus, or the claim that one exists. It is the political use to “quash debate” and ridicule legitimate questions and debate over the science itself.

        Again, well said, JB.

        • JAC,
          I don’t think I’ve ever said the skeptics are nuts. I think some of their arguments are nuts.

          It is not the existence of supposed consensus, or the claim that one exists. It is the political use to “quash debate” and ridicule legitimate questions and debate over the science itself.

          Yes, but you have to acknowledge that this tactic has been used by both sides to try to discredit their opponents. We need to get back to the science.

      • JB,
        I’m glad you didn’t take offense – and recognized it as satirical comments.

        I agree completely with your comments on evolution and religion.

        No scientist should ever say, “there is a consensus” to quash debate. On the other hand, we should not just throw out the science because we don’t like the conclusions. It’s high time we start acting like the intelligent beings we pretend to be.

        I agree. The debate has gotten so polarized that the science has taken a back seat.

        Finally, please, oh PLEASE, do not lump me in with those ridiculous GOP candidates. They will say whatever they can to get press. Whoever believes in a certain stance because of the people who state it needs to start thinking for themselves. Republicans liked the principles of Obamacare in the 90′s… Oh now I support it!

        I don’t lump all conservatives into the same boat. Only those that try to support/defend their crazy statements. I do find it “interesting” that the GOP candidates have to pander so much too the “religious right”. And then that becomes the narrative of the GOP.

  28. Mathius™ says:
    • Exactly who here are you EFFing??

      Seems to me that both political parties, and various factions, have different versions of this. I truly wonder WHY?????

      The Left, if I recall, wanted some form of “protection” that would force censorship, or “equal access” as they did once with radio and TV.

      I guess I will have to read into this, because I sure don’t understand what the bill is for or the video explanation.

  29. Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, the next national bogeyman for the left. Resident of Idaho (dem white supremacists ya know), thinks Obama is the anti-christ (Christian nuts ya know) or devil, uses an assault rifle type weapon (2nd Amendment nut ya know) to shoot at the White House to allegedly attempt to assassinate the President (anti-government fanatic ya know).

    You heard it declared here first!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      With a name like Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, he just MUST be a White Supremacist Militia Member 🙂

    • Mathius™ says:

      I heard it first elsewhere, but more to the point, he’s a nut for thinking that he would be able to assassinate the President inside of the white house from the street. What kind of magical bullets did he think he was firing that would (a) penetrate through the walls/plexiglass, (b) actually hit the President, and (c) still have enough power that when they did hit, they would seriously injure him?

      RPG’s are the way to go… unless you can get your hands of a rail gun.

      • I heard it first elsewhere

        Do I steal your thunder?

        he would be able to assassinate the President inside of the white house

        And it might help if he was even home too.

  30. Mathius,

    For a smart guy, you sure do have trouble getting a handle on this.

    No, we will never be able to predict perfectly hurricanes – it is impossible.

    Showing Engineering advancements does NOT change the laws of physics nor the fundamental laws of the Universe.

    It appears you are confusing Engineering (the application of knowledge and science) with knowledge and science

    So I will try a different tact to help explain what’s going on – and when things are possible and when things are impossible
    ———————-
    To start, answer this question:

    Do you believe someone will build a Perpetual Motion Machine? Why or why not?

    • Mathius™ says:

      Maybe.

      Why not: The laws of physics say it’s impossible.

      Why: We’re pretty smart. And we’re eventually going to figure out how to make ourselves even smarter (AI enhancements / genetic manipulation / etc). The things we “know” to be “impossible” today maybe impossible only because we misunderstand some more basic law of physics, and the long train of history shows a million examples of people pointing at the “laws of physics” which turned out to be misunderstood to claim something cannot be done.

      Kelvin knew – KNEW – that heavier than air flight was impossible because of the “laws of physics” covering wind resistance, fuel/weight ratios, aerodynamics, and other modern theories. He put it together, stirred the pot, and concluded that physics precluded heavier-than-air flight. But, whoops, turns out he didn’t completely understand some of the things he thought he did. So, nevermind, I guess it is possible after all.

      Ergo, maybe

      • Mathius,

        I am getting clarity to where you are confused.

        Such machines cannot exist for it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics.

        You cannot get MORE energy out of system then the energy IN the system

        Do you understand and/or agree with this Law of Thermodynamics?

        • Mathius™ says:

          I agree that the “law” of thermodynamics best fits our current understanding of the universe of any available theories of which I am aware.

          This is not to say that it is necessarily “correct” or “complete,” nor is it to say that there isn’t some quirk which allows an end-run around our understanding of it. Newtonian physics seemed great until we started to look at the very big and very small – then it broke down. Who knows? Maybe the same thing will turn out to be true of the “law” of thermodynamics.

          Maybe the Higgs-Boson will have a property which allows for the creation of free energy and turns our understanding of physics on its head and we just didn’t realize it because we weren’t sufficiently advanced.

          Or, perhaps, some day, we will figure out how to create our own fundamental particles, and we will be able to write the laws of physics as we please.

          Or, perhaps, we do not exist at all, but are simply part of a computer simulator (ie, 13th floor), and perpetual motion could be enabled by just changing a setting.

          Point is – again – that I do not know, and neither do you.

        • BF

          Of course he agrees, TODAY.

          What he is saying is that he “believes” (aka, feels) that someday humans will be smart enough to discover that the Law of Thermodynamics is NOT valid.

          And of course, we need to make decisions today that will cause great pain so that we are ready for the day when we discover that the Laws are really just crazy ideas.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Close.

            I just balk when someone says “we will never be able to do X.”

            How many people have made that claim, only to be proven wrong.

            Thermodynamics may be completely correct.. just not applicable at the quantum level. Who knows. Not me.

            If he asks me if we will be able to build a perpetual motion device, I say that it is folly to underestimate human ingenuity.

            • Mathius

              The reason the debate continues is because you keep mixing up the two concepts in your sentences.

              If it is a LAW then it is NOT subject to our understanding. We may discover it is not a law later, but no amount of ingenuity will allow us to violate a LAW.

              It will, however, allow us to do things tomorrow that we can not do today, within the constraints of that same LAW.

              • Mathius™ says:

                There are no laws. There is only Zul theory.

                And I’m not talking about violating “laws.” I’m talking about end-running them, or realizing they are more complex or different than we thought.

                You want to defend your home, but the “law” says your gun must be registered. You don’t like the way this law impacts you. But you can’t “break the law,” so you go out and buy a cross bow. There, problem solved. You have a means of defending your home, you haven’t violated the law. Same concept, just more math.

                (10 Mathius Points for the reference, remember, no cheating)

    • Mathius™ says:

      “You know, he never had to really work for anything and he never had to go through what Americans are going-you know, there’s 14-plus million Americans sitting out there, some of them watching this program tonight that don’t have a job,” Perry said in an interview on Fox News.

      Really, VH., Really?

      He never had to work for anything? So how did he get into Harvard? What is the implication? That it was somehow handed to him him. That’s the implication. He was handed admission to Harvard because… because why? Why would they just let him in? Oh, yes, I know, because he’s black. That’s why.

      There are three choices in interpreting this statement.
      A. Perry is a flaming idiot who thinks that Harvard just opened it’s doors to him and, in fact, made him President of the Law Review (a position many students would kill for), for no reason at all – the stars just aligned and they picked his name out of a hat.
      B. Perry was implying that the President was the beneficiary of affirmative action, not of being meritorious.
      C. Perry was flat out pathologically lying.

      So which is it?

      “The president has never felt that angst that they have in their heart.”

      And this nugget? The President has never felt angst that everyone else feels? What? Was he protected from on high by angels who assured him he’d never have to worry? Or is he just popping Xanex after Xanex to the point where the emotion of “angst” simply does not register?

      Is Perry implying that the President has somehow, for noooo reason, lived such a charmed life that he never had any angst, or is he implying that, because he’s black, he never had to worry since affirmative action would always open doors for him?

      ———–

      Dog whistles are an important part of campaigning. It allows you to play to a specific crowd in an unsavory way while denying having done so.

      Perry: He never had to work for it (he was handed it because of affirmative action – which means you were treated as second class citizens, so vote for me)!
      Interviewer: What do you mean by that?
      Perry: Oh, nothing in particular ::wink wink, nod nod::

      Perry does it, Newt does it, Palin does and… wait for it.. Obama does it. Oh yea, they all do it. But just because you opted to subtly imply something racist doesn’t make it any less so.

      ———————————

      But you tell me. If his implication wasn’t that Obama got where he was entirely because of affirmative action, then what, exactly, did he mean by his statements. Convince me.

      • Mathius

        Mr. Obama was admitted to Harvard as part of their Affirmative Action program. I can not “prove” this nor do I really care. But I do believe it to be true, based on how things were working in those days. Was he qualified anyway??? I don’t know for sure. We would have to see some records of his past academic performance. But given my working knowledge of such programs, I am positive his record shows he was “qualified”.

        As for his life of privilege, that goes to the jump he got by graduating from Harvard and the Socialist/Communist cronies who then set him up with work. The man has a habit of trying to make folks, especially black folks, think he is one of them. He is no more one of them than any of the other people who generally get elected to high office. It is rare when the elected official is the one in the family who started with nothing. They are usually the second generation of such success. In his case, he did not have family wealth, but rich friends (benefactors) who saw “promise” in the man.

        The man never had a job that created wealth or suffered the daily tribulations of business owners or political administrators. Yet he was propelled to the Presidency. Perhaps the LEAST QUALIFIED person to ever hold the office.

        How could he be elected with such a shortage of meaningful experience???? AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Or in other terms……..WHITE GUILT and BLACK HOPE contributed. But that was not the only story. It also took a coordinated effort by his “benefactors” to hide, confuse, obfuscate and deceive the American public. The MSM was at a minimum, complicit in the ruse. Why?? I don’t know. Was it their Bias, or was it their Guilt or their Hope?

        • Mathius™ says:

          So you agree he was “qualified.” And did he become “qualified” by sitting around on the couch and eating cheetos, or by busting his ass?

          Perry: “You know, he never had to really work for anything”

          Square those two statements.

          Or was he trying to imply something else. And, if not, “he was handed something he was unqualified for because he was black,” then what?

          • Mathius

            This is all very easy to understand without assigning the accusation of “hidden racism” to the comments.

            I started with nothing. I have a different understanding of what “you know, he never had to really work for anything” than someone who might of had some help along the way that I did not. He might think that studying hard was “really working for something” while I would consider the fact that somebody helped him get into school as “not having to really work”.

            I do not know what Perry’s TRUE thoughts are, other than trying to get elected.

            So this makes the two statements easy to “square”, as you put it. “Qualified” is a classification assigned by bureaucrats to a person’s records. It does not necessarily have anything to do with someone’s qualifications.

            But the bigger question here is not Harvard. It is Columbia. Well it is both.

            WHO PAID FOR HIS COLLEGE EXPENSES AT THESE TWO VERY, VERY, HIGH PRICED ELITE UNIVERSITIES.

            Oh yeah, and Occidental before Columbia??? My son was offered a scholorship at Occidental. We couldn’t afford what was left after the Top Scholar award. So how was it that this kid from Hawaii was able to swing it??

            In fact, what did his grandparents do that allowed them to put him in an elite college preparatory school?

            See Matt, to someone from my background it appears that Mr. Obama was handed a pretty good deal without doing much of anything. Sure he might have decided to take advantage and study hard. But that does not negate the fact he did not “really work ( ie., work hard)” to get there.

            • “As the son of tenant farmers, I can promise you I wasn’t born with four aces in my hand.” This was Perry’s response when talking about Romney-When one is comparing his start as the son of a tenant farmers-than he can very easily claim that almost anyone had it easy comparatively. It may well be a political shtick-but it isn’t based on racism.

      • You might take note that Perry has used his “I come from working class folks-I didn’t graduate from the elite colleges” like most of these other politicians-I’m fairly certain he hasn’t been selective and only said it about certain races. One’s insistance that in the case of Obama-it must be based on race-is just a political tool. This man, is the one who is having to stretch his words past what he actually said-using assumptions based purely on Obama’s race-in order to use Obama’s race to smear Perry.

    • You know what is racist? Taking race into account when granting admission or aid. Whether you think it is necessary is an entirely different argument, but when you consider a person’s race in order to determine how to treat them, you are being (by definition) racist.

      That said, Perry has proven himself to be an idiot, just like Cain. The only truly intelligent candidate (Gingrich) will have trouble due to other issues (*cough* healthcare *cough*)…

  31. Mathius™ says:

    Ron Paul.

    Honestly, if he (by some miracle) wins the Red-Shirt nomination, I would probably vote for him.

    http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul778.html

    • Mathius

      The sad part is that if you were serious, that is took time to work for his nomination, then he could become the red shirt candidate.

      But you see, you will sit there and believe what the media tells you. “He has no chance”.

      So you, like millions, will be given a choice by the handlers and then you will pick one.

      And NOTHING will change.

      • 1. I’m not eligible to vote in the Red Shirt primary.

        2. I barely have time to see my wife, let alone volunteer for a political campaign.

        3. He does have no chance. I don’t base this on “media,” I base this on my own judgment of the political realities.

  32. @ Mathius……..I was eavesdropping on your conversation with VH on OBama and Harvard…..I have long heard that he got into Harvard through the affirmative action program and that he was appointed to the Harvard Law Review not as a result of grades but “other” factors…which indicates he was a product of affirmative action. Then I found this.

    Per the Wall Street Journal September 11, 2008, “Obama’s Lost Years,” Obama graduated from Columbia University (to which he transferred after his first two years at Occidental College in California), with a degree in Political Science without honors, so had a GPA less than a 3.3. His roomate Sohale Siddiqi indicated Obama itially felt alienated, felt “very lost,” and used drugs to get high, which could have led to low
    grades initially. The roomate indicates that he then turned serious and “stopped getting high.” Obama transferred to Columbia because he was concerned with urban issues. Based on his overall undergraduate GPA of less than a 3.3, Mr. Obama’s admission to Harvard Law School may reflect affirmative action statutes, low grades early, then higher grades later and/or other factors.

    At Harvard Law School, Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude, which, according to the Havard Law School website, is awarded to the top 10% of Harvard Law School students.

    Also at Harvard Law School, Obama was accepted as one of 85-90 Editors of the Harvard Law Review, out of an estimated 1,000 students from the 2L and 3L classes that might have sought this honor. Obama was also elected President of the Law Review, which according to a Harvard Law spokesperson is not based at all on academics, but on other measures as would occur in any club.

    • You shouldn’t eavesdrop, but since you did, and since you’ve confirmed that he did start working at some point, what do you make of Perry’s statement that Obama “never had to work for anything”?

      Also, seeing as he was using drugs and getting mediocre grades because he “felt very lost,” what do you make of Perry’s statement that “The president has never felt that angst that they [average Americans] have in their heart.”

      What was Perry actually saying, in your humble opinion?

      • You ask a full bird Colonel for a “humble” opinion? (ok, donning humble hat….noticing it does not fit..but jam it on anyway)…

        This Texan says: “Perry is in political lock step with everybody else. He is doing nothing more than floating what ever stick he thinks will make points.”

        (Taking off humble hat, putting on Colonel’s hat with regaled eagle emblazoned across)…To MR Perry……time to come home, you are out of your league and you are about to lose Texas governorship.

        Synopsis: He is doing no different than all the other mud slinging, no account presidential bids, including Obama mama himself. I have started a write in campaign for DPM.

        • Also….I do believe that Obama is a product of political correctness and Affirmative Action programs…..and that is a travesty.

          • Even if that’s true, and there’s little doubt he was helped by AA and PC, is it fair to say that he was handed everything? That he never had to work for it, that he has never felt angst?

            • I know your not talking to me Matt-but the original question wasn’t whether or not what he said was fair-it was-was it racist-So I turn the question around-is it Fair to claim racism?

              • Yes and no.

                Yes There are dog whistles that allow him to convey a racist message (he only got where he is because of the color of his skin) to people who are inclined to hear that message. Deliberately playing to this crowd, to imply to them what they want to hear, is racist. The fact that the rest of us look at that statement and say that it’s not fair (not racist, just not accurate), doesn’t change the fact that he’s using select and questionable language to convey a coded message to a subset of society. He isn’t talking to you and me. He is talking to racist or racist-inclined individuals who will be swayed by believing that Perry is (secretly) “one of us.”

                You could make the argument that Perry shouldn’t be held accountable for the things that things that his constituents INFER, but only what he IMPLIES. And to this I would argue that I just can’t see how a statement like this was not intended to imply things to those who are likely to infer a certain way, while imply nothing to the rest of us, and to give him plausible deniability.

                No Nothing he said was overtly racist. I have zero evidence that he, himself, is racist. And calling someone racist is a big claim which requires a fair amount of evidence/proof. I don’t know that we’ve met that litmus test with him. Since he hasn’t been proven guilty, I suppose it is necessary to give him the benefit of the doubt.

                So he wasn’t be racist in saying that the President has never had to work for anything – he thinks Obama was handed the presidency on a silver platter while he sat on the couch eating cheetos and playing x-box. That Obama graduated top of his class at HARVARD without putting in any hard work. That he was made president of the law review (an extremely prestigious and coveted position) because someone pulled his name out of a hat. That he ran for President, orchestrating a massive political campaign and giving speeches and fund-raisers on a schedule that would give me an aneurysm, without suffering any angst on par with what the average American experiences or, in fact, even working hard.

                If this later is true, Perry is either slandering the President deliberately or he is an idiot.

                … was it racists? Meh. I suspect he wanted certain people to read into it that way, but I can’t prove it. And I suspect that not being able to prove it is also something he wanted. But that’s just opinion – and that’s the beauty of dog whistle politics.

              • “sigh”

                I must be racist not to be racist

                I must double that racism(judging by the color of ones skin) every statement based on the race of the speaker and the subject of the statement.

                It doesn’t matter if the same statement has been applied to both white men and black men-it is still okay to claim racism based solely on assumptions based on a persons race.

                Someone is racist because a real racist chooses to infer racism.

                And lastly-you admit that racism is such a horrible accusation that it should not be used lightly and then you turn around and reason and justify it being used.

              • Mathius™ says:

                The thing is that (in my opinion) he INTENDED for the racists to infer racist things. He wanted them to think he is one of them. I can’t speak to whether is is or not, himself, racist (my guts says no), but I do think he’s playing to that crowd.

                If I give a speech and I say “conservative are, you know, special people,”, you might think that I am calling you special. And that might be what I want my constituents to think – that I’m taking a shot at conservatives. But I can always throw up my hands and say that you’re imagining things – I just meant that you are distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual (dictionary definition).

                So did I insult you or not?

              • I’m sorry-the discussion isn’t does “dog whistle politics exist” -it’s, is there enough evidence in this instance to call this Man a racist. It is a very personal and damaging accusation to make-the mere fact that he has used these types of statements in the past against white men who came from money or attended elite colleges and uses his humble beginnings to say he has a better understanding of what the “common man” has to go through-is based on class-if anything-not a persons race.

              • or to make it simpler-you proving through reason that “dog whistle politics exist does not prove this man is guilty of using it based on racism. And you need more than “I think” to label him a racist. Logic does not IMO support the claim in this example.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I answer that question already, I thought. is there enough evidence in this instance to call this Man a racist.

                I can’t speak to whether is is or not, himself, racist (my guts says no)

                BUT, I do think he was deliberately playing to the racists, trying to help them see what they wanted to see. THAT SAID, I think pretty much every red-shirt does this to some extent, while every blue-shirt uses class-warfare dog whistles (except when they don’t even bother to be subtle about it). THAT SAID, just because “everyone else is doing it” does not make it ok.

                .. so while I think it is unsubstantiated and somewhat unfair to call him a racist (at least without substantial evidence), I do think he is fairly criticized for his use of (arguably racist) dog-whistles.

                At the very, very least, he should be more careful what he says if he intends to be the President of the Unites States of America.

              • I think that is just a round about way of calling him a racist while denying you are calling him a racist 🙂 the end result-He is being promoted as a racist.

              • Mathius™ says:

                You can do bad things without being a “bad person.”

                I think he implied something racist. I think he did this for political benefit. I do not think that makes him a racist.

                To put that another way. A racist believes in the superiority of his race / inferiority of another, or some such nonsense. I have no reason to believe that Perry believes this. Ergo, not a racist.

                But he (may have) said something racist for political gain, not because he thought it was true. This makes him a politician.

              • No, you think something he said-many times-becomes racist when it is applied to a black man-Was it racist when he said it to Romney-was it racist when he said it as a general statement-NO, it was not-but applied to a black man it becomes racist, simply because it can be-not because it is- So please tell me who is really guilty of using “dog whistle politics”

              • Mathius™ says:

                Did he way this about Romney? I missed that.

                Look, I can’t tell you what he “meant.” All I can do is look at him, look at his situation, evaluate the statement and try to guess what his goals might have been. If he said this about someone else, I’d love to see it, because the added context might clear things up for me.

                It strikes me as a dog whistle. Maybe I’m wrong. If that’s the case, I’d criticize him for being flat out wrong and for not being careful about what he says.

                Just politics…

              • And the winner is…..VH!!!!!… Massive applause….especially your 1:39 comment. Good job V.

              • Finding and posting those remarks -will have to wait-It’s friday and I am leaving shortly. But I know he said it at one of the debates and at several campaign stops.

                Thanks Anita, it is nice to have someone validate your thoughts occasionally -I suspect, Matt doesn’t agree with you though. 🙂

        • I don’t know if you noticed, but while you had your colonel hat off, somebody swapped it with a corporal hat.

          Don’t look at me though – I suspect Charlie’s alter ego.

  33. An article I think USW would agree with. It speaks to the real problem at Penn State; it wasn’t Joe Paterno, it was the institutionalization mentality to protect at all costs (costs obviously never caculated against what might happen “if”). The author of the article is very fair to Joe Pa … but doesn’t enjoin the sycophancy of the rioters upset over Paterno’s firing.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/opinion/at-penn-state-a-bitter-reckoning.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

    • Charlie….I think that the article is correct….it is the institution that is protected……..like the government is now…..change the players but not the system…protect it at all costs….donchaknow……

      HOw is my Canoli eating Plutonian friend? Still stirring pots, I notice……ya know, if you were my age…I would be saying that the 60’s are still being good to you (better living through chemistry and all)….hope your day is going well……..keep yer top knot dry.

      • Colonel … Pluto is wonderful this time of the year … and although I did throw a few pot stirrers in the PS comments (and one or two about capitalism), there’s nothing like watching all knowing sycophants having to eat some crow.

        How ’bout that Tim Tebow! Don’t you love it when Rex Ryan looks the fool?

        Big diet starts tomorrow … things will be bitter around pluto for the foreseable future.

        • I have been wondering how your alter ego has been handling the fact that you have joined the ranks of the establishment employed….receiving regular paychecks with deductions and all…..must be pretty rough.

          • It’s torture, make no mistake, Sir.

            Then again, I’ve pretty much worked 2 and 3 jobs (legit and otherwise) my entire adult life, and had worked since 14 (delivering papers, flipping burgers at McDonalds and washing dishes in a catering hall until a friend’s father hooked me up with a non-union construction job (it was illegal since we were paid way less than union wages).

            Yes, like I always say (and yous all refuse to hear) … pro active people will always be proactive … has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism, my brothers and sisters … you’ve all been brainwashed about that nonsense.

            • Oh, yeah, I forgot. Since you happened to be “proactive” within capitalism, the obvious conclusion is that proactive people will always be proactive, regardless of the system in place. Your logic here is stunning 😉

              • USW

                Actually I think Chaz is right.

                Stalin = Pro Active
                Lenin = Pro Active
                Mao = Pro Active
                Pol Pot = Pro Active
                Che’ = Pro Active

                Yep, the pro active people will in fact be the same under socialism/communism.

              • What can I say, you’re easily stunned.

                Of course JAc forgot to include the founding fathers he so admires … they were certainly proactive in leaving a slave nation in place … how nice of them …

  34. HEY…..I found the perfect Presidential candidate………HER comment concerning all the problems in Washington….”why don’t we just start over?……..of course she is only 7 years old……but her other comment was….”If no one gets along in Washington, why don’t they all just go away and we put new people in that don’t argue?”

    Ahhhhh…..the logic of a 7 year old……she is also correct.

  35. @ DPM…….don’t think for a minute that the new ports added to Thor’s Hammer have gone unnoticed.

    Ports for the new MK 48 super cavitation torpedo? Come one….it is still in the testing stage (currently 1500 meters per/sec) with no wire attachments and pinging recognition devices. Pretty stealthy……breaking the sound barrier underwater. Interesting technology…..but was wondering how you will avoid the reactive reasoning once fired? It would seem to me that if you can handle this……why are you still using sails and jibs?

  36. On the lighter side:

    From the “Only in California” file we have this story of the City of Glendale banning artificial grass from the front yards of residences.

    Why you wonder? Well, the city says:

    City officials say the concern is related to the plastic and chemicals used in the artificial turf.

    Hmmmm, okay – so the city wants to protect its citizens. Except, then there is this:

    When asked why the fake grass would continue to be allowed in backyards, officials had no answer.

    Ya just got to wonder and laugh……………..

    • plainly

      Re: your question to me about why God could not intervene.

      I think we have done a good job here showing that “contradictions” are the source of bad outcomes at the least and downright evil at the worst.

      So if God, the all seeing, all knowing, all good, were able to contradict the very laws that God created, well that would make God bad and/or evil.

      If God felt the need to “tinker” to “improve” then God would not be all seeing and all knowing.

      There is an alternative answer but then that negates our ability to evaluate God in these terms anyway.

      If God CAN change the rules, then the existing Universe would immediately cease to exist. All the knowledge we have, all our our understanding, our very concepts would cease to be relevant.

      • What makes you think God is “all good”?

        • Mathius,

          I cringe dialoguing with an irrational man, however”

          “What makes you think God is “all good”?”

          Depends on your definition of “good”.

          If good=truth, then God is all good.

          If good=”whatever Mathius wants, even if it is a lie”, then the truth is not the goal, and God has no part here.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Just asking the question..

            I do not know what “good” means in the context of “god.”

            I don’t think the universe is good, per say. But neither is it not good. It simply is.

            If there is an god, he is likely Beyond Good and Evil.

            😉

            • Mathius,

              I do not know what “good” means in the context of “god.”

              I knew it was a mistake to dialogue with an irrational man.

              Mathius, you asked the question regarding “good” and “God”, and now you disavow that you asked a question of “good” and “God”

              Yes, the Universe just “is”.

              Man defines what is good and what is evil, not God.

              Whether a man dies of old age or by a murderer’s knife in his heart matters not one wit to God – though Men would say the former is an act of God and the latter “evil”.

              So, when “good” and “God” are used in the same context or thought, it is not a measure of “human good”, but a search for Truth regardless of the pain or joy it may provided.

  37. Plainly,

    How can we say that the tinkering isn’t required to make the law immutable and universal?

    You have a contradiction – how can something that is DETERMINED be CHANGED?

    The definition of determined excludes change.

    Your question is along the lines of “how can we be sure white is white and not black?”
    By definition, White is not Black

    A law that is “immutable” means it is unchangeable. How that law worked a 100 billion years ago will work today and in the same way in 100 billion years from now.

    However
    “Tinkering” maybe required for the Universe to work – as I posited, perhaps God is continually creating “new universal laws” behind our back – that do not contradict any of the “old” Laws of the Universe just to keep the thing rocking.

    However, we have no way of knowing one way or the other.

    We are ignorant.
    When we learn something, was that something instantly created at the point we learned it, or has it been there “always”?

    There is no way for us to know one way or another, since we didn’t know it was there in the first place, so we have no way to know how long something we did not know existed.

    They don’t come with a “Use before -date-” tag.

    All we know is that it is consistent within the Universe, and now we know now what it is.
    Therefore, we also know that it worked in the past as well, as it works right now, and it will work in the future as well as it works right now.

    So whether “God” created this law of the universe a second before we discovered is totally irrelevant.
    It is perfectly consistent, and would have still worked perfectly had he created it in the beginning of the Universe as well

    • Plainly,

      Therefore, saying:
      “All the Laws of the Universe were created instantly by God at the beginning of the Universe, and God is on vacation”
      and
      “All of the Laws of the Universe are created on the fly by God the instant mankind “needs” a Law of the Universe, and God is a “living” God active in the Universe”

      ….is exactly the same statement, fundamentally.

      • BF and JAC,

        Thank you both for your comments.

        To clarify my prior beliefs, if God chooses to intervene in His creation He does so within the rules (laws) of what He created. Yet, at the same time there is knowledge that we have not gained (laws or aspects thereof) that we will and – as you say BF – it makes no difference when they came into existence, they exist within the laws already established by God.

        I think you both have stated it with a clarity I could not.

        • Plainly,

          Further to my statement:

          It may appear that the fundamental of “God creating all the Laws at once” and “God creating the Laws on the fly” being equal is a contradiction.

          It appears as a contradiction because humans are applying Time as a component to their thinking – that is, there is a time differential that matters.

          However, God is timeless – thus, applying concepts of “past” or “future” to God makes no sense. God merely acts, without any time axis. So whether God created a Law “in the past” from our reference, or “in the future” in our reference – from God’s reference, He is creating the Law – period.

  38. Do the “Liberal Elites” have a theme song? Official or unofficial? Hearing this the other day made me wonder,
    Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box, Religion is the smile on a dog…..

    I’m not aware of too many things,
    I know what I know if you know what I mean
    Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box
    Religion is the smile on a dog

    I’m not aware of too many things,
    I know what I know if you know what I mean
    Choke me in the shallow water
    Before I get too deep

    What I am is what I am.
    Are you what you are – or what

    I’m not aware of too many things,
    I know what I know if you know what I mean
    Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks
    Religion is a light in the fog

    I’m not aware of too many things,
    I know what I know if you know what I mean
    Choke me in the shallow water
    Before I get too deep

    What I am is what I am
    Are you what you are – or what
    Don’t let me get too deep

    Add to Mixtape (view all)

    Interaction

    Lyrics by Edie Brickell and the New Bohemians

    “Choke me in the shallow water”

    eh? Could someone enlighten me and tell me what the heck she means? Cuz I give up…..

    I always thought it was “shove me in the shallow water” i dunno… but if it is choke then maybe she means kill me now before it gets worse. just a thought

    That lyric puzzled me in the 1980’s until I heard her in an interview. She wasn’t commenting on the song lyric but she was commenting that her personality was one that wasn’t into thinking “deep” and wanted to keep things simple. I figure that lyric says just that…I’d rather die now than try to figure it all out. What I am is a simple saying…why figure it out?!

    • Mathius™ says:

      Hmm… liberal’s theme song…. I’ll have to think about that one.

      What’s a good conservative theme song.. that’s your assignment.

      • Assignment accepted. .oo37 seconds to process. Note I am only speaking for myself, but conservatives highly value self reliance. And so, may I offer you words of wisdom from .38 Special……..

        I speak my mind. I don’t hold it back,
        That’s how I am, and I’m hopin’ that’s where you’ at.
        Like I lay it on the line and that’s how it should be
        If you’re gonna make it, man you’ve got to agree

        I’m a stone cold believer, yes, I am,
        I believe you can do it if you say that you can
        I’m a stone cold believer, not a smooth talkin’ man,
        believe I got things well at hand

        Wanna climb that ladder, y’ wanna make it to the top,
        Takes only one thing, gotta give it all y’ got.
        Knew a man who couldn’t lose, ’cause he never gave in,
        He stuck to his pistol well it made him a better man.

        I’m a stone cold believer, yes, I am,
        I believe you can do it if you say that you can
        I’m a stone cold believer, not a smooth talkin’ man,
        believe I got things well at hand

    • Mathius™ says:

      Alright, I was going to go with Imagine by Lennon, or Changes by Tupac.. I even considered That’s What Friends are For by Dionne Warwick. But ultimately, I there was only one choice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN1ozPf_X_0

      • Ugg, just threw up in my mouth a little. I do kinda like his “the Man in the Mirror”, but that came out around when the child molestation stuff was big. Another for the conservatives, no crying, feeling sorry for ourselves…….

        • Mathius™ says:

          Making you throw up in your mouth was the goal. 🙂 I was never much of a fan of his, to be honest.

          Neither, by the way, was I ever much of a fan of Asia.

          Trying to come up with a real answer, but well.. having trouble.

          Will keep working on it.

      • “the deepest cuts are healed by faith” (sorry if that offends any anti-religious types)

  39. Christmas Tree Tax…………. Get a Grip Folks……………..especially you “conservatives”.

    OK, the other day I posted a couple of sarcastic comments about the supposed 15 cent Christmas tree tax. Now I see there has and continues to be all kinds of Bull Shit attached to this thing, especially by the supposed “conservative” talking heads. I heard a comment by Hannity yesterday and I just finished reading Doug Powers on the subject over at M. Malkin’s site, for example. Stupidity and Lies are the only words I can think of to describe the stuff being said.

    Is there anyone on SUFA who does not understand what this was really about? That it was not just another way for the Govt to pad its pockets?

    Do you understand why I brought it up in the first place? Can you explain why it deserves criticism?

    • JAC,

      My understanding is the tree industry, meaning the large growers asked for it, mainly to help them against the small independent growers. The government is, of course, always happy to assume more control and power over anything. Why a tax? Because the industry cannot “force” all growers to contribute unless they get the government involved to supply the force part. Big business, big government, crony capitalism at it’s finest!

  40. BF

    Refresh my memory-Why do you believe ridicule is an effective tool of debate?

    • V.H.

      Ridicule is a tool used against irrational argument.

      How do you reason with an irrational man? By his own act, he can’t be reasoned with – so what can you say to him?

      You can laugh at him … and the verbal tool of “laughing at an irrational man” is ridicule

      • V.H.

        Thus, ridicule attack legitimacy.

        Legitimacy of action trumps reason.

        For example, it is my Right to prohibit you from my house, even if it is on fire and you were trying to put out the fire.

        In areas of arbitrary power, such as government, its appraised legitimacy trumps reason – it acts irrationally, but there is not much an individual can do against it, as society claims such irrational act is legitimate.

        The only tool, therefore, is ridicule – laugh at the idiocy of the act – which attacks the legitimacy of the act.

        • V.H.

          Robespierre was the most feared man in France. At his whim, the blade of the guillotine made short work of his enemies.

          He built his legitimacy by pointing others immorality and justified death as a legitimate tool to fixing such immorality. Of course, he decided what was moral and what was not.

          Then, it became known he fathered an illegitimate child.

          In the French legislature, jokes began to make the rounds – all laughing at the little Robespierre couldn’t stay in the pants of the big Robespierre. Robespierre’s adversaries in the Legislature -once utterly terrified by him – began to ridicule him – not on his political policies – but about his pecker.

          A week later, Robespierre was introduced to Madame Guillotine.

          • Hmmm-I see your reasoning up to a point- when applying it to the powerful-I suppose. But when applied to just human interaction and discussion-I don’t see the purpose as hurting or destroying-but to create a dialogue, to teach, to learn -in this arena-I think ridicule hurts or stops dialogue-instead of encouraging it.

            • V.H.

              I guess it depends on your personality.

              Myself, I do not have much patience or time for irrational people and will not dither and pander to them.

              I laugh at them – and hopefully, get them mad enough to wake themselves up.

              My style is confrontational, probably due because I cut across the grain of most of the belief systems within society – which causes tremendous discomfort for most people anyway.

              But that’s just me.

  41. If President Barack Obama thought he was out of the environmentalist woods by delaying work on the Keystone XL pipeline, he was wrong.

    Claiming success in the pipeline battle, environmental groups now have their next target: natural gas development in the Delaware River Basin. And again, Obama is the focus of their outrage.

    “November 2011 is Obama’s moment of truth on extreme energy. It’s ours too,” Mark Ruffalo, actor and founder of Water Defense, wrote to supporters this week.

    Ruffalo, a New York native and Academy Award nominee, is urging supporters to petition Obama to stand against the development “and fulfill his promise to free us from the tyranny of fossil fuels.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/18/oh-frack-obama-again-under-fire-from-environmentalists/#ixzz1e4xYLfzZ

    I’m picturing a headline: “Obama, save us from this Tyranny”.

    • President Obama’s United States Department of Agriculture has delayed shale gas drilling in Ohio for up to six months by cancelling a mineral lease auction for Wayne National Forest (WNF). The move was taken in deference to environmentalists, on the pretext of studying the effects of hydraulic fracturing.

      “Conditions have changed since the 2006 Forest Plan was developed,” announced WNF Supervisor Anne Carey on Tuesday. “The technology used in the Utica & Marcellus Shale formations need to be studied to see if potential effects to the surface are significantly different than those identified in the Forest Plan.” The study will take up to six months to complete. The WNF study reportedly “will focus solely on how it could affect forest land,” the significance of hydraulic fracturing to united proponents of the delay, “and not how it could affect groundwater.”

      Speaking of the WNF gas drilling, one environmentalist group spokesman suggested that moving forward with drilling “could turn the Ohio Valley into Ozone Alley,” even though Wayne National Forest already has nearly 1300 oil and gas wells in operation.

      The Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program (OOGEEP) recently estimated that drilling in the Utica shale, which is affected by the suspension of the mineral lease auctions, would produce up 204,500 jobs by 2015.

      • The Obama administration pressured analysts to change an environmental review to reflect fewer job losses from a proposed regulation, the contractors who worked on the review testified Friday.

        The dispute revolves around proposed changes to a rule regulating coal mining near streams and other waterways. The experts contracted to analyze the impact of the rule initially found that it would cost 7,000 coal jobs.

        But the contractors claim they were subsequently pressured to not only keep the findings under wraps but “revisit” the study in order to show less of an impact on jobs.

        Steve Gardner, president of Kentucky consulting firm ECSI, claimed that after the project team refused to “soften” the numbers, the firms working on the study were told the contract would not be renewed. ECSI was a subcontractor on the project.

        The government “‘suggested’ that the … members revisit the production impacts and associated job loss numbers, with different assumptions that obviously would then lead to a lesser impact,” Gardner testified before a House Natural Resources subcommittee. “The … team unanimously refused to use a ‘fabricated’ baseline scenario to soften the production loss numbers.”

        The Obama administration, without going into specifics, contested Gardner’s claims after the hearing.

        Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/18/contractors-claim-administration-pressed-to-soften-job-loss-estimates-from/#ixzz1e60oyj00

  42. From my Inbox.

    Let me say, that if the source of this idea (W. Buffet) is true, then the man displays a very shallow understanding of our Constitution or how Govt functions. My guess is that he proposed the first thing and somebody added the rest to make it look like Buffet’s list. But anyway. I offer it here to stimulate discussion about possible solutions.

    “Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best
    quotes about the debt ceiling:

    “I could end the deficit in 5 minutes,” he told CNBC. “You just pass a law
    that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all
    sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election

    The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only
    3 months &8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That
    was in 1971…before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.

    Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less
    to become the law of the land…all because of public pressure.

    Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum
    of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do
    likewise.

    In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the
    message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

    Congressional Reform Act of 2011
    1. No Tenure / No Pension.
    A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when
    they are out of office.

    2. Congress (past, present &future) participates in Social Security.
    All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security
    system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system,
    and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for
    any other purpose.

    3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans
    do.

    4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay
    will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

    5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the
    same health care system as the American people.

    6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American
    people.

    7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective
    1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.
    Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress
    is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen
    legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to
    work.

    If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take
    three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Maybe it
    is time.

    THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!

    If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, just delete.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Snopes is your friend.

      As you suspect, original quote is Buffet, the rest is bulldookey.

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/buffett.asp

      • Mathius

        It is not bulldookey. Well maybe it is but not because somebody else developed it.

        So lets evaluate, discuss the proposals themselves. Is there a problem? What is it? How do we resolve it?

        • Mathius™ says:

          I didn’t even read them.. I was just evaluating the source. To me, anyone who has to steal an someone’s credibility in order to push their idea probably has a weak idea.

          But let’s see..

          1. No Tenure / No Pension.
          A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when
          they are out of office.

          I guess this is ok.. but I wonder if this will push them even more into going to work for lobbying firms etc. I guess it doesn’t really matter since they already do this. However, tenure/pensions are so small in terms of deficit, I don’t see the real benefit of this part. But neither do I see any harm.

          2. Congress (past, present &future) participates in Social Security.
          All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security
          system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system,
          and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for
          any other purpose.

          Yes.

          3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans
          do.

          Yes. But what does this accomplish? They can already purchase their own retirement plans. Also, the wording is rather argumentative.

          4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay
          will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

          Sounds good to me. But, again, Congressional salaries, aside from annoying us for being high, don’t really impact anything. It’s chump change in the grand scheme of things. That’s not to say that they shouldn’t be cut, but I don’t see the need to make this part of the Constitution. HOWEVER, if instead of the CPI, we used mean income, then it would be good because it aligns their salaries with the people they are supposed to be serving. It’s not about what things cost, but rather how much people have to spend. If the CPI rises in tandem with income, that doesn’t change anything, but if the CPI (which can be manipulated, by the way) rises congress would get a raise even if people didn’t earn more money. Conversely, if prices stayed constant but people earned more money, then Congress is doing something right (even if what they’re doing right is just staying out of the way).

          5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the
          same health care system as the American people.

          Yes. Again, somewhat argumentative phrasing. But sure. But what system does this mean, exactly? There is no single “American People’s Insurance.”

          6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American
          people.

          Yes.
          Yes.
          1,000% Yes.

          7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective
          1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.
          Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress
          is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen
          legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to
          work.

          Huh? What does this mean? What contracts? What are they being replaced with? What does this accomplish/hope to accomplish?

          My thoughts, off the cuff. And you, sir?

  43. Mathius™ says:

    Time for a SUFA Survey:
    (I need help settling a debate)

    Marianne or Ginger?

  44. Common Man says:

    To all the Hunter’s our there. Although I have only put a couple of Doe’s in the freezer during Archery season, opening day gun was far more prosperous. It I new how to post a picture I would, but none the less here are the stats:

    He stepped out of a damp and tangled swamp covered by a “Misty Dust” at 8:45 am Tuesday the 15th dragging ass. I guess the prior nights events (chasing and breading Does) wore him out a bit, so I am sure he was headed for his favorite bedding area to rest up for the next night. He never made it. He gave me a perfect broadside shot at 25 yards and I dropped him where he stood. (I really like these Remington copper solids). He is 11 points, weighed 225 field dressed, had a 21 inch inside spred and scored 149 all round. Although the taxidermist will confirm we are guessing 5-6 years of age and absolutely a monarch. I will send USW a couple of pictures in hopes he will post them. Thanksgiving will include fresh backstraps.

    As Uncle Ted would say: “You can’t do this in France”.

    D13: You Texas boys have some big racks on your critters, but they are babies body wise to Michigan deer.

    CM

    • Good for you CM! We (son in law) have a 6pt and a 9pt 183lb so far!

      • Common Man says:

        Anita;

        BTW: The critter was taken in Jackson County. My brother-in-law lives near Rives Junction and has about 97 acers. I also lease his neighbors land just to the north. Lot’s of bucks. We practice QDM.

        Eat well.

        CM

    • CM……West Texas deer are pretty big…..dress out like yours…..Central Texas, South Texas East Texas….white tails run small…too small because there is an abundance of them and not much food. Ranches all over Central Texas are begging for hunters to come in a clean up their herds. Some ranches are getting 200 doe permits to weed them out. Those permits are given out freely by the land owner…..but you can’t kill the bucks. The black tail deer in West and southwest Texas run pretty big and the mulies dress out at 210-250 regularly….always score high on the Boone and Crockett scale…I have a friend in Lampasas, Texas that has 300 doe permits from the state and no hunters. You can also kill all the wild pigs you want for your bacon and ham……deer are a problem here because of the size of the herds. In the hill country around Austin, most car accidents at night are because of hitting deer.

      I have been hunting up in your neck of the woods before and you have plenty of food for bigger deer but I was displeased with running deer with dogs. No challenge. But, I was told, that is not normal up there. I was on a bad hunt, apparently.

      Remington copper solids are great….I prefer Silver tip because the average shot down here is over 150 meters…..flatter trajectory. In the Big Bend area, the average shot is 250 meters or more. Need a higher speed bullet but that means less hitting power. I shoot a .270 for normal hunting and in West Texas I shoot a .300 Weatherby with 180 grain.

      • Common Man says:

        Colonel Sir;

        Maybe next season my two buddies and I can make our way down there and elliminate some of those pesky fur bear’en critters for you all. Ihave been hunting deer in Michigan for over 20 years and have never met anyone that runs them with dogs; so that must have been an exception. We do a lot of preseason scouting and hang several stands near sign. Most of the years we each take 2-3 each usually donating 1 to a local charity. With all the corn and beans in these parts dear eat well. Combine that with the woods we hunt being predominately Oak and it makes for fat critters. We also have a over populated herd, as we figured about a 12-1 doe to buck ration a year ago. As such the Michigan DNR started selling doe tags in September at 5 a day per hunter, and you could go back each day thereafter and buy 5 more until they were sold out. As far as I know there are still plenty left.

        In Jackson County we are restricted to shotgun or muzzel loader due to the human population. You have to be North of highway 10 to use rifle. However, should we get down your way we have appropriate weapons. My personal favorite is my Marlin 1895 45-70 which is beafy enough to shoot hot loads and as such can reach out to 200 accurately. If it is a longer shot I have a 7MM Mag that would have no trouble out to 450. My brother-in-law has a Remington model 70 in 8MM Mag, which is still rising at 400 yards. It is a real bitch to shoot with a recoil of 165 LBS per square inch.

        Since you folks can shoot rifles pretty much anywhere there is not much of a reason for shotgun, but check out Remmington’s new Premier Accu-tip rifled slug. It is solid brass, weighs 385 grains and leaves the barrel at 1850 FPS. At 100 yard it shoots about 5 inches higher than my copper solid.

        If you need shoooters down there next year let me know. I will round up a few boys and we will come down there and “Whack’em and Stack’em” as Ted would say.

        CM

  45. Mathius,

    From our discussion of the other day:

    If so, how do we correct this? If not, how do we explain the “it ain’t my fault, I’m a victim” mentality beyond the basics of human nature? If we can’t change this has our society failed? I’ll get to this, but now I have to go to class (if I fail because I don’t go, can I say I’m a victim of SUFA-addiction?)

    I’m still interested in your thoughts on this, if you have time.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Ahhhh… it seems I dropped the ball…

      OK, because doing work is over-rated, let’s take care of this right now.

      Hmmm…

      OK…

      So is the question, “how do we reverse this”? If that’s the question, I suppose we could just hope the pendulum swings back.. but eh…

      I don’t know that if this is scaled up enough that a society can/would survive a situation where no one takes responsibility for anything. Personally, I don’t think it’s gone that far. Certainly many people feel “victimized” and excuse themselves from responsibility, but I tend to thing this is the fault of the way people are raised.

      We are told that we are special.

      We are told that we are all (somehow) above average.

      We are told that we can grow up to be President.

      But these things simply cannot be true. They just can’t.

      Some people will grow up to be janitors and fast food cooks.

      We are lying to our children and we need to stop. We are giving them a faulty framework for their world-views in their formative years. The present crop of “victims” are lost. There is no hope of reshaping their brains at this stage. The difficulty in doing this is so dramatic and difficult, you’d have to hire a million drill instructor to break them down and build them back up correctly. You would literally have to individually tear them apart, get in their faces and, one-by-one, force them to learn from scratch what responsibility means. And introspection does not come easy (it is, as I’ve said, contrary to human nature).

      But we can fix education. It’s great to give kids good self esteem. It’s important to let kids have a sense of pride and accomplishment. But at the same time, teachers aren’t allowed to grade papers with a red pen. Grades are placed face down so no one can see what anyone else got. There are no F’s in some schools. Teachers talk to students after class so as not to embarass them. Bad behavior is excused as learning disabilities (that’s not to say there aren’t legitimate cases of LD’s, but let’s not pretend they’re as prevelent as people pretend – it’s just another excuse for many people). Et cetera et cetera et cetera.

      And the parents, too, need to take ownership. Teachers need to be allowed to confront parents. I cannot tell you the number of stories I’ve heard of parents who make up excuses for their kids, or who blame teachers for poor performance when the kid won’t do the work at home, and the parent’s let the watch TV and never read. Teachers can’t do this alone, and they are forced to treat parents with kid-gloves. That needs to end as well. My younger sister is behind in school – her teacher told my mother than she needs to read nightly. My mother isn’t doing it and just laughs it off. The teacher should be free to hold my sister back or kick her our of the school. But she can’t. And without, there is no accountability, and the children learn from this. And that’s a shame.

      You know what they did at my high school? After tests, they posted your grades. With your name. Publicly. Ranked.

      If you got an F, everyone knew it. (I earned or tied for every top test grade in every class 10-12th grade. And everyone knew that too.)

      So even the idiots worked hard.

      They could blame whoever they liked, but they knew the cost of failure. At least there was that. That’s what we need. Every child in America needs to understand the cost of failure. That it doesn’t matter what excuses you might have – you own your performance. Period. You get to walk around knowing that everyone else knows you flunked. Unpleasant, so many next time you’ll try harder.

      We coddle kids today. Hell, I may have turned out ok, but I was coddled too. I almost never did any homework, but I still passed. Why? Because my test grades, but they should have thrown me out of the school. They should have dressed me down in front of everyone for being lazy and complacent. They should have read me the riot act.

      It wasn’t until my first internship that anyone read me the riot act, and I’ll tell you – it changed my life. Thank god it happened when I was still young and pliable enough to turn my life around. Another few years, and I probably would have balked, quit my internship, blamed the boss for being a jerk (ignoring my bad attitude and lousy performance), and spent the rest of my life thinking of myself as the victim.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I think this is illuminating:

  46. Time for another **Black Flag alert.**

    Ann Barnhardt has shut down her investment firm. She issued a letter.
    It is getting a lot of coverage.

    I reprint it here.

    Read it.
    Think about it.

    Act.
    …………………………….

    BCM Has Ceased Operations

    Posted by Ann Barnhardt – November 17, AD 2011 10:27 AM MST
    Dear Clients, Industry Colleagues and Friends of Barnhardt Capital Management,

    It is with regret and unflinching moral certainty that I announce that Barnhardt Capital Management has ceased operations. After six years of operating as an independent introducing brokerage, and eight years of employment as a broker before that, I found myself, this morning, for the first time since I was 20 years old, watching the futures and options markets open not as a participant, but as a mere spectator.

    The reason for my decision to pull the plug was excruciatingly simple: I could no longer tell my clients that their monies and positions were safe in the futures and options markets — because they are not. And this goes not just for my clients, but for every futures and options account in the United States. The entire system has been utterly destroyed by the MF Global collapse. Given this sad reality, I could not in good conscience take one more step as a commodity broker, soliciting trades that I knew were unsafe or holding funds that I knew to be in jeopardy.

    The futures markets are very highly-leveraged and thus require an exceptionally firm base upon which to function. That base was the sacrosanct segregation of customer funds from clearing firm capital, with additional emergency financial backing provided by the exchanges themselves. Up until a few weeks ago, that base existed, and had worked flawlessly. Firms came and went, with some imploding in spectacular fashion. Whenever a firm failure happened, the customer funds were intact and the exchanges would step in to backstop everything and keep customers 100% liquid — even as their clearing firm collapsed and was quickly replaced by another firm within the system.

    Everything changed just a few short weeks ago. A firm, led by a crony of the Obama regime, stole all of the non-margined cash held by customers of his firm. Let’s not sugar-coat this or make this crime seem “complex” and “abstract” by drowning ourselves in six-dollar words and uber-technical jargon. Jon Corzine STOLE the customer cash at MF Global. Knowing Jon Corzine, and knowing the abject lawlessness and contempt for humanity of the Marxist Obama regime and its cronies, this is not really a surprise. What was a surprise was the reaction of the exchanges and regulators. Their reaction has been to take a bad situation and make it orders of magnitude worse. Specifically, they froze customers out of their accounts WHILE THE MARKETS CONTINUED TO TRADE, refusing to even allow them to liquidate. This is unfathomable. The risk exposure precedent that has been set is completely intolerable and has destroyed the entire industry paradigm. No informed person can continue to engage these markets, and no moral person can continue to broker or facilitate customer engagement in what is now a massive game of Russian Roulette.

    I have learned over the last week that MF Global is almost certainly the mere tip of the iceberg. There is massive industry-wide exposure to European sovereign junk debt. While other firms may not be as heavily leveraged as Corzine had MFG leveraged, and it is now thought that MFG’s leverage may have been in excess of 100:1, they are still suicidally leveraged and will likely stand massive, unmeetable collateral calls in the coming days and weeks as Europe inevitably collapses. I now suspect that the reason the Chicago Mercantile Exchange did not immediately step in to backstop the MFG implosion was because they knew and know that if they backstopped MFG, they would then be expected to backstop all of the other firms in the system when the failures began to cascade — and there simply isn’t that much money in the entire system. In short, the problem is a SYSTEMIC problem, not merely isolated to one firm.

    Perhaps the most ominous dynamic that I have yet heard of in regards to this mess is that of the risk of potential CLAWBACK actions. For those who do not know, “clawback” is the process by which a bankruptcy trustee is legally permitted to re-seize assets that left a bankrupt entity in the time period immediately preceding the entity’s collapse. So, using the MF Global customers as an example, any funds that were withdrawn from MFG accounts in the run-up to the collapse, either because of suspicions the customer may have had about MFG from, say, watching the company’s bond yields rise sharply, or from purely organic day-to-day withdrawls, the bankruptcy trustee COULD initiate action to “clawback” those funds. As a hedge broker, this makes my blood run cold. Generally, as the markets move in favor of a hedge position and equity builds in a client’s account, that excess equity is sent back to the customer who then uses that equity to offset cash market transactions OR to pay down a revolving line of credit. Even the possibility that a customer could be penalized and additionally raped AGAIN via a clawback action after already having their customer funds stolen is simply villainous. While there has been no open indication of clawback actions being initiated by the MF Global trustee, I have been told that it is a possibility.

    And so, to the very unpleasant crux of the matter. The futures and options markets are no longer viable. It is my recommendation that ALL customers withdraw from all of the markets as soon as possible so that they have the best chance of protecting themselves and their equity. The system is no longer functioning with integrity and is suicidally risk-laden. The rule of law is non-existent, instead replaced with godless, criminal political cronyism.

    Remember, derivatives contracts are NOT NECESSARY in the commodities markets. The cash commodity itself is the underlying reality and is not dependent on the futures or options markets. Many people seem to have gotten that backwards over the past decades. From Abel the animal husbandman up until the year 1964, there were no cattle futures contracts at all, and no options contracts until 1984, and yet the cash cattle markets got along just fine.

    Finally, I will not, under any circumstance, consider reforming and re-opening Barnhardt Capital Management, or any other iteration of a brokerage business, until Barack Obama has been removed from office AND the government of the United States has been sufficiently reformed and repopulated so as to engender my total and complete confidence in the government, its adherence to and enforcement of the rule of law, and in its competent and just regulatory oversight of any commodities markets that may reform. So long as the government remains criminal, it would serve no purpose whatsoever to attempt to rebuild the futures industry or my firm, because in a lawless environment, the same thievery and fraud would simply happen again, and the criminals would go unpunished, sheltered by the criminal oligarchy.

    To my clients, who literally TO THE MAN agreed with my assessment of the situation, and were relieved to be exiting the markets, and many whom I now suspect stayed in the markets as long as they did only out of personal loyalty to me, I can only say thank you for the honor and pleasure of serving you over these last years, with some of my clients having been with me for over twelve years. I will continue to blog at Barnhardt.biz, which will be subtly re-skinned soon, and will continue my cattle marketing consultation business. I will still be here in the office, answering my phones, with the same phone numbers. Alas, my retirement came a few years earlier than I had anticipated, but there was no possible way to continue given the inevitability of the collapse of the global financial markets, the overthrow of our government, and the resulting collapse in the rule of law.

    As for me, I can only echo the words of David:

    “This is the Lord’s doing; and it is wonderful in our eyes.”

    With Best Regards- Ann Barnhardt

    http://barnhardt.biz/

    • I’ve been watching the Euro news some.
      http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/17/us-spain-election-measures-idUSTRE7AG1G420111117

      Wasn’t there something about MF Global raiding their customers gold accounts?

      And what do you suggest? Cash in all IRA’s and 401k”s and pay the penalty? But then what, buy gold/silver, coins by preference and whatever other real goods and commodities you can because cash(dollar/euro/yen/etc are all going to tank).

      • Mathius,

        And what do you suggest? Cash in all IRA’s and 401k”s and pay the penalty?

        I suggested that a long time ago – but some “smart” guy said differently.
        Now, it becomes even more expensive.

        Gold – yes, but now it is more expensive.
        Rental Property
        Lots of Beer for BF

        • Mathius™ says:

          I think you’re confusing me for LOI.. You’re responding to his post, not mine.

          But I am a huge fan of investing in beer. Think I’ll do that for myself, but you’re welcome to come join me for as much as you can hold.

          PS: I love the idea of rental property. I’ve been mulling it over and think I’ll probably (finally) take the plunge once my bonus check clears in January. Either that or a coin operated laundromat or a gas station. Haven’t made up my mind yet. I’d be interested in your thoughts on the subject though.

          • 49 yrs experience here…coin op laundry will make a profit but gas and electric is enormous. Be prepared to pay a full time repairman also..even with the best preventive maintenance program there is still always tinkering to be done.

          • Mathius,

            I do not know gas stations or laundry mats – however my “top of the head” thoughts are – these take ownership effort, and don’t run themselves.

            Rental property – you can be away for most of the time and hire others fix house problems. Checks arrive in the mail monthly no matter where you are in the world.

    • BF

      Have you read this lady’s commentary on religious matters?

      I am wondering if she is related to TexChem. OK, Tex. I admit that was a cheap shot.

      I guess her religion and politics do not negate her concerns for truth in financial matters. Is that right?

  47. No deportation for an Illegal alien…without a criminal background…mmmm what the hell; if they are an ILLEGAL alien here ILLEGALLY is that not having a criminal background in and of itself? Whatcha’ think bout’ this article D-13 ?

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2809156/posts

    • if they are an ILLEGAL alien here ILLEGALLY is that not having a criminal background in and of itself?

      Nope. Can’t have a criminal record until convicted of a crime………..pesky Constitutional thing.

    • Hi Texas…….the feds have been told to do this…..Texas does not listen to the feds. If ICE captures one, they turn them loose. If state employee catches one…they go to jail and then get dropped in the river after being finger printed. (About a three day process). If caught again and their fingerprints match..they go to jail for 90 days….if caught again…..they are prosecuted. Now, when we approach a group, they run to the Feds and turn themselves in because they know they will be released. Border security is a joke….the Feds are a joke…we, Texas employees, do not play…..La Raza is trying to tie up the Texas courts with dip shit lawsuits but they are getting thrown out as fast as they are filed. And it is working, most of the illegals are going to Arizona and California to cross. Here, because of the drugs and guns, you are going to be considered guilty…..it is the way of the wild west down here. If you are in hostile territory…expect hostiles…..and law breakers are considered hostile.

      Plainly, I will agree but disagree….criminal background indicates conviction…..but you do not have to have a conviction to be a criminal. Just because you do not get caught does not make you innocent.

      • Afternoon Colonel,

        Hope all is well with you this fine (and windy – here at least) Saturday?

        If caught again and their fingerprints match..they go to jail for 90 days….if caught again…..they are prosecuted.

        So, let me get this right, if they’re caught back in Texas after deportation, the State locks them up for 90 days and then deported. If they return a third time they are prosecuted?

        If this is accurate, under what authority that would be supported under the US Constitution do you jail them for 90 days? Doesn’t sound like there is a trial of any kind, they just get locked up.

        criminal background indicates conviction…..but you do not have to have a conviction to be a criminal. Just because you do not get caught does not make you innocent.

        Ah yes, but I wasn’t discussing innocence. That is a whole different picture.

        • Wups……that did not read quite right…….I was typing so fast I left out some things….

          Ok….caught once…….fingerprinted and released, if no crime other than illegal entry.

          Caught twice and fingerprints match…..jail. ( Goes before judge ). Automatic.

          The third time is a felony (state ) …

          • <blockquote.Caught twice and fingerprints match…..jail. ( Goes before judge ). Automatic.

            So a misdemeanor trial for the second offense?

          • you are going to be considered guilty…

            The whole “Constitution” thing be damned, hey Colonel? Because obviously you can tell by looking at them, right?

            …criminal background indicates conviction…

            No it doesn’t. Where do you make up this shit?

            but you do not have to have a conviction to be a criminal. Just because you do not get caught does not make you innocent.

            And just because you are caught does not make you guilty…

            Caught twice and fingerprints match…..jail. ( Goes before judge ). Automatic.

            If it’s automatic, why bother with the Judge? Because then it feels like “Justice” to you?

            I hope one day your “Justice” is applied to you Colonel.

            And please don’t piss-n-moan about taxes or Obama being a “Socialist” in the future….

  48. http://news.yahoo.com/worlds-lightest-solid-takes-inspiration-eiffel-tower-134809070.html

    A solid lighter than air….
    …we live in amazing times.

    And no, Mathius, this is engineering – things that are impossible haven’t changed one bit.

    • Not saying anything impossible is possible. I’m saying you don’t know what is actually impossible and what you just think is impossible.

      • Mathius,

        That is were you are wrong.

        I do know the difference between what is impossible and what is merely difficult, since I know what contradictions are.

        Since you have not been able to get to step 1 – contradictions – you will NEVER know the difference, and fumble about

        • Again, I’m not talking about things being just “difficult.” I am saying things that are simply “impossible” according to our current understanding, but which may turn out to be doable.

          The example I keep going back to is flight. Physics as we knew it said heavier than air travel is IMPOSSIBLE, not difficult, impossible. Then we learned some new things and figured out how to do it, and it became POSSIBLE.

          So, to try this one last time, before I quit, you and I and the geniuses at CERN only know a fraction of the physics of the universe. Much of what we “know” is likely to be proven wrong or incomplete as time goes on. Because of this fact, the belief that something is “impossible” is premised on theories we can reasonably suspect to be not the whole story. So when you, or anyone else, says that something is impossible based on the laws of physics, I say that you don’t know what is impossible. Neither do I.

          And to rehash another of my comparisons earlier, let’s go over this again. Let’s pretend you want to buy a gun to defend your house. But, it turns out that there is a “law” that says you can’t (because you’re on the terrorist watch list). I am not suggesting that you could just violate the law and buy one anyway – that’s impossible. But I am saying that have other ways of accomplishing your goals. You could buy a cross bow., for example, and still manage your goal of defending your home (this is akin to accomplishing your goal through roundabout means, such as flying by using lift rather than simply negating gravity). Or you could go out-of state to buy or out of the country (this is akin to laws of physics which may not apply at the very small or very large scale). Or you could buy a gun which is over 100 years old and qualifies as a collectible, but which is just as deadly (this is akin to a “loop hole” in physics, such as the way particle be created out of nothing as long as they exist for a sufficiently short time, ie virtual particles). Do you see where I’m going with this? Not saying you can violate the laws of physics, just that there are several ways to skin a cat.

          And if you don’t get it, I don’t care.

          • Mathius,

            For a smart guy (most of the time), you sure a brick short of a load in this matter.

            Again, I’m not talking about things being just “difficult.” I am saying things that are simply “impossible” according to our current understanding, but which may turn out to be doable.

            But that is your problem.

            You do not understand – thus, to you, nothing can be understood.

            It is IMPOSSIBLE to contradict the Laws of Nature.
            Mathematics is the language of Nature.

            If the Math says It is impossible, then guess what?
            That does not mean “Try harder”, or “wait another 100 years”…..it means “Move on, because …. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE”

            The example I keep going back to is flight. Physics as we knew it said heavier than air travel is IMPOSSIBLE, not difficult, impossible.

            BULLSHIT!

            Physics NEVER said it was impossible.

            IN FACT, due to observation, IT WAS POSSIBLE (called BIRDS, paper airplanes, hot air balloons, etc.)

            What was thought to be IMPOSSIBLE was the ENGINEERING – not the Physics.

            This is exactly what I mean – you convolute one thing to be another, Engineering is not Science.

            Because you hold some sort of myth about the history of science, you carry that forward to create utterly bizarre beliefs and consequentially utterly bizarre understandings.

            • Mathius,

              Because you do not really understand – let me update you about “Flight”.

              Birds have been flying for about 5 million years BCE.

              Paper airplanes were being flown since 2,000 BCE – the most elaborate and complex are called “kites”. Indeed the Chinese used them to drop bombs and projectiles on their enemies.

              Da Vinci studied birds, and postulated the first theory flight – he figured it had to something with airflow over its wing… a different mechanism of flight vs. kites

              Hot air balloons have been flying in China for 1,000 years, and for 400 years in the West.

              Bernoulli discovered the mechanism first postulated by Da Vinci for the theory of flight in 1728.
              From those calculations, mankind figured out exactly what was required for flight to occur.

              However, there was no engine powerful enough for the weight to propel a physical object fast enough. At the time, it was not thought possible to build an engine big enough, but light enough. This is a matter of engineering problem, not a physics problem, nor a lack of understanding nature

              Not until the internal combustion engine was manufactured with the suitable power/weight ratios was this possible – and once that engine was invented, human flight was a certainty…it became a race to see who could do it first

          • Mathius,

            So, to try this one last time, before I quit, you and I and the geniuses at CERN only know a fraction of the physics of the universe.

            SO?

            What we DO KNOW NOW is not invalidated by the unknown……!

            No matter how much you wait, you will never have MORE inside a system then what IS INSIDE a system!…but you can’t even get that basic, simple, required concept.

            As long as hold serious misunderstandings about our world, your perception of our world will be horrifically skewed.

            • I’m done with you. Move along.

              • Mathius,

                You have achieved a new low of utterly muddled and confused thinking for yourself.

              • You have no idea the kinds of lows I’ve dabbled in for muddled and and confused thinking.

                I’ve had thoughts that would put you in a coma.

                If you only knew the kinds of thinking I’ve experienced, you’d lock yourself away and spend the rest of your life jibbering at a the padded walls.

              • The depth of irrational thinking can degraded into is infinite.

                But I also know that statement is meaningless to you.

              • My only hope is that you finally might discard your bizarre belief around man and flight….. but I doubt it.
                You do tend to hold onto the most bizarre idiocy with a grip of a pit bull.

              • Just remember, when you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back into you..

              • Mathius,

                That never made any sense.

                “Looking into the black, you see……. black?”

                And that is supposed to be …scary, profound, disturbing…. as if something else was expected to be seen?

              • Mathius™ says:

                ::sigh:: Are you really this well read and haven’t done your Nietzsche?

                “Looking into the black, you see……. black?”

                No. Re-read that quote. “when you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back into you.”

                So, more accurately, you might convert it to when you look into the black, the black looks into you. (not, you see black, but black sees you).

                But what he’s really saying is that it becomes a part of you. The abyss becomes a mirror to the self and the black, empty madness, nihilism and nothingness of the universe becomes a part of the self, you see it in yourself. If you ever study, truly internalizing and fully comprehending the real and true meaning of nihilism or insanity, it will become a part of you.

                If you stare too deeply into the mind of a liberal lunatic, it will drive you mad.

              • It still makes no sense.

                When you stare into nothing …. you see nothing. How can it stare back at you?

                There is no understanding of an irrational mind, other than knowing it is irrational.
                Trying to “reason out” irrationality is, indeed, irrational – so why bother?

              • Mathius,

                You’ll likely better maintain your sanity if you spend your energy arguing/debating with DPM. 😉

                “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I fear no evil – just BF.”

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                I am the Abyss into which Mathius™ stated too deeply.

              • Dread,

                Men fear reason, because it shatters illusions – and many men love to live by illusion.

  49. Ahhhhh…Canada first….USA next? Raising a nation of wimps. Canada school bans baseball, football, soccer, tennis, softball, dodge ball, kickball………..they might get a concussion…..give me a break……Ping Pong will probably create Carpal Tunnel.

  50. I said I would post some so-Here you go Matt-this first one is exactly what I think Perry is trying to do with all these remarks-tag his opponents as part of the elite.

    Republican field: They may be rich, but don’t call them elite
    Mark Z. Barabak/ Los Angeles Times

    Los Angeles—When Mitt Romney delivers a shout-out to fast food and Rick Perry suggests global warming is a hoax, the two are doing more than offering a dining preference or challenging the consensus of mainstream science.

    The two main Republican presidential adversaries are engaged in a ritual as old as the republic itself: Taking on that despised slice of the hoity-toity known as elites.

    It is why the manor-born George H.W. Bush expressed his love of pork rinds, why John F. Kerry paid a political price for windsurfing and why candidate Barack Obama was mocked for discussing arugula in Iowa. (Twenty years earlier, it was Michael Dukakis and Belgian endive.)

    Americans typically want a president who is wiser, worldlier and steelier of spine than the average citizen — so long as the person has a common touch, can relate to the regular Jane and Joe, and doesn’t lord superiority over the rest of us.

    Thus candidates go to lengths to assert their proletarian bona fides: Just because your father was Michigan governor and you’re worth tens of millions of dollars doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy a stop at Subway or don’t love flying around the country in coach, as Romney has suggested on Twitter.

    (His regular-guy credibility was somewhat undermined, however, when Romney argued he was only doubling — not quadrupling, as some reports had it — the size of his La Jolla, Calif., mansion.)

    The privileged background and patrician demeanor of the former Massachusetts governor makes him — notwithstanding his new wardrobe of skinny jeans and open-neck shirts — ripe for up-from-below attacks from Perry, who was raised wearing home-sewn garments in a house that lacked indoor plumbing until he was 6. Never mind that Perry, now a millionaire, enjoys much the same lifestyle as Romney.

    “As the son of tenant farmers, I can tell you I wasn’t born with four aces in my hand,” Perry recently told the crowd at an Iowa fundraiser, playing off Romney’s cozy upbringing as well as a debate jibe that Perry’s job-creation record as Texas governor was mostly good fortune.

    Perry taps a similar vein in his attacks on the scientific community and his stated doubts about climate change, academia being a favorite target of anti-elitist sentiment. Without offering specifics, Perry has charged that “there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.”

    While experts scoff and the majority of Americans believe in global warming, Perry’s contrarian stance may resonate with acolytes of the “tea party” movement, a hotbed of skepticism toward all things establishment and a prized constituency in the Republican nominating fight. A recent Yale University survey found more than half the tea party faithful, 53 percent, reject the notion the Earth’s atmosphere is getting hotter.

    “There’s the idea that real Americans produce something of value. They’re farmers, manufacturers, construction workers,” said Michael Kazin, a Georgetown University expert on populist politics. “They aren’t like bankers or stockbrokers or professors, who play around with words and play around with other people’s money.”

    That suspicion of the high-and-mighty — or, at least, those who act so — is deeply rooted.

    After all, the country was born of rebellion, and some portion of the population has had its back up ever since. Part of it is an innate skepticism about the concentration of power, be it political or cultural, especially in the hands of far-off leaders.

    The country also lacks the rigid class structure of so many others; Americans prize the notion that, with enough moxie, they can achieve great things, regardless of where they start in life. In politics, that has long meant a bias toward men — and later, women — of humble background and vigorous performance, the more rugged the better.

    In the seminal presidential race of 1828, supporters of Andrew Jackson cast the election, in the words of a popular slogan, as a choice between “John Quincy Adams, who can write, and Andy Jackson, who can fight.” Jackson, the mud-on-his-boots former general, defeated the superbly pedigreed Adams and, as historian Ron Formisano notes, American politics have never been the same.

    The election hastened “the decline of deference, the rise of egalitarianism and a feeling that ‘I’m as good as you,’ ” said Formisano, who teaches at the University of Kentucky. “Now every candidate vies to be a man of the people.”

    That is not to say high station has automatically disqualified someone from being president. Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy both grew up rich, yet each managed to forge a strong bond with the American people. (It is difficult to imagine any politician today, however humbly they began, engendering that sort of abiding affection.)

    If anything, the past difficult decade has made the public even more dubious of their supposed betters, be they government experts who failed to prevent the events of Sept. 11, or the wizards of Wall Street, whose manipulations helped tank the economy. Far from offering a remedy, many believe the country’s politicians — Democrat and Republican — have lost touch.

    Said Don Sipple, a GOP strategist: “People see the value of their home falling, their retirement plan has been decimated by the downturn in the stock market and they’re saying, ‘I played by the rules and look what happened. No one’s bailing me out.’ When the rewards system in this country gets turned on its head, it creates a tremendous amount of resentment.”

    So if elites got the country into this mess, with the economy sputtering and gloom spreading, what are voters to do? Polls show most would happily sock it to the comfortably off by raising their taxes, but then what? Elect someone mediocre, someone utterly lacking any special capacity to help lead the country out of its malaise?

    Not necessarily, said Peter Hart, a Democratic strategist who has spent more than 40 years sampling public opinion.

    “Voters don’t see it as a choice of either/or,” Hart said. “They’re looking in 2012 for someone who will not only care for me and relate to me and understand what I’m going through, but also someone who gives a sense that I can count on them and the ability to make things happen.”

    Whether or not they fly coach.

    From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20111002/POLITICS03/110020307/Republican-field–They-may-be-rich–but-don’t-call-them-elite#ixzz1eAY0cCNd

    • “Liberals revere high SAT scores. That is why it is no accident that, over the past century, the Democrats have nominated for president five former college or law school professors (Woodrow Wilson, John W. Davis, George McGovern, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama) plus Hubert Humphrey, who was a graduate teaching fellow while working on a Ph.D.

      Democrats snootily ridiculed George W. Bush’s scholarly performance, but compared to Perry, the 43rd president—who earned a B.A. from Yale and a Harvard M.B.A.—seems as well educated as John Stuart Mill. And Perry revels in this kind of comparison. Asked last week about how he differs from Bush, he tellingly replied, “He’s a Yale graduate. I’m a Texas A&M graduate.”

      Perry plays this educational populism to the hilt. The official bio of the Texas governor boasts that at university he was a “senior yell leader and an animal science major.” ”

      http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/94113/rick-perry-republican-nomination-liberal-nightmare

  51. From the Idiots have no boundary file

    EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration

    Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html

    Yes, folks, the EU now claims that water does not relieve thirst.

  52. Something positive-thank you!!

    November 20, 2011
    The Party’s Just Warming Up
    Tom Roberson

    A plethora of articles have appeared recently on American Thinker highlighting the flaws of the current GOP field. It’s time someone pointed out their positive attributes.

    Disappointment has reigned supreme amongst a subset of commentators and political bloggers concerning the current field of GOP contenders vying to unseat Obama in 2012. Not a day passes that there isn’t another article lamenting our poor choices and dissecting every candidate’s political flaws. These same bloggers decry the dearth of scrutiny applied to Obama in 2008 while shredding the GOP field and bemoaning the lack of a last minute conservative entry to act as GOP savior. As the GOP lead has rotated among the candidates, these bloggers have taken to the web to point out why their candidate is the only one who can win and why all the rest don’t stand a chance.

    Reading the constant drumbeat of negative information coming from these bloggers is enough to leave one feeling that the GOP field is populated by the most hopeless candidates around. Each career misstep has been magnified along with Democrat smears planted to keep conservatives second guessing their choices. Despite their misgivings, it needs to be realized that the GOP field is set and no conservative savior is waiting to appear at the last minute.

    Rick Perry entered the race to much enthusiasm and immediately shot to the top of the polls as conservatives lauded his credentials as the longest serving governor in Texas history. Perry has since stumbled badly in the debates and tumbled to the bottom of the heap, but he was the original conservative savior whose entry was supposed to lead the GOP to the White House. Perry is a well-liked conservative who has served as Texas governor for the past eleven years. Debating skills notwithstanding, Perry has an enormous amount of executive experience leading one of the largest states in the country. He comes across very well addressing small groups where listeners come away impressed by his conservative views.

    Perry inherited the top spot from Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann who is currently serving her third term in the House. Bachmann, a former tax attorney, has strong pro-life credentials and embraced the nascent Tea Party movement early in 2010, creating the House Tea Party Caucus. Her strong conservative record in the House helped her to win the Ames Straw Poll organized by the Iowa GOP earlier this year. Her knowledge and experience with the IRS make her a natural for leading the debate for comprehensive tax reform, while her assignment to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has given her deep insight into foreign policy.

    Herman Cain followed Perry as GOP poll leader with conservatives reveling in his American success story. Cain parlayed hard work into a successful business career turning around the fortunes of Godfather’s Pizza as its CEO and culminating in a stint as President of the National Restaurant Association. He later served as deputy chairman of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and later its chairman. His business experience has given him a unique insight into the needs of American business desperate for relief from burdensome federal regulations and taxes. Insight like this is precisely what is needed to turn our economy around and get Americans back to work.

    Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was the original front runner and has managed to stay close to the lead ever since. Prior to his term as governor, Romney had a successful career in the management consulting business culminating as CEO of Bain & Company before striking out on his own as a co-founder of private equity investment firm Bain Capital. Romney combination of vast business experience with executive political experience makes him a formidable candidate to oppose Obama’s socialist agenda.

    Currently vying for the top spot is former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who in 1994 engineered the first Republican House majority in 40 years with his Contract with America. As Speaker, Newt oversaw legislation reforming federal welfare programs, passage of a capital gains tax cut, and in 1998 the first balanced federal budget since 1969. Twenty terms in the House representing Georgia’s 6th District have allowed Newt to gain an exceptional depth of experience in the inner workings of the federal government; experience that will come in handy in shrinking the federal behemoth and reducing the deficit.

    Rounding out the GOP field are former Utah governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, 12-term House member and stalwart conservative Ron Paul, and former conservative Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Ignored by the media but still in the mix are former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson. Pundits may argue the degree of each candidate’s conservatism, but there can be no disputing the fact that any of these candidates is imminently more qualified to be president than the current occupant of the Oval Office.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/the_partys_just_warming_up.html#ixzz1eGwJdviq

  53. Kathy

    What happened with STATE CHAMP game????

    • 3-Peat Baby! We did it! Score was 45-0 so wasn’t much of a game, which was fine by me as our Round 3 and Round 4 games were very tight and very nerve racking! Senior class has never lost a game in high school and 14-year home winning streak (for varsity) still stands.

      And the Pack are 10-0!

  54. Good Morning Everyone

    • Anita

      Good morning my dear Spartan. Things are looking better aren’t they.

      The anguish and dumb struck look on the interviewer’s face is PRICELESS!

    • Does anyone thing this is possible?

      Obama Should Step Aside In 2012 and Let Hillary Save Our Country

      By Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen

      Published November 21, 2011

      | The Wall Street Journal

      When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.

      He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

      Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president’s administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.

      Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president’s administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.

      Certainly, Mr. Obama could still win re-election in 2012. Even with his all-time low job approval ratings (and even worse ratings on handling the economy) the president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president’s political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.

      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/21/obama-should-step-aside-in-2012-and-let-hillary-save-our-country/#ixzz1eMafoN3N

      • Mathius™ says:

        Rrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhht…………………

        Is that a flying pig, I see?

        • I’ll take that as a NO. 🙂 But would you vote for Hillary if she ran? Because I really don’t believe she wouldn’t run if the left starts turning against him.

          • Mathius™ says:

            It would depend on who she is running against.

            Also, what do you mean “if the left starts turning against him”? The far left (see, Charlie, for example) turned against him a long time ago.

            • The “media” – Charlie’s opinions may effect me and make me pound my head on my desk 🙂 but I don’t think he’s a CNN or MSNBC

              • Mathius™ says:

                Ah, you didn’t specify..

                Even so, the left-leaning portion of the media (which is much smaller than the right-leaning portion of the media, by the way), also turned against him a long time ago.

                By the way, Charlie write a blog, no? Ergo he’s part of the media.

                And, just for fun, here’s Bobby!

  55. Woe what a college football weekend. One two three all from the SEC, I’m a poet and didn’t know it. Even and I mean even all the yards Alabama gave up last Saturday we are still number one in the defensive statistics.

    • bamadad

      Looks like the top three were the only ones the pollsters got right.

      Despite all the clamoring for a playoff, they ignore head to head games in their own voting. How ridiculous.

  56. Jesus…

    • Now now Mathius – those violent protestors had those cops surrounded and threatened and intimidated. The only way out for the cops was to pepper-spray them at point-blank range in the face. Kids seated, legs crossed, arms-interlocked were easily the bigger threat than the other kids standing around chanting, video-taping, etc.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Reminds me of Kent State..

        • Bull Shit!!!

          Lets not draw parallels where they don’t exist.

          But tell me. What are the police supposed to do when the sitters have been ordered to leave and they don’t leave?

          Is there any action at all that would NOT be called “police brutality”???

          • Mathius™ says:

            V.,

            I said it reminds me ok KS. Not that it’s equivalent. Just that it reminds me.

            I think that’s a fair statement.

            JAC,

            Call their parents! 😉

            But serious answer? I don’t know. It’s not like the kids were fighting the cops. Why couldn’t they just start arresting them without spraying them in the face with noxious chemicals? When the cops catch ordinary criminals who aren’t violent, they just cuff them.

            How about we use another “overstatement” comparison. In the civil protests, when the cops turned the fire-hoses on marchers and bludgeoned sit-in, what should the cops have done instead? The sit-ins, at least, were definitely illegal and trespassing. The marching probably didn’t have the appropriate permits (because applications for permits were probably denied).

            Does your opinion of justifiable force depend on how much you agree with the protesters? Civil disobedience is probably the term the protesters would use to describe their actions. They were protesting in a non-violent way against what they perceive to be a grave social injustice. Breaking the law, yes, but not acting a way that endangers anyone. Just making a point in a way that is impossible to ignore.

            • I’m simply trying to look at this from all sides-one thing I think people push aside and ignore in their condemnation of cops-is the real danger they are in-groups like this may well be peaceful-but they can turn into mobs very quickly. And in a lot of cases they are outnumbered and surrounded by the protesters.

            • Mathius

              I assure you my view of “justifiable force” is not dependent on someone’s views.

              My point was that those who are screaming about this are setting up the situation for the purpose of provoking so they can scream. They WANT to create a moral equivalency to the 60’s and 70’s protests. That is because those from that era are the ones who have told these folks this is how you do “effective” demonstrations.

              But their constant screaming about “abuse” begs the bigger question. What are the police supposed to do?

              If you want people to disperse but don’t want to arrest them, then how do you get them to move??? Pepper spray was developed to prevent the more physical attacks of past decades (dogs, batons, and clubs).

              The police did a great job, in my view, breaking up the Occupy Portland group. But they are still being accused of “abuse” on the internet and some media outlets. Now the demonstrators are kicking up their “anger” and “threats of violence”. Why??? They say it is because of the “police brutality”.

              If you want Govt RULES then you must define the lines for the authorities whom you have given responsibility to enforce your Govt RULES.

          • I have to agree-that anything they did would be called “police brutality” but none-the-less this wasn’t the right action to take, IMO. My understanding is they had been dealing with these people for several days-but they still were not being dangerously confrontational-at least per the information I have.

            I wondered why they came to the decision to handle it this way-and the only conclusion I could come up with-was the fear that forcibly trying to break them up with just brute strength might have caused this to escalate to a riot-but it seems to me that spraying them could have caused the audience to become a mob too.

            I know we have people on here who were cops-maybe they will put in their input.

            • Okay, being that I worked in law enforcement in California I’ll take this on some.

              First, let me say that while I can see this incident at UC Davis rising to the level of excessive use of force, I am not – yet – of the opinion that the actions of the cops rises to the level of brutality.

              Next, let me discuss the use of force continuum taught to all law enforcement and corrections personnel in every academy that exists. Keep in mind that the continuum is a guideline. The continuum teaches the use of a reasonable amount of force to overcome the resistance of the offender(s), as the California Penal Code authorizes. Now, the fact that a continuum exists does not mean that cops must go up the continuum step-by-step. It means you move to the point on the continuum necessary to overcome the resistance, even if that means jumping levels on the continuum (since the resistance may jump levels of the continuum). It is a subjective scale requiring the judgment of the cops (not saying that their judgment is always correct).

              Jump way up on the continuum, lets say using batons on these protestors, and you can have brutality. Jump not so high – pepper spray in this incident – and you can have excessive use of force.

              With each use of force comes the necessity to file a report, even if no arrests are made. Then, in some cases, you’ll see a review of the use of force (rightly so with this incident) to determine if the cops acted within the policies and procedures of the department and within the laws of the State.

              The cops using the pepper spray were also, once used, required to insure that those sprayed received the required treatment for the pepper spray (consists of repeated flushing the face with cool water to rinse away the pepper spray as a minimum. Smart agencies have the person sprayed checked by medical personnel too).

              What needs to be known is all the facts of this incident. What orders did the campus police receive? What “facts” did the cops use to decide that the pepper spray was the appropriate amount of force? Etc, etc, etc…

              My judgment of what actions I would have taken, or ordered to be taken, may well have differed than what we see in the videos. But, again I would first need all the information of the situation, the period leading up to the use of the pepper spray, etc., before I could say for certain what I would have done.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Thanks, plainly..

                Just for my edification, what would you have done. I know you don’t have all the facts, but generally, how do you think you probably would have tried to handle this?

                You order them to disburse, they start singing koobaya and link arms. They’re trespassing or whatever, big crowd (and don’t forget those pesky cameras).

                What do you do?

              • I’m curious-campus cops-are they required to go through the same training as regular police officers?

              • If they are a police department, with law enforcement powers, then the officers exercising that authority must be Peace Officers – as defined in the Penal Code – and to gain that status they must take a Police Officers Standards & Training (POST) course for certification.

            • Okay, all things being equal and I didn’t believe myself or my officers had to worry about violence from the onlookers.

              I would have stepped up to the line of sitting protestors and explained that they were blocking a public way and that they needed to disperse. Sit on the grass if you must, just clear the walkway please. I would state that if they failed to move they were subject to arrest and that if that occurred i would have officers step forward two at a time and take one individual into custody and remove them from the line by picking them up and pulling them away. I would give them a short deadline to comply with the order to disperse, say five minuites.

              I would warn them that any physical resistance, beyond just remaining limp, could result in stronger force being used to take the resistor into custody.

              When the time expired i would instruct the remove, one at a time, of the protestors while holding officers back to monitor the crowd for any potential adverse response.

              And, I would have prayed everyone kept their cool on both sides to prevent violence or escalation of force.

              • Not “remove”. Should have been “removal.”

                Oh, and those pesky cameras mean nothing. You can’t allow their existence to dictate your response.

              • Mathius™ says:

                That sounds much better.

              • I have to ask-a what if question-if you did think the audience was a treat-what then? And from watching the video-did you see any reason to think they would be a treat, which I will qualify with-you can never be sure?

              • VH, you’ve asked fair questions. Let me give you my initial plan.

                That cop holding that big can of pepper spray that he used on the sitting protestors would have been in the hands of one of the officers I had monitoring crowd reaction. If violence erupted from the crowd, they would be getting a taste of that spray (just the person/group getting violent – I wouldn’t spray the whole danged crowd unless necessary) – not those sitting on the ground not violently resisting.

                The crowd reacting would very well have concerned me for my safety, the other officers safety, the seated protestors safety, and bystanders safety. That would be sufficient to warrant a higher response of the continuum IMO.

                I saw no reason to be concerned more than normally prior to the cop spraying down the seated protestors. The crowd reaction at that point would have started heightening my sense of overall security, causing me, moment-by-moment, to assess the situation.

                You can never be 100% sure, but remember that the law authorizes only reasonable force to overcome resistance, so it is a subjective call on what action to take and when.

                Let me also explain that I spent years, both in the military and out of it as a member of crowd/riot control units. Most law enforcement get some basics of it during their academy course.

                I’m not saying these cops were right or wrong, I haven’t got enough facts (as I originally stated). My observations have been based on very limited information, but I am skeptical of the action of the cops so far.

              • Seems we agree 🙂 Thanks for your imput.

        • I would also call comparing this to Kent State as an “overreaction”.

        • Mathius,

          Could you explain what about this incident is comparable – in any reasonable way – to Kent State?

          • Mathius™ says:

            Not saying it’s comparable. Just that it reminds me. Authority using unjustifiable amounts of violence against student protesters.

            That is all.

            And you better believe that if that cop didn’t have pepper spray, there would absolutely have been fatalities.

            • Mathius

              Calls for speculation that has no basis in fact.

              I don’t have to believe any such thing, no matter how many lefties say it is true.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Well let’s use some speculation. Take away the pepper spray, and how do you see this playing out? The crowd just meekly disperse when asked?

                And what is your answer to my other point? What was the “right” way for cops to handle sit-ins and illegal marches in the ’60s?

            • Authority using unjustifiable amounts of violence against student protesters.

              Unjust force used against anyone is a problem. But, I will remind you that even after all this time there is no definitive evidence of who gave the order to fire that the Guardsmen reacted to (better to argue why those Guardsmen were given live ammo, or instructed to load their weapons). Regardless, it ended tragically with the deaths of four students and wounds to nine others.

              And you better believe that if that cop didn’t have pepper spray, there would absolutely have been fatalities.

              BS and fear mongering statement. Cops have dealt with protests before without having pepper spray available that did not have those results. How many protests resulted in fatalities over the past 50 years in the USA?

      • Definitely an overreaction-my understanding- this was the campus police? And two of them have been suspended while they investigate.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Definitely an overreaction-my understanding- this was the campus police? And two of them have been suspended while they investigate.

          Two of them should have been arrested while they investigate.

          I’d also suggest that “overreaction” is putting it mildly.

  57. If I have to do the labor-I don’t see how the store can be classified as a manufacturer.

    Tax Loophole in New York Lets Smokers Roll Their Own Cigarettes on the Cheap

    Published November 21, 2011

    NEW YORK CITY – There is no place in the U.S. more expensive to smoke than New York City, where the taxes alone will set you back $5.85 per pack. Yet, addicts who visit Island Smokes, a “roll-your-own” cigarette shop in Chinatown, can walk out with an entire 10-pack carton for under $40, thanks to a yawning tax loophole that officials in several states are now trying to close.

    The store is one of a growing number around the country that have come under fire over their use of high-speed cigarette rolling machines that function as miniature factories, and can package loose tobacco and rolling papers into neatly formed cigarettes, sometimes in just a few minutes.

    The secret to Island’s low prices is simple: Even though patrons leave carrying cartons that look very much like the Marlboros or Newports, the store charges taxes at the rate set for loose tobacco, which is just a fraction of what is charged for a commercially made pack.

    Customers select a blend of tobacco leaves, intended to mirror the flavor of their regular brand. Then they feed the tobacco and some paper tubes into the machines, and return to the counter with the finished product to ring up the purchase.

    The savings come at every level. Many stores sell customers loose pipe tobacco, which is taxed by the federal government at $2.80 per pound, compared with $25 per pound for tobacco made for cigarettes. The shops don’t pay into the cigarette manufacturer trust fund, intended to reimburse government health programs for the cost of treating smoking-related illness. And the packs produced by “roll-your-own” shops are generally also being sold without local tax stamps, which in New York include a $1.50 city tax and a $4.35 state tax.

    New York City’s legal department filed a lawsuit against Island Smokes on Nov. 14, arguing that the company’s Manhattan store and another on Staten Island are engaging in blatant tax evasion.

    Every package of cigarettes sold in the state, the suit argued, must bear a New York tax stamp. Businesses that sell unstamped cigarettes are violating both local law and the federal Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act, city lawyers said. The suit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, also accused the store of violating a state law requiring cigarettes to meet fire safety standards.

    “By selling illegally low-priced cigarettes, defendants not only interfere with the collection of city cigarette taxes, they also impair the city’s smoking cessation programs and impair individual efforts at smoking reduction, thereby imposing higher health care costs on the city and injuring public health,” the complaint said.

    Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has advocated for aggressive legal action against cigarette sellers who avoid taxes, was to announce the lawsuit at a news conference Monday.

    A pack contains 20 cigarettes and sells for around $13 in New York City after taxes are added. That compares with the national average in 2010 of $4.80 a pack, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A pack from Island Smokes can cost less than $4 a pack.

    Everything about the business is legal, precisely because the company is neither selling cigarettes, nor manufacturing them, said Jonathan Behrins, a lawyer for Island Smokes. It is simply selling loose tobacco and tubes, he said, and giving customers access to the rolling machines to make the cigarettes themselves.

    “What’s the harm?” he said. “They are not selling unstamped cigarettes.”

    Behrins said the business, whose owners include a New York City police captain, opened in April. It has developed a clientele of people who are trying to save money, and don’t mind spending some time at the machines, rolling their own product.

    “It’s a certain demographic that rolls their own. They don’t really want to be bothered with Bloomberg reaching into their pockets.”

    He likened the operation to a brew-your-own-beer store, and chafed at the idea that it might cost the city substantial tax revenue. Some smoke shops use roll-your-own machines that can churn out a carton of 200 cigarettes in eight minutes, but Behrins said Island’s machines are far slower. City investigators said it took them about 45 minutes to make one carton.

    “This is why I don’t understand why the city has us in their sights,” said Behrins.

    Legal battles over shops using roll-your-own machines are ongoing in several states.

    Wisconsin’s Department of Revenue this year informed machine owners that they need manufacturing and distribution permits to operate. Enforcement of the order has been put on hold while a judge considers the matter. A hearing is scheduled for Nov. 23.

    In West Virginia, a judge ruled in September that a tobacco shop there was violating state and federal law by failing to charge excise taxes on cigarettes made by customers in automated, on-site rolling machines.

    New Hampshire’s Supreme Court ruled in July that a roll-your-own tobacco shop there was effectively a cigarette manufacturer, and thereby had to pay into the national fund that reimburses Medicare for smoking-related illnesses. The New Hampshire attorney general said those payments amount to about $5.33 per carton. The Massachusetts attorney general has also classified retailers who use roll-your-own machines as manufacturers.

    That argument has also been adopted by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, which issued a ruling Sept. 30 that retailers who give customers access to roll-your-own cigarette machines are manufacturers, and are subject to the same licensing rules as other cigarette makers. Those regulations, among other things, would require the shops to apply for a permit before going into business, post a bond, and keep certain inventory records.

    All of those rulings are being fought by manufacturers of the machines, which include companies like RYO Machine Rental of Cincinnati, which said it has 1,700 machines at stores in 40 states.

    Behrins called the legal attacks “downright frightening,” and blamed them on governments trying to drum up extra cash in tight times.

    “They are looking for money every way they can. Parking tickets. Red light cameras. You name it. They are just ringing it up to bring in revenue.”

    He also echoed claims, made by Island Smokes in some of its marketing materials, that the roll-your-own cigarettes produced in its stores are healthier than commercially produced packs, because they don’t contain some of the same chemical additives.

    That brought a rebuke from New York City’s health commissioner, Dr. Thomas Farley.

    “Claiming that this is healthier is a second scam … it’s totally false,” he said. He said the health risks from cigarettes come from inhaling the cancer-causing agents produced by burning tobacco leaves. “There is nothing safe about an ‘all natural’ tobacco leaf.”

    Farley also defended the city’s high taxes on cigarettes, saying that studies had shown that they are pressuring people into quitting, or not taking up the habit, and thereby saving lives.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/21/tax-loophole-in-new-york-lets-smokers-roll-their-own-cigarettes-on-cheap/?intcmp=trending#ixzz1eMYKHvX9

  58. Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    Flag,

    Down here!

    It still makes no sense.

    When you stare into nothing …. you see nothing. How can it stare back at you?

    There is no understanding of an irrational mind, other than knowing it is irrational.
    Trying to “reason out” irrationality is, indeed, irrational – so why bother?

    You err. It’s not about logic or reason. It’s about diving into the madness and emptiness to understand it. Not reason it out, or rationally comprehend it, but to make it a part of yourself so that you can fully understand it.

    Only the mad can understand the mad. And in studying it, you become mad. To study the Abyss (emptiness of the universe), you become empty.

    Nietzsche was somewhat morbid, he felt the universe was empty of meaning, of god, of faith (a view, I happen to generally share). But he dug into it further than I have, further than perhaps he should have. And he learned that even contemplating such complete emptiness had an effect on the thinker. Just by imagining and trying to fully understand what it means for a universe to be empty of meaning, he saw his own life in that perspective (from the perspective of the abyss), and in doing so drained from himself, from his own life, any sense of meaning.

    Men fear reason, because it shatters illusions – and many men love to live by illusion.

    Well now, there is a very true statement.

    • Dread

      You err. It’s not about logic or reason. It’s about diving into the madness and emptiness to understand it.

      *blink*

      To understand requires reason.

      Not reason it out, or rationally comprehend it, but to make it a part of yourself so that you can fully understand it.

      Not to reason, but to ‘reason it’ – I can see why you might go mad.

      The extent that the irrational mind will go to try to reason why it is irrational is infinite – and futile. Why bother going there?

      Only the mad can understand the mad.

      No, they can’t.

      The mad are mad – they have no reason.
      Whatever they claim is madness – as such any claim of “understanding” is mere madness.

      At the end of the day, it is all the same pile of mush, it has not changed.

      • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        Whatever they claim is madness – as such any claim of “understanding” is mere madness.

        You were so close there for a minute…

        Oh well..

        • Dread,

          You were so close there for a minute

          Not even for a minute.

          There are men who smell a pile of bulls..t, and go to it, pick through it, taste it, roll in it …. before they figure out it is a pile of bulls..t.

          There are other men who smell it, and know what it is already – and find it unnecessary to play in it.

          I find myself in the latter group.

          • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            But then how would you ever know that it’s also good fertilizer?

            • By observation and Science … using reason

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                Objection!

                No, sir! You just said that you “know what it is already.” You didn’t bother studying it, or playing with it. You snapped to a judgment.

                I, however, took the time to dig into it, roll around in it as it were, and realized that in addition to being smelly, it’s also great fertilizer for the mind.

              • Dread

                Objection overruled.

                I know because I learn.

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                And you learn by……….?

                By rolling around in it, playing with it, studying it, and figuring out what it is. Which is exactly what you said you don’t do, because you “know what it is already.”

                This looks like a contradiction.

              • Dread,

                No.

                I know because I learn

                If you need to test everything by trial and error, your life will be short.

  59. Where is the outcry from the Greenies on this side effect?

    http://toryaardvark.com/2011/11/17/14000-abandoned-wind-turbines-in-the-usa/

  60. So where’s the $$ and where’s Corzine?

    http://michellemalkin.com/2011/11/21/mf-global-shortfall/

  61. Ah, the simpler days..Hat tip to Cyndi P

    The Green Thing
    Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren’t good for the environment.
    The woman apologized and explained, “We didn’t have this green thing back in my earlier days.”
    The clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.”
    She was right — our generation didn’t have the green thing in its day.
    Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn’t have the green thing back in our day.
    We walked up stairs, because we didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn’t have the green thing in our day.
    Back then, we washed the baby’s diapers because we didn’t have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts — wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right. We didn’t have the green thing back in our day.
    Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she’s right. We didn’t have the green thing back then.
    We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn’t have the green thing back then.
    Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus, and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.
    But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn’t have the green thing back then?
    Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart-ass young person.
    Remember: Don’t make old people mad. We don’t like being old in the first place, so it doesn’t take much to piss us off

    • Mathius™ says:

      this is old and rehashed. I’m not going to get too into it, but:

      Back in the day, you had cars with leaded gasoline which belched into the air, resulting in lead concentrations (still!) of 100x what they used to be in the average American’s blood.

      Back in the day, you polluted to the point where the Cuyahoga River actually CAUGHT FIRE. That’s a river. That was so polluted that it burned despite being, you know, made of water. In Ohio.

      But yea, much greener.. sigh..

      • Mathius,

        Rehash, but did you learn?

        Lead was removed – not because of some “Greenie” thinking – but because it poisoned people.

        Greenie thinking is irrational – it is specious thinking – that is, appears to be reasonable but under further inspection is completely idiocy.

  62. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone….I will be in and out but there will be more drugs crossing the border this week than the entire year according to informed sources….the demand in the US is that high…so we are out in force and we will be dealing in lethal means…..at least on this border. I understand that the California authorities are going to throw marsh-mellows and taunt them from afar. So, hope all is well with everyone……

  63. Mathius™ says:

    Very interesting.

    http://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-5696&y=-3152&z=2

    Lots of data in here.. lots of perspective.

    • Mathius™ says:

      By the way, this prices out one velociraptor at $1,930,000 (25% of Jurassic Park production budget amortized over three raptors).

      I think D13 must have far more money than any of us suspected.

  64. WARNING!!!!!

    Chicken jerky treats linked to mystery illnesses, deaths in dogs

    It’s not clear why chicken jerky products seem to be causing illnesses and even deaths in dogs, federal Food and Drug Administration officials say.
    By JoNel Aleccia

    Chicken jerky treats may be to blame for dozens of new reports of mysterious illnesses and some deaths in dogs, prompting a renewed warning for pet owners by the Food and Drug Administration.

    At least 70 dogs have been sickened so far this year after reportedly eating chicken jerky products imported from China, FDA officials said. That’s up from 54 reports of illness in 2010. Some of the dogs have died, according to the anecdotal reports from pet owners and veterinarians.

    FDA officials say they have not been able to find a cause for the illnesses. Extensive chemical and microbiological testing has failed to turn up a specific contaminant and officials did not identify a specific brand of treats. They note that the reports of illness have not conclusively been tied to chicken jerky products, also sold as chicken tenders, chicken strips or chicken treats.

    The new warning follows previous FDA cautions about chicken jerky treats in 2007 and 2008. But after a high of 156 reports of illness in 2007, the number of complaints dropped. Now, it’s rising again.

    Dog owners and vets are reporting that animals may be stricken with a range of illnesses within days or hours of eating chicken jerky, including kidney failure and Fanconi syndrome, a condition characterized by low glucose.

    Symptoms may include decreased appetite, decreased activity, vomiting, diarrhea, increased water consumption and increased urination. If dogs show any of these signs, stop feeding the animal the chicken jerky products, FDA officials said. If signs are severe or persist for more than 24 hours, seek veterinary help.

    Most dogs have recovered, officials said.

    http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/21/8885427-chicken-jerky-treats-linked-to-mystery-illnesses-deaths-in-dogs#.TsqfPRnwGng.gmail

    • Milo and Zoey, my labs, thank you for posting this. I don’t give them jerky but some of my friends do..not anymore!

  65. My husband brought home cantaloupe-is the danger past or is he trying to kill me 🙂

  66. What is this? They don’t have to go apply for unemployment like everyone else-they get some special help ??????

    Labor Dept. Approves $14.3 Million Aid Package for Former Solyndra Employees
    November 21, 2011 6:14 P.M.
    By Andrew Stiles

    And it’s all funded by the American taxpayer. From Investor’s Business Daily:

    The Labor Department today announced that it had approved Trade Adjustment Assistance for the former employees of the bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra.

    That means all of the firm’s 1,100 ex-employees are eligible for federal aid packages, including job retraining and income assistance. The department has valued packages at about $13,000 a head.

    Taxpayers will have to cough up yet another $14.3 million as a result of Solyndra’s bankruptcy. They are already on the hook for $528 million in federal loan guarantees to the company that are unlikely to ever be paid back.

    The department’s decision also bodes well for a trade complaint made against China by a coalition of domestic solar panel makers. The request for the TAA was based on the claim that Solyndra failed because China was underselling U.S. manufacturers. By granting the assistance, the Labor Department has indicated it believes those charges have at least some merit.

    The announcement was made quietly today by the DOL’s Employment and Training Administration on its website. The decision was reached Friday.

    More here.

    Of course, “Solyndra failed because China was underselling U.S. manufacturers” is a line often used by Democrats in defense of the administration’s decision to back Solyndra. However, Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s claim that this failure was “unanticipated” is far from credible.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/283741/labor-dept-approves-143-million-aid-package-former-solyndra-employees-andrew-stiles

  67. So Rick Santorum gives an interview to Ed Morrissey over at HotAir.com and this tidbit is a part of Santorum’s thinking:

    He also proposed to treat foreign scientists working on the Iranian program “like members of al-Qaeda” and warn them that we will consider them enemy combatants as long as they contribute to Iran’s nuclear program.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/21/exclusive-interview-second-look-at-rick-santorum/

    One would presume this would place them on the hit list for assassination. As Charlie would say, oy vey.

    • Plainly, that was the scary thing about that “foreign policy” debate a few weeks ago. So many of the GOP candidates (except for Ron Paul & Jon Huntsman) seemed awful anxious to go to war with Iran, Pakistan, North Korea and China … as if we were winning in (for God knows what or why) in Afghanistan (or that we “won” something in Iraq).

      Santorum is a whackjob, but what was truly scary was the audience applauding these paragons of military muscle (who wouldn’t be serving or sending their own kids to serve).

      I always thought of Santorum as someone nobody would even pay attention to … and although he’ll never win anything, the fact he’s given any credence (much like Al Sharpton on the left), is embarrassing (when looking at our society) … just embarrassing.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Generals gathered in their masses
        Just like witches at black masses
        Evil minds that plot destruction
        Sorcerers of death’s construction
        In the fields the bodies burning
        As the war machine keeps turning
        Death and hatred to mankind
        Poisoning their brainwashed minds
        Oh lord yeah!

        Politicians hide themselves away
        They only started the war
        Why should they go out to fight?
        They leave that role to the poor
        Time will tell on their power minds
        Making war just for fun
        Treating people just like pawns in chess
        Wait ’til their judgement day comes
        Yeah!

        Now in darkness world stops turning
        Ashes where the bodies burning
        No more war pigs have the power
        Hand of God has struck the hour
        Day of judgement, God is calling
        On their knees the war pig’s crawling
        Begging mercy for their sins
        Satan laughing spreads his wings
        Oh lord yeah!

  68. The SHERIFF
    More Power than the President

    By: Alan Stang
    [COMMENT: Wow! This gives substantial hope. The Division of Power and Authority in our Constitution is fundamental to the preservation of our freedom. Concentration of power will always (as in “every case”) gravitate toward tyranny. We MUST keep power dispersed. The Fed will always have persons seeking to centralize power in order to control We, the People. We, the People, must always tell them “NO!”

    If We, the People, do not learn how to control the use of coercive force, how to submit it to the law and grace of God, we will not continue to choose our own leaders and to keep them on a Constitutional tether (see sermon on that subject at Audio Page – Feb. 22, 2009). We, the People cannot effectively control government, with its near monopoly on coercive force unless we have dispersed among us a counter-coercive force. The final stopper is the 2nd Amendment where coercive force is distributed among the people, most importantly to keep government under our control.

    The dispersion of power kept back by the local states and counties, never given to the federal government, but preserved in this case to our county sheriffs as outlined below is another large part of that protection. E. Fox]

    http://www.etherzone.com/2009/stang032009.shtml

    For many years, the people’s attention in the Battle for America has been directed toward the federal government and its offices. Candidates stand for the House and the Senate. Patriotic groups publish voting records of incumbents. Considerable time, effort and money are expended in support of candidates for President. After decades of such commendable activity, the record shows it is an utter failure. The danger to the nation is worse than it ever was.

    For many of those years, Republicrud bosses whined that if the people would only give them control of the federal government, they would undo Democrud damage and restore Free Enterprise. Finally, the people gave it to them. Remember? The Republicruds controlled the House, the Senate and the Oval Office long enough to turn the country around. What happened? The Republicruds made our problems much worse. Their spending made the profligate drunken sailor look like Scrooge. They deserved it when the people kicked them out. They lost all credibility.

    Yes, there is Dr. Ron Paul. But Dr. No is a political aberration. Time and again, he stands alone. He has neither men’s room problems nor woman problems. He doesn’t take congressional retirement. He actually returns “money” (computer entries) to the federal treasury. He proposes abolishing the Fed and the income tax and replacing them with nothing. In foreign affairs he suggests that we mind our own business. Imagine! But, again, he is an aberration.

    Why? Certainly one reason has to be that we ship the successful congressional candidate off to the District of Corruption. However good the new congressman may have been when he or she boarded the plane to the District; he is subjected to intoxicating blandishments when he arrives in the enemy camp.

    Soon, he succumbs to the blandishments, maybe even making himself blackmailable, and begins to vote as the party boss says, without even reading the bills. Instead of representing the people of his congressional district in the District of Criminals, he represents the D.C. to the C.D. He or she now is one of the boys or the girls. It has happened hundreds of times.

    So, if the long, heroic effort to elect federal legislators has failed, does there remain any governmental Horatius who can stand in the gap; who can lead the Battle for America and restore the Constitution? There is. Lock and load, mount up and prepare for the return of the sheriff.

    My guess is that in the minds of many Americans the sheriff is an antiquated figure who lives in the movies. In the older movies he is the hero; he is Gary Cooper in “High Noon,” awaiting the train that will bring killer Frank Miller back to town. In the new ones, he is the southern sheriff, even bigger than Rosie O’Donnell, sneering, sadistic, racist, violent, etc. He has no modern relevance.

    But now here comes Sheriff Richard Mack, elected and re-elected in Graham County, Arizona, where he served for eight years. During his tenure, three federal agents came to a meeting of Arizona sheriffs and told them in certain terms how they would be dragooned as unpaid federal bureaucrats and administer the new, federal Brady gun registration law.

    The law was named of course for Ronald Reagan’s press secretary, who was severely wounded in the immensely suspicious attempt to assassinate the President. Since then, Mrs. Brady has become a leader of the campaign for Nazi gun confiscation. I don’t know whether she was as crazy before the shootings as she is now. Just one more increment of lunacy and they would have to lock her up.

    Richard Mack and the other Arizona sheriffs at the meeting rebelled. Sheriff Richard says the language he heard – in which he did not participate – could not be repeated in the presence of genteel Christian ladies, so we can’t tell you here what the sheriffs said. But Sheriff Mack did take the government to court. He sued the United States, and Sheriff Jay Printz of Montana joined him as plaintiff.

    On June 27th, 1997, the sheriffs won; in Printz v. U.S. (521 U.S. 898) the U.S. Supreme Court struck Brady down. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the ruling for the Court, in which he explained our system of government at length. The justly revered system of checks and balances is the key:

    “. . . The great innovation of this design was that ‘our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other’” – “a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.” (P. 920)

    Scalia quotes President James Madison, “father” of the Constitution: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist, No. 39 at 245.

    Again and again, Justice Scalia pounds the point home (page 921): “This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty: ‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’. . .” Gregory, 501 U.S. at 458.

    He quotes President Madison again: “In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (P. 922)

    No one could make this any clearer. The primary purpose of the Fathers was to prevent someone from grabbing all the power. When that happens, they knew, the result is arbitrary, confiscatory, government, the kind Tom Jefferson described in the Declaration of Independence. We would call it totalitarian.

    Madison explains: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788.

    To prevent that from happening, they divided the power. First, they divided the federal power into three parts: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. They would bicker among themselves, so that no one of them could seize all the power the Constitution grants to the federal government.

    The Founders divided the power even more. They set the limited power the Constitution grants the “general authority,” Madison’s term for the federal government, against the vast residual powers of the states. Each sphere of government, state and federal, would be supreme in its own sphere. Neither could control the other. Each protects itself from intervention by the other. Each has its own laws and rules.

    Madison says this: “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” Loc. Cit.

    What does all this mean today in the Battle for America? Sheriff Mack says it proves that the sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county. Within that jurisdiction – inside his county – the sheriff has more power than the governor of his state. Indeed, the sheriff has more power in his county than the President of the United States. In his county, he can overrule the President and kick his people out. Remember, the President has few and limited powers.

    What? The sheriff can do that? He’s not just a character in a movie? That’s right. Not only can the sheriff do that; sheriffs have already done that, more than once. Most Americans are not aware of that because lying, conspiracy scumbags like Rush Humbug, Shallow Sean Hannitwerp and Hugh Blewitt (a lawyer) etc., haven’t told them.

    Remember, the office of sheriff has a pedigree so long, we are not positive about when it was created. We think it was in the Ninth Century in England. We do know that each land district, or “shire,” was governed by a “reeve.” The sheriff of Nottingham became famous. At first, the king appointed them. With few exceptions, our American shire reeves are elected by the people.

    In 1997, in Nye County, Nevada, federal agents arrived to seize cattle that belonged to rancher Wayne Hage. The sheriff gave them a choice: skedaddle or be arrested. They skedaddled. The cows stayed where they were. Wyoming sheriffs have told federal agencies they must check with the respective sheriff before they serve any papers, make any arrests or confiscate any property.

    In Idaho, a 74-year-old rancher shot an endangered gray wolf which had killed one of his calves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sent three armed agents to serve a warrant. Lemhi County Sheriff Brett Barslou said that was “inappropriate, heavy-handed and dangerously close to excessive force.” More than 500 people turned out for a rally in the small towns of Challis and Salmon to support the sheriff and the rancher and to tell the federal government to back off.

    While Richard Mack was sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, a bridge washed out. Parents had to drive twenty six miles to get their kids to school half a mile across the river. But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wouldn’t fix it. First they had to do an “environmental impact study,” to replace a bridge already there. They were in no hurry. The study would take a mere ten years.

    The people’s suffering reached the board of supervisors. The board voted to dredge the river and fix the bridge. The feds warned that they would be fined $50,000 per day if they tried. The supervisors hesitated. Sheriff Mack promised them and the workers protection and pledged to call out a posse for the purpose if necessary. They built the bridge and the Corps of Engineers faded. The board never paid a dime.

    So the long dormant spirit of America is reviving. The states are beginning to adopt Tenth Amendment resolutions, using powers they have always had. The people are restoring our long unbalanced constitutional system. There is something “blowin’ in the wind,” but it isn’t what Bob Dylan thought it was. Recently, Sheriff Mack addressed 570 people in Fredericksburg, Texas. He reports that the reception was “beyond fantastic.”

    What can you do? For once we are not just complaining. There is a plan. I do not argue that you should forget about Congress. Not at all; if you see an opportunity there, take it. Always remember that right now it is run by people like Barney the Bugger of Taxachusetts, who will be elected by moronth in hith dithtrict until he dieth of AIDS.

    Most of the time, when you approach your congressman, you come to complain. In the new crusade, you will approach your sheriff and tell him that he is not only handsome, charming and overwhelmingly masculine, but also that he has powers he may not be aware of. You have come to tell him what they are and to back him up. My guess is, when you tell him that, he will not kick you out.

    Tell him you expect him to return the courtesy when the Nazis come from the District of Criminals to get the guns. Tell him you are ready in a minute to serve under his direction in a posse. He will not move to Washington and be corrupted. He will stay there with you. Show him the ten orders the Oath Keepers will not obey. The Oath Keepers are retired and active duty military and police. Their web site is oath-keepers.blogspot.com. The first order they promise to disobey is an order to disarm you.

    Put him together with Sheriff Mack. You will find him at sheriffmack.com. His telephone numbers are 928 792-4340 and 928 792-3888. Bring the sheriff to your town to speak. He will explain all this. Invite your own sheriff. At the meeting I attended, the local sheriff and chief of police were there and loved what they heard. No one dislikes hearing how important he is.

    What if your sheriff is stupid or a federal factotum? That is what you will find in many big cities. I once interviewed Los Angeles County Sheriff Peter Pitchess, who said no one should have a hand gun. I asked him how a five foot lady alone in bed could defend herself from a rapist. Realizing he was perilously close to making himself look even dumber than he did usually, Pitchess conceded she could have a long gun.

    I brightened. A street sweeper isn’t really the best weapon for close quarters, but it would give the lady a chance. Unfortunately, Pitchess added the word, “unloaded.” I asked him what that five foot lady with an unloaded shotgun could do against a six foot rapist. A police captain sat beside Pitchess during the interview. His job was to extricate Peter from the jams he persisted on getting himself into. The police captain extruded a barrage of miasma. It was effective. I did not get an answer.

    In such cases, says Sheriff Mack, move to a county where the sheriff is receptive. Many more will be. For instance, in Texas there are 254 counties. Each has a sheriff. If it is feasible to do so, run for sheriff yourself. Even your wife will be impressed when she sees you with a hog leg on your hip and a star on your vest. Imagine the intense joy of meeting IRS Communists or BATFE Nazis at the county line and denying them admission.

    The Battle for America will be decided in your county at your front door. If you act now, later you will not need to “fill your hand.”

    “Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”

  69. Great article. Note, it is from the perspective of the writer. But the writer does not tackle the question of when the slide began in history. Only from the writers life experience. Being from that time, I agree with much of what he says about how the radicals were able to use the JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X assassinations to infuse their agenda into the mindset of the young and disgruntled. Sound familiar????

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/the_tipping_point_and_the_crossroad.html

  70. Penn State Coverup grows … now they’ve hired a former FBI director (with ZERO power to do anything more than Penn State’s bidding) … I lose a little bit more respect for this institution every day … why not open up their “prior internal investigations” that are closed to the public due to a lobbying effort in the past?

    Why? Because they are dirty from top to bottom.

    Nobody should enroll there until they open up their “hidden files” …

  71. Black Flag re: Ann Barnhardt

    I forwarded her article to my sister who in turn forwarded it to her financial planner. Here is his response, spelling errors and all. Seems to me he’s saying “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” Any thoughts on his comments?

    Hi Anita’s sister,
    I feel for the families and potential victims. It looks as though Barhhardt Capital Management was a Commodities dealer. This particular area of the financial world has a lot of complex and very complicated investment vehicles. Although I am familiar the general concepts it is certainly not my area of practice. MF Global was one of the biggest players in commodities arena and there leveraging techniques or lack there of is it what has lead to their demise. The commodities business looks like it needs to be regulated even more. My side of the business which is strictly personal financial planning is already very regulated and a tremendous amount of federal compliance rules govern our procedures and protect our clients first and foremost. Corzine’s MF Global issue at the surface seems to be very similar to the mortgage issue the US faced a few years back. Leveraging debt to levels that were not sustainable. Nonetheless, these people can play the blame game on whoever they want. Corzine, Barnhardt and the like are all responsible for their own actions, they new exactly how much risk was and is involved in the options and futures market. Each of there clients should be aware also. It looks like Ann Barnhardt is trying bow out gracefully. Hope you or someone you know wasn’t invested these assets. If so let me know and I can see what I can do to help. Talk to you soon.

    • Anita and her sister,

      Comments throughout…..

      I feel for the families and potential victims. It looks as though Barhhardt Capital Management was a Commodities dealer.

      So, he really is not in tune to what is going on inside his field of expertise. This is new “news” to him.
      Hmmm……

      This particular area of the financial world has a lot of complex and very complicated investment vehicles.

      First thought ….. ah, “you shouldn’t be dabbling here – let the experts take care of you, it is too complex for your feeble mind to understand”

      Nonsense, there is nothing in commodities nor future trading that is more complex then, say, balancing a family budget. There are some arcane terms and descriptions, but that requires only a dictionary.

      Further, whether it is complex or not has nothing to do with the issue – the issue is the failure of the promise of securing non-invested assets.

      Most who dabbles in commodities tends to understand the risk/reward. The issue was that capital not invested or otherwise was secured from risk was seized – and issue beyond mere complexity of financial instruments and their transactions.

      Although I am familiar the general concepts it is certainly not my area of practice. MF Global was one of the biggest players in commodities arena and there leveraging techniques or lack there of is it what has lead to their demise. The commodities business looks like it needs to be regulated even more.

      Yep, the 70,000 rules were not enough, so let’s make in 140,000 rules and see what happens!

      No, the problem has nothing to do with the demise of a broker.

      It has to do with the seizure or block of distribution of assets. This can only be done by writ of government demand or a failure of enforcement of centuries old legal doctrine regarding the holding of such assets.

      My side of the business which is strictly personal financial planning is already very regulated and a tremendous amount of federal compliance rules govern our procedures and protect our clients first and foremost.

      ….would not save him if this happened to his clients.

      Corzine’s MF Global issue at the surface seems to be very similar to the mortgage issue the US faced a few years back. Leveraging debt to levels that were not sustainable. Nonetheless, these people can play the blame game on who ever they want. Corzine, Barnhardt and the like are all responsible for their own actions, they new exactly how much risk was and is involved in the options and futures market. Each of there clients should be aware also. It looks like Ann Barnhardt is trying bow out gracefully. Hope you or someone you know wasn’t invested these assets. If so let me know and I can see what I can do to help. Talk to you soon.

      He misses the point, because the point of this disaster missed him.
      Thus, he believes it won’t happen to him.

      That is a big mistake.

      We have seen under Obama’s “new” legal framework a series of significant overthrows.

      He invalidated bond holder rights (remember GM et al?)
      Now, here, he has invalidated the sanctity of accounts and fund held in trust.

      Within one administration, he has undermined the legal knowledge and understanding of contractual rights and trust accounts and management.

      Right now, I cannot tell you at all what other legal rights his administration will arbitrarily push aside so to suit some political game nor if any of your holdings, whether in a bank account, safety box, in trust with a third party, or if by contract, no matter its detail, will be held secure or is valid.

      This President and his administration has undermined a 1,000 years of civil legal framework on which most business is undertaken.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Nonsense, there is nothing in commodities nor future trading that is more complex then, say, balancing a family budget. There are some arcane terms and descriptions, but that requires only a dictionary.

        AH HAHAHAH AHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA

      • Mathius™ says:

        He invalidated bond holder rights (remember GM et al?)

        Whoa…

        You are capable of making solid points occasionally.

        Go figure.

%d bloggers like this: