Blog Archives

The October Surprise

10/23/2023

It’s been about two weeks now. I am still trying to process the savagery that took the lives of so many innocent people. What kind of person harbors so much hatred, that they could commit such atrocities and even more bewildering, is how some can condone the actions as heroic or justified, whether in their silence or their poorly thought-out protests. What are they thinking; if they are thinking at all? Does it not resemble a suicide attempt? Nothing about this seems right. And, because the media has been shown to be unreliable, (think the way they jumped on the hospital bombing BS story) when searching for the truth, I have read every thing I could on the attack and the interpretations and still can’t make sense of it.
I knew a man who lived near us some years back. He seemed like a good man. He was the kind of man who donated his time and talents to the schools and the church. He belonged to the Knights of Columbus, not a radical bunch, but mostly good-hearted Catholic men who share charity and companionship in the name of the church and Jesus Christ. He was not born here, but emigrated from Lebanon. He lived through the wars in Beirut, escaped that hell and eventually came to America, where he started a business, became very successful and started a family.
He died a while back but I will never forget what he told me as he lay on his death bed on my last visit before he passed on. He was very weak and I had to lean in to hear him as he said, “Jim, I only have one regret in life, and that is that I didn’t kill more of those Muslims.” How is that for a death bed confession?
Hate is a cancer, and one that requires blood to grow. It festers and metastasizes inside of some who seem on the surface to be normal people with a loving family. I have no ability to relate to this type of thinking but I have to wonder how many of the assassins seemed like good people to the people around them in their family and community. How is it possible to have so much hatred in one’s heart that one could torture, mutilate, rape and burn other people alive and behead children?
What is the proper response to such unprovoked violence? In my philosophy, the initiation of violence or force on another individual is never acceptable under any circumstance. And the proper reaction to that force or violence should be swift and overpowering violence to assure that the perpetrator never thinks of attempting another attack. (I have zero patience for the pacifist, who by turning the other cheek, encourages and ensures more violence.) This seems rational when dealing with an individual, but the scaled-up version of this philosophy tends to get messy. I do hope that the perpetrators, every single one of them, is delivered a punishing and powerful death blow and a trip to meet their maker. If the United States government can track down every grandma in the vicinity of the capitol building on January 6th, then I suspect that the Israelis are able to know exactly who carried out this assault on the innocents. And I suspect that they will over time. In the mean-time, the media is reporting (that used to mean something) on the upcoming invasions of Gaza. The feeble old fool in the White House, is asking for more money without any indication of where it is going, where it will come from, who will benefit, and how it will be monitored. Same old script; same stupid players.
Where are the thinkers who can see where this cancer starts? It is the “group think” that fosters this violence, and it needs to be irradicated, and, as in my example with my old friend, that cancer lies within, and those who have this hatred cannot be cured. Hopefully a new generation will do better. Unfortunately, the killing that is to most certainly come, will include some who aren’t consumed with hate. Such is the price of war.
Group think and group hatred Is not limited to the Hamas organization, one can see the same type of hate simmering on college campuses and other places, where the tribe is all important and the individual is subsumed into the cult. My mom taught me to think for myself. Don’t fall for it. Be the individual who says enough. Do not comply, do not play their game or play by their stupid rules and their messed-up philosophy of life.

0 Comments

Top 10 on climate change

10/23/2023

0 Comments

Top ten reasons that I won’t be jumping on the climate change end of the world wagon anytime soon:
Apparently, I am anti-science; or so I have been told. The people who have hurled that insult were not scientists, rather team players in the global warming hysteria army.
1                 The Ad hominem attack: used primarily to end debate on a subject by insulting those who refuse to toe the line, with charges of all types. An example of this is when we are called ignorant or anti science. When Obama famously charged republicans with just wanting dirty air and water (I’m paraphrasing) he was insulting our motives and our intellect. The cheering crowd from the sky is falling tent agreed whole heartedly. Apparently the idea that someone could disagree with their views is a sign of stupidity and malevolence; nothing could be further from the truth and they know it.
2                 The straw man attack: No one is actually claiming that the climate isn’t changing. When we are called deniers, the leftists are playing a game here. Of course the climate is changing; that is what it does, and has been doing for billions of years. At issue is the argument over exactly what influence humans have over the climate, and whether the change is Anthropomorphic.
3                 The Genesis fallacy: the source of the information is only valid when it comes from a government source. All other scientists are suspect and their findings are not acceptable to the climate alarmists, grant money chasers and recipients of tax levies. Only the science that will benefit the above is beyond reproach, especially form the international panel of corrupt climatologists.
4                 Conflation: Environmentalism and conservationism are not the same thing. It is very important to understand the difference from a philosophical perspective. The Conservationist is a steward of our natural resources. They conserve and never waste energy and exploit all of our resources for the good of the people. The conservationist continually improves technology and makes great advances in recycling waste, managing forests, treating water supplies, protecting watersheds, finding new ways to produce electricity, extract natural gas from our vast resources, reduce pollutants from exhaust through the use of scrubbers, and other technology, finding cleaner ways to burn coal and other fuels. The conservationist is also a capitalist. It is capitalism that drives the conservationist to come up with solutions to our problems. It is the capitalist conservationist who figures out how to make fleece garments out of recycled plastic, or how to recycle plastic into road beds. These are just two examples of how the capitalist conservationist creates a solution to a problem and creates jobs at the same time, thereby benefiting man and the planet. The environmentalist on the other hand is a different animal. The environmentalist believes that humans are a pestilence on the planet. They grew up on Captain Planet and believe that Malthus was right. They use the word sustainable but reject any advances that would create sustainability. E.G. They do not believe that we have enough food to feed our populations but reject every scientific advance that produces abundant food. They believe in the “population bomb” and see restricting childbirth and abortion as moral solutions to the problem. Instead of seeking abundance and prosperity for all they would prefer that we all sacrifice to a lower standard of living. The environmentalist believes that mankind cannot be trusted, and therefore must be highly regulated by the state. The environmentalist believes that the state and the common good is more important than individual sovereignty, and will gladly hand over their personal freedoms to the unelected bureaucrats in the deep state. In the most flagrant examples these pious activists will fly on private jets to lecture we commoners on the urgency on the need to do something. They see capitalists as greedy and the enemy of the planet; all the while organizing for action on their laptops while drinking lattes at Starbucks. Was that a little too much? Oops; sorry. “He’s on a roll don’t stop him”
5                 The correlation causation fallacy: Noticing a weather pattern such as storms or fires does not mean that there is a causal link between the two things. For one thing the incidence of hurricanes storms and fires has not increased enough to even be measured on a geological time clock and moreover the incidence, even if it is slightly increasing has absolutely nothing to do with anthropogenic causes. These are weather events and not climate events and are cyclical by nature and not caused by humans.
6                 The solar flare conundrum: Temperatures on earth are more influenced by solar activity than human activity. There is a direct relationship between solar activity and temperature. That’s called science.
7                 The non sequitur argument: The non sequitur argument is so prevalent in these debates that it is hard to focus on just one. For the environmental activist the problems are not the focus of the debate, as the ultimate solution is the same regardless of the impending doom scenario. Not that many years ago, they believed that the planet was freezing and there were only a few years left to save the planet, the solution however,’ was the same as it is now when the “Chicken Littles” are squawking about global warming. It does not logically follow that the solution to the problem of global cooling and warming would be the same.
8                 The Celebrity Expert: Whether we are talking about the noted scientist Al Gore or the climatologist Leonardo DeCaprio, we are talking about people who have become experts in a subject without any background or training in a subject. Remember Jessica Lang testifying before congress about the perils of modern farming, because she played a farmer in a movie? Of course it is perfectly fine for them to make their impassioned plea to save the planet (as we only have ten more years and it will be too late according to Ted Danson. Oh wait; wasn’t that like twenty years ago the he proclaimed that?) But, why should we listen to them. They don’t even make a rational argument, they simply state that we must all do what they say to do as they use up more resources in one day than I do in a month. Do not be fooled by the celebrity expert; their opinions are no more valid than mine, but at least I am trying to make a valid argument why we should think about this issue more thoroughly before letting them dictate policy base on their political, ideological agenda.
9                 The settled science: 97 percent of scientists agree? Agree on what? Do you suppose that all of the 97 percent agree on every single point that they are pedaling? Perhaps some agree that the climate is changing, but they surely do not all agree that the cause is entirely anthropomorphic, nor do they all agree on the “solutions”. This is a made up statistic, taking many liberties with the entire truth. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
10              The Hockey stick: we are all still waiting for the outcome of the trial between scientist Michael Mann and the master of sardonic wit and reason, Mark Steyn. It seems that Mr. Steyn has challenged Mr. Mann publicly on his honesty in recording the data that he used to come to the conclusion (through computer models. More on that later) Mr. Mann has sued Mr. Steyn but doesn’t seem to be in any rush to go to court. The fact that Mr. Steyn and others have challenged his honesty in recording the data would lead one to believe that he would be anxious to get the thing heard in a public venue. Mr. Mann has delayed this for years. I wonder why?
11              The Hockey stick part two, The Genesis fallacy: As it seems that the predictions of irreversible catastrophic climate acceleration have had enough time to be deemed an exaggeration at best, there is no reason to conclude that the proponents of global warming will be modifying their hysteria anytime soon. Rather, the tactical shift is to avoid the discussion of how wrong the predictions have been and go for the Genesis fallacy argument. It goes like this; the scientists who found that the data was wrong, fraudulent, or worse all receive money from the oil industry or some other “evil, corporate” interest. In their view the money given to the scientists like Arthur Robinson or Willie Soon compromises the integrity of the reports that they have written discounting almost every point on the environmentalist agenda. Which brings us to grant money.
12              Grant money: Here’s some money to do a project, the money of course has a string attached to it. I have some personal experience in this scenario. First of all it is important to say that those who apply for these grants are totally on board with the agenda and whole heartedly believe their cause is just and necessary. That doesn’t make it right, nor does it make it any less of a propaganda machine. If you want money from the government or from any of the left leaning supporters of global warming then you WILL conform to the mission of advancing the narrative. Let me be clear that there is nothing wrong with promoting recycling or energy conservation but it is quite another to put ideas in kid’s heads that they are too young to challenge or to understand completely.
13              CO2 the pollutant? I believe that it was Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA during the Obama administration who directed by fiat that CO2 would be classified as a pollutant. In my view even those with a rudimentary understanding of science will be skeptical of the policy. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas that is beneficial to plant life as they need CO2 to thrive. Studies show that raising the levels of CO2 in greenhouses increases productivity in plants. One might logically conclude that more CO2 would mean more plant life which would in turn absorb more CO2 making it hard to understand how this is a problem. If Director Jackson had decided to declare that Carbon Monoxide, Sulfur Dioxide, or even soot is a pollutant then I might not have a problem with her edict. In my view her policy is base on ideology and not science.
14              CO2 and conflation vs. causation: If one really studies the hockey stick graph it shows a correlation between global temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But, is the CO 2 the cause of the temperature increase? Many scientists believe that the CO2 is a lagging indicator of temperature increase caused by solar activity. Solar activity also happens in cycles and the corresponding cycles closely match the rise of CO2. If CO2 was the driver behind the temperature increase then the hockey stick predictions would have followed the pattern the scientists using computer models predicted, but they didn’t. Moreover, some of the scientists were caught trying to hide the decline.
15              CO2 by volume: Just how much CO2 do you think the earth produces naturally each year? It is a staggering amount. A close estimate according to Dr. Soon is 800 gigatons of CO2 produced by the oceans, the plant life and human activity including exhaling. The estimate for all CO2 created by Humans is 4 to 8 Gigatons of CO2 produced annually. Do the math; at best the percentage is one percent of the CO2 produced annually. Now consider that if we implemented all of the policies the environmentalists propose; what percent of our CO2 production would be reduced? Even if we reduced our production of CO2 by half it would have zero measurable effect on the CO2 levels on the planet. But that is not the purpose of regulating CO2; is it?
16              The Bait and Switch: Who doesn’t want clean air and water? No one I know. I bet the people living in squalor with no electricity or running water would like that too. Everyone rationally wants to improve their situation in life. Take a second to ponder the “Water Savers” who camped out to “protect the water on the Dakota water pipeline. Remember the piles of crap these so-called environmental activists left behind for someone else to clean up? Were they really all that concerned about the environment? So, the plea and the ploy is to demand that we get on board the global warming wagon for the sake of our children, but then they implement policies that not only don’t benefit our children, but also cost them dearly by redistributing our “wealth” (undeserved in their view) to the countries that have been oppressed in some way over time. It is another non sequitur argument. There is no reason to believe that the money transfer would benefit the poor in those countries at all. Historical perspective would tell us that the money will be squandered by politicians and corrupt leaders, and spent on useless projects that actually impede progress. Throwing money at the problem never comes without unintended consequences.
17              The Faux Branding: Take the “Water Savers” as an example; are they really interested in saving the water? Was anyone surprised when this gaggle of misguided leftover hippies left the place that were supposedly “protecting” a complete ecological disaster area? I know I wasn’t because I understand that they think with their hearts and not their brains. I also understand that they have been told they are special and are a very useful tool for the progressive propagandist. Control the language and control the debate is the maxim, I believe. In that regard they are fairly successful.
18              The ice caps are melting and the polar bears are going extinct: Take a glass of water fill it with salt water and put a large amount of ice in the glass. Mark the level and let the ice melt. Then look at the level in the glass. Did the level rise? No? Science. Think about the percentage of ice compared to the volume of salt water on the planet. Do you really think that the seas are going to rise in the way the fear mongers are telling us? Common sense tells me they are exaggerating. The Easter Island sculptures were recently discovered to be buried up to their necks. Digging around them found that the sculptures were originally much, much taller. Did the land rise? Would it make sense that there is always a shift in sea level an coastal infill by erosion? Is the sea level rising in Venice? Or is the town sinking into the mud because it was built on a swamp? Moreover have the engineers in Venice taken steps to control the flooding of the streets. True, they are swimming upstream but their ingenuity has tempered the problem. And no, the polar bear is not going extinct.
19              The Leviathan known as the EPA: Did you know that under the umbrella of the EPA is a division on Historic Preservation? Like all government instituted bureaucracies, the EPA has morphed from a clean up operation into a gigantic monster with its tentacles into all parts of our lives. I am a proponent of reasonable historic preservation but I think that it should not be a part of the EPA. They should stick to preventing actual pollution and cleaning up the mistakes of the past and present. I also have personal experience in this area as I know how ridiculous some of the regulations are on some types of building. Imagine waiting for a year to get permission to dig three 1-foot square post holes for a deck, because there is a small stream that hits the back corner of the property. These are the kinds of regulations that should be subject to common sense, but we can’t have that anymore. This is a personal gripe of mine. The regulators have taken away all ability to make a rational call on simple problems. No one is allowed to think anymore, and that doesn’t benefit any of us.
20              The Nudge: Cass Sunstein wrote a book years ago advocating for the use of government incentives to “nudge” the masses into complying with the infinite wisdom of the elected and elite. Essentially, the government creates bureaus and departments, that use regulations to force the citizenry into doing what they could not get away with by passing laws through congress and having signed into law by the president. By the relentless parroting of the narratives of the climate activists they have used the propaganda to subsidize things we don’t necessarily want or need. But, worse yet; some of the things that they are imposing on us are not environmentally friendly, cost effective, sustainable or “smart”, despite the labeling as such. Think electric cars. Too many negatives to even list in this little critique
21              Okay I went over a bit: In summary, I think it is fair to say that we all want clean air and water and we all want a hospitable environment for our children. We do differ on what is actually a problem and we also have huge differences in how to solve problems. The Left doesn’t trust the individual and will sell its freedom to the state for a promise of comfort or security. They evade the unintended consequences of all of the failures in their utopian schemes. I don’t trust government to solve my problems and really prefer my freedom to your comfort. I want my government limited to the constitutional restrictions placed on it by the framers and I think it is a debate worth having if we can have an honest one.

0 Comments

Swimming upstream

The October Surprise

Top 10 on climate change

Author

Archives

Categories