I apologize for the sarcasm, but the article from Time’s website is ridiculous:

When it comes to finding quality, affordable health insurance, few have it worse than small-business owners and their workers shopping for coverage on the open market. They are charged the most per person, have the least amount of choice and, as a result, are some of the most likely to be uninsured.

Lawmakers know this, which is why many of the key elements in the health care bill just passed by the House — and being considered in the Senate — are aimed squarely at small business. A wide array of economists and health-policy experts say insurance reforms (like prohibiting insurers from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions), a new transparent marketplace to shop for coverage and a government-run insurance plan all have the potential to help small business.

Nowhere does the article cite any source for its assertion that “a wide array of economists and health-policy experts” say these reforms will be helpful to business. This is simply presented as accepted common knowledge. Further, the article derides the arguments of the Chamber of Commerce (one of the White House staff’s favorite whipping-boys) and National Federation of Independent Businesses.

The United States delegation to the ongoing crisis in Honduras has negotiated an agreement between Manuel Zelaya’s supporters and the de facto administration in that country. All that remains is for the nation’s Congress to approve the deal.

Never mind the fact that the United States is on the wrong side of the issue; that we have essentially forced the legal government of that nation to accept its Constitutionally ousted former leader.

[Interim President Roberto] Micheletti later joked with his aides that [United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] stuck so close to her message it appeared she had a limited vocabulary. “I kept trying to explain our position to her,” he said, according to officials close to the talks, “but all she kept saying was, ‘Restitution, restitution, restitution.’”

Speaking on Friday in Pakistan, Mrs. Clinton called the deal a “historic agreement.”

“I cannot think of another example of a country in Latin America that, having suffered a rupture of its democratic and constitutional order, overcame such a crisis through negotiation and dialogue,” she said.

I cannot think of another example in history where a nation was so blatantly forced to violate its own Constitution and surrender its sovereignty by a nation that holds up its own Constitution so highly as ours as an example for others to follow.

Yes, we’ve supported tin-horn dictators. We gave aid to the Shah and Saddam. We supported the Bay of Pigs invasion. All true and depending on your viewpoint of history, some or all were bad decisions; never have we looked at a friendly nation–an ally–and said, “We don’t like the fact that you have held true to your Constitution, so we’re going to join with your enemies and force you to violate it.”

The principle fact in evidence is that Zelaya violated his nation’s Constitution. He did so above the lawful objections of Honduras’ Congress, Supreme Court, military leadership and his own Attorney General. He violated every rule for holding referendums and elections his nation has, and yet the government of the United States stands with a would-be dictator.

Perhaps this is a look inside the mind of President Obama. After all, the Constitution of the United States clearly gives him no authority to take-over General Motors or Chrysler; nor does he have the legal authority appoint a “Pay Czar” who can “claw-back” the contractual salaries of private companies. Yet he has done so. Could it be he stands with Zelaya, not because he believes that Honduras violated its own laws and Constitution, but rather because he cares for neither? Could it be that he cannot oppose Zelaya because he sees himself as entitled to the same kind of power to thwart the Supreme Law of the Land? That opposing Zelaya would call into question his own quest to grab more power for himself?

I cannot see into the man’s heart, so I am only posing these questions for critical evaluation. Perhaps I’m overreacting and there are other reasons why our President would so openly support a power-seeking would-be dictator. Ignorance and stupidity are all that come to mind, but there may be something more legitimate. Whatever the Administration’s reasons, I believe them to be wrong. How would the people of this nation have reacted if Nixon had decided to hold on to power after being impeached instead of resigning in disgrace before the vote? What would have been our response if the Soviet Union or United Nations had refused to recognize our government after such an impeachment?

The salient question now is what is Zelaya’s future? Will Honduras’ Congress approve the agreement? If not, what will happen to the newly and Constitutionally elected government without international recognition? Will there be a peaceful transition to the newly elected government if Zelaya is returned? Will there be assassination attempts either way?

All these questions are posed for one simple and unassailable reason: The United States government stood for the violation of a nation’s Constitution and against the rule of law.

Originally posted at The Minority Report. ]]>

The United States delegation to the ongoing crisis in Honduras has negotiated an agreement between Manuel Zelaya’s supporters and the de facto administration in that country. All that remains is for the nation’s Congress to approve the deal.

Never mind the fact that the United States is on the wrong side of the issue; that we have essentially forced the legal government of that nation to accept its Constitutionally ousted former leader.

[Interim President Roberto] Micheletti later joked with his aides that [United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] stuck so close to her message it appeared she had a limited vocabulary. “I kept trying to explain our position to her,” he said, according to officials close to the talks, “but all she kept saying was, ‘Restitution, restitution, restitution.’”

Speaking on Friday in Pakistan, Mrs. Clinton called the deal a “historic agreement.”

“I cannot think of another example of a country in Latin America that, having suffered a rupture of its democratic and constitutional order, overcame such a crisis through negotiation and dialogue,” she said.

I cannot think of another example in history where a nation was so blatantly forced to violate its own Constitution and surrender its sovereignty by a nation that holds up its own Constitution so highly as ours as an example for others to follow.

Yes, we’ve supported tin-horn dictators. We gave aid to the Shah and Saddam. We supported the Bay of Pigs invasion. All true and depending on your viewpoint of history, some or all were bad decisions; never have we looked at a friendly nation–an ally–and said, “We don’t like the fact that you have held true to your Constitution, so we’re going to join with your enemies and force you to violate it.”

The principle fact in evidence is that Zelaya violated his nation’s Constitution. He did so above the lawful objections of Honduras’ Congress, Supreme Court, military leadership and his own Attorney General. He violated every rule for holding referendums and elections his nation has, and yet the government of the United States stands with a would-be dictator.

Perhaps this is a look inside the mind of President Obama. After all, the Constitution of the United States clearly gives him no authority to take-over General Motors or Chrysler; nor does he have the legal authority appoint a “Pay Czar” who can “claw-back” the contractual salaries of private companies. Yet he has done so. Could it be he stands with Zelaya, not because he believes that Honduras violated its own laws and Constitution, but rather because he cares for neither? Could it be that he cannot oppose Zelaya because he sees himself as entitled to the same kind of power to thwart the Supreme Law of the Land? That opposing Zelaya would call into question his own quest to grab more power for himself?

I cannot see into the man’s heart, so I am only posing these questions for critical evaluation. Perhaps I’m overreacting and there are other reasons why our President would so openly support a power-seeking would-be dictator. Ignorance and stupidity are all that come to mind, but there may be something more legitimate. Whatever the Administration’s reasons, I believe them to be wrong. How would the people of this nation have reacted if Nixon had decided to hold on to power after being impeached instead of resigning in disgrace before the vote? What would have been our response if the Soviet Union or United Nations had refused to recognize our government after such an impeachment?

The salient question now is what is Zelaya’s future? Will Honduras’ Congress approve the agreement? If not, what will happen to the newly and Constitutionally elected government without international recognition? Will there be a peaceful transition to the newly elected government if Zelaya is returned? Will there be assassination attempts either way?

All these questions are posed for one simple and unassailable reason: The United States government stood for the violation of a nation’s Constitution and against the rule of law.

Originally posted at The Minority Report. ]]> http://www.redstate.com/fmaidment/2009/11/02/zelaya-to-return-to-power/feed/ http://www.redstate.com/fmaidment/2009/10/26/waiting-lists-in-the-health-care-bill-but-i-thought/ http://www.redstate.com/fmaidment/2009/10/26/waiting-lists-in-the-health-care-bill-but-i-thought/#comments Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:29:01 +0000 Fred Maidment (Profile) http://www.redstate.com/fmaidment/?p=245 (H/T @JamieDupree)

Wait a second. I thought there wasn’t going to be any rationing? I thought the Democrats promised us we wouldn’t see any of the problems detailed in Steven Crowder’s video about the Canadian Health Care System in our wonderful new Democrat-sponsored Health Care “Reform” bill?

Yeah, like anyone actually believed that.

Sure, this is just a very small segment of a massive government program, but it is indicative of the kind of half-truths and obfuscation that accompanies all such programs. The fact is, our health care system isn’t broken, our regulatory system is the problem.

There are mandates for insurance companies to cover elective surgery and drug and alcohol rehab and routine examinations. Government-created de facto state wide monopolies on insurance. Requirements that every patient who enters an Emergency Ward to get treatment, even if they come in for a case of the sniffles or a hang-nail. Massive tort settlements against doctors by juries who are told less than all the facts.

The problem isn’t the doctors or the health insurance companies. The problem is the government! It is mind-boggling how much of this was done in the name of “the people” that helps no one but the people in power. Every mandate is one that some politico can go home to his or her constituents and say, “Look what I did for you!” Then they turn around and laugh all the way back to their Washington address and their taxpayer-funded pension and health care plans, which suffer none of the problems of Social Security or Medicare.

It is not time to go running to government. It is time to tell government lawyers and bureaucrats to get the Hell out of our health care system and let the doctors work on medicine.

Originally posted at The Minority Report.

In contrast to previous years, an official said, executives in the financial products division will receive no other compensation, such as stocks or stock options.

And at all of the companies, any executive seeking more than $25,000 in special perks — such as country club memberships, private planes, limousines or company issued cars — will have to apply to the government for permission. The administration will also warn A.I.G. that it must fulfill a commitment it made to significantly reduce the $198 million in bonuses promised to employees in the financial products division.

There was a much easier answer to this whole question, and it didn’t involve billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on companies “too big to fail.” That option is called bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy restructuring would have allowed AIG and the firms given TARP funds to restructure their debts and their compensation packages, without spending billions in taxpayer funds. The shock would have hurt, and hurt badly, but the result of those bankruptcies would have been far fewer taxpayer dollars being spent and the companies in the worst shape being sold off, in pieces or in whole, to the highest bidders among better companies.

Such processes have been part of the American free enterprise system for many years, and allow businesses to risk great fortunes–or to fail–while providing a transition period for assets, workers and creditors. The bankruptcy system gives businesses an incentive to pay off at least their debts, rather than renege on them entirely. It also gives business owners an opportunity to find additional private funding sources instead of entering entirely into receivership.

That Feinberg believes the answer to the financial mess is to cancel, by government fiat, the contractual obligations shows how bad is his understanding of basic economics. There is no provision in the TARP or AIG Bailout legislation that directly gives him the authority to cancel compensation packages. The firms did not declare bankruptcy. Instead, the government has come in to say simply, “We think your compensation is unfair, and we are now deciding you can’t have it.” This at precisely the time when the firms need the best possible business acumen available.

The message to anyone in business is clear: If they wish to earn a competitive salary, they cannot work for a firm that has received a government bailout. At any time, that company could become subject to scrutiny by Mr. Feinberg and his staff. No legislative wording limits him to the “Top 25″ executives, so this could be extended to any and all employees (that there is no legislative language which justifies the actions of the Treasury Department notwithstanding).

How long until Mr. Feinberg decides that any company which has done business with these firms has indirectly benefited from the bailouts and so can also be regulated by his office? How long, then, until Mr. Feinberg claims authority over all compensation in the Nation? He has already reached far beyond his lawful and Constitutional authority, so why not go further? Is there a time limit on the control Mr. Feinberg has over these firms? Since there was no legislative authority given to him to control the compensation packages, it seems unlikely there is a legal time limit on his actions. Perhaps these firms and their successors will be subject to such regulation until the end of time?

Without question, this will open up the bailouts to Contitutional scrutiny. Many of these executives and others affected by the Treasury Department’s decision had nothing whatsoever to do with the decisions made that led to these institution’s downfall. Many of these firms did not want a bailout in the first place and were forced to take the funds, now subject to government fiat. These strong-arm methods by the Administration are not earmarks of a free society, but are rather reminiscent of the militant nationalism of Italy in the 1920s and 30s, Germany and Spain of the 1930s, and Argentina in the 1950s. It is certain such tactics will be challenged in Federal court, costing the taxpayers millions, perhaps billions of dollars more.

If American enterprise is to endure, the actions of Kenneth Feinberg must be curtailed. Limiting the ability of business leaders to benefit from their creation or conservation of profits (or limiting the losses, as the case may be) is just as bad as protecting them from their mistakes. Protecting these firms from the mistakes of their leaders allows those leaders to continue to make poor decisions. Limiting the benefits of being a business leader means business decisions are made by lesser and lesser leaders, since the best and most qualified eventually move to firms where they can be compensated properly for their contribution.

Think of it this way: How much loyalty would you feel toward your employer if they cut your salary not for yours or the business’ performance, but because it was the politically correct thing to do?

I thought so.

It is a poor statement that those in charge of our nation’s Treasury are so blinded by politics or ignorance or ideology that they cannot see the obvious and painful economic implications of their actions. Unless something happens to stop the course on which we are set, these firms will undoubtedly fail again. When that happens, who can imagine what mindless malevolent machinations the mediocre miscreant misanthropists in our Nation’s capital will come up with to justify their continued existence?

Out of curiosity: Just who is reviewing Mr. Feinberg’s compensation package?

Cross-posted at The Minority Report and Seeking Liberty.

Jamie Dupree has compiled a list of 186 earmarks, their sponsor and the amount as part of a Homeland Security Appropriations bill already approved by the House.

If you don’t follow Jamie on Twitter or read his blog regularly, you’re missing out on some very interesting stories in Washington.

Anyway, I pulled out my spreadsheet software and did a little math: These 186 earmarks total almost $420 million.

In other words, our most transparent, most ethical Congress in history has decided to spend $420 million of our tax dollars on vote buying, pure and simple.

Hmm. Turns out Senator McCain was right about that $800 billion in additional spending. No, actually, he was wrong. The spending is going to be a great deal more than that. I also loved Candidate Obama’s promise that, as President, he’d go through the earmarks “line by line to make sure we’re not spending money unwisely.”

Back to the Homeland Security bill. The largest earmark, at $62,500,000, is for the Center for Domestic Preparedness in Alabama, sponsored by the President, Richard Shelby (D-AL) and Mike Rogers (R-AL 03). The smallest earmark, at $18,500, is for “Predisaster Mitigation” (whatever that is) for Brooksville, KY, sponsored by Geoff Davis (R-KY 04).

Eleven earmarks have the President’s name behind them, and 54 of the earmarks total $1,000,000 or more. Only four are less than $100,000.

Sure, in the grand scheme of our $3.5 trillion (or more?) budget, $420 million doesn’t seem like a whole lot. We’ve become desensitized to”tiny” numbers like this. Which is unfortunate, since $420 million represents about $3 from every employed person in the country, and this is just one set of earmarks in one spending bill.

Three dollars could buy me a pulled-pork sandwich at my favorite barbecue joint. Go figure.

The worst part is the number of Republicans sponsoring earmarks. I didn’t count the Ds and Rs in this bill, but suffice to say there’s plenty of money being spent by Republicans. Which is precisely why the Republicans lost in 2006 and again in 2008. They are not living up to their promises, and they are not living up to our expectations of conservative government.

I urge you to look through Jamie’s list of earmarks, find your Congressman or Senator, and while it is too late to ask them to remove their earmark, tell them you’ll be watching their spending in the future. Tell them you want them to practice responsible government, not bring home the bacon.

I’m just glad to see my Congressional representation is not listed.

Originally posted at The Minority Report and Cross-posted to Seeking Liberty. ]]>

Jamie Dupree has compiled a list of 186 earmarks, their sponsor and the amount as part of a Homeland Security Appropriations bill already approved by the House.

If you don’t follow Jamie on Twitter or read his blog regularly, you’re missing out on some very interesting stories in Washington.

Anyway, I pulled out my spreadsheet software and did a little math: These 186 earmarks total almost $420 million.

In other words, our most transparent, most ethical Congress in history has decided to spend $420 million of our tax dollars on vote buying, pure and simple.

Hmm. Turns out Senator McCain was right about that $800 billion in additional spending. No, actually, he was wrong. The spending is going to be a great deal more than that. I also loved Candidate Obama’s promise that, as President, he’d go through the earmarks “line by line to make sure we’re not spending money unwisely.”

Back to the Homeland Security bill. The largest earmark, at $62,500,000, is for the Center for Domestic Preparedness in Alabama, sponsored by the President, Richard Shelby (D-AL) and Mike Rogers (R-AL 03). The smallest earmark, at $18,500, is for “Predisaster Mitigation” (whatever that is) for Brooksville, KY, sponsored by Geoff Davis (R-KY 04).

Eleven earmarks have the President’s name behind them, and 54 of the earmarks total $1,000,000 or more. Only four are less than $100,000.

Sure, in the grand scheme of our $3.5 trillion (or more?) budget, $420 million doesn’t seem like a whole lot. We’ve become desensitized to”tiny” numbers like this. Which is unfortunate, since $420 million represents about $3 from every employed person in the country, and this is just one set of earmarks in one spending bill.

Three dollars could buy me a pulled-pork sandwich at my favorite barbecue joint. Go figure.

The worst part is the number of Republicans sponsoring earmarks. I didn’t count the Ds and Rs in this bill, but suffice to say there’s plenty of money being spent by Republicans. Which is precisely why the Republicans lost in 2006 and again in 2008. They are not living up to their promises, and they are not living up to our expectations of conservative government.

I urge you to look through Jamie’s list of earmarks, find your Congressman or Senator, and while it is too late to ask them to remove their earmark, tell them you’ll be watching their spending in the future. Tell them you want them to practice responsible government, not bring home the bacon.

I’m just glad to see my Congressional representation is not listed.

Originally posted at The Minority Report and Cross-posted to Seeking Liberty. ]]> http://www.redstate.com/fmaidment/2009/10/16/im-hungry-time-for-some-pork/feed/ http://www.redstate.com/fmaidment/2009/10/12/the-religion-of-pseudo-science/ http://www.redstate.com/fmaidment/2009/10/12/the-religion-of-pseudo-science/#comments Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:24:19 +0000 Fred Maidment (Profile) http://www.redstate.com/fmaidment/?p=233 In Monty Python’s The Life of Brian, the main character named Brian has been mistaken for the Messiah. This was a not-altogether farcical premise, as there were many would-be Messiahs (or as I and other Christians believe, false Messiahs) in Judea in the many centuries of Roman occupation.

In any event, Brian has been mistaken for the Messiah and despite his protests has already built a following of many hundred or perhaps thousands of followers in just a few short hours. Brian has been denying is “divine” existence consistently, and runs off to escape the throng of worshippers. In doing so, he accidentally steps on an old hermit’s foot, causing him to cry out in pain, breaking a years-long vow of silence. When the throng catches up with Brian, they discover this man does not believe in Brian’s divinity and so begins their religious persecution of the heretic unbeliever.

While I always considered the idea of a religion being formed in a matter of hours or days to be laughable at best, I am beginning to see a trend developing over the past few years in modern culture: The Religion of Pseudo-Science.

Think about it: Both science and religion attempt to offer an explanation for our existence. Both have mythical-seeming figures: Jesus, Buddha, Moses, Mohammed and others for religion; Archemedes, Pythagorus, Copernicus and Newton for science. Both use techniques, terminology and skills that are generally little understood by the average person. Both are taught. Both use previous delineated knowledge to support their current interpretations and extrapolations.

Science has one thing that religion does not: For many it is perceived to be the anti-religion. There is no God. No ritualistic worship rituals. No high-up spiritual leader telling people how to interperet their findings and what they should believe in spite of alternate evidence.

Wait a tick on that last one:

You see, Al Gore got his Nobel Peace Prize by claiming that the science of Global Warming has been settled. Indeed, many promoters of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) from CO₂ emissions are trying to tell us that their theory–which has yet to be properly scientifically evaluated–is scientific fact. They are so desperate to convince us of this supposed “fact” that they have enlisted the non-scientific idea of “consensus” to get others to believe.

Consensus has no basis in hard science. To quote the late Michael Chricton:

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. [my emphasis]

It was the “consensus” of scientists in the early 1800s that the atom was the smallest bit of mass. Later, it was the “consensus” of the electron, which scientists knew to be smaller than protons or neutrons. Then there were quarks. Now some scientists propose that the inconceivably small quarks are derived from an even smaller form of matter/energy construct that even they do not fully understand. In phsyics, “consensus” denied Albert Einstien’s theory of relativity (and rightly so, as it took decades to develop evidence). Even the great Eitnstein’s theories are now in question. “Consensus” is nice when writing a text book, but it often proves incorrect and usually is incomplete.

The primary tenet of “scientific proof” is one of repeatability. For example, we know that gravity exists, whatever it may be, because objects with mass tend to be drawn toward each other. You and I and the computer screen you are reading this from are drawn toward the Earth. The Moon is drawn toward the Earth. The Earth is drawn toward the sun, which itself is drawn toward the center of the galaxy. Only the relative velocity and distance of these objects keeps the Earth from crashing into the sun, the sun from careening toward the center of the galaxy. It can be calculated, over and over, what will happen to an object of known mass moving near another object of known mass in a vacuum, and with sufficient data, what will happen in an atmosphere. It is observable, predictable and repeatable.

In fact, it is intellectually dishonest to say that science “proves” anything. More accurately, science can only disprove or fail to disprove. This is because science is conducted in the negative: I hypothesize “A.” I set up an experiment that, if A is true, should be successful. If the experiment fails, then “A” cannot be true. If it works, then “A” is not disproved, but neither is it proved. Experiments generally cannot eliminate the possibility of an X-Factor: Something other than the hypothesis “A” that allows the experiment to be successful.

As an absurd example, take another Monty Python movie: In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, a woman is accused of being a witch, so the people of the town ask the local magistrate (Terry Jones playing Sir Bedivere) if they may burn her at the stake. He insists on proof:

Bedivere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peseant1: More witches! (cries of “Burn her! Burn the witch!”)
Peseant2: Wood!
Bedivere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peseant3: (after pause) ‘Cause they’re… made of… wood?
Bedivere: Good!

“Bedivere” then uses a progression of logical fallacies to explain how, if witches can burn they are made of wood, and since wood floats, she should also float. Then, since he has no concept of density, he suggests they weigh the woman against something else that also floats. If they weigh the same, then she must be a witch and burned. In the movie, it turns out that she weighs the same as a duck and the townspeople carry her off to the stake. “It’s a fair cop,” she laments.

The problem comes from the preconception of Sir Bedivere: That anything that burns must be made of wood. Likewise the preconceptions of climate models are that CO₂ is a strong greenhouse gas, and that the carbon that humans add to the atmosphere must have a significant effect. In fact, CO₂ has been shown to be far less potent a greenhouse gas than both methane and water vapor. Without accounting for the remaining composition of the atmosphere and dozens of other factors such as sun-spot activity, cloud cover and terran volcanism, how can any experimental model ever hope to predict the effect of CO₂ on such a vast, complex system?

A more simplistic example of how this works looks like this: I hypothesize that gravity affects “lighter” objects differently than “heavier” objects. To prove this, I use two objects with dissimilar weight: A feather and a bowling ball. I put each in a trap-ledge, pull, and observe what happens when the trap falls. You can guess the results: The feather wafts down slowly, drifting from side to side and spinning, finally coming to a rest on the couch far away in the corner after several seconds. Meanwhile the bowling ball has already crashed down on top of my foot, crushing my toes and smashing my metatarsals, sending me to the hospital writhing in agony.

The experiment meanwhile has showed that gravity has a different effect on objects that weigh different amounts! My theory is proved, albeit painfully! Except for one thing: Repeatability. I must now be able to take this experiment and transfer it to a new medium.

After weeks in a cast and months of physical therapy, I try the experiment again, this time with a baseball and a tennis ball. Again, you can predict the result: The baseball and tennisball, similarly sized and shaped but very different in weight, arrive on the floor virtually simultaneously (which I observe via closed-circuit television to prevent any further damage to my extremities). The original experiment is now disproved! My theory, it turns out, was wrong! I hadn’t accounted for the effect of the resistance of air on two objects of different densities!

This is precisely what is happening with the Global Warming ideology, as well as other areas of science. The moment a preconception fails to be disproved, without any more testing the “scientist” involved gets to work writing their thesis (and their Nobel Prize acceptance speech). Then, when someone dares to question the research or attempts to show that the models are not predictive or repeatable, the skeptic is labeled as a denier, a troglodyte, a corporate shill, anything but a legitimate skeptic. Rather than being the bulwark sustainer of intellectual pursuit, the scientist has become the anti-intellectual, defending with religious fervor his mistakenly held preconception which he has now “proved.”

This is the same kind of anti-intellectual behavior practised during the inquisition, when scientific theories were labeled as heresy or blasphemy. After all, how dare these mere “scientists” question the motives and teachings of the One True Pope–uh, that is, One True God? Do they not understand the infallibility of Holy Mother Church–uh, that is, God? Today it is reversed: Do these heretics not understand the infallibility of our climate research–uh, that is, the Scientific Method?

Certainly it is not all the scientists. Many scientists are simply publishing or promoting their ideas and hypotheses. They have a little bit of data and are looking for more funding to build better models; but bureaucrats, politicians and journalists take these preliminary findings as proven fact and report it back to us. The average person does not understand the models and data are not final or even sufficiently tested to be called theory, let alone fact.

On the other hand some scientists are making themselves Bishops and Cardinals of the Church of Pseudo-Science, where a simple hypothesis and one predictive model are “fact” and anything else is heresy. These climate scientists are making the same logical mistake as Sir Bedivere: They have preconceived that Anthorpogenic Global Warming is real, and so they have moved on to building models that show how bad Man will make things. They build their models based on these preconceptions, but as has been shown, their models do not stand the test of time and give us critically erroneous results. Worse, some are even lying about their predictive modeling, showing how well their model works but lying about the data that is put into it just as flim-flam healers “cure” blind or paralyzed audience members. Like the healer, the scientist gives all the “proof” needed for those ready to believe in any miracle, even a fake one.

Until we can show that Global Warming is in fact caused by man’s production of CO₂, we cannot adequately describe a model that will predict the future of our climate. Until we have research that is double-blind, repeatable and predictable and therefore unbiased, there is no real science on which to base our actions. Anyone who argues in favor of one viewpoint or another without these unbaised results is merely another preacher, another priest in competing religions of Pseudo-Science.

Cross-posted at Seeking Liberty and The Minority Report.

National Public Radio is reporting that the Dollar has fallen, and foreign banks are increasingly keeping Euros and, of all currencies, the Yen as their reserve denomination. The Dollar has fallen 12% from its recent peak, and appears likely to lose additional value.

While this is alarming to many, to some it is no surprise. In fact, many economists predicted after the Bush Administration’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the Obama Administration’s Stimulus bill, the hundreds of billions of extra Dollars being dumped onto and the mounting deficits of the United States Government would depress the Dollar significantly when compared to other currencies.

The result: Americans are poorer now than they have been, compared to the rest of the world. Since the Dollar has lost value, it takes ever more Dollars to buy products from other nations. Fears of more and greater deficits in the coming years create even greater distrust of the Dollar, resulting in more hedging with other currencies. It is a wicked spiral that can only be broken by more responsible actions by our government.

The United States must come back to reality: We can no longer spend like bachelors on a weekend in Las Vegas, signing for ever greater lines of credit to cover our losses. The International Casino is rapidly approaching the point where it will call in our debts, while we have blown our chips at the craps table.

Americans must understand that the current level of spending by our Federal Government cannot be sustained. Already, foreign countries are refusing to purchase our debt, meaning that we must simply print more Dollar bills to cover our deficits. This increase in the number of Dollars available is precisely what is causing the deflation of the currency: Because there are so many more available, the Dollars themselves are worth less.

Just like Casino chips, the Dollar or any other currency has value simply because we believe it does. Even when backed up by gold or other precious metals, currencies maintain only that value that the precious metal maintains. If tomorrow everyone decided that gold was worthless, it would be so, and the millions of tons of refined gold would not buy a shanty on the edge of Mogadishu. If a Casino declared bankruptcy, its chips would likewise hold no value. The same goes for the Dollar: If tomorrow every other nation decided that the Dollar held no value for them, we would be unable to conduct international trade to buy oil, microwaves and iPods.

The result of this devaluation? Already there are reports (although denied) that OPEC is considering ending or limiting its practice of trading oil in Dollars, as Dollars buy less and less oil over time compared to the more stable Euro. The massive increase in the number of Dollars is leading, inexorably, to inflation. Indeed part of the reason for expensive crude oil is the steady drop in the value of the Dollar over the last decade, worsened lately by its precipitous drop compared to other currencies.

Both Parties and both Presidents Bush and Obama can lay claim to some of the justifiable fear over the Dollar. The wild, excessive spending on transfer payment programs such as Medicare Part-B, Welfare and Social Security (where more than half of our Federal Budget is spent) as well as corporate welfare programs like TARP and Cash for Clunkers, combined with the seeming lack of concern over the ever-increasing American national debt gives other nations strong reason to doubt our fiscal and economic capability to honor our currency. As we propose to spend hundreds of billions of additional Dollars on new programs, the queasiness felt by foreign ministers and private bankers transforms into outright nausea.

Similar events to our current situation happened in Weimar Republic in Germany prior to the National Socialists (aka “NAZIs”) being elected into power. It happened again in Argentina in the 1950s. Will we choose to end our excessive borrowing or follow the paths of these states into ecnomic and social ruin, civil unrest and, quite possibly, into war?

If we cannot stop the spending, curb our deficits and reduce our debt, at least as it relates to GDP and overall tax receipts, we will find outselves losing everything at this international game of Roullette. At one time, in Las Vegas when a gambler could not pay his debts, they broke his knees. America needs to quit while it is behind, lest we find ourselves on crutches.

Originally posted at The Minority Report. ]]>

National Public Radio is reporting that the Dollar has fallen, and foreign banks are increasingly keeping Euros and, of all currencies, the Yen as their reserve denomination. The Dollar has fallen 12% from its recent peak, and appears likely to lose additional value.

While this is alarming to many, to some it is no surprise. In fact, many economists predicted after the Bush Administration’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the Obama Administration’s Stimulus bill, the hundreds of billions of extra Dollars being dumped onto and the mounting deficits of the United States Government would depress the Dollar significantly when compared to other currencies.

The result: Americans are poorer now than they have been, compared to the rest of the world. Since the Dollar has lost value, it takes ever more Dollars to buy products from other nations. Fears of more and greater deficits in the coming years create even greater distrust of the Dollar, resulting in more hedging with other currencies. It is a wicked spiral that can only be broken by more responsible actions by our government.

The United States must come back to reality: We can no longer spend like bachelors on a weekend in Las Vegas, signing for ever greater lines of credit to cover our losses. The International Casino is rapidly approaching the point where it will call in our debts, while we have blown our chips at the craps table.

Americans must understand that the current level of spending by our Federal Government cannot be sustained. Already, foreign countries are refusing to purchase our debt, meaning that we must simply print more Dollar bills to cover our deficits. This increase in the number of Dollars available is precisely what is causing the deflation of the currency: Because there are so many more available, the Dollars themselves are worth less.

Just like Casino chips, the Dollar or any other currency has value simply because we believe it does. Even when backed up by gold or other precious metals, currencies maintain only that value that the precious metal maintains. If tomorrow everyone decided that gold was worthless, it would be so, and the millions of tons of refined gold would not buy a shanty on the edge of Mogadishu. If a Casino declared bankruptcy, its chips would likewise hold no value. The same goes for the Dollar: If tomorrow every other nation decided that the Dollar held no value for them, we would be unable to conduct international trade to buy oil, microwaves and iPods.

The result of this devaluation? Already there are reports (although denied) that OPEC is considering ending or limiting its practice of trading oil in Dollars, as Dollars buy less and less oil over time compared to the more stable Euro. The massive increase in the number of Dollars is leading, inexorably, to inflation. Indeed part of the reason for expensive crude oil is the steady drop in the value of the Dollar over the last decade, worsened lately by its precipitous drop compared to other currencies.

Both Parties and both Presidents Bush and Obama can lay claim to some of the justifiable fear over the Dollar. The wild, excessive spending on transfer payment programs such as Medicare Part-B, Welfare and Social Security (where more than half of our Federal Budget is spent) as well as corporate welfare programs like TARP and Cash for Clunkers, combined with the seeming lack of concern over the ever-increasing American national debt gives other nations strong reason to doubt our fiscal and economic capability to honor our currency. As we propose to spend hundreds of billions of additional Dollars on new programs, the queasiness felt by foreign ministers and private bankers transforms into outright nausea.

Similar events to our current situation happened in Weimar Republic in Germany prior to the National Socialists (aka “NAZIs”) being elected into power. It happened again in Argentina in the 1950s. Will we choose to end our excessive borrowing or follow the paths of these states into ecnomic and social ruin, civil unrest and, quite possibly, into war?

If we cannot stop the spending, curb our deficits and reduce our debt, at least as it relates to GDP and overall tax receipts, we will find outselves losing everything at this international game of Roullette. At one time, in Las Vegas when a gambler could not pay his debts, they broke his knees. America needs to quit while it is behind, lest we find ourselves on crutches.

Originally posted at The Minority Report. ]]> http://www.redstate.com/fmaidment/2009/10/09/dollar-daze/feed/ http://www.redstate.com/fmaidment/2009/10/02/back-checking-the-hockey-stick/ http://www.redstate.com/fmaidment/2009/10/02/back-checking-the-hockey-stick/#comments Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:22:39 +0000 Fred Maidment (Profile) http://www.redstate.com/fmaidment/?p=227 (H/T the Talkmaster)

Take a look at the following graph and see if you can tell what it is and what it means:

If you couldn’t tell the above graph, linked from Climate Audit, is the now famous “Hockey Stick” graph that depicts global temperatures over the last roughly 2,500 years. The data comes from tree-ring data, which is considered by climatologists to be among the more accurate methods of determining global mean temperatures before thermometric data (observed temperatures using thermometers) was available.

As you can see, there are two lines, one red and one black. The red line of the graph shows a tremendous spike toward the right hand side, depicting global temperatures rising precipitously during the last roughly 150 years. This is the Hockey Stick: Relatively stable rising and falling of temperatures over 2,300 years, then sudden rise over the final 200. This chart was depicted in 1998 by Dr. Michael Mann, a US-based climatologist. The IPCC, various governments and evironmentalists use Mann’s report, among others, and his graph to back up their claims that human beings are causing global warming an CO₂ emissions are the culprit.

After its release, Steve McIntyre, a Canadian statistician, saw the graph and believed it to be flawed. It seemed to eliminate the so-called “Medieval Warm Period,” the period from 900 CE to 1300 CE, when temperatures were much warmer than they were during the preceding 400-year-long “Dark Ages” or the following 450 years, a period known as the “Little Ice Age.”

Curious, McIntyre tried to replicate Mann’s data (a common practice in science and a cornerstone of any scientific “proof”). He asked for the source data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (which held the records). Amazingly, instead of being happy to provide the data, McIntyre was told that giving him access would upset the nations that provided it. When he pressed further, he had been told the data was lost.

Fast forward a few years. In 2008, Mann published another paper to back up his claims about the Hockey Stick. McIntyre was finally able to get the data used by Mann for his new paper. He used a much broader range of data (the more data, the better the statistical certainty), but all the regions used matched Mann’s selections. Using this data, he developed the black line.

Below you can see a linked image from the Examiner showing the “smoothed” data for the last 150 years, or the overall trends (which may be easier to read than the raw datapoints).

A cursory inspection shows that the two lines match each other closely–although Mann’s Hockey Stick data shows a perceptibly warmer planet–until the middle of the 20th century. At this point, the two lines’ data series diverge greatly: Mann’s “Hockey Stick” is perilously evident in red, but McIntyre’s black line (the one with more complete data) begins to trend downward at the end, showing a relative cooling of the planet’s surface during the last century until the 1980s, rising again and finally stabilizing at roughly the turn of the millenium.

In this third image, also linked from Climate Audit, we can see the merged dataset, in green. Charactaristic of this type of analysis, the two datasets merge:

Instead of the climatalogical catastrophe depicted by the Hockey Stick, McIntyre’s data shows a system in its normal up-and-down cycle. If anything, McIntyre’s more complete data set seems to show that rather than being on the hot, high precipice of disaster, we are in a cooler valley of the planet’s normal warm-period routine.

Not that any of this is much “proof” of anything. All Mann and McIntyre have “proved” is the need for double-blind research. You see, both researchers were biased: Mann is a climatologist. He knows that the only reason climate research gets funded is because of the fear of escalating temperatures. McIntyre is also biased: He came to the project with the intent of disproving Mann’s research and comes with a skeptic’s background.

Until and unless real research from double-blind studies with repeatable results are available, everything we do with respect to Anthropogenic Global Warming is literaly stabbing in the dark. Indeed, the human race seems Hell-bent on charging off into battle while wearing a blind-fold. Just as a soldier cannot fight his enemies if he cannot see them, the people of this planet cannot fight real threats to the Earth if we blind ourselves to the real problems.

Cross-posted at Seeking Liberty.

Update: Oh, and why is tree-ring data considered more reliable today, even with thermometers? To answer that, check out Citizen Link’s Stoplight.

CNSNews.com then asked Moore: “Critics would say he’s [Moore] been very successful under a capitalist system. How would you justify making a movie where you paint capitalism as evil?”

Moore said: “Well, capitalism did nothing for me, starting with my first film.”

“You know, I had to pretty much beg, borrow and steal,” he said. “The system is not set up to help somebody from the working class make a movie like this and get the truth out there.”

You can see the video of Mr. Moore’s interview here.
I have no interest in seeing Mr. Moore’s film. Largely, that is because his “documentaries” are uninformative schlock that take wide liberties with facts and the truth. However, from viewing the trailers it seems terribly out-of-place to call the film “Capitalism.” In the trailers, Moore is seen chasing down Wall Street executives and Washington insiders trying to find out what happened to the TARP and bailout funds.

Add to this the fact that Michael Moore is himself wealthy by capitalist means, making a product that people want: People with anti-American and anti-Capitalist sentiments find his films appealing and entertaining. According to the The-Numbers.com and the Los Angeles Times, he may have taken home all the profits of the $17 million in DVD sales from his previous work, Sicko.

It seems that Moore is not actually upset with capitalism, but rather fascism. No, not the colloquialism of jack-boots and swastikas. The economics of National Socialism, where government invests in and closely directs the economic activity of private industry. This was the economic policy of Mussolini’s Italy, Hitler’s Germany, Franco’s Spain, and many others since. Indeed, from the trailers, it seems that Moore actually likes capitalism, where the taxpayers keep their money and government does not decide economic winners and losers.

According to wikipedia and IMDB (which are not trusted websites, so take it for what it’s worth), Moore dropped out of college. Clearly, he did not take a class in economics while he was there, or he would understand the difference between capitalism and fascism.

Let me define the terms for Mr. Moore so he won’t make this mistake in the future (these aren’t official definitions; they are meant to be understood by lay-people):

Capitalism - An economic structure where private individuals own the resources and means of production, and can use and employ them as they see fit in a free and relatively unregulated market.

State Capitalism - A hybrid form of communism and capitalism in which the central government controls most of the capital, industry, natural resources and other means of production in an effort to earn profit. Any private industry is heavily regulated.

Fascism -A form of socialism, an economic structure where private individuals own the means and resources of production and enjoy the fruits of their production, but are heavily regulated, directed and supported by government.

Communism - A form of socialism, an economic structure where resources, industry and capital are owned by the state but operates without capitalist or free market incentives, the purpose of which is to equally distribute those resources.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Moore does not understand the nature and purpose of capitalism. Without capitalism, he would not be the wealthy, successful individual he is. In hating capitalism, he has used its mechanisms and his personal drive to promote himself and his message to capitalism’s highest levels of achievement: Fame, wealth and power.

That so many people accept his message as the truth is even more unfortunate.

Cross-posted at Seeking Liberty and The Minority Report.