Solar Climate

Blog: Bad news for warmists: Sun has entered 'weakest solar cycle in a century':

As readers of this blog know, what I see from many data sources with time scales a lot longer than "warmest since 1880"... periods of many hundreds, or even better, hundreds of thousands of years are a better benchmark for "climate" in my book.

The attached article is a good summary of some of what we know of solar climate -- we have actually been looking to some extent at solar activity since at least the 1600s ... this is a good chart from a site that the Australian government maintains that lets you look at the cycles in some detail and gives you some ideas of how much variation there is ...

Solar Cycles are quite interesting -- the article touches on the "Maunder and Dalton Minimums" and the "Little Ice Age" from about 1550 - 1850. The fact that we warmed from the "1880 on" is not very surprising if you show a temperature chart from say 10K years rather than "100 or so". Somehow the Mann / Gore "hockey stick" just isn't so interesting on THAT scale !

The current popular "settled science theory" is that CO2 created by humans largely drives the planets climate -- or at least has swamped all other effects since 1880. A short glance at a longer term chart will really make you wonder about Roman and Medieval Co2 production, and if you are not a fully "settled" warmist may even make you look at a few of those spikes and ponder if there isn't just possibly SOMETHING else out there that might account for such variations.

Then, maybe at noon some day on the beach, you look up and go EUREKA! THE SUN!!! OMG, the **SUN** affects temperature on earth!!!  ... but then, if you are a "smart person" and want to stay recognized by your peers as such, you take a deep drink of cocktail and say "never mind ...

'via Blog this'

Look Before You GIVE!!!

The Right Wing Scam Machine | National Review Online:



Conservatives generally give about 30% more of their income to various sources and I have a strong suspicion that they are both too trusting, AND that watchdog agencies are WAY less likely to do any investigations if someone is sucking money out of conservatives.



IN GENERAL:

• Don't give ANY money to organizations that call over the phone unless you REALLY know about them. A huge percentage of such fundraisers are just "using a name", and a TINY percentage of what they raise actually goes to the organization! 
• NEVER given any money to the "National Republican" anything -- figure out what candidates you like and give it to THEM! 
• Make sure you vet any places you want to give money and find out what percentage goes to the actual "cause / candidate / etc"  

The bottom line is BE SUSPICIOUS -- even if it has the name of a person you like / trust, It's a nasty world out there!



'via Blog this'

Applauding What You Oppose, 99 Quads of Energy on the Wall

The High Cost of Energy Illiteracy | Power Line:



Burlington Vermont is powered by "100% renewable energy" -- oops, the ELECTRICITY is all renewable, BUT that is because it is HYDROELECTRIC -- as in DAMS, which in environmentalist speak are DAMNED BAD! -- or to play on words, "Dam Bad".



So why are they applauding? Because they are liberals and they don't know the difference between electricity and energy, and also because ... well, they really don't like to think that much about much of anything.



The US uses about 100 "Quads" of energy a year. As in quadrillion BTUs -- ONE "quad" is 6 BILLION gallons of diesel! Try to pay that bill even at lower prices!



This article has a nice chart that shows how much is solar and wind. Drum roll !! Wind and solar combined are TWO QUADS .... as in 2% !!!



Hydro and Nuke combined are 10% -- but environmentalists want to SHRINK those!



The linked PL article is excellent. Asking environmentalists or NPR to tell you anything about energy is embarrassing -- and scary when you realize how much stuff these people are in charge of!



via Blog this'

Cigarette Taxes WORK!!

Tax hike cuts tobacco consumption – USATODAY.com:

This graphic shows up out on Facebook from time to time -- it makes me wonder if velociraptors are smarter than humans.



The linked article shows that raising cigarette taxes works to reduce smoking, especially in lower income people -- the people who pay the highest percentage part of their income to smoke.

Taxes are the sledge hammer of anti-smoking efforts. The federal tax hike helped push tobacco use down to 18.9% in 2011, the lowest level on record, according to the CDCsurveys. Even smokers who don't quit light up less. In the 1990s, one of every 20 high school students smoked 10 or more cigarettes a day. Today, one out of 71 students smoke that much.

This ought not be surprising -- when prices on something rise, consumption of it goes down -- "how much" is a function of how "elastic" the demand curve for it is. Raise the price for something, people buy less of it, lower the price and they buy more -- to a point, at which the market is "saturated". The "marginal utility" is no longer deemed to be worth the marginal cost.



Income works the same. The marginal utility of the first dollar is high and then goes down as income goes up -- the next $10K of income for a person making $40K is high, for someone making $400K, it is quite low -- the "marginal utility" of the first burger you eat can be quite high if you are hungry, if you were forced to eat a half dozen of them, the last few would be a lot less. If you make $400K, the amount of time/hassle it takes to make another $10K may well not be worth what you could do with that time on your own. NOT even considering the tax effects!



You can of course use "infinite money" better than infinite hamburgers, but you can bet a $100 bribe or a $100 fine is going to have a lot less effect on Bill Gates than on someone making $10K a year. The relative nature of utility still holds.



The simple rule "If you want less of something, tax it, and if you want less of it, subsidize it" still works, and we consciously use the first half of it with cigarette taxes, yet, try to ignore the effect for income.



But you might say "you HAVE to have income, you don't have to have cigarettes".  Due to the wonders of subsidy, not even this is true -- the government subsidizes sloth through all sorts of programs, and your standard liberal/socialist believes that everyone ought to have their "basic needs" covered by the government. There is some argument about what those needs are, but food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education are almost always included -- and now usually some level of "entertainment". Cell phone, internet, tv, etc.



A major objective of "liberal/socialist" thinking is that income ought to be "basically level", so they subsidize the low end, trying to remove the "need" to work. On the high end, there is no limit to the amount of taxation they want to put on ... 100% taxes for incomes over a given amount have been suggested many times from the left.



Especially with all it's income leveling desires though, the government really does NEED money. The rational solution would be to have a flat tax on ALL purchases (sales tax)  that covered federal, state and local governments. Right now that would be about 35%, because that is the percentage of GDP in total government spending!  Going off to that link shows "the march to socialism" as the percentage spent by the government continually rises.



What the chart can't show is the effects that income taxes working the same as cigarette taxes have long term on our economy so it's overall output is reduced. The TOTAL GDP is reduced because of the disincentives to higher income earners in the same way as cigarette taxes reduce smoking. A tax is a tax and the effects are the same -- for good and ill.



The ultimate result of socialism has to be slave labor (or revolution/freedom) -- those that would be likely to earn higher incomes start writing books, blogs and rabble rousing rather than creating wealth for the elite to distribute, and the elite gets really TICKED! First they start with little efforts -- use the IRS against groups they don't like, do a little "harassment" with extra regulations / etc on those that make too much money and can't shut up. Eventually though, it's always the Gulag for those that have too much gumption and don't want to  go over to the socialist side.





'via Blog this'

Liberal, Conservative, Humor, Jon Stewart

Why There's No Conservative Jon Stewart - The Atlantic:

I love articles like this. A couple underlying "liberal" assumptions come through quickly:

1). I'm a liberal, therefore I'm "better" -- smarter, more in tune, "in the know", etc, etc.

2). I'm very modern -- and the latest information is ALWAYS best (therefore, there is no such thing as "truth", because tomorrow's truth will always trump todays!

A good working definition of Philosophy is "footnotes to Plato" ... something that a "liberal" can't subscribe to because of their underlying assumptions -- it's more modern now, Plato MUST be wrong!

But again, Plato calls the ball perfectly and they even quote it in the article!

Theorists have been trying to explain humor as far back as Plato. The ancient Greek philosopher said humor got its power from the pleasure people get when they feel superior over others, laughing at their foibles and flaws.

"Search your heart Luke, you know it to be true!" So given the assumptions of liberals that I just listed above, and Plato's words, it is easy to understand why "liberals" are a better market for political humor!

Political humor, in particular, might have an inherently liberal bias. Alison Dagnes spent years looking into this question for her 2012 book.  It does have a liberal bias, but she didn't get it.  If she had managed to understand Plato, she would understand that people want to FEEL superior to SOME group. Feeling is definitely not related to any objective reality, and it is irrespective of your actual power state. Satire makes fun of a group you CONSIDER yourself superior to, there is no requirement at all for you to actually be more powerful than that group in any objective way.

I'm pretty sure the British made fun of the Americans during the Revolutionary war, soldiers make fun of officers, prisoners make fun of jail keepers, southern whites made fun of southern blacks prior to "1968", and as evidenced by Jon Stewart, the dominant political and media evidenced by "The Party (D)" makes fun of conservatives today. Americans were objectively FAR less powerful than Britain during the revolution (they quit because we weren't worth the fight), certainly blacks in the south were less powerful that whites, ditto conservatives in the US today. Humor is an equal opportunity thing -- it depends on perspective, but ALL people like to feel superior! 

Seinfeld apparently understood Plato, as have many black comedians -- people LOVE to laugh at groups that they feel superior to -- down through time, Jews, Italians, Blacks, etc. When you are REALLY dominant, as whites were in the south, or liberals are today, you get to make fun of the other group, rather than having to BE one of the less powerful groups to be allowed to make the jokes, as blacks are today in comedy. In this wonderful Seinfeld sketch about a guy that converted to Judaism so he could do Jewish jokes, Jerry isn't offended as a Jew, he is offended as a COMEDIAN!

Certainly, if you are "with your own folks", one can make fun of the allegedly more powerful -- again, it is about FEELING superior, not any actual reality.

Young began to wonder whether this might explain why liberals were attracted in greater numbers to TV shows that employ irony. Stephen Colbert, for example, may say that he’s looking forward to the sunny weather that global warming will bring, and the audience members know this isn’t what he really means. But they have to wonder: Is he making fun of the kind of conservative who would say something so egregious? Or is he making fun of arrogant liberals who think that conservatives hold such extreme views? As Young noticed, this is a kind of ambiguity that liberals tend to find more satisfying and culturally familiar than conservatives do. In fact, a study out of Ohio State University found that a surprising number of conservatives who were shown Colbert clips were oblivious to the fact that he was joking.

"Irony" and "ambiguity" are in the eye of the beholder -- or maybe in this case, they are just uncomfortable cover for the truth.  When audiences felt inherently and securely superior to Blacks or Jews and that was allowable, the jokes were funny to them. When that superiority started to be called into question, the laughs became uncomfortable, then disappeared, and then the jokes became hate speech.

Anyone watching Colbert KNOWS that he is making fun of conservatives, that is the role he plays on the show! There is no "ambiguity" there at all -- to claim it exists is incredible. When people do not clearly "get the joke", they are not amused -- they are confused!   Conservatives, don't laugh for the inverse of the reason that liberals laugh --  conservatives know EXACTLY what he is saying/being.
He is playing the part of a "stupid obnoxious conservative"  --  and the Colbert CHARACTER is "joking" -- AS a conservative. He poking fun AS a conservative (character)!

Real conservatives who are skeptical about Global Warming  DO use the "won't warmer weather be grand"  line, typically during unseasonably cold weather.  Liberals HATE that -- and they consider it to be a sign of stupidity. No matter how cold it is, or how long a "pause" there is in warming, they must believe -- and feel superior to the conservative using the line. So they laugh at the Colbert character -- either naturally because they are real warmist believers, or they laugh because they know they are supposed to. To not laugh would not be appropriate to maintain standing in their belief system.

 Conservatives have yet a further reaction -- they know that humans in reality DO prefer warmer weather!  Given a choice between it being 2 degrees warmer in a winter 100 years from now and it being two degrees colder, humans ACTUALLY prefer the warmer.  BUT, liberals find themselves in a situation similar to people forcing themselves to not laugh at a racial joke, even though everything in the "humor program" of their brain might be firing.

Strangely, "suppressing the natural" is a major part of "liberal" behavior -- most liberals find gay sex disgusting too, it is naturally wired into our brains to react that way -- but they are forced to act like they don't to stay in good graces with their peers.

Conservatives know that the liberals are actually lying -- they are still human, they actually DO prefer slightly warmer to slightly colder temperatures. The scary part is that conservatives also know that "liberals" MUST NOT admit that they actually prefer warmth in order to stay in their group! They are forced to do their best to laugh "heartily and naturally" even though their very being is in disagreement with the position they espouse to stay in the dominant group!

 This is where this fairly simple thing gets more than a little spooky and conjures images of religious zealotry, Nazism, ethnic hatred, etc.  -- covered in a lot more detail in "The Righteous Mind". I won't go to ground on this here -- it comes up quite a bit in this blog. Human nature has a whole set of elements that all have "light and dark" sides --  say "greed / envy". Capitalism works to use greed to achieve good things, socialism uses envy to try to make things "equal".

Part of "civilization" is the channeling of our basic drives and weaknesses -- lust to monogamous marriage, competitiveness to sports, material comparison, wars, ... the list is long. For a couple thousand years, in the West, the Christian religion was the overarching set of morals / values that gave a broad agreement on many of these. We accepted human nature as fixed and imperfect, needing to be moulded by the Holy Spirit on the right hand, and by the state from the left. 

That balance is now gone. The State, and it's party -- TP, seek to cow the masses into following ONLY the authority of TP. THOU SHALT bow before Global Warming, "Gay Marriage", "Government Healthcare", "Government Education" ... and ultimately GOVERNMENT!!   Making fun of people that don't agree with that might lead eventually to some "mirrorish"  image of what happened to Blacks::

 free --> slave -> oppressed minority -> kept minority voting bloc --> ??? free someday ???

Productive free working Christian majority --> productive working Christian minority --> regulated Christian voting bloc --> oppressed minority --> slaves ???? 

In case you need a laugh after all that seriousness, here is some fairly equal opportunity political satire that at least OUGHT to be funny to both sides! (but likely isn't)

'via Blog this'

The Linen Closet of Democracy

Crusaders and appeasers - The Washington Post:



A great one from Charles, just read it.



Obama channels Neville Chamberlain -- "Moral relativism in our time" is my quip contribution, but "linen closet of democracy" is better.



'via Blog this'

Walker's College Records vs BO's

As Scott Walker mulls White House bid, questions linger over college exit - The Washington Post:

Isn't it wonderfully exciting to see a media braced for battle, leaving no stone unturned relative to the 2016 race?

Let's do a minor comparison to 2008 using the internet to take a little look at how these veritable Sherlock Holmes of focused detective work made sure that we knew EVERYTHING about the current cipher that occupies our highest office!

First of all, his name when he went to at least Occidental was BARRY -- not "Barack". That fact is one that is not discussed a whole bunch ...

We suspect that BO went to Occidental College because he said so in his book (although some of that stuff turned out to be "composite")  -- however if you do a google on it, all you get are a few right wing, likely nutty stories about if he went as Barry Obama or Barry Sottero and got foreign student aid. The closest you get to MSM curiosity is this, a debunking of one of the right wing stories, and it proudly tells us that his records are sealed, and will STAY THAT WAY! Not going to be any media pressure or sleuthing as there was to expose W's college records.

Then he went to Columbia ... although those records are not available, and there are aspects of it that would be HIGHLY interesting if he was a Republican. As he is a member in good standing of TP, we find VERY little interest in his time there -- so much so that even a not so wingnut publication with at least SOME level of curiosity did an article lamenting kind of "What the hell?" relative to those years. We do however see some of the MSM working VERY hard to say "nothing here, move along", with a complete lack of curiosity about how someone so self centered to write TWO autobiographies prior to turning 50 would fail to say more than a paragraph about 2 years at a major university.

This could go ad nauseum -- most of what is written in "Dreams" might as well as been "sealed" relative to the interest of the MSM. BO's "Choom Gang" weed buddies, doing "a lot of booze, weed and a little blow, but no smack" arouses not a peep from the MSM and most people have a VERY hard time believing it is written in HIS OWN BOOK even when you point out the page to them -- "like cows at the passing train".

The fact of the matter is that Scott Walker will have to deal with constant scrutiny and charges about things real and imagined every step of the way if he chooses to run, and after election if elected. As we have seen now for at least a quarter century, EVERYTHING about a Republican candidate that could even be IMAGINED to be a negative ( Was Mitt Romney a bully in High School?) will be taken out of context, blown up to the maximum, and will receive extremely strong and leading media coverage "Mr Romney, why did you bully kids in HS? ... oh, and have you stopped beating your wife?" ..

We MUST accept that this is just "the way it is". Anyone that wants to challenge the dominance and power of TP MUST go through massive attacks including those that are completely fabricated -- like Rather's "fake but true" memos if they want to reach the White House. A non-TP candidate needs 3x, 5x, or even more money to attempt to counteract the TP media onslaught that is a fact of life for those that are willing to stand up to the TP juggernaut. Any person willing to run for the presidency as a Republican is an exceedingly courageous person with a strong backbone.

If Hillary runs? Rest assured that outside of Fox and a few other conservative sources, things like Benghazi, Whitewater, Cattle Futures, Don't let anyone tell you that corporations create jobs , will be hard to find except in rebuttal form ... in fact, the number one link on the corporations/jobs one is already an MSM attempt to claim " nothing here"!

This is why any freedom loving person needs to fight TP -- even if they WERE good (which they are not), that much power MUST be fought if free men are to survive!

'via Blog this'

The Whig Theory of History

Mises Daily | Mises Institute:

A little side-trip to the link can assure you I'm not nuts. There really is a "Whig Theory of History", and it is essentially as simple as the belief that "things are getting better".

You likely haven't thought about it much, but you probably have this theory as an unconscious belief. It is hard not to, it is after all the basis of "Progressivism", the dominant stated political theory of "The Party" (TP-Dem) which controls all our media and educational system. It has LOTS of support! It is also something that seems very nice to believe -- things will be better ten years from now, life will be grand when you retire, your kids will have a better life than you did, etc, etc.

It might FEEL nice to believe, but is it true? If you are a Christian or really any kind of a religious person, you ought not really believe it -- God has a plan, but the goal of that plan is eternity in heaven. The earth will explicitly pass away, and the predictions for whatever time the old ball of rock has left are for wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, floods, famine, etc, etc. So no go for a Christian on the "it's getting better and better for sure" outlook.

Atheist? How exactly would there be a "plan" or "direction" of history?  And why oh why would it be inevitably toward "better"? Not to mention what "better" might mean in a purposeless universe.  The atheist creed ought to believe in NOTHING, as in nihilism. Clearly to them  the universe is some grand accident, and since at least a huge number of atheists claim to arrive at their "faith" (the faith they are soulless) because of "the problem of pain and suffering in the world".

Since they can't accept a God that would allow any pain and suffering, they are stuck with a universe that they admit has pain and suffering, but also has no purpose. I always wonder how they arrive at the conclusion that meaningless pain and suffering is far superior to meaningful pain and suffering that they don't understand?

Or maybe the purpose IS pain and suffering? A number of prominent historical atheists seem to decide that INFLICTING pain and suffering may be at least their personal purpose -- see Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the people that outlawed DDT, etc.

"Progressives"? We might refer to these as people that decided to ignore most of the 20th century, where the leading "progressive" ideologies of Socialism and Communism (including National Socialism - Nazi) managed to murder something over 100 million and cause a good deal of property damage while doing it. I suppose it would truly be a "Progressive world" today had Hitler won -- in which case I would dare not be writing this, thus proving (to some) that history had "gotten better".

So, most of us run around believing a theory that has no philosophical or religious grounding, and is absurdly false based on empirical evidence (see middle ages, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, 9-11, lite beer, etc, etc).

Why?

The biggest reason is that we WANT to see history that way and there are certainly a goodly set of people that would like to take our money to tell us that they are making "progress" (See Hitler, Stalin, BO, etc). What's more, they are very happy to indoctrinate us with a specific way of teaching "history" that makes it SEEM like the Whigs produced holy writ -- doubly dangerous, because it is what we "feel" might be right. It is like someone taught you day after day that the sun goes around the earth, and since it looks that way, you are VERY CONFIDENT that you KNOW the right answer!

Only you don't know the right answer!! You need MORE DETAIL. Which is where books like the Churchill biography come in. If you sit down and read DETAILED history about virtually anything, the "inevitability illusion" fades like morning mist at sunrise. You see that history is made up of individuals, countries, events, ideas and "fate" interacting in highly unpredictable ways. It is completely the opposite of "inevitable"!

In fact, what appears to be inevitable even moments before it happens OFTEN turns out to not even happen as it is OBVIOUS minutes, hours, days, etc before that it MUST happen!

The French could have ended Hitler by having one soldier march across the border to into the Rhineland, nearly everyone but Hitler thought that was "inevitable", but they failed to act.

Same with Britain making a treaty with Stalin prior to Poland being invaded -- it was OBVIOUS, only they didn't make it and the opportunity was missed.

Had Hitler not called a halt to offensive panzer operations on the 24th of May 1940, rather than 330K British and French troops being evacuated from Dunkirk, there could have been 330K allied forces killed or captured, enough at that stage to likely swing the war to Hitler.

I could go on and on from this book -- but there are A LOT of options -- Six Frigates, 1776, and Coddington: The Gettysburg Campaign  are a trio I would personally recommend ... and the linked reviews can give you a little ammo to take on the Whigs!

'via Blog this'

Eggs More Complex Than Entire Planet

The U.S. government is poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol - The Washington Post:

“There’s been a shift of thinking,” he said. But the change on dietary cholesterol also shows how the complexity of nutrition science and the lack of definitive research can contribute to confusion for Americans who, while seeking guidance on what to eat, often find themselves afloat in conflicting advice.

No, actually there tends to be ZERO "conflicting advice" among at least government funded "experts" ... they weren't in ANY doubt about cholesterol being bad! The rule of the "expert" is "Always certain, frequently wrong". Often, they are even willing to tell you "it's settled" -- not that we ever hear that in these "enlightened times".

No doubt this will go the way of "wait an hour before swimming or you will get cramps" -- absolute gospel back when us Boomers were kids, forcing us to sit on the shore for the mandatory full hour after lunch!

The list is a long one -- parents being told their babies MUST be on their BACKS ... an especially sore point for our family since 25 years ago it was every bit as COMPLETELY CERTAIN that kids MUST sleep on their STOMACHS! Naturally, our first son HATED to sleep on his stomach, so we had rolled towels alongside him to keep him on his stomach.

Crib death ... like autism and vaccines, or like early heart attacks is something that we believe "there must be a reason for", so we are very suggestible when someone gives us one. Our brains are wired to "look for solutions / rules of thumb" and IN GENERAL that is a highly adaptive trait.

A place it breaks down however is dealing with rare events, or events that take place over long periods of time.

Crib death is (thankfully) rare ... like plane crashes. Any new parent is afraid of crib death, so very suggestible. They want to do "everything they can" -- so they are prone (as we were) to believe what the "expert" tells them. BTW, there is some evidence that SIDS may be caused by the same gene that makes one susceptible to dying in sleep apnea.

When something is rare, it is harder to pin down a "cause", and indeed, the incidence may be so low as to not allow a "cause" to be found. The theory at the time we had our son was that the baby spit up and choked on their vomit when they were on their back ...

The danger of "the expert" like all con artists and confidence men is greatest when one assumes their own ignorance -- the idea that "the expert", MUST know more than "poor little me".

ALWAYS look for alternative views, historical wisdom, "laws of large numbers" , ie if the condition is very rare, then any attempt to "fix it" is highly questionable. If something like climate is known to shift over many thousands of years, then someone making claims of "climate shift" in a period of 100 years or less is lying to you for certain.

We could go on ... but for now, enjoy those eggs in good health -- turns out we are back to being as smart as we were 45 years ago.

'via Blog this'

TP: Think By Numbers

Obama’s Goldilocks Approach to Terrorism [Updated] | Power Line:

I suppose those old paint by numbers pictures may just be a figment of my youth -- they put numbers on little parts of the picture that indicated what colors you ought to use.

TP (The Party-D) through their own instruction and especially given the megaphone of the media does much the same with the minds of the easily led. The linked article gives a few  examples which I'll touch on, but then continue for a bit. My sample will be minor -- really the whole landscape of modern thought is carefully and oppressively created and numbered by TP.

• Terrorism -- NOT a serious problem. It is like "random crime". NOT to be worried about! (Pay no attention to that young woman just killed!) 
• Climate Change -- SERIOUS PROBLEM -- everyone needs to get wildly excited about this! RIGHT NOW ... why, in 100 years, it could be as much as a degree or two warmer!! ( the fact that it hasn't moved in 18 years is meaningless) 
• Vaccinations -- Anti-Science! ... er, well now it is. Pay no attention to Marin County, noted liberal enclave having vaccination rates like Somalia ...
• GMOs? Now THAT is some science not to be trusted! Oh, and fracking isn't safe no matter what science might say -- get your mind right!  TP CHOOSES which science is "settled" and which is not. 
• Oh, 50 million lives lost to malaria due to DDT ban? Never mind -- those are black lives that DON'T matter, just like the 6K young black men that shoot each other in our TP socially engineered inner cities every year! 
• 18 Trillion and debt and rising -- No biggie. Remember back prior to 2009 when any deficit at all ... including the W $175 B in '07 was a HUGE issue? Wonder what changed? 
• "1 out of 5 women raped" ... this is a MONSTER issue, it even needs BO to break into the Grammy's to cover it, of course it is completely false, but see Global Warming -- trust in TP!  
• The US is out of oil! ... Oh wait, it has a lot of oil -- and it is all due to the policies of TP! 
• The Keystone Pipeline is bad, Fracking is bad! Oil is bad! ... oh wait, TP is good! You might have to kinda fudge that mental square ... oil and everything to get it is bad, but $2 gas is good and due to the TP policies -- "somehow". 

If you listen to NPR and follow some right wing media, this is pretty much what the mental landscape looks like -- including HUGE gaps like 50M and 6K a year lives lost that nobody talks about!  TP presents the pieces of the picture they want to present, AND tells you what to think about what they choose for you to see.

It is easy to understand why TP believers hate Fox News, Talk Radio and Blogs so much!

'via Blog this'

How Can You Run When You Know? Thunderstruck

American hostage Mueller's death confirmed by Obama, family | Reuters:

"What if you knew her and saw her dead on the ground, how can you run when you know?"

Back when I was in HS the young were awfully anxious to go after Nixon and ill trained, wet behind the ears guardsmen no older than themselves who and killed four protestors at Kent State in a horrible accident. Mao, who killed 10's of millions was considered a great guy and so were war ballads against America.

Songs are powerful, I can still remember the strains of "Ohio" playing in the University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire student union as I toured the campus in preparation for college. It seemed so "revolutionary". The modern leftists cry of "Chicken Hawk" when anyone that thinks that Freedom, America, and young women like Kayla Mueller are worth fighting for.

Better to avoid getting on any "high horse" and claim that "bad things have been being done for a long time".

Better a "Chicken Hawk" than a Chicken Shit.

Had the current "Chicken Shit in Chief" kept just a few troops in Iraq, the rise of ISIS could have been prevented entirely, but now it will take a lot more sad and brutal deaths before we get back to more of aggressive ballad footing -- but here is a start.

Better to die with you finger on the trigger (preferably a BIG one) than on your knees, especially with your head being hacked off by a raghead in black.

'via Blog this'

"Coexist" Artist Beaten

Blog: Coexist graffiti artist badly beaten by Muslim 'youths':

When I see one these on a car I watch out for stupid driving  -- the bumper sticker proves the people in the car have no clue.



The simple proof is right up front, the crescent and star of Islam, the religion founded by a killer who consummated his marriage to his favorite wife (of many) when she was 9 years old and contains many references in it's holy books to taking the entire world by force and converting all to Sharia Law -- after which there will be "peace", but not before.



To show that symbol on the same sticker as the Cross of Christ, symbolic of the Son of God who died for the sins of the world, separated the ages into BC /AD, and is the reason for the tolerant western civilization that allows fools to drive around with such stickers and not be dragged from their cars and beheaded, is a testament to human obliviousness.



Christ didn't kill his enemies, he bled and died for them. To equate the first and last symbols on that sticker is far more wrong than to out the Star of David and the swastika on the same level and claim them "equivalent".



I can only imagine how Arabs feel about the Star of David being present -- a large number of them want Jews wiped out no less than Hitler did. In fact, it is the official policy of many of their countries.



The "peace" symbol, feminism, environmentalism, etc are mere noise, but the sub message is that of John Lennon's  "Imagine" -- imagine it is all meaningless, there is ho heaven or hell, nothing matters, etc. John apparently died in the hope that litany is true. He had no idea he was checking out, but he likely bet his eternal soul on the airy wishes of "imagine".



So someone drives around in an EXTREMELY tolerant and law abiding civilization where the odds they can get away with having a bumper sticker displaying their self assumed superiority to all forms of meaning in life are great enough for them to feel smug rather than worried. All the while, with no awareness on their part, relying on the results of thousands of years of civilizing forces primarily the result of the people behind only two of those symbols -- the Star of David and the Cross.



So as the linked article mentions -- sometimes the lead symbol on the "Hit me, I'm stupid" joke on your bumper might take you up on it.



'via Blog this'

Churchill Biography, The Last Lion, "Alone"

http://www.amazon.com/William-Manchester-Last-Lion-Churchill/dp/B002NT6OK6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1423506309&sr=8-2&keywords=last+lion+alone+william+manchester

 A book, a man, a period of history that thrills the soul and fills it with sadness, compassion and  regret. A reading experience that consumed a lot of my life the past week and leaves me with a bit of the same feeling that one has upon returning from a wonderful vacation.  A true joy in reading.

To those that ever utter the thought "What can one man do"? or to those of us that ever get depressed feeling "Woe is me, nobody is on my side and my life is difficult", READ THIS BOOK!

 This volume covers the years that Winston stood alone in his dogged opposition to Hitler and National Socialism (Nazism) in Germany while the official policy of the world (League of Nations), and especially Great Britain was "appeasement". This was carried on vigor by the British prime ministers Stanley Baldwin and Nevill ("Peace in our time")Chamberlin in the '30s. Churchill, once a prominent office holder -- Chancellor of the Exchequer, First Lord of the Admiralty, Minister of Defense, etc, but has now lost face after the disaster in Gallipoli unfairly blamed on him, and his unpopular stand against releasing India from the Empire, as well as the fact that he is pugnacious, bows very few, and has a wit that can be very biting if you are on the receiving side of it.

Churchill is the lone voice crying in the wilderness on the subject of building up the military so Hitler can be stopped, and then when Hitler starts to take countries, as the voice saying that if Britain, France or some other alliance stands up to Hitler, he will be overthrown and the Nazi menace stopped. Nobody listens.

Churchill's finances were terrible at this time due to both is mismanagement and stock reversals in '29 and '38, and he nearly lost Chartwell (his home). He was forced to keep up a difficult writing and speaking schedule to bring in money to keep his family afloat. Old friends deserted him, his son turned against him, one of his daughters entered into a marriage that was doomed to fail and not approved by either Winston or Clementine. Life was not good for Winston in that period.

 If anyone had a cause for depression he did -- and while I know he had some very significant bouts at times in his life, this book did not dwell on any in this period in particular. He took some things hard, but he kept soldiering on. His family motto, "Faithful but Unfortunate" was very appropriate at this time.

While there are a NUMBER of times that Hitler could have EASILY been stopped, this discussion of his invasion of the Rhineland is especially instructive"

Hitler had acted in defiance of their advice [his generals]. The generals knew that the occupation, stripped of the Fuhrer's thespian eloquence and his hand-picked carefully rehearsed battalions now camped on forbidden soil, was a gigantic scam. By canceling leave and putting every trained poilu [French WWI infantry] into battle dress, France could retake the Rhineland in a matter of hours. Outnumbering the half-trained, inadequately equipped Wehrmacht ten to one, the French infantrymen would be supported by tanks and the finest artillery in the world. Blomberg [German general in Rhineland] had agreed to assume command only after receiving written assurance from the Fuhrer that he could take "any military countermeasures" he felt appropriate. If he so much as glimpsed a single French bayonet, he intended to beat a hasty retreat back across the Rhine.  

And that, in the opinion of the German High Command, would be the end of Adolph Hitler. 

That was not the last opportunity -- Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland each provided their own potentials for ending Hitler's reign, with very limited diplomatic and military actions well within the capabilities of Britain and France in even their woefully weak military status at the time.

In one of the saddest displays of spinelessness in human history, the appeasers were not convinced and as a result millions died needlessly.

We need to understand the times a bit -- the Oxford Pocked Dictionary, circa the 1950's:  "Jew, noun, a person of Hebrew race; figurative: unscrupulous usurer or bargainer; collop - Cheat, overreach"

Churchill would not allow Jewish jokes at his table, nor laugh at them with others. He also generally liked Americans and was 1/2 American himself. He was certainly an upper crust English Gentleman, but he was an original of one.

He was witty -- a wit that was often loved and often got him trouble, but in the end was just what England needed to get them through Hell. An example: "British leadership likes to take their weekends in the country, Hitler likes to take his countries on the weekend." ... it was witty and very true. The Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland ... all on the weekend, and it made it hard for Britain to take action -- not that the appeasers would have been so inclined.

The book is long but extremely well written, and it's subject and the period makes one see that God has moments where he is a playwright of exceptional timing and skill. We love the story of the person cast away, unsung, maligned, that returns against great odds and in twists and turns to lead the forces of good to triumph -- King Arthur, Joan of Arc ... right up to "The High Plains Drifter", and versions of nearly every action film. The bad guys always think they have won, but they overlooked that one guy ....

And so, it is with Churchill. The very day that the Germans are marching into France is the day that he is finally going to be named Prime Minister -- the government has fallen in debate over the past two days on the issue of Britain's response in Norway. What is now happening in France is a complete surprise.

On the morning of May 10th, 1940, with the news of the Wehrmacht on the move into France, a couple of service ministers enter the office of the First Lord of the Admiralty. Winston is aware at this point that the news of his elevation to Prime Minster will come that day, but he is going about his business as he does on every other day. The ministers note:  " We had little or no sleep, and the news could not be worse, yet there he was, smoking his large cigar and eating fried eggs and bacon, as if he had just returned from an early morning ride" ...he is reading his morning papers as he did each day.

Manchester seems a little disappointed ... he writes:

"Before the mists of legend envelop him, before he comes to power and assumes leadership of the struggle to crush the monster in central Europe -- while he is still so to speak, Drake bowling when informed that the armada has been sighted -- it is useful to glimpse the entirely mortal Winston. The vision is less than inspiring; unlike some earlier heroes, Winston is engaged in no mundane but memorable act when the news arrives" ...

I disagree. While Winston is a bridge to the earlier ages -- a throwback to the Victorian era, he is also modern. He is more like Dirty Harry, being interrupted in his lunch or dinner and being called to stand alone and take down the bad guys.  But oh, with so much more eloquence!

As he rises in the House for the first time as PM:

I would say to the House,
  as I have said to those who have joined this Government:
       I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat ...

You ask, what is our policy?
     I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air,
         with all our might and with all the strength God can give us ...
            That is our policy

You ask, what is our aim?
     I can answer in one word: It is victory,
        victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror
            victory however long and hard the road may be
                 for without victory there is no survival.


The volume in which WWII is fought is on order and should show up this week. I'm anxious!

Heresy In Science? Ocean Volcanoes

Undersea Volcanoes Could Affect Climate Change : Discovery News:

Back in the old days when I was young, it was important to point out that science was always looking at new data, thinking new ideas, and a constant challenge to the world of religion and tradition.

Today, we know that science is settled however, it has become the religion and tradition of the day -- and while we don't burn those that question it at the stake (at least not yet), we do label them "deniers" and make constant claims that they are "dangerous" and ought to be removed from any position of power and social interaction if possible.

The climate-driven rise and fall of sea level during the past million years matches up with valleys and ridges on the seafloor, suggesting ice ages influence underwater volcanic eruptions two new studies reveal. And because volcanic chains suture some 37,000 miles (59,500 kilometers) of ocean floor, the eruptions could pump out enough carbon dioxide gas to shift planetary temperatures, the study authors suggest.

In what used to be science in my youth, this is called data -- in the same way as CO2 levels, we have to be VERY cautious of an old element of science called causality, as in "correlation is not causality"!

It turns out that ice cream sales and drownings are correlated -- when ice cream sales go up, drownings go up, and when ice cream sales go down, drownings go down. The way the human brain works -- always looking for "explanations", it is easy to jump to the "aha! ice cream CAUSES drowning"!

But alas -- for the "aha person", and WHEW for the ice cream lover, both are "caused" by a third factor -- hot days, which sends people to the beach and makes them crave a cool treat. I'm rather surprised that drownings and obesity have not yet been blamed on "global warming" -- most everything else has!

So while this article would lead you to think that the volcanism is caused by the ice advancing and receding, it may well be the other way around -- or both just a symptom of some other common factor.

Another heretical thing to say today is that it C02 in the atmosphere may well be an effect of warming as opposed to a cause -- as ocean water warms it can hold less gas so it releases it, and as it cools it can hold more so it stores it  -- so C02 may well be an effect of warming as opposed to a cause.

Humans are searchers for causality however -- we want to know Why? -- so it is very easy to get the masses to jump to the idea of causality for C02 and completely ignore the more likely factor of it merely being an EFFECT of climate cycles.

Ice ages are driven by regular variations in Earth’s orbit. These changes in tilt, eccentricity and orbit create climate cycles that last 23,000 years; 41,000 years; and 100,000 years, respectively (at least for the previous million years). Sea level may rise and fall by some 330 feet (about 100 meters) during these climate swings.

Hmm, only "Ice Ages" are driven by these regular variations? How about the interglacial warm periods? Have they in the past been driven by neanderthal campfires?

In the "good old days" of long ago -- like the 60's and 70's, it was very important to point out how DANGEROUS  religion was, since it encouraged people believe in "dogma" that could prevent them from having an "open mind".

The fact is that humans tend to be dogmatic. We have a need to have "models/stories/explanations" that are "good enough" to let us live our lives. There are problems when ANY part of society is too strong, because when people get into power, they tend to get very fixed about whatever it was that put them in power and don't want changes that might reduce their status. The idea is to have church, press, branches of government, a market, etc to prevent any one element from gaining too much power and preventing society from moving, growing, changing, competing, etc.

So, when the Catholic Church ruled, it was dogmatic and wanted to keep power. Science was the upstart. Today, science is right up there with modern expanding Statist Government as being masters of the world, so unsurprisingly, science has become dogmatic.

While religious dogmatism CAN be bad, unless the church IS the state, it is not of much significance -- at least for Christianity, the important part of religion is eternal, and the kingdom is "not of this world".

"Scientific dogma" however is a dangerous oxymoron -- it removes the primary focus of science which is hypothesis and experiment, and replaces it with dogmatic writ, inquisitions and name calling -- denier being the new witch. Dogmatic science is no longer science -- it trades the very essence of science for short lived supposed power.

'via Blog this'

High Horseshit

Man on a high horse | Power Line:

It is hard to imagine being any sicker of listening to BO bloviate, but it just goes on and on.

The Crusades were a DEFENSIVE war -- Islam had Spain and was moving into France. The forces of good in the west have had a hard time getting going for a long time -- and then we navel gaze about if we were "too harsh" for a thousand years and more.

WWII was a defensive war too. We didn't get really going until Hitler had France then as well. It is true that Hitler was generally much nicer than Islam -- he did his genocide behind as much of a veil as he could rather than in high definition video. He and Islam strangely share in hatred for the Jews -- and like Hitler, they like killing Christians as well. For some reason, evil has tended to agree on the killing of Jews and Christians for a very long time!

It seems that BO must be both an extreme narcissist and INSANE. How else can one possibly explain him talking about being "on a high horse" and not figuring out that **HE** is the most out of touch human on a "high horse" since Adolf? He can't possibly be so stupid as to not realize his king of the world posturing ... which leaves us with ????

No doubt future "National Socialists" will hold our harsh treatment of der Fuhrer against us as well. The forces of evil have always been attached to the concept of moral relativism.

'via Blog this'