Piltdown Man

I see the term "Piltdown Man" being raised in relation to the leak of information from the East Anglia AGW proponents' web servers. I agree that what's been revealed thus far strongly suggests a similar hoax, and that the revelation similarly damages the reputation of science. It is a violation of a social contract. There is at least one gargantuan difference, however.

The Piltdown hoax may have been intended to increase the fame and fortune of the perpetrators, but unlike the AGW puffery was not concocted in order to force the redirection of trillions of dollars and the reorganization of human society.

The strategy of AGW proponents has been to challenge the credentials, ethics and integrity of their critics - in synergy with with a continuing refusal to submit AGW evidence to scrutiny. AGW proponents regularly call skeptics "deniers" in order to connect them with those who deny the Holocaust; certainly suggesting that the "deniers" are willing to let millions die to defend not just the indefensible, but evil.

AGW proponents practiced a coordinated ad hominem effort to suppress debate. They pushed to define allowable debate as about integrity, not science. They are hoist on their own petard. These East Anglia narcissists and their fellow travelers put their own theories before their Muse, and serious doubt has now been cast on their character for:

• manipulating data - directly and through compromised computer programming
  
• subverting the peer review process - both to deny their opponents access to any debate and to denigrate them for lacking such access
• refusing to comply with Freedom of Information requests for the data and algorithms they used, and conspiring to delete material covered under such requests

Today's worthwhile read on this topic:
ClimateGate: The Fix is In

PS - Phil Jones comment, in the above link, that "the warmest year currently on record, [is] 1998!" is known to be untrue. He was repeting an error by NASA's James Hansen that has since been admitted. See James Hansen.

Thanksgiving

I am a grandfather for the second time.

Madelyn Grace was born at approximately 4:30PM EST. 6 pounds 11 ounces. 20 inches. Dark hair & eyes.

Mother and baby are doing fine.

East Anglia AGW, the heat goes on

-Never comment your code. It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.

-At least we know why the NYT didn't publish any of the emails.

-And I want one of these.
From the comments:

This illegal act of cyber-terrorism against a climate scientist (and I don’t think that’s too strong a word) is ominous and frightening. What next? Deliberate monkeying with data on servers? Insertion of bugs into climate models?

Too late, the guys at East Anglia already did all that.

-How the Science Gets Settled [Mark Steyn]
It's about the environment in just the same way Pelosi/Obama/ReidCare is about people's health.

-Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’
If they "shredded" FOIA'd data, yes, they should be charged. The worse crime, however, is the damage to science as a concept.

-And finally, one of those "rabid deniers" spoke at Hillsdale college in 2007:
Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?
S. Fred Singer
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Who's a "denier" now?

Even the New York Times finds the leak of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit impossible to ignore. I do not think this rises fully to being "coverage," however, and I note some of the reasons below.

I have included the full text of the Times article below because it usually disappears behind a subscription firewall in a short time.

The Times - "...skeptics, ... say [the emails] they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change."
One must wonder if the NYT would be as sanguine if something similar had been revealed about the "deniers," itself a revealing term about the mindset of planet Gore. The Times does not provide any of the actual email content so one might form one's own opinion about what the emails show. You'll have to go elsewhere for that coverage.

The Times - "Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp..."
If the gates were open, if the data were available, as they would be in the spirit and practice of science as it has hitherto been defined, no siege would have been necessary - or possible.

The Times - "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument."
Widely accepted by conspirators who've been lying. This is not "coverage" except in the sense of CYA. If anybody is in denial, it is not the skeptics.

The Times - ""The cache of e-mail messages also includes references to journalists, including this reporter, ..."
This reporter, whose ox has been Gored. Big mistake.

The Times - "He [Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research] said that he thought that the messages showed “the integrity of scientists. Still, some of the comments might lend themselves to being interpreted as sinister."
Yep, it goes to integrity of these "scientists" all right. And, yep, it's sinister.

The Times - "Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so until the present."
Uh, no the thermometers don't show that. They show the opposite for the last decade. Not to mention that we know another climate guru, Dr. James Hansen, has used bad temperature data purporting to prove 1998 to be the warmest year on record. NASA had to withdraw this claim when it was discovered. The best one can say about Dr. Hansen is that he's very sloppy. This did not stop him from calling for

the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming...

Maybe he needs to consider calling for the same for his East Anglia colleagues.

The Times - "[those who wrote the emails say they] ...did nothing to undercut the body of research on global warming."
What would then? Nothing. This is a claim that the theory is not falsifiable and therefore IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

The Times - "“Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works.”"
Newton released his methods and calculations and risked being proved wrong. These guys didn't.

It is not about personality, it is about character. Newton wasn't looking to preserve his gravity research grant status. Newton did not falsify data, or risk the reputation of science for personal gain. Newton spent a great deal of his career searching for evidence that would demonstrate alchemists were right about turning lead into gold. He could not find that evidence and did not claim he had.

One might say the NYT deigned to notice an elephant had materialized in their refrigerator, but calling this coverage is a stretch.

The full article:

Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: November 20, 2009

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”

Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.

Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them.

The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.

In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.

The cache of e-mail messages also includes references to journalists, including this reporter, and queries from journalists related to articles they were reporting.

Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach. They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic.

But several scientists and others contacted by The New York Times confirmed that they were the authors or recipients of specific e-mail messages included in the file. The revelations are bound to inflame the public debate as hundreds of negotiators prepare to negotiate an international climate accord at meetings in Copenhagen next month, and at least one scientist speculated that the timing was not coincidental.

Dr. Trenberth said Friday that he was appalled at the release of the e-mail messages.

But he added that he thought the revelations might backfire against climate skeptics. He said that he thought that the messages showed “the integrity of scientists.” Still, some of the comments might lend themselves to being interpreted as sinister.

In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide the decline” in temperatures.

Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirmed in an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.”

At issue were sets of data, both employed in two studies. One data set showed long-term temperature effects on tree rings; the other, thermometer readings for the past 100 years.

Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so until the present.

Dr. Mann explained that the reliability of the tree-ring data was called into question, so they were no longer used to track temperature fluctuations. But he said dropping the use of the tree rings was never something that was hidden, and had been in the scientific literature for more than a decade. “It sounds incriminating, but when you look at what you’re talking about, there’s nothing there,” Dr. Mann said.

In addition, other independent but indirect measurements of temperature fluctuations in the studies broadly agreed with the thermometer data showing rising temperatures.

Dr. Jones, writing in an e-mail message, declined to be interviewed.

Stephen McIntyre, a blogger who on his Web site, climateaudit.org, has for years been challenging data used to chart climate patterns, and who came in for heated criticism in some e-mail messages, called the revelations “quite breathtaking.”

But several scientists whose names appear in the e-mail messages said they merely revealed that scientists were human, and did nothing to undercut the body of research on global warming. “Science doesn’t work because we’re all nice,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA whose e-mail exchanges with colleagues over a variety of climate studies were in the cache. “Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works.”

He said the breach at the University of East Anglia was discovered after hackers who had gained access to the correspondence sought Tuesday to hack into a different server supporting realclimate.org, a blog unrelated to NASA that he runs with several other scientists pressing the case that global warming is true.

The intruders sought to create a mock blog post there and to upload the full batch of files from Britain. That effort was thwarted, Dr. Schmidt said, and scientists immediately notified colleagues at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. The first posts that revealed details from the files appeared Thursday at The Air Vent, a Web site devoted to skeptics’ arguments.

At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the correspondence as “just the way scientists talk.”

But on Friday, he said that after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for independent review.

He said some messages mused about discrediting him by challenging the veracity of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin by claiming he knew his research was wrong. “This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people’s reputations in very serious ways,” he said.

Spencer R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as “great material for historians.”

Scroll down to the next 3 posts to see actual "coverage," with the actual content the Times neglected to provide.

Update: 2:16PM
The WaPo is doing a NYT on the story. They are "covering" it in damage control mode.

They think the story is "Stolen e-mails reveal venomous feelings toward skeptics." ROTFLMAO

Update: 2:51PM
Now you can search the emails yourself.
Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

Candid conversations of co-religionists

Get your Global Warming junk scientist updates here.

Climate cuttings 33

Information just wants to be free

Powerline on the data that escaped in East Anglia. Nice extracts.
Global Warming Bombshell

Climate Audit:
Mike’s Nature trick

You can catch up on the entire story at Essex County Conservative Examiner:
Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

CRU director admits hacked files genuine

CRU files scandal reaches print media

"Hide the decline"

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

The University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit server has been hacked (this has been acknowledged) and the 61 megabytes of information extracted seem to indicate scientists there were conspiring to protect the theory that humans are causing the atmosphere to warm. I say conspiring because the emails indicate:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

Accuracy of all the leaked information must stand the test of further scrutiny. But, if it all turns out to be legitimate (we know some of it is), it is a heavy blow to Al Gore and the AGW faithful everywhere.

On the "this is believable" side of the equation we have the past practice of major environmental-panic industry grant recipients and US government employees financed by George Soros. For example, the consistent resistance of Michael Mann, Keith Briffa and James Hansen to provide the data and methods which would allow others to replicate their results.

The folks at East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit may well have boosted skepticism about the personal character of professional Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates to a whole new level. "To defend the 'science,' we had to hide the data."

Check these links for more comment in the next few days. Particularly Climate Audit and Watt's Up with That?

• A Dog Named Kyoto
• Climate Audit
• GlobaL Warming Politics
• Ponder the Maunder
• Prometheus
• Science and Environmental Policy Project
• The Reference Frame
• The Skeptical Environmentalist
• Watt's Up with That?

None dare call it capitalism

Government Electric

General Electric, Corporatist Welfare Queen

Show Trial

United States Attorney General Eric Holder, insofar as he's said anything comprehensible on the subject, indicates we have to try the man who plotted the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in New York to prove to the world that our justice system lives up to World standards. According to Holder this can only be accomplished in a civilian court and by granting full Constitutional rights to a confessed terrorist.

Some Americans are offended by this.

President Obama today told NBC “I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."

So which is it? We need to prove to the rest of the world that our Justice system is without peer, or we are having a show trial the verdict of which is predetermined?

RGN1 virus airborne?

RGN1 is Robert Gibbs' personal mutation of H1N1.

Solely from the transcript you'd think it had infected State Department spokesman Ian Kelly as Obama administration talking points get the better him because of some persistent questioning.

You have to watch the video to get the full flavor of Mr. Kelly's responses. He tries the talking points, but clearly does not buy them himself. He does his best, but he just can't say such silly things with a straight face. (Go to about 14:50)



If Mr. Kelly has contracted RGN1, the virus has definitely attenuated. He has the decency to be embarrassed. If only he had not said, "...we are less than a year into this Administration, and I think we’ve accomplished more over the last year than the previous administration did in eight years."

It would be nice to know who asked the questions that cornered Mr. Kelly. CSPAN does not provide this information, but the man should be asking questions in the White House.

H/T Commonsense & Wonder

Swindlers and looters and their allies

Ally Bank is probably as well known for paying overmarket interest rates on CDs with no early withdrawal penalties as it is for its commercials featuring cute children who are cruelly deceived by a smarmy adult. The commercials are very good, here is one example.


"Even kids know it's wrong to hold out on somebody. Why don't banks?"

Good question. Here's what Ally Bank is holding out on you in those commercials: Ally Bank used to be GMAC Bank. It is still owned by GMAC, an institution in which the Federal government owns a controlling interest - via the TARP bailout. GMAC has already received government bailout funds totaling over $12 billion and Federal loan guarantees for about $8 billion more.

At the end of October GMAC asked the Obama administration for another TARP bailout installment of $5.6 billion.

At Ally Bank's website they do acknowledge their GMAC heritage: "We are Ally Bank, built on the foundation of GMAC Financial Services."

The foundation of GMAC Financial Services?!? The ruins, maybe. If they'd said, "We are Ally Bank, rising Pheonix-like from the ashes of GMAC Financial Services through the beneficence, hard work and forebearance of US taxpayers," I would give them credit for honesty. They do not make any such acknowledgment. I think all taxpayers' names should be required by law to appear in the credits following any future Ally Bank commercials. This requirement would stop the commercials.

The Ally Bank website goes on to say:

We're a bank that values integrity as much as deposits. A bank that will always be open, accountable, and honest. Yes, honest. We won't deal in half-truths, kindatruths, or truths only buried in fine print. That's because we don't have anything to hide. We're always going to give it to you straight.

Apparently, they forgot the last lines, "We need another $5 billion. Ignore that GMAC guy behind the curtain with his hand in your pocket."

Ally Bank is willing and able to take on excessive risk because Uncle Sugar the Federal Government owns a controlling interest. Ally Bank is using your money to pay for the commercials and for high CD interest rates. But hey, the government-owner is regulating GMAC precisely, right down to the salaries of its employees. What could go wrong?

We have seen the benefits of this kind of "regulation" before. To recapitulate: Interest rates were held artificially low by the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were supported by Barney Frank in their complicity with the "collateralized securities" market, and ACORN intimidated private banks under the aegis of the Community Reinvestment Act - all of which resulted in the risky loans that created the real estate bubble. Now that GMAC is absolutely regulated via Federal ownership, they feel quite free to take on more risk than the market will bear. Why not? They're using your money. They can behave like they're Fannie or Freddie.

The American Bankers Association has an idea about problems that might arise:

"This aggressive deposit strategy is particularly egregious when it is used by a troubled bank in which the government holds a controlling interest," said ABA president and CEO Edward Yingling in a May 27 letter to Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chief Sheila Bair. "Such a bank is significantly shielded from investor and market influences that might otherwise act as a brake on risky financial strategies."
[The FDIC, BTW, is getting close to asking for its own bailout. -DH]

"Even kids know it's wrong to hold out on somebody. Why don't banks?" What kind of bank runs deceptive ads on your dime and then runs to the Fed for several billion more taxpayer dollars? A government owned and run bank, that's what kind of bank.

Shun Ally Bank. And complain to your Congressclunkers that as regulators they are incompetent corporatist cronies. They should shun bailouts. And re-election.

Remember and be Thankful

It is Veteran's Day. In Canada, today is Remembrance Day. Please observe a moment of silence at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.

In Flanders Fields
Canadian Army Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)

IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Obama/Berlin redux

I thought President Obama's "too busy to attend" stance on the 20th Anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall had quite plumbed his ahistorical depths and fully explored the psyches of his advisers. I considered it the final word, the last polished insult. I thought his refusal to grace the proceedings, contrasted with his daytrip to Denmark to lobby for the Chicago Olympics and combined with his upcoming journey to arrogate a Nobel Peace Prize, had settled the matter of "what is important." I was wrong.

The President did not think the message had been made quite clear enough. He appeared at the Berlin ceremony, larger than life, via a video. In the accompanying sound track he failed to mention Khrushchev, Gorbachev, Stalin, the Soviet Union or even East Germany. He made no mention of Presidents Truman or Reagan. He similarly neglected British Prime Minister Thatcher, Polish President Walesa and Pope John Paul.

In a speech on the occasion of the 20th Anniversary of a signature moment in the history of free men, the din of those omissions is hard to top; but he did manage it. Reflecting on world changing historical events, he said,

Few would have foreseen on that day that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it.

Few could have envisaged an American President so self-regarding as to bring himself up in the same context as the fall of the Berlin Wall after 10 months in office on the basis of his melanin content. Besides which, the assumption of such general ignorance and prejudice in those "long ago" days is not credible. I'm quite certain that if you had asked 1000 random Americans and Germans whether a woman from Brandenburg might ever lead Germany or whether a man of African descent would ever lead the United States, more than half of them would have been able to see both. Almost every one of them would have predicted a united Germany. Hell, the WALL JUST CAME DOWN.

A more pertinent question would have been how many people could have imagined the fall of the Berlin Wall from the perspective of 1969. There you have a hook from which to mention the leaders who most contributed to that fall; should you want to acknowledge this achievement.

Or how about this question? If you had asked 1000 Americans on the day after the Berlin Wall fell whether an American President would refuse to show up in person at the 20th Anniversary, how many would have said "yes"?

P. S. "Human destiny is what human beings make of it."

I like it. So did Obama. In a 3 minute speech he used the line twice. It's nearly soaring, but its biggest advantage is that it's clearly contentless. One could use it as an argument against Pelosicare and stimulus packages - or in favor of them.

The President neglects to specify which human beings are empowered to choose human destiny. On the evidence, he is not thinking of you or me. It's Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

Happy 234th birthday, Marines.

Semper Fi!

The Wall

TOC has mentioned Professor Paul Rahe before. Here is a must read analysis of President Obama's gestures.

Yesterday, I mentioned the President's midnight call to the Poles announcing his unilateral abandonment of the missile defense shield they, and the Czechs, had risked much to achieve. I forgot that insult was trebled because it came on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union's invasion of Poland. This could not have been accidental. It was certainly petty.

Poland has 2,000 troops on the ground with us in Afghanistan. Unlike France and Germany, their mission is to fight. Poland has seen 15 of its soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

Professor Rahe's point today is that President Obama's refusal to go to Berlin on the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall is a rejection of an achievement unequaled in the history of free men. Rahe's list of American leaders who fought to bring down that Wall constitutes a lesson in bi-partisanship, and is a catalog of mistakes from which the West learned hard lessons. The Wall was a powerful symbol of totalitarian thuggery. Fallen, it is an even more powerful symbol of freedom.

In 1963, President John Kennedy speaking in Berlin at the Rathaus Schönebergand said, "Ich bin ein Berliner."


In 1987, President Ronald Reagan, at the Brandenburg Gate, demanded of Mikhail Gorbachev, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"


In 2008, then Presidential candidate Barack Obama spoke at the Tiergarten, a few kilometers from his preferred location (the Brandenburg Gate, but his presumption was blocked by German Chancellor Angela Merkel). As a mere candidate, the plan to speak at the Brandenburg Gate was widely regarded as unseemly overreach.

During that Tiergarten speech Presidential candidate Obama said this, "I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions." An uttering so bland and general that it need not have been said of any democracy, much less of one's own on foreign soil.

Today is the 20th anniversary of the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, and President Barack Obama, who wanted to speak at the Brandenburg Gate in 2008 as a candidate, will not attend the ceremony.

This is the same President Barack Obama who found time late last month to take a day trip to Copenhagen to lobby for the 2016 Olympic games in Chicago. He had sent his close adviser, Valerie Jarrett, to lobby for a Chicago Olympics as early as June.

The contrast seems to say something about his priorities.

The fall of the Berlin Wall was the culmination of a decades long defense of liberty against tyranny. The fall of the Berlin Wall represented American leadership and determination in support of free nations' insistence on the dignity of man in the face of totalitarian butchers. The anniversary is no small thing to us and it is no small thing to our allies in Germany or Europe. Especially Eastern Europe. It's only a small thing to a small President.

All I can say is, "We're sorry."

Caution is as caution does

The Associated Press quotes President Obama about the Fort Hood massacre.

"We don't know all the answers yet, And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts."

Would that he had followed his own advice regarding Professor Gates and Officer Crowley.

The View from Dromore - Rule # 1: Tell them what they want to hear

Following is a letter received from Ontario which, I suspect, tells us more about our own stimulus packages than we'd like to know.

Duane,

An opinion on all this “jobs created / jobs saved” nonsense.

We have the same “stimulus” spending issues here in Canada, although we handle it a little differently. Up here, the Feds contribute 1/3rd, the Province 1/3rd and the local municipality 1/3rd. Even though these are 33¢ dollars from the perspective of our local municipality, we still have “skin” in the game – it’s not “free” money, just relatively cheap.

Last summer I wrote several stimulus grant applications (batted about .800) including one for the paving of a parking lot on behalf of my Township.

I won’t bore you with the details of our local Township politics, other than to say that there is a serious east / west split politically. The east has an urban centre which is relatively easy to qualify for stimulus funding and received considerable monies (I wrote some of the grant apps for those projects as well). The west is rural (although politically powerful), but has little (nothing?) that qualified. I was charged with “dreaming something up” for the west so that it didn’t look like the east was getting it all from a political perspective. I hit upon “recreation” as a defined use under stimulus funding guidelines and there is a parking lot beside a kid’s soccer field that needed paving. Was it a high priority (or even wise) use of stimulus funds? – I leave that conjecture to your readers.

When it came to the “jobs created” section of the application, I wildly guessed that 10 people might be involved in paving the parking lot. First, I had no idea how many people (nor did I ask – it seemed like a “reasonable” number) and second, I had no idea whether any or all of these people might have already been employed by the paving contactor or if their jobs were in some jeopardy if this two day project did not occur (nor did I ask).

Having spent about 20 years in municipal politics and administration, I am keenly aware of how to slant grant applications towards success - Rule # 1: Tell them what they want to hear.

We got the stimulus money for the parking lot and, no doubt, our Prime Minister (analogous to your President), our Provincial Premier (analogous to your State Governor) and their bureaucratic minions have included my “10 jobs” in their tallies and are delighted about how well their stimulus spending is working.

I realize that this makes me some kind of “K Street whore”, but we now have a paved parking lot. In my own “whore” defence, it gets a lot more use than Murtha’s airport in PA. I see he’s putting in a backup runway in case the barely used primary runways fail. Good thinking Jack! Is that pork I smell?

Ours was a tiny tiny project in the overall scheme of things, but I write to warn you (although I doubt you or your TOC readers need to be warned) to be very sceptical of any “jobs created / jobs saved” numbers coming from your Administration. It’s largely smoke and mirrors.

I know. I’m part of the smoke up here and I doubt it’s much different down there.

Don Seim

Just Words

Our President has subjected us to a wearing parade of oversights, sleights, and pettiness - at once vacuous and calculating – a tendency that seems to lay close beneath his intellectual patina. I say calculating rather than accidental because it has become impossible to imagine these blunders are not deliberate. This is insensitivity masquerading as cluelessness.

Large policy errors can be understood within the overarching sweep of an ambition to “remake this country,” but when the tiny things at the edges, the easy to avoid slips and smallness, continuously suggest that the clothes have no emperor, it is disquieting.

Some examples:

• The DVD package, for the wrong region, he gave to Prime Minister Brown after returning a bust of Winston Churchill which had been in the Oval Office on loan from the UK.
  
• The picture of the soles of the President's shoes while he's speaking to the Israeli Prime Minister.
• Flipping the bird to Hillary. It's the childish “I'm clever” grin and the crowd reaction that makes the case the gesture was no accident.
• Calling the Poles and the Czechs in the middle of the night to tell them he was scrapping anti-missile deployment the next morning.

Sometimes he even acknowledges mistakes. President Obama actually apologized for jokes about Nancy Reagan “speaking with the dead” and comparing his terrible bowling skills with the Special Olympics. He “clarified” remarks about his grandmother being a “typical white person,” and tried to recast a comment about his opponents bitterly “clinging to their guns and religion.”

Most of these cannot be written off as accidental cluelessness. The most recent one surely resulted from a plan. You might argue the planning itself was uninformed by reality or responsibility, but it was premeditated: Our President's first remarks on the shootings at Fort Hood.



All of TV breaks to cover his words, and he speaks for 2 minutes before mentioning the murders of American soldiers on a US Army post in what, at that time, had to be considered a possible terrorist conspiracy (and it was a terrorist attack, even if not an al-Qaeda conspiracy). Before even a nod of reassurance to Americans, who were only watching because of that attack, and before acknowledging the sacrifice of those American soldiers, President Obama thanks the conference organizers and Department of Interior staff. He gives a "shout out" to some Tribal Nations Conference delegate as a winner of a Congressional Medal of Honor (false, the President confused a military award with the Medal of Freedom, a civilian award). (Applause) Then he thanks the attendees and assures them, "[I]t's not the end of a process, but the beginning of a process" (Applause) “...every single member of my team understands this is a top priority for us."

At this point the President mentions himself in a clumsy segue from the cozy repartee; "...[B]eyond that, I had planned to make some broader remarks about the challenges that lay ahead, ...but as some of you might have heard, there's been a tragic shooting at the Fort Hood Army base [sic] ...my immediate thoughts and prayers are with the wounded and the fallen" Well, yeah, "immediate"ly after the implied apology for failing to deliver his "broader" wisdom on the "top priority" conference items. And all of you "might have heard" about it 2 minutes earlier if our Commander in Chief had had the sense to make that tragedy his immediate priority.

This is one more demonstration of tone-deafness on the part of the man himself, and it is an indictment of his advisers, by whose character and skill he invited us to judge him. None of them apparently thought the sole focus should be on murdered American soldiers.

Skipping the folksy, campaign style preamble is what a CinC would have done. A CinC would not have been seen to regard the death of American soldiers as a contretemps.

When our President did get to the shooting the words were right, but delivered in the trademark boring, affectless tones and cadence so in contrast to the soaring rhetoric on things he cares about.

Apparently, being a Community Organizer teaches one the square root of zero about leadership. The leadership qualities required at ACORN seem to be quite different from those required to lead America's Armed Forces. Or the free world.

It's what he's tone-deaf about that's worrisome.

Kimberly Munley - hero

If a beer in the Rose Garden were a collegial sort of thing, where you need not consort with your assailant, I'd say Kimberly Munley is a cop who deserves one.

The woman who stopped a mass murderer

Clunker

Congressman Mike Rogers wants me to know he is opposed to the Pelosi health care bill. More power to him. I applaud his opposition to it. Here's what the Congressman sent me today:

I write to update you on recent developments in the health care reform debate in Washington, D.C. I appreciate the opportunity to contact you.

As you may know, House Democrat leaders recently introduced another massive health reform bill. This legislation (H.R. 3962) clocks in at 2,000 pages, $1.2 trillion in new spending, and over $400 billion in cuts to Medicare services for seniors. The bill also includes over $700 billion in new tax increases, clearly violating President Obama's pledge to not raise taxes on middle-class families. I wanted to share with you a list of the tax increases found in H.R. 3962:

Small business surtax (Sec. 551, p. 336)- $460.5 billion
Employer mandate tax (Secs. 511-512, p. 308)- $135 billion
Individual mandate tax (Sec. 501, p. 296)- $33 billion
Medical device tax (Sec. 552, p. 339)- $20 billion
Annual cap on tax-free FSAs (Sec. 532, p. 325)- $13.3 billion
New taxes on HSAs (Sec. 531, p. 324 and Sec. 533, p. 326)- $6.3 billion
Tax on health insurance policies (Sec. 1802, p. 1162)- $2 billion
Other tax hikes on U.S. job creators (Secs. 553-562)- $56.4 billion
Other "revenue raising" provisions- $3 billion

TOTAL TAX INCREASES $729.5 BILLION

To read more about the Democrat health legislation, please visit my website at mikerogers.house.gov and click on "Health Reform Update."

Rest assured, I will continue to oppose plans to raise taxes and put the federal government in charge of America's health care. Instead, I will continue to work on bipartisan solutions that will enact real health reform - lowering costs, expanding access and improving care for all American families.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to contact you. You can also follow my efforts on YouTube (RepMikeRogers) and Facebook (Mike J. Rogers). Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call on me.

Sincerely,

Mike Rogers
Member of Congress

Well and good. However, opposition to the health care fiasco is pretty easy. Opposition to the cash-for-clunkers program, on the other hand, was impossible for Congressman Rogers. He wrote me earlier extolling the virtues of that program. So, here is my response to today's email:

Dear Congressman Rogers,

Thank you for your steadfast opposition to the Democrat plan to nationalize the health care industry, raising health care costs and taxes, and reducing the quality and availibility of health care. The principles of small government and a commitment to liberty are clear in your position on this.

I wish I could have written "your principled position." I could not, however, because of an earlier email wherein you took credit for the cash-for-clunkers program. What difference is there in principle between health care takeover dollars the money dumped into cash-for-clunkers?

Your eager support for cash-for-clunkers has two unfortunate consequences. 1) It makes you seem like a Jack Murtha, but lacking the gravitas to obtain really district-focused pork and, 2) it makes your opposition to spending and taxation on health care seem shallow, partisan and cynical.

Principles, Congressman, principles. There is no difference between cash-for-clunkers and health care spending except for the number of dollars.

23 Skidoo

I have more thoughts on the New York 23rd District House election to be settled tonight than I have time to put into a post.

However, Dede Scozzafava's endorsement of her putative Democrat opponent tells us the opposition to her candidacy was correct and that the GOP establishment which nominated her is not merely tone deaf, but possibly terminally stupid.

Yes in Dede, they should have realized the tea party and town hall protests meant people are fed up with those who support union thuggery (card check), massive deficits (the stimulus), higher taxes, and pork barrel cynicism (a la Jack Murtha). These were all Scozzafava positions. She was endorsed by ACORN and The Daily Kos.

The zombie Republicans will still vote for Dede, they won't even know she's withdrawn. They do not know that she is a DIMWIT (Democrat In Matters Which Impact Them). Lots of voters do, however.

When you hear the talking heads bemoan the loss of the "moderate" wing of the GOP, the coming disaster for Republican electoral prospects because they are being captured by right wing nuts, and the evil intolerance for dissent in the GOP, remember that none of them said anything similar regarding Joe Lieberman in 2006 when he was kicked out of the Democrat Party.

I have repeatedly said I would not bemoan, but cheer, the loss of the GOP as it is presently constituted. If the left, or pseudo-left, think losing that GOP is a problem for libertarians or conservatives, they just don't get it. They, and by "they" I do not mean simply the Democrats, delude themselves into thinking that seizing control of a morally corrupt system in order to maintain it is "serving the people." Let them then preside over its decline. I think I'll decline to participate.

Vicarious self-esteem

Posting has been relatively slow of late and will continue to be for awhile. I'm looking for a new career direction and the fall house and yard maintenance impinge.

However, here's a thought about a recent (Oct. 16-18, 2009) CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll.

"As you may know, the Norwegian Nobel Committee recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama. Do you approve or disapprove of that committee's decision to award the prize to Obama?"
Approve 42, Disapprove 56, Unsure 2

"Do you think Obama has accomplished enough so far to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, or don't you think so?"
Enough 32, Don't Think So 67, Unsure 1

"Regardless of how you feel about Obama, do you feel proud that a U.S. president won the Nobel Peace Prize, or don't you feel that way?"
Feel Proud 70, Don't Feel Proud 29, Unsure 1

On average 61.5% of those Americans surveyed think the President did not deserve/should not have received a Nobel Peace Prize. Nonetheless, 70% of those same Americans take pride in the accomplishment. How can you be proud of an award you've identified as undeserved? How proud are these people that Dhimmi Carter received it?

Seems like Americans have been well steeped in the leftwing political view of affirmative action narcissistic pride individualistic jingoism unwarranted self-esteem "exceptionalism."

Canada Health Care - Recent News. And some from here, too.

Except for 1 nod to The Wall Street Journal, please note that all sources are Canadian.

Canadians face 16-week wait for surgery: Report
Calgary Herald
October 29, 2009

Canadians looking to undergo surgery can expect to wait an average of 113 days in 2009, a slight improvement over last year, a national health-care survey has found.

The Fraser Institute's annual report on hospital wait times found that the median wait-time for Canadians seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment is 16.1 weeks in 2009, down from 2008's 17.3 weeks.

..."In spite of large increases in health spending, Canadians are waiting 73 per cent longer for surgery than they did in 1993," said Nadeem Esmail, author of the report and a director with the right-wing think-tank.

Province Wants to Sell Surgeries to Saskatchewan
TheTyee.ca
October 29, 2009

People from Saskatchewan may soon be coming to British Columbia for surgery, if negotiations between the two provincial governments are successful.

B.C.'s health minister, Kevin Falcon, said selling surgeries will bring money into B.C.'s system and help British Columbians get care sooner. But New Democratic Party health critic, Adrian Dix, said the plan makes no sense when health authorities are already cancelling surgeries for British Columbians.

...The move comes while health authorities are cutting the number of surgeries they provide, said NDP critic Dix.

The Fraser Health Authority has said it will cut as many as 9,900 surgeries because of budget constraints and the Interior Health Authority has cut 428 orthopaedic surgeries before the end of the fiscal year, he said.

Across the province, there are 15,000 people waiting for orthopaedic surgery, Dix said. The figure is confirmed on the province's waitlist website.

"They cancel 10,000 surgeries for us and they offer up those surgeries to people in Saskatchewan," said Dix. "When you offer up spaces to people from other provinces, then those are spaces that could and should be taken by the people who paid for those hospitals, paid for those operating rooms, paid for that capacity, and that's the people of British Columbia."

Tommy Douglas: Not Dead Enough
smalldeadanimals.com
October 29, 2009

There are 1,100 vaccination clinics open in Alberta today.

Manitoba opened to the general public yesterday. Pharmacists can give the vaccine.

And in Saskatchewan?

Nope. Allowing anyone even a sniff of vaccine outside of the Official Health Care System would be "two-tier" health care. So if you want a vaccination for H1N1, you have another two week wait before the vaccine is "released" to the general public. And in Saskatoon, they're going to have everyone - which will include many who are incubating and infectious - congregate at a single site Prairieland Park) to receive it.

Declining Standards of Canadian Health Care
Canada Updates
October 25, 2009

Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux—a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body—and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment.

But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin’s insurance didn’t: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies—in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.

Can there be the slightest doubt that government subsidy brings government control? If you are wavering on that question, you should read what the US government does with car companies, where, unlike health care, it said it does not want to be in the car business.

Politicians Butt In at Bailed-Out GM
The Wall Street Journal
October 30, 2009

Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg was no fan of the $58 billion federal rescue of General Motors Co., saying he worried taxpayer money would be wasted and the restructuring process would be vulnerable to "political pressure." Now the lawmaker says it's his "patriotic duty" to wade into GM's affairs.

...Probably no company has been more on the receiving end of congressional attention than GM, whose widely scattered factories, suppliers and dealership network put it in touch with nearly every U.S. congressional district.

Ask yourself 2 questions.

1. Given how the US government has maneuvered Medicare into bankruptcy, and given how the US government is currently handling the automobile manufacturing business: If you could, would you switch your health care services to Medicare just before $500 million dollars are cut from it?
2. Will Congress accept exactly the same health care entitlements they want to force on us?

If you answered either of those questions "Yes," you need medical attention immediately.

One indication of the level of nanny state control we've been paying our national legislators to develop for most of the year: The 1,990 page bill (H.R. 3962) will require nutritional labels on food dispensed from vending machines. Since you probably cannot see what's printed, in 4 point type, on the package inside that vending machine:

In the case of an article of food sold from a vending machine that—

(I) does not permit a prospective purchaser to examine the Nutrition Facts Panel before purchasing the article or does not otherwise provide visible nutrition information at the point of purchase; and

(II) is operated by a person who is engaged in the business of owning or operating 20 or more vending machines, the vending machine operator shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button that includes a clear and conspicuous statement disclosing the number of calories ...

This is what Congress thinks of as health care reform. The number of calories for vending machine snacks have to be displayed, so before you select "Deep-fried Twinkies" or "Unsalted Chocolate-covered Bacon/Cheese Sausage/Reject Bits," you'll be able to compare caloric content.

Let me suggest that the only people interested in this information are people who would prefer to starve to death rather than eat from a vending machine. Well, they are also interested in what you eat from a vending machine, but isn't that the whole point? All in all, though, this is small stuff. A half... no, a quarter-measure.

Consider that minor adaptations to vending machines would allow detecting your weight and height. Certain combinations of weight and height could be refused service for certain snacks. If you persist despite a recorded warning, you don't get a snack and you don't get a refund, that's a "trying to game the system" fine.

A blood pressure cuff and blood sugar testing device could be installed in the snack delivery opening, and if you fail to meet a government determined ratio of these numbers you can't pull your arm out until you drop the snack. You don't get a refund, and the snack is donated to People for the Ethical Treatment of People for third world disposal. That's a healthy living tax.

Finally, while we're talking about whether your body is your property, can we at least recognize the threat posed to the pregnancy termination advocacy industry?

It was something that got into your body that caused that medical condition, wasn't it? How it got in there can effect very different outcomes. To ensure choice at the earliest stages, and to avoid the necessity of FCC monitored wireless personal-implant electronic devices, the caloric content of a unit dose of semen alongside a warning of the risks of pregnancy must be tattooed on all male, um... biologic delivery systems.

We can probably persuade condom manufacturers to subsidize the tattooing. It's a natural advertising opportunity for male enhancement.

Pragmatic Pathological Narcissism

The persistent disconnect between President Obama's actions and the interminable rhetoric of his perpetual campaign derives from an unshakeable faith in his own transcendence. This dogmatic self-regard renders him unreflective: His predisposition to regard his intelligence, charisma and rhetorical ability as decisive in human history makes him ready clay for the stylings of David Axelrod, Rahm Immanuel, Jeremiah Wright and Chris Matthews. It even explains his recent overtures to "real journalists" like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

Barack Obama strongly resents any entity that doesn't love him more than he loves himself. "As much as," might keep you off the enemies list, but it won't get you a beer in the Rose Garden unless you're a cop he's strongly suggested is a racist (without any evidence) or a Harvard professor friend who actually displays racist behavior.

The President truly believes he can succeed, by force of personality, in unconditional negotiations with Iran. His own faith in his personal charm allows him to abandon allies in Poland and Checkoslovakia to the mercies of Vladimir Putin.

The President believes supporting a totalitarian dictator wannabe in Honduras is the right policy because it will endear him to his base - and, by extension, to Hugo Chavez. Worse, Obama believes that to be an important duty of a US Commander in Chief.

President Obama is considering foisting upon Afghanistan a ruling partnership - including the Taliban - because he truly believes he has made America more likable to the world; thugs and terrorists not excepted. He believes our Afghan allies won't be shot and hung up to rot for the crime of US alliance. He will simply say "Stop!" and 14th century thinking will be magically transformed into progressive multi-culturalism. Afghanistan will immediately become a place where the education of girls is no longer despised and where gays are no longer thrown off towers. One wonders why he has not already done this.

On foreign soil, the President has serially apologized for America's history. He has insulted the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, dissed the President of France, and made Leftwing American Jews, much less Israelis, wonder if Israel can depend on the United States any longer.

Obama can take all these risks because he is a true believer in himself. He thinks he is much, much more than the leader of the free world.

President Obama and American Exceptionalism
By Robert Heiler

Several pundits have observed that the rhetoric of candidate Barack Obama has differed considerably from the conduct of President Obama's administration.

...Why is Obama acting this way? Why is he failing to live up to the promises of his campaign?

There are two possible reasons: extreme cynicism or breathtaking naiveté. Obama either never intended to behave as he campaigned, or he did intend to. If he never intended to, then he is a cold, calculating manipulator of the political system and the noblest aspirations of the public. But if Obama did intend to transform our politics and is now finding that he is unable to do so, he may be even more dangerous

Because if Obama really bought all of his own hype, then he must have thought that his opposition and the public would forever remain in the thrall exhibited by some at his campaign rallies. This is what the McCain campaign was getting at with the Paris Hilton Celebrity ad and the "cult of personality" attack. And here is the key to understanding why Obama might have really thought that he could sustain his presidency with the power of personality cult: his utter rejection of American exceptionalism.

O's embarrassment
By MICHAEL BARONE

...In the Tiergarten, Obama spoke of "the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan" and of the need "to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda" there. That doesn't mesh well with his recent reconsideration of the Afghanistan strategy he announced in March and reiterated in August or with the White House spin doctors' suggestion that the Taliban and al Qaeda aren't necessarily allies anymore.

In the Tiergarten, Obama asserted his "resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must and to seek a partnership that extends across this whole continent." That doesn't mesh very well with the "reset button" policy toward Russia that looks past its attacks on Georgia and Ukraine and propitiates the Putin regime with unilateral withdrawal of missile-defense installations from Poland and the Czech Republic.

In the Tiergarten, Obama said America must "stand with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions." But that message, if sent, has evidently not had the intended effect on the mullah regime, which is drawing out negotiations while presumably continuing its nuclear program apace.

"Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran or the voter in Zimbabwe?" Obama asked in the Tiergarten. "Will we give meaning to the words 'never again' in Darfur?"

Well, the administration has toughened up a bit on its negotiator's recommendation that we give "cookies and gold stars" to the Sudanese regime that has terrorized Darfur, and our diplomats have tried to help out in Zimbabwe. But we haven't done much of anything for the dissident in Burma, and Obama, while truckling to the mullahs, showed stony indifference to the thousands protesting the stealing of the June 12 Iran elections.

Mark Steyn: Obama a tough guy, at least with Fox News

The most recent whine – the anti-Fox campaign – is, apart from anything else, unbecoming to the office. President Obama is the chief of state of one of the oldest free societies in the world, but his official White House Web site runs teasers such as: "For even more Fox lies, check out the latest 'Truth-O-Meter.'" It gives off the air of somebody only marginally less paranoid than this week's president-for-life in some basket-case banana republic ranting on the palace balcony because his interior security chief isn't doing a fast-enough job of disappearing his enemies.

Update 28-Oct 6:15PM Legacy defense? The legacy of nine months?

President Barack Obama has been in office just nine months and already he is defending his legacy, pushing back more aggressively against criticism of his record on health care, climate change, closing Guantanamo, reforming immigration laws and financial regulations and managing the war in Afghanistan.

For the past two weeks, as he’s jetted across the country to fill Democrats’ 2010 coffers, Obama has been test driving a new speech that sounds a lot like one he’d be giving if he were on the ballot next year...

Well, at least that Nobel Prize didn't go to his head or anything. That was for his future legacy.

Some health care premiums are more equal than others

Regional inequities in health care reform

In the pending health care bills, low-income individuals and families who buy health insurance outside employment will get large government subsidies. Those subsidies vary by locale. This represents a significant implicit policy decision with enormous distributional and political consequences. I don’t think most Members or their constituents have focused on this. I think they should.

In local, practical terms, this will mean that Lansing taxpayers will subsidize Detroit residents to the tune of nearly $2,000 per family per year. Grand Rapids taxpayers will subsidize Detroit residents to the tune of nearly $4,000 per year and Lansing residents by approximately $2,000 per family per year. (Click the opening link for more. Recommended.)

That's bad enough, but all Michigan taxpayers will be subsidizing health insurance in New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, among other States.

H/T Carpe Diem:

The average annual premium for individual coverage was $2,985, but ranged from a low of $2,606 in Iowa to $6,630 in New York. Family coverage ranges from $5,120 in North Carolina to $13,296 in New York.

Rather than promote competition by promoting a free market; i.e., by removing State borders as a limit to insurance companies offering health care, the Feds are going to redistribute your money into the most expensive health care plans. You can afford it, people in New Jersey need it. John Corzine is smiling.

This redistribution of wealth as health insurance is nothing new, of course, you're already paying for solid platinum Congressional health insurance, whose members are specifically excluding themselves from health care "reform" in the Baucus bill.

Where are the Dollar-a-Year men when you need them?

Who would have guessed that the position of CFO at Freddie Mac carried a salary of $23 million dollars? Nonsense, you say. Ross Kari, the guy they hired last week, is getting only $2.3 million in salary (plus a $2 million signing bonus)?

Well, yes, but Obama's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, proposes to cut executive salaries by 90% at firms receiving large government bailouts. Surely this applies to government employees at agencies bailed out to the tune of $51 billion and counting?

I guess good help doesn't come cheap.

Conspiracy of the herbivores

Cows are the only herbivores, aside from a select few Ralph Loren models, to fully grasp their own major existential problem. The "Eat mor chikin" ad campaign is proof enough. The cows (bovine), however, have missed the high concept.

Not to worry, Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale have pointed the way forward. In a study financed by the I am a Black Angus Society,

...and published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.

They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle's eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog's.

RTWT

The fact that the dog consumes oxygen and excretes carbon-dioxide is not apparently included in the "eco-footprint" calculations. It should be. A dog never born does not breathe, does not spew CO2. A dog in the stew pot has ceased breathing. The "don't eat a cow" advertising folks should take note. (Methane emission is another question, of course, but this is being worked on. Ungulants with less eruptive digestive processes are funding it.)

The Professors Vale published a small book entitled Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living which, despite its provocative title, suggests owning animals you can eat according to the folkways of Western Civilization. I have owned many animals you (at least I) can eat in that regard, and I have actually slaughtered and eaten a goodly number of them. I never considered them to be pets, however; I never named them.

As pets, ducks, chickens, sheep and rabbits (food animals with which I have extensive direct experience) are lacking in several ways. Their major deficiency is their inability to act as a pet. Dogs show enthusiasm in your company; cats, disdain. Both recognize you and can sustain a relationship. Ducks, chickens, sheep and rabbits can, at most, muster a distinctly violent Pavlovian response. Sheep, ducks, rabbits or chickens can't be pets in any serious sense of the term. This is why it is easier to eat them than dogs or cats.

Sheep are the least intelligent mammals I am willing to imagine, chickens are slightly dumber. Ducks fall between chickens and sheep, perhaps only because of better survival instincts (at least Muscovys). Domestic rabbits are docile and panic less easily than sheep, so rabbits actually can serve as pets to people who cannot distinguish live animals from polyester-stuffed replicas. However, the major problem with all of these herbivores is getting them house trained. Petdom is not possible without that. You can eat them, but you can't love them. (I categorically include rabbits here because only pre-teenage girls with a polyester fetish have ever taken care of a rabbit, as a pet, once they obtained one.)

Morever, these food animals cannot defend themselves. Dogs automatically protect the sheep, ducks, rabbits or chickens from those pesky coyotes, foxes and weasels. Cats automatically protect the food supply of these herbivores from rats and mice. So, unless you welcome the "defecate anywhere, anytime" animal contingent into your home, you'll need a dog and a cat anyway.

I am not entirely dismissive of the Vales' book title, however. I think raising dogs for food may be appropriate on the merits. In addition to being edible, the dog defends itself and its pack (of which you become a member). The best I've seen a sheep do is bleat piteously and run about blindly in a manner likely to knock you down, placing your throat in a more convenient location for the wolf pack. Should you survive this sabotage all you can do with the sheep, then huddling catatonic against your knees, is try to throw it to the wolves. Sheep are heavy. Even a successful throw does not gain much in the way of running distance.

Rabbits, ducks and chickens are not so heavy. For this reason they can be thrown farther, but they delay ravenous carnivores only briefly. This is yet another argument against dogs weighing less than 25 pounds - unless you keep two breeds - one for throwing to the wolves and one for a holding action against the wolves while you run. Dogs will actually do that for you. It's why I would not like to make a habit of eating them.

Dogs can be trained not to defecate or urinate in the house, and on a really cold night three of them can help keep you warm. I don't know if it is a characteristic of carnivores to be more fastidious, but you can let a dog or cat live in your house. OTOH, no amount of effort will stop a rabbit, a chicken, or a sheep from apparently unconscious defecation or urination. I admit humans have entertained these animals in their houses, but the development of the germ theory of disease has curtailed this activity more than somewhat.

So, raising dogs for food actually does make sense according to the Vales' idiotic study policy sarcasm and displays your own apocalyptic scenario good sense. It's only a prejudice of Western Civilization that you don't eat your friends, after all.

Think about it, while a docile sheep might have saved Jack London's protagonist in To Build a Fire, he had no possible reason for traveling with Ovis aries in the first place.

Your tax dollars at work - against you

Here is a heartfelt plea from your federal government to itself. The government asks you, the employer, to assist in the internal petitioning. It's as if the employees don't recognize their status and cannot recognize they should avoid blatant political messages. Inmates. Asylum.

Dear Mr. President,

We strongly support your commitment to comprehensive health reform.

This is not a luxury. The continuing, sharp escalation of health care costs for families, businesses, and government is unsustainable. Reform is imperative.

We believe that health reform must be enacted this year.

Reform is needed to help America's families struggling with rising costs and those who are losing their insurance. At the same time, real health reform is crucial to keeping American businesses competitive in the world economy and for the country's long-term economic viability. As our country faces economic challenges, the time for reform is now.

We support health reform that follows these principles:

• Protect families' financial health
• Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
• Provide portability of coverage
• Guarantee choice of doctors
• Invest in prevention and wellness
• Improve patient safety and quality of care
• End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions
• Reduce long-term growth of health costs for businesses and government

During these extraordinarily challenging times, we need to put aside past differences and address the health and economic crisis. Our shared interest must come before narrow interests so we can achieve a health system that is affordable and provides high quality for all Americans. We will support your budget with its reserve fund dedicated to achieving health care reform in a fiscally responsible manner. Each of us must be prepared to contribute to achieving this fundamental goal.

By signing this statement we affirm our commitment to work with you and our Congressional leaders to enact legislation this year which provides affordable, high quality coverage for all Americans.

Where did this come from?
"This is an official U.S. Government Web site managed by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services".

I think I will not sign the petition, even though they are keeping it on the up-and-up in the tradition of the Obama campaign's online credit card verification and ACORN voter registration practices: Please check this box to indicate that you are at least 13 years of age. Unfortunately we cannot accept submissions from children under the age of 13.

Mickey Mouse and the Dallas Cowboys starting lineup are all over 13. So is John Galt, whose identity I used.

Obamaganda, Mmm, mmm, blecch!

Fuggidabahdit Glenn.
Anita Dunn update:
White House boasts: We 'control' news media

Servitude is encouraged by bribery at the moment, so they'll already know your price.
Involuntary servitude update:
LEAKED NETWORK MEMO REVEALS: Obama Controls Your Television Set

All is not lost, even if Europe is.
Nobel Prize - domestic analysis update:
Unlike Obama, Americans Reject European Model

Jared Bernstein

Joe Biden has a chief economist? There's an oxymoron in there somewhere, and/or it explains quite a bit.

And how do you get that job, anyway?

Politicians and the consequences of lying

From The Belmont Club, The Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes.

Robert Reich has been widely quoted in the news and blogs lately, citing a 2007 speech he delivered at UC Berkeley in which he is supposed to have said of health care reform that:

• Younger people should pay more
• Healthier people should pay more
• Older people should just die- they’re “too expensive”
• There should be “less innovation” in medical technology
• You should not expect to live longer than your parents.

That is largely going to be interpreted as the “hidden truth” that the MSM doesn’t want you to know and to a certain extent it is, but not in the way the casual reader may understand it. Robert Reich was once my teacher and I knew there had to be more to it than that, and so I went to the source: ...

RTWT You'll need to to appreciate the following.

The post suggests that what Reich was saying was "telling the truth is electoral suicide." I think this is demonstrably naive. The idea that telling the truth is electorally irrelevant seems a lot closer to reality.

Put it this way, Barack Obama told us the truth over and over again and it was much clearer and starker than a thousand page cap-and-tax bill; "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted." Other truths he told us: "The Supreme Court, tragically, never spoke on redistribution." or, "Judge me by the people who surround me." or, "What I really favor is a single-payer health care system."

Even now, when he says, "If you want to keep your health care plan, you can," it's true. The unspoken implication that makes that so is, "It's just that it will bankrupt you or your employer."

On the evidence, I'm afraid politicians telling the truth actually doesn't matter much. Most American voters don't listen.

Anecdotes

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy has spoken with some Canadians about wait times for health care. This is anecdotal, of course, and you could certainly find stories in the United States that would tear at your heart. For example, Michelle and Barack Obama both tell an intensely personal health scare story involving meningitis and their daughter, Sasha. In fact, they tell two substantially different stories. Both are anecdotal. One can't be true.

Often, as any normal politicians would, the Obamas arrange for people to show up at their pressers in order to illustrate particularly poignant failures of the health care system in the United States. Several of these have turned out to be on the order of Al Gore's claim that his mother and his dog took the same arthritis medicine, and his mother was being ripped off. This was not the truth, but Gore said it was for a good cause.

Anecdotes from ordinary people do have their place, though, especially when not promoted and financed by government. Among many other Canadian health care related posts, I have conveyed my own anecdotes, having had 22 years experience with Canada's system. TOC has also had Canadian guest posts on the topic. This blog is interested.

So when Michigan Taxes Too Much posts Mackinac Center videos of Canadians speaking about their health care, I recommend a look-see. Click the link, but also click the link to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, in the blogroll or at the top of this post. They deserve your attention and support.

The reluctant hegemon

An important piece by Charles Krauthammer:
Decline Is a Choice

Insightful comment on the above:
Paul Rahe: Obama's agenda

Western Civilization, by-and-large this means Judeo-Christian tradition and mores, is beating itself into moral equivalency with all other socio-political-philosophic systems - real or imagined. We've already lost Europe. Thus, when American exceptionalism is finally not simply abandoned, but abhorred by its leaders, it is the philosophical abandonment of exceptionalism for Homo Sapiens. It is We the Living and Animal Farm.

Two related items noted without further comment or emphasis:

1- From the Announcement by the Norwegian Nobel Committee; The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009:

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

2- Barack Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood

Miss [Dahlia] Mogahed, [President Barack Obama's adviser on Muslim affairs] appointed to the President's Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was "oversimplified" and the majority of women around the world associate it with "gender justice".

The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.

The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.

Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir's national women's officer, Nazreen Nawaz.

The Cato Institute on Baucuscare

In the last post I noted that Megan McCardle was having difficulty making sense of the CBO estimates of Baucuscare. Cato points out that that is because the numbers don't make sense.

The Real Cost of the Baucus Bill: $2 Trillion+

The CBO scoring makes it clear that the Baucus bill's reduction in future budget deficits comes not from controlling government spending or reducing health care costs, but because of a rapid escalation in tax revenues

...its individual mandate pushes more than half of the legislation's cost off-budget, and onto businesses and individuals who will have to shoulder that burden.

Read the whole thing.

CBO analysis of the Baucuscare Bill; which doesn't yet actually exist as, you know, legislation

Megan McCardle is confused.

...Going by the fairly sketchy description, virtually all of the extra benefit appears to come from estimating that employers will see their health care costs fall, mostly because they put those workers into federally subsidized programs, pass the resulting savings along to their workers in the form of higher wages and salaries, and that the Treasury will thereby gain, at a rough guess, about $12-15 billion a year in tax revenues.

This is somewhat confusing to me. The CBO seems to be assuming it will get just about 20% of the amount spent on subsidies back in the form of tax revenues. But the effective income tax rate on the quintiles covered by the subsidies, according to the CBO, is less than 5%. Perhaps the savings comes from the payroll tax, but even including the payroll tax, it's less than 15%. And the tax rates are directly proportional to the size of the income, while the subsidies are inversely proportional. I'm sure I'm missing something that would make the math work, but I can't figure out what.

Well, who could? I mean, why would the evil corporations, including insurance companies and Big Pharma, suddenly decide to pass payroll savings on to their employees, especially if there's a new tax targeting them and the medical device suppliers? And if the Feds are only going to get back (a grossly exaggerated) 20% of what they spend, how is that an efficient use of tax dollars? Further, if this were successful, doesn't it increase the demand for health care expenditures while simultaneously raising the cost?

RTWT including the comments.

Torture

If TOC did quotes of the day, this would be today's:

As a very off-the-subject side note, the Atlantic cover story on torture contains this sentence, intended as part of its condemnation of U.S. interrogation techniques: "But 48 days and nights with no more than four hours' sleep every 24, combined with stress positions, hypothermia, and forced nudity, push these nuances over a line any decent person would acknowledge." Aside from the hypothermia, this is a precise description of the two-month period during which I gave birth to twins.

- Amy Ridenour at National Center Blog. RTWT

Could this be an explanation for why some women tell their husbands what they really think while giving birth?

Are you being served?

AMA Endorses Largest Denier of Health Care Claims

Report: Lansing may be 'overserved'

What do these two stories have in common? They're both about Medicare.


So is this update. 6:46PM 6-Oct
H/T JR

You Vill be Served!

EDITORIAL: POMS de terror

...The Social Security Administration has issued rules in its Program Operations Manual System (POMS) that state that "the only way to avoid" the hospital and outpatient services provided by Medicare Part A is also to forgo Social Security benefits that have been earned through a lifetime of payroll taxes.

What sort of insanity is it that the Social Security Administration will not allow you to opt out of Medicare without also giving up your Social Security benefits? The savings aren't big enough? They don't want to contribute to medical unemployment rates? They're arbitrary bureaucrats with an obscure agenda? To handle this their computer system will require a billion dollar upgrade? They are just not efficient, marketwise?

Maybe this is the waste and fraud our President has been railing about.

It reminds me of an old French saying: Pommes de la route.

The missing part is why the SSA won't let you forgo your Medicare benefits on their own. The Wall Street Journal mentions it here: Opting Out of Medicare, but without enlightenment.

The only thing I have found that is close to an explanation of this bureaucratic fiat is here (registration required):

Lawsuit Challenging Government Policy
Brings Renewed Focus on Private Contracting With Medicare Beneficiaries

A recent lawsuit filed by three Medicare-eligible individuals on October 9 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has brought renewed attention to private contracting with Medicare beneficiaries... If the plaintiffs are successful in this case, physicians, hospitals, and other providers may face potentially fewer obstacles and disincentives to entering into lucrative private contracts to treat Medicare beneficiaries.

Why private contracts should be more lucrative is not made clear, but I'm of the opinion it's because the health care is better.

This bureaucratic manipulation is a preview of Obamacare, where you also won't be able to opt out.

Tree Ringers

Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
-Matthew 13:10

If you ask a scientist for the data upon which he bases his theory and you are told, "You are not meant to know the mysteries," someone is not practicing science. Some anthropogenic climate change acolytes practice science with all the rigor of Fleischmann and Pons. Fleischmann and Pons did better though, they released their data almost immediately.

Flawed climate data

The Yamal implosion

The credibility of the Hockey Stick graph seems to depend on hiding the data. This does serious damage to the theory and to the scientists. One would think scientists considered reputation to be more important than theory. Oh, wait, they do.


Bad link fixed. 12:00PM 6-Oct