Friday, April 22, 2016

Happy Earth Day!

It is also Vladimir Lenin's birthday, and there is more than a little irony in that fact.

Being Earth Day, I am subjected to so much tree-hugger talk, especially this year as the Paris Climate Change Accord is signed. So much hoopla over a myth, a hoax, a theory so flawed you don't have to dig deep to see it. In fact, you can use scientific argument to expose the deep flaws in this "settled science".  Start with a review of the Scientific Method used to set up experiments and prove in or out a hypothesis.

The Scientific Method is a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

The theory behind anthropogenic climate change is that man creates carbon dioxide at levels high enough to create a greenhouse effect in the earth's atmosphere.  Their hypothesis is this effect traps sunlight, and thus heat, warming the climate, melting the polar ice caps, and incrementally increasing the global median temperatures each year. The famous hockey stick graph was produced from their model based on the hypothesis.

Then came a monumental problem.  The measurement and observation part of the scientific method returned results that did not support their hypothesis. If true science were employed, the scientists would reformulate and modify their hypothesis, create a new model and get back to measure and observe.  

Instead, they changed temperature data from the early 1900's so their model would appear correct. And they also doubled down on claiming their hypothesis was scientific fact, peer reviewed, and settled science, expertly using the Joseph Goebbels maxim:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Those who do not believe the state fostered myth are called deniers, and some have discussed criminalizing this speech (following the Goebells blueprint). When true scientific principles are applied to anthropogenic climate change, you begin to realize the theory can only be taken as a religious theory and not a scientific truth

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

The Land of Monkeys and Woodpeckers

My family is quite aware that I like monkeys. Whenever a monkey is included in a TV show, movie, or even a commercial, I pay attention.  Monkeys are comical, entertaining and downright cute.  I know that some think that monkeys are disgusting, filthy and aggressive, but those folks watch too much Naked and Afraid.  Real monkeys are fun.  I like monkeys so much that I nicknamed my youngest grandson Little Monkey Boy.  I like him too.



I also like woodpeckers.  Any animal that is designed to beat their head on a tree and survive, is special.  My family tell me it's not their head, it's their beak.  I consider the beak to be part of the head, so I am right again.  Whenever -T and I are walking around the neighborhood and I see or hear a woodpecker, I stop to watch and listen.  They are amazing creatures.  Recently, a woodpecker has started appearing outside my office window.  Can't get any work done while he is there.



-T and I are beginning to discuss where we might want to retire. Options include Basehor, Florida, the Farr basement or the Wilson's beach house. No decisions have been made.

Belize is now in the running since the habitat supports both monkeys and woodpeckers. My ideal retirement would be waking up to the rhythm of woodpeckers beating their heads on trees, and the melody of the growler monkey.  I dream big.

Monday, April 11, 2016

We are a Long, Long Way from Selecting a President

Every 4 years, we follow the constitutionally prescribed method of selecting a president.  In recent history, that process involves primary campaign, followed by a party convention, leading to nominees from each major party.  That's when the national campaigns begin.  Up until this year, we thought that a third party candidate was the only deviation that could create chaos. Boy were we wrong.

This election year is not normal. The traditional thought would be that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would be the major party candidates and would now be running national campaigns based on their delegate leads.  I am still one who believes that a Trump Clinton contest for president is still less likely than some alternative.

First take the democrat race.  Crazy Bernie is persistent even though he is almost mathematically eliminated from getting a majority of the delegates.  I believe he is counting on winning the FBI primary big, and finding an open playing field after Clinton is indicted.  Could happen, but I doubt if the party would allow a geriatric socialist to become their nominee.  I would expect plan B to install a Warren or Biden as the democrat nominee if Clinton can't run, or can't win.

The republicans seem bent on ensuring their delegate leader is replaced at the convention by anyone not named Ted Cruz.  Since the party selects the nominee, I like their chances of ignoring the primary voters, and installing their person as the republican nominee.  But another intriguing scenario could come into play if Clinton and Trump are the nominees.  That scenario uses the electoral college and rarely used constitutional prescription to elect someone not named Trump or Clinton.  Here is how that would work.

The electoral college consists of 538 elector apportioned by state, and based on population.  In order to win the presidency, a candidate must receive a majority, or 270 electors.  The scenario that could come into play this unique election year would be the very late entry of a candidate onto a few state ballots.  That new candidate need not win 270 electors to become president.  All they would need to do is win enough states, maybe a couple of medium sized states to avoid Trump or Clinton from reaching the magic number of 270.

For instance if this mythical late entry was able to win 25 electors and Trump/Clinton split the remaining 513, nobody would reach 270.  This is a very plausible scenario given that both Trump and Clinton do not have the devoted support of majorities.  So what would happen next?

The constitution would then place the responsibility of selecting the next president with the house of representatives.  Assuming the republicans still have control of the house, their choice would be between Clinton (not going to happen), or Trump (not going to happen either), or the mythical late entry candidate (could happen).

This may be the angle under consideration by Ryan or Romney.  Get their names on a few state ballots "just to keep the possibility open".  Then use the constitution to become elected without ever entering a primary. It could happen.  You see, we are still a long, long way from electing a president.

Friday, April 1, 2016

Defining Racism


DISCLAIMER: I am not an avid Trump supporter.  Ted Cruz is the candidate I would most like to see sworn in come January 2017.  However, if Donald Trump is the last man standing, I would vote for him over Hillary or Bernie, believing that choice is far better for America.

It is especially ironic how the definition of racism has become any disagreement with a person of color or different ethnicity.  If you disagree with Obama, racism has become the explanation given by the liberal progressive, i.e. democrat. Never would they consider that policy disagreement may be the root cause of the criticism.

Democrats running for national office have become very adept at labeling their opponents with names.  Remember how Sarah Palin was labeled as a stupid bimbo?  The label was a result of an effective impersonation by Tina Fey (and her uncanny resemblance) on a recurring Saturday Night Live skit. But democrats and liberal media replayed the skit often, and soon the democrat followers believed that Sarah was a dolt.

Now they are at it again, this time labeling Donald Trump as a racist.  The genesis was his speech given when announcing his candidacy. A sound byte, repeated thousands of times by the mainstream media and highlighted by democrat candidates, sounds like he is calling all Mexicans rapists and murderers.  He was not.  Reading his comments in context results in a far different message.

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.

Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. [pointing to hispanics in the crowd] They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

Trump's point was that Mexico is dumping their criminals on America.  Whether factually correct, or elegantly stated, the message is far different than what was reported by media and repeated by democrats. Yet, the label sticks.  Every time Trump mentions building a wall along the southern border, liberals shout racism. They no longer even refer to his remarks. They just call him a racist and it has stuck.

The irony is that democrats have a long legacy of racism.  A favorite quote from Dinesh D'Souza encapsulates the democrat party's history and hypocrisy.

“The Democrats want us to believe they're the party of equal rights and human rights and civil rights. The truth is the Democrats are the party of slavery, and Indian removal, of broken treaties and the Trail of Tears, they're the party of segregation and Jim Crow and lynching and the Ku Klux Klan, they're the party of Japanese internment, and opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Bill of 1968.  This is their actual history so what they do is they try to cover it up.”

Instead of labeling others as racists based on out of context quotes or simple disagreement, racism should be defined as the overt favoritism for, or bias against, one race to another. Using that definition, the irony expands to most of the democrat party.  BlackLivesMatter intones that only blacks are targeted by police, a theory that cannot be backed up with fact.  La Raza (The Race) inherently operates to lift up one race over all others. National democrat candidates sell their soul to these groups and others, (NAACP, National Black Caucus), who precisely fit this definition of racism.

My initial response to any politician who calls his opponent a racist or compares them to Hitler, is they really don't have a good argument to make for themselves.  Unfortunately there is a large percentage of Americans who hear the name-calling and mentally hang the racist label around a candidate's neck. To my disappointment, it seems to work.