Homeland

For much of the past 5 years, my absolute favorite TV show has been Showtime's Homeland.  The first episode of the current season, (season 5), contained a scene that I felt was one of the best from a series that has won Emmy's and had many great performances.  Every season has seems to contain plot lines that are ripped from current events.

Since this episode aired earlier this year, it has become prophetic.  The scene was probably written and shot a year ago, however the content seems to be a fresh as today.  I found the clip on YouTube and offer it here.

Quinn is a CIA agent called back from Syria to report to superiors on the progress of America's "strategy" there.  I apologize for the language.  Keep the volume low but make sure you can hear it.

Yes, I am a Denier

Much of the following blog was lifted from a great article titled "Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global Warming Industry" written by Alex Newman.

This week, while world leaders attempt to dictate regulations to save the world from climate change, seems to be a great time to describe why I proudly label myself as a denier.  It's really pretty simple.  Mankind, in it's pride, believes that we have the answers.  We don't.  The best proof is to look back on the predictions made by the prideful and see how they turned out.  Remember that in this case, past results are very indicative of future results. Paraphrasing the article referenced above:

I am old enough to remember the chicken little predictions of the 60's and 70's.  Back then, global warming wasn't the bogey man.  Instead, it was global cooling.  Dire global-cooling predictions were hyped and given great credibility by the mainstream media. According to the man-made global-cooling theories of the time, billions of people should be dead by now due to cooling-linked crop failures and starvation.

“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000,” claimed an ecology professor at the University of California in 1970. “This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Of course, 2000 came and went, and the world did not get 11 degrees colder. No ice age arrived, either.

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Program warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions. The organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable in terms of producing “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas.

The 2005 their predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.

By now, according to their scaremongering report for a 10-year time period, the world should be a post-apocalyptic disaster zone. Among other outlandish scenarios envisioned in the report over the preceding decade: California flooded with inland seas, parts of the Netherlands “unlivable,” polar ice all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures. Mass increases in hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters were supposed to be wreaking havoc across the globe, too. All of that would supposedly spark resource wars and all sorts of other horrors. But none of it actually happened.

For well over a decade now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past. In March 2000, for example, a senior research scientist, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, predicted that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”

The very next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent. In 2008, perfectly timed for a “global warming” legislation debate in Parliament, London saw its first October snow since 1934 — or possibly even 1922, according to the U.K. Register. By December of 2009, London saw its heaviest levels of snowfall in two decades. In 2010, the coldest U.K. winter since records began blanketed the islands with snow.

In early 2004, the several self-styled “experts” warned that skiing in Scotland would soon become just a memory, thanks to alleged global warming. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry,”.  Another “expert,” Adam Watson with the Center for Ecology and Hydrology, predicted the skiing industry in Scotland had less than two decades left to go. Yet in 2013, too much snow kept many Scottish resorts closed. “Nevis Range, Ironically, by 2014, the BBC, citing experts, reported that the Scottish hills had more snow than at any point in seven decades. It also reported that the Nevis Range ski resort could not operate some of its lifts because they were “still buried under unprecedented amounts of snow.”

In 1988, a predominate global warming expert was asked by how the “greenhouse effect” would affect the neighborhood outside his window within 20 years (by 2008). “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water,” he claimed. “And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.... There will be more police cars … [since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” In 1986, he then predicted in congressional testimony that the Earth would be some two degrees warmer within 20 years. In recent years, after the anticipated warming failed to materialize, alarmists have cooled on predicting such a dramatic jump in temperature over such a short period of time.

Separately, another prominent alarmist, Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author, made some dramatic predictions in 1990 while working as “chief scientist” for the Environmental Defense Fund. By 1995, he said then, the “greenhouse effect” would be “desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.” By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska “would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” The situation would get so bad that “Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

Perhaps nowhere have the alarmists’ predictions been proven as wrong as at the Earth’s poles. In 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore, the high priest for a movement described by critics as the “climate cult,” publicly warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.”

Speaking to an audience in Germany five years ago, Gore alleged that “the entire North Polar cap will disappear in five years.” “Five years,” Gore said again, in case anybody missed it the first time, is “the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear.”

Gore, though, was hardly alone in making the ridiculous and now thoroughly discredited predictions about Arctic ice. Citing climate experts, the British government-funded BBC, for example, also hyped the mass hysteria, running a now-embarrassing article on December 12, 2007, under the headline: “Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’.” 

The following year, Gore made similar claims at a UN “climate” summit in Copenhagen. “Some of the models … suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore claimed in 2009. “We will find out.” We did.  It wasn't ice free.

Even more embarrassing for the warmists have been trends in the Southern Hemisphere. Of course, all of the “climate models” and “climate experts” and “scientists” predicted that rising CO2 emissions would increase global temperatures, which would melt the ice in Antarctica — by far the largest mass of frozen H2O on the planet. Indeed, the forecasts were crucial to many of the other predictions about surging sea levels and related gloom and doom.

The problem for global-warming theorists is that the opposite happened. Indeed, sea ice in Antarctica is off the charts, consistently smashing previous record highs on a near-daily basis. Sea-ice area in the south is now at the highest point since records began — by a lot — and the warmists are searching frantically for an explanation. 

In his second-term inaugural address, Obama also made some climate claims, saying: “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.” Ironically, all three of the examples he provided of what he called the “threat of climate change” actually discredit his argument.

As Forbes magazine pointed out last year, the number of wildfires has plummeted 15 percent since 1950, and according the National Academy of Sciences, that trend is likely to continue for decades. On “droughts,” a 2012 study published in the alarmist journal Nature noted that there has been “little change in global drought over the past 60 years.” The UN’s own climate alarmists were even forced to conclude last year that in many regions of the world, “droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter.”

Regarding hurricanes and tornadoes, it probably would have been hard for Obama to choose a worse example to illustrate the alleged threat of man-made warming. Contrary to predictions by global warmists, hurricanes and tornadoes have been hitting in record-setting low numbers. “When the 2014 hurricane season starts it will have been 3,142 days since the last Category 3+ storm made landfall in the U.S., shattering the record for the longest stretch between U.S. intense hurricanes since 1900,” noted professor of environmental studies Roger Pielke, Jr. at the University of Colorado, who last year left alarmists who had predicted more extreme weather linked to alleged global warming silent after pointing out the facts in a Senate hearing. “The five-year period ending 2013 has seen two hurricane landfalls. That is a record low since 1900.” After adjusting the data for trends such as population growth and better reporting, it appears that 2013 also featured the lowest number of tornadoes in the long-term record.

Why does the gross incompetence of climate change "experts" matter?  Because their myth will cost the entire world much of our accumulated wealth and future earnings.  If the climate dictators get their way, all goods and services will cost more, much more.  The cost of energy will multiply.  

No one is opposed to clean, renewable energy.  Many are opposed to foisting technology that is neither mature or cost effective on Americans before it becomes economical.  Doing so fosters crony capitalism, where government decides which industries and businesses are protected, and which are punished.  That is the current Obama energy policy.

Should we change society dramatically to avoid the predictions they climate alarmists make?  Well, based on their track record, would you buy a stock based on their tip?  Would you bet the American or world economies?  I wouldn't.  

Especially Thankful

I like to think of myself as a person full of gratitude.  I understand that much of what I have was given to me.  I once heard than when you see a turtle sitting on a fence post, you can be certain he was put there.

This year I am especially thankful.  A year ago I was in a miserable situation, working at a job I hated and for a company I despised.  I recounted my supernatural experience of moving to a better situation in an earlier post found here.  Since writing that, additional God Things have occurred.

I found myself with a new job and an overwhelming list of objectives to accomplish.  Alone I would not succeed.  But a plan become clear and I began recruiting former direct reports who were highly knowledgeable, experienced and extremely productive.  Four took the risk to leave their current job to join me in implementing a ground-up program at a new company.  Seven weeks after coming on board, incredible progress was made and plans to expand the original scope are now underway.

In addition to the normal list of things to be thankful for this year - family, health, employment, food on the table, and a roof over my head - I add being thankful for peace.  Peace of mind. I now realize that my personal series of miracles brings with them an understanding that this would not have happened if failure was going to be the end result.

I am a turtle on a fence post.

Polarization

It seems that America is as polarized as it has ever been.  The left and right don't often agree on anything.  It is easy to blame the other side for not being reasonable.  Some of the blame is understandable and justified.  There are far too many people who rely on the opinions of those who share their belief system and never bother to think for themselves.

It seems that our current polarization is largely caused by either principles or partisanship.  It is partisanship that closes minds and causes gridlock.  Polarization caused by principles is a good behavior.  We all should have a core set of principles used to form our own opinions.

Looking at our current political environment, I find it fairly easy to categorize groups of people who hold specific beliefs into the principled or partisan groups.  While not 100% accurate, progressive liberals tend to be more partisan that conservatives.  Conservatives tend to be more principled.  Even so, contradictions exist.  A conservative principle is the value of life.  We use this principle to form our beliefs on abortion and euthanasia, but not so much with the death penalty.

Contradictions abound with the progressives who more often than not, side with their political party leaders on most issues.  And the party leaders form their contrary positions based on what conservatives are for or against.  There are exceptions. While I personally detest the progressive liberal philosophy, those who form their progressive liberal position based on principle can be respected.

For example, I have no doubt that Bernie Sanders truly believes that a socialist society would be better than our current form of capitalism.  We know because he doesn't try to hide it.  He is very honest and open about his belief.  There are others.  Bill Maher and Micheal Moore do not leave any doubt on what they believe, however detestable.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the opposite. They constantly attempt to hide their true beliefs, and if cornered, change their story.  Obama could never have been elected if he had been truthful with the American people in 2004 and 2008.  Just how far left Hillary Clinton is cannot be ascertained since she constantly shifts her positions based on polling and audience.

The press can be the worst of partisans.  They typically side with politicians who have the same progressive liberal beliefs.  Examples can be found daily.  The mainstream press will attack conservatives on climate without ever questioning the malfeasance occurring within the climate science community.  Ben Carson can be attacked on fund raising or his recollection of 50 year old events, however the Clinton foundation raising $2 billion is never mentioned.  Nor is Obama's past relationships with communists and black liberation radicals.  The bias is nauseating.

Knee jerk, illogical reactions are also a product of partisan polarization.  We now live in a society where the inanimate gun is an evil object capable of killing.  A society where those who question traditional values and the rule of law are labeled as racist, homophobes and xenophobes.  This name calling has become reactionary, and is not based on principle.

Maybe America has always been polarized.  I know that in certain times, such as the period leading up to the Civil War, polarization was intense.  I wonder if that is where we are headed today?

I long for a time when everyone would recognize their own principles and form their opinions independent of the press and populism.  We would all be much better off.

A day after publishing this post, a definitive proof point emerges on the Democratic National Committee website.  There is now a website called yourrepublicanuncle.com that coaches progressives on how to discuss current events with conservatives.  If you base your beliefs on principles, do you need to be coached by a political organization?  Not unless you base your positions on a partisan basis only.

Gay Marriage

This summer the Supreme Court issued one of the least thoughtful rulings in history when they ruled that all states must recognize same sex marriage.  The ruling effectively struck down legally passed amendments to state constitutions (do you know how hard it is to pass an amendment?) and laws passed by state legislatures banning same sex marriage.  The ruling was poorly made and leaves a multitude of unanswered questions that will require litigation for the foreseeable future.

The case of the Kentucky county clerk, Kim Davis, who sat in jail for several days, held in contempt for not signing same sex marriage licenses, is but the first of many to come.  Davis holds that she cannot do what is against her religious beliefs.  The Supreme Court did not provide exception for religious belief, but did cowardly acknowledge there would be challenges based on deeply held convictions.  How this case plays out will largely determine if religious liberty will continue in America.  Will Davis become an example intended to keep other public servants in line?  If so, wouldn't that be the same as excluding Christians from certain public offices? Isn't that in itself discriminatory?

I am somewhat torn by the Kim Davis case.  I acknowledge her bravery to go to jail for her beliefs.  I also acknowledge that she is not doing the lawful work required by her elected position.  There has to be an accommodation made.  Accommodations are made by business and government organizations every day.  Ergonomic chairs are purchased for those with back trouble.  Work hours are adjusted to accommodate child care needs.  The list goes on and on.  There has to be an accommodation for someone who, due to religious conviction, will not perform new work that was not part of the original job description.  Anything less is a direct attack on religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court ruling was a great win for the LGBT activists.  To their credit, they worked long and hard to bring the case to the highest court and to sway public opinion to their side.  Public opinions shouldn't sway the justices, but it did.  The cowardice of the high court should have been, and could have been avoided.

Marriage has historically been an institution defined by religion.  The Bible defines marriage as between one man and one women, and uses marriage as an example of the relationship between Christ and his church.  Marriages have traditionally been performed in a church and led by a pastor.  Only recently has government played a role in marriage by establishing licensing standards and providing preferential treatment for married individuals.  Ironically, state government became involved in marriage licensing to restrict inter-racial marriage, not to expand the marriage definition. The net take away is that marriage was defined and administered by religion long before the American government existed.

The high court could have taken a more reasoned approach that deferred to religion by establishing a government definition of same sex union that offered the rights and preferential treatment provided by government laws.  This would have effectively created a firewall between the Biblical and government definition of marriage.  The benefit would be that religious freedom would be protected while societal trends of acceptance could be accommodated.  But that solution assumes the LGBT community would be satisfied with equal treatment by government.  Their activist wouldn't.  They want something much larger than the "rights" they appear to fight for.  They want complete and unequivocal acceptance of their lifestyle.

They use the courts and the media to fight for thought control.  Every public official or merchant who attempts to use a religious exception will be sued and shamed.  This is the fight that will continue until they feel completely accepted as a normal lifestyle. Every challenge, public or private, will be shamed.  Those who do not accept same sex marriages will automatically be labeled as haters and homophobes.  This is already happening. How organized religion reacts to this new persecution will be interesting.

Already many Christians have taken a live and let live position. Same sex marriage is driven by the homosexual agenda.  Homosexuality is sin, jut like lying, cheating and stealing are sin.  Homosexuals need forgiveness just like liars, cheaters and thieves do.  Should Christians be accepting of unrepentant liars, cheaters and thieves?

Christians must not hate.  Regardless, we will be called haters. Thank you Supreme Court justices.

The Candidates

Based on the implosion of Hillary Clinton and the un-electability of the old socialist Bernie Sanders, I am optimistic for conservative chances in 2016.  But the repubs have stacked a field of 17 candidates. There is a risk they will eat each other and diminish the repub chances for winning the White House.

The surprise of the candidate list remains Donald Trump. The mainstream media continue to predict he will soon step in it and fade away, even though evidence seems to indicate the more he steps in it (by their standards), the more popular he gets. Other media channels are shocked that he is still leading all repubs in the polls.  It's really not that hard to understand.  All you need to do is remember and assess the mid term elections of 2010 and 2014.  Both were landslides for repub candidates, from national to local races.  Most were elected after campaigning on stopping Obamacare and stopping Obama's open border policies.  Conservatives sent these representatives to Washington for one explicit purpose - to stop Obama.

What did they do?  Nothing!  At every opportunity, the repub controlled house and senate failed to follow through on the campaign promises.  And we the constituents are upset.  Our support is gravitating to the only candidate that speaks our thoughts. Will it last?  Maybe.  It's still 5 months until the first primary, and 14 months to the election, so anything can happen.  If the repub leadership wanted to destroy the Trump candidacy (and they do), all they would need to do is follow through on their campaign promises. If Obamacare was defunded and the open border policies rescinded, if we were seriously building a wall, Trump would fade away.

I am still sorting through how I would feel if Trump became the repub nominee.  On one hand, he has the business savvy that Obama lacks and may be the right mix of pragmatism and business acuity that America needs. On the other hand, he has baggage that makes his commitment to conservatism questionable.  That baggage might prove embarrassing in a general election where his enemies could revisit his past.  Yet, to date, these issues haven't seemed to dent his support.

The one lasting change I would love to see as a result of the Trump candidacy, would be a pledge by all candidates to tell us what they really think. If that were mandated, we would not have lived though the worst presidency in American history.  If Obama had told us that he would ram Obamacare through in the dark of night with preferential treatment (bribes) to get the needed votes, if Obama had told us he would stop enforcing immigration law, if he would have told us he would light the White House in rainbow colors to celebrate the same sex marriage Supreme Court ruling, does anyone think he would have been elected?  I'm dreaming now.

Most surprising repub primary news has been that Ben Carson has solidified his #2 position.  Early Ben Who? was barely drawing a few percentage points of support until the first debate.  I think he was unknown until then, but now occupies the same "political outsider" turf as Trump.  Carson seems to be a good man with a great story, and conservative ideals. I could definitely support him as the nominee, but do question if he is prepared for the job.  The last thing we need is another 4 years of on the job training. 

If I were forced to vote today for one of the 20 candidates, 17 repubs and 3 dems, Carly Fiorina would be my choice.  If you have ever seen her handle a tough question, you have no doubt that she has a sharp mind with great articulation.  She is a bulldog that will challenge the media and make her points.  She is conservative.  My only concern is that some believe she wasn't that great of a CEO at Hewlett Packard.  That could hurt her later if she faced a polished politician with some executive experience.  

The primary goal of conservatives must be to defeat progressive liberals, Clinton, Sanders, Biden, and retake the White House without losing either legislative house.  Only then could real conservatism be implemented.  In the end, we may think that Obama was a good president in that he ushered in a new era of conservatives.  But I'm dreaming again.

New Job

Surprisingly, a friend told me a couple days ago that they miss my blog when I don't post for a while. I haven't posted for 6 weeks or so.  I know it is hard to believe that somebody misses my blog, but if I hadn't heard it with my own ears, I would not have believed it myself.  So I immediately began thinking of something to write about.  I have intentionally avoided political posts after realizing that I probably offend a few friends and family, but that can't continue too much longer.  The political current events are calling me.

For now, just accept that I still believe Barack Obama has solidified his place as the worst president in American history, liberal progressives (the democrats) are the vermin in American politics, and I will have more to say on these beliefs soon.  On a lighter note, I have a new job and the atmosphere is so unlike anything I have recently experienced, I will take a few minutes to describe it.

Remember where I came from.  My prior position was with a foreign-owned company that had no clue of how to keep an American workforce happy.  Their belief is that if you pay a competitive wage and offer good benefits, your employees will be loyal and happy no matter how often they are beaten.  Nothing can be further from the truth.  If employees are not made to feel valuable, if innovation is stifled, if bureaucracy rules and there is little to no autonomy, the work environment will become toxic and morale will submarine.  I know because I worked at that place for almost 6 years.

Without forgiving them, I will say I understand why they do stupid things.  They are part of a service business with ever increasing pressure to do more work for less money.  Knowing they could be replaced, they automatically agree to doing more for less whenever asked.  It's not a sustainable business model, but some publicly held companies only think of the next earnings release.  The result was that as a manager, I was repeatedly asked to motivate a workforce that was asked to perform heroic efforts daily, with no reward system.  The executive leadership would pass mandates down to management and let it be known that we should salute or be replaced.  In March, I left behind the most frustrating job I ever held.

Then after a 4 month "sabbatical" and PTSD recovery period, I stepped out of a time machine. Nearly everything I remember from my 15 year career in cable TV (19 years ago) was different in the cable TV world of 2015.  The technology had advanced by an order of magnitude, the company had evolved into what appears to be a well run corporate entity with mature HR and financial tools, and a host of support organizations that did not exist way back when.  And even though the new company is shareholder-owned, they don't seem to behave as if the next earnings announcement is the only priority.  Revenue and margins are healthy, and good projects get funded with minimal effort.

I haven't seen a single example of onerous expense control.  I have traveled twice with only cursory approvals.  I spent nearly a half million dollars in my fourth week justified only by my need for manpower to produce results.  I posted three job openings, then expanded it to 5 as an opportunity presented itself.  My only effort was to describe the need and the strategy to my leadership chain.

The result of this environment has been that a program the company had talked about implementing since 2007 is now making substantial progress.  All that was required of them is autonomy and resources, something that did not exist in the prior job.

Will my working bliss continue?  Who knows.  A lot is changing.  We expect to be purchased early next year by another cable company, and that is an obvious unknown.  But my mindset has also changed.  Regardless of my negative experience in the prior job, I know that all companies are not as clueless nor as constrained as my previous employer was.  Time will tell, but for now, leaving my prior job and accepting my new job were great decisions.