I am in Favor of Climate Change

Recently, some hackers got their hands on some emails from an major Climactic Change research group, University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. These emails purport to offer proof of manipulation of data to support a worldwide warming trend. There are, of course, denials that this is what the emails mean, or that they are false, or that they are being "taken out of context".

I don't care. You see, I have a very different take on this which places me solidly opposed to radically changing our way of life in order to combat Global Climate Change (as it is now being called). I do believe that the climate is changing. After all, it is always changing. It isn't what it was less than a 1,000 years ago, nor what it was 15,000 years ago. It is different than when I was a child in the 50's. People complained then about it not being like when they were kids and blamed it on the Atomic Bomb testing.

The point is that our climate will change, just as it always has. I don't know if it's the fault of man's use of carbon based energy or because of the natural cycles or from anything else. And, frankly, I don't care. In most cases, the "cure" for a "crisis" is often worse than the crisis itself.

There are flaws in the arguments for radical change in how we produce energy for our power and transportation. I could point out the hypocrisy of man-made Climate Change advocates jetting around the world to preach their Gospel while owning multiple homes the size of which would make most ancient kings drool. I could point out that these people seem to be making fortunes from the movement. I could also point out that, not so long ago, the fear was of a New Ice Age caused by the "sins of man".

I am not opposed to seeking alternative fuel sources or alternative energy, or conserving or reducing energy usage. I see no great harm in that and some possible benefit overall. What I fear is the upheaval that comes from demands that changes must be NOW! or we are all doomed.

We are not doomed. We will not be swallowed up by rising seas. Because they will not rise by 20 feet overnight. It will take years, if it happens at all. People will move, dikes will be built to hold back the sea, homes will be built stronger to withstand the possible higher winds, and so on. As carbon fuels start to diminish, alternatives will become more desirable and will become more cost-efficient to produce. We don't need to be prodded into making radical changes, the sky is not yet falling.

I saw something the other night where it was pointed out that it takes some 200 years for changes in CO2 levels to take effect. That is, if we stopped producing excess CO2 today, it would be 200 years before they returned to their "natural" levels in the atmosphere. This does not make me optimistic that any changes we make today will matter in the long term. 200 years is a long time, and a lot can happen. A lot that can be found to have caused even more long term damage (or be believed to). Some of that damage may be caused by our own efforts to combat something we think threatens our existence.

Maybe we need a little harsher environment. After all, this one has been pretty benign and man has managed to rapidly advance toward over-populating the planet largely because of it. We conquered the great plagues of history which once decimated populations and kept us in check. We are learning how to curb wars, extend life, and improve living conditions. Maybe these have been mistakes. Maybe we shouldn't have tinkered with any of this.

Maybe we are parasites and need something to keep us in check?

Just a thought.

An Act of Terror or a Killing Spree?

That seems to be a question, according to various news sites and political polls. But does it matter? Is not a killing spree also an act of terror? It certainly is to those who are there as victims.

Maybe we ought to consider just what constitutes an Act of Terror. There are obvious components:

1. It is violent.
2. It is unexpected.
3. It creates an atmosphere of fear in its wake.

It is generally felt that the motivation must also be ideological in nature. There is no, according to Wikipedia, international agreed upon definition. I suppose that leaves it up to the individual. Some might look to government to determine the status of any given act. I tend not to but you may.

We know that Maj. Hasan's actions at Ft. Hood certainly fit the 3 components above. The question only seems to be whether he acted out of ideological fervor or just "snapped".

It appears to me that the administration is strongly against calling this an Act of Terror. That's understandable on a couple of levels (I'll leave it you to determine what those levels are). But there are indications that Hasan was at least inspired by the Jihadist ideology, if not directly ordered to commit the atrocity.

What better way to instill fear and suspicion in the military than to have one of their own commit such violence? Soldiers from here on will have that seed of distrust toward anyone looking Middle Eastern and/or practicing Islam. Most will deny it but I believe it will still be there.

Will we ever hear what Hasan himself thinks his act was?

I wonder. But I definitely think it was an act of terror, planned in advance, regardless of whether it was directed by any known (or unknown) terror group.

How Long is Too Long?

I tend to think of Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia as the embodiment of the Democrat Party and The Ultimate Politician. He has, as of yesterday, been looting the Treasury for some 57 years. He was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 40's, fought hard against the Civil Rights movement of the 60's, and has remained staunchly Democrat throughout. He has brought a lot of "pork" back to his state over the years and, therefore, has a lot of things named after him.

And how has West Virginia fared? Why it is mired in unemployment and misery, of course.

"According to U.S. Census Bureau data, West Virginia is the third lowest in per capita income,[33] ahead of only Arkansas and Mississippi. It also ranks last in median household income.[34] The proportion of West Virginia's adult population with a bachelor's degree is the lowest in the U.S. at 17.3%.[35]

West Virginia's GDP was $55.6B in 2006, which was a 0.6% increase from 2005. This makes growth rate for the state the 2nd lowest in the nation, ahead of only Michigan. However, by 2008, West Virginia was one of only four U.S. states to have a surplus state budget, indicating renewed economic growth." [wikipedia]

The one thing it has in great abundance, coal, is a major target of environmentalists. And something The Democratic Party is greatly opposed to. So that renewed growth will likely disappear during this recession. Yes, West Virginians have much in common with Michigan. They keep electing those who oppose the one thing that keeps their state from sinking into misery and despair.

And, thus, we have Robert C. Byrd. A fine example of political expertise and why I believe no politician should serve more than two terms in any office.

Terror Trial in New York?

I have been reading the opinion pieces and watching many of the opinion shows regarding the decision to try certain terror suspects in New York and find both arguments compelling.

Certainly, we should uphold our fundamental principles. We should not let acts of terror cause us to abandon our belief in certain rights and the concept of fair and open trials. Nor should we provide for our enemies a stage upon which to attack us while simultaneously providing them with intelligence about how they went wrong.

Which leaves us with a big dilemma: What is the proper thing to do?

I lean heavily toward the military tribunal method of dealing with terrorists, regardless of their targets. I do this because, for the terrorist, all targets are "military". We should, therefore, use that as our guide. I also do this because civilian trials for war crimes deemed to have civilian targets will only encourage the terrorist to select civilian targets. Why go after hard targets when soft targets afford you double rewards? First, the psychological impact on your enemy and, second, a propaganda platform when you are caught and tried.

What more could you want?

Yes, that's right. AG Holder (with the consent of President Obama) is playing right into the hands of Osama bin Laden and his ilk.

In effect, we are providing the rope by which we might be hanged.

The terrorists wish to destroy our system by using it against us.

The Decline of Civilization

The other day, I was watching one of the TV panels discussing the Ft. Hood massacre and terrorism in general and a common comment was made. It was about the goal of terrorism being to frighten us. That isn't the goal, that's the weapon. The goal is to make us lose our cohesiveness, our trust of anyone and everyone around us.

This was the real goal of of Maj. Hasan. To spread that particular fear among soldiers, to make them less effective when they are on the battlefield. To create a mindset which would allow mistakes in judgement to occur. Mistakes like Abu Graib, like killing civilians purposely (and, ironically, without purpose), and encouraging a prejudice against Muslims.

The purpose of the Islamic fanatic is to fan the flames of prejudice. That he also fans the flames of prejudice within his own religion is unimportant to him but is also part of the purpose.

The greater goal of terrorism is to de-civilize us. That makes us weak, it makes us look ugly, it makes us less human.

Not all Muslims are terrorist or terrorist supporters. I know that. You know that. Just as you know that not all Jews are bankers and cheap, that all Blacks are lazy or criminals or worse, that all the Irish have quick tempers and love to drink to excess, that all white people are racists... you can add as many as you like.

The problem is that enough are. And that number, however small, feeds those prejudices. In the case of Muslims, there are supposedly 1.5 Billion of them. If only 1% are willing to engage in terrorism, that means there are 15 Million terrorists out there looking for targets, learning to kill and die without regard, becoming (or have become) less than human to non-Muslims, greater than human to their supporters.

Non-Catholics cannot rid the Church of pedophile priests who comprise such a tiny minority, it must be done within the religion. Until there is an anti-terrorism movement within Islam, until a counter-movement to terrorism arises within that religion, nothing will change. All we can do is try to protect ourselves and those around us.

And things will only get worse. I fear we are standing on the edge of civilization and are peering into the Abyss.

The Circus is Coming to Town

Start getting ready for a real circus. It appears that New York City will host a trial that will make the OJ Simpson fiasco look like Judge Judy.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-naw-gitmo-trial14-2009nov14,0,1355520.story

I can envision wall to wall coverage, cameras in the courtroom (or not), protests outside, cable news channels filled with survivors and families/friends of those killed on 9/11. It will go on for months. We will all be reminded of the horrible events of that day and we will also see and hear and read about the planning that led up to it.

I think the administration believes it will act as a kind of closure. It won't. But it will be a way to distract the angry masses from paying attention to the disaster that is the economy. For a short while anyway.

Pay close attention to what is happening in the background, unrelated to the trial or 9/11. Don't be distracted by what's happening in the center ring.

My first prediction is that the trial news will kick up heavy as the 2010 primaries begin, and stay strong until those are decided. The next increase will happen conveniently close to the elections.

Save this blog. Let's see if I am wrong.

The War With Foxnews Escalates

In the following article in the LA Times...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-fox7-2009nov07,0,7720786.story

...we find that apparently (or "allegedly" if you prefer) the White House has taken to not so veiled threats to Democrat pundits about appearing on Foxnews channel's shows.

The White House denies this, of course. But would you expect them to admit it? Of course not.

Welcome to Chicago style politics.

From the article:

The White House aide said: "Where some of the falsehoods become dangerous is when the rest of the media accepts them as fact and reports on them, either out of a desire to tap into Fox's news audience -- which you can understand, given where circulation and viewership rates are -- or as some sort of knee-jerk fear of being considered liberally biased, which is what conservatives have been saying of the mainstream media for years."

All the White House has to do is reveal these falsehoods. Yet they have yet to do so. Instead, they continue to make these accusations and try to bully the rest of the networks' news organizations from also investigating. If the reports at Fox are really false then the other news organizations' investigations would reveal that. So what could the White House really be afraid of?

You guessed it... The Truth.

.