Timothy Birdnow

Timothy Birdnow

Many years ago I worked for an ambitious grocery chain in the St. Louis area. This chain sought to control costs in a number of novel ways, and to pass the savings along to the customer. Instead of opening the cases of food and hand stacking the items, the stock clerks simply sliced them open with razor blades and put them on the shelves, grocery sacks had to be purchased and nobody bagged up the customer’s orders, etc.  One of the biggest savings, though, was in labor costs; the company saved a fortune by employing primarily part-time workers with just a few full time supervisors.  Why did this save so much money?  Because they did not have to pay for health insurance for the majority of their employees.

Rick Moran recently wrote a good piece questioning the Obama plan to count all workers when assessing penalties for businesses with uninsured employees under Obamacare. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/should_part_timers_be_counted.html

Rick makes a logical conclusion;

“To sum up: Obamacare will penalize businesses for not insuring part time workers who, in most instances, aren’t insured anyway. And the reason for the extra penalties is that they are paranoid.”

He’s right, of course, but this should not surprise, as the Administration is full of union people who have experience with the imposition of healthcare mandates. The company I used to work for defied them for quite some time, employing just a handful of full-time people. This was done primarily to circumvent the health insurance mandates imposed by the unions (although they could hire part time help at a lower rate of pay, which did not hurt their bottom line).

The union in question - the United Food and Commercial Workers - eventually attempted to push back and cost me my job.

They decided to push for universal health insurance in the industry, and intended to compel my employer to accept this as part of a new labor contract. My company was not part of the “Masters Food Agreement” that the other chains were contractually bound by, and they intended to use us to spearhead this plan. Well, the company could not afford to pay health insurance for all employees, and so refused to sign any agreement while slying seeking a non-union buyer. After three years they sold out to an out-of-town firm that immediately busted the union out, and I and all of the rest of my co-workers found ourselves unemployed.

The union understood that they could only get full-time employment for it’s members by making ANY employee receive health insurance; without that, the company would simply cap worker’s hours. Most of the people who worked for that chain had to stay under 25 hours a week or be signed up for the insurance, so most of the employees were college kids and working mothers.

Obi-Bam Baloney’s scheme would drive full time employment away; most companies would use part time help wherever and whenever possible, and the union people who are advising BHO know it. This would be catastrophic for his plan, as he would fail to get enough people on the rolls to cement this thing in place, and he would find a very angry electorate full of people who lost their health insurance as a result of this dastardly scheme. This is something that must be truly universal, or it will fail.  And, of course, that is the whole point of mandatory health care. Everybody plays, everybody pays.  A loophole for part time labor would wreck the whole scheme.

Isn’t that typical of leftism? We must all be chained equally!

Timothy Birdnow

In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, King Arthur does battle with a very confident knight, slicing off the man’s arm. Said knight refuses to acknowledge that this is a serious blow, calling it a flesh wound, so Arthur proceeds to cut off the other arm and then both legs.  At this point, legless and armless, the knight agrees to call the battle a draw.

The Global Warming crowd has become similarly deluded.

Global Warming is based on a number of computer models, models which make predictions that simply do not reflect reality.  There has been no “hot spot” in the tropical troposphere, despite predictions by all models.  The Antarctic is not warming. The oceans are not warming appreciably.

If the models do not mirror reality, then the fundamental theory is flawed.

But it gets worse - much worse.  Meteorologist Anthony Watts did a survey of temperature stations in the United States and found astonishingly bad conditions; many stations were sited next to heat sources, or blacktops, and many more were simply not being used properly.  The number of stations has dropped precipitously, too, and Watts - using the NOAA standards that are supposed to apply, found temperature bias that may be as high as 6* Fahrenheit. Go to www.surfacestations.org to check his results.

But then came Climategate; e-mails from Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia showed that Jones and his center were systematically distorting data to, in his own words “hide the decline”.  CRU is the source of most surface data used by climatologists, and so it becomes obvious that the concept of warming is unsupportable in any case; there is no way to know what the planet’s temperature is, since data has been purposefully (and accidentally) distorted.  Also, the other outfit processing raw surface data is Nasa’s Goddard Institute, a place run by a loud mouthed alarmist named James Hansen and his lackeys who run a website that was founded to defend the several times discredited Hocket Stick graph. And satellite data was processed based on information from the surface data, making even the satellite data suspect.

Phil Jones admitted we have not had any warming since 1995, and that, yes, the Medieval Warming Period was hotter than today.

We have also learned that the IPCC - the U.N. commission tasked with studying Global Warming and considered the definitive voice on the matter - had become a political cesspool, with environmental activists writing large swaths of the reports, particularly the critical 2007 report. For example, there was a claim made that by 2035 the Himalayan glaciers would be completely gone. Turns out this is based on an interview by a reasonably obscure scientist who conjectured (without any scientific basis) that the glaciers would melt in 2350, not 2035 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm and this was purest speculation, yet it made it into the report. The Indian and Chinese governments were livid; they have both been saying (and rightly so) that there is no evidence of any large-scale melting in the Himalayas.

The president of the IPCC had to resign as a result of this and other whopping mistakes.

Numerous influential papers have been shown to be based on cherry picked information, and when all is said and done there is no evidence that there has been any global warming whatsoever.

The information that has come out is not a few stray mistakes; they strike at the heart of the entire theory, and any other theory so seriously flawed would be consigned to the ash-heap of history. Global Warming is different, because it is the tool that Globalists have developed to fundamentally reorganize human civilization.

That’s why I find it so ridiculous that the politicized scientific community continues to move forward as if nothing has happened.

Consider this article.
http://www.physorg.com/news187431085.html

Here we have a piece in physorg claiming that we must double down on our reduction of carbon outgassing because we have reduced air pollution, allowing more sunlight to reach the Earth and increase, drumroll please, Global Warming!

Here are a couple of snippets:

“Their calculations show that in order to prevent an increase in global temperatures of more than two degrees we will have to reduce CO2 emissions by an additional 50 million tonnes to compensate for the increased solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface”

{…}

“The statistical analysis in this study uses solar radiation data over a forty-year period. Based on these data, the researchers at Tilburg University conclude that, given the increased levels of solar radiation, existing global warming forecasts for the next few years could be far too conservative. They claim that in order to compensate for the increased levels of solar radiation, greater efforts will be needed to reduce CO2 emissions. If action is not taken soon, global warming could accelerate and temperatures could soar by more than four degrees instead of the agreed maximum target of two degrees. The researchers developed a statistical model to separate the impact on temperature of the two effects. This produces different scenarios that demonstrate the effect on temperature of varying solar radiation levels and CO2 emissions.”

End excerpts.

Now, here they are trying to use our own argument against us; the “deniars” have always claimed that increased solar irradiance is the primary driving mechanism of the modest (if, indeed, there even was) warming seen in the 20th century, a warming that was entirely predictable given the Earth was coming otu of the Little Ice Age.  So, since there is more radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, it will speed us to the dreaded, mythical “tipping Point” after which thermogeddon shall ensue.  That the Sun shot craps in recent years, that we have not had any warming in 15 years, is immaterial; the choice of a forty year time period was obvious cherry picking of data. Why 40?  Why not go back to the 1920’s?

In point of fact, this argues for an increase in the use of coal and other “dirty” fuels; if cleaner air will bring thermogeddon on, than perhaps we would be wise to increase pollution.  More aerosols mean a cooler world - assuming we want one, given the unusually cold weather that global warming has been bringing.

This is the most putrid pile of intellectual parrot droppings I have seen in some time, yet the Gang Green skips merrily on their way, pretending that the missing limbs are mere flesh wounds and that they will bite us to death.

The astonishing thing is that the science journals are more than willing to continue the charade.

Their hope is that, since sunspot activity has returned, we’ll experience some modest warming next year, and they will be able to resume their campaign of disinformation. The public cooled on AGW when they realized it was damned cold for the fires of Al Gore’s Hell. A warming trend could be their key to turn this around.

But it is a lie, predicated on lies and junk science.

Wil Wirtanen

After reading the article these two sayings came to mind,

“There are sheep and there are wolves, and in the end the wolves win.” By John Ripley, Silver Star winner.

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”  George Orwell

Unfortunately, our PAP, Puerile Arrogant President, displays all the qualities of the furry grass eating animal.

On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

by LTC (RET) Dave Grossman (more by this author)

Posted 03/02/2010 ET
Updated 03/08/2010 ET

Gen. Dula’s letter to the University of Washington Student Senate Leader, Jill Edwards.

Jill Edwards is one of the students at the University of Washington who
did not want to honor Medal of Honor winner USMC Colonel Greg Boyington because she does not think those who serve in the U.S. Armed services are good role models. I think that this response is an excellent and thought provoking response.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

General Dula is a Retired Air Force Lt Gen (3 Star Gen).
Gen. Dula’s letter to the University of Washington student senate leader.
To: Edwards, Jill (student, UW)

Subject: Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35832

Miss Edwards, I read of your ’student activity’ regarding the proposed memorial to Col Greg Boyington, USMC and a Medal of Honor winner. I suspect you will receive a bellyful of angry e-mails from conservative folks like me. You may be too young to appreciate fully the sacrifices of generations of servicemen and servicewomen on whose shoulders you and your fellow students stand. I forgive you for the untutored ways of youth and your naïveté.  It may be that you are, simply, a sheep. There’s no dishonor in being a sheep - - as long as you know and accept what you are.
Please take a couple of minutes to read the following. And be grateful for the thousands - - millions - - of American sheepdogs who permit you the freedom to express even bad ideas.
Brett Dula
Sheepdog, retired
———————————————————-

ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS
By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER,
Ph.D., author of “On Killing.”

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains:
What is worth defending?
What is worth dying for?
What is worth living for?
- William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:  “Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident.”

This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation.

They are sheep. I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me, it is like the pretty, blue robin’s egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

“Then there are the wolves,” the old war veteran said, “and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.” Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep.

There is no safety in denial.

“Then there are sheepdogs,” he went on, “and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.” If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.
Let me expand on this old soldier’s excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids’ schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid’s school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep’s only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours. Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.” Until the wolf shows up.

Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them.

This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero? Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle.

The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, “Thank God I wasn’t on one of those planes.” The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, “Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.” When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into “warriorhood”, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference. There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: Slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself. Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I’m proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, “Let’s roll,” which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. — from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke — Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep.

Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn’t have a choice.

But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior’s path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many police officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying a weapon. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, “I will never be caught without my gun in church.” I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy’s body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, “Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?”

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for “heads to roll” if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids’ school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them. Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, “Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?”

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up. Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn’t bring your gun, you didn’t train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in “Fear Less”, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: “…denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn’t so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling.” Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be “on” 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself…”Baa.”

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from “sheephood” and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is an internationally recognized scholar, author, soldier, and speaker. He is the author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book, On Killing.

7lb Dave forwards this letter to the editor of the Jackson (MS) Clarion-Ledger from August 23, 2009 written by an emergency room physician:

Dear Mr. President:

During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had   the   pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone.

While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that   her payer status was listed as “Medicaid”! During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer.

And our Congress expect  me to pay for this woman’s health care?  I contend that our nation’s “health care crisis” is  not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or  nurses. Rather, it is the result of a “crisis   of culture”,  a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on  luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one’s self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance.  It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that “I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me”. Life is really not that hard. Most of us rep what we sow.

Don’t you agree?

STARNER JONES,  MD

Timothy Birdnow, Dana Mathewson

A little conversation that might prove interesting to you, oh wise and noble readers:

Dana: As much as I’d like to think I have figured out a bit of this political game, I admit I have no clue.  Maybe I watch Glenn Beck too much.  I am very, very worried about what is going on in Washington these days, and would dearly love to be able to help put the brakes on.  I heard a guest on Michael Medved today saying that the real power in Washington today is in the hands of lobbyists and other “careerists” such as union officers, not with our elected officials who, as we know, can be voted out of office.  We-The-People have no power over lobbyists and goons like Andy Stern — and neither does Congress, or even Obama, for that matter.  They are similar to the nomenklatura of the old Soviet Union, who pulled even the strings attached to people like Breznev.

Tim: You know, Dana, that is correct in so many ways; the power lies behind the scenes.  The career bureacrats and the lobbyists actually control the money, and they are overwhelmingly liberal to leftist.  It’s a huge part of the problem; the politicians are the visible part of the iceberg.  We can change them, but we cannot root out the corrupt leftists in permanent positions.  That is the reason why America seems to cycle, moving from periods of lukewarm conservatism to radical explosions.  The public, angry at leftists, seek to vote in conservatives, but the Republicans know that the real power is the bureacracy, and they have to play ball with them.  We end up with a holding action, with Republicans attempting to act as brakes when in power, then the public gets angry because they did not take any bold steps, and gives the ball to the Democrats who run wild until the public turns against them.  It is not the political machines that ultimately run the show, but the unseen hand of the bureacracy and the lobbiests.  Think of a man swimming in a river; the conservative swims upstream, barely remaining at his put in spot, then a liberal swims downstream, moving at breakneck speed because the current is with him.

We need to dismantle the whole District of Columbia.  Without DC the politicians would be at the behest of their constituents rather than the politicized culture of Washington.  Oh, and we need to defund the many bureacracies; without them we would not have the endless tug to the left.  Of course, that is easier said than done…

Timothy Birdnow

I found this on CCNET. It explains the fudge factor in computer modeling - and why the climate models are always so very wrong:

A CRACK IN THE CODE: WHY SOFTWARE FAILS IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, AND HOW TO FIX IT

DuPree Moore [dupreemoore@bellsouth.net]

In CCNet, 03/05/2010, “A CRACK IN THE CODE: WHY SOFTWARE FAILS IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, AND HOW TO FIX IT,” Robert Matthews introduces an interesting discussion about why computer programs used in science are unreliable. I am not competent to comment at that technical level, but there is a more fundamental problem: computer models are being used for purposes beyond their competence, because science is intruding into areas beyond its competence. Modern science began when men suspected that some things might have a scientific explanation.

Surprisingly, this radical idea turned out to be true; and it has transformed the world in many ways. But modern modern scientists insist that everything has a scientific explanation. This preposterous idea is destroying all the previous advances of science. Modern science modestly limited itself to hypotheses which could be proved or disproved by scientific method; modern modern scientists feel entitled, and even obligated, to speak authoritatively to every question, including those hypotheses which cannot be tested by scientific method. We are returning to the “science” of medieval times, when the truth of a proposition was judged according to the fervent earnestness of its advocates.

The great physicist John von Neumann once disposed of a mathematical argument by saying, “With four adjustable parameters, I can fit an elephant; with five I can wiggle his trunk.” When a mathematical model has as many adjustable parameters as computer climate models have, those parameters can be arbitrarily adjusted to “prove” any conceivable hypothesis. When a climate scientist says that he can eliminate natural causes as a possible explanation for observed climate change, he demonstrates breath-taking incompetence and/or breath-taking dishonesty. It is mathematically and scientifically impossible to make such a determination. The only legitimate application for such models is blind pattern recognition, by which I mean recognition of recurring patterns without understanding the underlying causes.

1) Adjust your parameters until the model matches past data; 2) test the model against future data, and refine it; 3) continue testing and refining until the model produces accurate predictions. Nobody at the IPCC is doing that. They adjust the parameters and the data to match the global warming hypothesis. That is why none of these climate models has yet made its first successful prediction.

Blind pattern recognition is not rigorous science. It has proven remarkably successful at predicting the behavior of financial markets; but any competent and honest economist will tell you, Do not bet any money that you cannot afford to lose. Your financial nest egg should be invested in a diverse array of assets designed to survive any conceivable economic event. No one can predict the stock market, and no one can predict the climate.

The uncertainties in climate data are so large that climate science is useless for policy analysis. Even if the data could be measured precisely, the uncertainties in the science and mathematics are so large that it would still be useless. When a climate scientist presumes to make radical policy recommendations based on computer models, we must add breath-taking arrogance to his aforementioned list of virtues. He seats himself on the very throne of God.

DuPree Moore

Timothy Birdnow

The U.S. and Britain are blocking the financing of a coal generator in South Africa because - you guessed it - fears of Global Warming!

According to this Reuters story:

“The opposition by the bank’s two largest members has raised eyebrows among those who note that the two advanced economies are allowing development of coal-powered plants in their own countries even as they raise concerns about those in poorer countries.

While the loan is still likely to be approved on April 6 by the World Bank board, it has revealed the deep fissures between the world’s industrial powers and developing countries over tackling climate change.

Both camps failed to reach a new deal in Copenhagen in December on a global climate agreement because of differences over emissions targets and who should pay for poorer nations to green their economies.

Some $3 billion of the loan to South African power utility Eskom will fund the bulk of the 4,800-megawatt Medupi coal-fired plant in the northern Limpopo region and is critical to easing the country’s chronic power shortages that brought the economy to its knees in 2008. The rest of the money will go toward renewables and energy efficiency projects.

The battle playing out in the World Bank was prompted by new guidance issued by the U.S. Treasury to multilateral institutions in December on coal-based power projects, which infuriated developing countries including China and India.

The guidance directs U.S. representatives to encourage “no or low carbon energy” options prior to a coal-based choice, and to assist borrowers in finding additional resources to make up the costs if an alternative to coal is more expensive.”

Read the rest here http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6260GW20100307

So, the Obama Administration wants people in Africa to live poor and have no lighting.  When the Republicans were in charge the Democrats accused them of wanting to throw old people into the streets, make them eat dog food, etc, yet it is this “compassionate” bunch that is actually taking steps to impoverish people overseas.

By Jack Kemp

When some American Jewish tourists come to Israel, they get overwhelmed with guilt feelings for the disparity between how they’ve lived their secular lives and the image of Israel they were taught by their parents and Hebrew school in their childhood. At least this was the case years ago.

I once recall riding a bus in 1970s Haifa when a middle aged American tourist and his wife boarded. He was wearing a yarmulke, a Jewish skull cap, and an anxious expression on his face. The husband kept moving his hand to his head every few minutes to make sure yarmulke hadn’t fallen off. Both I and the secular Israelis around me exchanged smiles as we looked at him. We knew that this was the sign of a man who only wore a yarmulke on infrequent visits to a synagogue. And the tourist was trying to project the image of a religious Jew at the same time he was constantly reaching to reassure himself the cap hadn’t fallen off. What he didn’t realize is that every other rider on that bus knew that a daily yarmulke-wearing religious Jew, be it a child playing soccer or an old man walking to pray in a synagogue, rarely reached to the top of their head to make sure their yarmulke was still there. The others wore it with ease and grace. This made for a great folk comedy, free theater on the bus, as it were. It was like watching a fifteen year old boy with an unlit cigar in his mouth try to gain entrance to an adult movie. Like the fifteen year old, the tourist was attempting a totally unconvincing impression of someone he viscerally was not.

This brings us to the Great Pork Chop Battle.

I was staying on a kibbutz near Haifa, not known for serving its volunteer workers large meals. I took the bus into town one Saturday, the Sabbath, looking for something different and more filling to eat. I came upon a roadside food stand where an Israeli woman was cooking what looked like lamb chops, but her sign said she sold “Steak Lavan” or “white steak” in Hebrew. This is an Israeli euphemism for pork chops. I was hungry and figured I was dealing with a very secular Jew, so I ordered a pork chop - in my American accented Hebrew. But the woman gave me a dirty look as if she was some rabbi’s wife, trying to induce some kind of Jewish guilt in me. However, unlike a rabbi’s wife, she was working on the Sabbath, selling, i.e., taking money, and eating her own meals in a place whose air was thick with the smell of pork grease.

In response to the woman’s stern faced hypocrisy and inner conflicts(she didn’t refuse to take my order - or my money - for the pork chop), I calmly said, “Tizheri az ha steak lavan lo dolek.” That translates as “Be careful so the white steak (pork chop) doesn’t burn.” Her attempt to book me on a guilt trip – indeed, her guilt trip - had failed. Hard. As “righteously” angry as she was, she still didn’t want to acknowledge her own part in my not eating kosher that Sabbath. I guess she also wanted me to assume she only sold pork chops to foreign tourists and sailors in this port city and that I was the first Jew to ever buy one from her. That’s why she had the sign in both Hebrew and English for White Steak, so that Gentiles who read only Hebrew could order a pork chop. Made perfect sense — to her.

In those days I smoked and one year earlier in Tel Aviv had sat down with a lit cigarette at a park bench next to an older religious couple who calmly asked me not to smoke on the Sabbath. Because they weren’t phonies and appeared to practice what they preached, I put out the cigarette in their presence, out of respect for who they were. But the woman in the pork chop stand was another matter. I suppose I could have said I had seen the light and wouldn’t eat non-kosher food and then walked away - to her further anger and demand for payment - but I wasn’t in the mood to go looking for another food stand or to make her feel comfortable in her impossibly hypocritical contradictions, especially at my own expense.

If I ever meet the Pork Chop Woman in Gehenna, the Jewish equivalent of Hell, I’ll make sure I won’t ask that she doesn’t burn.

Don’t Meet Me in St. Louis
Jack Kemp

According to the St. Louis Beacon,
http://www.stlbeacon.org/content/view/100798/314/

“The White House announced Saturday that President Barack Obama has chosen St. Charles High School as the backdrop for his speech next Wednesday on health care.

The afternoon address will be by invitation only, and not open to the general public, his staff said in a release.

The speech is expected to focus on the president’s latest push to persuade Congress to complete the work on legislation it started a year ago. The U.S. House and Senate have each passed a health care bill, almost entirely without Republican votes”
END OF QUOTE

Invitation only? I guess Obama doesn’t want Dana Loesch or Tim Birdnow or his brother showing up. Actually, it will be quite symbolic of what one can expect if they pass this bill. Doesn’t this President have a day job in Washington to deal with? He spends more time on the road than a stoner tribute-to-the- Greatful-Dead band.

We’ll see how this works out. I’m not taking any bets.

Jack Kemp

Why aren’t the anti-abortion Democrats in the House, lead by Congressman Stupak, willing to vote TODAY for the exact Senate healthcare bill passed in December and accepting promises of “reconciliation” and the removal of Federal funding of abortions by a joint conference later? One vocal Democrat has stated that the bill may languish after the House passes it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/07/trust-gap-house-senate-dems-hurting-health-care-push/

‘Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., told CBS News last week that the Senate “has been the single problem” with getting the bill out of the House. He referenced the hundreds of bills that have languished in the Senate after passing the House. ‘

END OF QUOTE

But there is a diametrically opposite possible scenario that could be played out. Rush Limbaugh has commented on this (found this out after I wrote this blog piece), but here is my take on it.

Once the House passes the identical Senate healthcare bill, President Obama could send six armed Federal agents to office of Speaker Pelosi, informing her that the US has a “healthcare crisis” and that the bill needs to be transported to the President’s desk right away – for signing. This can be done with or without an accompanying Executive Order.

Speaker Pelosi has voiced similar sentiments for the immediate need for a healthcare bill many times before and would not be likely to argue with the Federal agents essentially giving her what she wants. Even I could write the press conference explanation for her. It would go something like this:

“When the President summons you to the White House, you go – especially if he says we have a national health care emergency – who am I to disagree? So I got in the van and delivered the now passed healthcare bill to the President. I believe he may sign it into law this evening at nine p.m. – or he just may televise the fact that he already signed it into law at noontime, minutes after I left the Oval Office. We can always reconcile this bill later this year. Or we could do so after we win a greater majority over the Republicans and seat our newly elected Congress early next year (I said this is written in the voice of Speaker Pelosi, not mine). As I (Speaker Pelosi) said, the President then thanked me (and the six armed Federal agents) for delivering the signed bill to his desk.”

So what could Congressman Stupak and his Democrat anti-abortion allies then do? Change their party affiliation? Join the Tea Party movement? Not likely, but even if they did, I understand the Democratic leadership is already privately reconciled to losing a number of House seats the November 2010 elections.

Congressman Stupak is knowledgable in the ways of Washington.  He understands the risks involved in the House now passing the identical Senate healthcare bill that includes Federal funding for abortions. There are, obviously, a large number of other Washington Democrats who would praise such a bill, wanting to rush it into law as the culmination of a sixty year dream. If they are willing to ride roughshod over public opinion, would they hesitate to do the same to a few recalcitrant Democrats?  “Reconciliation” could then mean that Congressman  Stupak and his allies would have to be “reconciled” to accepting Federal funding for abortion as a fait accompli.

What will be the final outcome of the March healthcare bill vote in the House? In my opinion, it is too close to call and the vote could go either way. With this bill, there is never a dull, non-crisis moment.