Sunday, October 04, 2015

Funding the immanentization of CAGW

I’m not sure when we accepted the idea that government funding is non-ideological, even apolitical. But, today, when an idea is discredited because of its funding source it’s almost always the evil corporation(s) said to be at fault. It’s the Koch brothers or George Soros taking the heat. When government funds something that proves to be disastrous, idiotic or even evil, government gets a pass. As if government has no agenda and always has good intentions.

We've become blasé about Federal pecuniary feasance, mis-, mal- and non-, in many areas: Medicare, where periodically someone is arrested for multi-million dollar fraud; Corporate welfare, where billions are shoveled into the furnace, but those responsible are rarely held accountable; Federal grants promoting cowboy poetry, about which most merely shake their heads in wonder; Planned Parenthood, where we pretend money isn't fungible.

Nowhere, however, is the damage worse than in funding science research. Especially in the case of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).

We’re told that anyone skeptical of CAGW is bought and paid for by Big Oil - their opinions should therefore be dismissed. Fully half the arguments from CAGW proponents would disappear if they couldn’t argue ad hominem. Well, turnabout is fair play.

In CAGW huckster Professor Jagadish Shukla, who urges the President to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against CAGW skeptics we have an excellent example.

Friday, October 02, 2015

Can you say "fungible?"

"Over the past five years Planned Parenthood has funneled $22 million to its political affiliate, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund."

And, over the past 5 years, they've received $2.5 billion in Federal funding. If I were a Democrat in the House or Senate, I'd be wondering why I didn't get more back.

Dear Consumers Energy,

Why asking me for $1.50 per month to help you build more windmills is ridiculous:
A new study from Utah State University found that, as of 2013, Michigan’s renewable energy mandate, enacted in 2008, has cost families and businesses here a bundle: $15.1 billion overall, or $3,830 per family, compared to what we would have experienced without the mandate.

According to the study, the economies of all states with a renewable portfolio standard, or RPS, have suffered harm. Among the negative effects are a nearly 14 percent decrease in industrial electricity sales, plus losses in both personal income and employment. A key finding was that an estimated 24,369 jobs have been lost in Michigan because of the mandate, which is in effect a mandate for wind energy.
And, just for a bit of juxtapositioning on the "science is settled" front this morning:
MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms

Update: 5:54PM
More unsettling science - WELL RATS: OCEANS NOT DYING AFTER ALL

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Planned Prevarication

Watching the CSPAN video of Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Cynthia Lummis, (R) Wyoming, elicits the following from Richards (Start at 00:54:33):

  • Mammograms provided - None. 
  • Abortions - three percent of procedures, eighty six percent of non-government revenue. (A question I asked in early August)
  • Taxpayers fund over forty percent of PP. 
  • $5.1 million in annual travel expenses. 
The fungibility issue is raised, but Richards dissembles.
Lummus: "If taxpayer dollars are being used to free up services that you provide...
Richards: "We don’t get a federal subsidy..."
Lummus: "Could you function on non-federal dollars?”
Richards: "We don’t make any profit off of federal money."
They just pay expenses with your money. We all know that has nothing to do with profit.

Keep watching Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, (R) Utah, after Lummis five minutes are over. He asks if Richards will provide the information, "How many of your affiliates receive the majority of their revenue from abortion?” requested by Lummis.

Richards at 01:01:11 “I don’t want to commit to anything that I don’t want you to have."

Did she really just say that?

Nuking Consumers Energy

I offered my support to Consumers Energy if they would get on with building nuclear plants and get rid of windmills.

This is the most obvious way to rapidly reduce CO2 emissions. Those afraid of "climate change" should be all in. Warm mongers who oppose nuclear power simply aren't serious about CO2 reduction.

But don't take my word for it, take the word of a leftwing "science is settled" magazine...
In just two decades Sweden went from burning oil for generating electricity to fissioning uranium. And if the world as a whole were to follow that example, all fossil fuel–fired power plants could be replaced with nuclear facilities in a little over 30 years...

Such a switch would drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nearly achieving much-ballyhooed global goals to combat climate change. Even swelling electricity demands, concentrated in developing nations, could be met. All that's missing is the wealth, will and wherewithal...

"As long as people, nations put fear of nuclear accidents above fear of climate change, those trends are unlikely to change," Brook adds. But "no renewable energy technology or energy efficiency approach has ever been implemented on a scale or pace required."
Also consider the opinions of Dr. Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of Greenpeace, and Stewart Brand, publisher Of The Whole Earth Catalog.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015



Monday, September 28, 2015

Open letter to Consumers Energy

I recently received from you a mailing asking me to contribute $1.50 per month to something called the Green Generation program. According to that letter, my contribution would support “projects like the Michigan Wind Farm in Ubly, which generates enough enough electricity to power every home in a city the size of Battle Creek for one year.

You neglected to mention how much standby generation by conventional means is still required. At least a third of us know that, “Wind is so undependable that fossil fuels have to be available to supplement it over 50 percent of the time.” Maybe I'm part of a less green, as in naive, generation - because your appeal did not inspire me.

I suppose it is in your interest to avoid mentioning wind power reliability when asking me directly to support your latest attempt to suck up dwindling Federal subsidies for windmills. Especially since Consumers Energy is statutorily allowed profit margins of 10 to 12 percent annually, and is guaranteed a 90-percent share of the market by the State of Michigan, while you spend money on misleading advertising about electricity choice: To make sure we don't have it.

If Solyndra had your deal, they'd still be in business.

Would supporting projects like the one in Ubly include contributing to monopoly maintenance advertising? It's a reasonable question. Any reasonable answer would include reference to the word "fungible."

Your letter reminded me that a good part of your past profitability is related to money you've already received from me via taxes and surcharges. This realization did not produce the effect I think you desired, since it prompted me to check on how bad that damage has been and continues to be.

In 2011, you bragged about $29 million in property tax revenue a wind farm project,
“ expected to provide to Mason County over the first 20 years of operation. The Mason County Planning Commission approved a special land use permit application for the $232 million Lake Winds Energy Park project last week.

What was left out of the press release was that “the project is expected to receive $72 million in federal tax credits from the federal stimulus program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Consumers Energy spokesman Dennis Marvin said the $72 million in federal tax credits is expected to come over a 10-year period.”
That's net $43 million for Consumers Energy from Federal taxpayers, after $29 million in redistribution pass-throughs. And how's that lawsuit about this wind farm working out for you?

From 2009 through 2011 you charged me $2.50 per month as a Renewable Energy Surcharge. I already paid for constructing the damn windmills, but, as we'll see, maybe not for the maintenance.

Now you're asking me to give you just $1.50 of my own volition. Why didn't you ask the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to put that back on my invoice? You're running sort of a poll, I guess, anyone dumb enough to contribute probably voted for the guy who said he'd make electricity rates involving coal “skyrocket,” and the results might be able to be used to pressure the MI legislature.

In November 2014the MPSC approved a settlement agreement authorizing Consumers Energy to recover $9,752,187, with interest, in deferred major maintenance expense.” That's one way to ensure your profit margins stay in double digits. What interest rate was used?

In December 2014, Consumers Energy requested of the MPSC “an electric rate increase of $163 million in its electric rates. On June 4, 2015 Consumers self-implemented a portion of the requested increase, $110 million, subject to refund, as authorized by the MPSC. The rate increase reflects major company investments to maintain and improve service.” Maintenance again, how much of it is for windmills?

In September of this year you charged me $1.41 for the income taxes you pay on your “securitization charge” - charges for which you billed me an additional $2.49. So, I'm paying $3.90 a month, over a third of which is your taxes, so you canreplace traditional financing with low-interest bonds, lowering overall costs for customers.” Thanks.

In September I paid $4.14 for “Energy Efficiency” “that helps recover costs associated with the company’s Energy Efficiency Programs required by the 2008 energy law.” Maybe not your fault, but I can't recall any lobbying against it. Certainly nothing reaching the level of your fight to maintain your 90 percent monopoly.

From June through September you charged me extra for usage over 600 kWh becauseThe tiered pricing structure reflects the higher price to buy and produce electricity during the summer. This is primarily because of the increase in customer demand (load on the system) associated with air conditioning... Consumers Energy does not make a profit on the cost of fuel or purchased power.

OK. I guess you are more likely to purchase power (Ontario?) when the wind isn't blowing. And, of course, you're using fuel to keep your standby generators turning anyway. That's like me paying twice.

I realize this green idiocy is not all your fault. We have more than enough fools in the State and National legislatures. However, they didn't force you to waste money on that mailing insulting my intelligence, and you're more than happy to take 'their' money. Unfortunately, the money isn't sufficiently laundered. I know a bunch of it came out of my pocket.

So, while I appreciate the opportunity to further the green propagenda, I think I'll wait until you're begging me for funds to dismantle windmills instead of building more. Then I'll laugh. Until the legislature lets you bill me for it.

If you'd really like some help, I could get behind a big effort to build some nuclear plants. I'll bet there's enough concrete in those windmill pads to have built a couple already.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Ben Carson and Muslim Presidents

The Muslim Islamophobes Who Agree With Ben Carson

One of these religions is not like the others.
Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.
-Omar Ahmad, founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

It's ironic that Progressives who reference Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" to bolster their case supporting abortion should consider Ben Carson's rejection of sharia discriminatory.

The Constitution's Article Six prohibits a religious test as a qualification for any public office, but that same document contains a First Amendment forbidding the federal government from establishing a national religion. An Islamic president would, by definition, either be an apostate (i.e., a lapsed Muslim according to main-stream Islamic theologians) or refuse to enforce the entire Bill of Rights.

Appealing to the Constitution when you deny its primacy in American law is not merely hypocritical, it's taqiyya for the dhimmi.

Monday, September 21, 2015

Just following orders

The MSM and DNC wagons are circled to protect Planned Parenthood.

In last week’s debate Carly Fiorina spoke of “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.”

PP and the Democrat Operatives with Bylines are denying this video exists and excoriating Carly. Put aside the fact that what she said was only inaccurate as an understatement when describing the videos taken as a whole, it’s precisely accurate regarding this video in particular. Who ya gonna believe, George Stephanopoulos, Melissa Harris-Perry and Hillary Clinton - or your lying eyes?

Start at about 5:45. Best watched on an empty stomach.

Of course, any Progressive exposed to this will yell “Selectively edited!” ignoring the fact that over 10 hours of the unedited video were released at the same time. They’ll just be following orders in the #WarOnBabies.

As Carly pointed out, it does speak to the character of this nation, and I cannot think of a better reason to “shut the government down" so it stops financing this horror with taxpayer dollars.

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Rapist credits

The real-world judicial system impinges upon the Jared Polis plan.

Representative Polis (D-CO) says that because we can reasonably assume that of 10 accused campus rapists 2 are actually guilty, we should force-transfer all 10 to other universities. One obvious consequence is that the receiving institutions would be enrolling 2 real rapists whose crimes go unpunished. Another is that no one could be sure if they got a real rapist, so they’d have to act as if all 10 had actually committed rape. I’m not sure what that would mean, but I wonder about the legal liability for any university which accepts someone who is subsequently accused of committing a(nother) rape. Surveillance 24/7?

Another result of Mr. Polis’ plan is that 8 accused rapists would be in a position to sue the originating institution. In fact, to preserve what little of their reputation they would have left, all 10 would be incentivized to file suit. Nobody knows which 2 are guilty, so the odds are good for all of them.

Polis does not explain why any university would want to enroll accused rapists. Perhaps we would need to supply an incentive: Maybe something analogous to carbon credits. Think of accused rapists as coal-fired power plants and complainants as newly planted trees. Why not establish a credit system for the transfer of complainants?

Math is hard, but if 1 in 5 campus men accused of rape is guilty, then 4 of 5 of accusations are false. For every 5 complainants transferred into your institution you could avoid accepting 1 accused rapist. That increases your tuition base. Further, transferring all complainants would address a larger proportion of the problem (4 liars become somebody else’s problem), while simultaneously endangering fewer women on the new campus than the transfer of a single rapist.

It does put a whole new group of men at higher risk of false accusations, but who cares?

It also doesn’t put the real rapists behind bars. But that isn’t the point, is it?

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'

With Representative Jared Polis (D - Boulder, CO) and soon to be former Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton (D - Carpetbag, AR) channeling Iracebeth of Crims, I am reminded not just of Lewis Carroll, but also Joseph Heller and Franz Kafka.

The trial of the Knave in Alice in Wonderland, Clevinger's Court Martial in Catch-22 and Joeseph K.'s year imprisoned in The Trial have much in common with the kangaroo court system Jared and Hillary want to establish.

"If there's no meaning in it," said the King, "that saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn't try to find any."
Clevinger was guilty, of course, or he would not have been accused, and since the only way to prove it was to find him guilty, it was their patriotic duty to do so.
"[I]t is an essential part of the justice dispensed here that you should be condemned not only in innocence but also in ignorance.”
I mean, if there's 10 people that have been accused and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, [it] seems better to get rid of all 10 people. We're not talking about depriving them of life or liberty, we're talking about their transfer to another university.
Yep. They're at liberty to apply to the University of Accused Rapists.

To every survivor of sexual assault… You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We’re with you.
The 'right' of the accuser to be believed eliminates the rights of the guilty and innocent alike. Who has the "right to be believed?" Well, in Hillary's case, we know who doesn't: Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick and Monica Lewinsky.

Monday, September 14, 2015

Always good intent they have

Actually, that's not true, as Representative Jared Polis, D-CO and the people who applaud him are demonstrating.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
That is called the "intent," which for our Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should be sufficient to uphold the law even as it is transformed into Representative Polis' desired result:

“Every male person enrolled in any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance in the United States shall be subject to summary expulsion from that program or activity if anyone, no matter how wildly specious their complaint, makes an accusation of “untoward” behavior as defined by unelected, judicially untrained administrators acting outside the Justice system and without reference to Constitutional protections. The parameters shall apply retroactively and be recodified contemporaneously with each and any accusation to reflect the suggestions of the three (3) most junior female-identifying clerks at the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights who possess a minimum Body Mass Index of 35.”

Friday, September 11, 2015

Gulag Academipelago

I described Title IX thinking just on Wednesday as, "It’s better that all innocent people be convicted than that one guilty person should go free." Apparently, Representative Jared Polis, D-CO, took it as instruction, not criticism:
At a congressional hearing on campus sexual assault, Colorado Rep. Jared Polis suggested that expelling students based solely on the idea that they might have committed a crime is an acceptable standard. And the hearing audience applauded him.

Polis, a Democrat, was discussing due process and standards of evidence as they apply to colleges and universities adjudicating sexual assault. Currently, colleges must be only 50.01 percent sure that an accusation is valid before punishing an accused student (more on that later). Polis began advocating for allowing colleges to use a lower standard than that.

"I mean, if there's 10 people that have been accused and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, seems better to get rid of all 10 people," Polis said. "We're not talking about depriving them of life or liberty, we're talking about their transfer to another university."
The ignorant little fascist neglected to ad, "Pour encourager les autres."

Fourteen years ago

Wednesday, September 09, 2015

Title IX as our conscience

Education Department rewards lying by twisting Title IX
[I]n a recent investigation finding Michigan State University in violation of Title IX, OCR [the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights] required college administrators to offer “remedies” to “Student A,” who both OCR and the university found had made a false allegation of unwelcome sexual misconduct against two fellow students. OCR’s reasoning was that the university did not begin proceedings against the accused students fast enough (even though it immediately kicked them out of their dorm and ordered them to stay away from the accuser).

But the lack of an immediate investigation was not because the university was in any way unsympathetic to victims. Rather, it was due to the fact that the complainant decided not to file formal college charges against the accused (the criminal justice system found her complaint so unbelievable that the accused were never charged, and she declined to pursue formal charges at the college level). It is absurd to demand swift college prosecution of innocent people when the accuser herself does not demand it.

The accused students, whose lives were turned upside down by the charges, were innocent.
Whatever you may think of Title IX's 'intent,' it has been perverted beyond recognition by SJW bureaucrats and University administrators whose livelihood depends on extending it reductio ad absurdum: 'It’s better that all innocent people be convicted than that one guilty person should go free,' as we’ve seen at Duke, UVA, Columbia, etc..

A concomitant problem is the Newspeak redefinition of the word “victim.” We are "experiencing the emergence of a victimhood culture that is distinct from the honor cultures and dignity cultures of the past." At one time we would have seen the falsely accused as the victims, based on the facts. Now, we see liars as victims, based on their genitalia. Training in this thinking starts early:

Boys with sticks
It doesn’t make violence go away when we always tell boys, “Put that stick down.” Instead, it’s making a world where people, boys and girls alike, have no idea what to do about unjust violence...

When your daughter is the one who’s lying barely conscious on the front yard of some frat house, my sons will be the ones who will know enough to charge in, swinging sticks to chase the brutes away. They’ll know because we let them have sticks, we let them find out what sticks can do, and we told them what sticks are for.

Violence doesn’t take over when boys are allowed to have sticks. Violence takes over when no one tells boys what sticks are for.
This speaks to what Christina Hoff Sommers has called “the war against boys,” and it suggests why we might well expect some change, for the worse, in the behavior of some males. They have not been taught the bases of respect for others. In fact, some boys have been actively prevented from learning it. I'm sure this guy is an example.

Grafting an external conscience onto PajamaBoy is easy, and it comes pre-loaded with unearned guilt. He certainly believes the lie that 1 in 5 college women are raped. He recognizes the State definition of moral behavior as superior to his own. He has secret sympathy, because of his original sin of being male, for radical feminists who propose putting all men in concentration camps.

Among other things boys will learn from playing with sticks, under the guidance of caring adults, are the concepts of fair play, honor and mercy. To wit, chivalry. Chivalry is not a one-sided contract, there used to be very different expectations of both male and female behavior. The contract may have needed modification, and that was in progress, but what happened is that the concept of chivalry has been summarily purged from public discourse. The government, piecemeal and arbitrarily, filled the resulting cultural vacuum.

Just as charitable giving is much smaller among Progressives - it’s the government’s job - we’ve farmed out our consciences to federal regulators.

When you remove the caring adults and enforceable contracts you get Lord of the Flies. When you substitute Big Brother for the guidance of caring adults and make the contract up as you go along you get 1984. We've done both.

Wednesday, September 02, 2015

Depends on who the definer of "marked" is

According to The Washington Post, Hillary Clinton sent emails from her private server that the State Department redacted for reasons of national security before they (StateDept) released them to the public.
Although government officials deemed the e-mails classified after Clinton left office…

The classified e-mails, contained in thousands of pages of electronic correspondence that the State Department has released, stood out because of the heavy markings blocking out sentences and, in some cases, entire messages.

The State Department officials who redacted the material cited national security as the reason for blocking it from public view.
Lest we blame the Department of State for tardiness in this matter, the first time they knew about these emails was 2 years after she left office and turned over 55,000 printed pages.
"I have said repeatedly that I did not send nor receive classified material and I'm very confident that when this entire process plays out that will be understood by everyone," she said. "It will prove what I have been saying and it's not possible for people to look back now some years in the past and draw different conclusions than the ones that were at work at the time. You can make different decisions because things have changed, circumstances have changed, but it doesn't change the fact that I did not send or receive material marked classified."
It's certain that by the time this ends it will be understood by everyone that she kept saying what she says.

Her defense has evolved from "no classified emails were sent or received" to "they weren’t classified at the time" she wrote them. But, it appears failing to do so was a mistake.
In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters..

Although it appears to be true for Clinton to say none of her emails included classification markings, a point she and her staff have emphasized, the government's standard nondisclosure agreement warns people authorized to handle classified information that it may not be marked that way and that it may come in oral form..

Clinton and her senior staff routinely sent foreign government information among themselves on unsecured networks several times a month, if the State Department's markings are correct. Within the 30 email threads reviewed by Reuters, Clinton herself sent at least 17 emails that contained this sort of information. In at least one case it was to a friend, Sidney Blumenthal, not in government.

The information appears to include privately shared comments by a prime minister, several foreign ministers and a foreign spy chief, unredacted bits of the emails show. Typically, Clinton and her staff first learned the information in private meetings, telephone calls or, less often, in email exchanges with the foreign officials.
That she has said repeatedly she “did not send or receive classified information” (the “marked classified” bit showed up later, as demonstrated in the next paragraph) contains probably the only true thing she’s said about the whole sordid mess: She's said it repeatedly. One example from her March, 2015 UN press conference:
“I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. I'm certainly well aware of the classified requirements and did not send classified material."
As noted here in March, the emails Secretary of State Clinton wrote weren’t marked “classified,” because Secretary of State Clinton didn’t mark them classified when she sent them.

Why not? She’s sloppy with National Security information? She actually does not know the classified requirements? She forgot she was using her own private server?

This is not, as she has portrayed it, some internecine struggle with the intelligence community over the definition of “classified.” The emails she wrote are classified according to the State Department and were classified when she sent them. It's a security breach whether she recognized that or not. The meaning of "is" in "There is no classified information," doesn't change that.

National security information doesn’t become more sensitive over time, it becomes less sensitive. Otherwise, we’d wait forever for release of all the Nixon tapes, military details about the attack on Pearl Harbor and the identity of Benedict Arnold.

Can anyone come up with any explanation excusing Hillary Clinton from the allegation she sent classified email not involving incompetence? Any explanation not leading inexorably to the conclusion that she cannot be trusted with Presidential level information? Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

Thursday, August 27, 2015

What a piece of work is Mann

Highly recommended: Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", to anyone interested in the genesis of Michael Mann's Hokey Stick. Steyn's book is not an attack on the idea of AGW, it's an exposé of, arguably, the biggest scientific fraud since Piltdown; and, indisputably, the most consequential.

Using the words of scientists who strongly believe AGW is true and of those who are more skeptical, it lays out a convincing case that there are differences of opinion among scientists on AGW, if not so much about Michael Mann.

If you (mistakenly) conflate Mann's agenda with the discipline of climate science, you will like the book still less than even Mann's “allies” like him. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read it: If you are concerned about erosion of public support for “doing something” about AGW, you should read it so you can help climate science regain a modicum of respectability. As long as Mann is left to hijack the discussion, threaten the careers of distinguished scientists and subvert the peer review process, it is unlikely reasonable people will find any common ground on the topic.

Mann has been able to force the entire discipline of climate science into a corner where failure to defend his work is equated with failure to defend, in Mann's words, “the cause.” A strange way for a scientist to think. If there is a single principle that distinguishes science from religion it is that scientific theories are falsifiable. Mann is pushing the religion of Mann, not the science of climate study.

The damage to science itself is profound. The damage to freedom of speech is, perhaps, even worse - which is how Steyn got involved in a lawsuit. And came to write this book. The First Amendment is as much subject to Mann's attack as is the scientific method.

I consider myself well informed on the AGW debate, but I learned quite a bit from this book. You probably will too. This book does not deny AGW, it denies Michael Mann's devious, unprincipled, ad-hominem attacks on those who dare ask a single question.

We're being asked to restructure the world economy because of a drawing based on misrepresentation, willful hyperbole and astounding arrogance. You should read "A Disgrace to the Profession" in order to understand what that means, whatever your position on AGW. You should buy "A Disgrace to the Profession" (also at Amazon) because doing so helps defend free speech. Even if Mann were right, it is long past time his bullying lawfare was stopped.

Monday, August 24, 2015


Must read Op-Ed from Ben Carson:
Ben Carson: #BlackLivesMatter misfire.
The opening paragraphs:
The idea that disrupting and protesting Bernie Sanders speeches will change what is wrong in America is lunacy. The "BlackLivesMatter" movement is focused on the wrong targets, to the detriment of blacks who would like to see real change and to the benefit of its powerful white liberal funders using the attacks on Sanders for political purposes that mean nothing for the problems that face our community.

The notion that some lives might matter less than others is meant to enrage. That anger is distracting us from what matters most. We're right to be angry, but we have to stay smart.

#BlackLivesMatter is for-profit Tribalism.

It is a blatantly racialist meme; declaring blood, tribe and territory Über Alles. Old, pale, .01 percenters like George Soros are funding it.

Can you say Plantation?

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

The problem with NAtionale soZIalists

Thanks to Instapundit, I was made aware of this post by Ezra Klein, whose credentials include work at The Washington Post, Bloomberg News, MSNBC and The American Prospect.

It’s from 2006, so it isn’t news. Then again, he’s writing the same sort of stuff today.
Not everything the Nazis touched was bad. Hitler was a vegetarian. Volkswagen is a perfectly good car company. Universal health care is a perfectly good idea. Indeed, the Nazis actually did a pretty good job increasing economic growth and improving standards of living (they were, many think, the first Keynesians, adopting the strategy even before Keynes had come up with it), pushing Germany out of a depression and back into expansion. Unfortunately, they also set out to conquer Europe and exterminate the Jews. People shouldn't do that.

Update Sigh. Let's try to be clearer, then. The problem with the Nazis was that they were genocidal white supremacists with an appetite for continental hegemony. To invoke them in order to tar, by association, privatization, or "appeasement," or socialist policies, or other policies that were not related to their murderous crimes is a noxious debate tactic that should be widely and rapidly condemned.
OK, let’s be clearer. Hitler was a vegetarian who, instead of cows, slaughtered people. This doesn’t reflect badly on vegetarians or cows, it just shows Mr. Klein’s thoughts on the topic he takes to hand are incoherent. Should we be more kindly disposed toward Stalin because he made a non-aggression pact with a vegetarian?

Volkswagen is a good car company. Note the Clintonian ‘is.” During World War Two, OTOH, it's believed that as many as four out of every five workers at Volkswagen's plants were slave laborers. Klein neglected to mention that Krupp makes decent coffee makers. Still, Volkswagen and Krupp subscribed to the “Arbeit macht frei” meme.

Universal health care was Bismarckian, not Hitlerian. And it’s not inarguably a good idea. The face of Hitlerian health care is Dr. Josef Mengele. His practice was quite restricted, of course, but it was based on the idea that the State owned his patients. For a more general view of Statist health care, where the State only leases patients, check out Britain’s NHS or the Veteran's Administration.

The hard-core Keynesians were the Volk running the Weimar regime. When they printed, they Printed. Hitler had to start a world war for his spending spree.

Alongside starting a world war, I think the economic boosting technique Weimar failed to grasp was starvation of slave laborers. When labor costs are zero, productivity goes up. When health care is delivered by Dr. Mengele, insurance costs become irrelevant. Neither does it immediately hurt your economy if you seize the Sudetenland and Poland. Think of all the broken windows that needed repair.

So, is invoking the NAZIs when discussing political policies other than genocide a noxious debate technique? In some cases, I’m sure. But Mr. Klein can’t name any of them.

Fascism is accurately defined as the political belief that the state is more important than the individual. “Nothing outside the state, nothing above the state, everything within the state.” You may object that that is a Mussolini quote. I’d claim Hitler wished he had said it.

This collectivist mind-set is fundamental to praising corporatist automobile companies who would avail themselves of slave labor. It’s a conviction you must hold before you force free people to accept government rationed health care. It’s necessary thinking for idealizing Keynesian economics. Collectivism is the perfect philosophical precursor to genocidal hegemony. The NAZIs were collectivists.

No matter what the leaders say, collectivist states always end this way. For evidence that the cause is not Hitler, but Nationalism and Socialism, I recommend reading The Black Book of Communism.

Of the two collectivist pillars of NAZI political thought, which do we blame more, NAtionalism or soZIalism? I’m not sure it matters. When you combine nationalism and socialism, you’re on the road to justification for "racial purification.” In fact, you’re likely to need the justification because someone like Hitler, Stalin or Mao is always lurking.

Update 4:10PM:
Here is an example where collectivist supporters of federal funding for Planned Parenthood will not engage in "noxious debate," and they condemn any such discussion "widely and rapidly." But when you cut a living baby's face open in order to extract the brain intact, I'd say a Mengele comparison is not only apt, but required. So are criminal charges.

Saturday, August 15, 2015

"A Disgrace to the Profession"

You could make many worse decisions about how to use your resources to defend free speech, promote open scientific inquiry and oppose the petty fascists in the White House and EPA, than by buying copies of Mark Steyn's latest book and giving them to the warm mongers with whose acquaintance you may be afflicted.

A review by Professor Judith Curry.

"A Disgrace To The Profession" is also available at Amazon, but buying an autographed copy directly from Steyn better helps him defray the costs of Michael Mann's lawfare.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Google's Alphabet, "A" is for amoral

Do You Trust Larry Page?

Though Mr. "Page is certainly convinced of his righteousness," I am quite sure I disagree with him about what constitutes a "better world." I make that claim from observation, not philosophical musing. Page is amoral, as reflected by his business ventures.

"Don't be evil" is only half of the amoralist's world view: The difficulty one has in peering out from a hyper-pragmatic moral vacuum is telling the difference.

What makes the author at the link above suppose that Nest (for example) won't be monetized by advertising? Spying on people to ascertain what ads to serve them is the entire basis of Google.

When your Nest thermostat is reporting directly to the EPA that you've not set it lower but you're using less gas, will they come to impose a fine if you have a Federally non-compliant woodstove? I guess that's not technically advertising, but it's certainly revenue enhancing for the Feds. If they buy the data from Google.

When your fridge is broadcasting how much ice cream, and what brand and flavor you eat, is it monetized by advertising? Only if Ben and Jerry and WeightWatchers bid on the data, I guess.

Android is not a cesspit of privacy violation and a security disaster by accident, and possibly not even by design. Larry Page just doesn't care. As the author points out, Android is a Unix derivative, just like iOS. It's how Unix was bent to corporate intent that's the difference. Android is "free." TANSTAAFL, as Robert Heinlein was wont to say.

Self driving cars are not being made for the convenience of the customer. They'll help update Google Maps and report where you are at any moment, where you've been, and predict where you'll go next. They'll record every conversation, like your up-to-date television does now.

And forget that anyway, the objective is to make everything near you report about you on Twitter: The corporate surveillance State.

Imagine the public shaming to erupt in California when your bathroom scale reports a dripping shower head on its Facebook page. I don't exaggerate: Remember, "If it's yellow let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down?" That was California's partial answer to the water crisis of the 70's. It's back, and soon they'll have a way to check if you're obeying. First, they gave you a toilet that must be flushed twice when it's brown, next they're going to check if you dare flush once when it's yellow. Ads to get you to purchase the required sensor will be placed on your browser by Google when you search for "bathroom remodel."

Google has several health care initiatives: Do you want them to know when you get a Viagra prescription? Start taking a cancer drug? Refill only half as often as expected because you can't afford it, and are cutting your pills in half? Do you get ads for hookers, funeral homes and Canadian pharmacies as a result? That's rhetorical.

Do the ads display on your new Nest 10 inch LCD thermostat with the microphone that not only lets you speak to it, but to Page's servers? That's an educated guess.

If you book an abortion, should the people who buy from Planned Parenthood get "Buy it now" rights on the parts supply? Google will sell that information if they are allowed to. Or even if they aren't.

I trust Page to follow his "righteousness." That is, to promote a soul sucking deconstruction of individual rights the extent of which we can't yet quite grasp.

Larry Page, of course, is not alone.
Harvard student loses Facebook internship after pointing out privacy flaws
Surveillance-based manipulation: How Facebook or Google could tilt elections
Billion Dollar Bully Trailer
Turning Humans Into Algos: The Trend Of Employees Wearing "Biosensing Wearable Devices" At Work

Saturday, August 08, 2015

Resolute intelligence

We need neither an a**hole nor a fool, nor someone who is both, to challenge the status quo.

Pointless-headed intellectuals

Howard Dean, among others, has suggested that Scott Walker is unfit to be president because his lack of a college degree renders him "unknowledgeable." It does occur to me that not having a college degree is also true of most voters.

When I think of academically certified intellectual capacity and high office, my first thought is of the Academius Prime of American politics: Woodrow Wilson was a PoliSci PhD and President of Princeton. He won a Nobel Prize. He wore his academic credentials as a badge of honor.

He was also a racist of the first water: To quote Wilson himself on this subject, "[S]elf-preservation [forced whites] to rid themselves, by fair means or foul, of the intolerable burden of governments sustained by the votes of ignorant negroes.” He was a eugenicist, because he wanted fewer of those "ignorant negroes” imposing an “intolerable burden” on the right-thinking government overclass. We had to wait for Lyndon Johnson until the Progressives "solved" this problem to their satisfaction.

Wilson presided over the re-segregation of the federal Civil Service. He told blacks, to their faces, that segregation was good for them.

Wilson was the driving force behind the trial balloon - The League of Nations - that eventually birthed the UN. He oversaw creation of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Income Tax/IRS and the Selective Service. He took an academically contrived, idealistic and completely unrealistic "14 points" to Versailles and then signed, and heavily promoted, the treaty that led directly to WWII.

He thought the Declaration of Independence was irrelevant and that the Constitution merely impeded progress. This bit of intellectual hubris was to re-surface when FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court.

Wilson’s academic credentials drove his belief that he knew, better than anyone, how everyone ought to live. He is the prototype of American Progressivism. He was an elitist who credited himself with having good intentions.

In passing, I’ll note that Abraham Lincoln, Henry Ford, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates might disagree about the relationship of a college degree to intelligence, and more especially, to competence. None had such a degree.

This sort of attack on those of demonstrated competence means the attackers are afraid and don’t have real arguments. It echoes the laughter from MIT professor of economics Jonathan Gruber when he discusses "the stupidity of the American voter.” We’re all “ignorant negroes” to Progressives.

It encapsulates Barry Sotero’s disdain for the flyover country types “clinging to their guns and religion.” It’s like laughing at Walker's lack of diversity because he’s not 1/32 Cherokee.

Next up: Carly Fiorina. We’ll hear them laughing that she’s not a real woman because she opposes dismemberment of intact dead babies to extract contractually specified parts. The intellectually correct thing, of course, is to ridicule such beliefs; as Elizabeth Warren does in that link.

It’s worth noting that the bill to defund PP was sponsored by LtCol and US Senator Joni Ernst. A mother and grandmother: A woman Senator Warren implies is orchestrating this particular battle in the #WaronWomen.

Oh, and in revisiting Ms. Warren’s speech I’m reminded of Progressive economic ignorance. She repeats the canard that none of the Federal money paid to PP goes toward abortion. Apparently, the educational opportunities at Harvard do not include a vocabulary list containing the word “fungible."

Friday, August 07, 2015

Looking into the void

There's one star and couple of dust clouds that might become stars.
"The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre—the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
– H. L. Mencken
Huckabee, Christie and Kasich made good showings last night. Too bad. See above.

Bush comes to mind when reading "the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.”

Trump should be seen to have destroyed himself, but I’m doubting it will turn out that way.

Paul seemed pinched and sour, and it’s hard to imagine him as president.

Rubio and Cruz should pick up from their performances, but probably won’t gain enough.

Carson is such a very nice man.

Walker is unflappable. To the point of appearing passionless.

Some are complaining about the gotcha nature of the Fox questions, and that the moderators blathered for over 30% of the debate time. The latter I agree with, the former makes me ask the question, “If friendly questioning is necessary for a Republican to become president, what's the GOP nominee going to do in the actual election?”

Stop whining about Fox and check out how it's done: Carly Fiorina’s handling of Chris “tingly leg" Matthews (This is the full exchange, so even if you've seen an edited version of it already, you might find it worthwhile.)

And debate watchers are complaining that Megyn Kelly’s questioning was too aggressive?

As entertainment B-, as a debate D+.

Wednesday, August 05, 2015

PP's "our protocol" is just a euphemism for "following parts orders"

Mark Steyn wrote a post today - Bakin' Baby Syndrome - which is a must read.

He destroys Planned Parenthood's latest defense for their prenatal pecuniary peccadilloes - "that it's a small part of what they do." He reveals an even more sinister reason for why PP is against OTC birth control than a reduction in their parts supply via fewer unwanted pregnancies. Plan-B might render baby parts valueless. Threatens the revenue stream. Nobody wants to buy toxic human parts.

My follow-up question to the assertion that "abortions are "only three per cent" of what Planned Parenthood does" is, "What percent of your income is based on abortion, and have you increased that revenue in exchange for modifying abortion procedures?" I'm not interested in, "How many abortions do you perform compared to, say, mammograms?"

Mark's only false step in this critique of Mengele-Inc. is in the opening paragraph,
The fifth in an apparent series of twelve Planned Parenthood undercover videos shows Melissa Farrell, director of research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, discussing how to manipulate the abortion procedure in order to ensure the "fetus" is delivered "intact" and thus able to be cannibalized for body parts. As Ms Farrell puts it, if a client "has a specific need for a certain portion of the products of conception and we bake that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this. So we deviate from our standard in order to do that."
I don't think Mark meant to say “cannibalized,” I think he meant “selectively edited.”

Tuesday, August 04, 2015

So you don't have to...

Last night, I watched fourteen (no Trump, no Gilmore, no Huckabee) of the GOP presidential candidates on C-SPAN in NH for 2 hours.

It was a discussion format (not a debate) with some local radio guy asking questions of each candidate in a random (they drew numbers) sequence. Strictly timed. Questions were half change-ups, a quarter sliders, twenty percent curves and five percent fastballs. No serious follow-up, but mostly that wasn't necessary.

The audience was not moved to cheers, but they had been asked to restrain themselves: Like good NH Republicans, they did. C-SPAN's shots of the audience showed serious faces engaged in quite a bit of head nodding. No reading of the atmosphere from that. There were a few empty seats, and I'd guess there were several hundred in attendance. Demographically, they looked like NH, not NYC.

In the following short summary, I'm talking about the performance in this 'cattle call;' not about records, positions expressed in other venues or past actions. Of course, I did bring expectations.

Overall, you have to have come away with a feeling that the GOP has an embarrassment of riches in their field of presidential hopefuls.

Rubio looked and sounded most presidential by a fair margin. Very good answers. Nailed the immigration issue, which is his Achille's heel, so he'd better. If Nixon lost to JFK because he didn't shave, Rubio 'won' because he looked as if he were already speaking from the Oval Office. That impression was probably reinforced by the fact he was on satellite and looking directly into the camera. (He, Paul and Cruz were on via satellite from DC due to the Planned Parenthood defunding vote. It occurred to me later; Why wasn't Graham?)

Walker and Fiorina were just good, not great. They tied Rubio for second in the 30 seconds of free time each candidate finished up with, but both blanded out during Q&A. Maybe it seemed that way because there were many others who said similar things.

Walker lost points on a question about whether global warming climate change is anthropogenic. Didn't answer it, just called Obama's regs bad. This is one place where follow-up from the moderator would have been welcome.

Maybe my familiarity with Fiorina's message raised my expectations and my impression suffered from not hearing it with fresh ears. She is a lot better when she's under some pressure and can press an attack by flipping the premise of 'gotcha' questions from the Democrats with bylines. No opportunities for that last night. It was a target free environment.

Carson's humility, humanity and character were front and center. His final 30 was probably the best, ahead of the 3 already mentioned. He criticized Obamacare not just for its oozing sores and suppurating heart, but as something antithetical to the Founders vision.

Lindsey Graham was surprisingly good, maybe the 'winner' overall. Turned everything into National Security/Military. Engaging, and had the best one liners (there were few), and I seriously doubt they could have been rehearsed. Just proves these things are more entertainment than substance.

Perry better than expected, but outclassed by the field. Ditto Paul and Jindal.

Cruz very good, but maybe too earnest. Not fake, just earnest. He's not selling you his used car, he's trying to save the country. To me, that was a credible message. For those worried he is 'radical' it would just confirm their bias.

Bush, Pataki, Christie, Kasich, Santorum - better than any Democrat, but that's saying not much. They all whiffed on change ups about "what the Government should do." One way or another, they just have a different Big Government in mind. None of them will get my vote.

Trump's name was never spoken.

Monday, July 27, 2015

Ex-Im BS

McConnell says he was forced to hold a vote on the Ex-Im Bank renewal because supporters demand it. Funny, it worked the other way around when Harry Reid was in charge.
McConnell told colleagues Friday that he had little choice but to ensure a vote on the bank because its supporters threatened to block votes on other amendments.

“Supporters of the Ex-Im Bank are demanding a vote to reauthorize it, and they’ve made clear they’re ready to stop all other amendments if denied that opportunity," he said. “They’ve already proven they have the votes to back up the threat too."

But Cruz ripped McConnell’s tactics, and conservatives applauded his salvo.

“Senator Ted Cruz's speech today is evidence of the rage that conservatives have toward Senator Mitch McConnell,” one conservative strategist told The Hill. “In essence, Sen. Cruz made a strong case that McConnell's whole agenda is a lie to the conservative movement.”

Cruz and McConnell have had a rocky relationship since the freshman conservative came to the upper chamber in 2013.

They clashed most fiercely that year over the best strategy to oppose the implementation of ObamaCare. Cruz pushed Republicans to oppose any government funding resolution that allowed the law to take effect. McConnell believed the 16-day government shutdown that resulted from a standoff over spending hurt the GOP’s brand.

Cruz and McConnell clashed again in December and earlier this year over a Department of Homeland Security funding bill. Cruz insisted it include language stopping President Obama’s executive order shielding up to five million illegal immigrants form deportation.

McConnell eventually moved a clean funding bill after Senate Democrats repeatedly filibustered language targeting the executive action on immigration.
Block what other amendments? He isn't permitting any.

In summary, the supporters of Ex-Im are going to shut down the Senate if McConnell doesn't give them a chance to rape taxpayers. If he doesn't allow a vote, McConnell is afraid it'll be like the government "shutdown" - bad for the GOP.

So, if the GOP shuts it down it's the GOP's fault. If the Dems shut it down, it's the GOP's fault.

Get a spine, Mitch.

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Open Letter to Senator McConnell

Dear Mr. Majority Leader,

I watched Senator Cruz speak on the Senate floor about your vow that there would be no vote allowed on renewal of the Export-Import Bank. Either Senator Cruz suffers from a catastrophic hearing impairment combined with serious cognitive disability, or your assurance was akin to “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor:” You've decided there will be such a vote. The Ex-Im renewal amendment will be coupled with an amendment to repeal Obamacare that you've personally offered.

How generous of you. Some Republicans (who, I will remind you, comprise the party of which you are Senate Majority Leader) helped you pass Obamatrade based on your promise Ex-Im would die without a vote. Now they have to fight a battle you told them wouldn't happen. Crony capitalist leaning “Republicans” who want Ex-Im renewal get another kick at the can, but can symbolically vote against Obamacare.

You provide an easy choice for Democrats. They know the President has their back and will veto any Obamacare repeal. Democrats can vote to renew the Ex-Im Bank and even to repeal Obamacare, knowing only the former would ever be allowed to stand.

You've called this a “compromise,” giving Democrats and corporatist-state Republicans their chance to perpetuate a give away of taxpayer funds, and giving Republicans the chance to play-vote to repeal Obamacare. What a sham. And a shame.

I also understand you will not allow Senator Paul's amendment to stop taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood to come to a vote. Given Planned Parenthood's recently revealed nonchalance about selling dismembered babies' organs, which they view as clumps of waste tissue with a market, Senator Paul's amendment seems to me a timely, winning and principled one. A good issue with which to challenge the modern eugenicists' newspeak about “tissue samples”, ”calvarium” and “less crunchy.”

But beyond merely opposing these horrors on principle, did it ever occur to you that a compromise might be to fund the Ex-Im Bank with the half a billion tax dollars annually given to Planned Parenthood? That would be a compromise amendment. One where the Democrats are forced to pick their poison. It would have been far better than offering the hemlock to your fellow GOP Senators while serving milk and honey to the opposition.

By the way, if I were writing such an amendment, I would also include a provision to subtract from any future Ex-Im Bank funding the $10.3 million the bank provided as a loan guarantee to subsidize the installation of some solar panels in Belgium. Those panels were made by Solyndra, perhaps the poster child for public-pirate partnership. The installation was completed a year prior to the issuance of the loan guarantee and created exactly zero jobs. Ex-Im didn't facilitate this export, they shoveled money into a failing company as a matter of political policy.

The Ex-Im Bank is a tool for politicians and lobbyists. It is a highly visible example of the unholy alliance between the Federal government and the corporate-welfare queens laughingly calling themselves capitalists. The private sector is more than up to the task of financing viable business ventures, but apparently provides insufficient opportunities for graft and corruption.

Bad though Ex-Im is, I'd rather waste the money on failing “green” energy companies than on “non-profit” mega-abortion mills. Planned Parenthood is the single largest perpetrator of abortions in the world. It commits an estimated third of a million abortions per year. About as many abortions as the total of half the remaining G7 nations (Germany, France, Canada) combined. Most of those abortions are performed on black and hispanic women in our inner-cities, where the number of abortions typically exceed the number of live births. How about shoving the #WaronWomen and #BlackLivesMatter memes back in the faces of the hypocrites who excuse this leisurely genocide?

In short, Mr. Majority Leader, I agree with Senator Cruz: You are acting like Harry Reid. Senator Cruz is also right that introducing your own Obamacare amendment is a distraction, intended to fail. And intended to muddy the waters.

I am in full-throated agreement with Senator Cruz' assessment of the GOP leadership. I've been disillusioned for many years, and your personal betrayal of your fellow Senators is, sadly, just a small example of the wider corruption which is driving me from the party.

The public adulation for Donald Trump (R?, Blowhardville), should be telling you something about how alienated much of your base already feels. I urge you to reconsider how you are handling this matter, rather than further destroying the brand.

Monday, July 20, 2015

War Fighters

...of the Social Justice variety.

As far as I can tell, this USMC Lt. Col. was fired for doing her job: Making Marines.

That includes:
Running Boot Camp. Pursuing a vision of Marines as elite warriors. Demanding accountability to standards. Honoring the Corps in spite of a hostile command hierarchy whose budget is hostage to Political Correctness. Integrating female Marines with their peers with whom they may SHARE COMBAT. Challenging female Marines to improve: To have a better chance of survival.

According to the complainers, Lt. Col. Kate Germano, the former commanding officer of 4th Recruit Training Battalion at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina, was:
"bullying Marines and singling them out for under-performance.”
Sounds like Boot Camp to me.

Look, the USMC does not want people to fail. They're not stupid. They have well tested methods to help recruits succeed. Because, you know, they want more and better Marines next to them in foxholes.

Lt. Col. Germano is alleged to have:
""reinforced gender bias and stereotypes" in the minds of her Marines by telling them on several occasions that male Marines would not take orders from them and would see them as inferior if they could not meet men's physical standards”
Telling the truth. And the truth is that it’s now the Corps that is "reinforcing gender bias and stereotypes” that women are unable to perform.

Germano was accused of:
“...singled out Marines who couldn't perform three pullups or complete a physical fitness test's 3-mile run in less than 23 minutes.”
Enforcing standards and individual accountability.
"Witnesses said she implied that sexual assault is "100 percent preventable” [Their words, you’ll notice. I’d say the correct term would be ‘inferred.’] and that "by drinking, you are putting yourself in a position to be sexually assaulted.” ...

The investigation found that Germano's personal viewpoints on the issue of sexual assault revealed no malice or bad intent. But, the investigating officer found, her poor choice of words and focus on accountability left room for misinterpretation and left some Marines feeling less safe.”
I think the Marines who should feel less safe are the ones who might end up in a foxhole with the snowflake “Marines” the program is apparently designed to produce.

All this would matter much less if these women weren't candidates for combat duty. But the Social Justice Warriors saw that as discriminatory. Now they see preparation for combat as discriminatory. Rather than admit they were wrong in the first instance, they double down.

Thursday, July 09, 2015

There. Fixed that for you, Daily Beast

This Is How Hillary Loses the Primary
Something remarkable is happening in American politics. For the first time in our history, a socialist is running a close second and gaining ground on the front-runner in a presidential race.
What they really meant: "Something remarkable is happening in American Democrat politics. For the first time in our history, an honest socialist is running a close second and gaining ground on the main stream socialist-as-usual front-runner in a presidential race."

Monday, July 06, 2015

"Rope-a-Dope" as defined by Mrs Bill

Mrs. Bill ropes some dopes.

Clinton campaign ropes off reporters at New Hampshire parade

Then some reporter gets to ask a question. He asks, "What's your favorite ice-cream?" She says, "“I like nearly everything.”

One would think he might have inquired about her favorite lasso material. Nylon? Jute? Polypropylene? Hemp? He would have received the same answer, but it would have been much more interesting.