Foreign Criminals of the Day

SEARCH BLOG: IRAQ

Martin Kelly writes about "foreign criminals of the day" in his blog.

That is not the focus of this post. This is about what is occurring in Iraq.

The situation there is not quite like what happened in Russia when the old Soviet Union fell apart. But what is the same is that the collapse of the previous government provided a power-grab opportunity. In Russia, the power was grabbed by many in the former Soviet power structure, but underlying that was a "Soviet Mafia" power-grab. Corruption has been rampant and fairly public.

But Russia pales with the power-grabbing attempts in Iraq. With the entire power structure disbanded, the most corrupt elements in Iraq were set free to ply their trade without conscience. In addition to the thousands of criminals who were set free from prisons, the "protection" racketeers have had free reign to create their own "shadow governments" and "private militias". They play upon real or imagined religious differences among the populace to create animosity and fear and pit neighbor against neighbor so that they can "recruit" those who will depend on them for protection and leadership.

Most notorious is Muqtada al-Sadr. He brandishes a lethal mixture of distorted religion and mafia lack of conscience and has built his own private "army." He uses this with the cunning of a Hitler to create the fiction that he is a "great leader." He leads with the same evil and malice.

It was a major strategic error to have invited him into the rebuilding processes. He was a criminal and is a criminal. Whether or not he has a power base should have been irrelevant. The only reason he was included instead of being eliminated was that in today's "image conscious" world, the Bush administration did not want to give media ammunition to those who would call him "barbaric" or "unwilling to use diplomacy" or some such position of guilt-ridden criticism.

Using the term from a "diversity" group, al-Sadr should have been eliminated BAMN... by any means necessary. If there is to be a major improvement in the situation in Iraq, al-Sadr must be eliminated from the equation... BAMN.

In the world of conflict and power, there are two psychological weapons: warnings and examples. Warnings are often ignored; examples are heeded. al-Sadr is a true criminal who has been adept at making examples to consolidate his power. It's time to make an example of al-Sadr. Then others will heed the warnings.

..

Situational Science - Addendum

SEARCH BLOG - GLOBAL WARMING

To help clarify for those who didn't pick up what I was saying in the prior post, this is from the NASA link at the right side of the page: NASA - Earth's Fidgeting Climate

The ant on the hour hand

"For the ordinary person, it's a common misperception that weather is not changing ... that last winter is about as cold as this winter and last summer is about as warm ... and the world is pretty much constant," Krabill said. "That's not true. The Earth has gone through and continues to go through cycles of warming and cooling. It's just natural."

This natural variability often shows an astounding degree of complexity, much of which remains poorly understood.

"We've only begun making (large scale) measurements in the last 100 to 150 years," Abdalati said. "And climatic processes happen on very different time scales. There are some, like ice ages, that are in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years long. An then there are atmospheric processes like weather, which happen on the scales of hours and days."

Other climate cycles fall in between, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation mentioned above, which is thought to complete one cycle roughly every 20 to 30 years.

"And so you have all these processes mixed together that have been going on for thousands of years, and you're in the difficult position of trying to separate something very recent from the natural cycle without fully understanding what that natural cycle is," Abdalati said.

Left: Knowing where a relatively short interval of observation fits into the long-term pattern is a difficult challenge for scientists. A steady increase that appears to be a trend may be a trend, but it may also be a small part of a larger cycle.

Observing a system like climate that varies on several time scales -- some of which approach geological slowness -- could be likened to an ant watching the hands of a clock, "perhaps with the ant sitting on the hour hand," Abdalati added.

Seen in this context, scientists don't give much weight to the five-year snapshot of the ice on Greenland.

"You know, five years is a pretty short amount of time in glaciological terms," Krabill said. "To try to make inferences about 'Global Climate Change' in capital letters from a five-year period of time is a pretty risky business."

Other modern data sets are not much longer. The era of satellite observation is only about 30 to 40 years old -- a mere blink in climatological terms. And the widespread network of weather-measurement stations in the developed world is about 150 years old.

So, I guess "Anonymous" was right that I understated this issue as "not major." It doesn't deny that there has been recently observed global warming, but it does reinforce the need to understand that we don't really understand what is happening... and that those who haven't jumped on the anthropogenic-based-CO2-driven-climate-change-bandwagon are not necessarily "fringe skeptics."

What I have said and continue to say is:

• over a short span, there is great uncertainty regarding the implications of global temperature change
• any perceived relationship between longer term climate changes and human influences is still open to further investigation

There are very qualified scientists saying the same thing.
..

Situational Science

SEARCH BLOG: POLITICALLY CORRECT and GLOBAL WARMING

The major issue of "global warming" is not whether it is or is not occurring (although one could ask if a 30-year downward trend followed by the current 30-year upward trend is a "trend" or "oscillation"), but what are all of the human influences on any climate change and what can and should be done to manage it.

A couple of the issues I have "discussed" at other sites include questions about the accuracy of the data from decades ago which is being compare with today's data, the consistency of data being collected over the past decade or even day-to-day, and the influence of land use changes, as the human population has doubled, on regional climates... and, hence, the impact on the data that would have been gathered from those regions as the land uses changed.

Most comments in response to those questions are that the questions are totally irrelevant because there is a "consensus".

For those who failed English, "consensus" does not necessarily mean "unanimity" or even "agreement". The way it is used in this arena simply means "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned "... in other words, it represents a majority of opinion.

Consensus, therefore doesn't necessarily mean "all the facts." In science, at best it means that there is "evidence." It also means that there is some degree of "disputing evidence." Those who dispute the "consensus" must do so on the basis of rigorous study, not faith such as those who want "intelligent design" considered as an alternative to evolution. The disputer or skeptics or minority must have measureable, test-worthy alternative positions.

This is not necessarily the case with economics or social sciences or politics. Here, "expert" opinion is sometimes all that is relied upon... by those who feel comfortable with that opinion. Selective facts are the basis for opinions and, often, policies. Thus, those who have selected facts from consensus positions are those who want to disregard other facts as they form their opinions. Here, in the political arena, the "consensus" on global warming is interpreted by some as "we must take immediate and drastic action now to avoid disaster within the next 50 years."

Some responses are even less well thought out than a simple dismal of the questions as being irrelevant. From the Economist's View:

*****

Bruce Hall;

I guess you're in favor of "situational science".

*****

Ah, "situational science"....

It's science if "my" scientists interpret data one way and situational science if "your" scientists interpret it another.

That's about the same as saying "peer reviewed" is only valid if I accept the pronouncements of "my" scientists, but "peer reviewed" means "irrational skeptics" if they are "your" scientists.

Let's not get into the "Intelligent Design" arena which is not a matter of scientific interpretation of data... or even different data sets... but rather "belief" versus "scientific methodology".

It's those kinds of insinuations that reflect the "religious ferver" of the "true believers" of anthropogenic-driven global warming... and leads to the next step of demanding that billions of dollars be spent in a unilateral (U.S./Europe - "developing" world exempt) effort to "undo" man-made global warming now... because we can't wait for the data to be thoroughly examined and move from the football-poll "consensus" approach to "scientific agreement." Remember, you are supposed to be addressing issues of "hard science", not economics as the basis for making economic decisions.

"Situational"... indeed!

*****

I'm fairly certain that the comment about "situational science" came as a result of the "Doonesbury" comics... see Jan. 14, 2007. It all goes back to my earlier post.
..

Open Letter to Alan Mulally

SEARCH BLOG: AUTOMOBILE

The Detroit News writes that Ford Motor Company's restructuring is ahead of schedule. CEO Alan Mulally is quoted as saying:

Mulally has outlined a plan in recent weeks to merge several regional Ford divisions around the world into a single, global Blue Oval brand, according to interviews with Ford executives this week.

On Friday, Mulally hinted at his frustration at finding the Ford brand was actually six or seven different brands scattered around the world -- each with its own product lineup. He pointed to Ford of Europe's new Mondeo sedan, which was recently featured in the James Bond movie, "Casino Royale."

"Why aren't we driving that here?" he asked. "Hello! It's a great car."

Mr. Mulally is a sharp businessman, but he is new to the auto business. So I will offer two words for him: "Merkur" and "Contour".

The idea of using European designs and platforms in the U.S. is not new. Some European designs are quite fascinating. The European Focus is one of them. The trick is to really understand the differences in U.S. and European markets and then make sure that the "Americanization" of European cars doesn't result in a product that doesn't fit or excite. The Merkur was a "luxury" brand in Europe, but offered little more than an expensive upgrade to the Taurus. The Contour was an Americanization of the Mondeo that looked like a squeezed down Taurus or a bloated Escort. It was marketed as a family car, but was too small for American dimensions. It was a competent and unexciting misfit.

Let's hope that the consolidation of brands is done more intelligently this time.

Fervor Fever

SEARCH BLOG: GLOBAL WARMING and ECONOMY

In a recent post at Economist's View, I suggested that before everyone committed to spending hundreds of billions of dollars to reduce CO2 production because it causes global warming, that they look at the volumes of work that question both the causality connection between CO2 and climate change, and that they consider that the data itself may be incorrect or biased. I provided several links to Colorado University's CIRES effort.

The responses are typical of what one might expect from recent religious converts:

• Mr. Hall, why don't you just can it?

  Sorry to be so rude but you're shouting in an empty room.
  

• Bruce Hall is right about one thing, the NOAA has been political under the anti-scientic (sic) barrage of the Bush administration. This barrage has undermined the integrity of every public institution that relies on science to do its work....the EPA, NASA, NOAA, NIH, the list goes on.

  http://www.realclimate.org/

• We got the answers from reading the peer reviewed science, Bruce. Over the years a multi-disciplinary scientific consensus built up that the earth is getting warmer; most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities; the warming will continue and indeed accelerate as long as our greenhouse gas emissions continue. In short this is a problem and we ought to do something about it.
  
  The paper by Pielke (Sr.) that Bruce pathetically cites in hopes of stirring doubt about the validity of the overwhelming multi-disciplinary scientific consensus calls for improvements in methods of measuring the earth’s temperature. Great. Improvements are welcome. We can watch the temperature soar with increased accuracy.
  
  For a profile on Pielke Sr. and Jr. see http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/announcement_files/1020-uploaded/announcement-1020-1906.pdf
  
  Of course the article tries to create a false choice. We need to adapt to the climate change that is unstoppable no matter what we do to try to prevent it and we need to try to prevent what we can.

My last response was:

Odd how "peer reviewed" only seems to apply to those who buy into anthropogenic global warming scenarios. Those who disagree or suggest examining data in a different light based on their "peer reviewed" work are deemed "climate skeptics."

Quran 2.39. But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein.

Religous fervor.

Clyde's Vision

SEARCH BLOG: IMMIGRATION and DIVERSITY

Apologies in advance for this long-winded and contentious post. Immigration and diversity are two really... really... volatile issues in American and European societies. Clyde Wilson, quoted below, is is a professor of history at the University of South Carolina. His views are toward one extreme... the opposite of those who see immigration as a process that strengthens America.

From Martin Kelly in Scotland quoting Clyde Wilson:

(Note: Martin left out the first two paragraphs which are shown here)
According to the census bureau a new “American” crossed the border to join us once every 27 seconds in 2006. The unpunished intention of our rulers to replace us with foreign coolie labour tells us that as a society we are completely lacking any sense of a past or a future. Nobody who has any conception of the work, wisdom, virtue, sacrifice, and heroism that went into the making of this country could possibly approve of the transformation that is taking place.

That is not too surprising, though. Since 1848 the descendants of the British colonists who created the U.S. have been a dwindling part of the population. How many Americans are there today with such an inheritance? One in twenty? One in fifty? In fact, those of us who fit that description are mostly despised “rednecks,” while late-comers glorify themselves as a “nation of immigrants.” Can there be any other example in history of a core population being replaced by newcomers while retaining its name? A country without cultural continuity can only be held together by abstractions—deceitful slogans without any human content—and by constant fear of enemies. Orwell had it right.

People who are ignorant of and indifferent to their background (and those who misrepresent it for present-time advantage) are barbarians—that is, people without a civilized culture. Our leaders view American society as a commercial enterprise in which profit and consumption are the only values. After all, a customer is a customer and yesterday is just a past opportunity for sales. Who worries about where the customer comes from? As a society we have lost sight of the truth that economic abundance is not a self-perpetuating technical trick but rests ultimately on mental and moral qualities. Mental and moral virtues are declining in power and the evidence is already there of the loss of prosperity that necessarily follows.

But a society without ancestors (bastards?) is not the worst of the American decline. The worst is a lost future. Our forebears felled forests, planted trees, built houses, fought wars in the consciousness that the benefits would accrue to their descendants more than to themselves.

A people who took any thought to the welfare of their grandchildren, much less future generations of their own blood, could not possibly tolerate the ongoing destruction of our human environment by politicians and plutocrats. Burke defined civilization as the awareness of the interconnection of past, present, and future. Conservatism was the preservation of the essence of civilization amidst the inevitable flux and chaos of existence.

But I can’t worry about that right now. I have to watch Oprah and then go to the mall. Only in America.

In an email exchange with Martin Kelly, here is some of what I wrote:

"Cultural values" are one of these somewhat ephemeral "riches" of a society that modern economics seems to conveniently ignore. What is the "profit" margin or a cooperative and friendly neighborhood? What is the cost of distrust. We know the former has value and the latter has cost, but cheap labor and cheap goods seem to be far more relevant to the economist's thought process (although I'm sure someone, somewhere has tried to quantify that). Nevertheless, we all sense when "cultural values" are strong and vibrant and when they are neglected and weak, whether or not we can place an economic value on them.

Perhaps the nature of what constitutes our "cultural values" is a little vague and that's why they are so difficult on which to find common perspective. The economist would look at U.S.A.'s overall Gross National Product or unemployment rate or stock market and say that things have never been so prosperous. Look how immigration has kept the price of products, despite such rare(?) abuses as meat from the Swift plants that used illegal aliens to contain costs, down to a level where even the poor can afford a good cut of beef. See how trade with China has freed people from the drudgery of those dingy factory jobs. Look how ethnic diversity has made our cities so vibrant with their Chinatowns and LIttle Vietnams and great Indian and Mexican restaurants and new mosques that nurture the spiritual side of our neighbors. See the richness of all of this change!

Yet so many feel an alienation with what they see around them. Will those new neighbors rally together for the common good if there is a threat, natural or political, to our nation? Will that vibrant economy provide social and emotional support to those who are weak and needy or simply focus on corporate profits and new casinos? I think that what may be slipping away is the Christian/Humanistic philosophy... the focus on others' welfare... that was brought to America by its UK ancestors. Sure, there are still neighborhood barbeques and there are still many who respond when a hurricane destroys a city. But, increasingly, there seems to be a cynicism and selfishness and "I got mine" attitude as commerce becomes the central, the core, value of our culture. Increasingly, "diversity" becomes "divergence."

Perhaps I overstate the issue.

Well, actually, I know I overstate the case on both sides. The "richness" of the change is superficial in many respects. The ethnic commercial districts are certainly positive factors in our cities. Last fall's trip to San Francisco demonstrated that magnificently. But the Mexican ghettos in the southwest and west attest to the destructive aspects of unmanaged immigration.

The U.S. always had immigrant groups that clustered for awhile and then disbursed and became "assimilated" into the general population. It was really a matter of survival for most. There were no efforts by the existing community to offer information in German or Polish. Learn English and fit in was the strategy... but maybe not so much now.

America is changing and it is difficult to know whether, in the long run, if it is for the better or the worse. One thing is for sure, it won't be the "culture" of the 19th and 20th centuries with its predominantly Western/Central European heritage... but it doesn't have to be fragemented, though it very well may be.

See here.

..

Where Did The Cold Go?

SEARCH BLOG: CLIMATE

Apparently New Zealand.

• Rainfall: Well below normal in the north of both islands; above normal in the east, especially Canterbury
• Wind: More frequent cold southerlies
• Temperature: One of the coldest Decembers in the last sixty years
• Sunshine: Sunnier than normal in the north of both islands

So, NOAA's fuzzy statement about global warming only means "part of the globe?"

GIGO

SEARCH BLOG: GLOBAL WARMING

From the blog Economist's View:

January 10, 2007

NOAA: Global Warming Contributed to the Warmer than Usual Temperatures in 2006

For the first time under the Bush administration, the NOAA acknowledges global warming is real.

I commented:

From Colorado University, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences

January 8, 2007
CIRES, NOAA to Double 3-D Global Climate Record
Scientists from CIRES and NOAA will build the first complete 20th Century database of global weather maps—a major next step to improving computer models of past and future climate.

*******

But you should read this from Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., et al before you comment.

http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf

"Nothing is ever as simple as it first seems."

GIGO

This Blogger Is Interesting Even If You Don't Understand Him

SEARCH BLOG: SCIENTIST and PHYSICS

I've added a link to another "blogspot" blog by Luboš Motl. It is called "the reference frame"; I just call it "Motl's Blog" on the links along the right side of this page.

He is what you might call an "eclectic physicist" although his professed passion is "string theory." I never got much farther than "silly string" so he doesn't always talk my language, but his language is interesting. Give it a try.

Oh, and how does he get all of that neat stuff pasted all over his blog? It's like an explosion in a picture studio. The bigger mystery is how he has time to write all of that stuff.
..

Conclusions from Climate Science

SEARCH BLOG: CLIMATE and GLOBAL WARMING

Yestereday, I introduced the weblog "Climate Science" written by Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. of the University of Colorado.

Much of what is written is difficult for the average layman to decipher, but Dr. Pielke has summarized the conclusions for us here:

The Climate Science Weblog has clearly documented the following conclusions since July 2005:

1. The needed focus for the study of climate change and variability is on the regional and local scales. Global and zonally-averaged climate metrics would only be important to the extent that they provide useful information on these space scales.
2. Global and zonally-averaged surface temperature trend assessments, besides having major difficulties in terms of how this metric is diagnosed and analyzed, do not provide significant information on climate change and variability on the regional and local scales.
3. Global warming is not equivalent to climate change. Significant, societally important climate change, due to both natural- and human- climate forcings, can occur without any global warming or cooling.
4. The spatial pattern of ocean heat content change is the appropriate metric to assess climate system heat changes including global warming.
5. In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change
6. Global and regional climate models have not demonstrated skill at predicting climate change and variability on multi-decadal time scales.
7. Attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose.
8. A vulnerability paradigm, focused on regional and local societal and environmental resources of importance, is a more inclusive, useful, and scientifically robust framework to interact with policymakers, than is the focus on global multi-decadal climate predictions which are downscaled to the regional and local scales. The vulnerability paradigm permits the evaluation of the entire spectrum of risks associated with different social and environmental threats, including climate variability and change.

Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.

(Highlighting is mine)

Climate Science

SEARCH BLOG: CLIMATE

For those of you interested in climatology, you may want to visit this blog by Roger Pielke Sr., senior scientist at the Pielke Research Group, Colorado State University.

Then you can read my earlier post about a serious automotive advancement by General Motors and my not-so-serious comments.

..

150 MPG - Not Good Enough

SEARCH BLOG: AUTOMOBILE and CO2

From The Detroit News:

The awards ceremony was just a prelude to GM's stunning midday press conference, when Wagoner and Vice Chairman Bob Lutz showed off the Chevrolet Volt concept car.

The sporty Volt represents GM's most ambitious effort to close the gap with Toyota and Honda in alternative-fuel technology.

While Toyota and Honda dominate the market for hybrid-powered vehicles, GM is placing a big bet on the Volt's "e-flex" system that features a chargeable lithium-ion battery and a small gasoline engine that generates electricity.

Lutz said the Volt's future rests on improvements in battery technology, but said it was "reasonable" to expect a production version could be available by 2010.

He couldn't resist ribbing GM's critics in the environmental movement, some of whom lay the blame for global warming on the automaker in the documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."

"A GM electrical vehicle is an inconvenient truth," Lutz said, with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Well, there are just two things wrong with that:

1. The Volt, if it goes into production, will still use gasoline, and
2. The electricity used to recharge its batteries will come from power plants

You might well ask, why is that a problem if the car gets 150 mpg? It's not a problem as far as I am concerned, but you have to realize that this car will still produce CO2!

A small amount from the engine, you say. True, but unless it is plugged into an electric grid with a nuclear power plant, it will contribute to CO2 production where the electricity is being generated. And you all know what that means... global disaster! We've been assure of that by sources like RealClimate.org. I really like the picture at the top of their site that shows the sun really close to the earth... about to consume the earth in fire, so it seems. Very dramatic, don't you think? Sorry, I digressed.

Why can't someone just design the perfect car? Maybe solar powered, with optional mast and sails, that is amphibious if there is a river nearby.

Hmmmmmmmm.

War In Iraq - Cost-Benefit Analysis

SEARCH BLOG: IRAQ and ECONOMICS

Yesterday, I commented that the discussion at Economist's View had gone into a rather strange proposition that we should leave Iraq immediately based on costs. My position was that wars are always political, not economic, and not subject to economic rationale.

One person commented:

i really don't see what you're driving at, but i will say, once again, that we can subject war, like so many aspects of life, to a rational cost-benefit analysis (now we're into economics). In order to do so, we need to be able to sum up the costs and the benefits. exactly what is your problem with trying to understand the cost side of the equation? that it might reveal just how deranged this whole little piece of adventurism is?

My "extreme economics" reply was:

For those who continue to insist that " will say, once again, that we can subject war, like so many aspects of life, to a rational cost-benefit analysis (now we're into economics)"... would you then say that if the war could be conducted without the death or injury to any U.S. soldier (from direct fighting... since there will always be non-combat injuries in any endeavor) that it would qualify as a highly successful war... on a cost-benefit basis?

If so, there are several military scenarios that would achieve that. However, I would hasten to speculate that those solutions would be condemned as "barbaric" by the rest of the world. Nevertheless, on a cost-benefit basis (from the soldier perspective) they would be a no cost-infinite benefit solutions.

And, on a time-cost basis, the effort could be conducted in a matter of days with no residual fighting in the area. That is a significant cost savings as well.

Are we getting the picture here? From a cost-benefit basis... relative to soldier deaths/injury/rehabilitation... a long-range nuclear solution is the most economic. The war is conducted by software and hardware... no ground, naval or air troops required.

Very cost-benefit effective. Objective (wipe out any potential enemy) achieved.

Now I'd say the political costs would be extremely high, but as demonstrated from previous posts, this is all about economics, so politics is irrelevant.

Hmmmmm.

So, am I advocating nuclear warfare? Of course not. I am proposing that economics and politics have different ways of dealing with the world and either taken to its extreme is likely to not make a lot of sense. Trying to apply business cost-benefit analysis to warfare is taking economics to its extreme... nonsense.

The War in Iraq Costs Too Much - Let's Leave Now

SEARCH BLOG: IRAQ and IRAN

That's a pretty succinct summary of that proposition on the table at Economist's View.

Of all of the reasons to simply leave, that one seems a little hard to accept.

Wars are dirty things fought for many reasons... some noble and some shameful.

Sometimes the information available at the beginning of a war is revised by the end of the war... not because the information was lies at the beginning, but because it was wrong or partially wrong because good information was difficult to obtain.

Sometimes wars are won, but the peace is lost... not because the military is incapable, but because politics makes up impossible rules for the military to retain its victory.

Sometimes we are for the war before we are against it... we thought it would be like a TV mini-series that runs for a couple of weeks and then it's over, and now we are tired of the same plot.

Sometimes we believe we are being noble and self-sacrificing by going into war... and then we don't like the reality of the sacrifice and are willing to be less noble so that we can quit.

Sometimes we are philosophically against war of any kind... and all of the negative aspects of war gives us a sense of moral superiority to oppose it.

But of all of the reasons for getting out of a war, the crassest is that "it costs too much."

ADDENDUM

The ranting continues at Economist's Blog (90 comments at last count) and most of it has nothing to do with the original post about the VA having a difficult time facing it because of the number of soldiers being injured. The number of injuries from the war has been overstated in the original post and, conveniently, the fact that the VA will only have to treat a relatively small portion of the total injuries (because many are handled either in Iraq or at Walter Reed... has been ignored. However, addressing the personal insults addressed to anyone who doesn't believe that cost is the only consideration, I have posted the following there:

I see the steam is still billowing.

The point I was making about the VA is that it has a large budget, but the staff is stretched because so many veterans use the facilities for treatments that could be provided closer to their own homes by either hospitals, clinics or family doctors... if the VA had a system in place like medicare for those purposes.

Then more personnel would be freed up to work with soldiers who needed continued treatment... from Iraq who were among those not completely treated in Iraq... or those from any previous military-related injuries.

The rest of the ranting here is like listening to protesters who believe the louder they shout the more meaningful their sounds.

BTW, I'm satisfied that my military service was honorable and I can call myself patriotic. Even if you haven't done so and want to say that my support of the war effort is wrong, I won't call you unpatriotic. Your concern for what is happening is reasonable. But, while there are economic consequences surrounding war, it is not about economics... it is about politics... always has been and always will.

So trying to justify stopping a war because of economic consequences is blowing into the wind. War is about politics and will. If either of those falter, then the war is abandoned. If you are against the war, then it is enough to just say that and that your political efforts are aimed to end it immediately. There will be consequences, both economic and political in the long term for an immediate pull-out... and I don't believe even Nancy Pelosi will vote for that.

Class(ic) Struggles

SEARCH BLOG: TRIBALISM or DIVERSITY

Pat Buchanan offered this up yesterday (his site may be having problems - 1/5):

In the presence of [ethnic] diversity, we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do(n't?) look like us.
—Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam

Two years ago, I wrote a little piece on tribes... tribalism, if you will... and territorial imperative. It's one of those aspects of human organization that seems to be ingrained in us. It's partially about how people look, but even more about how they behave. People who do not share our behaviors are people we don't trust and don't want around us. So western Europeans distrust eastern Europeans (although they might look very similar naked) because behaviors (external manifestations of values?) are different.

Othello may have been an attractive curiosity to Venetians, but millions of illegal immigrants into southwestern U.S. are viewed as an invasion... and they know they are viewed with antagonism so that reinforces their behavior of ethnic isolation which reinforces the antagonism.

Unfortunately, the modern gospel of diversity that is so ubiquitously preached... pounded... at us in the press and other media, magnifies the differences. The old idea of assimilation has been pushed aside in favor of emphasizing differences. This simply plays into distrust... and bad social policies. Joining used to be a valuable goal. Now separation is seen as valuable... we need the (fill-in-the-blank) perspective.

Instead of a national identity, we seek divergence... and we get fragmentation.

Freakonomics

SEARCH BLOG: ECONOMICS

Steven D. Levitt, professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, make economics interesting in a weird way in his book "Freakonomics" which was written with Stephen J. Dubner, a writer for the New York Times and The New Yorker.

My oldest son and his wife, Steven and Sara, who constantly challenge my thinking, gave me a copy for Christmas... and it is a really fine gift.

• What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common?
• How is the Ku Klux Klan like a group of real estate agents?
• Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?

Weird, but fun to read.

..

Teleparallel superspace in eleven dimensions coupled to supermembranes

SEARCH BLOG: PHYSICIST and ECONOMIST

After watching a "watered-down" explanation of how 11 dimensions elegantly explains ... well, everything, I was curious how physicists really talk about this mind warping concept. Naturally, there was a very clear abstract:

We present a superspace formulation of N=1 eleven-dimensional supergravity with no manifest local Lorentz covariance, which we call teleparallel superspace. This formulation will be of great importance, when we deal with other supergravity theories in dimensions higher than eleven dimensions, or a possible formulation of noncommutative supergravity. As an illustrative example, we apply our teleparallel superspace formulation to the case of N=1 supergravity in twelve dimensions. We also show the advantage of teleparallel superspace as backgrounds for supermembrane action.

Okay, maybe someone missed a dimension in the video I watched. But now that these physicists have determined that 12 dimensions really explain everything better than 11, there is no need for talking anymore about how things really work. No wonder everyone respects physicists and no one understands economists. I've already booked a cruise through the 7th dimension through Yahoo!

New Look for the New Year

I hope this revised look helps make the reading easier.

Taking a Bad Idea to the Next Level

SEARCH BLOG: ENVIRONMENT and CO2

Yesterday, I commented on what I perceived to be a bad economic idea... taxing CO2 production. While I am not "anti-tax" in the sense that I am against pooling resources for the local, state, or national interest... I am against the notion of taxes to achieve political agendas.

The idea of taxing CO2 is political to its core. As James Killus puts it: "Where do you get off deciding how much CO2 gets put in _our_ air?" In other words, I have a notion that you might be harming my world sometime in the future, so you have to give up living the way you do.

Well... why bother with taxes at all?? Let's get right down to business:

• ban all natural gas (and propane) and oil furnaces
• ban all natural gas (and propane) appliances
  
• ban all combustion engines
• ban all combustion power plants
• ban all fireplaces, barbeques, and campfires
  
• ban all excess people (China has a good policy) ... too much exhalation
  
• ban all future paving and building on any undeveloped land
  
• ban clearing any forest for other land use
• ... feel free to add your own bad idea....

See, that will keep your CO2 out of my atmosphere!

And who said fascism is a bad form of government?

..

Bad Idea of the New Year

SEARCH BLOG: ECONOMY and ENVIRONMENT

From the Economist's View:

Almost everyone except the likes of ExxonMobil, US Vice President Dick Cheney, and their paid servants and deluded acolytes understands that when humans burn hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide goes into the atmosphere, where it acts like a giant blanket, absorbing infrared radiation coming up from below and warming the earth.

Likewise, almost everyone understands that while global warming might be a much smaller or larger problem than existing models suggest, this uncertainty is no excuse for inaction. ...

Finally, almost everyone agrees that governments, non-profit institutions and energy companies should be spending far more to develop technologies that generate non-carbon-emitting power, that remove it from the atmosphere to forests or oceans, and that cool the earth by reflecting more of the sunlight that lands on it.

Clearly, the world's rich countries should carry the burden of dealing with climate change. After all, they could take an easy, emissions-intensive path to industrialisation and wealth. Today, China, India and other developing countries cannot, and it would be unfair to penalise them for that. ...

Economists like to think of things in terms of prices. And when economists see behaviour that has destructive side effects, we like to tax it. Taxation makes individuals feel in their wallets the destruction they are causing. ...

But it has to be the right tax. An SUV going 10 miles in the city and burning a gallon of gasoline pumps about three kilograms of carbon into the atmosphere. Should the extra global warming tax be US$0.05 a gallon, US$0.50 a gallon, or US$1.50 a gallon? ...[T]he size of the tax hinges on a question of moral philosophy: How much do we believe we owe our distant descendants?

Wow. There are so many faulty assumptions, it should be apparent to almost everyone that this idea is unworkable. But just in case you don't see the problems, here is the short answer:

• Almost everyone excludes a very significant portion of the scientific community that does not accept the notion of an anthropogenic climate change model
• Almost everyone excludes a large portion of the economic community that believes taxation is not needed to cure a questionable problem.
• Almost everyone excludes a large portion of the world that believes China and India don't require a free ride regarding any global actions that might be enacted.
• Economists are generally not in the value judgment business regarding perceived destructive behavior and will often find that the law of unintended consequences rules over well-intentioned legislation and taxation (is outsourcing destructive behavior... ask those who lose their jobs?) Is hamstringing our economy going to solve a perceived global problem or only create a U.S. economic problem?

I suggest you check out the link in yesterday's post if you haven't done so already. That's the long answer.