Presidential Candidates for 2012, v2

Six months ago I blogged about presidential candidates for 2012. I'm more firmly convinced it's too late for Obama to win reelection, baring an event of near catastrophic proportions. I think President Obama is too narcissistic to step down like Lyndon Johnson did, and I think it's too late for anyone to successfully challenge Obama in the Democratic party primary, even Hillary. Obama controls the Democratic party machinery, and a challenger would not only have to do without that, they would have to overcome it. And no other party can field an electable candidate. If I'm right that Obama will be up for reelection, but cannot win, that means our next president will be a Republican.

That also means whoever wins the Republican primary will be our next president, so pay attention now, folks, because the campaign for the Republican nomination is in full swing. Democrats in States that allow any voter to vote in either primary may want to consider voting in the Republican primary this time around.

Six months ago, there were no declared candidates, and I said that Mike Huckabee was my favorite potential candidate. He decided not to run, but a boat-load of others are in. I'm no expert on any of these folks, but I've heard some positions and noticed some personal failings that have turned me off to several candidates, and I've seen a few things that I like in a few candidates. There isn't a single candidate that I like 100%, but that will always be true. If I ran myself, I'd agree 100% with my positions, but I'd be concerned about how my health might hold up under the rigors of being president, so I wouldn't even be for myself 100% taking everything into account. Nevertheless, I do have some new favorites that I'm willing to share:

My top choice of these folks is a tie between Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, and my third choice is Mitt Romney. There are things I like and things I dislike about the rest of the pack, but I prefer that none of the others become president for various reasons.

I like Herman Cain for president because he's not a career politician, he has a strong business management background, he's matured enough since he got into this race to stand up to the rigors of the election and the office, and most importantly, I like a lot of his ideas. He understands the importance of fiscal responsibility and simple and stable rules for businesses to be able to risk expanding their workforce and for entrepreneurs to start new businesses. And this isn't a big deal, but I think it'd be cool to have a presidential election between two black guys. Okay, a black guy and a half-black guy that most people refer to as black.

I like Newt Gingrich for president because he worked very well with President Clinton once Republicans controlled the House under Clinton's tenure, and the two of them got a lot of great things done for our economy and our finances, and because Gingrich has a lot of great ideas and stays open to new ideas. He also understands the stability and simplicity of rules that business people need regarding risk management, expansions, and start-ups.

Mitt Romney has answered the complaints against him very well, he has some very good ideas, and he comports himself as a president should.

I'll reveal a personal problem I have with a lot of candidates and elected leaders that I now hold against some of the Republican candidates: Verbal short-circuits. Anyone can make a misstatement or other verbal gaffe, but when a leader of my civil government does so, I cringe. It's embarrassing. Bush Jr. had the most frequent flubs, and Nancy Pelosi has had two of the worst of all time. Obama has had an average crop. It may be a flaw in my character, but  Bachmann and Perry have surpassed my comfort level with their foul-ups. Even though they're reasonably intelligent people (despite how they're portrayed by the media), the sheer number of their gaffes so far leaves me cold. I kind of hope it's not too much to ask for a President that won't embarrass me all the time like Bush Jr. did.

UPDATE (1Oct2011): After watching a bunch of Herman Cain videos, I'm no longer undecided between Herman Cain and Newt Gingrinch. I'm on Hurricane Herman Cain's train.

The Cost of Gov't Jobs That Are Already Paid For

Contrary to what many people think, a civil government cannot efficiently grow a national economy with centralized planning.

As a case in point, in this article, the Dept. of Energy has been accused of creating only 3,500 permanent jobs with $38.6 Billion in stimulus funds. The DoE defends itself by saying when they're finished it will be 60,000 jobs and many more in the supply chain. For the sake of argument, let's say the DoE is right, and let's say another 60,000 jobs will be created in the supply chain for 120,000 jobs total.

$38,600,000,000 divided by 120,000 jobs is $321,666 per job. That's using the DoE's most optimistic numbers.

$321,666 per job.

Somehow, the President and his administration think their trillion dollar stimulus program has "prevented the collapse of the financial system, saved millions of jobs, and put the economy back in a place where it's creating jobs and growing again," according to White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. Of course, both parties habitually claim their policies are responsible for all the good things in our economy and the other party is responsible for all the bad things, and that's easy to do since reporters rarely challenge them on such claims. But $321,666 of tax money per job? C'mon, only morons could believe that's a good thing.

You know what would have had far better effects on our economy? If they hadn't taken that $38.6 billion dollars from taxpayers in the first place, and instead they embraced "The Stossel Rule": For every business regulation they pass, they must repeal two or more. Stossel's rule is based on the sound idea that "hiring doesn't come from new laws. It comes when government gets out of the way and leaves all of us with simple and predictable rules."

So forget the "PassThisBill, PassThisBill, PassThisBill, IfYouLoveMePassThisBill" mantra. The trillion dollar stimulus didn't work, and another half-trillion dollar stimulus won't work any better. Taking money from companies and families by taxation and spending $321,666, or more, of it to create one job is not a road to recovery.

As to the claim that it's paid for (the President used the present tense in his televised speech), that's a foolish claim. Even a claim that it will be paid for is foolish as long as the Federal budget isn't balanced.

Suppose you loaned me $10,000 at 2% interest to support some essential business ideas I had that were guaranteed to work and benefit you, me, and everyone! At the end of the first year I paid you $200 in interest and you loaned me another $10,000, because the expenses for my essential business ideas kept growing. Except first you loaned me the $10k, and then I paid you back the $200. We repeat it the next year, but I pay you $400 in interest because I now owe you $20k. But I decided I need more money for more essential business plans, so I talk you into loaning me $15,000 the next year. So I've borrowed $10k the first year, $10k the 2nd year, and $15k the 3rd year, for a total of $35,000 borrowed, and my next interest payment is $700. Wow, the interest I owe you keeps going up for some reason. I need to borrow more money from you so I can be sure I have plenty to do everything I want and pay the interest I owe you. Okay, now I want to borrow an extra $5,000 in the middle of the year for an essential new business idea. What? You're getting reluctant to loan me more money? Trust me! I know exactly what I'm doing. I have everything under control. And, most importantly, this new project is already paid for! How is my new project paid for if I still owe you so much and I'm borrowing even more money from you? Simple! It's paid for because I was going to borrow that money from you anyway eventually and use it for something else, but now I've changed my plans and now I'm going to use this extra borrowed money for my newest essential idea. And if you notice my newest essential idea is the same as my old essential idea, well, that proves how good my original idea was.

(For any critics of my analogy who may want to point out that it's not a perfect parallel to life, may I point out that the paragraph above is an analogy, and it's not intended to be a perfect parallel to life.)

Can you think of a huge problem my analogy didn't go far enough to cover? It's this: Compounding Interest. The amount of interest keeps rising if you only pay the interest and none of the principal, and you keep borrowing more money. It will eventually reach the point where you cannot borrow enough new funds to even pay the interest on the debt.

In 2010, we paid $196,000,000,000 (196 billion) in interest on the national debt. In fiscal year 2011, we're paying $205 billion dollars. Just think of all the good things we could have done with that $205 billion dollars if we hadn't had to pay it on interest. These figures are from the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (see the Summary Tables), which projects the interest over the next ten years:

2012, $240 billion
2013, $322 billion
2014, $421 billion
2015, $505 billion
2016, $584 billion
2017, $661 billion
2018, $730 billion
2019, $798 billion
2020, $863 billion
2021, $928 billion

This is not the amount of our debt, this is just the interest on our debt. And these figures are based on interest rates that are at historic lows. Interest rates will rise. And when they do, the amount of interest we have to pay will go up higher than these projections, unless the morons in Congress stop borrowing more money and dramatically pay down our debt.

Even if interest rates stay flat for many more years (not likely considering Bernanke's historic monetary expansions), if we keep borrowing more and more money, in a few years we will spend more money in interest on the national debt than we spend on Social Security or Medicare, or the military. A decade after that we may be spending more on interest than on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the military combined.

We are all fools if we continue to elect politicians who think taking your money and borrowing even more money to spend $321,666 of it to create one job will magically make us prosperous.

We don't have to wait for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to correct this problem. Find yourself a congressional candidate with personal integrity who will refuse to vote for another dime of deficit spending, and help them get elected in 2012 and in every congressional election after that.

Birther Bother

Since even before Obama was elected President, some people fussed that he might not be a U.S. citizen, raising the birth certificate issue, while Obama's supporters belittled their concern. Then he won the election, and the issue heated up. Eventually, a certificate of live birth was released for Obama. A certificate of live birth, however, is not the same thing as a birth certificate. Some cried that a certificate of live birth wasn't good enough to prove Obama's citizenship. Obama's supporters insisted that it was good enough. Nothing came of the ruckus, and the noise eventually died down, even if the issue never went completely away.

Recently, Donald Trump has raised the issue again on a popular talk show, and Obama supporters have gotten defensive again. Trump later provided what he called his birth certificate to the media as proof that he is a U.S. citizen. Except that what he actually provided was a certificate of live birth. That's where the funniest part comes in: Some Obama supporters then howled that Trump's certificate of live birth was insufficient proof. (In so doing, they weakened their own argument in favor of Obama.) Trump quickly came up with his actual birth certificate. So far, President Obama hasn't.

What's my position? The same as it always has been: I believe in rule-of-law, and that we should enforce the requirement that a person must be a U.S. citizen to be President. Seems to me like a certificate of live birth is adequate proof, so that's good enough for me unless someone proves otherwise. So, I'm satisfied that Obama is a natural born American, and entitled to be President on that count.

It does still puzzle me, however, why he won't authorize the release of his actual birth certificate. I used to suspect it must have something on it that he might find embarrassing, so a while back I looked up an example copy of Hawaiian birth certificates, and I didn't see anything that could justify much embarrassment. Because I believe a certificate of live birth should normally be adequate, I don't care much about the issue, other than it's entertainment value.

Since the actual birth certificate wasn't released, however, there are people who have spent a lot of effort investigating to try to determine his citizenship based on other facts. While I'm not concerned about the issue of citizenship, I am concerned about some of the issues run into by investigators. They have apparently been actively opposed, with someone paying lawyers to fight the release of information like the following:

Passport files
University of Chicago Law School scholarly articles
Harvard Law Review articles
Harvard Law School records
Columbia University records
Columbia University senior thesis, "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament"
Occidental College records, including financial aid that he may have received
Punahou School records, where Mr. Obama attended from the fifth grade until he finished high school
Noelani Elementary School records
Complete files and schedules of his years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004
Obama's client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis-Miner
Illinois State Bar Association records
Baptism records
Obama/Dunham marriage license
Obama/Dunham divorce documents
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license
Soetero/Dunham Adoption records

For someone who promised unprecedented openness, we find unprecedented hiding instead. This bothers me. I'm curious. Most people seeking the limelight would be happily inclined to release such records, and running for President is clearly seeking the limelight.

President Obama is a pretty bright guy. Surely he knows that most, if not all, of this information will become public sooner or later, and much more like it. So I keep asking myself... why doesn't he release such information himself? Why pay people to fight its release?

If anyone has any rational explanations and can express them calmly, I'd love to hear them.

Presidential Candidates for 2012

There are generally two strategies in voting for a presidential candidate for a party:
1. Who can beat the opposing candidate?
2. Who do we want to be the president?

The first concern often relegates the second concern to a footnote, and sometimes results in choosing the strongest campaigner rather than the person who would be the best president.

In 2012, President Obama will almost certainly be the Democratic candidate for president. The 3rd-party candidates aren't likely to be significant in any way. That leaves the Republican candidate as the next big choice.

I suggest that the campaign ability of the Republican candidate won't matter a great deal, because I think President Obama will win or lose based primarily on how the economy is doing. If the economy is doing well, Obama is likely to win no matter who the Republican candidate is. If the economy is doing poorly, Obama is likely to lose no matter who the Republican candidate is. If the economy is muddling along, then it might be closely contested and the campaigning skills of the Republican candidate might be important, but I project that our economy will be doing quite poorly in the months leading up to the next election a year and a half from now. The long-term economic factors are headed in that direction, and has too much momentum to turn around before then.

If I'm right, then Republicans (and Independents who vote in Republican primaries) should focus their attention on which candidates would make the best president, because no matter who it is, that person is likely to become the next president rather than a footnote in history.

My favorite for the Republican candidacy at this point? Mike Huckabee. Not because he used to be a preacher, which is irrelevant in my view. The leading reasons I prefer Huckabee are because he's knowledgeable on both domestic and foreign issues, I agree with his big-picture positions (the ones I'm aware of), he has a little more humility than most presidential candidates, he's optimistic, he knows how to build consensuses well enough to manage large organizations such as the State of Arkansas, he has personal integrity, and he's cordial even with his opponents. Does he have flaws and past failures? Sure -- but as long as we're electing humans, that will be the case, and I think Huckabee's flaws are less serious and less numerous than most other contenders. So I hope Republicans and Independents give him serious consideration.

One last thought, just for Democrats who live in States with open primaries (anyone can vote in any party's primary). You don't need to vote in the Democratic primary, because no one is going to beat Obama in the primary anyway. So you could vote in the Republican primary and try to vote for whoever you think Obama could beat most easily in the general election. Well, I'd like to ask you to consider the reasoning I provided above, because we may have a Republican president next time no matter who it is. So if you vote in the Republican primary next year, don't vote for who you think would be most likely to lose, vote for whoever you would like as president the most. Or at least the person you would hate the least! And right now I hope that's Huckabee.

If you're interested, here's Huck's latest book: A Simple Government: Twelve Things We Really Need from Washington (and a Trillion That We Don't!)

Something Nice

Can I say something nice about President Obama? Quite a few things, and here's a good example: In a speech in Indonesia, he said, "I have made it clear that America is not and never will be at war with Islam. ... Those who want to build must not cede ground to terrorists who seek to destroy." Amen.

QE2 and 2012

Federal government intervention hasn't solved all our economic problems yet, so it's time to try the same things again, obviously. Without a gold standard or something similar, the Federal Reserve has the ability to create money, and put more of it into circulation. They claim this is to improve the economy. Interestingly, they expanded the money supply by 2.45 trillion dollars from Sept 2008 to June 2010 (the biggest expansion in history), and as you may have noticed, it didn't improve the economy. So now they're planning "QE2" to expand it by another 800 billion dollars (600B fiat and 200B from TARP funds) from now until mid-2011. It will have an impact, primarily by further enriching the biggest banks, who are at the front-end of the expansion, but it won't benefit the economy in accordance with their stated goals.

This makes it clear, once again, that these high-level leaders (Obama; Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve; Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury; et al.) don't exercise common sense and appear to be too ignorant for their posts. They're guessing! Worse, they're gambling with trillions of dollars of our money. Bernanke just recently said that QE2's 800 billion dollar expansion is an "experiment."

Expand the money supply to stimulate the economy? Really? Consider this quote and see if it doesn't make more sense than our exalted leaders... "A lesson that was taught by classical economists that remains true: there is no ideal supply of money in a society. Any quantity of money will do, so long as the quality of the money is sound. Prices adjust based on the existing money supply. New quantities of money injected into society confer no social benefit. If production rises and the money supply remains stable, the purchasing power of the money will rise. If production falls while the supply of money remains stable, the purchasing power of money will fall." End the Fed, Ron Paul, page 203

Obama, Bernanke, and Geithner seem to have no concept that the money supply has quality, let alone that their actions are harming its quality. But whether I like it or not, QE2 is here. If, as I suspect, QE2 makes things worse in the long run, then Obama probably won't be reelected in 2012, because the economy will still be struggling. By then, a majority of voters will know or suspect that Obama and his czars' efforts to control the economy were guesses all along, and they guessed wrong. And instead of making things better, they made things far worse.

In 2012, the Democrats will almost certainly field Obama again, and no independent or 3rd party candidate is likely to win, so if we're to change presidential administrations, it will have to come from electing whoever wins the Republican primary. So let's not blow this deal.

I don't know who to recommend yet, but I know who not to recommend: Sarah Palin. Why? Lack of sufficient experience and knowledge. She's added to her knowledge since her vice-presidential candidacy, and can add more, plus she is an electric speaker (with polarizing charges - pun intended), and her experience is greater than Obama's was before he became President, but her experience is still not enough. I want a President with a lot more experience and a lot better understanding of economics than either Obama or Palin. Surely we can find someone better out of 310 million people. And while it is essential to have a candidate who understands the importance of a constitutionally-limited civil government, of financial responsibility, and of free-market economics, is it too much to hope that such a candidate could be more congenial than polarizing?

A Candidate I Can Support

Today I started campaigning for a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. It feels strange.

I strongly dislike the long-term behaviors I have observed in my incumbent Congressman. For example, on taxes, he emphasizes that while he was Chair of our County Board of Supervisors, he "lowered taxes." He clearly makes it seem that his lowering of taxes was the most notable characteristic of his tenure as Chairman on the issue of taxation. He lowered taxes, he claims. Yeah, well, he once voted to lower the tax rate on properties after the property valuations had risen dramatically, so that they were ever-so-slightly less than what they otherwise would have been, but the overall effect was that property taxes went up. Up is not down. Property taxation is a huge issue, as property taxes make up the vast majority of tax revenue for most counties and states.

During this guy's entire tenure as Chairman, property taxes doubled. Doubled. He voted for one tiny little reduction in a tax rate one time, but he allowed the overall taxation to go up and up and up. And yet he has the gall to talk as if lowering taxes defines his position on the general issue of taxation. He is a quintessential ~politician~ who appears to have no difficulty distorting the truth, and I want to vote him OUT.

I'm an independent. This political bum I'm referring to happens to be a Democrat. He not only voted for the recent health insurance legislation, he was a co-sponsor of the bill. This is the roughly 2,000 page bill of which House Speaker Nancy Polosi made the idiotic statement during a press conference, "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in the bill."

Well, there are two Republicans running in the primary to compete against my incumbent. I like the stated positions and real-world, private-industry experience of both of them. Neither one is a career politician. Both have accounting expertise. Neither one is perfect, but I think they are far superior to the sorry excuse for a Congressman who now holds the office. I prefer Pat Herrity for several reasons, so I have started supporting him. A couple of independent polls indicate it will be a close election in November.

Today I went to Pat Herrity's campaign office and got a handful of bumper stickers and a dozen signs. I drove to a busy highway, parked my car, walked to the median and started planting them. Tomorrow I'm going back for more.

Pat's not rich, and he can't fund his campaign out of his pocket. If you're looking for a good guy to give $5 to help him de-fund the recent health insurance legislation, promote generally "conservative" values, including actually supporting the U.S. Constitution, you can contribute here: http://patherrity.com.

Pre-Strike Civilian Warning?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's mind may be warped the same way Saddam Hussein's was. He may think he can stall forever by stringing along the U.N. while bouncing between promises and threats without getting bombed by the U.S or Israel. He may think that we learned a lesson from overthrowing Hussein that it's too hard and costs too much, in money and lives. He may think we wouldn't even drop bombs on his nuclear facilities without invading because we're too -- take your pick: weak, tired, soft, foolish, etc.

Maybe he's right. I don't know if President Obama has what it takes to decide we're too close to a homicidal dictator getting working nuclear bombs to actually stop him, rather than merely lament and plead until after they detonate their first underground bomb as a test and testament.

Certainly the pronouncement this week that the world is safer now from nuclear weapons than before the security summit is not encouraging. The security summit changed exactly nothing, and Iran wasn't even mentioned in the self-congratulatory assurances that sounded too much like Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time." That was shortly before Hitler launched World War II, for those who don't recall.

Obviously, I don't know if we'll strike, or allow the Israelis to strike. But as far as I know, we might. So, here's a wild idea I had, and I'd love to get some responses from other folks. If we decide to bomb Iran's nuke sites, what if we were to warn the entire population before-hand? Give the civilians time and warning to get out of the way, in order to minimize innocent casualties?

It might make things more difficult and riskier for our military. If so, that's a clear down-side. Saving civilian lives would be a clear up-side, but I don't think this would simply be trading our military lives for their civilian lives. Just because it might increase risk to our guys doesn't mean it would definitely cost more of our lives, or any, for that matter. If we were to use high-altitude stealth bombers that can fly above the range of Iran's anti-aircraft missiles, that'd be one option. Another would be stand-off cruise missiles, or even non-nuclear ICBM's.

For the sake of discussion, suppose we were certain we could bomb them with them being able to strike back. Would it be a good thing to warn them to let the civilians flee to safer places? We would haven't to specify the exact day or time. The targets are fixed sites, so we can't exactly surprise them there, except that we may know more of their secret places than they hope.

After 6 months of incinerating scores of Japanese cities with conventional bombs brought them no closer to surrender than ever, we finally dropped the first war-deployed nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. That killed over 100,000 people. When they still didn't surrender, we dropped a second one on Nagasaki, and they finally surrendered. Regardless of what you like or don't like about that history, two things are clear: it was effective in getting them to surrender unconditionally, and it killed a whole lot of civilians.

Yes, the situation between the U.S. and Japan was far different from the situation between the U.S. and Iran, by many measures. And if we had warned them about which city we intended to bomb, they may have been able to shoot down our bomber. But suppose we had warned the Japanese that we were going to annihilate one of their cities without telling them which one, and urged their civilians too leave all their cities? Maybe no one would have paid heed and the same people would have died in Hiroshima. What would have happened when we warned them the second time? Perhaps a lot of people would have fled cities all over the country, including at least some in Nagasaki, and perhaps tens of thousands of lives would have been spared.

We only had two bombs back in 1945. If either one had gotten shot down, maybe they wouldn't have surrendered for a much longer time. How much would a warning have increased their chances of intercepting one of our nuclear bombers? I don't know. And if they had, perhaps even more civilians would have died in the continued conventional bombings. I can't help but recall that my Dad was in the U.S. Navy, in Hawaii, about to ship out toward the fighting front, when the Japanese did surrender a few days after Nagasaki. That was before my dad met my mom and fathered my brother and myself.

But in this situation, the point of bombing Iran wouldn't be to get them to surrender. It would simply be to physically eliminate their ability to process weapons-grade uranium. No invasion necessary. Cruise-missile their underground processing facilities with non-nuclear warheads until there's nothing left but dust. That's my best guess as to what we would actually do, IF we do anything other than talking until seismographs reveal they've succeeded in a detonation.

Well, if we were to do that, what would be the harm in giving them advance warning? Something along the lines of, "Citizens of Iran: We wish you no harm, but we cannot allow your dictator to finalize his efforts to build nuclear weapons. We have reasoned, we have urged, and we have threatened, all to no avail, and now we regret that he has forced us to act to eliminate this very serious threat to world peace. Therefore, we urge you to stock up food, water, and medicine, and move as far as possible away from your government's nuclear facilities. We will begin bombing them within a few days and will continue bombing them until they have been completely destroyed. Here is a list of the most prominent facilities that you should remain far from at all costs..."

So... what do you think?

The Royal Presidency

In my next-to-last post, I included a chart of expenditures of the Federal Government for fiscal year 2009. It includes the expenses of the Executive Office of the President, but it barely registers on the 800 Billion dollar scale needed to show the largest categories.

<tangential rant>
In the chart notes I pointed out that the Federal Government employs over 22 million people. Twenty-two million. Do we really need that many people to run our Federal Government?
</tangential rant>

Here I'd like to single out that tiny little line item for the President's Office.

Guess how much of your tax money was spent in fiscal year 2009 to operate the White House, the President's staff, and the rest of the Presidential expenses. Go ahead, guess... Ten million? Fifty million? A hundred million?

Try over seven-hundred and forty-two million. Exactly $742,850,260 according to the U.S. Treasury Dept.

Don't blame Obama for this. At least, don't blame him alone, because that budget didn't just get that large in the last year or two.

But I can't help but wonder how much harm it would cause our country if that budget went down a few million. Or a few hundred million.

Vindication for Global Warming Skeptics

A global-warming skeptic is not a global-warming denier. The difference is somewhat like the difference between atheists and agnostics. I, and many others like me, don't claim that the earth is in a long-term cooling trend or that it's stable. In addition, even if long-term global-warming was certain, I have serious doubts about the quality of the computer models upon which claims are made that global-warming is caused by humans.

I consider myself an amateur scientist, with an appreciation for fact and the scientific method. Where science has been applied to medical research, it has had a major and direct impact on my life, and my appreciation is especially strong when I recall that it's only been a couple of hundred years since 'doctors' regularly drained blood from patients as a standard treatment for a variety of ailments, with absolutely no scientific basis for it.

However, despite my appreciation of science, I don't trust scientists much more than I trust politicians. Someone does some important research and analysis? Great! But don't just tell me the summary and expect me to accept it without question. What were the assumptions? What were the measurements? What was the analysis? Which statistical methods were applied, and why? If a reasonable theory has been developed, great! But are there other reasonable theories? Are there other plausible theories?

So, despite the 'consensus' of scientists often alleged by crisis-profiteers, crisis-careerists, and an easily duped media, I've remained skeptical that we have enough measurements or a thorough enough understanding of circumstances that impact global temperatures to reach a conclusion about the current long-term global temperature trend, or the impact of human activity on global temperatures. This has often felt like being a round-earther ridiculed by the official flat-earth dogmatists. But no one will get me to change my mind just based on alleged consensus while there are intelligent scientists who hold contrary views and provide reasonable explanations for their contrary views. The esteemed leading doctors of Western medicine had a strong consensus on the value of frequent blood-letting, so don't give me 'consensus.' Give me facts. Give me reason.

So today comes an article in London's Mail Online: Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995. Dr. Phil Jones, a leader in the man-caused-long-term-global-warmist theories, has admitted that the evidence isn't nearly as strong as many have been led to believe. Dr. Jones gives lucid statements that don't debunk the possibility that the earth is getting warmer in the long-run, and don't debunk the possibility that human activity is a dominant factor in whatever the earth's temperatures are doing. But read the article, and it will become apparent that this interview is a bellwether event because it virtually destroys the alleged certainty that has been so popular with the crisis-mongers.

The earth has not been getting significantly warmer in the last 15 years, as Dr. Jones admits, and as many skeptics have been pointing out. It may still be that the last 15 years has been an exception to the rule and perhaps the earth is getting warmer over a period of hundreds of years. But maybe not. The door is now almost fully open, where it was almost fully closed, to consider all possibilities, and not jump to conclusions based on inadequate data or inadequate, unproven computer models.

If Dr. Jones isn't enough for you, then consider the interview by Dr. Robert Watson, none other than the former chair of the IPCC itself. In an article at the Times Online, Dr. Watson responds to the rash of errors recently pointed out in some of the IPCC reports. While none of the errors I've seen reported are damning individually, Dr. Watson points out that together they indicate a significant bias, because every single error favors catastrophic predictions. If they were unbiased, as the tarnished current chair of the IPCC claims, then the errors would be roughly evenly distributed between those favoring catastrophic predictions and those opposing it.

So let's continue to study global temperatures. Let's continue to measure and improve how we measure. Let's continue to model global processes and improve how we model global processes. Let's continue to reason and improve how we reason.

And while we're improving science (and scientists), let's not damage or destroy national economies based on overreactions to false assumptions and irrational predictions. Let's also bear in mind that regardless of the long-term temperature fluctuations, whether up or down, we'll always need clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, so let's not throw out the baby of responsible environmentalism with the dirty bathwater of unproven climate-change fears.

Come, let us reason together.

Irrational Global-Warming Leader

The leading organization preaching that global warming is man-caused and a disaster-in-the-making is the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the head of that organization is Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. Pachauri is also the head of the The Energy Research Institute (TERI) (formerly the Tata Energy Research Institute).

His degrees are in engineering, so he should be familiar with rational thought. However, he's been quoted by the Financial Times as making the following statement:

"[Climate change skeptics] are people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder. I hope that they apply it [asbestos] to their faces every day."

For the record, I am currently a climate change skeptic, and I do not deny the link between smoking and cancer, nor do I say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder. And despite his stated desire, I do not apply asbestos to myself or anyone else.

As head of the IPCC and TERI, Dr. Pachauri has been subject to much criticism, some for possible conflicts of interest from running both organizations. In his recent interview with the Financial Times, he also was quoted as saying, "[There are] nefarious designs behind people trying to attack me with lies, falsehoods." I don't why anyone would lie about him... the direct quotes above are enough to ruin his credibility as a rational scientist.

UPDATE:The week of March 21, 2010, Dr. Pachauri was quoted in the London Times as saying, "It is not correct to say there are people who don’t trust me." If that is an accurate quote, it is conclusive evidence that he does not exhibit a scientific mind. He has also been apologizing for the factual errors in the IPCC reports, but I have not heard him address the issue of bias. Bias is not only a significant factor in facilitating factual errors that favor a pre-determined view, it is also a critical factor in errors of omission -- the fact that the IPCC reports intentionally exclude metrics that are inconsistent with their favored Earth-is-getting-too-warm-and-people-are-to-blame beliefs.

Fairness or Freedom?

We all like fairness, right? "Mom, he/she got more than I did!" is a complaint heard from every child with a sibling. It's often said because of perceived injustice, as when a sibling really did get a larger amount of something. Most children with loving parents quickly learn how effective the "fairness" complaint is and try to extend it's use by altering its meaning: "Mom, I want more candy." "You can't have more candy, it will spoil your appetite for supper." Altogether now... "That's not fair!" Fairness is good, but not everything is a matter of fairness.

Suppose we try to use civil government to force fairness into society to the greatest extent possible. Is that a worthwhile goal for a nation? Well, what if maximum fairness means imposing the lowest common denominator on wages and wealth? Would you want comprehensive, forced economic equality if it meant you get exactly the same daily ration of food regardless of how hard you work or how much you learn?

Suppose our civil governments allow people maximum freedom instead, even if it means some people who learn more or work harder will earn greater wealth than others? Freedom and individuality have long been dominant in the United States and it's produced a level of wealth that was unimaginable when this country began. Yet free enterprise guarantees inequality of wealth.

So, if you were limited to these two choices, which would you chose? Forced economic equality that provided everyone a perfectly even distribution of goods, including exactly 1000 calories of exactly the same food per day, or complete freedom that resulted in economic disparity such that some people have as many calories of whatever food they want per day and the poorest have at least 1500 calories of food per day with a substantial variety of food choices?

Which is better, comprehensive forced fairness or universally superior wealth?

I suggest that fairness shouldn't be the ultimate goal of society because people are different. Men are different from women. That doesn't mean men are better than women, and it doesn't justify a lower salary for a women doing the same work as a man, but it's acknowledging the reality that there are substantive differences between men and women, and the cause is genetic. Industrious people are different from lazy people. An argument can be made that hard-working people are better than lazy people by some measures, and the cause for the difference is primarily behavioral choice. Healthy people are different from those with infirmities, and that could be due to genes or environment. The fact is that everyone is unique. The inference is that absolute fairness, or equality, is not possible. In every socialist country where great effort has been made to enforce fairness, it has been clearly seen in practice that the leaders "are more equal than others," as Orwell put it.

If you give everyone exactly the same health care, that means you must either give everyone a pacemaker or no one a pacemaker. Silly argument, right? That would be true, complete fairness, but that's not the only option to try to arrive at equality. Okay, so we use a different policy: everyone who needs a pacemaker can have a one if they want it. That sounds pretty good, right? Unless your society doesn't have enough pacemaker surgeons. Which leads to the question, how do you give a pacemaker to everyone who needs and wants one if there aren't enough pacemaker surgeons? Give the person a do-it-yourself kit? Or just let a civil government agency decide on everyone's careers, so they can ensure enough pacemaker surgeons? Do you want your career choice to be made for you? There are socialists who think that's the best course for public policy.

For myself, and for my family, my friends, and my neighbors, I prefer freedom to forced fairness. I'll learn as much as I can and work as hard as I can, and I want the opportunity to improve my financial circumstances. And I want that opportunity for everyone else.

It was President Kennedy who famously said, "A rising tide lifts all boats." He was talking about economic prosperity, not Cuba, but whenever I think of that speech in 1963, I tie the two together, thinking of the many boats people have used to try to escape from the prison camp known as Cuba, where fairness is guaranteed by Castro. Cubans risked their lives in desperate attempts to flee Cuba's fairness for American freedom. A freedom that has proven Kennedy's point, a freedom that has created so much wealth that American charitable giving makes the United States the most generous nation on Earth. In fact, America is more than twice as generous as the next most generous nation.

Fairness has its place, but if it comes down to a choice between fairness and freedom, give me freedom.

We, the Religious People...

President Obama said in a speech in Turkey, "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Well, I don't know of any recent studies, but for most of our nation's history, the majority have definitely considered our nation a Christian nation. And, I wonder, what "ideals" and "set of values" does the President think bind us together? I haven't found any statements by him to clarify that, but then, as long as he's vague enough, he can offend the fewest possible people who might disagree. In hope that he is ignorant on our country's religious character, rather than deceitful, perhaps some history lessons are in order. Here's one:

Neither our Constitution, nor the Declaration of Independance, nor any of our national laws say that we must have the famously alleged separation of Church and State. What the Constitution says in the First Amendment is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That doesn't even prohibit the individual States from establishing religions, although none have. In fact, no American is forced by Federal, State, or local government to worship God.

However, there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents religious people in general or Christians in particular from being involved in the creation or management of our laws, or prohibits their religious beliefs from affecting their political views or the laws we create, with the sole exception of the prohibition against establishing a national religion.

One of the prime examples of the influence of Christianity in this country is in our Declaration of Independence, which openly acknowledges God in these quotes:

...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

...We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world...

And lest anyone think the open acknowledgement of God by our body politic has been limited to the Federal government, here are quotes from the Constitutions of the 50 United States: (Passing this along with thanks to Lianne.)

Alabama 1901, Preamble: We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution...

Alaska 1956, Preamble: We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land...

Arizona 1911, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...

California 1879, Preamble: We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...

Colorado 1876, Preamble: We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe...

Connecticut 1818, Preamble: The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy...

Delaware 1897, Preamble: Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences...

Florida 1885, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble: We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble: We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance .... Establish this Constitution...

Idaho 1889, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings...

Illinois 1870, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors...

Indiana 1851, Preamble: We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government...

Iowa 1857, Preamble: We, the People of the St ate of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution...

Kansas 1859, Preamble: We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution...

Kentucky 1891, Preamble: We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy...

Maine 1820, Preamble: We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity... And imploring His aid and direction...

Maryland 1776, Preamble: We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble: We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe, In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction...

Michigan 1908, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution...

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings...

Mississippi 1890, Preamble: We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work...

Missouri 1845, Preamble: We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, Establish this Constitution...

Montana 1889, Preamble: We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution...

Nebraska 1875, Preamble: We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, Establish this Constitution...

Nevada 1864, Preamble: We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V: Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience...

New Jersey 1844, Preamble: We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors...

New Mexico 1911, Preamble: We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty...

New York 1846, Preamble: We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings...

North Carolina 1868, Preamble: We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...

North Dakota 1889, Preamble: We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble: We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common...

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble: Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this...

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2: All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences...

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble: We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance......

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble: We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble: We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

South Dakota 1889, Preamble: We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties...

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI..III: That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble: We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God...

Utah 1896, Preamble: Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution...

Vermont 1777, Preamble: Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man...

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI: Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other...

Washington 1889, Preamble: We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

West Virginia 1872, Preamble: Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God...

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble: We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility...

Wyoming 1890, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution...

A Plea for Rational, Responsible Economic Environmentalism

There is, in fact, no scientific consensus on the existence of global warming, let alone the alleged extent or most likely causes. And the recent exposure of emails by the CRU cabal may have mortally wounded the efforts of the crisis-mongers pushing the human-caused-global-warming scenario.

(Kim Strassel: Their correspondence show a claque of scientists massaging data to make it fit their theories, squelching scientists who disagreed, punishing academic journals that didn't toe the apocalyptic line, and hiding their work from public view. "It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow," glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists. The documents "could scarcely be more damaging." And that's from a believer.)

But the diminishing stature of this faked crisis is actually a cause for some concern. Just because these latest crisis profiteers have tainted their crisis-of-the-decade, that doesn't mean we need the pendulum of public concern for the environment to swing too far back in the other direction. Why? Because we'll always need clean air and clean water.

Clean air, clean water, and the broadest possible bio-diversity are good things, and economic activities (and government policies that impact economic activities) should take them into account.

For those who tend to think that unrestrained free-enterprise is perfect, let me remind you that people making decisions for profit only, without regard to the environmental impact of their decisions, have caused some horrendous pollution and damaged the health of many millions of people world-wide.

On the other extreme, for those who act like the environment is their god, let me remind you that moderated free-enterprise has led to many scientific achievements that allow us to measure and quantify our environment while providing livelihoods for billions of people.

So, let's be rational. Let's encourage economic growth that takes the environment into account and work to improve both our economic engines and our environment.

United Nations Inquiry

Okay, it's not quite Thanksgiving yet, but if someone's wondering what to get me as a Christmas present, here's something I'd like:

Please list all the good things the United Nations has accomplished, excluding all the good things where the United States alone was responsible for 90% or more of the good thing (by dollars or people), and total up all the United Nations has cost, adjusting for inflation and breaking out the costs borne by the United States as a separate number.

I'm not someone who thinks the U.N. has never accomplished anything good, but I also don't think we should keep it if it's not producing more value than it consumes.

Here's my analogy #2,357: If you have a car that gets you to work sometimes, that's a good thing. But if it fails to get you to work most of the time and if repairs and maintenance cost more than a new car, how long would you keep the old car?

I just want to be honest about the U.N. and determine it's real worth.

Any takers?

Global Warming FAIL

For all my non-Twittering friends, "FAIL" is shorthand for disapproving or disavowing something. No, I don't Twitter either, but I'm familiar with some of it.

So, Global Warming. It's common knowledge that real scientists have formed a solid, near-universal consensus that global warming is fast approaching irreversible, catastrophic damage to Earth's climate due primarily to human activity and we should do everything and anything we can to reverse our activities, even if it ruins national economies, for the sake of human survival. Wow. And it's common knowledge because most reporters and commentators in the mass media believe that, and keep repeating it in articles and on TV. Movie writers and producers reinforce it by weaving it in as an underlying assumption or outright plot-points. And they usually have lots of quotes from "scientists" who earn their livings from the grants they get, and the more dire their predictions, the more funding they're given.

Too bad the consensus isn't true. It's not even close to true. Follow this link to an article citing a petition signed by over 32,000 scientists, including over 9,000 Ph.D.'s and scores of Nobel laureates, all of whom are not part of the alleged consensus.

So if your elected representatives support the idiotic Cap & Trade legislation, you might want to point this out to them. If they have functioning intellects.

"Whatever You Need, We'll Give It To You"

I've been listening to the pontificating on C-SPAN as the House prepares to vote on Pelosi's health insurance (not health care) reform bill, and must conclude that some of our national politicians are ignoramuses themselves or they're intentionally pandering to an ignorant constituency.

Do the ignorant ones think that an insurance company is a stingy rich uncle with unlimited money and everyone can have anything they want if they can just convince the uncle to be more generous or if they can take the uncle's money by force of law?

Modern insurance works on one fundamental principal: Each insurance program must take in more money in premiums than it pays out in benefits. This is true regardless of whether the organization behind it is for-profit or non-profit, and certainly includes civil governments. Insurance is a means of allowing a group of people to share financial risk, not a magically infinite source of money.

Some have said, "We're making health care a right." Oh, really? You're going to make something with a price tag a civil right? You're going to put it on the same level as the right to life and the right to liberty? And what will you do when the well runs dry? And when the group of patients need two dollars worth of health care for every dollar paid in insurance premiums, what will you tell those who complain that their rights are being denied?

The truth is they're not talking about improving health care. They're talking about changing health insurance in a manner by which the civil government will control how health care is rationed, rather than allowing freedom of choice.

And some of these folks are claiming, with a straight face, that the Federal bureaucracy is going to cover hundreds of billions of dollars worth of the increased costs by making things more efficient and reducing fraud? Oh? Like they have with Veteran's health care, Medicaid, and Medicare?

Here's my two cents' worth of opinion: make the VA, Medicaid, and Medicare effective, efficient, and fraud-free, and then I'll have a basis to believe the Federal government can do a better job with public health insurance than the free market and non-profits are doing now.

Imprecision and Bogus Econ

Just read a couple of different articles. One about evolution and one about how many jobs the most recent U.S. Federal stimulus program has created. They both annoyed me a lot, and for the same reason. What do these topics have in common?

Confusing or misleading imprecision by the authors.

Evolution: The author used the term repeatedly, but never specified when he was talking about evolution within species or among species. They aren't the same thing, but this author, and many others, seem to think they are.

Jobs: The author of the article I read, the interview subjects, and the reports cited estimate how many jobs have been created by the Federal government passing out tax money. In this article and in others, there's little or no talk about what kind of jobs.

For one thing, there's a big difference between creating a minimum-wage job and a job for a highly-skilled person. For another, there's an even bigger difference between a temporary job and a permanent job.

So, the Federal government takes $15,000 in taxes from you and I, then passes $12,000 to a company that will create jobs. (I don't really think the Federal government would have such a low administrative overhead, but I don't want to get into that issue here.) That company hires 12 people for one month each. Some reports were initially claiming that the Federal government's actions had created 12 jobs, but then people started catching on, so some folks started adjusting the counts to equal full-time employees for one year, making the example above equal one job created. Except that those were temporary jobs. When the handout money ran out, the jobs ran out. That might not be so bad if the Federal government could keep taking enough money from taxpayers to keep shoveling money at companies and organizations to keep people employed, but they can't. So, the Feds have "created or saved" X number of jobs. Please. They created or saved X number of temporary jobs. Does anyone think a very short-term temporary job is as good for the economy as a permanent job? Of course not.

But, a temporary job is better than nothing, right? Well, what was the cost of that short-term job? Money taken from taxpayers, both individuals and companies. What might that money have been used for, if it hadn't been taken as taxes and redistributed? Most individuals would have used their extra money to buy things. Which would have... wait for it... stimulated the economy! Except that this is longer-term stimulation. Most companies would invest their extra money. In what? Primarily raw goods, services, and payroll. Which would have... you got it: stimulated the economy! And again, with much longer-term repercussions.

These ignorant folks waxing eloquent about the success of the Federal stimulus package may have been some of the same folks who claimed that the cash-for-clunkers program was a great success. Well, if success was subsidizing car purchases for a month or two, then it was successful, alright. However, many of those purchasers were enticed to purchase a new car to replace their old car sooner than they otherwise would have. The secondary impacts include this: For each one of those people who would have otherwise purchased a car next year, now they won't. All the cash-for-clunkers did in these cases was to shift a small number of future purchases to current purchases, weakening the future economy.

Sigh. Sometimes I wonder if any of our bone-headed politicians have even read an economics textbook?

Political Global Warming

Many of our glorious politicians declare repeatedly that global warming is a crisis, and they must do something to save us all. Even if it means spending all our money and all our children's money. But that's okay, because they base their rhetoric and fear-mongering on cold, hard science, right?

Thanks to their intrepid fund-raising, uh, I mean campaigning to educate we ignorant masses, everyone now knows the truth that global warming is caused primarily by rising levels of atmospheric carbon gas. And the rises in atmospheric carbon gas have been measured very carefully, and have indeed been going up and up, for the last 20 years and beyond.

So, then, what do you think is the warmest year in modern recorded history? Last year? This year? If atmospheric carbon gas causes global warming, and it has been going up every single year the last 2 decades, then you would reasonably expect...

1998.

1998 was the warmest year in modern recorded history. Despite that nasty continuous growth in gaseous carbon. Huh. What could possibly account for that incredible anomaly?

Could there be some other factor at work? Could carbon gas be a non-decisive factor after all? Of course not, that would mean the impossible, that our politicians weren't basing their agitation on scientifically established facts.

I guess we'll just have to wait another century or so, and let our great-grandkids figure it out.

In the meantime, does anyone know where I left my sunglasses?

Mortgage Meltdown, Addendum

Here's another idea that seems obvious I forgot to put in the previous article.

It's normal, when a homeowner defaults on a mortgage, that the lender evicts the homeowner and sells the house. Normally, however, there's not a tremendous glut of houses for sale at very high prices, so houses are sitting on the market for very long periods of time. For example, the house at 100 Main Street, the owner gets evicted, and the house sits empty for a year before the bank can get it sold. Say the original mortgage amount was $2400 a month, so the total revenue to the mortgage company was $28,800 for one year. Instead the bank's revenue for that period of time is $0.

Mortgage companies, and especially mortgages backed by FHA, Fanny Mae, and Freddie Mac, instead of evicting homeowners, ought to try to work out a deal that lets the homeowner stay in the house and pay some amount of rent. Suppose the homeowner can pay half the amount they were paying in mortgage payments. If they can pay half, then the lenders' revenue will be $14,400 for the year, instead of $0. They can still try to sell it while it's occupied, but they also have the option of selling it as a rental unit that is already rented.

:typed and edited by Promise Lambert