Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in GreyCorvus' LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Friday, November 27th, 2009
12:01 pm	Climate of Denial The leaked emails from the climate study center in the UK have ben joined by revelations in New Zealand and Australia that seem to indicate that the AWG business is, shall we say, on less than solid ground. Another way to say it is, researchers appear to have massively fudged the numbers to support their grants and their politics, rather than get at the truth. Supporters of AWG say there are no counter-reports, when in fact there are hundreds, if not thousands of papers published by reputable journals, and many more rejected by journals that are implicated in the emails as having agreed to refuse papers that disagree with the AWG belief system. This is similar to the constantly repeated Democrat theme that the Republicans have made no counter-proposals on health care, when in fact there are more than 50 Republican proposals that were ignored by the Dems in the House alone. So, AGW True Believers deny any qualified skeptics exist, Democrats deny any alternative proposals exist. Is there a pattern here? Kind of reminds me of Lysenskoism claiming Darwinism didn't exist. That didn't work out too well, as I recall. With arguments for AWG badly damaged by evidence of data falsification, it seems to me that the best bet for the AWG believers is to get Copenhagen done as quickly as possible, and get as many countries as possible to commit to a program which should, properly managed, cripple the world economy for decades to come. But, more importantly, it will give the political elites considerably greater power over the lives of common people, and it will give "climate scientists" of the correct political stamp greater respect and assured grants. Maybe Al Gore will get revenge for not being elected President, I dunno. I predict that the heads of states that have signed on, and the AWG true believers will proclaim Copenhagen a flawed triumph (because of those who don't sign), and the Greens will complain because more was not done, and we will find that countries that adhere to the Copenhagen accords (if any) will be borrowing massively from those that do not within ten years, and will look like Zimbabwe within thirty years. Unless we have a series of wars, before then. Of course, they may have a rush of common sense to the head, but given the posturing of our political elite, that seems unlikely. Maybe there is AWG, though the preponderance of what appears to be untainted evidence is against it. There are ways to test the quality of the data used to come up with the results the AWG True Believers want us to accept as Gospel. Expensive methods, that take time, but can be publicaly monitored and are know to be reliable. The tests would cost billions, if applied to the world-wide data used by the climate scientists, but we stand to lose multiple trillions and a great deal of our personal freedom in a cause which has a strong probability of being wrong and a scam. I think verification would be a worth-while cost, when the alternative is to trust people who have already been found to be lying to us on the very topic they want us to trust them about. Current Mood: grumpy (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Thursday, November 26th, 2009
11:20 am	Thanksgiving Lessons People seldom think of an early experiment in wealth-redistribution here in what would become America.  Nor do they recall the motivation for it.  Seems the investors in the Plymouth colony wanted the Pilgrims to work the land communally because they thought that would make their investment more secure.  The Pilgrims duly set up a communal system whereby they redistributed the wealth equally, making sure the guys nominally in charge (in this case, the investors) got their cut.  (The guys in charge of wealth-redistribution always get their cut.)  The colony nearly starved the first few years, and the redistribution of wealth was a big contributor to the problems.  One saving grace was the help of the locals, who fortunately didn't have any communal fixations. After enough of this, the governor of the colony divided up the workable land among the colonists, each to work his own property.  The colony never faced the threat of hunger after that.  The investors never made the huge profits they expected, which may be a lesson for those who eschew a "hands-on" approach to investment.  A lesson in the "benefits" of a managed economy, and a prescription for the cure, almost half a millenium old. History is great stuff.  We ought to try learning from it. Some links: The Pilgrim's Real Thanksgiving Lesson How Private Property Saved The Pilgrims Excerpts from William Bradford's Journal Current Mood: thankful (Comment on this)
Sunday, November 22nd, 2009
7:52 pm	Creative Climate Studies Something like 179 MB of emails and documents have been snatched from a major climate research lab, and they show "scientists" fudging data to show global warming that isn't there, "scientists" conspiring to prevent dissenting papers from being pubished, "scientists" trying to prevent information being revealed in FOIA actions - in short, politicians pretending to be scientists. Even the Times Online is not amused, and when the press that has been cheerleading AWG comes down on "Climate Research" that turns out to be advocacy research, its not a good thing. If all this turns out to be true (and it is starting to look pretty solid), it should be another Piltdown Man moment for science. And just before Copenhagen, too. tsk. Current Mood: amused (Comment on this)
12:15 pm	Terror Trials in New York City When I first heard AG Holder's little speech about trying the 5 terror defendants in NY, I was pretty disgusted. From his and President' Obama's "we'll give 'em a fair trial and then hang 'em with a new rope" attitude, it was pretty obvious the intent was to have show trials which could be used to blame the previous administration and stir up propaganda for Mr. Obama and the Democrats for 2012. Perpetual campaigning. However, on reflection, I believe that the trials are the right thing to do. Not politically, I think they will backfire badly. Not diplomatically or in terms of international PR - I think they will be yet another humiliating disaster for this administration. The Declaration of Independence states that people are endowed naturally with unalienable rights. While the Declaration is not a source of law in the US, it is a clar indication of the attitude of the Founders, that people come equipped with rights by definition, without regard to governments. No distinction is made between U. S. Citizens and others, so presumably all people are so equipped. Amendment 5 of the U. S. Constitution states that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." As I read it, if a person is considered to have violated civil rather than military law, or is considered not to have offended in time of public danger, that person must be tried in a civil court. I personally think that terrorist attacks on the US by people from outside the US would qualify as public danger, but then, I'm not the AG. If the Administration wants to define the jihadis a common criminals, then they have an argument for doing so. If the jihadis are common criminals, they all MUST be tried in civil courts of appropriate jurisdiction, not in military tribunals. (I disagree that jihadis are common criminals, but apparently the lawyers want control of things, as usual....). The Declaration makes no distinction as to where people come from. The 5th Amendment makes no distinction as to where people come from, only as to circumstances under which they are apprehended. All people should be treated by US law in the same way, given the same circumstances. I think the Administration's reasons for doing this are bad, and I think it will come back on them in ways they will not like, and I disagree with their rationale for assuming that selected jihadis are to be treated as common criminals. But given all their assumptions, then all the jihadis should be tried in US courts. Current Mood: contemplative (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Wednesday, November 11th, 2009
7:03 pm	Asteroid passes within 8,700 miles of Earth on 11/06/09 And we only found out about it about 15 hours before closest approach.  But don't panic, it was only 23 feet across, so it would only have made a "small" mess.  No big thing - unless you happened to be at the point of impact.   Current Mood: mischievous (5 Comments |Comment on this)
6:47 pm	Socialized Legal Care? What if Congress passed a Legal Care law that treated lawyers the same way they want to treat doctors?  That might cut down the need for defensive medicine.  It could be almost as good as tort reform.  Ordinary American citizens could get the same kind of legal support as the folks with Cadillac Legal Assistance (except for Congress, the Executive branch, Bureaucrats, and the Judicial branch of course, they will continue to get the same gold-plated treatment in Health and Legal care).  Don't pay any attention to protests by Big Legal. We need to get on this now.  If it's good enough for our doctors, it's good enough for our lawyers.  We need to get control over the obscene profits of Big Legal. I wish I'd had this idea - check out this article.  Seems like a pretty good idea, to me.  Equal Social Justice For All! Current Mood: amused (Comment on this)
Monday, November 9th, 2009
10:49 am	The Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago today.  A crucial symbolic victory over Socialism and tyranny.  A very big deal.  It meant to me that my children would not have to live under the imminent threat of nuclear destruction, aware in the back of their minds that it would only take one wrong decision and 15 minutes to  vaporize them and their civilization - if they were lucky.  I was raised with the useless/hopeful civil defense drills in school, the Doomsday Clock, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, the constant awareness of where the bomb shelters were, and the certainty that everything worth caring about on the planet could be destroyed at any second, and I had no say in the matter at all. When I heard of the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of Socialism in the Soviet Union, I wept.  Because for the first time in my life, I thought that maybe my children stood a much better than even chance of surviving to have children of their own.  And if we were lucky and skillful, they might have those children in a society where the government ddn't have the power to tell them what to do and when and how to do it.  No possibility of being jailed for thinkng the wrong way or saying the wrong thing, no unelected rulers to control aspects of their lives without their consent, no manipulation of the media to decide what the "truth" du jour was to be. And perhaps best of all, they would not have to glance at the skies and wonder if the missles were coming, nor go to work and think about how and if they could get back to their loved ones if/when the bombs fell, nor look at children of their own and wonder what they would need to know to live in a world blasted by nuclear war.  That's worth a lot. 20th Anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.  A very big deal. (Comment on this)
Sunday, November 8th, 2009
11:01 am	237 Millionaires in Congress Article here.  44% of Congresspeople are millionaires.  So, do you have to be rich to be a "Representative of the People" (1% of whom are millionaires), or do you get rich doing that job?  Might ask Congressman Rangel, Congressman Todd, etc.  Oh, and +10% unemployment.  How come those CongressCritters aren't spreadign their wealth around? Current Mood: amused (14 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, November 6th, 2009
2:12 pm	Today is a bit of a challenge This was a morning when in hit me hard that my dearest friend and love is dead, I have about one day's food for the dogs, about $200 in the bank and over $1000 in bills that must be paid yesterday at the latest, I'm in a house that I have to move out of, and I'm unemployed and don't draw unemployment insurance.  Then I got to the computer and the first email I opened told me that I had been turned down for yet another job application.  This sort of thing makes it a challenge to maintain a good attitude.  Sometimes, it's hard to see why one would bother. OK, that's enough of that.  I'm going to apply for more jobs.  Somewhere, someone is going to hire me.  And they won't regret it, dammit. (4 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, November 5th, 2009
10:25 am	Republican Health Care Plan would cost $61 Billion (as opposed to $1.1 Trillion) in the first 10 years of the plan,  would reduce the Federal Deficit by $68 Billion (as opposed to raising it), and would reduce premiums up to 10%, as opposed to increasing them.  This is one of over 50 proposed plans or amendments the Repuiblicans have offered over the duration of the Health Care debate - not bad for a group that has "never proposed a plan", eh?  I'm not in love with it, but I sure like it better than the Pelosi-Reid proposal!  And I have to say, I am not really fond of an administration that works so hard to shut down the opposition rather than engaging them on merits.  Congressional Budget Office preliminary analysis is here.  You might want to let your Congress-Critter know you want to hear the whole story before s/he votes. (Comment on this)
Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009
9:06 am	One Auto Maker Turns a Profit Which one?  The only one not owned by the government and the unions.  Strange, isn't it?  Article here. (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, November 2nd, 2009
4:45 pm	Human Resources A resource is something you use.  It gains you an advantage, improves your status or increases your security.   The more resources you control, the better off you are in terms of ability to control your environment.  OK, fine.  Humans apparently treat each other as resources, and Human Resources is set up to figure out how to handle those resources most effectively. You, and I, and everyone who is in any way involved in working for an organization of any size, is a resource to be used to the best advantage of the organization.  If you break, you will be discarded and replaced unless there is a status advantage to keeping you.  If you don't function satisfactorily, you will be discarded and replaced.  If your function is no longer useful to the people to whom you are a resource, you will be discarded and not replaced.  If you can be used in another way, you will be re-purposed.  Because H/R has a task to get the most out of you, and (if they don't want to be discarded) that is what they are going to do. It sounds worse than it is, perhaps - most people want to accumulate resources so they can live in what their society considers comfort, and obtain what their society considers status.  In a scarcity economy, you have to trade your labor, skill and knowledge for means to aquire those resources.  The people who control or can accumulate resources can trade them for that labor, and apparently, it is cost effective to set up a H/R department to manage you-as-a-resource for the benefit of the people who offer resources in exchange for what you do.  That way, they get more bang for the buck.  The market determines what they have to offer you to get you to work for them, and H/R determines if you should be given an offer, how you should be handled after you accept the offer, and if you should be retained (a day-to-day evaluation of your worth vs your cost). Some organizations, quite a few actually, make an effort to maintain some degree of morale and a positive attitude toward them on the part of their Human Resources, if only because it improves productivity and retention.  But the fact remains, to the H/R department of any large organization, or the membership department of a large union or organization, or even/especially the people managers of government organizations, you are a thing to be used, not a person to be treated as such.  They really can't afford to do otherwise, can they? There are symptoms of that attitude in other areas of life.  Voters are statistical units to be managed, not three-dimensional people with complex needs and concerns.  Both parties in the US are guilty of this, while stoutly maintaining that they are the only politicos who have your real needs at heart, Mr/Ms/Mrs WhoEverYouAre.  To insurance companies, you are a set of probabilities based on statistical evaulation.  How else could they make a profit?  To most celebrities of any stripe, you matter only in so far as you please their ego and fill their coffers.  With billions on the planet, how could it be otherwise? I don't have an answer to that, but I do know that every person I have ever met is more than a socio-economic unit to be manipulated by the H/R offices of the world.  We, all of us, are more than we are expected to be - more than we "should" be, more than we "ought" to be.  I hope to remain something more than a set of specifications stored in neat little folders in H/R offices.  I hope you do, too.  More than that, I hope you notice that everyone you meet is more than a job title or descriptive tag.  How much would you be missing by running a little H/R in your mind and cataloging people according to how useful they are to you? (Comment on this)
10:02 am	95.2% Income Tax Rate to erase the deficit? That should go over well.  Good article here.  It's a PDF. (Comment on this)
Saturday, October 24th, 2009
12:22 pm	A Unified Theory of Superman's Powers This article takes a load off my mind - I've been wondering about Superman's powers for the last 50 years.  Also, if you get a chance, read Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex.  Intimacy with Superman has some side issues not brought up in Cosmopolitan. (Comment on this)
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009
10:58 am	Post-Racial, DOJ Style. The DOJ must be a fun place to be nowadays, what with worrying more about political manipulation than actual, y'know, Law and Justice.  Seems Eric Holder's boys told a North Carolina city it was required to have partisan elections so that the black residents would know to vote for black Democrats.  No, really.  Article here.  The city had voted overwhelmingly to do away wth partisan elections so that people would be able to vote based on what candidates' positions were rather than voting along party lines.  Seems pretty enlightened and progressive (as opposed to Progressive) to me. The quote I like is this one "The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want. "  Apparently, the DOJ thinks our citizens who happen to be black can't vote without training wheels, and must vote for Democrats.  (Comment on this)
Thursday, October 8th, 2009
12:48 pm	Musical ... Stairs? Every time someone comes up with an idea like this, it is "new and innovative".  Why don't people just work on making things more fun? In any case, gotta love musical stairs.  Wonder what they sound like with a kindergarten class on them? (Comment on this)
Sunday, October 4th, 2009
8:40 pm	A quote from Barney Frank  "There is a right to privacy, but not a right to hypocrisy. It is very important that the people who make the law be subject to the law." Barney Frank on the subject of gay legislators who oppose gay marriage, or something of the sort.  I agree.  I think it should apply to even those legislators Barney Frank likes, as well as those he does not like.  And it should apply to all legislation, not just legilsation of morals (something the Gubbmint never needed to be in). Very good line, Mr. Frank.  Now live up to it. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
11:41 am	Reading Comprehension I get the feeling that reading comprehension isn't a job criterion for lawmakers, any more. Senator Tom Carper (D - Del) says, in an interview: "I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language, because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life. . . . When you get into the legislative language, Sen. Conrad actually read some of it, several pages of it, the other day, and I don’t think anybody had a clue, including people who had served on this committee for decades, what he was talking about." Such honesty from one of our lawmakers is refreshing, of course, but rather disturbing.  Plain English would be nice, as he says, but still - This guy makes the law that control my life? I don't exempt Republicans, I just think they are more circumspect about admitting it. (Comment on this)
Thursday, October 1st, 2009
12:14 pm	Cognitive Dissonance 101 Interesting stuff going on.  For example, we have Florida Rep. Alan Grayson, who claims that Republicans are Knuckle Dragging Neanderthals for not voting in the kind of health care laws he wants, despite the fact that Democrats have an unassailable majority and Republicans can do nothing.  So, Republicans have no choice, Democrats have the votes, and it's Republicans fault?  The logic escapes me, but I do like the alliterations.  And blaming Republicans for past events is risky - assuming voters actually, y'know, read history and stuff.  So he may be all right there, come to think of it. If the Democrats have all the votes, why are they blaming the Republicans?  (Unless this guy just has to 'Blame Bush' by reflex).  And will the Republicans get an apology for some seriously blatant rudeness and grandstanding?  Sorry, I was thinking in terms of courtesy and honesty as applied to CongressCritters there, for a minute  - better go lie down..... The other interesting thing is the reaction to Roman Polanski's arrest.  I have to admit, I am a little unclear here.  Mr. Polanski drugged, raped and sodomized a 13-year old girl who objected the whole time.  Many Hollywood celebrities say that he should not be tried, because, well, because he is talented and famous.  There is even a petition.  So, if I am sufficiently famous, I can commit a crime and be forgiven in advance?  Is there a sliding scale?    How famous do you have to be to, for instance, skip out on paying for a dinner?  How famous do you have to be to murder someone?  Does it depend on how famous they are?  For some reason, this "One Law for Me, Another For Thee" business seems familiar - very pre-1789 France, for example.  I guess the Aristocracy are finally exasperated with all that "Equality" stuff and are demanding their privileges. What do you think - How famous would someone have to be to drug and rape your 13-year old daughter (or son) and get away with it?  How about your spouse?  How about you? Current Mood: cynical (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Monday, September 28th, 2009
11:14 pm	Betty Jean has passed away. Today at about 11:45 AM.  Her daughters, Angela and Justine, were with her.  I was nearby, but not with her - talking to a hospital functionary about moving BJ home.  I think the stroke did more damage than we realized.  She is safe now, and no longer hurting.  But I miss her more than I can say.  We'll be together again, presently.  Until then, I know she will be well. The funeral will be on October 2nd, at Haven of Rest in Gig Harbor.  Current Mood: sad (2 Comments |Comment on this)