Category Archives: Political Commentary

Political Commentary

Some Progressive Thoughts On Immigration

12 Comments

Over at Jonah’s place:

“We must know our IMMIGRANT’s pedigrees. They are flooding our shores with actual and potential Insanity, Imbecility, Pauperism, Prostitution, Alcoholism and Crime”

“When the low immigrant is giving us three babes while the Daughter of the Revolution is giving us one it means the Gibson and Harrison Fisher Girl is vanishing. Her place is being taken by the low-browed, broad-faced, flat-chested woman of lower Europe. “

This guy must have known different European women than I do.

Political Commentary, Science And Society

Everything You Know Is Wrong

10 Comments

…about greenhouse theory?

Miskolczi’s story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution — originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today — ignored boundary conditions by assuming an “infinitely thick” atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference … but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

And why is there resistance to his theory? Follow the money:

NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. “Money”, he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, “Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results.”

It’s always amusing, and frustrating, to hear people who attack skeptics ad hominem because they’re on the take from Big Oil or Big Coal, when places like the Competitive Enterprise Institute actually get very little of their funding from such sources. But climate researchers are always portrayed as objective, noble and selfless, unswayed by the need to maintain their grant funding stream from Big Climate Change. All I know is that I wish I was getting paid as much to be a skeptic as some apparently think I must be. Or getting paid at all, for that matter. But so far, not a single check has shown up in the mail from Exxon-Mobil or Peabody. It’s also an interesting story, in light of Hansen’s complaints that he was “muzzled” by the administration, all while he was going around giving speeches evangelizing to the faithful.

I also found this criticism underwhelming.

Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are “not very plausible”. Reto Ruedy of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is “200 year old science” and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

Yes, can’t be overturning two-hundred-year-old theories. That would be completely unprecedented in science.

[Update in the afternoon]

This cautionary essay about science journalism seems to be relevant: beware the underdog narrative.

History, Political Commentary

Rewriting History

16 Comments

Is it possible that Hillary! is being less than truthful about her and Rwanda?

I think it’s a lot more likely that she either didn’t advocate action on Rwanda at all, or did so only in passing. If so, this would have to be the definitive example of her attempt to claim responsibility for everything good that happened during her husband’s presidency, while disavowing all responsibility for his mistakes. This was, in my opinion, the most shameful moment of the Clinton administration. It ought, by rights, to have a place in Hillary Clinton’s “thirty five years of experience working for change.” Or perhaps she might claim that she wasn’t that interested in foreign policy at the time, or that for whatever reason she just didn’t pick up on the genocide in Rwanda until it was too late to act. That would at least be honest.

But if, in fact, Clinton missed the chance to urge her husband to help stop the Rwandan genocide, then she should not pretend that she was, in fact, right there on the side of the angels all along. That’s just grotesque.

In a related question, do bears defecate in the sylvan wilderness?

“Grotesque” doesn’t start to describe the former First Couple.

Political Commentary, Space

Disconnect

3 Comments

John Marburger, the president’s science advisor, apparently gave an interesting speech the other day, which can be somewhat summarized by this statement:

“Exploration by a few is not the grandest achievement,” he said. “Occupation by many is grander.” (Although he added that by “occupation” he did not necessarily mean settlement but instead “routine access to resources”.) His long-term vision for the future is “one in which exploration has long since ceased and our successors reap the benefits of the new territories.”

As I noted in comments at Space Politics, this is the most visionary thing that I’ve ever known a president’s science adviser to say, and the other notable thing is that he himself says explicitly (as well as implicitly in the above comment) that space isn’t just about science. (As an aside, I’ve always thought that “Science Adviser” was too restrictive a title for that position–it’s always been science and technology.)

As I also noted over there, it’s unfortunate that NASA’s current plans are so completely unattuned to that vision, being specifically designed for “exploration by a few” (and rarely) rather than “occupation by many.” One wonders if he’s ever complained to anyone about that.

Political Commentary, War Commentary

Why Do They Hate Us?

11 Comments

Apparently, that’s what Ahmadinejad should be asking about the Iraqis:

Weeks of hard work by Iranian emissaries and pro-Iran elements in Iraq were supposed to ensure massive crowds thronging the streets of Baghdad and throwing flowers on the path of the visiting Iranian leader. Instead, no more than a handful of Iraqis turned up for the occasion. The numbers were so low that the state-owned TV channels in Iran decided not to use the footage at all.

Instead, much larger crowds gathered to protest Ahmadinejad’s visit. In the Adhamiya district of Baghdad, several thousand poured into the streets with cries of “Iranian aggressor, go home!”

But, but… I thought that our foolish adventure in Iraq only created an Iranian puppet there?

Business, Economics, Political Commentary

The Problem With Health Insurance

9 Comments

It’s not insurance.

Nothing new here to people familiar with the situation, but many don’t seem to understand the problem. But this is the origin of it:

Health insurance started to change, though, during the Truman administration. (I hasten to mention that I wasn’t actually there: I was born during the Eisenhower administration, when the process had only gotten started.) Truman wanted to implement the progressive new notion of a national health care plan, but couldn’t get it through; at the same time, post-war wage controls were still on, so employers bidding for new workers had to find other ways to compete.

Through a sequence of compromises, what came out of it was a system in which companies and only companies could buy health insurance and health care for their employees, and deduct the cost as a business expense. My father’s music store and the steel mill across town could buy health insurance, basically, at a discount. (My uncle the butcher couldn’t; he wasn’t a “business.”)

Years pass. (Insert visual of wind-blown calendar leaves here.) Medical care becomes more complicated, legal conditions change, and a lot of things that used to be major medical issues that mostly affected the life insurance rates become things that could be cured, or at least managed. Increasingly, what was “major medical” insurance became, simply, health insurance; we expected the insurance companies not just to pay for unexpected events, but for the normal sort of day-to-day maintenance we all need.

People will pay to repair their car, or their pets, or appliances out of pocket, but somehow, over the past decades they’ve come to believe that it’s a fundamental human right to have someone else pay for your doctor visits. Until we cut off this disastrous government policy of tying health insurance to employment, and allow everyone to deduct medical expenses on a level playing field, and get people to understand that we have to return to the model of health insurance the problem will not be solved.

Political Commentary

Turning Up The Heat

6 Comments

I’ve been predicting for a while that this won’t be another summer of love for the Democrats, but a lot more like Chicago, 1968. Apparently a lot of Obama supporters agree with me.

…if the Machine tries to give the Clintons the victory at the convention, I swear to God, [1968] Chicago’s going to look like a Sadie Hawkins dance. People my age are going to be throwing stones. We all have transportation — cell phones — disposable income — the Internet — free time — and Seattle as our example. Part of me is scared of a riot. Part of me isn’t. The nomination belongs to Obama. Do you think we’re going to let the Democratic Leadership Council take it? “God gave Noah the rainbow sign. No more water, fire next time.”

Between this kind of stuff, and the recruiting office bombing, this year is shaping up to give me a sixties nostalgia (and the King and Kennedy assassination fortieth anniversaries, both events that I remember clearly, are coming up soon).

Political Commentary

Faux Pas

Does anyone really buy this?

In her statement, Power said her comments “do not reflect my feelings about Sen. Clinton, whose leadership and public service I have long admired.”

No, of course not. You don’t really think she’ll do anything necessary to attain power. You just said that for no reason at all.

Sometimes, to slightly paraphrase Freud, a cigar really is a cigar.

Of course, she’s saying what non-Clinton-koolaid drinkers have been thinking for many years, but whose loyalty to their political party exceeds their loyalty to common decency.

I think that I’ll just keep the corn a poppin.’