Category Archives: Social Commentary

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Philosophy, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

Libertarianism

8 Comments

The top ten ways to talk about it:

5. At Tom Palmer’s urging, I created a speech, or at least a speech opening, around the theme that “Libertarianism is the application of science and reason to the study of politics and public policy.” That is, libertarians deal in reality, not magic. We know that government doesn’t have magical powers to ignore the laws of economics and human nature.

4. Inspired by Robert Fulghum’s bestseller All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, I like to tell people that you learn the essence of libertarianism — which is also the essence of civilization — in kindergarten:

Don’t hit other people.
Don’t take their stuff.
Keep your promises.

I never fail to be amused by the pretension of the Left that they’re the “reality-based community.”

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Social Commentary

Poisonous Greenery

9 Comments

More unintended consequences:

Recently, many jurisdictions have implemented bans or imposed taxes upon plastic grocery bags on environmental grounds. San Francisco County was the first major US jurisdiction to enact such a regulation, implementing a ban in 2007. There is evidence, however, that reusable grocery bags, a common substitute for plastic bags, contain potentially harmful bacteria. We examine emergency room admissions related to these bacteria in the wake of the San Francisco ban. We find that ER visits spiked when the ban went into effect. Relative to other counties, ER admissions increase by at least one fourth, and deaths exhibit a similar increase.

I’m never surprised when environmentalist policies kill people, because many of them hate people, but in this case, it probably is an unintended consequence. Because they never think these things through. Manhattan Beach passed one of these idiot bans recently, but at least they can still use paper bags. Of course, it didn’t affect Trader Joe’s at all. And I usually shop in Redondo, where Albertson’s still offers plastic.

And yes, I know that the problem is mitigated by washing the canvas bags each time. How many people want to do that (plus having to remember to take them)?

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary, Weird

Peace, Love And Rape

8 Comments

Well, it’s easy to see why this guy would want to be sure women are disarmed:

Jerome is an expert on what kind of guns can be used to protect someone, since he is the kind of guy that people buy guns to protect against.

But according to him, you don’t need an AK-47 or M16 to stop him from raping you. It’s just overkill. When Jerome bursts into your bedroom, you don’t need that much firepower, says the guy bursting into your bedroom.

Senator Feinstein needs to bring Jerome down to D.C. as an expert witness so he can testify on just how much firepower a woman needs to defend herself from him. And maybe Piers Morgan can have him on too.

This is just insane.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Social Commentary

Global Warming

47 Comments

Anthropogenic, or not?

Though you wouldn’t know it from the antagonistic nature of public discussions about global warming, a large measure of scientific agreement and shared interpretation exists amongst nearly all scientists who consider the issue. The common ground, much of which was traversed by Dr. Hayhoe in her article, includes:

· that climate has always changed and always will,

· that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and warms the lower atmosphere,

· that human emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere,

· that a global warming of around 0.5OC occurred in the 20th century, but

· that global warming has ceased over the last 15 years.

The scientific argument over DAGW is therefore about none of these things. Rather, it is almost entirely about three other, albeit related, issues. They are:

· the amount of net warming that is, or will be, produced by human-related emissions,

· whether any actual evidence exists for dangerous warming of human causation over the last 50 years, and

· whether the IPCC’s computer models can provide accurate climate predictions 100 years into the future.

Dr. Hayhoe’s answers to those questions would probably be along the line of: substantial, lots and yes. My answers would be: insignificant, none and no.

What can possibly explain such disparate responses to a largely agreed set of factual climate data?

I tend to the latter view. As I’ve noted in the past, I have zero confidence in the predictive power of existing climate models, for very good reason.