Reinke Faces Life

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/why_would_anyone_nasas_trust_c.html

August 17, 2007
Why Would Anyone Trust NASA’s Climate Data Now?
By Marc Sheppard

***Begin Quote***

Every soldier in this vital information war knows it’s difficult enough to do daily battle against dramatically over-hyped propaganda with any optimism of triumph. Enemy warriors wield swords forged from hyped projections, shocking news, cataclysmic films and disinforming TV programs. Ours brave the battlefield armed only with a firm grasp of the facts and the wherewithal to draw cogent conclusions from them.

Now it appears our adversaries may have successfully infiltrated what are imperatively neutral data-bases, attempting to render our only weapons useless.

If the science were truly settled, then why would they so fear a fair fight?

***End Quote***

Messing with the data?

Sounds like some of my high school and college chemistry classes where I knew the right answer and fudge the numbers to come out.

One of my rare A’s came when, following closely the instructions given, I couldn’t verify some scientific principle or other. I couldn’t even close enough to fudge it. Argh! So, with the deadline fast approaching, I just said “*&^%$#@” it and turned it in as it was. Not knowing that everyone was getting similar results, they other didn’t have the “courage” of their convictions and they were fudging. It was a glum day when everyone was turning in their stuff and bragging about how they got it right. I felt like the village idiot. (Probably was.)

Hey, it was done. And, as my sainted grandmother used to say “what’s done is done.”

Imagine my shock when that Monday, I was called to the front of the class, and the good Brother asked me “How stupid are you? Don’t you know <I really forget the bozo’s name who’s law we were supposed to “prove”.> XYZ’s law?”. I was ready to soil my shorts since sessions like this usually ended with physical abuse, mental torture, or as yet another trip to the principal’s office for delayed mental and physical abuse. So I mumbled something like, “I knew the right answer but that’s the results I got”. Snickering all around. The the Brother says, “Good. You may be a dumb as a rock, but at least you’re honest. Here’s your A. The instructions were wrong. Everyone else gets an F”. Wow!

So from thence on, I learned my lesson. Just let the chips fall where they land.

In the case of this article it appears some of my classmates have gone into “global warming research”, which should probably be called “global warming fudging”.

:-)

# # # # #

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3479449&page=2

Don Imus Sued by Rutgers Basketball Player
Star Center Kia Vaughn Names Imus, NBC, CBS in Civil Suit

***Begin Quote***

Earlier today, The Associated Press reported that Imus had reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with former employer CBS over his firing. ABC News has learned that Imus could be back to broadcasting as early as January, and is being courted by major media outlets. That settlement, said Ancowitz, rewards Imus while leaving little justice for the women of the Rutgers basketball team.

“He’s come out smelling like quite the rose. But what about these young women? How does Imus’ victory affect their self-esteem? Where do they go to get their reputations back?”

***End Quote***

Stick ‘n’ stones … …

I guess it’s not about one’s reputation, but the dead presidents.

While what Imus said was deplorable, and as a RU women’s bball fan I think he should take some lumps about it, there was an element of truth in his statement. He was comparing the LadyVols to the LadyKnights and there is definitely a difference in appearance.

Of course, saying that wouldn’t get him big ratings, so he had to say it in a more shocking fashion.

The moral umbrage of the politicians is understandable. They need to get their mug in front of the parade. (Remember where Gov Corzine was going when he wasn’t wearing his seat belt.) Politicians and bureaucrats can always be counted on to create a problem and then rush to “solve” it in such a way as it benefits them.

The RU women had the 15 minutes of fame and now will resume their proper place in the Universe. Reputations? There’s no doubt that Imus’ remarks were hurtful. But really, damage to a reputation? Sorry, I don’t see it.

A more interesting question is “does women’s basketball to closely emulate the man’s game?” In our “equality” society, are men and women truly equal? We send our women to die in foreign lands in the name of gender equality. But is that the “best” use of human talents?

Then, move on to the question of equality. Can men and women ever be truly “equal”? Are they not the complementary half of the male. If one has to halves of the clue, then can you say that one is “better” than the other. One is no good without the other. There is no “better”. there is no “equality”.

Of course, it would be easy to observe that both schools are gooferment creatures (i.e., state funded institutions of “higher learning”). Hence, they shouldn’t exist.

So, perhaps this is just about extracting some loose change.

# # # # #

http://www.smartmoney.com/tradecraft/index.cfm?story=20070813

Government Shouldn’t Bail Out Failing Homeowners
By Jonathan Hoenig
Published: August 13, 2007

***Begin Quote***

The more the government gets involved in mortgages and banking, the tighter credit will become. But beyond the impractical reality of collectivist economics, a bailout of homeowners facing foreclosure would be an immoral violation of the property rights of the millions of citizens who live within their means and pay their bills on time. The responsibility of paying back subprime mortgage rests with those who took them, not the publicity-seeking politician eager to sacrifice the individual for the “public good.”

***End Quote***

Here’s an interesting take on how the gooferment creates the problem and then rushes in to “save us”!

# # # # #

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2007/tle429-20070805-02.html

Libertarians and Iraq
by Daniel G. Jennings

***Begin Quote***

Well Libertarians can offer answers creative out of the box thinking like Ron Paul’s proposal for Letters of Marquee and entrepreneurial warfare. That is turn the war over to private companies that can adapt quickly and effectively and aren’t constrained by bureaucracy, politics, media scrutiny or public opinion. Or to local groups in the Middle East such as private militias and local individuals. For example private covert operators who don’t have to fight the war on drugs could make deals with Opium Growers in Afghanistan and get Bin Laden and other Al Qaeada fanatics (one of the reasons we’ve failed in Afghanistan is that our forces have antagonized the local people by trying to eradicate the one cash crop they can grow: opium) . Locally hired mercenaries would be familiar with the local culture and languages in ways Americans wouldn’t.

***End Quote***

Out of the box answers are certainly what’s needed. We have an awful lot of chickens on the inbound and some are “huge” (e.g., How does the next generation make good on the promises of today’s politicians?, and a slew of others).

# # # # #

text

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/04/business/04network.html?ex=1343880000&en=c914b75c2b6c2215&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

What’s Good for a Business Can Be Hard on Friends
Doug McSchooler for The New York Times
By ANGEL JENNINGS
Published: August 4, 2007

***Begin Quote***

But what was set up as a purely business strategy is having an unintentional social effect. It is dividing the people who share informal bonds and bringing together those who have formal networks of cellphone “friends.”

***End Quote***

Not that anyone cares, but I’m on Verizon. :-)

# # # # #

Inspired by the six word memoir, is it possible to spawn a literary form based on that concept?

http://www.liberty-watch.com/volume03/issue05/coverstory.php

RON PAUL REVOLUTION
BY JARRET KEENE

***Begin Quote***

The new face of the freedom movement is Texas Congressman Ron Paul. The credit mostly goes to the Internet for having brought this principled politician into the light. And Paul is perhaps the only individual for whom “principled politician” isn’t an oxymoron. Among nontraditional campaign contributors online, Paul is the Republican presidential frontrunner, having outpaced Sen. John McCain in fundraising. While the mainstream media continues to blackout Paul, he’s setting the Internet ablaze with a firm position against the Iraq War, against taxes and against big government. Ultimately, more and more people every day are saying yes to Dr. No. (Paul earned the nickname because he is a physician and for voting against any and all tax increases, and against any legislation that expands the federal government’s power as a House Representative.)

***End Quote***

I think that’s re-love-ution!

:-)

# # # # #

text

http://www.mises.org/story/2644

How the Shrimp Tariff Backfired
By Aleksandra Dunaeva and Don Mathews
Posted on 8/1/2007

***Begin Quote***

The great Frederic Bastiat (1801-–1850) taught that wealth can be obtained in two ways: it can be produced or it can be plundered. Production is undertaken by entrepreneurs. Plunder is often undertaken with the express assistance of government, taking the form of tariffs, taxes, subsidies, and other interventionist measures justified as policy in the public interest.

But entrepreneurs are not easily thwarted by government intervention. Sometimes entrepreneurs respond so creatively that they render the interventionist measure almost meaningless. A classic example of an entrepreneurial response to state-sponsored plunder is the case of the US anti-dumping tariff on imported shrimp.

***End Quote***

Bottom line: The American consumer got screwed and the politicians, lobbyists, and industry moguls got rich.

And, you think that the gooferment protect you?

# # # # #

text

HILLARY GOOFED IN DEM DEBATE
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
July 30, 2007

***Begin Quote***

The polling is in and Hillary made a big mistake in her sharp disagreement with Obama over whether the president should meet with leaders of rogue nations. According to the Rasmussen Poll, Democrats agree with Obama over Hillary by 55%-22%. Without a poll to pretest her comments, Hillary instinctively took the “insider” position that the president should only meet with such leaders after extensive probing by subordinates to assure that the meetings would be productive. But she was wrong. Democrats want the president to meet with leaders of such nations without pre conditions.

***End Quote***

Interesting. I’d think that H would just keep emphasizing that O hadn’t done anything. But, then maybe that’s a two edged sword. Neither has she.

# # # # #

FROM A RECENT EMAIL

>I did just read an article on that asked- Can Ron Paul Really get the Republican Nomination? Interesting article and an interesting guy.

I say “yes”. For those not educated in gooferment skool, the Republican Party up to Bush41 was the party of “settling wars started by the D’s”. The Taft (after Ohio-ian Robert Taft) Wing of the Republic Party was the fiscally-sound morally-pure non-interventionist part of the Party. As opposed to the Rockefeller Wing (Nelson Rockefeller), that was the fiscal-looser socially-liberal interventionist foreign policy side. When Goldwater was badly beaten by LBJ, on the war issue, where that “nuclear commercial” misrepresenting where he stood on the war, (despite the fact that the D’s expanded the Vietnam disaster), the Taft wing was pretty badly beaten up. Ron Paul is from that Taft tradition.

Can he win?

The nomination, quite possibly. He energizes the Taft wing. He’s alone as being solidly against the war, unlike all the R’s and D’s.

He wins the nomination if the people really support him. The power brokers in the Republican party are, at their heart, greedy men. Is it better to be on the winning side of a potentially small government guy who will need you to get anything done. OR, on the losing side, waiting for your turn at the trough in 4, 8, or 12 years? I think if he looks like a winner, they’ll take the Ron Paul side that bet.

The Presidency is a better possibility. Assuming he gets the Republican nomination.

The war may split the D’s vote.

The fiscal discipline of Ross Perot brought out 30% of the vote (20M votes) which represented a substantial part of those who never vote. About 10% R’s, 10% D’s, and 10% of the never voting.

If you you look at the eligible to vote as the whole population (i.e., 100%), about half don’t vote. The D’s get about 50% of the 50% that do vote so they have 25%. The R’s get about 40% of the 50% that do vote so they have 20%. If the D’s split on the war, they could give RP 12.5% and say Hillary 12.5%. If the R’s split, it will be into into the Tafts and the Rockafellers. The Taft R’s should give Ron Paul their whole 10%. The Rockefeller R’s should split 5% to RP and 5% for Hillary. The unwashed 50% are awakened to come out and vote in the same proportion as Perot that give RP say 16%. That gives him 12.5+10+5+16 = 43.5% versus Hillary 17.5% on the high side. If the D’s don’t split it’s RP 10+5+16=31% to Hillary 25%. That doesn’t take into account that Hillary has the highest negatives ever seen (i.e., will people come out just to vote against her?).

> I’m still not sure why he doesn’t just run as an independent and forgo the Republican Party altogether.

As a Republican candidate, unlike when he ran as a libertarian, there’s no “wasted vote” argument. The “wasted vote” argument is a Democratic Party tactic. In a three way race, Ron Paul elects Hillary. Just as Perot elected Clinton. Perot was a democrat before he ran as an independent. The fix was in.

You can see the same scenario setting up now with Bloomberg. He’s a RINO like Perot. He is in title a Republican mayor of a very liberal NYC. He would have ran as a democrat but was block by the Democratic Party Bosses. Since he was the only chance that the Republic Party had at the mayorship, they rolled over an gave it to him. Now, with the Presidential election coming, the Democratic Party can use this “useful idiot” (who is a very smart fellow; little nuts; but a determined veteran of Wall Street. Who I met on two occasions.) to “Perot” the Presidential election.

In a McCRomneyGulliani – Hillary race, Hillary’s high negative might elect a “hold your nose” Republican. Throw a RINO Bloomberg in like a Perot and she wins in a heartbeat! It’s not even close.

>

But, if the Republicans nominate Ron Paul, that RINO Bloomberg strategy does nothing for the Democrats. As a matter of fact, Ron Paul is “deal breaker”. Take all the common wisdom and toss it out the window. He’s a straight shooter with a bullet proof voting record. And, if he energizes just three components to vote for him — the disaffected non-voters, the anti war Democrats, and the fiscally conservative Republicans — then hello, it’s a landslide that will eclipse the all past ones. It could easily be a popular sweep that would unify the country. In 2000 was Bush 271 electors with 50M votes versus Gore 266 electors with 51M votes. I’d predict Ron Paul runs the table with 450 electors leaving Hillary CA=54 + NY=33 for 87 electors. The popular vote would be even worse imho, when the silent majority comes out. Ron Paul 75M, Hillary 25M.

It’s possible. It’s about a candidate who breaks all the molds, rules of thumbs, and past precedents. If he can energizes the anti-war D’s, the fiscal conservative R’s, and get the disaffected to come vote, then he’s the President.

Now watch for the dirty tricks, because neither side — D’s or R’s — wants this racket to end. It will end. The only question is if it can be a “soft landing” with a Ron Paul Presidency, or a “harder landing” when all these “problem” chickens come home to roost.

# # # # #