Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Progressives Kill the Poor

Friday, February 20th, 2009

Harsh title? Yes, but it is no less than the truth. A lunatic ideology has claimed another life. By pushing to ban the malaria-preventing compound DDT in many of the world’s poorest and most disease-ridden nations, leftist Environmentalists are responsible for far more than just one death. As an environmentalist, Envoronmentalists who oppose life-saving technology disgust me.

If Mike Griffin had been Columbus

Wednesday, December 17th, 2008

I reserve any opinion on NASA head Mike Griffin. I’m linking this satire because I find it amusing, but I take no position on its merits. Still, it’s a diverting read.

Do the Democrats want to take away 401Ks?

Friday, November 21st, 2008

Should the government dig another giant hole?

Should the government stop dumping money into a giant hole?

Thursday, November 13th, 2008

The Onion asks the tough questions.

Conservatives reap what they’ve sown

Wednesday, November 12th, 2008

P.J. O’Rourke is irate–and, as always, hilarious. I think he has the state of modern conservatism pretty much pegged.

Making Earth more like Venus

Tuesday, September 30th, 2008

I think greenhouse warming is a serious problem to be addressed over the coming years. Nonetheless, some of the proclamations of environmentalists, and even scientists, make me want to throw things at a TV screen, monitor, or journal (though this last option lacks the satisfying smash of the others). Among the worst offenders in this category is the use of hellish surface conditions on Venus as a worst-case-scenario, allegedly demonstrating what can happen when greenhouse gasses get out of control. In honor of these alarmists, here are a few of the ways we could make Earth a little more like Venus:

  • Add CO2 to the atmosphere (this is the one they mean). Maybe everyone could breath out at the same time?
  • Move Earth 40,000,000-odd km toward the Sun. I think this could be done by getting everyone to stand on the light side of the world and throw rocks over the horizon. Later, the rocks would land, and everyone would go home, but the net effect would be to briefly increase the tidal force of the Sun upon the Earth (since the total mass would be spread out more along a vector from the Earth to the Sun), slowing the planet’s rotation and increasing the radius of its orbit, in accord with the conservation of angular momentum. The resulting cooler conditions would make everyone come in from the beach and work on science, so we could invent technology to move Earth 40,000,000-odd km toward the Sun.
  • Destroy all life. (They think they mean this, too.)
  • Increase the pressure of the atmosphere by about 9300%. Maybe we could all blow out really hard
The last point is most important. As seen in the ideal gas law, PV=nRT, drastically increasing the pressure without changing the volume, number of moles, or gas constant by much, is guaranteed to raise temperature. Venus’ ~700 K surface temperatures are more because of the atmospheric pressure than because of CO2’s greenhouse footprint. In fact, CO2 is a far less potent greenhouse gas than water vapor, of which Venus has very little. If you changed the composition of Venus’ atmosphere to that of Earth, keeping the same pressure and solar constant, the temperature would probably rise even further.

Besides this, the idea of a “runaway greenhouse effect” on Earth is quite unsupportable. During past interglacial periods, Earth has had higher temperatures and CO2 concentrations than even the most aggressive climate models are predicting for the next century. If such a tipping point existed in Earth’s radiation balance, we would already have tipped. Yes, the notion that some such tipping point could exist makes theoretical sense. No, we’re not anywhere near such a point.

Repeat after me, BBC, CNN, and scientists who’re trying way too hard to bring Americans around on climate change: Earth and Venus ARE NOT COMPARABLE! There are good reasons to bring greenhouse emissions under control. Fear of Earth becoming a completely uninhabitable wasteland is not one of them.

Media biased–film at 11

Thursday, September 4th, 2008

As is usually the case when you see a panel of “independent voters” on television, ABC has a curious definition of that phrase.

Democrats and Abortion

Wednesday, August 27th, 2008

Democrats have not traditionally shown tolerance for pro-life views within the party. At their 1992 convention, Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey was removed from the list of speakers because of his pro-life views. Democrat politicians from Dick Gephardt to Al Gore have found it necessary to renounce their concern for the unborn before getting any traction with the national Democratic establishment. Last night, Keystone-State Senator Bob Casey Jr., pro-life son of the late governor, spoke at the Democratic convention in Denver. This move was widely interpreted as an effort to make amens for the ‘92 shunning of his father, but Casey’s speech merely drove home the point that the pro-life viewpoint is not welcome among Democrats. He mentioned abortion just once, in seven minutes, and here is that quote: “Barack Obama and I have an honest disagreement on the issue of abortion. But the fact that I’m speaking here tonight is testament to Barack’s ability to show respect for the views of people who may disagree with him.”

What a testament! See how advanced and tolerant the Democrats are: they let pro-life politicians speak–about the economy! Not one line of the speech called on Democrats to reconsider the funding of abortion with tax dollars, support crisis pregnancy centers, or fix the gaping maw of red-stained teeth made of red tape we like to quaintly call an adoption system. Just one mild sentence actually talking about the issue would have gone a long way toward convincing me that things have changed since ‘92. But Democrats have a different standard: they apparently consider themselves broad-minded for letting a pro-life Senator give a speech that includes no substantive policy statements about abortion, only obsequious nonsense about how graceful Barack Obama is for letting him say…nothing. For those of us who would like to see opposition to abortion become acceptable in both major parties–and that includes a lot of Democrats in swing states–this is like getting a fortune cookie with no meal. It’s like gagging someone, then removing the gag on the condition that they don’t say anything except to thank you for taking it off. When a Democrat can actually speak about the valuable life of an unborn child without being ostracized from the party, I’ll believe this “testament.”

Real Americans

Friday, August 22nd, 2008

Senator Obama has let it be known that he’ll receive the Democratic nomination in front of a crowd of several hundred of what Democratic operatives call “real Americans,” who’ve been flown in from around the country. The idea here is to divide Americans into “real people” and “special interests”–standard class-warfare pablum.

McCain can’t play off this well because it would look undignified, even though it might succeed. My man Bob Barr, however, could do very well with it. Barr is in a different strategic position, where high-risk high reward techniques are worth a shot. If I were Barr, I’d give a speech in front of a crowd of successful imaginary Americans, ranging from ridiculous to quite serious: the guy with the top hat from Monopoly, Batman, John Galt, etc. This would garner some attention from the media, and signify an important libertarian idea. The idea is that the Democrats want to separate you from your hopes and dreams by telling you that you are “real people” (weak people who need their big-government version of help), instead of what you dream you could be. Class warfare falls apart the moment the people pay more attention to what what they hope for than what they suffer, which is why Obama’s oft-cited optimism rings so hollow. If he were really so hopeful and inspiring, those very qualities would kill the socialist message of his candidacy. I admit my idea for communicating that fact is hokey, but no more so than Obama’s ploy.

Fractures Within Fractures.

Monday, August 18th, 2008

I found this headline amusing: Half of Democrats Say Putting Hillary’s Name in Nomination Will Help Unify Party.