tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-80278486416375195442024-03-05T19:10:17.794+02:00Jacob'sJacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-9596479272521221912009-08-29T15:56:00.002+03:002009-08-29T16:05:27.083+03:00Ted Kennedy died.Like many people, I remember vividly the moment when I first heard about JFK's assassination. As a teenager, I was impressed by JFK, and terribly saddened. I lost my enthusiasm for this family very fast.<br />Now Ted Kennedy, which I was never a fan of, died, and I stumbled upon <a href="http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5585&pageNum=1">this long profile of his</a>, by Michael Kelly, published in 1990.<br /><blockquote>Perhaps this seems unfair. From all available evidence, God created our elected officials to drink and screw around. Arrogance, too, is common. So is sexual recklessness (witness Gary Hart, Robert Bauman and Barney Frank); <span style="font-weight: bold;">power dements as well as corrupts</span>. But Kennedy’s behavior stands out.<br /></blockquote>(Bold is mine).<br />Eye opening article, written by a Liberal, not a political rival.Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-48417482452713293842009-08-25T13:10:00.003+03:002009-08-25T13:44:30.841+03:00Obama to nominate Bernanke.<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/business/25bernanke.html?hp">Obama to nominate Bernanke</a> for second term as Fed chairman. This is only natural. It's true, Bernanke is a Republican, and was nominated for his job by President G.W. Bush, but he is a RINO (republican in name only). I mean - if you didn't know his party affiliation you would never guess it from his policies. He fits like hand in glove with the Democratic credo of "print baby, print" more money.<br />Bernanke also did <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/business/27bernanke.html">some succesful campaigning</a> with his speech that said, modestly: "I, single handedly, killed the worst depression since the Great one". I think Ron Paul was more on the mark with this remark:<br /><blockquote>“The Federal Reserve, in collaboration with the giant banks, has created the greatest financial crisis the world has ever seen,” Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, said at a House hearing last week in which Mr. Bernanke testified about the state of the economy. </blockquote><blockquote>Republican lawmakers portray the Fed as the embodiment of heavy-handed big government, and have called for scaling back the central bank’s regulatory powers.</blockquote>Exactly. Bernanke's policies are the same as the ones recommended by Paul Krugman, the rabidly liberal (lefty) columnist of the NY Times. So, there's no wonder Obama renominated him. There are other reasons too: you don't change horses in mid race, and if anything goes wrong (which is sure to happen) you have a handy fall man.<br />While many, including the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/opinion/26roubini.html">doom prophet Nuriel Roubini</a>, praise Bernanke for indeed saving us from a big depression, other depression specialists, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/opinion/26schwartz.html">like Anna Jacobson Schwartz</a> (Milton Friedman's co-author on the depression) have a very detailed and professional critique of his policies:<br /><p> </p><blockquote><p>Mr. Bernanke seems to know only two amounts: zero and trillions. Before 2008 there were only moderate increases in the Federal Reserve’s aggregate balance sheet numbers, but since then the balance sheet has exploded by trillions of dollars. The increase was spurred by the Fed’s loans to troubled institutions and purchases of securities.</p>Why is easy monetary policy such a sin? Because in such an environment, loans are cheap and borrowers can finance every project that they dream up. This results in excesses, and also increases the severity of the recession that inevitably follows when the bubble bursts. </blockquote>Roubini, though, beside praising Bernankes handling of the crisis once it happened, also states that Bernanke failed to do anything to prevent the crisis in the two years he reigned prior to it's outburst, when many, including Roubini, were predicting it.<br />I'm not optimistic about the economic recovery.Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-54657812918565492852009-05-28T15:05:00.002+03:002009-05-28T15:14:06.630+03:00Quackery<a href="http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/who-heck-is-benn-steil.html">A compelling and lucid article claims that much of modern economics is quackery</a>. Given the mad stampede of money printing that all governments are engaged in, nowadays, I don't see how anybody could believe otherwise.<br /> Here are some quotes:<br /><span id="edit10889238" class="postedit"></span><blockquote><span id="edit10889238" class="postedit">The 20th century was the century of quack everything. Perhaps most infamous was the great Soviet quack-geneticist, <a target="newWin" class="blog" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko">Trofim Lysenko</a>.<br /><br /></span>No, the postwar Western university is our true Valhalla of quack. The sad fact is that almost everything studied and taught in Western universities today is quackery. The only exceptions are some areas of science and engineering.<br /><br /><span id="edit10889238" class="postedit">And then there's economics.<br />Pretty much everyone thinks of 20th-century economics as a seething nest of quackery. Including most 20th-century economists. All they disagree on is who the quacks are</span>.<br /><br /><span id="edit10889238" class="postedit">It is incontrovertible that quack economics is alive and well in the world today. It is possible that the <a target="newWin" class="blog" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School">Austrian</a>, <a target="newWin" class="blog" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_%28economics%29">Chicago</a>, <a target="newWin" class="blog" href="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/">George Mason</a>, <a target="newWin" class="blog" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesian_economics">New Keynesian</a>, and <a target="newWin" class="blog" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-autistic_economics">"post-autistic"</a> schools of economics are all quack. It is certainly not possible that they are all nonquack</span>.<br /><br /><span id="edit10889238" class="postedit">So we can reframe our quack detector by declaring that there are two kinds of economists: those who believe that monetary dilution is essential, and those who believe it is inessential.<br /><br /></span><span id="edit10889238" class="postedit">And this is why dilutionists are quacks. Dilutionists are quacks because it is impossible to imagine a way in which the systematic pilfering of wallets could somehow be essential to commerce and industry.<br /><br /></span><span id="edit10889238" class="postedit">Basically, what we're looking at here is the harsh but necessary process of waking up from the last century. There is a reason that quackery, in economics and poetry and nutrition and painting and history and psychology and paleoclimatology and computer science and just about any other department you can name, did so well in the 20th-century university system. Reality knows no master, but quackery is useful. Sometimes it's even profitable.<br /><br /><br /></span></blockquote>Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-65690304761938757592009-04-17T15:33:00.004+03:002009-04-17T15:48:37.027+03:00The impossibility of perpetual forcing.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/The%20impossibility%20of%20perpetual%20forcing.%20Dr.%20Hansen%20on%20forcings%20and%20Climate%20Stabilization.%20%20At%20a%20talk%20given%20by%20J.%20Hansen%20at%20the%20Climate%20Change%20Congress,%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CGlobal%20Risks,%20Challenges%20&Decisions%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D,%20Copenhagen,%20Denmark,%20March%2011,%202009,%20he%20%20said%20%28inter%20alia%29:%20%20The%20planet%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s%20present%20energy%20imbalance,%20at%20least%20to%20first%20order,%20determines%20the%20change%20of%20climate%20forcings%20needed%20to%20stabilize%20climate.%20Climate%20models,%20using%20typical%20presumed%20scenarios%20of%20climate%20forcings%20for%20the%20past%20century,%20suggest%20that%20the%20planet%20should%20be%20out%20of%20energy%20balance%20by%20+0.75%20%C3%82%C2%B1%200.25%20W/m2,%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%A6%20%28absorbed%20solar%20energy%20exceeding%20heat%20radiation%20to%20space%29.%20If%20all%20other%20forcings%20were%20fixed,%20a%20reduction%20of%20CO2%20amount%20to%20350%20ppm%20would%20restore%20the%20planet%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s%20energy%20balance,%20assuming%20that%20the%20present%20imbalance%20is%200.5%20W/m2.%20If%20fossil%20fuel%20emissions%20continue%20at%20anything%20approaching%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cbusiness-as-usual%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20scenarios,%20it%20is%20not%20feasible%20to%20restore%20planetary%20energy%20balance%20and%20stabilize%20climate.%20%20How%20Can%20Climate%20be%20Stabilized?%20Must%20Restore%20Planet%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s%20Energy%20Balance%20Modeled%20Imbalance:%20+0.75%20%C3%82%C2%B1%200.25%20W/m2%20Ocean%20Data%20Suggest:%20+0.5%20%C3%82%C2%B1%200.25%20W/m2%20Requirement%20Might%20be%20Met%20Via:%20Reducing%20CO2%20to%20350%20ppm%20or%20less%20&%20Reducing%20non-CO2%20forcing%20%7E%200.25%20W/m2%20%20Dr.%20Hansen%20seems%20to%20me%20to%20be%20saying%20the%20following:%20The%20energy%20imbalance%20caused%20by%20CO2%20%28and%20other%20greenhouse%20gases%20%5BGHG%5D%29%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93%20causes%20the%20earth%20to%20warm%20up.%20%28So%20far,%20ok%29.%20As%20long%20as%20the%20imbalance%20continues%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93%20warming%20will%20continue%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93%20ad%20infinitum.%20%28That%20is,%20as%20other%20alarmist%20say%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93%20until%20Earth%20turns%20into%20Venus%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93%20900%20deg.%20C%20hot%29.%20The%20only%20way%20to%20eliminate%20the%20imbalance%20is%20to%20reduce%20CO2%20%28and%20GHG%29%20back%20to%20their%20pre-industrial%20levels%20%28or%20to%20350%20ppm%29.%20All%20this%20based%20solely%20on%20GHG%20considerations%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93%20ignoring%20feedbacks.%20%28Dr.%20Hansen%20doesn%27t%20mention%20feedbacks%20in%20the%20presentation.%29%20%20This%20seems%20to%20me%20fundamentally%20flawed%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93%20glaringly%20false%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93%20based%20on%20elementary,%20trivial,%20physical%20principles:%20Forcing%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93%20or%20imbalance%20%20-%20is%20a%20relative%20term,%20relative%20to%20some%20previous%20state.%20It%20is%20not%20absolute.%20Suppose%20%20CO2%20goes%20from%20280%20to%20560%20ppm.%20This%20will%20cause%20the%20earth%20to%20warm,%20due%20to%20the%20%22forcing%22,%20but,%20in%20the%20new,%20warmer%20state,%20the%20earth%20will%20emit%20more%20IR%20radiation%20into%20space,%20until%20a%20new%20balance%20is%20reached%20and%20the%20%22forcing%22%20canceled.%20The%20earth%20will%20be%20warmer%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93%20but%20the%20forcing%20will%20stop,%20and%20no%20additional%20warming%20will%20occur%20%28unless%20GHG%20keep%20growing%29.%20Infinite%20forcing%20is%20an%20absurdity.%20%20This%20can%20be%20shown%20by%20an%20analogy:%20suppose%20we%20have%20a%20big%20pot%20of%20water,%20and%20a%20small%20flame%20under%20it.%20The%20flame%20forces%20the%20water%20to%20warm,%20until%20the%20amount%20of%20heat%20introduced%20by%20the%20flame%20is%20canceled%20out%20by%20the%20amount%20lost%20to%20the%20surrounding%20air.%20At%20this%20point%20the%20water%20stays%20at%20a%20constant%20temperature,%20and%20doesn%27t%20heat%20up%20more,%20despite%20the%20flame.%20Now,%20we%20increase%20somewhat%20the%20flame.%20Am%20imbalance,%20or%20new%20forcing%20is%20introduced.%20The%20water%20will%20warm%20up%20some%20more,%20until%20a%20new%20balance%20is%20reached,%20and%20then%20stop%20warming.%20%20To%20%22stabilize%22%20the%20climate%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93%20all%20we%20have%20to%20do%20is%20stop%20the%20GHG%20increase.%20Once%20CO2%20is%20stabilized,%20at%20whatever%20level,%20a%20new%20heat%20balance%20will%20be%20reached,%20and%20%22forcing%22%20will%20stop.%20Thus,%20reducing%20CO2%20back%20to%20pre-industrial%20levels%20is%20not%20the%20ONLY%20way%20climate%20can%20be%20stabilized.%20I%27m%20not%20discussing%20the%20temperature%20at%20the%20new%20balance%20level%20%28climate%20sensitivity%29,%20only%20the%20fact%20that%20forcing%20cannot%20continue%20ad%20Venusum,%20or%20until%20the%20Greenland%20and%20Antarctic%20ice%20caps%20have%20melted.%20%20%20Also,%20due%20to%20the%20logarithmic%20heat%20absorption%20curve%20of%20GHG%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93%20temperature%20will%20stabilize%20at%20SOME%20level,%20even%20if%20GHG%20continue%20to%20increase%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93%20which%20makes%20the%20notion%20of%20perpetual%20forcing%20doubly%20absurd.%20Dr.%20Hansen%20claims%20that%20the%20ONLY%20way%20to%20stabilize%20climate%20is%20to%20go%20back%20to%20350%20ppm%20of%20CO2%20,%20else%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93%3E%20Venus.%20This%20seems%20bizarre%20to%20me.%20I%20can%27t%20believe%20Dr.%20Hansen%20could%20make%20such%20a%20primitive%20mistake.%20%20I%20know%20I%27m%20talking%20about%20an%20extremely%20simplified%20scenario%20where%20there%20is%20nothing%20but%20GHG.%20I%20know%20there%20are%20feedbacks%20in%20the%20world,%20and%20there%20is%20big%20uncertainty%20about%20their%20magnitude%20and%20even%20their%20sign.%20But%20Dr.%20Hansen%20doesn%27t%20mention%20feedbacks.%20He%20seems%20to%20say%20that%20just%20GHG%20cause%20infinite%20forcing.%20This%20is%20impossible.">At a talk given by J. Hansen</a> at the Climate Change Congress, “Global Risks, Challenges &Decisions”, Copenhagen, Denmark, March 11, 2009, he said (inter alia):<br /><br /><blockquote>The planet’s present energy imbalance, at least to first order, determines the change of climate forcings needed to stabilize climate. Climate models, using typical presumed scenarios of climate forcings for the past century, suggest that the planet should be out of energy balance by +0.75 ± 0.25 W/m2, … (absorbed solar energy exceeding heat radiation to space).<br />If all other forcings were fixed, a reduction of CO2 amount to 350 ppm would restore the planet’s energy balance, assuming that the present imbalance is 0.5 W/m2. If fossil fuel emissions continue at anything approaching “business-as-usual” scenarios, it is not feasible to restore planetary energy balance and stabilize climate.<br /><br />How Can Climate be Stabilized?<br />Must Restore Planet’s Energy Balance<br />Imbalance: +0.5 ± 0.25 W/m2<br />Requirement Might be Met Via:<br />Reducing CO2 to 350 ppm or less &<br />Reducing non-CO2 forcing ~ 0.25 W/m2<br /></blockquote><br />Dr. Hansen seems to me to be saying the following: The energy imbalance caused by CO2 (and other greenhouse gases [GHG]) – causes the earth to warm up. (So far, ok). As long as the imbalance continues – warming will continue – ad infinitum. (That is, as other alarmist say – until Earth turns into Venus – 900 deg. C hot). The <span style="font-weight: bold;">only</span> way to eliminate the imbalance is to reduce CO2 (and GHG) back to their pre-industrial levels (or to 350 ppm). All this based solely on GHG considerations – ignoring feedbacks. (Dr. Hansen doesn't mention feedbacks in the presentation.)<br /><br />This seems to me fundamentally flawed – glaringly false – based on elementary, trivial, physical principles:<br />Forcing – or imbalance - is a relative term, relative to some previous state. It is not absolute. Suppose CO2 goes from 280 to 560 ppm. This will cause the earth to warm, due to the "forcing", but, in the new, warmer state, the earth will emit more IR radiation into space, until a new balance is reached and the "forcing" canceled. The earth will be warmer – but the forcing will stop, and no additional warming will occur (unless GHG keep growing). Infinite forcing is an absurdity.<br /><br />This can be shown by an analogy: suppose we have a big pot of water, and a small flame under it. The flame forces the water to warm, until the amount of heat introduced by the flame is canceled out by the amount lost to the surrounding air. At this point the water stays at a constant temperature, and doesn't heat up more, despite the flame. Now, we increase somewhat the flame. An imbalance, or new forcing is introduced (relative to the previous state of balance). The water will warm up some more, until a new balance is reached, and then stop warming.<br /><br />To "stabilize" the climate – all we have to do is stop the GHG increase. Once CO2 is stabilized, at whatever level, a new heat balance will be reached, and "forcing" will stop. Thus, reducing CO2 back to pre-industrial levels is <span style="font-weight: bold;">not</span> the ONLY way climate can be stabilized. I'm not discussing the temperature magnitude at the new balance level (climate sensitivity), only the fact that forcing cannot continue ad Venusum, or even until the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps have melted.<br /><br />Also, due to the logarithmic heat absorption curve of GHG – temperature will stabilize at SOME level, even if GHG continue to increase – which makes the notion of perpetual forcing doubly absurd.<br />Dr. Hansen claims that the ONLY way to stabilize climate is to go back to 350 ppm of CO2 , else –> Venus. This seems bizarre to me.<br />I can't believe Dr. Hansen could make such a primitive mistake.<br /><br />I know I'm talking about an extremely simplified scenario where there is nothing but GHG. I know there are feedbacks in the world, and there is big uncertainty about their magnitude and even their sign. But Dr. Hansen doesn't mention feedbacks. He seems to say that just GHG cause infinite forcing. This is impossible.Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-58989552793199895022009-04-15T16:15:00.002+03:002009-04-15T16:26:30.966+03:00Not liberals, marxists.<a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/04/14/tea-party-derangement-syndrome-its-here/">Roger Simon is writing about TBDS</a> - Tea Party Derangement Syndrome - the opposition of the liberals to the tea party protests. People are protesting the enormous waste of public money by Obama's "simulation" plan. Curiously, or not so curiously, many on the left can't understand that this is a legitimate and reasonable protest and are starting to cry "racists", "bigots", "fascists" and all their usual cuss words.<br /><br />Remarkable is the<a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/04/14/tea-party-derangement-syndrome-its-here/#comment-10"> following comment on that thread</a>:<br /><span class="username">Victor Erimita:<br /></span><p></p><blockquote><p>The Left is no longer composed of liberals, for the most part, and I wish people like Rush would stop calling them that. They aren’t any more.</p> <p>Today’s Left is composed of Marxists, conscious or unconscious, people whose unexamined, knee-jerk opposition to enterprise and individualism has mostly been absorbed by cultural osmosis, not thought or analysis. They wear their politics like jewelry. Mix that college dorm Marxism with narcissism and immaturity, and you get tantruming at the audacity of any other expressed views. </p> <p>Another strain of contemporary leftism is an ironically quasi-religious contempt for humans and individual endeavor, a kind of New Age of asceticism (always to be practiced by others) expressed in “environmentalism,” the so-called animal rights movement, the hatred of automobiles, the suburbs and other symbols of individualism. Half-baked notions of “The Planet,” big government and collectivist symbols like mass transportation have replaced God and the spiritually transcendent in the unformed minds of these solipsistic rejectors of the only kind of organized religion they can see—like Bill Maher they can only see the rigidly formed worldviews of others, not their own, and certainly not their own metaphysical assumptions. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Tea Parties are an expression of the celebration of individual endeavor, a sin against their secular god of the state (or The Planet,) so they see it as evil, beneath civilized discourse, which ironically they themselves are no longer capable of.</span></p><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><br /></blockquote>Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-41314598166013275122009-04-15T13:19:00.003+03:002009-04-15T13:24:43.959+03:00Lloyd Marcus and his American Tea Party Anthem.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfFSx1YxoY7UFOq1n0UBtRaPzy9-QGULXhM7XOGlT_85spBacKRsZF1N90674pueEq-VzydceBo2dfETnRNGsRuW3_hI9xhxF2Q0CCL10g9zF7ZpdZasSfP1PwyfC9gBA1UKrOTU0psuaY/s1600-h/LloydMarcus.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 223px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfFSx1YxoY7UFOq1n0UBtRaPzy9-QGULXhM7XOGlT_85spBacKRsZF1N90674pueEq-VzydceBo2dfETnRNGsRuW3_hI9xhxF2Q0CCL10g9zF7ZpdZasSfP1PwyfC9gBA1UKrOTU0psuaY/s400/LloydMarcus.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5324861608912784514" border="0" /></a><br /><a href="http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/asking/2009/04/14/american-tea-party-anthem-singer-lloyd-marcus-this-whole-thing-is-rush-limbaughs-fault/">An amazing story</a> about the singer (and painter) Lloyd Marcus. He was 19 years an alcoholic, and 15 years homeless, and now he became the star of the Tea Party protest movement in the US.<br /><br />Read the story, it is an amazing story of sudden personal success.Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-4591822464083629232009-02-06T16:58:00.002+02:002009-02-06T17:14:58.883+02:00The meaning of Sarah PalinAn<a href="https://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-meaning-of-sarah-palin-14674?page=all"> excellent article by Yuval Levin</a> capturing the meaning and potential of Sarah Palin.<br /><br /><blockquote>The reaction of the intellectual elite to Sarah Palin was far more provincial than Palin herself ever has been, and those who reacted so viscerally against her evinced little or no appreciation for an essential premise of democracy: that practical wisdom matters at least as much as formal education, and that leadership can emerge from utterly unexpected places. The presumption that the only road to power passes through the Ivy League and its tributaries is neither democratic nor sensible, and is, moreover, a sharp and wrongheaded break from the American tradition of citizen governance.<br /><br /><p>Either way, the Palin moment shed a powerful light on the power, the potential, and the ultimate inadequacy of a conservatism grounded solely in cultural populism. It also exposed the vulnerability of the Left to a challenge to its most cherished claims—as the sole representative of the interests of the working class and the only legitimate path to political power for an ambitious woman.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold;">And, perhaps even more telling, it revealed the unfortunate and unattractive propensity of the American cultural elite to treat those who are not deemed part of the elect with condescension and contumely. <span style="font-weight: normal;">(my bold).</span></p><br /><span style="font-weight: normal;">The intense, visceral hatred with which Palin was treated by the liberals was amazing, surprising and shocking. I kept telling myself: these people are crazy.</span> Yuval Levin does a good job of explaining it.<br /><p></p></blockquote><p style="font-weight: bold;"></p>Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-32764211503217104092008-12-23T13:50:00.004+02:002008-12-23T17:51:26.981+02:00A President runs a war.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjao4Yj8txnyeRNq9BwEVFZLakINsxmdD9KNd70CYwdBN2oFUSynCB0k6tIT7Bdw2W9QDrKrbrFcw8tc59rgySjmY6_ZHMBxTUgl5Z48vit5h7RnwrPBU94f_iIly5fCQEdAIwO3rcMFp8n/s1600-h/Lincoln.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 275px; height: 257px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjao4Yj8txnyeRNq9BwEVFZLakINsxmdD9KNd70CYwdBN2oFUSynCB0k6tIT7Bdw2W9QDrKrbrFcw8tc59rgySjmY6_ZHMBxTUgl5Z48vit5h7RnwrPBU94f_iIly5fCQEdAIwO3rcMFp8n/s400/Lincoln.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5282955090949315954" border="0" /></a><br />Here are some comments on the book<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tried-War-Abraham-Lincoln-Commander/dp/1594201919/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230033086&sr=1-1"> "Tried by war"</a> about the way President Lincoln run the Civil War, mostly about the military side.<br />Let's start with Donald Rumsfeld's remark "You make war with the army you have" - yes - and with the President you have. Lincoln didn't have any military experience at all, neither did he have any army. The Federal Army counted just 16,000 troops, deployed on western forts. The General-in-Chief was Winfield Scott, famous hero of the Mexican war, but 75 years old, and frail of health, he didn't help much and retired soon.<br />An army of 637,000 volunteers was raised, equipped and trained by April 1862, one year after the start of the war. You need also Generals, 583 Generals were commissioned during the war, many by political patronage, a method as good as any. General Grant was sponsored by Elihu B. Washburne, chairman of the House Military Affairs Committee and General Sherman by his brother John, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, without it they might have languished in obscurity.<br />For the post of commander of the Army of the Potomac (the biggest and most important army) Lincolm found the natural, proffesional, candidate 34 year old George B. McClellan, ranked second in his class at West Point, energetic, charismatic, adored by the soldiers, a good organizer, a good trainer of troops. Newspapers at the time called him "Young Napoleon". He was named to his command in July 1861, and soon after (November) General-in-Chief too. The only trouble with him is - he didn't like to fight. He was never ready, he always needed more troops, more horses or something. He never innitialized any battle, and never won one.<br />In July 1862 Lincoln named Henry W. Hallek General-in-Cheif (McClellan staying with the army of the Potomac). Hallek had written some books and was known as "Old Brains", he had a good administrative ability, but he was indecisive, and lacked the power to take control, impose his way and run things. Lincoln said he was a good clerck, and he needed him, so he kept him to the end of the war. In 1864, General Grant was named General-in-Chief, but Grant prefered to locate his headquartes in the field, near the army, so Hallek stayed on in Washington, as Chief-of-Staff.<br />It is remarkable how Lincoln couldn't find any military figure to run the war, and had to do it himself, single handed (at least until 1864, when he found Grant).<br />The problem wasn't solely the incompetece of the generals - there was plenty of that, but it also was much deeper - philisophical - about the aims of the war, the means to acheive them - derived from the aims. Lincoln believed you must seek out the enemy's army, engage it in battle and never let up until you destroy it. McClellan understood it would be an extreemly cruel, bloody enterprise. He had no stomach for such a total war of annihilation against fellow Americans. In the end, as presidential candidate in 1864, McCllelan embraced a settlement with the Confederacy. But Lincoln's aims were clear and firm, and undebatable: no independence to southern states and an end to slavery. He wouldn't settle on anything less, so no settlement was possible, and the bloodbath inevitable.<br />General Grant pursued the war as Lincoln wanted, not so much with brilliance, but with tenacity. He never rested, never let up, and the results followed - victory, but slowly - he suffered some bad settback at first - and at a terrible cost. Some called Grand a butcher. For example - in one two week period there were 30,000 casualties; in his first two months on the Potomac - some 90,000 (like McClellan suffered in 2 years). At first there weren't many gains to show for all these losses, and the impatient public seemed to sway toward the settlement.<br />Another interesting point is the question of strategy: the war's aims can, maybe, also be acheived by the indirect approach, by attacking not the enemy's main army, but his soft spots, untill you throw him off balance. This way you can acheive your aims with less losses. General McArthur employed this approach in WW2, he called it "hit them were they ain't". The approach wasn't known, or considered by Lincoln and his Generals, but was employed anyway, thanks to the brilliant initiative of General Sherman, who took an army of 60,000 veterans on a raid from Atalanta, Georgia, 287 miles, to the sea, at Savannah. Sherman raided the heart of the Confederacy hiterland, it's base of supply and economic and moral support. He renounced the securing of supply lines, lived off the country cut off from the Union, destroyed everything in his path. He outmaneuvered and outrun the enemy's army that was trying to stop him, he didn't seek battles, but rather succeded in avoiding them, acheiving his purpose without battles. He suffered almost no losses, but civilians in his path did suffer, mostly material losses. No wonder Sherman was the most intensly hated person in the South (maybe second only to Lincoln). Some say Sherman's raid was the decisive factor in ending the war.<br />The story of how Lincoln the inexperienced, unprepared politician run the whole war, including the military part, by himself, almost unaided, is fascinating.<br /><br />What I missed in this book is a more objective approach to Lincoln, pointing out his mistakes, his missjudgements (if any). The Civil War was a very important, fundamental event, possitively: it abolished slavery, and maintained the Union. But it was also a terrible tragedy - more than 600,000 losses, and Lincoln presided over that too.<br />The book is an easy and absorbing read, it doesn't go into any details of military operations, but shows the events at the intersection between Lincoln and the military.Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-91911914236663321832008-12-09T18:11:00.003+02:002008-12-23T13:50:18.900+02:00Obama and the communist programThe communist parties, these days, have changed. They no longer advocate the things they used to: nationalizing all means of production, or at least "key" industries, violent revolution, or the dictatorship of the proletariat. (As recent as 1980, Francois Miterand, socialist president of France nationalized many industries, which have been re-privatized since, and Neil Kinock, leader of British Labor party advocaqted nationalizations too).<br />Nowadays the communist have an updated program. See the election flyer of the CPUSA (communist party of USA). <a href="http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obamas-program-mirrors-the-cpusas">They advocate:</a><br />Massive public works job creation, major clean energy developement projects (by government, of course), forced worplace unionization, government health insurance (i.e. - nationalization of health care services).<br />The <a href="http://sweetness-light.com/">sweetness & light blog </a> concludes correctly:<br /><blockquote>Sound familiar?<br />Remember, this is the agenda of the Communist Party of the United States.<br />And Barack Obama’s.<br /></blockquote>Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-73737197478797741022008-11-27T20:15:00.002+02:002008-11-27T22:29:07.901+02:00What caused the crisis<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaJ07ZRLd_KRy-AbZdqixbDkY926npfweYmPIuoDZ87Q4h5ZGuZFgQxGEQApOC6Drn0sDYzkHHfJpFF2VaGfZ7W6mMzxKVLpptio7qn2eobxLBjb6VBP0EbvWU5ZMDR9QcbZLYRaN4lcBK/s1600-h/BullMarket.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 350px; height: 212px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaJ07ZRLd_KRy-AbZdqixbDkY926npfweYmPIuoDZ87Q4h5ZGuZFgQxGEQApOC6Drn0sDYzkHHfJpFF2VaGfZ7W6mMzxKVLpptio7qn2eobxLBjb6VBP0EbvWU5ZMDR9QcbZLYRaN4lcBK/s400/BullMarket.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5273403187483131330" border="0" /></a>An<a href="http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom?print=true"> incredible tale </a>from an insider about the clueless, scandalous, ignorant way the banking system works.<br />"The era that defined Wall Street is finally, officially over. Michael Lewis, who chronicled its excess in <em>Liar’s Poker,</em> returns to his old haunt to figure out what went wrong."<br /><br /><blockquote>"I’d never taken an accounting course, never run a business, never even had savings of my own to manage. I stumbled into a job at Salomon Brothers in 1985 and stumbled out much richer three years later, and even though I wrote a book about the experience, the whole thing still strikes me as preposterous—which is one of the reasons the money was so easy to walk away from. I figured the situation was unsustainable. Sooner rather than later, someone was going to identify me, along with a lot of people more or less like me, as a fraud. Sooner rather than later, there would come a Great Reckoning when Wall Street would wake up and hundreds if not thousands of young people like me, who had no business making huge bets with other people’s money, would be expelled from finance."<br />"I thought I was writing a period piece about the 1980s in America. Not for a moment did I suspect that the financial 1980s would last two full decades longer or that the difference in degree between Wall Street and ordinary life would swell into a difference in kind. I expected readers of the future to be outraged that back in 1986, the C.E.O. of Salomon Brothers, John Gutfreund, was paid $3.1 million; I expected them to gape in horror when I reported that one of our traders, Howie Rubin, had moved to Merrill Lynch, where he lost $250 million; I assumed they’d be shocked to learn that a Wall Street C.E.O. had only the vaguest idea of the risks his traders were running."<br /><br />"Then came Meredith Whitney with news. Whitney was an obscure analyst of financial firms for Oppenheimer Securities who, on October 31, 2007, ceased to be obscure. On that day, she predicted that Citigroup had so mismanaged its affairs that it would need to slash its dividend or go bust. It’s never entirely clear on any given day what causes what in the stock market, but it was pretty obvious that on October 31, Meredith Whitney caused the market in financial stocks to crash. By the end of the trading day, a woman whom basically no one had ever heard of had shaved $369 billion off the value of financial firms in the market. Four days later, Citigroup’s C.E.O., Chuck Prince, resigned. In January, Citigroup slashed its dividend."<br /><br />An amazing, long, story.<br /><br /><br /></blockquote>Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-10408744592993637292008-10-21T12:07:00.002+02:002008-10-21T12:14:07.854+02:00Vaclav Klaus against warm-mongers.<a href="http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?ff0796e1-e571-4b15-9d0a-1d53dff2a6bc">An important speech</a> by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaclav_Klaus">Vaclav Klaus</a>, president of the Czhech Republic.<br /><br /><span class="normal_text"></span><blockquote><span class="normal_text">...the well-known Oregon petition which warned and keeps warning against the irrationality and one-sidedness of the global warming campaign. Rational people know that the warming we experience is well within the range of what seems to have been a natural fluctuation over the last ten thousand years. We should keep saying this very loudly. </span>...<br /><span class="normal_text">I will try to argue and to convince you that even the global warming issue is about freedom. It is not about temperature or CO2. It is, therefore, not necessary to discuss either climatology, or any other related natural science but the implications of the global warming panic upon us, upon our freedom, our prosperity, our institutions and our legislation. It is part of a bigger story....<br /></span><span class="normal_text">The explicitly stated intentions of global warming activists are frightening. They want to change us, to change the whole mankind, to change human behavior, to change the structure and functioning of society, to change the whole system of values which has been gradually established during centuries. These intentions are dangerous and their consequences far-reaching. These people want to restrict our freedom. It is our duty to say NO....<br /></span><span class="normal_text">I know that its propagandists have been using all possible obstructions to avoid exposure to rational arguments and I know that the substance of their arguments is not science. It represents, on the contrary, an abuse of science by a non-liberal, extremely authoritarian, freedom and prosperity endangering ideology of environmentalism....<br /></span><span class="normal_text">In the past, the market was undermined mostly by means of socialist arguments with slogans like: “stop the immiseration of the masses”. Now, the attack is led under the slogan: stop the immiseration (or perhaps destruction) of the Planet....<br /></span><span class="normal_text">For the same reason I consider environmentalism to be the most effective and, therefore, the most dangerous vehicle for advocating large scale government intervention and unprecedented suppression of human freedom at this very moment.....<br /></span></blockquote><span class="normal_text"><br />Read the whole hing.<br /></span><span class="normal_text"><br /></span>Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-70546260565864581712008-09-05T14:57:00.005+03:002008-09-05T15:09:49.184+03:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3COQfktZYDOsR1vgsmygyU8b4f_AqbBhL7N71FYUsoSyYCWjMJXZ1U4lkuoB97DJj-uj_Dl33vgVPia1wzh-57kM5LzTyDvq05tx_V0U3z4Jrzepp6AJTuh7f6nLA09QQkyxheo4S8rjm/s1600-h/Mao1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3COQfktZYDOsR1vgsmygyU8b4f_AqbBhL7N71FYUsoSyYCWjMJXZ1U4lkuoB97DJj-uj_Dl33vgVPia1wzh-57kM5LzTyDvq05tx_V0U3z4Jrzepp6AJTuh7f6nLA09QQkyxheo4S8rjm/s400/Mao1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5242505431072348802" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Artists toe the party line.<br /><br /></span><span><span style="font-size:100%;">That's the name of an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/arts/design/05revo.html">article in the NYTimes</a> about an art exhibition in NY showing art from China's past, from the time of the murderous rule of Mao Zedong (or Mao Tse Tung as we knew him).</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span><blockquote>The painter Chen Danqing, active as a young artist during the revolutionary era, does not exaggerate when he says in the show’s catalog, “At the time I felt there was no difference between me and the Renaissance painters: they painted Jesus; I painted Mao.”</blockquote>There is a difference.<br />Under totalitarian regimes you couldn't say what you wanted, you had to parrot the party line. And you couldn't paint as you wanted. You had to paint as they told you, in both substance and style. Those who tried to do otherwise were sent to "reeducation" camps. The communists had no use for art unless it served for propaganda. Any other kind was forbidden (a waste of time...).<br /><br />Under Reneissance painters painted what they wanted. Some did Jesuses out of religious conviction, or because that's what their patrons (mostly the clergy) wanted and paid for. Others painted scenery, or portraits of other patrons. No painter was burned at the stake by the Inquisition, as far as I know (at least not for "incorrect" painting).<br /><br />Still, a beautiful painting.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></span>Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-51802214522811537092008-08-29T14:26:00.003+03:002008-08-29T15:53:07.844+03:00Bolivia and cocaAn article in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/world/americas/29bolivia.html?pagewanted=1&hp">NY Times says</a> (in the headline): "Bolivia is an uneasy ally as US presses drug war".<br />False. Here is a letter I sent the NY Times reporter Simon Romero, author of the article.<br /><br />I lived for a while in Bolivia.<br /><br />Your article on Bolivians fighting the coca is incorrect.<br />Bolivia has always produced and sold coca, and always will. It's maybe the main source of income, not only for those in the trade, but for politicians and military people as well.<br /><br />Mr. Morales is correct and sincere in his anti American rhetoric.<br /><br />Bolivia has always taken and will always take any money the gullible, crazy yankeys are willing to give them but they will never raise a finger against the coca.<br />Those Leopards are putting on a show. They never seek, and never destroy any coca labs, unless the owner failed to pay his bribes to them. They will put on a show for any visiting reporter or government inspector. They probably have build mock labs for just this purpose, in collaboration with their cocaine producing chums.<br />The US embassy staff in La Paz should know better, but the US is probably short on Spanish speaking diplomats, and they send political cronies there (Goldbeg !). They are clueless. A pity you take their word.<br /><br />As to Bolivia, I love it. Wonderful country. Spent there some of the best years of my life. (And never even tasted cocaine...).<br />Best Regards,<br />Jacob<br /><p class="MsoNormal" dir="ltr" style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span style="font-size:12;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" dir="ltr" style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Another </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:100%;">fine article by the same reporter: "<a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907EED7103BF932A1575BC0A96E9C8B63">A month to conjure luck with sacrifices and fire</a>".</span><br /></span></p><br /><h1><br /></h1>Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-82261445676979820792008-08-04T10:18:00.004+03:002008-08-04T10:28:37.201+03:00Solzhenitsyn<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/books/04solzhenitsyn.html?hp">Solzhenitsyn, Literary Giant who defied Soviets.</a><br /><br />The above is the headline, in a good obituary in the NY Times.<br /><br />Solzhenitsin was a giant of the spirit. A great writer, a great moralist, of outstanding courage and rectitude. A really great man.<br />He was the ONE single person most influential toward the defeat of the evil, murderous, insane empire.<br />One of the greatest, most influencial 20th century personages. His flaws were minor and insignificnat compared to the enormity of his personality.<br />R.I.P.Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-38069847645587263432008-07-25T10:20:00.003+03:002008-07-25T11:00:59.749+03:00Poverty and the environmentI found a fascinating article from September 2006, describing the problems with water and sewage in India, specifically: New Delhi. The caption:<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/asia/29water.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">"Thirsty giant: In teeming India water crisis means dry pipes and foul sludge"</a><br />The description of the dire situation is very vivid and appaling. Maybe half the population doesn't have access to tap water, and those who have, have water only a few hours a day, maybe like 3 hours. Two thirds of the population, or some 700 million people have no sewage. Normal life in India is really beyond what a Westener can imagine - it's harsh, poor, and incredibly dirty, it's really a totally different world. Read the superbly written article by <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/somini_sengupta/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More Articles by Somini Sengupta">SOMINI SENGUPTA</a>, in the NY Times (linked above). I have visited India and lived a while in "developing" countries, so it was no surprise for me. Still, it makes you think.<br />India doesn't lack water - as anyone who has experienced some of the mosoon rains there knows. Water pipe laying and sewage treatement isn't rocket science, neither does it cost terribly much. But that's the way the world is. Poverty and incompetence, there is no magic cure to it.<br />One lesson can be learned: there is no hope for the environment in a poor country. Poor countries are dirty, they can't afford to invest in a clean environment. India is incredibly dirty. Communist Russia was an environmental disaster. So are poor neighborhoods in all countries. You fight poverty, the environment takes care of itself, because affluent people demand, and pay for, a clean environment. Any "green" measures that hinder developement and perpetuate poverty will have a negative effect on the environment.Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-13870532839451398552008-06-11T16:15:00.002+03:002008-06-11T16:20:22.784+03:00The amount of CO2 driven warming is minisculeHere is a quote from David Archibald, that makes sense, I think.<br /><br /><blockquote>CO2-driven global warming in not totally wrong, but nearly so. It is only good for 0.3 degrees from here to eternity. Emissions to date are worth 0.1 degrees, there will be another 0.2 degrees to 620 ppm and then only a further 0.1 degrees to when the effect peters out due to the logarithmic effect you dread so much. … you might be able to tell the difference between having your car’s air conditioner set at 21 degrees and having it at 22 degrees. But I very much doubt that you could detect a 0.4 degree difference. So there you are. CO2 is one less thing …to worry about, because the effect is so miniscule.<br /><br /><br />From the comments at <a href="http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=102">Warwick Hughes' site</a></blockquote>Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-40965341534281786162008-05-12T00:19:00.003+03:002008-05-12T00:30:05.421+03:005 year plan for energy.<p class="comment-info"><a href="http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/may/10/senator-delivers-7-steps-at-ornl/#c213844">Senator Lamar Alexander</a> delivered a plan for energy independence (for the US). It's the usual blah... blah... - all nonsense, like politicians are fond of delivering. Sample:<br /></p><p></p><blockquote> <p>- Make carbon capture and storage a reality for coal-burning power plants.<br />- Make solar more cost-competitive with the burning of fossil fuels.</p></blockquote><p></p><p class="comment-info">The best reaction was in a comment by peterjackson:<br /></p> <div class="post_content"> <p></p><blockquote><p>Good Lord, now we've got Republicans proposing Five Year Plans and Seven Step programs like some 1930's Soviet Beet Kommissar. The last thing we need is the know-nothings in Congress pretending they have the expertise required to plan the future of a market segment as huge and critical as energy. They have no such knowledge because that knowledge doesn't exist anywhere as some type of accessible whole. It takes a market with millions upon millions of people, each with their own intimate knowledge of their own needs and capabilities, participating in an open energy marketplace with free prices to coordinate such an unimaginably huge, ever-changing body of knowledge and action. Gas prices have been elevated for several years now due to many reasons, and already the marketplace is responding with the millionth shipped hybrid, high mileage clean diesels, flex-fuel vehicles, and endless number of promising technologies from compressed air vehicles to hydraulic drive trains, all with ZERO input from Washington.</p> </blockquote><p></p> <p>Exactly. Anything the Government will try to do will turn out into a disaster, like the ethanol mandate. The best thing it can do is stay out of the whole mess. (Hat tip: Instapundit)<br /></p><p><br /></p> </div>Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-90421906396505709132008-05-04T17:12:00.003+03:002008-05-04T17:21:07.756+03:00Who finances UK (and US) universities.The lefties love to declare that anyone sceptic of AGW must be financed by Exxon-Mobile.<br />Let's see who finances the left-leaning universities:<br /><br />From an article in "<a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23634809-28737,00.html">The Australian</a>" (hat tip: Instapundit):<br /><br />... the Higher Education Funding Council for England held a special meeting to confront fears that Saudi donations were unduly influencing universities. Brunel University's Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies revealed that eight British universities, including Cambridge and Oxford, received more than $US465 million from Saudi and Muslim sources since 1995, mainly to fund Islamic study centres.<br />In 2005, a prominent Saudi businessman, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, was reported by The Washington Post to have donated $20million to Georgetown and Harvard universities in the US for the study of Islam and the Muslim world to promote interfaith dialogue and understanding.<br />At Scotland Yard, a security expert cautions that one of Islam's five pillars - Zakat - requires Muslims to give alms and that charity is considered virtuous and essential.<br />But Emerson, best-selling author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, says Saudi Arabia should be allowed to bankroll religious initiatives in the West only when it becomes open to the idea of religious reciprocity. "I think there should be a law requiring religious reciprocity for funding coming from regimes that restrict religious freedom on their soil," he says. "Saudi Arabia does not allow the practice of any other religion, bars the operations of churches, confiscates Bibles ... As such, there should be laws passed by Western governments prohibiting Saudi donations to universities until and unless Saudi Arabia operates a pluralistic religious environment.<br />"Absent such laws, I believe that universities should be required to register as foreign registered agents - a law we have in the US - that designates the Saudi donors and their recipients as agents of a foreign power.<br />"That would certainly stigmatise the grant giving and give pause before a university accepts such money."<br /><br />I don't know why I just remembered the anti Israel boycott proposed recently by the British lecturers...Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-8387633045324627872008-05-01T14:00:00.003+03:002008-05-01T18:51:54.345+03:00Congress: "We didn't know what we were doing".Congress has <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080501/NATION/462824208/1001">second thoughts </a>on the ethanol madness:<br /><br /><blockquote>"The view was to look to alternatives and try to become more dependent on the Midwest than the Middle East. I mean, that was the theory. Obviously, sometimes there are unforeseen or unintended consequences of actions," Mr. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, told reporters yesterday.<br /><br />Only a year ago, Congress and President Bush seemed to view ethanol as a near magic solution to the nation's dependence on oil and counted on it to make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans and Democrats together piled up the incentives and mandates that pushed farmers into planting corn for ethanol and consumers into buying gasoline blended with it.<br /><br /><br />"This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences," said Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, who introduced a bill this week to end the entire slate of federal supports, including the mandates for blended gasoline, the tax credits for ethanol producers, and tariffs that keep out cheaper foreign ethanol.<br /><br />"Congress surely did not intend to raise food prices by incentivizing ethanol, but that's precisely what's happened. A jump in food prices is the last thing our economy needs right now," Mr. Flake said.<br /></blockquote><br />If they are so terribly dumb that they understood nothing about ethanol, and had no idea what they were doing a year ago, maybe they should be prohibitted from passing any legislation at all.<br />It's incredible that they adopted this dumb legislation without the least study of the effects.<br />Throw out the bums.<br /><br />Update: <div>Things every last person knows. Only congress-critters are surprised by the "unintended consequences" of their dumb act.</div><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011002452.html">5 Myths About Breaking Our Foreign Oil Habit</a> By Robert Bryce:<br /><blockquote><p>The new energy bill requires that the country produce 36 billion gallons of biofuels per year by 2022. That sounds like a lot of fuel, but put it in perspective: The United States uses more than 320 billion gallons of oil per year, of which nearly 200 billion gallons are imported. So biofuels alone cannot wean the United States off oil. Let's say the country converted all the soybeans grown by American farmers into biodiesel; that would provide only about 1.5 percent of total annual U.S. oil needs. And if the United States devoted its entire corn crop to producing ethanol, it would supply only about 6 percent of U.S. oil needs. </p><p><br /> </p></blockquote>Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-26543764381645474572008-04-30T17:25:00.004+03:002008-04-30T17:43:48.303+03:00Food and fertilizer scarcity vs ethanol madness.There is a new <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/business/worldbusiness/30fertilizer.html?pagewanted=1&hp">article in the NY Times </a>about fertilizer shortages. Fertilizer is essential to getting good crop harvests, but demand outpaces supply and prices have risen sharply.<br /><br />Interesting figures:<br /><blockquote>From 1900 to 2000, worldwide food production jumped by 600 percent. Scientists said that increase was the fundamental reason world population was able to rise to about 6.7 billion today from 1.7 billion in 1900.</blockquote><br />Then this:<br /><blockquote>“This is a basic problem, to feed 6.6 billion people,” said Norman Borlaug, an American scientist who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his role in spreading intensive agricultural practices to poor countries. “Without chemical fertilizer, forget it. The game is over.” </blockquote><br />How on earth our "beloved" leaders in the West think it is a good idea to burn our food, and how they think we have agricultural resources (land, water, fertilizer) to spare, is beyond me. These people are crazy, stark crazy. There is no other way to explain the fact that they passed legislation <strong>mandating</strong> the use of 10%-15% ethanol (produced from our food crops) in the fuel.<br /><br />As UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food <a href="http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gp1nkJeC-IhlYkVtsvPfp3u7mOWQ">Jean Ziegler said</a>: "this is a crime against humanity". (A very rare ocasion when I am able to quote a UN person approvingly).Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-54635503963028913222008-04-24T13:04:00.005+03:002008-04-24T13:54:05.620+03:00The decadence of Academia in the WestA good<a href="http://www.celiagreen.com/tassano/surviving-in-a-mediocracy.htm"> article </a>by British academic Fabian Tassano on the nonesense and idiocy that much of Western Academia has become.<br /><br /><blockquote><p>The larger part of academia has become obsessed with jargon and formalism, at the expense of meaningful content....<br /><br />The purpose of academia has changed from producing real insights to generating reinforcement for the preferred world view. Academics are encouraged to generate spurious legitimacy for anti-individualistic social trends such as the abolition of civil liberties, or the ‘rights’ of doctors and psychiatrists to make decisions about people’s lives.<br /><br />According to the <a href="http://www.celiagreen.com/documents/Newby_pd_04.pdf">Chief Executive</a> of HEFCE, "it was once the role of Governments to provide for the purposes of universities; it is now the role of universities to provide for the purposes of Governments."<br />While one can't expect academics to have no ideological biases, the collectivised way the academy is nowadays run was bound to generate a monolithic consensus. Once established, we end up with a kind of ideological<a href="http://www.duke.edu/~munger/bc.htm"> closed shop</a>, with dissenters refused entry or hounded out.<br /><br />There are academic disciplines, such as applied chemistry or cell biology, where the criterion of generating testable hypotheses still dominates. As for the rest, you can more or less take it as read that they've been infected by left wing ideology and/or what I have called "<a href="http://www.celiagreen.com/mediocracy_files/page170.pdf">technicality</a>" - unnecessary (and often totally vacuous) technical complexity.<br /><br />...even when it becomes impossible to suppress awareness that something is seriously wrong with some area of academia, the fallout is remarkably limited. Everyone seems to keep on going pretty much in the same old way. Another area which it has becomepositively fashionable in some quarters to deride (because it's easy to do so), but where the effect of the derision has been minimal, is postmodernist philosophy...<br /></p></blockquote><br />Quoting Robert Fisk:<br /><blockquote><p>It's a new and dangerous phenomenon I'm talking about, a language of exclusion that must have grown up in universities over the past 20 years; after all, any non university-educated man or woman can pick up an academic treatise or PhD thesis written in the 1920s or '30s and - however Hegelian the subject - fully understand its meaning. No longer. </blockquote></p><br />More:<br /><blockquote>The definition of e.g. philosophy has become, “whatever is done under that name at a recognised academic institution”. Certification has become more important than content, and quality is no longer seen as assessable by an untrained person. The fact that many of the key innovations in the history of knowledge were made outside universities is conveniently forgotten. Someone working outside a university today can be ignored, since by definition they cannot be doing research.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4339960">Massification</a> of degrees is said to be inevitable because everyone now aspires to higher education. Fine, but instead of letting the market provide this extension to the old model, it’s taken to mean turning the university system into an arm of the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417795&in_page_id=1770">welfare state</a>, rather like the NHS. I.e. run by the state, with everyone having equal entitlement to a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/01/13/do1301.xml">low grade product</a>, and subsidy based on poverty rather than ability.<br /><br />The fact that little of benefit is acquired by most undergraduates is concealed by <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/student/news/article584491.ece">ensuring</a> that everyone receives a qualification at the end of the process.<br /><br />The net result is that academics are being forced to become badly paid handmaidens to a system which will be primarily about promoting <a href="http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/speeches/show.asp?sp=22">equality</a> and <a href="http://education.guardian.co.uk/alevel2001/story/0,,683144,00.html">inclusion</a>, like state school teachers already are. They are now also required to comply with increasing levels of state <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1978875,00.html">bureaucracy</a>, and are monitored and assessed by government auditors<br /></blockquote>I myself, though not an academic, was appalled by the huge amount of nonesense and gobbledygook that many of the academic papers I heppened to read are filled with. The Academia has been taken over by the ignorant barbarians.Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-35374058658708774522008-04-16T18:23:00.003+03:002008-04-16T18:30:55.550+03:00"Will President Bush join in the chorus of dead-end energy proposals?"A good, <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2UzOTk1MzkwZDRjZTk0OGRhYjhjNDJiN2VhYzlkMjY=">forceful article </a>by Dr. Roy Spencer on energy policy:<br /><blockquote><p>The fact is that there is simply nothing we can do — short of shutting down the global economy — that will substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Prosperity requires access to abundant, affordable energy. Thus, any mandated limits or taxes meant to slow the use of fossil fuels will limit prosperity as well, period.<br /></p><p>While the developed countries take for granted conveniences like heating, air conditioning, refrigerated food, and the freedom to travel, our politicians continue to feed the myth that we have any realistic alternatives to carbon-based fuels. With the possible exception of a very slow (several decade) transition from coal-fired power plants to nuclear ones, there are simply no other options that will make any measurable difference for future global temperatures.</p><p>...and unless someone has the courage to stand up for the rights of humans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the momentum we have generated <strong>due to our irrational fears</strong> will cause us all to topple into the sea.<br /></p></blockquote><p>Read the whole thing (it isn't long). (Emphasis mine).</p>Dr. Roy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and is author of the new book, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=1594032106">Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor.</a>Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-3531000062016575512008-04-12T12:15:00.004+03:002008-04-12T12:28:03.486+03:00The credibility of UN's IPCC.Here is a<a href="http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/04/the-keystone-is.html"> comment from the above Coyote blog</a> post by <a href="http://www.blogger.com/doctor-t@myway.com">Dr. T</a>.<br />It sounds authentic to me, though I don't know who he is.<br /><br /><p></p><blockquote><p>I thoroughly read the most recent IPCC report, and I conclude that it is total garbage. I'm a chemist and a pathologist, not a climatologist, but I certainly know how to read scientific reports. I have taught statistics, and I also understand mathematical models and their limitations. The IPCC report contained poor science, terrible models, and completely unsupported conclusions.</p> <p>The CO2 issue is more complex than what Adiran and Pieter noted. Even if we assume that CO2 is a 'warming' gas in the atmosphere, its impact is small compared to water vapor (which, based on greenhouse studies, has 20 times the warming effect because of better solar heat absorption and higher concentration). Methane is also a 'warming' gas, but its concentration is too low to have any significant impact on global temperatures.</p> <p>The positive feedback discussion by the IPCC and by Warren Meyer irks me. First, positive feedback is a psychology term about how an organism responds to good (positive) stimuli. The term the IPCC really wants is something like multiplicative effects or potentiation (when two or more things combined give an effect that is multiplicative rather than additive, such as ethanol and barbiturates). But, in chemistry and physics, examples of multiplicative effects are rare. The IPCC models are so bad that they can essentially apply their forcing factors to anything (too many people hopping on one foot) and claim it relates to global warming. I trust <i>nothing</i> from the IPCC, because the group is about keeping itself funded and influential with governments. The IPCC is not about climatology.</p></blockquote><p></p><br />"the group [IPCC] is about keeping itself funded and influential with governments" - true, but I would add to it: it's also about spewing their (vile) ideological viewpoint.<br /><br />The confidence I have in the UN's IPCC report is about the same I have in the UN's human rights comission, headed by Ghaddafi's (Lybia) representative.<br /><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-81741362224112780172008-04-12T11:34:00.003+03:002008-04-12T12:11:35.836+03:00Positive feedback in Global warmingOver at <a href="http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/04/the-keystone-is.html">Coyote blog</a> there is an important post, highlighting the issue of positive feedback which is at the core of the alarmist global warming scare.<br /><br /><blockquote>Interestingly, the key to understanding this issue of the amount of warming does not actually lie in greenhouse gas theory. Most scientists, skeptics and alarmists alike, peg the warming directly from CO2 at between 0.3 and 1.0 degrees Celsius for a doubling in CO2 levels ... If this greenhouse gas warming was the only phenomenon at work, we would expect man-made warming over the next century even using the most dire assumptions to be less than 1C, or about the same amount we have seen (non-catastrophically) over the last century.</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://jacobress.blogspot.com/2007/06/how-much-global-warming.html">As I said before</a>, man-produce greenhouse gases (CO2) may produce a small, minuscule, amount of warming, which is insignificant, quantitatively, among the natural variations. The catastrophic predictions aren't based on this minuscule warming. They are based on "positive feedback loops".<br /><br /><blockquote>This theory hypothesizes that small changes in temperature from greenhouse gas increases would be multiplied 3,4,5 times or more by positive feedback effects, from changes in atmospheric water vapor to changing surface albedo. <p>Let me emphasize again: The catastrophe results not from greenhouse gas theory, but from the theory of extreme climactic positive feedback. In a large sense, all the debate in the media is about the wrong thing! When was the last time you saw the words "positive feedback" in a media article about climate?</p></blockquote><p></p><p>Now, this positive feedback has absolutely no scientific base or proof, it's just a guess based on nothing - well, based on the ideological bias of the"scientists". It is not based on scientific data or theory.</p><p>Here is what <a href="http://climatesci.org/2008/04/08/has-the-ipcc-inflated-the-feedback-factor-a-guest-weblog-by-christopher-monckton/">Christopher Monckton</a> writes about it:</p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p>The feedback factor <em>f </em>accounts for at least two-thirds of all radiative forcing in IPCC (2007); yet it is not expressly quantified, and no “Level Of Scientific Understanding” is assigned either to <em>f </em>or to the two variables <em>b </em>and <em>κ</em> upon which it is dependent....</p> <p>Indeed, in IPCC (2007) the stated values for the feedbacks that account for more than two-thirds of humankind’s imagined effect on global temperatures are taken from a single paper. The value of the coefficient <em>z </em>in the CO<sub>2</sub> forcing equation likewise depends on only one paper. The implicit value of the crucial parameter <em>κ</em> depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for the IPCC’s chosen value. The notion that the IPCC has drawn on thousands of published, peer-reviewed papers to support its central estimates for the variables from which climate sensitivity is calculated is not supported by the evidence.</p></blockquote><p></p><p><br /></p><p>As I said, there is absolutely no scientific basis to the alarmist scare mongering. The IPCC, <span style="font-weight: bold;">including the dubious positive feedbacks</span>, predicts (i.e. guesses) a rise of 2-4 deg C in temperature, and 60-100 cm in sea levels for the year 2100. Even these predictions aren't yet catastrophic.<br /></p><p>The chief scare mongers, Al Gore and Dr. James Hanson speak of 8-10 degrees, 10 m sea level rise and "tipping points" within 30 years. This scare mongering is based on absolutely nothing, not even on the exaggerated IPCC numbers.<br /></p><p><br /><br /></p>Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com33tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8027848641637519544.post-68931851263893995302008-04-09T17:27:00.006+03:002008-04-09T18:03:39.054+03:00Ideological bias in scientistsThe article <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884649/posts">"Usufruct & the Gorilla"</a> by main climate alarmist scientist Dr. James E. Hansen is several months old, but worth mentioning and remembering.<br /><br />An excrept:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><p align="justify">Make no doubt, however, if tipping points are passed, if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important. The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, withthe ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children. The court jesters are their jesters, occasionally paid for services, and more substantively supported by the captains’ disinformation campaigns.<br /></p></blockquote><div align="justify"><br />This reveals a deep anti-capitalist, anti-human, vile ideology or mentality.<br />The "captains of industry" are people just like you and me, nay, they are more able and talented than average, and they provide us with all the food, clothes and goods we need for living. They provide what we need and want.<br /><br />Now, scientists, like all people, are entiteled to their ideology, opinions and biases. But they should not try to let their biases influence their science, or to present their biases as science. Hansen is oblivious to the fact that what he has uttered above is the expression of his ideological bias. Two senteces later he writes: </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><blockquote>I am puzzled by views expressed by some conservatives, .... It is a bit<br />disconcerting as I come from a moderately conservative state, and I consider myself a moderate conservative in most ways. </blockquote></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">It's puzzling to me that he doesn't understand the deep ideological (anti-capitalist) nature of his rant, and sees it as normal, uncontroversial, self evident opinions. </div><div align="justify">I think that the ideological roots of the main AGW alarmist need to be exposed.<br /></div><blockquote><p></p></blockquote>Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01288750888804764674noreply@blogger.com0