A Final Word on Global Warming

I don’t know if we’ll ever put the global warming/climate change/extreme blah blah argument to rest. Unfortunately, far too many people are arguing on the side of funding rather than the side of science.
 
The graphic below, however, reveals something rather startling. It is a composite of two different graphs.  Please click on it to see a full-sized version.
 
global war,omgThe first graph in the upper left shows the AGT (average global temperature) between the present and 2.4 mya (million years ago). As you can see, prior to about 30 mya, Earth was far warmer than it is today. In fact, normal temperatures remained above 70 deg F, while ice age temperatures dipped to around 50 deg F.
 
Given the age, however, the data was not very fine-grained, meaning that ice-age temperatures could easily have dipped down to what they have been over the last 0.5 mya (500 thousand years), ranging between 20 deg F and roughly 35 deg F.
 
The graph in the upper left is roughly a thousand times greater scale than the other two graphs. The red lines from the bottom graph show just how much smaller the more recent 450 thousand years in the other two graphs than the long-term, 2.4 billion year graph in the upper left.
 
Now here’s the interesting part: The graph on the right is properly positioned with respect to temperature. Notice the 50 deg F point on both graphs match. Thus, when the 2.4 by graph says “Ice Age” at its right, and given the glacial and interglacial temperatures on the 450,000 year graph to the right, here’s what it means:
 
Earth is STILL in the middle of its last ice age, some 40 deg F COLDER than the periods between ice ages.
 
Furthermore, current interglacial temperatures are a good 9 deg F colder than they usually are, meaning another 9 deg F increase would be entirely normal given the glacial and interglacial periods over the last half a million years, during which time both Earth and mankind has survived just fine.
 
By comparison, the IPCC’s “worst case” analysis and conclusion that global temperatures might exceed 6 deg F by the year 2100 is entirely within the range of “normal temperature variation,” clearly evidenced by the AGT over the last half-million years. With respect to Earth’s “normal” temperature over the last 1 billion years, however, what little global warming we might have experienced is but a tiny drop in the bucket as to 40 deg F warming trend good, old Mother Earth will toss our way if she decides to thaw us out back to Earth REAL normal temperature.
 
Naturally, since all climatologists already know (or should know) this information, it royally begs the question as to why they keep whining about the few puny degrees that mankind “might” add to the planet’s temperature over the next couple hundred years. Is it money? Billions of dollars in government funding can certainly provide a huge incentive for telling whoppers to the American taxpayers who fund the vast majority of those grants. Perhaps it’s a pseudo-religious belief that they’re doing something “good” for mankind, and the belief is so strong as to blind them to the truth.
 
Regardless, the truth remains, as clearly evidenced by Earth’s climate history:
 
A. As compared to Earth’s pattern of temperatures throughout it’s determinable history, we’re currently in the middle of an ice age, albeit in a relatively minor interglacial peak.
 
B. Temperatures could easily drop 10 deg F at any time, plunging the Earth into the deeper portion of an ice age such as the ones that carved Yosemite with deep glaciars.
 
C. Temperatures could also easily rise 40 or more deg F at any time, turning Greenland, Siberia, and the Yukon into the next series of tropical jungles, while turning the Congo and Amazon River basin into the next Sahara.
 
D. All of these possibilities are normal and natural, completely void of any human input. They have happened here on Earth multiple times in the past, completely without any input or causative factors by mankind.
 
E. No matter what mankind does, it won’t stop the normal, natural, and inevitable swings in Earth’s temperature. Mankind’s attempts to stop these swings is a reflection of arrogance at best, but at worst, a widespread attempt to extort (if not outright steal) vast sums of money from the hard-working people of this world.

I want to write a book – which genre is best?

The thing about categorization these days is that publishers are trending away from categorization.  Certainly some authors, like Danielle Steele, have made it big in the romance genre, which has consistently outperformed all others over the years.  

Indeed, traditional publishers have for decades forced authors to stick to one genre or another.  This had to do with the fact that editors were largely genre-specific themselves.  They were purists, and simply didn’t want to see any cross-genre copy.

Over the last three decades, however, Indie publishing has revealed that this wasn’t at all what customers wanted.  True, most readers of romance are indeed purists.  Most other readers, however, enjoy seeing multi-genre elements in their books, a fact that mainstream publishers began accepting when their own profits dried up in the recent global economic crisis while those of many Indie publishers took off.

In response, as well as due to the fact that modern editors have increasingly grown up in multi-genre environments, mainstream publishers have at least somewhat relaxed their stiff requirements that a manuscript fix neatly and squarely into the square peg hole.  Before the crash, publishers had the luxury of priding themselves on their superior sense of literary art and would eschew inputs from people like economists and marketing staff.  In reality, they understood the numbers reflecting market demands and trends, whereas publisher’s sense of “art” was often outdated by a couple of decades.  In response to the crash, the publishers that survived started listening to the numbers guys who kept telling them that books most likely to become bestsellers contained significant multi-genre elements, if not being truly multi-genre novels.  

The problem is, one cannot refer to a Top 100 Bestselling Author’s list and logically conclude that remaining true to one genre is the way to go for the simple reason that such lists were crafted by old-school publishers who forced authors to remain specific to one genre.  It’s a matter of the tail wagging the dog.  The only way to find out what people really want is to look at all sales (mainstream, Indie, and eBook), particularly sales trends, which show a relative reduction in one-genre novels and a relative climb in multi-genre novels.

Thus, even if one wants to be published by one of the mainstream publishing houses, that’s ok, as they have begun recognizing the value ($$$) of publishing books that people actually want to read vs allowing editors to straight-jacket authors into single-genre pigeonholes.

Thus, the best answer to the question of “which genre” is “whatever genre you want, or even multiple genres.”

A New Economic Theory

Although only somewhat in jest, this article underscores the inability of some economists to predict and/or counter real-world events.
 
Take the event following the Global Financial Crisis, for example. I saw it coming in 2002 and sold all three of my homes in less than a year, for three simple reasons:
 
1. I had no idea when or how things would finally recover.
 
2. My next two work assignments, from Jan 2003 through March 2009 would be overseas, so my homes would be beyond my immediate control.
 
3. I did not have the financial resources to risk paying mortgages on two simultaneously unoccupied homes, and even the thought of letting one of them suck me dry was more than I could stomach.
Turns out it was one of the smartest decisions I have ever done.  All three homes rose only slightly higher in value until the bubble burst, then all economic planthree plunged to less than three-fourths of their peak value, and it took more than a decade before any of them recovered beyond their previous values.  In the meantime, I tripled my money in the stock market between 2008 and 2011.
 
Regardless, the last line of the article was a plea: “We need a new theory, not merely a new fictional acronym in the fantasy universe of mainstream economics.”
 
That theory was tested in the early 1980s, under Reagan. By lowering taxes, the government freed up wealth directly where it was needed the most, in the private business sector. Investments flourished. Innovation flourished. Jobs flourished. Growth flourished. Profits flourished. Savings flourished. Reinvestment flourished. The US economy flourished. The global economy flourished.
 
When governments increase taxes, they KILL all of the above.
 
How’s that for a “new theory?”
 

Mr./Ms./Mrs… MX.!

While trying to come up with a proper form of address for a collection of airline executives, some of whom are probably female, and perhaps one or more of the intersexed or transgendered variety, my first attempt was simple: A compilation of the forms of address I was taught in high school typing class:
 
Mr./Ms./Mrs.
 
This lengthy and cumbersome moniker includes:
 
Mr., short for “Mister,” which includes all males, regardless of whether they’re married or not, and is also used as a convention of title of respect with a person’s title of high office, such as Mr. Mayor, or Mr. President. Aside: Kids have been known to say, “Mr. Policeman…” 🙂
 
Ms. (plural Mss. or Mses.), short for “Miss,” which traditionally includes all unmarried women or girls; in more modern parlance, it is used instead of Miss or Mrs. (as when the marital status of a woman is unknown or irrelevant)
 
Mrs., short for “Misses” (plural Mesdames), which traditionally includes all married women.
 
Then, all of a sudden, my math mind hit me. Ow!
 
It said, “Everything begins with an “M” and everything ends with either a name or a title. Therefore, just use “x” — the most common variable known to mankind (another title which includes all homo sapiens) — and create a new prefix: Mx.
 
The cool thing about this is that all humans, regardless of either medical sex, cross-sex, or intersex, or sexual orientation, preference, or appearance, all have an X chromosome. The X-chromosome contains many genes that are necessary to survive. It would be just as if you removed one of the other chromosomes- you’d lose many important genes and so your body simply doesn’t work.
 
Thus, if you’re at all mammalian, then regardless of whatever sex/gender physical/mental/emotional/whatever type is most appropriate, you will always be Mx.
 
Thus, from here on out, I will always do the most appropriate thing possible by referring to all individuals after the shortened version of “motocross.”
 
Update: As it turns out, I’m not the first to stumble across this idea. While looking up references to “Mx” on Wikipedia, I learned that it has already been used “an English-language honorific for use alongside Mr, Ms, etc. that does not indicate gender. It is often the only option for nonbinary people, as well as those who do not wish to reveal their gender. It is a gender-neutral title that is now widely accepted by government and many businesses in the United Kingdom, and is gaining popularity and acceptance in the United States.”
 
So, I guess it’s official. I will refer to Bill Clinton as Mx. Clinton. Same thing goes for George Bush, who just indicated his disdain for Donald Trump. Congrats, George. I thought you were a loving, hugging American patriot, but now I cannot help but wonder whose side you’re really on. Apparently, you’re on Mx. Bush’s side. I’ll leave that to your entire family to figure out.
 
And what about Mx. Clinton? No, the other one, the one running for President, but who should be serving 1-3 years under Title 18 § 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation of federal records, which also carried a provision barring Hillary from ever hold any public office in the United States ever again. Chelsea? Also Mx. Clinton.
 

Think of how many nametags we might save by this happenstance combination. “Jones, family of 5…” All wear “Mx. Jones” name tags.

How’s that for economies of scale?

Freedom of Speech and of the Press

This article raises a very good question:  “Does the First Amendment protect global warming deniers?”
The answer is, unequivocally and resoundingly “YES.”
No federal, state, county, or local entity, nor any law enforcement or public business may restrict people’s expression concerning the pros freedom of speechand/or cons of various viewpoints on global warming, climate change, denying, etc. We live in the United States of America, which holds both the freedom of speech and the press in the highest regard. This is NOT Nazi Germany, which repressed the vast majority of free speech and severely punished violators.
 
Our First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
 
First, once they are properly ratified, all amendments are fully a part of the Constitution: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses rightsshall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.” (Article V).
 
Second, although 1A specifically limits Congress from passing any such law, the Supreme Court has repeatedly expanded that through the “the supreme Law of the Land” clause (Article VI) to mean the United States Constitution supersedes all federal, state, county, and local (municipality) law. Thus, no action by any executive, legislative, judicial branch, or by law enforcement or member of the public can legal violate any provision of the Constitution, including “the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
 
Third, countless case law refers to “freedom of speech” as applying to oral utterances, regardless of source, whereas “the press” refers to the written Franklin_the_printer-by-Charles-B-Mills - Young Benjamin at his brother's Printing Pressword, regardless of form (print, offset type, electronic, billboard, etc.). Thus, my blog, as was Benjamin Franklin’s backyard printing press, is every bit as much “the press” as is the New York times. Although Nancy Pelosi would like you to believe otherwise, well, what can I say? She’s the last person I would ever consult on matters Constitutional.
 
Fourth, countless case law willfully ignores the content of free speech when determining whether or not it’s “allowable” under Constitutional law. Thus, t-shirts supporting the murderous revolutionary Che Guevara, are every bit as protected when worn by a teenager cruising the mall as is a t-shirt sporting a happy face.
 
Fifth, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously upheld very strict scrutiny for the exceedingly few restrictions on freedom of speech. Specifically, the only exceptions involve the following:
 
1. Content: Cannot be based upon content, i.e. any restrictions must remain content-neutral, even if the content is highly objectionable. This is the reason the Westboro Baptists can continue to protest military funerals despite the fact that 99% of society finds their behavior utterly reprehensible. Thus, no municipality can allow public protests supporting one side of an issue while denying those who are protesting the opposite side of the issue.
 
2. Time, place, and manner. Municipalities can place limited restrictions on time, place, and manner. For example, driving at 3 am (time) through neighborhoods (place) while blaring one’s point of view over loudspeakers We Will Not Be Silences(manner) violate all three. Such restrictions, however, must remain content-neutral. Thus, you cannot ban one group of protesters under any particular combination of time/place/manner while allowing another. The courts have also observed “similitude,” such that one time/place/manner is considered for all practical purposes as being substantially equivalent to another even details differ. Thus, a municipality cannot ban protests in one neighborhood while allowing them in another.
 
3. Prior restraint: “If the government tries to restrain speech before it is spoken, as opposed to punishing it afterwards, it must be able to show that punishment after the fact is not a sufficient remedy, and show that allowing the speech would “surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people” (New York Times Co. v. United States). U.S. courts have not permitted most prior restraints since the case of Near v. Minnesota in 1931.
 
Bottom Line: Any and all claims related to “global warming” and “climate change” must stand on their own merits. The freedom to question the validity of ANY public opinion or policy directly relates to the ability of the people of our nation helping to keep our nation free by limiting the power and authority of all entities, most notably various institutions, including local, county, state, and federal governments, from infringing on our freedom of speech and of the press.
freedom of speech - Charles Bradlaugh

Unfavorable ratings, bimodality, competence, and realty

A recent article said, “Trump is viewed unfavorably by 67 percent of Americans overall.  Big whoop.  The authors would like you to believe that somehow translates into an element of undesirability or an inability to beat the opposition.

WRONG!

Ratings of unfavorability measure a candidate’s clarity, and are NOT indicative of their popularity or their ability to defeat the opposing party’s candidate. Clarity heightens bimodality, which in turn raises the percentage of those who swear they would vote against a candidate. Meanwhile, candidates who are unclear on the issues have a much lower disapproval rating.
 
What actually MATTERS is three-fold:
 
1. Do they have both the education and experience to fix the problems facing our country, and the leadership skills to forge the path to success?
 
2. Do they have the savvy to know what works vs the idealism to try what they think will work (but probably won’t)?  Idealism never solved any problem, and never will.  It has, however, lead many nations down the primrose path to destruction.
3.  Will their supporting votes (the only ones that matter) be enough to beat the supporting votes of the opposition?
For some reason, a number of blitheringly idiotic people continue to highlight Trump’s unfavorability rating as if it had anything to do with reality.  If our country had a bimodal voting system, where you could cast one positive vote for the candidate of your choice as well as a negative vote against the candidate you think would be the worst in office, then unfavorability ratings would matter.
Since our voting system involves only one positive vote, however, unfavorable ratings simply do not matter.
Get over it.

Trust and Competence: A quick analysis of the 2016 candidates

There’s only one competent candidate I trust:  Trump.  All other candidates have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are either untrustworthy or incompetent:
 
UNTRUSTWORTHY::
 
Cruz: Liar, cheat, swindler, and complicit in election fraud
 
Clinton: Liar, possible murderer, and self-acknowledge felon (both gross negligence in handling classified information as well as intentionally destroying official government records)
 
INCOMPETENT::
 
Sanders: His blitheringly idiotic and obviously socialist economic policies would utterly destroy all aspects of American prosperity should they ever be implemented. They’re classic examples of what NOT to do, and are prime fodder for Economics professors and students at high school, undergraduate, and postgraduate levels for decades, at least until the next blitheringly idiotic socialist comes along.
 
Kasich: During his long, 18-year history as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, he helped cut the Navy’s A-12 bomber, ostensibly due to cost overruns, and favored the multi-service F-35, which has far, far greater cost overruns. He pushed through the BRAC bill. He’s outstanding at cutting costs, even when doing so cuts operational capability, not only in the military, but in many other government circles, as well.
Please take the time to thoroughly research all candidates before choosing your favorite.  Our nation’s very survival depends on it!

Should America Apologize to Japan for Dropping Nuclear Weapons in World War II?

The White House indicated President Barack Obama may visit Hiroshima during his final visit to Japan next month.  His spokesman said “Obama would like to see the world rid of nuclear weapons,” and ” ‘symbolically’ there’s probably ‘no more powerful illustration of that commitment than the city that contained the victims of the first use of that weapon.’ ”

Put simply, Barack Obama wants to apologize to Japan for America’s use of nuclear weapons to end World War II.

The truth is, America should NEVER apologize to Japan. We ended the war in the most humane manner possible, saving SIXTY TIMES the number of Japanese casualties that would have resulted from conventional warfare.  Furthermore, casualties of war peaked in World War II.  The deterrent value of nuclear weapons is incalculable, but it’s safe to say that during the second half of the 20th century, global wartime casualties would have been between 4 and 10 times greater without nuclear deterrence.

During the summer of 1945, Operation Downfall was the conventional alternative to using nuclear weapons.  It involved the direct invasion of Japan, and comprised of two parts, Operations Olympic and Coronet, that would have resulted in Japanese casualties upwards of 20 million, as predicted by the Vice Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy General Staff, Vice Admiral Takijir? ?nishi. This was based on the fact that there were 2.3 million Japanese Army troops prepared to defend the home islands, backed by a civilian militia of 28 million men and women, and the mindset at the time is that all would have fought to the death for their Emperor.

American predictions were somewhat less, estimating the invading Allies would suffer between 1.7 and 4 million casualties in such a scenario, of whom between 400,000 and 800,000 would be dead, while Japanese fatalities would have been around 5 to 10 million.

Let’s average the American estimate, 7.5 million, with the Japanese estimate, 20 million. Result: 13.75 million Japanese deaths.

Reports of casualties for Nagasaki and Hiroshima vary, but even at the highest ends of the scale, they amount to approximately 160,000 immediate deaths with another 66,000 dying by December, 1945, for a total of about 226,000.

Compare these two figures, and please note that one figure is 61 times greater than the other:

1. Casualties of NOT using nuclear weapons: 13.75 MILLION

2. Casualties of USING nuclear weapons: 226 thousand.

If we had NOT used nuclear weapons, more than SIXTY TIMES as many Japanese people, mostly civilians, would have lost their lives. As it is, both targets were specifically chosen for their military nature in an attempt to minimize civilian casualties.

If the numbers are difficult for you to imagine, consider the following representation:

Casualties as recorded, using nuclear weapons:
.

Casualties that would have occurred had we not used nuclear weapons:
…………………………………………………….

So, should America “apologize” for using nuclear weapons, thus ending the war FAR sooner and with VASTLY FEWER casualties?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

We didn’t start the war, but we certainly ended it, and in the most humane manner possible: “This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital [Kyoto] or the new [Tokyo]. He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one.” – Diary of President Harry S. Truman, from various pages on July 17, 18, and 25, 1945.

Separation of Church and State Primer

“The religious group, which will run the ark’s operations, won a federal court ruling in January that clarified that it can make religious-based hires even as it seeks a Kentucky tourism tax incentive worth millions.”
 
“We are a religious group and we make no apology about that, and (federal law) allows us that,” Ham said Thursday. “We’re requiring them to be Christians, that’s the bottom line.”
 
Those of you who think for one second that “separation of church and state” is a part of U.S. law need a history lesson. Most people, including a lot of anti-religious historians, get this horribly wrong, possibly by intent, as the many letters our Founding Fathers wrote clarifying the matter are readily available in the Library of Congress, if not online. I know this for a fact, personal first-hand knowledge, for I spent an appreciable portion of the summer of 1982 holding them in my white-gloved hands as I read through hundreds of the more than 50,000 documents kept in what was then The American Heritage room of the Library of Congress.
With that in mind…
 
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
 
The first part prevents Congress from allowing the establishment of any official religion or church. It was craft specifically to avoid the problem of the period, whereby England had established the Church of England as the “official” religion while persecuting all others. Some folks in Congress wanted to establish Christianity as the official religion, but most of the authors of our Bill of Rights wisely knew that if they did that, the next step would be to define which denominations were “acceptable” as “Christian,” and the saga of religious persecution that drove millions out of Europe would infect the United States and fester our freedoms forever.
 
The second part is much clearer, and simply means that Congress can NOT interfere with the free practice of religions. Subsequent decisions by various federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have established this applies at all judicial and legislative levels throughout our country.
 
BOTTOM LINE: Those who attempt to use Thomas Jefferson’s “separation of church and state” clause found ONLY in his letter to the Danbury Baptists are committing the SAME religious intolerance and persecution our Founding Fathers escaped from Europe and were trying to prevent here in the United States.
 
If you believe otherwise, you’re a Constitutionally illiterate idiot and are in serious need of an objective Civics class taught by someone who is not an anti-Constitutional atheist.
 
 

Useful Training Videos

A number of folks have asked me about training materials.  “Training for what?” is my first question.  “Well, for whatever might happen” is usually the response.  So, with that in mind, I’ve begun collecting links to training videos available online that might help myself and others who find themselves in situations involving natural disasters, violent crime, and both unarmed and armed conflict (riots, rebellion, insurrection, terrorism, military operations other than war (MOOTW), civil war, and war.

I am doing so, however, only with the explicit and express understanding that these resources are not available on this website, but rather, are routinely available elsewhere online; these resources are only to be used to support the law, not violate it; that by “law” I refer first and foremost to the U.S. Constitution, “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article V), and all subsequent local, county, state, and federal laws lawfully adhering to the U.S. Constitution.  As always, this website’s Disclaimer Page applies.