The Everlasting Phelps

Global warming emails:Bad Astronomy

As far as the scientists’ attitudes go, much hay has been made of that as well. But I wonder. Imagine you’ve dedicated your life to some scientific pursuit. You do it because you love it, because you want to make the world a better place, and because you can see the physics beneath the surface, weaving the tapestry of reality, guiding the ebb and flow of forces both subtle and gross.

So here’s a legitimate question:  do you really support science?  What if the science makes the world a worse place?  Are you still going to do it?  What if the only way to make the world a better place (in your image, at least) is to abandon science?  Because quite frankly, that is what I see when I look at CRU.  I see people who had an idea of what a “better” world would be… and the science didn’t support them. They had to choose.

What is particularly galling is to see people who call themselves “skeptics” supporting this shoddy, politicized religion masquerading as science.  A lot of comments are made about this paper being paid for by Exxon, and that paper being paid for by Exxon, and therefore we can’t trust them and they aren’t real science.  How, then, are we supposed to trust papers paid for by governments, when the people who run the governments are the ones who will benefit from the control policies based on these papers?  How is that conflict of interest any better than Exxon’s?  Because we trust government?  There are a few billion people murdered by their own governments in the 20th century alone that would counsel against that attitude.

The examples of code in the hacked files may have been early versions, or had some estimations (called, not always accurately, fudge factors) used in place of real numbers… the thing is, we don’t know. Drawing conclusions of widespread scientific fraud from what we’ve seen is ridiculous.

Drawing any conclusion but fraud is ridiculous given that CRU still refuses to disclose the current code.  When a priest claims a miracle but won’t allow you to see the back side of the altar, a skeptic would not hesitate to call him a fraud, whether he could explain what the priest did or not.  Why would we give someone the benefit of doubt because they fancy themselves as a scientist rather than a priest?  Humans are human.

I’ll note that some people are still upset by my use of the term deniers. Again, to be clear: a skeptic is someone who uses evidence and logic to reach a conclusion. A denialist is someone who will say or do anything to deny an issue. I stand by my definition.

And I assert that your position is not based on logic, given that it is all, 100%, based on an appeal to questionable authority, with a nice big bandwagon fallacy thrown in for good measure.  An authority that, by all appearances, is no such thing.

NPR reporter pressured over Fox role:

“This has been a building thing. There has been a concern in the upper regions of NPR that Fox uses Mara and Juan as cover” to defuse arguments that the TV network is populated with right-wing voices, said the source, who asked not to be named.

How dare they defuse arguments that they are populated by right-wing voices by not being populated by right-wing voices?  Why, the next thing you know, NPR will be defusing arguments that they are not a real reporting agency by actually doing real reporting.

I caught the tail end of Obama’s remarks as I got in the car from some Christmas shopping, and this infuriated me when I heard it:

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values — for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home — which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source — the moral source of America’s authority.

You miserable failure.  Where were you?  Where were you when Georgia was being invaded by the Evil Empire?  Where were you when the Iranian people were in the streets?  Where were you when the Iranian people were begging, “don’t leave us alone”?

You were busy hiding your eyes and pretending it wasn’t happening.  You were negotiating with Hezbolah through back channels.  You have no moral authority.  I pray that there is enough left of freedom in the world when your three more years are finally over for us to put back together.

Words.  All they wanted was a word of support.  You spend all your time in front of television cameras, and you couldn’t say one.  Single.  Word. In support of freedom in Georgia and Iran.

Michelle Malkin points out the latest Dem pitch.

It’s a reality “based” T-shirt.

The first item listed is “Women’s Suffrage Amendment.”  Let’s look at the vote: FOR: 36(R), 20(D)  AGAINST 8(R) 17(D).  Hmm.  Looks to me like “brought to you by the Republicans.”  Rural Electrification Act?  So little opposition that they didn’t even take a record vote.  The Federal Home Loan Program?  O RLY?  The one where “the credit program was a complete failure. While 41,000 homeowners applied for FHLB loans in the first two years after its enactment, the government agency administering the program approved just three applications.”?  That led to Freddie Mac and Fannie May and the second depression, which we are now living?  That one is all yours, baby.

The GI Bill?  Written by an RNC chairman.

The Civil Rights Act?  Are you fucking retarded?  Which one?  1866?  Radical Republicans.  1871?  Radical Republicans, to reign in the Democrat Ku Klux Klan.  1875?  Republicans.  1957?  Passed over an attempted filibuster by the Democrats.  1960?  Passed over an attempted filibuster by the Democrats, the longest one in history, in fact.  1964?  Opposed by Democrats, not Republicans.  1968?  The Dems finally come around and stop trying to filibuster the acts.  1991?  Five nays, way to beat down that vicious Republican racism, guys.  Civil Rights Act?  From the Dixiecrats?  Fuck you.

And these jackasses expect you to pay them to wear their lies around.  Orwell would be proud of the size of their memory hole.

This is why liberals always screw up government programs. This guy has a problem with basic logistics.

Think about what life in Texas would be like if its pandering governor has his way.

He doesn’t have “a way”.  The first thing out of his mouth when the question came up was that there was no reason to do it.  But, let’s contiune this pointless exercise.

The new nation would have to raise an Army and a Navy and an Air Force from scratch, of course.

No, it wouldn’t.  We already have the Texas National Guard.  Beyond that, we have the Texas State Guard (who are not subject to nationalization.)  We wouldn’t need to build bases.  We have them.  We wouldn’t need to build tanks — we have Ft. Hood.  (In fact, that would mean that the Union would need to build more tanks, not Texas.)  We have our own air superiority fighters already (the Texas State Guard Air Wing).  We don’t have a blue water Navy, but we really wouldn’t need one.  Texas wouldn’t be interested in projecting power in that way.

For the first few years, if it didn’t want to be gobbled up by Mexico or intimidated by the hugely irritated United States to the north, there would probably have to be confiscatory taxation, and a draft of a million or so healthy men and women over 18, just to guard its thousands of miles of borders.

By that logic, we would already need it.  We wouldn’t need to “guard” the US-Texas border, unless you are taking it as de facto that the rest of the United States is an imperialist aggressor that wouldn’t hesistate to invade a weaker neighbor (which the existence of Mexico shoots all the hell.)  I doubt you would need to draft anyone, since you seem to have pulled that “million” number out of your ass.  There’s barely a million men in the US Army, and that’s 50 states.  There’s less than 1.5 million active personel in the entire Armed Services, and only another 850,000 in reserves.

Taxation wouldn’t be much of a problem, because the US really would be paying for us then.  There would be tarrifs on the energy that the United States would be forced (by necessity) to buy from us — both oil, natural gas, and especially electricity.  Add in the communications infrastructure and customs tarrifs that we could collect, on top of shifting the current federal taxes to the state, and Texas would do quite fine, financially.

Unless you mean that the current levels are already confiscatory, which I don’t think I would argue with.

The drug violence and corruption in Mexico would quickly move north and permeate the new nation.

I think this is a non sequitor.  Texas would actually have an interest in keeping the border closed.  This also assumes that Texas won’t simply legalize marijuana, which would kick the drug cartels right in the pocketbook.

Loyal Americans would no doubt launch a resistance movement. Under such conditions, in this militaristic state, we can assume that certain “adjustments” would be made in civil liberties.

Like what?  Warrantless wiretaps?  Paramilitary raids on civilians?  Detainment of enemy combatants without habeas corpus?  Gun confiscation?

You know, all that stuff that Barack Obama supports?

With all that local tax money going to defense, the state’s schools and roads and bridges and medical infrastructure would suffer. Agribusiness and ranchers and old folks and colleges would decline as well. No more of that dreaded U.S. federal aid.

Yeah, because no one in the new state would, you know, eat food or drive cars.

I presume that more than a few of Houston’s wealthy lawyers and doctors and Dallas financiers would decide that the ol’ US of A isn’t so bad a place, after all, and discover the charms of Colorado and New Mexico. So brain drain would be a problem. Offshore accounts and tax evasion would flourish.

Riiiight.  They are going to leave a state that will be doing all it can to make that business attractive to move to states that charge them even more on their income, while continually threatening to put even more regulation on how the doctors conduct business (via “National Healthcare”) and threatening to tax the bankers at 90% or even throw them in jail (like AIG.)

Ho yea, those dumb asses are going to be running to that.

Lemme tell you, Scooter.  We’re already draining you.  That is why Dallas and Houston are already centers for those markets.

As for manufacturing, Texas doesn’t really make anything important by itself anymore. Its oil fields are pretty much tapped. We in the states would be taking back NASA and closing all our military bases, of course. I suppose that, until the American states along the Gulf build up their ports, Houston and Galveston might limp along for a while. But the U.S. embargo on Texas imports, in the long run, would empty those docks.

BFD.  The US doesn’t make anything “important” by itself anymore either.  China isn’t going to have a problem selling to us.  Our oil fields are doing fine, especially once you factor in newer technologies like gas injection.  Our natural gas reserves are massive, and even if the fields were tapped out, the US would still need the Texas refineries.  I’m astonished as to where this “US Embargo” comes from — your ass must be getting pretty sore with all the things you are pulling out of it.  An embargo on Texas would be economic suicide.  It makes as much sense as an embargo on Mexico because of the drug war or the immigration issues.

Austin would be an interesting case. Would its liberal software designers, musicians, University of Texas faculty and filmmakers stay with Texas? Or secede, in turn, from Texas and rejoin the United States? Or become a kind of laid-back Switzerland, playing both countries against each other?

Or, they would do like liberals always do, bitch and whine but not actually do anything about it past that.

Once you start down this secession road, all sorts of things can happen. Think about San Antonio and south Texas—heavily populated by Mexican-Americans. There are so many minorities in Texas, in fact, that put all together they make up the majority. Like California, today’s Texas is a majority-minority state.

They are not in Mexico.  They left Mexico for a reason.  What makes you think that they want back into that mess?

We’ve been down this road before Scooter, and our Texican friends were here for that one too.  It wasn’t just white people dying at the Alamo and Goliad and Gonzalez against Santa Anna.  A lot of native Mexicans fought with the US immigrants in the Texas Revolution, and I would bet my life that they would do it again.  Literally, if it comes to that.

As for the rest of us, we in America would miss the wonderful sly humor, the rich culture, the courage and patriotism and poetry of our brothers and sisters in Texas. The benefits that this great state bring us far outweigh the burdens—the Dallas Cowboys, W, Roger Clemens—that we sometimes have to endure.

Apparently, this asshole also thinks that if Texas seceeds, the US will also censor any communication coming out of Texas.

He seems to have an even lower opinion of the rest of the Union than he does of Texas.

Fresh out of the Stevens debacle, Sullivan is blasting the Gitmo prosecutors:

The government’s case against Batarfi relies on statements from another detainee, who it turns out has repeatedly received psychiatric treatment, calling his credibility into question. A month ago, after it became clear Batarfi’s defense team was not informed of the other detainee’s medical history, Sullivan ordered the government to turn over all medical records to the defense.

According to court documents, Sullivan directed the government to explain “why the Government and its attorneys should not be held in contempt of court” for failing to comply with court orders that could help shed light on Batarfi, a doctor accused by the Justice Department of being a Taliban or Al Qaeda member.

Note: If you are a lawyer, being held in contempt by a Federal judge is a Very Bad Thing.

“To hide relevant and exculpatory evidence from counsel and from the court under any circumstances, particularly here where there is no other means to discover this information and where the stakes are so very high … is fundamentally unjust, outrageous and will not be tolerated,” Sullivan said during a hearing last week, according to the McClatchy newspaper service. “I’ll tell you quite frankly if I have to start incarcerating people to get my point across I’m going to start at the top.“

Can I get a “Hell yeah!!!”?

I don’t think that the Gitmo cases belong in our courts.  I think that they belong in military courts.  However, that stand has lost, both in the courts and in the electorate.  Elections have consequences.  I don’t like it, but that is the way it has to be.  America chose, and it is time to live with it.

Prosecutoral misconduct is rampant, endemic and ubiquitous, just like police misconduct.  The whole damned system is rotten from the top to the bottom.  The only way that is going to change is if judges and the People stop putting up with it.

“Whether you are a public official, a private citizen, or a Guantanamo Bay detainee, the proscecution — indeed the U.S. government must produce exculpatory evidence so that justice shall be done,” Sullivan said Tuesday, before dismissing the charges against Stevens, a Republican from Alaska. “The importance of these obligations cannot be overstated.”

The proscution doesn’t have a reponsibility to figure out who is guilty or innocent and then railroad the guilty through the system.  Our system is designed to avoid jailing the innocent, even at the expense of making it easier for the guilty to go free.  That’s a feature, not a bug.  That can’t work if prosecutors sit on evidence just because it makes the guy look innocent.  Maybe it looks like he is innocent because he is innocent.  Whether or not that is true isn’t the prosecutors’ job to figure out.  That job belongs to the jury or the judge.

Sullivan had a message for his fellow judges, lawmakers, the Attorney General and even President Obama.

He urged his “judicial colleagues to be vigilant” and Attorney General Eric Holder to require training for new and veteran prosecutors across the country. Plus, he said, “I urge the president and the Attorney General, as they select new U.S. Attorneys, to obtain from those appointees their commitments to fulfilling these important obligations. And indeed the Senate confirmation process should also address these most improtant prosecutoroial obligations.”

They aren’t going to listen until they see someone from thier side of the courtroom on the other side.  They don’t think that they are above the law — they think that they are the law.

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.

On another note…

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.