Inter-Galactic-Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Professional rabble-rouser
Re: The Many faces of Global Warming
An article in Dailynews.com should have us all concerned. Apparently the glaciers in China are receding at an “alarming” rate. We quote the article:
A three-year study, to be used by the China Geological Survey Institute, shows that glaciers in the Yangtze source area, central to the Qinghai-Tibet plateau in south-western China, have receded 196 square kilometres over the past 40 years.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that while 196 square kilometers is a lot of ground, the actual drop over the last forty years has been from 1,247 SK to 1,041 SK. So there’s still a good deal of ice, which is a good thing. However, several other headlines, all from the same site, are cause for concern. To wit:
Hundreds Of Antarctic Peninsula Glaciers Accelerating As Climate Warms
Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, Or Stagnating
Melting Glaciers On The Tibetan Plateau
World's Glaciers Continue To Shrink, According To New CU-Boulder Study
And there are others. Greenland’s glaciers appear to be melting at accelerated rates as well, but the interior of that continent is rapidly increasing in ice, which makes for an over-all balance of the amount of ice.
But researchers just announced (confessed) that a glitch in their equipment failed to add a piece of Arctic ice the size of California to their annual survey. That’s probably relevant.
It’s interesting to note that in spite of all this melting, the sea-levels have shown no appreciable rise. Perhaps someone could get a grant and figure out where all the water is going. Mr. Isle, I’m going to delegate that to you.
And on the other hand we have this from England:
The recommendation that the UK cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 per cent* is “total madness based on false science” said Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction long range forecasters.
“There is no evidence that Carbon dioxide has ever controlled, is controlling or will ever control world temperatures or climate and I challenge the promoters of this nonsense to produce evidence to justify their policies - or drop them, just as 13 world scientists** have similarly challenged the UN.
This mention of 13 scientists is in reference to the following:
13 world scientists wrote** to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in July asking for evidence to justify UN Climate Change policy and calling for the UN’s climate committee (IPCC) to be made accountable. Tim Yeo MP** (chair of the Parliament Environment Audit Committee) was also written to in July. Neither have acknowledged or replied.
So, mostly I’m reporting that we still have absolutely no consensus on climate change. Except that it is. Which we already knew. Because it always does. Change I mean.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
IGM Big Sting Ray
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-marine biologist
Re: Record-breaking Stingray
The U.K. Telegraph has a story this morning of a massive, 55 stone ray (that’s 770 pounds to us Yanks) in the Mekong River. It was 7 feet long and 7 feet wide. Holy mackerel! That’s a big fish. It shattered the previous record for a fresh water fish (46 stone catfish) set in 2005. And all this guy was trying to do was tag rays for research. It took him several hours to finally lift the beast off the bottom of the river. 13 men finally lifted it onto the boat, reminding the scientist of that line of Jaws; “we’re gonna need a bigger boat.”
There was a throwaway line at the end of the article which I will now quote for you, and then critique.
Although its numbers are unknown, experts believe the population has dwindled by 20 per cent over the last 10 years, making the possibility of extinction extremely high.
Let’s see now, what could possibly be wrong with that statement? Hmmmmmm? If the number of rays is unknown, how can they estimate a decline? And again, if the number is unknown, how can a possible 20% decrease over the last ten years (a meaningless guess) point to the possibility of extinction being extremely high? Does this come under that well-known scientific principle called “wishful thinking?” We all know that species heading for extinction translate to big cash in the form of grants. Based on the logic of the above quote, there could be 100 billion rays in existence. A 20% decrease would leave 80 billion. Yep, that’s the brink of extinction alright. See, because if we don’t know how many of something there are, it becomes difficult to project rates-of-loss. Yet another example of crisis by fiat. Boy, am I glad I’m here to ferret out all this stuff for me.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-marine biologist
Re: Record-breaking Stingray
The U.K. Telegraph has a story this morning of a massive, 55 stone ray (that’s 770 pounds to us Yanks) in the Mekong River. It was 7 feet long and 7 feet wide. Holy mackerel! That’s a big fish. It shattered the previous record for a fresh water fish (46 stone catfish) set in 2005. And all this guy was trying to do was tag rays for research. It took him several hours to finally lift the beast off the bottom of the river. 13 men finally lifted it onto the boat, reminding the scientist of that line of Jaws; “we’re gonna need a bigger boat.”
There was a throwaway line at the end of the article which I will now quote for you, and then critique.
Although its numbers are unknown, experts believe the population has dwindled by 20 per cent over the last 10 years, making the possibility of extinction extremely high.
Let’s see now, what could possibly be wrong with that statement? Hmmmmmm? If the number of rays is unknown, how can they estimate a decline? And again, if the number is unknown, how can a possible 20% decrease over the last ten years (a meaningless guess) point to the possibility of extinction being extremely high? Does this come under that well-known scientific principle called “wishful thinking?” We all know that species heading for extinction translate to big cash in the form of grants. Based on the logic of the above quote, there could be 100 billion rays in existence. A 20% decrease would leave 80 billion. Yep, that’s the brink of extinction alright. See, because if we don’t know how many of something there are, it becomes difficult to project rates-of-loss. Yet another example of crisis by fiat. Boy, am I glad I’m here to ferret out all this stuff for me.
IGM Obama, Oscars, Nano-radio
Inter-galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, raconteur
Re: Random Notes
President Obama was in Illinois the other day, speaking at a Caterpillar assembly plant. He was defending his stimulus (spendulus) package to the unionized employees. During the speech he poked a little good-natured fun at Illinois’ new Representative, 27 year old Aaron Schock. He mentioned Schock’s tender age (re: inexperience) and assured the assembly that the congressman would fall in line with his policies. Later, young Aaron told reporters that he had spoken to hundreds of the Caterpillar employees and not one of them asked him to support the stimulus package. So much for inexperience.
You may have noticed a certain lack of comment on the Academy Awards from me. An interesting phenomenon is occurring. Years ago I was glued to the tube on Oscar night. I made sure I had seen all the contenders for best picture, director and actor. Now I could not care any less. I have not seen any of the nominated movies. I don’t know what they were (even now) and with the exception of what I’ve heard on the radio, I don’t know or care who won what. Congrats to Slumdog though for taking the cake. Maybe I’ll watch it now. I find Hollywood becoming more and more irrelevant every day. Possibly because we are forced to hear every ill-conceived and uninformed word to come out of their privileged mouths, and watch their apparently valueless lives paraded in front of us. (Is that being judgmental?) Now, before everyone jumps down my throat for generalizing, let me just say that I know I’m generalizing. I’m sure there are many fine individuals in the movie industry. But what fun is it to point that out?
A team of crack researchers from Berkeley has done something interesting. They are able to make actual radios from a single nanotube of carbon. A real radio. One that receives, transmits, modulates frequency (changes channels) and can be heard on real speakers. All on a tube of carbon atoms that would fit nicely inside an average-sized human cell. With no moving parts, no additional parts (other than the electrodes at either end to provide power) and no magic. If you would like to hear a radio the size of a virus play “Layla” go to www.sciam.com/nanoradio and they’ll play it for you. Of course we’ll have to take their word that it isn’t an IPod Nano playing the tune . . . get it? Nano?
Most of you would be surprised—nay, shocked—to find out how many people are still waiting for the President to produce a valid birth certificate. Some people (not me) are wondering why he spent millions of dollars to have a bunch of attorneys NOT show a certificate. Let’s see . . . several million dollars, fifteen dollars . . . hmmmmm. I think I would have produced the certificate. And that thing on the internet is not a birth certificate. It’s a copy of a live birth form even I could have forged. Wouldn’t it be ironic of it turned out we had a foreigner leading the country? We would have to undo everything he did, said and signed. What a mess that would be, huh? It would be hard to tell the difference between then and now though. I’m just saying . . . .
More and more “experts” are coming out of the woodwork and questioning much of the new administration’s plans for healing the economy. Many of them are saying that doing nothing and letting the whole mess heal on its own would be faster and less damaging than what is being proposed. So if that happens, and the Obama camp takes credit for the fix, how will we know the difference? We already know the Democratic party caused the mortgage crisis (Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, et al) by insisting nothing was wrong and blocking repeated attempts by the GOP to stave off the current mess, then blamed it on the Bush administration which warned us and tried to get congress to do something, so it isn’t likely they will step up and admit it when their great plan doesn’t work.
More to come.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, raconteur
Re: Random Notes
President Obama was in Illinois the other day, speaking at a Caterpillar assembly plant. He was defending his stimulus (spendulus) package to the unionized employees. During the speech he poked a little good-natured fun at Illinois’ new Representative, 27 year old Aaron Schock. He mentioned Schock’s tender age (re: inexperience) and assured the assembly that the congressman would fall in line with his policies. Later, young Aaron told reporters that he had spoken to hundreds of the Caterpillar employees and not one of them asked him to support the stimulus package. So much for inexperience.
You may have noticed a certain lack of comment on the Academy Awards from me. An interesting phenomenon is occurring. Years ago I was glued to the tube on Oscar night. I made sure I had seen all the contenders for best picture, director and actor. Now I could not care any less. I have not seen any of the nominated movies. I don’t know what they were (even now) and with the exception of what I’ve heard on the radio, I don’t know or care who won what. Congrats to Slumdog though for taking the cake. Maybe I’ll watch it now. I find Hollywood becoming more and more irrelevant every day. Possibly because we are forced to hear every ill-conceived and uninformed word to come out of their privileged mouths, and watch their apparently valueless lives paraded in front of us. (Is that being judgmental?) Now, before everyone jumps down my throat for generalizing, let me just say that I know I’m generalizing. I’m sure there are many fine individuals in the movie industry. But what fun is it to point that out?
A team of crack researchers from Berkeley has done something interesting. They are able to make actual radios from a single nanotube of carbon. A real radio. One that receives, transmits, modulates frequency (changes channels) and can be heard on real speakers. All on a tube of carbon atoms that would fit nicely inside an average-sized human cell. With no moving parts, no additional parts (other than the electrodes at either end to provide power) and no magic. If you would like to hear a radio the size of a virus play “Layla” go to www.sciam.com/nanoradio and they’ll play it for you. Of course we’ll have to take their word that it isn’t an IPod Nano playing the tune . . . get it? Nano?
Most of you would be surprised—nay, shocked—to find out how many people are still waiting for the President to produce a valid birth certificate. Some people (not me) are wondering why he spent millions of dollars to have a bunch of attorneys NOT show a certificate. Let’s see . . . several million dollars, fifteen dollars . . . hmmmmm. I think I would have produced the certificate. And that thing on the internet is not a birth certificate. It’s a copy of a live birth form even I could have forged. Wouldn’t it be ironic of it turned out we had a foreigner leading the country? We would have to undo everything he did, said and signed. What a mess that would be, huh? It would be hard to tell the difference between then and now though. I’m just saying . . . .
More and more “experts” are coming out of the woodwork and questioning much of the new administration’s plans for healing the economy. Many of them are saying that doing nothing and letting the whole mess heal on its own would be faster and less damaging than what is being proposed. So if that happens, and the Obama camp takes credit for the fix, how will we know the difference? We already know the Democratic party caused the mortgage crisis (Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, et al) by insisting nothing was wrong and blocking repeated attempts by the GOP to stave off the current mess, then blamed it on the Bush administration which warned us and tried to get congress to do something, so it isn’t likely they will step up and admit it when their great plan doesn’t work.
More to come.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
IGM Greenland Snuggie Blanket
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-glaciologist
Re: Greenland Snuggie-Covers
According to an article in the London Telegraph this morning, a “Glaciologist” named Jason Box, from Ohio State University who is concerned—as we all are—about the shocking rise in sea levels, has come up with a clever idea to slow or even stop the melting of Greenland’s glaciers.
As a responsible pseudo-journalist I checked out the facts online. According to Wikipedia, that bastion of spurious information, sea levels have been rising about 1.8mm annually for the last century. That’s just under two millimeters per year. Which comes to about one-fourth meter ever fifty years. Other estimates vary by as much as 20 meters (see An Inconvenient Truth), which is well within accepted parameters for global warming enthusiasts and catastrophic climate-change watch-dogs. As we all know, forty centimeters per hundred years is cause for alarm. Why, at that rate, half of Florida is now inundated by the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Who knew?
But Jason is here to rescue the situation. He and an intrepid team of experts (which makes a total of four people) are spreading special white, polypropylene blankets designed to cover 10,000 square meters of ice, over a “real” glacier in Greenland! Apparently this is off-the-shelf technology used in the Alps to save summer ski runs. They are testing the blankets resilience in the fierce Arctic winters and gathering data on how well the ice is insulated. Good for them—and I mean it.
But I have a couple thoughts. Not worries, not concerns really, just idle speculation. Let’s see if we can follow the logic here. According to Jason we are in the midst of “a climate catastrophe and glaciers are the epicentre of that problem.” (In England that’s how they spell epicentre—no one knows why.) According to every single person on the planet studying the problem, with the irrelevant exception of several thousand of them, We, us, human beings, are at the “epicentre” of the global warming catastrophe. We have inadvertently caused what is happening. The question can be asked; if we are the problem, exactly how much sense does it make for us to meddle further, without really knowing what we’ve done or are doing, to try and fix the problem? One recalls, in a moment like this, the famous words of the Hippocratic Oath; “first, do no harm.” As I have mentioned before, it is absolute folly to think we understand the dynamics of what is happening—even if we are involved. All these people constantly pound into our heads how fragile the environment is, how delicate the balances are, and how easily tipping points of one kind or another can be reached. Despite all this, Jason wants to cover the glaciers and stop the melting. Of course, glaciers have been melting and freezing for eons, even when we weren’t helping. Why, scientists actually surmise that the “Little Ice Age” of the eighteenth century was caused by humans burning wood for heat and cooking all over the planet. And we modern folks are dumping much more into the air and water than they did, right? So why exactly are we causing warming while they caused cooling? (That’s a legitimate question, by the way—I sincerely want to know. I know Sammons knows, and I know Isle will maniacally research it until he knows).
Is it not plausible to assume we will exacerbate the problem by increasing our meddling? What’s wrong with the idea the Gaia will fix it through natural means? What if the global climate systems are already evolving, have changed in response to our presence and are in the process of making adjustments and corrections on their own? And what if, as we meddle, we interrupt these changes and adjustments and send the entire system into a nose-dive? I’m just saying . . . .
The other thought. (two a day are plenty, don’t you think?) Let’s revisit that fragile-ecology idea. We have been inundated with the delicate nature and balance of the systems. We used to think it took centuries of bad luck to trigger an ice-age. Now, because of our superior understanding, we know it can happen within a few years, some say one or two. Which leads me to ask the following: If we cover all the glaciers (except the ones in Glacier National Park, because they’re already gone) with insulating, reflective blankets, what’s to stop that from taking us over the admittedly crumbling precipice into a full-fledged ice age? Just a couple years of accumulating ice is enough. Now someone will answer, “the warming will prevent runaway glaciations, resulting in no net loss or gain." Really? But if we let the ice build for a few years, that will decrease the ambient temperature (remember that spurious idea about an “average global temperature”?) which will stop the warming trend in its tracks, send it over the edge, and cover the planet in ice. Well, not the whole planet, but all the fun parts where food grows. Assuming there is a warming trend. And assuming we know anything about cooling trends. It’s a bit of a sticky wicket, wot?
Besides, what will we do with a few million square kilometers of non-biodegradable polypropylene once we are done and have to roll it all back up? Anybody think of that? (Imagine a brief “cha-ching” gesture here).
In conclusion, I want to thank my parents for having the foresight to create me, my wife for the tolerance necessary not to eliminate me, the academy for remaining loyal to the ancient tradition of bribery, and all those scientists for keeping life interesting. I will cherish this delusion always.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-glaciologist
Re: Greenland Snuggie-Covers
According to an article in the London Telegraph this morning, a “Glaciologist” named Jason Box, from Ohio State University who is concerned—as we all are—about the shocking rise in sea levels, has come up with a clever idea to slow or even stop the melting of Greenland’s glaciers.
As a responsible pseudo-journalist I checked out the facts online. According to Wikipedia, that bastion of spurious information, sea levels have been rising about 1.8mm annually for the last century. That’s just under two millimeters per year. Which comes to about one-fourth meter ever fifty years. Other estimates vary by as much as 20 meters (see An Inconvenient Truth), which is well within accepted parameters for global warming enthusiasts and catastrophic climate-change watch-dogs. As we all know, forty centimeters per hundred years is cause for alarm. Why, at that rate, half of Florida is now inundated by the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Who knew?
But Jason is here to rescue the situation. He and an intrepid team of experts (which makes a total of four people) are spreading special white, polypropylene blankets designed to cover 10,000 square meters of ice, over a “real” glacier in Greenland! Apparently this is off-the-shelf technology used in the Alps to save summer ski runs. They are testing the blankets resilience in the fierce Arctic winters and gathering data on how well the ice is insulated. Good for them—and I mean it.
But I have a couple thoughts. Not worries, not concerns really, just idle speculation. Let’s see if we can follow the logic here. According to Jason we are in the midst of “a climate catastrophe and glaciers are the epicentre of that problem.” (In England that’s how they spell epicentre—no one knows why.) According to every single person on the planet studying the problem, with the irrelevant exception of several thousand of them, We, us, human beings, are at the “epicentre” of the global warming catastrophe. We have inadvertently caused what is happening. The question can be asked; if we are the problem, exactly how much sense does it make for us to meddle further, without really knowing what we’ve done or are doing, to try and fix the problem? One recalls, in a moment like this, the famous words of the Hippocratic Oath; “first, do no harm.” As I have mentioned before, it is absolute folly to think we understand the dynamics of what is happening—even if we are involved. All these people constantly pound into our heads how fragile the environment is, how delicate the balances are, and how easily tipping points of one kind or another can be reached. Despite all this, Jason wants to cover the glaciers and stop the melting. Of course, glaciers have been melting and freezing for eons, even when we weren’t helping. Why, scientists actually surmise that the “Little Ice Age” of the eighteenth century was caused by humans burning wood for heat and cooking all over the planet. And we modern folks are dumping much more into the air and water than they did, right? So why exactly are we causing warming while they caused cooling? (That’s a legitimate question, by the way—I sincerely want to know. I know Sammons knows, and I know Isle will maniacally research it until he knows).
Is it not plausible to assume we will exacerbate the problem by increasing our meddling? What’s wrong with the idea the Gaia will fix it through natural means? What if the global climate systems are already evolving, have changed in response to our presence and are in the process of making adjustments and corrections on their own? And what if, as we meddle, we interrupt these changes and adjustments and send the entire system into a nose-dive? I’m just saying . . . .
The other thought. (two a day are plenty, don’t you think?) Let’s revisit that fragile-ecology idea. We have been inundated with the delicate nature and balance of the systems. We used to think it took centuries of bad luck to trigger an ice-age. Now, because of our superior understanding, we know it can happen within a few years, some say one or two. Which leads me to ask the following: If we cover all the glaciers (except the ones in Glacier National Park, because they’re already gone) with insulating, reflective blankets, what’s to stop that from taking us over the admittedly crumbling precipice into a full-fledged ice age? Just a couple years of accumulating ice is enough. Now someone will answer, “the warming will prevent runaway glaciations, resulting in no net loss or gain." Really? But if we let the ice build for a few years, that will decrease the ambient temperature (remember that spurious idea about an “average global temperature”?) which will stop the warming trend in its tracks, send it over the edge, and cover the planet in ice. Well, not the whole planet, but all the fun parts where food grows. Assuming there is a warming trend. And assuming we know anything about cooling trends. It’s a bit of a sticky wicket, wot?
Besides, what will we do with a few million square kilometers of non-biodegradable polypropylene once we are done and have to roll it all back up? Anybody think of that? (Imagine a brief “cha-ching” gesture here).
In conclusion, I want to thank my parents for having the foresight to create me, my wife for the tolerance necessary not to eliminate me, the academy for remaining loyal to the ancient tradition of bribery, and all those scientists for keeping life interesting. I will cherish this delusion always.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
IGM Dr. Doom
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-environmentalist
Re: The Environment, again . . .
My old nemesis, Paul Ehrlich, is back in the news. Despite the fact that every one of his major and dire predictions turned out to be wrong, he is now the Bing (endowed, as you know, by Chandler Bing) Professor of Population Studies at Stanford, where he continues his endless warnings and predictions of the environments’—and humanities—impending demise. In yet another fit of professional pessimism consistent with his entire career, Ehrlich has announced in a recent paper that the discovery, since 1993, 0f 408 new species of mammals, is no cause for celebration. Paul just can’t seem to find any joy in life.
I was going to offer several quotes to strengthen my cause, but Paul is just too depressing. And frankly, I had trouble making sense of his thesis. I’m not claiming he did a poor job—I often have trouble understanding technical data, especially if it involves any kind of statistical analysis. And his work seems to be mostly statistical based on some kind of innate fragility in given ecologies. If I’m reading him right, more variety of species in an ecology makes the ecology even more susceptible to changes in, or loss of, those species. He also said something about some kind of virus, but I wisely ignored all that. At any rate, more species means a more fragile ecology which is more susceptible to our (humanities) evil machinations.
I have long claimed, based on no data whatsoever, that the environment, as a totality, is robust, not fragile. It’s main characteristic, like everything else, is change. Organisms respond to stimulus (stress) and either evolve or die. Certainly things can happen that are detrimental, and I understand the idea that small changes can snowball into large effects. So do you. And that’s my point—I suspect environmentalists are losing the forest for studying the trees. There is too much specificity, too much specialization. No one is becoming a generalist, other than Bill Bryson maybe, and far too many good researchers are willing to depend on the dreaded computer model to assist them in formulating their theories. Science is trying to understand the inter-relationships of the species found in a given ecology, and then uncover the secrets of the relationships between ecologies. This is a wonderful—if daunting—goal. But with the hubris only science seems to engender, (okay, and religion) they consistently believe they are five minutes from figuring it all out. I’ve lost count of how many times a famous scientist has publically stated that we have discovered all there is to know. The last one said it in this new century.
Ehrlich depends almost entirely on models and statistical data, refusing to look at the common-sense, day-to-day evidence around him. I.e., we’re not dead. We haven’t bred ourselves into extinction. We haven’t gone cannibal, like over-crowded mice do. We haven’t run out of resources, or water, or air, or land. In fact we are improving all of those, slowly, fitfully sometimes, but overall things are getting better. Paul’s books won’t sell if his predictions don’t happen. And despite none of them ever coming true, he continues to wear blinders and predict imminent doom. I wonder, with a lingering sense of humor tinged with consternation, who listens to this guy? To quote God in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, “It’s like those miserable psalms . . . they’re so depressing.”
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-environmentalist
Re: The Environment, again . . .
My old nemesis, Paul Ehrlich, is back in the news. Despite the fact that every one of his major and dire predictions turned out to be wrong, he is now the Bing (endowed, as you know, by Chandler Bing) Professor of Population Studies at Stanford, where he continues his endless warnings and predictions of the environments’—and humanities—impending demise. In yet another fit of professional pessimism consistent with his entire career, Ehrlich has announced in a recent paper that the discovery, since 1993, 0f 408 new species of mammals, is no cause for celebration. Paul just can’t seem to find any joy in life.
I was going to offer several quotes to strengthen my cause, but Paul is just too depressing. And frankly, I had trouble making sense of his thesis. I’m not claiming he did a poor job—I often have trouble understanding technical data, especially if it involves any kind of statistical analysis. And his work seems to be mostly statistical based on some kind of innate fragility in given ecologies. If I’m reading him right, more variety of species in an ecology makes the ecology even more susceptible to changes in, or loss of, those species. He also said something about some kind of virus, but I wisely ignored all that. At any rate, more species means a more fragile ecology which is more susceptible to our (humanities) evil machinations.
I have long claimed, based on no data whatsoever, that the environment, as a totality, is robust, not fragile. It’s main characteristic, like everything else, is change. Organisms respond to stimulus (stress) and either evolve or die. Certainly things can happen that are detrimental, and I understand the idea that small changes can snowball into large effects. So do you. And that’s my point—I suspect environmentalists are losing the forest for studying the trees. There is too much specificity, too much specialization. No one is becoming a generalist, other than Bill Bryson maybe, and far too many good researchers are willing to depend on the dreaded computer model to assist them in formulating their theories. Science is trying to understand the inter-relationships of the species found in a given ecology, and then uncover the secrets of the relationships between ecologies. This is a wonderful—if daunting—goal. But with the hubris only science seems to engender, (okay, and religion) they consistently believe they are five minutes from figuring it all out. I’ve lost count of how many times a famous scientist has publically stated that we have discovered all there is to know. The last one said it in this new century.
Ehrlich depends almost entirely on models and statistical data, refusing to look at the common-sense, day-to-day evidence around him. I.e., we’re not dead. We haven’t bred ourselves into extinction. We haven’t gone cannibal, like over-crowded mice do. We haven’t run out of resources, or water, or air, or land. In fact we are improving all of those, slowly, fitfully sometimes, but overall things are getting better. Paul’s books won’t sell if his predictions don’t happen. And despite none of them ever coming true, he continues to wear blinders and predict imminent doom. I wonder, with a lingering sense of humor tinged with consternation, who listens to this guy? To quote God in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, “It’s like those miserable psalms . . . they’re so depressing.”
Saturday, February 7, 2009
IGM Fairness Doctrine
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Special adjunct-liaison-senior assistant to Crypto-Editorial Factions of the Conservative Think-Tank, “Founders Party”.
Re: The Fairness Doctrine
I’m sure we are all familiar with the “Fairness Doctrine”, a policy of the FCC introduced in 1949. (The year I was born, not coincidently). As originally conceived, the Doctrine was set up to require broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing “controversial matters of public interest” and to “airing contrasting views regarding those matters”. Without going into hours of mind-numbing details only Mr. Isle (or my son) could appreciate, suffice it to say that the Doctrine has enjoyed various levels of interest, interpretation, and enforcement over the years. There have been a few lawsuits, most of them silly, citing the doctrine, but by and large, the FCC has ignored its own policy because it was voluntarily followed by most broadcasters, without the need for rigorous enforcement. On the other hand, the courts have warned on several occasions, that if the Doctrine ever showed signs of limiting or stifling free speech, they would not hesitate to do away with it.
The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered.
The Doctrine carried less and less relevance over the years, as technology changed and other sources of information and opinions came on-line. (The internet, bloggers, non-traditional news agencies such as Canada’s “Naked News”, etc.)
Eventually, it was revoked in increments, and finally altogether, by the Reagan Administration. This revocation wasn’t even a blip on the political radar at the time, but recently, the Fairness Doctrine is rearing it’s outdated head again as a sorely-needed leveling agent championed by several prominent Democrats, of a, shall we say ‘liberal’ bent?
The recent upsurge in interest by such stalwarts of liberty as Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Jeff Bingham (Dem, NM), Richard Durbin (Dem, Il), and Senator Debbie Stabenow (Dem. MI) bears an interesting resemblance to Joe McCarthy of the infamous “Red-Baiting” hearings. The transparent nature of this call for a renewed Doctrine is clearly designed to silence or at least weaken, the very popular and successful wave of conservative talk-shows across the nation. It should be mentioned that, in comparison to the top five or six radio talk shows whose formats are geared toward political and cultural topics, there are no successful shows with liberal content. None. This is not to say that people aren’t trying. Air America is the liberal showcase network, starring, among others, the fearless Al Franken, author of such best sellers as Rush Limbaugh is a Big Idiot and other observations, and Lies and the Lying Liars who tell Them: A Fair and Balanced look at the Right. Granted, Al has a flair for book titles, and is a great comic writer, and skit actor. He made a name for himself on SNL, where he was able to take advantage of his particular vocal tone and inflection, which in a comedy skit was funny, but as a radio talk-show host and political candidate is like having to listen to a thousand fingernails being pulled mercilessly down an ancient blackboard for hours at a time. I mean, have you listened to this guy? He should have been recruited as an interrogator at Gitmo. Except that would have constituted torture.
George Soros has injected millions of dollars into Air America, but not even he could save it. No one listened. There are lots of liberal talk shows out there, if you have a radio powerful enough to pull them in, but they are hard to find otherwise. Why do you suppose that is?
As some of you probably know, radio shows, even talk-shows, are designed and aired as profit-making enterprises. They sell time and commercials to businesses, who then advertise on the show, paying large amounts of money for the privilege. Naturally, these private-sector, blood-sucking profit-hungry outfits like to advertise on shows with large audiences. The more people listening, the more likely a few of them are to buy soap, as it were. The liberal shows are having a hard time selling soap. The conservative shows are selling so much soap the entire country is floating away on right-wing bubbles.
And this is why the Democrats are crying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Not because they are interested in fairness, or equality, or equal time for all viewpoints (which the fairness doctrine was never intended to address), but because they are angry that the people of this country are so ignorant they would rather listen to Rush and Sean and Glenn and Laura, and Tammy and Mike and the Savage Nation than they would Al Franken or any other liberal—even one who sounds like an actual human being. How dare they! (We).
The new policy would require equal time for opposing viewpoints, which , as mentioned previously, the original Doctrine was never intended to do. It is a straight-forward attempt to stifle the political right, and nothing more. Which is fine, if that’s your thing. What it would do in practice however, is destroy the talk-show format and drive it off the air. You can’t force people to listen to opposing viewpoints, even if you make it available . . . even if you make it mandatory. Advertisers will not pay for shows that have no audience. Air America (Al Franken) has been subsidized from the moment of its inception because they could not generate an income stream the traditional way. And still can’t. It’s kind of like a private-sector experiment in Public Radio, which by the way, doesn’t exist. (I mean Public Radio as a concept. Call me, I’ll explain.) I like Public Radio. Especially Car Talk. And All Things Considered and Market Talk and Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me. But I don’t give them any money because I don’t believe in subsidizing things that should be able to generate their own income.
I digress. The reason Rush Limbaugh is number one and makes millions of dollars a year, is the same reason Jerry Springer was successful—because people watched (listen). The format is not the same, and the content is not even similar, but the bottom line is—money. People like his show, they listen to it. If the government insists on going through the sham of “equal time” and force Rush or anyone else to devote half their air-time to liberal pundits who, famously, have no sense of humor and don’t get irony, then one of two things will happen. One, Rush (or Glenn or Sean) will simply close down the show and retire, which is what this entire shell-game is about, or Two, they will ignore the mandate, keep the format which works and brings in incredible profits, and let the whiners take their case to the courts where such suits are likely to fail because of Second Amendment considerations. Personally, I’m betting they will force the issue and ignore any such policy. No one has to listen to a show they don’t like. It isn’t Rush’s fault that liberals can’t stay on the air with their ever-so-precious message. And it isn’t about truth or facts or anything like that. Besides, how would such a policy deal with bloggers and similar internet sites? Is the Democratic Congress going to monitor every one of the ten-gazillion bloggers and demand equal time? What about talk-shows that don’t offer political content? How will they police people like Art Bell, and George Noory, who talk[ed] about anything, from UFO’s to ghosts, to Kirlian photography to Atlantis? What about Gordene Mackenzie and Nancy Nangeroni, who have the only radio show in America devoted solely to transsexual and transgender issues? How is the left going to respond to the demand for equal time for the religious right on that show?
This new iteration of the Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than a gag being placed over the mouths of a few people by other people who don’t like what they’re saying and especially don’t like how many people are listening. It’s a bad idea whose time is long gone. If the liberals are serious about the second amendment (as they very publically claim to be) they will find an effective way to get their own message out, not try to silence the other guys.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Special adjunct-liaison-senior assistant to Crypto-Editorial Factions of the Conservative Think-Tank, “Founders Party”.
Re: The Fairness Doctrine
I’m sure we are all familiar with the “Fairness Doctrine”, a policy of the FCC introduced in 1949. (The year I was born, not coincidently). As originally conceived, the Doctrine was set up to require broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing “controversial matters of public interest” and to “airing contrasting views regarding those matters”. Without going into hours of mind-numbing details only Mr. Isle (or my son) could appreciate, suffice it to say that the Doctrine has enjoyed various levels of interest, interpretation, and enforcement over the years. There have been a few lawsuits, most of them silly, citing the doctrine, but by and large, the FCC has ignored its own policy because it was voluntarily followed by most broadcasters, without the need for rigorous enforcement. On the other hand, the courts have warned on several occasions, that if the Doctrine ever showed signs of limiting or stifling free speech, they would not hesitate to do away with it.
The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered.
The Doctrine carried less and less relevance over the years, as technology changed and other sources of information and opinions came on-line. (The internet, bloggers, non-traditional news agencies such as Canada’s “Naked News”, etc.)
Eventually, it was revoked in increments, and finally altogether, by the Reagan Administration. This revocation wasn’t even a blip on the political radar at the time, but recently, the Fairness Doctrine is rearing it’s outdated head again as a sorely-needed leveling agent championed by several prominent Democrats, of a, shall we say ‘liberal’ bent?
The recent upsurge in interest by such stalwarts of liberty as Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Jeff Bingham (Dem, NM), Richard Durbin (Dem, Il), and Senator Debbie Stabenow (Dem. MI) bears an interesting resemblance to Joe McCarthy of the infamous “Red-Baiting” hearings. The transparent nature of this call for a renewed Doctrine is clearly designed to silence or at least weaken, the very popular and successful wave of conservative talk-shows across the nation. It should be mentioned that, in comparison to the top five or six radio talk shows whose formats are geared toward political and cultural topics, there are no successful shows with liberal content. None. This is not to say that people aren’t trying. Air America is the liberal showcase network, starring, among others, the fearless Al Franken, author of such best sellers as Rush Limbaugh is a Big Idiot and other observations, and Lies and the Lying Liars who tell Them: A Fair and Balanced look at the Right. Granted, Al has a flair for book titles, and is a great comic writer, and skit actor. He made a name for himself on SNL, where he was able to take advantage of his particular vocal tone and inflection, which in a comedy skit was funny, but as a radio talk-show host and political candidate is like having to listen to a thousand fingernails being pulled mercilessly down an ancient blackboard for hours at a time. I mean, have you listened to this guy? He should have been recruited as an interrogator at Gitmo. Except that would have constituted torture.
George Soros has injected millions of dollars into Air America, but not even he could save it. No one listened. There are lots of liberal talk shows out there, if you have a radio powerful enough to pull them in, but they are hard to find otherwise. Why do you suppose that is?
As some of you probably know, radio shows, even talk-shows, are designed and aired as profit-making enterprises. They sell time and commercials to businesses, who then advertise on the show, paying large amounts of money for the privilege. Naturally, these private-sector, blood-sucking profit-hungry outfits like to advertise on shows with large audiences. The more people listening, the more likely a few of them are to buy soap, as it were. The liberal shows are having a hard time selling soap. The conservative shows are selling so much soap the entire country is floating away on right-wing bubbles.
And this is why the Democrats are crying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Not because they are interested in fairness, or equality, or equal time for all viewpoints (which the fairness doctrine was never intended to address), but because they are angry that the people of this country are so ignorant they would rather listen to Rush and Sean and Glenn and Laura, and Tammy and Mike and the Savage Nation than they would Al Franken or any other liberal—even one who sounds like an actual human being. How dare they! (We).
The new policy would require equal time for opposing viewpoints, which , as mentioned previously, the original Doctrine was never intended to do. It is a straight-forward attempt to stifle the political right, and nothing more. Which is fine, if that’s your thing. What it would do in practice however, is destroy the talk-show format and drive it off the air. You can’t force people to listen to opposing viewpoints, even if you make it available . . . even if you make it mandatory. Advertisers will not pay for shows that have no audience. Air America (Al Franken) has been subsidized from the moment of its inception because they could not generate an income stream the traditional way. And still can’t. It’s kind of like a private-sector experiment in Public Radio, which by the way, doesn’t exist. (I mean Public Radio as a concept. Call me, I’ll explain.) I like Public Radio. Especially Car Talk. And All Things Considered and Market Talk and Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me. But I don’t give them any money because I don’t believe in subsidizing things that should be able to generate their own income.
I digress. The reason Rush Limbaugh is number one and makes millions of dollars a year, is the same reason Jerry Springer was successful—because people watched (listen). The format is not the same, and the content is not even similar, but the bottom line is—money. People like his show, they listen to it. If the government insists on going through the sham of “equal time” and force Rush or anyone else to devote half their air-time to liberal pundits who, famously, have no sense of humor and don’t get irony, then one of two things will happen. One, Rush (or Glenn or Sean) will simply close down the show and retire, which is what this entire shell-game is about, or Two, they will ignore the mandate, keep the format which works and brings in incredible profits, and let the whiners take their case to the courts where such suits are likely to fail because of Second Amendment considerations. Personally, I’m betting they will force the issue and ignore any such policy. No one has to listen to a show they don’t like. It isn’t Rush’s fault that liberals can’t stay on the air with their ever-so-precious message. And it isn’t about truth or facts or anything like that. Besides, how would such a policy deal with bloggers and similar internet sites? Is the Democratic Congress going to monitor every one of the ten-gazillion bloggers and demand equal time? What about talk-shows that don’t offer political content? How will they police people like Art Bell, and George Noory, who talk[ed] about anything, from UFO’s to ghosts, to Kirlian photography to Atlantis? What about Gordene Mackenzie and Nancy Nangeroni, who have the only radio show in America devoted solely to transsexual and transgender issues? How is the left going to respond to the demand for equal time for the religious right on that show?
This new iteration of the Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than a gag being placed over the mouths of a few people by other people who don’t like what they’re saying and especially don’t like how many people are listening. It’s a bad idea whose time is long gone. If the liberals are serious about the second amendment (as they very publically claim to be) they will find an effective way to get their own message out, not try to silence the other guys.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
IGM Freedom Vs. Security
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Special Agent
Re: Privacy vs. security
Several states, with Oregon in the lead (no surprise there) are considering requiring the installation of GPS technology in all vehicles registered in the state. They want to track the mileage (not to mention destinations) of the vehicles in order to tax the drivers, based on miles traveled. It seems the tax revenue is down because people are driving less and purchasing cars that get better mileage, which lowers the tax collected on fuel as well. Should be a good thing, right? But not to tax-and-spend liberals. As a reward for their subjects—I mean citizens—doing all the right things, they want to add another tax. I confess, I’m not surprised. But there is an ancillary problem I find even more unsettling. Along with knowing each and every mile your car accrues, someone, somewhere will have the ability to know, and tell someone else, everywhere you go— if you live in Oregon, or one of the other states thinking about initiating the program. But c’mon, how likely is it that once a few sign on, every other state will say, “hey, good idea!”?
I will assume we all know about, or have, OnStar®, the mega-cool technology offered by GM. It knows where you are (if you’re in your car) and if you have a wreck—and will call you to see if you need help. It will tell you where the car is if you misplace it. It will unlock your car for you if you leave the keys in it.
But it will also turn the engine off and disable the ignition. Did you know that? Who would do that? Not GM. Think of the legal implications, not to mention trust issues. But the government would, for any number of reasons. And they could get a court order to force GM (or anyone else with the technology) to do pretty much anything.
Let’s play a game, shall we? Can anyone think of a situation where they might do that? Suspicion of drugs, or other crimes? What if you fit a Perps description? What if people were fleeing an area because of some kind of disaster, or better yet, impending or imagined disaster, like Godzilla attacking Newark, and the government didn’t want everybody leaving and clogging the roads so they remotely shut off every engine on the road (because they can identify every vehicle and where it is) even though you are on your way to visit your dying father who is in Hospice? Ha! Not so cute now, huh?
Or someone decides, based on an algorithm in some computer deep in the bowels of Central Traffic Control, that too many people are heading for Washington DC to do touristy things, and Senator Harry “Whorehouse” Reid doesn’t want to smell their ripe, unwashed selves, and they find themselves on the side of the road trying to talk to the car’s computer which is telling them, “hey, talk to Dingy Harry, we didn’t do it!”
It’s good to feel secure. I want my wife to have OnStar for all kinds of reasons (but she isn’t buying the argument that we need a Hummer 2 to get it). We have grandkids. What about car-jackings? Locked out, ran out of gas, leak in the radiator, two-year old manages to break his arm while securely strapped into his five-point car-seat—hey, it could happen; obviously you haven’t met Grahson Ender Leavitt.
But there is a line we all have to walk, with freedom on one side and security on the other. It is impossible to have all of both, or even most of both. It’s like the philosophical equivalent of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which, as you know, says with mathematical certainty, that the more we know about the location of an electron, the less we can know about its spin. The more security we demand, the less freedom we possess, and vice-versa. Quite the conundrum, eh?
I suggest you all run out and read The Humanoids, by Jack Williamson. It’s an old sci-fi novel which is probably out of print, but you can find it. This very dilemma we’re talking about is the crux of the novel. What do we choose? What is most important to us? What is the inevitable conclusion of perfect security?
In all cases, the less government intrusion into our lives, the better. Read the founding fathers. This is the one and only thing they all agreed on. Even the ones who wanted a strong central government.
If your state starts making noise about taxing the miles you drive by putting GPS in your vehicle, run, do not walk, to the Legislature and start cracking heads together . . . figuratively, obviously.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Special Agent
Re: Privacy vs. security
Several states, with Oregon in the lead (no surprise there) are considering requiring the installation of GPS technology in all vehicles registered in the state. They want to track the mileage (not to mention destinations) of the vehicles in order to tax the drivers, based on miles traveled. It seems the tax revenue is down because people are driving less and purchasing cars that get better mileage, which lowers the tax collected on fuel as well. Should be a good thing, right? But not to tax-and-spend liberals. As a reward for their subjects—I mean citizens—doing all the right things, they want to add another tax. I confess, I’m not surprised. But there is an ancillary problem I find even more unsettling. Along with knowing each and every mile your car accrues, someone, somewhere will have the ability to know, and tell someone else, everywhere you go— if you live in Oregon, or one of the other states thinking about initiating the program. But c’mon, how likely is it that once a few sign on, every other state will say, “hey, good idea!”?
I will assume we all know about, or have, OnStar®, the mega-cool technology offered by GM. It knows where you are (if you’re in your car) and if you have a wreck—and will call you to see if you need help. It will tell you where the car is if you misplace it. It will unlock your car for you if you leave the keys in it.
But it will also turn the engine off and disable the ignition. Did you know that? Who would do that? Not GM. Think of the legal implications, not to mention trust issues. But the government would, for any number of reasons. And they could get a court order to force GM (or anyone else with the technology) to do pretty much anything.
Let’s play a game, shall we? Can anyone think of a situation where they might do that? Suspicion of drugs, or other crimes? What if you fit a Perps description? What if people were fleeing an area because of some kind of disaster, or better yet, impending or imagined disaster, like Godzilla attacking Newark, and the government didn’t want everybody leaving and clogging the roads so they remotely shut off every engine on the road (because they can identify every vehicle and where it is) even though you are on your way to visit your dying father who is in Hospice? Ha! Not so cute now, huh?
Or someone decides, based on an algorithm in some computer deep in the bowels of Central Traffic Control, that too many people are heading for Washington DC to do touristy things, and Senator Harry “Whorehouse” Reid doesn’t want to smell their ripe, unwashed selves, and they find themselves on the side of the road trying to talk to the car’s computer which is telling them, “hey, talk to Dingy Harry, we didn’t do it!”
It’s good to feel secure. I want my wife to have OnStar for all kinds of reasons (but she isn’t buying the argument that we need a Hummer 2 to get it). We have grandkids. What about car-jackings? Locked out, ran out of gas, leak in the radiator, two-year old manages to break his arm while securely strapped into his five-point car-seat—hey, it could happen; obviously you haven’t met Grahson Ender Leavitt.
But there is a line we all have to walk, with freedom on one side and security on the other. It is impossible to have all of both, or even most of both. It’s like the philosophical equivalent of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which, as you know, says with mathematical certainty, that the more we know about the location of an electron, the less we can know about its spin. The more security we demand, the less freedom we possess, and vice-versa. Quite the conundrum, eh?
I suggest you all run out and read The Humanoids, by Jack Williamson. It’s an old sci-fi novel which is probably out of print, but you can find it. This very dilemma we’re talking about is the crux of the novel. What do we choose? What is most important to us? What is the inevitable conclusion of perfect security?
In all cases, the less government intrusion into our lives, the better. Read the founding fathers. This is the one and only thing they all agreed on. Even the ones who wanted a strong central government.
If your state starts making noise about taxing the miles you drive by putting GPS in your vehicle, run, do not walk, to the Legislature and start cracking heads together . . . figuratively, obviously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)