20 December 2011

The three factions of the Republican Party today

I'm using my prior break-out of the factions within the Republican Party from back in 2008 to look at where things stand today with the candidates in the field.  I will be doing some re-posting of material from that and not going into the over-view of them within the current atmosphere of the pre-election cycle.

As they have broken out these three groups stand out, and they do have sub-groups within them but gain factional affiliation by their positions as sub-groups.

I)  First is the SecCons or Security Conservatives.  The strong position of the US to wage war in her defense was a vital concern during the Cold War and this faction was in ascendance then.  By putting military concerns first they were able to back a strong and final build-up against the USSR that covered decades and put the Soviet system which was always on the ropes down and out for the count.  These were the backers that won the equivalent of a World War without bringing on true nuclear conflict.  Their problems are in the realms of Fiscal, Social and Domestic policy outside of the military realm and with the draw-down from Iraq, the ongoing relatively low-level conflict against the Talibe in AFPAK and helping out a few other Nations in COIN (Philippines, Colombia, Kenya, Yemen) they are losing a strong position within the Republican Party.  While some of the candidates will support a continued level of military affairs, this faction has no backer who is first and foremost for the military.  Without the Soviets and with China now having its economy implode in bad debt, the lower threat of terrorism going nuclear is not one that pushes people to actively support the old style military structure.  The military, for its part, understands this and is adapting to the modern world, but it is a world with a lower need for capital intensive defense systems and without a large economic need the SecCons are being marginalized.

Part of the marginalization is the comfort to social moderates and liberals, plus a willingness to spend heaven and earth for the latest equipment.  Our times are no longer ones that allow for such extravagance and socially the pendulum that started swinging in the 1890's with Progressivism has, apparently, reached as far as it can go on the other end of the cycle.

II)  Second are the FiCons or Fiscal Conservatives.  This part of the Republican Party has been part and parcel of the 'Rockefeller Republican' brand for decades.  It is this section of the party that is now breaking up due to the Tea Party movement that hadn't even been thought of in 2008.  Today there are two branches within the FiCons and they are currently the ones on the internal battle-lines for the party, itself.  Thus I will go into a bit of detail here.

1) Rockefeller Republicans - These are the 'Establishment Republicans', the guys with the money and many of the reigns via the control of the party leadership and their influence has withstood the Reagan Revolution with its SoCon underpinnings.  These are generally seen as the Big Business supporters for earmarks, subsidies, tax breaks and so on via budgetary work in DC.  It is this segment that overwhelming benefits from the K Street lobbyists who use their outside money and revolving door connections to get inside influence on the federal budget.  This is mirrored in the Democratic Party, to be sure, but in the Republican Party when anyone spoke of 'fiscal conservative' between 1950 and 1980, it was this cohort that was being referenced.  Do note that they are FOR tax breaks but not FOR cutting the size of government, therefore any short-term gain in political advantage from tax breaks is off-set by further erosion of personal liberty of the individual due to larger and more officious government.  While it was this faction that called out the problem of SSA and M&Ms, they are also the ones most notable for being unable or unwilling to get these programs reduced or on a road to being abolished as fiscally unsound.  At least two of the current candidates come from this faction (Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich) or are affiliated with it via their business and political outlooks, and while they are (apparently) at odds with each other on the campaign trail, they are both unwilling to do any wholesale revision of the US government.  Abolishing programs still leaves the apparatus to regenerate them in place, thus removing 'welfare' has allowed for other programs to flourish where there was once that single program and done at higher cost and less accountability.  No one who believes that individual liberty is the basis for society, the Nation, government and the State would ever espouse 'mandates' for anything upon individuals in the name of fiscal conservatism.

2) Tea Party FiCons - The largest faction of the Tea Party is in this sub-group within the FiCons.  Unlike the older cohort, this cohort sees small business and smaller government as the course to go for fiscal conservatism.  The argument that government is doing things it was never designed nor meant to do and not doing those things well or efficiently for the citizenry and, in fact, is infringing on individual fiscal concerns is one that is a 'Fusion' concept, of which I will talk more about later.  Unlike the RR-FiCons, the TP-FiCons are building a fundamental ECONOMIC case for the power of personal liberty to guide the economy that is not a RR-FiCon one.  Where the RR-FiCons are inherently Hamiltonian or Progressive in their outlook, the TP-FiCons are inherently Jacksonian and Traditionalist in their positions.  The inherent nature of an economy being made up of individual transactions at the lowest level seeking the most efficient means to enable such transactions and then allowing for a larger emergent phenomena  to take root based on those transactions is one that is immediately identifiable to TP-FiCons: it is not just Hayek but the nature of human liberty and its source that argues for this and argues against the intermediation of government in any meaningful positive (that is to say in the realm of positive liberty) way and only that it needs to exercise its negative powers granted by the people to safeguard the economy from aberrant actors who will not play by the set of rules for economic exchanges.  Government cannot make such low level decisions without huge negative impact on the overall economy and, no matter what other 'good' is generated, the lost value of human liberty to fully flourish is something that impoverishes rich and poor alike and makes it harder for the poor to advance.  This sub-group is aiming to remove the Establishment RR-FiCon death grip on the party via campaign donations: members directly donate to individuals running for office, not to the party.  This has only been going on, in a real sense, for less than 2 years and due to the economic times we are in and the failure of government to adapt to them (indeed it continues being the problem to the Nation, economically) the more the TP-FiCons will shift the RR-FiCons out of control of the party funds and the party system.

III) Social Conservatives -  In the prior work I broke this category up into the Christian Conservatives and the Traditionalist Conservatives, each with their own outlook on society and the role of government and the church in people's lives.  While not at logger-heads, they have not always marched to the same tune and it was only for a few short years under Ronald Reagan that both sub-groups had time together in-step and in-formation.  Today these two sub-groups are now getting a new blend via a third group made up of parts of each of them and the TP-FiCons: the Fusionists.

1) Christian Conservatives - Here the prior break-out of religious observation and moral law guidance that was the bastion of the Christian Conservatives is now finding that it can make an economic case, as well, which is uncharted waters for many Christian Conservatives.  Moral Law guidance is, itself, only secondarily economic and primarily about the duty of man to god and society to make both moral so as to get good government.  Thus, until the last 2-3 years, the idea that government could be used to promote a moral 'good' was an idea taken up by some candidates (Mike Huckabee in 2008, Newt Gingrich in this go around).  Yet this is fundamentally against moral teachings as government is the last, least and worst place to receive any moral teachings.  Anything that gets between you and God should be disdained, and yet the Progressive Era had slowly shifted Christian Conservative SoCons into this idea that government is the last refuge for the poor and needy to go... not to the actual people who make up the Nation as caring for the poor and needy is a directive to individuals, not to States nor Nations.  The idea that government can tell you when you can work, how long you can work, if you are worthy of 'retirement' benefits, and on and on have been a slow and steady erosion of the moral fiber of the Nation by assaulting the moral fiber of individuals inside and, increasingly, outside the realm of religiously observant Americans.  The moral line in the sand against abortion was the first sign that this erosion had gone too far, but that Christian Conservatives could only do this small portion of the work of protecting society and could not grasp the larger threat to the entire society on a moral basis that government was pushing.  The awakening of Christian Conservatives to the much, much deeper teaching of our rights being vested in us took over three decades to finally filter into this sub-group of SoCons, and the re-identification of not just Life but Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness being prime movers granted by God is now spreading amongst the Christian Conservative SoCons who used to just stick to their faction knitting but now find a way to express a much deeper moral and religious belief for society via economics.  Being conservative it is a slow to move group, but once in motion little will stop it, and if the line in the sand is but a starting line for repeal of the Progressive Era, then it will be the individual who couple God, Faith, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as a continuous whole that will be the major part of the Fusionist sub-group.

2) Traditional Conservatives - These are the followers of Federalism, a society that treats its fellow citizens with respect, the builders of hearth and home (not just those who purchase one) and while religious to a large extent, it is the religion of conviction at home by the fireside with one's children and the role of man to build a good society for not just himself but for his fellow man, as well, as a great good and duty of man.  While this is the quietest faction of the SoCons they have been a part of the party since Lincoln, and have always understood respecting government but questioning its extent and growth.  For Traditionalists there is always an economic point to be made and it is centered on the family check book and how one spends money for oneself.  These are the individuals who uphold thrift, of neither a borrow nor lender be, paying back one's debts not just promptly but ending them as soon as possible, and for supporting the notion that a man cannot be free if he is in debt to any other man or institution via his finances.  This sub-group may be the first to fully Fuse with the TP FiCons as there are direct parallels (indeed very deep parallels) between household accounting and government accounting, and that if you owe someone then you are in their power due to your debt.  The case that man who is in debt is living on borrowed time and that his works are prone to failure and collapse (no matter if they last) is one that is understood deeply within the Traditionalist Community.   It is this community that is closest to the old Democratic Jacsksonian community (that left the Democrats in the late 1960's) and the amount of cross-over between the old trail blazers (Jacksonians) and the old first settlers (Traditionalists) have always made them able to get along on a social level.

IV) Fusionist Conservatives - Fiscal Conservatism has deep roots in not only societal good but the teachings from the Judeo-Christian heritage about duty to God and one's fellow man.  Unlike libertarians the Fusionists recognize that not all of man's liberties and rights are positive, as Nature gives us both equally (although not in equal amounts), so that the necessity of society to generate organs to watch over and stop the exercise of negative liberties and rights within society requires government.  Man is not wholly good nor evil, but has positive and negative rights and liberties which we can bias via moral teachings to curb the negative rights and liberties and enshrine the positive ones worthy of protection.  Government is to recognize that these positive liberties and rights are to be protected, not infringed upon, and the case for this comes not from legal proceedings but from moral teachings, upholding society, and holding government accountable for the negative powers we grant it to safeguard society and the individual.  This is a deeply libertarian approach, yes, but it is not made by modern libertarian channels but through ones of religious observance, religious teachings and understanding man's duty to God and his fellow man.  Fusionist Conservatism is, at once, deeply conservative and extremely expansive in this day and age as it is the naturally recognized antidote to tyrannical or despotic government.  When Barack Obama chided the people of Pennsylvania as grasping on to their guns, god and bible, he was mocking the very basis of what is the enemy of Progressivism and Socialism in all its forms.  These three, together, give the basis for personal liberty (guns), the originator of our liberty (God) and the written moral teachings of God (the Holy Bible) all in one swoop.  Throw in Gold and you have the result of protected personal liberty able to prosper with obedience to God and upholding moral teachings.  Gold is a result of these things, not a cause of them, and it is garnered through liberty ONLY.  Unwittingly Barack Obama named the Fusionist Awakening in these concepts and knows not the history of a debauched, debased and decadent society that adheres as leeches to government is dissolved by a devout people willing to undergo martyrdom for eternal salvation.  One laughs at these things at their peril, and in speaking of them the seeds that were already planted over decades were given final fertilizer and water to grow again.

At the rate of change for the Republican Party and Conservatism as a whole, the next decade is one that will be fraught with danger and great promise.

Government will need to climb down from its Himalayan Mountain Range of debt.  It can be tossed off, with great social turmoil, or it can climb down by jettisoning the infringement of positive liberties and rights in the way of retirement, medical aid and the million and one other things done in the name of 'good' from environment to energy to agriculture to 'the humanities' to education, either via slow phase-out or wholesale cut-off.  Government so large, so officious and, at the same time, so incompetent creates a Law of Rules in which any person is probably in violation of some rule or regulation at any given moment in the day.  The Rule of Law is simple and easy to understand laws that are clearly defined and enforced without favor nor fervor, while the Law of Rules is all about favoritism and payoffs.  To do this requires and understanding of our fellow citizens that we, as man, have been living over the margin and near the edge of the abyss waiting for one ill moment to topple us into despotism or worse.  To get back from that edge the argument that our personal liberties, rights and freedom are our own salvation in this life and the next, and that passing them off to others (which is so very easy) means that we, as individuals, become cold and cruel to our fellow man because we refuse to recognize his circumstances and help him out of them.  Government cannot do that, indeed it MUST NOT do that as that is not its place as a part of society.  It is just an organ of society, and one that processes the identified problems and waste material and gets rid of them... which is not the brain, in case this has been missed.  No better argument for chasing appetites to constipation of debt can be rendered than is shown by our current government which has been eating so much in the way of the positive it can no longer accomplish its duties to us, as citizens, via its negative powers and responsibilities.

This is a hard argument to make as the Deadly Sin of Sloth is one that guides this age as no other.  Yet the problems of our fellow man are not for someone else to attend to, but for us, as individuals, to ameliorate.  One cannot sit back and let others take care of things, because becoming glued to one's sofa soon means that you can no longer remember how to move from it and become the very sort of problem you were unwilling to deal with in the first place.  The heart of charity is not taxation, which is the negative liberty of theft who's power we lend for government in a limited area of commerce, but in the heart of man who is willing to give time, effort, though, a helping hand and last and least is cash to his fellow man to create a better society.  To get a more cohesive society (albeit with stark and fun differences for that is the essence of liberty on the positive side) we cannot entrust government as a caretaker or the builder of a safety net as it is not only prone to corruption but inefficient and will seek to grant favor to the few via funds that are not available, so as to expand power over the many.  Government granted positive outlook is tyrannical at its core because it can couple the whip with the reward and break man to it.  To stop that require accountability on the fiscal side, first, so as to get rid of the unnecessary appendages of government that threaten liberty in the first place.  When there is no safety net, no tax breaks, no subsidies, we are then left to our own devices to find a good way to live without the costly help of tyranny.

The current field of candidates reflects those trying to grasp on to the old, and dying, those trying to muddle through and a few trying to chart a path to a better future with smaller government and enhanced liberty for man.

Four years will not alter the fundamentals changing America.  We may crash off the mountains into debt, but that is not oblivion as we then get to the end state in a few days, and with next to no government, to boot.

The trends cannot be changed.

What can be altered is the outlook of individual to embrace what is coming and help soften it and explain it, so that we can get to a better place as a society and a nation.

If you dare to, that is.

15 December 2011

The End in Iraq

My thanks to the men and women who have served our Nation in Iraq.

I send my deepest condolences and sympathies to the families and friends of the fallen.

I thank you all deeply for your sacrifice for our republic.

Victory has been hard won, now may others seek to win the peace.

08 December 2011

A quick range report

Over the holiday I got a chance to get to the range with my lady, my sister-in-law and her boyfriend, and it was packed on that Saturday morning!  We were able to snag a couple of lanes for the four of us and put some of our recent acquisitions through their paces, which was all to the good.  Of course not everything worked flawlessly as these things go...

First the Good:

My sister-in-law had picked up a Walther P22 for getting used to handguns and it had on the optional laser pointer.  I did without the pointer and used the sights and did a fairly decent job of walking up a magazine, less one, of shots an inch and half above each other in a neat line as I got used to the sights.  It is a comfortable fit for my hand and the recoil is very easy to manage.  A good pick-up for her to get used to pistols and look for a self-defense gun next.

Her boyfriend had picked up a Ruger P95 (if memory serves) which is a good and serviceable 9mm.  Accurate and relatively user friendly.

They had brought my niece's DE 50AE in Titanium Nitride which fired very well, save for the fact that someone had removed the iron sights and forgot to put on the red dot sight.  It wasn't exactly 'firing blind' but without a sight picture I did put shots all over the place on the paper.  I actually didn't notice the sound of it firing using sound dampening earmuffs, but everyone else did from what I was told.  One casing bounced off the lane partition and hit me on the nose, leaving a smudge.  It was a great gun to shoot and since I picked it up for about $1K as a gift for her two years ago, I was glad to get a chance to shoot it.  Next time sights must be on it, though.

I used that after working up through other pistols to my Para-Ordnance 14-45, old style with the Canadian made frame that I got through Buds Gun Shop.

 Range_Report_08DEC2011_ 002

This was just a familiarization session, nothing fancy, left the sights as they were.  I ran through some reloaded ammo and some Precision Cartridge Ammo, which got me reminded of the concept of 'gunsmoke'.  All of it ran through well and the only thing I noticed is that I am habitually pulling shots down and to the left of the sight picture when aiming.

I need more range time, obviously.

Still shifting my aim up and a bit to the right did help out some.

Second the bad:

I have a C&R Browning 1910/22 that I got as part of a rig and while it functions well, when it functions, it has a Failure To Feed problem starting with the top of the stack in a 9 round magazine.  I was using Prvi Partizan 32ACP FMJ going on the adage of using a European made cartridge for a European made gun.  No dice.  If it was just off the top of the stack, I could see it being just a tight bunch of cartridges, but it was also at different points in the stack of multiple magazines.  Plus there were two stove-pipes across 4 loaded magazines and each of those caused a jam for the next cartridge.  I spent time after the first magazine unloading and reloading each to see if it was a spring tension problem.  That changed nothing.

There are two things about the gun that are of interest.  First it wasn't used much before it was put into cosmoline storage in post-war France.  It was a police gun and it was stored properly and only lightly used at the time. Second one magazine had a short spring in it.  And by short, I mean just barely the length of the magazine so it was barely compressed.  That may or may not be telling.  Basically the feed ramp barely had some of the bluing worn off it so this may also be a 'less than 1,000 rounds through the pistol' break-in problem... for a C&R police gun from post-war France.  That fits, actually.

And since I have some American Eagle laying around, plus some other 32ACP, I can do a 7-round load of other ammo and see if something functions smoothly.

The target went walkabout, but I also was pulling down and to the left with the sight picture (what there is of it with this gun).

Third is the Ugly:

It actually looks pretty good on its face -

 Range_Report_08DEC2011_ 001

This is from my Vz.61 Skorpion made of new lower receiver, trigger system, safety, barrel and barrel pin, and bits and pieces off of a kit for the upper, bolt, handle, etc.

The first magazine got a jam on it, right from the top of the stack using the Am. Eagle 32ACP  FMJ ammo. Here is the cartridge in question -

Range_Report_08DEC2011_ 006

I checked spent casings and they all had similar marks on them.  This one flipped up on its nose and jammed the gun.  Mind you this was just one of many cartridges, the rest fed but had similar marks on them after ejecting.

After the 10 round magazine I went to a 20 rounder, and on #19 (and I was just pulling the trigger as fast as possible at that point and the majority of those shots come from that) I got this -

Range_Report_08DEC2011_ 005

Again, flipped on its nose and jammed.

The 17 shots between them went smoothly, no real complaints.

Now the contours of other cartridges may get me different results here, so the next thing to try is other 32ACP rounds.  I have some Winchester Q4255, the aforementioned Prvi Partizan, some Fiocchi, Federal Hydra-Shocks (which have problems in my Seecamp), and Speer Gold Dots (the ammo my Seecamp adores).

A gunsmith did the barrel work on this gun, so it is aligned properly from all I can see and he ran it with Prvi Partizans I gave him, so that is next up on the trial list.  Again, European made ammo for a European made (or parted together) gun.

So there you have it, lots of good guns and only two that need a bit of trial and error work on them.  For the two that had problems, the fact that they are smooth when they get a good feed means that they are probably looking at an ammo type problem rather than a massive mechanical problem.  Overall cartridge profile may mean more to cure these problems than anything done to the hardware can cure.  And since the two with the feeding problems have unused (in the case of the Vz. 61) and little used feed ramps, getting 30-50 boxes of ammo through them might just do the trick.

That's it for now!

28 November 2011

Global Warming – fraud in search of marks

Found at Anthony Watts' site, Wattsupwiththat on 24 NOV 2011, is an interesting link to an email that is part of the Climategate 2.0 FOIA 2011 releases done by Gail Combs.  The one of interest is #4678 on 30 JAN 2001 which Rob Swarts who is at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands (his latest paper about a third of the page down in the 2009 articles section is here) is an email sent to Robert Watson while he was at the World Bank.  As is pointed out it is a strange thing when a scientist is being told to change the summary of his work at behest of a non-science based institution (and, no, it doesn't matter that it is another scientist telling him to do so, as that isn't kosher, either).  With that said it is even more unusual to agree to it (and throughout I will use downloaded source copies, not those reformatted for easier searching and putting in a bit of anti-spam to stop people from being flooded, but the necessity for the address is the organizations the people work for):

date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:15:15 +0100

from: Rob Swart <Rob.SwartATrivm.nl>

subject: Re: Synthesis Report (SYR): Summary for Policymakers

to: RwatsonATworldbank.org

Dear Bob,

Thanks for giving us the opportunity to react to your thinking. It forces us to think more clearly about the main messages. I must admit that I am somewhat confused about the 26 page summary, since this comes very close to (although it is different from) the full-scale document the various teams are currently writing. My view would be that those teams take their own text as the starting point and try to improve/shorten it on the basis of your text. Here, I only respond to your main messages in italics and mainly focus on WG3 issues.

You know, if this were one of those dreaded oil companies doing this to a researcher, I am sure that some Leftist would be up in arms about it. But since it is someone in the cozy Anthropomorphic Global Warming community, I am sure they can get all warm and fuzzy about scientists cozying up to the World Bank. Right?

So how is this scientist reacting to this stuff, beyond suggesting people on his team 'improve' their work along the lines of the paper sent to them from the World Bank? Probably got all huffy, right? I mean, scientific integrity and all that is at stake.


I mean if scientists started taking talking points from non-scientific organizations and were re-wording their findings to better fit that of an outside organization, that would be a pretty nasty thing to have happen.

Beyond that comes the more interesting part in which the scientific becomes the political:

Most points made may be introducing the rest of the SYR, but they do not address the question. I think the chapter should do both. In my view, in addition to your 6 paragraphs, one or more paragraphs could be related to five key aspects of Article 2: (a) dangerous interference, (b) stabilization, (c) natural adaptation, (d) food security, and (e) sustainable economic development. Three of these words (b), (c), (d) are not even mentioned. Two of your paragraphs now do hardly relate to the question (the 4th and 6th) but could be linked (see below).

The first italics could be positively relating to the question rather than negatively; e.g. take the 2nd and 3rd sentence as italics: "Scientific, technical and economic knowledge provides indispensable information needed to arrive at an informed judgement as to what level of anthropogenic interference would be dangerous, taking equity and social considerations into account. However, that judgement is a political, not scientific, one." An initial attempt to address my 1st comment, integrating some of Bob's italics but linking them to Artcile 2 issues: "Article 2 relates dangerous anthropogenic interference to the level and the time-frame of stabilization of concentrations of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, which would be required to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. Although many uncertainties remain, scientific, technical and socio-economic analysis as assessment in IPCC's Third Assessment Report provides information which can be used to arrive at the above mentioned political judgement about what constitutes dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.


Question 2:I would not include a WG3 paragraph, like "The Kyoto Protocol has led to the creation of new market mechanisms"; apart from the question if this statement is very relevant as such, I don't think it is "evidence of the consequence of changes in the Earth's climate since the pre-industrial era."

There is a question that needs to be asked at this point: when was the climate ever stable?

It is a serious question because, geologically speaking, the times when climate regimes are relatively stable coincide with periods of large agglomerations of continental plates into one or two major continents that do not obstruct circumpolar and global oceanic water flow. Those periods of slow plate movement within a large assemblage can give rise to volcanic activity, but the predominant system is stabilized by a single large oceanic expanse that moves without much obstruction around the large continental masses and from pole to pole.

When this does not happen, or when a large continental mass drifts into a polar region, or there are dispersed continents that break up global oceanic flows by creating separated oceans, the planetary climate stability declines (becomes less stable). This latter scenario is the one we currently live in, and through recent history there have been multiple ice age events with large ice sheets covering expanses of the northern hemisphere and, to a lesser extent, the southern hemisphere. Currently we are experiencing warming after a 500 year period known as the Little Ice Age and still shifting through the post-glacial period of the last major Ice Age that ended approximately 10-11,000 years ago. Major post-glacial periods are marked by rapid changes in climate both up and down, trending higher for some thousands of years before hitting an inflection point after which they trend downwards until another Ice Age starts. This current inter-glacial period in no way appears to vary from other, prior, inter-glacial periods in this respect. Rapid climate shifts on the scale of sub-1,000 year periods are the norm for such periods, not the exception.

Thus, the question: what is a 'stable' climate for our current time?

There can be no absolute mile-marker put on that, save for those long periods of slow continental motion after multiple continents assemble into one or two major land masses. These see much warmer temps and climates, as a result, and as the speed of the continents slow they shift downwards on the mantle. As the crust subsides ocean water goes over land and warms in shallow seas, and the ice caps shrink. Then you get a long lasting climate, which continues on often for millions of years.

Now, given that information, and that those periods see at least a 20 degree C higher average global temperature, how can the impact of man be measured on the global climate? Is a percent or two change in carbon dioxide, seen in other inter-glacial periods that experience a major eruption, say, going to change the over-all course of the global climate? Even if it did would the direction of change be towards warming or cooling? Would plant growth increase or decrease? Would there be more cloud formation or less? In fact, a major question of 'what is the overall heat budget of the planet based on what it gains via sunlight, what sunlight is reflected and what is lost via IR and other radiation at night?' actually needs to be answered not in a partial way but in a systematic way examining all aspects of the planet's distance from the sun (which varies over a year and over tens of thousands of years), types of clouds and other aerosols in the atmosphere, heat transfer between air and other surfaces, heat loss from air and other masses, reflected energy that prevents loss... what is the heat budget of planet Earth?

This is a simple question that, as yet, remains unanswered in any meaningful way. Until it can be answered and all the factors that lead to that budget known, there is no way to single out any one factor (beyond sunlight) as a driving force for climate. Yet that is what those pushing AGW wish you to believe, and they push a political agenda for it that is helpfully worded by large scale, unaccountable institutions. You can't get to the political/social questions without first answering the very basic questions that rely not upon just sunlight, wind, and water, but upon a host of factors that have not been completely or even incompletely examined. This is a cart/horse order arrangement problem, because if you don't know what the drivers of the climate actually are in an unstable climactic period, then you can't accurately say which of them is controllable and which of them aren't. Yet such political questions are being pushed without knowing the fundamentals.

In an effort to push such political and economic ends (because there is a profit to be made by changing the investment in energy production sources) one can expect other players to become interested in that effort. Here Anthony Watts takes a look at how to get 'committed environmental activism' as part of the UNFCCC process and I will excerpt a bit from the email 340.txt in question and leave in some of the interesting names and entities this is being sent to:

date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:13:20 -0500

from: "Tom Jacob" <Tom.JacobATUSA.dupont.com>


to: climatepolicyATic.ac.uk. . .hadiATcmu.edu. . .eduschellnhuberATpik-potsdam.de. . .jonathan.pershingATiea.org. . .RKinleyATunfccc.int. . .m.hulmeATuea.ac.uk. . .jaeATpnl.gov. . .kchomitzATworldbank.org. . .dlashofATnrdc.org. . .pachuriATteri.res.in. . .munasingheATworldbank.org. . .


The two weeks were not without significant developments, though. The Hague was a melange of ceremonial formality, tedious negotiation, high-stakes back-room dealing, protests, and a seemingly endless stream of open side-events and closed outside meetings. On the surface, the affair was distinctly lacking in coherence. Beneath that surface, though, there were threads emerging that, woven together, begin to fashion a most intriguing tapestry. Following are a few of the observations that may have important implications as the process moves tentatively forward from last week's session:· Tightening The Scientific Noose· Beyond Environment· Reactionary Protests· Ever-Widening Embrace Of Mechanisms· The "Sinks" Thing· Markets Finding A Way· Keeping The U.S. Honest Comments and disagreement more than welcome...

TIGHTENING THE SCIENTIFIC NOOSE: Amid the pomp and circumstance of the opening of the negotiation, the voice most keenly attended to was that of one of the least-pretentious people on the planet, Bob Watson, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the global scientific effort supporting the work of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. While the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (TAR) has not yet been completed (scheduled for release next year), Watson previewed some of its likely themes by noting that: "The weight of scientific evidence suggests that the observed changes in the Earth's climate are, at least in part, due to human activity." He also concluded that: "If actions are not taken to reduce the projected increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the Earthe climate is projected to change at a rate unprecedented in the last 10,000 years with adverse consequences for society, undermining the very foundation of sustainable development."

It is significant that, while there is still uncertainty in the science and still sniping from the margins, the voices challenging the fundamental premises of the Framework Convention and its Kyoto Protocol (particularly in the US) have diminished in both their number and their pitch in the past several years. More and more, even those that continue to challenge the Protocol as a strategy, acknowledge concern regarding climate change as warranting attention. Similarly, even the countries that seemed most at odds with the sense of the negotiation on many points (Saudi Arabia and some OPEC allies) have not challenged the fundamental legitimacy of the concerns driving the effort.

Here is the science end of the cooption of science: a global 'panel' put together by the UN of selected scientists deciding what is and is not 'settled' science.  This was way back in 2000 and yet it would be the drumbeat heard thereafter.  The method of coordinating the drumbeat between the selected scientists, the UN, NGOs and industry is a meeting in the Hague.

The next point is, as Mr. Watts points out, a vital one, and I'll take it out in full:

REACTIONARY PROTESTS: It is perhaps not coincidental that as economic concerns have begun to rise, both in the increasingly serious consideration to market mechanisms and the emerging dialogue about economic impacts of climate action, we have begun to see an increase in traditional, confrontational environmental protests. Even in Kyoto, demonstrations were small and relatively non-confrontational reminders of the environmental concerns. In The Hague, we saw for the first time organized disruption of the conduct of negotiation and publicly staged confrontations. While organized and deeply committed environmental activism has long been an important part of the UNFCCC process through major groups such as NRDC, EDF/ED, WWF and Greenpeace, they have operated within the structure as constructive participants in the policy-setting process, along with industry. At The Hague, this "inside" role was supplemented by hundreds of young, relatively naïve demonstrators brought in specifically to energize the environmental presence and confront the process. Even some within the ranks of the more established participants -- while disavowing the takeover of the negotiating room -- saw fit to publicly offer Minister Pronk and the UNFCCC Secretariate a veiled threat of "Seattle" if the process failed to deliver.In the context of this resurgence of "environmental fundamentalism" it is also interesting to contrast the dynamics of the final give-and-take between the US and the EU in The Hague. The US has always approached major treaty negotiations such as this from a policy process that brings each of the potentially involved agencies (ministries) together to jointly frame priorities and strategy, with the process in the field managed by the State Department (foreign service) and the White House -- not, typically, by any particular agency "minister" (Carol Browner, head of US EPA, for example, has not represented the US in these sessions). In contrast, EU policy and representation in "environmental" forums such as The Hague is vested more narrowly in the Council of Environment Ministers -- opting to give priority to providing each country an opportunity to participate through their environment minister, but in the processes constraining the range of perspectives such that all the key players are answerable to the similar constituencies. Obviously, there are limits to the implications one can draw from this, but it may be significant that it was one of those Ministers for whom the portfolio is most broadly drawn (Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott) that was central in shaping the initial deal with the US, while those implicated by public accounts in turning down the deal (Voyner, and Trittin in particular) are among those with closest ties to their more activist constituencies.

Here is DuPont looking with favor upon the role of 'activists' of the 'established' sort playing a game of dealing one game with the policy makers (those negotiating) while putting on another face (that of vocal, naïve activists) outside the meeting so as to pressure those doing negotiations.  That allows them to be 'constructive participants' in the negotiating process.  Isn't that lovely?  Leftist, environmentalist organizations playing with governments and large corporations and using young and naïve 'activists' as useful idiots to protest? Makes you wonder how it feels, as a Leftist, to be co-opted for an agenda that you aren't being told about by organizations you support, doesn't it?  All that blather about how tainted oil based research on climate is gets washed away in the beautiful world of transnational global politics in which you, as a 'protestor', get used not just for environmentalism but for agreements between the organizations you support, large industrial outfits and then pressuring governments to help out BOTH.  I'm sure these protestors are just fine with it, though, as their usefulness to the Greater Cause means that they, too, can participate in the corruption of their very own ethics in agreements with companies they would otherwise despise since they are so handy to both the 'activist' organizations and the corporations, BOTH.  Isn't that swell?  I'm so sure that is what they signed up for as 'activists' and 'protestors'.

Mind you, the science still can't point to what a 'stable' climate looks like or what the actual parts of the heat equation are drivers and which are backseat children that make a loud noise, but don't mean very much in the way of direction.  That was true in 2000 and is still lamentably true in 2011.

So far we have:

1) Large, transnational banking institutions (World Bank, IMF) having input into the output of the verbiage of scientific reports.

2) Large, transnational corporations and NGOs utilizing a two-faced system to 'work' within the system on the inside while providing useful idiot protestors on the outside to pressure negotiators to come to an agreement that might satisfy the corporations and NGOs, but not, necessarily, the Nations involved or the useful idiots.  That is how you keep them 'useful': you never satisfy them.

Now going back to the first post by Gail Combs looking at 5003.txt to examine the other people contacting the World Bank, this via an email sent via an Adjunct Faculty member at the Engineering and Public Policy part of CMU:

date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:28:08 -0400

from: Hadi Dowlatabadi <hadiATcmu.edu>

subject: Re: [New] Editorial for Climate Policy, Issue 2.

to: <KchomitzATworldbank.org>, Climate Policy <climatepolicyATic.ac.uk>

Dear Ken,

I agree with your perspective, but why not set a realistic target? The editorial columns at Science, Nature and New Scientist have rarely hidden their subjective perspectives. I think there are shades to this, and Michael can be a shade grayer, but the passion is also important.The dialogue approach allows him to be editor, hold strong opinions, but still be viewed as someone who is willing to listen. This is how Steve Schneider has conducted his reign at Climatic Change and I believe despite his well known personal perspectives he has been able to draw on many in the community to contribute to the dialogue that defines the differences in perspectives permeating this subject.


4/20/01 1:15 PM, KchomitzATworldbank.org at KchomitzATworldbank.org wrote:

>> Dear Michael,

> I really like the solution of presenting view and counterview articles. I

> retain some reservations about your proposed editorial. It seems to me that

> you

> have the difficult problem of wearing two hats: one as the advocate of

> particular policies and viewpoints, and the other as an editor of a journal

> which aspires to be a neutral forum for policy discussion. I appreciate and

> sympathize with the depth and grounding of your personal views. However, as

> editor, it seems to me, you have to bend over backwards to be neutral. The

> editorial uses charged words like 'demonize' and could easily spark the war of

> words you wish to avoid. A strongly worded editorial risks associating the

> journal with a particular viewpoint, and hence reducing the journal's value

> and> reputation as a neutral forum.

> > Maybe this just reflects a parochial American viewpoint of what an editor

> does,> or perhaps the hypersensitivities of someone working at an international

> organization. I'd be interested in others' views.

> > > regards

> Ken

> > > > ___________________

> Kenneth M. Chomitz

> Development Research Group

> World Bank

Yes, here you have a member of the World Bank telling an editor of a peer-reviewed scientific journal that he should be toning down his language so he can appear 'neutral' or at least open to discussion, while actually not stating his true perspective on science and scientific affairs.  Indeed the editorial perspective of some publications is well known and that then goes beyond their perspective and into the various articles, themselves, thus those journals slowly lose readers, over time, as the editorial perspective seeps into the decision-making for articles and who reviews them.  Here the advice is to mask the bias on the public side (that is published editorially) but not one word of retaining that beyond that portion of the journal.  If an editor strongly backs an opinion the rest of the journal tends to get associated with it.  With that said if there are multiple editors, this can be diluted by having multiple viewpoints on the editorial staff and to openly present bias on an article (pro/con) via editorials from different staff members.

Bias is something to be open about so that others can judge if you can set your bias aside to actually do and review scientific work or if your bias is persistent to the point where it slants the even-handed assessment of data and derived results.  It also allows for open criticism of editors so that a journal may select other editors or reviewers if there is input that on certain topics an editor is suspect due to the bias being shown and discussed.  Here we see the two-faced approach being taken not by organizations and protestors, but taken to an editor via a member of an organization that seeks to have the rhetoric toned down but the bias remain.  That is deceitful not just towards those submitting articles (on if they can get an even-handed review process) but to the readers who deserve to know of any inherent bias in the publication, itself.

To 1 and 2 above, we can now add:

3) Large, transnational financial institution seeking to change editorial policy of an editor at a scientific journal with regards to how editorials are written.

I'm sure Leftists are all just warm and fuzzy with that thought!

Who else is on the Transnational financial list?  There is always your favorite and that of the Democratic Party's, Goldman-Sachs.  In 4092.txt (h/t Buffy Minton in the thread at WUWT) we can see what sort of cup rattling goes on behind the scenes with the AGW crowd:

date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:00:38 +0100

from: Trevor Davies <t.d.daviesATuea.ac.uk>

subject: goldman-sachsto: j.palutikofATuea,p.jonesATuea,m.hulmeATuea


We (Mike H) have done a modest amount of work on degree-days for G-S. They now want to extend this. They are involved in dealing in the developing energy futures market.G-S is the sort of company that we might be looking for a 'strategic alliance' with. I suggest the four of us meet with ?? (forgotten his name) for an hour on the afternoon of Friday 12 June (best guess for Phil & Jean - he needs a date from us).





Professor Trevor D. Davies

Climatic Research Unit

University of East Anglia

Isn't this so sweet?  Scientists looking to help Goldman-Sachs develop a 'strategic alliance' with them in pushing issues in the 'developing energy futures market' is just so cuddly you can't even begin to use words to express it.  Yes, these climate scientists must be wizards to be able to know about such things as energy production and developing markets... do they ever get any time to do any real science?

Speaking of energy interests, here is Mike Hulme setting up a meeting with BP and Shell in 2000 from 0296.txt (another H/T to the comments section this time to Jimbo):

date: Tue Feb 1 13:34:27 2000

from: Mike Hulme <m.hulmeATuea.ac.uk>

subject: BP

to: shackley


Have talked with Tim O about BP and he knows Paul Rutter but reckons he is junior to his two contacts Charlotte grezo (who is on our Panel!) and Simon Worthington.Tim is meeting Charlotte next week and will do some lobbying and we will also make contact with Simon Worthington.So I guess there is no necessity to follow up on Paul right now (I'll wait for Tim's feedback), but if you feel there is a strong enough UMIST angle then by all means do so (but bear in mind that we will be talking to some other parts of BP).We're getting a few letters back from people here too which I will copy onto you - two water companies, Shell and the Foreign Office (the latter is not really business though).

All for now,


Say, if you criticize the critics for working with the likes of BP and Shell, can you criticize those pushing AGW for doing the same?  And does this make their science suspect, as well?  Because if you think any contact for funding with an oil company is a reason to be shunned, then what will you do when those who have been pushing AGW are found to have been doing the exact, same thing as those doing work with them on other research?

How about a bit later in 2002, in 0736.txt putting a program schedule together for the ECF Autumn Conference:

cc: "Klaus Hasselmann" <klaus.hasselmannATdkrz.de>, "Mike Hulme" <m.hulmeATuea.ac.uk>

date: Thu, 16 May 2002 14:47:51 +0100

from: "Elaine Jones" <E.L.JonesATuea.ac.uk>

subject: ECF Autumn Conference

to: "Martin Welp" <martin.welpATpik-potsdam.de>

Martin, Just to confirm and clarify a few of our views expressed in Monday's telecom (I listened with interest alongside Mike) on the ECF Autumn Conference Preliminary Programme. The programme looks very good so far. We don't think that Tom Delay would be the best dinner speaker, but it would be useful to perhaps invite him to speak in the Technology Transition session on e.g. Key challenges for the UK's Carbon Trust or, (the title of their glossy ) "Making Business Sense of Climate Change" ? . However, he has appeared in the same session as Mark MS on a few occasions already.

In case Mark MS cannot accept an invite (he would also be an excellent dinner speaker) you could consider Phil Watts, who is actually Mark's replacement as Chairman of the CMD of Royal Dutch/Shell Group, (and a Yorkshire Geophysicist) but rather for his other role as chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development ( a coalition of 160 International companies from >30 countries and 20 sectors and a global network of 35 national and regional business councils) , which he took on in November 2001, succeeding Charles Holliday, DUPONT Chair and CEO. Of course, he's incredibly busy but would be an excellent dinner speaker if he couldn't manage day-time - and with an attractive letter invite may be tempted (e.g. building on his "I am honoured to become chairman of the WBCSD, it plays a vital role in helping both to challenge and encourage business, governments and institutions to address the issue of sustainable development"). As an alternative, and not to be to Shell biased, Rodney Chase deputy group chief exec. of BP (former Exploration Head) is also on the WBCSD Exec. Committee. I don't know him - but I'm sure he would be good... he gave a Pew Centre presentation in 2000 - Innovative Policy Solutions to Global Climate Change www.pewclimate.org/media/rchase_speech.pdf - one might consider inviting him to "reflect on the subsequent 2 years track record of innovative solutions" ! he may be most useful for session 4, given the BP-Amoco (Arco) transatlantic make-up ! (and they are also a PEW member). He's also a non-exec. director of DIAGEO plc (Europe's largest Beverages co.).

Isn't this lovely?  Look at the people they would want as a dinner speaker at their event:

I) Tom Delay – This is Tom Delay of the UK Carbon Trust, not the US Tom DeLay.

II) Sir Mark Moody-Stewart – Appointed non-executive chairman of Anglo American PLC, ex-chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, director of HSBC holdings and Accenture.  Chairman of the Foundation for Global Compact, member of the Global Reporting Initiative up to 2007, member of the Board of Directors for Saudi Aramco.

III) Sir Philip Watts – Chairman of Shell 2001-2004 in addition to what is in the text.

IV) Rodney Chase – As stated in the text, a BP man in addition to other hats.

What isn't to like in this group? I mean you have organizations working on the entire carbon problem thingy, huge multinational oil companies, plus a slew of feel good NGOs... just the sort of people you want addressing the European Climate Forum. No, really, it is! I mean if you are going to have AGW/Climate Change/Climate Chaos or whatever the tagline du jour is, then you really, and for true, need the people ready to make a profit off of it as speakers at conferences.

Thus comes the next rule:

4) Always seek to get the heads of large organizations that make a profit off of 'climate change', either on the causing or the carbon trading side, at major conferences as dinner speakers so they can tell you what they see as the future of the direction of the 'movement'.

The idea that affiliation is grounds for denouncement and demonization is a Leftist cant, not one with a basis in reality.  Science, if done properly, is about repeatable results not about who funds you.  It doesn't matter if a government funds you, an oil company, a university, or that rich old coot down the street: if you get repeatable results and accurately describe and characterize them then it is science.  When those doing the funding try to tell you what to say, then it is intellectual, ethical and moral prostitution of oneself to the highest bidder or at least the one willing to help 'the cause'.  If you demonize based on fund source, then you must demonize the AGW crowd just as much as their critics as they are not adverse to chasing, begging, taking and using funds from such organizations.

This should be worrying to the 'street activists', 'protestors' and even those just willing to sing from the same hymnal as 'fellow travelers'.  To date no one has demonstrated that the critics of AGW have had what they write directed by their funders.  So far, to date, we now have evidence that those writing in support of AGW 'science' are not only willing to do so, but are willing to have the heads of such organizations show up at conferences or actually run such conferences as supports the goal of AGW followers.

The problem here isn't in the science of AGW: there isn't any.

Show me the data.

Not the interpretations, not the graphs, not the conclusions, but the raw, unadulterated data and let ME work through it so I can see if I can come up with the same results, plus cross-validate that any conclusions have something to do with OTHER datasets from OTHER sources so that the data can have a cross-check on it.

You can't make me a 'believer' but you can give me the data to see if I can agree with the conclusions drawn from it.  That is science.  No 'belief' needed.

Until the original datasets are made publicly available, and this was publicly funded research at the start of this entire mess, for public scrutiny and open scrutiny by the scientific community as a WHOLE and IN PART, there is no science being done in AGW.

When there is: obfuscation of the data, refusal to release publicly funded data(and thus held for the public by researchers), attempts to hide scientific criticism in secret but never speak of it in public, no safeguarding information exchanges that are the lifeblood of science, attempts no to be honest about the scientific process so as to intimidate editors or reviewers of papers and to not be open about what the people who are seeking to influence you are trying to do, then you do not have the performing of science to the public good but a conspiracy to defraud the public as a whole at a multi-national level.  And not small fraud, either, when you consider the attempts to curb fossil fuel production and use, impoverish millions if not billions via economic stagnation through crony capitalism, and otherwise jack up energy prices with no valid science as a rationale... that may go into the trillions of dollars on a global scale.  That is fraudulent science in search of a Great Cause which is then backed by other institutions that have their own agenda which are not accountable to any public of any Nation, so as to force National governments to create new agendas to support transnational corporations via schemes to divert money from productive energy jobs to ones that show no immediate value.  Because if they were worthwhile to do they would be profitable and sustainable without a single penny from any government other than as a customer for a product.

I have said it before and I will say it again: science is a full body contact sport done without benefit of any padding, no handicaps and having the necessary requirement of being done out in the open to hold yourself accountable to your peers.  Science is one of the nastiest endeavors of all mankind because to do it you must be open to criticism, must accept criticism (as old man Alvarez showed us with a smile and open arms) and then say that ANYONE CAN DUPLICATE YOUR RESULTS.   Those who are perpetrating this fraud are not DOING THAT but are running a rigged con game and in that universe you are either the con man, a plant or a mark, and on something of this scale nearly every single plant will find out that they are the mark.

21 November 2011

Student loan bailouts? No, but there is an alternative...

Of the true stupidity of OWS there is the idea of 'bailing out' those with student loans.

This will not actually address the problem of the high cost of education nor will remove the problem from the system, nor does it hold one to their agreement for paying back one's debts.

And, yes, I didn't like the 'bailouts' of the 'too big to fail' organizations, either.

So when this topic was posted at Hot Air, I put out what an actual solution is to stop the high cost of higher education in its tracks.  It would require that the OWS people actually mean what they say about what they see as their loan problems.

Here is the unadorned commentary, such as it is, spelling/syntax/logic errors all included for the amusement of the reader because all of this is written on the fly:

Say, if these people feel that they didn’t get the value promised them by an education they should sue all of those who promised them a high value education.

Really, they should writed down every written promise of having a ‘career path’ via these high priced educational institutions, with the names of who promised it and when. Push that all the way to those leading the tours for the place you went to.

Then work with all the other people who have similar views and start to put a master list together naming all the institutions and all the people who promised the educational value and what they charged for it in the way of tuition, books, dorm fees, etc.

Form a class action lawsuit against the whole kit’n'kaboodle.

Sue their butts off, including the endowment funds.

Get your money back from these places.

Impoverish them.

Put them out of business because they are not selling a product they promised to you.

Occupy a law library and get to work, you may need to get a few part time jobs to support yourselves while you gather the info and put the briefs together, but in 6 months every single high flying university and all of those pushing the high cost/low value education on the docket to figure out just how they will defend themselves from their rapacious cost structure for a bloated bureaucracy.

Question Authority! Get those university personnel on the witness stand!

ajacksonian on November 20, 2011 at 7:42 PM

This is how you hold people to account in America, isn't it?  You sue their butts off.

Yes this means that OWSers must un-occupy parks, work with each other and start to occupy law libraries and look for part-time jobs to sustain themselves... and do something PRODUCTIVE WITH THEIR LIVES instead of bitch/moan/whine/complain and forever feel that they are 'entitled' to something.  Nope, you are 'entitled' to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the latter means 'happenstance' or 'fortune'.  Heaven help you if you actually catch happiness as it will make you miserable the moment you realize it has slipped through your fingers and you are chasing that bugger again.  You had it so good for that microsecond...

Really it is the educational institutions and their Leftist academics that are the cause of this problem.

OWSers should want to hold them both to account for the high cost of unproductive, useless higher education.  Note that actual scientists and engineers are lacking at OWS, along with mathematicians.  Why?  Real jobs with real pay are involved at the end of those educational cycles.

You want an education that leads to a real, paying job?

Go to a trade school.

There are lots of jobs going begging to maintain our infrastructure and you can nearly set your own pay as a welder, electrician, plumber... hell, even pipe-fitters and bricklayers are doing pretty well, if you can stay out of a Union, that is.

But if you feel you got rooked on a product or service you purchased?  Sue them.  Sue them until they are white due to lack of money.  Those selling such products are fiends and no friend of yours.  Prove it in a court of law.  Put up a site to garner funds for your legal team to actually, and for true, address the REAL bad actors who demand such high payments for this shoddy educational product.  Put up a page tracking the funds that will roll in and get to know who your REAL friends are.  Surprisingly you in OWS will find that the $500 K that those inside your movement are seeking to take for their own needs are looking at chicken feed compared to what you will garner for bringing down the corruption inside the educational system.

It will take guts, stamina and courage to confront these institutions and tell them how badly they have under-delivered on their promises to you as an individual and to all of you as a class in a class action lawsuit.  Take all of those promising that college is a path to a sure job and career to court.


Without exception.

Really, which would have done you better in your life: a poli-sci degree from an Ivy League institution or a two year certificate that certifies that you actually, and for true, can weld?

Heck, I'll toss in $25 to your legal fund!

Practice some accounting on that fund, though.

Keep the grubby, so-called 'authorities' within your own 'movement' away from it.

Get some payback and get paid back, while you're at it.

I'll help with a bit of cash.  Maybe a couple of meals, too, if you are nice about it.

Need some clothes while you are whiling away your hours in a dusty library?  Gots spare work clothes for you.  You don't need a suit and tie to file a petition in a court.  And damned if paper isn't cheap and the ability to get to a word processor to do the typing is close to damned near free... and is pretty much free if you have a word processor already as many court documents have gone electronic.

Get what you paid for!


Because, you know, revenge is a dish best served cold.

And I can tell you that those educational institutions, their endowment funds, the entrenched bureaucracy and some few of your professors truly are ripe for the picking.  And a few of the really high flying ones should go away permanently on the pay-back side.  Hit them where it hurts.

Wall Street?

Small fry.

Go after the big money people and the ones who have actually hurt you.

Gather the evidence.

Show you are doing so.

Ask for help.

And then sue them until they go broke.

Heck, its good job experience you can put on a resume to help track down the liars, their promises, get them all as evidence and then take them to court.  You can't PAY for such experience.

But you can make the actual miscreants pay.  Yessiree.

If, that is, you stop LISTENING TO THEM and get them on the witness stand and QUESTION AUTHORITY UNDER OATH.

Never so cold as a court of law, hey?

Put up a legal fund, get out of the parks and start getting the evidence together.

I will gladly PAY to help you in that.

It will be money WELL SPENT and your service to your fellow citizens will be beyond any price.  Though there will be a price to be paid by those who lied to your face about the value of the so-called education they sold you.  Plus you should get enough to pay your loans back once you hit those pushing them right in the pocketbook.

Really, the only losers are those pushing the bad service and product.

You become a loser by complaining.

You become a citizen by doing the right thing, staying within the law, and getting your money back.  With interest.

Then you can pay off your loans.

You'll have a worthless degree, yes, but you will have experience and be out of debt.

That is what you want in OWS, right?

Debt-free with experience?

Do it the right way.

Do it yourself.

11 November 2011

Our tax code: screwed up by design and intent

The following is self evident

Certainty? In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.

Benjamin Franklin

In fact these are aspects of the exact same concept.  Taxation if practiced upon one individual upon another would be theft of property earned by hard work.  Death is the theft of life.

Both are theft.

Property is not theft: theft is theft and it matters not if it is used to steal property or life, although in doing the former the latter is put in jeopardy.  These are intertwined concepts that to live one must be able to create for oneself and retain enough to not just survive but to prosper.  When taxation is high, your life is at stake in a very real way.

Now on to the basis for our tax system, as opposed to the instantiation called the tax code which I will get to in a bit.


Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Source: US Archives

Which changed this:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Source: US Archives

Before Amendment XVI the US government figured out how much it needed to run and could then do one of two things:

1) Levy a direct tax upon every citizen of an equal amount, or,

2) Tell the States how much money was needed to run the federal government and let them collect it.

This is part and parcel of the concept of the checks and balances of sovereign power in a republic which I go over numerous times, but most recently in The Process and Sovereignty fact explained by fiction.  The problem was, such as it was purported to be at the time, that government had to plead with the States to get funded and the States were making it hard to pass bills by not posting Senators in a timely fashion.  The argument was further extended that government had a lot to do and not enough cash to do it.  The only way to go around this was to put together a campaign that made federal government taxation the centerpiece of the republic, not its necessary feed tube but a direct tap into the arteries of commerce that are your wallet.  This was promised to be put in place only on the rich and never go above 7%.  From 7% to 70% took 7 years, and it was not just on the 'rich' any more.

Lovely, no?

Taxation is a necessary evil for government to restrain those that would hurt the public directly, and at the federal level that isn't you, as individuals, but the Nation as a unit.  Direct taxation that is non-apportioned (that is not equally levied) is something that is part of class warfare in that it pits the numerous poor against the few wealthy.  And yet, by creating a system that does so, the wealthy then have a much larger stake in getting outcomes that fit their desires more in return for their much larger amounts paid into the system of government.  The wolf does not come into the dining room by accident, but is joyously greeted as a protector from that monster under the bed... and soon you find yourself without food, bed, and possibly even shelter until you can figure out how to get rid of the wolf.  Now if only the monster under the bed, which is to say class envy, had any real effect beyond making the poor greedy for that wealth that isn't theirs and inviting the wolf inside in the first place.

We bring our own doom upon us via greed and envy that is part of human nature.

Now since taxation is an expression of the negative liberty that creates the necessary evil we call government to restrain it, and the power of theft via taxation to sustain it, what is the positive liberty that is embodied by creation of wealth and giving freely of it?

Ah, yes, that is called 'charity'.

Charity begins at home.
Terence, Andria
Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC)
Source: The Quotations Page

Rome was still a republic, back in those days.  Too bad the people wanted more goodies via their Senate and then instituted a means to take money from the rich, which then required an expansive military empire to sustain that growing hunger.  The republican values enshrined charity, and while perhaps not as revered as the tax man, it was the builder of a republican society that cherished the values of divided government.  Debase charity and the republican values fall away, and you soon get greedy people driven by human nature to take more than they make. 

This attitude change destroyed the Roman middle-class by also including slavery into the mix and, before its downfall, there were more slaves in Rome doing work than there were people in the middle class.  Actually there were more slaves (and Romans in slave status) than Free Romans in Rome once it became an empire, come to think of it.  Once in old age Augustus would realize how far he had debased the Roman citizenry with taxation coupled with public expenditures and that the strong republic was now an empire with a void in its center.  All empires have a void of public assent at their center, it doesn't matter which empire it is: those that rule, not govern, no longer listen to the wishes of the citizenry and the empire, for all its military might, is ripe to be destroyed.  An empire can only exist on the backs of slaves or serfs, which is why Karl Marx cheered on the North in the US Civil War: mere wage slavery was a way out to a better life, and was a positive artifact of capitalism and needed to be cheered on so that the foundations of socialism could be built.  Too bad he never read history to show what happens when people realize they can take everything from those that produce... but these nasty things called 'Dark Ages' or 'Iron Times' are really quite harsh.  Only the effete elite ignore them due to the queasy feeling they get when they realize that they are encouraging yet another round of mass theft.

Charity, by this standard, is not theft at all.

It is the willful giving of the fruits of one's labor to those institutions that will tend to the sick and aged, care for the poor and needy, and offer solace to the beleaguered.  Charitable institutions teach republican values by their very existence: that you have a direct say in the welfare of your fellow man outside of government.  It is a value that does, indeed, begin at home as our poor, weak, needy and uneducated come in the form of our children.  They need to see the lesson that being given food, clothing, education and schooling is a burden taken up freely by their parents to create society.  The number one, most important lesson to learn from charity at home is that you are a burden to your parents and your greatest desire in your love for them is to stop being that burden.  To do that requires lessons of self-governance, thrift and the willingness to take up your burden of your life from your parents so that you can be free and that you, in turn, liberate them from that burden they took up gladly.

Do you see the part theft plays in charity?

If you don't is because there isn't any: it is an expression of our positive liberty that comes from our free labor to live a life in freedom.

The tax code that comes from the tax system, seen above, does not enshrine charity as the prime value of the republic and a means to create self-sustaining citizens of a republic.  This can be seen via the simple asking of a question:

Why is charity a tax deduction?

If charity and the institutions of charity are a prime bulwark to helping citizens stand on their own two feet to be productive citizens on their own, then why is government getting the first bite at your income and then allowing you might, just maybe, have a charitable instinct and let you take a bit of that tax bite back?  Government is a necessary evil and not the prime part of building society.  Indeed, by taking productive wealth from citizens, it is a drag on society and eats up wealth while, in its very best instance, providing equal justice via simple laws that are easily understood by all citizens.  A republic that has citizens who cherish republican values would not put the government, any government outside of self-government, as the first to take a bit out of their income, no matter its source.

Our prime duty as citizens is towards our fellow citizens and it starts at birth, when we are cared for through the charity of our parents and we must continually give back in charity to our fellow man so that we have a vibrant society that can actually sustain this drag we call government which is only an organ of society.  And not a very pretty organ, at that.  If charity is the heart of society, then government in all forms come in just before the anus and just after the stomach: it is necessary and yet the products of it are waste.

The grand goal of Progressivism was to put government in your life before charity, which is to say that you only get raised, as a child, after government has taken its bite from your parent's income for its own purposes.  While you suckle at the teat, government was stealing the bread necessary to let your mother make milk for you.  In a very real sense it was suckling before you ever got there and would for the rest of your natural life and you, my fellow citizens, would be the burden of government. 

That is evil because it is unnecessary.

If we truly enshrined charity as a hallmark of good citizenship and a necessary burden to us all before government, then we would have a tax code that puts charity via full deduction from gross pay FIRST and government SECOND.  Our duty to our fellow citizens is direct via the application of our positive liberty expressed by the freedom to work, thus allowing us the marketplace to repay us for our work.  A tax on commerce is one thing, and limited to States and local government, taking the direct food from your mouth via income FIRST before your family and then other charities, is a true evil that knows no bounds.

How can I say that?

What are the limits of the federal government today?  Are there any left?

Government has a proper place and status in society and it isn't a high one.  It is not a charitable organization as it requires theft to operate, and the only acceptable theft is one that is either equal, regardless of income, upon all citizens or mediated by a more local government to figure out how to pay for the larger national government.  That is why it was set up the way it was: to keep government limited.

For all the talk of 'flat taxes' and reducing government should we not, as citizens of a republic, be demanding that our government recognize that its place is AFTER that of the positive liberty to build society as expressed by our charity?  I have heard the moaning and bewailing of this concept in that 'charity would over-run us' and that people 'wouldn't put money where it needs to go'. 

On the former, is there such a thing as a too giving society?  One that enshrines our positive liberty and reinforces it so that all citizens know that their fellow citizens are there for them in times of need is a BAD THING?

On the latter: this is the basis for freedom and liberty, that no man is told what to do with his earnings via charity.  There will still be necessary money left to feed oneself and keep a roof over one's head after raising children and donating to charity is performed.  Government gets to take from that pile, that net amount, after an individual has decided how much they need to reinforce and give back to society FIRST.  The rich will find they can only spend so much on charity before the allure of spending on themselves comes to the forefront and then it is that money that gets taxed: the greedy get taxed more.  Encouraging spending on items that you may not see as necessary, schools, libraries and support of charity hospitals, can be done by rich and poor alike, and who is to say that we need more of any item than any other than the people who earn the money? What you may see as ill spending, may be something another man sees as a vital need to be addressed via charity and there so long as the poor, need, sick, disabled and young are cared for via these means, who is to say that they are wrong?  Are these not the stated goals of Progressives?  Then why are they so costly and run up such high debt so as to put the Nation into insolvency and, in a short time, into bankruptcy?  Putting the intermediary of government in at every level and every choice costs too much and demeans citizens into the status of slaves to support government.  That didn't work too well out for Roman and every other people who enshrined government as their centerpiece have faced a similar fate.  History is our teacher and we ignore it at our peril.

Ask yourself: would you not give more and retain less for yourself if you knew that the money put into building society was beyond the reach of the thief of government?  Bad charities can be taken care of by the scraps left for the legal system, the bad actors weeded out so that the good may thrive and prosper.  That puts government SECOND and charity FIRST, which is the order that sustains society.  When government is put in charge of determining who gets how much and when at the cost of the lifeblood of liberty, you also get the extreme overhead of government and the ill-use of funds that, strangely enough, never, ever gets addressed by removing power from government when it FAILS to do these functions efficiently and effectively.

Yes you did pay into SSA and when you are old you get to pick the kernels out of the droppings of the waste of government.  Aren't you so thankful for that?  That instead of asking your citizens for help or having build solid institutions, you are now living at the whim of far distant and remote government and become a pawn to keep abusers of the system by expanding it in power.  Just make sure you wash up those kernels in the dung before eating them, because that is what you have asked for and you have gotten it and helped to tear down society via government.  This is what you asked for and got.  And it can be changed, altered and amended by realizing that the actual fiend is government and not your fellow man who is only painted as stingy for political purposes and then abused and demeaned once those politicians get in power to wield it over our children, our elderly, our sick and our needy.

Our choice, as citizens, is to put government in its place and really, and for true, recognize that charity begins at home with our children and continues on throughout our lives with the institutions that we build to succor the poor, old, infirm, young, destitute and beleaguered, and that we are made stronger by directly giving and volunteering our time and lives to this work than we ever are through the waste organ of society known as government.  That is perfectly allowable in the course of human events when the necessary evil of government becomes the form of our own abuse and repression not just of the healthy, but of the poor and weak.

That is a pure evil that is self-inflicted.

Brought to you by our tax code.

It doesn't have to be this way.

We can change our priorities for ourselves and then demand that our government follow our lead as citizens and that it is we who form the republic, and our government is just a necessary organ to do so.  Rather that the body run lean and mean through our digestion and leave little for government to subsist on than to be eaten by it as it becomes cancerous by taking directly from our life blood.