Yesterday we discovered that there is no link between increases in global temperatures and CO2, and therefore no scientific reason to tax or trade or regulate it. So why the big push?
If one were to try to gain maximum control a population of creatures, one could try controlling each of their individual activities.
You'd need to control their food gathering, what they gathered, when they gathered, where they store it, when they ate, how much they ate, who got to eat, when and where they eliminated, etc. And this just considers food gathering. We haven't even thought about recreation, reproduction, politics, religion, and all the other activities that sentient beings do. As you can see, all this controlling gets rather complicated and tedious.
But there's an easier way. All the truly lazy tyrant need do is to control some substrate that is used in each and every activity of the creatures. Let's take energy as an example. Since energy of some form is, by definition, needed for all activity, all the tyrant need do is control the energy and therefore all activity is controlled. Energy would be a vulnerable strategic choke point.
So let's move our hypothetical tyrant here, to Earth. If we want to control sentient beings on this planet, we'd need to find some substrate to control. Some logistic and strategic choke point. Any suggestions from the crowd?
That's the reason they want to tax and trade and regulate carbon. It isn't that carbon is evil, or that you're evil. It isn't because you're human or even that you're a mammal. It's just that you happen to be sentient, and worth controlling, and happen to be a carbon based life form. If they control carbon, they control YOU.
That's what it's about to me. Freedom.
I live in a rather rural area. Some years ago, a young boy (Hi Jack!) asked why I lived there. I told him, "Because it's my land, and I can do what I want here". My land, not the State's nor the King's. My home. My trees. My deer, not the King's deer.
But soon, that won't be true.
Many activities here require internal combustion. Mower or tractor or trimmer or chainsaw can now be taxed and traded and regulated. Use electricity? Also controlled. Want to go off the grid and just use the generator? Controlled. Drive? Controlled. Give up IC engines and go for horse power? Also a carbon source, and also controlled.
What about the basics? All I ingest contains carbon except water. All can now be controlled. (possibly even a home veggie garden, see HR 875) We all, I hate to say, produce methane. Literally, they can control your butt. Go exercise? That increases my personal CO2 output and can be controlled. Decide to have kids? WHAT!? And bring another CO2 producer into an overpopulated world? Guess what? Controlled.
If they control carbon, they control YOU.
In the classic Robin Hood movies, the Merry Men, to avoid starvation, eat the King's deer. They are sentenced to death for their crime.
Will you be put in a similar situation? Will you be free to pursue your dreams and goals? Will you be free to live your own life in your own manner? I can sum this up better in one line.
Who owns you, you or a King?
The Grey Man
27 April 2009
26 April 2009
Burning Up About Carbon Pt. 1
The other day former VP Gore testified before Congress about "cap and trade" taxes vs. carbon taxes. His answer: "both". Last week, the EPA decided to regulate CO2.
Unfortunately, I'm handicapped when it comes to these sorts of issues. I understand science and numbers. My BS and Doctorate might not compare to Mr. Gore's journalism degree and JD when it comes to talking "all that scientifical stuff", but I'll give it a whirl.
Point One - Atmospheric CO2 DOES NOT cause temperature increases.
Atmospheric CO2 lags behind temperature rise. How can CO2 increases cause the temperature to rise if the rise happened first? This is akin to saying your farts cause you to eat beans.
So why the lag? Wiki says there are 50 times more CO2 in the oceans as int the air, and increasing temps decrease ocean solubility. Therefore atmospheric CO2 rises.
Another possible cause of increased CO2 following warming would be life itself. If the warming is caused by the nearest convenient heat source, the Sun, then the CO2 rise is logical. Solar radiation is the basis for almost all life here. If it goes up, the life that uses it, plants, do better. The secondary life, animals, having a larger food supply also increase their population. All these extra animals exhale CO2, causing it to increase.
Point Two - Our CO2 production doesn't matter. WARNING - MATH AHEAD!!
I was going to figure out my own numbers, but I found
Wikipedia's while researching this. I'll be using their numbers so I'm not accused of cherry-picking the data. Opening the link in a new window would be helpful here.
Please note that the total atmospheric CO2 is 3000 gigatonnes, or 3,000,000,000,000 metric tonnes. Their data lists all human CO2 emissions at a total of 27 billion tonnes, or 27,000,000,000 tonnes. Lest knock off 9 zeros from each to make comparison easier.
Total CO2 = 3000 gigatonnes, human annual emissions = 27 gigatonnes.
So they're saying that human activity should be increasing total CO2 by 0.9% annually. That's equivalent to 9 parts per thousand (ppt). But their data also shows the total annual change at 3 ppm or less. That's only 1/3000th of our total carbon footprint from all sources. So either their data is hosed, or our activity just doesn't matter to the planet.
If their data is correct, the Earth would seriously be losing almost 1% of it's CO2 annually if it weren't for humans. At that rate all plant life on the planet would be dead within 100 years, and all animal life would follow within months. Does anybody believe that GIGO induced hypothesis? Why doesn't anybody do the math before publishing?
So we now have two possibilities from the data. Either our CO2 is the only thing saving the planet, or the Earth is a 4.5 billion year old self-sustaining system, so huge that our puny butts don't matter to it. I know which one I'll bet on.
Since our CO2 is totally unimportant to the planet scientifically, just why are we talking about taxing it or trading it or regulating it? We'll get to that in
Part 2.
The Grey Man
Unfortunately, I'm handicapped when it comes to these sorts of issues. I understand science and numbers. My BS and Doctorate might not compare to Mr. Gore's journalism degree and JD when it comes to talking "all that scientifical stuff", but I'll give it a whirl.
Point One - Atmospheric CO2 DOES NOT cause temperature increases.
Atmospheric CO2 lags behind temperature rise. How can CO2 increases cause the temperature to rise if the rise happened first? This is akin to saying your farts cause you to eat beans.
So why the lag? Wiki says there are 50 times more CO2 in the oceans as int the air, and increasing temps decrease ocean solubility. Therefore atmospheric CO2 rises.
Another possible cause of increased CO2 following warming would be life itself. If the warming is caused by the nearest convenient heat source, the Sun, then the CO2 rise is logical. Solar radiation is the basis for almost all life here. If it goes up, the life that uses it, plants, do better. The secondary life, animals, having a larger food supply also increase their population. All these extra animals exhale CO2, causing it to increase.
Point Two - Our CO2 production doesn't matter. WARNING - MATH AHEAD!!
I was going to figure out my own numbers, but I found
Wikipedia's while researching this. I'll be using their numbers so I'm not accused of cherry-picking the data. Opening the link in a new window would be helpful here.
Please note that the total atmospheric CO2 is 3000 gigatonnes, or 3,000,000,000,000 metric tonnes. Their data lists all human CO2 emissions at a total of 27 billion tonnes, or 27,000,000,000 tonnes. Lest knock off 9 zeros from each to make comparison easier.
Total CO2 = 3000 gigatonnes, human annual emissions = 27 gigatonnes.
So they're saying that human activity should be increasing total CO2 by 0.9% annually. That's equivalent to 9 parts per thousand (ppt). But their data also shows the total annual change at 3 ppm or less. That's only 1/3000th of our total carbon footprint from all sources. So either their data is hosed, or our activity just doesn't matter to the planet.
If their data is correct, the Earth would seriously be losing almost 1% of it's CO2 annually if it weren't for humans. At that rate all plant life on the planet would be dead within 100 years, and all animal life would follow within months. Does anybody believe that GIGO induced hypothesis? Why doesn't anybody do the math before publishing?
So we now have two possibilities from the data. Either our CO2 is the only thing saving the planet, or the Earth is a 4.5 billion year old self-sustaining system, so huge that our puny butts don't matter to it. I know which one I'll bet on.
Since our CO2 is totally unimportant to the planet scientifically, just why are we talking about taxing it or trading it or regulating it? We'll get to that in
Part 2.
The Grey Man
25 April 2009
Bordering on Sick
Yoo hoo, Government? Anybody home? Administration? Congress? Anybody listening?
Do any of you remember your oaths? That pesky little thing about upholding and defending the Constitution? Don't worry, I won't ask you anything complicated, like asking about Article IV Section 3. I know you might not have read that far.
No, I just want to ask about the first one sentence, the Preamble. Do you recall that little bit about providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare?
Tonight, there's a lot of news about an outbreak of swine flu south of the border. It seems a bunch of people are dead.
With a disease outbreak next door, the sensible thing would be to control the border, limiting the outbreak here.
But, oops, you've failed to put in mechanisms to control the southern border. Right now the border is as secure as Brittany Spears chastity belt. Some of you have actually encouraged violations of our border.
If this disease spreads north, some of our citizens, those pesky "party of the second part" to our Constitution, can die.
I just have a couple of simple questions.
If our people are sickened and even die, how would you rate your common defense/general welfare part of your oath? Think you're doing OK?
If you haven't done too well with that oath thingy, would resignation be in order?
(I personally favor a bit more multicultural solution: a new TV show. "Liar's Survivor" Elected officials face either return to office or Japanese Hari Kari. A call in vote show, $100/per vote. All money goes to retiring the national debt. If more vote for the Japanese solution, well, we'd just call a special election. This would do wonders for the networks flagging ratings.)
Since the disease effects would be better controlled if we could secure the border, and you refused to do it, wouldn't any increased effects be caused by man? And if you are the cause of this man caused disaster, does that make you extremists or terrorists? Should Napolitano and DHS mount a "domestic contingency operation"against you?
I guess this is just a slightly different way that that those in DC can make us just sick.
PS. I know some will say that the Obama Administration has only been in a few months. True. I hold the Bush Administration just as responsible. But Bush is gone, and Obama has the job. And Congress, well most of them have been there since Fulton invented the steamboat.
Do any of you remember your oaths? That pesky little thing about upholding and defending the Constitution? Don't worry, I won't ask you anything complicated, like asking about Article IV Section 3. I know you might not have read that far.
No, I just want to ask about the first one sentence, the Preamble. Do you recall that little bit about providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare?
Tonight, there's a lot of news about an outbreak of swine flu south of the border. It seems a bunch of people are dead.
With a disease outbreak next door, the sensible thing would be to control the border, limiting the outbreak here.
But, oops, you've failed to put in mechanisms to control the southern border. Right now the border is as secure as Brittany Spears chastity belt. Some of you have actually encouraged violations of our border.
If this disease spreads north, some of our citizens, those pesky "party of the second part" to our Constitution, can die.
I just have a couple of simple questions.
If our people are sickened and even die, how would you rate your common defense/general welfare part of your oath? Think you're doing OK?
If you haven't done too well with that oath thingy, would resignation be in order?
(I personally favor a bit more multicultural solution: a new TV show. "Liar's Survivor" Elected officials face either return to office or Japanese Hari Kari. A call in vote show, $100/per vote. All money goes to retiring the national debt. If more vote for the Japanese solution, well, we'd just call a special election. This would do wonders for the networks flagging ratings.)
Since the disease effects would be better controlled if we could secure the border, and you refused to do it, wouldn't any increased effects be caused by man? And if you are the cause of this man caused disaster, does that make you extremists or terrorists? Should Napolitano and DHS mount a "domestic contingency operation"against you?
I guess this is just a slightly different way that that those in DC can make us just sick.
PS. I know some will say that the Obama Administration has only been in a few months. True. I hold the Bush Administration just as responsible. But Bush is gone, and Obama has the job. And Congress, well most of them have been there since Fulton invented the steamboat.
24 April 2009
A Quiz
Obama promised a “social revolution” for “remaking” the American people.
Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE?
Obama made populist appeals to the middle class (especially the lower middle class) by promising to protect small business and small property owners, while pledging to oppose big business.
Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE?
Obama opposes laissez-faire economic policies dominant in the era prior to the recession. Obama wishes to nationalize health care, manage our currency and make some massive state investments. Obama may introduce price controls, wage controls and other types of economic interventionist measures.
Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE?
Obama thinks that private property should be regulated to ensure that "benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual." Obama also wants to introduce other types of economic planning measures.
Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE?
Okay, I admit I'm playing dirty. What follows are the original quotes I changed, they can be found here.
Mussolini promised a “social revolution” for “remaking” the Italian people.
Fascists made populist appeals to the middle class (especially the lower middle class) by promising to protect small business and small property owners from communism, and by promising an economy based on competition and profit while pledging to oppose big business
Fascists opposed laissez-faire economic policies dominant in the era prior to the Great Depression. Fascist governments nationalized some key industries, managed their currencies and made some massive state investments. Fascist governments introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of economic interventionist measures
Fascists thought that private property should be regulated to ensure that "benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual." They also introduced price controls and other types of economic planning measures.
Now before you get your knickers in a twist, let's talk about the word "fascism". I again ask you to disengage your emotional response, and plug in your brain.
I myself have been called a fascist on the web a couple of times, and a "Facist" even more. (I deny being a "facist". I like faces. I just don't like anyone having more than one.)
Fascist has come to mean "anybody I disagree with but can't make a rational argument against"
Fascism has almost nothing to do with politics. The classic fascist states, Germany, Italy, Iraq, were all authoritarian oligarchies. Most were also racist, and suppressed dissent.
Fascism is, however, primarily an ECONOMIC system.
We all know that the means of production will be both owned and controlled. There are only two parties who can do these: individuals (or corporations of individuals) and the State. These two facts give us a choice of three economic systems.
In Free Enterprise, the means of production are both owned and controlled by individuals.
In Socialism, the means of production are both owned and controlled by the State.
In Fascism, the means of production are owned by individuals, and controlled by the State.
Besides lecturing, I really do have two points to make.
First, the fact that you did not immediately see through what I was doing, that my fabricated statements about President Obama were plausible, should make you a bit nervous.
Second, the President firing CEO's of major companies, not allowing banks to repay, demanding companies make forced deals, etc. makes ME damned nervous.
Just how slippery is this slope? Is history repeating?
Damn, how I hate reruns.
The Grey Man
Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE?
Obama made populist appeals to the middle class (especially the lower middle class) by promising to protect small business and small property owners, while pledging to oppose big business.
Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE?
Obama opposes laissez-faire economic policies dominant in the era prior to the recession. Obama wishes to nationalize health care, manage our currency and make some massive state investments. Obama may introduce price controls, wage controls and other types of economic interventionist measures.
Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE?
Obama thinks that private property should be regulated to ensure that "benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual." Obama also wants to introduce other types of economic planning measures.
Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE?
Okay, I admit I'm playing dirty. What follows are the original quotes I changed, they can be found here.
Mussolini promised a “social revolution” for “remaking” the Italian people.
Fascists made populist appeals to the middle class (especially the lower middle class) by promising to protect small business and small property owners from communism, and by promising an economy based on competition and profit while pledging to oppose big business
Fascists opposed laissez-faire economic policies dominant in the era prior to the Great Depression. Fascist governments nationalized some key industries, managed their currencies and made some massive state investments. Fascist governments introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of economic interventionist measures
Fascists thought that private property should be regulated to ensure that "benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual." They also introduced price controls and other types of economic planning measures.
Now before you get your knickers in a twist, let's talk about the word "fascism". I again ask you to disengage your emotional response, and plug in your brain.
I myself have been called a fascist on the web a couple of times, and a "Facist" even more. (I deny being a "facist". I like faces. I just don't like anyone having more than one.)
Fascist has come to mean "anybody I disagree with but can't make a rational argument against"
Fascism has almost nothing to do with politics. The classic fascist states, Germany, Italy, Iraq, were all authoritarian oligarchies. Most were also racist, and suppressed dissent.
Fascism is, however, primarily an ECONOMIC system.
We all know that the means of production will be both owned and controlled. There are only two parties who can do these: individuals (or corporations of individuals) and the State. These two facts give us a choice of three economic systems.
In Free Enterprise, the means of production are both owned and controlled by individuals.
In Socialism, the means of production are both owned and controlled by the State.
In Fascism, the means of production are owned by individuals, and controlled by the State.
Besides lecturing, I really do have two points to make.
First, the fact that you did not immediately see through what I was doing, that my fabricated statements about President Obama were plausible, should make you a bit nervous.
Second, the President firing CEO's of major companies, not allowing banks to repay, demanding companies make forced deals, etc. makes ME damned nervous.
Just how slippery is this slope? Is history repeating?
Damn, how I hate reruns.
The Grey Man
23 April 2009
Summers Sleeps Tonight
Today, Larry Summers fell asleep at a White House meeting. As Glenn Reynolds says, the county's in the best of hands.
Since further words fail me, everybody SING!
In the White House,
The mighty White House,
Summers sleeps today.
And the markets
Are quiet markets,
Summers sleeps today.
Near the village,
The peaceful village,
Summers sleeps today.
Near the village,
The banks aren't pillaged,
Summers sleeps today.
Hush my darling,
Relax my darling,
Summers sleeps today.
Hush my honey,
We still have money,
Summers sleeps today.
The Grey Man
Since further words fail me, everybody SING!
In the White House,
The mighty White House,
Summers sleeps today.
And the markets
Are quiet markets,
Summers sleeps today.
Near the village,
The peaceful village,
Summers sleeps today.
Near the village,
The banks aren't pillaged,
Summers sleeps today.
Hush my darling,
Relax my darling,
Summers sleeps today.
Hush my honey,
We still have money,
Summers sleeps today.
The Grey Man
22 April 2009
Thanks!
Sith, Drudge, and Rahm on a Roll
Since the last election, something has been bothering me. I just couldn't quite figure just what it was, it hung tantalizingly out of reach. Kind of like a long forgotten name.
It was also dark and ominous, like the words pudding.....chainsaw....Policia are to a hung over college student.
There were just too many changes too fast. Too many "two legs bad" to "two legs better". In Animal Farm, these changes took years. The current administration has taken less than three months.
Bush's rendition is bad. Obama's rendition good. Bush's deficits bad. Obama's deficits good. $8 billion in earmarks in a day "miniscule". 3 months to save $100 million "real money".
A few things recently may have filled in the puzzle.
Recently, Matt Drudge linked to a story about some of Scotland's finest listing their religion as Jedi. The story is cute and rather amusing. And anyone's religion, even yours, looks just as strange to an outsider.
That story must have sparked something in my mind. I recalled the DHS report out last Tuesday, just in time for Wednesday's TEA Party protests. I combined that with the Star Wars scene where Obi-Wan tells the stormtrooper "These are not the droids you're looking for".
OMFG! We have a report to give cover, and 24 hours later, there's Roesgen and Garafalo saying "These ARE the Extremists you've been looking for!" Could we all be suffering a Jedi Mind Trick?
This brought me two more places.
First, the Jedi use the force for good, so it can't be them. But we also have those who've turned to the Dark Side, the Sith. It could be Sith.
Second, the operation must be massive. To get the Administration, the Congress, and the MSM all under the same delusions requires enormous scale.
Few of us saw this coming. It was done covertly. A massive covert op to take over America would be called a Fifth Column. Only let's us call it the Sith Column.
So who are they? I only know of one name. News Reader, a former reporter or anchor, went over to the Dark Side, assuming the title Darth Reader. Darth Reader's whereabouts are unknown. Could it be Roesgen? Nah, she blew her op, and blew her cover in the process. Olberman? Nah, not effective enough. Matthews? Too "tingly". Reliable reports place Darth Reader frequenting JournoList. I can just hear the heavy breathing, "Luke, This is not your story".
Who else might be covert Sith? Dodd? Franks? Reid? I think Pelosi is a shoo in, since she usually wears her Sith makeup.
My personal opinion is that Rahm Emmanuel, Presidential Chief of Staff, is a key player in the Sith Column. Emmanuel controls the President's schedule, staff, who get's to see him, and most importantly, The Teleprompter (praise be unto Teleprompter).
Emmanuel has a well earned reputation for steam-rollering opposition, and shows no sign of slowing. But is he the big boss of the Sith? Or is there another, higher layer? Darth Soros perhaps.
Unfortunately, the only Jedi I know of are the Police in Scotland. Redeeming America will require many more, home grown Jedi. And we need them fast, before 2010.
All the new applicants must be taught the ways of the force. We need a Yoda.
Have we had stealth Jedi among us? Have we had a Yoda, or does one still exist?
Can we learn all we need from the past, from books? Are Reagan and Goldwater and Heinlein and Rand and Buckley enough? Or do we need a living Yoda?
What about Gingrich or Boortz or Hannity? I think Fred Thompson could do the look, and has the knowledge, but his voice would kill it, "Focused, ya'll must be."
Also, this might be a longer fight, so we'd need a younger Yoda, skilled in the newer ways of the force. If we could just shorten Glenn Reynolds......
ED Note: Relatively few animals were harmed during the writing of this post.
The Grey Man
It was also dark and ominous, like the words pudding.....chainsaw....Policia are to a hung over college student.
There were just too many changes too fast. Too many "two legs bad" to "two legs better". In Animal Farm, these changes took years. The current administration has taken less than three months.
Bush's rendition is bad. Obama's rendition good. Bush's deficits bad. Obama's deficits good. $8 billion in earmarks in a day "miniscule". 3 months to save $100 million "real money".
A few things recently may have filled in the puzzle.
Recently, Matt Drudge linked to a story about some of Scotland's finest listing their religion as Jedi. The story is cute and rather amusing. And anyone's religion, even yours, looks just as strange to an outsider.
That story must have sparked something in my mind. I recalled the DHS report out last Tuesday, just in time for Wednesday's TEA Party protests. I combined that with the Star Wars scene where Obi-Wan tells the stormtrooper "These are not the droids you're looking for".
OMFG! We have a report to give cover, and 24 hours later, there's Roesgen and Garafalo saying "These ARE the Extremists you've been looking for!" Could we all be suffering a Jedi Mind Trick?
This brought me two more places.
First, the Jedi use the force for good, so it can't be them. But we also have those who've turned to the Dark Side, the Sith. It could be Sith.
Second, the operation must be massive. To get the Administration, the Congress, and the MSM all under the same delusions requires enormous scale.
Few of us saw this coming. It was done covertly. A massive covert op to take over America would be called a Fifth Column. Only let's us call it the Sith Column.
So who are they? I only know of one name. News Reader, a former reporter or anchor, went over to the Dark Side, assuming the title Darth Reader. Darth Reader's whereabouts are unknown. Could it be Roesgen? Nah, she blew her op, and blew her cover in the process. Olberman? Nah, not effective enough. Matthews? Too "tingly". Reliable reports place Darth Reader frequenting JournoList. I can just hear the heavy breathing, "Luke, This is not your story".
Who else might be covert Sith? Dodd? Franks? Reid? I think Pelosi is a shoo in, since she usually wears her Sith makeup.
My personal opinion is that Rahm Emmanuel, Presidential Chief of Staff, is a key player in the Sith Column. Emmanuel controls the President's schedule, staff, who get's to see him, and most importantly, The Teleprompter (praise be unto Teleprompter).
Emmanuel has a well earned reputation for steam-rollering opposition, and shows no sign of slowing. But is he the big boss of the Sith? Or is there another, higher layer? Darth Soros perhaps.
Unfortunately, the only Jedi I know of are the Police in Scotland. Redeeming America will require many more, home grown Jedi. And we need them fast, before 2010.
All the new applicants must be taught the ways of the force. We need a Yoda.
Have we had stealth Jedi among us? Have we had a Yoda, or does one still exist?
Can we learn all we need from the past, from books? Are Reagan and Goldwater and Heinlein and Rand and Buckley enough? Or do we need a living Yoda?
What about Gingrich or Boortz or Hannity? I think Fred Thompson could do the look, and has the knowledge, but his voice would kill it, "Focused, ya'll must be."
Also, this might be a longer fight, so we'd need a younger Yoda, skilled in the newer ways of the force. If we could just shorten Glenn Reynolds......
ED Note: Relatively few animals were harmed during the writing of this post.
The Grey Man
21 April 2009
Golden Opportunity
I'm working on something for later on who is truly to blame for the economic meltdown. The answer might surprise you, but is totally accurate.
Now that the teaser is out of the way, we do have a grand opportunity for letting our political masters know our feelings.
It seems that Senator Mary Landrieu will be delivering the commencement address at Louisiana State University next month.
I can't tell you how appalled I am that a prestigious university of nearly one and a half centuries, one that tries to pride itself on scholarship would condone this outrage. Landrieu is functionally illiterate.
Before you go all caps lock on me, yes, I truly think Senator is illiterate. Whether she lacks the ability to read or chooses not to, the result is the same.
The Senator, a member of what is called the "greatest deliberative body" in the land, voted affirmatively on the "stimulus" legislation without having read it. How can one deliberate on legislation if one has not completely considered all of the ramifications? And how can one think of the ramifications if one hasn't even read the bill?
In other words, she's trying to do her job without doing her homework. How many of the graduates will have earned their diploma without doing their homework?
I do believe Landrieu has the capacity for reading, and that makes her illiteracy even worse. It isn't a lack of ability, merely a lack of desire to do the job she was hired for.
LSU alumni and Louisiana taxpayers should contact their local papers. And you should also contact the LSU president's office at lombardi@lsu.edu.
We could even possibly have some protesters. I can just see the signs: "No honors for someone who won't READ!"
Just something to think about.
The Grey Man
Now that the teaser is out of the way, we do have a grand opportunity for letting our political masters know our feelings.
It seems that Senator Mary Landrieu will be delivering the commencement address at Louisiana State University next month.
I can't tell you how appalled I am that a prestigious university of nearly one and a half centuries, one that tries to pride itself on scholarship would condone this outrage. Landrieu is functionally illiterate.
Before you go all caps lock on me, yes, I truly think Senator is illiterate. Whether she lacks the ability to read or chooses not to, the result is the same.
The Senator, a member of what is called the "greatest deliberative body" in the land, voted affirmatively on the "stimulus" legislation without having read it. How can one deliberate on legislation if one has not completely considered all of the ramifications? And how can one think of the ramifications if one hasn't even read the bill?
In other words, she's trying to do her job without doing her homework. How many of the graduates will have earned their diploma without doing their homework?
I do believe Landrieu has the capacity for reading, and that makes her illiteracy even worse. It isn't a lack of ability, merely a lack of desire to do the job she was hired for.
LSU alumni and Louisiana taxpayers should contact their local papers. And you should also contact the LSU president's office at lombardi@lsu.edu.
We could even possibly have some protesters. I can just see the signs: "No honors for someone who won't READ!"
Just something to think about.
The Grey Man
18 April 2009
FAQ
SO, WHO ARE YOU?
I am a middle aged professional, with a BS and a Doctorate from state schools, and a proud Louisiana native. I still live there, outside of a small town.
The Bride and I have been married a long time, and never to anyone else. No, no kids.
I own my own professional practice, albeit small, dealing either with my own clients or subcontracting to other practices.
My Bride is active in her church, and we mostly shop at WalMart.
We're just pretty boring, just garden variety Americans.
SO WHAT ARE YOUR POLITICS?
I've always been fairly conservative fiscally, but was pretty liberal socially when young. I was even a conscientious objector when draft registration was first reinstated. President Carter cured me of any leanings to the Democratic Party.
I also started reading on my own. So I became a Reagan Republican. OK, probably more of a pro-defense Libertarian than anything else. The Republicans were a good on defense and better than Democrats on spending.
But, sadly, the Republicans lost their way on spending. They were becoming Democrat-Lite. And then came the Katrina experience.
So I quit being a Republican. And that brings us to today.
I consider myself a Radical Independent. I neither like nor respect nor believe our two major parties. Or the minor ones for that matter. I saw the media in action during and after Katrina, and give them all due respect. That respect is exactly zero.
I seek my own sources for information, and look to my own mind for analysis.
SO WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?
I believe that even with her few stumbles, America has been the greatest provider of liberty and prosperity the world has ever seen.
I believe that our Founders were pretty damn smart. I'll even go so far as to say wise and profound. What they designed has worked pretty well these last few centuries. I also believe that before we stray too far from the Founder's teachings, we'd better have damn compelling arguments,and I've got to be shown a system that has worked better in practice, not just theory.
I believe that America has stumbled recently, no more, no less. For us to resume the pinnacle, I believe we've got to get back to the fundamentals that took us there before.
I also believe that Americans of goodwill can openly debate issues without resorting to rancour or name calling. In short, I believe we can disagree without being disagreeable.
SO WHY ARE YOU "THE GREY MAN"?
First, because I'm boring. I don' t go clubbing with celebrities. I'm not ivy league. I have no desire to be a blogging star. I'm just a guy trying to do a little better for my bride and myself.
I'm just a common man trying to gain and dispense a little common sense.
Secondly, dispensing common sense is dangerous. Sacred cows of all stripes must be gored. And there are some Americans who are not of goodwill. So it's best to remain covert. And the best way to remain covert is, according to the books, is to be "the grey man". Be bland, boring and average. Don't dress like Liberace' if you wish to remain covert at a Nascar race. Or the Vatican.
And I do take things a bit too literally, ergo "The Grey Man"
I am a middle aged professional, with a BS and a Doctorate from state schools, and a proud Louisiana native. I still live there, outside of a small town.
The Bride and I have been married a long time, and never to anyone else. No, no kids.
I own my own professional practice, albeit small, dealing either with my own clients or subcontracting to other practices.
My Bride is active in her church, and we mostly shop at WalMart.
We're just pretty boring, just garden variety Americans.
SO WHAT ARE YOUR POLITICS?
I've always been fairly conservative fiscally, but was pretty liberal socially when young. I was even a conscientious objector when draft registration was first reinstated. President Carter cured me of any leanings to the Democratic Party.
I also started reading on my own. So I became a Reagan Republican. OK, probably more of a pro-defense Libertarian than anything else. The Republicans were a good on defense and better than Democrats on spending.
But, sadly, the Republicans lost their way on spending. They were becoming Democrat-Lite. And then came the Katrina experience.
So I quit being a Republican. And that brings us to today.
I consider myself a Radical Independent. I neither like nor respect nor believe our two major parties. Or the minor ones for that matter. I saw the media in action during and after Katrina, and give them all due respect. That respect is exactly zero.
I seek my own sources for information, and look to my own mind for analysis.
SO WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?
I believe that even with her few stumbles, America has been the greatest provider of liberty and prosperity the world has ever seen.
I believe that our Founders were pretty damn smart. I'll even go so far as to say wise and profound. What they designed has worked pretty well these last few centuries. I also believe that before we stray too far from the Founder's teachings, we'd better have damn compelling arguments,and I've got to be shown a system that has worked better in practice, not just theory.
I believe that America has stumbled recently, no more, no less. For us to resume the pinnacle, I believe we've got to get back to the fundamentals that took us there before.
I also believe that Americans of goodwill can openly debate issues without resorting to rancour or name calling. In short, I believe we can disagree without being disagreeable.
SO WHY ARE YOU "THE GREY MAN"?
First, because I'm boring. I don' t go clubbing with celebrities. I'm not ivy league. I have no desire to be a blogging star. I'm just a guy trying to do a little better for my bride and myself.
I'm just a common man trying to gain and dispense a little common sense.
Secondly, dispensing common sense is dangerous. Sacred cows of all stripes must be gored. And there are some Americans who are not of goodwill. So it's best to remain covert. And the best way to remain covert is, according to the books, is to be "the grey man". Be bland, boring and average. Don't dress like Liberace' if you wish to remain covert at a Nascar race. Or the Vatican.
And I do take things a bit too literally, ergo "The Grey Man"
The Rules
1) I do this for fun and to learn. I'm not here to babysit. We're all supposed to be adults, so I require you to act like one.
2) You will show respect at all times. No name calling. The proper way to discuss public figures is to give their title and name at the first mentioning, then just the name. No McBusHitler or Obambi. If you must engage in this, there are plenty of other places for you to comment. Please go there.
3) I have nothing against invective. But I have a LOT against BAD invective. Repeatedly calling someone an asshole, etc., is not only non-educational, it's just plain boring. So please be creative if you must insult.
4) Please cite. Telling us Senator Firefly of Fredonia is a gay alien who beats whales with baby seals gets you nowhere without a cite.
5) Before you write or react to any words, please know their meaning. There are several good online dictionaries, please use them.
6) No one here cares how you feel. So put your emotions in neutral. We do care, deeply, about what you THINK. So depress the mental clutch and put your brain in gear.
7) The Moderator (yours truly) reserves the right to remove any comment that violates the above. Unless it's so bad, we'll keep it just to laugh at. Repeated violations will get you banned. Maybe getting banned from a big site might be a source of pride. Getting banned from here just makes you look stupid. So please play nice.
2) You will show respect at all times. No name calling. The proper way to discuss public figures is to give their title and name at the first mentioning, then just the name. No McBusHitler or Obambi. If you must engage in this, there are plenty of other places for you to comment. Please go there.
3) I have nothing against invective. But I have a LOT against BAD invective. Repeatedly calling someone an asshole, etc., is not only non-educational, it's just plain boring. So please be creative if you must insult.
4) Please cite. Telling us Senator Firefly of Fredonia is a gay alien who beats whales with baby seals gets you nowhere without a cite.
5) Before you write or react to any words, please know their meaning. There are several good online dictionaries, please use them.
6) No one here cares how you feel. So put your emotions in neutral. We do care, deeply, about what you THINK. So depress the mental clutch and put your brain in gear.
7) The Moderator (yours truly) reserves the right to remove any comment that violates the above. Unless it's so bad, we'll keep it just to laugh at. Repeated violations will get you banned. Maybe getting banned from a big site might be a source of pride. Getting banned from here just makes you look stupid. So please play nice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)