Show Me

Monday, February 21, 2005

THE GLOBAL WARMING HOCKEY STICK

It's very likely that various entities and individuals and institutions have been scamming us and cooking the books and lying to us for as long back as anyone can remember. When this kind of thing is done by a business or an entity the media would be inclined to label as 'right of center', it immediately makes front page news along with calls for severe retribution. When similar activities are perpetrated by what the MSM (Main Stream Media) regards as 'Holy Cows' (the MSM themselves, the UN, Hollywood, Liberals or various Liberal special interest groups, etc.), the news is either totally suppressed or shows up on the functional equivalent of page nine.

This pattern was in force for a long time because the MSM seemed to have an ideological oligopoly on The Means of Information. This has fortunately changed. We can now get news the MSM ignores and second or alternate opinions along with supporting facts from Talk Radio, Fox News, the Internet, various print vehicles, and most recently and spectacularly, the Blogosphere.

At first it was only the MSM which came under the scrutiny of bloggers and others for 'making up the news' and/or 'perpetrating unsubstantiated rumors' and/or 'cooking the books on generally available information' and/or 'blatant plagiarism' and/or 'egregious leftward bias' and/or more generally being unprofessional and FUBARING the whole process of gathering and disseminating news and/or information. Exposure (in spite of considerable MSM 'stonewalling') of one or more such misdeeds has resulted in resignations from the BBC, the NYT (Blair, and Raines), CBS (Rather and four others), and most recently CNN's Jordan.

* MEDIA BIAS AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISSUES
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedix1.html#media

Instances of malfeasance have been brought to light in institutions other than just the MSN. The UN and Kofi Annan and many of his associates and subordinates (including his son) have a lot to answer for regarding the 'Oil for Food SCAM'. This is orders of magnitude bigger than Enron or the UN's previous UNICEF scam of several decades ago, and it brings into question the integrity of the UN, an institution held in reverential awe by the MSM.

Sadly, corruption and/or 'making things up' and/or 'cooking the books' and/or 'egregious leftward bias' does not stop here. It seems to have crept into UN sanctioned 'science' as well.

By way of background, it comes as no surprise that since the 60's in both Europe and the US, the softer, squishier more intrinsically subjective academic disciplines have been infected by a general hatred for the West and the US in particular, and manifested in diseases like multiculturalism and relativism and post modernism and deconstructionism and bastardized versions of Marxism and bigoted and intolerant incarnations of political correctness and a triumph of ideology over facts and truth and academic diversity and freedom, originated and perpetrated by the likes of Herbert Marcuse (a 'Europeanized' version of 'Marcus' as in Nieman Marcus??) Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault.

The result is that everything from the softer sciences like Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy and Sociology and Anthropology and Political Science all the way to the even more squishy Humanistically oriented subjects like Philosophy and Art and Literature and History have been FUBARED to a disturbing degree, and turned into deconstructed post-modernist JUNK.

For example, the Academia and/or MSM postmortem on the recently departed Arthur Miller hails him as being the virtual modern equivalent of Shakespeare. In fact, his 'Death of a Salesman' was good (but not great), and his other works were not particularly notable. They did however have a 'leftish slant' (that in itself does not preclude the production of great work as is evidenced by Eisenstein, Upton Sinclair, Faulkner etc.), which accounts for the accolades from the MSM and Academia. Had it been a 'rightish slant' his passing would have barely been noted.

The 'harder' sciences like Climatology would seem to be more insulated from this kind of decay and corruption because of Scientific Method and Peer Review. This continues to be generally true except that even this enclave of relative academic integrity seems to have been politicized and hijacked by 'politicized scientists', whose tendency is to retrofit information and findings to ideology and their particular political views rather than sticking with the facts and where they lead. The institutions they work for also tend to reward and encourage such behavior.

This kind of thing is not entirely new, and there have been instances in the past where 'scientists' with a particular ideological point of view compromised on honest methodology and 'cooked the books' to fit their particular predilections or in some cases, those of their sponsors. Fudging of results by geneticist Lysenko in Stalinist Russia is a prime example.

Alfred Kinsey and Ruth Benedict in the US also come to mind, even though they operated in fields that were not quite regarded as 'hard science' and thus allowed for a bit more leeway. They proceeded to abuse this leeway to the max. The MSM and Academia and Hollywood (in the case of Kinsey) have of course ignored their ideologically driven methodological lapses and 'cooking of the books', and have proceeded to lionize them both. Their tendency is not to ask whether something is accurate or true, but whether it conforms with leftist ideology or political correctness.

This tendency is also evident in the recent attack by Feminists, the Harvard Faculty and the MSM on Harvard's president Larry Summers (formerly of the Clinton administration). Essentially, he stated in a speech closed to the general public, that while the Means in Standardized Math and Science Tests were essentially equal for males and females, the bell shaped normal distribution of male test scores is more 'platykurtic' (i.e. relative to an 'idealized' normal distribution, more individuals are at both the high and low end tails of the distribution), while the distribution of female scores is more 'leptokurtic' (i.e. the distribution is more concentrated about the mean and has fewer individuals at either the high or low extremes).

What's more, those in Math and Science careers tend to be drawn from the upper tails of such test distributions, which are more densely populated in the male distribution than the female distribution. This along with several other factors, may help to explain why there are more males than females in Math and Science careers. There is nothing in this which is at variance with current research findings, and in any event, Summers merely suggested that these were areas worthy of further discussion and debate.

For this the Feminists, the Harvard Faculty, and the MSM descended on him like a swarm of leather winged demons, and demanded his head on a platter. None of them suggested that what he said was not true. What seemed to set them off was that his statement was at variance with their ideological dogma, which posits that the brains and minds of males and females are hard wired exactly the same way, and that the relative scarcity of females in Math and Science careers is due exclusively to oppression and discrimination. Summers apologized several times for telling the truth. One wishes he'd had more 'guts' and had stuck to his guns, since he may end up being cashiered by the 'PC Inquisition' in any event.

EMPIRICISM and MATH/SCIENCE EDUCATION (12-17-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp12.html#PART12DEC02

JUNK LOGIC (06-26-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp11.html#PART11JUN12

With this background in mind we come at long last to the 'Hockey Stick Scam'. It's relevant because it's been used in support of the hypothesis of Global Warming (GW), and the Kyoto Treaty which exists because of it. This treaty is now in effect for those countries that signed off on it. The US is not a signatory, China is not covered by it (though it's rapidly becoming a bigger CO2 threat than the US) and Putin's Russia was also not ready to sign except that Putin figured that if he did, it would help Russia get into the WTO, and in any event, he probably would violate its strictures pretty much as the old USSR ignored various arms and test ban and nuclear disarmament treaties.

A crucial issue in the GW hypothesis (the MSM seem to treat GW, not as a hypothesis [every so called law or finding of science is still treated as a hypothesis by honest scientists because it could be subject to change as more and better information becomes available], but as an 'established fact' that rises to the level of Metaphysical Certitude) is whether a small increase in global temperatures in the last century is something that's not unusual and is within the normal variation (Standard Deviation from the long term Mean) in global temperatures historically, or is exceptional and is caused by industrialization and burning of fossil fuels and the resulting CO2 emissions from these sources.

The problem is of course that we don't have any global (or even local) temperature measurements that go back much more than a hundred years or so, and concomitantly, nothing from which to compute a Mean and Standard Deviation.

To get around this problem, surrogate estimates of temperature must be substituted for real data if we are to make inferences for what happened in the last 1000 years. Such surrogate measures can be obtained from examining the rings of certain very old trees. Using such surrogate measures, temperature estimates for the past 1000 years were made. Needless to say, there can be considerable latitude in terms of which of these trees are used in the estimates.

If we look at the RAW data obtained in this way, it becomes clear that temperatures were quite variable historically, and that in fact there was a period of GW in the 1400's that was more substantial than anything that we're seeing recently. Since there were fewer humans, no industrialization, and no emissions from cars in the 1400's it would seem that GW apparently could happen without any of these causes being present, and is both 'normal' and was very likely caused by something else.

It has also been said that when seen from a geological perspective, GW is what happens between Ice Ages, and has been happening periodically before there were even humans on this planet. Things like variations in solar radiation and activity as exhibited in solar prominences and sunspot outbursts, as well as nutation (the periodic 'wobbling' of the earth's axis and the resulting changes in the angle of the sun vis-a-vis the earth which in turn affects temperature and climate), and other factors have been suggested as explanations for the Ice Age/GW cycles.

All this was known in the early 1990's but apparently it did not sit well with the UN and its IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). It obviously did not support their ideologically driven hypothesis of GW. Fortunately for them, there were some like minded 'politicized scientists' i.e. Mann, Bradley, and Hughes, who published an article in 1998 in Nature. This article came to the rescue of the GW hypothesis by coming up with a 1000 year long estimate of global temperatures that resembles a hockey stick.

This description comes from the fact that after the raw data had been selectively gleaned (not ALL tree data going back 1000 years was included), and filtered and otherwise statistically massaged, the trend line of temperatures starting 1000 years ago was essentially 'flat' and slightly declining (the handle of the hockey stick) while after 1900 there was a dramatic upturn (the 'J' shaped upward curved end of the hockey stick).

This 'hockey stick curve' became the poster child of all GW advocates, because it dramatically 'proved' the existence of GW. It played no small part in being one of several 'justifications' (one suspects the REAL 'justification' for this treaty was that it would hobble the industrialized nations [especially the US] economically in order to let the 'third world' catch up... a 'screw the US' transnational income redistribution scheme of sorts) for the drafting of the Kyoto Treaty. The 'hockey stick' appeared in just about every screed put forth by GW advocates.

This scam was eventually exposed when a set of independent researchers (McIntyre and McKitrick... not beholden to the UN or the IPCC) as well as others (a research paper recently published in the journal Science by Professor Hans von Storch and colleagues has found significant problems with the hockey stick. Von Storch, the leader of the research team at the Institute of Coastal Research at Geesthacht, Germany, calls the hockey stick "junk" or "rubbish."), raised some questions about the work of Mann et al, which perhaps should have been raised by the editors of Nature before they published the article. Google these names and their associated works, if you're interested in more detail.

To quote McIntyre's comments at a symposium:


    "As an academic study, there are a number of ordinary questions that academics routinely ask when looking at these kinds of things. It is an empirical paper, so we can ask

      • What data were used?
      • How were the numbers crunched?
      • How sensitive are the results to different ways of crunching them?
      • Are there any mistakes in the data?


    These are all everyday, ordinary questions that academics ask of each other’s work. Now in talking about this as an academic exercise, you need to understand that there are two distinct stages of scientific review. There is the peer-review process which is a pre-publication review. It provides sometimes minimal, sometimes more extensive review, but it is a first stage quality control and it happens prior to publication. It is providing advice to the editor about whether the paper should be published, but it is not providing a definitive once-and-for-all answer about whether the results are right, only whether these results should be put out in published form.


    The second stage of the review is the more extensive one. That happens after publication where the work is examined, challenged and in a sort of a core practice of science, where others try to replicate the published results. The second stage is often the most important part of the review."



What they found in this 'second stage' was disturbing in several respects.

    1) The tree ring data was selectively screened.

    2) The data filtering (using 'programmable Low Pass' filters) and data analysis (Principal Components Analysis) were both 'rigged' and inappropriately used.

    3) Several RANDOM sets of Monte Carlo generated data yielded the same 'hockey stick' curve as the 'actual' data used by Mann when they were run through Mann's analytic algorithms. In effect, the analytical algorithm was guaranteed to produce a 'hockey stick' no matter what kind of data was run through it.

    4) Mann et al were stonewalling in terms of providing the exact data and algorithms that they used to produce the 'hockey stick curve'. They never owned up to 'filtering' the data before hand (i.e. in their article) until they were called on it. This hardly resembles openness to Peer Review.

    5) When ALL the data were used and examined via both Mann's algorithm and a simple moving average, there was a SUBSTANTIAL divergence in the two estimates, especially in the 1400's. Mann's algorithm suppressed the substantial GW that occurred in the 1400's.

    6) Mann et al subsequently made some minor corrections and retractions regarding their 'hockey stick curve' hypothesis but essentially acted like Dan Rather and CBS did vis-a-vis the forged TANG memos.

    7) McIntyre et al submitted their findings to Nature, but its editors refused to publish this work. Apparently this was in spite of overwhelming evidence generated in support of their (and the work of others) findings. Sounds like the 'PC Inquisition' all over again.

At the end of the day, this is another example of ideologically driven 'cooking of the books' and FUBARING of the data, which nowadays is becoming all too familiar. Fortunately, independent researchers (acting somewhat the same way as Bloggers did in the case of CBS/Rather and CNN/Jordan) found them out. The Bloggers once again stepped in to make these findings known on the WEB until finally, publications like the WSJ picked up on this story.

Saturday, February 05, 2005

COMMENTS REGARDING LINKS

Those of you (probably a relatively modest number) who have looked at one or more entries in this BLOG, may have wondered why the LINKS that appear in these entries seem to lead almost exclusively to the same source.

A roundabout explanation is that we subscribe to the Chinese view of History (i.e. that history tends to be CYCLICAL... sort of like the events depicted in the movie 'Groundhog Day' ) and that major themes have a way of repeating themselves. We therefore refer BACK to other essays that have already addressed the same thematic content that appears in our entries.

Granted that there are nuances that make things a little bit different as new events take place and new information comes in (a phenomenon calling for a Bayesian updating strategy), but previous takes on very similar matters are worth noting. They continue to be relevant for the most part.

Here's a point of access to the INDEX of the SOURCE to the links:

* GATEWAY TO ON-LINE OP-ED BLOG 'BOOK'
SEE: http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/index.html

Here's a link to the LAST POST on the previous BLOG:

* PARTING THOUGHTS (12-31-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp12.html#PART12DEC05

Here's an excerpt from the last entry into the previous BLOG:

"This is our last entry into this particular blog collection. Along with its index, this amounts to exactly 1000 pages of a PDF format 'book'. Further comments will be posted elsewhere."

* GATEWAY TO NEW (gnu) CYNICAL11 BLOG I
http://cynical11.tblog.com

* GATEWAY TO NEW (gnu) CYNICAL11 BLOG II (currently inactive)
http://ebloggy.com/cynical11

* GATEWAY TO showit2me CYNICAL11 BLOG III
http://showit2me.blogspot.com

"As we pointed out at a similar temporal demarcation point in the past (2002), the content of these 1000 pages really consists of variations on a few persistent themes, continually replayed in new contexts. Most of these themes can be traced back to the treatise on the SCUM of THE 60's and the treatise on MONICA."

* WHAT GOES AROUND.... [526]
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedpt7.html#PART7CB7099

* SCUM of the 60's
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/scum.html

* MONICA
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/monica.html

"These comments in turn are characterized by a grave concern for 'double standards' and 'lack of symmetry' and 'basic unfairness' and 'bigorty and intolerance' and 'relentless attempts to gain totalitarian and dictatorial kontrol' and 'contempt for democracy and the will of the people' and finally by the overarching description of all this and more, which we refer to as the 'A-Factor'."

* THE 'A FACTOR' (11-11-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp12.html#PART12NOV03

"These traits are exhibited by the current incarnation of DEMS and their IRON TRIANGLE of lapdogs (apparently the DEMS have large laps) consisting of the unelected and unaccountable INFORMATION OLIGOPLOY of MEDIA and POP (and other variants of what passes today for) CULTURE and LEARNING, the LEFTIST LEGALISTAS, and ORGANIZED LABOR.

The continuation of this blog will address these themes as they arise in events that are as yet unforseen."



BELATED COMMENTS on the RATHERGATE REPORT

Although the 'expert' that was cited in the appendix of the report regarding the fake TANG memos said unequivocally that the memos in question were not authentic, Thornburgh et al still insisted that there was no evidence that the memos were fake.

It seems that the same evidence that was in the report could simply have been described differently. Rather than saying (it's paraphrased here) that:

"...there is no evidence that the memos were fake"

the same data could alternately be described as:

"... there is no evidence that the memos were authentic"

Not opting for the latter formulation hints at the presence of some hidden agendas. The report is reminiscent of Arthur Anderson's audit of Enron. The available facts were mostly there, but the appropriate conclusion was absent.

Keep in mind that while the NYT did a more genuine 'Mea culpa' than CBS, as did the BBC (remember 'sexed-up WMD intel' ??), and both sacrificed a few bodies, that does not seem to have altered the way they go about their business today.

What's important in this case is that while the mighty MSM (Main Stream Media) dinosaurs seem to have dodged a bullet via this 'whitewash', it's plain to see that 'the mammals are eating (blogging?) their eggs'.

* CBS/RATHER AIR FORGED MEMOS... RATHERGATE? (09-13-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp12.html#PART12SEP05

* MEDIA BIAS AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISSUES
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedix1.html#media


Thursday, February 03, 2005

PUBLIC BROADCASTING and ACCOUNTABILITY

It's amusing that the process of fighting for ratings and concomitantly, for profits, forces a discipline on the networks that occasionally persuades them to abandon their ideologically driven attempts at filtering and spinning the news for fear of being 'scooped'. Occasionally, something resembling accountability actually happens.

Sadly, such a discipline is absent and therefore does not exert any influence on 'public' news like the BBC and PBS. They filter and spin the news to their ideologically driven heart's content.

It's worse in the UK. There, you're assessed approximately the pound equivalent of $75 per year for EVERY TV SET YOU OWN (less for B & W sets than for color) to support BBC. This is not optional. You are FORCED to pay.

We don't know how they enforce the per TV assessment for the BBC in the UK. Maybe they have a TV Inquisition with TV auditors and/or inquisitors who come to each house in the middle of the night or the wee morning hours on random dates, break down the doors, count the TVs, and bill the owners accordingly (NO one expects the TV Inquisition!!).

Then again, maybe people know in advance that the auditors are coming and hide all their TVs in the basement or under their beds or bury them in their back yards.

Maybe they have TV catacombs where they secretly gather to watch TV on uncounted (and therefore illegal) TV sets.

Yet another possibility is that the Brits are 'sheeple' and basically pay up without complaining (others say the same thing about our voluntary compliance with the IRS).

Of course you can't opt out of paying for PBS via your taxes over here either... you just don't know the exact amount of your personal 'TAX HIT' for PBS.

Fortunately, we don't have the UK's highly visible 'flat TV tax' and its intrusive collection system here, though it's somehow doubtful that the usual 'screeching hyenas' who take it upon themselves to champion privacy issues, would raise much of a yelp if we did. After all according to them, unlike National Security, privacy intrusions 'for a good cause' like Public Broadcasting are 'justified'.

In the USA, PBS tax support is stealthily extracted from general revenues. Supposedly, it's not all that much, but we don't know for sure (in the UK you at least know exactly how much the BBC is costing you personally). How public is public? No one knows precisely.

The second source (representing the bulk of the money) consists of corporate sponsors who contribute lavishly to PBS, only to have PBS trash them and capitalism at every programming opportunity.

Then there is the third source of revenue, the beggars. On TV, the PBS panhandling sessions are infinitely more annoying than commercials. Some commercials can at least be funny or entertaining or informative.

It sometimes appears that the 'idle rich' volunteers with nothing better to do with their time are manning the phones and doing all this begging. Perhaps these same begging skills explain how they got to be rich in the first place. It's their 15 minutes of 'fame'.

A somewhat different scenario emerges with PBS in smaller markets. There seems to be considerable evidence that in smaller markets, the big contributors to Public Broadcasting (they tend to be leftists) who respond to the panhandling drives, pretty much get (buy themselves?) the opportunity to have a say (at minimum, a veto) in the local station's programming content.

It's like renting air time for themselves and their ideological predilections at substantially less than commercial ad rates. The result is an even more leftward skew in the programming of such stations than for PBS as a whole. That's substantially more ego gratifying for them than a mere 15 minutes of 'fame'.

Consider the following oxymoron:

"Conservative commentator for NPR".

In spite of this, shows like the "Lehrer News Hour" still insist on the fantasy that somehow they present 'professional and unbiased news' (unlike National Public Radio, Public TV's Lehrer program actually has the occasional conservative commentator, but the totality of his show's information flow is still egregiously leftward biased).

In the midst of all this, it's amazing that occasionally good programming still gets to see the light of day on PBS. Be that as it may, at least we have choices here (the BBC has a near monopoly in England, and choices are much more limited).

In the USA, we can 'Vote with our Remote'!

Having this kind of empowerment as a result of having choices is more than enough to counteract whatever we may not like about commercial broadcasting. If we don't like what we see on a particular channel, we can push that button on our remote and go elsewhere.
When enough people push the button that gets them away from a particular channel on a consistent basis, that channel will eventually 'get the message' (in spite of exceptions like Dan Rather).

It brings about a kind of accountability and democracy that's not available in government imposed 'one size fits all' information monopolies, or information oligopolies like the three networks had 20 years ago.

* MEDIA BIAS AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISSUES
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedix1.html#media


COMMENTS on SOCIAL SECURITY

It's interesting to note that even in the Valhalla of Socialism, Sweden, citizens enrolled in their equivalent of Social Security are allowed to have 'Personal Accounts'. Of course, that's true for our Senators, Congressmen and Federal government workers as well.

What's more, those with Keogh or IRA or 401(k) plans don't seem to be complaining about their inability to handle their accounts in the face of the vagaries of economic fluctuations. After all, no one is forcing them (in fact there are some restriction on how the money can be invested) to put their money into speculative ventures and if they don't like the risk, they can move their money into index funds or bonds or annuities or CD's or even a bank or credit union. It would appear that none of them have blown their nest eggs on Brazilian Coffee Futures, and yet are enjoying a better yield on their investments than the 'princely' 1% or so currently provided by Social Security.

Things are also different today than when Social Security was first enacted in 1935. At that time life expectancy was 63 years while the retirement age was 65, there were 16 payroll taxpayers for every retiree, and the payroll tax was around 3% with an income cap for payroll deductions of around $10,000 (inflation adjusted).

Today life expectancy is in the 80's and the retirement age has been moved up to 67 for some retirees, there are 3 taxpayers for every retiree, and the payroll tax is 12.4% while the income ceiling for this tax has been raised to $90,000.

In the 'out years' the taxpayer to retiree ratio will decline to 2:1, life expectancy will continue to go up and the 'Baby Boomers' will flood the ranks of retirees. What's more, Social Security payments will outpace INFLATION, since they're INDEXED to increases in SALARIES rather than COST of LIVING.

To listen to DEM Senate minority leader Harry (RETRO) Reid, one would think things have not changed since 1935. WRONG!! They have. We cannnot afford to live in the past. However, while something needs to be done, this 'crisis' is more like a 'wasting disease' such as AIDS or TUBERCULOSIS, than an acute illness like APPENDICITIS. That does not make it any less lethal or minimize the need for intervention.

If we implement 'Personal Accounts' as part of the solution, we should also be aware that there will be transition costs (additional borrowing) that would not be there if we simply let things go until the whole 'Ponzi Scheme' collapses.

THOUGHTS ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedpt2.html#PART2093

These transition costs will be trivial and temporary compared to the financial debacle that will occur if we don't intervene before the current system eventually IMPLODES.

Privatization as a component and/or option in Social Security will happen.

Those who most oppose privatization and reform (mostly Dems, but also lobbying groups like AARP), have a vested ideological interest in 'The Government as Nanny', as well as a more pragmatic concern that Social Security Bureaucrats as well as 'camp followers' like AARP employees, who like Government Bureaucrats tend to be reliable Dem voters and contributors, will start to lose their jobs in a more privatized environment. Of course, AARP can play it either way vis-a-vis privatization since they also sell Mutual Funds. Nevertheless, they don't like the added competition that privatization would bring.

If the ranks of those dependent on Government for all their problems, begin to thin out, then the need for the Misery Maggots (Dems) who feed upon these people, also begins to lose its reason for being. That was one of the side effects of Welfare Reform (under Clinton no less), so the Misery Maggots know full well what awaits them if something similar happens with Social Security. That's why they screech hysterically when faced with even a modest phased in 1% to a maximum of 4% of payroll taxes going to personal accounts. Even such a small percentage of TAXES no longer going into their coffers is begrudged by these Misery Maggots.

If the Misery Maggots really wanted to forestall Private Accounts, they would remove Social Security surpluses (while we still have them... as we do today) from General Revenue and put them into a 'real' TRUST ACCOUNT that generates the same rate of interest as Treasury Bills, and that could NOT BE SPENT on other GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS as it is now. Had something like this been done earlier, there would be no 'Solvency Crisis' today or even in the 'out years'.

Of course doing this would have the same effect in terms of 'taking money from the Misery Maggots' as diverting a piddly 1% to 4% to on a voluntary basis from payroll deductions out of their coffers. Either way, the Misery Maggots would have less money to spend, and that's why they're not even putting the notion of a 'real' SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND on the table for negotiation.

It's not really about 'Private Accounts', but about keeping the Misery Maggots from spending more money. If people ask what happened to the Social Security Surplus (i.e. the extra money from Payroll Deductions that was left over after the current Social Security recipients had been paid) that was supposed to be there for the future, the answer is:

"The Misery Maggots already SPENT IT!!!"

The Misery Maggots try to scare the people with the bugaboo of risks associated with Private Accounts. Meanwhile, they demonstrate their concern for future Social Security recipients by SPENDING the Social Security SURPLUS on their pet PROGRAMS. Yet they expect the people to trust them with their money. LOL!!

The clients of these Misery Maggots (i.e. the people Dems currently claim as their 'dependents') are not likely to be endowed with overwhelming amounts of cognitive competence or skepticism or rationality, so they most likely are not aware of what's being done to them. The Dems' control of the Public Education System, the Media, and the Manufacturers of Pop Culture has seen to that.

* EMPIRICISM and MATH/SCIENCE EDUCATION (12-17-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp12.html#PART12DEC02

* DUMBING DOWN and EDUCATION
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedix1.html#education

That would explain why some of them believe with Metaphysical Certitude in 'Global Warming' whose effects (if warming or its effects even exist) will be felt sometime in the 'out years' if at all, while they adamantly refuse to believe that if we don't fix Social Security in the next few years (we have a window of opportunity until 2018 to act before all attempts to fix things will be too late and in vain... money paid to retirees will exceed money coming in from taxpayers), things will somehow magically right themselves.

Never mind that we know more about Economics (though not all that much) than about Ecology and/or Climatology, and have a significantly better chance of implementing effective course corrections in a rather narrow and controllable economic area like Social Security, than attempting to understand, diagnose, predict, command, and control Nature.

As they see it, things will felicitously turn out OK in spite of the 'Baby Boomer Pig' emerging from the vent of the demographic python and dropping into retirement, while the pool of highly skilled, highly paid workers to pay for all this, becomes dramatically depleted. They somehow hope/expect that illegal immigrants will pick up the tab for retired 'baby boomers'. It is clear that uninformed and unsupported blind faith is in evidence here, rather than reason.

A few years ago, a survey indicated that about 30% of its respondents believed that the Government has vast stores of money derived from income completely independent of taxes (maybe Uncle Sam has some sort of rich 'sugar daddy' that the rest of us know nothing about??). In a different survey, about the same proportion (30%) believed that the sun revolves around the earth. It's highly probable that the same 30% was contacted by both surveys.

It's also likely that this 30% is contained within the ranks of the close to 50% of the population that doesn't pay any Income Taxes. The idea that the almighty Government is supported by taxes is somehow off their radar. They can't bring themselves to believe that if the system is not reformed, only dramatically higher payroll taxes and reduced benefits and massive borrowing may have an outsdide chance of keeping it from collapsing. They don't realize that the system would already be in trouble today if payroll taxes had not been increased in the 80's.

Many of the Misery Maggot's 'dependents' continue to beleive that they have their very own Social Security Account that contains all the money they put into it during their working years, awaiting them at their retirement. They are not aware that it's a 'pay as you go' system, and the money they put into it has already been spent on those who preceded them. They also are not aware that money going into Social Security is treated as general revenue by the Government. The so-called Social Security Trust Fund is only a bunch of IOUs.

The more 'sophisticated' in this bunch (blithely ignoring history) believe that more taxes and reduced benefits are not necessary, and that the whole system can be set right (shades of the previously mentioned 'sugar daddy') by some sort of mystical increase in wealth derived from the Government simply borrowing or printing more money... without any thought given to the consequential inflation and devaluation that comes from this. Boy would that fatten up the buying power of their Social Security checks.

* ECONOMIC ISSUES
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedix1.html#economy

Of course the Dems and their Mendacious Media Megaphones will not lift a finger to alleviate these misconceptions, and in fact encourage them.

To be fair about it, the relative indifference of some, and the outright opposition of others, to any attempts to change things in order to address the Social Security 'Solvency Crisis' is not entirely due to ignorance. It should not come as any big surprise that those who expect to get MORE from their Social Security BENEFITS than they put in via PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS (in some cases, practically nothing), are much more likely to OPPOSE CHANGE (even if it's necessary to save the system), than those who expect to get LESS than what they put in.

So it goes.

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

A COMMON THREAD IN SEVERAL RECENT EVENTS

Within the past two weeks or so, there were a number of different events that made the news. Working backward from the Iraqi elections held on Jan. 30th, there were also Ted Kennedy's speech; the confirmation of Condi Rice; the Oscar nominations; and Bush's inauguration and his inaugural address.

THE ACADEMY AWARD NOMINATIONS
Let's start with the most trivial. Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 9/11" were not nominated for anything in the Academy Awards. Perhaps Hollywood/The Academy recognized that Moore and "F 911" probably contributed to getting Bush re-elected, and thus chose not to reward this effort.

Of course, Hollywood being what it is, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" was also not nominated for anything except musical score (a very peripheral attribute relative to the movie as a whole). Apparently the Academy felt (in spite of the fact that the two films had nothing in common except that the same far leftist zealots who cheered "F 911", also roundly condemned "The Passion") that somehow these two slights would 'cancel each other out', and would thus make it appear that the Academy was 'fair minded'. No way.

* THOUGHTS ON THE MOVIE 'The Passion of the Christ' (03-02-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp10.html#PART10MAR02

* UPDATE ON THE MOVIE 'The Passion of the Christ' (04-05-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp10.html#PART10APR08

Maybe Moore recognized what his 'work' really was, better than the Academy. He did not enter "F 911" as a documentary, suggesting that he thereby admitted it was an agitprop piece consisting of a cinematic pastiche of over 56 deceits and out and out lies, assembled for the explicit purpose of hurting Bush's prospects for a second term.

* 56 DECEITS IN FAHRENHEIT 9/11
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Moore was entirely correct in recognizing that this work of pure leftist political SPAM could not be classified as a documentary. In any event, this agitprop piece seems to be either a faithful reflection of, or the 'mother' and basis of, the foreign policy views of the DEMS and the Main Stream Media (MSM) Mendicants and Academia and the Pundit Pukes (not just the NYT and Dan Rather and Ted Koppel, but even Zarqawi and Bin Laden parroted back some parts of "F 911" in their pronouncements), and all their critiques and ad-hominen attacks on the Bush administration's foreign policy, and more specifically its Iraq policies. "F 911" embodies the essence of the foreign policy perceptions and prescriptions advocated by these entities (think of them collectively as the 'idiocracy'). Expressions of these same criticisms and prescriptions pop up in the context of the other events that happened in these past weeks, and represent a common thread.

* ANOTHER PERCEPTUAL MAP (07-18-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp11.html#PART11JUL09

BUSH'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS
Chronologically, the inaugural address was the first of these events. The one thing that most people who heard it seemed to agree on was that it was idealistic, lofty, ambitious, and unspecific. Because of this, the address seemed to be almost like a Rorschach Ink Blot into which different people read different meanings which ultimately ended up representing their own biases and predilections rather than the meanings intended by Bush.

Of course, the naysayers of the 'idiocracy' even critiqued the non-specificity, but others pointed out that the State of the Union is a more proper venue for specifics than the inaugural address. This particular inaugural address posed a direct counterpoint to 'realpolitik'. The 'idiocracy' would have us forget that 'realpolitik' is a tactic rather than a strategy or an ideal or an end in itself.

The thing that's really scary is that if one parses and categorizes the "F 911" style foreign policy reactions of the 'idiocracy' to the inaugural address, one gets the clear impression that these people are somehow against FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY, and that the US has no business espousing such ideals, let alone using them as a guiding light in our foreign policy. This is nothing new. All of this has been around for quite a while.

* DEMS ARE AGAINST FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY (11-03-03)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedpt9.html#PART9NOV01

* SOCIAL DEMOCRACY is an OXYMORON (01-05-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp10.html#PART10JAN02

* LIMITS TO POWER (01-16-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp10.html#PART10JAN04

* WHOSE STATE DEPARTMENT? (03-01-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp10.html#PART10MAR01

THE CONDI RICE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
These same themes were repeated by people like Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden and other leftist zealots (to Boxer, her fellow Democratic Senator from CA, Diane Feinstein is probably a Right Wing Extremist... maybe Boxer's outburst was intended to make liberal 2008 wannabe Hillary look like a moderate by comparison) during Condi Rice's confirmation hearings. They were among the devil's dozen (the thirteenth was quisling Jeffords) who voted against Condi's confirmation and called her a 'liar' (that's rich, coming from the radical weatherman faction of the DEMS, the 'Party of Perjury'). Perhaps the DEMS and their camp followers think it's OK to be racist as long as the target is GOP and/or conservative (SEE: Clarence Thomas). The other 87 Senators disagreed with the DEM's 'new mainstream gang of 13' and voted to confirm Condi.

* FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedix1.html#foreign

TED KENNEDY'S SPEECH
Then there was more of the same in a speech given by Ted Kennedy. A few days before the Iraqi election, he denounced our policy in Iraq as being a "catastrophic failure" and a "disaster". The rest of the 'idiocracy' chimed in. Boy did THAT make prospective Iraqi voters feel good, not to mention its effect on our armed forces stationed in Iraq.

ELECTIONS IN IRAQ
When the Iraqi elections were finally held on Jan. 30th, the Iraqi people responded to all this nattering negativity by giving the 'idiocracy' a blue finger (they needed to have a finger marked with blue ink to show they had voted). Although the exact figures are still not in, it appears that the Iraqi voter turnout equaled if not exceeded the 60% voting here in the US, who unlike the Iraqis, went to the polls last November with no death threats to deter them.

The 'idiocracy' was proven wrong about their claim that absolute disaster and a miniscule turnout would happen if the election were not delayed (indefinitely?). Does anyone think this election would have taken place if Kerry had been President or if Bush had listened to the advice of the 'idiocrats'?

It would almost seem as if the 'idiocracts' were disappointed that more people had not been killed thus resulting in a smaller turnout. Someone pointed out that the number of people said to have been killed during the election (35 according to the NYT, though it turned out to be more at a later time), is less than the average of 47 people per day in the US killed by drunken drivers (are you listening Ted?).

The 'idiocracy' will now be shifting their story to:

"An election does not equal democracy, but on the other hand we need a specific exit timetable. The election was not legitimate because not enough Sunnis voted".

Most people won't argue that the election is an end point, and democracy has been fully secured in Iraq. They certainly don't assume that after the election, all terrorist activity will stop. The election is more likely to be seen as a milestone (one of many) in the democratic process. However, if that is true, then demanding a specific timetable for our departure (the terrorists would surely be happy if we supplied them with one... they can then just wait us out) does not make sense.

If the election is only part of a longer process, then why should it result in specific plans for our departure? It would be foolish to try to forecast exactly what will happen next and when it will happen, and we must tailor our support for Iraq's democracy to the situation as it evolves. Having taken things this far with notable success (Iraq is no longer a WMD threat to its neighbors, its people have been liberated from Saddam's tyranny, and Iraqis have a good start toward being on the road to FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY), this is no time to 'cut and run'.

It's hard to imagine what the 'idiocracy' version of 'legitimacy' is. Apparently they don't seem to have a problem with bogus elections in places like Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Russia, Chechnia, Belarus, the FIRST Ukrainian Election before the re-vote, and the Gubernatorial election in Washington State. In the Washington election, the DEM candidate (Gregoire) had a winning margin of 129 votes (after 2 dubious hand recounts) which was smaller than the number of votes for Gregoire being cast by voters who were subsequently found to be dead, and certainly smaller than the 737 Gregoire votes that were shown to be cast by either dead people or convicted felons. Of course these 'idiocrats' are the same people who are still trying to question Bush's winning margin of over 100,000 in Ohio.

As for the 'Sunni representation deficiency issue', there are a few things to keep in mind. First of all, there was a good turnout of Kurds, and most of them are also Sunnis. Secondly, even if ALL the Sunnis voted, the outcome of the election would not have been all that different because the Shia represent a substantial majority of the population. The TERRORISTS (they should NOT be called 'insurgents') who killed many Shiites and Kurds before the election are the same Saddamites and Baathists who were 'wagging the dog' of Iraq and butchering Kurds and Shiites as a minority under Saddam.

There is NO way they will ever regain the power and privileges they had under Saddam. While many (perhaps most) of them are secularists, the rest just incidentally happen to be Sunnis. What's more, if they chose to boycott the election because they can't accept their reduced influence in the new democratic order, that's their option (they were no more at risk than the rest of the Iraqis when it came to going to the ballot box). It is they who are responsible for their own marginalization if they choose not to participate. Their choice not to vote is not the fault of the election (the electoral process was not rigged to deny them access to the ballot box), and it does not 'delegitimatize' the election.

Of course, the fact that the Sunnis and/or Baathists and/or Saddamites had equal opportunities to vote is not enough for the 'idiocrats', and in the same procrustean fashion that they have tried to superimpose Vietnam on the Iraqi Liberation, they are also making noises that another of their conundrums, 'quota systems', should be applied to this particular minority. Never mind that they had their chance to vote and will have other chances in the future. According to 'idiocrat' thinking, they should be allocated a quota of seats in the new assembly whether they voted or not. That surely would be the 'affirmative' thing to do, according to them.

CONCLUSION
It has been said that insanity can be described as someone repeating the same action over and over, yet expecting a result different from that obtained in previous tries. This kind of behavior pattern characterizes the 'idiocracy' to a T.

Perhaps they believe that 'IDEOLOGY, LIES, JUNK science, and JUNK logic is the opium of the masses', since these masses have been sufficiently 'dumbed down' by our education and/or media and/or entertainmet establishment (the MSM INFORMATION OLIGOPOLY and the POP CULTURE CARTEL). Perhaps they feel that as a result of this 'dumbing down', people will swallow their ideology and lies and faulty logic and underhanded tactics without question or critical examination.

* EMPIRICISM and MATH/SCIENCE EDUCATION (12-17-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp12.html#PART12DEC02

Over the past four years there has been a palpable increase in their lying, cheating, hypocrisy, and other outrageous behavior, accompanied appropriately enough by electoral defeats. Yet they somehow feel that as a result of more of such behavior they will do better in the next election. It looks like Howard (Dr. Demento) Dean might become DNC chairman. The 'idiocracy' insists on being Megasphincters. It's almost as if they are saying:

"We have failed. Let us continue. What we did, didn't seem to work before, therefore we must redouble our efforts and continue to do even more of it."

This is a combination of hubris and bad karma. If it continues to accumulate, all the members of the 'idiocracy' will increase the likelihood that someday they will be reincarnated as rolls of toilet paper.

* THE 'A FACTOR' (11-11-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp12.html#PART12NOV03