The Current Crisis in the Financial Markets: What Caused it?

I am personally very uncomfortable with the recent federal bailouts of investment bank Bear-Sterns and Insurance company AIG, with the quasi-independent Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac intervention the possible exception. Fannie and Freddie are only partly independent anyway, and are called Government Sponsored Enterprises. They have (had—all have been fired and replaced) their own boards and CEO’s and their stock can be purchased on the open market. They are regulated and overseen by Congress and the administration, but they are technically private corporations, or were, anyway.

Their role in the mortgage industry is to expand home ownership by buying mortgages on the secondary markets, then bundling and repackaging them into “mortgage backed securities” (MBS). The idea behind the MBS’s is to bundle higher risk mortgages (with higher rates of return) with lower risk mortgages (lower rates of return) to balance and mitigate risk to investors while maintaining a decent composite return on their investment (in the MBS’s).
In the days of the Great Depression—when Fannie was born—no other entity would or could (by law) create MBS’s. Freddie was created in the 1970s to offer some competition to Fannie.

Legislation in the late 1990’s allowed commercial banks and investment banks to merge and consolidate their operations. The objective was to introduce even more competition to the financial services industry, and to offer consumers more choice and bring innovation. This allowed the investment banks to package their own loans from their commercial banking operations into so-called ‘private label’ MBS’s, and then sell them on the open market.

Couple this new competitive landscape with other legislation in the 1990’s that required lending institutions to offer mortgages to all areas and customers they served, eliminating what was called “red lining”, and you have a recipe for disaster. The banks were required by GOVERNMENT REGULATION to offer loans to people with poor credit or no credit. To mitigate their risk, the banks came up with, and regulators allowed new sub-prime lending rules, and then could repackage these sub-prime loans with high quality loans and then sell them off as MBS’s. The profits from these MBS turned out to be incredibly lucrative.

All of a sudden more people could buy houses, then the housing bubble began to build, then it popped, sub-prime mortgages began to go into default, and now blood runs down Wall Street.

As is so often the case, (and as I fear it will be again with the “solutions” to anthropogenic global warming) the good intentions of the Clinton Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress (at the time) ended up delivering a crushing blow to many low-income people. They will feel the brunt of this crisis, not anyone on Wall Street.

As my dad always used to say, ‘the road to Hell is paved with good intentions’.

Corporate Income Taxes Not Paid Grossly Exaggerated

According to the Tax Foundation, the AP stories reported today on a GAO report on corporate income taxes have grossly exaggerated the number of “large corporations” who paid no corporate income taxes. The truth is that only .28% of “large” corporations (at least $250 million in assets or at least $50 million in receipts) paid no corporate income taxes. The bulk of US corporations are small companies, or “S” corporations, and pay income taxes only as regular income, not as “corporate income”. The AP stories over estimated the amount of non-corporate tax paying large corporations by 90 times.

Barack Obama: What the Left Expects of Him as President

The Nation, one of the oldest left-wing publications in the US, recently published an open letter to Barack Obama, stating what they consider to be essential policy positions that he must embrace for their continued support. I suspect that they are beginning to become concerned about his level of support for their agenda, given his recent drift to the political ‘middle’.

Below are the policies to which they expect him to commit his unwavering support, lest he risk losing theirs:

• Withdrawal from Iraq on a fixed timetable.
  
  
• A response to the current economic crisis that reduces the gap between the rich and the rest of us through a more progressive financial and welfare system; public investment to create jobs and repair the country's collapsing infrastructure; fair trade policies; restoration of the freedom to organize unions; and meaningful government enforcement of labor laws and regulation of industry.
  
  
• Universal healthcare.
  
  
• An environmental policy that transforms the economy by shifting billions of dollars from the consumption of fossil fuels to alternative energy sources, creating millions of green jobs.
  
  
• An end to the regime of torture, abuse of civil liberties and unchecked executive power that has flourished in the Bush era.
  
  
• A commitment to the rights of women, including the right to choose abortion and improved access to abortion and reproductive health services.
  
  
• A commitment to improving conditions in urban communities and ending racial inequality, including disparities in education through reform of the No Child Left Behind Act and other measures.
  
  
• An immigration system that treats humanely those attempting to enter the country and provides a path to citizenship for those already here.
  
  
• Reform of the drug laws that incarcerate hundreds of thousands who need help, not jail.
  
  
• Reform of the political process that reduces the influence of money and corporate lobbyists and amplifies the voices of ordinary people.

Are the above positions ones which you support? If not, you should not vote for Obama.

Interesting Emails

I received some forwarded emails—often called “viral” emails because they get continuously forwarded—that I thought were an interesting illustration of Left vs. Right. Often these are of dubious origins, and I do not know who originally authored these.

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of Nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter. The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer.

These were the foundations of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: 1. Liberals, and 2. Conservatives. Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor the aluminum can had been invented yet, so while our early ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is now known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the onservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass. Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They like their beef well done. Tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury lawyers, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get something for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history: It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it. A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off. And there you have it.

And the second message:

Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Does it Matter what the Europeans think of America?

I have a good friend—a liberal—who is mortified by what he considers the sullied reputation of the United States as a result of Bush administration policies generally, and the Iraq war in particular. In his view, the USA’s ‘diminished’ status internationally makes gaining international cooperation on global issues far more difficult. It seems like many liberals feel the same way as he.

I, however, have a different view. First of all, I know of no definitive evidence that the reputation of the USA has been adversely affected. Moreover, I don’t see that it matters one way or the other anyway. To be completely honest, I really don’t care a wit what the rest of the world thinks of the USA. It’s always nice to be liked, I suppose, but I don’t define my sense of worth based on what others think of me.

In our many debates on this subject, my friend argues that it will be much more difficult to line up international support for US interests and objectives if the people from whom we seek such support don’t “like us”. My position is that France will do what is in the best interests of France first, and the world second, and the United States a distant third. (OK, so the French are a bad example; they dislike everything and everyone not French.) All countries, in fact, will do what is what they believe to be in their best interests, then the best interests of the world. How they ‘feel’ about the USA is, and should be, irrelevant.

US Open 18 Hole Playoff: A Fan's Perspective

I didn’t even consider that I’d have a chance to go the playoff on Monday on my way to work, but once there found that they had plenty of playoff tickets available for employees. I thought about NOT going, since I went to the tournament on Friday, and I figured it would be really crowded. But what the heck, I thought, when would I even get to see a playoff in a major championship again?

We had a parking pass for the North Course lot, so we parked and walked a short distance to the course entrance. We had listened to the radio broadcast on the way down, so we knew to try to get to the 5th or 6th hole. As soon as we got through the main entrance and passed by the huge merchandise tent, we could see the gigantic gallery along the north side of the 6th fairway, and knew that that was a good place to start looking.

Upon arriving at the throng of people, we decided to move west along the fairway toward the 6th tee box. It was only about 9:30am, but I nearly knocked over a man carrying a beer as I walked along the cart path looking up to read the leader board. His slurred, ‘Pardon me’, suggested that his nearly spilled beer was only the latest in a long string of beers so far this morning for him.

They still had the fairway crossing open to cross over the south side of the 6th fairway, and based on my recon work from Friday’s round I suggested we cross. From the south side, we’d have easier access (I thought) to the rest of the course. Once on the south side we found a nice shady spot with good sightlines to the fairway looking west. We were surrounded by young and old, pudgy and athletic, men and women, all hoping for a good view of Tiger and Rocco’s tee-shot landing area and their subsequent approach shots. We weren’t kept waiting for long.

We heard a roar from the 5th green and knew someone made a birdie or saved par with a long putt, and that it wouldn’t be long before they teed off on #6. When we saw the spotters along the rough on the south side of the 6th fairway trot into position we knew the tee shots were on their way. Tiger’s was first, landing gently and quietly in the fairway, left side, just past the bunkers. It belied what we were certain was a controlled explosion on the tee as Tiger uncoiled like spring wound too tightly.

Rocco’s ball fell to earth next, just below the apex of a small swale, about 40 yards behind Tiger. At least he had an uphill lie. We made our way east about 60 yards to a small hill where we had a decent view of the green, and watched as the players walked up to applause and cheers.

Rocco’s approach shot was a bit long and left him just off the putting surface. Tiger, of course, was about 8 feet with what looked from where I stood to be right-to-left break for birdie. Rocco chipped to what looked like was going to be way short of the hole, but it managed to roll just close enough to the edge of the upper tier and then picked up speed as it found the slope down to the hole. He had a couple feet for par, and Tiger, of course, made the birdie putt to go to Even, while Rocco’s par kept him at +1.

After Tiger’s putt we rushed with rest of the gallery to the west side of the 7th fairway, hoping for a view of the tee shots. It was way too crowded, however, and all we saw through the heads and hats was Tiger’s ball dancing in the fairway just right of the bunkers along the left side. It rolled on toward the hole. I couldn’t see where Rocco’s ball landed, and we watched as they two players and the huge entourage of officials, security people, TV reporters and cameramen, still photographers, and other apparent hangers-on made their way down the narrow path in the rough before the beginning of the fairway past us. We, along with thousands of our fellow sweaty fans slowly inched our way across the fairway crossing, since they had the west side of the 7th closed to foot traffic.

We decided to get several holes ahead, and tried to make our way past the confluence of the 8th and 17th greens, and the 18th tee. There was a huge gallery there, and a narrow path. We pushed through the crowd only to find out that the officials had already roped-off the path from the 8th green to the 9th tee, and we were stuck. Couldn’t go back, couldn’t go forward. By that time, fortunately, the players were hitting up onto the 8th, so we had to wait only until they’d putted out and moved, along with their seemingly growing entourage, over past the 18th tee to the 9th. I finally understood how people in large crowds suffocate and die when any sort of panic ensues. It was stiflingly hot, very little wind, and very claustrophobic. I thought I was going to have a panic attack.

Finally the ‘The Entourage’ passed and the ropes opened so we could continue our excruciatingly slow, inching-along-crush-of-humanity route to hopefully more open air and open spaces.

We made our way south between the 9th and the 15th holes, and could see far to the southwest the nearly empty grandstands at the 12th green. We decided to try to get there and see one “quality” hole instead of tiny glimpses of the action between the sun-screened ears and the floppy hats and ‘US Open Torrey Pines 2008’ ball caps.

Along the way we crossed behind the 13th green and found that the grandstands for #11 still had space, so we climbed the stairs and found some good seats. Since #12 was a long walk out of the way, and we had a nice spot there at 11, we bagged the idea of going out to the 12th grandstands.

The wind was light and variable, but the sun beat down on us like a weight. I don’t know what the humidity was, but it felt very high, and the marine layer was occasionally spilling wispy clouds over our heads. The cold beers people kept bringing up the stairs looked very good and very tempting.

We waited almost 15 minutes for the players to get through #10, and the leaderboard across the fairway said Tiger had a 3 shot lead. Some of the spectators had the little hand-held TV’s that you could get by showing your American Express card, and they were keeping us all informed of what was happening. There was an exciting, tension-filled air about the whole day.

Finally, we could see Tiger’s almost neon red shirt on the elevated tee box of #11, nearly 220 yards away. I don’t know what club he used, but it sailed high and landed softly in the left green-side bunker, about 20 feet from the pin. Rocco’s ball landed just short of pin-high, 3 feet right, and rolled to about 18 feet past the hole.

The gallery cheered loudly for both Rocco and Tiger as they approached the green. The green sloped downhill and to the right from where Tiger stood in the bunker, and had a slightly right hand break. Tiger surveyed his shot from every angle then lofted a sand wedge shot high and soft that rolled about 10 feet past the hole. The sound of camera shutters clicking and whirring immediately after he swung was surprising.

Rocco putted next and had a great putt but left it s tiny bit short—but only had a tap-in for par.

I was surprised at how long Tiger took to study his par putt. He looked at it from every angle, slowly circling around the hole and ball like a shark trying to decide how attack and eat his prey. You could almost hear the gears whirring and calculations humming from across the 30 yards between us.

Despite this study, however, he missed the putt and had to settle for a bogey. We watched them walk the 30 yards or so over to the 12th tee, where Rocco hit his normal, average-Joe sounding drive, and Tiger once again exploded on the ball. It sounded like a howitzer going off. He didn’t like the shot though, as it appeared to be going right of the fairway.

After they walked west off the 12th tee, we made our way over toward the 14th hole, hoping to get ahead of the crowd and get another grandstand seat. The 14th looked interesting, because the tees were set way forward, to 277 yards, but was still a par 4. Tiger would only need a 3 wood for that, and Rocco could hit it with his driver. Unfortunately, the gallery around the 14th had grown considerably since we’d walked past earlier, so we continued on hoping for something in the stands on 18.

The 15th was not quite as crowded, and from the west side of the green we found a good spot to sit and wait. We also could see that people were still being allowed up and into the 15th grandstands, so we decided to see if we could get seats as well. We made our way left around the north end of the green and over to the staircase between the northern and central grandstands east of the 15th. The officials ushered us further south where we found seats near the very top of the grandstands. It was a bit shady, and there was a nice breeze.

From where we sat, immediately east of the 15th green nearly pin-high, we could see the 16th tee to the west, the 15th fairway to the south, and, through the trees, the western edge of the 14th green. The 15th green in front of us had a large bunker between the green and us, and across the green and slightly north of us was another. Even further away to our southwest we could see the tee box for the 13th hole, and as we sat down we could just make out Tiger’s red shirt moving around as a red dot.

The next 30 minutes or so we spent moving over and standing up to let others pass to find their own seats in the stands. Some of our fellow spectators had the American Express TV’s, and they were keeping us informed on the player’s progress. The gallery along the west side of the 15th fairway and green continued to grow as more and more people gathered.

One enterprising lady went down to the concession stand and brought back a box full of burgers, hot dogs, and beer, and sold them to anyone who wanted them. She sold them for what she paid, so I guess she wasn’t really that enterprising after all, but nice nonetheless.

People cheered when the leaderboard across the fairway changed from Rocco +3, Tiger +2 to Rocco +2, Tiger +1 through 13 holes. Cheers again and shouts of “ROCCO” as later the scores changed again to Rocco +1, Tiger +1 through 14.

A large tree along the 15th fairway blocked our view of the tee shots, but we could see Rocco’s ball land and hop a few times in the fairway just short of the tree. We waited for Tiger’s ball to fall, and looked 40 yards further up the fairway for it. When we didn’t see it, but then saw ten or twelve officials run east across the fairway toward the 9th fairway, we knew Tiger must have sliced it well right off the tee. There was a line of trees to our south that obscured our view of where his ball landed, so we had to rely on our fellow grandstanders with TV’s to tell us what exactly happened. Tiger had sliced his drive into a fairway bunker on the 9th fairway, but apparently had some sort of shot to the green. We later learned that it was about 175 yards to the pin.

Despite Tiger’s errant tee shot, Rocco was still furthest from the green and he hit first. The traveling photographers set up along the west side of the fairway and were jostling for position. Rocco’s approach shot went very high, and from my vantage point, looked like it would fall short of the green. However, it landed just on the putting surface and rolled behind the pin to about 25 feet. Raucous cheers and loud cries of “ROCCO” rose to an almost deafening level.

Now it was Tiger’s turn. We could barely make him out through the tree line down the east side of the fairway. The gallery had parted, leaving him an alley toward the green. It looked to me like he would have to fade the ball from left to right to hit the green, and after what seemed like a longer-than-usual pre-shot routine, he made his swing and we turned our heads to see where the shot would land. My buddy, after seeing Rocco’s shot, thought Tiger had no chance to even find the green, but I thought that a long bunker shot for tour pros in general and Tiger in particular aren’t much of a big deal. I had an eerie feeling that he’d not just find the green, but that he’d be inside of Rocco’s shot.
The gigantic gallery was hushed, waiting for what seemed like too long for the ball to get to wherever it was heading, ‘Where is it?’, I thought. But then down it came from high above, as if dropped by God, hitting just past pin-high then rolling to 12 feet—yes—inside Rocco’s ball. The gallery roared even louder, and people and photographers rushed up closer to the green looking for a better angle.

The roar of the crowd grew again as the players made their way up the fairway and onto the green, both men tipping their caps in acknowledgment of the enthusiastic fans. It felt more like an NBA playoff than a US Open playoff. The only thing missing was the pounding music and flashing lights.

Tiger marked his ball and Rocco started his pre-shot routine, carefully reading the breaks and judging speed. He walked around the green and looked over his putting line from both sides of the hole, and then went back and looked again from the ball to the hole. The huge gallery was hugely quiet. You could hear yourself breathe, and it was truly amazing that so many people could be so quiet.

Finally he set up, took a couple practice strokes, and then gently stroked the ball toward the hole. As soon as it left his putter face I was certain it would be short. But it must have been slightly downhill, because like the bunny in the TV ads, it just kept on going….and finally dropped gently into the hole.

Again the gallery erupted in cheers and shouts of “ROCCO!!” There were high-fives and handshakes everywhere, and it seemed like the impossible had just happened.

As the noise level slowly receded, Tiger began his pre-putt routine. He placed his ball and removed his mark, and then started to study the break of the putt. This part of his game is something you can’t really pickup on watching him play on TV, because only once in a while do they take the time to show the whole thing. As he did on every other putt, he looks down the line of the putt, then stands and very slowly walks a large circle around the ball and hole, viewing the break from every angle. His stride was actually more of a strut than walk, his eyes locked on the ball and hole, a machine focused on calculating its objective.

The huge throngs of people were rapt in their silence, no one wanting to exhale for fear of interrupting his concentration. At last he stepped up to the ball, took two quick practice strokes, then addressed the ball and putted it. It looked at first like it was in, but it just barely missed to right of the hole and slid about two feet past the hole. He had to settle for par, and Rocco had a one stroke lead.

We watched them tee of on 16 before heading over to try to find a place to watch the action on 18. Unfortunately, the grandstands were completely full, and while we circled the grandstands surrounding the 18th green looking for a place to stand and watch, we realized everyone else had the same idea. It was a crushing crowd, and since I couldn’t come close to seeing any live action, I decided to go over to the air-conditioned comfort of the merchandise tent where they had plenty of big screen TVs where I could watch in comfort.

Rocco shot par the rest of the way, and we all saw Tiger’s spectacular birdie on 18 to force a sudden death playoff on the seventh hole. The seventh—the first sudden death playoff hole— is a dog-leg right hole, which is a difficult for Rocco’s natural right to left shot shape. Tiger’s tee shot was perfect, cutting across the trees on the right and landing just inside the first cut of rough on the right.

Rocco’s tee shot, as expected, went left into a fairway bunker, and I was confident that, short of a miracle, Tiger had just won the US Open again. Rocco’s bunker shot again went left, hit the grandstands, where he got a free drop. His 3rd shot was landed near the pin, but Tiger’s 2nd was just below the hole. Tiger went on to birdie and win the tournament.

It was the most exciting golf I’d ever personally witnessed, and history was made. And knowing now the extent of Tiger’s knee injury (the rest of his season is over as he will undergo reconstructive surgery) makes his victory even more impressive. We can only hope for such excitement in future golf tournaments.

Is Anthropogenic Global Warming Real?

I'm going to try to get back to some posting, at least on Thursdays...

Some of the things I am interested in these days are politics, environment (global warming), economics, taxes, and mostly, of course, LIBERTY.

I have been participating in a long string of comments on a David Whitehouse column that appeared in the December, 2007 issue of The New Statesman. In the article, Mr. Whitehouse, a former science editor for the BBC, discusses how global average temperatures since 1998 have been flat, and even have a slight downward trend. This is, of course, heresy to those who religiously cling to the theory that CO2 emissions from human activities—namely the burning of fossil fuels— are mostly responsible for a rise in average global temperatures since the industrial age began. Or so goes the theory. Mark Lynas, who is The New Statesman's current environmental editor wrote a rebuttal piece, where after the comment thread from the original David Whitehouse comment thread continued. Mr. Lynas, of course, pilloried Mr. Whitehouse's position.

But a very curios thing began to happen on these comment threads. Many of us who were skeptics of Anthropogenic (human induced) Global Warming (AGW), but fairly open minded about it began to learn a lot about the science behind both supporters and skeptics of the theory of AGW. In the end, the thread was closed after a combined 3000+ comments! However, the thread will hopefully be continued at Harmless Sky.

I wrote a rejected column for a major publication, and will reprint it here for some additional background:

Global warming caused by human activity is a fact. Or is it? If you read most mainstream media publications, human-induced, or “anthropogenic” global warming (AGW) is almost always presented as fact. The only problem is that the facts, once you really look into them, don’t support the current AGW theory.

The AGW view of global warming is that rising levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels traps heat that would otherwise escape to space, which causes the climate to warm. The fact that the climate has warmed over the last 150 years or so is not in dispute. However, when you take a good look at the mean global temperature (MGT) since the mid-1800’s—when reasonably reliable record-keeping began—the record shows that while MGT rose during that period, there were also declines. In fact, MGT rose from about 1860 to about 1880, then declined until roughly 1905, rose again from 1905 to 1940, then declined until about 1975, after which the MGT rose again until 1998. Since 1998, however, the global temperatures have remained flat and appear set to decline further.

Unfortunately for the AGW lobby, when you overlay CO₂ emissions on the above timeline you find that they don’t match. CO₂ emissions didn’t really start to increase dramatically until about 1950, which was when GMT was in a decline until 1975. The two prior warming periods (1860-1880 and 1905-1940) occurred before any significant amounts of CO₂ were being emitted, so these warming periods were obviously caused by something other than CO_2, but no one knows what caused them. Even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), admits it doesn’t know what caused these prior warming periods. But then they go on to argue that the most recent warming (1975-98) must caused by CO₂ emissions and not the unknown warming ‘driver’ that caused the earlier warming, because, essentially, nothing else explains it. It’s also worth noting that while the MGT stopped rising in 1998, CO₂ emissions continued their rate of growth unabated, the Kyoto Treaty notwithstanding.

So to review, there were three periods of warming in the last 150 years or so, each followed by a cooling period. CO₂ emissions were insignificant until about 1950, long after the first two warming periods were over and 10 years into the second cooling period. The third warming period began in about 1975, and since no one at the UN can think of anything else that could be causing this third warming cycle, CO₂ must be the culprit.

The scary part of all this is the fact that governments around the world want us to ‘reduce our carbon footprint’, and have instituted ‘carbon taxes’ and other very economically unsound cures for a problem we likely didn’t cause, nor are likely to be able to fix. And many of the AGW ‘cures’ will cost hundreds of billions of dollars that could be much better used on problems we can fix.

But if CO₂ emissions are not the cause of global warming, what is causing it? If you’ve done any reading at all on the subject of climate change recently, you’ll have heard of other possibilities: solar activity is one. Interestingly, when you overlay solar activity onto the MGT graph, they fit very nicely, especially when compared with CO₂ output. The warming also seems to correlates with El Niño years, and something called Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which is related to El Niño-La Niña phenomenon in the eastern Pacific. The PDO is a swing from cool to warm ocean currents in the Pacific, which greatly affects global climate. Recently, scientists have discovered that the PDO has begun a swing to the cooling phase, and have predicted at least 10 years of cooling!

I am not a scientist, nor a statistician. But I can read, and I can reason. The forces behind the AGW argument are large, powerful, and deeply entrenched in their positions. Billions of dollars and many reputations are at stake. Many who support the notion of AGW are ‘green’ in many other ways, and often tend to be liberal in their politics. And many of those people have ‘just known’ that mankind has been for decades harming the planet, and the AGW theory validates—in their mind—these long-held beliefs. They see it as an opportunity to justify new taxes and regulation, bigger government, and less freedom, all in the name of ‘saving the planet’.

Sources:

[I learned very much on this subject from the many brilliant contributors to the New Statesman David Whitehouse and Marc Lynas comment threads [linked above].]

http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson600.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/

http://www.climateaudit.org/

I've been busy...

So I haven't been posting for a long time. I find that to post effectively and to write posts that people might want to read takes more time than I have right now.

But this blog will stay active and I will post once in a while!


Tags
[Lost-Tooth Society]

The Estate Tax Debate

Nothing illuminates the differences between the left and right side of the political spectrum better than the debate over the estate tax. The Left generally argues that large estates should be significantly taxed when ownership passes from one generation to the next. Their desire for maintaining the estate tax is rooted in their deep-seeded need for equality of outcomes. They despise what they see as the inequality of the wealthy versus the poor, and seek to penalize the wealthy for their (or their ancestor’s) hard work and financial success.

The estate tax, however, is simply another collectivist tactic to redistribute wealth. The Left, of course, sees government intervention into the accumulation and concentration of capital as a noble and worthy cause. They are either unaware, or choose to ignore the alternative, and much more efficient use of that capital: Investment in the economy.

The vast fortunes of the “super rich”, as the Left likes to call them, are working in the economy. They invest in corporations, providing necessary capital to these companies who in turn provide jobs for Americans. Many of the Super Rich invest in government securities and bonds that provide the public with money for schools, and roads, and housing for the poor, etc., while providing a safe and secure income to the wealthy. In addition, the wealthy pay income tax (depending on the government security) on the income and on the income from their investments in the private sector.

The investments of the wealthy also are invested in banks and other financial institutions who in turn provide loans and financial assistance to low and middle income people (as well as to the rich themselves).

In short, keeping capital in the hands of individuals instead of government more efficiently and effectively delivers “wealth redistribution” than does the paltry estate tax, which, by the way, amounts to barely over 1% of revenues (in 2005).


Tags

estate tax

Global Warming Skeptics of the Scientific Kind

Every day I scan a variety of news sources to find news on global warming. Every day I find them, but virtually all of them discuss the impact to the environment from global warming, not the cause of global warming itself. That, they argue, is settled science. Since the scientific evidence that human activity (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) is the cause of global warming is so weak, and the possible alternative causes are so many, those who are proponents of the idea that AGW causes global warming have little else to rest their argument on except to say that 'that is that' and the issue is settled. They want to quickly move on to how to the 'let's fix the problem' phase since their causation argument is so weak.

A recent post in the Canada Free Press by guest columnist Tom Harris provides further evidence that that AGW argument is weak. To wit:

'"While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts."

He goes on:

"Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest."

The above refers the Al Gore's recent movie about global warming. One of the climate scientists quoted in Mr. Harris' article, Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Australia, says of Gore:

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

I couldn't agree more.

Tags
global warming
Global Warming skeptic
Al Gore

Low post rate

Apologies to my regular readers for the low post rate lately. I had a nice vacation, and have been laying low since just because I needed a break. But I am soon to begin posting again, especially with a special election looming next Tuesday here in California.

Some other potenial post subject I have been formulating in my mind are:

• Why do movie and music stars think anyone care what they think about politics?
• The American people's dissatisfaction with the two major political parties.
• Exposing how, despite the best efforts of the Left and the MSM, the economy and tax revenues are booming as a result of the Bush tax cuts, and how the rich are paying more taxes than ever.
• Lamenting the high spending rate of government (see item two above)

Those are just a few ideas. I post when I can, but try to post meaningful, researched, thinking.

Please stop by again soon!

A Perfect Machine to a Socialist

Listening to news reports of Bolivia's leftist president Morales announcement that he is nationalizing his country's oil and natural gas reserves and industries got me thinking again about socialism, and why it is so unnatural to the human experience.

Leftism in general, and socialist-collectivism in particular is rooted in the desire for equality. Supporters of leftist principles have a strong drive for equality. Not equal opportunity— equal outcomes. Leftists don't care at all about equal opportunity; they only care that when all is said and done, everything and everyone is equal. That is why socialism is so appealing to the Left.

Socialism is often described by free-market supporters as inefficient, and a good metaphor of that inefficiency would be a machine. A socialist machine is extremely inefficient because no matter how much energy or effort is put into the machine, it ouputs the same amount of work. Never more, and over time, ususally less. You could fill it's tank with rocket fuel or with water, and still it would run at the same speed. Since the machine can never increase its output, which would mean inequality of outcomes, there is also no incentive to improve the machine.

It is terribly inefficient, and serves poorly the need for which it was intended, but is satisfying to a leftist because each input fuel or effort would result, in the end, in an equal outcome. The rocket fuel, despite its volatile nature, is of no more value to the machine than the water. Equal outcome. A perfect machine to a socialist.

Another metaphor of the inefficiency of socialism would be a simple vending machine. The socialist vending machine would accept any currency, in any denomination or amount, but would dispense the same product in the same amount for each transaction. Input is irrelevant; outcomes are equal. A perfect machine to a socialist.

Most humans are simply not wired for thinking like this. Like the posts below, most of us expect that better efforts should be rewarded with better results. Free-market capitalism delivers equal opportunity, but also rewards those who strive for better results. Socialism, conversely, provides incentive to provide as little effort as possible since the reward for effort will be the same with high or low effort. Over time, society suffers under socialism because no one strives for excellence, and consequently, advancements in technology, medicine, etc. are notachievedd. Capitalism, on the other hand, builds a better society because those willing to put forth more and better effort are rewarded with better results. Society gains because most people see the potential for personal and societal gain, and they therefore put more effort into their work.

You'd think that such obvious shortcomings of a political-economic system would dissuade anyone from pursuing it, especially considering the colossal failures of repeated so often in the 20th century, yet the movement is once again gaining a foothold in South America.

Socialism has never, and will never work.

[Edited for spelling and clarity—JZS]

Related posts:

Free Market Capitalism versus Socialist Collectivism
The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions


Tags
Bolivia Nationalizes Petroleum
Bolivia
socialism

May 1st Immigration Protests

Last night my wife, sister-in-law, and I went out to dinner. We couldn't go to our favorite restaurant because they were closed "due to lack of employees". Another favorite restaurant across the street was also closed, and we saw numerous taco shops also closed.

Driving though nearby Vista just past 5:00pm, several cars were driving around, honking horns and waving Mexican flags. No American flags could be seen, just flags of Mexico. A few other drivers would honk in apparent support.

Otherwise not much impact that I could see here in north San Diego county.

Tags
Uno de Mayo
Immigration Reform
Immigration Protests

Uno de Mayo

[Sing this like a high school cheer]

I have papers
Yes, I do
I have papers
How 'bout you?

Seems like an appropriate song for the big demonstrations on Monday.

Tags
Immigration Protests May 1

Bush Tax Cuts: Soaking the Rich

I heard an interesting commentary on Marketplace.org the day by Steve Moore, of the Wall Street Journal, discussing the effects of the Bush tax cuts. Contrary to what most on the Left believe, and what the MSM continually reports, the Bush tax cuts have substantially move the burden of income tax to the rich and off the poor. The rich are paying more taxes than ever before, and income tax dollars paid to the government are up over the last two years more than ever before in US history.

The Bush tax cuts have been routinely assailed as multimillion dollar giveaways to the Rolls Royce owners of America at the expense of the middle class.

But new IRS statistics on the taxes Americans pay show that George Bush's tax policies actually soak the rich.

It turns out that the income tax burden has substantially shifted onto the wealthy. The percentage of federal income taxes paid by those who make more than $200,000 a year has actually risen from 41% to 47% in recent years.

In other words, the richest 3 out of 100 Americans are now paying close to the same amount in income taxes as the other 97% of workers combined.

It's also a common myth that the rich are hording all the wealth, while the middle class stays stuck in economic quicksand.

The IRS data show that the share of all income earned by the wealthiest 10% of Americans has actually fallen since 2001. The rich are earning less of the total income but paying more of the total taxes.

During this economic expansion, the middle class is growing and becoming more prosperous. About 4 out of 10 Americans now make more than $50,000 a year -- that's up from 3 out of 10 in 1990.

There's more good news. Tax revenues over the past two years are up more than half a trillion dollars — the largest two-year increase in tax collections in history.

Bush cut the capital gains and dividend taxes, but guess what? Now those tax receipts are through the roof in the last two years.

It's called the Laffer Curve: a lower tax rate has increased economic growth and investment and thus the government gets more tax revenues.

The Bush tax cuts have pumped steroids into the US economy and created 5 million new jobs, a surge in new business investment and record worker productivity.

Those are the reasons to make the tax cuts permanent. But for those who really want to sock it to the rich, the Bush tax cuts have done that too.

Tags
Bush Tax Cuts

Leftism: Where Truth is a Fluid Concept

Reading the brouhaha about the recent 'outing' of a left-wing blogger's multiple pseudonymous escapades into flogging his critics and praising himself, I remembered some of the things Dr. John Ray has so often taught us over the years about leftists: They see nothing wrong with lying or deceiving if it furthers their political agenda.

Why aren't they more (I can't actually think of ANY) conservative writers who have been caught fudging the truth for their political agenda.

Tags
Patterico
Hiltzik

Immigration Reform

Living here in southern California, the impact of illegal immigration across our southern border is direct, powerful, and widespread. Each morning on my way to work I pass several 'hiring' areas for illegals were as many as 60 or 80 men wait each morning for work. I drive a pickup truck, so as I pass the men raise their hands and wave, hoping for a day's work and a day's pay. I've never stopped, but often see other trucks doing so.

The debate over immigration reform is passionate. Many people I know want all illegals deported immediately, period. But I see the situation as being much more complex. For a country built by the sweat and blood of immigrants to now want to close the door on immigration is, for me, nearly oxymoronic. As reads the plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

I grew up to understand that those words signified a country better and different than all others, a place where everyone, regardless of class, wealth, race, education, religion, or political views were welcome. That is the America I know.

Ronald Reagan spoke often of a "shining city on a hill", and said this in his farewell address:

"I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life... In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still."

I see it that way, too. "Anyone with the will and the heart to get here". Those are powerful words, with powerful meaning. I am not asserting that Ronald Reagan advocated illegal immigration, but he certainly took a more compassionate view of it than many who are opposed to it now.

We all benefit from immigration, even if it is illegal. Our food is less expensive, our hotels are cleaner and rates are lower, our lawns are mowed, our trees are pruned, our dishes washed, our food prepared, our houses cleaned, and our children are cared for by illegal aliens. Not always are they illegal, but often. Even if you don't think you've hired illegals to work on your landscaping, or to clean your house, the legitimate company you hired may well hire illegals. There is no way to tell by just looking, and let's be honest, most of us don't really want to know.

In my neighborhood, a newer up-scale tract development, I was one of only a handful of residents who hired a licenced contractor to do the work. Even then I am confident that some of the guys working for the contractor were not working legally. Illegal immigrants are everywhere——at least here in the San Diego area—— and there is almost nothing you can do without encountering an illegal, hiring an illegal, benefiting directly or indirectly from the work of an illegal alien.

The recent immigrant protests that have gripped many large cities makes clear the impracticality of some of the proposals being discussed in Washington regarding immigration reform. Estimated at nearly 12 million people, how would we deport them all, let alone find them? If the Senate's version is agreed to, with provisions to treat those who've been here for longer differently, how many of those 12 million will admit that they've only been here for a year or two? They are here illegally anyway, and there are systems in place to create false documents. If their options are to go back to their home country, or to obtain new documents 'proving' their residence, I am confident that most will get new documents.

Moreover, many of these people have built lives here. They've gotten married, had children, (who are US citizens) pay taxes (maybe not income taxes), bought homes, work hard, support their communities, and help build our economy. Many of the students who protested recently did so because the US House version of immigration reform would make THEIR PARENTS felons. These are the same people we see on our roads, at the PTA meetings, in parks, at work, building our pools, and cleaning our houses.

Finally, the biggest impediment to immigration reform is the border itself. If the border is not secured, and none of the plans I've seen would further secure it, then no laws we write to address people already here will matter at all. The first thing we must do, if we want to keep people out, is to secure the border. That will take tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of troops, and far more political will than I've seen from any politician.

If you haven't figured out my position on immigration reform yet, I support a guest worker program, and amnesty for those already here. I would deport all illegals involved in criminal activity, once they've served out their sentences, but for the vast majority of people living in this country who simply seek a better life, please stay and help us build a better country.

A final footnote: To provide better security against terrorism, I do strongly support a significantly tighter border, including a border-long fence. I am very concerned about terrorists entering this country with WMD's across our very porous southern border. Only a fence and more border security will stop this kind of traffic.


Tags
Immigration Reform
Illegal Immigrants

Impeach Bush??

No doubt you have heard the rising chorus from the Left to impeach George W. Bush. Impeachment is no doubt the #1 priority of the extremists now in control of the Democrat Party. Should the Democrats win control of the US House of Representatives in November, I have no doubt that Articles of Impeachment against the Bush administration will the first item on their agenda. If the Democrats should also win control of the US Senate in November, then Bush's conviction and removal from office is a real possibility.

But on what legal grounds could articles of impeachment be presented? Those advocating impeachment usually cite four arguments that form the legal basis of the pro-impeachment lobby:

1. That Bush violated international and domestic law by invading Iraq;
2. That Bush lied about prewar intelligence, and lied about a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda;
3. That Bush violated international laws and treaties, as well as the US Constitution, by holding "enemy combatants" indefinitely without hearings;
4. That Bush violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 with "warrantless" wiretapping of American citizens;

On the one hand, I am shocked that the MSM isn't more carefully dismantling these positions, but on the other, not. At least not with the MSM's clear anti-Bush agenda. But let's take these one by one.


First, that Bush violated internation and domestic law by invading Iraq. This is the easiest one to debunk. The United Nations Security Council issued 17 resolutions on Iraq, virtually all of which were repeatedly violated by the former government of Iraq. Article 33 of UN Resolution 687 (April, 1991) states that only through Iraq's acceptance of the terms of UNR687 will a "formal cease-fire" exist. Iraq continually violated this and virtually all subsequent UN resolutions. Therefore, the cease-fire, by definition, and in accordance with UNR 687 ceased to exist when Iraq violated the terms of 687 and the subsequent resolutions.

Despite a decade of 'second chances', UNR 1441 (November, 2002) threatened further "serious consequences" should Iraq not comply with all UN resolutions. Debate ensued over whether further UN action specifically calling for war was legally required prior to any military action, but after ten years and 17 ineffective UN resolutions, and with France, Germany, and Russia virtually guaranteeing a veto over such a resolution, the US, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and numerous other countries concluded that no further UN authorization was required to forcably disarm Iraq.

House Joint Resolution 114 (October, 2002), passing overwhelmingly by both the House and Senate, authorized the president to "...use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines..." as the excerpt below makes clear: (emphasis added)

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

There is simply no compelling argument that any laws were broken regarding the invasion of Iraq.



Second, that Bush lied about prewar intelligence, and lied about a connection between prewar Iraq and al Qaeda. This one has been repeatedly debunked by many, including The Lost Tooth Society. Recently released and translated documents from prewar Iraqi Intelligence files show a clear link between Iraq and al Qaeda prior to 9-11. The veracity of these documents is still in question, and it will take years to translate and decipher all 55,000 boxes of seized documents, but based on what has been so far translated, the correctness of the prewar intelligence may well be vindcated.

Moreover, the Duelfer Report clearly shows that Saddam Hussein had a strategy to secretly maintain his WMD capabilities while working to use the Oil For Food UN program to bribe his way to the end of sanctions. Once the sanctions were lifted, he would be in an even stronger position to resume his WMD development programs.



Third, that the Bush administration violated international laws and treaties, and the US Constitution by holding indefinitely and without charges "enemy combatants. While the Lost-Tooth Society was initially very troubled by this action, digging into the facts showed that these actions are completely in compliance with all applicable legal standards. Note a key passage from the post above:

The Third Geneva Conventions clearly spell out how prisoners of war shall be treated, and Part 1, Article 4, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the III Geneva Conventions defines precisely who is a "prisoner of war":

"(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.'

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

Given the specific conditions of part (2), it seems unlikely that many of those detained at Gitmo could be considered POW's under the Geneva Convention. In fact, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (July15, 2005) that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to al Qaeda, and that the Geneva Conventions themselves cannot be enforced in US courts.

But ruling in the Rasul v. Bush case in June of 2004, the US Supreme Court held that Gitmo detainees are entitled to challenge their incarceration in federal court, arguing essentially that since the US government holds legal authority over Gitmo and its facilities, that federal courts also hold jurisdiction over the detainees, hence their right to habeas corpus.

The Lost-Tooth Society continues to believe that the indefinite detention of many of these people is unwise, and we welcome the Supreme Court's ruling allowing challenges to detention, but the legality of the detentions is not in question, and is therefore not grounds for impeachment.


Fourth, That Bush violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 with "warrantless" wiretapping of American citizens. This is no doubt the strongest card in the hand of the pro-impeachment lobby, but is it strong enough to warrant impeachment?

First, some background:

As part of the president's post-9/11 anti-terrorism efforts, he authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept certain electronic communications from persons outside the USA to persons within the USA, without warrants. FISA is the governing statute regarding this type of surveillance, and around its provisions lie the basis of the argument that the NSA program was was allegedly illegal.

There are very complex and technical legal questions involved here, and my opinions are based on the legal analyses I have read, since I am neither a legal scholar nor an attorney. The central issue revolves around the FISA statute and Separation of Powers issues. FISA is, of course, a statute passed by the Legislative branch of the federal government, not Constitutional provision. Therefore, the applicability of the statute by the legislature, inasmuch as it applys to the Executive branch of the federal government, must be examined in light of Constitutional authority delegated to the Executive branch.

In other words, the Congress cannot by statute constrain the authority of the President beyond those constraints already specified by the Constitution.

Unfortunately for the pro-impeachment crowd, FISA does just that.

There are several excellent authorities that illustrate this point:

John Hinderaker at Powerline writes:

The starting point, of course, is the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution sets out the powers and duties of the President. Some people do not seem to realize that the executive branch is coequal with the legislative and judicial branches. The President has certain powers under the Constitution, and they cannot be taken away or limited by Congressional legislation any more than the President can limit the powers of Congress by executive order.

Article II makes the President Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As such he is preeminent in foreign policy, and especially in military affairs. This was no accident; as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 74, "Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand." The federal courts have long recognized that when it comes to waging war, the President, not Congress or the courts, is the supreme authority. In Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 615 (1850), the Supreme Court wrote that the President has the Constitutional power to "employ [the Nation's armed forces] in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy."

Powerline also writes of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' comments in a debate in late January of this year.

Quoting from Powerline the words of the Attorney General:

[F]rom the outset, the Justice Department thoroughly examined this program against al Qaeda, and concluded that the President is acting within his power in authorizing it. These activities are lawful. The Justice Department is not alone in reaching that conclusion. Career lawyers at the NSA and the NSA’s Inspector General have been intimately involved in reviewing the program and ensuring its legality.

The terrorist surveillance program is firmly grounded in the President’s constitutional authorities. *** It has long been recognized that the President’s constitutional powers include the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance aimed at detecting and preventing armed attacks on the United States. Presidents have uniformly relied on their inherent power to gather foreign intelligence for reasons both diplomatic and military, and the federal courts have consistently upheld this longstanding practice.

If this is the case in ordinary times, it is even more so in the present circumstances of our armed conflict with al Qaeda and its allies.

There are other powerful arguments supporting the legality of the NSA program. Charles Krauthammer wrote recently in the Washington Post (registration required) about the legality of the program,

In 1972 the Supreme Court required the president to obtain warrants to eavesdrop on domestic groups but specifically declined to apply this requirement to snooping on foreign agents. Four appeals courts have since upheld presidential authority for such warrantless searches. Not surprisingly, the executive branch has agreed.

True, Congress tried to restrict this presidential authority with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. It requires that warrants for wiretapping of enemy agents in the United States be obtained from a secret court. But as John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, wrote: "Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms." Indeed, President Bill Clinton's own deputy attorney general testified to Congress that "the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," then noted a few minutes later that "courts have made no distinction between electronic surveillances and physical searches."

Finally, a panel of five former judges of the secret FISA court recently testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the president:

"[D]id not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA)."

On the surface, the calls for impeachment of president Bush over these matters might be worrisome, but once one investigates the actual facts of the case, and the controlling legal authorities, the foundation justifying such action fizzles.

Tags
"Bush Lied"
Wiretapping
WMD
Gitmo
"Impeach Bush"

Bush's News Conference Tuesday March 21, 2006

I heard the president's news conference live yesterday on my way to work. It was a good session, with the president giving good, thoughtful answers that I figured would be helpful to him. Then I read the headlines later in the day from the MSM, and wondered hw I could have not heard what I heard. They way the MSM made things out to be was completely different than what a listener would have heard had they heard it themselves, as did I. This is just another example of the left-leaning MSM's Bush-bashing.

John Hinderaker at Powerline has a great piece on just this subject.

Tags
Bush
Iraq
News Conference

Global Warming

The debate about human-induced global warming, better known as "anthropogenic global warming", or AGW, continues to be an extremely political and bitter one. Many scientists consider the science settled, and accept as fact that human activity, specifically the release of so-called "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere are the cause of the apparent rise in temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. However, there are also many scientists who dispute the theory of AGW. Two such scientists recently published studies suggesting that either radiation from space or as a result of a meteor or comet that exploded over remote Russia in 1908.

In the first case, renowned geochemistry professor Jan Veizer of the university of Ottawa overcame years of reluctance (out of fear of reprisals) to report his theory in Geoscience Canada. An excerpt:

The standard explanation for vagaries of our climate, championed by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), is that greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, are its principal driver. Recently, an alternative model that the sun is the principal driver was revived by a host of empirical observations. Neither atmospheric carbon dioxide nor solar variability can alone explain the magnitude of the observed temperature increase over the last century of about 0.6[degrees]C. Therefore, an amplifier is required. In the general climate models (GCM), the bulk of the calculated temperature increase is attributed to "positive water vapour feedback". In the sun-driven alternative, it may be the cosmic ray flux (CRF), energetic particles that hit the atmosphere, potentially generating cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Clouds then cool, act as a mirror and reflect the solar energy back into space. The intensity of CRF reaching the earth depends on the intensity of the solar (and terrestrial) magnetic field that acts as a shield against cosmic rays, and it is this shield that is, in mm, modulated by solar activity.

The second example came out just recently by Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He says that instead of human activity, the likely source of global warming is the result of something called the Tunguska Meteorite Event, which occured in 1908 in remote Russia.

Quoted from Mosnews.com:

The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite is thought to have resulted from an asteroid or comet entering the earth’s atmosphere and exploding. The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs. As well as blasting an enormous amount of dust into the atmosphere, felling 60 million trees over an area of more than 2000 square kilometres. Shaidurov suggests that this explosion would have caused “considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure.” Such meteoric disruption was the trigger for the subsequent rise in global temperatures.

Tags
Global Warming
Anthropogenic Global Warming