Read this Washington Post piece from November on the idea that global warming (what happened to climate change?) is driving “crazy” winters. It’s a testimony to a lot of nonsense going on in our nation today, where people have little ability to remember the past and understand that history is what got us where we are today.
Let’s look at last winter. As “crazy” as it was, the fact is that Weatherbell.com, my company, forecasted it well in advance by looking at the winters of 1917-191 and 1993-1994 – before global warming was “driving crazy winters.”
Here’s last winter:
And here’s the blend of analogs for 1917-1918 and 1993-1994 we used in July of 2013 to set up last winter’s outlook for clients – along with anyone who wanted to look – rather than stick our hand in the sand and blame global warming (which is what is actually crazy).
Not exactly the same, but similar.
But “crazy” winters now? The only thing “crazy” here is the idea you can claim that winters were going to be warm with less snow several years ago, but expect to have rational people of good will accept your “crazy”explanation.
Did global warming drive the winters of the late 1970s? The anomalies below are for three consecutive winters, not one.
By the way, November 1976 – which my company used to warn clients about how winter could get off to a fast start this year, and was a precursor to the severe winter of 1976-1977 that had Buffalo headlined due to the harsh conditions and had Time magazine among others speculating on a coming Ice Age – is being challenged for the coldest in 50 years by this November! How is it some private sector meteorologists were looking at this possibility several months beforehand (us), and now we see people claiming it’s global warming?
How much overkill do you need here? Should I pull out the “crazy” winters of ‘57-’58, ’65-’66 (DC was closed for a week to 10 days, depending on when you shoveled out), ’66-’67, ’68-’69, ’69-’70, et al, when CO2 was much lower?
You know what’s crazy to me? People refuse to acknowledge the past and then make statements like that of The Washington Post. And here’s something even more crazy: The media today refuse to challenge such things. We have adjustments being made to pre-satellite era temperatures, techniques referred to as normalization, which make previous warm periods look cooler or estimates colder Arctic temperatures that we had no way of measuring the way we do now. The media refuse to hold people accountable for past forecast busts, yet simply accept what alarmists say is going on now.
The “crazy” November we’ve had looks a heck of a lot like one of our big analogs – 1976.
November so far:
It may turn out colder than 1976, as we have a heck of a week of winter weather in front of us, including a major Thanksgiving snow event on the East Coast. There is a chance snow cover on Thanksgiving morning may be greater than the normal snow cover on Christmas day (33%).
Here’s November 1976:
How is it that utilizing techniques that line up past similar events and the overall climate cycles we are in – something that involves many hours of meticulous work, not just looking at a statistical average that leads to a value added forecast – is not the way to explain all this? Folks on the other side of the aisle claim that what we warned people about with the work we did is due to something else they had no idea of. Do they show the examples of how it could turn so cold beforehand? No; they wait until after the fact to explain something they had no idea would or could happen, then claim it’s because of what they said. You can label that technique a bunch of things, but “crazy” would come to mind. And you would be “crazy” to believe it.
The global warming argument is not “settled science.” The fact that the globe overall has leveled off and in the past 10 years cooled some, along with myriads of other indicators, show that.
Past 10 years:
What’s amazing is that we have seen winters become more like they were when the Pacific was colder in the ’60s and ’70s, and the actual global temps cool a slight bit, but then we find people that have the audacity to blame warming when it’s actually level, or cooling! We’ve had three cold winters out of the last five, one warm one, and one that turned very cold in the mid-winter and went through much of spring. Do you see what’s going on here? There’s been no guidance for cold weather from people pushing the “crazy” weather missive for the cold because of warmth. And because they don’t see it, they blame the agenda (man-made global warming)! Yet those of us whose livelihood depends on it use the techniques to see it, get called deniers, etc., even after our customers get value-added forecasts. What’s “crazy” is a media that trumpets “the warmest year ever” based on one set of data with major, subjective re-adjustments, which ignore more objective data that says prove otherwise. But a complicit and apparently non-curious media does not even question how alarmists could miss so badly a month out! 1976 has been one of Weatherbell.com’s chief analogs since April, and here we are, close to beating November of 1976 for coldest November in the last 50 years.
Settled science is the idea of gravity, or the freezing and boiling points of water. To argue climate is something akin to that is true denial of what scientific reality is and, dare I use the word of choice here (theirs, not mine), “crazy.”
I just don’t get it. How do you trust someone about what they say relative to the last hundred-plus years,when their track record over the past five years shows they can’t see cold when it’s coming? That’s what is truly crazy, not the natural occurrences caused by similar past situations.
Crazy is as crazy does.
[First published at Patriot Post.]
Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.
There are many dimensions to the hack of Sony that, by all accounts, now appears to be a North Korean cyberattack. Certainly, the attack ought to make us all aware that, regardless of debates about the niceties of the labels applied, the U.S. has entered a new era in which cyberwarfare (and response to cyberattacks) will constitute an important element of our national security strategy.
Here, I want to make just a couple of points – briefly.
It is easy, without having access to all the facts, to second-guess Sony’s decision to cancel the initial theater release of “The Interview.” For example, there is ongoing back-and-forth as to whether the theater owners (all or some large number of owners) made it clear that, in any event, they would not screen the film. For me, it is understandable enough that Sony (and/or the theater owners) would put threats to the safety of their patrons high in their calculations concerning whether to go ahead with the film’s release.
That said, I certainly hope Sony will find a way, and there seem to be several avenues, to get the film into the public realm without much further delay. Otherwise, an unfortunate precedent will be set. So, the film needs to be released, one way or the other.
Now, it must be said that it is unfortunate that some are taking pirated emails – emails that were seized through an illegal cybertattack – and are using them in an opportunistic fashion. And this goes beyond the mere gossip concerning Hollywood rivalries and personal sniping. I have in mind, for example, Google’s use of some pirated emails to and from film studio personnel and the studio’s trade association, MPAA, to raise fears that MPAA is trying to orchestrate a revival of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) legislation that had been intended to help curb the very real – and very costly – ongoing problem of online piracy.
Here is a December 18 blog posted by Kent Walker, Google’s SVP and General Counsel, claiming that MPAA is engaged in some type of “coordinated campaign” to revive the SOPA legislation that a Google-led effort defeated back in 2012. A quick perusal of the emails cited by Google (the Google blog itself refers to an article posted on The Verge on December 12) does not appear to me to support the claim that the MPAA is seeking to revive the SOPA legislation. Instead, it appears that Google opportunistically may be trying to use the pirated emails to divert attention from probes by state and federal authorities into its own conduct.
There can be legitimate debates concerning the merits of the actual SOPA bill that was withdrawn in 2012 or similar SOPA-type legislation. In my view, the attacks on the legislation, and the frenzied claims made concerning the impact of the legislation on the working of the Internet, were exaggerated. Be that as it may, there shouldn’t be any debate that online piracy – that is, the unlawful theft of someone’s intellectual property – is a real societal problem. And you don’t need to wade into a battle of estimates concerning the precise dollar size of the economic losses resulting from pirated content to know that they amount to many hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs each year.
At the end of the day, what is most disappointing about Google’s blog is that there is no acknowledgment that online theft of intellectual property – whether films, music, or other creative content – is a real problem that needs to be addressed by many different participants in the Internet ecosystem, including by online purveyors of content like Google.
Perhaps SOPA or SOPA-type legislation is not the right answer. But “SOPA” should not now be invoked as a ghostly mantra in a way that is intended to impede what ought to be a collaborative search for the right answers to combat piracy of intellectual property.
PS – I should add that theft of intellectual property is a problem that requires addressing for more than reasons relating to economic losses. The reason our Founders included the IP Clause in the Constitution had as much to do – really more to do – with an understanding that creators are entitled to realize and control the fruits of their labors than anything else. In that regard, and for a deeper understanding and appreciation of foundational principles of intellectual property rights, I commend to you the Free State Foundation’s series of papers on foundational principles of intellectual property:The Constitutional Foundations of Intellectual Property – May 10, 2013 http://www.freestatefoundation.org/images/The_Constitutional_Foundations_of_Intellectual_Property_050813.pdf Reasserting the Property Rights Source of IP – June 13, 2013 http://www.freestatefoundation.org/images/Reasserting_the_Property_Rights_Source_of_IP_061213.pdf
Literary Property: Copyright’s Constitutional History and Its Meaning for Today – July 25, 2013 http://www.freestatefoundation.org/images/Literary_Property_Copyright_s_Constitutional_History_and_its_Meaning_for_Today_072413.pdf
The Constitution’s Approach to Copyright: Anti-Monopoly, Pro-Intellectual Property Rights – August 26, 2013 http://www.freestatefoundation.org/images/The_Constitution_s_Approach_to_Copyright_-_Anti-Monopoly,_Pro-Intellectual_Property_Rights_082313.pdf
The “Reason and Nature” of Intellectual Property: Copyright and Patent in The Federalist Papers – January 14, 2014 http://www.freestatefoundation.org/images/The_Reason_and_Nature_of_Intellectual_Property_011014.pdf
Constitutional Foundations of Copyright and Patent in the First Congress – May 8, 2014 http://www.freestatefoundation.org/images/Constitutional_Foundations_of_Copyright_and_Patent_in_the_First_Congress_050714.pdf
Life, Liberty, and the Protection of Intellectual Property: Understanding IP in Light of Jeffersonian Principles – July 8, 2014 http://www.freestatefoundation.org/images/Life,_Liberty,_and_the_Protection_of_Intellectual_Property_070714.pdf
Intellectual Property Rights Under the Constitution’s Rule of Law – September 26, 2014 http://www.freestatefoundation.org/images/Intellectual_Property_Rights_Under_the_Constitution_s_Rule_of_Law_092514.pdf
Reaffirming the Foundations of IP Rights: Copyright and Patent in the Antebellum Era – November 20, 2014 http://www.freestatefoundation.org/images/Reaffirming_the_Foundations_of_IP_Rights_111914.pdf [Originally published at Free State Foundation]
Director of Communications, Jim Lakely, and Managing Editor of Energy and Environment News, H. Sterling Burnett, talk about the recently passed Cromnibus bill and how it effects environmental policy in today’s podcast.
Lakely and Burnett sift through the massive bill and discuss the sections that impact the EPA, renewable energy subsidies and other environment related issues. They also talk about the recently held U.N. climate conference in Lima, Peru.
It’s a dead certainty that the Left will denounce Harvard constitutional law professor Lawrence Tribe for accepting a retainer from coal giant Peabody Energy to write an analysis concluding that “the EPA acts as though it has the legislative authority to re-engineer the nation’s electric generating system and power grid. It does not.”
It’s more certain that Tribe had concluded that before Peabody came knocking at his door with buckets of money. It’s even more certain that the EPA was not the primary target of Tribe’s wrath, but that it was aimed directly at his 1989 research assistant at Harvard Law School, Barack Obama.
That won’t make sense unless you know the back-story, and only a handful do. Among the hundreds of in-depth profiles I’ve done to expose the Left, Laurence Tribe is my favorite, but one I decided not to make public. And then Heartland Institute’s Joe Bast told me about Tribe’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled “The Clean Power Plan Is Unconstitutional.” It’s time.
Barack Obama got into Harvard Law School mostly because he was a “legacy,” the offspring of an alumnus: his father Barack Obama Sr., earned a master’s degree in economics from Harvard University. Harvard accepts 40 percent of all legacies that apply, but only 11 percent of all applicants.
In the spring of his first year at law school, Obama stopped by the office of Professor Laurence Tribe – recognized as the nation’s foremost liberal constitutional law scholar – about becoming a research assistant. Tribe rarely hired first-year students. An L1 – first year law student – doesn’t get a constitutional law class. But Tribe recalls “being struck by Obama’s unusual combination of intelligence, curiosity and maturity.”
He was so impressed in fact, that he hired Obama on the spot – and wrote his name and phone number on his calendar that day – March 31, 1989 – “for posterity.” (And no, he didn’t really know that posterity might be interested.)
Laurence Henry Tribe is not easily impressed. He literally wrote the book on constitutional law: he’s the author of American Constitutional Law, the most frequently cited treatise in that field, has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court at least 34 times, and is noted for his extensive support of liberal legal causes including environmental law.
Obama must have impressed Tribe with something more than his weird history of being born in Hawaii with an African father, his childhood in Jakarta with an Indonesian stepfather, and being raised by white grandparents who sent him to elite Punahou prep school in Honolulu and helped him through Occidental and Columbia universities.
Tribe had his own weird history. He was born in Shanghai, China, to Jewish immigrants from Europe. His father was Polish and had lived in the United States when very young, long enough to become a naturalized citizen in his early 20’s. Tribe’s mother was Russian, and considerably younger than his father. They met and married in her hometown in Soviet Russia in 1940.
Then Stalin’s massive 1941 deportation of ethnic groups including Jews forced them to Shanghai – luckily avoiding Siberia – where Laurance was born in October, just before Pearl Harbor and the Japanese occupation of Shanghai. The father, who was proud of being an American, irritated the Japanese, who put him in a concentration camp as a noncombatant enemy alien, leaving his infant son trapped in Shanghai’s French Quarter with his mother, stateless persons.
Young Laurance and mother were allowed only two visits with the father during all of World War II. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Tribe’s father was released and reunited with his wife and child. As an American citizen, the father obtained transport to San Francisco. The three Tribes left Shanghai in March, 1947 on the steamship SS General Gordon.
Laurance spoke only Russian when he arrived in America a little before turning six – back in Shanghai, he had been a bratty kid who refused to learn English in kindergarten – but once in San Francisco, he refused to speak Russian any more, and quickly learned English. He later went to Abraham Lincoln High School in San Francisco, became a naturalized United States citizen, graduated from Harvard College (1962, mathematics, summa cum laude), and earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1966, magna cum laude, then worked for a while at the National Academy of Sciences, and finally became an assistant professor at Harvard Law School (1968), receiving tenure in 1972.
That beats Obama for weird by light years. And it proves anybody can become one of America’s preeminent constitutional legal scholars.
Tribe hired Obama for exactly the reasons he said: intelligence, curiosity, and maturity; because this icon of left-wing legal theories was preparing to write a fantastic paper that would require a diligent, observant, and daring researcher open to serendipity, the happy quality of finding more than you were looking for. Tribe was about to go out on a limb and wanted researchers who would go with him.
The paper would be titled The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn From Modern Physics – which is the zaniest title you’ll find anywhere in the pages of the Harvard Law Review. It would argue that strict constructionist interpretations of the U.S. Constitution were obsolete, being based on the rigid old Newtonian world-view, and needed to be replaced by more modern relativistic notions of curved space and quantum physics concepts of indeterminacy, which would release judges from the original intent of the Founders.
The paper compared Einstein’s theory that space is curved by large masses (such as the sun) to Tribe’s theory that courts shape the cultural “space” of institutions with “massive” rulings (such as segregation). The point was that major court rulings build social institutions, change perceptions of morality, and unjustly displace some people in the process, just as the sun makes starlight curve around its mass and displaces it from what Newtonian physics expected. Therefore, old wrongs done by courts, government, and the Constitution itself – such as allowing slavery – should be repaired by new broad constructionist interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.
The paper also emphasized quantum theory’s discovery that the process of studying an object changes its behavior in unpredictable ways, and compared that to a court reaching into society with powerful rulings and creating unpredictable consequences – like post-Civil War Jim Crow laws that led to a century of black struggle for civil rights, replete with murders, riots, revolutionary movements, bombings, and assassinations. These, Tribe asserted, should be repaired by broad constructionist interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.
When the article appeared in the November 1989 Harvard Law Review, Tribe’s mix of his mathematical expertise with his legal intellect was recognized by the cognoscenti as not so far-fetched as it seemed, but cleverly breathing new life into old liberal arguments – and it did: nearly 200 law reviews and periodicals subsequently cited the article, and four courts have cited it.
In Tribe’s acknowledgments stood the name of Barack Obama for “analytic and research assistance.” It guaranteed that Obama would graduate magna cum laude and got him selected in his first year at law school as an editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review, of which he later became president.
The politically immature Obama learned more about the Constitution by helping Tribe research this sprawling 39-page, densely argued treatise – with its references to Supreme Court cases, court influences on society, the role of cultural anthropology, and the findings of physicists Stephen Hawking and Werner Heisenberg – than he would learn in his actual constitutional law class the next year.
He got to watch the mind of a brilliant left-wing legal icon at the height of his powers construct a sophisticated constitutional frame of reference that could be applied to government and achieve a Leftist revolution in the real world by legal means. The problem was that, when Obama gained the power to apply this knowledge, he didn’t use it to curve constitutional space, but to destroy the document in the fire of his dictatorial power lust. That, I assert, is something Laurence Tribe could not allow.
I cannot see Tribe’s reproachful headline as saying anything but this: “President Barack Obama, my prized student, acts now as though he has the legislative authority to re-engineer the nation’s electric generating system and power grid. He does not. Obama’s stolen authority – all of it – is unconstitutional.”
Perhaps I take Professor Tribe’s meaning too far. Perhaps he will enlighten us about my presumptions.
But until and unless he does, I stand by my story.
I don’t mean the Santa who comes down the chimney with toys for every girl and boy. This is the Santa who really is Mom or Dad, Grandparent or other family members or close friends who out of their own earned income choose to purchase, wrap and give gifts to those little ones on Christmas morning.
The small child may have been told the fairy story about an jolly, fat man in a red suit who lives in the far north, working with his elves all year long so the toys and other presents are ready to be miraculously delivered to every “good boy and girl” around the world in one night.
But we “adults” all know that is all just a story for the children at an early and gullible age when the fantasy of it all seems possibly real. And many of us cherish those early years of wonder and make-believe, before the reality breaks through that it just does not and cannot happen that way.
The Redistributing and Regulating Political Santa
I mean the Uncle Sam “Santa” that, not just at Christmas time, but year-round, is believed by many people to have the ability to bring them many of the good things they want from a mythical North Pole called Washington, D.C., or any governmental capital around the world.
This is the political Santa who delivers subsidies of various sorts to farmers or “alternative energy” manufacturers. The Santa who redistributes vast sums of money for educational expenditures, or public housing, welfare and food stamps, or government defense contracts, and even “bridges to nowhere.”
This is also the political Santa who can magically fill the global skies with unmanned drones for surveillance and death, or fund decade-long trillion-dollar wars in far-off lands, or bankroll “friendly” governments in other places around the world while punishing “bad” countries for what Uncle Sam defines as “misbehavior.”
This is the Santa who claims the power and ability remake human nature, control human thought, and redesign some or even all of human society into various preferred shapes and forms.
This political Santa works hard to create the illusion that prosperity and improvement in the human condition cannot happen if not for the guiding, regulating, and manipulating hand of “benevolent” government.
The Political Myth of Something for Nothing
But while almost all children grow out of their belief in a Santa Claus with his home at the North Pole who “somehow” succeeds in manufacturing all those “goodies” that he carries on his sleigh on Christmas Eve, many people go through their entire life convinced of the Santa-like abilities of a paternalistic government that can “somehow” assure many, if not all, of the desired good things of life.
However, just as “Santa” is really Mom and Dad who buy the presents, and wrap them to put under the Christmas tree, governmental “Santa” are those in political office who have no ability to bestow desired benefits on “all” without, in fact, first taking from some to give to others.
Mom and Dad work. They assist in producing goods or in performing services for others in the marketplace, which earns them a salary or nets them a profit. They have had to first produce to, then, through the income they earned, have the ability to consume, including on the goods that their children find on Christmas morning.
The governmental Santa must, first, tax away the income and wealth of some to, then, redistribute it in one form or another to others in the country over which those in political power assert fiscal and regulatory authority.
For the mythical Santa at the North Pole there are no costs for anything he does. The resources, raw materials and tools with which his Christmas goodies are made just appear. The elves work, apparently, for nothing and their food and clothes do not need to be produced, either.
For our political Santa Claus to rain redistributive “gifts” on those he considers deserving and “nice,” he must take from those found to be “naughty” and not nice.
Political Santa’s “Gifts” Carry High Costs
Our political Santa Claus imposes real and meaningful costs on many in society to do his magical “social work.” First, he must appropriate part of the material wealth produced by those productive members of society. People who, in a free market, only earn what they have by peacefully offering to others things those others desire and value enough to pay an agreed-upon price to acquire.
A portion of the intellectual and material effort of real men and women are seized from them through compulsory taxation. The government classifies these net taxpayers in society as having more than they “really” need, and usually don’t ethically “deserve.”
They get “sack of coal” for being “bad” in the form of being left with less than the full value of their creative and hardworking effort. They are denied the opportunity and the right to enjoy the complete fruits of their mental and physical labors. Their choices to spend what they have honestly earned are narrowed to what the political Santa decides they should have available to spend.
The “good” little political citizens who are given the redistributive benefits, therefore, are the net recipients of what others have produced, and which they have received due the ideological and pressure group power they can bring to bear in collaboration with the political Santa in the municipal, state, and national halls of governmental control.
But the costs of political Santa’s generosity do not come just in the form of direct redistributions. They also come in the form of regulations, restrictions, and licensing requirements that determine who may allowed to compete, work, and earn a living in a particular line of enterprise, production, and trade.
This “sack of coal” for the “bad” citizens also comes in the form in the inability to start a business or expand and successfully run an enterprise as the result of the regulatory hand of political Santa. The costs also take the form of closed opportunities for those with little or no skills to find work or be hired at a starting wage that would give them a chance at improving their own lives through honest employment in the free marketplace.
It also costs the consumers who find their choices and options are more limited or nonexistent than the free market would have provided, if only the government had not imposed these barriers, walls, and hurtles in the way of those who merely wish to be left alone to go about their private and personal affairs of life by offering new, better, and less expense goods and services to their fellow men through honest, peaceful, and mutually agreed terms of trade.
The “good little citizens” in this case are those on the supply-side of the market who are sheltered from the competition of real or potentially more efficient and productive rivals. Their larger market shares, greater profit margins, and costly inefficiencies are protected by the political Santa’s regulatory power; he, in turn, receives the campaign contributions and implicitly bought votes on election days that keep him in office.
The Myth of Needing a Political Santa for Life
For political Santa to pursue his mythical game in governmental plunderland, he must do all in his power to persuade and convince his citizen “children” that they do not have a right to their own life and to live it in their own chosen way. They must be indoctrinated to either passively accept the role of life-long dependent upon the political Santa, or to serve as the self-sacrificing elves who must do the work to produce all the goods and services in the world that will be redistributed out of the political Santa’s sack of taxed and regulated benefits.
Santa will educate you; he will see that you have a job and that you receive a “fair” wage. He will make sure that you are safe and satisfied by controlling what is produced, how it produced, and the terms under which the “bad” business children under his regulatory supervision market and sell many of those “goodies” to you.
When sick or disabled, political Santa will give you medical care; and he will guarantee you a retirement free from the need for planning for these things yourself.
All you need to do is accept your status as a lifetime adolescent needing supervision, care, and oversight in everything and in all things that you do. The spirit and psychology of being political Santa’s dependent was captured in that government website cartoon during the first Obama Administration called “The Life of Julia.”
“Julia” needed government to supply the hospital in which she was born; to provide the pre-school education with which her political indoctrination began; too see that Julia was given not only a government high school diploma, but got taxpayer subsidies and special quotas to make it into a preferred college or university; to see that gender affirmative action laws guaranteed a “fair chance” to a good paying job and career that she otherwise could never get on her own; and to see that in later years Julia has the safety-net of government Social Security, without having to bear the responsibility of carrying for this herself.
Self-Sacrificing “Elves” to Serve Political Santa
The other side of political Santa’s plunderland is the indoctrination of the productive and producer “elves” who are needed to do the work that supplies all that government can give away. This requires convincing everyone that “society” comes before the individual; that anything that the individual has is not due to his own effort and his peaceful and voluntary associations with others, or as President Obama asserted, “You did not built it.”
Instead, what you have is due to the collective efforts of all, so that you cannot claim a right to anything or any more than what the collective deems you to deserve. And it is political Santa who represents and acts for the social collective in determining what shall be expected from you and in what form, and what you shall be allowed to have from “society” (or that you are allowed to keep) as bestowed by the government’s redistributive and regulatory activities.
But just as there is no Santa at the North Pole, there is no political Santa in society. Political Santa is really those who run for political office to gain and retain governmental control and power over other people’s lives. Political Santa is really all the special interest groups who wish to use the halls of governmental power to obtain through regulation and taxation what they cannot honestly earn in the open competition of the free marketplace.
Ethical Benevolence vs. Political Immorality
Benevolence and voluntary charity, and a properly understood spirit of “giving” to those you value and love at Christmas time are right and virtuous sentiments of free people in the open society.
But belief in and actions based upon the idea of a “political Santa” only succeeds in weakening and finally destroying the spirit and ethical health of a free and prosperous society.
So, yes, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. Neither a North Pole Santa who comes down the chimney in a red suit, nor a political Santa who can give people “something for nothing” in a world in which all that people want and desire must be creatively produced by someone before it may used to satisfy those wants and desires.
What makes the mythical belief in a political Santa far worse than the short-lived childhood belief in the North Pole Santa, is that the idea of a political Santa challenges and destroys the spirit of individualism upon which the good, free and prosperous society ultimately rests.
[Originally published at EpicTimes]
It is a sad day when a state chooses to listen to the fear, uncertainty, and doubts spread by anti-fossil fuel agitators rather than making a decision for economic strength that would benefit schools, communities, and many of its poorest citizens—especially when the vilified technology, hydraulic fracturing, has been used safely and successfully for more than 60 years and has brought prosperity to other formerly struggling regions.
— Marita Noon
Executive Director, Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy
Policy Advisor, The Heartland Institute
Responding to the announcement by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo that the state would ban fracking, Ms. Noon joined others, bringing their expertise to bear on a topic that remains a concern only because environmentalist enemies of energy in America continue to lie about it every chance they get.
In his book, “The Fracking Truth–America’s Energy Revolution: The Inside, Untold Story”. Chris Faulkner wrote “Furthermore, it’s been commonplace for decades. Worldwide, it’s estimated that more than 2.5 million wells have been fracked and the U.S. accounted for about half of those. Today, about 35,000 wells are fracked each year in all types of wells. And it’s impact on industry? It’s been estimated that 80% of production from unconventional sources such as shales would not be feasible without it.”
The Governor’s decision has everything to do with wooing the support of environmentalists in New York and nothing to do with the jobs and billions in tax revenue that fracking would have represented.
New York’s acting health commissioner, Howard Zucker, justified the decision saying that “cumulative concerns” about fracking “give me reason to pause.” Are we truly expected to believe that five years of study since the initial 2009 memorandum about fracking any provided reason to ban it? If the use of fracking technology dates back to 1947 without a single incident of pollution traced to it, what would it take to create “cumulative concerns” except ignorance or prejudice against the facts?
Even the Environmental Protection Agency has never found evidence of the chemicals used in fracking entering the nation’s groundwater. Moreover, fracking fluid is 99.5% water and sand. The rest is a mixture of chemicals similar to household products that could be found under the kitchen sink.
As Dr. Jay Lehr, Science Director of The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, points out, “Today we only fracture wells that are drilled horizontally and that requires 1,500 feet of vertical depth for the well” and thus “all such wells are way below local water wells.”
How idiotic, then, is it to seal off some twelve million acres of the Marcellus Shale, an underground rock formation with natural gas reserves that have helped create energy production booms in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Colorado, and Ohio?
A December 19 Wall Street Journal editorial noted that just across New York’s border with neighboring Pennsylvania, “A 2011 Manhattan Institute study estimated that each Marcellus Shale well in Pennsylvania generates $5 million in economic benefits and $2 million in tax revenue.” Companies there have generated more than $2.1 billion in state and local taxes since the fracking boom began. As one observer noted, “The ban ignores New York’s “6% unemployment rate, a depressed upstate region, and the fourth highest electricity prices in the nation.”
I don’t know how long it will take for the vast majority of the U.S. population to conclude that everything the environmentalists and their propagandists in the nation’s schools and media have to say about energy is as vast a hoax as the now discredited “global warming”, since renamed “climate change.”
Energy is the master resource, the lifeblood of ours and the world’s economy, the basis for electricity, for the ability to travel vast distances, for machines that enable vast harvests of crops by barely 2% of the U.S. population, to power all manufacturing, and to heat or cool our living and workplaces.
Fracking is yet another technological miracle and, of course, the environmentalists oppose it.
[Originally published at Warning Signs]
Many states are scrambling to identify low-emission power sources to comply with federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, but Michigan is blessed with affordable, reliable, zero-emission hydro power to help meet the restrictions. Policymakers in the Great Lakes State would be wise to take advantage of these hydro power resources.
In 1880, Michigan demonstrated the potential for hydro power when a hydroelectric turbine in Grand Rapids provided the first public demonstration of hydro power in the United States. Continuing to harness the power of water and gravity, Michigan now has dozens of small hydroelectric dams producing power. Nevertheless, Michigan is underutilizing its available hydro resources, as hydro power currently contributes less than one percent of the state’s electricity generation.
Hydro power is the least expensive electricity source, with production costs substantially lower than wind, solar, nuclear, and natural gas. Hydro power also tends to be less expensive than coal power, which has long been the backbone of U.S. electricity generation. Washington and Idaho are perfect examples of the economic benefits of hydro power, as the two states rely on it more than all other states, and as a result, the two states rank first and fifth in the nation, respectively, for lowest electricity prices. With less money required to purchase electricity, businesses have more money available to hire additional workers, and individual consumers have more money available to purchase food, clothing, housing, health care, and other consumer goods.
Hydro power provides significant environmental benefits in addition to cost advantages. Unlike wind and solar, hydro power is reliable and not dependent on when fickle winds blow and when darkness doesn’t obscure the sun. Also, hydro power is a totally clean energy source, producing no carbon dioxide or other emissions. To the extent hydroelectric dams impact the environment, by changing portions of streams and rivers into ponds and lakes, the impact is much smaller and more benign than the towering wind turbines that disfigure thousands of square miles of formerly pristine American lands and kill 1.5 million birds and bats in the United States each year.
Earlier this year, EPA announced plans to require a 30-percent reduction in nationwide power plant carbon dioxide emissions. EPA hit Michigan especially hard, requiring a 32 percent reduction. Many states have few hydro power resources and will have little choice but to turn to expensive, unreliable, environmentally destructive wind power to meet the EPA mandates. By contrast, Michigan officials can and should take advantage of available hydro power resources in the state. Doing so will produce environmental advantages over wind power, ensure a reliable supply of on-demand, zero-emissions electricity, and give Michigan businesses and consumers a competitive advantage over states forced to rely on more expensive means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Even without the new EPA mandates, hydro power is a good deal for Michigan. With EPA ramping up its carbon dioxide restrictions, adding more hydro power is a no-brainer.
Many readers most likely remember having classes in geography and civics when in middle (junior) or high school. Under Common Core these formerly stand-alone subjects are combined under the umbrella of Social Studies, if they are taught at all.
The new “framework” for the teaching of AP history, studied by thousands of America’s top-performing high-school students, emphasizes oppressors and exploiters while scant attention is given to liberators and pioneers. Such slanted teaching is certain to produce a new generation of left-leaning citizens.
As Mona Charen states in her recent article, Termites at work on American history:
“The Framework blatantly ignores such pivotal historic figures as Roger Williams and Benjamin Franklin and such key developments as the emergence of New England town meetings and the Virginia House of Burgesses as cradles of democracy.”
Times have changed. Unless children are taught the fundamentals of American history and government, preserving what made America great and special means little them.
A 2012 survey of college graduates commissioned by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that only 37 percent knew the terms of U.S. representatives and senators. Only 58 percent knew that the document establishing separation of powers is the U.S. Constitution; 25 percent chose the Articles of Confederation, and 7 percent thought it was the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Less than half knew that the American general at Yorktown was George Washington — 48 percent.
It is the hope of the author that the general concerns about Common Core as expressed below by the fine panels of Common Core experts — Marsha Familaro Enright, Tim Slekar and Kristen Lombard – -who appeared at The Heartland Institute event in Palatine, IL on Thursday, December 11, will spur you on to take positive action in your local school system.
Salient Points Noted: Question and Answer Session
- It is evident that Common Core standards are not world class bench mark standards or even high standards. Standards lead to mass standardization of schools and take away the ability of teachers to be creative.
- There are no world class standards to bench mark against Common Core standards. Just who decides what the standards are or what standards are appropriate for children?
- Common Core is a cooperative agreement between large corporations and big government in which tax dollars are taken and directed to a small group of individuals who will control the country.
- Instead of students, corporations and government have become the customers for education, which is geared to foster homogenization, not choice.
- Common Core won’t solve the performance issue of failing schools, even though it was the purpose of Common Core to remedy the achievement gap. The best performing students in this nation, however, do measure up to those countries with the highest education achievement standards like Finland.
- Although the constitutional or legal right for the federal government to take over education has been questioned, we can’t sue our way out of Common Core. Needed is a mass resistance revolt. Citizens must stand up and become engaged.
- Common Core was introduced into states through “No Child Left Behind waivers” and “Race to the “money. The former acting as bribes, states signed up for Common Core in 2010, sight unseen.
- A Hippocratic Oath seems to be needed for teachers not to harm kids. There is a movement afoot to end corporate education reform. This site is the best resource as to how to opt out. Available here is an activist handbook.
- Common Core is not seeking excellence. Its purpose was noted as indoctrination for social development training to turn out workers of the future. Masses of children are being brainwashed to evolve into disposable workers (cogs) to fill jobs as adults, so compliant they won’t put their heads up to object.
- Common Core is much like a Trojan horse with its program aimed at indoctrinating children with Communist dogma. Children comprise a captive audience to absorb propaganda.
- Common Core is undermining parental rights and turning parents and teachers against each other. When children are told parents shouldn’t help with their homework, it allows children to think less of their parents other than the biologically birthing of them.
- Extensive data is being collected from children starting in kindergarten through the 12th grade. Just registering a child to attend school gives permission to have data mining done. All states opting into Common Core agreed to substantially expand their State Longitudinal Data Services program which allows schools to collect and store student data. In exchange for this enhanced data collection, states received federal grants from Race to the Top, essentially a cash prize for schools that do things the Department of Education wants them to do under the blanket terms “innovation,” “reform,” and “excellence.” FEPBA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) was written to respect privacy, but it has been gutted. Under FERPA parents do have the right to access the data. The Department of Education, however, has acted unilaterally to allow other government agencies—or even third parties such as companies that make education products—access to student data without any parental notification requirement. When people hear about this invasion of student privacy, opposition to the practice is almost unanimous. For those students who are home schooled, FERPA does not protect their data privacy.
- Parents are asleep in Illinois. PARCC tests (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) will be given in April-May and May-June. Upwards of 70% of students will fail, as arbitrary out scores have been set to make parents and the pubic believe more standards are required to achieve better results. Students can opt out of test/ Talk first with the classroom teacher, then the principal, and finally the superintendent for the final say on opting out.
Editor Kristin Lombard hopes her book will be the clarion call to counter those advancing the false claim of Common Core by accomplishing what supporters fear most: 1) talk to and begin to understand one another, 2) find ways to partner with each other in rejecting factory-style education, and 3) work together to find alternative solutions.
Panelist members,Tim Slkar and Marsha Familaro Enright, each contributed an essay: Naysaying, Empty Discourse, and Talking to Your Neighbor and Liberating Education, respectively.
Resources to understand and help combat Common Core
The Heartland Institute is very interested in pairing up with others who are fighting Common Core. Recommended to view was this youtube presentation about Common Core, “Building the Machine – The Common Core Documentary.” It is a powerful commentary about Common Core, a must to view and share with others. Here is a review of the movie, which explains the problems with the Common Core State Standards that are causing a huge upheaval at all levels of education. This 40-minute movie has been produced by Home School Legal Defense Association, an organization that has been warning about the dangers of nationalized educational standards for years.
There is also an organization in Illinois whose purpose is to stop Common Core, “Stop Common Core Illinois.” Much information can be gleamed from this website.
A new booklet, “Common Core: A Bad Choice for America, has just been published by The Heartland Institute by Heartland’s expert on Common Core, Joy Pullman.
Another recent publication by Heartland is the booklet, “Replacing Common Core with Proven Standards of Excellence” by David V. Anderson, Ph.D of Asora Education Enterprises. Both booklets are excellent and can be ordered by contacting The Heartland Institute at 312/377/4000.
Teacher rebellion is taking place across the country. In the Osceola School District in Florida 20, teacher have either resigned or decided to retire in November of this year. A member of the teachers’ union cites standardized testing as the reason teachers are quitting. Teachers are required to do more and more in their classrooms in less time. As a result the quality of education children are receiving is not as it should be.
The debate about Common Core is over who gets to decide what’s good for children, parents or the government. Anyone who is concerned about educational freedom and parental rights needs to be aware of what is happening and do all within their power to resist this encroachment on our freedom.
Competitive Enterprise Institute Associate Director of Technology Studies Ryan Radia joins The Heartland Institute’s Budget and Tax News managing editor Jesse Hathaway to talk about the Marketplace Fairness Act, a proposed “Internet sales tax” receiving heated debate during the recently concluded past session of Congress.
Had the Marketplace Fairness Act been passed into law, Radia explains, consumers and small business owners would have been impacted greatly by the bill, as it would have enabled governments to collect taxes from citizens otherwise outside of their jurisdiction. Radia also explains what 2015 may hold for this “zombie idea,” cautioning that state governments may attempt to implement this tax scheme through other means.
I don’t know why this report isn’t receiving more coverage but a recent study of genetically engineered crops fed to livestock demonstrates that GMO feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed.
While thousands of studies have shown that bioengineered foods (at least those that have reached the market so far) are safe for human consumption, this is the first study examining the safety of such foods eaten by food producing animals.
The study was quite comprehensive, spanning 29 years (both before and after the introduction of GMO livestock feed) and more than 100 billion animals. The study found that there was no difference in the health outcomes of the livestock fed bioengineered foods versus those that ate only non-bioengineered foods, or for animals before and after they were fed GMO feed regularly. In addition, there was no difference in the safety or the nutritional quality of the products for human consumption that they ultimately produced.
One less phantom fear for anti-GMO fear-mongers to scare the public with.
It is common for health policy experts to argue that US health care spending is wasteful compared to its European counterparts because we are not getting better health for the larger amount of spending taking place here. There is limited evidence to support this claim, and existing evidence in the case of cancer care actually indicates Europeans under-spending rather than US over-spending. Arguments of waste in health care must be more nuanced and distinguish between waste in the public and private sectors.
The United States spends more on health care than other developed countries, about 18% of GDP, but some argue that US patients do not derive sufficient benefit from this extra spending. The high costs of cancer care in the United States are frequently cited as evidence of a poorly functioning health care system, compared to those of other developed countries, e.g. Europe. A common but misguided argument is that, since Americans are not healthier and do not live longer than Europeans, the additional spending in the US represents wasted resources. This assumes that health care is the main driver of health and longevity (which it is not) and that other factors such as genes, diet and exercise, accidents, violence, and harmful drug use are the same across countries.
Therefore, to better judge the relative productivity of health care in the US and Europe, it is necessary to examine the effects of spending in a specific disease area conditional on the same diagnosis. However, in the debate about whether higher US healthcare spending, compared to Europe, is wasteful, little reliable evidence of the comparative benefits of spending in specific disease areas has been generated.
Cancer is a good case to consider because it is a leading cause of death across many developed nations. Conditional on a cancer diagnosis, it is plausible that a relationship between spending and survival exists because of differences in cancer care rather than other factors leading to the diagnosis. Non–treatment-related investments by patients—in healthy behavior such as exercise and in other types of preventive activities—are likely to have a smaller impact on survival compared to actual treatment.
In a paper we published in Health Affairs,* we compared the value of US vs European cancer care in the 1980s and 1990s.** As shown in Figures 1 and 2, we examined survival and spending differences for cancer patients in the United States compared to a similar group of patients from ten European countries.
As the figures illustrate, our study found that US cancer patients both lived longer and spent more than European patients in every year. In addition, the absolute growth in survival gains and costs was larger in the US over the period considered from 1984 to 1999. We calculated the financial value of the additional years of survival in US in order to compare these gains to the costs of cancer care in these countries. The key finding was that, if one utilizes standard value measures for longevity, the value of survival gains in the US exceeded the higher cost growth compared to Europe.
In short, the extra spending for the extra living was worth it. In fact, US cancer care generated about $600 billion of additional value compared to Europe for patients who were diagnosed with cancer during this period. The value of that additional survival gain was highest for prostate cancer patients ($627 billion) and breast cancer patients ($173 billion), partly because of their larger prevalence.
Some criticized this study, without carefully reading it, for being driven by earlier diagnosis in the US. If longevity, measured as survival from time of diagnosis, rises faster simply because patients are diagnosed relatively earlier in US, this may create “lead-time bias.” However, in a companion study we found that the overall gain in survival of US cancer patients was only 20% due to detection of cancers in earlier stages, and 80% due to treatment once detected.*** Quantitatively, early detection does not negate our main conclusion: US cancer patients get more value than Europeans.
To exemplify these findings at the country level, consider Slovakia, which spent $39 per capita on cancer care and averaged 5.5 years’ life expectancy after cancer diagnosis. Compare this to Sweden, which spent $134 per capita on cancer care and averaged 9.9 years’ life expectancy after diagnosis. Now consider the US, which spent $207 per capita on cancer care and saw 10.8 years of life expectancy from the point of diagnosis.
These differences in US costs reflect—at least in part—more rapid uptake of new technologies that may lead to differences in survival. In prostate cancer treatment, several major changes were implemented in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s, including higher rates of radical prostatectomy; improvements in radiation therapy; and use of luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonists, a type of drug that causes testosterone levels to fall in men.
Compared with the United States, European countries typically treated prostate cancer less aggressively, with lower use of these technologies during this time period. In addition, new cancer drugs often reach US patients sooner than their European counterparts, in part because of delays or denials of reimbursement decisions within Europe. For example, the drug trastuzumab (Herceptin), a major breakthrough in the treatment of breast cancer, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1998 and was quickly incorporated into clinical practice guidelines.
In contrast, trastuzumab was not launched until after 2000 in many European countries, including Finland, France, Germany, and Sweden. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom, which evaluates the cost-effectiveness of new therapies to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions, did not recommend reimbursement and use of trastuzumab for breast cancer until 2002.
Despite a lack of supporting evidence, the majority of the health policy community argues that US health care is plagued with waste, especially compared to Europe. In this debate, though, it is important to distinguish between public-sector versus private-sector waste. As I have argued in this column before,**** there is likely a large amount of waste in the public payer sector run by the Medicaid and Medicare programs, compared to the private sector.
Though well-intended and hard-working individuals run these public programs, the basic fact remains that, because government bureaucrats do not improve their own material well-being by eliminating health care waste, any waste reduction depends on their own sense of mission and desire to do what is right rather than a profit motive. The fact that the biggest dollar crime in the US is Medicare fraud, sometimes estimated to be 15% of spending, underscores the problem—a problem that does not have a corollary among private payers because of tighter controls to support shareholder earnings.
However, health policy analysts do not distinguish between the private and public sector in its claims about waste in US health care. In my opinion, academics’ efforts to teach private insurance executives how to run their businesses is in itself a waste—namely of time and journal pages. Some academics and think-tanks have even claimed that as much as one third of health care is “wasted.” Really? These individuals claim to know the recipe for cutting the costs of private payers by a third without sacrificing quality of care and customer satisfaction.
Put simply, if these health care policy wonks were right that one could eliminate one third of the 3 trillion dollar health care tab without impairing quality, their ideas would be worth close to a trillion dollars. If true, they could become multi-billionaires by starting a new plan and slashing prices by a third. More immediately, private payers should be willing to go to great lengths to acquire these policy wonks’ knowledge, as payers could return billions to shareholders.
Indeed, one would expect payers to quickly bid out these analysts from their academic jobs if they truly held the secret to profitable health insurance, like the financial sector did in response to “financial engineering” developed by academics in the 1980s. However, no such bidding wars for these academics and their cost-cutting insights exist. This is likely for good reason, as these ideas—although popular in academic and policy circles—would likely be unpopular in real-world health care markets.
In sum, before cries of US waste is believed and accepted, better evidence is needed to support the claim and implementable actions, rather than words, needed to eliminate it.
*Philipson, T., M. Eber, D. N. Lakdawalla, M. Corral, R. Conti and D. P. Goldman (2012). “An Analysis of Whether Higher Health Care Spending in the United States Versus Europe Is ‘Worth It’ in the Case of Cancer.” Health Affairs 31(4): 667-675.
**This paper was also discussed at length in the Obama Administration’s annual Economic Report of the President in 2012, available here.
***Sun, E.. A. B. Jena, D. N. Lakdawalla, C. Reyes, T. J. Philipson and D. P. Goldman (2010). ” The Contributions of Improved Therapy and Earlier Detection to Cancer Survival Gains, 1988-2000.” Forum for Health Economics and Policy 13(2).
****Forbes, Oct 20, 2013, “What’s Wrong With Private Insurance?”
[First pubilshed at Forbes.]
Ten thousand professional climate crusaders recently attended yet another Climate Carnival in Lima, Peru. Did they use green power to minimise their carbon footprint? No way; massive diesel generators were trucked in on diesel-powered lorries because the local hydro/solar power could not cope. The delegates were also moved between hotels and the venue in more than 300 diesel buses – few bothered to walk or ride bicycles.
In sunny Spain, the government solar subsidies were so generous that some entrepreneurs managed to produce solar energy for 24 hours per day. However, inspectors discovered that diesel generators were being operated at night, thus producing great profits in selling “solar” energy to the grid.
Then in “go-green, vote-blue” Britain, wind power is proving so erratic that thousands of reliable diesel generators are being installed by utilities and businesses to maintain power when the grid becomes unstable.
Finally we have people who disconnect from the grid, aiming to become independent by generating their own power from small solar and wind installations. After the first long spell of cloudy windless weather, most turn to a reliable on-demand diesel backup generator to keep the fridge running and the lights on.
It seems that diesel is the new “green” fuel. In some bitter winter, when real blackouts hit UK or Europe, maybe clean “green” coal will be re-discovered and cranked up again.
Chris Jacobs, policy director of America Next, discusses the think tank’s market-based proposal for what Congress should pass to replace Obamacare. The key elements of the America Next plan are simplified tax credits that can be used to purchase coverage, and elimination of federal mandated benefits that drive up health insurance premiums.
Jacobs also discusses the Obama administration’s poorly executed high-risk pools, and how the high-risk pools proposed in the America Next plan would avoid the problems of the Obamacare version, and the political and practical obstacles and opportunities for the America Next plan and others with similar ideas.
In 1811, British factory workers literally “fought the machine,” protesting against technology under the banner of mythical figurehead King Ludd. Upset about being replaced by more efficient machinery, cost-ineffective factory workers rebelled against the installation of threshing machines and other force-multipliers.
That same fear is common in the American psyche today, as unemployment rates remain stubbornly high in the wake of decades of government programs and market interventions. Some industry experts predict as many as one in three workers may be replaced by robots or software by 2025.
Like the Luddites who broke looms and burned factories, many Americans today see the contradiction between advancing technology and stagnant economic well-being as a failure of the free market. Instead of blaming the “invisible hand” of the marketplace, they should consider the regulatory shackles binding that hand.
Government policies such as minimum-wage hikes—theoretically compassionate moves which are really calculated to benefit organized labor bosses and those already holding entry-level jobs—make technological solutions more attractive to employers.
Consider, for example, the rise of the grocery store self-checkout lane. Before, a cashier manned each checkout lane, assisting a single customer at a time. Now, more customers can make purchases, with reduced waiting time and less labor overhead. That saves the store money, and those cost savings will be passed on to the customers through price cuts, invested in expanding the grocery store or opening new ones, saved in the store’s bank account for a rainy day, or paid out as dividends to the store’s owners. All of those actions result in greater economic activity, which is what creates jobs.
Naturally, politicians prefer to blame others for economic problems on their watch, as President Obama famously did in 2011. He told reporters the stubbornly high unemployment rates of his administration were caused by “structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers.” The president said computers were causing unemployment: “When you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.”
The facts do not match this hypothesis, though. Instead of massive unemployment rates among bank tellers or bookkeepers, statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reveal there are actually more such employees in 2009 than there were in 1999.
Our neo-Luddites commonly claim the benefits of technological progress go exclusively to the owners of capital, not the workers. That’s obviously not true, as noted above. And that’s why the average American today lives more comfortably than Queen Victoria did during the height of the British Empire and is less likely to die from accident or plague than ever before.
High School Seniors’ Post Largest Ever Single-Year Decline in Smoking; E-Cigs May Have Played a Role
The Monitoring the Future survey shows that past 30-day cigarette use among 12th graders dropped from 16.3% in 2013, to 13.6% in 2014, the largest single-year decline in the survey’s 39-year history (datahere).
The data show that 17% of 12th graders had used e-cigarettes in the past 30 days in 2014, the first year this information was collected.
Good news included a decline in the percentages of high school seniors reporting alcohol use, being drunk and marijuana use in the past 30 days.
Instead of focusing on the historic drop in smoking, the media emphasized that more students had used e-cigarettes than traditional cigarettes. However, Tim Worstall, a Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, saw things differently, writing, “That vaping, at least so far as we know, is the most successful smoking cessation product any one has as yet invented (and do note that nothing else at all has halved teen [daily] smoking rates in only 5 years) means that we really shouldn’t be putting roadblocks in front of further adoption of the technology.” (here)
Smoking prevalence among high school seniors has declined every year since 2007, about the time that e-cigarettes were introduced in the U.S. With numbers like this, claims that e-cigarettes cause children to smoke are completely unfounded. In fact, the evidence is strongly suggestive that e-cigarettes have played a role in this unprecedented decline in teen smoking.
[Originally published at Tobacco Truth]
Last week, Heritage Foundation President, Jim DeMint and Heritage Action for America Chief Executive Officer, Michael Needham led a discussion at Chicago’s Ritz Carlton. Their topic was “A Bold Agenda for a Better America: Taking on the 114th Congress”, as a way to deliver opportunity to all, but favoritism to none.
Jim DeMInt, former South Carolina U.S. Senator, is entering his third year of running The Heritage Foundation. He painted conservatives as believers of the values and ideas that motivated our Founding Fathers, that these values and ideals are worth conserving, and that solutions must be consistent with those ideal and values.
A bold agenda must be put forth to keep America safe and secure, he said. One where there are choices in education and health care; where taxes are fair and flat to unleash growth; where all Americans have the opportunity to go as far as their talents and hard work will take them in pursuit of the American Dream; and where government concentrates on its core functions, recognizes its limits, and treats every one equally, showing favoritism to none.
Conservatives do have solutions for the challenges this nation faces, but they must explain them, fight for them, and then see them through. Opposing Obama’s policies are not enough. Government is already too powerful and burdensome for most Americans, even as it works well for the special interests who are protected in return for doing its bidding. Good alternatives must be presented to energize and excite the American people.
Reminiscent of Ronald Reagan, Jim DeMint asked “What kind of city do we want all Americans to wake up in?” It must be full of opportunity to work, learn, volunteer, and worship, This includes school choice,w energy independence, an economy that will create millions of jobs, health care that the American people can afford and keep – all created in an atmosphere where government stays within its means. Creating an America that works should not be a matter of partisan politics. Instead it requires an understanding of those ideals that made this nation acceptable in the first place.
DeMint reminded his audience that good things are happening at the state level where Republican governors are doing bold things. Meanwhile, the Left is dividing this country into different groups by pitting one group against another in what was characterized as class warfare. wMost people want a better life and more opportunity. For this to happen the American people must be educated to understand the mission of the Left and where it wants to take this nation. The Left revels in announcing what is wrong with America instead of why we should love America. It is disturbing that politics follows culture, which has steadily declined since prayer was removed from the public schools. Candidates must be recruited who embrace the ideals that made this nation great, they must run on them, and then govern accordingly. If they renege on their campaign promises, their feet must be held to the fire.
The Heritage Foundation is actively promoting its message within the environs of Washington, D.C. This is where the money and power is. But the agenda must also be set outside of Washington, D.C. To reach people across Americans Heritage Action for America was founded in 2010 as a sister organization to the 40-year-old Heritage Foundation. Together they offer a one-two punch of scholarly research and grassroots activism.
Mark Needham serves as Chief Executive of Heritage Action. Heritage Action has more than 400,000 citizen activists nationwide to hold lawmakers accountable in their home districts and in Washington, D.C. In the November mid-term elections, Heritage Action had more trained sentinels on the ground than did the Obama camp. There are weekly strategy calls to alert Heritage Action Sentinels on the issues U.S. House and the Senate members will be dealing with on the floor of their respective chambers. Following the call, an e-mail summary of the call is shared with citizen activists with suggested recommendations on how to approach your legislator, along with taking points. Check Heritage Action for America is you wish to become active in this fine organization.
Mr.Needham related how the American people perceive their lives to be. Four out of five Americans believe life is tough. It’s getting tougher and no one cares. Nor does the government care about the fears and concerns of the American people. Americans subsequently believe that politics is a dirty game, such as portrayed in TV shows they watch like “House of Cards,” “Scandal” on ABC, and the “Daily Show. Given what these shows portend, is it any wonder why Americans perceive politics to be all about lying and stealing and not about solving problems? Concerns also exist over the medium income remaining at stagnant at $52,000, that beef is reaching $4.00 a pound, that our education system is failing, and that housing and the cost for everything has gone up.
People do have a right to feel unheard in Washington, D.C. According to Needham, ideas must be presented that speak to the anxieties of the American people and likewise inspire. There must be a tax code that works. Opportunities must be offered to all, with favoritism to none. It was surprising to hear Needham say that 57% of Hispanics voted for Romney in 2012, in that Republicans are now telling us that unless we are nice to Hispanics Republicans will never again win the White House.
Question from audience members to DeMint and Needham addressed various concerns:
- Upper most was the expressed disillusionment with members of the Republican Party over the $1.1 trillion “cromnibus bill” (passed by 219-206 in the House and a closure vote of 77-19 in the Senate), in spite of the mid-term election in which a majority of Americans voted to checkmate President Obama’s agenda. The election outcome was basically dismissed by most U.S. House and Senate candidates, including all six Illinois Republican congressmen andSenator Mark Kirk. The Republican leadership didn’t want a spending bill fight for fear of getting blamed for a government shutdown. The same Republicans also wanted to get the bill off the floor. A continuing resolution would have allowed Republicans to deal with the bill when they had control of both houses in January. The bill, now signed by President Obama, hands over control of the budget to Democrats for almost half of their time in office (until Sept., 2015) funding most of the government, including Obamacare, while funding for amnesty, under the Department of Homeland Security, will run through February 27.
- Although it is Democrats who talk about helping the middle class, easy economics lesson can be taught to middle class working people. Telling stories is a good way to reach the middle class. Only look at North Dakota to see what is happening. Workers at McDonald’s start at $15.00 an hour! People aren’t stupid, but they don’t have the time to check out details for making their lives better. It would be of immeasurable value to teach economics to high school students.
- Stressed was that the solution to creating good government is in the states, not in Washington, D.C. The Daily Signal, started this past May is The Heritage Foundation news site. It aims at reporting straight news (straight-down-the-middle journalism) with a conservative bent, as a means to force the mainstream media to stop slanting the news. The Daily Signal shares stories of success with millions of Americans
- This nation is still a Christian country, although the Left is intent on pushing Secularism. Heritage is a big advocate of Religious Freedom.Hobby Lobby won its government battle with the help of The Heritage Foundation in June of this year. The Left uses the force of government to push faith or religion. Conservatives must convince the American people that we are not trying to push our religious faith through government, but instead are fighting to protect and preserve religious freedom.
- Expressed was concern that despite the Republican establishment controlling both the U.S. Senate and the House, the establishment might continue with its “broken window strategy” of not fighting back. The problem is that many Republicans fall into the big spending category. The desire isn’t there to repeal Obamacare, despite campaign rhetoric to follow through with the repeal. They further view amnesty for Illegal immigrants as a good thing, beholden as they are to the Chamber of Commerce and to those Republicans who hold the big money bags. Unfortunately the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, and the new House Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, are in this category.
Will this nation remain a viable one with standing?
We are still a center-right country. The Left has had its way for 100 years trying to make the sale, but their product has failed. It is thought that conservatives have a better chance to get their message out than at any other time in history. The right person with the right ideas will win in 2016. The Conservative agenda must be set down and fought for outside of Washington, D.C. It does not bode well that the Republican establishment is already in line behind Republicans holding the big money bags and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, both of whom are excited over Jeb Bush’s facebook announcement several days ago to form a presidential committee. In the interim, Jeb Bush cites his firm endorsements of Common Core and citizenship for illegal aliens, two issues that do not play well with the conservative Republican base.
This nation’s present debt of $18 trillion cannot be allowed to grow even larger. It must be reined in, lest it become a heavy burden upon future generations of Americans. At what point does such a horrendous, unchecked debt become unsustainable for this nation to continue to exist, or even exist at all, as a viable nation with any standing?
[Originally published at Illinois Review]
“Ocean acidification” (OA) is claimed to be a phenomenon that will destroy ocean life—all due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The claim of OA is a critical scientific foundation to the full spectrum of climate change assertions.
Dr. Richard A. Feely is a senior scientist with the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL)—part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). His four-page report: Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy, offered on the NOAA website, contains a chart titled “Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2,” which shows a decline in seawater pH (making it more acidic) that appears to coincide with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Mike Wallace is a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience, who is now working on his Ph.D. in nanogeosciences at the University of New Mexico. In the course of his studies, he uncovered something that he told me: “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.”
Feely’s work is based on computer models that don’t line up with real-world data—which Feely acknowledged in email communications with Wallace. Feely, and his coauthor Dr. Christopher L. Sabine, PMEL Director, omitted 80 years of data, which incorporate more than 2 million records of ocean pH levels.
The Feely chart began in 1850, which caught Wallace’s attention since similar charts all began in 1988. Needing the historic pH data for a project, he went to the source. The NOAA paper with the chart lists Dave Bard, with Pew Charitable Trust, as the contact.
Wallace sent Bard an email: “I’m looking in fact for the source references for the red curve in their plot which was labeled ‘Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2.’ This plot is at the top of the second page. It covers the period of my interest.” Bard responded and suggested that Wallace communicate with Feely and Sabine—which he did over a period of several months. Wallace asked again for the “time series data (NOT MODELING) of ocean pH for 20th century.” Sabine responded by saying that it was inappropriate for Wallace to question their “motives or quality of our science,” adding that if he continued in this manner, “you will not last long in your career.” He then included a few links to websites that Wallace, after spending hours reviewing them, called “blind alleys.” Sabine concludes the email with: “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.” But communications did continue for several more exchanges.
In an effort to obtain access to the records Feely/Sabine didn’t want to provide, Wallace filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
In a May 25, 2013 email, Wallace offers some statements, which he asks Feely/Sabine to confirm:
“…it is possible that Dr. Sabine WAS partially responsive to my request. That could only be possible however, if only data from 1989 and later was used to develop the 20th century portion of the subject curve.”
“…it’s possible that Dr. Feely also WAS partially responsive to my request. Yet again, this could not be possible unless the measurement data used to define 20th century ocean pH for their curve, came exclusively from 1989 and later (thereby omitting 80 previous years of ocean pH 20th century measurement data, which is the very data I’m hoping to find).”
Sabine writes: “Your statements in italics are essentially correct.” He adds: “The rest of the curve you are trying to reproduce is from a modeling study that Dr. Feely has already provided and referenced in the publication.”
In his last email exchange, Wallace offers to close out the FOIA because the email string “clarified that your subject paper (and especially the ‘History’ segment of the associated time series pH curve) did not rely upon either data or other contemporary representations for global ocean pH over the period of time between the first decade of 1900 (when the pH metric was first devised, and ocean pH values likely were first instrumentally measured and recorded) through and up to just before 1988.” Wallace received no reply, but the FOIA was closed in July 2013 with a “no document found” response.
Interestingly, in this same general timeframe, NOAA reissued its World Ocean Database. Wallace was then able to extract the instrumental records he sought and turned the glass electrode pH meter data into a meaningful time series chart, which reveals that the oceans are not acidifying.
Regarding the chart in question, Wallace concluded: “They replaced that (historical) part of their curve through the execution of an epic data omission—which was apparently the only way that ocean scientists have been able to assert that the oceans are acidifying.”
These taxpayer-funded scientists are leaders of the OA narrative. They participate in well-funded OA research programs and sit on advisory councils. “It all seems authentic and quite legitimate.” Yet their work is based on, as Wallace calls it, “a new history of ocean pH.” One that “is significantly different from the history suggested by actual measurements and other sources of peer review literature.”
Wallace authored a petition that he encourages my readers to sign.
Wallace concludes: “Ocean acidification may seem like a minor issue to some, but besides being wrong, it is a crucial leg to the entire narrative of ‘human-influenced climate change.’ By urging our leaders in science and policy to finally disclose and correct these omissions, you will be helping to bring honesty, transparency, and accountability back where it is most sorely needed.”
Weather Bulletin #3 December 23
Winter has only just officially begun but already cold weather has claimed the lives of five Marylander’s between mid-November and Mid-December.
Most of the U.S. is currently experiencing a break from record low temperatures, but the same can’t be said for other parts of the world.
The Japan Times reports that six people died during extremely heavy snow which blanketed much of Japan December 5-7. The blizzard left more than 1,200 people in the Tokushima Prefecture cut off from the rest of the nation as roads were blocked due to snow, falling trees and rocks. More than 45 inches of snow fell in the Sukayu area of Japan, and 38 inches of snow covered the village of Okura.
Just across the Sea of Japan, South Korea also suffered from bitterly cold weather and unusual amounts of snowfall with Seoul experiencing fall temperatures of 13 degrees below zero. Snow and strong winds knocked down power lines in eight towns across two districts leaving more than 37,000 families shivering in the cold.
Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA) issued heavy snow warning for the South and North Jeolla regions. Mokpo in South Jeolla received nearly a foot of snow, the most snow that had fallen in nine years and Wando also in South Jeolla received 9 ½ inches of snow, the most that has fallen in the province since the KMA started keeping records in 1970. Halla Mountain received more than 51 inches of snow in the same time period.
Meanwhile parts of India are also experiencing unusually cold weather. Mountainous tribal areas were 15 to 20 degrees below freezing point while Keylong, Manali and Kalpa recorded a low of 19 degrees , 26 degrees and minus 29 degrees respectively. As a result, lakes and other natural sources of water like springs, creeks and tributaries of major rivers are frozen in high altitude areas.
Even the nation’s capital experienced temperatures seven degrees below average for this time of year. Four peoples deaths have been attributed to the cold weather.
In his appearance last week on The Colbert Report, President Obama restated his approach to the Keystone XL pipeline decision, a mindset that can only be described as confused.
The president summarized his strange dilemma as follows: “[Keystone] could create a couple of thousand potential jobs in the initial construction of the pipeline, but we’ve got to measure that against whether or not it is going to contribute to an overall warming of the planet that could be disastrous.”
But this thinking hinges on three key — and false — assumptions.
First, that whatever carbon dioxide or pollution (note that I did not say “or other pollution” since CO2 is plant food, not pollution) would be generated in the building or operation of Keystone will not be generated in whatever other method ends up being used to transport oil from Canada through the United States.
Second, the usual climate alarmist assumptions, namely that humans are having a substantial impact on the climate and that a warming of the planet is likely to be harmful.
Third, and most important, the implicit assumption that climate change — even if you believe the alarmists’ claims — is the only risk worth considering.
Regarding ignoring the theoretical climate impacts of alternatives to Keystone: Opponents of Keystone (or more precisely of the section of Keystone that connects Alberta, Canada, to Nebraska) seem to believe that if we don’t allow a way to transport Canadian oil here, our neighbors to the north will then just leave it in the ground. This is, of course, preposterous. Since every potential alternative form of transportation, whether via truck, ship, train, or any combination likely creates more pollution than a pipeline, particularly if transported by people other than Americans or Canadians, and since any pipeline built by American and Canadian companies is likely to be constructed more environmentally sensitively than pipelines built overseas, a concern over carbon or pollution argues strongly for, not against, building Keystone XL.
As far as climate change overall: In short, depending on which data set you look at, planetary warming has either been much less than predicted or completely non-existent for at least the last 18 years. Since global carbon dioxide concentrations have increased steadily over the time period (even as U.S. CO2emissions slowed temporarily during the recession), it demonstrates that CO2 simply does not have the climate-controlling power that the alarmist industry wants us to believe. Additionally, climate fears are based on an unjustifiable assumption that a modest global warming would be a negative for humanity when it fact the opposite is true.
And then there is Obama’s implicit assumption that the overriding risk to be considered is the climate. Environmentalists who claim to care deeply about the planet should be far more concerned about real, demonstrable risk than about the unproven (and increasingly disproven) hypothesis of human-caused climate change. One such demonstrable risk is that of oil spills and terrible accidents within other forms of oil transportation, particularly the trucks and trains that will continue, in the absence of Keystone XL, to carry the oil through the United States.
Even the Obama administration’s State Department recognizes this: “The increased number of unit trains… would affect communities through elevated air emissions and noise from the trains, and increased risk of spills and collisions.”
This is not to say that one form of transportation is utterly unsafe while another is utterly safe: Spill statistics are a close call: pipelines spill at lower frequencies but higher volumes than rail transportation of oil. Similarly, trains have more accidents but fewer fires and explosions. (There are similar comparisons made for transporting the oil by ship: very few incidents but potentially many barrels may spill in an incident.)
One of the most important statistics should be rates of injury and death, and on this score pipelines fare very well compared to trains: Overall, State concludes that transporting the Canadian oil by rail would add 49 injuries and 6 fatalities each year as compared to one injury and no deaths if the oil goes through Keystone XL.
In fact, State says that “Annual baseline injuries and fatalities without an increase in transport volume from rail transport or pipeline are projected to be approximately 712 injuries and 94 fatalities compared to three injuries and two fatalities for petroleum pipeline.” This argues not only for using Keystone to transport the new Canadian oil production but also to use it, and other new pipelines, to substitute for current rail transportation of oil.
A final point: Some argue against Keystone because they say the oil will make its way to the Gulf Coast to be refined and then exported rather than being used in the United States. Radical environmentalists go so far as to conclude that Keystone is therefore a “scam being played on the American people.”
Exporting American oil would require Congress or the president to lift the current export ban. I expect the upcoming Republican-controlled Congress to send such a measure to the president’s desk in short order. Former Obama chief economic adviser Larry Summerssupports lifting the ban but one of the president’s closest current counselors, John Podesta, has not made clear his position. Podesta’s prior job was running the Center for American Progress whose energy “expert,” Dan Weiss (a card-carrying member of the Cult of Algore and a man who seems proud of his comprehensive economic ignorance), is against lifting the ban.
Not surprisingly, socialist senators and their friends in the environmental fear-mongering industry don’t understand even basic economics. Oil is traded worldwide with the two major benchmarks being the U.S.’s West Texas Intermediate (WTI) and Europe’s Brent Crude. The prices track each other closely, though in recent years American oil has been less expensive because of large supply in the Midwest.
If we export Canada’s increased oil production to the rest of the world, we will lower oil prices in the aggregate, including here in the United States. Yes, there may be regional effects of pipelines and yes, it is possible that Midwestern oil and gas prices would lose their current discount relative to the rest of the United States, but overall the United States would have lower energy prices. And that’s what matters.
Domestically, the more we lower oil prices, the lower Americans’ cost of living is and the more money we have to spend on things we want to buy rather than things we have to buy, such as gasoline and heating oil. Internationally, the more we can lower world oil prices, the more we prevent our enemies like Vladimir Putin and the radicals running Venezuela from being able to fund adventurist, militaristic, and anti-Western foreign policies, and the more we prevent our so-called friends in the Middle East from being able to use American, European, and Chinese money to support Wahhabism, Hamas, ISIS, and CAIR, and others who want us dead or destroyed as a free society.
Given all these factors, President Obama’s suggested calculus — balancing “a couple thousand jobs” versus what he perceives as the risks involved in building and operating the Keystone XL pipeline — is preposterous: The jobs it creates are a nice bonus (and are what the many labor unions who support the project care about), but they are not the most important benefit of the project.
Keystone XL won’t increase pollution but it will save American lives and hurt our enemies. Those who oppose it should be forced to justify their opposition in that context.
[Originally published at the American Spectator]
In directing the Wireless bureau to make two substantial, Commission-level decisions today, without the full Commission vote that was requested by Commissioners Pai and O’Rielly, (concerning the release of the annual wireless competition report and regulating cellular data roaming rates), the FCC Chairman unnecessarily undermined the legitimacy of the FCC at a critical time the FCC needs all the actual and perceived legitimacy it can get.
The FCC’s legitimacy comes from the authority of law written by a duly-elected Congress under the U.S. Constitution, and from the official votes from duly-appointed FCC commissioners, who in turn abide by: the powers vested in the Commission by the Communications Act; due process; and the Administrative Procedures Act.
Making rate regulation without an official vote of the Commission can create the public perception that a majority of the Commission may not support some, or all of the new rate regulation.
At this particular time in the FCC’s history, when the FCC is potentially poised to reclassify the Internet as a Title II telecommunications service to impose rate regulation for downstream Internet traffic, (which also could involve some forbearance from other rate regulations via the official forbearance process), the perception of the reliability of the FCC in respecting its own processes and procedures is especially important.
If FCC commissioners cannot predict or count on being included in rate regulation decisions by the FCC under normal expected processes and procedures, what confidence can affected parties have that the FCC will follow the law and the FCC’s process and procedures on other matters that affect their interests?
What confidence could affected parties have that the process and procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act will be legally respected in building the necessary record for the pending Open Internet Order, or for its complex implementation?
It does not advance the current or long-term legitimacy of the FCC, if Congress and the public have a perception that the FCC may be operating in an arbitrary or capricious manner, by unnecessarily bypassing normal expected process and procedures.
If the FCC wants affected parties to respect their rules, processes and procedures, shouldn’t the FCC lead by example and be extra careful to respect their own rules, processes, and procedures?
Simply, legitimate authority and process beget legitimate outcomes.