So why does Obama want to take it over? Lotta reasons come to mind, none of 'em good. The can squeeze "campaign contributions/bribes" out of internet providers. They can shut down talk that they don't like. They can raise rates and reduce service. They can reward their friends and punish their enemies. They can lay taxes on it. Crony capitalists love it.
The "net neutrality" argument the Administration uses is a smoke screen. Nobody knows what "net neutrality" actually means. So they can take over the Internet and do pretty much anything they like, and it's all for "net neutrality".
I'm positive that government takeover will raise my rates, degrade my service, and threaten me for stuff I post on my blog.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
Obama wants one to deal with ISIS/ISIL/IS what ever you want to call them. It's the modern declaration of war, only it allows a lot of hedging, like no ground troops, quit fighting after 3 years. The good old fashioned declaration of war, like we used on the Japanese in 1941, doesn't allow hedging. Which was a good thing. War is so terrible, so costly, that you want to get it over with quickly. Which means hitting the enemy as hard as you can to knock him out as soon as possible. Diddling around just gets more people killed.
We ought to just declare war. If we can't bring ourselves to do that, then the AUMF ought to say "all means, including ground troops and nuclear weapons may be employed at the commander in chief's discretion. Military force will continue to be applied until victory is achieved."
And we need language to define the enemy. Otherwise ISIS/ISIL/IS just changes it's name again and the AUMF is useless. Something like "All armed groups in the Middle East and North Africa who are not part of a UN recognized government, and, any UN recognized governments that fails to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. "
Frankly, I think Obama wants restrictions in the AUMF, so he can blame Congress when he fails to win to war. Obama doesn't want to deal with Islamist extremists in the Middle East. He knows he has to do something lest he get impeached or loose all credibility with the voters. He hopes that having the Air Force put on a fire works display will satisfy his critics.
We ought to just declare war. If we can't bring ourselves to do that, then the AUMF ought to say "all means, including ground troops and nuclear weapons may be employed at the commander in chief's discretion. Military force will continue to be applied until victory is achieved."
And we need language to define the enemy. Otherwise ISIS/ISIL/IS just changes it's name again and the AUMF is useless. Something like "All armed groups in the Middle East and North Africa who are not part of a UN recognized government, and, any UN recognized governments that fails to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. "
Frankly, I think Obama wants restrictions in the AUMF, so he can blame Congress when he fails to win to war. Obama doesn't want to deal with Islamist extremists in the Middle East. He knows he has to do something lest he get impeached or loose all credibility with the voters. He hopes that having the Air Force put on a fire works display will satisfy his critics.
NASA fudged global temperature records
Some time ago I down loaded the complete worldwide temperature files from the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS). The file format is ASCII, 80 characters per line, which means the file started out on IBM punch cards, which makes it OLD, and was later moved to a disc file. The records go back to 1700. In 1700 there are only 7 stations reporting. The number of reporting stations grows over the years, reaching 100,000 by 1979.
In 1980 the great purge was started, and by 1983 the number of reporting stations was down to 30,000, two thirds of the reporting stations had been thrown away. NASA has never offered an explanation for the great purge.
Had a warmist (and NASA is full of warmists) done the purging, by dumping stations with colder than average readings he could easily create Mann's "hockey stick" warming trend.
For that matter, NASA never explained their "corrections". The GISS site offered two files, one of raw temperature readings and one of "corrected" temperature readings. The raw file plotted out in a convincing manner, a smooth curve, no spikes or jumps. The "corrected" file would not plot properly. Just looking at the plot you could see hops, jumps, skips, spikes, and stretches of pure random trash. All the data before 1860 was total trash. Perhaps a bug in NASA's correction program?
There can be tremendous various between stations just a few miles apart. At my place in Mittersill, temperatures run 5 degrees F warmer in winter, and 5F cooler in summer than they do at Mac's Market, which is only 4 miles away.
In 1980 the great purge was started, and by 1983 the number of reporting stations was down to 30,000, two thirds of the reporting stations had been thrown away. NASA has never offered an explanation for the great purge.
Had a warmist (and NASA is full of warmists) done the purging, by dumping stations with colder than average readings he could easily create Mann's "hockey stick" warming trend.
For that matter, NASA never explained their "corrections". The GISS site offered two files, one of raw temperature readings and one of "corrected" temperature readings. The raw file plotted out in a convincing manner, a smooth curve, no spikes or jumps. The "corrected" file would not plot properly. Just looking at the plot you could see hops, jumps, skips, spikes, and stretches of pure random trash. All the data before 1860 was total trash. Perhaps a bug in NASA's correction program?
There can be tremendous various between stations just a few miles apart. At my place in Mittersill, temperatures run 5 degrees F warmer in winter, and 5F cooler in summer than they do at Mac's Market, which is only 4 miles away.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Remind me NOT to buy a new TV
Internet posting accuse the new voice controlled Samsung TV of listening in on everything said within its hearing and forwarding it all the "an undisclosed third party" for analysis and snooping.
WOW.
When Uncle wants to snoop on you, all they have to do is force Samsung to disclose the undisclosed third party, and then force said third party to let them snoop everything the TV heard you say, going back to when that smart ass TV first darkened your door.
ARRGH.
Lets hope my older, all solid state, Sony keeps on running.
WOW.
When Uncle wants to snoop on you, all they have to do is force Samsung to disclose the undisclosed third party, and then force said third party to let them snoop everything the TV heard you say, going back to when that smart ass TV first darkened your door.
ARRGH.
Lets hope my older, all solid state, Sony keeps on running.
Phone Banking, Then and Now
Years ago we did phone banking up here. We did cold calls on friendly voters to urge them to get out and vote. Back in the good old days, say 5 years ago, most voters were happy to receive such a call. Many of them were slightly flattered that the party cared enough to call. The would pick up the phone and answer our questions and chat.
Not any more. Last time I phone banked, the voters were hostile to the entire idea of getting called. Most of 'em just hung up. All of 'em indicated displeasure with the call.
I would normally attribute this change of attitude to telemarketers fouling the nest. But over the same 5 years the telemarketers have disappeared. The "Do Not Call" lists have been effective. Five years ago, I would get two or three telemarketer calls a day. Today, I don't get any. I get calls from politicians and political parties, but no telemarketers.
Why the change in voter response to phone bank calls? Beats me, but it's for real.
Not any more. Last time I phone banked, the voters were hostile to the entire idea of getting called. Most of 'em just hung up. All of 'em indicated displeasure with the call.
I would normally attribute this change of attitude to telemarketers fouling the nest. But over the same 5 years the telemarketers have disappeared. The "Do Not Call" lists have been effective. Five years ago, I would get two or three telemarketer calls a day. Today, I don't get any. I get calls from politicians and political parties, but no telemarketers.
Why the change in voter response to phone bank calls? Beats me, but it's for real.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Fighting Islamic Extremism
It's not all military. Propaganda is very effective. We ought to create an Arabic language TV news channel. Broadcast it from satellites and stream it on the Internet. Feature stories of IS brutality, what it's like to be a Nigerian school girl carried off by Boko Haram. Some nice gun camera shots of smart bombs hitting right on target. Human interest stories of Muslim families doing well in the United States. Some interviews with Muslim soldiers fighting on our side. Other stories that help our cause.
Take a good look at the old WWII BBC broadcasts. The wartime BBC managed to establish a solid reputation even among the enemy for honesty and truth telling. While remaining an effective pro allied slant. We ought to be able to do as well today.
Then we ought to get Hollywood to do some useful movies. If they can make Kim Jung Un look like an idiot, they ought to be able to do the same to the Ayatollahs.
The medium is the message.
Take a good look at the old WWII BBC broadcasts. The wartime BBC managed to establish a solid reputation even among the enemy for honesty and truth telling. While remaining an effective pro allied slant. We ought to be able to do as well today.
Then we ought to get Hollywood to do some useful movies. If they can make Kim Jung Un look like an idiot, they ought to be able to do the same to the Ayatollahs.
The medium is the message.
It's easier for the guys
To look sharp that is. Poor Hillary, usually looks terrible on TV. Her hairdo needs work, her complexion shows her age, her choice of color is questionable (did you see the radioactive green suit she wore?) and her figure is also showing her age.
It's easier for guys. Shave and haircut (standard short guy's haircut) dark suit, white shirt, and red tie with regimental stripes. Well shined shoes. That is all it takes. The suit looks good in spite of figure defects ( look at Chris Christie), the color choice is limited to dark wool, so the guys don't get a chance to display their poor color sense. And, guys get pockets to carry their wallets, car keys, eyeglasses, and house keys.
It's easier for guys. Shave and haircut (standard short guy's haircut) dark suit, white shirt, and red tie with regimental stripes. Well shined shoes. That is all it takes. The suit looks good in spite of figure defects ( look at Chris Christie), the color choice is limited to dark wool, so the guys don't get a chance to display their poor color sense. And, guys get pockets to carry their wallets, car keys, eyeglasses, and house keys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)