Wipe Islamic Terrorists off the Internet

We ought to do it.  We can do it, the backbone carriers are mostly American.  We  furnish a list of terrorist URL's to the backbone carriers, and presto, they go into the bit bucket for good.  The terrorists will undoubtedly open new ones, but we can make those go into the bit bucket too.  And their audiences, who just pop a URL into their browsers will be confused when they get the 404 error message after the site got blackholed.  It will take time for the audience to discover the new URLs and by which time we can discover them too and make the new ones go away. 
   Everyone agrees that a lot of Islamic terrorists get started, get instructed, and get encouraged over the internet.  For instance we know that Anwar Al Awlaki  set up the shoe bomber, and engaged in emails with Major Hassan, the Ft Hood shooter.  Awlaki got so bad that the weak kneed Obama administration summoned up a little resolve and snuffed Awlaki in a drone strike.  If we can snuff them from the air, surely we can turn off their internet access.
   Every other media, print newspapers, radio, TV, movies, books, music, engage in censorship.  There are some things they simply will not show.  Examples:  death threats, calls to violence, pornography, wardrobe malfunctions, overly  raunchy lyrics, and hate speech.  Only the internet gets away scot free.  With Islamic terrorist racking up more and more kills (149 kills just this Ramadan) we need to shut down their internet access. 
   We need to do this right, and prevent censorship of other perfectly legitimate internet activities.  Probably a small board of respected and impartial  people ought to OK each request to blackhole a URL for being an Islamic terror site.  We have done a fairly good job at snuffing out spammers, no reason why we should not do the same to Islamic terrorists. 

Mandatory Minimum Sentences.

Used to be, back in the 60's and 70's, judges had broad discretion in sentences.  Unfortunately a number of judges abused this discretion, letting criminals off with slap-on-the-wrist sentences when the community wanted the throw the book at them. 
  As a result, in the 70's and 80's, Congress and state legislatures  passed laws requiring judges to impose mandatory minimum sentences in all cases, mitigating circumstances be damned.  Judges have been whining about this ever since.  But the mandatory minimum sentencing laws still mostly stand, the voters have little interest in the whines of judges.  

Do you believe in Global Warming?

Or, "Does the president believe in global warming," a question fired during one of those interminable daily press conferences.  The poor press secretary who was serving as a target rightfully dodged the question. 
  Believe.  That's a word used in  religion.  Do you believe in God?  When the newsies start asking about belief, they become religious fanatics looking for heretics to burn at the stake.  The fanatics LIKE global warming, they are using it to scare people into giving them political power. 
   Global warming ought to be a scientific theory, an idea supported by observations or experiments.  About the only observation behind the global warmists is CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.  We have good observations that the CO2 concentration has increased from 300 and something parts-per-million to 400 parts-per-million in the last 50 years or so.  The earth gets heated on the sunside and cools itself by radiating infrared radiation on the night side.  To hold Earth's temperature steady, the heating and the cooling have to balance.  CO2 blocks infrared radiation which reduces the nighttime cooling.  This is the whole of the greenie global warming religion.  Of which they are demanding the president believe. 
   Counter observation.  Plain old water vapor, steam, humidity, clouds, is as strong an infrared blocker as CO2.  And there is about 1000 times as much water vapor in the air as the puny rise of CO2.  The CO2 rise is like 50 parts-per million, against a water vapor concentration of 50,000 parts-per-million.  Most experienced people don't think a change that small means anything in the real world.  Especially as all the computer models of global warming produce crazy results when asked to predict today's temperature based upon data from some starting point in the past. Incidentally,  on a planet two thirds covered with open water, there is going to be a lot of water vapor in the air, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.  
   And, if the world warms up, then the oceans will warm and more water will vaporize and make the air even moister than it is.  Which will increase the amount of cloud cover.  Everyone knows that daytime clouds cool the earth.  You can feel the chill when you are on a beach in a bathing suit and a cloud covers the sun.  Less well known is that night time clouds warm the earth, they block infrared radiation even better than CO2 or water vapor.  Clear winter nights are colder than overcast winter nights.  Which effect is stronger?  No one knows, or at least no one has published on this where I could see it. 
   Another observation.  World temperature has remained steady, no rise at all for the last 19 years. 
   So, scientifically speaking global warming is a maybe.  Might be happening, might not.  This isn't a matter of belief.  It's a matter of scientific observations and theory. 
   

Bye Bye Paris Climate Deal.

Trump called a special Rose Garden address on the Paris accord for 3 PM Eastern today.  It got started 15 minutes late, not bad.  Trump said the US was pulling out off the Paris agreement, something he had promised repeated on the campaign trail.  He said the Paris agreement was costing us jobs and economic growth, and it wasn't doing much against global warming.  And the other members, like China, weren't doing as much as the United States. 
   The Paris accord was supposed to be an international treaty, which needs a 66% majority in the Senate to pass.  Obama, who negotiated the Paris accords, never submitted the final treaty to the Senate, because he knew it would never pass.  So, it never was a real treaty, and Trump can denounce it and walk away from it on just his say-so.  That's legit.
   Funny thing about the Paris accord.  I have no idea what the pseudo treaty obligated America to do.  And who might be keeping score.  The Obama administration claimed that the Clean Power Plan, which called for shutting down every coal fired power plant in the country, was  just one step toward meeting the Paris accord.  Of course Trump shut down the Clean Power Plan a couple of months ago, so that's kind of moot.  Of course the greenies are all upset, but next greenie I hear venting about Paris, I'm gonna ask him what the Paris accord required us to do.  And is it fair when the Chinese don't have to do squat until 2030.  The greenie won't know, and that ought to quiet him down for a while.
   In short, Trump put on a show for his voter base, doing something they approve of.  It gives the MSM something new to whine about, which is good, I'm tired of listening to them whine about Russians.  I don't think it does anything about global warming, especially as there has been no global warming for the last 19 years. 

Angela Merkel's Lament

"All I can say is that we Europeans must really take our destiny in our own hands.  The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over as I experienced in the past few days."  Angela Merkel said these words at a campaign stop in Bavaria. 
   In my estimation, these are words that all sensible European leaders ought to be saying.  Europe, the EU, is as big as the United States in regards to population, land area, industrial capacity, wealth.  It has real threats, the Russians, financial turmoil, a flood of Muslim refugees, Brexit which could lead to disintegration of the EU, Islamic terrorism, high unemployment and sluggish growth, oppressive regulations, Greek bankruptcy, falling birthrates,  and doubtless more that are not obvious to Americans like me. 
   We Americans will help out against Russian aggression, but the rest of the problems we see as purely internal European problems.   Against most of them there is nothing we can do, even if we believed we ought to.   Wealthy Europe is a tempting target to aggressors, refugees, terrorists, and others.  Europe lacks America's natural defenses, lacks America's large and effective armed forces, and lacks America's political unity.  Any thinking person ought to be concerned.  Angela Merkel, as leader of Germany, the largest and most influential member of the EU, is speaking to Germans and EU citizens about what ought to be. 
   But US TV, even normally sober Fox News, is going ape over Merkel's words.  I heard both Shepard Smith and Charles Krauthammer yesterday decrying Angela Merkel words as a call to break up NATO,  and trash the American alliance.  How do you spell "overreact"?
  I read Angela Merkel's words as a call for Europe to stand on it's own two feet.  Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to say.  

Words of the Weasel Part 51

Someone invented a new and opaque term for a tax on imports to the country.  This sort of tax has been called a tariff since at least the American Revolution, and "The Tariff" funded the federal government down until the invention of the income tax in the very early 20th century.  The size of the tariff was a serious political issue from the Revolution right on.
   We enacted a very stiff tariff,  the Smoot Hawley tariff right after Great Depression I hit.  Most historians and economists tell us that Smoot Hawley made the Great Depression worse, and prolonged it.  Needless to say, "tariff" became something of a bad word  most places.  The exception was in union circles, the unions like tariffs.
   There is a push to put in a tariff again.  Only since "tariff" is now a bad word, they call it a "Border Adjustment Tax".  And the newsies let them get away with it. 

Fake News takes over the MSM

For the last couple of weeks, stories featuring the name of someone in the Trump administration, the proper noun "Russians" and little else have been all we get from the MSM.  The stories are always been from anonymous sources, i.e. sources fearful to give their names lest stuff fall on their heads.  Highly reliable those sources are.  The stories never actually accuse anyone of illegal, treasonous, or immoral acts, they just insinuate that something evil is going on.  Last couple of days they have been talking about, not accusing anyone of anything, just talking about communication between the Trump administration and the Russians.  Sure, the Russians are our international competitors (real people call them enemies). but there is nothing wrong with talking to them.  "Jaw, Jaw is better than War, War."  Winston Churchill said long ago.  JFK managed to keep the Cuban missile crisis from turning into WWIII by talking with the Russians.  After the smoke blew away he set up the "Hot Line" a secure back channel of communication.  There is nothing wrong with talking to the Russians. 
   I wonder what else is going on in the world?