Ask not for whom the bells toll

I was having a pretty good day until I read the WSJ editorial below, sent to me by Irene. I can't even comment on it; I am beaten. The inmates may soon run the asylum, as the last warden throws them the key. I hope you all enjoy the future.

For my part, I give up. I will leave self-flagellation for our Moslem friends. I will join Bob, who is coming off vacation, and just start demanding things from the government. I am with you Bob, let us study how to get all those entitlements and stop worrying about earning a living and participating in the commonweal. Being clever, we can probably get our bowls to the head of the line. I could be a community leader if I lost a few IQ points, which I recently did.

So, I am signing off. This blog is pointless, I suppose. Logic is not a topic of interest. After all, in a democracy, the majority gets to do what it wants; so forget law, reason, and stuff like that.

I keep telling people about the incrementalism being used to destroy our heritage and freedom, but I get stares of confusion in return. Mostly, people want to get back to their pudding. They assume nothing really matters except their guy winning, which their guy is relying on.

Recall, the feds passed a law, and our insipid president signed it, that said the federal government is now regulating the technology of light bulbs. Sounded great, to some. No inkling of what our Revolution was about. Read on, if you want to see what happens when you open the door to the insane.

If these proposed rules, below, go into effect, the central central control of all our actions is nearly complete - all that is needed is the final punitive weapon, "single payer medicine." Then, you can be turned down for simple care, if you don't follow the great plans made for you, as with the British man who can't get his leg fixed, a prior blog, because he smokes.

The new rules, which seem certain, will not go away when it is clear that global warming and human CO2 concerns are a joke. Rules never do. Recall, social security started as a trust fund and the lottery was just for education. Two of many inconvenient contracts.

The problem is, even if the rules are not a joke, the reaction about to befall us is worse than throwing the baby out with the bath water. I hope all who participated in throwing out the baby are feeling good about the new socialism.

Of course, after a few years, they will start to protest the loss of their freedoms, once they realize what has happened, and, then, they can finish the protest from a cell. This time, playing stupid, when the booby trap springs, won't be an excuse. There will come a time when only revolution or emigration will solve the problem. All this from a 5-4 vote. What a way to end man's best hope.

The old saying, "A word to the wise....," in this matter, is not applicable.

I should change this blog to the "Cassandra Lament," but no one would care because Cassandra is not a new movie.

July 19, 2008

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

DOW JONES REPRINTS This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit: www.djreprints.com. • See a sample reprint in PDF format. • Order a reprint of this article now. The Lawnmower Men July 19, 2008; Page A8 Al Gore blew into Washington on Thursday, warning that "our very way of life" is imperiled if the U.S. doesn't end "the carbon age" within 10 years. No one seriously believes such a goal is even remotely plausible. But if you want to know what he and his acolytes think this means in practice, the Environmental Protection Agency has just published the instruction manual. Get ready for the lawnmower inspector near you. In a huge document released last Friday, the EPA lays out the thousands of carbon controls with which they'd like to shackle the whole economy. Central planning is too artful a term for the EPA's nanomanagement. Thankfully none of it has the force of law -- yet. However, the Bush Administration has done a public service by opening this window on new-wave green thinking like Mr. Gore's, and previewing what Democrats have in mind for next year. The mess began in 2007, when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Mass. v. EPA that greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" under current environmental laws, despite the fact that the laws were written decades before the climate-change panic. The EPA was ordered to regulate if it decides that carbon emissions are a danger to the public. The 588-page "advance notice of proposed rulemaking" lays out how the EPA would like it to work in practice. Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his dissent that under the Court's "pollutant" standard "everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies," which the EPA appears to have taken literally. It is alarmed by "enteric fermentation in domestic livestock" -- that is, er, their "emissions." A farm with over 25 cows would exceed the EPA's proposed carbon limits. So would 500 acres of crops, due to harvesting and processing machinery. But never fear. The EPA would regulate "farm tractors" too, plus "lawn and garden equipment." For example, it "could require a different unit of measure [for carbon emissions] tied to the machine's mission or output -- such as grams per kilogram of cuttings from a 'standard' lawn for lawnmowers." In fact, the EPA has new mandates for everything with an engine. There's a slew of auto regulations, especially jacking up fuel-efficiency standards well beyond their current levels, and even controlling the weight and performance of cars and trucks. Carbon rules are offered for "dirt bikes and snowmobiles." Next up: Nascar. The EPA didn't neglect planes and trains either, down to rules for how aircraft can taxi on the runway. Guidelines are proposed for boat design such as hulls and propellers. "Innovative strategies for reducing hull friction include coatings with textures similar to marine animals," the authors chirp. They also suggest "crew education campaigns" on energy use at sea. Fishermen will love their eco-sensitivity training. New or modified buildings that went over the emissions limits would have to obtain EPA permits. This would cover power plants, manufacturers, etc. But it would also include "large office and residential buildings, hotels, large retail establishments and similar facilities" -- like schools and hospitals. The limits are so low that they would apply to "hundreds of thousands" of sources, as the EPA itself notes. "We expect that the entire country would be in nonattainment." If this power grab wasn't enough, "EPA also believes that . . . it might be possible for the Agency to consider deeper reductions through a cap-and-trade program." The EPA thinks it can levy a carbon tax too, as long as it's called a "fee." In other words, the EPA wants to impose via regulatory ukase what Congress hasn't been able to enact via democratic debate. That's why the global warmists have so much invested in the EPA's final ruling, which will come in the next Administration. Any climate tax involves arguments about costs and benefits; voting to raise energy prices is not conducive to re-election. But if liberals can outsource their policies to the EPA, they can take credit while avoiding any accountability for the huge economic costs they impose. Meanwhile, the EPA's career staff is unsupervised. In December, they went ahead and made their so-called "endangerment finding" on carbon, deputizing themselves as the rulers of the global-warming bureaucracy. The adults in the White House were aghast when they saw the draft. EPA lifers retaliated by leaking the disputes of the standard interagency review process to Democrats like Henry Waxman and sympathetic reporters. Thus the stations-of-the-cross media narrative about "political interference," as if the EPA's careerists don't have their own agenda. So the Administration performed triage by making everything transparent. At least getting the EPA on the record will help clarify the costs of carbon restrictions. Democrats complaining about "censorship" at the EPA are welcome to defend fiats about lawnmowers and flatulent cows.

What you gonna do, when the CO2 comes for you?

I was reading in the Telegram (Eurotrash stuff) that a big study, including some work of Oak Ridge partisans, determined that amount of CO2 emissions has been higher than expected, then jumps to the conclusion we are all dead, or some such thing. Things are, you see, worse than we thought, even though they are better.

The writer doesn't seem to see the missing assumption; rather, the paper and the green crew silently assume that higher CO2 is directly related to warmth in this era of cooling. I know pointing out this upside down thinking gets boring, but I figure if I keep pounding on the nails sticking up, it might help point out the poor carpentry.

Dr. Leo Buscaglia (he was a good touchy, feely speechifier) once told the story of his family standing outside the old man's hospital room waiting for him to die. A doctor went in to see how dad's fractured hip was doing after treatment. He came out to the group beaming and announced how well the patient was doing. Get it?

There is an online project regarding CO2 that was knocked off-line for two months by a cyber attack, better to kill the messenger I suppose. This attack silently screams much.

Anyway, this group, among other things is studying the great global warming of the middle ages.

What? There was a global warming without CO2?

Somewhere on this page will be a graph of the number of studies (in red) showing the warming period was hotter than today. Just another item to be ignored by the hip doctors. (MWP stands for Middle Ages Warming Period and CWP for Current...Check the site for the time period - just before the glacial period that is also ignored)

Also, here are the scientists reviewed, since science has become a game of how many experts one has: HERE

The obvious question is, assuming there was a MWP, how is it the early middle ages were hotter than today, since the CO2 level is higher, now?

The answer is: It can only be hotter where the CO2 assumption is wrong.

If you change the argument, you agree; then, we will look at your new syllogism, as believers will not change the conclusion. After all, there has to be some facts that support the obvious conclusion!

If you keep to the argument, you make no sense and have moved over to religious fundamentalism, in which case the rest of us will watch to see if you are going to use the government to support your religion.

I have no delusions, however, that most people will blink and move on, not understanding any of this. Nonetheless, I will just keep hammering the obvious nails while most will read articles like that in the Telegraph and think they actually say something because the missing, convenient assumption is secretly understood to be a convenient, obvious truth.

California Dreamin': Socialism Gone Wild

Recently, Honda announced they will not build a Prius plant in California. Also, AAA is closing a 900 person center, there

Back in the 1990s, when I lived in and around L.A., a buddy made a good living taking show biz people and turning them into Nevada corporations. I also noticed a net decline in the use of electricity. Many of the biggest CaliforniA names are not paying tax in California, they just promote a system that the "people" do, especially the "rich," who didn't move or incorporate

Adding to the insult, California taxes worldwide income of a resident. Check out what their papers say -

February, 2008

California exodus turns to stampede
High taxes drive jobs, people from one state to another

---

Posted: February 20, 2008
8:00 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – California, which once lured Americans from near and far, is now driving out millions of the most productive residents – including high percentages of the most affluent.

"When California faced a Mount Everest-sized $14 billion deficit in 2003, one of the major causes for the red ink was the stampede of millionaire households from the state," says a report called "Rich States, Poor States" by economists Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore. "Out of the 25,000 or so seven-figure-income families, more than 5,000 left in the early 2000s, and the loss of their tax payments accounted for about half the budget hole."

And it's not just the rich leaving.

Based on data from moving companies, California had the second-highest domestic population out-flow of any state in 2005, according to the report, "despite the beautiful weather, beaches, and mountains."

The bad news for California is that it faces a $14 billion deficit this year, despite boasting one of the highest tax burdens in the nation.

The report, published by the American Legislative Exchange Council shows jobs are not just leaving the country – they are moving from state to state, with the population following....

Month later, on same report

Higher taxes fuel exodus

Los Angeles Business Journal, March 10, 2008Charles Crumpley

THE talk out of Sacramento about the possibility of raising taxes is alarming. Won't those people ever learn?

The more they raise taxes, the more people leave. Trouble is, it's often wealthy people and business owners who pack up. So the state ends up with less money.

A recent report by the American Legislative Exchange Council illustrates the problem. The richest 10 percent of income earners in California pay 75 percent of the state's income tax. California's marginal tax rate is the second highest in the country. Many of these rich people are small business owners--the ones who create jobs.

So when taxes get raised on those folks, they tend to leave. According to the report, about 240,000 more ...

The report said that when the state raised its income tax level under Gov. Pete Wilson, "the tax hike incited one of the worst fiscal crises in the state's history. As tax revenues cratered, the debt exploded, and high-income people fled the state never to return."

Recently,

Is Anyone Going to Stop the Teacher Exodus from California?

/>Cruickshank.gif" src="http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/Robert-Cruickshank.gif" align="right" height="168" width="130">By Robert Cruickshank

When Arnold took office in late 2003 he argued that one of the state's highest priorities was to "reform" a workers' compensation system that was supposedly driving businesses, and therefore jobs, out of the state. And the Legislature did so, cutting benefits to injured workers in order to try and keep business and the Chamber of Commerce happy.

Five years later California faces a similar crisis, as skilled workers flee the state in droves, taking their salaries and therefore their positive economic impact with them. But this time, Arnold seems happy to see their backs, because it's teachers and not well-connected corporations that are fleeing a state thanks to poor budget priorities:...

Something new? Here are some sentiments from 2002:

California''s collapse: California''s woes--high taxes, costly energy, burdensome regulations, and more--are all symptoms of government run amok.(California)

... Buck Knives celebrated its century mark in 2002. Its legendary blades have devoted fans worldwide and have been favorites of generations of outdoorsmen. In January 2003, CEO and president C.J. Buck regretfully announced that the company would be moving from its longtime California home in El Cajon, near San Diego, to Post Falls, Idaho. Mr. Buck said he loved the El Cajon-East County area where he grew up, "so it's very sad to have to make this decision." However, high taxes, energy costs, workers" compensation costs, and regulations have made continued manufacturing in California unfeasable. The move to Idaho will save the company millions of dollars annually. The loss to California: 250 jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenue...

Exodus of Business and Population

Unfortunately, the exodus has been underway for some time, and it appears to be accelerating. Fidelity National Financial, the country's largest title insurer, is moving its headquarters from Irvine, California, to Jacksonville, Florida. Many of Fidelity's 26,000 employees will also be leaving the Golden State. Solectron, a major Silicon Valley assembler of hi-tech hardware, is in the process of laying off 10,000 of its 75,000 workers and is shifting more of its operations to Asia.

Schwarzeneggar ran on fixing the workman's comp, and it did look like he fixed the state, but it was not true. He got into power, worked on workman's comp, then started taxing "the wealthy" to death.

So, does anyone learn anything? July, 2008, LA Times:

State Democrats offer plan to tax the rich, corporations

By Samantha Young, The Associated Press

Article Last Updated: 07/09/2008 09:44:50 PM PDT

SACRAMENTO - Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday detailed a list of tax increases totaling more than $8 billion, a share-the-pain proposal they said represents the best hope for filling a budget shortfall while maintaining California's spending priorities.

The plan, which also incorporates billions in spending cuts and amnesty for tax-evaders, was released more than a week into the new fiscal year.

Democrats say the state can bring in $8.2 billion by raising taxes on the wealthiest Californians and corporations. The tax amnesty would generate another $1.5 billion.

Those steps and the cuts are needed to close a $15.2 billion deficit, Democratic lawmakers said during a news conference.

"We're asking those who have benefited the most to pay the most - who have made California what it is and should want to keep it the way it's been," said Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland.

The Democratic spending plan also makes $6 billion in cuts to education, health care, public transit and other areas. Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, said Democrats would not accept deeper cuts.

That leaves the two sides far apart as they face an Aug. 1 deadline to strike a deal. That's the date the state would have to start borrowing money.....

The state actually runs on the tax on some 6,000 ultra wealthy. Imagine, if you can, that they throw up their hands and leave because their money was being confiscated.

One can be an honest socialist, like Bernie Sanders in Vt., and want the rich to pay the way, but that is an idealistic dream. The rich did not get that way being stupid. They will just go away. Some may want to pay a higher share, in some notion of duty, but that sentiment has its limits.

It is easy to incorporate in Nevada, get a local place, as home, and still live in your place in California. Millions are already doing it.

The bottom line: chose between chasing water that came out of the top of your pool or fix the pool to keep the water in and to keep the circulation going, so that the pool stays clean.

Flat Earthers won'g go away

This morning I had coffee with Eliott Massie, who is a high-level volunteer with the Obama campaign. Indeed, he is flying to the Obat-cave in Chicago tomorrow.

We hit on fundamentalist religion being so strong a force, often to the negative, when he said it was too bad the left in this country, where he would probably live, had become so religious. I understood his comment, but double-checked.

Elliot was saying that many had created a new religion of environmentalism, which carries with it the problems of religions - about my God being better than yours. This, he feels, gets in the way.

Along those line, here is an excerpt from a book review in the NYT by Freeman Dyson, (a Professor of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and a Fellow of the Royal Society of London.) [I apply old-school capitalization rules; today, no one knows rules, so they ignore them.]

All the books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.

Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.

Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.

The next reference came to me from an note Irene Wolfson sent me. It was a quote from Dr. James A. Peden, he's the Editor of the Middlebury Community Network. He also spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere.

As a dissenting physicist, I simply can no longer buy the notion that CO2 produces any significant warming of the atmosphere at any rate. I’ve studied the atomic absorption physics to death, from John Nicol’s extensive development to the much longer winded dissertation by Gerlich & Tscheuschner and everything in between, it simply doesn’t add up. Even if every single IR photon absorbed by a CO2 molecule were magically transformed into purely thermal translational modes , the pitifully small quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t add up to much additional heat. And if the aforementioned magical 100% transformation from radiation into “heat” were true, then all arguments concerning re-emission ( source of all the wonderful “greenhouse effect” cartoons with their arrows flying in all directions ) are out the window.

More and more, I am becoming convinced that atmospheric heating is primarily by thermal conduction from the surface, whose temperature is determined primarily by solar absorption. I get a lot of email from laymen seeking simple answers. My simple reply goes like this:

1. The sun heats the earth.
2. The earth heats the atmosphere
3. After the sun sets, the atmosphere cools back down

With a parting comment: “If we were to have 96 continuous hours without sunlight, temperatures would likely be below freezing over all the world’s land masses. The warmest place you could find would be to take a swim in the nearest ocean. There is no physical process in the atmosphere which “traps” heat. The so-called “greenhouse effect “ is a myth.

Don't forget Gore's comments about such views, which must be taken seriously as he got a C+ in Earth Science:

Gore replies: “You’re talking about Dick Cheney. I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat.

Then, there is Professor Lindzen who wrote an editorial piece in the WSJ (you know like page one of the Times) saying:

...A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science....

(As I noted previously about Gore's expert's...)

...More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the (claimed) consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.

(The consensus view is global warming is a given.)

Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

Another of the tiny, tiny minority of flat earthers.

The socialized medicine gambit is back

I was reading FT.com (you will see the British viewpoint) and came across something almost sounding like a discussion of substance regarding what Mr. Obama would see as a medical plan. I will read it over carefully, after shaking my head a few times trying to figure out how the plan would look. It seems, on first blush, that for the same cost of Hillary's socialized medicine, this plan has a myriad of levels of protection, coverage, and opting out (yeah, right.)

Let me just put the article here and let you work on it.

As a pointless exercise, let me point out the Constitution does not provide for a national health plan and all powers not enumerated are reserved to the states. Just thought I would throw in our history. We seem to prefer just making up laws lately, like a king would. Only now, the king pretends to be the voice of the people, those who aren't stupid or in need reeducation.

Here find a socialized medicine masked in the skin of the current mess. At least Hillary was honest.

Obama wants ban on risk-based pricing

By Krishna Guha in Washington

Published: July 6 2008 23:37 | Last updated: July 6 2008 23:37

A Barack Obama administration would seek to ban risk-based pricing on all individual health insurance plans to stop companies cherry-picking healthy customers, a senior adviser has said.

David Cutler, a Harvard professor who helped to draft the health plan for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said: “Under our plan you cannot be priced higher because you are sick.”

(Me - Sounds good, but what are we talking about? I can sell insurance that is not insurance? This is a quandry)

Insurance companies usually charge standard group rates to corporate scheme members but individuals have to pay different premiums, or not have some conditions covered at all, depending on their risk profile.

Mr Cutler said an Obama administration would consider automatically enrolling people in approved health insurance plans unless they chose to opt out.

He declined to say how much tax credits to help low- and middle-income earners buy insurance would cost. However, he suggested it might not be radically different from the $110bn-$120bn (€71bn-€76.5bn, £55.4bn- £60.5bn) a year that Hillary Clinton, Mr Obama’s former rival for the nomination, said would be needed to achieve universal coverage.

Mr Obama also proposes setting up exchanges where people not covered by corporate health plans could buy plans that meet federal minimum standards and have low administrative costs.

Mr Cutler said that, for this to work, it would be ­necessary to ban risk-based pricing on all health plans, including those sold off exchange. (Gene - OK, socialism) Otherwise the exchange would become a “high-risk pool” dependent on public subsidies. Banning risk-based pricing could result in healthy people – in particular young people – refusing to buy insurance at a price that did not reflect their own risk profile. It could also reduce the incentive for people to take better care of their health. (A new social security? Sure, let us set up a trust fund to invade later.)

Mr Cutler said one partial solution could be to allow age-based premiums. He said that an Obama administration would also seek to find ways to build in incentives for healthy living.

He said that the Obama campaign, which proposes to automatically enrol people in 401(K) defined contribution pension plans unless they chose to opt out, would consider using this opt-out approach for health insurance too. “We are very much open to that,” he said. “That may very well be the best way to get people covered.”

However, Mr Cutler said that no decision had been made on an opt-out system for health and that there would be other options, such as a drive to “sign people up on their tax forms”.

John McCain, Mr Obama’s Republican opponent, has a fundamentally different approach.

Mr McCain wants to take the tax breaks available only for corporate health plans and redeploy the money as individual tax credits, while deregulating and increasing competition in the market for individual plans.

Well, it certainly is an area of clear distinction. I wonder if anyone will draw our attention to it. If you missed it, banning risk=based analysis is the end of insurance. It contradicts the very concept, the way "marriage" was redefine. Pretty clever way to avoid the issue, make it go away through redefining words. This plan, have no doubt, is back-door socialized medicine.

I am not sure either person can come up with a plan that works: Harvard socialism or new-improved same old. The current system is spectacular for those covered; it is also filled with greed and stupidity. The proposed Obama system is a bone being thrown to those who see a problem, can't pay for coverage, or are not working for a large company. This reminds me of throwing out the baby with the bath water. It is up to the current providers to fix their mess, or they will lose their position.

If we want a socialist plan, we should be like other countries and talk about it in the sunlight, not try to sneak it in. If we agree to adopt it, regardless of its quality and political control-of-the-people issues, fine, let us adopt an amendment, not create a giant mess by passing monstrous laws and a maze of regulation and figuring no one will be able to have it voided, because of its size. That is how the personal income tax still exists.

My initial reaction is always to steer clear of the elites and their plans for me, These people see the Constitution as an annoying hindrance, except when they can invoke it, like in distress over the War Powers Act, the Pledge of Allegiance, and so on. In those circumstances, the intent of the founders is suddenly of import and not just narrow advice for future generations, to be explained by sensitive, non-constructionist judges. Of course, these are new issues used to grab power, but we avoid that observation and listen carefully and seek to react to rambling arguments. That is our flaw. We take arguments at face value.

We politely ask for an explanation when an argument fails, such as we can't win in Iraq, and people just create a new target and their fans repeat the non-arguments as fact. This civility is our problem. As a Brooklyn Arab in a documentary said, screaming while burning a flag, "They have a flaw - freedom of speech." He was right, if we confuse freedom with lack of responsibility and the right to scream fire in a theater.

I suppose we are toast, as America, and we let it happen to ourselves by being nice to those dedicated to subversion of the ideals that made our tradition. Make no mistake, the world does not like the fact that our country works, especially without central planning. They only like us when we buy their stuff. Many want to react to their parochial sentiments, which is a demonstration of who they are.

There is a French saying that one can be too civilized. Now, I understand it. We are reliving the 1930s of Europe. Hitler, after all, had goods points, right? Boy, was he popular and promised sweeping change.

So let us abandon a legalistic approach to law and take on the mob approach and force people to do things the mob likes. Once we do that, though, the great experiment is over. As Franklin said, they have given us a republic, if we can keep it.

The Abominable Snow Men

Wikki Says:

Bolam etc: ...In 2002, scientists made the first detailed survey of Mount Shasta's glaciers in 50 years. They found that seven of the glaciers have grown over the period 1951-2002, with the Hotlum and Wintun nearly doubling, the Bolam increasing by half, and the Whitney and Konwakiton Glaciers growing by a third.^{[5] [6] [7]}

Ok, that is pretty clear, but look how it is handled

A growing glacier

Mount Shasta bucks global trend, and researchers cite warming phenomena

Story appeared on Page A3 of The Bee

Jonathan Kirshner, 28, hikes a crevasse in July at Mount Shasta's Whitney Glacier, the only glacier in the world that's now larger than it was in 1890, according to the California Academy of Sciences. Global warming may explain why, say some scientists, because warmer winter air can carry more moisture, increasing snowfall at higher elevations. Sacramento Bee/Kevin German

See additional images

WASHINGTON -- Whitney Glacier on Mount Shasta is growing, and scientists think global warming in Northern California is the reason.

This is not the way global warming works in most parts of the world.

In the Arctic and the Antarctic, and all along the West Coast north of the California border, temperatures are rising and glaciers are melting. (Ed- the hysteria goes too far, Antarctica is cooling and glaciers increasing.) Nisqually Glacier on Mount Rainier on the northern end of the Cascades, for example, has retreated by nearly a mile in the past century and continues to shrink.

But Whitney Glacier, on the southern end of the Cascades? "It's still growing," said Slawek Tulaczyk, a glaciologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

According to an article last summer in California Wild, a journal of the California Academy of Sciences, Whitney Glacier is the only ice river in the world that is larger today than in 1890.

Tulaczyk and his team, who began studying the glacier in 2002 and now have expanded their work to the high peaks of the Sierra Nevada, link the advancing frozen mass to the unique way California is being affected by global warming. ( Ed - This gibberish passes by the choir to children in school.)

While in the short term it means more snow, their findings also contain a dire forecast: High-altitude snowpack, a steady source of water for the state as the snow melts during the summer, is probably doomed.

Tulaczyk said he and his team reviewed records dating back five decades collected from monitoring stations that measure the snowpack and its moisture content.

By comparing those statistics against temperature trends, certain conclusions can be drawn. A key conclusion is that global warming is not just about rising temperatures, but about the capacity of warmer air to carry moisture...

I find such reports breathless, just make new conclusions when the facts reject your position. We have lost our ability to read and reason.

No mind, let us use the current logic and have a vote of Glaciers. If more than half shank, then there is global warming, regardless if a few others doubled. You see, global warming is mysterious and not as simple as previously thought, but "scientists" now understand it.

By the way, Shasta is a puppy when compared with Mr. Rainier; however,

Between the 14th century and A.D. 1850, many of the glaciers on Mount Rainier advanced to their farthest extent down valley since the last ice age. Many advances of this sort occurred worldwide during this time period known to geologists as the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the Nisqually Glacier advanced to a position 650 feet to 800 feet downvalley from the site of the Glacier Bridge, Tahoma and South Tahoma Glaciers merged at the base of Glacier Island, and the terminus of Emmons Glacier reached within 1.2 miles of the White River Campground.

Retreat of the Little Ice Age glaciers was slow until about 1920 when retreat became more rapid. Between the height of the Little Ice Age and 1950, Mount Rainier's glaciers lost about one-quarter of their length. Beginning in 1950 and continuing through the early 1980's, however, many of the major glaciers advanced in response to relatively cooler temperatures of the mid-century. The Carbon, Cowlitz, Emmons, and Nisqually Glaciers advanced during the late 1970's and early 1980's as a result of high snowfalls during the 1960's and 1970's. Since the early-1980's and through 1992, however, many glaciers have been thinning and retreating and some advances have slowed, perhaps in response to drier conditions that have prevailed at Mount Rainier since 1977.

Well, glaciers grow and shrink, clearly a problem. Some speed up and some contract, at the same time! This can't happen.

I think it is global drying.

Look to the other side of the world, at another glacier I know:

(Fanz Joef Glacier)...The glacier is currently 12 km long and terminates 19 km from the Tasman Sea. Fed by a 20 sqm large snowfield^[5] at high altitude, it exhibits a cyclic pattern of advance and retreat, driven by differences between the volume of meltwater at the foot of the glacier and volume of snowfall feeding the névé. Due to strong snowfall it is one of the few glaciers in New Zealand which is still growing as of 2007, while others, mostly on the eastern side of the Southern Alps, have been shrinking heavily, a process attributed to global warming.^[6]

Having retreated several kilometres between the 1940s and 1980s, the glacier entered an advancing phase in 1984 and at times has advanced at the phenomenal (by glacial standards) rate of 70 cm a day. The flow rate is about 10 times that of typical glaciers. Over the longer term, the glacier has retreated since the last ice age, and it is believed that it extended into the sea some 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.

{OK, gobal warming is causing the Southern Alps to shrink "heavily" so, but the same logic, it is causing the "phenomenal" advancement of Franz Jesef. Must be the global drying.} I looked up the Southern Alps:

---
Geologically, the Southern Alps lie along a plate boundary, part of the Pacific Ring of Fire. The Alpine Fault developed 25-30 million years ago, with the Indo-Australian Plate in the west pushing northwestward, the Pacific Plate to the east being subducted beneath it.^[4] The mountains that form the Alps continue to be uplifted due to tectonic pressure, causing earthquakes on the Alpine Fault, but are eroded at approximately the same rate.

Perhaps, the active plate boundary is affected by global volcanoes. Australias NIWA says, "Research released by the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) today shows that the volume of ice in the Southern Alps has reduced by about 5.8 cubic kilometres, or almost 11%, in the past 30 years."

They claim warmer temperatures caused the Alps to shrink and, perhaps, disappear forever. No data was released in the report I saw to support any of this fortune telling. Anyway, the last 30 years saw the shrinking, back in the New Zealand global warming of 1980.

At the left is a NIWA graph. The pink line is temperature to 2001. I can't seem to get a good copy into the blog, but still you can see ominous global warming has by-passed New Zealand. So, I guess the next theory is that global warming somewhere outside of New Zealand is causing glacial melt in Southern New Zealand and growth in Franz Joseph.

Isn't it obvious?

Food

I have become a student of food, of late, as I don't like being on drugs that will destroy your body. I have been prescribed drugs for one thing when the side effect, for example, would cause heart disease or kidney failure. This is fine for a reboot, but it is not a life. Taking a statin, for example, without any notion of when it stops, is suicide.

My lawyerly prejudice against MDs has been heightened. I won't bore you with the stories, but if they were lawyers, they would be deemed incompetent - not remotely attentive to detail or current literature. Even when I provided citations, they do not read. I don't think they do, actually. They attend continuing medical education courses run by drug reps. Curiously, many bow to the doctors' wrong pronouncements. They abandon all responsibility for their own health. (A friend's surgeon just told him Co-enzyme Q-10 doesn't do anything and people fall for ads. This is a breathless error. I wouldn't write his life insurance)

Anyway, I am ready to pontificate. Also, I will organize my notes herein, so I have a reference point. I will not try to provide science, but will provide a good overview of what the body seems to be telling us. (I used Barry Sears, Ph. D., the Okinawa Program, and Mayo and Cleveland clinics - online). Any thoughts? Let me know.

1. The one major problem underlying almost all disease is "inflammation." You need to get to ultimate causation, which medicine does not.

One needs to reduce LDL cholesterol, sure, but cholesterol will not hurt you unless you have already hurt yourself and your body is attempting to seal injuries via "fibrin" and cholesterol, creating a band aid of plaque.

For example, cholesterol is not a cause of anything, if you read ads, etc., closely you will see it is a "marker" or "factor," but we tend to fall for the medical line that we need to take anti-cholesterol drugs to prevent whatever. Not so, we should, however, eat better to reduce LDL cholesterol. Plaque causes heart attacks and strokes, when the inflammation results in so much plaque the body can't deal with it and the plaque lines the arteries. The plaque waits to pop off and get you, there being too much plaque to for the body to reduce.

Inflammation kills. Take anti-inflammatory foods and exercise. See below. This is where you need to take in anti-oxidants: berries, broccoli, grains, spinach, soy, spinach. Also, great for anti-inflammation: beats and radishes - all parts. Rod says he puts cinnamon in all sorts of things. Do that, then focus on reducing plaque and blood pressure, as the narrowing and stiffening of arteries causes the high BP. There is no point in addressing plaque if you don't stop making it. Inflammation ages arteries and is the foundation, generally, of high blood pressure.

2. Insulin is a normal hormone, but it is not normal to pig out on carbs. Insulin is secreted to control carbohydrates. If our insulin is too high, we put weight on - period. Damage is done. You will never lose weight eating just carbs and get that beer belly or diabetes, a long-death sentence. A high carb diet makes no sense.

IMPORTANT: insulin is secreted when the mouth tastes "sweet," so non-sugar sweeteners are even worse, in my view, than sugar as the insulin drops with no glucose to attack or store, so it floats around causing damage. Guess what I used to drink all the time to avoid sugar?

First, we all eat too much and eat big meals. It is essential to spread out eating over five or more little meals. For me, now, a Boston Market dinner is three meals and, curiously, I am not hungry. (Chicken and turkey are good for you.) This is good news for cheap people.

At each meal (or snacks) 20% has to be protein. For breakfast, I have moved to half a bagel with peanut butter (and pop two or three almonds). Thirty percent should be fat, a good fat - no fries or chips. Use olive oil and canola oil. Even if you don't reduce calories, by spreading them out and taking protein, there will be remarkable improvements and you will not be hungry. If you don't do it now, you will lose weight.

At each eating, there must be some protein to counteract the carbs. There is a counter condition created by protein which reins in the insulin. (Putting things in the ZONE). This hormone has a name I can remember - glucogon. Yeah, get that glucose gone hormone. This is the way to mobilize the fat which insulin has stored in your belly or butt. This is why you eat a LITTLE meat or fish at every meal. Fish oil pills are are great.

3, Exercise - critical. There are many physiological results from MODERATE exercise. The hard exercise is fine, but moderate is key to ongoing health. You already know this is important, so I won't go into it. Just do it - 300 calories of something each day. (Basically 30 to 40 minutes of something - even just walking).

I should note exercise will work to clear out your arteries, preventing heart and artery disease. Apparently, those little trampolines, are great at removing plaque, a rare thing, as is "hitting the wall" or releasing lactose. There are other "chelation" ways to go too, but those two are simple and free, though you have to work. I find arm exercises release lactose readily as I tire quickly there. Eating natto is also a chelation method. Yuch. The pill: nattokinaise.

4. Calm down. Books refer to meditation or yoga here and they are very serious. Just do it, don't argue. Get relaxed, that's an order. Part of the benefit is the reduction of stress. REDUCE STRESS. Take it seriously. I once read stress is really a feeling of not being also to handle responsibilites, when you get down to it. So, if you can't, go do something else.

Take time each day to breath deeply or do tai chi or yoga. No magical incantations are necessary. A lunchtime ritual would be good to calm the days high blood pressure (a result of inflammation, insulin, plaque and, probably, need of exercise.) Feed a duck or keep fish.
-----------------

So, simple food recommendations based upon much research. I advise you take these seriously, not as throw away observations, unless you want to be me:

1. Soy, miso, soy milk - every day. This stuff is amazing on many levels. Soy milk is tasty.
Cow milk is stupid and avoid it. If you can't, only use no fat.
2. Unless on warfarin/coumadin, eat green leafy vegetables several times a day.
3. Eat Mediteranian syle - avoid white wheat pasta, have olive oil, 1 red wine, (always avoid white wheat or, as Carlton Fredericks called it "embalmed flour.")
4. Red wine, grape juice, cranberry juice (not cocktail - sugar), vegetable juice (no salt added),
5. Curcumin (tumeric), Onion, Garlic, Ginger, Cayenne, Thyme, Tomato, Cinnamon
6. Little fish (salmon and mackeral are good) or meat at each meal - or almonds or other nuts. Protein size: fit in palm. i.e. every Americans eats 2 to 3 times too much.
7. Fish oil pills, multi vitamin, flax seed/oil, (reduce LDL)
8. tocotrienols (60 x more potent than Vitamin E) - palm and bran oil, grains (that 1/2 cup of oatmeal a day you hear about. Look for d-docotrienols and gamma tocotreinols (the new star.)
9. Green tea everyday.
10. Possible supplements - any "green" stuff, i.e. vegetables, pyconogenol, polyphenols, tocotrienols, cartenoids, Co-q-enzyme Q, niacin, folic acid (probably most important one - vit B). There is debate as to taking regular or slow release niacin. Watch this area.
11. Eat a banana every day. Also, eat apples or the white insides of citrus, as well as the fruit.
12. Get Calcium and Magnesium each day. Perhaps, a supplement. Americans are deficient in these critical substances.
13. Pig out on my 4 Bs: beets, berries, bran, beans.
14. Almost forgot - drink water all the time. You want to achieve clear urine.
15, For a plaque attack there is the Japanese natto (supplement is nattokinaise) one of the few artery vacuums. It has been desribed as soy snot and tastes as good, but it is remakable.

Oil ownership

Ninety Five percent of the world's oil is nationalized. So, when you are upset over prices, you may want to stop worrying about Exxon-Mobil, the favorite whipping boy. Exxon is the largest private company, sure, with, what, 20 billion barrels (N on the scale at the right). It is a pip-squeak on the world scale, behind Malaysia.

1GOCs— A: Saudi Aramco B: NIOC (Iran) C: Qatar Petroleum D: ADNOC (UAE) E: Iraq NOC F: Gazprom (Russia) G: KPC (Kuwait) H: PDVSA (Venezuela) I: NNPC (Nigeria) J: NOC (Libya) K: Sonatrach (Algeria) L: Rosneft (Russia) M: Petronas (Malaysia) O: Lukoil (Russia) P: Pemex (Mexico) Q: Petrochina (China) T: Petrobras (Brazil) Y: ONGC (India) Z: Sinopec (China). 2IOCs— N: ExxonMobil R: BP S: Chevron U: Royal Dutch Shell V: Total W: ConocoPhillips X: ENI. [Forbes, April 2007]

Exxon is a distant 15th on the list. Number 1 is probably lying about its reserves to keep the prices up. It has stated, I think it is in a recent blog, its reserves at 1 trillion barrels - which is off the page, but a shortage is much more profitable. All of the private companies might approach the reserves of Venezuela. (Of note, thanks to our scientists we have doubled the refinement rate per barrel since the 1990s, so 330 billion is like 600 billion in the 1990s)

The high prices can be traced to our actual or cultural enemies who are delighted we don't permit drilling and refining. To whine about Exxon is nothing more than repeating the line of those who want to nationalize oil. (Yes, they exist and are waiting the results of the election.) Then, there will be no competition. This is so obvious, that further discussion of facts is pointless.

Nothing like socialism to extort money and drive up prices. By having you subsidize their inefficient governments, their people can go happily about the day, like well-fed cows mooing about American abuse of oil. Of course, no one complains that Beijing's pollution is 5 times the stated UN standard.

We have the suppliers creating the illusion of scarcity and we worry about the users being hogs. The world is upside down. Our reduction in use is a joke to the actual owners. Oil contract traders may take notice of this and prices will go down, but we are dealing with the proverbial drop in the bucket of oil.

When it looks like we are going to be free of foreign oil in time, the prices will suddenly come down, lest we stop supporting the producer companies. They did not understand that immediately in the 1970s, but they have long memories. In the meantime, there will continue a chorus of how we should hobble ourselves and create no new energy, which we could do easily.

Me, I am preparing for the newbie arguments against four wind generators like a turbine wind will catch bats (though not hit them) and wind mills are like strobes and will cause fits. The old dead KGB must be howling. The argument against 10 mega watts of electricity is some 20 bats "may" be killed. No proof mind you, just dead bats in the area.

Eventually, I pray, we will catch on to the game and be really pissed. Then, we will get back to business and compete instead of trying to be liked.

--

Sidebar: Iberdola is thinking of withdrawing its bid to buy NYSE&G for $4.6 billion. This Spanish company builds power - hydro and wind. If I recall, it has 20,000 wind generators which it built with its equipment. All the neighboring states have approved the sale but:

Iberdrola SA said Tuesday it will rethink its proposed $4.5 billion acquisition of the parent company of New York State Electric & Gas Corp. after a state administrative law judge recommended that the deal be rejected. The administrative law judge, reviewing the case for the state Public Service Commission, recommended that Iberdrola's deal to acquire Energy East Corp. be rejected because it would not be in the public...

- an administrative law judge! There must be a balance between 1890's mindless building and mindless socialism. Some admin judge didn't like the deal!!

Abiotic oil?

A few years ago, Rod mentioned Dr. Gold of Cornell and I followed the oil game with him in mind, though oil was not his forte. His theory, if I have the time line right, which only echoes Russian experts, is that natural forces of heat and pressure, coupled with methane, create oil, not dead dinosaurs and ferns. Rather, the oil is contaminated, more or less, as it sits around in pockets near the top levels of the earth. A reference HERE and
Here
A counter paper, HERE, sort of nit picking about scientific method and silly conclusory nay saying. Sounds a lot like, sorry, global warming arguments: there are thousands of modern proofs, now, better than the an old contrary inability to prove the organic basis. It would have been nice to have been referred to one of the thousands.

The abiotic (no dead things) theory says in stable areas the pressures and forces will get trapped, with huge pressure building. In unstable areas, the pressure just gets out in volcanoes.

It is an interesting theory, especially because of Dr. Golds' remarkable history. I recall reading a few years back, the Russians found oil in a formerly dried out well. They were taking the theory seriously. The Ruskies also dug the deepest oil well ever, way lower than any life forms could contribute to (40,000 feet.) Here are some notes for your interest

1. Eugene Island's reservoir is refilled after being pumped to 4,000 bbls a day. Here

A sample:

Odd Reservoir Off Louisiana Prods
Oil Experts to Seek a Deeper Meaning

By CHRISTOPHER COOPER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

HOUSTON -- Something mysterious is going on at Eugene Island 330.

Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330's output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day.

Then suddenly -- some say almost inexplicably -- Eugene Island's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago.

Fill 'er Up

All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.

"It kind of blew me away," says Jean Whelan, a geochemist and senior researcher from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. Connected to Woods Hole since 1973, Dr. Whelan says she considered herself a traditional thinker until she encountered the phenomenon in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, she says, "I believe there is a huge system of oil just migrating" deep underground.

Conventional wisdom says the world's supply of oil is finite, and that it was deposited in horizontal reservoirs near the surface in a process that took millions of years. Since the economies of entire countries ride on the fundamental notion that oil reserves are exhaustible, any contrary evidence "would change the way people see the game, turn the world view upside down," says Daniel Yergin, a petroleum futurist and industry consultant in Cambridge, Mass. "Oil and renewable resource are not words that often appear in the same sentence."....

2. Jerome Corsi has co-authored a book taking on the subject of a false oil scare, a strangle hold, and feels the oil is finite argument is "Maltusian." The authors have decided Gold was correct. You may remember Corsi as putting together the Swift Bioad book. He is lawyer, so must be accepted as truly wise.

...Still, Aramco insists that Saudi oil reserves are underestimated, not overestimated, as outside experts such as Simmons contend. Simmons typically sees more rapid depletion rates and a higher "water cut" than the Saudis report. Saudi Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Ali Al-Naimi now maintains that the kingdom's proven oil reserves are more properly estimated at 1.2 trillion barrels, hugely more than the 261 billion barrels of reserves previously estimated. "Saudi Arabia now has 1.2 trillion barrels of estimated reserve," Al-Naimi told an international conference in April 2004. "This estimate is very conservative. Our analysis gives us reason to be very optimistic. We are continuing to discover new resources, and we are using new technologies to extract even more oil from existing reserves."....

His point was that the increase, perhaps, involved replenishment. At lease, that is my second hand reporting. Of course, there is more.

3. On Russia

"Russians started drilling Kola SG-3, an exploration well which finally reached a staggering world record depth of 40,230 feet. Since then, Russian oil majors including Yukos have quietly drilled more than 310 successful super-deep oil wells, and put them into production. Last year Russia overtook Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest single oil producer, and is now set to completely dominate global oil production and sales for the next century."[11]
{see: an odd cite filled with conspiracy facts. These dopey people actually exist I guess Israel has all the wells: Russia Proves 'Peak Oil' is a Misleading Zionist Scam).

4. Dr. Gold's hydrocarbon view is substantiated, in space, some report. You don't need dead things to produce hydrocarbons. (Which I don't think was really in question by scientists.) This obviates the logic of oil source. Wired article here

Titan's Organic Hydrocarbons Dwarf Earth's Oil Reserves
By John Borland EmailFebruary 13, 2008 | 2:54:40 PMCategories: Space

Titan_rings Before we get too excited here, let's remember. There's still an energy problem. Global warming, too. Nobody's going to be importing oil substitutes from Titan anytime soon.

That said, data from the Cassini probe orbiting Saturn has shown that the ringed planet's moon has "hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth," according to research reported in the Geophysical Research Letters. The stuff is literally falling from the sky.

Lakes are scattered across the moon, with each of several dozen holding more hydrocarbon liquid – largely in the form of methane and ethane -- than all of Earth's oil and gas reserves....

5. An article on how Stalin pushed for research into abiotic oil going back to the 1940s.

... The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not the work of any one single man -- nor of a few men. The modern theory was developed by hundreds of scientists in the (now former) U.S.S.R., including many of the finest geologists, geochemists, geophysicists, and thermodynamicists of that country. There have now been more than two generations of geologists, geophysicists, chemists, and other scientists in the U.S.S.R. who have worked upon and contributed to the development of the modern theory. (Kropotkin 1956; Anisimov, Vasilyev et al. 1959; Kudryavtsev 1959; Porfir'yev 1959; Kudryavtsev 1963; Raznitsyn 1963; Krayushkin 1965; Markevich 1966; Dolenko 1968; Dolenko 1971; Linetskii 1974; Letnikov, Karpov et al. 1977; Porfir'yev and Klochko 1981; Krayushkin 1984)

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not untested or speculative. On the contrary, the modern theory was severely challenged by many traditionally-minded geologists at the time of its introduction; and during the first decade thenafter, the modern theory was thoroughly examined, extensively reviewed, powerfully debated, and rigorously tested. Every year following 1951, there were important scientific conferences organized in the U.S.S.R. to debate and evaluate the modern theory, its development, and its predictions. The All-Union conferences in petroleum and petroleum geology in the years 1952-1964/5 dealt particularly with this subject. (During the period when the modern theory was being subjected to extensive critical challenge and testing, a number of the men pointed out that there had never been any similar critical review or testing of the traditional hypothesis that petroleum might somehow have evolved spontaneously from biological detritus.)....

6. A cite from a former believer in the "unprovable" fossil fuel, peak energy club, F William Engdahl:

......In 1956, Prof. Vladimir Porfir’yev announced their (some Ruskie academy of bla bla bla) conclusions: ‘Crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.’ The Soviet geologists had turned Western orthodox geology on its head. They called their theory of oil origin the ‘a-biotic’ theory—non-biological—to distinguish from the Western biological theory of origins...

Up to the 1960’s supposed US scientists such as Dr Frank Press, White House science advisor referred to Wegener as “lunatic.” Geologists at the end of the 1960’s were forced to eat their words as Wegener offered the only interpretation that allowed them to discover the vast oil resources of the North Sea. Perhaps in some decades Western geologists will rethink their mythology of fossil origins and realize what the Russians have known since the 1950’s. In the meantime Moscow holds a massive energy trump card.

7. The folks at Oxford distrust a finding that oil may be much older than life, repeated from above. Both sides: Here

The certainty of many professionals is intriguing, while many of the fossil fuel group are just mouthing what they have heard and calling others "lunatic," a sure sign of no argument. Apparently, no one has proved, nor thought it necessary, oil is organic in its genesis.

The current panic, it is suggested, is fine with the oil producers and a product of the peak oil certainty. Indeed, you would have to go further an suspect that professionals either don't want to rock the boat, like those who do not proclaim they can't see "global warming," or are part of the intentional quiet conspiracy. The money coming in will give anyone pause.

If you assume the abiotic genesis is correct, then eventually the cat will be out of the bag. Prices will drop, even just on the news, and we will hear a collective sigh, but....then what? The producers will have a wind fall, but that will be at an end.

The Arab nations have to think ahead a long way, if they suspect his is true. There is extreme profit being generated there, but the nations have extreme costs. They are "oil rich" which is often derogatorily. Their people are just clipping coupon, so to speak. They do not have other resources to sell and may have to think up an economy (or sell solar power.)

Then, what do the rest of us do? We need to move on to alternative energy, I submit, for various reason, but will we just stop the metamorphosis being driven by fear. Hope not, but it may happen. If oil drops to a low price, will people demand new cars, distributed energy, etc. I think our nature is such that the great leap forward will take a step backward.

If planners know this and continue to instill fear, like those who say that they promote global warming even if it does not exist so our societies change, are somewhere between stupid and evil. I thought we learned that social engineering does not work, other than create war. There is always the great fear of CO2 to fall back on, but that is nothing like $5 gallon of gas to spark changes.

In the meantime, button up for a bad winter.

Ray II

Ray says I was beaten up by Dale re the last blog, the one about the commie camp. Ray says the photo in question came from a racist site, to which my reaction is that doesn't mean the photo is not a photo. I will get to the letter, sorry.

If I looked now I would blow the rest of the day having fun. This is not allowed. Anyway, I am not saying anything, just that King and Parks were there. I don't think anyone denies it. I guess one could say they were there together, but had no interaction as well as the man on the moon is smiling. I just wanted to show the stuff to Ray, as he hadn't heard of the background

Today's Riff: Ray said he found an Obama birth certificate online, contrary to concerns over alleged absence of same, I previously reported. I found it too and thought I would put it up, the answer being clear. It is here

I didn't put it up, for a reason. Take a look at it closely. Then, closer. (This is great conspiracy) In the interest of journalism, I read a site that said, basically, don't fall for the certificate. I didn't think much of the grumbling until the writer pointed out that the date is not printed on the certificate paper. It has a white background. This is very Miami Vice curious. HERE

Even if he is a racist, the white is still there. Something is wrong, there, if you can follow the photoshop argument.

Recall Mel Gibson in his film Conspiracy Theory? He was the editor of a small-circulation conspiracy publication, I recall, and spent his life in quest of paranoid conspiracies. At being told he was targeted for revealing a secret, he says something like, "You mean I am right?" Anyway, I laughed.

The nay-sayer's criticism is intriguing, as I downloaded the certificate and increased its size as much as I could see. It is very curious; he looks right. Then, I noticed the impression coming through from the back side: the Certificate was dated Nov. something, 2007. I felt like an FBI agent.

So, the campaign went out and got a repro, OK - no problem, it would explain the perfect image, but that white stuff is intriguing and would suggest an alteration. I can hear Dale steaming.

Personally, I don't want to spend time on this, just creating trouble.

Anyway the certificate says void if altered and the number is blocked out (electronically, hmmm), so it is no good. So, if you go by the certificate, we still haven't seen the valid certificate. (Just kidding).

I am now wondering what I could do with a birth certificate number.

Rosa Parks for Ray

Ray wanted me to document Rosa Parks being more than what she seemed in pop culture. I did a little research.There is an hysterical publication with a photo that put Mr. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks at a "communist" training session. This was before the bus incident.

Before you guffaw, if that is the spelling, realize the group actually said it was communist. There really is a Marx, Virginia. On the other hand, few people are true communists. Those guys are generally behind the scenes and they use others. Ms. Parks seems like a nice lady with serious intent and may have agreed to start things rolling.

The photo is a little small, so you can go to Here. Mr. King is no. 1. Rosa is there somewhere. I didn't look too hard, crappy shot, but she was there. I didn't think this was news.

I can already hear the dismissal of the message because of the hysteria. Oh well. Here are some old words quoting the communist group.

The book, "Speak Now," a left-wing history of the civil rights movement, states that in August of 1955, (four months before the bus incident) Parks attended the Highlander Folk School in Mount Eagle, Tennessee. The "school" was started in 1932 by Myles Horton and James Dombrowski, both members of the Communist Party.

"Speak Now" states that the schools' original purpose was to train Communists activists on how to promote textile strikes, hold protest marches, picket lines and learn "socialist songs."

The Textile Workers Union was completely controlled by the Communist Party. "Speak Now," page 529 reads as:

"FBI surveillance of the Highlander Folk School and the Southern Conference Educational Fund, (SCEF) intensified. In 1952 Myles Horton would invest their energy and resources in the historic Southern struggle over desegregation of the public schools."

"Speak Now," says that Parks attended summer training at the Highlander Folk school in 1955, 1956 and 1957. She is pictured with Martin Luther King sitting on the front row in a Highlander training class on September 2, 1957.

I find people have been programmed to immediately shy away from something "communist," as though it is just some psycho howling. The communists probably find that amusing, if they didn't create that mind set. There is the old saying the best thing the devil ever did was to persuade people he doesn't exist.

Anyway, if you haven't fled, yet, to make offerings in church for reading this far, let me add that it is understandable that the communists would be attractive to southern blacks in 1955. That is why they were there. They offered a way to fight clear injustice. This situation is like that of the Pullman Riots. I can see myself out there protesting, as well. Similarly, I sympathize with those in "Oh Albany" by Kennedy.

I will venture a hidden precept I hold, which is 100 percent attacked when revealed (so don't bother), that the virtue of our system is when something bad comes up, like the workers in Chicago rearing up, the two parties tend to absorb the new principles or resolutions in order to stay in power and stop any third party. I think that is why, until today, we have had no real communist politicians.

Here is another photo, but I don't know where it was. It was 1955, according to the source. You may find more.

There is no big point, here; no big worry over conspiracy. I am only reporting what I know as fact. Here is another excited piece:

'Red' Rosa Parks:
Fabricating An
American Icon
By Henry Makow PhD
11-5-5

Rosa Parks was not a simple seamstress whose lonely act of defiance in 1955 sparked the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, she was a trained Communist Party (CPUSA) activist. Her refusal to move to the back of the bus wasn't a spontaneous gesture, but a provocation organized by her longtime employer, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)....

The author mentions Ms. Parks was an NAACP employee since 1943, which seems to be confirmed by other observations. Here is a picture from that page:

It is not only possible, but likely the whole bus incident was planned. Why not? You have to admit there is a nice photo taken on the bus. Now, how did that happen?

The set up worked and brought attention to a problem. The papers never talked about the back story, so people think she was a nice, fed-up seamstress, which she probably was, not a social operative.

Senator McCarthy did not just appear on the scene. He was riding p0pular worry and was often right, according to the KGB. Please, leave me alone. I don't like what he did, but, at least, I understand it. Life is not a comic book.

The Scientologist say we need to get rid of our buttons, our reflexive reaction. Not a bad idea for a sci-fi writer.