Sunday, February 22, 2015

Patriotism, Love of Country, and Nuance

I let a few days pass before commenting on this flap over what Rudy Giuliani said about President Obama's love of country, or Patriotism. When you wait a while, after news hits, often times better news comes along. News that can take the issue in any number of directions.
I recently posted that one of my perceptions of the differences between Republicans and Democrats is nuance. The two sides are really similar, the differences are just nuanced.
Take Patriotism, love country. Presumably all we who comment about national issues share a sense of Patriotism. I'd even go as far as to say that people who run for high office share a sense of Patriotism too.
Some may say I'm treading on thin ice here, making an ass out of u and me. If the comments of some of these erstwhile high office holders are correct, then I'm wrong. My apologies.
Its much like what the Democrats used to say about Bush, "He doesn't care."
How do we know these things anyways? Who can get into the head of another person, especially into the head of someone you don't know intimately and ascertain their disposition accurately?
I know I can't. Hell, I can't even figure out what it is I care about deeply often times.
Its been reported that Giuliani has received death threats!

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Nuance and Unemployment

Pull me aside and ask me to explain the difference between Democrats and Republicans and I'd quickly say nuance.
Countless times, on countless issues, I entertained a partisan of either side defending his or her champion on such or such a topic then effortlessly pivoting to damn the champion of the other side for a having nuanced difference on said same position.
It continues to fascinate me, and so when I stumbled across this article with the word 'nuanced' in the headline I had to read it.
I agree with her. Notice inside the article that she said its "the smart way to...combat this."
Frankly, and this fact underlies a beef I have with Democrats, this idea that the idle hands of the youth in the Middle East is a root cause of terrorism, that to combat this discontent employment is critical, is not at all a novel notion.
Experts have been warning for years of the growing problem of unemployment, or under employment, of the young Muslims in that part of the world. Decades even.
There is a difference that couldn't be any less nuanced. Here and there.
At the risk of running long here, why shouldn't Democrats, i.e. the Obama Administration be equally concerned, or as the President of the United States, more concerned that this could happen here?
If he is, he'd have a hard time impressing me. We haven't seen much of a successful jobs program here have we? Yet we have seen a flooding of immigration, largely low skilled or no skilled workers at that.
Some smart people say the unemployment rate is really closer to 20%. Does anyone think that all these inflows are going to help drop that number? Or rather make it worse.
Obama is infamous for citing just about everything as a priority of his administration, well I got to think that if the Middle East has a violence problem linked to joblessness and his spokesperson is talking about a jobs program there, then he ought to prioritize jobs here as well.
I have no doubt that idle hands in America can incite terror here just as well as over there.
Quadruple the number of Syrian refugees flowing over here, as reported, suggests that the problems in the Middle East may escalate here quicker than we fear.
I use the term 'escalate' because we all are smart enough to realize that the problems are here already, right Ms. Harf?

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Climate Change

Been thinking about 'climate change' and 'global warming' or what is now in vogue, 'AGW' or Anthropogenic Global Warming. What ever the name, skeptics abound.
Days ago Drudge Report headlined PAPER: 'GLOBAL WARMING' BIGGEST SCIENCE SCANDAL EVER... with the link,…/The-fiddling-with-temperature-…
Ok, lets take a look.
This report, more opinion piece, was presented by Christopher Booker, a British writer with a long history of published skepticism on AGW.
What is being said is that temperature data has been adjusted upwards to toe the global warming line.
That's fine, the man is entitled to his opinion, and he has facts to support it. Candidly, at one point in my life I probably shared his opinions. To a certain extent, I'm sure. Its said that a healthy mind is one that is open to change. I like to think I have a healthy brain, point in fact -- I have changed my position on AGW.
I'm not a skeptic.
Now with that being said, if the scientific community does an about face and declares that global warming is indeed a complete hoax, I'd have to seriously consider what they have to say.
So far, and in spite of these latest revelations presented in the link I provided, no one has come forth with a change of heart from the realm of professional scientists.
To be fair, I have found professionals who are skeptics. This one guy I looked into, Mr. Anthony Watts, runs a blog dedicated to his skepticism: .
He said, ‘In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data.’ This in regards to the above mentioned revelations in Mr. Booker's piece.
Not only has this guy voiced his opinion, but if his Wikipedia page is correct, he has even compelled scientists to review data he has had a problem with in the past. Yet still the scientific community continues to support AGW.
That's impressive for a guy without a degree in climate science, and I'm not trying to take anything away from him. But the reviews of the data, and in some cases he was vindicated -- there were errors, hasn't changed the minds of the professionals either.
I've said, I don't even know enough to know what I don't know, and that especially holds true for the weather. But I do know enough to rate scientists ahead of non scientists. To trust the scrutiny of peer review over the cacophony of comment sections.
To me, this is more an issue of jobs and economy, than trying to pinpoint what 'climate change' means empirically. Is it really colder? You decide.
Its a fact that the Chinese aren't dickering over climate change, they are aggressively pursuing green technology. State sponsored endeavors, of course. While in this country some reports state that the Senate has just now neared a filibuster proof pro-environmental coalition. It hasn't been tested yet, so its not certain that anything meaningful will be accomplished.
The implications of China leading the world in this sector should be alarming to us, to the U.S. They are not hung up on weather station data, that is for sure.

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Jobs, Measles, and Scrutiny

I've been thinking about some disparate items in general lately, and generally finding a way to tie them together.
Measles. Fifteen years ago the federal government had said they were very much eradicated here in the United States. Now they are back, and depending on who you listen to, or read, the reason being ranges from religious enclaves of people not immunized to Obama's open border policy.
Both are probably right and both reasons are avoidable excuses.
I'm not about to continuing my recent bashing of religious here, instead I turn my attention to scrutinizing the inscrutable, i.e. the leadership of the Democrats, and where they are taking us.
At first, my lines to follow were to be a simple review of the last fifteen years of Democrat pronouncements, actions, and wisdom. But the realization that to do that would take up more time than I wish to spend my life on, so I'll just point out a few to make my point.
Bush was bad, always and forever. His economics weren't good enough and his wars were wrong, we were told.
The reality that his economic numbers have mostly been better than Obama's is never no mind. Used to be, as one example, I'd hear how the "real" unemployment rate was much higher than stated during W's years. Now its not even a mumble from the same people. Although we all know the truth. The truth, as taught by Democrat leadership whenever a GOPer lives in the White House, is a lesson well learned by me.
The wars were bad, or at least one. A difference with a distinction that I never fully grasped. If we send the military to battle, then it only makes sense to me to consolidate our gains on the battlefield. Sadly, and I offer no defense of Bush, this wasn't done.
More egregious, Democrat leadership nary lifted a finger to assist in consolidating our victories. In fact, from many a view point, what they done can quite easily be described as snatching defeat from the jaws as victory. Their gain was the White House.
Well, we see the on going results of this defeat with ISIS on a daily basis.
The above examples are enough to compel me to question the wisdom and wiles of Democrat leadership at every point.
Measles. Some say the illegals are bringing it in. Probably right. Others would point out that we all need to be inoculated for our common good. I can't disagree.
We all should know that inoculations aren't 100% effective. Not everyone takes immunization completely. It's not perfect.
However, as a society we commonly eradicated this disease years ago, what sense is it to open our borders to this plague, and others like bed bugs?
If the health of our collective community is of such concern that the views of potential presidential candidates on inoculation is of such import, then isn't it fair to say that we should be scrutinizing each and every soul that enters this cleaned land for diseases we already eradicated?
Who's fault is that, if this isn't happening?
Where is the wisdom?
Which leads me to my conclusion. As I've already demonstrated, the judgment of the Democrat leadership is quite open to fault and a scrutiny that is each and everyday evidently absent.
One of the current gems they would have me accept is the inevitable nomination and subsequent victory of Hillary Clinton.
Does she get to answer questions on inoculations? She's tweeted in support of them recently, but that hasn't always been her position. Same with Obama, for that matter. Seems to me that if she is in support of inoculations and an open border, she's at odds with good policy.
The broader question is, before we anoint her ruler, does she get scrutinized?
Over a hundred years ago Lord Acton made his famous quip about corruption and power, a notion I might add that finds no disagreement.
However, and no matter how I try to delicately point it out, what is being presented with the on going celebration of Mrs. Clinton, flies exactly in the face of the advice of a century ago. She's given power this easily?
What should we expect then?
After recent history, I can't just accept the wisdom of the Democrats without scrutiny.