Posted by constraint on 12/02/09

While I was sifting through some of the CRU emails at http://www.eastangliaemails.com/, I found this http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=73&filename=907525054.txt. The e-mail is from Michael Prather, a professor at UC Irvine, discussing plans for delegating work regarding the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios in IPCC's Third Assessment Report.  This e-mail appears troubling for a couple of reasons.  First it says generally "We should not be adding new "volunteers" to calculate these forcings as has been suggested by last week's notes until we clearly agree on the rules/algorithms" which seems to be an instance of ideology directing research.  Of course, this in itself is not damning, but when discussing the treatment of emission observations the comment was made "So we will do as already stated 'make emissions match observations' but must be careful in the chapter to note this."  This statement makes much more explicit the case that the research is in fact ideologically led.  I however am no expert in this field and this particular e-mail is full of technical jargon.  I'm currently wondering how to get this to someone with more knowledge of the subject to review these statements in context to see if this is, in actuality, what it appears to be.

One of the most common defenses that I have seen involving climategate is that this was a small group of bullies causing trouble in an otherwise orderly upright community.  So far I have not seen Prof. Prather or UC Irvine mentioned in any of the coverage of this.  If there is more proof that more than just the core of this group has shown to value ideology over objectiveness then that particular defense would no longer hold water.

Posted by constraint on 08/26/09
Last updated 08/26/09

This is the second day in a row that I've seen a blatantly condescending article about the alleged health care debate.  Yesterday's article was entitled Majority of Americans Believe Health Care Reform 'Myths' and today's is Health Care Debate Based on Total Lack of Logic.

The first article lists items from a poll which found that a majority of people believe that HR3200:

• Will increase wait times for health care services.
• Will increase federal government involvement in personal health care decisions.
• Will force taxpayers to pay for abortions.
• Will increase premiums for private health insurance.
• Will force the federal government to make cuts to Medicare in order to cover more Americans .

The poll also shows that 46% believe that it will result in health care coverage for all illegal immigrants. (I suspect that this question was worded poorly.  Had it been stated as "Will HR3200 result in health care coverage for some illegal immigrants?" there would have been more affirmative responses.)

That's it.  This is the entirety of their proof that a majority of Americans believe in health care "myths".  The article fails to give any evidence why these beliefs deserve the title "mythical".  Both of these articles were published by Live Science.  Perhaps, being rigorously scientific types who produce a science web site, they realized their error of omission in the first article because the second offers the evidence that these beliefs are indeed "myths".  Here it is:

"Irrational thinking"

They quote a sociologist, a qualified scientist, who published a paper, real peer-reviewed controlled research, which draws the conclusion that sometimes people don't think rationally.  So there you have it, sometimes people don't think rationally therefore HR3200 will not increase wait times for health care services. 

Forget that the Post Office and the BMV, both state controlled, are the worst institutions for wait times imaginable, and don't think that when the state takes over health care that it will operate similarly.  That's just irrational thinking.  When Obama talks about defining "best practices" in medical care, that's not really increased federal government involvement in personal health care decisions.  When someone gets a free abortion that's not taxpayers paying for the abortion.  It was just free.  The fact the medical cost have risen steadily since the creation of Medicare is just a coincidence.  There is no correlation between the two nor could any parallel be drawn with HR3200.  And finally, who would believe anything about Medicare cuts, especially when the GAO is predicting a shortfall of only $53 trillion on our current unfunded liabilities?  We should be able to come up with $53 trillion easily, right?  You see, these are all examples of irrational thinking.

The plebeians don't understand what is in their own best interests.  This condescending, Machiavellian attitude drips from the MSM.  People are beginning to resent it.  That is why newspapers are going bankrupt.  On line news sources are usually much better from this perspective.  Live Science should take this lesson to heart or it may find itself going the way of the newspaper.

Posted by constraint on 01/19/09
Last updated 01/19/09

In my last blog I gave my initial reaction to the Indiana Honest Money Act.  I stated my belief that this bill is exactly in line with the principles that C4L stands for.  I've been checking out the website a little more and looking for ways to help.

They have an on-line petition.  Go sign it now! As of the time that I am typing this, there are only 97 signatures on the petition, and 9 of those are people who don't live in Indiana.  I know that Indiana is home to more liberty minded individuals than this.  Over 57,000 people voted for Libertarian candidate Andy Horning for Governor.  Horning's campaign made sound money the fourth point of his economic plan.  All of those 57,000 people who supported Horning should be on that petition.  This doesn't even include the people who decided not to vote this year.  Almost 2 million registered Indiana voters didn't vote this year.

They also have a hard copy and instructions to gather signatures in person.  This might also be an opportunity to educate folks on the importance of sound money.  (Yes, I saw the training video that said it isn't our job to educate, but I don't quite agree with that all the time.  If someone wants a longer explanation of my views on this I can put it in another blog.)  Currently, http://www.indianahonestmoney.com does not yet have any literature or handouts.

I have yet to see a local mainstream news story about the Indiana Honest Money Act so we should send letters to the editorial staff of local media outlets.  Also don't forget to contact your legislator(s) to ask him/her to support this bill, and write to Senator Walker to thank him for introducing it.

Posted 01/19/09 WILL WORK FOR PEACE Idaho falls, ID

This is the way things will evolve as hyperinflation sets in. People are looking for, people NEED money that serves as a store of value. Once people begin to trust the new system, our country will once again return to a stable society where people begin to save money - confident that its value will not be confiscated by the government through inflation. A very timely introduction.

Posted by constraint on 01/16/09
Last updated 01/16/09

Indiana State Senator Greg Walker has introduced legislation to the Indiana General Assembly to reintroduce gold and silver as currency.  The "Indiana Honest Money Act" has been adapted specifically for Indiana from New Hampshire's "Gold Money Bill".  It will require Indiana State Government to transact exchanges in gold and silver specie (or electronic equivalent), and will also make these transactions optional for citizens.

All of the attacks against our liberty that brought us together here at C4L have their roots in the Federal Reserve.  It is the great enabler for government.  Unpopular wars of aggression would be impossible to fund if the government was forced to openly tax to support them and expose their true cost instead of hiding these costs in the "hidden tax" of inflation, the cantillon effects that enrich the politically well contected few at the expense of everyone else who owns dollars, and the economic destruction brought on by the engine of infation are just a few of the evils that the Federal Reserve has been given as it's duty to engineer.  The Federal Reserve must be stopped, and the most practical first step in ending the Federal Reserve, is to end it's monopoly on money creation granted by legal tender laws.

The Indiana Honest Money Act offers the potential to give individuals a method of preserving their savings without being "double taxed".  Currently if I have savings denominated in dollars, the Federal Feserve steals the purchasing power of my savings through infaltion.  If I try to protect my savings by buying gold, when I sell it the IRS considers the difference to be a capital gain and taxes it, but the value of gold did not increase.  The value of the dollar went down.  If gold and silver were considered currency, the monetary exchange between specie would not be taxed.

I don't know a lot about Senator Walker.  Until now, I've had the impression that he is typical of some Republicans that want to control how people behave, but I really commend his introduction of this bill.  This is an issue that we at C4L should support.  What can we do to support it?

Posted 01/16/09 WeThePeopleOfNC marshal, NC

Wow, I wish someone in NC would intrudice such a bill. Let your State Coordinator know about this. Sounds like a great bill to get behind 100%

Posted by constraint on 10/29/08
Last updated 10/29/08

I thought I would take a stab at a letter to the editor.  I decided I would make my case against the two parties on a more local level.  Here's my study of a recent local article about the Indiana governor's race.

I recently read your article that compares the stances that the two major party candidates for governor have taken on the Kernan-Shepard report last year that included 27 recommendation for streamlining local government.  I believe this is indicative a much broader issue facing us today.  The article states that both candidates are avoiding addressing specific points in the recommendations, but both have given their general opinions about the plan.  This is the first issue: neither candidate will commit clearly to a set of principles that defines what their candidacy, and by extension possible term of office, will uphold.  There are two problems that arise from this.  One being, how is anyone supposed to know if whom to vote for someone if they won't clearly tell what they intend to do?  And two, how do you hold anyone accountable for living up to their promises when they refuse to make the promises?

Governor Daniels, "who appointed the commission... is behind the thrust of the recommendations" which include abolishing township governments and having only one elected county "executive" who would run the business of the county and hire the county officials who are currently elected.  Apparently he supports this because it is claimed that the number of local government officials would be cut by more than half from 11,000 to roughly 5,000.  Small government has long been a plank of the Republican party.  Democrat Long Thompson "opposes the essence of the plan" because it is too "centralized".  Decentralization has also been a consistent plank of the Republican party.  Here is the second issue: there are few real differences between these two parties.  There is little hope that any real, positive, lasting change can be achieved if the biggest difference between the candidates is either a D or an R behind their name, and their only qualification is how well they can attack the other side.

Governor Daniels here is inconsistent in his support of small government.  Small government ideology connotes limited government, and it is the limited government scope that reduces "bureaucracy, redundancy and overhead".  Long Thompson is correct that it is important to have "direct contact and accountability with local officials".  I personally would expand that statement to include all public officials to as great of an extent as possible, but she says she wants "more people in the government".  It seems that it would be difficult to justify an increase in government, and the accompanying taxation, in the midst of our current economic situation.  We come now to the third issue: even when they're right, they're wrong.

We need real change, not just a "change" marketing campaign.  We need candidates who we can vote for, not candidates to vote against.  We need independent candidates who can be elected on what they say and what they believe, not on big party funds and market positioning.  Over 40% of eligible voters won't bother this year.  We need someone who is compelling enough to make those people not think of voting as a bother.