The main headline was this: Seismic Activity 5 Times More Energetic Than 20 Years Ago Because Of Global Warming
This drew a lot of attention because of the total lack of verifiable science associated with it. I posted some graphs of USGS data showing that the opposite was true, that recent earthquake energy was actually less that in the early 1900s, and several commenters pointed out that the source of the story, a Dr. Tom Chalko, has some less than stellar associations with what I would describe as new age mysticism, such as Thiaoouba Prophecy and reading your Aura.
He also writes a dandy piece entitled Global Warming: Can Earth EXPLODE? which is linked to a website he runs about bioresonance where you can buy a bioresonant shirt.
So with that sort of science background available on the web for anyone to see in a few seconds of searching, one wonders how CBS News was duped into running a story like this without even bothering to check into the author.
This makes the historic Microsoft Word documents used by Dan Rather to discredit President Bushs National Guard Service look like a peer reviewed science paper.
The story gets weirder. CBS attributed the story on their website to the Associated Press (AP) and you can see that clearly in the screen capture of the story below. Odd thing though, there is no dateline, as you usually see with an AP story, and no story author.
After apparently learning of the less than scientific associations of the lead author of the research, CBS removed it from their website as of about 3 p.m. EST on June 19.
Here is where it gets interesting, after CBS pulled the story from their website, I did some searches for it on the Associated Press website at www.ap.org thinking it would still be there.
The story is not found in searches at www.ap.org using Tom Chalko or earthquake global warming.
Energy Independence: "We can't drill our way out of the problem," goes the Democratic mantra on oil. So what would Democrats do? Some in the party have the worst possible answer: "Nationalize the oil industry."
... Great editorial at link
#2
I don't know, but I do get a little bored by the yearning for some imaginary time when everything as marked 'Made in the USA'. I lived through those times. You really want to live in circa 1960 with the income and access as a consumer to those and only those items? It's a socialist stasis dream. You can still see relics of that concept in Eastern Europe and Russia. What's gone is a lot, a lot of decent paying jobs for the under skilled and under motivated/educated. That means you need to adapt to your environment as it changes. Those who don't adapt or won't adapt should not degrade everyone else's opportunities to expand their lives. Do we recognize the absurdity of bitching about the export of jobs and industry on a device that, instead of being Big Iron in a closed room in a major business or industry, is a consumer product sold off the shelf and made accessible precisely because it is manufactured by and large overseas. Just remember it's only useful because of the programs that run on it. How many programmers were there in 1960? How many are programming today in America while we whine about losing line manufacturing jobs of the '60s? Adaptation.
#3
Procopius2k, one of the underlying complaints is the damage inflicted on the American way of life by lawyers and MBAs in pursuit of short term profits. If you really think that our quality of life was improved by the continuing consolidation of businesses through leveraged buyouts funded by junk bonds, then perhaps you were living overseas during the 70's and 80's. The outsourcing of manufacturing is the result of a perfect storm: taxes, burdensome regulations, environmental activism that makes it almost impossible to do business in the US, and the unholy bargain between shortsighted management and blinkered unions on wages and benefits. One example near and dear to my heart is the manufacture of printed wiring boards. If you don't already have the necessary permits or were grandfathered an exception to the EPA regulations, you can't manufacture in the US. As a result almost all of the circuit boards that go into electronics are made overseas where opposition is less strenuous. The other factor has been the steady compromise of the educational establishment in the US. You can point to occasional exceptions, but for the most part, high school graduates and most college graduates are useless as employees. They don't have the fundamental reading, writing, reasoning, and mathematical skills to function in modern industry. Were it not for foreign students educated where diversity and self esteem are less important than real learning, our technological society would collapse.
#4
You can point to occasional exceptions, but for the most part, high school graduates and most college graduates are useless as employees. They don't have the fundamental reading, writing, reasoning, and mathematical skills to function in modern industry.
News alert. They didn't have the capacity back in the 60s either. You understand that the US Army ran education programs for draftees to upgrade their basic skills in reading and writing till sometime around mid decade when the first batch of the 'Sputnik' kiddies who's education system was boosted as a result of the 'scare' started showing up in the service? I know, most of our understanding of the past doesn't begin till we become cognizant somewhere around mid to late adolescence. Even in the 60s high school drop out rates were still high because social promotion hadn't set in as standard in the educational establishment. Today, to manipulate data, the educational establishment hands paper out to show that the drop out rate is down, but the paper is generally useless as a measure of quality. In other words, even though they have the paper, they might as well have dropped out anyway and not consumed the educational resources of others. How do you blame the CEOs, MBAs and lawyers for the lack of basic skills in our public education system? You can try, but the fundamental issue there is the 'professionalizing' of institution with paper over performance. Just like junk pushed out of a smoke stack industry, the junk the professional there push out doesn't sell well on the market.
I'm not a socialist. On a board that promotes individual liberty and freedom and decries the nanny state when did any advocate that business or industry owes anyone a job? It comes down to responsibility of the individual and groups. It's the individual's responsibility to apply himself in obtaining the skills for employment or entrepreneurial advancement. It is the group's responsibility to not 'kill the goose that lays the golden egg' as so many unions have. Insert comment here about heartless and cut throat businesses. Right, with all the union pension fund money out there, they could have bought and owned a number of business, but they didn't and haven't. They are just as heartless and cut throat as any businessman in looking out for their own interests as well. You think the union pension funds aren't pushing those MBAs and lawyers too?
#5
Nostalgia is always fun, but everything has opportunity costs.
Yes, America had lots of heavy industry, and it helped our "national productivity" a lot. But it did so at the cost of our individual lives.
People don't generally *like* to do physically demanding and dangerous work that makes you hot, filthy and tired. So if you have a choice, you have to be paid a LOT of money to do such a job.
Our individual wants and our national productivity both support each other and balance each other.
And by the standards of the rest of the world, every citizen of the United States is a rich person. Even our unemployed homeless get so much relative support that they are wealthy by these standards.
This means that over time, while America has an abundance of scientists, it is short of people who pick vegetables, dig ditches and work at other jobs that are dirty, nasty, dangerous, and couldn't possibly pay enough to make it worthwhile.
Yes, the good old days had some good things, and today we have some good things. But you can have one or other. Take your pick. If you choose the old days, you'll have to go to a country with those kind of values.
#6
In other words, even though they have the paper, they might as well have dropped out anyway and not consumed the educational resources of others. P2k, I call that the "Scarecrow Principle". It started in the 60's. The "Scarecrow Principle" is best described in "The Wizard of Oz" when the Wizard tells the Scarecrow, "You don't need an education. All you need is a Diploma".
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
06/20/2008 17:41 Comments ||
Top||
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Boumediene v. Bush last week justifiably sent shock waves through the legal community. The majority opinion, authored by the ever wandering Justice Anthony Kennedy, disregarded both centuries of precedent and the military deference doctrine and also intruded on what is clearly the province of the political branches. As a result of this case, Guantánamo Bay detainees now formally have more rights than do prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. To say the least, citizens, regardless of political affiliation or views of the status of Guantánamo, should be concerned about the ramifications of this decision.
Precedent. The Boumediene holding permits aliens to exercise constitutional rights within U.S. courts of law. This has never been the policy of the United States, nor has the court ever granted such rights to those detained outside of U.S. jurisdiction. Additionally, it should be noted that this is the first of the Supreme Court cases since the attacks of 9/11 that actually declares that the military commission process contains a constitutional violation. While many on both sides of the aisle believe that Guantánamo and the military commissions might be flawed as a matter of policy (and, some say, of law) and think it is in the best interests of the nation to close Guantánamo, this case actually goes further and will have greater impact than if the commissions themselves were found to violate the Constitution. Justice Kennedy went to lengths to limit the decision to only those detained at Gitmo now, but his decision clearly will be analogized by some to other military bases overseas (e.g. Afghanistan) where detainees are held.
The practical effect of flooding an already overburdened federal court system is more than likely. These detainees will not only have access to federal district courthouses but will gain the rights of American citizens to challenge their cases within the United States. One can only imagine further unprecedented constitutional challenges, such as applying the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment to the detainees, arguing these provisions of the Constitution apply to those searched or captured on the field of battle. This is not a stretch but a frightening, arguably unintended consequence of the decision.
Military deference. Boumediene has removed the military from the habeas corpus process altogether. Few will doubt we are a nation at war, and the military is detaining and adjudicating, through the military commissions, those unlawful combatants accused of war crimes. Under the holding, however, only civilian federal judges (without any opportunity for the military to formally review or determine the status of those they detain) within the district courts will decide whether or not to issue a writ of habeas.
Ordinarily, courts refrain from interfering with ongoing military operations or policy decisions and have repeatedly refrained from intruding in this arena if at all possible. In Boumediene, the Supreme Court has inserted itself and removed the military altogether from the habeas process. Strangely, Justice John Paul Stevens had asserted in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Uniform Code of Military Justice should be applied to these detainees. Boumediene disregards Hamdan and the code completely for determining lawfulness of detention. Additionally, the court has intruded in what the Founders clearly intended to be decisions best left to the political branches. With so much angst over executive power in the past few years, one hopes reasonable minds will recognize this overreach by the court. Clearly, Congress and the president are better able to make these decisions.
Prisoners of war. Ironically, the holding affords greater protections to the alleged unlawful belligerents than prisoners of war are entitled to under the Geneva Conventions. This absurdity should be shocking to the American citizenry. POWs are supposed to receive the "gold standard" of treatment, but it was never envisioned to permit such access to the domestic courts of the detaining country. The detainees, of course, are not even signatories to the tradition of the Geneva Conventions. But now nine unelected, life-tenured justices have determined that someone such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should be given access to our great courts of justice. If such a policy decision is to be made, it needs to be made by our elected representatives who have the voice of the people. The inaction on such concerns by the political branches should not be the catalyst for the Supreme Court to interveneparticularly when such decisions impact a nation at war.
Rather than argue back and forth on the case, however, policymakers must quickly review the implications of the decision and find mutual ground on how best to proceed. The political branches must seek a third wayneither the existing federal courts nor the military commissions but a specialized hybrid court with civilian oversight (often called a national security court)as the best means to balance the interests of both national security and human rights. Such a federal terrorist court could be structured to better meet the policy concerns of many both in America and abroad: to detain and adjudicate cases against unlawful belligerents in the war on al Qaeda. Boumediene, for all its faults, might just be the catalyst necessary for such action.
Glenn Sulmasy is a national security and human rights fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and an associate professor of law at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/20/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
While correct in most particulars, I think this piece grossly understates the problem. This is nothing less than a full-blown constitutional crisis, verging on a constitutional break-down. The court is way out of its lane, and has usurped in its various Gitmo-related decisions both the treaty power and the authority to conduct war.
That the administration immediately and meekly complied with the ruling does not mask the problem. No one wants to admit how bad things are, because everyone lacks the guts and vision to do anything about it. Instead, as in this piece, they scramble to improvise some new mechanism.
The astonishing misbehavior of the court in these rulings, which Chief Justice Roberts termed "bait-and-switch" and Justice Scalia branded as outside the law, is actually a secondary matter - though grave enough in itself to raise basic institutional questions. The primary problem is the collapse of the basic constitutional framework with three co-equal branches, each with different powers - including the well-established authority of the executive to conduct war and the expressly assigned authority of the legislature to limit the courts' reach.
I'm no constitutional expert (though grimacing through the idiotic things Sen. Obama says about the constitution makes me feel like some sort of friggin' Felix Frankfurter) - but there's more than just bad faith and horrible reasoning at issue here.
The rule of law is absolutely in question in the US. The cowardice and mediocrity of the current political class leads me to think that the lawless situation will continue indefinitely.
#2
Acting together, the Executive and Legislative branches can ignore the Judicial. The USSC doesn't have any way to enforce it's decision - by design.
#3
There is now the possibility of a Democratic Congress and Presidency, followed by the resignation of the older SC justices, and installation of a couple or three reliably leftist justices. That would ensure the continuation of the leftist project of using lawfare to hamstring the ability of the executive to conduct war. And of course also the continuation of the process of dismantling the Constitution in general.
#4
Reminder: habeas corpus will work on a reverse onus basis. Suspects will have to show cause in order to secure release.
However, the fact that this junk was tossed prior to Summer recess, is suspicious. And elections will be on the mind in the Fall.
Remember how the slave-owner of the Taney court, upheld recovery of escaped slaves, by finding the negro to be "an inferior sort of being." (Dred Scot, 1857, SCOTUS)?
#7
The "crisis" is best found in Scalia's comment in dissent - "we were just kidding" in reference to the prior holdings which led to this one. They led from the POTUS, through the congress, after the Hamdan rulings - all of which brought the other branches, arguably properly into their roles.
The problem with this decision is the destruction of the confidence of the people in the court. Hence, when the court rules, is it "just kidding"? How will it, and the lower courts, handle all the certain to follow subsidiary actions from this ruling? How can it maintain any level of consistency? And, ultimately, as Stalin asked the Pope, if it's on the path to blurring or elminating the distinction between military and civil legality, how many divisions does it have to enforce its writ?
Not a good opinion, and far less open to remediation or qualification than the Kelo opinion.
[..]
"I think the government in Baghdad wants an agreement while Bush is still in the White House. It is not clear how supportive a new US administration might be of a continuation of the present arrangement. The idea that the Iraqi government wants the US to leave tomorrow is mistaken. Their continuance in power is at stake,"
One of the greatest statements, the most piercing, was something Chuck Todd said when he talked on a panel on MSNBC. He was asked more or less why Tim stuck out from the pack, and he said, "He was normal!" In a city, Washington, in which many powerful people are deep down weird, or don't have a deep down, only a surface, Tim was normal. Like a normal man he cared about his family and his profession and his faith. Pat Buchanan later said they're not making them now like they used to, Tim's normality is becoming the exception. The world of Russertstability, Catholic school, loving parents, TV shows that attempted only to entertain you and not to create a new moral universe in your headthat's over, that world is gone. He had a point, though it's not gone entirely of course, just not as big, or present, as it used to be.
Which got me thinking about one way in which Tim was lauded that, after a few days, was grating. And what's a column without a gripe? Tim, as all now know, was a working-class boy from upstate New York. But the amazement with which some of his colleagues talked of his background made them sound like Margaret Mead among the indigenous people of Borneo. An amazing rags-to-riches storyhe was found among an amazing Celtic tribe that dragged its clubs across the tangled jungle floors of a land called "Buffalo," where they eat "wings" and worship a warrior caste known as "the Bills." Here he is, years later, in a suit. This reflected a certain cultural insularity in our media, did it not? Tim came from a loving home, grew up in a house, in a suburb. He went to private Catholic schools. His father was a garbageman, which when I was growing up was known as a good municipal union job. Tim's life was as good as or better than 90% of his countrymen in his time. His background wasn't strange or surprisingit was normal.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/20/2008 06:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He also worked for Pat Moynihan, who wrote more books in a year then the rest of congress would read in their lifetime. Moynihan was a true intellect and independent politician sponsored by the Democrat party much like Sam Nunn and Scoop Jackson. There are no more Moynihan's or Nunn's or Jackson's jut Reid's, Boxer's and Durbin's which shows how much the US Senate has slipped in 20 years. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma is one of the few out there that talks common sense just like Moynihan did. I didn't agree with Russert on a lot of stuff but he did seem like a nice guy with a blue collar way about him. I believe he may have been a social liberal but was a patriot just the same and wasn't a defeat monkey.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
06/20/2008 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
