Climate Change

How harmful is the current, uncommon rate of increase of global temperature? I ask not to cast doubt on whether it can ever be harmful, for surely it can. But unless we know how harmful and when, how can we know the disease is worse than the cure?

I ask because global temperature has risen about two thirds of a degree Celsius since 1900, only about half of which is attributable to mankind's actions (previous to 1950 or so, solar irradiance best explained global temperature). I cannot think of a hypothetical situation wherein less than a degree of ambient temperature could make a significant difference to anything, even if the change had occurred instantly.

This thought occurred to me while rereading this rebuttal to the climate skepticism argument that a warmer world could be better, part of a larger (and very well-written and reasonable) series entitled How To Talk to a Climate Skeptic. In this particular rebuttal, he argues quite reasonably that it is the rate of change, not the resulting temperature, that puts the ecosystem at risk.

I am reminded of driving a car. You can go extremely fast in a car, but you don't suffer the consequences until you crash. The rapid acceleration of crashing is entirely out of proportion with anything a car can achieve otherwise. 0 to 60 in 3.5 seconds, then 60 to 0 in a few hundredths. By analogy, current global temperature change is a car crash.

However, with car accidents there have been extensive studies into what G-forces for what durations cause what harm. We know what safety features to advocate (seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, etc) because we have measured their effects and optimized their design. The prescriptions provided for global temperature control are not based on careful measure and experiment, but are based solely on preventing what is already happening. This "Anything but this!" mentality is just as destructive as the head-in-the-sand, "Global warming is a conspiracy!" mentality. There are always worse things than this, whatever "this" could possibly be, and we cannot currently be responsibly confident our prescribed solutions are not among those worse things. Not while the costs both of the disease and the cure remain widely unknown.

That same advocate of climate change danger, Coby, mentions that the Great Dying, the most complete mass extinction in geologic history, is thought to have been caused by rapid climate change 250 million years ago. The Great Dying took place over about a million years. Even if the modern global temperature increase has something in common with that ancient one, there's certainly no reason to believe the current temperature increase is many thousands of times times faster than back then; it's not even significantly faster than the 1900-1950 solar-forced warming, which presumably occurred rather similarly 250 million years ago. By that comparison, we have half a million years or so to correct the global temperature increase we're now seeing. Perhaps 10,000 years if we want to nip this in the bud right away.

I'm not comforted by that bad reasoning, but I'm certainly not frightened by the bogeyman of a modern mass extinction event. I believe that science is giving us increasing awareness of the changes we induce on our planet, but we seem superstitiously afraid of those changes. Not everything artificial is the end of the world, despite the Green Party's press releases.

Perhaps we do need to act dramatically and now to stop global warming, but despite my repeated perusal of various climate change action advocates' arguments and sources I have yet to see what and why and how much. Whatever governmental policy you prescribe, inaction included, there has to be a reason for it. That's the weak point in the debate, not the science.

Citizenship

"We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."
- Joseph Smith, D&C 134:2

What is the proper relationship between a man and his country? What duties and entitlements does each properly attain from the other?

A nation cannot be properly governed unless it's government has the consent of it's citizens. Democratic elections allow a nation to demonstrate that consent, but an honorable Monarch, Emperor, or other Head of State can possess that same consent without a democratic demonstration of it so long as that Head of State acts in the interest of the citizenry and allows them a strong freedom of conscience and self-determination.

A nation's government has a duty to mediate disputes and enforce civil treatment of it's citizens, one to another. It's citizens are entitled to the amount of health they possess, free from violent attack; to the amount of property they possess, free from theft and vandalism; and to the consequences of their own actions rather than those of their tribesmen, clan, family, creed, neighbors or race.

A government that protects it's citizens' body, property, and freedom of conscience is, in turn, entitled to it's citizens' obedience; for how else can a nation ensure life, liberty, and property than by it's laws, institutions, and officials?

Each citizen has a duty to preserve the laws, institutions, and officials of the government that holds his consent. He demonstrates that consent by obeying it's laws generally; by studying it's operation and opining as to it's effectiveness and validity; by upholding it's officers and institutions and, if capable, offering his services as one of them. To be a juror, soldier, peace officer, voter, election officer, taxpayer, government official, or political advocate is an expression of that consent.

A government that makes it's citizens' safety or prosperity dependent on it's own continued power is ensuring for itself the ability to contradict it's citizens' consent. Whether or not the government intends to use that ability, it is an unacceptable power for it to hold.

A government that makes the freedom of it's citizens conditional on wealth, political connections, religious membership, or other demographic criteria is neither free nor safe. By breaking the trust of it's own people it loses their consent and it's own validity.

A citizen that attacks another in person, in property, or in freedom is entitled to trial and sentencing, including reductions in his own property and freedom. Such a citizen has breached the trust of his government, making it his government's duty to restrain him in reasonable proportion to that breach. Thus the government fulfills it's duty to establish order and protect the people who maintain entitlement to it's protection.

A citizen that seeks to destroy a just government is a traitor. A government that possesses the consent of it's citizenry generally is entitled to protect itself even to the destruction of it's traitorous attacker so long as, in doing so, it maintains the consent of the general citizenry. A government that does not possess the consent of it's citizenry generally loses this entitlement and deserves the institutional destruction intended by such attackers. In that case, the traitor to government is a champion of the citizenry, holding their consent better than the government he seeks to destroy.

May we all be good citizens of good governments.

Arizona's Immigration Bill

The complete text of Arizona's strict new immigration law, AZ Senate Bill 1070, is available here, in pdf format. It is in 12 sections, the last of which indicates the title of the bill to be "the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act." The following summary of it's contents does not include any subsequent amendments; it is only a summary as the bill as originally passed and signed.

1. Intent - states that the bill is intended to unify immigration enforcement across federal, state, and local jurisdictions and to fight illegal immigration.
2. Enforcement - amends state law to provide that:
   1. Sanctuary cities and other inconsistent immigration enforcement within Arizona is banned.
   2. AZ state cops will make "a reasonable attempt" to verify citizenship status "where reasonable suspicion exists" and "when practicable" "for any lawful contact." [see definitions]
   3. If an illegal immigrant convicted of any state or local crime is to be turned over to ICE (Immigration, The Feds).
   4. Unless banned by some other law, AZ police "may securely transport" illegal aliens to Federal custody.
   5. State cops "may" arrest any individual if there is "probable cause" of some deportable offense without a warrant. [see definitions]
   6. Unless banned by federal law, state officials or agencies cannot be prohibited from handling immigration status information to determine eligibility for public services, licensing, determining residence, confirming a detainee's identity, or determining compliance with federal immigration law.
   7. State and local agencies that adopts a policy of immigration non-enforcement can have that policy challenged by anyone in state superior court. Punishments, at the court's discretion, may include paying for the trial costs and/or a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000 per day.
   8. Money collected from such fines pays for the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIT EM), a state law enforcement agency.
   9. If an officer was just following orders in breaking this law, the punishment goes to his agency.
   10. Enforcement of this law must comply with federal law, especially civil rights and due process laws.
3. Trespassing - amends state law to provide that:
   1. Illegal aliens on public property are trespassing.
   2. Immigration status is to be verified by the feds in these cases.
   3. Those sentenced for this crime must stay constantly in custody until the sentence is served.
   4. They are also to be fined at least $500 for a first offense and double that for subsequent offenses.
   5. This money goes to GIT EM and to reimburse county jails for immigration enforcement costs.
   6. This counts as a Class 1 Misdemeanor, except:
      1. It's a Class 3 Felony if they had drugs, deadly weapons, or tools of terrorism in their possession at the time.
      2. It's a Class 4 Felony for a second offense or if the USA has deported them in the past 60 days.
4. Smuggling - A section E is added to state human smuggling laws stating that "any peace officer may" stop any vehicle if they have "reasonable suspicion" they are disobeying civil traffic laws while smuggling humans. [see definitions]
5. Solicitation for Employment & Harboring Aliens - makes it a Class 1 Misdemeanor to obstruct traffic in order to recruit day workers, or for people legally ineligible to work in the United States to solicit employment. Also, makes it a criminal offense to transport or harbor illegal aliens, or encourage illegal aliens to move to Arizona. Vehicles used to illegally transport illegal aliens must be impounded. It's a Class 1 Misdemeanor and at least a $1,000 fine, unless it's 10 or more aliens at once in which case it's a Class 6 Felony and at least $1,000 per person.
6. Employing Illegals - the AZ state laws making it illegal to employ illegal aliens are amended to include a means for employers to claim law enforcement tricked them into it (entrapment), with the burden of proof on the employers.
7. Employing Illegals Again - same as Section 6, but for a different version of the same law (Section 23-212 vs. Section 23-212.01). I don't know why Arizona law includes the same text twice, but the fact that it does required them to amend it twice.
8. Verifying Employment Eligibility - the AZ state law requiring employers to verify the employment status of new employees is amended to require the employer to keep those employment status records for the full term of employment or three years, whichever is longer.
9. Impoundment of Vehicles - amended to list harboring or transporting of illegal immigrants as a valid reason to impound a vehicle.
10. GIT EM - establishes Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team and Enforcement Mission as a state government agency that manages immigration enforcement funds.
11. Procedural Details - this law is intended to obey all federal laws, but if any part of it is found inconsistent with federal law the inconsistency of that part will not be construed to affect the rest of the law.
12. Names the bill the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. What's that acronym, SOLE-SNA? SOLE-Safe? It's kinda awkward, and sounds isolationist.

Definitions

GIT EM

Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team and Enforcement Mission, the Arizona state agency established by this bill to handle the funding and finances of the new expense of this new state-level enforcement of federal immigration law.

ICE

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the US Federal Government's immigration agency. Formerly the INS; Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Lawful Contact

This bill is famous for coining the term "lawful contact," since it didn't strictly have a definition before. It generally means "the kind of contact cops have with folks through official business", but Arizona had to pass another law defining the term more strictly in the face of public criticism of it's ambiguity. The amended version calls it "a lawful stop, detention or arrest." More on that when I cover the amendments in a later post.

May

If you may do something, you have permission but no mandate or requirement to. It's an option available to you, if you so choose.

Peace Officer

General term for any officer of any law enforcement agency, including police officers, parole officers, customs officers, court officers, corrections officers, etc.

Probable Cause

The amount of proof needed for police to arrest a suspect or for a judge to issue a warrant.

Reasonable Attempt

To make a reasonable attempt is to try but resist being fanatical about it. If it's not doable, fine. Move on to something else. "Reasonable" in the legal sense has it's basis in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. However, the phrase "reasonable attempt" is in the common vernacular, not legalese.

Reasonable Suspicion

The 4th Amendment of the Constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Reasonable suspicion is a legal term for the standard of proof necessary for a search or seizure to be allowable by the 4th Amendment, meaning that the cop must be able to articulate facts in court to defend his decision to conduct the search or seizure. It can't just be a hunch. [source]

Standards of Proof

Hunch

You think something is up, but you can't explain why. This is enough evidence to alter individual behavior, but is insufficient for any legal action.

Reasonable Suspicion

Enough evidence that you can explain why you are suspicious and most folks will agree that it looks suspicious. This is enough evidence for a police officer to conduct an impromptu search, such as frisking a suspect or pulling a car over, but not necessarily enough to enter a residence without the owner's permission or to arrest anyone.

Probable Cause

Enough evidence to be reasonably confident the suspect committed the crime. This is enough evidence for a cop to arrest a suspect, or for a judge to issue a search warrant. It's one of two requirements for a cop to enter a residence without permission (the other being exigent circumstances; it has to be an emergency of human health or life or the survival of evidence). It is not necessarily enough evidence to convict.

Without a Shadow of a Doubt

The evidence so obviously proves the claim that one cannot doubt it; it's clearly true. This is the standard of evidence for conviction of a crime.

The primary criticism of the bill is that allowing any peace officer with any reasonable reasonable suspicion of lapsed immigration status permission to investigate (by, say, asking for state ID) at any time qualifying under the vague condition of "lawful contact" lends itself to civil rights abuses both of immigrants and of Hispanics and other minorities likely to be suspected of illegal immigration. The rebuttal is that the "reasonable suspicion" must be articulable in court without any mention of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, as a determination made on those grounds would constitute discrimination by federal law and, thus, are explicitly excluded by Section 2-J of the bill.

Another criticism is that it mandates officers to check immigration status. In rebuttal, the word "may" is used 19 times in the bill and it mandates agencies to allow their officers to check immigration status if they so choose, whereas only one section (2-B) requires an officer to do anything. Even then, what constitutes "reasonable suspicion", "a reasonable attempt", and what is "practicable" are, by practical necessity, left to the officer's personal judgment to varying degrees.

Another criticism is that it doesn't change the law enough to make any relevant change to Arizona's culture, as intended. Personally, I think establishing a new state agency, defining two or three new crimes, and synchronizing federal, state, and local enforcement is a substantial change and there will probably be some effect (even if it's just pushing illegal immigrants into neighboring states). I suppose the content of the amendments and the results of the backlash must be taken into account before I can be completely certain, though.

StarCraft 2

I finally played my first game of the StarCraft 2 beta. It's one of the few modern video games I care anything about, having so loved the original and not having yet seen a Blizzard game that was not fantastic.

StarCraft 2 is fantastic all over again. It's much like the original, except optimized. They've managed to create a greater diversity of tactical possibilities with fewer, more interesting units, fewer upgrades, and some new terrain tricks and control options. Very nice game design.

I managed to win my first game, 1 Protoss vs. 1 Protoss, but not by some great skill on my behalf. The opponent (a random internet stranger) had me beat completely early on, but failed to follow through. By creating a trap or two, and creating a few new towns he didn't know about, I was able to get back into competition without his knowledge and surprise him with a formidable force just as he ran out of resources.

It's a dang fun game.

Food Silliness

I decided on an unusual dinner last night: a mashed potato buffet. Four kinds of mashed potatoes, three kinds of gravy. The turkey gravy on cream of mushroom potatoes was the best.

Variety is the spice of life.

Searching...

Google can't search for what I really need: happiness, meaning, success.

Workers and The Right

In politics, the term "workers" carries connotations of unions, strikes, and Marxism; in short, left-wing politics. It's thought that the honorable working class and their unions are typically Democrats and their rich, manipulative managers are Republicans. I've always disagreed with that interpretation. Unions are Democrat, sure, and Republicans typically aspire to (and often achieve) financial success in business. While unions represent a centralizing authority contrary to the principles of American conservatism, individual workers doing good work for the best pay they can negotiate is a standard conservatives are happy to bare.

In the recent Tea Party sponsored walk on Washington, many present stated they had never been away from work to protest before - these were right-wing workers, protesting an increasing tax burden and pay decreased by inflation. At the other end of the modern political spectrum is President Obama, who hopes students are "aspiring to be scientists and engineers, doctors and teachers, not just ballers and rappers." ^{[ABC News/NAACP speech]} That's fine and good (I fully support the part about ballers and rappers), but he ostentatiously ignores workers.

Isn't it a valid dream to make sweet motorbikes or fine watches or kickin' computers? Isn't it honorable to be able to drive past a beautiful building and say "I did that brickwork."? Is there no respect for the men and women who make the bulk of the economic engine of which Americans are so proud run and run well? Personally, I see a blue-collar beauty to that kind of work. Men with black grease on their calloused hands and torn overalls make the rest of our lifestyles possible. And their lifestyles aren't so bad, either; more plumbers own their own yacht than scientists or professors do.

But my respect for the great Skilled Worker leaves me pretty unique in modern politcs -- or so I thought. Turns out I have a kindred spirit from the cast of Cheers: John Ratzenberger runs a non-profit organization called Nuts, Bolts, and Thingamajigs that seeks to bring back the American manufacturer as a figure of honor and prominence; to, as they say, "to nurture the tinkering spirit". If the name Ratzenberger doesn't ring a bell, think of Cliff Clavin of Cheers, the piggybank in Toy Story, or the timeless line "Don't worry; it's lemon!" from Monster's Inc. The perennial everyman of Cheers, it turns out, is an advocate of the worker in the real world, too.

And more power too him! May the independent tradesman flourish!

And now for something completely different...

I offer you the story of Weird Harold:

Once upon a time there was a little girl who loved her Grandpa and Grandma very much. Late one night, Grandpa came to visit, and she was so excited to see him she couldn't sleep. Grandpa asked, "If I tell you a story will you go to sleep like a good girl?"

"Well... okay," the girl said, "But it better be a good story."

Grandpa chuckled. "I'll tell the best story I have, the story of Weird Harold." It went like this:

---

When the children went to play on the blacktop at recess, they never played with Harold. He didn't play on the swings or at the kickball diamond. He would always walk in lazy circles by himself. Sometimes he would pick up a pebble. Sometimes he would put one down just so. Sometimes he would just stand and look at them. It didn't look like any fun. If someone invited him to play regular games, Harold would growl at them and chase them away. It was weird. So they called him Weird Harold.

Harold was happy with that. He liked to play alone with his many small pebbles.

One day, a quiet little girl from Weird Harold's class sat and watched Weird Harold. She watched as he walked in lazy circles. She watched as he stopped to pick up a pebble. She watched later as he stopped to put it down with a lot of other pebbles. When he walked away to find more, she took a step closer so she could see the pebbles. Then another step. The pebbles weren't just put anywhere. They were put just so, in a little square with circles at the corners.

"Are you going to ask me to come play with you?" It was Weird Harold. The quiet little girl didn't notice that he'd come up behind her. She didn't say anything. It was quiet for a long time.

Harold asked, "What's your name?" The quiet little girl didn't answer. It was quiet for a long time.

"Okay. You can watch," said Weird Harold. He put another pebble on the blacktop with the others. He stood up and looked around. None of the other children were paying him any attention except the quiet little girl. Weird Harold was glad about that. It was quiet for a long time.

He took another pebble out of his pocket. It was a different kind of pebble. It was shiny and clear and very pale blue, like the sky. It was beautiful. He put the beautiful pebble with the others. He put it alone inside the square. Then he stood still and looked at it for a long time. He looked around for other children again, but they weren't paying him any attention. Except for the quiet little girl.

Harold turned to the quiet little girl. "This one is the Princess," he told her. "She lives in her castle. Evil knights come to steal away her beauty and make her boring like all the other pebbles. I'm the good dragon. I protect her. When evil knights come, I growl and breath fire and they go away." He looked at the little girl. It was quiet for a long time. Then he said very quietly, "She's my favorite."

The bell rang. It was time to go back inside. Weird Harold quickly snatched up the Princess and put her in his pocket. He snatched up lots of other pebbles and put them in his pockets, too. He didn't want to be late getting back to class.

The quiet little girl watched him pick up pebbles. She looked very determined. She opened her mouth and said, "My name is Jill." Then she ran across the blacktop back to class. Harold was surprised. Then he grabbed a few more pebbles and went inside, too.

After that, Jill and Harold spent a every recess together. Harold would tell her adventures with the pebbles and the Princess. There was always the Princess. Jill would mostly watch. Sometimes she would say something, but usually she was quiet.

One day, Jill spoke up. She said, "I never talk to anyone else. Only you. You wait for me to talk. Everyone else just wants to talk, not listen." It was quiet for a long time. Then she said, "I'm glad you're Weird, Harold."

Harold said, "I'm glad you talk to me."

As the days went past, it got warmer. The school year was going to end. Jill and Harold wouldn't see each other for months, and there wasn't anything they could do about it.

"Are you going to be here next year, too?" asked Harold.

"Yes," said Jill. It was quiet for a long time. Then Harold reached into his pocket and took out a pebble. He held it out to Jill. It was shiny and clear and very pale blue, like the sky. It was the Princess.

Harold said, "Take it. Promise you'll give it back next year. It's my favorite." Jill took the Princess. She put it in her pocket. It was quiet for a long time.

Then it was summer. Harold didn't enjoy summer without Jill, and Jill didn't enjoy summer without Harold. Then summer was over, and school started again. At the first recess, Jill ran straight out to Harold smiling. She handed him a pebble. It was the Princess. Harold took the Princess out of Jill's hand. Harold also held on to Jill's hand. They both smiled, and it was quiet for a long time.

Years passed, and they grew up together. Every summer, Harold gave Jill the Princess. Every fall, Jill gave it back. They graduated, married, and aged. They had children and grandchildren. They were happy together for 64 years. Jill was always quiet, and Harold was always weird. Everyone called them "Jill and Weird Harold," like they were one person with one name. No one was ever happier. Every day Weird Harold told Jill, "You're my favorite."

When they were very old, Jill got sick. She was going away, and it was going to be quiet for a very long time. She told Weird Harold, "If you miss me, look in the old coffee can. I left you something." Then she went away.

---

"Do you know what was in the old coffee can?" Grandpa asked the little girl.

The little girl didn't answer. Grandpa reached into his pocket and pulled out a pebble. It was a different kind of pebble. It was shiny and clear and very pale blue, like the sky. It was beautiful. The little girl said very quietly, "It's the Princess!"

"Yes, it is," said Grandpa. "I want you to keep it. You can be the good dragon and protect it from evil knights. You can remember the story of Weird Harold. Maybe it'll make you happy." It was quiet for a long time.

"It already makes me happy," said the little girl. "It's a good story."

Grandpa chuckled. "Then it's time to go to sleep like a good little girl." He tucked her in. He kissed her on the forehead. He started to leave.

The little girl said, "Goodnight, Grandpa Harold. I love you."

Grandpa turned and smiled. "I love you, too, little Jill. You know, you look just like your Grandma Jill when she was your age." It was quiet for a long time. Then he left.

---

A few days later, little Jill went back to school. When the children went to play on the blacktop at recess, Jill didn't play with the other children. She didn't play on the swings or on the kickball diamond. She walked in lazy circles on the blacktop. Sometimes she'd pick up a pebble. Sometimes she'd put one down just so. If someone invited her to play regular games, she'd growl at them and chase them away. Someone called her Weird Jill. Jill was happy with that.

THE END

On Diversity and Strength

Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.

- General Casey on the Fort Hood shootings

When is diversity a strength? Religious diversity let to troubles in Northern Ireland. The diversity between Israelis and Palestinians along the Persian coast has not been strengthening. Canada has Quebecois separatists, Russia has Chechnyan rebels, China has Tibet. Which of these situations exemplifies strength drawn from diversity?

And yet there are countless cases of diversity creating strength. Where would America be without Christopher Columbus of Spain, Sacajawea of the Shoshone, Fredrick Douglass, our Irish Catholic President Kennedy, or Martin Luther King? Generals von Steuben of Germany and Lafayette of France were vital to the colonies' victory in the Revolution, itself motivated by the philosophies of the Scottish Enlightenment. Alexander Hamilton, father of the American system of economics, was half-French Huguenot, half-Scottish, and born out of wedlock in the Caribbean. Spiritual, gospel, blues, jazz, and rock 'n' roll music all arose first from African-Americans, and form the basis and origin of virtually all pop music. Bruce Lee, Muhammad Ali, and Pat Morita (Mr. Miyagi) taught us to fight with honor, igniting an American obsession with martial arts. American society would be utterly different and dramatically worse without these champions from their diverse backgrounds.

But to invoke diversity to protect a murderous shooter is offensive and irrational. Regardless of his religion or ethnicity, he's a murderer who is documented to have long held radical anti-American ideas, even supporting attacks against the US military that protected his dangerous advocacy as an American freedom.

It is not freedom to protect that which destroys freedom. It is not diversity to protect that which violently attacks diversity. One who wishes an institution to fail should not be part of that institution; it is no failure of diversity to remove him from it, ideally before he guns down it's internal supporters.

For diversity to endure, tolerance must be denied those who are seeking to destroy it. To support diversity is to see this madman not as a Muslim that must therefore be sacrosanct and protected as a symbolic protection of all Muslims from group discrimination, but as a mad individual who deserves condemnation for his individual crimes. If others pursue his same crimes, let them be punished for their personal actions. If others share his same religion but reject his actions, they are innocent. But if individual Muslims in the military start confusing the extremism with the mainstream, how are they any better than white Americans confusing mainstream American Muslims with Al-Qaeda killers? It's the same vicious confusion, and should be condemned and punished equally regardless of the ethnicity of the confused person.

That's what the strengthening kind of diversity is: equality in judgment, blind to race, creed, or other background. General Casey is rejecting it in favor of special immunity for minorities, a repugnant and intolerable inequality that protects Muslims from the same criticisms to which all other Americans are subject. His use of the word "diversity" is a destructive lie.

In all fairness, the murderous shooter was actually right about one minor thing from back before he went nuts: he argued that Muslims should be able to request and receive conscious objector status and opt out of violent confrontation with other Muslims in the Afghani and Iraqi fronts. German American soldiers were stationed in the Pacific Front in WW2 by the same good reasoning, to protect against brother fighting brother or, worse, our soldiers switching sides. Except then it was a universal requirement and I only advocate the option be available.

Explanations

In case anyone still reads this blog, here's why I hardly ever post anymore: I've been moving. It's been a huge, complicated mess in which I've been attempting to work full time while moving my hideous amounts of stuff through repeated 400 miles trips in a compact car. Red tape from the transfer of my employment has filled up a lot of my spare time, too, but that at least is over now. All in all, it's a huge, convoluted, depressing mess that I haven't much wanted to talk (or think) about and which probably won't be truly straightened out until early December.

I'm hoping to only rent one U-Haul one time for the bigger pieces of furniture that won't fit in the car. I have good reason to travel back and forth a half-dozen times anyway, so it's not hugely inconvenient to use that process to move my stuff. Not more inconvenient than the rest of the unholy mess, anyway.

So now you know.

Obameter #234:5 Days Before Signing Bills

In 2008, Candidate Obama wanted to prevent bills from being rushed through Congress without people reading them (like the US PATRIOT Act), so he promised to allow five days for public comment and debate after Congress passed a bill before he would sign it. That way, everyone would have a chance to air their views and public oversight would rule the day. Why do birds suddenly appear...?

Okay, back in reality, this was a ridiculous and stupid promise to make. Most bills are debated for ridiculously too long in Congress before being passed. Are you really going to risk a precariously, meticulously constructed majority consensus that took months to build on the passing whims of a public tortured by sensationalist news reports and razor-sharp partisanship? Any bills passing faster than a dead snail are "emergency bills" which Obama's promise explicitly made exception for anyway. Even the US PATRIOT Act was touted as an emergency response to the 9/11 WTC bombing and, thus, would have been immune to Obama's promise.

Of course he didn't keep it. He shouldn't keep it. Anyone passingly familiar with politics should have realized it was an untenable, possibly irresponsible goal and no promise should ever have been made.

Unless he never intended to keep it. Then it was a work of evil genius. It makes him sound like a uniter, not a divider. It's the kind of promise that makes him sound like a champion of government transparency with his fingers on the pulse of mundane America. It's the kind of promise that makes him sound like a great moderate leader, aloof of the establishment but in touch with the people, until the inevitable failure to achieve it makes him look hypocritical and manipulative. Which, on this point, Obama clearly was.

In other news, video game programmers have decided that anytime they figure out a cool new technology they're going to post details online and wait five days for other developers to try to copy the new trick before publishing any game that uses it. And Duke Nukem Forever was released to rave reviews. Pre-order today by sending me money!

Obameter #225: Energy Partnership for the Americas

I started to write an explanation why I haven't been posting much lately, but I realized that it was boring and that it would take just as much time as writing a politically interesting post. So forget explanations and on with the politics!

As much as the USA likes to pretend they're alone in the world, there are actually many other nations in the Americas. One of Obama's campaign promises was to pursue a eco-friendly energy plan agreement between many of the nations in our Western Hemisphere, with emphasis on promotion of clean coal, "next generation" biofuels, wind, solar and nuclear energy.

It's a politically astute goal, at least rhetorically, since it unites traditionally left-wing environmental goals and traditionally right-wing financial goals. (I should probably make a reference to the movie Amazing Grace here.) The theory is that the USA will invent all these great environmentally-friendly energy technologies and the rest of the Americas will buy them up. It's green in two senses, environmentalism and profitability. It even bares some similarities to free trade agreements like NAFTA, and I like free trade.

Basically, Obama wants the USA to become the OPEC of green energy. Which is a pretty good ideal, if you think about it. Having dictatorships and tyrants running the world's energy supply has been… awkward in recent history. It heralds back to the early American ideals of prosperity and freedom supporting and improving each other.

But it's a false impression. Governments promoting green energy inherently means one of two things: putting taxpayer money towards research and infrastructure, or crippling traditional energy with regulations to make green energy seem more financially reasonable by comparison. Both are decreases in financial freedom. The Energy Partnership will actually be the rich USA throwing buckets of money into research (admittedly, throwing money at things is one of Obama's strengths) and as much of the hemisphere as possible regulating all other energy until the USA is the core of an artificial green energy industry.

I'm all for the USA having more financial power. Strong economic power has been an American tradition since Hamilton argued for it at the Constitutional Convention. The pursuit of happiness has always inherently allowed for the freedom to pursue prosperity. But harvesting individual prosperity to pay for environmental friendliness in order to pursue economic prosperity? Harming prosperity to pursue prosperity? That clearly contradicts itself. The economic costs and benefits are clearly working against each other, leaving only naked environmentalism.

I'm not going to rehash the Green debate again. It is sufficient to say that environmentalism remains controversial and disputable, and if a diplomatic session between a few heads of state ends up changing the lives of hundreds of millions regardless of their personal views it will be a poisonous dose of authoritarianism.

In the end, the nations of Canada, Mexico, and the United States agreed to cooperate on environmental research and development and to harmonize energy efficiency standards. It's certainly a promise kept. For me and others who see environmentalism pursued only as an excuse for leaders to amass power, it's a fairly benign development. It might even be advantageous for my views to have an international environmental research partnership outside the UN to compare. It is a bad principle was pursued so slightly that perhaps no harm was done. I reckon, then, that I'm only opposed on principle.

Economists on Jeopardy

How'd you do? I knew them all, though I couldn't think of the second one's name until they said it.

Apology and Fringe Politics

Sorry I haven't been posting regularly lately. Work complications (and an increase in mindless recreation to recoup afterward) have been distracting me.

Today isn't a full blog post either. Just a link to an interesting and unusual political view: a defense of insider trading in the stock market.

Storm (Ororo Munroe)

According to Marvel Comics, Storm (Ororo Munroe) was born to an African princess and an African-American journalist. She also has blue eyes and white hair. Why is that?

The obvious answer is "because she looks cool that way." Which she really does.

The comic strip "The Boondocks" criticized the X-Men movie for taking the only black main character and twisting her to match a white concept of beauty with white hair and blue eyes. That might be true, but having Halle Berry ask "Do you know what happens to a toad when it's struck by lightning?" had to be more damaging to the character's credibility.

But is it totally impossible? According to a Sanford geneticist, "African Americans with blue eyes are not unheard of but they are pretty rare." He gives four possible causes of blue eyes in people of African descent: Caucasian ancestors, ocular albinism, Waardenburg syndrome, or (most appropriately) a genetic mutation. Caucasian ancestors would only validate Boondocks' Euro-centrism claim. Ocular albinos tend to have vision problems and Waardenburg sufferers tend to be deaf, not disabilities possessed by Storm. A genetic mutation blocking melatonin in the iris is the best explanation for her blue eyes.

What about her hair? The comics say her Kenyan princess mother also had white hair and blue eyes, as had her ancestors for generations. However, there is absolutely no real-world way for white hair to be a continuously inherited trait. Albinism is not very likely to occur to the children of albinos, not dependably for generation after generation. Also, there's not a common albinism of the hair the way there is of the eyes. The idea of white hair from severe psychological trauma is more Rogue's thing. It's not age; she joins the X-Men in her mid-20s, and she still had white hair all the way back to her early childhood. So, short of dying it for fashion reasons, I've got no good explanation there.

In a world where Lorna Dane can have green hair and Beast and Nightcrawler can have full-body blue fur, I'm not going to begrudge Ororo her snowy locks. Plus it fits great with the weather powers, visually symbolic of clouds and flashing lightning. I say give her mom a regular hair color and make Storm's hair color another effect of the same impossible magic as her mutant power. That's a great explanation for why they match so well stylistically.

The length and straightness of Storm's hair is not impossible for African descent, nor even dramatically uncommon. Many West African tribes consider long, full hair a sign of strength, health, and capability ^[source]. Storm's homeland, Kenya, is in West Africa. Her massive 80's hair-band style actually fits the genetic and cultural reality.

Storm is supposed to be a noble matriarch, the wild power and quiet dignity of Mother Nature personified. As early as her late 20s, she was already a mother-figure to young X-Men (Kitty Pryde, specifically). If anyone goes to make some new movie or TV show with her in it, please reflect that better. The movies didn't show that. In my view, she was never the shallow, token black character until the X-Men movies. Her character deserves better writing.

U.N. & Obama vs. Freedom of Speech

I am religious. More than that, my religion is rather unique as well as relatively new and small, which makes it a popular target for bashing from mainstream religious adherents and the anti-religious alike. It's not fun to be a scapegoat to both sides of a hugely polarizing debate.

But when an Obama-backed U.N. Resolution (which passed unanimously, as are most UN resolutions) calls for "negative racial and religious stereotyping" to be a just exception to freedom of speech on the grounds that it is abusive and incites unrest... that is ridiculously, dangerously wrong. The resolution's Egyptian co-sponsor defended the ruling with the words "freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused," and "the media must . . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner."

Got that, news media? Shutting up is the ethical choice. Don't go criticizing Catholics, Muslims, Adventists, Mormons or Scientologists or you could end up censored or jailed.

By the way, Egypt has no freedom of speech and uses the same court system to rule on religious and secular matters.

The whole point of the freedom of speech is to allow criticisms of any institution or individual without having to prove a rational basis first. That way, corruption can always be identified and defied by articulation and expression. The identification of corrupt philosophies and practices in sacrosanct institutions allowed the Protestant Reformation and the American Revolution, the events which initiated the historic expansion of democratic and human rights -- the rational basis of practical freedom -- across the modern world.

All reform starts with freedom of expression.

Yes, people should be held accountable for their speech. When Newsweek published a false story about Korans being flushed down the toilet in Gitmo, Muslims rioted and people died. They recognized they screwed up, and apologized. Many rational people (I flatter myself by inclusion) decided not to trust Newsweek at face value anytime soon. They suffered for their mistake. Perhaps insufficiently, but at least some measure of justice exists in the world.

Should Newsweek be forcefully disbanded by national and international governments? Should news media generally be censored to prevent further costly mistakes? No. Their stories should be distrusted, but they should be allowed to write whatever they want. Perhaps, from time to time, they will make valid criticisms that need to be made. I supremely distrust the magazine, but they should be allowed the chance to prove me wrong. If they continue to be dependably wrong, their dramatic failures will build up until they discredit themselves entirely and fail financially. That is both probable and just.

(This wasn't the only time I've found Newsweek's stories to be erroneous. Far from it; for a while there, they seemed to be pursuing a campaign of misinformation against my religion. But the Koran thing was the most topic-appropriate example, and less prone to be biased by my personal religious feelings.)

It is preferable to punish people for the results of their words and advocacy, not the content. If a building is burning down and I yell "Fire!", I may initiate emergency actions that can save lives. If I am in a crowded theatre and yell "Fire!", I may initiate a stampede in which people are trampled to death. I may be killer or savior by the same expression. Neither morality nor justice regarding free expression can be determined by the idea expressed; context and consequence determine it.

Obama's successful advocacy of this resolution proves an utter lack of respect for free men. If he thinks accountability is broken, he should be reforming accountability. Instead, he is taking the authoritarian route, throwing out well- and mis-used freedoms together, the baby with the bathwater, in order to improve America's reputation in the Muslim world; a purely political maneuver without even the intent to promote liberty or justice.

It horrifies me that an American leader is so disconnected from the best ideals of the American philosophy.

Obameter #224: $2 bn for Bryne/JAG

Back in 1994, then-President Bill Clinton signed into law an omnibus law enforcement bill that became known as "the Crime Bill" (as if there were no others). It was a major centralizing reform of law enforcement which, among other things, instituted a federal law enforcement grants system wherein states and local level law enforcement agencies can petition the federal government for funding called the Bryne Justice Assistance Grant (one of the few things Wikipedia does not have a page for, by the way).

In his late-term attempts to cut domestic spending, President Bush (hefting his veto-stamp menacingly) convinced Congress to cut the funding of the Bryne/JAG program from $520 million down to $170 million. Democrats generally and Obama specifically were appalled by the cuts, spouting rhetoric about police agencies crippled by the cuts and, as a result, crime running a muck.

Obama promised to refund the program, and fulfilled his pledge with a $2 billion stimulus to Bryne/JAG.

The idea seems to be that anytime law enforcement needs money for a new task force or a new police helicopter or whatever, they dig through some red tape and find Uncle Sam's out-stretched fist full of dollars on the other side.

Now, it makes perfect sense to my right-wing brain that a Republican would be cutting domestic spending and a Democrat would be increasing spending and centralization. But it instantly struck me as bizarre that the law-and-order Republican was cutting law enforcement spending while the same Democrat President that recently declared the de facto decriminalization of medical marijuana at the federal level was restoring funding to the major source of most anti-drug task forces and enforcement programs.

Even stranger, I couldn't find any Republican articles defending the choice. The only article I found that favored cutting JAG funding was from StopTheDrugWar.com. Bush allied with legalize it libertarians... that's just plain strange.

The JAG program limits grant approvals to proposals that fit into one of these distinct areas:

1. Law Enforcement
2. Prosecution & Court
3. Prevention & Education
4. Corrections & Community Corrections
5. Drug Treatment & Enforcement
6. Planning, Evaluation, & Technology
7. Crime Victim & Witness (except compensation)

The amount of funding available for each state (and territory) is calculated by the population and by the violent crime rate in the area. That funding is then split 60/40 - 60% for state-level programs, and 40% for local and tribal law enforcement agencies. (My source uses BlueTube, which is YouTube for cops. Seriously. That actually exists.)

As for the program itself, I don't like the centralization aspect of the program. If two local governments are enforcing dramatically different rules in different precincts and on populations with with different local cultures and habits, why should they get the same funding from the same source? I can see a police station in Nebraska trying to crack down on marijuana use and a station in coastal California trying to keep people from hassling the potheads both using the same funding, and one of them seemingly in contradiction to the administration's position on marijuana use.

There's also the issue that the program dispenses money with little oversight. Isn't that one of the major causes of the financial collapse? It seems pretty stupid to be doing the same thing again when we're not even out of the pit dug by doing it the first time.

I also expect a good deal of that funding to be going to "solutions" to crime of questionable efficacy that I expect to hear from the American left: prisoner rehabilitation, job training programs, community corrections (actually I don't know what that is, but it sounds like it fits), and other plans straight from after school specials. Not every prisoner is Jean Valjean.

But all of these are rather vague impressions, not solid fact-based reasoning. For that, I'm going to have to trust the Office of Budget Statistics: they described the program with the phrase "results not demonstrated." They scored it weak in it's Management (67%) and just terrible in it's Purpose & Design (20%), Strategic Planning (38%), and Results/Accountability (13%). In other words, they find it to be a half-formed idea, badly implemented, mismanaged, unaccountable, and ineffective. If it was that incompetent with half a billion dollars, what is it going to do with two billion?

Still, despite this reasoning, it weirds me out to be ruling with StopTheDrugWar.com and against law enforcement funding. I mean, their overall reasoning is basically sound: don't make overly restrictive laws you can't enforce. But their solutions continue to be "nothing works, so try nothing." Opposing JAG doesn't oppose law enforcement universally, it just opposes a specific, ineffective funding mechanism... right?

This whole issue feels like a setup. It's too weird to be true.

Penguins and Sexuality

Okay, this is just stupid.

I've just become aware that part of the culture war over homosexuality has been waged via penguin stories. Really.

There is a pair of male Chinstrap Penguins (apparently the capitalization is appropriate) at the Central Park Zoo in New York City who were seen trying to hatch a rock together as if it were an egg. Zoo officials gave the penguins, Roy and Silo, an egg from a heterosexual penguin couple to see what they did. They hatched it and raised the chick, a female named Tango.

A children's book ("And Tango Makes Three") was written about the story thus far, but more has happened since then. The author opined that it was a reasonable tool to help parents explain same-sex parents to their children. Backlash against the book from social conservatives resulted in it being the most challenged and banned book in the USA for several years. Apparently, conservatives prefer the heterosexual penguins from "The March of the Penguins."

The penguins, of course, lived on after the book was written. Tango grew up and stayed with another female penguin ("Tanuzi") for two mating seasons. Roy and Silo broke up after six mating seasons when Silo seemingly left Roy for a female penguin from San Diego's Sea World named Scrappy. There are 4 other homosexual couples among the zoo's 65 Chinstrap Penguins.

Liberal lessons from these events:

• Homosexuality is natural, since animals do it.
• Homosexuals can have stable, long-term relationships (6 years out of a 20-year lifespan).
• Homosexuals can raise infants to adulthood.
• Without social stigma, about 13% of the population is gay.

Conservative lessons from these events:

• Young raised by homosexuals turn out homosexual.
• Homosexuality requires irrationality: rocks aren't eggs.
• Homosexuals eventually turn straight or go celibate.
• The Beach Boys were right about California girls.

But the most important lesson of all is this crap is stupid. The behavior of penguins proves absolutely nothing about the ideal behavior of humans, and only tells us what we already know about actual human behavior, except badly generalized and subjectivized.

Fine, it's entertaining water-cooler conversation. But when it starts getting op/ed space in the New York Times and people start advocating for the book to be banned from public libraries then people are taking this gibberish way too seriously.

(On another note, speaking as a social conservative, don't ban the stupid book. Just don't read it. Yeah, it irritates me, too. But freedom of speech should win, even if the speech is irritating.)

Obameter #222: Open Cuba

Since the 1959 Communist Revolution in Cuba, it has been a thorn in America's side. It was the only US territory to be lost to Communism in the time of the Cold War, and the site of the Cuban Missile Crisis (the closest the world has ever come to global nuclear war). It is awash with human rights violations, including harsh penalties for opposition to the Castro government, extreme censorship of media and the press, and alleged "re-education camps" where forced labor and torture are performed on such groups as homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, conscientious objectors, and political dissidents. Travel within the nation and emigration to other nations are both prohibited barring special approval by the government.

It was to encourage democracy and human rights, and perhaps to "break" the Castro regime, that the United States established a complete trade embargo on Cuba - if you want to trade with Cuba, you cannot trade with the United States or any company based therein. Most people choose to trade with the $12.5 trillion behemoth economy rather than $46 billion speck on the map.

However, signs from Cuba show subtle reforms: gays are no longer openly penalized for their sexuality, religious meetings can now be held openly and freely, and health care and education are doing very well. Many in human rights organizations and the UN now see the embargo as part of the problem. Maybe things are worse precisely because of the sanctions imposed by the USA.

In this political atmosphere, President Obama has fulfilled his promise to open Cuba to travel and remittances from Cuban Americans. People can visit their families and send them money, even bring them cell phones, satellite radios, and televisions as gifts. Broadcasters can extend their services to Cuban shores. US sanctions on these things have been lifted.

Will the lifting of these restrictions send the message of democracy, freedom, and prosperity to the Cuban people, thus undermining or reforming the Cuban regime? Or will it be the sanctions and embargo that is undermined, thus empowering the oppressive Castro government?

Honestly, I can't begin to guess. The complexity of the problem is beyond me. All I see are families separated by an ocean and two governments, and Obama moving one of those governments out of the way. Family is sacrosanct. All else is just hope or fear.

Obama has my support on this one. He also has the support of most Cuban-Americans, who largely favor visitation rights but oppose an end to the embargo and are largely Republican voters. Smart political strategy as well as support for families.