Archive for May, 2009

No Such Thing As Good News On Climate Change

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

By Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R.

A meltdown of West Antarctica’s ice sheet would raise sea levels by half the amount originally projected, according to a study in the journal Science. Reuters says:

A collapse of the ice sheet, viewed by scientists as more vulnerable than Greenland or East Antarctica because of global warming, would push up world sea levels by 3.3 metres (11 ft) over hundreds of years rather than 5-6 as long estimated.

That would seem to be unambiguously good news, but there is no good news in global warming science. Even what’s supposedly good will be made to seem bad by most reporters. Time’s Jeffrey Kluger has an especially dishonest article about the “slightly rosier” forecast that somehow concluded that an agreement to stop the melting was even more urgent than before.

This is the kind of negative-value journalism that belies the MSM’s constant squawking about its value to society.

DISCLAIMER: As with everything I write here, this does not necessarily reflect the opinion of my employer, the North County Times.

Cal 40eeeez

Wednesday, May 13th, 2009

UPDATE: The business end of a Cal 40 looks like this:

The Cal 40 revolutionized ocean racing when it appeared in 1963. It was fiberglass, for one thing. For another, it was cheap by racing sailboat standards. William Snaith, famous and colorful ocean racer from the 1960s, once described ocean racing as being like a man standing in a cold shower tearing up thousand dollar bills. The Cal 40 was eventually retired from racing by the simple action of changing the rules. The IOR rule (International Offshore Rule) came in 1972 and penalized the hull shape of the Cal 40. In addition, the new rule set out standards for construction that would lead to a disaster in the 1979 Fastnet Race, where boats were lost and men’s lives were lost because many of the smaller, newer race boats were not seaworthy in extreme conditions. Here is a better link for that story. Olin Stephens, one of the authors of the rule, later wrote that they had erred in the rule’s factors for scantlings, meaning the hull construction.

Eventually, the Cal 40 came back and Stephens, at the age of 99, had the privilege (I’m not sure he considered it as such but he was a gentleman) of presenting a trophy named in his honor to a Cal 40 that had won the Bermuda Race twice in a row in 2006 and 2008.

The first winner of the Olin J. Stephens Ocean Racing Trophy was Peter S. Rebovich Sr. from Metuchen, N.J., and the Raritan Yacht Club. After winning a St. David’s Lighthouse Trophy in his Cal 40 Sinn Fein in the 2006 Newport Bermuda Race, Rebovich heard about the Stephens Trophy and entered his first Marblehead to Halifax Ocean Race. His third-place finish in the race’s ORR Division in 2007 won him the trophy. Olin Stephens himself made the presentation at Halifax. When Rebovich, in his seventies, came up to the podium to accept his prize, the 99-year-old Stephens joked, “It’s good to see an old guy like me still sailing and winning.” A year later, Rebovich won his second St. David’s Lighthouse Trophy in the 2008 Newport Bermuda Race and was again presented with the Stephens Trophy at the award ceremony in Bermuda.

Now, the indefatigable Timm Lessley has provided us with more Cal 40 action.

I wish I could be there.

Peggy Noonan Beclowns Herself On Web Journalism

Sunday, May 10th, 2009

By Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R.

Bloggers talk about things they know nothing about, mistaking opinion for fact. Oh wait . . . the know-nothing comments came from print journalism veteran Peggy Noonan, and they were about Web journalism.

Noonan and Arianna Huffington sparred on MSNBC about new media. Huffington pointed out that new Web outfits like her own, and regional ones like Voice of San Diego and MinnPost are performing a lot of good journalism.

Voice of San Diego came off looking pretty good in the exchange, and can be pardoned for posting a videolink to Noonan’s comeuppance.

(more…)

War is coming

Saturday, May 9th, 2009

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Here is David Pryce-Jones opinion on the coming meeting between Obama and Netanyahu.

UPDATE #2: The London Times tomorrow will have this story, with the same theme as below.

The critical juncture will be what comes out of the Obama-Netanyahu meeting. If there is procrastination by Israel on the two-state solution or there is no clear American vision for how this is going to play out in 2009, then all the tremendous credibility that Obama has worldwide and in this region will evaporate overnight if nothing comes out in May. All eyes will be looking to Washington in May. If there are no clear signals and no clear directives to all of us, then there will be a feeling that this is just another American government that is going to let us all down.

UPDATE: The NY Times dutifully regurgitates the Obama line on Israel. Israel is building parks in East Jerusalem, an action viewed as enhancing their ownership of the city.

Everything Israel does now will be highly contentious,” said Robert H. Serry, the United Nations special Middle East coordinator, on a recent tour of East Jerusalem. He warned the Israeli authorities “not to take actions that could pour oil on the fire.”

The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says, however, that it will push ahead. Interior Minister Eli Yishai said last week of the activity in one core area: “I intend to act on this issue with full strength. This is the land of our sovereignty. Jewish settlement there is our right.”

As part of the plan, garbage dumps and wastelands are being cleared and turned into lush gardens and parks, now already accessible to visitors who can walk along new footpaths and take in the majestic views, along with new signs and displays that point out significant points of Jewish history.

The parts of the city that are being developed were captured in the 1967 Middle East war, but their annexation by Israel was never recognized abroad.

The fact that the holiest site in all of Judaism is included was not mentioned in the article.

Israeli officials point out that when East Jerusalem was in Jordanian hands from 1949 to 1967, dozens of synagogues in the Jewish Quarter were destroyed, Jewish graves were desecrated and Jewish authorities were largely denied access to the Western Wall or other shrines. By contrast, in Jerusalem today Muslim and Christian authorities administer their holy sites in a complex power arrangement under Israeli control.

This doesn’t matter to Obama. He has his own agenda; making friends with Islam. The Palestinians even deny that Jews ever lived there.

At the same time, the Web site of Al Quds University, one of the most important Palestinian institutions, states that the Western Wall, the remnant of the Jewish temple destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70, was probably built by the Romans because the temple could not have stood there.

There is no scholarly dispute about whether the temple stood beneath what is today the Aksa Mosque compound.

These are the people Obama is trying to make friends with. Israel stands in his way.

The Obama administration is taking steps that, if carried through, will lead to a Middle east war within two years. He has been on an apology tour of Europe and is now planning more “outreach” to the Islamic world. No doubt this will be an attempt to depict the US as a cuddly, friendly little cub that no one would fear or distrust. Unfortunately, cuddly, friendly cubs get eaten unless there is a mother bear nearby. We have been that mother bear for the past 64 years but Obama seems determined to end that. His target is Israel.

His administration is planning to present Israel with a fait accompli with regard to the Palestinians.

Using the annual AIPAC conference as a backdrop, this week the Obama administration launched its harshest onslaught against Israel to date. It began with media reports that National Security Adviser James Jones told a European foreign minister that the US is planning to build an anti-Israel coalition with the Arabs and Europe to compel Israel to surrender Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to the Palestinians.

According to Haaretz, Jones was quoted in a classified foreign ministry cable as having told his European interlocutor, “The new administration will convince Israel to compromise on the Palestinian question. We will not push Israel under the wheels of a bus, but we will be more forceful toward Israel than we have been under Bush.”

He then explained that the US, the EU and the moderate Arab states must determine together what “a satisfactory endgame solution,” will be.

As far as Jones is concerned, Israel should be left out of those discussions and simply presented with a fait accompli that it will be compelled to accept.

I think Bibi Netanyahu knows enough history to recall Czechoslovakia in 1938. I wonder if Obama does ?

As far as the Obama administration is concerned, Israel is the only obstacle to peace.

To make certain that Israel understands this central point, Vice President Joseph Biden used his appearance at the AIPAC conference to drive it home. As Biden made clear, the US doesn’t respect or support Israel’s right as a sovereign state to determine its own policies for securing its national interests. In Biden’s words, “Israel has to work toward a two-state solution. You’re not going to like my saying this, but not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts and allow the Palestinians freedom of movement.”

What Obama may not understand is that the Jews will not be complicit in another Holocaust, no matter his convenience and his desire to accommodate Muslims.

As Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel made clear in his closed-door briefing to senior AIPAC officials this week, the administration is holding Israel indirectly responsible for Iran’s nuclear program. It does this by claiming that Israel’s refusal to cede its land to the Palestinians is making it impossible for the Arab world to support preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Does anyone else remember Chamberlain’s words ?

Speaking over British radio, in words that again ring
familiar, Chamberlain called the Czech issue “a quarrel in a
faraway country between people of whom we know nothing
,” and
observed that “however much we may sympathize with a small nation
confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all
circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in
war simply on her account. If we have to fight, it must be on
larger issues than that. … War is a fearful thing.”

I would suggest that Obama consider the consequences of convincing Israel that they are alone, or worse, that we sympathize with their enemies. For the consequences, you might read this report by Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

he expects, writes Martin Walker of United Press International,

some 16 million to 28 million Iranians dead within 21 days, and between 200,000 and 800,000 Israelis dead within the same time frame. The total of deaths beyond 21 days could rise very much higher, depending on civil defense and public health facilities, where Israel has a major advantage.

It is theoretically possible that the Israeli state, economy and organized society might just survive such an almost-mortal blow. Iran would not survive as an organized society. “Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of the term,” Cordesman notes. The difference in the death tolls is largely because Israel is believed to have more nuclear weapons of very much higher yield (some of 1 megaton), and Israel is deploying the Arrow advanced anti-missile system in addition to its Patriot batteries. Fewer Iranian weapons would get through.

The report also points out that Israel, backed into a corner, would most likely strike at its other potential enemies, including hostile Arab states. The fallout would probably mean the end of the Age of Petroleum, since the oil fields in the Middle East would be unusable for decades.

I don’t think Obama is equipped to make these judgements. He is starting down a very dangerous road with no evidence that he understands the risks. Neither did Chamberlain.

The culture war

Wednesday, May 6th, 2009

The past eight years has seen the growth of a culture war between traditional values, like marriage and religious belief, and cultural attitudes toward gay rights, gay marriage and the environment. Some of these differences have become heated, such as animosity toward religious believers by gay marriage advocates. Another set of values that is under attack could be called “fiscal prudence” or “The Protestant Ethic.” We work and save and get an education and eventually we own something like a house and a car and some money in the bank. Recently the latter value system has come under attack by a political party that believes in “spreading the money around.” When I was a child, there was a nursery story called “The Three Little Pigs” which emphasized the point that the prudent person is safest in the long run.

Of course, John Maynard Keynes dismissed this idea by pointing out that In the long run we are all dead.

The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.

We can see that our present leadership is firmly of the belief that short term plans are best because who knows what the future brings ? What we see right now is a war on capitlalism and saving and investing.

There is a major cultural schism developing in America. But it’s not over abortion, same-sex marriage or home schooling, as important as these issues are. The new divide centers on free enterprise — the principle at the core of American culture.

Despite President Barack Obama’s early personal popularity, we can see the beginnings of this schism in the “tea parties” that have sprung up around the country. In these grass-roots protests, hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans have joined together to make public their opposition to government deficits, unaccountable bureaucratic power, and a sense that the government is too willing to prop up those who engaged in corporate malfeasance and mortgage fraud.

The data support the protesters’ concerns. In a publication with the ironic title, “A New Era of Responsibility,” the president’s budget office reveals average deficits of 4.7% in the five years after this recession is over. The Congressional Budget Office predicts $9.3 trillion in new debt over the coming decade.

The US educational system has been busy re-educating the youth about capitalism and the free market.

Just 35% of American voters believe that a free market economy is the same as a capitalist economy. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 38% disagree and 27% are not sure.
This helps explain earlier data showing that 77% prefer a free market economy over a government managed economy while just 53% prefer capitalism over socialism.

That is surprising since I don’t know how a free market operates in any but a capitalist system. I expect that this is a consequence of Marxist professors teaching college students that capitalism, a word coined by Marx, is bad. They aren’t completely stupid, though, because they don’t think the government can run the auto companies. Only 18% expect Obama to do a good job with them. I guess that’s his base. Democrats, as expected, are clueless.

However, two-thirds of Democrats (67%) say it is at least somewhat likely that Chrysler and GM will become profitable again under union and government ownership, a view shared by just 34% of Republicans and 33% of unaffiliated adults.

What is going on ? We are seeing the Chicago Way in action as the Obama people threaten those, like the Chrysler secured creditors, who would like the law to apply instead of Obama “spread it around” favoritism. Megan McArdle, who voted for Obama, has reservations but a little late. We could have told her.

This is troubling, because it’s now clear that the worry many of us had at the time of the bank bailouts has come true: the government is using its intervention in the banking system to pressure banks to give special deals to the government’s special friends.

(The government is apparently still taking the line that they are only intervening because the automakers are splendid, robust companies that got caught in a “perfect storm”. If so, Chrysler must be stuck in the Bermuda Triangle, because owners have been playing “hot potato” with its dying brands for most of the last decade.)

Countries that use their banking systems this way don’t get good results. If you’re a fairly uncorrupt developed country, you get slower growth and bloated “critical” sectors that are usually more critical in providing campaign support, lavishly remunerated make-work jobs, and photo ops, than any products the public actually wants. Then, if something like Japan happens, you have a twenty-year “lost decade” while everyone pretends as hard as hard can be that everything is all right, in the sincere but misguided believe that wishing hard enough will make it so.

If you are a badly managed country, you end up like much of Latin America or Africa, with a dysfunctional economy that booms only along with the price of some commodity you happen to produce.

We are hardly Zimbabwe, or even Venezuela. But if we keep using TARP to create a sort of “Most Favored Borrower” status, we’ll erode the safeguards that keep election to office in America from being the kind of giant spoils system that’s common in much of the world. What the bankruptcy judge did was entirely right and proper–it’s his job to allocate losses among creditors. And it’s always true that some of the credtiors won’t like the deal they get. On the other hand, what the administration did really wasn’t. It got its pet majority stakeholders to screw both their own shareholders, and the other creditors, in order to give a powerful union a sweetheart deal.

Imagine even having to say that “We are not Zimbabwe” under the last president.

This will not end well.

Linux Mint And Israel Update

Tuesday, May 5th, 2009

By Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R.

UPDATE: Time moves quickly in the blogosphere. A few minutes after posting the question about whether Linux Mint accepts support from those who disagree with the developer’s view’s on Israel, I got a response I view as satisfactory. It separates the developer’s personal  views on Israel with his professional views on Linux Mint.

As far as I’m concerned, the matter is closed. I encourage Israel sympathizers and everyone else to check out Linux Mint, a great Linux distro. (Of course, I’d like to hear updates from other pro-Israeli folks if that official policy is adhered to or not — just to be sure).

(more…)

Support Israel’s Government? Linux Mint Developer Says Go Away

Sunday, May 3rd, 2009

Note: Updated with original post retrieved from Google cache, I’ve amended my lede to reflect the statement that support from Israel, as well as those who support the Israeli government, is being rejected.

By Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R.

Clement Lefebvre, the lead developer of Linux Mint, a variant of Ubuntu, doesn’t want support from Israel or of those who back the Israeli government.

Lefebvre said so on the official blog of Linux Mint this weekend. That message was removed, but I found it in Google cache (emphasis mine):

This is not the place to talk about this but I am deeply touched by what is happening over there. I feel disgust and guilt with us passively witnessing it and our money and weapons supporting it. I don’t want to use my name or this project to push my own ideas about this but I spend a lot of time working and giving away, sharing and receiving to and from a lot of people.

I’m only going to ask for one thing here. If you do not agree I kindly ask you not to use Linux Mint and not to donate money to it.

I hope for these people to be able to live decently in the future and for me not to have anything to do with the misery they’re in at the moment.

I promise not to talk about this anymore. I don’t want any money or help coming from Israel or people who support the action of their current government.

Thank you for your understanding. This is very important to me.

(more…)

The AP Is Fourniercated

Saturday, May 2nd, 2009

By Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R.

“WASHINGTON – Former Vice President Al Gore, the leading American voice on climate change . . .”

That’s not an opinion! That’s just a fact, according to this lede to an Associated Press story slobbering over Al Gore.

Of course, it’s ridiculous. By virtue of his political position, Gore may be one of the loudest voices on climate change, but leading? Gore didn’t perform any research on global warming. He’s a politician, not a scientist. All Gore can do is give you his interpretation of what scientists believe, which is hardly a position of leadership. Never mind, the AP has given him the title regardless.

That is one example of the degraded state of news reporting brought to you by Ron Fournier, who wants desperately to be more important than he is. The veteran AP staffer, now political editor, as The Politico says, thinks editorializing and opinionating in what are ostensibly straight news stories will make the old wire service more popular with today’s busy readers, who will happily let AP do their thinking for them.

(more…)