AP and Anne Flaherty are traitorous

The Article

NATO forces in June will make a long-planned assault on the Taliban's spiritual home in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, a senior military official said Monday. [...]

The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly on the operation, discussed the operation on condition of anonymity.

Until the start of major military operations, U.S. troops are working on securing transit routes and persuading the leaders of districts surrounding Kandahar to cooperate with NATO forces.

WTF?

Who needs a spy when one can simply read what the AP publishes? The AP, the "journalist" Anne Flaherty, and whoever leaked the operation should be thrown in jail right now! Start throwing these traitors in jail, NOW, and maybe not as many will follow in their footsteps.

If the military is just using the AP as their bitch for whatever reason, then that strategy is going to have to be revised when we start throwing traitors in jail.

If this is not investigated, if nothing is done by the FBI or other law enforcement agencies, if someone isn't doing some sort of time behind bars for this, then our system of law in this country is messed up. Breaking a law is breaking a law, the motorist is at least pulled over before given a warning, if not a ticket. Pull the AP over, give them a warning or a ticket, I don't care, but pull them over and let them know that what they did is wrong. Same thing for the informant, get his identity, and pull his ass over.

Texas and the EPA

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.  The Environmental Protection Agency.  You'd think that with same goals in mind, that there would be a good partnership between the two.  But no.

Politics.  Obama, Democrat, Federal.  Perry, Republican, State.  Obama picks the head of EPA, who picks the head of the regional EPA offices.  Perry picks who sits on the commission.

So, we have two political entities clashing over what's best for Texas.  Right now, the EPA says the way Texas is doing things is wrong.  Texas says it's right, and that it's working, and here's the proof.  And yes, the TCEQ can back up what they say rather convincingly.

So why does the EPA continue?  They can read and understand the numbers, that air quality is definitely improving in Texas despite having great growth.  Maybe... just maybe, and I'm totally guessing and haven't read anything on this, but maybe it's because the environment has been a democratic cause.  Gore has been going on about anthropogenic global warming of course, but "the environment" is one of those things that democrats have been putting on the platform.  So, it must be a little disconcerting to them that a Republican state, with a Republican leader for the last, what, 14 years I think, has been successful at improving air quality.

With Texas, the Democratic Party loses leverage on the issue.  So, maybe they're thinking they'll take control over how it's done, while air quality continues to improve, and can take credit by the time Obama runs for re-election.

Thing is, Obama is looking to be a one-term president.  I think people are waking up from whatever hope they thought they were voting for, and realizing that this guy is no Reagan.  I'm sure this isn't lost on Perry or the TCEQ, and they only need wait this out until the next election.  For Texas, I hope they're right, and it's really going to depend on what Republican runs against Obama.  I kinda hope Perry goes for it, but we may be too close on the heels of Bush.  Though Obama right now is looking to be about on par as Bush.

But who's really right?

Let's look at the respective heads.  For TCEQ, you have three commissioners, two seem to be very knowledgeable scientists, and one is not so scientific but was an aide to Perry, apparently.  Two out of three ain't bad.

For EPA, you have Al Armendariz.  He's an academic type, got his PhD in 2002.  He's originally from El Paso, so maybe the whole ASARCO mess there helped form his opinions on TCEQ.  So, making him the head of the EPA region is interesting to say the least.  It will be a new environment for him, he's mainly been in school his whole life, and has only been advocating and providing testimony against air polluters while they get their permits.  It'll be interesting to see him transform himself into the role, and will be interesting to see if he reverts after he leaves the EPA, which he will in due time.

So, of the two groups, who's right?  I think bias evens out between the two.  So, let's go with practical experience, and let's go with actual data.  TCEQ wins. Period.  Al Armendariz is simply unproven.  I don't care how much you've bitched and complained about Texas' air quality or the TCEQ, that does not make you qualified to be a regional head, and so I call Al Armendariz a puppet.

One of the things Al Armendariz's appointment was to signal is EPA's determination to bring Texas in line... flexing muscle, if you will.  The muscle is EPA takeover of Texas air programs.  Can they do that?  Well, yes, if Texas isn't meeting a federal minimum under the Clean Air Act (CAA).  And that's a question EPA would be hard pressed to show, given the success Texas has had.  That doesn't mean that EPA can't or won't, but it's a definite hurdle.

Here's another hurdle if the EPA decided to take over... they'd have to take over.  And that, is a huge hurdle.  Would their process be as successful as the current one?  Where have they had a successful program before?  In a 5 minute (if that long) Google search, I couldn't find anything.  I saw groups asking the EPA to take over a couple of state air programs, Texas was one, but nothing indicating a takeover or their successful implementation.  I could be wrong, I didn't spend much time looking after all, but I'm inclined to believe that EPA doesn't have the budget to do it alone.

Sure, if they took over then money ordinarily given to Texas to help implement the CAA could be used to help them start up their program.  But, that's not enough money.  They'd require more, for sure, without doubt.  Why?  Because federal workers, recently coming out in the news, make more money that private sector counterparts.  And I know state workers make less than the private sector.  So yeah, it'll be really expensive for them to do that.  Of course, if you can paint it as economic stimulus...

Nah, not going to happen.  This is all posturing, I go back to the initial observation that this is the Democrats vs. the GOP.  It's not a battle that EPA even wants to win, really.  If they were to win, they'd lose, definitely.  No, if they're smart, they won't even show up at the battlefield.  The only way they would is if Obama says something like, "Screw the economy, let's just try to win something."  Healthcare, dead.  Economy, "too big to fail" has the people pissed.  The only bright spot may be the war, the one post he kept a Bush appointee.

So, yeah, unless things get a lot, and I mean a LOT, brighter for Obama, EPA takeover of Texas' air program would not be stupid, but whacky crazy stupid.  That dog won't hunt.

Texas, the projected winner.

Houston Chronicle Editorial on Global Warming

On global warming, the science is solid

This was submitted by various professors from various universities here in Texas.

And, oh yeah, they fail.

I think the reason is because of a basic failure of following the scientific method. Instead of having scientists following the scientific method, they're making opinions, and just doing things wrong. You may have an informed opinion, and that's fine, we can deal with that and discuss your opinion, but don't even try to imply that something is proven based on your OPINION.

• • Heat-trapping gases are very likely responsible for most of the warming observed over the past half century. (emphasis added)

So sorry, but "likely" is not "solid science."

But despite years of intensive observations of the Earth system, no one has been able to propose a credible alternative mechanism that can explain the present-day warming without heat-trapping gases produced by human activities.

Really? So I can be the first? Ok, here it goes, it's called...

Destruction of the rain forests.

Wow, can't believe I'm the first, I thought everyone knew. And it's totally credible too because... well, it's been well studied and everyone knows... well, I guess except the professors who submitted the article anyway.

Solid? Definitely. Just try to refute that if one destroys something that "filters" CO2, then you can expect more CO2. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Overall human capacity to destroy a forest is much faster than industrialized countries capacity to emit. Not only do the forests get devastated each year by getting cut down, there's also the burning that follows, enough from Mexico alone to cause health alerts here in Texas. But maybe the professors who wrote the article haven't been paying attention.

So anyway, we've been hearing for years about the devastating effects that cutting down the rain forests would have. Now that they're finally being realized, the blame is being switched to burning fossil fuels and other emissions.

I suppose that the fight to save the rain forest is gone, and so the fight is on to simply not produce as much CO2. Good luck with that, you know, not breathing and all.

Carillo's Curse

The Elefante in the Room Texas Tribune)

The article pretty much tells a complete story. We (Texas) had a primary election the other day, and a guy lost. Big deal right?

Well, for me, it was pretty shocking, though it shouldn't have been since I will go ahead and maintain that most people are stupid. We had a simple choice between two candidates running for Railroad Commissioner. One named Carrillo, one named Porter.

Carrillo has a ton of experience as a Railroad Commissioner, worked in the oil and gas industry, and was a judge. Porter is an accountant with ties to the oil and gas industry.

Let me say here that I'm only stating what I found prior to my voting, and I know that experience does necessarily translate into knowledge. That said, from what I could find, Carrillo seemed like a shoe-in, the obvious choice to anyone who took 5 minutes to look at both web sites and find their qualifications.

Porter won... he didn't just win, he decimated Carrillo. People overwhelmingly voted for Porter.

Why?

Carrillo plays the race card, saying it was his surname. Porter says he just rode an anti-incumbent wave.

On my ballot, they didn't show which person was an incumbent. I've seen it before where the put the (I) in there, but it wasn't on my ballot this time. So for people to know, at least in my county, who the incumbent was, they'd have to do the research, which would have also told them Carrillo was far more qualified. So, I don't buy the anti-incumbent argument for that reason, and because there simply wasn't an "anti-incumbent" attitude to begin with, it was "anti-washington" and "anti-too-big-to-fail" and "anti-bailout-for-big-businesses" and "anti-throwing-money-all-over-the-place-that-further-puts-us-in-debt-to-China."

So, maybe Carrillo is right. It sort of sticks out there as an obvious excuse. An "anti-mexican" or "anti-ethnic-other-than-white" attitude among the voters. Well, I'm white, and I certainly didn't vote for Porter. So, I'm inclined that although this argument is probably true to a degree, the real problem is ignorance.

If people had been informed of the difference in qualifications between the two, Carrillo would have won. End of story. For sure. There simply isn't an overriding "anti-whatever" that would make people put in Porter over Carrillo. They simply didn't know, the majority of them are white, so they picked the name that they thought would better represent their interests.

So, who's fault is it? Yes, we need to point the finger.

The typical Texas Republican Primary voter is predictable. They're white. They're not going do any research before they vote. They overwhelmingly watch TV. They'd rather watch TV than read junk mail or flyers. Me included, I hate junk mail and flyers. Newspapers are an endangered species thanks to TV and, more so, the internet. Let's stick to those.

Porter didn't have any money really, so let's not even go there. Let's stick with Carrillo who had over $600k to spend.

So, knowing his basic audience, or at least he should have known, Carrillo didn't advertise on TV at all. At least I never saw one. And the article seems to indicate he didn't buy TV time. And that simply is why he lost.

But wait, why didn't he buy TV time? I'm thinking that maybe after years of being in the Railroad Commission, he thought people would know him by now. Maybe he knew all the above but figured he simply wouldn't need to go all out to beat a "no name." To be fair, I would have thought the same if I were in his shoes.

It's a hard pill to swallow. I feel for Carrillo. He underestimated the ignorance of his audience. But in Texas, apparently a third of us believe man lived contemporaneously with dinosaurs. Yep.

So, the finger has to be pointed at Carrillo for actually thinking that he was dealing with, at least minimally, informed voters. He thought wrong, he was dealing overwhelmingly ignorant voters. He should have bought TV time especially if he knew from prior elections that his name was detrimental.

So, even though I feel bad for him, I blame him. And it's a little cheap to say you know your name is a hindrance when people don't know the candidates, and that it cost you the election... without ever trying to overcome it. If you know how bad your name is plays to an ignorant audience, then why didn't you buy the TV time? That's pretty ignorant on YOUR part, Carrillo. You can't just sit back and say, "If I lose, it's because of my ethnicity since [blah blah blah]." On one had you say you realize the realities, but then you don't act accordingly to win. You lose and blame the realities, but it's because you didn't act on them that you lost. That makes it your fault that you lost.

Sure, it'd be nice to win without having to campaign much. To be so popular, and all that. Sure. But you weren't in that position. You apparently acted like it, but you weren't.

Yeah, I'm disappointed and shocked by this. But it was preventable. Carrillo should have won since he was the better candidate. Period.

But, God works in strange and mysterious ways. Maybe Porter is God's choice. It happens. Maybe Carrillo fell out of favor. Maybe the water in Texas predisposes Republicans to vote for names beginning in P. Who knows. (By the way, I'm an independent that voted in the Republican primary, primarily because of Perry v. KBH)

Al Gore's AGW

Gore's Op-Ed from NYTimes.com

"It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of debris-covered glaciers in the Himalayas, and used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate. In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law."

---
Right. Well, partly right. And the part that's missing is most significant. The email messages not only showed that public information was not being released, but, more importantly, that there was considerable bias by the scientists conducting what should be an unbiased, objective report on whether human activity is responsible for global warming. It also fails to mention the now-emerging topic that most of the monitoring stations have problems, mainly with their location being biased to show higher temperature due to their proximity to heat-emitting features such as roadways, buildings, exhaust, etc. And the whole bad math problem... not calculating an average correctly (/boggle).  Yeah, there were problems, but more than just what he decided to include.

What Gore should have done was distance himself from the IPCC report and the people who produced it. It's a disaster that is happening in front of our eyes, a train wreck in slow motion. What Gore should have done is say something like, "Hey, it looks like this report should be tossed in the trash and that we need a massive effort to get the best data possible so that we, as humans, can proceed in an intelligent manner." Because right now, to proceed to act on a report where they can't even get basic facts straight, is lunacy.

Yes, forget about anthropogenic global warming for now, because not only were biased scientists running the show, but, most importantly, the data simply is not reliable. Yet, despite this, Gore wants us to keep going... what, on faith? Faith the he's right? Faith that a report based on bad data, and stupid errors is ultimately right? WTF?

No no no no no. Sorry, I'll have none of that. I'm all for the environment, and I'm all for tough laws or whatever if anthropogenic global warming is convincingly proven. However, I'm not about to start getting on that bandwagon based on the shit, and that's probably being nice, provided thus far.

I understand about being passionate about a cause. But when you go about it in a reckless way and ostensibly deceive people, you're going to lose the fight, no matter if you were ultimately correct. That's my concern. I'm concerned that if this issue continues to be mismanaged, if Gore continues to try and push an undoubtedly flawed report down people's throats, that the issue will be forever lost. We need to know, without doubt. The effort should be a human one, not a political one or a personality one. We simply need reliable data, make it public, and do the math correctly.

First things first. Get the data. Place monitors in areas at least 100 feet away from any bias source. As part of the monitoring, a gps of the station's location should also be sent (China had a problem with undocumented movement of stations). That, and any other sampling protocol needs to be followed, calibrations documented, etc.

Until we get usable data, forget the rest because it's just guessing.

Looters

 

Are these looters?

You could say they're praising God, hands uplifted and all, but no, they're not.  They're getting things from a supermarket after a massive earthquake... looks like maybe toilet paper or something.  They're not happy, they're concerned, they're pretty desperate.

They're not trying to get a new TV.  You don't see them with new stereo equipment, or trying to get anything other than what's at a local, and likely closed/devastated supermarket.

A looter isn't someone who is simply trying to survive after a massively destructive or catastrophic event, it's someone taking advantage of the event for personal gain beyond trying to adapt or cope with the event.  So, calling these people looters is absurd.  Put yourself in their shoes.

Out of nowhere, an earthquake changes everything.  You suddenly find yourself needing things like, batteries, water, more toilet paper... etc. so you go to the supermarket.  Unfortunately, most businesses are closed since most people are trying to cope with the new reality.  But, you can't wait, you need food, you need to survive, people depend on you.  And the supermarket is closed and is in sad shape itself, broken windows, items all over the place... not likely to open anytime soon, and neither is any other supermarket.  You have the money, you'd be willing to pay, but there's nobody to take your money.  And if you leave the money there, you know someone will just take it.

So yeah, of course you take what you need.  Maybe you can leave a note saying what you took and that you'll pay for it when they're up and running again.  Or maybe you don't leave a note, but will tell them when you next see them after they're up an running again.  Provided, of course, that you live, which is why you're there in the first place.

No, these people are not looters.  That's simply ridiculous and it's shameful how quickly reporters are to label these people as such.  Looters are people that do things after the OJ verdict.  They were smashing into businesses and taking electronic goods, beer, etc.  Taking advantage of a situation that got out of control for personal excess. 

I'll never forget the prime example of what a looter is, from a helicopter camera during the post-OJ verdict debacle, the video of a black guy in tattered clothing lugging a big, brand new TV, and then the image of a bunch of black people breaking an electronic store's windows and then masses of them going in and taking anything they could get their grubby hands on.  Convenience store owners having to take the law into their own hands to prevent from losing everything in their store, firing their guns to let the would-be looters at bay.  THAT, was looting.

These people I've been seeing called looters in Chile, are nothing of the sort.  I'm sure there may be some looting going on, but it makes me sick to see desperate people trying to survive being called looters, especially when compared to actual looters.