November 29th, 2012

#3696: The limits of science never stop 'em.

Arse Technica. *sigh*

But we need dark matter to explain how galaxies stay together because there's no possible other explanation. That should be appended to the headline and lede of that article: "Astronomers puzzled over huge black hole in the middle of small galaxy--Violates established relationship between black holes, galactic bulges masses."

And then, in the same vein, "the global warming resource" pipes up with this: "How sensitive is the climate to added CO2?--65 million years of Earth's history suggest we're in uncharted territory."
More disturbingly, however, they calculate that we can go back to roughly when the dinosaurs died off and not see another period like the present: "Present-day atmospheric GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations and the radiative perturbation due to anthropogenic emissions increase much faster than observed for any natural process within the Cenozoic era." We really do seem to be into uncharted territory here.
Apparently, because some of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made, it doesn't act like CO2 from natural sources--do I understand that correctly?

The article also claims that "...a large group of researchers has gone through millions of years of data on the Earth's past, incorporating information from a number of past studies. In the end, the group decided that the IPCC estimates are more or less on target."

This is obviously some new meaning for the phrase "on target" with which I was previously unfamiliar.

Basically? This study is meant to do away with the fact that CO2 concentrations in the past have been much higher than they are now and did not lead to runaway global warming of the kind they predict is going to happen now.

Climate "scientists" must explain away past anomalies in order to "prove" that global warming is man-made and happening now, else the gravy train ends and they have to find real jobs.

* * *

Arse Technica should confine itself to posts like this one where they compare the merits of two different "under $70" computer cases. This kind of article is why I originally began reading their page, and why it's still on my daily surf list despite their ascientific nonsense.

* * *

This article's headline is wrong. It reads "The Oregon dad who used his scantily clad daughter to sell his Datsun" but the word "daughter"--while technically accurate--should be replaced with "crack ho". Jesus.

* * *

So let's move on to NEWS OF THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS, shall we?

Iran may be working on a nuclear bomb! Well, shut my mouth! Who could possibly have foreseen this? I thought they were enriching uranium to 20% U-235 because they were interested in the peaceful applications for FUCKING WEAPONS-GRADE FISSIONABLES.

The Laffer curve: it works, bitches. 60% of British millionaires are leaving Britain in order to avoid the new confiscatory 50% tax rate. British government tax revenue suffers. Why, it's almost as if those rich fucks had options or something!

Despite the rhetoric from both sides, the Democrats and Republicans will make a deal that increases taxes and doesn't curtail spending. It's almost as if both parties don't want to reduce spending because that would mean curtailing their own power!

Burning food makes it more expensive. Holy sheep shit! How could that be? A scarce commodity sees price increases when it becomes more scarce? That's just frightening! Will the madness never cease?

* * *

By the way, Advice Goddess gets it right in the terminal paragraph of her post at that last link:
Don't kid yourselves that the Republicans are, as they claim, the party of small government. They're the party of politicians making greasy deals, same as the other side, to benefit themselves in votes and cushy deals. This sometimes looks like they're benefiting the people who voted for them, but that's usually just a happy coincidence for those voters.
This is not bleeding obvious, but it's damned close if even I can figure it out....

* * *

"At what point, though," asks JayG, "do we start to re-evaluate the market for so-called 'green' technology?"

That will be approximately an hour after they've hanged the last congresscritter and the new provisional government begins hacking all the deadwood out of the federal edifice.

* * *

Vox Day says we have a basic choice between Christianity and islam. Countries like Denmark are proving that there ain't gonna be, in Vox's words, a "secular enlightenment".

* * *

I like how the LA Times calls him "Richard J. Durbin" rather than the name by which he goes here in the Peoples' Demokratik Republik of Illnoistan: "Dick".

Hereabouts, he's "Dick Durbin", and let me tell you, that's probably the best possible diminutive for this anus.

But of course in sophisticated LA, "dick" means something else entirely and is never used as a diminutive--at least, not for someone the liberals like--so they can't possibly call him the name he uses everywhere. The sophisticates in LA would be giggling like schoolgirls: "Tee hee! 'Dick Durbin'! Tee hee hee hee! It sounds like the name of a porno actor!"

* * *

Yesterday I got a call from one of my classmates in Bible study, and apparently her employer is looking for a part time computer technician. I schlepped a resume and cover letter that way. It'd only be 20 hours a week, but it'd be a technical job and it might eventually allow me to get a full-time job somewhere doing actual real technical work.

Wouldn't that be a hell of a thing?

#3697: I can't pay attention to the budget fight.

I can't because I don't need to have my blood pressure raised.

When my Dad was my age, he was just starting to get into the phase of life where he had to start taking blood pressure medication. By the time he was 50, it was de rigeur for him. I like to think that I'm doing better in that regard than he is, even though I probably am not--but the last thing I need is to pay attention to something that's going to piss me right the fuck off, particularly considering there's not a damned thing I can do about it.

And the budget "fight" is one of those things.

I know what the Democrats want: they want huge tax increases, and they want the borrowing and spending to continue unabated with future annual increases following the historic 10-12% levels. They don't want hard limits on public debt; quite the opposite--they want no limits on the debt.

I know what the Republicans want: they want smaller tax increases than the Democrats, and they want the borrowing and spending to continue at present levels plus perhaps an additional 5% increase per year. They want to emplace triggered debt ceiling hikes and they want there to be a few easily avoided brakes on government borrowing and spending.

I know what the country needs: we need to stop spending in deficit entirely (or at least as much as possible). We need to start exploiting our domestic resources, and then we need to stop the foreign adventures which are only undertaken to ensure the flow of petroleum. We need to reform, vastly, the way government entitlements work, and we need to get government the hell out of the way of a lot of industries. Taxes need to remain where they are right now and government must make do with what it receives in revenue. The beast must be starved almost to death and whole departments must be shorn from the carcass. can see how incompatible these positions are.

Anyone who does anything that the country actually needs is going to find himself out of a job, because the voters have discovered they can vote for whatever they want. As history shows, this works for a little while, and then the piper demands his due.

So we're not going to get there until the piper stops playing. And everything that Washington, D.C. is doing right now does not matter...except for how the continued tap-dancing, smoke, and mirrors will obscure the coming disaster, even as it hastens the inevitable.

The GOP does not care about fiscal conservatism. The last gasp of fiscal conservatism was when Newt Gingrich was Speaker, and that was over in January of 1997; and after that Newt became a Big Government Republican like everyone else in the GOP elite. The election cycle just past contained no real conservative candidates; the GOP nominee was anything but and he came from a field of mostly moderate Republicans. The last true conservative candidate was Sarah Palin in 2008, and the GOP has given her exactly zero help in staving off the slings and arrows of the left, because the GOP leadership has exactly the same opinion of her as does the left.

The Democrats, at least, are honest about wanting to tax and borrow and spend. The GOP is not.

I used to think it possible that the GOP was simply full of cowards, but that no longer makes sense to me. Sure, the press says nasty things about them. It always has; the press has never supported a Republican candidate when it had any choice whatsoever and there have been plenty of effective Republicans elected to national office who were vilified by the press yet managed to get things done.

But not any more. These days the GOP seems to cower from bad press, but in fact the reality is they don't want to do the things that need doing, any more than the Democrats do. It's not about what the press will say; it's about the GOP being in charge of the purse strings and liking that just fine. If the GOP were to stand up to the Democrats and say, "Okay, no more spending until we have an actual budget," the GOP would get bad press about it...and because they are constitutionally unable to fight back, in 2014 they'd lose elections and the Democrats would win elections and the GOP wouldn't have control of the purse strings any more.

Instead, then, of the GOP imposing any kind of sanity on the process, they say, "Well, we can limit the damage if we go along to get along!" and the spending continues completely unabated. I'm still waiting to see how giving the Democrats everything they want is fixing anything.

If the GOP wanted to fix things, they'd be doing it. The fact that they are not indicates that they're happy with the status quo. If they won't stand up to Democrats, what's the point of having them in office anyway? If they're going to give the Democrats amnesty for illegals, huge tax hikes, no spending cuts, ever-greater incursions on our freedoms--if they're just going to let Democrats have their way, why are we even bothering to elect Republicans?