Climate For Freedom In Peril, Update

The New York Times recently reported on the rapid demise of the Warner-Lieberman bill, or as it's better known in some circles: the Industrial Enslavement Act.

Unfortunately, that circle has an extremely small diameter, with only a few solid points surrounded by mostly thin fluid. As bad or worse, the demise is almost certainly temporary.

How Not To Argue For Freedom

There has been much commentary to the effect that the legislation would cost trillions, raise the price of gas to even higher levels, and so forth.

As the NYT very mildly put it:

The bill would cap the production of heat-trapping gases and force polluters to buy permits to emit carbon dioxide. Critics, including many Republican senators, said it would raise energy prices, including the cost of oil, at a time when Americans are struggling with record gasoline prices.

All true, but the Greens and their partners-in-crime in Congress will soon overcome these objections. When the dominant sentiment is (as Sen. Obama put it): “The future of our planet is at stake,” it won't be long before considerations of cost take a back seat and a similar sword of Damocles again hangs above our heads.

Some of the more pragmatic politicians (i.e. almost all of them) will make compromises to provide wiggle room to businesses. The provision to allow 'polluters' to buy indulgences from the Church of the Viros to expiate their CO2 sins is just one example already present in the bill. But even a watered-down version will still be tremendously damaging, and not only in monetary terms.

The basic vice in all such legislation is the implicit premise that is, sadly, shared by nearly everyone in the debate. To wit, that Congress is justified in attempting to reduce greenhouse gases.

It is not.

The state of current research on climate doesn't justify any of the proposals that advocates of the bill claim make it necessary.

"Global warming" is a very broad average. To the extent it can even be meaningfully defined, it has been modest over the past century. In any case, data from the past 10 years suggests it's over, at least for a while. (Even AGW advocates have recently backpedaled and assert that cooling, or at least stasis, for the next 10 years is more likely.)

But the most important point is this: businesses have a right to produce, and generating CO2 is inherent in that (at least for the foreseeable future). CO2 is not as is sometimes now claimed, a pollutant. A cap on CO2 output isn't just wildly impractical — though that would be bad enough. It violates the freedom of producers whose activities violate no one's rights.

Only when this right is recognized and accepted will the forces attempting to hold back the Green flood make any kind of permanent progress.

IBM Water-cooled 3-D Chips

IBM develops water-cooled 3-D chips.

"Scientists at the firm have shown off a prototype device layered with thousands of 'hair-width' cooling arteries. They believe it could be a solution to the increasing amount of heat pumped out by chips as they become smaller and more densely packed with components."

Cool, in every sense of the word. But hot, too.

The heroes at the IBM labs continue to bring electronics engineering into the 21st century. Ever restless, ever inventive, these men and women deserve high kudos for their endless technical creativity. But even more, they've earned the highest moral praise for being among the best representatives of human reason in one of its finest forms.

Too often today, in a world fortunate enough to see these sorts of advances frequently, some greet news of this type with a shrug. But remember what that good fortune fundamentally depends on: the freedom to exercise rational creativity.

That casual attitude may come not from distaste for technology — those people are probably irredeemable — but simply from taking it for granted. Taking that creativity and freedom for granted, though, is roughly the same as taking your loved one for granted. They soon are gone.

Consider some oft-cited statistics:

• Just 50 years ago TVs were uncommon in the home
  
• A mere 30 years ago PCs were barely more than a hobbyist's kit
  
• Only 20 years ago mobile phones were absent from all but a few luxury autos
  
• Little more than 10 years ago the Internet was sparsely populated

So, while the technology is definitely cool, in an era when many are trying to drive us back to the 12th century, let's rouse ourselves to generate some passionate heat for those heroes who create it and the philosophy that sustains them. Otherwise, they too might soon be gone.

Asleep At Harvard

A recent column in the Christian Science Monitor on the Iraq War by Dr. Toft, professor of public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government is instructive. But not quite in the way she intended.

The article begins with the very true statement: "It matters what we call things." Unfortunately, Prof. Toft then proceeds to get almost everything else wrong. She writes: "The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the war in Iraq is a religious civil war..."

Er, has she been asleep in class this entire semester? The war in Iraq is nearly over and it hasn't been a civil war for the better part of a year, if it ever was. For the most part, since at least 2005, mostly foreign fighters have been trying to kill U.S. soldiers. Civil wars occur between combatants who are citizens of the same country.

True, plenty of Iraqi civilians get blown up by the psychopathic suicide bombers and guerrilla fighters among the enemy forces in Iraq. But they are incidental targets. It's the U.S. military personnel (and "collaborators" whom they hope to terrorize into submission) that are and have been the main targets. It is, after all, America that is the Great Satan, not the Iraqis. The latter are merely useful rocket grenade fodder to the mind of a jihadist.

As for the enemy being mostly foreign, there I'm on weaker ground. Weaker, like six-inch concrete is weaker than six feet of granite.

Even the so-called Left insist that al Qaeda members are not native to Iraq. (Remember, that was one of their talking points, insisting that Hussein had little to no contact with al Qaeda and hence was not a supporter of terrorism.) And, the Mahdi Army may be composed of chiefly Iraqis, but it's no secret — in fact, their leader practically boasts of it — that the army is ultimately controlled by rulers in Tehran. That makes them mercenaries of a foreign government.

Prof. Toft moves smoothly from error to fantasy.

Despite signs that security has improved, the religious civil wars in Iraq may have only just begun.

Er, is she not aware that the strife is winding down? When even the Washington Post acknowledges that the popularly-termed Surge has worked, is it harsh to suggest that Harvard professors should be able to admit it, too? That political changes are afoot to ensure the gains are long-term is equally evident to anyone who will look. Or, don't Harvard professors do research anymore before they render an opinion?

One thing that is still obviously true of at least this Harvard professor, though, is a love for embracing contradictions. Or, as academics prefer to name them, "nuances."

She writes: "The idea of victory versus failure is really a false dichotomy, however." Er, no. If one loses, one does not win. If one wins, as the U.S. has all but virtually done by now, one has not lost. I know the philosophy department at Harvard has some quirky interests, but I'm moderately confident it still offers an elementary logic course. Maybe Dr. Toft could sit in, discreetly.

She goes on to clarify this seeming paradox in a statement that clearly reveals her biggest delusion and fondest wish:

The real choice for US and British policymakers is between the more costly failure that will obtain from current policy and the less costly failure that might obtain from a well-thought-out and well-executed withdrawal.

Oh, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory! How sweet that would be. But even the persuasive Mr. Obama may find that hard to pull off (should Prof. Toft's students succeed in getting him elected come November).

Still, the good professor is definitely right about one thing, which is the main point of her article. Islam (as she puts it) is at the heart of the war.

Unfortunately, she draws the wrong conclusion, such as believing that this implies that the Sunni are at war with the Shiite and vice versa. The jihadists have provided ample evidence of being equal opportunity butchers when it suits their purpose, regardless of the sect of killer or victim.

Also, her prescription is illogical.

The withdrawal of US forces would allow Iraq's predominantly Arab Shiites and Sunnis to find common interest in opposing their two more classical historical adversaries: Kurds and Persians.

That contradicts a statement three paragraphs earlier where she says:

[R]eligious civil wars are less likely to end in negotiated settlement. Instead, combatants tend to duke it out until one side achieves victory.

Also, she appears to be satisfied with, if not actually advocating, civil war by the Sunnis and Shiites against the Kurds and Persians. If so, she should be ashamed. Kurdistan is peaceful and relatively prosperous; in short, a model for the rest of Iraq. And — Dr. Toft has to know this — the Persians live in Iran. Does she think another Iran-Iraq war would be a good thing?

But, then, perhaps I misinterpret her here. Possibly she thinks it's okay if they butcher each other, so long as they're not killing Americans.

I could agree with her on that, but unfortunately the Islamists have shown no willingness to leave anyone alone outside Iraq, either. Just ask the Danes. Or the Spanish. Or the Dutch. Or the French. Tragically, there are 3,000 Americans in New York we can no longer ask.

And, the more successful they are in Iraq, the more likely they are to be emboldened to press efforts elsewhere. Conversely, as they lose in one major arena, the heat tends to taper off in other hot spots. There are exceptions, but that just shows that the jihadist cancer needs radiation treatment as much as surgery.

The professor is right, though, on her key statement. Islam is central to the conflict. (We'll let go without elaboration that those on the 'pro-war' side have been shouting this open secret for several years now.)

It is this dreadful, life-destroying religion that is driving al Qaeda, the Mahdi Army, and their ultimate material and spiritual masters, whether in Pakistan, Iran, or elsewhere. Oddly, Prof. Toft gives no indication that she condemns it as the fundamental cause of the violent conflicts in Iraq. This is even more odd given that she herself says:

Islam has been involved in more than 80 percent of all religious civil wars.

How she could fail to draw the right conclusions from this will have to remain a mystery. Maybe Harvard's psychology department could give us a clue; maybe its history department could give Dr. Toft one.

It does indeed matter what we call things. We should call this thing the War Against Islamic Jihadism, and a surge to wipe out these evil ideas is badly needed just now. Somehow, I don't think the Professor Tofts of this world will be enlisting anytime soon.

Climate For Freedom in Peril

The Senate is taking an entire 30 hours to debate the Lieberman-Warner climate bill (the so-called Climate Security Act).

That sentence contains at least three ridiculous points by my reckoning.


No. 1

That something as serious as a severe hampering of every business in America should be decided after only 30 hours of Congressional debate is clearly absurd. That said, Congressmen typically don't read much of what they vote on, so at least they'll be giving it more attention than what they usually do. That they will is a sign they are taking the subject seriously.

Also, the essential contents of the bill have been known for some time. So, little in it will be a surprise to anyone not living in a tree like some Greens who might advocate the bill's contents.


No. 2

Still, that it should take 30 hours, rather than 30 seconds, to dispose of one of the biggest efforts to date to chain industrial civilization since its birth is beyond ridiculous. It's evil, plain and simple.

Individuals, which is what the people who work for and invest in businesses are, have a right to use the Earth for their own benefit. Nothing in what they're doing is having nor will have the severe impact on the climate that the bill's advocates claim make it necessary.

No one's health or well-being is going to be significantly harmed by producing CO2 at projected levels over the next 100 years. Even if it did, contra science, this bill will not do anything to change that. It will only further the takeover of the economy by the new Communists — the Greens and their partners-in-crime in Congress.

At the same time, it will be a huge cost in hard dollars as well as new wealth that will not come into existence if the bill is passed. Businesses will have to needlessly spend billions to curtail their output. Those who buy their goods and services will spend billions more to get less, which is after all the ultimate purpose of the Greens.

But some money will definitely change hands as the ever-eager gamers of the system strive to bribe the politicians every which way from Sunday to accomplish their ends.

In a system of that kind, it's impossible to separate the otherwise honest who are paying extortion from those who are happy to take advantage of the Byzantine arrangements that will exist for grasping a buck. This is only one of the many things that make that bill evil.

No. 3

That it is called the Climate Security Act is just more insulting icing on a moldy cake. Trying to speciously associate this power grab/business enslavement piece of legislation with 'security' is nothing more than fear-mongering. If there's anything we don't need from Green-pandering politicians it's adding gasoline to the fire that their partners in the major media are already fanning so excellently well.



You have to be some special kind of stupid to advocate that businesses produce less, and that less efficiently. You have to be a (today) typical kind of immoral to propose chaining them when they're doing so much good. Even apart from the utterly obvious fact that people need more goods and services cheaper, not fewer that are more costly, businesses have a right to freedom of action.

It's that freedom, not the climate, that is in peril.

Brain-Activated Mechanical Arm Invented

As evidence that good things, sometimes great things, still do happen in the world, I offer the following:

Scientists Create Neuro-activated Mechanical Arm

"Scientists implanted a grid with 100 tiny electrodes (about the size of a large freckle) on the motor cortex in two monkeys.

The grid in each monkey was connected to a neuron with wires from the brain to a computer that analyzed the collective firing of the neurons, translated that into an electronic command and sent it instantaneously to the arm."

What's especially great is that the article's author really understands what has happened here, beyond the advent of a great new technology:

"When science is uncluttered by political agendas, dubious methodology and other junk, every miracle is within the reach of the mind of man."

Bravo to Dr. Andrew Schwarz and his team at the University of Pittsburgh for their achievement. Kudos, too, to the editorial writer at the Tribune-Review for advertising and celebrating it. This is the sort of thing that should (and used to) be front page news. We should never become blasé about things like this, no matter how commonplace they become.

The Red Decade, Redux

The history of ideas repeats itself. So do the effects.

Historians and social commentators have long referred to the 1930s as the Red Decade. It was then that Communists found a great many sympathetic ears (and, subsequently, voices) for their message that the individual should be subordinated to the State.

The new Reds, now calling themselves Greens, have much larger ambitions. They want to subordinate the individual to the whole planet.

That sort of ambition is very old. Power-hungry intellectuals, and their partners-in-crime in government, have been playing the game effectively for centuries. Whether using religion, the good of the nation, or the welfare of the masses, they have always preached that certain individuals have to be constrained in order to protect others. The latest excuse is simply that we have to "protect the planet."

It was a lie for all those centuries and it's a lie now. There's nothing in the facts about our current activities nor its likely impact on the climate now or in the future that justifies the actions being advocated.

To what degree human actions are influencing the climate is a matter for scientists. Despite the claims of some who would like to take immediate action, there are disagreements among respectable scientists that cover the spectrum on the issue.

None of the research to date provides solid enough reasons to believe that humans are causing large effects soon. Anything we might be doing will only cause small changes over a long period of time, so far as we know at present.

But even in the highly unlikely case that humans are having an appreciable influence, none of the proposals put forth so far are valid. Restraining trade, hampering it with carbon taxes, Byzantine rationing rules, and so forth will not solve anything. It will only make the situation worse by making it harder to accumulate capital to invest in improving technology, the only long term solution to all such problems.

Worse, those advocating such things are overstepping valid boundaries. If you sluice toxic sludge onto my forest, you're required to stop and make compensation. If you produce CO2 a thousand miles away that wafts into my trees and causes minor changes decades later, you don't owe me anything. People have a right to the freedom to use the Earth to produce goods and services for their own benefit, and anything anyone does changes conditions elsewhere in some small way.

The signs of the Greens' burgeoning success are everywhere today. Online bank ads from Wells Fargo show a young woman in a meadow, her arms thrown back and her joyous expression lifted to the sky, wearing a green dress. The text talks about 'Green Banking'. Even oil companies talk about being 'green', as they continue to do the underappreciated yeoman's work of supplying the world with an indispensable product.

But just as it has so many times before, the "control everyone campaign" is succeeding by telling people that it's best for all in the long run. All the historical evidence is against it.

The Inquisition didn't purify the morals of medieval Europe; it only suppressed freedom and created victims of injustice. The 20th century Soviets didn't create a New Man nor bring about prosperity in Russia; they only suppressed freedom and created mass death. And the Greens and their sympathizers — if they get their way — won't improve living conditions on Earth for humans, either. But they could succeed in suppressing freedom because that is their overriding desire, just like their spiritual brethren from earlier epochs.

In the name of preserving yours, deny them a sympathetic ear.

Suicide Bomber Intellectuals

Why is it still so hard for free enterprise to get an even break?

Though I don't seek it, I happened to hear part of Sean Hannity's radio program the other day. On it was some young woman touting the alleged virtues of Barack Obama and, more generally, of his philosophy. (I'd guess she was in her 20s at least.)

I have long believed that no one past adolescence could honestly adhere to those views, that they must be a cover for a secret, vicious desire to destroy. This woman persuaded me there are exceptions, perhaps more than I suspected.

With all sincerity, she touted the standard socialist lines on poverty, race, gender, trade, energy, war, and all the rest that forms so prominent a part of Obama's rhetoric — when he isn't blatantly lying about what he believes (which, I admit, is more and more often now).

What is interesting isn't the views themselves — they're at least as old as the mid-19th century and, despite the alleged discrediting of socialism, are alive and well in our society (and not just among faux liberals or the so-called Left).

No, what's astounding is that she could state these views with such sincerity. She gave every evidence of honestly believing that taxing the rich, capping carbon output, talking with rather than fighting Iran, and so forth could actually provide economic enhancement, environmental improvement, and a safer world.

She couldn't be more wrong, but proving it is not the focus of this post. (Even Hannity, no logician by any stretch, managed to shred her in seconds.) No, it's just to point out that there is still a great deal of work to do to get people to the point that such views are — as they once were — widely greeted with the same kind of (deserved) horror that meets idiotic racist remarks by near-retarded radio commentators.

Defeating Suicide Bomber Intellectuals

How to make progress?

Well, while the full answer is well beyond the scope of this post (and my current state of knowledge), following is one potentially fruitful area to work on.

Even though capitalism continues to improve living conditions wherever it is allowed, there are still people like that young woman who trust elected officials more than businessmen. She said so explicitly when posed the question by Hannity of why she took the approach she did.

In light of the near-psychopathic hatred of George Bush (who, admittedly, deserves some of the criticism), not to mention the history of politicians' behavior within the memory of even this 20-something woman, that's the most astounding thing of all. There is a vanishingly small number of politicians from the past 20 years who haven't, most of the time, done far more damage than good in word and deed. Go back an extra 60 years and the record is scarcely better.

Granted there are a great many businessmen, private and known to the public, whom one would not want over to dinner. But, that elected officials could be regarded as more trustworthy simply boggles the mind.

And, it's easy to demonstrate that there are dozens, if not hundreds of businessmen (not to mention millions of others who work in companies), who have been paragons of virtue — innovative, honest, just, and highly productive. Names like Robert Noyce of Intel, Fred Smith of FedEx, Sam Walton of Wal-Mart, and many others come to mind.

The second, and more dangerous aspect of this woman's thinking is how ready such individuals are metaphorically to blow others up in order to further their philosophy.

People like her are perfectly willing to hand over authority to politicians to regulate energy markets, food production, and more. Anyone older than 20 who has been paying attention these past few years (not to mention anyone who has bothered to read a book on the subject covering the 20th century) knows with certainty that the pols haven't provided any reason to believe they can handle these things well.

(That's apart from the more basic and important fact that they haven't even the right to try in the first place. The value and right of freedom isn't negotiable, contingent on the efficacy of politicians vs. entrepreneurs. More on that later.)

Similarly, anyone who took even a casual objective look would know that businessmen, for all their faults and failures, have handled all these things infinitely better.

Just to give one example out of dozens ready at hand, Yucca Mountain (designated over 10 years ago to hold nuclear waste from power plants all over the U.S.) is still not open for business. The plants around the country themselves are doing an excellent job of storing the waste locally. Workers at such plants receive no more radiation than someone living in another state that has no nuclear power plants at all. (Provided, that is, such a person doesn't live near a coal-fired plant, which spews unregulated radiation into the atmosphere at a prodigious rate. Very small amounts of radioactive uranium are a typical waste product of burning coal.)

Unfortunately, there seems to be an endless supply of these clueless suicide bomber intellectuals who are willing to die, metaphorically speaking (and, ultimately, literally) for their cause.

We need a surge to wipe these ideas out.