As I write this post, the outside temperature is -2 degrees F, up a few degrees from -7. It’s pretty damn cold out. I have noticed that there aren’t many news reports talking about climate change now when it’s really cold out, nor did it come up much this summer when we had highs in the 50’s during July. Only when it’s really warm, do they blame the weather on “global warming” or “climate change”. Otherwise, it’s just cold.

Does anthropogenic climate change exist? After years of being somewhat of a skeptic on the subject, due to what I feel were some real issues with the concepts of “urban heat isles” and the non-change in the temperature of the upper atmosphere, I believe those issues have been resolved and it’s clear to me that we have had an effect on the planet’s climate. I hesitate to use the phrase “global warming”, because it’s an awfully imprecise phrase. Will all parts of the planet warm? No. Can we predict with any certainty which parts of the planet will get the warmest? Nope. We have models that make general predictions, but the actual effects can be tempered or exacerbated due to local environmental situations or unforeseen events like the Mt. Pinatuba volcanic explosion in 1991. Anthropogenic climate change, though, is real, and regardless of what your political alignment may be, you have to accept that fact. I remain skeptical of most the pronounced solutions and the overall mindset of those who are the most vocal about climate change, but that discussion will have to be for another day.

Back to my original point:

Dear “Journalists”,

Just because there is a warm spell during winter, it doesn’t mean it’s because of climate change. Just because there is a heat wave during the summer, it doesn’t mean it’s because of climate change. Report the weather how it is, and when we have events outside the average, do some actual work and explain how, if at all, it could relate to climate change, hot or cold, wet or dry. There is a great disservice to the country and the world, by only reporting on climate change with a thin veneer of research.

Thank you for reading, now back to the subzero temperatures.

This recent attempt at terror in the skies apparently was only an operational failure, not a tactical failure. The 24 hour news networks have latched onto this story, forgetting for the most part about swine flu, Tiger Woods, and the recent health care scam bill, displaying scary headlines, and using ominous language. The TSA, after spending $40 billion dollars or more to protect us against such threats, failed to have a system in place to prevent the wannabe martyr on board, and instead has issued new inane guidelines that are all about theater and nothing to do with safety.

1) No standing up during the last hour of a flight. Why? Because the attempted bomber was sitting down when he attempted to trigger the bomb.

2) Nothing in your lap the last hour of a flight. Why? Because the attempted bomber had something sewn into his crotch

3) International flights should consider no longer allowing electronics during the flight. Why? Because the attempted bomber used a non-electronic device.

This is in addition to the, possibly more inane, rule about scanning your shoes. Eight years ago, Richard Reid brought explosives aboard a plane via the soles of his shoes. So now we all have to take our shoes off so they can go through an x-ray that can’t detect explosive residue. We’re limited to a 1 gallon bag containing as many 3 oz bottles of liquid that can fit, even though no such chemical tests are ever run.

None of this makes us safer. We have to accept that in a free society there’s going to be a body count. We will have to accept the fact that there will be terrorists attacks against the United States where we might lose a couple hundred to a couple thousand people at a time. These attacks will kill less people than the flu, car accidents, alcohol, and murders against our own citizens by ourselves. We will have to accept that there is a 1 in 10 million chance of being killed aboard an airplane due to terrorist attacks.

Once we finally accept this as a fact of life in the modern, free world, we will have taken away the *real* terrorist weapon, which is not a bomb, but instead, simply fear. I’m personally already there, and I hope that more people can join me.

Check this out:

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1086-Ok,-Im-Done-With-Being-Nice.html

The author pretty much rips an old lady a new one for extremely poor financial choices, and castigates the New York Times for putting out such tripe. I have to agree on the tripe part. What is the point of putting out a “poor her” story about someone who obviously made some serious mistakes over and over again in treating her house like an ATM? Do the writers not understand what an absolutely idiotic financial move it is to take out a home equity loan to buy a new car? The only thing dumber would be is if she took out money to pay for a leased car.

She ran up credit card debt, living outside her means (I assume if there had been some emergencies the article would have listed them), and again used her house an atm. They mention a “new roof” being the largest chunk of change out of a $20,000 cash out, but I’m calling bs on that. I bet most of that was to pay off credit card debt again.

Look, I don’t want to pile on Ms. Ulery. I’m not happy that she’s in the situation, but let’s be honest. She’s not taking any responsibility for her actions and she’s complaining about the government not doing enough to help her. As a libertarian, of course, I don’t think the government should be involved in this mess at all, but how can even the most liberal of people think it’s okay for taxpayer money to pay for people’s mistakes like this? Nothing in the story points to any sort of catastrophic event in her life. Nothing about a major illness contributing to past debt (though some sort of “stress illness” is mentioned now preventing her from working), nothing about a nasty divorce, or failed business. Nothing at all which appears to be out of her control. No, she made a series of decisions that of course would end up where she is now. And she wants the US taxpayer to pay up and bail her out.

I’ve made plenty of financial mistakes in my past. I carried too much credit card debt in my 20’s. I didn’t save enough, I never should have bought the Intrepid I own, and something else happened that was kind of out of my control that still effects me today. However, in all cases, it was my fault. I know exactly what decisions I made that were poor and led to the chain reaction of events. Even the event that was really out of my control could have been mitigated better if I had paid better attention. At no point, did I even conceive of blaming someone else. I can’t even fathom the thought process that would have led me to blame others.

Only when you take responsibility, can you fix the problems. I don’t carry credit card debt anymore, and I hate the feeling of having any debt aside from my mortgage. The only debt Kelly and I have now outside our mortgage is a small line of credit we used to buy our couch. It’s not like we even need it, we’re just keeping the cash in the bank to earn a little interest while our credit line has no interest for a while. Even though it’s just a cash flow arrangement that will never cost me a dime, it still bothers me a little. I don’t like having debt.

When we bought out first house, we put down 20%, took a fixed year mortgage, and paid less than the market value. Two years later, we still paid less than market value, even with the real estate slump. We were tempted to take out some equity to redo our kitchen, but ultimately decided against it. Just didn’t seem worth it to borrow for something that would basically be for vanity. We’ll just focus on saving up and doing it later. The point is, our house isn’t an ATM. If something catastrophic happened we could use the equity or sell it off, but only in extreme emergencies.

I’m not sure I ended up where I wanted to, but I think my point is: Take responsibility for your own actions and understand the consequences. It’s clear the New York Times and Ms. Ulery don’t understand this.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/129108.html

Well,

This evening I uploaded the 22nd episode of The Libertarian Dime. The number “22″ doesn’t have any significance that this skeptic knows of, but I was curious about one thing. How much content have I produced?

Turns out, including episode 22, Jonathan and I have created 30:36 hours of content. That is the equivalent to 83 episodes of a typical TV sitcom, 42 episodes of a typical TV drama, and 20 movies. It’s all been unscripted (as I’m sure is painfully obvious to the listener) so I when I think about it, it kinds of hits me of how much actual content we’ve generated. I am by no means exceptionally prolific as a podcaster. While our shows have ranged from 49 minutes to 150 minutes, we only do it once a week. It’s a enough work just doing one podcast a week.

What has surprised me is that we’ve only gone one week without doing a podcast. Only once. No breaks. We worked around my birthday. We’ll work around T-day, Xmas, FSmas, and New Years. We have no choice now.

Some may remember the despair in Diddy’s words as he said the following:

“As you know, I do have my own jet, but I’ve been having to fly back and forth to L.A. pursuing my acting career. Now, if I’m flying back and forth twice a month, that’s like $200,000, $250,00 round trip…I’m back on American Airlines.

“Give a shout out to all my Saudi Arabia brothers and sisters and all the brothers and sisters in all the countries that have oil — if you could please send me some oil for my jet, I would truly appreciate it.”

Well, they heard his cry in the dark and have responded:

“Saudis Screw OPEC…”

Story Here

Charlie Rangel, stalwart of the House of Representatives, has a little tax problem. Apparently, he has had income from a villa in the Dominican Republic that has been undeclared for the last ten years or so.

But, hey, it’s not his fault. After all, in the past when he tried valiantly to rectify the situation…well, let him explain it:

Every time I thought I was getting somewhere, they’d start speaking Spanish.

Poor Charlie. It’s a shame there are no Spanish speaking people in NY or people you can hire to handle translations.

I’ve always been a fan of Drew Carey. I thought his show was for a few seasons, a better shown than Seinfeld. Now, not only is he the host of the Price is Right, but he is also an outspoken libertarian. The video I’m liking to is his take on immigration. It’s smarter than just about anything you’ll hear out of Washington.

Apparently, Bush and Congress have fixed every problem in America. Why else would Henry Waxman be asking the Attorney General to pursue purgery charges against Roger Clemens. Must be nothing else to do.

Ralph Nader has announced yet another run for the presidency of the United States. As in 2004, he’s made some overtures to the Green Party, but fell short of fully embracing the party. The Green Party, though, will be instrumental in getting Nader on as many state ballots as possible. If you are a Nader supporter (and I’m not), you must wonder, where has he been the last four years? I’m not sure, because I don’t really care about Ralph Nader, but in some quick scans of weekend news stories, I can’t find any reference to any groundwork for a serious run at the presidency. If he is so serious about running as a third party candidate and changing Washington, you’d have to think he’d start sooner.

Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy in January 2007, Barack Obama in February 2007, and John McCain has essentially been running for president since 2004. They’re all running within the two party system and they still had to dedicate at least two years to their campaigns. Can Ralph Nader really be serious if he thinks he can just swoop in eight months before the election, with virtually no infrastructure, and be a serious candidate? Even if you agree with him about the problems with a two party system (and I actually do agree with him on that point), his method of challenging the system is weak and pathetic. This has got to be a vanity run for him, so he can put “Five Time Presidential Candidate” on his tombstone. I’ll bet that Ron Paul will get more write-in votes than Ralph Nader in the election.

Ralph Nader is over seventy years old now, and probably has had any real effect on policy in over twenty years. He loves to bash on corporate greed, but he himself is a multi-millionaire who has mutual funds flush with shares in “evil” corporations. I know he claims to live off a small percentage of his income, while donating the rest to various charities, but he’s never releases his tax returns, so we don’t know for sure. I’m not calling him an outright hypocrite, and I never fault anyone for wanting to make a buck, but it makes his rhetoric on “evil” corporations sound a little more hollow when you realize he depends on corporate earnings to fund his lifestyle.

I think based on the lack of groundwork, his understanding of the modern campaign is limited. Ron Paul, douchebag extraordinaire, who is also over seventy years, has had a working internet presence for at least a year. His cult-like followers have raised more money that Ralph Nader ever will, all without corporate money. I hate to keep bringing up Ron Paul, but the two are very similar in that they rail against a lot of the same things, have no shot at the presidency, they are both running for vanity, I would never vote for either of them, and they are both old white men.

Will Ralph Nader be a “spoiler”? Nah, he will get so few votes, he won’t matter, but even if he did, who cares. As far as I am aware, it is up to candidates to convince people to vote for them, not cut quid pro quo deals with voters to ensure they keep power. So let Ralph Nader run, if it will stroke his ego. I just can’t take him serious though.