Equal justice for all

Rob McKenna, a Republican, is the Washington State Attorney General. He has been vilified by many, some of whom I know personally, for daring - daring - to join the multi-state lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. He has been accused of doing so solely for partisan reasons. Well, if he's so partisan, how come he's doing this?

Attorney General Rob McKenna sued a Seattle political consultant Friday, alleging the firm deliberately concealed the source of money used in its campaign to oust state Sen. Jean Berkey, D- Everett, in the primary.

The eight-page lawsuit against Lisa MacLean and her firm, Moxie Media, contends she “acted to conceal the true participants” behind the mailers and phone calls opposing Berkey and supporting a conservative Republican opponent.

Consider, if you will, what would likely happen were this to occur in New York State. The Attorney General there is Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat. Do you think he would take the same action? I can't say with certainty that he wouldn't, but I highly doubt he would.

Rob McKenna is suing over so-called ObamaCare because it's the right thing to do. And he's suing over the fraud in this election for the same reason. He will continue to receive my vote for this or any other office as long as he continues to demonstrate this quality.

A skeptic, not a denier

Warren Meyer, writing for Forbes, provides the most cogent explanation I've yet seen for why many of us are skeptical regarding anthropogenic global warming, or AGW. He outlines a very important distinction between being skeptical that any sort of climate change is occurring, and being skeptical that we are heading for some sort of global climate disaster.

It is important to begin by emphasizing that few skeptics doubt or deny that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas or that it and other greenhouse gasses (water vapor being the most important) help to warm the surface of the Earth. Further, few skeptics deny that man is probably contributing to higher CO2 levels through his burning of fossil fuels, though remember we are talking about a maximum total change in atmospheric CO2 concentration due to man of about 0.01% over the last 100 years.

What skeptics deny is the catastrophe, the notion that man’s incremental contributions to CO2 levels will create catastrophic warming and wildly adverse climate changes. To understand the skeptic’s position requires understanding something about the alarmists’ case that is seldom discussed in the press: the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming is actually comprised of two separate, linked theories, of which only the first is frequently discussed in the media.

The first theory is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels (approximately what we might see under the more extreme emission assumptions for the next century) will lead to about a degree Celsius of warming. Though some quibble over the number – it might be a half degree, it might be a degree and a half – most skeptics, alarmists and even the UN’s IPCC are roughly in agreement on this fact.

But one degree due to the all the CO2 emissions we might see over the next century is hardly a catastrophe. The catastrophe, then, comes from the second theory, that the climate is dominated by positive feedbacks (basically acceleration factors) that multiply the warming from CO2 many fold. Thus one degree of warming from the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 might be multiplied to five or eight or even more degrees.

Back in my college days, I took a class on systems of linear differential equations. I've long since forgotten the details but one of the practical applications was to model systems. The solution of a system of linear differential equations was an equation whose graph depended on starting conditions. For modeling systems, the horizontal coordinate was usually time and the vertical coordinate was some value such as population. Generally, these fell into two types. The first was a convergent solution. Different starting conditions would produce graphs that, as the value for time increased, would converge to a specific value.

The second was a divergent solution. If the starting conditions were altered, then the graphs would diverge away from the value. For example, if the starting condition was low enough, the graph could plunge toward zero. If it was high enough, it could skyrocket toward infinity. Let's say that the system modeled the population of a particular species. If the starting value was too low, the population wouldn't be self-sustaining and would die out. Too high, and overpopulation would occur.

The essence of the final paragraph of the excerpt above is that the second theory predicts a divergent solution; in this case the vertical coordinate is temperature. Adding CO2 artificially alters the starting condition of the graph which skyrockets to a high temperature value. Skeptics, based on historical analysis of temperatures and other factors, think it much more likely that the solution is convergent, or at least not fully divergent.

My thoughts on the Juan Williams affair

When even Whoopi Goldberg says NPR was wrong to fire Juan Williams, you know a line has been crossed.

I believe a private company or other employer should be able to choose who it wants to work for it. If an employee is acting against the best interests of the employer, then the employer should be able to terminate that employee.

However, NPR, and by extension its parent the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, is not a private company. A small but non-zero percentage of its operating costs are paid for by the federal government; in other words, the taxpayers. Us. The argument can legitimately be made that it should be held to a different standard.

In my opinion, the answer is simple. The federal government should do what many have called on it to do and stop funding the CPB in any way. Let it compete on its own merits as a corporation completely separate from government. Let it, with its clear liberal bias, try to do better than Air America did without me having to support it. Then, it can decide who should work for it or not as it sees fit.

What the Tea Party really believes

It really is very simple. I know many of you are afraid of the "racist," and "extreme Right Wing" Tea Party but that just means you've been watching too much Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. Bill Whittle, who excels at explaining simple concepts so that even the elite intelligentsia can understand them, is producing a series of videos which lay out just what the Tea Party is all about. At this time, he has three available. I've embedded them below. As I become aware of any more, I'll post links to them here. You can also find them at Bill's YouTube Channel.

Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise


Part 2: The Problem with Elitism


Part 3: Wealth Creation

Review of the 2011 Chevrolet Volt

Gary Gastelu reviews the new Chevrolet Volt for Fox News.  Short form: It's a good car that performs well.  If you drive it correctly, you will save considerably on operation costs vs. the Toyota Prius, although it does cost quite a bit more to purchase.

Something to note is that the way the drivetrain works is not actually what I originally heard.  My original understanding was that the internal combustion engine was not mechanically coupled to the wheels in any way.  It only served to run a generator which fed electricity into the electric drive system when the batteries drained to a certain point.  However, according to the review, the IC engine actually does have a mechanical coupling to the wheels which engages under certain circumstances.

In brief, the Volt’s powertrain has three main components: a main electric motor, a smaller electric motor/generator, and the engine. All of which are connected by a series of clutches and a planetary gearbox that takes the place of a traditional transmission. But, unlike grief, there are four stages that the Volt goes through while you’re driving it.

Start off with a full charge and the motor moves the Volt, getting an assist from the otherwise idle motor/generator from time to time under certain conditions. Deplete your battery, and the gasoline engine kicks in, coupling to the motor/generator to create electricity and, under similar certain conditions, send some mechanical torque through the gearbox to help propel the car.

Fear and Loathing in the White House

Because the thought that Americans are about to make a rational decision in a couple weeks is simply unfathomable, it must be because of fear:

In his remarks at a Democratic fundraiser in Massachusetts Saturday evening, President Barack Obama said that Americans’ fear and frustration” are to blame for an intensely competitive midterm election season favoring Republican candidates.
 
“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we‘re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” Obama said Saturday evening in remarks at a small Democratic fundraiser Saturday evening. “And the country’s scared.”

Obama told the several dozen donors that he was offering them his “view from the Oval Office.” According to Politico, Obama blamed the economic downturn for Americans’ inability to “think clearly” and said the burden is on Democrats “to break through the fear and the frustration people are feeling.

On the contrary, Mr. President, it is precisely because many Americans have regained the ability to "think clearly" that Republicans are predicted to make large gains.  Once again we see the arrogance and elitism break through the mask (which was never very thick to begin with).  Anyone who opposes the policies of higher taxes, increased useless spending, and greater dependence on Government is obviously not thinking straight.

My recommendations for the 2010 Washington State Initiatives

Here is how I intend to vote on the slate of initiatives that will appear on the Washington State 2010 general election ballot and a brief explanation why.

Initiative 1053: Yes
In 2007, the voters of Washington passed I-960 which made it more difficult for the legislature to raise taxes. To do so required either a two-thirds majority in the State House and Senate, or a simple majority in both houses followed by a simple majority of the people. In Washington, an Initiative can be overridden after two years by a simple majority of both houses. This happened earlier this year which came as no surprise given Democrats hold majorities in both houses.

I-1053 will undo that override and restore those requirements. In today's economy, everyone has to tighten their belts, I know I sure have. The state government is no exception.

Initiative 1082: Leaning Yes
Supporters note that what 1082 allows is already in place in 46 other states. Also, I believe that increasing the role of the market in just about anything is a good idea. I'm going to research this one some more just to make sure but at this time I'm probably going to vote yes on 1082.

Initiative 1098: No, Hell No
Washington already has a high state sales tax. This would be an additional tax on top of it. I understand that income taxes have advantages and disadvantages when compared to a sales tax. If an income tax were to be implemented, it should be accompanied by an elimination of the state sales tax. But that's a discussion for another day.

Some of you may respond, "Yeah, but this income tax only affects rich individuals making over $200,000 per year and couples making over $400,000 per year." At first, yes, this will be the case. However, once the income tax is on the books, eventually the legislature (assuming continued Democrat control, and perhaps even if not) will decide that revenue isn't sufficient and will lower that minimum. Eventually, it will be extended to everyone (though I expect there will still be a minimum based on the poverty level). If you don't think this will happen, you are, quite frankly, a fool.

Initiative 1100: Yes
Initiative 1105: Probably No
Quite simply, the state should not be in the retail business. Period. Both of these initiatives get the state out of the liquor selling business. Based on my understanding, how 1100 does it is a bit simpler. It also appears to favor the retailers whereas 1105 favors liquor distributors. Either of them is preferable to the current system but at this time I'm going with 1100.

Initiative 1107: Yes
It will repeal sales tax changes that the legislature made earlier this year. Even though the items the new taxes applied to, namely candy, soda, and bottled water, are items that are not necessary it's still a new tax and it will have a deleterious effect on the economy. The taxes on soda and bottled water are supposedly temporary but you know they probably won't be. Again, the state must learn to live within its means just like the rest of us.

Well it's that time again

The November election is weeks away so I'm going to dust off this blog and try to post more-or-less regularly as we approach zero-hour and then beyond. Maybe I'll even succeed.