Thursday, February 2, 2017

Amnesty International Boss Endorses “Jihad in self-defence”

We are a nation of assimilated immigrants.

Immigration without assimilation is invasion.

Schumer in 2007: Don’t confirm any Bush Supreme Court nominee

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283

Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.

“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in prepared remarks to the American Constitution Society, a liberal legal organization. [sic]

(For a video of Schumer saying this flat out, see the linked video.)

So much for Schumer’s current theme that the Republicans stole a Supreme Court appointment by not confirming Mr. Obama’s appointment during the election year 2016. Schumer announced the new policy a decade ago. What is sauce for the goose…

Not that it is all that new a policy. It is the usual practice to wait for the results of the election if a USSC vacancy happens during a Presidential election year. If there is a new President, he will be more attuned to the will of the people than the losing President. Mr. Obama got two USSC Justices, the wise Latina Sonia Sotomayor, and Ms. Elena Kagan. It is clear that the nation still hopes for hope and change, but Mr. Obama’s hopes and changes were not the ones the people had been waiting for.

They’re burning the campus at Berkeley. Perhaps we’ll have to borrow more money to pay for that.  It’s all right.  We’ll leave that debt for our grandchildren to pay, so it’s no skin off our noses.  of course the kids may then feel the need to riot against the taxes required of them to service that debt.

 

When I was young they built state colleges for those who were smart enough for college but couldn’t afford it.  I’m a beneficiary of that system. Now they loan you money to go to a school already paid for by taxpayers.  I say give the damned schools to the professors, and stop paying for them.  Let the professors collect money to pay for their salaries.  They demand to teach what they want to teach and tell me I am a Fascist and worse if I want them to teach what I want taught.  Fine.  Let them.  Just don’t make me pay for that.  They want to be paid to teach, let them go raise the money to pay themselves and all the administrators. Leave me out of it.

 

If anyone still has any interest in The Velikovsky Affair, or if you do not even know what that means, there is an exhaustive discussion at http://www.jerrypournelle.com/science/velikovsky.htm. This was done in my old Front Page format, and is a compilation of dialogues and discussions that took place over several year; it attempts fairly to present the different views on the subject, as well as my own. Those not interested in Velikovsky – his astronomical theories range from implausible to ridiculous – may still find the discussion of the failures of Big Science to deal with him, Velikovsky’s correct hypothesis that there had been catastrophes in both historic and pre-historic times – this at a time when uniformitarianism was the consensus, and any theories of catastrophes were thoroughly rejected by scientific consensus as absurd and also a rejection of the theory of evolution, which was thought then to require very long periods of uniformity.

I said decades ago “It is hard for those who didn’t live through the 40’s and 50’s to realize just how firmly the uniformitarian hypothesis was rooted, and just how much ridicule was heaped on those who rejected it. To postulate catastrophes in history was to reject Darwin, and take sides with the Biblical literalists. Now of course this is not true: my high school science teachers at Christian Brothers believed in catastrophes in history for very good scientific reasons, and neither they nor the Roman church insisted on the literal truth of the Bible, Noah’s Flood as anything other than a local event, or Genesis in 7 literal days. I learned the theory of evolution in a Catholic school in the state of Tennessee (while the Scopes law was still on the books); I also was introduced to the riddle of what happened to produce the First Dark Age in the Bronze Age, to look underneath Exodus to see if there were not historical counterparts to the Biblical history, and the like; and I can guarantee you that people who had been taught that sort of thing were not welcomed as undergraduates in the 1950’s. Believe me. I was thought a troublemaker for asking about such things.”

There is also considerable discussion of the First Dark Age – Homeric times, when the idea of writing was lost ; who were the Philistines and do their descendants exist today; and the nature of Dark Ages which have lost not merely technologies, but the very memory that such technologies ever existed. That memory loss can exist even among people who live among walls they not only could not construct, but do not believe humans could ever have constructed them They must have been built by vanished Cyclopean Giants.

Fair warning: the discussion is long. And sufficiently fascinating that you may find yourself reading more than you attended. Of course for some that’s more interesting than reading about Trump fighting the alligators, or the Washington Establishment defending government by experienced people and instructions.

SUBJ: Breaking news: Donald Trump cures cancer!

The resulting headlines:

_The New York Times_ “TRUMP DECLARES WAR ON CANCER DOCTORS”

_USA TODAY_ “CANCER CURE WILL ONLY MAKE THINGS WORSE, MANY SCIENTISTS SAY”

_FORBES_ “TRUMP’S LATEST ACTION SENDS MEDICAL STOCKS CRASHING”

_NATIONAL REVIEW_ “WAS CANCER REALLY ALL THAT BAD??”

_The Washington Post_ “TRUMP’S MEDDLING MAY HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

– ONCOLOGISTS HARDEST HIT”

Shamelessly stolen from Ace Of Spades HQ website at http://ace.mu.nu/.

They’re having a contest there to see who can concoct the funniest headline. The entries in the comments are priceless.

Cordially,

John

Looks about right. I see they left off the Weekly Standard.

closer to mining moon for trillions of dollars in riches

Hi Jerry,

Ran across this in the business news yesterday. Had heard nothing about it up until now. Unlike most space ventures with indefinite launch dates this project is slated to get off the ground this year.

Blair S.

Billionaire closer to mining moon for trillions of dollars in riches

Moon Express, the first private company in history to receive government permission to travel beyond Earth’s orbit, announced Tuesday that it raised another $20 million in private equity financing to fund its maiden lunar mission to take place in late 2017. This brings the total amount of private investment to $45 million from investors that include Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, Collaborative Fund and Autodesk.

What may have added impetus to investor interest in Moon Express is President Trump’s picks for the NASA transition team — Charles Miller and Chris Shank — and the leading candidate to become the next NASA administrator, GOP Rep. Jim Bridenstine. All support commercial space ventures and manned exploration — including lunar missions.

If successful, the new MX-1 lunar lander from Moon Express would not only win the $20 million Google Lunar XPRIZE, it would also help jump-start a new era of space exploration. Up until now, only government-funded missions from the United States, China and Russia have landed on the moon.

Last year the U.S. government made a historic ruling to allow the company to engage in peaceful commercial lunar exploration and discovery following consultations with the FAA, White House, State Department and NASA.

The company’s challenge now is to meet the XPRIZE requirement: Make a soft landing on the moon, travel 500 meters across its surface, and transmit high-definition video and images back to Earth. All tasks must be done before the end of this year.

Full article: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/31/billionaire-closer-to-mining-moon-for-trillions-of-dollars-in-riches.html

Of course when I was at Galaxy, I thought we would have moon mines by 2010.I’ve always said that 90% of the resources easily available to mankind are not on this Earth.

climate change temperature margin of error

Jerry,

You’ve questioned how anyone could report climate temperature changes measured in tenths of a degree. NOAA claims +/- 0.15C margin of error in their temperature data. I got a D in statistics so I’m not the guy to figure out how they got that number or why, in spite of all the variables and smoothing involved, they are so proud of their data.

The quote from Deke Arndt in the “beyond the data” blog: “For the global data, the 95% envelope is roughly +/-0.15C, but varies slightly each month/year based on data coverage. You can see exact values in our reports, for example the tables here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201611”

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/beyond-2016-year-review

Sean

I didn’t get a D in experimental statistics, but no one has yet explained how we get a tenth of a degree accuracy out of observations made with 1950 equipment. In the late 50’s I was required to get temperatures of human skin to a 1/10 degree accuracy. I used very expensive thermocouple systems, with one of the thermocouples resting in a beaker of melting ice made from distilled water. In those times sea temperatures were got in a variety of ways including dipping up sea water and measuring with a hand held mercury thermometer; how does that give 1/10 degree accuracy? Averaging a bunch of numbers. All obtained in different and unknown way, does not give 1/10 unit accuracy; model makers do not seem to know how their source numbers are obtained. I don’t know what the average temperature of this room is to a tenth of a degree; or of my back yard; nor of Los Angeles. For right now. But by juggling numbers I can know the average for a whole year to a tenth of a degree? Velikovsky made more sense than that.

And in 1900? The sea temperature? Much less the yearly average for the Earth? To a tenth of a degree? Velikovsky was more interesting.

Trump and management

Dear Dr. Pournelle,

I believe you will find this blog entry by Scott Adams most fascinating.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156628357041/is-president-trump-doing-management-wrong

“There are two basic styles of management. One is the cautious style of Fortune 500 companies. The other is the rapid-iteration and A/B testing style of entrepreneurs. Trump is bringing the latter style to the office. The markers for this style of management include:

1. Rapid and decisive hiring and firing.

2. Bias toward action.

3. Rapid A/B testing. Release the early beta version and judge reactions. Adjust accordingly.

4. Emphasis on the psychology of success. Entrepreneurial management includes lots of persuasion and bullshit because entrepreneurs have to fake it until they make it. In other words, they have to create demand via persuasion.

Compare that management style to a large company style. Big companies move slowly in both hiring and firing. They get caught in “analysis paralysis” because no one wants to be seen as making a mistake. And they don’t do rapid testing and iteration with consumers. They try to get it right before any customers see the product.

The world is watching Trump trade some “chaos” to get the benefits of entrepreneurial management. It’s fast and messy, but he’s testing in real time. He’s watching protests. He’s watching news coverage. He’s watching social media. And he’s rapidly adjusting as needed. The net effect of Trump’s bias for action in his first week is that he created a presidential brand of being the most action-oriented president of all time. Your first impression will be sticky. If things work out for Trump, you will forget any temporary “chaos” and remember him as the most effective president in history. Success fixes everything. Every entrepreneur knows that.”

I oppose the President some issues, but I’m rather pleased with his style and the speed with which he does things. Washington could use some shaking up and some of this management style.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Well, Trump is learning that before you drain the swamp you need to fight the alligators, and their press card carrying allies. He even had to fire the Acting Attorney General of the United States for insubordination; I hope we don’t have to pay her a pension. It was after all black letter law that the President has a lot of discretion over who gets into the US; Mr. Obama knew that well, and used the power. A lot. What one President can do, a successor can undo. It’s called a Republic.

The United States Air Force Academy Doesn’t Train Warriors Anymore

Dr. Pournelle 

RE: The United States Air Force Academy Doesn’t Train Warriors Anymore 

For those who would rather not chase through 17 pages of OpsLens to find the story, here is the direct link: http://opslens.com/2017/01/17/usafa-training-pc-culture-obama-administration/

I see it was no accident that Imperial Stars 2: Republic and Empire contained both “Minor Ingredient” and “The Gods of the Copybook Headings.” 

Live long and prosper 

h lynn keith

No, it wasn’t.

‘There is almost as much evidence, it seems, for man being hundreds of millions of years old as there is that modern man is 60,000 years old.’

<http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-01/increasingly-evolution-has-no-proof>

—————————————

Roland Dobbins <roland.dobbins@mac.com>

Yes, but that isn’t the consensus. One needs to be careful in saying things like that. And when does it get to be “Man”

health care

You are a little of base with Canadian healthcare. First the US is not the first reserve it is India. We actually outsource it. Australia has a very interesting after many surveys and commissions they have a two tier system and the unions through their insurance schemes always use the most deluxe one. My wife whose occupation and financial position was given the choice of a private and very restricted cure for her carpal-tunnel problem in both wrists. . Public was a wait of 12 months (FREE) or she opted for the next week at $500,00. The Doctor amused me. The biggest opponent of private health care the biggest opponent of the Doctor who operated the private clinic had just phoned and wanted his knee fixed. He was a high union official. The doctor said no thanks.

mike hurcum

I confess that the last time I looked at this was years ago, probably when Hillary was just coming to the White House and planned to mind our health business for us. I do know physicians in Detroit who have a good cross-border list of patients, but again I haven’t discussed it with them recently.

US Big Pharma as I recall gives Canadians a big discount on drug prices, for a complex variety of reasons.

I understand that having a private competitor to public health care seems popular with the patients but is generally resisted by the governments involved, but again I am no expert. Doubtless I will receive a plethora of information; I generally do if I got something wrong.

Thanks.

voting irregularities

Hello Jerry,
I am pleased beyond measure to read of the continued recoveries of Mrs. Pournelle and yourself.
Here in Michigan, before the courts stopped the recount, many ‘interesting’ things were discovered, including one Detroit precinct where the machines recorded 307 votes when only 52 ballots had actually been cast.
The State is graciously proclaiming Operator Error with regards to the optical ballot scanning machine.
I myself am reminded of the old adage: “Once is a coincidence, twice is incompetence, three times is enemy action.” What then is 255 times?
And this is just one single precinct in a once large city which remains a democratic stronghold. It doesn’t take much imagination at all to apply similar numbers to the large cities across the nation and watch Hillary’s alleged popular vote victory disappear.
Link to the story here:
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/michigans-elections-bureau-audit-detroit-precincts/95349562/
As always, thank you for all you do.
Dave Porter

health care

Dear Mr. Pournelle,
You write: “the subject should be, is this Constitutional (for the Federal Government) and is it a good idea. Subsumed under that second question is an all important one: can we afford it, or is the money more required for other needs? And that discussion I do not recall seeing.”
I agree. Let’s try that.
Regarding legitimacy: at this point, I would start with the argument that health care legislation would stand on constitutional grounds comparable to those which the courts have recognized for Social Security and Medicare; and that the Constitution gives the Congress broad powers to “provide for the general welfare.”
Can we afford it? That question is more difficult. One problem is that our current system provides us with no credible base line on cost and effectiveness. Here’s an interesting article in Consumer Reports:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2014/11/it-is-time-to-get-mad-about-the-outrageous-cost-of-health-care/index.htm
First, I think it’s necessary to stipulate that with continuing advances in medical technology it is increasingly the case that we are *capable* of providing medical care which no plausible economy can *afford.* That’s a problem. I have no brilliant solutions, but I do think we need to begin by recognizing that limits exist. Currently, those limits are often imposed by insurance companies. I don’t find that an optimal solution; but I won’t pretend that any other visible solution is very good either.
Beyond that: falling back, for the lack of anything better, on anecdotal evidence —
A few years back I read about a few East Coast hospitals who ran an interesting experiment. They found that overall costs of medical care could be significantly reduced by providing unusually strong home health care to a surprisingly small number of vulnerable patients. Readmission rates dropped significantly. The problem which arises is: while such a program can be effective, and reduces costs, it is to the economic disadvantage of any hospital that adopts it. Under free market assumptions, it won’t happen.
It also turns out that a quite disproportionate amount of the cost of medical care is attributable to hospital expenses in the last six months of life. This presents, I think, both ethical and practical quandaries. The notion of limiting medical care for older people (of whom I am now one) seems ethically intolerable. On the other hand, if I were offered the choice between keeping me “alive” but unconscious for three months, while running up extravagant hospital bills, and spending that same amount on young children, I’d have to go with the children.
Beyond that: one datum I’ve run across repeatedly in church work is that people without medical insurance far too often wind up in emergency rooms with problems that could have been more effectively treated, at less expense, earlier on. The bills with which they are then, in theory, presented are higher by several orders of magnitude than any bills which would be paid by insurance. And in fact they are not paid. I cannot imagine that this system is cost-effective.
In consequence, while I am not sure pertinent information is reliably available, I inclined to think that in terms both of effectiveness and of cost-effectiveness we could do a great deal better.
Is the money more required for other needs? That’s a difficult question. I’d need to ask: what might those needs be? And I’d also note that a similar argument has been raised with reference to space exploration; where one pertinent response is “and how many other uses for rocket fuel can you name?” Which is to say: if we do not spend these resources on health care, is it in fact the case that more resources will be available for other needs?
If I may be cynical: as I watch our infrastructure deteriorate while people scream about their taxes and then go buy snowmobiles, I’m not impressed. Some years back, in Minnesota, Governor Ventura thought the state’s “rainy day” fund was too high; so he pushed through a rebate of a few hundred dollars per resident. Which was received, and duly spent, with no apparent benefit. Then the rainy day came…
A further comment on “rights,” while continuing to think this isn’t a useful approach to health care:
Mr. White suggests, citing the French theorist Bastiat, that “since the people can only delegate the authority that they themselves possess, and “the people”, as a collective, cannot be deemed to possess any authority — or right — that a single person lacks, it follows that the state also cannot legitimately act against a person in any manner that would be forbidden to another person.” I think this assertion is highly problematic, and (attempting to use the term analytically rather than pejoratively) hard to distinguish from classical anarchism. As I read Mr. White’s description, on that basis any taxation by the state would be illegitimate, even for the purposes of national defense. Highway patrols would also be problematic: I, as a private citizen, cannot pull another driver over for speeding, and “road rage” incidents suggest it would be a very bad idea. On the whole, any society I would care to live in rightly prohibits private vengeance, the “wild justice” in place of which we have courts, police, and prisons. None of these functions, I think, can be legitimately exercised by private citizens. So I just don’t think this definition is sustainable.
Yours,
Allan E. Johnson

The Framers operated on the principle that governments were instituted to secure rights, and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. This gives the government powers not legitimate for individual citizens; it does not take away rights from those citizens, but there must be some agreement on that those rights are, and who shall consent.

I think that survival of a nation is an important need for both government and governed. The governed are usually incapable of defending that right without government.

I believe the ethics of providing government services and paying for them by borrowing money and giving our children and grandchildren the debt ought to be questioned and discussed if we are going to discuss ethics; children have no say, yet they are governed, and do not consent. Yet they are to pay for goodies we give ourselves. We can feel very good about our generosity with other peoples money.

As you point out, advances in science can develop procedures that, if given to all, would consume the national budget. They cannot be given to all; should they be available to those who can pay for them, but not to others? This is certainly inequality.

Now what of those who contract a very expensive life threatening disease; a remedy, not precisely a cure but an effective treatment is found; should it be given to all those – a minority – who need it? Free? Means tested? It is also discovered that there is a rather simple way to make sure you never get that disease; the prevention is well known; yet there are some who continue to get it. Should they have the expensive remedy? Free? Make those who don’t get it pay for those who do?

During his last days in office, former president Barack Obama made over 100 appointments before the new transition took over.

Obama staffers get permanent federal jobs — FederalSoup.com

Obama staffers get permanent federal jobs — FederalSoup.com During his last days in office, former president Barack Obama made over 100 appointments before the new transiti…

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Amnesty International Boss Endorses “Jihad in self-defence”

 

If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war.

Glenn T. Seaborg, National Commission on Education, 1983

 

We are a nation of assimilated immigrants.

Immigration without assimilation is invasion.

Mr. Trump has nominated a highly qualified successor to the late Justice Scalia. Most Democrats agree. The Democratic leadership has vowed to oppose, delay, bring the nation to a halt; show that America cannot be governed by Republicans, or anyone but liberals. Demonstrations will continue. Meanwhile, Democrats boycotted the hearings on other Trump appointees.

The Acting Attorney General refused to allow US career civil servants to defend President Trump’s executive orders, and was accordingly dismissed by him; Democrats continue to delay confirmation of President Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, and some have said they will continue all year if needed.

It looks to be an interesting year, as California and New York assert their right to rule over the United States, apparently by right of a majority of voters, almost all of that majority being in California.

As of Monday afternoon, Chicago had recorded 52 homicides in 2017 — one more than was recorded in January 2016, according to a Chicago Sun-Times list compiled using Cook County medical examiner’s and other public records.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/deja-vu-for-city-in-january-2017-over-290-shot-50-plus-killed/

Interesting times.

 

Health Care and the Constitution

Jerry,
I have been away awhile, but I am back reading your column again. Your latest post (from the 25th) is dealing a lot with health care in the United States and what part in this the federal government legitimately plays.
On the general subject of health care in these United States, many, many studies have shown that the US spends more per person on health care than most other developed nations, yet enjoys a significantly lower quality of health care than those same developed countries. I do not think any discussions of what to do about health care in the Unite States can accomplish anything until we find out why this situation is true. We are paying for a new Maserati and getting a used junker.
All the while that the ACA was being debated, I kept pointing out that simply changing the payer was not going to solve the health care problem in the United States, we needed to change what we are paying for, because clearly our money is not purchasing quality health care. So where does our health care dollar go?
When I spend a dollar at the grocery store, I can discover how much of that dollar went to the grocer, how much to the shipper, how much to the packer, and finally, how much to the farmer. If I want more food for my grocery dollar, I should reduce the payments to everyone in that list that does not produce the food. However, when I spend a dollar on health care, I cannot discover who got paid how much of that dollar or why they got paid. I cannot determine how much actual care that dollar bought, so I have no idea how to structure the health care market to reduce the non-care costs.
Another basic problem with health care is the very nature of the market. Much of health care is delivered in emergency circumstances. My own daughter was hit by this when her five year old daughter presented with acute appendicitis. The appendix had to come out or it would rupture and likely kill her daughter. So the appendix came out. No one quoted the cost of the pediatric surgery and post surgical care before she signed the consent forms. Later, she was hit with a $30,000.00 bill. Thirty Thousand Dollars. OK. Suppose that the hospital had told her the charge in advance — would she have rejected it? That’s too much, let’s shop around? Let’s not do it all, just get a new daughter when we can afford one?
The point of this is that much health care is delivered UNDER DURESS. We have no real choice in whether we accept the care or not, nor in what is charged. There is no shopping around in a crisis. There is no letting your children die because they are too expensive to keep right now. We just buy the care. What if we bought cars or television sets under the same circumstances? Is a ‘free’ market possible when one of the parties in the market is held under a death threat or the threat of crippling injury? Is there something fundamentally different about the health care market that requires different rules of operation?
The last part of this brings us to the US Constitution. One of your correspondents mentioned the portion of the preamble concerning promoting the general welfare. You vehemently denied that this was any kind of a grant of power. I have always understood you to be a strict constitutionalist — if the document does not say it, it is not there; if the document does say it, it is there. No emanations. No penumbras. We should also add, no shadows.
However, the preamble of the US Constitution does say: ‘We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’ That is a neat list of charges: 1. form a more perfect Union, 2. establish Justice, 3. insure domestic Tranquility, 4. provide for the common defense, 5. promote the general welfare, 6. secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. You seem to agree with all of these as the purpose of the Constitution except number 5. On what basis do you exclude it? I am not trying to catch you in any kind of a trap; I am asking for my own edification. I have spent a lot of time pondering that particular clause.

Kevin L Keegan

The preamble is not a grant of power

No, but it lays out the intent of the framers for the powers they are going to grant, which is addressed in section 8:

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I can find no further definition of what the “general Welfare of the United States” is or how it is to be provided for.  What constitutes the “common Defence” and how it is to be provided for, in contrast, is spelled out pretty clearly an completely in clauses 10 through 16.

Like I said in my original post, I would like to understand the clause.  I do not think the framers meant to authorize today’s welfare state, but there seems to be a lot of leeway in the wording of the Constitution.

keegan

There has been a long and well publicized debate on the meaning of the General Welfare phrase in the Constitution; the first explanations were from Hamilton and Madison, and were in the Federalist essays, originally op ed pieces in various popular newspapers explaining why people should support the Constitution drafted in Philadelphia in 1787 (both Hamilton and Madison were influential delegates). We encountered those in high school in Christian Brothers High School in Memphis in the 40’s, and as they were intended to persuade voters, they were not intended to be complex or difficult to understand. I suggest you get The Federalist and look up General Welfare in the index. Once you have done that, there are discussions available on the Internet, but of course they have different views depending on the positions of their writers. The Supreme Court has held that the general welfare clause is not a broad grant of power; there are those who disagree and think it is, and the enumeration of powers granted to the Congress in the rest of Article One is superfluous.

It is clear from both Hamilton and Madison in their Federalist essays that they did not believe this, and the original intent of the Framers was not to give virtually unlimited power to Congress, limited only by their belief that they were acting for the “general good.”

In the present era, there are those who say the intent of those who framed, and those who ratified the Constitution is irrelevant; the Constitution is a “living document” and ought to be interpreted as we think fit. This is at the heart of the controversy about “original intent” and one reason Mr. Trump ran on a platform of appointing only “original intent” Justices to the Supreme Court. At present the Court is divided 4 – 4 between Liberals, who usually reject the original intent of the Framers in favor of finding fresh new rights and powers – emanations from penumbras, in the famous phrase of the late Justice William O. Douglas in a dissenting opinion. Mr. Scalia was the scholarly voice of the “original intent” faction; his death left the court divided, and it is fairly clear that had the Democrats won the Presidency, their nominee would have joined the “living document” faction.

Mr. Trump promised to nominate a distinguished jurist of the original intent view if he were elected. He appears to have kept that promise. Assuming his nominee is confirmed, “original intent” will remain the view of a majority of the USSC, and a study of the Federalist Papers will properly interpret the general welfare clause.

The New Diploma: A Bunch of Certificates?

While I’m a new fan of online learning, there is no substitute for face-to-face teaching.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-diploma-a-bunch-of-certificates-1485804301

 

If Prof. David Gelernter’s doomsday scenario (”A High-Tech Rebirth From Higher Ed’s Ashes,” op-ed, Jan. 23) is ever enacted, the word “college” will be replaced by “post-secondary school,” and what were colleges will be trade schools, equipping students with the tools of their trade and little else. What bothers Prof. Gelernter is the failure of educators “to produce adults who can read and write and speak and listen like adults.” The fault often lies with those behind the desk. If English teachers will accept ungrammatical prose, arguing that it is content and not form that matters, and speech teachers allow students to use “like” and “you know” without weaning them away from such verbal crutches, what can be expected of the young adults who are victims of such sloppy pedagogy?

Em. Prof. Bernard F. Dick

 

I would think converting our California State Colleges into trade schools giving what used to be a high school education would be a consummation devoutly to be wished.

 

Perpetual Motion without energy

Jerry,
I have read the article. It has been corrected to show that the time-crystals are NOT in their ground state, so we do NOT have perpetual motion without energy. Not that such a thing is impossible. The electrons in every atom in the universe are in perpetual motion without energy input. Quantum rules forbid electrons in their ground state orbitals from radiating energy, so they maintain their orbital motions until disturbed by an outside force. Those same quantum rules, however, forbid anything from extracting useful work from an electron in its ground state orbital, so the perpetual motion is of no use.
It would have been interesting if a larger system could be shown to have periodic quantum oscillations in its ground state. We could not extract useful work from it; perhaps we would not even be able to observe it happening, but it would extend our understanding of quantum physics.

Kevin L Keegan

A driven oscillator, explicitly stated to be such. Why is the concept of a ground state at equilibrium even relevant to this discussion?

The only thing unique about this experiment is that it involves individual atoms, not macroscopic entities in vibration.

http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-just-announced-a-brand-new-form-of-matter-time-crystals

Quote is from the paper at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.08684v1.pdf

Jim Woosley

I will leave this to those who know far more about it than I, but it looks pretty certain that this will not give us free energy. There still ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

The Rise of the Machines Goes On Apace

Jerry,

Just in case you have not seen it, here is a Wall Street Journal article about the latest robotic barista:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/robot-baristas-serve-up-the-future-of-coffee-at-cafe-x-1485781201

Best,

Rodger

And the beat goes on…

Vetted “refugees” who turned to Jihad

20 “vetted” Muslim refugees who turned to jihad terrorism after being allowed into the U.S.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/01/20-vetted-muslim-refugees-who-turned-to-jihad-terrorism-after-being-allowed-into-the-u-s

Senator Jeff Sessions generated the list in response to Obama’s increased Syrian “refugee” immigration. At least one was a former interpreter.

A temporary immigration suspension is necessary while we figure out how to tell if these are really refugees and not Jihadis Saudi Arabia is forcing

on the rest of the world by refusing to accept them within its borders.

{^_^}

Of course Major Nidal Malik Hassan was born in America to West Bank immigrants.

The USAFA doesn’t train warriors anymore

Just Lovely…I can only assume that the other military academies are the same as the AFA now…how disappointing

—– Forwarded Message —–

The United States Air Force Academy Doesn’t Train Warriors Anymore
OpsLens
–
Jan 17, 2017, 6:00 AM in

Military and Police

By L. Todd Wood:

If the academies do not train loyal warriors, we are indeed lost. Wealthy republics that relied on hirelings for their defense have historically had short lives.

Where regulations come from

Many years ago, my daughters attended a local Montessori school. It was during a presidential campaign season, and the school invited a republican and democratic parent to come talk to the kids. A little while later, the school figured out that they hadn’t covered all their bases, and invited the local head of the Green Party (a parent of one of the children) and myself (a token Libertarian).
My daughters said that I did a good job of explaining what’s wrong with excess government (regulation) with the following set of questions.
First, do you want to make some money babysitting when you’re a little older? (They did.) Would it be a good idea if you knew First Aid as a baby sitter? (Yes) Would it be a good idea to be able to get the kid out of the pool if they were drowning? (Yes) Would it be a good idea if you could cook a healthy meal for the kid? (Yes) I came up with a whole bunch of good ideas for the baby sitter to do.
Then I asked if the government should mandate that you needed all that knowledge before you could babysit. The kids started asking how long and how much money it would take to get all this knowledge. Once I told them, they said “but we’ll never be able to baby sit.”
I said THAT’S the problem with excess regulation. Each regulation is proposed for the best of reasons, to make the world a better place. But if you keep piling more regulations up, then you won’t be able to do anything, much less make the world a better place. You need to ask if this additional regulation will actually improve anything, or will the cost outweigh the benefits.
(I also said that IF they thought they could learn something that would make them a better baby sitter, learn it and tell the parents you know it. Let the parents decide if they want to hire you or the kid down the street who still picks their nose.)
Regulations (in an ideal world) come from efforts to make the world a better place. Unfortunately, they’re not examined to see how much damage they would do, and once put into service, they’re not reviewed for effectiveness.

Fredrik

Mr. Trump hopes to reverse the process.

Regulations must be paid for; seldom do the people who feel good about imposing regulations to make the world a better place actually pay for them; the usual practice is to leave the United States more in debt with each regulation, which is to say, to make our children pay for our good feelings. Eventually the debt comes due, but we are generally gone. You can have your cake and eat it too if you make your children bake it.

voting irregularities

Hello Jerry,
I am pleased beyond measure to read of the continued recoveries of Mrs. Pournelle and yourself.
Here in Michigan, before the courts stopped the recount, many ‘interesting’ things were discovered, including one Detroit precinct where the machines recorded 307 votes when only 52 ballots had actually been cast.
The State is graciously proclaiming Operator Error with regards to the optical ballot scanning machine.
I myself am reminded of the old adage: “Once is a coincidence, twice is incompetence, three times is enemy action.” What then is 255 times?
And this is just one single precinct in a once large city which remains a democratic stronghold. It doesn’t take much imagination at all to apply similar numbers to the large cities across the nation and watch Hillary’s alleged popular vote victory disappear.
Link to the story here:
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/michigans-elections-bureau-audit-detroit-precincts/95349562/
As always, thank you for all you do.
Dave Porter

If there are really large instances of illegal voting, they will likely be found in California, particularly absentee ballots. No one watched very closely because it was a sure thing that Hillary would win California.

health versus defense versus debt

Not being an US citizen but a very interested spectator as to the antics of the US government, it is the one country in the whole planet which can definitely impact us all by a change of policy, I have to wonder about the merits of the debate. Should there be one? Universal health care is a desirable goal, and one that can be achieved within limits, there are quite a few countries that have systems that work. Yes I know they have their problems (delays, long waiting times and so on) but in the overall view they do work. Those populations tend to be healthy.
On the other hand defense should be more than having the latest and the greatest toys, and I do love those toys. But defense is a national undertaking in the most pure sense of them all. It is one of the main reasons nations exist. So if you believe in the need for national defense you should also accept the draft as inevitable.
It has the added value of making politicians wary of risking their constituencies (or their constituencies votes which is more important to them) in a needless war. Furthermore it drives home the real cost of war which is not kept to the suffering of a few professionals. It is all too easy to order people into harm’s way when they are professionals, which we should always have, but things and perceptions change when it’s your own who are going in.
I dare anyone who’s had a son or daughter taking part in operations in a war zone to say there’s no strain associated with that fact. Heinlein used to say something like this “Romans matrons would say to their sons come with your shield or on it, later the custom declined, so did Rome” I’m not quoting exactly but the sentiment was that you are responsible for your own freedoms.
And so we come to the crux of the matter, can you have both a good defense and universal health, yes you could, but in order to achieve that you need to set some kind of a limit, both the the expense account that is implied in buying every gizmo under the sun so health providers can get fat and happy and the same for defense contractors. It is easy to say extremely hard to implement.
And conscription (or selective service if you will) is the only way to ensure that wars undertaken are those wars to the knife, where you go in to win, not to achieve a draw. Because that’s the only way you can sustain a republic, with it’s own citizen’s blood. And the butcher bill should be paid by politicians not by citizens.

Ariel Fabius

It is not universally agreed that universal health care is so easily attained or that it works so well; Canada’s is tempered by the proximity of US clinics which can relieve much of the waiting times, as an obvious example. But this is hardly the place to debate that.

Republics that defend themselves with paid soldiers – mercenaries – have always encountered the problem that, having given the military power to the mercenaries, they are now at their mercy. As Machiavelli said, they can ruin you by losing battles, or by robbing the paymaster. He advocated that the citizens learn to defend themselves.

That may well require conscription, although Mr. Heinlein was fond of insisting that republics that needed conscription weren’t worth defending.

The quote is from Plutarch: Spartan mothers sent their children to war, presenting their sons with the shield and admonishing them to return “With this, or on it.”

We have tended to finance our welfare state by building a ten trillion dollar debt, which will be paid – we hope – by our children or more likely our grandchildren. Of course robots may so raise productivity that the debt will be meaningless; after all, liberal economists say, “we owe it to ourselves.” We even teach that in schools, if the schools mention the debt at all. And we had better hope for artificial intelligence, because our schools seem determined to avoid teaching anything that someone would actually pay money to have you do. Maybe robots will bail us out.

federal regulations vs. congressional law

Jerry,

One of my unforgettable civil service moments at NASA was in this area.

I wanted to do something that seemed on the face of it against the rules and no one had a definitive answer. So they sent me to the NASA regs. I got my answer but I learned much more. Every time congress passes a bill, every department in the administrative branch looks over the bill to see how it effects their regulations. Each department has their own organization to do this. A one paragraph bill can easily result in 1000’s of lines federal regulations when you combine all branches.

Sometimes 10’s of thousands of lines.

When an abomination like obamacare is passed, at 3000 pages, the repercussions to the federal regulations is mind boggling.

—

Phil

That’s all right, your children will pay for it for you.

Order –

Hi Jerry,

I’m not in favor of Trumps order on ‘vetting’, because it’s simply ineffectual. There is no possible way we can keep bad guys out of the country, short of militarizing both the Canadian and Mexican borders and both coasts. Even with the full military on duty, we could only secure a portion of it. That’s why the wall is absurd (stopping illegal immigration is simple – deny welfare benefits, and fine the heck out of employers – no money, no reason to come). Much like gun control, this is security theater at it’s worst – it may make people feel good, but has little real impact.

So I ask myself, why do it? Why hand red meat to the liberal press?

Maybe to keep them off the scent of the real stories? Like the pass one/repeal two, zero cost on regulations (great), or the politicizing of the NSC (really really bad).

What’s clear to me from the past week is that I’m not a Trump supporter, nor am I a populist. I support some of his policies, but others are just baffling. I do wish he’d grow thicker skin, and end the tweets – he can be a change agent, without destroying the decorum of the presidency. More importantly though, him triggering a trade, or other, war out of ham-fisted off the cuff comments, or an exec order from some nut on his staff is a non-zero possibility.

Tough choice – Hillary would have done no good things, and some bad ones. Trump seems to be a man of extremes – very good, and very bad. Hang on, lower the safety bar, and keep your hands and feet in the car at all times!

Cheers,

Doug=

I continue to believe Mr. Trump is crazy like a fox. We’ll just have to see.

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.

Monday, January 30, 2017

Amnesty International Boss Endorses “Jihad in self-defence”

If Republicans want to force through massive tax cuts, we will fight them tooth and nail.

Senator Elizabeth Warren

Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for the West as it commits suicide.

James Burnham

If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war.

Glenn T. Seaborg, National Commission on Education, 1983

Immigration without assimilation is invasion.

It was hardly a surprise that President Trump issued an executive order, delaying for 90 days – for some 120 days – entry into the United States from seven polities – some, like Libya, can hardly be called “states” – with a history of being sources of terrorism. It was part of his campaign, and if he failed to do it, he would have been violating his promises. Needless to say, this has caused numerous professionally organized protests, similar to the protests in Carolina about opening restrooms to anyone who claims that sexual preference, but unlike those protests, these are treated by the media as mass movements conducted by the real winners of the election.

There was also in the executive order a ban on further refugees coming to the United State until new vetting procedures have been developed.

The protesters are acting as if a three or four month delay is an unbearable burden, and their interviews tend to focus on children, not the adults accompanying them; and on how many of them have already been vetted by UN staffers, and members of NGO (non-government organizations) staff. Some have been given visas by US Foreign Service professionals; the assumption is that these people are competent professionals, and have no political agenda. Any hint that there may be civil servants more loyal to Mr. Obama than to the incoming President is treated as either laughable, or worse, a gratuitous insult to the civil service, who are assumed to be underpaid, industrious, always hard working and incompetent – at least by the media when Democrats are in the White House. They never deserve to be the butt of jokes, such as the one current at Boeing when I was there – we called the Bomarc “the civil service missile”, because it won’t work and you can’t fire it.

Despite such jokes still being common (doubtless groundless foul canards) Mr. Trump  wants a confirmation of the vetting process we now use, on the grounds that his duty is to public safety, and while three month delays in coming to the United States while we confirm the vetting are terribly inconvenient to potential migrants, his first duty is to the people of the United States.

The Wall Street Journal, which can’t quite decide if it dislikes Mr. Trump as its owner used to say he did, or is simply overwhelmed by the rapidity with which President Trump is keeping his campaign promises, often has excellent columns well worth your reading.

The President’s Right to Say ‘You’re Fired’

Today’s civil-service system violates the Constitution. Trump has the power to fix it.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presidents-right-to-say-youre-fired-1485732801

By

Philip K. Howard

President Trump wants to overhaul the civil service. Even ardent liberals agree it needs to be rebuilt, but past efforts at reform have withered in Congress under union power and public indifference. There’s a more direct path: Mr. Trump can repudiate civil service in its current form as a violation of the Constitution’s mandate that “the executive power shall be vested in a President.”[snip]

I had forgotten that unions in the Civil Service were permitted only after John Kennedy gave them that right by executive order; they do not have them by act of Congress. What one President can do, another can undo.

I do know that when I first got into campaign politics, civil servants were off limits: they were forbidden by the Hatch Act from having any part in political campaigns; you couldn’t even ask them for political donations. Of course things weren’t perfect then: that was, after all, the era of the Bomarc missile; still, we never had government employees participating in marches and demonstrations. Opting out of partisan politics was one of the choices you made when taking a civil service – as opposed to a political – appointment. It is one reason I became a writer rather than taking a government job in building the Army’s aviation program at a level high enough that it took a vote of the Civil Service Commission to let me enter with no seniority at that level. But that was long ago, and high level civil servants in those days were just beginning to unionize.

Right or wrong, Mr. Trump and his advisors question the vetting of potential migrants, even if done by US Career State Department employees – and very much so if done by UN and NGO staff, as shown on last night’s Sixty Minutes lament on the plight of Syrian refugees, who will now have to wait until after Mr. Trump’s revision of the vetting process (done by UN and NGO, mostly).

Changing the civil service rules is an important part of the mission to “Drain the swamp”, one of the most popular items in Mr. Trump’s campaign speeches. You can think of the mission to improve the schools as another exercise in swamp draining, except that fighting those alligators will be much more difficult; Teacher’s Unions are very powerful, and dedicated to protecting the jobs of all teachers without regard to their competence. There have been several studies indicating that you can just about double the efficiency – measured by the competency of the students at year’s end – simply by firing the worst 10% of the teachers. Not replacing them; simply firing them and parceling out their students into other classes. This has consistently had better results than reducing class sizes, or raising teacher pay across the board. As to who are the 10% worst teachers, come now: in every school I have visited, the other teachers know, and so do the students. Obviously this technique has not been tried in good schools with outstanding results; it’s hardly needed. Better to reward those schools. But that’s not allowed by the unions, either. You reward by tenure and length of service, not for good results. Of course that system has for generations produced a system of education indistinguishable from an act of war against the American People, but that’s no matter.

In California, about 2 out of 277,000 teachers are fired each year.

If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war.

Glenn T. Seaborg, National Commission on Education, 1983

The Constitution gives “The Executive Power” of the United States to the President. It is the essence of government by consent of the governed; we elect our king, and for a limited period of time, and we hold him responsible for what the government does.

The problem is that some government employees do what they want, not what the President wants. An Iron Law of Bureaucracy takes control. In every bureaucracy there are those devoted to the interests of the public whom they in theory serve, and those devoted to the interests of the bureaucracy itself. A good example is teachers: there are those who want to teach, and those who want “released time” to attend to union affairs and other administrative work. In any bureaucracy, the second group always gets in control, and serves the interests of the bureaucracy – and its leaders. Over time an establishment is built. Employment becomes a property right. We have built a ship whose first mission is to service its crew. Sometimes, like bunny inspectors, it has no mission that anyone but the crew wants. If we took a national vote on whether stage magicians ought to have a Federal License before they can have a rabbit in their act, and they must provide an emergency evacuation plan for that rabbit in the event of fire or earthquake or hurricane, how many votes – other than those of bunny inspectors – do you think such a measure would gather? Yet it seems to matter not who is President: we have had bunny inspectors for decades, and we will have bunny inspectors forever and aye.

President Andrew Jackson made the civil service a “spoils system”: those not loyal to President Jackson didn’t get Federal jobs. For all its defects, it was responsible, to Jackson and to those who elected him. The present system is responsible to no one. The Iron Law prevails. And some establishments chose to harass Mr. Obama’s opponents. It was, to them, the right thing to do.

It may be inevitable that establishments grow and consider public office a personal right. The only remedy I know of for this is periodic “Draining the Swamp”, and apparently enough agreed with that to elect Mr. Trump.

Now some of the old Republican Establishment seeks to make common cause with the Democratic establishment to the Establishment get back in control; better to be a minority member of the Establishment than to see a populist government drain the swamp. The Establishment has the media. What it does gets publicity. In its view, only the Establishment makes “real news”. Everything else is fake news, propaganda, and deserves obloquy.

Mr. Trump knows this. He also has the White House. He doesn’t have the media.

I anticipate interesting times.

 

 

 

The pledge drive ended yesterday. It was successful but perhaps not as much so as previous drives have been; probably because I have had less time to spend here. SAs one gets older, the amount of productive time goes down, but the demands of life and the general chaos does not decrease; if anything it demands more time. The price of age, and there’s nothing to be done about it. I’m still working on my books, I try to keep up with technology and the news, and I believe this remains as one of the few places where rational discussion, not proof by repeated assertion, generally prevails. We’ll keep it going.

I’m told my musing about a Space Council to draft a space plan for the new administration discouraged efforts in that direction. Apologies: I’d support a new and better commercial space plan, but the time for Larry and me to try to make it happen – as we did at Larry Niven’s house for Reagan 37 years ago – has long since passed; neither one of us is up to the responsibility of doing that. That does not mean that there’s no need for new united effort to build a thriving space industry. I hope there is one; just that it won’t be Larry and me running it.

Alas, many of the original participants – Max Hunter, Stefan Possony, many of the astronauts, Robert Heinlein and Poul Anderson, General Graham, Colonel Kane – are no longer with us. It was, I have to repeat, thirty seven years ago. On the bright side, some are still very much with us, and a very great deal of progress, some of it directly due to the original Council and its reports, has been made.

Space remains the best hope of mankind. It remains true that 90% of the mineral resources most easily available to humanity are not on this Earth at all; we still have a friendly thermonuclear power plant only 93 million miles away with a daily output far in excess of any needs for man for centuries to come. It’s still raining soup out there, and we’re standing here with forks rather than soup bowls.

It’s very likely time for a new space council. I’m all for it. But I can’t be chairman, and Larry can’t host it.

new phone scam

Read about this on Drudge this morning. You get a call, the caller asks you if you can hear him OK. They want you to answer yes or sure. They record your voice and then use it to sign you up for something. Police depts are recommending you not say anything and hang up. About an hour after reading the article, I got one of those calls. It was a local San Jose number and I answered. After a pause, I got “This is Josh from the customer service dept. Can you hear me OK?”. I hung up. Be careful.

—

Phil Tharp

In case you did not see this. It’s real and dangerous.

It is often suggested that there can’t possibly be millions of false ballots. We do know that Kennedy was elected by the votes of Cook County, which gave him Chicago, which gave him Illinois, which gave him the Presidency; Eisenhower did not want a constitutional crisis and did not allow a court dispute.

Bob Holmes has another opinion.

Vote Fraud?

Jerry,

President Trump says fraudulent votes accounted for more than his opponents popular vote margin of close to 3 million votes. The consensus of the Media and others is that this claim is ridiculous, but is it?

The registration process in most states requires little more than a claim by the person registering that they eligible to vote.

The registration can be performed in a variety of ways. Most of them do not require the person registering to appear before a government official or supply proof of eligibility.

The actual process of voting, in the majority of venues, does not required the person voting to demonstrate that they are the registered voter beyond signing the Voter Roll.

Requesting an Absentee Ballot does not require a voter to appear at a polling place. Filling out and mailing an absentee ballot does not mean that the person voting is registered or even eligible to vote. (No safeguards whatsoever beyond an in absentia affirmation.

There are a number of political organizations registering people to vote. Many of these organizations have a less than stellar record for honest and aboveboard behavior.

There are said to be over 11 million illegal immigrants in our Country.

If 30 percent of these illegals were registered to vote and voted that might account for the a significant portion of the Popular Vote difference.

I believe that an investigation into voting irregularities is warranted given facts listed above.

Bob Holmes

We are likely to have a constitutional crisis.

‘Thus, the entirety of the judge’s order is unlawful and proceeds from an assumption of legal facts about U.S. visas that are wrong. This judge isn’t stupid. She knows this. She knows that the order she issued is unlawful.’

<https://placejourdan.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-judges-order-staying-trumps-order/>

—————————————

Roland Dobbins

 

Bunny Inspectors

Jerry,
Mr. Jordan posted about bunny inspectors recently and asked what other things might be similarly regulated. I agree that there are way too many regulations out there, but to do something about it, we need to understand why the regulations exist in the first place.
There is a common misconception that regulations are dreamed up whole cloth for the sole purpose of raising revenue for the government. Far from it, most regulations generate no revenue at all and those that do often cost far more to enforce than any fees that are charged for their enforcement. The dreaming out of whole cloth impression does not work, either, since the executive branch has no authority to write law.
But, these are regulations, not laws, right? Surely the executive branch does write regulations without the approval of the legislative branch? Actually, it does not and cannot. Every regulation written by the executive branch has its roots and authorities in laws passed by the legislative branch.
Let’s take a closer look at the bunny inspector issue. Where did the regulations come from? They started in Congress when laws were passed to protect the welfare of animals used in interstate businesses. Such businesses were forbidden by law to be cruel to their animals (which we might all be agreed is a good thing to forbid) or to put them in cruel situations by inaction or negligence (again, something that sounds pretty reasonable). The law, once passed, falls to the executive branch to enforce, and it must enforce the law evenly, as we are all (rightfully) equal under the law in this nation.
To apply the law evenly, the executive branch must define a few things, such as cruelty. What willful acts against an animal can be considered cruel? What acts of negligence or inaction might be cruel to an animal? It would seem pretty reasonable to say that allowing an animal to drown in a flood, be burned in a fire, or crushed in an earthquake would be cruel if these outcomes of a disaster could be reasonably prevented, would it not? So how do you prevent these outcomes? By planning, no?
So this gets written into the regulations, which in actuality don’t tell we the people what we can and can’t do or must or must not do, but rather tell the executive branch how to enforce the law, as written and passed by Congress, as completely and evenly as it can. We the people get caught up in these things when we have to show the executive that we are complying with the law, not being cruel to our animals used in our businesses, for example, by having a disaster plan.
How does our small time magician with his one bunny get caught up in this? Equality under the law. Congress did not exempt ANYONE from the responsibility to not treat their business use animals cruelly. So one rabbit is as important as a dozen white rhinos or a circus full of lions and tigers and snakes.
If we want fewer regulations and more sensible enforcement policies, we need to get Congress to write better laws, with better definitions of the thing being legislated, and better information on their intent for the law. It is real easy to blame the executive branch for all of this, but the problem starts in the legislative branch.

Kevin L Keegan

It may start there, but I do not think the civil service is ever eager to declare any job redundant; certainly their union never has. It is also certain that it will take the cooperation of Congress to drain the swamp. But note that the Republican Establishment, having said that having both Houses of Congress were insufficient to let them do anything, now is seeking common cause with the Democrats on the grounds that they need a more popular President. One suspects that if they bet that, they’ll have other reasons for leaving the Establishment alone.

If the Executive has no power to hire and fire the government officers, just who is responsible to the people? Anyone? Why is that better than a king? As Parkinson observes, kings can waste money on favorites and mistresses, but there is a limit on how many they want, or indeed can endure; but of psychologists, sociologists, experts in voodoo sciences, there is absolutely no limit. Ever.

Perpetual Motion without energy

I’m looking forward to the practical applications for such technology; something I admit I can’t quite envision.

For months now, there’s been speculation that researchers might have finally created time crystals – strange crystals that have an atomic structure that repeats not just in space, but in time, putting them in perpetual motion without energy.
Now it’s official – researchers have just reported in detail how to make and measure these bizarre crystals. And two independent teams of scientists claim they’ve actually created time crystals in the lab based off this blueprint, confirming the existence of an entirely new form of matter.
The discovery might sound pretty abstract, but it heralds in a whole new era in physics – for decades we’ve been studying matter that’s defined as being ‘in equilibrium’, such as metals and insulators.
But it’s been predicted that there are many more strange types of matter out there in the Universe that aren’t in equilibrium that we haven’t even begun to look into, including time crystals. And now we know they’re real.

http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-just-announced-a-brand-new-form-of-matter-time-crystals

John

John Harlow

This is the first I’ve heard of any of this, and I have yet to see any actual data. Anyone know more? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof…

spacesuit progress

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/01/27/boeing-suits-up-for-future-of-spaceflight-with-new-spacesuit-design/

Yea!

—

Phil Tharp

And hurrah.

 

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war.

Glenn T. Seaborg, National Commission on Education, 1983

“Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Immigration without assimilation is invasion.

I got some real work done today, but into each reign some life must fall; this afternoon a technician showed up, unannounced, and went into my kitchen where he began removing the dishwasher. I got someone finally to admit that the dishwasher – some fifteen years old – had not been getting the dishes very clean, and Alex had gone out and bought a new Maytag dishwasher. I saw no papers, had no idea of what it cost, and not a clue as to how to use it. I sat at the breakfast table and solved the daily mathematical puzzle, and when I looked up, he was gone, leaving an “Instruction Manual” that turned out to be one sheet of paper about the size of a beach towel folded ingeniously; on it was printed, in every known Earth language and possibly Martian, in type so small that I needed both a flashlight and magnifying glass, what purported to be instructions. Most were legal warnings.

After my initial rage I got out the magnifying glass and flashlight and managed to read enough to do a load of dishes in “Auto” setting. That took 3 hours and 42 minutes. I know because it has an electronic countdown, sort of like the countdown clocks always visible on TV terrorist bombs, and it read 3:42, and while I watched went to 3:41; which was a clue. Watching it another minute confirmed the hypothesis that it was a countdown as I went to 3:40. So it would take nearly 4 hours to do a load of dishes. It did.

I must say it was quiet and did the dishes well. I went back to the nearly unreadable instructions and was told that auto and normal settings saved water and electricity; the FAST setting would get them just as clean, but would use more water, and possibly more electricity. Later on it told me that you could save power by not using the heated drying feature or Sanitize, but it said so in a way that made it clear I did so at my own risk. And later again I found that $40 of what I considered a rather high price was a city “Dishwasher permit” I had to have; a feature of LaLa Land life I had not known about, but I suppose I mustn’t be surprised. My heating bill for the month was under $100…

So that was a distraction, but I did get some work accomplished.

The frantic pace in Washington continues. Mr. Trump seems to spend 4 hours sleeping, two hours with his family, and the other 18 working; he’s apparently wearing his staff out. There are few surprises: he’s doing what he said he would do if elected. This seems like dirty tricks to many of his opponents, and they find people to say so, loudly, but I would suspect there are many fewer “won’t say” voters in the presidential popularity polls, as many who didn’t vote for him because they didn’t believe him watch in wonder. Diehard “No Illegals” adherents have been found to denounce him for hesitating on the Dreamer kids, but as I have already explained, even if he wanted to deport them, surely they are less urgent a problem than illegal alien felons, and there are enough of those to overwhelm the resources available to deal with them. Sufficient unto the day are the evils thereof.

It remains to see how well Mr. Trump and the Congress can cooperate, but I think this frantic pace, and the joy with which many Republican voters feel as they approve sends a message to Republicans up for reelection in 2018. Newt said on TV tonight that it took three to four years to balance the budget, last time – the last time anyone balanced the budget Newt Gingrich was Speaker and Mr. Clinton was President – and we’re in deeper now, but he is pretty certain Mr. Trump will run for reelection in 2020 with a balanced budget for support. As Eliza sings, Wouldn’t that be Loverly?

There’s some talk of restoring the old Citizen’s Council on space, but I think that moment has passed.

Health Care vs. Defense
Dr. Pournelle I hope this finds both your and Roberta’s health issues continuing to improve. I’ve just returned home from yet another hospital stay to address internal bleeding from the blood thinner prescribed to ward off stroke from atrial fibrillation. If its not one thing its another. Oh well, every day above ground is a good one!
On January 19, Cam Kirmser responded to my remarks on health care etc. Let me say I have zero interest getting involved in an old school vs. neocon vs. tea party pissing contest but I will respond. I never characterized the options as being either health care or defense and they are not. I believe in a strong national defense as much as anyone but I believe our never-ending undeclared wars are fueling our enemies and lowering our international standing. If we are going to invoke the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 clearly in Congress alone the power to declare war. That nearly all modern presidents have pursued foreign adventures only creates a precedent but one without legal foundation. The lack of will within Congress is implied consent but not Constitutional authority. The country is being bankrupted by this military (not defense) spending.
I agree that health care is not granted by the Constitution. Neither is it denied. The Constitution is a living document and can always be amended to reflect the will of the people. In the face of greed of our “representatives” and the unbridled power of lobbyists it might never happen but I believe that further trillions would be better spend at home than pursuing the dreams of defense contractors. I believe that many, if not most, of my countrymen would agree.
Its all about opportunity costs. What will our current short-sighted policies cost us for the future of our children? That’s my final answer.

John Thomas

I agree: that’s the real debate. Is immediate universal high quality health care worth another doubling of the National Debt – i.e. more transfer of assets from the younger generations to us old geezers who use most of the health care resources? Even without military expenses, giving all possible medical options to the old and retired will require borrowing much money; making those who can pay anything pauperize themselves so that those who saved nothing can have the same services, and all can be equal in poverty is only the first step here. Yet if you say no one gets the expensive treatments unless all do, you either get restrictions on research, or bizarre distortions of the market, organlegging, and other such science fiction delights. As Mrs. Thatcher said, of course socialism works, until you run out of other people’s money.

As to how much defense is enough, surely there are similar problems here? Lowering the standards for elite units to promote diversity runs up expenses fast while lowering unit effectiveness; how much “military expense” can we afford to divert to social engineering? If you require the diversion, you still must pay for needed and real military power.

It is an old debate. Machiavelli understood that wealthy republics seldom lasted; they tended to hire soldiers rather than learn to defend themselves. First they ended conscription – something Mr. Heinlein devoutly wanted to do – and went to paid citizen soldiers; soon they hired non-citizens; and you know the rest. “Mercenaries may ruin you by losing battles, by selling out to the enemy, or by robbing the paymaster.” It does not happen early in the republic’s decadence; but it will happen.

health care

Dear Mr. Pournelle,
You write: “the subject should be, is this Constitutional (for the Federal Government) and is it a good idea. Subsumed under that second question is an all important one: can we afford it, or is the money more required for other needs? And that discussion I do not recall seeing.”
I agree. Let’s try that.
Regarding legitimacy: at this point, I would start with the argument that health care legislation would stand on constitutional grounds comparable to those which the courts have recognized for Social Security and Medicare; and that the Constitution gives the Congress broad powers to “provide for the general welfare.”
Can we afford it? That question is more difficult. One problem is that our current system provides us with no credible base line on cost and effectiveness. Here’s an interesting article in Consumer Reports:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2014/11/it-is-time-to-get-mad-about-the-outrageous-cost-of-health-care/index.htm
First, I think it’s necessary to stipulate that with continuing advances in medical technology it is increasingly the case that we are *capable* of providing medical care which no plausible economy can *afford.* That’s a problem. I have no brilliant solutions, but I do think we need to begin by recognizing that limits exist. Currently, those limits are often imposed by insurance companies. I don’t find that an optimal solution; but I won’t pretend that any other visible solution is very good either.
Beyond that: falling back, for the lack of anything better, on anecdotal evidence —
A few years back I read about a few East Coast hospitals who ran an interesting experiment. They found that overall costs of medical care could be significantly reduced by providing unusually strong home health care to a surprisingly small number of vulnerable patients. Readmission rates dropped significantly. The problem which arises is: while such a program can be effective, and reduces costs, it is to the economic disadvantage of any hospital that adopts it. Under free market assumptions, it won’t happen.
It also turns out that a quite disproportionate amount of the cost of medical care is attributable to hospital expenses in the last six months of life. This presents, I think, both ethical and practical quandaries. The notion of limiting medical care for older people (of whom I am now one) seems ethically intolerable. On the other hand, if I were offered the choice between keeping me “alive” but unconscious for three months, while running up extravagant hospital bills, and spending that same amount on young children, I’d have to go with the children.
Beyond that: one datum I’ve run across repeatedly in church work is that people without medical insurance far too often wind up in emergency rooms with problems that could have been more effectively treated, at less expense, earlier on. The bills with which they are then, in theory, presented are higher by several orders of magnitude than any bills which would be paid by insurance. And in fact they are not paid. I cannot imagine that this system is cost-effective.
In consequence, while I am not sure pertinent information is reliably available, I inclined to think that in terms both of effectiveness and of cost-effectiveness we could do a great deal better.
Is the money more required for other needs? That’s a difficult question. I’d need to ask: what might those needs be? And I’d also note that a similar argument has been raised with reference to space exploration; where one pertinent response is “and how many other uses for rocket fuel can you name?” Which is to say: if we do not spend these resources on health care, is it in fact the case that more resources will be available for other needs?
If I may be cynical: as I watch our infrastructure deteriorate while people scream about their taxes and then go buy snowmobiles, I’m not impressed. Some years back, in Minnesota, Governor Ventura thought the state’s “rainy day” fund was too high; so he pushed through a rebate of a few hundred dollars per resident. Which was received, and duly spent, with no apparent benefit. Then the rainy day came…
A further comment on “rights,” while continuing to think this isn’t a useful approach to health care:
Mr. White suggests, citing the French theorist Bastiat, that “since the people can only delegate the authority that they themselves possess, and “the people”, as a collective, cannot be deemed to possess any authority — or right — that a single person lacks, it follows that the state also cannot legitimately act against a person in any manner that would be forbidden to another person.” I think this assertion is highly problematic, and (attempting to use the term analytically rather than pejoratively) hard to distinguish from classical anarchism. As I read Mr. White’s description, on that basis any taxation by the state would be illegitimate, even for the purposes of national defense. Highway patrols would also be problematic: I, as a private citizen, cannot pull another driver over for speeding, and “road rage” incidents suggest it would be a very bad idea. On the whole, any society I would care to live in rightly prohibits private vengeance, the “wild justice” in place of which we have courts, police, and prisons. None of these functions, I think, can be legitimately exercised by private citizens. So I just don’t think this definition is sustainable.
Yours,
Allan E. Johnson

First, I vehemently disagree with your interpretation of the General Welfare sentence ; it is not a grant of power, it is a pious wish. Were it a grant of power, the rest of the Constitution would not have been needed, and everyone in that room during that hot summer of 1787 knew it. The courts have long held that.  It doesn’t even generate emanations and penumbras, 

I will grant that the powers have managed to get health care out of other power grants, particularly interstate commerce, although I find that strained; but it is the current interpretation.

As to other needs, surely defense is one of them, and many would say much of the infrastructure – which does affect interstate commerce, and the Constitution explicitly gives Congress powers over post roads. What we have now is a massive transfer of wealth from young people to the people taking care of old people, although the recipients are generally unaware of that.

Trump vs. the press

you said:
> much of what the Press Corps receives is privileges, not rights, and those may be withheld at discretion?
We are already seeing that. The tradition has been that the AP asked the first question, then the networks, then possibly others, and when the AP reporter stood up and thanked the presenter, that was the end of the press conference.
We have seen that the Trump administration is not doing this, they are asking various reporters and not in a order as decided by the press. I heard that Tuesday the AP did their traditional “ending” routine, and the response was basically “thank you, but we’re going to keep asking questions”
The addition of 4 “Skype seats” that will let remote reporters/bloggers attend and ask questions is another change to “business as usual”
During Obama’s term in office, Fox news was pretty much frozen out of asking questions. There’s nothing that requires that they take questions from any particular network. So if a network is deemed as being a problem (“fake news” or otherwise), they can be frozen out of being able to ask questions for a while.
This isn’t a violation of the freedom of the press, because it doesn’t prevent them from publishing anything, and if the question really is important, others can (and probably will) raise it. It only hurts the prestige/pride of the network because it’s not THEIR reporter asking the question.
My take on the issue of “holding the press accountable” is that if the press makes what the White House thinks is a false statement, they will counter with what they think the correct statement is.
I agree that the number of people attending/viewing is not important, but what’s being missed in the outrage over that statement is that they were also countering the claim that Trump had removed the MLK bust from the Oval Office, which was presented by the press as a aggressive action against Blacks. That was a very important statement to get countered.

David

And of course it had not been removed; although the bust of Churchill had been restored. As observed recently in WSJ, the original America First movement would have been appalled: they liked Churchill not at all.

I guess it’s something like; “We’ll trade you for XL and DAPL for forgetting about the war in Syria.” (For the pipeline there.)

XL is going to have a terminal in Baker, Montana to pick up Bakken product.

DAPL brings Bakken product to Pakota, IL hub. 8 Pipelines already cross under

the Missouri River without incident. BNSF oil train crosses Standing Rock tribal lands.

(BNSF = Burlington Northern Santa Fe – Owned by Warren Buffet)

Tribe should get some Royalties from pipeline to go away.

 

 

 

         

U.S. Pipeline before DAPL and XL           U.S. Pipeline after DAPL and XL

Eric Sabo

The government is not paying for the pipeline; it is preventing others from paying for it, or now not preventing it.

The Democrats have gone full circle from founding the KKK to hating white people:

<.>

Democrats must provide “training” that focuses in part on teaching Americans “how to be sensitive and how to shut their mouths if they are white,” urged the executive director of Idaho’s Democratic Party, Sally Boynton Brown, who is white.

The event’s moderator, MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid, asked the candidates how the party should handle the Black Lives Now movement.

The candidates uniformly emphasized that the party must embrace the activists unreservedly.

“It makes me sad that we’re even having that conversation and that tells me that white leaders in our party have failed,” Brown said.

“I’m a white woman, I don’t get it. … My job is to listen and be a voice and shut other white people down when they want to interrupt.”

“This is life and death” she emphasized. “I am a human being trying to do good work and I can’t do it without y’all. So please, please, please, get ahold of me. Sally at we-the-dnc.org. I need schooling so I can go school the other white people.”

</>

https://news.grabien.com/story-dnc-chair-candidates-bash-white-people-racially-charged-foru

They have no values; they just want to complain and oppose whatever is going on and stay in power by disagreeing with everyone else and attracting all the misfits and non-conformists. Only now, they can’t figure out which way is up or down and they’re spinning. Let’s hope they fade away.

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Most Respectfully,

Joshua Jordan, KSC

Percussa Resurgo

I was raised on the notion that the Republicans freed the slaves and imposed tariffs; the Democrats defended Jim Crow and believed in tariff for revenue only.

NPR Against Trump

I was listening to the NPR coverage during the transition and I heard all the worship of Obama and worry about Trump. Now I found this article that points out yet another interesting development at tax-payer funded NPR:

<.>

Working in what I presume they see as the interest of factual accuracy, NPR has published an annotated version of Trump’s inaugural speech. In theory, this is probably a good idea.

My problem with it lies in the network’s clearly selective use of this practice. They did not, to my knowledge, ever do anything of this sort with Obama’s speeches which, predominant liberal impressions notwithstanding, were regularly filled with whoppers. Indeed not only did they not point out his many fibs, but they regularly imputed to him and his words realities and intentions that were clearly absent in the text.

</>

http://original.antiwar.com/thomas-harrington/2017/01/23/npr-publishes-and-annotated-version-of-trumps-inaugural-speech/

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Most Respectfully,

Joshua Jordan, KSC

Percussa Resurgo

Surface Pro

Jerry:

Regarding the Microsoft Automatic Update System (“MAUStrap”) and your portable . . .makes you miss the TRS-80 Model 100, doesn’t it?

There are reasons that I still have one. While others are watching their laptops (with Chiclet keyboards) boot and load all of their apps and background bloat, or their tablets (with places on glass that you are supposed to PRETEND are keys) go through the latest surprise, forced OS update, I slide a switch and in about a second I’m working on a nice big touch-type-friendly keyboard, checking every few seconds by glancing at nice, big text, and enjoying the strongest security against malware known to man (you would have to write the code and upload it yourself)!

As a portable text editor, it has never been surpassed for sheer simple functionality.

As a fringe benefit, with the Model 100 I get more attention from a lecturer or interviewee, as the lone face in the middle of a sea of tops of heads or faces half-hidden behind one device or another.

There is a difference between “technological advance” and actual PROGRESS.

Keith

You pay a higher price than I can afford. I’ll have more on the Surface Pro when I get a bit more time.

This might explain some things

Network authentication changes. Windows 10 configures networks as public by default, which can disrupt connectivity with other devices on your network, including NAS storage. To fix this, be sure to change the network type to private.

                The above is from an article about changes to Windows 10. This is a security measure that is the right thing to do but also confusing for experienced users who expect things to be wide open on the LAN by default. It could explain some of the recent annoyances we’ve both experienced.

Eric Pobirs

And indeed it does. I had some of my machines believing they were operating in a Starbucks.

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.