Archives for the month of: December, 2016

First, put away the guns.

There is no need to force education. Coercion is evil. Don’t coerce.

Repeal all truancy laws. Set people free.

We don’t make anyone go to church, nor any other “good” organization. Would to God our schools were half as well off as our religious and service organizations.

Set people free, and watch them do right by their children.

Trust people, or why try?

International Liberty

While I have great fondness for some of the visuals I’ve created over the years (especially “two wagons” and “apple harvesting“), I confess that none of my creations have ever been as clear and convincing as the iconic graph on education spending and education outcomes created by the late Andrew Coulson.

I can’t imagine anyone looking at his chart and not immediately realizing that you don’t get better results by pouring more money into the government’s education monopoly.

But the edu-crat lobby acts as if evidence doesn’t matter. At the national level, the state level, and the local level, the drumbeat is the same: Give us more money if you care about kids.

So let’s build on Coulson’s chart to show why teachers’ unions and other special interests are wrong.

Gerard Robinson of the American Enterprise Institute and Professor Benjamin Scafidi from Kennesaw State University take

View original post 887 more words


Are you worried about WWIII? You should read this. Do you love history? You should read this. Do you wonder at Russia, especially the enigma of the old USSR? You should read this. Russia is not the USSR. Putin may be cold, but he is rational, and he is a patriot. Russia plays defense. It does not think offense. Even the unimaginable numbers asserted by the Soviet at the height of the Cold War, Russia thought of defense. Her offense was only intended, at least in the Russian heart, to ensure the battle lines were drawn far from Russia’s heartland.

Perhaps the grand communist experiment, the epic failure (which was and always will be inevitable), was able to happen largely due to the mindset of the Russian-related peoples. Perhaps they had lived in danger so long, that stable dread was tolerable. I hope it cannot happen again. Surely enough people know that communism, socialism, in all its forms, fails, moreover, it kills and destroys.

The article is long. Read it anyway. Grab a mug and learn, enjoy it all.

Mr. Hitchens mentions a movie, a documentary of the sorry conditions in the USSR.

In Russian, of course. No English text. So, learn your Russian or guess.

A note of one who was looking for the movie in 2015.

From the Internet Movie Database:


The misreading of Russia’s geopolitical situation is especially sad because for the first time in . . . .

Source: The Cold War Is Over by Peter Hitchens | Articles | First Things

Well said, full of truth, and just about what I think. If you want to know better about the DNC emails, take a moment to read. Willis is always worth reading.

Skating Under The Ice

Thanks to a tweet by Stephen McIntyre, I’ve finally found a document that explains the hacking of the DNC emails. It’s by a company called “CrowdStrike”, a computer security firm which was called in by the Democrats back in June when the intrusions were discovered. The document is from June 16. Here’s the short version.

There are not one but two different hacking groups involved. The CrowdStrike folks name all Russian hacking groups with the code name “Bear”. One group called “Cozy Bear”, also known as TG-4127, was able to break into the DNC server and the Hillary Clinton campaign server. The “Fancy Bear” group attacked the Republican National Committee and Trump campaign, but couldn’t get in.

These two groups are known to have been involved in a host of other attacks, often in Russia, and are known to be hired by the Russian Government for this kind of operation. It gives the…

View original post 901 more words

For consideration.

Skating Under The Ice

From the New York Times a while back:

In 2010, 12 government agencies working in conjunction with economists, lawyers and scientists, agreed to work out what they considered a coherent standard for establishing the social cost of carbon. The idea was that, in calculating the costs and benefits of pending policies and regulations, the Department of Transportation could not assume that a ton of emitted carbon dioxide imposed a $2 cost on society while the Environmental Protection Agency plugged 10 times that amount into its equations.

At the time I protested loudly that this was only half an analysis. Even the dumbest anthropoid knows if he is faced with a complex decision, to take a piece of paper, draw a vertical line down the middle,  put “Pluses” at the top of one column, “Minuses” on top of the other, and fill in the columns with the pluses and minuses of the…

View original post 1,031 more words


We need to acknowledge that the government cannot fix our problems. The government is the problem. We need less government. We need rid of the Department of Energy entirely. We need rid of the Department of Education as well.

Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Over at the Washington Post, Chris Mooney and the usual suspects are seriously alarmed by a memo sent out by the Transition Team at the Department of Energy. They describe it in breathless terms in an article entitled “Trump transition team for Energy Department seeks names of employees involved in climate meetings“.   The finest part was this quote from Michael Halpern:

Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, called the memo’s demand that Energy officials identify specific employees “alarming.”

“If the Trump administration is already singling out scientists for doing their jobs, the scientific community is right to be worried about what his administration will do in office. What’s next? Trump administration officials holding up lists of ‘known climatologists’ and urging the public to go after them?” Halpern asked.

Oh … you mean like…

View original post 4,272 more words

Well, I disagree with the Pope. He is wrong.

I find it simply evil for the Vatican to publish lies. You can pretend the Pope and his statements are honest, even if mistaken, but that is not possible.

The statement is fallacious and worded to deceive. It is a lie.

It is a dark hour for humanity and the church.

The Catholic Church and the Pope will be shown as opposed to the right. The recent climate polices kill and enslave. That is the opposite of what Christ commanded. We cannot save posterity by killing and enslaving their progenitors.

The Pope has shown himself willing to aid and abet that which harms humanity, that which is opposed to our very souls.

Some day, the Vatican will recant such nonsense, as it had to with Galileo.

Watts Up With That?


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Catholic Online reports that new priests will be expected to be familiar with and promote efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

New priests to learn about global warming as part of formation

LOS ANGELES, CA (California Network) — The Catholic Church is intimately concerned about climate change. The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences is the world’s oldest, longest running scientific mission. That body, which advises the pope on matters of science, has concluded that global climate change is real and is caused, at least in significant part, by human activity.

This is important to the Church because creation care is part of our mission. We are called to be stewards of creation. It’s also important because climate change can exacerbate the ills of poverty. Poor people in much of the world are the most vulnerable to changes.

Unfortunately, the issue is politicized. In the…

View original post 217 more words

#climate science

The main thing for me, the proposed actions against global warming are certain to cause more harm than the purported global warming.

Watts Up With That?

Dilbert creator, Scott Adams wrote a post on his blog yesterday that is well worth reading in entirety: The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science

Adams notes:

It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:

1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming.

2. Prediction models are complicated. When things are complicated you have more room for error. Climate science models are complicated.

3. The models require human judgement to decide how variables should be treated. This allows humans to “tune” the output to a desired end. This is the case with climate science models.

4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field. As I…

View original post 726 more words


Watts Up With That?

From E&E Legal:


“We are delighted with President-elect Trump’s selection of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Mr. Pruitt has led the charge in recent years to confront head on the enormous federal regulatory overreach proposed by the EPA as epitomized by the Clean Power Plan and Waters of the U.S. rule.  As a litigator, he also understands how environmental fringe groups like the Sierra Club and the NRDC – who are bankrolled by renewable energy tycoons like Tom Steyer and George Soros – use the state and federal court systems to essentially create new laws through such schemes as ‘sue & settle.’

It is also reassuring that President-Elect Trump has chosen someone from the state ranks, particularly a state so important to energy production, since it’s the states and their citizens who are suffering the most by this Administration’s out-of-control EPA.


View original post 333 more words

%d bloggers like this: