Wired's Defense of Nonsense

Almost two months ago I posted in regard to a mystical Wired magazine equation that attempted to prove just how much CO2 is produced by humans. The flaw with this equation is that it starts with a variable F, meant to show Global CO2 emissions, that was explicitly on both sides which means that any other variable in the equation does not matter.

Being monks in the secular religion of global warming/man caused climate change the editors at Wired cannot help themselves from further obfuscation. In a reply titled “It Is What It Is” from the August 2010 issue, they state “Of course the two sides are equal-that’s what scientists call an equation”.

On the face of things, that is true but what the editors neglect is that an equation is to show that one can arrive at a value by calculating some combination of other values. If the right side of the equation relies on the same exact value as the left side and contains other values that cancel each other out, those other values are meaningless.

Let’s look at an example. Ohm’s law, V = IR can be written as V = I * V/I which means V = V, but it is not written that way because current (I) and resistance (R) are tangible quantities and so long as two values are known, the third can be determined. From the way it is written, the user needs to know I and R to determine V or the left side is determined by known values on the right. Wired’s equation tries to show how to calculate the left side but it requires that left side to solve itself (by way of being explicitly on the right) which is ridiculous. This is forcing the issue by using unknowable values that can be whatever the user desires because if A = B*C/B*D/C*A/D all you’re proving is that A = A and B, C and D never matter. B, C and D can literally (H/T Sean Hannity) be anything. And if one plays with the equation on the Wired website that anything is used to show that the Earth is always doomed because humans are awful.

To Wired, this doesn’t matter. Like every other climate alarmist instead of acknowledging the obvious they mock inquiries into their methods and continue to push mythology. The title of the response should have been “It Is What It Is And You Should Believe Us Just Because, Ignore What You Know, There Is Nothing To See Here”. And these are not the droids that you are looking for.

While Wired sticks to nonsense equations I will stick to my earlier statement;

This is a perfect illustration of why many don’t take warmmongers seriously anymore. Why should the public believe in this stuff if the purveyors treat us like imbeciles?

In search of clarity

In an interesting business turn recently I had the pleasure to ask in all seriousness if someone who was looking for me to give them something if they were indeed looking for me to give them something. This seemingly strangely worded account stems from one of my deepest desires, the desire that those I interact with tell me exactly what it is that they want and why. It is a perplexing and much too common occurrence that someone wants something but for whatever reason determines that the best method to get that something is to obfuscate.

It all started with a University that was looking into obtaining a software application that my company developed for a particular class and to be used in lab. The initial query came in the form of an email and was worded in a way that could be taken in multiple ways. And multiple ways were taken by several people in my company’s chain of command evidenced by the Office Space style way that I received the same note from multiple people imploring that I rush to take care of this business opportunity.

While my boss’ boss read it as a possible large sale and even the prospect of a development partner (!?), I read it from the beginning as someone looking to us to give them product and support. This read of the request was apparent to me because the request was wordy and mentioned the word agreement many times, non-monetary benefits to my company for participation and an appeal to the CEO of the company who, tangential interest in the purpose of this particular school. Not exactly a sales inquiry.

Several days after responding by email and phone the representative of the school called and we spoke about it for several minutes. Details of the class and flattering comments of the software were shared by this representative while not once mentioning that his purpose was a hand out. While I do have the almost supernatural ability to recognize winks and nods over the phone and in writing I won’t respond to them. I asked the representative to send me an email detailing their proposal, stressing the importance of clarity.

When that email came it again was heavy on platitudes while empty on details. This led to my question, asking specifically if what was being proposed was the dispatch of software at no cost and finally the representative replied in the affirmative.

It could be thought that because I knew exactly what was going on that this whole episode was not necessary and while valid is beside the point. There is no reason why adults need to hide their intentions when talking business with other adults. There is no reason for a University to hide their intentions and it is not uncommon for companies to provide students with complementary products, after all I bought a calculator for college based on experiences with one that I used in high school compliments of the manufacturer. Let me be clear, I want to be asked.

It is not too much to ask for someone looking to solicit something for nothing to tell you what exactly they want. This kind of behavior is much too common and it is confusing as to the cause. It seems almost as if there are some people that believe sharing their true intentions would lead to a negative response. It is beyond puzzling why making the other person guess while hiding those intentions is better. Whatever happens in the future it is certain that I will stubbornly continue to always insist on clarity.

Unfriending Congress

There have been several times over the last year where I found myself motivated to write to the congressional delegation of New Mexico, always in fierce opposition to some ridiculous expensive, wordy and unread legislative “framework”. Neither senator’s staff, Udall nor Bingaman, has ever responded although Bingaman’s office did put my address on their spam email list. Thanks for that. I have received responses from representative Heinrich’s office, informing me that everyone else wants what I don’t and that my opposition likely stems from a misunderstanding and that I will be appreciative some day when my life is enriched by the congress’ benevolence. Needless to say, I’m not exactly enamored with my state’s representation.

This morning there were two columns on National Review Online discussing the apparent antipathy congress has shown towards much of their constituency and how that has led to a distrust and even intense dislike from that constituency. Victor Davis Hanson explores ethical issues and the current congress’ inability/refusal for contemplation:

Recent polls show that more than 70 percent of the public holds an unfavorable view of Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) wins about a 10 percent approval rating; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has similarly rock-bottom poll numbers…Why this astounding — and growing — disdain for our lawmakers? After all, Congress has had plenty of scandals and corruption in the past, such as the House post-office and check-kiting messes, the Charles Keating payoffs, and the Abscam bribery…But lately, Congress seems not merely corrupt, but — far more worrisome — without apparent concern that it has become so unethical.

This is certainly believable as one avenue. In the last week, anyone who happened to pay attention, was able to witness former House Ways and Means Chair Charles Rangel (D, NY) dismissing charges against him stemming from failure to pay taxes and taking advantage of his position for illegal perks. It is debatable though how many people pay attention, Rangel could be thrown in prison tomorrow and would likely sail to re-election.

While the corruption angle is a valid one it is not the most important one simply because, as Hanson mentions, congress has had plenty of scandals and corruption in the past. The most detrimental aspect is that many of these criminals are often re-elected. NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Bought a Third Term-NY) reminded people that Rangel had done so much for NY. If certain areas continue to hire these people then they deserve what they get.

The most important detail starts with a more informed electorate. With the internet anyone can be as informed on any subject in relation to what the government is up to as desired. And being informed it is possible for the individual to understand how what congress does affects them directly and how to identify political posturing and nonsense. Stephen Spruiell examines an example of nonsense:

Judging from the previous remarks of key Senate Democrats, Senate majority leader Harry Reid isn’t likely to get enough votes for the energy bill he unveiled this week. Even without carbon caps or renewable-energy mandates on utility companies, Reid’s bill is too much of a job-killer to pass…Reid settled on a different strategy — a political one. He put forward a bill that eliminated the $10 billion cap entirely, even though that likely dooms the bill’s chances. “They’re hoping it will be defeated,” says a GOP Senate aide who works on energy issues. “They have the talking points ready about how it’s the Republicans’ fault. But this is going to be a little bit harder for them to put on the Republicans when we had an alternative bill they rejected out of hand.”

It can and will be argued that because National Review is a conservative magazine their opinion is biased in this regard but anyone who actually takes the time to examine the issues and the way that congress works will understand that this is the way that the democrats operate. They have complete control of the house and have a 59-41 seat advantage in the Senate, meaning they need not one Republican vote for anything. They would need one Republican vote in the Senate for cloture (the procedure to move a bill to the floor for a final vote) but there is no example of them not getting past that threshold. Further evidence can be found in examining the comments of the President and the leaders of both chambers of congress, every problem we face and the lack of a solution is because of the Republican boogeyman.

This is an old story and as more and more of the electorate becomes informed and shares knowledge in casual conversation the less this tactic will work. That’s the glass half full view. The half empty view wonders if enough of the electorate cares enough to become informed and with gerrymandered house districts how much does it matter? After all, how many congressmen have been re-elected after being sent to prison? Starting this November we will learn which direction is correct. Mr. Heinrich, I am not the only person in NM-1 that does not care for the democrat utopia.

Pro Stupid Lawsuit Rhetoric from Sports Media

Apparently it is beside the point that Tennessee Titan coach Jeff Fisher’s ex-employer scorned fueled lawsuit is frivolous and pathetic because USC head coach Lane Kiffin is a bad guy. Fox Sports’ Kalani Simpson:

This is someone saying loudly, publicly, "I don't like that guy." And, "This guy is such a jerk, I want it entered in some kind of court record."… it seems to be that maybe this is just who Lane Kiffin is, this is what he does, this is how people react to him, this is the chaos that seems to swirl constantly around him. This is what you get when you hire him, along with Monte, his much beloved football genius of an old man, and Ed Orgeron, perhaps the best recruiter on God's green Earth.

Yes, because that is the appropriate way to deal with someone who is a jerk, defined as such because he hired someone who worked for you, have it entered in a court record. Simpson goes on even more:

And he just splattered all over (new USC athletic director) Pat Haden's first week on the job…Look, Lane. Buddy. Sweetheart. You're at USC now. You don't have to try so hard…It's OK to tweak people, to be a little bit of an instigator. See Spurrier, Steve…It's not OK to actually get served with legal papers.

So, it is actually some type of unforgiveable crime for a pathetic lawsuit to be filed against them? Simply ridiculous is this line of opinion.

It’s even worse when the author is respectable, from CBS Sports’ Ray Ratto:

The Tennessee Titans-USC (read: Lane Kiffin) lawsuit is yet one more reminder why Kiffin's scorched-sport policy, while completely suicidal, is so much fun to watch…What we enjoy is Kiffin's absolutely mad dash to be the man he once shared a hatefest with -- Al Davis. ..In other words, he wants to be hated by all people not currently in his employ, and if he can manage it in time, to be feared by those in his employ. There is no other explanation for the number of ways he seeks out the disapproval of others, and how swiftly he achieves it.

Ratto dawns his psychiatrist hat and determines for us that Kiffin has some pathological need to be hated and that explains all of these nefarious transgressions, the latest of which was to hire someone?

What is it with USC coach Lane Kiffin and the vitriol that he endears in the sports media? Watching Pardon The Interruption this afternoon Tony Kornheiser, on an unrelated subject, had to mention that Kiffin had never done anything. Seemingly to further the idea that Kiffin does not deserve the job that he has. Every time Kiffin is mentioned there is some sports writer preening about the right way to do things. It is strange and unfortunate.

Buying your car

Government Motors is soon to release the Chevrolet Volt the first mass produced Hybrid vehicle primarily powered by electricity. This type of drive train is typically referred to as a “plug in” Hybrid. The way that it works is that on a full charge the car can travel up to forty miles. That “up to” being quite the caveat as it is determinant on weather, traffic, and the driver’s right foot amongst others. After this “up to” forty miles has been exhausted there is a small four cylinder internal combustion fossil fuel oil derived gasoline engine that works as a generator to propel the car another 300 miles.

The big announcement today was the pricing, at 41,000 dollars which appears steep for a car that cannot be described as large, fast, comfortable, luxurious or competitive amenity wise with the Volt’s price peers. But wait, there’s more:

applying the U.S. federal tax credit will whittle $7500 from the purchase price

Which means that after taking into consideration a U.S. federal tax credit, the Volt’s price is reduced to 33,500 dollars. Huzzah. But wait, there’s even more:

The first buyers of the Chevrolet Volt electric vehicle with extended-range capability will be eligible for one of 4,400 free home charging stations. The program will provide Volt owners with a 240-volt charge station from either ECOtality, Inc. or Coulomb Technologies. In many cases, it will include the cost of home installation. The projects are made possible with a grant of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds from the Transportation Electrification Initiative administered by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)…."For Volt owners who want to install a faster 240-volt charge station, we expect the Department of Energy project to save $1,000 and $2,000."

What does it all mean? It means that every single Chevy Volt buyer will get to dip into the pockets of their fellow taxpaying citizens to the tune of seven thousand, five hundred dollars and if they are among the first 4,400 they get to help themselves to another one to two thousand more. You’re welcome leeches.

This is a testament to both government waste and the lack of market viability for this kind of vehicle. I don’t care one way or another in regard to anyone’s choice of vehicle but I certainly will never believe that it is acceptable for anyone to dip into my pocket to help with that purchase. It is my money that is being thrown at immature technology that is supposedly environmentally friendly but in reality is just a political control measure intended to put people into the vehicles preferred by certain constituents that otherwise would be unfeasible without federal “incentives”.

If the Chevy Volt is the future then sell it without incentives and let it lead us into the “alternative” energy future that features electricity that is produced using such “alternatives” as coal and natural gas. There have been some who chuckle at the high price because the snobs that will buy it can be thought of as rubes for buying at such an untenable price. That’s nonsense as well. If that rube will pay a premium for a hippie status symbol, let them pay 7,500 dollars more and buy their own damn charging station.

Thanks, but Seriously, No Thanks

Yesterday afternoon on my bike ride home my front tire’s tube blew out in a loud pop leaving the tire loosely applied to the rim of the wheel with tire sealant, the tube and a liner flapping as I attempted to stop. I was unable to stop, veering instead to the right of the bike trail and promptly falling down. Being lucky there was not too much damage to myself, a jammed thumb and some scratches on both legs. As for my bike, the full extent is yet to be fully explored. There are some scratches that don’t affect anything and the rim is roughed up but may still be useable, even the tire seems to be in an almost unaffected state. Earlier that morning I had aired up the tires and suspect that I may have added too much pressure for the afternoon heat. Or perhaps it was a combination of things, after all the tube in that tire had been in place for more than a year so age could have contributed. It’s hard to tell when a blowout occurs.

Shortly after falling, another cyclist who was on the same trail was kind enough to stop and ensure that I was alright and offer assistance. He offered to sell me a spare tube and presumptively I could have used it to get home but I didn’t much feel like riding anymore and the tires on his own bike being more narrow than my own I wasn’t certain that the tube would have fit.

If that were the balance of my interaction with the other cyclist there would be nothing to write about, however I have no such luck. Shortly after offering the tube the other cyclist, no doubt based on an assumption of helpfulness, decided to inspect my wheel in order to diagnose the problem that led to the tube blowout. His first assumption was that the sidewall was not properly installed. As kindly as possible I mentioned that the tire had been seated for more than a year and mentioned again that I was fine and appreciated him stopping and assured that I had everything under control. Undeterred, the cyclist condescendingly began to offer multiple maintenance suggestions all of which were either basic or even common sense to any cyclist.

At this point the encounter became strange and insulting. The other cyclist assumed that I was unfamiliar with the proper operation of my own bike. There was no reason for this assumption at all. While I am not a bike mechanic I am familiar with maintaining a bike and have built several while replacing complex components on others. Now, the other cyclist had no knowledge of my experience so he couldn’t know what I knew but why treat me like a child? I have a nice bike with quality mid-range components. It doesn’t squeak and is in very good condition (with some new scratches). There was no reason for this person to make the judgment that he did.

It is an all too common occurrence nowadays. It seems as though there are many people that believe that they are being helpful by being condescending and making the assumption that everyone else is an idiot. It is not helpful and when someone turns down your help, it’s not because they don’t know any better and require your sage advice, it’s that they have the situation under control and can make their own decisions.

A Scorned NFL Coach Sues

It seems as though most people agree that the world of sports is not an essential matter of society. And with that the life or death pontifications in regard to sports goings on by some sports opinion columnists at best appear sophomoric. While it is easy to point out the shortcomings of these columnists, what cannot be missed is the material they have to work with. A perfect story for ridicule dropped yesterday:

Southern California coach Lane Kiffin says he was surprised by the lawsuit filed against him and USC by the Tennessee Titans after he hired away one of the NFL team's assistant coaches.

Kiffin hired Kennedy Pola on Saturday to be offensive coordinator and running backs coach for the Trojans.

Titans coach Jeff Fisher said he was upset by the fact that Kiffin didn't contact him before reaching out to Pola.

On Monday, Tennessee Football Inc., the company that owns the Titans, filed a suit accusing Kiffin and USC of violating Pola's contract.

It is difficult to get one’s mind around this; a professional football team is suing a college football team of violating the contract of an individual by hiring him. If there is any dignity left in our court system this bogus suit will be dismissed with prejudice as soon as it is reviewed by a judge. How could any contract state that another entity could not reach out to an individual for another position and if they did, that the other entity would be in breach of that individual’s contract?

It appears that Titan’s coach Jeff Fisher has had his feelings hurt and has filed a lawsuit in order to be made whole emotionally, which is ridiculous. Fisher, as the longest tenured coach in the NFL, is supposedly highly respected and above reproach but in this instance comes off as small and mostly whiny. In pursuing a lawsuit in this matter, he seems to be doing the equivalent of a person suing the current boyfriend of an ex-girlfriend for taking her out. Yes, it is that silly.

So, in this case sports begets silly and opinion writers have it served on a platter. USC coach Lane Kiffin is a convenient whipping boy so it will no doubt feed the narrative that he has no regard for the “rules” or “etiquette”. Kiffin has ascended to this position by taking a different, likely preferable to him, job and being accused of violating minor NCAA rules. Let’s be clear the NCAA rulebook is at least as lengthy and inane as the federal income tax code. The only thing Kiffin is guilty of is taking advantage of favorable circumstances and not sucking up to sportswriters.

Kiffin offered a job to someone who already had a job. That person determined that they preferred the job offered by Kiffin over the one that they already had so they changed jobs. The previous employer may have been caught by surprise but how do we know that this person had not been looking? How do we know that the person had not voiced a desire for more responsibility or pay or concerns in their current position? We don’t and it doesn’t matter anyway. And while the previous employer may be upset over the way this transpired it is nothing more than juvenile for them to sue the new employer.

Ken Sanchez, union candidate

Power hungry as usual, Albuquerque City Council President Ken Sanchez desperate to keep his name in the news has decided to ignore reality in labeling Mayor Berry’s negotiations with the many unions “representing” city employees a “failure”. The fantasy laden, reality ignorant plan presented for the budget presented by the city council is simply unsustainable and is irresponsible. Tax revenues are down and the city unions only exist to maintain the status quo and ever increase salaries regardless of merit or monies taken in. Pay cuts are lamentable but the fact that the Mayor was able to avoid layoffs and keep pay cuts to less than two percent is admirable.

As usual, Sanchez is preparing himself for a mayoral run and is ensuring the endorsement of all the bloated unions the city is straddled with. Fortunately that tactic did nothing for Martin Chavez in the last election and one can only hope that in this regard, history repeats itself.

Sports and Politics with a Wiff, again

On his ESPN radio talk show this morning, The Herd, Colin Cowherd waded into the world of politics in order to analogize a brash and ugly attack on the recently departed George Steinbrenner. Cowherd decided to share his opinion that he did not understand why any “regular” person would support Steinbrenner because he did not care about “regular” people much like former President George Bush did not care about anyone making less than 40 grand a year because he only cared about big business. Adding to that tripe, Cowherd went on with the oft spouted rubbish that “regular” people that don’t have six figure salaries shouldn’t admire successful people like Steinbrenner, Bush, (Donald) Trump, et al because they don’t care about them and that “regular” people don’t understand their own interests when they support the aforementioned.

It truly is a pity that Cowherd, not unlike most sports media members, doesn’t have the ability to avoid subjects that he doesn’t have a clue about. By most accounts Steinbrenner was a complicated person and certainly was not liked by many he crossed paths with. With his passing last week there have been many stories about Steinbrenner making a difference in the lives of many “regular” people. Cowherd’s main point was that Yankee games are too expensive and while that is true, almost all major sporting events are too expensive for most people with a family. To many fans, television is the most common way to follow a team and with that there is no substitute for success, defined in sports as winning and championships and it cannot be said that the Yankees under Steinbrenner’s tutelage lacked either.

Worse yet, bringing in the silly stereotypical caricature of President Bush as the big business cheerleader weakened an already weak hissy fit. Like Steinbrenner, President Bush made a positive difference in the lives of many “regular” people, like me, personally. The best way to look at this is in terms of campaign contributions from big business which perennially benefits democrats and to look at the affiliations of many titans of big business, names that include Gates, Jobs, Buffett and Soros, all democrats.

Cowherd is good on radio but is difficult to listen to when he makes personal attacks without acknowledging the whole person that was George Steinbrenner and drags our former President into the mud to make an ill-conceived and ultimately incorrect point.

If you don't know, why not ask?

Recently I found myself enjoying an evening with friends when like a foul smell that wafts in quickly and without notice a friend of a friend came by and soured the mood by looking at my side of the table and stating “you’re tea baggers, aren’t you?” with a giggle. I looked at my friend to my right and we both looked like we had just driven by a dairy after morning coffee on a humid day. This hippie liberal jerk interloper was no doubt bringing up the political tea party movement with the oft used smear erstwhile used to denote a vile bedroom act. Personally I have never been to a tea party event, not because I do not agree with the idea, but mostly because I am lazy and am not a fan of crowds. I think that the movement is honorable and a commendable exercise in the face of current governmental excess.

While the offender is not a member of my regular circle of friends I have known them for a few years and they are known for every once in a while wading in with inane comments disparaging my political views so there was no surprise. The curious thing is that this person has no clue whatsoever about what it is that I truly believe. Over the years I have been privy to various lectures by them in regard to the nobleness of being “liberal” or “progressive”, living in mud huts and the sustainable lifestyle with disdain for oil, “consumption” and “big business” but when it comes time for actual conversation, they leave or shout down any kind of differing opinion as disrespectful. Basically my aura, labeled as conservative, is enough for this person to deduce my every opinion as evil and not worthy of examination. And I mean every, to this person every aspect of the world has some kind of political tie and they seemingly believe that to be conservative is to be wrong in all matters.

It is frustrating that this person has no idea what I actually think about anything. At least I have listened to them time and again about what their beliefs are. This type of one sided argument seems to be typical of my interaction with self described progressive liberals. I have some progressive friends but I cannot seem to get anywhere when it comes to actual discussion of issues. There seem to be two kinds of people that I interact with. The first, typified by the hippie liberal jerk above, tend to lecture on their ideals mostly in an ill-defined egocentric kind of way, while not welcoming of other views and often impugning opposing views in a disparaging manner. The second type openly, and often with heralded self-regard, declares as “progressive” but never discusses anything with regard to politics or policy. To the latter I have no idea what they think beyond that they believe that being progressive is in itself inherently superior.

To me, caricature like mischaracterization and insult passing without discussion is empty because meaningful discussion is a good thing and a way to test one’s convictions and belief system. It can be a way to learn new things that may challenge or can clarify the reasons why a person thinks the way that they do. For whatever reason many of my close friends either identify themselves as conservative or at least appear to be so and when it comes to subjects involving politics or policy we disagree as often as we agree and this leads to often fascinating conversations. I relish the chance to learn from people I respect and look forward to the opportunity to defend what I believe based on the strength of my convictions and intellectual rigor.

Another reason that any type or political or policy related conversation is considered impolitic seems to be that many people believe that such discussions become harsh and argumentative. While the premise may have some truth to it, it is often a debate and there is nothing wrong with a debate becoming contentious. Debates are supposed to be challenging and while there are certain lines that should not be crossed that doesn’t mean that this kind of talk should be disparaged. Obviously it is not a good thing to get into a heated conversation with someone who can easily lose their head.

It would be a better and more solid more argument to call me a nasty name if the offender at least made the effort to listen to my opinions rather than infer them based on caricatured assumptions. Conversely I would like to know what and why it is that self-described progressive liberals believe what they do. I would like to have the conversation where someone can explain to me how a Keynesian stimulus works while citing historical examples instead of just saying that it does in the face of all proof and logic. Instead of being called a cretin for thinking that welfare for the most part is a bad thing I want to know why it is that some believe it is a good thing. Unfortunately, I doubt things will change, so I will refrain from holding my breath.