Are You an Austrian?

No, it's not a question about your ethnic heritage or national citizenship, but a quiz about your economic views. The quiz can be found here. Set aside 20-30 minutes to make sure you have time to carefully read the questions. The quiz helps show how your philosophies align with the various schools of economic thought, and in some cases provides a link to an article discussing the Austrian point of view. I scored an 83/100, which suggests that I favor the Austrian school over others by a wide margin, but to see how some of my answers were classified was a little surprising. In economic matters, I generally find myself in agreement with the Austrian-centric Von Mises Institute's mission:

• In this cause, the Mises Institute works to advance the Austrian School of economics and the Misesian tradition, and, in application, defends the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive.

However, it will take a little more study for me to understand everything the Austrian school proposes.

Take the quiz yourself and see which of the major schools of economic thought best suits your beliefs.

http://mises.org/about.aspx

Unemployment and the next Big Deal

I had a discussion recently about unemployment and how it related to the effectiveness of the "$700,000 million" (chop it up any way you want, but it's a seven with twelve, count 'em, twelve freaking zeroes behind it) bailout/rescue package. We discussed the current rate of 6.1% and how it would be a grave concern if it rose to something like 7.5%. Obviously, an upward trend in unemployment is cause for concern, but we concluded that the media may be largely overhyping unemployment to create undue fear when you view the statistic through the long lens of history. Unemployment during the Great Depression reached 25% and didn't drop below 10% until the start of WW2; a terrible situation to be sure, but one that may have been exacerbated by FDR's policies. Consider the ten highest monthly rates of unemployment in the post-WW2 era:

11/1982 10.8
12/1982 10.8
10/1982 10.4
01/1983 10.4
02/1983 10.4
03/1983 10.3
04/1983 10.2
05/1982 10.1
05/1983 10.1
06/1983 10.1

If you were to only look at unemployment, you would conclude that Reagan's first term was pretty disastrous for the economy, especially considering the average rate was a little over 7.5% when you look at the month by month statistics. However, consider what happened with GDP growth from 1981 to 1988:

1981 2.5
1982 -2.1
1983 4.3
1984 7.3
1985 3.8
1986 3.4
1987 3.4
1988 4.2
Average: 3.4

Recession in '82, but excellent growth throughout the rest of Reagan's presidency. By the time he left office, unemployment was around 5.3%. Now let's look at the Bush I/Clinton era:

Unemployment
1989 5.3
1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0

The month by month breakdown results in a 5.6% average for these twelve years.

GDP Growth
1989 3.5
1990 1.7
1991 -0.5
1992 3.1
1993 2.7
1994 4.1
1995 2.2
1996 4.5
1997 4.5
1998 4.2
1999 3.9
2000 4.3
Average: 3.2%

Putting all the mind-numbing figures together, here's how the composite unemployment/GDP growth figures look:

Reagan
Avg unemployment: 7.5%
Avg GDP growth: 3.4%

Bush I/Clinton
Avg unemployment: 5.6%
Avg GDP growth: 3.2%

A good statistician would glean much better information from these numbers than me, and I freely admit that it might not be fair to compare eight years to twelve by lumping Bush I and Clinton. In fact, to be completely forthright, the average numbers under Clinton were 5.2% unemployment and 3.8% GDP growth. However, my point stands which is that even 10%+ unemployment for a year didn't prevent us from making a remarkable recovery in GDP growth and employment. I would actually contend that what Reagan had to deal with was the consequences of the policies of Nixon, Ford, and Carter, and that the temporary pain was the result of a drastic shift in economic policy that required the markets and economic institutions to adapt. I would also contend that we have been the beneficiaries of those policies through today. I believe Reagan, by and large, greased the wheels nicely for Bush I and Clinton. Reagan didn't react to bad economic conditions by calling for greater government regulation, stimulus packages, or nationalization of private institutions. That had been the trend for years, and it hadn't worked. He instead cut taxes, lowered interest rates to make capital available, and allowed the market to flourish. His philosophy was to get the government out of the way so that the greatest number of people would benefit as the result of economic growth.

My concern is that today, we panic at a 6.1% unemployment rate, declare the current financial situation the worst crisis since the Great Depression, and demand that the government empty the treasury to save capitalism. When we start setting arbitrary thresholds, whether it's unemployment, LIBOR, foreclosure rates, home value depreciation, or anything else, to determine when the federal government comes to the rescue, we begin to throw ourselves down the slippery slope.

There are numerous commentators, only hiding their glee with some difficulty, now declaring the end of Reaganism and the beginning of another "Deal." We are led to believe the FDR saved capitalism during the Great Depression, that Lyndon Johnson cured our nation of poverty and racism with the Great Society, and that now Barack Obama is the next Big Deal, here to save our helpless nation from destroying itself. A great nation doesn't need great government programs. It may take decades to determine whether spending (Investing? Really?) $700,000,000,000 of the nation's wealth was economically beneficial or not, but I believe it has potentially paved the way for a generation or more of a gargantuan federal government that seeks to ensure, not promote, but ensure the welfare and prosperity of the nation, which it will ultimately fail to do.

Another Depression?

“Lots of other places—from Britain to Australia—took a hit in 1929 but, alas, they lacked an FDR to keep it going till the end of the Thirties. That’s why in other countries they refer to it as ‘the Depression,’ but only in the U.S. is it ‘Great’.” —Mark Steyn

If America's financial situation continues to worsen, what kind of policies will the next president enact to reverse it? Will he look to the example of FDR and increase the size of, and dependency on the federal government, or will he force the government to shrink in size and get out of the way of the people? Anyone who believes that our current financial troubles are the result of an under-regulated free market and not the malfeasance of our elected officials are seriously misguided in my opinion, but if they get their way in this election, they will act on their incorrect assessment and plunge the country into another deep, prolonged depression.

In difficult economic times, the appetites of the government must be curbed so that people can allocate their scarce resources as efficiently as possible, as they see fit based on their intimate and up to date understanding of their own circumstances, not at the whim of a bureaucrat. In times of plenty, the government's size has swelled enormously, resulting in the porcine behemoth we now have in Washington. As the real economy shrinks, it is imperative that the federal government do so as well. Unfortunately, when a politician sees the budget for one of his pet projects threatened because tax revenues are falling, he doesn't care much about why the money's no longer there, just that his precious program must be preserved at all costs, even if that means raising taxes. The true wealth of America is under assault from the government that is supposed to protect it, and unless our next president can convince Congress to reduce the size of government, it risks killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Cavuto: Blood sucking government zombies!

Cavuto nails it again

Game night

I attended my first board game night at Table Top Game and Hobby, my new FLGS, (http://www.tabletopgameandhobby.com/) and had a blast even though I only played one game. There were around thirty people in attendance and for the most part, everyone was very courteous and engaging. I was unable to keep track of everything that was played, but a few that come to mind are the brand new release Conflict of Heroes, Tide of Iron, Zombies, Shogun, Axis and Allies miniatures, and Heroclix. Several people brought crates full of games of all types, although the traditional wargame genre was noticeably underrepresented. The impression I got was that there is just a small cadre in the group that enjoys wargames, so I'll probably end up sticking close to them. I didn't see anyone playing Twilight Struggle, so I think I may take it along next week and try to get a game going. I might also take my copy of Conflict of Heroes so we can get a second game of that going. I was encouraged to learn that some in the group have played A Game of Thrones and enjoyed it.

I was blown away by how many people were there and by how knowledgeable and friendly they were. I doubt there's a more active gaming group anywhere else in the Midwest. I think I know how I'll be spending my Thursday nights.

National Service Forum

I'm halfheartedly watching the national service forum at Columbia University and nearly fell out of my chair when I heard Obama say something to the effect that he was listening to McCain discussing the question of the racial composition of the military. After the Saddleback forum, the media created a controversy by suggesting the McCain had been listening to some of Obama's answer and that there wasn't a so-called "cone of silence" (that was an off the cuff joke by Rick Warren, by the way). I wonder if they'll question why Obama was allowed to listen to McCain's answers or if they'll give him a free pass on this. I predict talk radio will have a good time with this, as they should.

Also, Judy Woodruff just said that "Tonight is not a night to focus on contrasts between you and Senator McCain, but help us understand how you see the role of government in all of this differently from the way he does." Obama's answer started with, "Listening to his presentation..." It's probably just as well that McCain lost the coin toss that decided the order tonight. He would have taken a lot of heat for admitting what Obama has about listening to the other candidates answers.

Split Ticket

I immersed myself in coverage of the RNC this week after learning of John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin for VP. Like most Conservatives, I was excited when she was announced, and absolutely giddy after hearing her speech Wednesday night. She has generated an unbelieveable amount of energy in the party and has given McCain a very solid chance of winning the election.

Without getting into too much detail about my opinion of Palin, I will just say that I believe she can be the same type of transformative political figure as Ronald Reagan, which is the highest praise I could lavish on a modern politician. She's right on the issues and presents the most well-rounded picture of authentic Conservatism I've seen in recent years. As opposed to the stories of a rabble-rousing youth we have come to expect in most candidates (Bush, McCain, Obama, et al), Palin presents the image of a smart, circumspect woman who tackled the challenges and responsibilities of life head on with vigor and enthusiasm. She didn't need a strong spouse to refine or settle her. Traditionalists admire women who demonstrate the ability to balance the responsibilities of marriage, motherhood, and career gracefully. Far from expecting or demanding that women stay at home to raise children while the husband works, most Conservatives do not feel threatened by strong, capable women. However, unlike the Left, they honor and respect women who make the decision to be full-time mothers and homemakers. About the only women Conservatives don't respect are those that take it upon themselves to criticize and judge other women for making different choices.

In summary, I'm overwhelmed with enthusiasm for Sarah Palin and could easily see her being the first female President of the United States. She has become the unofficial recipient of the mantle of leadership for the Republican Party and can expect to be the party's nominee for President in 2012 and/or 2016. I am one of several people who would like to have seen her at the top of the ticket this year. The only thing standing between her and the role of standard bearer of the Conservative movement in America is... John McCain.

Like many Conservatives, I was less than enthused about the nomination of John McCain. He has often seemed more interested in being a contrarian than helping his party succeed, and his compromises on issues such as campaign finance, immigration, and the environment have been deplorable. The Palin announcement initially assuaged my fears about McCain's Conservative credentials, but the reaction from some Republicans has revealed a rift, despite talk of the party being unified after the convention.

I do not have any hard data to support this notion, but I suspect that it would be difficult right now to find anyone who enthusiastically and without reservations supports both McCain and Palin. At first, I thought it was just Conservatives who were holding their noses a little bit, choosing to vote for McCain to get Palin now and in the future. However, I am now starting to think that those Republicans who are squarely behind McCain are offended and put off by Palin. They express concerns about her being a radical Conservative, much in same vein as Bush (my side cues, "Won't Get Fooled Again," by The Who), and bring up many of the same minuscule and petty slanders as the liberal press. It seems to me that Republicans who are happy with the moderation of the party, and were finally able to get their man nominated, view Palin as a threat in much the same way they viewed Reagan.

The party may be united in the sense that its members are motivated to pull the lever for the Republican ticket this year, but ideologically I believe there is still a rift. They will come together for the next eight weeks to defeat Obama, and may enjoy a brief hiatus during the holidays, but the fight for the heart and soul of the party will resume in earnest in January, 2009.

So Many Games, So Little Time

I was able to find two local gaming stores this weekend and couldn't resist the temptation to add to my burgeoning collection. This weekend's additions were:

Manoeuver, GMT Games: Light, Napoleonic-themed wargame that fits nicely between chess and a traditional wargame. The components consist of a short rulebook with very intuitive rules, easy mechanics, geomorphic game board, a few dice, and some tiny, tiny cards. I would love for someone to produce some full-sized cards for this game. This is a good gateway game but it by no means is a throwaway. It has extremely high replayability and should appeal to a fairly broad audience. I can see myself playing this regularly.

Race For the Galaxy, Rio Grande Games: One of the hot new card games, this is loosely derived from the classic Puerto Rico. I was completely confused by the rules at first, and I suspect experienced Puerto Rico players would have a tremendous advantage in climbing the learning curve. I plowed through the rules a few more times, played a couple of rough games, and think I finally understand the mechanics. Strategy is an entirely different story, and I suspect it will take a dozen or more plays to have any strategy epiphanies. It's an intriguing game that is really interesting to play.

Cold War: CI vs. KGB, Fantasy Flight Silver Line: Two-player card game with a Cold War theme that requires players to compete for a series of objectives in an attempt to reach 100 points. The production quality is beautiful as with almost all Fantasy Flight titles, and the rules are well-written, but the game itself is unremarkable to this point. There just don't seem to be enough interesting decisions, but just pretty straightforward management. Two competent players could make for an interesting game, but I don't know what would cause said players to choose this over numerous other, more interesting games such as the aforementioned Race For the Galaxy. The mechanics of the game work fine, but I think it would be more successful with a different theme. Anyone interested in a Cold War theme is more likely to play Twilight Struggle.

I'm also attempting to play the nine-player variant of A Game of Thrones via email, but I'm not sure how well that's going to go.

I've been keeping up with the hurricane Gustav coverage all day, and my prayers are with the residents of the Gulf coast as well as with the emergency and rescue workers in that area. Let's all hope the storm continues to subside as well as the floodwaters.

New camera

I finally bought a replacement for my antiquated Sony DSC-V1 last week. For what it's worth, the Sony was a great camera with lots of nice features, but like most technology, a few years is all it takes to relegate a shiny new piece of hardware to the scrap heap. The Sony's replacement is a Canon SD790 IS, a 10 megapixel point-and-shoot model costing less than half what the 6 megapixel Sony did five years ago. The Canon takes nice pictures, but I have already found myself wanting more manual control. I'm not complaining, though, and am sure I'll be able to do most of the things I want with it. If not, I guess I'll have to start saving my pennies for an SLR model.

Here are pics of my cats, Sagira, the sweet little angel, and Pete, the positively unhappy curmudgeon.

Advanced Global Personality Results Test

Long name, predictable results for me.

Advanced Global Personality Test Results Extraversion |||||||||||| 50% Stability |||||||||||||||||||| 86% Orderliness |||||||||||||||| 62% Accommodation |||||| 30% Interdependence |||| 16% Intellectual |||||||||||||||||||| 90% Mystical |||||||||||||||| 70% Artistic |||||| 30% Religious |||||||||||||||| 63% Hedonism |||||||||||| 43% Materialism |||||||||||||||| 63% Narcissism |||||||||||| 50% Adventurousness |||||||||| 36% Work ethic |||||||||||| 43% Humanitarian |||||||||| 36% Conflict seeking |||||||||||||||| 70% Need to dominate |||||||||||||||||| 76% Romantic |||| 16% Avoidant |||||||||||||||| 70% Anti-authority |||||||||||||||| 70% Wealth |||||| 30% Dependency || 10% Change averse |||||||||||||||| 70% Cautiousness |||||||||||||||| 70% Individuality |||||||||| 36% Sexuality |||||||||||||| 56% Peter pan complex |||||||||||||||| 70% Family drive |||||||||| 36% Physical Fitness |||||||||||| 43% Histrionic |||||| 23% Paranoia |||||||||||||||| 63% Vanity |||||||||||||||| 63% Honor |||||||||||||| 56% Thriftiness |||||||||| 36%

Take Free Advanced Global Personality Test
personality test by similarminds.com

How to give a speech in Berlin

Reagan at the Berlin Wall

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3

Catching up

Just a few quick notes:

I found a great little game called "A House Divided." It's a little older and is now in its third edition, and I'm a little surprised I didn't discover it sooner. It's a strategic level Civil War game that's easy to learn, fast to play, and a whole lot of fun. The core game can be learned in 10 minutes, and there are a slew of optional rules. One of the designers has written rules for a v3.1 that include some advanced rules with additional optional rules. Overall, even the basic game makes for a great gaming experience, and the additional layers of complexity introduced with the optional and advanced rules make the game a bit more challenging and deep. I'm not sure that the game's any better with the optional rules, but they do present the player with a few more factors to consider. Highly recommended.

I'm allergic to dust mites :( . After suffering through seemingly endless sinus issues, it appears that an allergist has found the culprit. I had allergy testing this week, and while I'm noticeably allergic to Mulberry, Johnson grass, Bermuda grass, Lamb's Quarter, Black Walnut, White Birch, Juniper, and even cats (!), dust mites have the greatest effect on me, especially my nose and eyes. The past few weeks, my eyes have been so irritated that I couldn't wear contacts, so it was time to do something different, which was allergy testing. I now have a nose spray and eye drops to provide some relief, but the simplest, most effective thing I've done, on my doctor's advice, is to cover my mattress with an allergy control cover and replace my old pillow with an allergy control pillow. The concept is to contain the dust mites within the mattress, which is where they are concentrated in the greatest numbers. After two nights, I am already noticing that I don't have the rhinitis and sinus issues that I've had for as long as I can remember. I'm going to have to vacuum more frequently, actually dust my furniture, and wash my bedding more frequently (the doctor suggested keeping the cats out of the bedroom, but I'm not sure I could win that fight), but I'm looking forward to feeling better.

Fun with GDP statistics

I ran across an interesting illustration of the problems with reporting national economic statistics as they relate to Third World countries, and you all get to suffer the consequences. The same thing can happen in developed countries as well, but this illustration was specific to poor, developing countries. This is taken from Thomas Sowell's, "Basic Economics," specifically a chapter that discusses the concepts of national output and the fallacy of composition, which is an important concept when considering aggregate output and demand.

Here's the initial scenario:
1. A country has a population of 100 million people.
2. The average income distribution by quartile is $1000, $2000, $4000, and $5000, i.e. the bottom fourth of the population makes an average of $1000 per year, then next fourth $2000, etc.
3. This means that 25 million people make an average of $1000 per year, 25 million make $2000, etc. for a per capita income of $3000.

Now perform a little math:
1. Raise everyone's income by 20%, giving the following average incomes:
1st quartile - $1200
2nd quartile - $2400
3rd quartile - $4800
4th quartile - $6000
2. Double the size of the 1st and 2nd quartiles, or classes, as a result of reduced mortality rates among children, the malnourished, and the elderly to 50 million instead of 25 million.
3. When you work out the math, per capita income stays exactly the same at $3000.
4. If you increase the income by anything less than 20%, per capita drops below $3000.

What is so interesting about this exercise is that it shows that a country's population, particularly its lowest classes, can become healthier and increase, income can increase, and yet some economist in Geneva can conclude that they're no better off or, more likely, worse off, than they were before because of the gross statistical methods employed.

You can't trust the economists in government and NGO's to give you an accurate picture of what's going on in the world. Most of those bureaucrats exist for the sole purpose of increasing the size and scope of their bureaucracies. The world is better off today economically in innumerable ways than it was 100 years ago. I'm learning that spewing a few significant-sounding numbers works for political purposes but not in the real world. A bigger picture needs to be considered.

Having said that, here is another illustration of the fallacy of composition, this time as it relates to the U.S. and China.

We hear so much concern over the size of China's economy simply because their GDP is growing so rapidly and is ranked as the 4th highest in the world. Their GDP is still around one-fifth the size of ours, with Germany and Japan still exceeding China's GDP. Having China at number four sounds ominous, but when you look at per capita GDP, China is ranked as the 99th highest behind such economic powerhouses as Angola, El Salvador, and Jamaica. The United States is ranked 5th. I found an article on "China Daily" that talked about how China's per capita GDP was expected to hit $3,000 by 2010, which is 10 years ahead of the schedule set by the Communist Party National Congress (link). Ours is around $45,000 without the help of a bunch of central planners. China has a population four times the size of ours, a GDP one-fifth of ours, and per capita GDP that is around 6% of ours. These are static, snapshot numbers, but they clearly point out that by any measure, China is economically inferior to the U.S. and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

As I've stated before, i believe a good economic system increases a people's standard of living, allowing them to purchase more with less over time, whether that's a better, safer car, a larger, more comfortable home, or a bevy of electronic entertainment gadgets for less than a week's work.. The U.S. is obviously a leader in this area along with places like Japan, Germany, the UK, Australia, etc. Obviously, China is improving, and I would contend that's a good thing. Even if their per capita GDP stagnates, it's entirely possible that the true standard of living for their people is still improving as illustrated above, which is still a good thing. If China ranked near us in per capita GDP as well as total GDP, that might be cause for concern, but they don't, and those people who peddle an economic fear of China do so with cherry-picked numbers, I believe.

In the U.S., we're bombarded by politicians with messages about how wages have declined and the American worker is suffering. You can certainly find numbers to support this idea, but if you consider the benefits that employers provide in lieu of wages (of course they're not free, but they're real, non-taxable compensation) and the purchasing power of an average paycheck, the American worker has never been better off. Naysayers abound, however, and we're bombarded on one side by those who say we're quickly becoming a second-rate economy for any number of reasons, yet also being told by another side that it's just not fair that we have so much while the rest of the world has so little. Fear and guilt in a 24-hour news cycle. Despite the doom and gloom in the press, even among educated economists who try to look smart on television, I think it's entirely probable that the U.S. will continue to be the best place on earth to live for some time and that our prosperity will improve the standard of living of our trading partners.

Racer X

Not sure what put me in the mood, but I've been listening to a little Paul Gilbert and Racer X lately. The man's an incredible guitarist. Here's a sample.

"Blame America First"

An excerpt from Jeane Kirkpatrick's speech at the 1984 Republican convention:

They said that saving Grenada from terror and totalitarianism was the wrong thing to do - they didn't blame Cuba or the communists for threatening American students and murdering Grenadians - they blamed the United States instead.

But then, somehow, they always blame America first.

When our Marines, sent to Lebanon on a multinational peacekeeping mission with the consent of the United States Congress, were murdered in their sleep, the "blame America first crowd" didn't blame the terrorists who murdered the Marines, they blamed the United States.

But then, they always blame America first.

When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats didn't blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States.

But then, they always blame America first.

When Marxist dictators shoot their way to power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don't blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies, they blame United States policies of 100 years ago.

But then, they always blame America first.

The American people know better.

They know that Ronald Reagan and the United States didn't cause Marxist dictatorship in Nicaragua, or the repression in Poland, or the brutal new offensives in Afghanistan, or the destruction of the Korean airliner, or the new attacks on religious and ethnic groups in the Soviet Union, or the jamming of western broadcasts, or the denial of Jewish emigration, or the brutal imprisonment of Anatoly Shcharansky and Ida Nudel, or the obscene treatment of Andrei Sakharov and Yelena Bonner, or the re-Stalinization of the Soviet Union.

The American people know that it's dangerous to blame ourselves for terrible problems that we did not cause.

They understand just as the distinguished French writer, Jean Francois Revel, understands the dangers of endless self-criticism and self-denigration.

He wrote: "Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."

With the election of Ronald Reagan, the American people declared to the world that we have the necessary energy and conviction to defend ourselves, and that we have as well a deep commitment to peace.

And now, the American people, proud of our country, proud of our freedom, proud of ourselves, will reject the San Francisco Democrats and send Ronald Reagan back to the White House.

IQ

I don't put much stock in online IQ tests, but a friend asked me to research some, so I have taken several of them. This is the highest I've scored on any of them and is even higher than the my score in a school-administered test as a 15 year-old. I've scored substantially lower on other online tests, so I take all of them with a grain of salt. Think I can get a raise if I show this to my manager? Me neither.

I Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

The National Post has an opinion column by Lorne Gunter today discussing the Argo buoys and the data they've been producing (hat tip to RealClearPolitics for the link). This paragraph is a good summary of the article's thesis:

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.

And in this excerpt, Gunter cuts through Dr. Willis's evasive babblings:

Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming," Dr. Willis told NPR.

Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.

Well said.

Does this make any sense?

Yes, I'm a global warming denier, sometimes denying man-made global warming, and sometimes just denying the whole notion outright. The earth warms, the earth cools, it's a dynamic system that is constantly changing. So what? I saw this article on Drudge today and was mystified by the following paragraph:

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

Now, I understand that the scientist being quoted is examining data from a brief span of time (five years), but it's clear to me that he accepts the premise that the earth has been warming and is continuing to do so, most likely because of man's activities. Why does this research necessarily have to prove or disprove global warming? If Willis's hypothesis was that evidence for global warming would manifest itself in rising ocean temperatures, he needs to admit that the evidence doesn't support his hypothesis. Of course, it's sometimes just easier to blame your measurement devices for bad or misleading data:

One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded — and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys.

These sensors are part of JPL NASA's Argo array. Hardly high school science fair stuff. It does appear that there were some data errors identified, as this article explains.

Update as of 5/30/07: Recent analyses have revealed that results from some of the ocean float and shipboard sensor data used in this study were incorrect. As a result, the study's conclusion that the oceans cooled between 2003 and 2005 can not be substantiated at this time. The study authors are currently working to correct these data errors and recompute ocean temperature changes.

The NPR article is dated 3/19/08, so can we assume the data has been reevaluated and that the initial results have been validated since the 5/30/07 update?

What I find interesting is that few scientists who hold global warming theory as fact haven't found it necessary to question the validity of all of the temperature and weather stations used to collect and compile the data used in support of their theory. Anthony Watts has compiled some great information about weather stations and the effect their placement can have on their data here.

Expelled

I've long said that monolithic Darwinism poses a grave threat to our free society. Its Inquisitors have expunged any semblance of honest debate in most disciplines of science and have created unintended consequences not only throughout the scientific community but society as a whole. I'll be interested to see how Ben Stein tackles this matter in his upcoming movie. Click the post title or here to see the trailer and find out more.

Gamer

I'm an avid gamer and lately have moved back to board games. In addition to pulling out Axis and Allies: Revised for a quick solo play, I'm getting ready to play Air & Armor. I've never played that game against an opponent and can't really say I've played a scenario to completion. I'm going to give it a go during the next few days, though. I also have Europe Engulfed sitting on the shelf, staring at me lovingly. I've barely played it, but think I can get into it fairly quickly. The core system for the game is pretty accessible, but it has lots of chrome and exceptions to steepen the learning curve.

I'm also bidding on a slew of games on eBay with the intention of expanding my collection. I've also been anxiously watching GMT's reprint schedule for a few games just in case I can't get them affordably on eBay. The list of future acquisitions includes Combat Commander: Europe, Twilight Struggle, Asia Engulfed, and Fire Team. Silent War is also a very appealing game, not least of all because it's a solitaire game of enormous scope.

I'm not sure what brought on this sudden resurgence of board gaming interest for me, but it might have something to do with our interminable winter.

Check out my new Board Game Geek widget on the right!

National Security

With the presidential election just months away, there has been increased discussion of national security policy among presidential candidates and commentators. It will be many years before the true benefits and consequences of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are known, but there are some principles that I think are important in analyzing them to this point. The Iraq war has been a divisive and contentious issue since its beginning, and even those on the right have sought to distance themselves from it at various points in its execution. When it has seemed to be going poorly, nobody with the exception of President Bush wanted any part of it. I think that a brief reexamination of the decision to go to war, the role of the President, and the nature of our country are in order as we face the upcoming reality of a new administration.

First of all, I believe that every American President has understood the importance of national security and the gravity of risking American lives to buttress it. I find it interesting that while the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war (in practice, this tenet of the Constitution has been very vague and elusive), thereby properly representing the will of the people, the responsibility to prosecute war rests squarely on the shoulders of the President. He alone is the Commander in Chief, ultimately in charge of the disposition of the entirety of America's military forces. His decisions have the potential to affect millions of lives, but he is accountable for every single one. I have difficulty believing that any President has put America's troops in harm's way without first weighing all possible alternatives. I further believe that every President has determined that the cause for which our troops fought and died was, ultimately, worth the price. This isn't to say that the analysis of historians haven't taken a dim view of some of our wars and declared them a waste of blood and treasure (oh, blessed hindsight), but given the imperatives and realities of the present, I'm willing to give every President the benefit of the doubt.

It is my contention that in the face of the events of September 11, 2001 and the best information available, President Bush believed that sending troops into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and Al Qaeda was in the best interest of American national security. I personally wonder if anyone in the administration or the intelligence community lamented the fact that the Taliban had been allowed to assume control over Afghanistan in the first place. To me, the actions of Al Qaeda on September 11 serve as a stark reminder that our modern world and its technology demand that we observe and evaluate activities in every corner of the globe. Had I been informed that there was incontrovertible evidence that Al Qaeda, with their allies in the Taliban, had carried out the attacks on 9/11, I certainly would have used military force to eliminate them. However, I would also begin seriously assessing the rest of the world to determine where the next attack might come from. America had been dealt a severe blow that day, and the possibility that additional attacks were imminent was a major concern.

I personally recall the anticipation everyone felt that another attack was just a matter of time. Given the fact that a small, obscure group of religious fanatics in Afghanistan could plan, organize, and execute an attack that cost the lives of 2,974 innocent American civilians, what was the possibility that an openly hostile country like Iraq could be plotting something even worse? An immense amount of analysis on both sides of the intelligence issue have been done, and it's not my intention to determine whether the information we had about Iraq's WMD program was sufficient justification to go to war or not. My point is that had we recognized the danger that Al Qaeda posed, it's possible that we might have taken steps to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan sooner. I think there was sufficient evidence of the Al Qaeda threat prior to 9/11 to justify taking extraordinary measures against them, but the Clinton administration obviously didn't feel military action against Afghanistan was warranted. I assert, however, that had anyone foreseen with certainty the attacks of September 11, no President would have hesitated to act to prevent them.

The Bush Doctrine has been labeled a doctrine of preemptive military action, but who can blame the President for acting to protect America after we had just had our nose bloodied by a tiny band of jihadists in a remote part of the world? How is preemption really any different from prevention? Is having the FBI snatch a terrorist at an airport "preventive," but having a Marine sniper eliminate a Taliban officer in Afghanistan "preemptive?" Is waiting for a terrorist organization to set up shop on American soil and begin actively planning operations before arresting them "preventive" and calling in an airstrike on a terrorist safehouse in Iraq "preemptive?" I don't understand how we justify calling the efforts of domestic law enforcement preventive, but try to distinguish them from military actions by referring to those as preemptive.

If national sovereignty is such a significant issue when discussing the invasion of Iraq, it seems to be less relevant when discussing Afghanistan. Is that because Afghanistan is less industrialized than Iraq, or because its history is so riddled with civil war and strife in comparison to Iraq? Maybe it's because Iraq had stable leadership for so many years that people have chosen to declare that it was a legitimate government. It's frustrating to hear critics of the Iraq war declare us a pariah nation because we preemptively (preventively?) went to war with a country that our leaders deemed an imminent threat to our national security.

To hear the anti-war crowd discuss the issue, it seems that they would have preferred that we use our law enforcement resources to arrest anyone associate with the 9/11 attacks. Most of them were dead already, but hey, it's not really the job of law enforcement to prevent crime but to investigate them, right? The best use of our military at that point, I suppose would have been to have troops secure every point of entry (remember when the National Guard was stationed at airports?), have fighters fly CAP over populated areas, and recall our navy to patrol our coasts. Al Qaeda isn't a government, so we can't really declare war on them, which means it's a law enforcement issue, isn't it? It's a foreign paramilitary terrorist organization that has been harbored and sponsored by nation-states. That makes it fair game for something a little more powerful than an arrest warrant and handcuffs.

Speaking of the anti-war crowd, I believe the issue that gives them the most difficulty is that they don't want to believe that diplomacy, dialog, and appeasement can fail. Perhaps they truly believe that we, as a race, should have moved beyond armed conflict by now. I would submit that most soldiers wish that were true. I believe everyone wishes that were true. It's a noble goal, but one that is not likely to ever be achieved. It's disappointing and disheartening when two parties can't resolve their disputes through peaceful negotiations. Whether the parties concerned are a parent and child, spouses, employer and employee, or two nation-states, it would always be preferable if an agreement could be reached in a spirit of understanding and mutual concern. However, we see those relationships strained and broken on a daily basis, sometimes devolving to the point of violence. When one party resorts to violence, it is usually because they believe, rationally or not, that they have run out of options and that violence is their last resort. Is it ever justified? I think the consensus among civilized people is that it's not unless it is in self-defense or if the other party explicitly expresses a threat of violence. If someone brandishes a weapon in a threatening manner, it is considered a weapons crime in most places, and I believe a person is justified in defending themselves against someone who takes such an action. You shouldn't have to wait to be shot or stabbed before you defend yourself.

I understand that there are limits to comparing national security policy to personal self-defense, and that's really beyond the scope of my discussion. I am simply trying to point out the naivety of those who believe we can solve all of the world's problems without force and at least the threat of violence. It's simply a willful ignorance of human nature to assume human beings will act in a considerate manner if there are no consequences for not doing so. You may personally decide to never, under any circumstances, inflict harm on another human being, but I would advise you not to advertise that fact if you wish to avoid becoming the victim of a criminal who doesn't share your compunction to avoid violence. The world is a dangerous place, and appeasing evil men won't make it any less so.

We elect Presidents to protect the country and have given them the greatest military and law enforcement resources in the world to accomplish that goal. They have access to more intelligence information and analysis than we, as private citizens, could ever dream. It's not always 100% accurate, but we have been generally willing to trust that the decisions our leaders make are right and based in a solid understanding of the facts. When Democrats are in office, we're expected to defer to their judgment on military matters but it seems President Bush has not been extended the same courtesy in regards to Iraq. I think the media has had a large influence on this, but I also believe that the Left has simply been using the Iraq war as a straw man to express their disdain for the results of the 2000 election.

It's discouraging to me to see the hate and venom from that event carried so far that some wish to see us defeated in Iraq simply so they can declare it a defeat for Bush. Every drop in approval that Bush experiences is viewed as some kind of vindication for the election of 2000. The amount of hatred some on the Left have for this man is stunning and dangerous. The declarations they make about Bush being a war criminal or a fascist are just vapid and irrational. Is this the pattern for the future? If you don't win an election by a sufficient enough margin, you're demonized and vilified for the duration of your presidency? So much for civil discourse and loyal opposition.

How fast can you type?

80 words

Speedtest

I found this typing speed test during lunch today. I take my typing speed for granted most times, but have learned that I type faster when I know what I want to type, such as when I'm composing an email or a story. Typing a list of random words is slower unless you read ahead as you're typing. My first couple of tries at the speed test were less than stellar, but after I started reading the upcoming words as my fingers were finishing the current word, my performance improved by 8-10%. I often joke that I can type 80 words per minute but can't read my own handwriting. Sad but true.

January 2008 playlist

Here is the Zune playlist I spent the most time listening to in January. By the way, I would love to find an easy way to export the contents of a Zune playlist. Not the song files themselves, just the listing:

- Danko Jones -
Don't Fall In Love
Time Heals Nothing
Sleep Is The Enemy
Forget My Name
Lovercall
Sound Of Love
We Sweat Blood
Code Of The Road

- Evans Blue -
A Cross And A Girl Named Blessed
Stop And Say You Love Me
Over
Possession
Dark That Follows
The Promise And The Threat
The Tease
In A Red Dress Alone
Shine Your Cadillac

-The Bloodhound Gang
The Bad Touch
I Hope You Die
Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo
Uhn Tiss Uhn Tiss Uhn Tiss

-Bloc Party
Hunting For Witches
Helicopter
Banquet

- Doubledrive -
11:50
I Don't Care
Track Number 7

-Girls Against Boys
BFF
Let It Breathe

-Deep Purple
Girls Like That
Wrong Man
Money Talks

-Three Days Grace
Riot
Over And Over
Crank That - Soulja Boy

Thrash Unreal - Against Me!

Amaranth - Nightwish

Umbrella - Rihanna

Stronger - Kanye West

U + Ur Hand - Pink

Rag And Bone - The White Stripes

Never Been Any Reason - Head East

I've been on quite a Deep Purple kick lately and have concluded that "Highway Star" is one of the greatest rock songs of all time. Not sure why it took me so long to figure that out. I also continue to enjoy Evans Blue for their brooding intensity. Danko Jones is just some of the best pure rock 'n' roll I've heard in a long, long time. No self-respecting guy should be without it. I also went through a bit of a GvsB phase in January, although it's not reflected in this playlist. I think "The Come Down" from You Can't Fight What You Can't See is probably my favorite song of theirs recently. Doubledrive was one of those brilliant, short-lived bands that I like to keep handy. I think Blue In The Face will end up in my top 100 albums of all time.

Back from the dead: The sequel

One week ago, I started experiencing the first symptoms of yet another cold. I've had at least two others already this winter and would have to say this year has been one of the worst. A slight sniffle, a tickle in my throat, and a subsequent cough all pointed to the need for a restful weekend. As it turned out, I felt so bad Friday that I stayed home, and things didn't get much better over the weekend. By Sunday, I had a terrible sore throat and decided it was time to see a doctor. Monday was another sick day, but I did get a prescription for a course of antibiotics to treat what had become a sinus infection. I probably should have stayed home Tuesday, but dragged myself to work. Today is the first day I've felt almost whole, and other than some persistent congestion, I think I'm going to pull through.

Reagan '08

I've been reviewing the commentary following the Republican debate in California last night and was prompted by Michelle Malkin's blog (Link) to listen to Reagan's 1977 speech at Hillsdale College in its entirety. Before I comment on that speech, allow me to explain Reagan's significance in my life.

Having been born in 1971, my formative years took place during an economic dark age in America. I was, of course, too young to have any real awareness of economics or even the concept of money, but I do remember something changing after Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. Maybe it was the fact that our family was able to afford to drive an Oldsmobile after having endured a tiny Datsun for several years. Perhaps I perceived that we were more prosperous because we purchased a brand new color television with a remote and a VCR, which also had a remote. I was able to purchase my first home computer, my beloved Commodore 64 (one of the best gaming machines ever). As I matured and became aware of more than just my immediate biological concerns, the impression I got was that life in America was good, and that Ronald Reagan had something to do with that.

I remember learning about America's involvement in global affairs and that with Reagan as President, America rarely was on the losing side of any conflict, whether it involved shooting or not. Despite the paranoia and fear that some had that nuclear Armageddon was imminent, Reagan held the Bear at bay and pushed the nightmare of nuclear war seemingly out of sight indefinitely. His voice never failed to comfort, and he seemed utterly nonplussed by the rigors and stress of being the most powerful man in the world.

I remember watching Reagan ride off into the sunset and be succeeded by the generally unpalatable George H.W. Bush, who made it painfully obvious that although he had been Reagan's VP, really didn't comprehend or embrace the principles that Reagan's life was built upon. As Reagan slowly and painfully succumbed to Alzheimer's, his accomplishments and legacy seemed to have gotten lost in the media's wet, sloppy love affair with Bill Clinton. My utter revulsion at the presidency of Bill Clinton lead me to learn more about Reagan and his philosophies, and to learn what made him so great. I am in no way an expert on Ronald Reagan and have never approached his presidency, biography, or character in an academic way. I simply grew up knowing that America was great when Reagan lead her, and that she hasn't been the same since he left office.

When Reagan was elected, I became aware that there are two major political parties in this country, and I knew immediately which one I belonged in. I started paying more attention to future Republican candidates for public office and learned more about the history of the Republican party. It doesn't take a scholar to see that Reagan was a singular, monumental figure not only in the Republican party, but in the very fabric of 20th century America. His vision, which came to dominate Republican politics for a generation, is still revered by the Conservative movement in this country. However, the Republican party seems to have lost a substantial amount of the "Reaganism" that elevated it to prominence in the 1980's and '90's.

So now we come to the 2008 presidential election in which Reagan's name has been repeatedly invoked. This invocation has aroused the ire of the left and given them yet another opportunity to take cheap, gratuitous, and unfounded shots at the legacy of one of America's greatest presidents. It has given liberal Republicans a life raft to tie their presidential hopes to since they know that Reagan Conservatives still form a decisive constituency in the party. They believe that if they can convince voters that Reagan would have supported them that that's good enough to win the nomination. The danger I see is the potential for a revision of what Reagan's Conservatism really is. If a liberal Republican does win the general election after having laid claim to the mantle of Reaganism, it may serve to validate that candidate's policies as an extension of Reagan's philosophy.

It's become painfully obvious to me that Reagan achieved the success he did not because of the Republican party, but in spite of it. His beliefs were so fundamentally American in nature that they transcended the rigid, artificial constraints of party and became a force unto themselves. He exposed post-'68 Democrats as Marxists, and Republicans as elite country clubbers. Reagan's beliefs in the free market, smaller government, federalism, strong national defense, and the God-given right of the American people to be free transcended the scope and ideals of any party, and the Republicans are fortunate that they happened to be closer to Reagan's beliefs than the Democrats. I don't see these as individual issues to be mixed and matched with "progressive" and "moderate" positions, but rather just facets of a monolithic philosophy rooted in the principles of liberty and freedom, the very bedrock of our great nation.

Most distressing to me right now is that as Reagan's presidency grows smaller in the rearview mirror of American history, I see more and more people remembering it not as the beginning of a better future, but as some sort of an aberration or just a hiccup in America's inevitable march toward a Socialist Nirvana. Even those that I assumed were comrades in arms have become very comfortable with the type of policies and ideas that Reagan so ardently fought against, all the while claiming to be Conservative Republicans. Economic policy is the most prominent example, with Keynesian theories being readily embraced while classical free market principles are simply relegated to the same nostalgic scrapbook as Reagan's time in office. Rather than emphasize individual liberty as being supreme in all matters including economic decisions, I hear many people acceding to the notion that it's entirely appropriate for the federal government to manipulate the free market, their justification being that we should assuage the economic pain of a few with the prosperity of the many.

Listen to or read Reagan's Hillsdale address. Read the writings of Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Bastiat, and Friedman. Rather than mistrust the free market or view it as an anachronism, learn why it's so superior to collectivism and socialism. Learn for yourself why Reagan embraced its principles and viewed profit and property as being so intrinsically tied to liberty. Insist that the government stop trying to manage every detail of your economic existence and demand that you be allowed to live freely, according to your goals, hopes, and dreams rather than some collective median defined by socialist bureaucrats.

My view of America and what makes it the greatest nation on earth has been profoundly shaped by Ronald Reagan, and I think we are facing a time when we would do well to reflect on his attitudes and beliefs about the issues with which a free people must perpetually contend. Perhaps you've forgotten those things or maybe you never really knew them, but in either case, learn them, embrace them, and promote them. Reagan's ideas worked, not because they were new or revolutionary, but because they were as venerable as the human race itself. They appealed to the success and wisdom of ages long past with a reverential understanding that God's most special creation really isn't much different today than it was in the Garden of Eden or the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome.

Back from the dead

Something prompted me to recover and update this blog, but it has been so long since I've posted anything here that my old posts seem like ancient history. It has been nostalgic to catch a glimpse of what was going on in my life five years ago, almost like opening a time capsule. Because it has been so long and the human memory is so tragically short, this is as good a time as any to record a snapshot of my life c. January 2008.

I currently live alone in a suburb of Kansas City in a nice, rented apartment. I'm no longer a landlord and am pursuing a technology career again. I still drive the same car I had in 2003, which is a 2001 Subaru Outback LL Bean Edition with 140,000 miles on it. It has served me well and I hate to think of replacing it. I never thought I would be truly content with a vehicle, but somehow I've achieved that automobile Nirvana.

I have two cats, one of which I had at the time of my last post. The other arrived in my life in a rather indirect fashion, but she is an absolute angel and I wouldn't trade her for anything. The intersection of our daily habits and routines is one of the things that gets me out of bed in the morning. The typical "feline maintenance" chores are, for me, helpful guideposts that get me through the day in a reasonably normal, productive fashion. The things that I do routinely add some much-needed stimulus and excitement to the cats' days. I think the three of us make quite a little family, even if my enthusiastic affection for my feline family members makes me feel like the archetypal "little old lady." At least I just have two of them.

I have worked for my present employer for five months and believe that I have a bright future ahead of me here. The company seems to do an admirable job of retaining good employees, and the compensation and benefits are very generous. For the first time in many years, I actually have confidence that I can achieve my reasonably modest financial goals without sacrificing my lifestyle.

I should mention that the most extravagant area of my lifestyle is, as always, technology. I have a nice pile of computer equipment that I dabble with, although I wish I had a basement or garage to use as a lab. I still love to play computer games (Team Fortress 2 has been a huge time sink for me, but the recently discovered Armageddon Empires is poised to assume that role) and probably spend far too much time with them. I still enjoy reading and fill up most of my non-gaming hours with a variety of books. I just finished the original Foundation trilogy by Asimov, and have started Weber's Honor Harrington series. I'm usually in a sci-fi mood in the winter time. It's easy to read and keeps the imagination sharp.

I am planning to upgrade my television to a 40" Samsung LCD soon, but have a twinge of remorse for even thinking about it. I don't watch a lot of TV, but once you've seen a nice HD television, it's soooo hard to not want one for yourself. I currently still have a monstrous 32" Sony WEGA that has been a great television, even if it is almost impossible to move. I did recently subscribe to Time Warner's "super mega uber" package of cable, internet, and phone, so I've sort of opened Pandora's box with regards to entertainment at home. I'm not forced to upgrade to HD, but it would be nice to be able to watch baseball games in HD this summer. For that matter, because everything looks better in HD, I can see myself upgrading to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray soon so I can experience some of my favorite movies in a whole new way. In any case, my money has a burning desire to leave me in exchange for a nice HD television.

I hope to have some ongoing content for this space that is a more interesting than television viewing habits, but I thought it was important for my sake to sort of relaunch this blog with a personal update. It's also another excuse to mention my cats.