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!