Race to the Bottom

Sure, Jarlsberg is putting words in her mouth. But they couldn't be any more startlingly asinine as the ones she put there herself:

It still escapes me how that despicable woman ever reached the position of Speaker of the House.

Climate Panel Adopts Controversial 'Grey' Evidence

NewScientist reports, Climate panel adopts controversial 'grey' evidence. Yeah, this is new...

Climate scientists are likely to face charges of putting politics before science, following two decisions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

At a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, earlier this month, the IPCC decided for the first time to impose strict geographical quotas on the elected officials that make up its bureau. There will also be a push to increase the representation of women among its authors.

Quotas and gender preferences? Sure, why not? Objective scientists do that all the time!

It had also voted at a meeting in Kampala in November 2011 to increase the role in those assessments of "grey literature": publications not subject to peer review. Using such material in the last assessment is what led to the "glaciergate" scandal in 2010, when the report was found to have vastly overestimated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are losing ice.

I don't think "grey literature" would be any worse than the fraudulent, peer-reviewed "hide the decline" literature. What does peer review matter, when the peer review is hand-picked to rubber stamp the agenda? This saves having to cover up or falsify any dissent among the reviewers. The IPCC has finally publically admitted that it has no interest whatsoever in objective truth; only a predetermined political outcome.

The panel publishes three voluminous assessments of the state of climate science every six years, the last of which came out in 2007.

I got your state of climate science right here! Fortunately, IPCC has absolutely no jurisdiction within sovereign US borders -- right? It looks as if Orwell was only off by 28 years.

Study: Obesity Could Lead To Depletion Of Earth's Resources

Here's your justification for regulating health and food choices:

ATHENS, Ga. (CBS Atlanta) – A recent study conducted by scientists in London found that the obese persons of the world are playing an increasingly large role in the rate at which the planet’s finite resources are used.

“Increasing population fatness could have the same implications for world food energy demands as an extra half a billion people living on the earth,” the study concluded.

The findings were published in the BMC Public Health journal earlier this year. (Continue reading...)

This is a study from London, but this kind of collectivist thinking has been gaining momentum on both sides the Atlantic for a long time. I am becoming more and more convinced that our government run public schools have been doing a great disservice since the early part of the 20th Century, replacing critical objective thought (including the scientific method) with post modern claptrap (progressivism). Our technology (a lingering product of objectivity and the scientific method) provides a wealth of information, but most recent graduates cannot interpret it in any kind of meaningful way. These "scientific studies" always seem to be designed to promote an agenda.

The current dithering with string theory and parallel universes is the price we pay for this uncritical thinking. Have you noticed, science hasn't had any major breakthroughs since around 1920? It ended with Relativity and the Standard Model of Quantum Theory. Is it any coincidence that 1913 was the year we passed the 16th and 17th amendments? The Wilson regime? I'm starting to think not.

Most Arrogant Man in the World

This is a great parody of the Dos Equis commercials.

Fight tyranny with humor. Stay free, my friends.

Tragic, Unhealthy and Completely Predictable

Author Brian Sussman interviews a victim of our public indoctrination system:

Her conclusion is tragic, unhealthy, and completely predictable.

Corruption: Lake Whatcom Reconveyance

I presented this in open session to the Whatcom County Council two weeks ago. 

Honorable council members, 

It has come to my attention that the Lake Whatcom Reconveyance has once again wormed its way onto the Tuesday agenda – this time without a hearing – at the behest of narrow special interests attempting to create the illusion of broad support.  

This effort has already removed a large amount of land from future private use and/or private ownership. This land is already “protected” inasmuch as proponents desired that. Therefore, the matter before you now is the final reckoning. Do We the People of Whatcom County really need an additional 8,700 acres of park? Does this amalgam of DNR land and trust parcels represent the correct  8,700  acres? Is this really the most pressing need at this time? 

What say the county meet all of its fundamental responsibilities of legitimate services to its citizens (e.g., a new jail) before it takes on any more responsibility for land ownership and management?!  You already have the land tied up in trusts; why not just leave it that way? If Bellinghamsters want a playground or a nature preserve, let them make a private park, on their own dime. Please do not saddle the rest of the county with that expense. Further, the justifications for this “preserve” or park for wildlife management, transportation, and watershed protection are a distortion of roles that do not apply to the Parks department.  

 A safe jail is a legitimate and essential function of government. Parks are nice to have, but they are not essential government functions, even if someone could objectively prove they would “help the environment”. Please direct your efforts to the far more urgent needs of Whatcom County citizens.   

Karl Uppiano, etc.

The Natural Progress of Things

I presented this to the Whatcom County Council in open session four weeks ago.

Honorable council members,

I made a new year’s resolution to attend each council meeting, because I was becoming alarmed at the geometrically increasing burden by all levels of government on our liberty. Our tax bill keeps growing in order to finance the increasing criminalization of normal human activity. Then, we’re told, we still aren’t paying our “fair share”.

So, I have sat fairly quietly in the peanut gallery since January 2012, watching as every two weeks, another raft of plans, grants, resolutions and ordinances pass. Sure, some fail, but never is anything repealed to make room for the new stuff. In general, the burden just gets heavier. Where does it end?

Seriously, what is the end game – total domination? I am fond of quoting Thomas Jefferson, who said, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” It’s just so many words until you see it in action for a few months. But this has been going on for decades! Liberty rots without maintenance.

I hear all these lofty concepts and ideas with names like conservation, watershed, habitat, preservation… but invariably, invariably, the proposed action – the implemented action – involves the transfer of property from private ownership and private stewardship, to government ownership and government control, as if somehow, government would do it better than someone who invested their life’s work earning it.

Rent-seeking NGOs and non-profits exist for the sole purpose of promoting an agenda that you know at least half the public doesn’t agree with. These groups spend their days lobbying and litigating government even at our expense, to impose their views on the rest of us – it’s their day job – while the rest of us work at our day jobs, trying to mind our own businesses to support our families. We the People elect representatives – you – to protect our right to make our own choices. It is discouraging to see you do the exact opposite – and join forces with them.

I’m up here now because of the ag preservation discussion at the last meeting. There was zero mention of individual liberty. Now, I would expect the “progressives” to think, “This land was made for you and me” (sing along!), but even the conservatives among you questioned whether it was okay for a landowner to build a house on his own 40-acre lot. Which article of any constitution or charter grants you the authority to make that determination?

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. In these council meetings, would it be so bad to err on the side of liberty? Thank you.

Karl Uppiano, etc.