Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
March 3, 2009
BLOG: Quick Links 3/3/09

*I had a quick piece up at RedState yesterday on Ron Kirk's tax troubles. Kirk is actually not one of the more egregious offenders like Geithner, Daschle or Charlie Rangel, but when you start talking about a third of Obama's appointees, it stops looking like just a coincidence. Maybe Taranto is right that Joe Biden questioned their patriotism.

*I don't think the Lord expends much effort intervening in public policy disputes, but it's kind of hard to avoid wondering if He has a wry sense of humor in tweaking people who think human beings control the weather.

*Ed Morrissey looks at the wholly predictable train wreck that is the Minnesota Senate recount.

*A man punches dog story, sort of. Not a very good idea.

*Of course, Obama wants to vastly increase the federal payroll, with unionized workers who will then be compelled to kick back dues to be donated to the Democratic party. We should be surprised?

*Even venture capital needs federal subsidies?

[M]atch funds for venture capital and angel investments. Venture firms and investors need financial incentives to invest in companies that create U.S. jobs. What if firms with credible histories could receive as much as $100 million in federal matching funds if their investments create jobs in the United States? Investors could keep their normal return plus 50 percent of the returns on the matching funds, while the other half goes back to the government to revitalize further investment. This would give individuals an incentive to double down on investments they would make anyway, but sooner rather than later.

Have we really just been through a credit crisis without learning that people make bad investments when they get too much easy money to play with? And traditionally, the reason to invest in venture capital instead of established companies was the potential for rapid growth and big profits....but of course if you are making it harder for new companies to grow, and easier to take away their profits, then I guess you do end up short on incentives.

*Warner Todd Huston looks at Rahm's message coordination meetings with his old pals Carville, Begala and Stephanopolous.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:54 PM | Blog 2006-13 • | Politics 2009 | Comments (21) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

As for Shauna Daly, it appears to be a typical right-wing screed based on speculation and innuendo. As Crank knows, or should know, if she had access to privileged material in the White House counsel's office, she is no less bound by the strictures of confidentiality and privilege. Moreover, the counsel’s office is responsible for ensuring that she does not release privileged or confidential information.

As for Holder, after his typically overblown attempt at ad hominem sliming, Crank criticizes the release of the shoddy legal work done by Yoo and his fellow travelers. Yoo, et al. sought not to analyze or uphold the law, but to give Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld the answers they wanted so that they could authorize torture and other war crimes. It is long past time for these men to answer for the damage they caused the country.

Posted by: Magrooder at March 3, 2009 2:27 PM

1. So you just assume that anyone appointed by Obama will comply with all legal duties. Ah, OK. I'm sure you did that with Bush, no?

2. Just so we are clear: you think the president should be able to receive legal advice without making it public, or not?

Posted by: Crank at March 3, 2009 2:39 PM

1. No, I'm saying only that if your speculation is correct and she releases the information unlawfully, there are remedies. Like what happened to Libby. Then, Obama can commute any jail sentence like Bush did for Scooter. and, you will no doubt support that decision, just like for Libby. Right?

2. Of course, he -- or she -- can receive legal advise and maintain confidentiality, but it is not and should not be an absolute right.

Posted by: Magrooder at March 3, 2009 3:35 PM

The term Global Warming is a misnomer. The effect results in very volatile weather, which sometimes results in freak snowstorms in March. Or both drought and rain in the same area.

Gotta love freaky Repubs like yourself who are also Jesus-crazy. Maybe you should double check with the "Lord" before you make a fool of yourself again by printing such nonsense!

Posted by: f at March 3, 2009 5:33 PM

The effect results in very volatile weather

Yes, I'm familiar with the theory. To summarize:

Weather warm: proves theory.
Weather cold: proves theory.
Snow: proves theory.
No snow: proves theory.

etc.

Karl Popper would not recognize this as science.

Posted by: Crank at March 3, 2009 5:38 PM

A snowstorm debunks "global warming" in the same way this morning's death notices page in the newspaper debunks "population growth".

Posted by: Berto at March 3, 2009 6:28 PM

Berto - Did I argue it disproves it? It's just amusing that this keeps happening.

As I noted above, the problem is that nothing can disprove the theory; its proponents are satisfied by any evidence, no matter what it may be. It's not science, it's a religion.

I'll respond to Magrooder on the correct thread.

Posted by: Crank at March 3, 2009 8:09 PM

Berto-while your comment is correct, the simple fact is that global warming has been totally debunked by the known facts. From 1940-1970 as the evil, dangerous greenhouse gases increased in the atmosphere guess what happened?-the temperatures went down-the exact opposite of what the global warming theory tells us would happen-which is why in the 1970s the faux ecological disater du jour was global cooling. Over the last 10 years despite all the around the clock alarmism and apocalyptic talk of global warming, global warming-guess what?-there has been a slight cooling. I guess that why now they are saying climate change instead. The arctic ice, that allegedly is close to totally melting-per satellitte coverage is identical to the same level as when they first looked in 1979.

The man made global warming theory is a joke and lie, its been totally debunked-time to wake up.

Posted by: dch at March 3, 2009 8:14 PM

I wouldn't argue it's been debunked; it's just unproven and speculative. The theory rests on vast numbers of convenient assumptions, to say nothing of outright bad or unreliable primary data and even more unreliable control-group data. When somebody tells you they have a computer model that accounts for literally everything in the entire world and its surroundings...run.

Posted by: Crank at March 3, 2009 8:23 PM

Nice to see Crank thinks he is right and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is wrong. Flat earthers unite! Jeez, its not like a bunch of leftists contrived global warming theory in a cafe somewhere.

As for the "sensitive" bush documents the whole fear behind Crank's Daly post is that Bush's dirty laundry will be aired and Republicans will be damaged further, as was done in the release of the Justice Department 92 memos on "how to ignore or set aside the Constitution post-9/11".

Posted by: robert at March 3, 2009 8:28 PM

robert - So, it's your position that theories that have gained acceptance with a majority of the scientific community at some point in time have never been subsequently proven wrong?

Scientists, no less than any other experts, need to be subject to skeptical civilian oversight when they come seeking political power. And I should note that there is no shortage of scientists who can be cited with dissenting opinions.

Posted by: Crank at March 3, 2009 8:34 PM

No, basicallly I am saying that for you to compare global warming to religion is ridiculous. It is a falsifiable theory, and one that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts. I realize that it presents a challenge to unfettered capitalism, but that's not a reason to deem it "religious" in nature and stand idly by while the ocean levels may be rising, etc.

Posted by: robert at March 3, 2009 8:40 PM

I suspect you also consider "evolution" to also be religion and "intelligent design" to be science, but that reflects your own "seeking of political power" rather than scientific truth.

Posted by: robert at March 3, 2009 8:42 PM

OK, then: how is it falsifiable? What evidence could be developed that would convince you otherwise? The consistent pattern is, whenever adverse evidence comes in on things like temperature trends, they just tweak the models to get the same conclusions. None of this resembles the attitude of a disinterested empirical search for the truth.

Posted by: Crank at March 3, 2009 8:44 PM

Crank,

The scientific models used to evaluate air emissions and long range transport of air pollutants are neither verified nor verifiable. They are, however, in the absence of absolute truth, reasonable grounds for regulating air pollutants.

The science on which climate change is based is solid -- the build up in the atmosphere of "greenhouse gases" contributes to the warming of the atmosphere. Are there going to be yearly variations? Of course. Just as there are daily variations in the weather.

The UNFCCC models are interesting, but prove nothing. The “tweaking” that you imagine is considerably more difficult than you assert. It would be nice if you gathered some facts instead of simply spouting the hard-core wing nut claims.

Those who claim the "absolute truth" of climate change are asserting a faith no less than religious zealots. In the end, some of the regulatory responses to climate change, such as renewable energy to reduce our exposure to Middle East oil kingdoms is a societal good. Generating electricity from renewables (or nuclear power plants) similarly reduce other pollutants and are a good.


P.S. sorry for posting on the worng thread.

Posted by: Magrooder at March 3, 2009 9:34 PM

This is a pretty good example of what I am talking about. Temperatures have flatlined for 8 years, and now they tell us we could get decades of no warming and they will continue to argue the apocalypse is nigh. Real scientists would just admit at this point that the theory is just speculation.

Magrooder - I'm in favor of trying to marginally reduce such gases where we can; I accept the distinct possibility that they can have adverse effects, I just think that the more drastic remedies require more serious evidence than we have. More nuclear power and developing genuine alternative fuels like methanol are more promising than pipe dreams about electric or hydrogen cars.

Posted by: Crank at March 3, 2009 10:08 PM

Guys something like 28 thousand scientists signed a petition last year stating that the man made climate change theory was wrong and not supported by science.

This is politics masquerading as science.

1970s-Global cooling
1980s-acid rain
1990s-ozone hole
2000s-global warming

All debunked.

Wake up.

Posted by: dch at March 3, 2009 10:20 PM

In the end, some of the regulatory responses to climate change, such as renewable energy to reduce our exposure to Middle East oil kingdoms is a societal good. Generating electricity from renewables (or nuclear power plants) similarly reduce other pollutants and are a good.

Then argue it's a societal good, not that The End is Near. When The End never comes, nobody trusts you to know what a societal good is. Even you have to see this.

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 4, 2009 9:27 AM

Does the specific motivation for reaching a commonly-agreed result really matter? General social good? Environmental benefit? national security?

Who cares why individuals pursue a particular result, if the end result is a good one?

Posted by: Magrooder at March 4, 2009 11:10 AM

All you're doing there is giving yourself an excuse to be dishonest. Lay out what facts you have and let people make up their own minds--you lefties do not always know what the greater good is, and too often impose the costs of your greater good on others.

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 4, 2009 1:05 PM

The USA doesn't have the intelligence or ingenuity to come up with a replacement for oil-based energy.
It's also way too weak to move against the wishes of it's corporate masters in the boardrooms of big energy corporations.

Here's the bottom line, kids: The USA is too stupid and weak to take on anything like the global-warming problem. The sooner you clowns stop shouting "U-S-A" and start realizing you too live in a 3rd world country, the better off we'll all be.

Posted by: Berto at March 4, 2009 2:58 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg