Conservative Donnybrook

Bill updated his post called “Taking Iran” with a link to a Times of London report showing pictures of a two-page document supposedly culled from Iran’s nuclear scientists which, when translated, allegedly indicate Iranian “work” on nuclear triggers. What I make of it is that it is a memo proposing how their scientists would go about creating the infrastructure, transferring experimental materials, hiring physicists, etc., to accomplish the purpose of “Designing and performing experiments to detect pulsed neutrons obtained from pulse sources, for example, from NG (neutron generator) and PF (plasma focus) pulsed sources.” Another Times of London link says the letter was dated December 29, 2005 and was actually three pages long, although they only show what appears to be two and one-half, or perhaps the first page is a landscape-perspective full page. The Times of London had stated, though, that “Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007.” I don’t understand all I know about this, frankly. Everyone is correct, though, who says this “raises questions.”

Understandably, our intelligence analysts (having been burned by Bush-era foisting of forged Iraqi Mossad Czech Italian Nigerian just plain phony nukyaler documents) won’t speculate as to its authenticity. One wonders about the origins of this purportedly leaked super-secret Iranian official document. Let me think for a minute second about who could A) obtain it, B) benefit from it, and C) propagate it. Okay, I’m done thinking, I’ve got my guess. A fourth option to consider is that this might be another forgery. But that would just be crazy. Self-serving and ruthless. Never happen.

The New York Times wonders what it all means. Not ones to shy away from hawking hawkishness, perhaps theirs is a more balanced take than the article Bill provided.

Bill also commented that Iran failed to declare facilities, but they did declare Qom, whether coerced or not. Ahmadinejad and Iran’s foreign minister also separately declared openly their intention to build 10 or 15 more. Will they later be accused of “failing to declare” them if they start working on them now? And, again, Iran is within its rights to unilaterally withdraw from the NPT at any time and for any — or no — reason. So are we. So is Israel — oh, no, wait. Israel never signed it. Israel won’t declare its facilities or open them to international inspections, kind of like when they refused to allow international inspectors under Goldstone to visit sites or interview witnesses of alleged Israeli atrocities in Gaza.

Which brings up a point I made in commenting on Bill’s piece, which he dodged. What are we to make of the officially declared Dahiya doctrine, adopted by Israel in 2003? What sort of disproportionality can we expect should Israel attempt to show the 90% of Iranian green revolutionaries that they are accountable for their leaders’ actions?

In the face of a Western invasion (largely at the behest of Israel and its “intelligence” they “shared” with the U.S. and Britain) of Iraq for (as Tony Blair later put it rather bluntly) “regime change,” would it really be unreasonable for Iran to evaluate all options, whether it intended to pursue them or not? Especially when one reads pieces like Bill’s which advocate sanctioned assassinations, military bombing campaigns, missile strikes, and so forth?

About two and one-half weeks ago the Empire State Stem Cell Board voted to spend some of its $600 million budget, which is funded by the state, to pay women $10,000 for the opportunity to harvest their eggs. The eggs would then be used to create embryos from which stem cells would be harvested. The story does not indicate that men would be paid for donating their sex cells.

If you stick with the story, the ethical question is raised (buried) toward the end of the article.

As a service to the hordes of readers of Conservative Donnybrook, I have read the House version of Obama’s $825 billion economic stimulus package so you don’t have to.

General Attributes of the Plan

As mentioned above the current overall price tag (before amendments and the inevitable earmark add-ons) is $825 billion. That is split into two general categories of spending.

The first category is $275 billion in “economic recovery tax cuts.” Presumably this is the “tax cuts for 95% of Americans” that Obama continuously talked about on the campaign trail. If there are 305 million Americans and they split the tax cut evenly, each would enjoy a lessened tax burden of $949.09 each. I’ll take it gladly; indeed, they owe us more of our own money back. Unfortunately, this will almost certainly be offset by the sun-setting of the Bush tax cuts, which there is little doubt Congress and the President will allow to expire.

The second category is $550 billion in “targeted priority investments.” According to the summary from the Committee on Appropriations, “[t]his package is the crucial first step in a concerted effort to create and save 3 to 4 million jobs, jumpstart our economy, and being the process of transforming it for the 21^st century.” The committee summary goes on to state that, “with the passage of this package, unemployment rates are expected to rise to between eight and nine percent this year. Without this package, we are warned that unemployment could explode to near twelve percent.” As such, assuming these numbers are correct and this package would prevent the unemployment rate from experiencing an additional 3% rise, the package will prevent the loss of 3.93 million jobs* through new unemployment claims. This means that by their own numbers, this package will not create any new jobs, as Obama has been touting, but rather would prevent the anticipated loss of 4 million jobs.

* In case anyone is interested, I came up with this number by looking at the increase in unemployment as reported on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website (http://www.bls.gov/ces/) for the December report. That report said unemployment rose from 6.8% to 7.2% or by +0.4%. That increase corresponded with a decrease in the number of jobs of 524,000. If 0.4% is equivalent to 524,000 jobs, then 4% would equal 3.93 million jobs.

The summary acknowledges that the plan will result in “a large deficit for years to come.” But, justifies its passage by playing on the fears of not passing it: “Without it, those deficits will be devastating [as though the deficits we invite will not be] and we will face the risk of economic chaos.”

Since 2001, as worker productivity went up, 96% of the income growth in this country went to the wealthiest 10% of society [I assume they are not referring to the government]. While they were benefiting from record high worker productivity, the remaining 90% of Americans were struggling to sustain their standard [sic] of living. They sustained it by borrowing…and borrowing…and borrowing, and when they couldn’t borrow anymore, the bottom fell out. This plan will strengthen the middle class, not just Wall Street CEOs and special interests in Washington [who have already received government welfare in the form of bailouts which took priority over taxpayer relief].

Finally, before getting into the specifics of the “targeted priority investments,” it should be noted that “[t]here are no earmarks in this package.” I guess I don’t really know what an earmark, because I thought it was an appropriation that was targeted to a particular project, or “priority investment,” if you prefer. Oh well. Orwell lives.

One last note before we dive into an examination of the specific spending proposals. We should probably keep in mind that, according to most of the economists I’ve heard speak about the crisis, the overriding problem is that credit is unavailable to consumers and businesses. It is probably helpful to hold this in the forefront of one’s thoughts as he approaches each of these broad spending categories. A thoughtful person would probably ask, “Does this spending help to free up credit to consumers and businesses?” Continue Reading »

There is an interesting article that details how science has proved some of the earlier evolution models faulty. This story focuses on Darwin’s idea of the “Tree of Life.” Allow me to share one paragraph:

The neat picture of a branching tree is further blurred by a process called endosymbiosis. Early on in their evolution, eukaryotes are thought to have engulfed two free-living prokaryotes. One of these gave rise to the cellular power generators called mitochondria while the other was the precursor of the chloroplasts, in which photosynthesis takes place. These “endosymbionts” later transferred large chunks of their genomes into those of their eukaryote hosts, creating hybrid genomes. As if that weren’t complicated enough, some early eukaryotic lineages apparently swallowed one another and amalgamated their genomes, creating yet another layer of horizontal transfer (Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol, 23, p 268).

This is why I believe in God.

That’s an awful lot to swallow. Their theory seems like a Deus ex Deus ex Deus ex Deus ex machina to me. The coincidences seem to engulf one another and built upon one another until the whole concept taxes one’s credulity. I suppose you have to be a true believer when first you approach a theory like this if there is any hope of wholesale adoption.

The kicker, of course, is the final sentence of the article in which Eric Bapteste, a scientist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, says, “The tree of life was useful. It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it’s time to move on.”

It was helpful to be led down a dead-end path for nearly two centuries? In an academic sense, I suppose it could have been a useful exercise for scientists to hone their argumentation skills, building the strongest case they could from the evidence they could uncover. But, in the end, the evidence they produced has apparently been rent asunder, rendered completely useless.

Meanwhile, after four millenia of intense scrutiny, Yahweh still is. The further revelations that God is Trinity has withstood the battering of two thousand years’ worth of inquiry. Leaving Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as constant and immutable as the day Man discovered the nature of their God. All the while science has “progressed,” reversed its conclusions, and reinvented itself when, time after time, the latest theory is decimated by a johnny-come-lately claimant to the throne of scientific consensus.

Of course, it seems to be the vogue thing to worship Change. After all, it is something one can believe in. No matter how far-fetched.

The Annals of Improbable Research have issued this year’s Ig Noble awards.  The awards are given to those who have completed real research…on hilarious issues.  This is worth a look!

Two HUGE news stories were anticipated today.

The first and potentially most serious of the two was the impending destruction of the planet. Seriously. We were all supposed to die as the planet was sucked down a man-made black hole created by a massive particle accelerator that was switched on last night at 3:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time. It seems the French and Swiss, completely fed up with American aggression and arrogance, decided that they could take it no longer and, if everything went right, they’d take everyone else with them. On the positive side, I was looking forward to the prospect that I would not have to repay my student loans. And so, like the Maginot Line before it, their carefully worked out plans made a vague pffffftttt sound as they looked on in dismay. It sort of reminds me of the moment when Deep Thought proclaimed that the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything was 42.

Of course, the other earth shattering (although less so) news that was expected today was Ron Paul’s enigmatic “Big Announcement.”

With much fanfare and anticipation, but lacking clowns and fireworks, Ron Paul announced today that he thinks we should vote for a third party candidate because the two major parties are not significantly different. THAT was the “Big Announcement.” I believe I just heard another pffffftttt sound. Luckily, it was just a pffffftttt sound because if anyone had actually learned that his proposal was to form a, I’m not kidding here, “League of Non-voters” to combat the scourge of an evil two-party system which systematically excludes the voice of the fringe candidate, like Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney, it probably would have sounded more like hysterical laughter and mocking.

Way back when, I mentioned that I wanted to write up a review of the Gary Taubes book Good Calories, Bad Calories. I then procrastinated for six months. I revisited the idea recently and then thought, maybe I should pitch it to Doublethink Online! I did, and now they’re running it.

On January 14, 1977, the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, chaired by George McGovern, released a document called Dietary Goals of the United States. Dietary Goals heralded the arrival of a new consensus on nutrition: that dietary fat, by raising blood cholesterol, causes atherosclerosis and obesity, leading ultimately to premature death from coronary artery disease. The Committee aimed to lower the proportion of dietary fat to carbohydrates in American diets by recommending sharp reductions in meat and dairy consumption. This would presumably lower blood cholesterol levels and save lives.

The young Committee staffers who authored the report considered themselves to be confronting a serious public health problem by attempting to reform the most dangerous aspects of American eating habits. Of course, there were some marginalized skeptics in the scientific community who believed that, based on the existing evidence, it was premature to draw firm conclusions and make recommendations, but they were discounted as overcautious at best, or corrupt at worst. The media trumpeted the findings and recommendations, dismissing the dissenters as shills for the meat, egg, and dairy industries.

However, during the subsequent decades things didn’t quite work out as the Committee staff might have hoped. During the 1980s, rates of obesity and type-2 diabetes soared and have continued rising to this day. This occurred despite declining fat consumption and less cigarette smoking. How could this have happened?  Read the rest

“No, honey, it wasn’t me. I swear it was the bush.”

According to researchers in Tibet, it might have been the gladiola who dealt it. It turns out that according to the estimates of one researcher, plants may contribute up to 236 million tonnes of methane gas to the atmosphere. Considering that methane has been implicated as a greenhouse gas which contributes to the looming global warming catastrophe, I wonder if we will next be directed to Round-up our yards and assiduously guard against weeds.

Maybe we should consider dissolving some Beano into water when we water our flower beds.

Despite the hopes of East-Coasters, Mid-West folk and the Southern populace, California did not break off and fall into the ocean today.  We survived the minor quake with ease.  Sorry to disappoint you all!

The African nation of Nigeria may be taking the lead in sustainable biofuels.  A government body has approved funding to assist farmers in the planting and cultivation of the jatropha tree.  The jatropha tree produces peanut sized seeds that can be refined into oil for use as a bio-fuel.  Jatropha is not a food source, can be grown in arid or moist climates, does not compete with food crops for cultivatable land and may even help turn back some of the desertification plaguing much of Africa.

Should this tree produce as theorized, Nigeria and other African nations may finally have an industry that could pull them out of centuries of economic struggle.  In addition to producing a sustainable and renewable fuel source, the plant could reduce food costs and kick-start an entire continent’s economic engine.  Imagine an Africa where new industries spring up around newly created agricultural zones, where money and jobs pour into a once desolate and starving landscape.  Where all nations can produce wealth through agri-business instead of tribal warfare. 

Maybe I have become overtaken by the far-off possibility of a plant that cures fuel demand, eases poverty and ends starvation.  But if it works and the world takes interest, Africa’s future could be dominated by prosperity instead of strife and that is worth some time and investment.

The old saying is: “Yeah, but what does that have to do with the price of bananas?”

Well, when it comes to oil, a lot. OPEC’s president says oil could hit $200 per barrel. The problem, of course, is that the price of everything which is shipped (which is pretty much everything other than online services) is affected by the price of oil. I recently reported on a trucker revolt in downtown Indy. Those revolts have been spreading throughout the country. When trucking companies are hit with high oil prices, does anyone think they absorb the cost? Of course, they don’t. That cost gets priced into the goods we buy.

Last year, we hit $100 per barrel for oil and, at that time, the price of unleaded gasoline was nearly $3 per gallon. When (note I did not say if) the price of oil hits $200 per barrel, gas prices will likely be $6 per gallon. I drive a fuel efficient import (made in Marysville, Ohio before anyone gets all kooky and talking about how they bought a Ford, which was built in either Canada or Mexico, tells how I should support American cars) and the other day my 12 gallon tank cost me over $40 to fill up, with $50 bills not far off. Those sorts of bills used to be reserved for the SUV driving populace. Forty dollars used to be my entire budget for gasoline for an entire month. Consider this: semi trucks typically have 300 (some have 325) gallon tanks.  At $4.16 for a gallon of diesel, which is a decent price right now, it would cost the average trucker nearly $1,250.00 to fill ‘er up.

I used to work at the fuel desk at a truck stop (third shift – drank tons of coffee), and it was a gigantic sale when someone spent $300 to fuel their truck. Now that would get them about two truck stops down the road. I understand their angst and realize that if nothing is done, we’ll soon feel their pain.

Diverting grain to be used to create fuel is not the answer. First, it is extremely expensive to accomplish – more than to drill for oil, or buy from the Middle East. And, second, it drives up the cost of almost every food item, which of course impacts poor people, who spend more as a percentage of their income on food, disproportionately.

Surprisingly, Barack Obama, who seems to be clueless whenever he begins to talk about actual policies as opposed to grand ideas like change, is somehow opposed to relieving the consumer from the burden of government taxes on fuel. Hillary, at least, gets it. McCain has been out front on this issue. But even McCain’s plan is a stopgap measure. First, a hiatus on the gas tax would eventually impact our roads, which the tragedy in Minneapolis teaches us are in a deplorable state. But, second, that sort of relief, while welcome, is temporary. The real problem is that demand has far outstripped supply and OPEC refuses to pump more oil.

Continue Reading »

This afternoon my wife and I went to see Ben Stein’s documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. As one reviewer pointed out, one’s opinion of the film is almost guaranteed to be determined by one’s stance on the Evolutionism v. Intelligent Design “debate.”

The point of the film is not whether ID is superior to Evolutionism, but rather that the mere suggestion that ID might provide some explanation as to the origins of life is strictly verboten in academic and scientific circles. Stein introduces his viewers to several scientists who have been drummed out of their positions because they had the audacity to mention Intelligent Design in their research.

One proponent of evolutionism, William Provine, an avowed atheist science historian at Cornell University, objected to the teaching of intelligent design in part on the basis that it’s “BOOOORING. I can’t think of any topic that is more BOOOORING!” Of course, when asked about the origins of life, Provine posited that aliens might have seeded life on this planet, deftly pushing back the question one generation (How did the seed scattering aliens come to exist, Professor Provine?).

Perhaps no single point shows that Stein was not attempting to advocate for the Intelligent Design position than the fact that Stein did not interview Michael Behe, a microbiologist whose book Darwin’s Black Box I found to provide much evidentiary support for intelligent design. Behe’s argument proceeded by examining the simplest of life forms, a single celled creature, and examined it at the microbiological level. At that level there are mechanisms (Behe uses a flagella as one example) that are incredibly complex structurally and functionally such that they could not have evolved happenstance. He coined the term “irreducible complexity”: Take away any of the structure’s complexity and it would cease to function and therefore would not confer an advantage which would be selected for. Indeed, extra baggage which provided no function would put the organism at a disadvantage, which Darwin predicted would ultimately cause its extinction. Critics of Behe have noted that some of the proteins that make up some of these structures that Behe used as examples occur in other contexts within the cell, however, that still fails to account for their combination into a specific structure which is much more complex than the joining of a few proteins randomly.

Continue Reading »

Scientists at the University of Western Ontario have discovered that fat makes us – well – fat.  How? 

Neuropeptide Y (NPY) is an appetite-stimulating hormone produced by our brains, which is responsible for a lot of our drive to eat. Scientists had previously thought that overweight people simply had more NPY flowing from their heads than they needed. As it turns out, the UWO study found that not only do our brains produce NPY, but our abdominal fat makes it as well.

A vicious cycle, indeed.

Next thing you know, they’ll say thinking turns your brain to mush.

Here’s a useful reminder that the ubiquitous “medical” advice that we all need to drink eight glasses of water a day to maintain health is basically an urban legend, despite what you may have heard on the Today Show or somesuch. So if you’re still force-feeding yourself Aquafina all day long you can stop, and just return to the timeless wisdom of our ancestors: drink when you’re thirsty! Via Futurepundit.