My name is RB and I endorsed this message - Platform priorities

Yesterday I explained that I wanted to lay out what I thought were important priorities for the Presidency 2012-2016. This will be the planks of my platform should I decide to stick with the idea of the run (it will have to be a write-in campaign).

In preparation, I looked back at what I said in 2008. I think the same issues apply, so I'm going to steal heavily from my ideas back then. One difference I notice between 2008 and 2012 is the lack of focus on change. In 2008, almost every candidate was talking change (both the D's and the R's). Well, change happened, we went from a Republican in the White House to a Democrat. Some might say too much changed, some might say too little. But change happened.

My focus will be pretty much the same as last time, with some change thrown in for good measure. Here are the areas I see that need to be addressed for the next four years. This post won't tell you my opinion on any one topic, but instead will list topics I intend to cover later. They will be somewhat in priority order, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.

In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - Iraq is over. Afghanistan will be soon. The current budget outlook for defense means major cuts. We're relying less on boots-on-the-ground and more on drones-in-the-air and special ops. Where do we go from here?

2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration) - My only update to this list is to add the Middle East (Egypt, Libya, Israel, Syria, etc) and North/South Korea

3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations - it seems one candidate wants us to pull back and focus on US alone, I'll look at my ideas four years ago and update them.

4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending. I know you think this should be higher. When I look at the economy, I'll explain why it's ranked #4.

5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)



6) Points of light - This is an old George H Bush idea. I mentioned it yesterday in a phone conversation with a friend and think it needs to be addressed.

What did I leave out? What do you, the voter and my readers, want me to address?

Climate advisor steps down - Who should replace?

I just read this news article that says Carol Brown, the president's climate advisor, is resigning from her post. Now you may be like me and didn't realize we had a climate advisor. But even though I didn't realize there was such a position, I'm impressed.

Obviously, this lady has done her job well. We in SC, have had more snow this year than in 4 average years and we're in the middle of a month long snap. Brown has advised away all effects of Global Warming in the two short years she's been in the job. (I'm assuming she took the job in 2009, I really don't know)

I have a suggestion to President Obama regarding her replacement. I think he has an opportunity to show his leadership skills, show is fiscal strength and show his climate change knowledge all at the same time. When he studies the matter and looks for a replacement hopefully, he will heed my advice. Next candidate for climate advisor? Nobody.

Ice caps melting slower

Seems that some scientists are now saying that the ice caps in Greenland and Western Antarctica are melting at 1/2 the speed originally estimated. It seems that some of the early estimates failed to correct for a phenomenon known as glacial isostatic adjustment. This means that the earth is rising up after being pushed down by the last ice age.

Of course, no scientist alive today actually observed the last ice age or how much the earth was pushed down by it, so we have to accept what these people tell us based on faith scientific evidence. And we know that other ideas based on faith are unacceptable.

My question is, with these ice caps melting at 1/2 the speed earlier estimated, will Al Gore give back 1/2 of his Nobel Prize? (Of course, given the current economic conditions, maybe a certain President should give back part of his too).

Link to story is here.

Global warming and California Glaciers

Taking a short break from gas prices.

This article talks about the effect of global warming on glaciers in California. But it's enough to surprise Al Gore, the glaciers are growing.

The article also says that "Four glaciers at Washington's Mount Rainier are staying about the same size." Wait a minute, how can that be? With global warming I thought all the glaciers were disappearing faster than the ice in my freezer when my 18 year old is around.

The part that caught my eye the most was the part that says "Nearby Indian tribes referred to its glaciers as the footsteps made by the creator when he descended to Earth."

Near me, there's a mountain called Table Rock. Next to it is Stump Mountain. Indians said their God would sit on the Stump Mountain and eat of the Table Rock.

It always made me feel small, to think that my God was bigger than that.

State of Fear - Book Review

I just finished this book by Michael Crichton. If the name doesn't ring a bell, he wrote The Terminal Man (1972) about a computer "troubleshooter" who was afraid of machines - they implanted one in his body to control epilepsy (my alltime favorite book). He also wrote the Andromeda Strain which was made into a great Sci-Fi movie. Most people will know one of his other works, Jurassic Park (not my favorite). Congo was also one of his good books. Sphere was one of his works, but to be honest if left me confused.

This book promised to be good and I was VERY impressed. The characters are all involved with the Global Warming movement. I don't want to give the plot line away, but I will say that it is intense. The action keeps you turning page after page. There's even a lecture about the banning of DDT, a recent topic of one of my blog-friends (see "Dangerous environmentalism" on Neil's blog here.)

The chapters in the book are short, some as short as two pages. That helps those like me who have inherited ADD from their kids. It allows you to put the book down and breathe a little. Even with those breaks, I finished the 600+ page book in record time (for me). It's an excellent book.

While the book is fiction, Crichton uses references to real material that he says are factual (I don't doubt it, but haven't checked it). He finishes the plot line, then adds an Author's Message to give you insight into how he really feels. If he hasn't made you mad with the plot-line, you'll find his message enlightening. He ends the message with two simple sentences: "Everybody has an agenda. Except me."

He also includes an appendix explaining why he thinks politicizing of science is a bad idea. He shows a scientific idea that warned of an impending crisis supported by leading scientists, politicians and celebrities, supported by distinguised philanthropists and researched by leading universities. Supporters included T. Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Churchill, supreme court justices, inventors, novelists and playrights. I won't tell you the "scientific" idea, but will tell you it was discredited in the 1940's and isn't even discussed in proper circles today (If you really want a spoiler, email me and I'll tell you).

To says this is a must-read book uses an overused and abused term, but I'm not sure what else to say. Other than I enjoyed it and it's probably the best $8 (paperback) spent in recent times.

* Corrected typo. I really should proofread *

Global Warming - Let's sue Al Gore

I have to admit, I have doubts about global warming. Oh no, now I've offended everyone. My liberal friends will desert me saying that it's obvious, science have proved it, etc. And my conservative friends will likely desert me saying I've abandoned their cause.

But it seems John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, has no doubt that Global Warming is a farce. And he's frustrated he can't get any traction in the main stream media. His answer? File a lawsuit in court, alleging fraud by the former vice president for selling carbon credits (read the full article here). Coleman says he's "confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."

"As you look at the atmosphere over the last 25 years, there's been perhaps a degree of warming, perhaps probably a whole lot less than that, and the last year has been so cold that that's been erased," he said.

Wait - did he say that last year has been cold? Was this on the news? Did I miss that?

"I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global-warming thing."

Let's hope so.

Coleman has long been a skeptic of global warming, and carbon dioxide is the linchpin to his argument. The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere, he said. This is about double what it was before we started burning fossil fuels. It's gone up, but it's still a tiny compound. How can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature?

I agree with Coleman. Let's get both sides together for a debate. As my Daddy used to say, let's get all the liars into one room and let them fight it out.

I approved this message - Part 5 (Final?)

I'm almost finished explaining the platform I would follow if elected president. This is the last planned message and is intended to address healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits. Previous mssages addressed 1) National Defense, 2) Foreign affairs, 2b)
Immigration, 3) Isolationism and 4) the national economy.

I grouped together the topics of healthcare, education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits because, frankly I don't believe these issues deserve a lot of discussion. I put the topics listed above in order of priority and these other issues just don't measure up. I have changed my mind somewhat on healthcare, I'm going to put that as topic 4.5 (bewteen 4 & 5) and come back to that after this discussion.

However, many people want to know the presidential candidates' opinions on these topics, so
this entry will discuss my views on education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits.

Education. I'm for it. I think education is important for the success of every individual and for our country. For the record, I have an MBA, my wife has a Master's of Ed. She's a school teacher. My sister is a guidance counselor. I may be biased (so sue me). I think education is important, but I don't think it's a federal issue. No where in the Constitution, which the President is sworn to uphold, is education mentioned. I think education should be left to the states with minimal federal intervention.

I also think education is overblown. We tell people "you have to have an education" then charge them $50,000 or more for 4 years of college and don't give them a way to pay it back. Every school that offers a for-fee education should be forced to show a good-faith estimate of how long it will take to pay back the education. If the education is for fun (I plan to take some of those courses), that's ok, you just should know that taking oboe lessons will never make you more money. Of course, since the federal government will be out of education, there will be no federal mandates on this.

Abortion. I'm against it. I will be glad to change to pro-choice, once we figure out how to give the baby a choice. (this next part will probably offend some of my conservative friends). I will not make abortion a litmus test for choosing judges, cabinet members or friends. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have purposely put this issue as #5 (and last) in my priority list. Frankly, the president has better things to do.

Global warming. I think it's a farce. I'd appoint Al Gore amabassador in charge of sewers.

Carbon credits. What a laugh. I need to find the companies issuing the credits and buy stock in them.

Don't get me wrong, I am an enviromentalist. God gave us this world and told us to take care of it. Frankly, we've done a lousy job. Someday (soon I hope), He's going to come in here and fire us. We should do all that we can to conserve natural resources. We should strive to be stewards of what He gave to us. But let's also remember that He gave it to us and told us to dominate.

Well, I'm sure to lose some votes over this post and I didn't have that many to begin with, so I better quit while I'm behind.

I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.

I've decided to move

Scientists report that a newfound planet could support life. I've decided that what with all of the global warming, I'm going to move to this new planet. But there's a little about the "science" of all of this that bothers me.

First, when I was in school, I learned that science was based on what we OBSERVED. So much of what we call science today is based on things that "scientists" can't see.

But enough of that, this planet, only 41 light years away is in the "'Goldilocks zone' - a place that's not too hot, not too cold, but just right." This planet is the fifth planet around this star. The planets are between the size of Jupiter and Saturn and are gas giants which "isn't a likely suspect in search for life."

Wait a minute, didn't the headline say it could support life? But wait, the story goes further, it says that "any rocky moons around (the planet) would be" (likely to support life). So we're talking about the moons around the planet being habital.

This should excite me. After all, if we can move to another planet, we don't have to worry about global warming. But it seems that science should count on what is truly observable and that until we can observe it, it seems like it should be reported as hypothesis.

Proof that the right saves more gas than the left

With gas prices (back down for the moment), everyone wants to save gas. And some are concerned about global warming and all should be concerned about polutting less.

So if you knew a way to save gas (and $$) an pollute less that didn't cost you anything, would you listen?

Seem UPS has found that making right turns instead of left turns saves gas. Company reps say it decreases the amount of time idling, which will, in turn, make each vehicle more fuel-efficient. On an individual truck-by-truck basis, the difference in fuel efficiency is minimal, but on a fleet level, the increase in fuel economy becomes quite significant.

Additionally, making right turns leads to less accidents than making left turns, thereby increasing your life expectancy and reduces the need for goverment sponsored health care.

So, UPS has given us proof that the right is better than the left.

See the article here.

Eco-Vandalism as an answer to gas guzzling

Seems some globally minded people didn't like the fact that this person wasn't globally minded. Gareth Groves bought a Hummer. No question that it's bad for the environment, he was the one who paid $38,000 for the vehicle and paid for the gas at 14 mpg, so he figured it was his problem

Some eco-friendly people thought otherwise and they decided he should be able to drive such an unfriendly vehicle. They smashed the windows, slashed the tires and scratched FOR THE ENVIRON in the side.

So I guess this is fair, Garreth now understands that his first priority is to protect the environment. He got what he deserved.

See Hummer Gets Eco-Vandalized in Washington Neighborhood

Note: In case anyone misses it, I intended for my comments in the last paragraph above to be sarcastic.