Radioactive Communist Zombies

More Tornadoes Caused by Climate Change?

Are there more tornadoes than there used to be and is global warming climate change to blame?  The answer in both cases is apparently, "no" (Hat tip: Plant Gore).

First, more tornadoes:

"If you look at the past 60 years of data, the number of tornadoes is increasing significantly, but it's agreed upon by the tornado community that it's not a real increase," said Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University.

"It's having to do with better (weather tracking) technology, more population, the fact that the population is better educated and more aware. So we're seeing them more often," Dixon said.

In other words, the increased reports of tornadoes are artifacts of modern life, not an actual increase in the number of tornadoes. 

And the deadliness of yesterday's tornadoes are most likely due at least in part to there being more population for the tornadoes to hit.

What about climate change and tornadoes?  According to scientists, there is no link:

US meteorologists warned Thursday it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes in the wake of deadly storms that have ripped through the US south.

And:

Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), also dismissed Thursday climate change as a factor in the deadly tornadoes: "Actually what we're seeing is springtime," he said . . ."We knew it was going to be a big tornado year," he said. But the key to that tip-off was unrelated to climate change: "It is related to the natural fluctuations of the planet."

"Natural fluctuations of the planet."  You mean the planet changes naturally?  And here I thought it was because I drive a car with a V-8 engine and don't have enough pig-tail light bulbs in my house.

The greens want to blame any strange weather on climate change.  But, you know, sometimes, it's just weather.

End Keynesian Economics Now

Can I get a bumper sticker that says "End Keynesian Economics Now"?  (Probably not and I would put a bumper sticker on my car anyway.)  But can we please stick a fork in Keynes and call him "done"?  We have gone through a four year experiment with John Maynard Keynes (yes, it started under Bush) and the results are remarkable for how badly we've done.  We have increased the federal deficit and debt like never before, putting us on a path to unsustainable debt and yet the economy continues to sputter along.

Investors' Business Daily compares two recoveries from bad recessions, one under free-market principles (and a Republican president) and one under Keynesian principles (and a Democrat president).  The results:

• GDP. In the seven quarters after the 1981-82 recession ended, the economy cranked out quarterly growth rates that averaged 7.1%. Under Obama, GDP growth has averaged a mere 2.8%.

• Unemployment. Under Reagan, the unemployment rate had fallen to 7.5% by this point in the recovery. Under Obama, it's still stuck at 8.8%.

• Long-term unemployment. There were far fewer long-term unemployed by this point in the Reagan recovery; just 18% of the unemployed had been without a job 27 weeks or more. Under Obama, that figure is an astonishing 45%.

• Consumer confidence. By this point in the Reagan recovery, the Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index had hit 100. Today, the index stands at just 65.4.

• Deficits. Under Reagan, the federal deficit was trimmed to 4.8% of GDP by 1984. Under Obama, the deficit is expected to climb to 10.9% of GDP this year.

But, the "Great Recession" was the worst since the Great Depression?  Perhaps, but it ended just six months after Obama took office (and five months after the stimulus was passed, long before much of the money had been spent).

The way to make an economy recover, especially from a recession that was primarily caused by government, is to get government out of the way.  That is something this president doesn't understand.

UPDATE: Found this video, an attempt to make economic entertaining (too bad these people didn't make the Atlas Shrugged movie).  It's a bit long, (the credits are 1:25 of it) but it's pretty good and accurate on two philosophies of economics, Hayekian and Keynesian.

Global What?

Today's Global Warming Climate Change update: On April 29th, it is snowing in Eastern Washington.  See below for radar for the area showing snow in Spokane (click for full sized and animation):

I don't know when politicians are going to get off their butts and do something about this climate change.  We're freezing our tushies off, here.

Global Warming Hits Central Washington

It's April 27th (I think) which is four days from May 1st.  And the forecast for tomorrow is . . . snow?  Here's a picture from our local forecast courtesy of the National Weather Service:

"A chance of rain or snow showers"?  Seriously.

So when's the global warming thing supposed to hit?  Oh, I forgot, it's now "climate change" and any weird weather can be blamed on it.  Probably even snow on April 28th.

Slow Kills

What is the safest speed limit?  What is the safest speed to drive?  Those are not easily answered questions.  A lot of folks think that the safest speed limit is the lowest.  And the safest speed is slow.  But neither belief stands up to the facts. Speed limits are, by and large, set for the purpose of revenue generation, not safety.  If you believe the slower the speed limit the safer the driving, then it's a win-win: drivers drive slower (and thus safer) and those who don't drive slow get to increase government revenue our of their own pocket.

But the National Motorist Association has on their website data gathered by the Michigan State Police (pdf file) that show that neither driving slow nor lower speed limits equate to safety.  As the MSP puts it:

Ideal speed to set as the maximum limit:
– Provides the lowest speed variance between vehicles, and thus provides the lowest crash numbers
– Provides optimum enforceability

The "lowest speed variance" between vehicles is important as the chart below (taken from the same MSP presentation) shows, driving slower than average is dangerous, more dangerous than driving faster than average (in fact, it seems about 5 to 10 mph above average is the safest! Click for a larger view):

And what does the MSP mean by "optimum enforceability"?  That means you're not pulling over people for exceeding some random (and low) number a politician or bureaucrat pulled out of his  . . . ear but are pulling over those that are driving truly dangerously fast.  Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an enforcement mechanism for those driving dangerously slow.  Perhaps there should be minimum speed limits, too.  Think of the revenue raising possibilities of that!

The MSP (and traffic engineers) recommend setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile.  That means set the limit so that 85% of the drivers are driving that speed or less under optimum conditions (good weather, no traffic jams, no obstructions such as railroad crossings or tight corners). 

For example, the MSP presentation gives data for a freeway where the speed limit was 55 mph.  Only 2.4% of drivers were driving less than the speed limit.  The 85th percentile was 73 mph.  When the speed limit was raised to 70 mph, the 85th percentile dropped to 72 mph.  This contradicts the common wisdom that higher speed limits cause people to drive faster.  Also, the speed variance dropped (that is, the difference between the faster cars and the slower cars).  And that increases safety.

The presentation also had data for a "Residential Trunk Line" with a center turn lane.  When the speed limit was 25 mph the 85th percentile was 36 mph.  When the speed limit was raised to 35 mph, the 85th percentile didn't change.

Drivers travel mostly at the speed they feel comfortable and safe at regardless of the speed limit (except me where I travel 5 mph over the speed limit because I usually feel comfortable and safe about10 - 15 mph over the speed limit, i.e., I would, under good conditions, feel comfortable doing 80 - 85 on the interstate between here and Spokane but I don't want to get a ticket so I keep it only 5 above).

All of this is moot, however, because speed limits are not set for safety, but to raise revenue.  Slower limits may be more dangerous due to increased speed variability, but that doesn't concern the revenue-hungry jurisdictions that set them.

Obama's Birth Certificate Found

This probably won't shut the birthers up ("It could be forged!") but today the White House released the birth certificate of "Barack Hussein Obama, II."  Here it is (pdf file).  And here I said Monday that the birthers did have a point on at least one issue.

My biggest problem with the whole birther controversy was the Clintons.  If Hillary Clinton had dirt on Obama I very much doubt she wouldn't have used it against him.  And I'm sure she was looking for something, anything, to use against her primary rival.

There is one question, however, why did it take so long to produce this document?  AP says:

While White House officials . . . said they released the birth certificate partially because the issue had moved from a fringe discussion and into the mainstream media.

When Republicans and Democrats were talking to media, they were asked about it, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said. "It was a constant discussion on main stream news organizations."

Still seems strange to wait so long.  This does have one advantage: it robs Donald Trump of his key issue.  Is he going to become a 9/11 Truther now?

Conspiracy Theory

I don't put much faith in conspiracy theories, especially birthers and truthers and the Illuminati, etc.

But I tell you, I think something is going on with Google and Internet Explorer 9. Since upgrading to IE9 (I started with the beta) Google has just ran slooooow.  And it hangs and you wait while it finally loads your search.  And IE9 is supposed to be this blazing fast browser.

So today I got so tired of it I switched to Bing (Microsoft's search engine).  And it was fast.  Really fast.

I can think of three explanations:

1) Google is somehow slowing down on purpose in IE9 to get you to use Chrome (their browser).  Somehow I doubt that (people might go to Firefox or some other browser instead).

2) IE9 is somehow slowing down Google on purpose to get you to use Bing.  Maybe.

3) Like I can't use the blog's edit function in IE9 due to its inherent kluginess (I have to use Firefox and is "kluginess" a word?), somehow Google and IE9 just aren't getting along.  That is probably most likely.  After all, Microsoft is probably going to ensure that Bing and IE9 work very well together but most likly won't do that same for Google or Typepad (my blog host).

Maybe Chuck Schumer should look into this! 

Oh, and Google seems to work fine in Firefox.  My kids tell me I should be using Firefox but it alphabetized all my bookmarks (I hate that) and I can't figure out how to do RSS feeds in it.

Is There Some Validity to "Birther" Arguments?

Was Barack Obama born in the U.S., specifically Hawaii, or elsewhere, making him ineligible to be president? I'm not a "birther" and I've always considered the issue a distraction from the real issue of what a lousy president Barack Hussein Obama is. The key piece of evidence I've relied on was the birth announcement of Barack in the local newspaper, the Honolulu Advertiser, on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961.

But, John F. Gaski writing in Investors' Business Daily, says that's no proof at all:

To that issue, we now have reports that it was common practice in Hawaii at the time for parents (or grandparents) in cases of nonisland (and potential non-U.S. citizenship) births to fabricate a paper trail with such false newspaper announcement submissions. All it required was an unsworn form filed with the state.

No, this was not necessarily done with the expectation that a newborn would want to run for president over 40 years hence — to dispel a favorite canard of the Obama apologists — but was motivated by a generalized expectation of future benefits of citizenship.

Then the question becomes why won't Obama release his actual birth certificate? The one released by the campaign does not match birth certificates actually made at the time of his birth.

So let's assume for a moment the birthers are right: Obama is not a "natural born U.S. Citizen" as required by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution. Does this mean that the man who got 52.9% of the popular vote (more than any Democrat since LBJ and more than any president since George H.W. Bush in 1988) cannot be President. Does this mean we'd have President Biden. I know it's hard to believe anyone could be a worse president than Obama but I bet Biden could.

I still say this is a distraction. Defeat the man on his lousy governence, crony capitalism, petty corruption, politization of every department of government, and horrible economic policies.

Donald Trump: Gives Money to Democrats, Doesn't Vote Much

Donald Trump is still making noises about running for the Republican Presidential nomination.  Maybe he's just trying to garner attention to himself for his reality show.  Or maybe he's serious. 

But he can't ever be a serious contender.  Not only did he toy with this idea in 2000 (on a platform of some screwy tax ideas) but now it comes out that he has donated a lot of money to Democrats.  The Atlantic Wire via Yahoo has the scoop (links original):

Trump defended himself against reports that he gave a lot of money to New York Democrats by saying that "everyone's Democratic" in the city, "So what am I going to do--contribute to Republicans? One thing: I'm not stupid." But, as Salon's Steve Kornacki notes, that doesn't explain why Trump gave former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel $50,000 to run for mayor in Chicago, or $32,000 to Democrat Ed Rendell to run for governor in Pennsylvania.

One thing the Republican nominee for president needs to be, is a serious committed Republican conservative.  The GOP has made this mistake before (and before and before).  Giving money to Democrats seems to disqualify Trump as being very committed.

And also, you'd think someone for whom politics is important would at least vote.  But Trump has a habit of not voting in primary elections:

Trump also didn't bother to vote in a single primary election for 21 years. As he explained on Fox News Monday morning, "I mean, generally speaking, I like to vote. I'm a believer in voting, I will tell you. ... But when they don't run a Republican candidate or when the Republican is scheduled to get 6.2 percent of the vote, it's sort of pretty tough to travel 1,000 miles in order to vote."

Apparently The Donald doesn't know about absentee voting.

Anyone who takes Donald Trump seriously as a GOP candidate should look at Trump's record on abortion, taxes, and who he gives his money to.

Trump's candidacy would be a joke.  A distraction from the serious issues facing the nation.  Maybe that's his plan.

Privatize Education

The government shouldn't be in the business of education anymore than in the business of making pencils.  So argues Sheldon RIchman.  Watch this:

And, I agree.  However, I do think government can have a small role in education: rating schools performance and keeping for-profit schools honest.