Almost forgot to post this entry, which I want to make an annual one. At least, until those mocked finally go away:

Liberation Army Against Freedom

I suddenly had a fond memory of the "theme music," which never fails to amuse me.

Enjoy!

        

No, Virginia; that's not a tax — it's a  fine!

Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage

Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage. Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties than individuals.

Yes; modeling the "ACES" bill on California law wasn't good enough; our next go-to state for sensible financial management is... Massachusetts.

Called "shared responsibility payments," the fines would be set at least half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation.

... The fines would be collected through the income tax system.

... all the bills would require insurance companies to sell coverage to any applicant, without charging higher premiums for pre-existing medical conditions. The poor and some middle-class families would qualify for government subsidies to help with the cost of coverage. The government's costs would be covered by a combination of higher taxes and cuts in projected Medicare and Medicaid spending.

I am so, so tempted to break out the vain language. Instead, I will take a deep breath... slowly... slow...

AHHHHHH—

DOESN'T ANYONE NOTICE THIS?!

I has a feeling I'm going to be seeing a lot of Mr. Mugatu in the next two or three years.

It's "crazy pills" all the way down, I'm afraid.



***

IN OTHER NEWS, Senate aides are busily beating the thesauri for alternative ways of saying "taxes" without saying "taxes."

"Shared responsibility payments." Feh.

        

Now, where'd that monolith get to?

Straight from that unnamed warehouse stage somewheres in Arizona, we get:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/main/index.html

Pictures from the moon!

Maybe (ignoring Buzz Aldrin's advice) we'll get to go there again, if we can't make any progress on flyin to Mars.

        

So I'm reading this and eating a quarter of a Monte Cristo and a can of (real sugar) Pepsi.

OTOH, I did 20-30 min of calisthenics with the missus this a.m., and I'll go another mile on the elliptical, and probably dig a fencepost hole, so there's that.

But I liked the irony of the above.

        

Well, well! More sobering, yet good news:

US launches major offensive against Taliban

Thousands of U.S. Marines stormed into an Afghan river valley by helicopter and land early today, launching the biggest military offensive of Barack Obama's presidency with an assault deep into Taliban territory.

Operation River Liberty, which the Marines call simply "the decisive op", is intended to seize virtually the entire lower Helmand River valley, heartland of the Taliban insurgency and the world's biggest heroin producing region.

...

"Where we go we will stay, and where we stay, we will hold, build and work toward transition of all security responsibilities to Afghan forces," Marine Corps Brigadier General Larry Nicholson, commander of the Marines in southern Afghanistan said in a statement.

...

Wave upon wave of helicopters landed Marines in the early morning darkness at locations throughout the valley, a crescent of opium and wheat fields criss-crossed by canals and dotted with mud-brick homes, where firmly entrenched fighters defied NATO forces for years.

Hundreds more Marines raced by ground in convoys through a barren area known as the Desert of Death.

Notice the good news? That's the [London] Times Online — and they are, if anything, practically jingoistic about the "wave upon wave of ... Marines."  No; don't get your hopes up about the NYT. Baby steps, dear reader; baby steps...

Under President Obama, the US force in Afghanistan is more than doubling this year, from 32,000 at the start of 2009 to an anticipated 68,000 troops by year's end, many of them diverted from Iraq. Other Western countries have about 33,000 troops in Afghanistan.

Not a peep about BEING BETRAYED, or LIED TO, or the troops being BABY-KILLERS and THUGS.

Thank you, Mr. Obama, for your wide coat-tails, upon which even formerly loathed elements of society can ride in comfort!

As for most of the press, and their naked partisanship? They can bite me.

        

photo credit: Andrea Melendez, Des Moines Register



Capt. Steve Brown, a spokesman for the Des Moines Fire Department, said rescuing someone trapped in the turbulent boil is "very rare."

"We are trained for getting people out of those situations," Brown said. "The construction workers definitely went well above and beyond."

[Construction worker James] Oglesbee was reluctant to give his name or be interviewed when first approached by members of the media. He later allowed a couple of questions before returning to work. The crew from Cramer & Associates was on hand to construct the high-arching Center Street pedestrian bridge.

When asked if he volunteered to be rigged to the crane, Oglesbee said he just happened to be wearing the harness. Joe Lowe operated the crane that suspended Oglesbee above the water.

"They just harnessed me up and dipped me down in the water and I grabbed her and the crane drug her to the boat and that's it," Oglesbee said. "What are you going to do if she's like that? It's no big deal. The whole crew did it."



If this was my last post, I'd end the blog a happy man.

        

So, first we had fantastic tales of a "pregnant man," which centered around a woman who called herself a man, but a man with a uterus, ovaries, womb, etc.

And the press said it was good.

Now comes this, from the Land That Is Usually, But Not Always, Crazier Than California:

A couple of Swedish parents have stirred up debate in the country by refusing to reveal whether their two-and-a-half-year-old child is a boy or a girl.

***

In an interview with newspaper Svenska Dagbladet in March, the parents were quoted saying their decision was rooted in the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construction.

That is to say, their decision is rooted in a philosophy that has no scientific or sociological basis, but is just a sweet, sweet wish — a sparkly dream that their heart makes.

“We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” Pop’s mother said. “It's cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”

The child's parents said so long as they keep Pop’s gender a secret, he or she will be able to avoid preconceived notions of how people should be treated if male or female.

And the press said it was very good. No word yet on whether anyone thinks the mom is "cruel" to treat her child as an "it."

Swedish gender equality consultant Kristina Henkel says Pop’s parents' experiment might have positive results.

“If the parents are doing this because they want to create a discussion with other adults about why gender is important, then I think they can make a point of it,” Henkel says in a telephone interview with The Local.

Children as philosophical debating fodder. Why didn't I think of that?

“You can talk about there being a non-stereotypical gender [singular? — ed.]; if you are a girl you can do the same as a boy, and if you’re a boy you can do the same as a girl.”

Henkel also says a child's sex can deeply affect how they are treated growing up, and distract them from simply being a human being.

Henkel tries to separate sex from humanity, as if humanity were sex-neutral. But, except in a very rare number of cases, this just is not the case: humans are men and women.

One can only experiment like this on pre-pubescent children, who don't care much about what sex they are. But does that make it right to experiment on them?

As to "if you are a girl you can do the same as a boy, and if you’re a boy you can do the same as a girl," two points (a) this is true, in a limited sense, but doesn't rely on your parents trying to mask your sex, and (b) is only true in a limited sense, as anyone who has watched the WNBA can tell you. Only people who have a very detached-from-real-life point-of-view can believe these things are true, across the board, post-puberty.

“If the child is dressed up as a girl or boy, it affects them because people see and treat them in a more gender-typical way,” Henkel explains.

“Girls are told they are cute in their dresses, and boys are told they are cool with their car toys. But if you give them no gender they will be seen more as a human or not a stereotype as a boy or girl.”

She says that without these gender stereotypes, children can build character as individuals, not hindered by preconceived notions of what they should be as males or females.

“I think that can make these kids stronger,” Henkel says.

I quote at length to give the other side of the argument their day; I'm not trying to pick and choose to make them look bad. But this seems, to me, to be spoken by someone who has no clear idea of gender identity.

I have to confess:

I tried the "men and women are just alike" model for a few years there; do you want to know when it failed, finally and miserably? When I GOT MARRIED TO A WOMAN.

Then, I meekly accepted the ancient wisdom handed down from generation to generation for untold millenia. Men and women are different. The sooner "Pop" is given the freedom to accept this and grow into a young man or woman, the better, in my opinion.

That's miles better than playing a years-long prank on your kid, and the surrounding community, just to make a (hopelessly invalid) point.

It's almost — almost enough to make one leap up on the runway with Mugatu, and yell

"I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!"

        

Regarding the tragedy that is the House of Representatives passage of the "ACES" bill, Paul "Disagree With Me at Your Peril" Krugman opines, in the NYT:

...212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research....

and blah-blah-blah from there.

Not content (as is Mr. Obama) with winning, and telling the rest of the 50% or so of representatives to "get over it," Mr. Krugman goes straight to "treasonous."

"Treason against the planet," of course, because I suspect Mr. Krugman, beneficiary of the USA, doesn't believe there should be a USA to be treasonous against.



I forget. What did that yahoo get a prize for, again?

Oh yes — Nobel Prize in Economics. And HE can't find a single, eensy-weensy good thing to say about climate change as well? An economist? Isn't he supposed to be balanced about these sorts of things? Can't find one good thing?

I stand by my (now treasonous, to New York Citified economists) position: until and specifically until I see a balanced presentation on the pros and cons of Global Climate/Weather Change/Fluctuation, I'm calling it a huckster's ploy to get money from the populace, out of the system, and into specific pockets.

And Mr. Krugman can stick to his game, economics, and shut his pie-hole about actual, hard science. Unless, of course, he elects to actually examine the field.

        

I don't know where I first got wind of this, a few months back, but now that Instapundit has referenced it, well — I guess I can give it a link too.

The Blog of Unnecessary Quotation Marks

        

** NOTE** The purpose of this post is two-fold: (a) to introduce you to the NASA SOHO Observatory website, with its wealth of fascinating solar imaging and movies (who wouldn't like to watch a comet hit the sun?), and (b) to publish my growing suspicion that the sun affects global climate, but that we aren't going to acknowledge that, at the governmental level, because we can't legislate the sun and therefore cannot use it as any sort of population or economic control. You'll see the same things said about the most common (by orders of magnitude) greenhouse gas on Earth: water vapor. Can't control it, ergo, we're going to ignore it.
*** ***

I fell in love with the SOHO Observatory in 2003 October/November; it was the year of the California wildfires, ENRON's browning out of the state, and — on one alarming morning, around All Saints' Day — my eldest son, Wry Jr., and I saw a sunspot through the smoke hanging in the air over the Coachella Valley.  The smoke acted as a filter, but the spot itself was enormous: probably a quarter to a third of the sun's width, larger than a thousand Earths.

I found the SOHO Observatory within a week, online, a satellite hanging waaay out in space, pointed at the sun.

What it saw was this.

The sun is a roiling mass of spinning plasma; sunspots throwing off flares and plumes and bursts. The images are taken about once an hour, from a distance about halfway to the sun. Try and grasp how fast the sun is rotating. The green-filtered image highlights sunspots (the bright patches) and the energies seething around and blowing out of them.

The first sunspot you will notice is "south of the equator," bursting with energies.

The sunspot observed coming around to the "front" of the sun about 10/23, just above the "equator" of the picture, is nicely rambunctious. You can see flares emanating from it even before it presents itself.

That is the sunspot my son and I will see with the naked eye about November 1st.

The camera pans and begins tracking the spot on its revolution around the surface of the sun. On 10/28, this spot flares directly at the camera. The "scratches" that almost immediately obscure the view for hours are the signature of atomic bombardment of the satellite from the spot's flareup. It will "pop" a couple of more times as it spins; October 30, and very spectacularly on November 3rd, as it nears the horizon.

On November 4th, as "our" sunspot turned away form the Earth, you will see a flash that was a flare literally off the scale of energy measurements. A nice diversion is to speculate what would have happened to us if it had exploded outward a day or two earlier, when the spot (like the barrel of a gun) was pointed at us.

Fast forward 6 years. The sun now looks, for two years, has looked pretty much like this:



We are in the nadir of the 11-year sunspot cycle, a lull between sunspot activities. NASA drily observes:

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.

There is also this tidbit:

MSFC Solar Physics Branch members Wilson, Hathaway, and Reichmann have studied the sunspot record for characteristic behavior that might help in predicting future sunspot activity. Our current predictions of solar activity for the next few years can be found at this link. Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar emissions, the magnetic activity that accompanies the sunspots can produce dramatic changes in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray emission levels. These changes over the solar cycle have important consequences for the Earth's upper atmosphere.

Here's the image for recent sunspot activity:

You can see, at 2009-2010, we seem to be "in the trough."

What will happen when the sun starts ramping up its energy levels again? I wonder. And how does this activity tie in to global weather/climate?

After all, you see, it's The Sun. And I'm betting that it has quite a lot more to do with any warming/cooling trends than CO2, or any other life-giving gases being exchanged on the planet's surface.

        

You know, I've almost come to the conclusion that, if one can't stop the onslaught of insanity, one should perhaps get some buttery popcorn, sit back, and watch the show:

Some questions and answers about the bill, a top legislative priority for President Barack Obama:

Q: What's the purpose of this legislation?

A:To reduce the gases linked to global warming and to force sources forpower to shift away from fossil fuels, which when burned, releaseheat-trapping gases, and toward cleaner sources of energy such as wind,solar and geothermal.

Q: How does the bill accomplish this?

A:By placing the first national limits on emissions of heat-trappinggases from major sources like power plants, refineries and factories.This limit effectively puts a price on the pollution, raising the costfor companies to continue to use fuels and electricity sources thatcontribute to global warming. This gives them an incentive to seekcleaner alternatives.

Q: Is this the "cap-and-trade" idea that has been in the news?

A:Yes. The first step in a cap-and-trade program sets a limit on theamount of gases that can be released into the atmosphere. That is thecap. Companies with facilities that are covered by the cap will thenreceive permits for their share of the pollution, an annual pollutionallowance. This bill initially would give the bulk of the permits awayfor free to help ease costs, but they still would have value becausethere would be a limited supply. Companies that do not get a big enoughallowance to cover their pollution would either have to find ways toreduce it, which can be expensive, or buy additional permits fromcompanies that have reduced pollution enough to have allowances leftover. That is the trade. Companies typically would pick the cheaperoption: reducing pollution or buying permits. They also have a thirdchoice: They can invest in pollution reductions made elsewhere, such asfarms that capture methane or plant trees. These are known as offsets.

You really ought to read about some of the ventures ENRON cooked up and popularized. And — it worked so well on that small, private scale, imagine it now at the world-wide governmental levels.

Q:So the idea is to try to reduce the overall level of pollution,regardless of whether, say, a particular factory reduces emissions?

A:That is true in the beginning. But as the cap gets lower and lower,reaching an 83 percent reduction by 2050, eventually all polluters willhave to reduce. It is merely a question of when. For instance, it willbe very tough for coal plants to reduce emissions at the outset of theprogram because the technology to capture and store carbon dioxide isnot yet commercially available. It probably is 10 to 20 years away. Sothey will be buying offsets and buying allowances from other entitiesthat will have an easier time.

Many people are too young to remember and care, but for those of you who remember freedom, I say: here's to us! We'll have some good times to discuss in later years, under our dim, fizzing lights in our under-air-conditioned homes while watching the government-sponsored internets on the government-approved television screens.

It'll be beautiful!

In the meanwhile, if you think there's still time to fight for economic liberty, call your representatives. You know This Administration will be calling them.

** UPDATE, NEXT MORNING **

The House has set the stage for a historic vote on hotly contestedlegislation to combat global warming and overhaul U.S. energy policy.

The House Rules Committee cleared the bill for floor action earlyFriday after working through most of the night. Debate on the measure,which Republicans largely oppose as too costly, has been set for three hours.

Kinda makes you wish the New York State Senate was in charge of this, doesn't it?

** UPDATE, AFTERNOON **

...the bill, which is around 1,500 pages long...

I'm guessing 3 hours of debate time scheduled, for a 1500-page bill, was probably overdoing it a bit. How nice to know that The Legislative Branch has the interests of the American people at heart — they are willing to carefully and deliberately make only the changes necessary to the system to improve it.

The House passed the climate change bill... by a vote of 219-212.

"The scientists are telling us there's an overwhelming consensus ...global warming is real and it's moving very rapidly," said House Energyand Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, the chief sponsor of thelegislation.

"Waxman" — a name that should send shudders down the spine of the average citizen. I suppose Mr. — er, Representative — Waxman is among those who cannot name one, single possible benefit that might occur as a result of either global warming or cooling.

Not one. Not one has been published. Who's going to convince me that this has been anywhere near a considered, intelligent analysis of the "problem" of climate change? Not one?

No one can think of any possible projected benefits?

So, on the other hand, our "representatives" pass yet another unread pile of poo into Federal Law without so much as a glance.

Under the ["cap and trade"]plan, the government would issue a declining number ofpollution permits to companies, which could sell those permits to eachother as needed.

"The federal government will be joining California in the effort tocombat global warming and the framework for doing it is one that isvery similar to the one that California has adopted," said that state'stop climate official, Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols.

California is recognized as having the most aggressive plan to fight global warming in the United States.

Yes, fellow citizens; your representatives — at least, half of them — think that California is setting the economic standard(s) for the rest of the nation.

Look upon us, and Be Very Afraid.

Or get yourselves some new representatives.

Heaven help me; I am relying now on the good sense of the Senate. O_o

        

Yes; these are the fellows you can just tell have the best interests of their constituents at heart:

ALBANY, N.Y. — New York Senate Democrats are taking turns filling the leadership chairs on the Senate floor as they try to keep control of the chamber.

Starting Wednesday morning around 6 a.m., senators took shifts in the seats reserved for the officer presiding over the Senate and the temporary president.

... The Democrats are locked in a power struggle with Republicans who recruited one dissident Democrat to create a 31-31 split in the chamber. That has stalled legislative action since June 8.

The factions held competing sessions on the Senate floor Tuesday. But the legitimacy of their votes remained unclear Wednesday morning.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are suing the chamber's secretary, claiming he's thwarted their new majority coalition by locking doors, turning off lights and microphones, failing to provide necessary documents and threatening staff.

The silver lining? Only this: they haven't been able to do anything since June 8th. Still; I don't know if even the average New Yorker wants to pay the senators that much money to do nothing but jockey with each other. I rather think the average New Yorker would rather let them do it for free, on their own time, while another, newly-elected bunch actually serve the public of New York State.

But I could be wrong.

        

I love this guy:

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford returned to the United States on Wednesday from a secret private trip to Argentina...

Is the Appalachian Trail in Argentina? Goes to show you how shaky my grasp of geography is.

And, as everyone knows, Argentina's Appalachian Trail is the best place to go when you are trying to get alone from the fam for a few days to hunker down and do some writing.

— !

That's it! He went to a parallel universe!

***

That said, Gov. Sanford certainly has got my attention. I've bumped him up from "unknown to me, except for refusing to take Stimulus funds," to "intriguing."


** MEANWHILE, A FEW HOURS LATER **
** UPDATE: IT COULD BE WORSE: HE COULD HAVE GONE TO ARGENTINA WHEN IT WAS RAINING **

he tearfully confessed a yearlong affair with a woman he visited on a secret trip to Argentina...

now downgraded from "intriguing" to "just another fellah who thinks rules don't apply to him." Sigh.

Of course, 6 hours from now, we may get another "real story" leak; so who knows?

;o/

        

Loyal citizens of California may consider the state partially safe for now:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Antonio Villaraigosa, the mayor of Los Angelesand a popular Latino politician, said on Monday he would not run for governor of California next year...

Not that we care, but there is even a given reason:

"I can't leave this city in the middle of a crisis," Villaraigosa ...said in an interview with CNN.

Whatev.

Just: thanks, is all, Mayor. Thanks for clearing up that looming nightmare.

But note, I said "partially safe":

In the Democratic Party, contenders for governor include San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Former Governor Jerry Brown is expected to run, and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein is believed to be considering a campaign.

You know it's been a long couple of decades when Jerry Brown looks like the best of the bunch. Truth to tell, I always kinda liked Governor Moonbeam, the ol' goofball.

Nothing good can be gained from stroking Newsom's massive ego anymore than he's stroked it himself by dismissing state laws with more capriciousness and megalomania than Captains Queeg and Ahab rolled into one.

The jury's still out on a Feinstein run, though... hmm: where would she be more hamstrung and less powerful? In the Senate, or as Governor? I suppose the fact that she's even entertaining running answers that question up front, but I feel it's a good one to ask.

        

We read, and there's nary a protest of "unfairness" or "disenfranchisement":

Since 1965, the Voting Rights Act has required states and municipalities in the South to "pre-clear" any changes in their voting or election standards with the Justice Department in Washington.

I guess, if it's the South, who's gonna care in NYC or LA or Chicago?

Three years ago, Congress extended this provision for another 25 years, but it was challenged by a small Texas water district as unfair and outdated.

... a Texan water district! I'll have to remember the power of the little guys sill exists, if I get back into small politics.

States across the South from the Carolinas to Texas will remain subject to the law and its Section 5, the provision that requires voting changes to be cleared in advance.

But counties, cities and school districts can now go to court and ask to "bail out" of the law. To win an exemption, the municipality must have had a clean record for the last decade, with no finding that they had restricted voting rights during that time.

...

"Things have changed in the South," said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in announcing the decision.

What; like the Democratic Party isn't actively fighting for segregation? (If you think that's a low blow, I think you'll find any current application of the Voting Rights Act, specifically to certain Southern states to the exclusion of all other states, equally unjust)