One More Thing to Worry About . . .

And just when I thought I had enough to worry about:

Forward-facing strollers may harm babies emotionally

Oh dear, I'll be sure to put that on my list of important things to worry about . . . let's see . . . that'll be about number 154,567. I'll get right on that.

I can't wait for the activists to ban non-conforming strollers.

Apparently I Don't Understand Economics

We all know inflation is bad. Rising prices devalue our money and make it harder to buy things. Apparently the opposite is also bad. Deflation - falling prices - is also bad for the economy, at least according to economists quoted by MSNBC.

“A benign decline in prices amidst a sluggish but recovering economy would be unwelcome but tolerable,” Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg wrote in a note to clients this week.

Unwelcome to whom, Mr. Rosenberg? I know plenty of people who like to pay less for goods of all types. I've heard of weirdos who like to pay more, but they're much more rare.

“But the price slashing now under way as the consumer beats a hasty retreat could allow that corrosive deflationary spiral to take hold — something the Fed wants to avoid at all costs.”

The Fed wants to avoid falling prices "at all costs?" boy, with friends like that, who needs enemies?

As I said, I'm not an economist, but perhaps someone who is could answer this question for me:

If inflation is bad and deflation is bad, then what, precisely, do you expect prices to do?

Should a pound of cheese always have the same price? If so, then the USSR had this economics thing all figured out. They just printed the price right on the label. Year after year a jar of tomato sauce was 40 kopeks. Your parents paid 40 kopeks and, by darn, your children would pay 40 kopeks. Is that the answer?

The problem I have with this idea is that (as I have learned both in life, and in school), in a market, there needs to be a mechanism to balance supply and demand. That mechanism is price. If I want 40 dollars for a widget, and you don't think it is worth 40 dollars, guess what? No sale. Deflation has to occur to meet your demand.

At this point any "real economist" is probably either rolling on the floor laughing, pulling out his hair in frustration, or muttering incoherently about Econ 110 having no relationship to "real economics."

Well, maybe not - but the economists in the MSNBC story seem to have nothing but contempt for consumers. They give the distinct impression that they believe the average of consumers' judgments about the worth of goods (otherwise known as the 'market price') is wrong, and that they, the "elite" know what things are worth.

Pardon my skepticism, but are these the same "elite" who have guided our economy to it's current prosperous state? The ones who never saw the housing bubble coming? Who watched house prices rise 10% per year as wages rose 2% and saw nothing to worry about? Who thought sub-prime mortgages were a terrific idea? Or, a little farther back, thought stratospheric stock prices for unprofitable .com businesses were just the "new economy?" Or thought that Pres. Bush's tax cuts would unacceptably reduce govt. revenue? or that Reagan's tax cuts would do nothing the stimulate the economy? Or thought that Sweden was a model of a well-run economy?

Now who should be laughing?

I'll say it again. Economics is not a science. It is a pseudoscience. Any claims to truth or predictive ability that it makes are a fraud.

Economics is a descriptive art - like psychology. Also like psychology, it has no power to predict future behavior because every person in the system is an agent unto herself, and not an automaton. This is why no one saw this crisis coming. Economists admit that this is unprecedented and was almost completely unforeseen - and they are right - they just don't see it as a failure of their 'science.'

Economics is (at best) a social science, a descriptive study of human behavior. It is individual psychology mis-applied to huge groups of people, and it goes through fads just like any other field of study. It also has its quacks like any other field. Keep this in mind next time an economist claims to know something.

Get Snuggie!

I saw the funniest TV infomercial this morning. It featured one of those made-up problems where people just can't get anything to work right. It's for those who can never seem to get warm and are always getting tangled up in blankets.

The answer: Snuggies

The video in the upper right is the best. I kept thinking of Friar Tuck (watch it, you'll understand).

Best of all, they double as a Halloween costume, just get a flat piece of wood and you're a monk!

Unintentional Insight

Every now and then someone says something which unintentionally offers insight into a deeper issue. This time it was Ashley Dupre (Former NY gov. Eliot Spitzer's former callgirl (does that make sense)).

Anyway, she gave an interview to People magazine in which she (of course) asserts "I'm just a normal girl" yada, yada, yada. Then this unintentional insight:

In the interview, Dupré also opens up about her troubled past — running away at age 17 into a non-stop life of drinking and partying and how a girl from the suburbs could fathom becoming a prostitute: "This wasn't any different than going on a date with someone you barely knew and hooking up with them," she reasoned. "The only difference is I can pay my rent."

Hmmm . . . profound. Any promiscuous people care to explain the difference? When a culture cheapens sex, as ours has, to a harmless recreational activity, what is the harm in getting paid for it? Cruise directors get paid. Personal trainers get paid. Vacation planners get paid. Recreation is big businesss.

Yet people still seem to draw a line between 'sleeping with someone you'll never see again' and 'sleeping with someone you'll never see again . . . who gives you $100' and they declare the former normal and natural, and the latter contemptable.

Not seeing the difference myself . . . except, as Ashley said - one can pay the rent.

The "Right" to Win

Good article by Thomas Sowell today.

He points out that the losing side in recent elections act as though they have a "right" to win. Also talks about the protests against the church by gay marriage activists.

I recommend the whole article, but here are some highlights:

Americans have long had the right to put their candidates and their ideas to a vote. Now there seems to be a sense that your rights have been trampled on if you don’t win . . .

. . . Hillary Clinton’s supporters were not merely disappointed, but outraged, when she lost the Democrats’ nomination to Barack Obama. Some took it as a sign that, while racial barriers had come down, the “glass ceiling” holding down women was still in place. Apparently, if you don’t win, somebody has put up a barrier or a ceiling . . .

. . . In Oakland, California, a mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in such numbers that officials shut down a nearby freeway exit for more than three hours.

In their midst was a San Francisco Supervisor who said “The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs.” He added, “This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they’ve forgotten some lessons.”

Apparently Mormons don’t have the same rights as other Americans, at least not if they don’t vote the way gay activists want them to vote.

“No justice, no peace!” was a slogan that found resonance [in the 1960s]. Like so many slogans, it sounds good if you don’t stop and think — and awful if you do. Almost by definition, everybody thinks their cause is just. Does that mean that nobody has to obey the rules? That is called anarchy.

Global Warming Alert! III

Don't you hate it when the world just refuses to cooperate with your political agenda?

NASA has been caught falsifying global temperature data again. Amazingly enough, this error also made it appear that global temperatures are rising. Huh, seems like all the errors are only in one direction. Weird.

On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So it's not like they're arguing over "warmest" vs. "3rd warmest." So, how did this happen?

The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

So, September was the warmest October ever, amazing! Most disturbingly:

last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Strangely enough:

The figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

This type of statistical blindness is evidence of either malicious intent, or rank incompetence and lazy fact checking from seeing exactly what you expect to see, and not questioning it.

Here are links to the blogs of the two scientists who are policing Hansen's stats.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Gay Protestors' Violent Assault on Michigan Christians

It's not just California that gay and lesbian protesters are engaging in violent and destructive activities. Gay protesters interrupted an Evangelical Christian church service in Lansing on Sunday. This hasn't gotten any national press, and only small, dismissive local coverage. There weren't even any gay issues on the ballot in MI to provoke them.

http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2008/11/10/13335/904

This is one of the biggest churches in Lansing. They have thousands of people at meetings, and their own security force. What's to prevent gay protesters from doing the same, or worse, to our (much smaller) LDS meetings? I worry that this could become a regular tactic, especially in California. I hope someone is coming up with a plan to counter this type of thing. The easiest is probably also the simplest: introduce yourself to anyone you don't know at church and offer to sit with them, find out where they're from, in a word - fellowship. (oh, and make sure they aren't wearing pink underwear or something).

Can you imagine the reaction the media would have if just ONE conservative protester had infiltrated a mosque and yelled offensive slogans, or thrown bacon around? The media would, literally, make a Federal case about it - complete with Congressional resolutions, calls for stronger hate-crimes legislation and Presidential addresses condemning the incident.

Here, in a nutshell is what happened if you don't want to follow the link above:

"The [protesters] were a part of a liberal organization known as Bash Back Lansing and their collection of radical blogs, including one of the state's most widely read "mainstream" progressive blogs (none which will receive a link on this website) called on "queers and trannies" from across the state and the region to converge on Lansing for what they refer to as an 'action.'

Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony. "Jesus was gay," they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss.

Their other props? . . . from another . . . liberal blogs:

'(A) video camera, a megaphone, noise makers, condoms, glitter by the bucket load, confetti, pink fabric . . .'

The video camera they put to good use as they attempted to provoke a violent reaction . . . The "open minded" and "tolerant" liberals ran down the aisles and across the pews, hoping against hope to catch a "right winger" on tape daring to push back (none did). And just in case their camera missed the target, they had a reporter in tow.

An hour after police and security had collected and removed who they thought were the last of the [protesters], a volunteer security person discovered two more, hiding together, in a public restroom. While their compatriots engaged in openly violent protest in front of everyone these two snuck away to potentially stage their own protest of sorts, and only by the grace of God did one of the hundreds of kids at the church not happen upon that particular restroom in those moments. Precisely how long they'd been there and precisely what they'd been up to we don't know."

Nice and tolerant, aren't they? This picture is from the protesters' own website - draw your own conclusions:

Global Warming Alert! II

In my previous post I listed several cold weather events which were all no doubt just amazing coincidences, and not any evidence against global warming.

After all, a few incidents do not a climate make. But what if it was more like a whole year of data, and not just from one or two places, but from say the entire continental United States.

BEHOLD:



But, one year does not a climate make. There has to be some kind of trend. Okay, how about 10 years. Surely over ten years, CO2 and temperature would increase together, right?



Ok, so the global average temperature hasn't increased in 10 years, it's decreased. We're talking about a long-term trend here. let's look at the last 600 years. Surely man hasn't been impacting global climate any longer than that:



The correct temperature line, the darker one, shows that it was much warmer 600 years ago than it is today. This is obvious from history. Grapes grew in England during the 12-15th centuries. the Vikings colonized Greenland. They only left because of global cooling. If Greenland is warming today, it isn't the first time.

What's my point?

Global warming advocate always pick their time frame very carefully.

It's usually from the 1940s to 2000. (leaving out the warmer 1930s and the cooler 2000-2008) That temperature graph show an increase. As I've shown above though, pick a different time and you get a different result. You start to see the forest, not just the trees.

Are some areas warming? - YES. Are some areas cooling? - YES. Is the climate changing? - YES. Has the climate ALWAYS changed? - YES. Is today's climate ideal? - no one knows, but it certainly isn't unprecedented, unusual or out of control.

A good resource to counter all the hype is found here.

The "Work Spouse"

I remember hearing, and telling jokes about someone having a "work spouse." All in good fun, right?

Apparently CNN believes that the phenomenon is real enough and serious enough to warrant an advice column on managing the "work spouse" relationship. Because, after all, no human interaction is so straightforward and uncomplicated that it can't be micromanaged to death if enough psychologists put their minds to it.

Don't know if you have a "work spouse?" You're not alone. Many people have one (or more) work spouses, and don't know it. Luckily, CNN has a quick and easy seven point test you can take to see if you have a "work spouse."

(I can imagine the rationalizations for a positive test result: "it can happen to anyone." "It's no one's fault, really." "When working together in close quarters, work spouses happen." "Don't feel stigmatized, work spouses cut across all racial and economic lines." "We just need to raise awareness . . ." blah, blah, blah)

If you discover that you have, inadvertently, acquired a work spouse - don't panic, you can manage your condition. CNN knows what to do:

Keep the lines of communication open. Make sure that other co-workers are not feeling shut out by the perception that you and your work spouse are an exclusive clique of two. If you are working on a project together that also involves the team, be sure to reach out to everyone for feedback and suggestions.

In other words, be promiscuous in your work relationships, exclusivity leads to jealousy, "Make 'work love' not 'work war'" in that giant corporate commune that is the office.

Avoid crossing boundaries. It's great to have a support system and a close confidante, but be sure to set boundaries for how much to share with your office mate. More importantly, honor those boundaries. If the relationship becomes antagonistic or is too close for comfort, let your work spouse know you need a little space.

Avoid crossing boundaries!?!? You mean like thinking of co-workers as your "spouse?" That kind of boundary? And if the relationship is destructive, by all means take "a little space" don't end it. You can make it work, 'work divorce' is not the answer!

Lighten the mood. If your life at home and at work is filled with complications, bringing a co-worker into the middle of those issues may not be beneficial for you. You should aim to keep the mood light and happy with your work spouse. You'll look forward to enjoying gossip, taking breaks and being able to relax with a friend without any concerns or complications.

Relaxing with a friend without any concerns or complications is the purview of a REAL spouse. if you are more relaxed at work than at home, then you need to seriously re-evaluate your life.

I kept hoping to see some evidence of humor in the article, but I didn't. That fact both scares and saddens me.

The Pet Bill of Rights . . .

. . . has been proposed in Britain. They don't call it that, of course. They call it "proposed new codes of conduct for dog, cat and horse owners"

Some highlights:

The dog code of conduct says they should not be taken for a walk when the weather is too hot.

Cat lovers have their own rules to follow and are urged to make sure, apart from advice on hygiene and diet, that the pet has a "secure place to hide".

Here are some other provisions from "The Daily Mail"

There aren't "plenty of things to stimulate [me] mentally" here at work. I'm a human being, and my employer doesn't even give me a "secure place to hide" or even "suitable toys." I work in a cubicle for crying out loud.

Lucky animals. I need better lobbyists.