Francisco Franco is still dead...

Back in 1975, when Saturday Night Live was still funny, Generalissimo Francisco Franco, leader of the Spanish Civil War and ruler for almost 40 years, died. I suppose that this in itself was not funny, and Chevy mispronounced Generalissimo, but it was an admitted turning point in world history.
For what seemed like a year afterwards, Chevy began Weekend Update with "The top story tonight; Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead". A running gag as it were.

 Fast forward 36 years. On May 2, 2011, President Obama announced that the Navy SEALs had dropped into a compound in Abbotabad, Pakistan and killed Osama bin Laden. I don't have to remind you that he was the person who plotted the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 and most assuredly deserved to be killed.

I congratulate President Obama for having the political courage to take a risk. It has been his only major foreign policy achievement of his term.

One year later, as the anniversary of this accomplishment approached and in the midst of a political year, our President released an attack ad against his Republican rival asserting that Romney wouldn't have "pulled the trigger" and made the "gutsy call" to send in the SEALs and kill bin Laden.
 
I think Romney summed up my reaction very well: "Are you kidding? Even Carter would have done it!" So much for a gutsy call.

THEN, the President jets off to Afghanistan to sign a new agreement with their supposed leader and spends some more time patting himself on the back on his great accomplishment. It seems like we hear something every day about himself or one of his spokesmen reminding us about the success of the raid.

I'm afraid that for the next six months we are going to be hearing: "The top story tonight: Osama bin Laden is still dead".

Where's Chevy when you need him?

P.S. Sorry for being away for so long, but I promise to do better as I seem to have somewhat more time on my hands of late.

Another Essay on Global Warming

Earlier this week, in a conversation that was intended as a humorous look at Global Warming in a winter of record low temperatures, I was accused of not knowing the difference between climate and weather.  Being the pig headed pseudo-scholar that I am I immediately consulted a dictionary.

I discovered the following from Webster’s Dictionary:

Climate –

1.  A region of the earth having specified climatic conditions

2. a. the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation

b. the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors  climate-controlled office>

3. The prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period  

Weather –

1. The state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness

2. State or vicissitude of life or fortune

3. Disagreeable atmospheric conditions

Being thus fortified in my knowledge, I decided to rise above the current “weather” and to have a look back at the “average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years”.

The Western Region Climate Center provided me with data regarding Brownfield, Texas (where I live) from 1914 to 1954.  Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, they did not have the data from 1954 to the present date available.  Therefore, I sought out my data from weather.com for information on the last 30 years, 1980 to 2010.

My methodology was thus:

I took the average high temperatures and the average low temperatures from both data sets and created the table below:

Month	H1	H2	L1	L2
1	56	54	26	26
2	64	60	30	30
3	70	68	36	35
4	76	76	44	44
5	82	84	53	54
6	90	91	61	63
7	93	93	64	67
8	90	91	61	63
9	84	85	57	58
10	77	76	47	47
11	66	64	35	35
12	57	56	26	26

Utilizing this data, I averaged the monthly highs and lows for each data set.

Data set H1 (1914-1954) had an Annual Average High Temperature of 75.4F

Data set H2 (1980-2010) had an Annual Average High Temperature of 74.8F

Data set L1 (1914-1954) had an Annual Average Low Temperature of 45.3F

Data set L2 (1980-2010) had an Annual Average Low Temperature of 45.3F

By adding and averaging the complementary data sets (H1+L1) and (H2+L2) I discovered the following:

Annual Average Temperature for Data set One (H1+L1/2) was 60.35F

Annual Average Temperature for Data set Two (H2+L2/2) was 60.05F

This would indicate that the Annual Average Temperature for Brownfield, Texas has DECREASED .3 degrees in the past 96 years.

Now before any of you begin to rant and rave about me being a “denier” and a believer in a flat earth, let me share something that I was taught in Basic Statistical Analysis in college:

“Statistics can be made to exhibit ANY outcome desired.”

My desire was to show that there was NO global warming for the past 96 years.  Using the scientific method and carefully selected statistics, I have fulfilled my desire.

I am not a “scientist”, but I understand the scientific method.  I understand that science is the exploration of the unknown and that no answer or theory is permanent.  The concept that “Global Warming” is “settled science” is ridiculous. 

If there were such a thing as “settled science”, physics would have stopped with Einstein.

TRUE scientists are ALWAYS seeking a better answer, not trying to convince everyone that everything has been discovered, settled upon and all the questions answered.  They certainly do not try to hide data that conflicts with their theory as the climate researchers at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, the propertied “experts” on climate change did.

TRUE scientists do not concoct easily disprovable but frightening stories about the melting of glaciers and the impending doom of rising sea levels inundating cities and countries and splash them theatrically across the movies, television, radio, internet and print media. 

They certainly don’t select a washed up politician who, by his own admission “did not do well in science classes while in college” to be their spokesperson.

Speaking as a Political SCIENTIST, one who studies politics, governments, governmental systems and the people who engage in them, I see politicians trying to lead, not by inspiration, not by explanation, but by fear mongering and half truths.  When these efforts do not succeed, they persist in their desires by implementing laws, rules and regulations IN SPITE of the public desire.

When that happens, it ceases to be about the possibility of a changing climate or dangers to our world and becomes all about CONTROL.

I for one believe that the government already has more than enough control of our lives.

Unions going to Pot?

Let me start out by saying that I am NOT a Union member.

During my career, I have, in turns, been invited, encouraged, cajoled and somewhat intimidated into joining a Union.  I have always declined.  It has always been my belief that unionization “levels” the playing field to such an extent that the “hard chargers” and “go getters” are penalized by having to share pay and benefit increases with those who are less so.

Even so, even here in Texas, some “union” priorities have been incorporated into State benefits.  Several years ago, the State created a “Sick Leave Pool” to which employees could “contribute” a small amount of their sick time.  Ideally, if one were faced with a catastrophic illness where they exhaust their own sick leave, they could draw from the pool in order to maintain their paycheck for a period of time, hopefully long enough for them to return to work.

Many of my co-workers flocked to the idea, contributing small amounts of their time to the pool, generally the minimal time required to participate.  It didn’t take me long to realize that these were the people who never seemed to be able to accrue more than a couple of days of sick leave because they were taking it almost as soon as they got it.

I felt that, were I to contribute my time to the pool, chances were that it would be distributed to persons who, through their own mismanagement, had squandered their own time, thereby providing them with a benefit that they neither earned nor deserved.

When I left state employment after almost 10 years, I had over 240 hours of sick time on the books.  That is AFTER I took 120 hours off for “Paternity Leave” after my daughter was born.

To say the least, the lure of unionization has never held any kind of interest for me.

Now there is the great news on the Union front from California, where workers in the “Medical Marijuana” industry are flocking to the Unions in order to gain collective bargaining powers.

The New York Times reported in May, that the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 5 in Oakland had enrolled about 100 employees in the “Medical Marijuana” industry into their Union.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/us/29pot.html?_r=1

“This is a natural for us,” said Ron Lind, the president of Local 5, who’s 26,000 other members work primarily in groceries and the meat industry. “Our union’s primary jurisdiction is retail.”

As reported this week by Fox News, about 40 workers in the marijuana cultivation industry have joined the Teamsters Union, Local 70.  http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/11/in-california-unions-go-to-pot/

Now remember, I am not a Union man, but these recent acquisitions of these particular workers beg answers to a few questions.

1. Since marijuana cultivation and distribution remains a Federal Felony (despite the lack of enforcement), couldn’t the Unions be seen as entering into a criminal conspiracy to violate Federal Law by encouraging and facilitating the cultivation and distribution of an illegal product?

2. If California passes Proposition 19 in November, will the Union provide legal representation to the marijuana growers and distributors in the lawsuits that are guaranteed to come?

Some of you are old enough to remember during the Vietnam War when the Union leadership came totally under the influence of the Democrat Anti-war Leftists.  Thousands of union workers LEFT their unions because they could not support what their supposed leaders were doing.

There was film on the television and photographs in the newspapers and magazines of the “hard hats” counter-protesting at anti-war rallies.  “America, Love it or Leave it” was their common slogan and there were documented incidents of these people assaulting the “hippies” who sat in doorways smoking marijuana.

Do you think that the Middle America union member who is just trying to keep his job at a decent wage is going to embrace these people who make their living in an illegal trade?

I wonder…