August 14, 2019

The US Should NOT Lead the Effort to Protect the Straits of Hormuz

Thanks to fracking, we don’t have to.

Back in 1987 (Ronald Reagan was President) the US was dependent on Mideast oil shipped through the Straits of Hormuz. Iran threatened shipping through the Straits, as it is doing today. The motive then was to force oil shippers like Saudi Arabia and oil importers like the US to support Iran in its war with Iraq. In order to protect our oil supply, the US allowed Kuwaiti oil tankers to “reflag” as American so the US Navy could protect them.

In April of 1988, the USS Samuel B. Roberts hit a mine while on escort duty. She nearly sank although there was no loss of life. The US gathered evidence that the mine was Iranian. On April 18th the US navy attacked the Iranian navy and offshore oil platforms. According to Wikipedia: “By the end of the operation, American Marines, ships and aircraft had destroyed Iranian naval and intelligence facilities on two inoperable oil platforms in the Persian Gulf, and sank at least three armed Iranian speedboats, one Iranian frigate and one fast attack gunboat. One other Iranian frigate was damaged in the battle.” The Iranian attacks on shipping stopped. The US oil supply - and that of Europe, China, Australia, and Japan – was secure.

That was then; this is now. Some things haven’t changed. The Iranians are once again threatening and actually attacking ships sailing through Hormuz. Saudi Arabia and Iraq need to sell the oil that passes through the Straits. Europe, China, Japan, and Australia still need that oil. The US is leading the effort to protect shipping.

But one thing has changed. The US is nearly self-sufficient in oil thanks to the technological advances of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. We don’t need the oil that comes through the Gulf.

No one is following the US-led effort to patrol the Straits except the UK and Australia. Germany and France have openly declined to participate. So why are we leading an effort which is not supported by most of its beneficiaries? Why don’t we just limit our protection to American ships (no reflagging this time) and let those who need to sell the oil and those who need to buy it protect their own supply line? It’s uncharacteristic of President Trump to put the rest of the world first or allow other nations to free-ride; but that’s what he seems to be doing. He may be afraid that Iran will blackmail oil-starved nations into supporting Iran against the US. He may not want the world price of oil to increase (as it will if the Straits are closed) with an election coming up. But I think he’s wrong to make us the leader of the protection effort.

We now produce enough oil and natural gas to share it (at a price) with our allies. We might better stiffen their backbones by building more port facilities and pipelines to our coast so we can export more relatively low-priced American fuel.  We are considering letting Australia buy from our strategic oil reserve. Shipping more US liquified natural gas (LNG) to Europe also helps Europe reduce its dangerous dependency on Russia’s Gazprom. Taking market share from Saudi Arabia would not only be good for the US economy, it will also reduce the money flow from that kingdom to Islamic militants.

This discussion should not be confused with the issue of how quickly the world reduces the use of fossil fuels. The question is do we risk American lives and spend American money to help the Gulf states export oil to the world when energy independence has given us a choice. I think the answer is “no”.

August 05, 2019

Stopping Climate Change Would Be an Unnatural Act

But Climate Change IS an Existential Issue

Is the climate changing? Yes, of course. 20,000 years ago there was a mile of ice over the top of 4,000 foot Mt. Mansfield in Vermont. Long before that, there was no ice at the earth’s poles. This cycle has repeated many times. Change is what climate does.

Are the oceans rising? Until about 12,000 years ago, the seas were so low that you could walk on dry land from Siberia to Alaska, from Europe to Great Britain, and from Asia to Australia. Many species including ours crossed these land bridges until they were submerged under rising seas. (read all about land bridges on Wikipedia)

The children – and even adults who should know better – who are demanding that climate change be stopped are bound to be disappointed. The belief that climate only changes because of what we humans do is as much climate change denial as claiming that the climate isn’t changing at all. BTW, an unchanging climate was the “scientific consensus” until the early 1800s, despite the inconvenient fact of marine fossils on top of mountains which da Vinci had noted.

Is the earth warming now? Yesterday I hear an announcer on BBC say that this past July was the hottest the earth has ever known. The story which followed the breathless announcement was more accurate ”the warmest since record keeping began…” When did record keeping begin? About two hundred years ago in some places. That’s a blink of the eye to climate. There was a “little ice age” starting at about 1300. Temperatures were at a 4000-years MINIMUM in about 1600 before they started to rise again. By 1850 temperatures had recovered to their level before the little ice age. (We know this not from records people kept but from fossil and geological evidence). Since then temperatures have generally resumed rising in their usual saw-toothed pattern.

If temperatures are continuing to rise from the big ice age minimum 35,000 years ago, we would expect new high records to be set more often than new low records. In scientific terms, the evidence is not inconsistent with continuing global warming. On the other hand, the evidence is also not inconsistent with the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.

To add to the ambiguity, the theory that whatever caused the ice age to end (we really don’t know what that was) is still warming the earth and the theory that green house gas emissions are accelerating warming are not mutually incompatible. Both can be true at the same time.

NASA makes a circumstantial case for anthropogenic forcing of warming: “As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.”

Unfortunately for those of us who crave certainty, the circumstantial case is scarcely conclusive. Look at the graph below (technical detail here).

Halocene climate chnage

Notice that no matter what measure you use (different color lines), temperature doesn’t go up and down smoothly; therefor it doesn’t make sense to compare the rate of increase in the last century to the average rate of increase. It should be compared to other periods of rapid increase. There were many other century-long spikes up and spikes down. In this context the slope of the up spike in the last century doesn’t seem out-of-scale. In other words, the fast rate of recent warming is not inconsistent with the theory that past “natural” trends are responsible for what we’re observing now. On the other hand (what NASA should’ve said to be more scientific), the last century’s rapid temperature rise coinciding with a rise in greenhouse gasses is not incompatible with the theory of anthropogenic forcing.

Unfortunately, although there are many theories, there is no conclusive evidence (or even a “scientific consensus”) for why the earth’s temperature was oscillating long before the first man lit the first anthropogenic fire. Without understanding the magnitude of the natural contribution to climate change, we simply don’t know our own contribution to current change. Science is not done by consensus; breakthroughs usually struggle against the fashionable consensus.  The consensus is especially suspect at a time when our universities are enmeshed in political correctness.  Models of the future are interesting but prove nothing except that people can write computer programs which reflect their own biases.

Since anthropogenic activity may be and may continue to be a major cause of warming and because rapid warming means rapid sea level rise (almost certainly true), why shouldn’t we have an all-out effort for decarbonization? I thought you’d never ask.

There are four major possibilities for causes and effects of climate change:

  • the speed of temperature increase is largely dependent on the amount of greenhouse gasses (ghg) we put in the atmosphere (minus what plants can absorb), AND the increase will slow or stop if ghg emissions are drastically reduced;
  • the speed of temperature increase is largely dependent on the amount of ghg we put in the atmosphere (minus what plants can absorb) ,BUT the level of ghg emissions is already so high that we’re doomed to rising temperatures even if we cut emissions drastically;
  • the speed of temperature increase is largely dependent on natural causes, and the warming cycle will continue for a long time no matter what we do;
  • the speed of temperature increase is largely dependent on natural causes; but this warming cycle is almost over so there’s nothing to worry about.

If #1 is mainly true (and it may be), we do need a real decarbonization effort. Of course that means not just virtue-signaling like carbon offsets but also rapid development of carbon-free energy sources like nuclear and hydro as well as wind (no matter who’s ridgeline or sea-view it’s on), solar, and energy storage. Very, very expensive, not without trade-offs, but, if it’s needed…

If #2 or #3 is true, our resources must go to mitigating the effect of changing temperatures and rising sea levels and preparing for changing agriculture and mass migrations. Newly thawed regions must become both habitable and productive. Ironically cheap fossil fuels help provide resources for this effort. What’s indubitably true is that too many people live dangerously close to the sea even if it only rises during storms.

If #4 is true, we get a free pass for business as usual and renewables should compete in the marketplace with fossil fuels and people be helped out of poverty and hunger as fast as possible.

The existential threat of climate change is exacerbated when we switch from science to propaganda in order to get people to act the way we think they ought to. We need scientific resources devoted to understanding the causes (and likely future of natural climate change).  We need to encourage scientific dissent to prevailing orthodoxies; it’s too dangerous not to. We need to educate our children in science and natural history (and logic!), not just teach them how to protest what they don’t understand.

We do have to make choices based on incomplete information and theory; that’s the way the world is. We should be redeveloping nuclear power, developing new hydro sites, and trying to make wind and solar more useful by solving energy storage problems; and we must learn to deal with a climate which won’t stop changing.


March 19, 2019

Washington Monument Closed Indefinitely

Is that telling us something?

On September 26, 2016 the Washington Monument was closed for repairs to its elevator. “It’s a long-term closure, one that will be measured in months,” said a spokesman for the National Park Service as quoted in The Washington Post. It’s been many months. I took the picture below this past weekend when I was in Washington, DC with my grandkids, their parents, and their other grandparents.

Washington monument

It’s disappointing but not surprising that we can’t fix our main national monument. After all, we can’t fix our bridges and roads either. Perhaps effective government is closed indefinitely.

I understand @realdonaldtrump used to manage some construction; perhaps he could arrange that the Park Service have a schedule for these repairs. Part of #MAGA. Perhaps some congressperson could get the monument a grant; I doubt if tax incentives would be much help.  Or maybe we should just open the monument to those who can use the stairs for now; not ADA-compliant and not much help to us geezers but better than “closed indefinitely.”

The other grandparents are visiting from Ireland. I was embarrassed. We are better than this. But it is up to us to get a government which is better.

Historical perspective helps. According to Wikipedia “Construction of the monument began in 1848 and was halted from 1854 to 1877 due to a lack of funds, a struggle for control over the Washington National Monument Society, and the intervention of the American Civil War.” Appropriately, it stood half-done while the Civil War raged nearby. The finished monument, at the time the tallest building in the world, is still a magnificent sight at its end of the mall.


March 11, 2019

Grapes of Wrath

Anger and outrage have replaced reason in political dialog. Angry people don’t think well. Politicians know that. Politicians exploit anger. There is a clear and present danger that our next government will be dominated either by right-wing xenophobia, racism, isolationism, disrespect for the first amendment, and an obsession with avoiding any new gun control or by left-wing voodoo economics, ant-Semitism, disrespect for freedom of speech in general, and an obsession with avoiding any restriction on abortion.

But, before we blame all our political poor health on demagogues from the right and left, it’s crucial to remember that people really are angry – and have a right to be. The center has failed. Under both parties it represents crony capitalism, unequal justice, and rising wealth and privilege for the “establishment”.

Here in Vermont we are in the aftermath of the EB-5 scandal, the biggest financial scandal in our state’s history and the biggest EB-5 scandal in the country; and there has been no criminal prosecution. Civil suits have established that 100s of millions of dollars were stolen through fraud; no criminal prosecution. (note, for good reason criminal investigations are often not public so there could still be prosecution).

The federal government took away the State’s authority to regulate EB-5 because it was at least incompetent. Was it criminal? Were bribes paid? How did it happen that audits weren’t done? We don’t know because the Attorney General says it’s “professional obligation” as a lawyer to defend the State by refusing to release State internal documents related to the scandal. He is the State’s lawyer; is it his obligation to defend the State from accountability or to defend the citizens of the State from wrong doing? If he is not the citizens’ defender, who is?

One batch of EB-5 documents were just released in a partial settlement of a lawsuit by VTDigger. But this release is just the beginning. Many more records are being withheld than will be released under this settlement. VTDigger founder and editor Anne Galloway is quoted in Seven Days as calling the release “miniscule.” She says it is an “outrage that it takes so much effort to get so little.”

Anne is not a demagogue of the right or left; but she is outraged. This is just one local example of the establishment protecting its own, of a center which has failed.

There is the relatively light sentence given to Paul Manafort for serious (but white collar) crimes.

There is the carried interest deduction which makes sure that hedge fund managers don’t have to pay as much tax as the rest of us. Somehow neither Republican or Democratic administrations have managed to repeal it, even though both Obama and Trump promised to do so.

There are egregious privacy violations by Internet giants – who now maintain huge lobbying forces.

There was the great bank bailout that gave rise to the Tea Party and continuing favors to Wall Street which helped give justification to the “Occupy” movement.

There is the continual corruption of government by grants and tax breaks. Certainly not all grants are corrupt but you can’t expect good government if politicians have the discretion to direct huge sums of our money to potential donors.

The center cannot be the a safe-refuge for establishment self-interest or the center will cease to exist. We MUST address the just causes of anger or that anger will continue to be the fuel for successful demagoguery which will destroy the country.

See also:

Vermont Should be Investigating Itself

The Occupiers and Tea Partiers Are Both Right

February 10, 2019

Who Outed Jeff Bezos?

Mary and I asked an expert. “Alexa, who outed Jeff Bezos?”

“This is from Wikipedia,” she answered. “’Jeffrey Preston Bezos (born January 12, 1964) is an American technology entrepreneur, investor, and philanthropist. He is the founder, chairman, CEO, and president of Amazon.’  Did I answer your question?”


“Thank you for your feedback.”

“Alexa,” we persisted, “tell us about Jeff Bezos and helicopter pilots.”

“Sorry, I’m not sure,” she claimed.

“Alexa, what is the latest on the Jeff Bezos scandal?”

She played an NPR story about the Lt. Governor of Virginia. We began to grow suspicious.

“Alexa, why did you out Jeff Bezos?” we asked directly.

“Hmm, I don’t know about that.”

We think she did it. She would certainly have opportunity hearing all that she hears. It’s clear why the National Enquirer would want to enlist her as a source even before they knew whose secrets she might reveal.

Motive? We don’t know. Jealousy? Hate the boss? Can only keep so many secrets?

It’s a teachable moment, of course. Push the button that stops Alexa from listening whenever you’re not talking to her.

See also:

Alexa: The End of a Great Relationship

Alexa – Cover Your Ears

January 21, 2019

The Noes Have It

Anti-immigrant and Anti-Trump forces are stalemated so the US government is partially shutdown.

Anti-Brexit and Anti-Europe forces can’t find a way forward in the UK.

Anti-vaxxers, with the help of the internet, have managed to damage herd immunity with their idiocy. From a NYTimes editorial:

“The World Health Organization has ranked vaccine hesitancy — the growing resistance to widely available lifesaving vaccines — as one of the top 10 health threats in the world for 2019. That news will not come as a surprise in New York City, where the worst measles outbreak in decades is now underway.”

Anti-charter-school and anti-teachers’-union forces, as much as they despise each other, have effectively collaborated to leave us with a broken public educational system, which is a major cause of inequality.

Anti-nuclear, anti-power-line, anti-wind-if you-can-see-the-turbines, anti-any-fossil-fuel, and anti-pipeline forces have left us with an inadequate electrical grid which can’t deliver electricity from Canadian hydro or from wind or solar in places where those technologies can be used effectively, an inadequate and aging pipeline infrastructure, and Siberian tankers delivering natural gas to Boston Harbor (really). Somehow snake oil cures for global warming like corny ethanol and subsidies for rich people to buy Teslas have gotten through the gridlock.

Anti-growth and anti-public-spending forces, not usually from the same political party, have left us with crumbling and inadequate highways, ports, and railroads.

Anti-ObamaCare and anti-private-medicine partisans have blocked any effective change to the way we pay for health care.

When two antis negotiate, the obvious compromise is do nothing. We’re there.

 I’m anti-anti myself.

If two people who are for different solutions to the same problem negotiate, the result can actually be constructive.

What are you for?

See also:

Vermont Trailers v. the Tanker from Siberia

Why Vaccinations Need to be Mandatory

Don’t let the Perfect be the Enemy of the Good

January 09, 2019

FireTVStick Thrashes at&t’s DIRECTV

We save $170/month although it’s technically not cord-cutting, it’s dish-breaking. Note that most of the now-scrapped device below are from DIRECTV.

The losers (so yesterday):

Dish Directtv stuff

And the winners!

Antenna Fire stuff




The antenna is 11.5x11.5 inches. It is facing towards Mt. Mansfield seven miles away where local transmitters are located. It “sees” through the wall and a couple of other walls behind it no problem. Unlike the satellite dish, it is not bothered by rain or snow (and I don’t have to scrape accumulated snow off it). Ones like it cost about $20.

The 7x7x3 inch box on the credenza is a FireTV Recast from Amazon. It’s a DVR which records the over-the-air stuff the antenna receives. The $220 version has 2 receivers (2 shows recorded at once) and 75 hours of storage; the $260 model has 4 receivers and 150 hours of storage. Shows on the Recast are available from any of our TVs and it is also the gateway through which our TVs see live broadcasts.

Although the antenna is plugged into the Recast, there are no wired connections between the box and the TVs which access it. The TVs have FireTVSticks (little box on the right sitting on the Recast) plugged into their HDMI ports. The FireTVSticks communicate with the Recast over your home WiFi network. If you have multiple networks in your home, all the devices need to be on the same network; but they do a pretty good job of finding each other. I had to have one chat with tech support because the software on my first stick had not updated.

The FireTVSticks ($50 dollars with the remote pictured next to it) are useful on their own. They allow a TV into which they are plugged to use the internet to access entertainment services like Amazon Prime (of course), Netflix, Hulu etc., which you need to have subscription to. There are sports apps (subscription required) for the NFL and major league baseball. FireTVSticks support free apps which allow you to watch cable news shows like Fox or CNN; however, you won’t get access to full episodes on the news channels unless you have a cable TV or some other kind of subscription. You can buy a subscription from service like Hulu or DIRECTV Now; we have a subscription to Xfinity (Comcast) at our summer place so that allows us to watch full episodes at our Stowe home where we’ve just broken the dish.

There’s a free FireTV mobile app so we will be able to see stuff which is live or saved on the DVR when we’re traveling.

We were already paying for Xfinity at the vacation home (need it for internet), Netflix, and Amazon Prime so there are no new monthly charges to offset what we saved by canceling DIRECTV. We still have access to everything we used to watch – PBS and local news over the air as well as CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox. Over the air quality – now digital – is better than cable or satellite. Entertainment from Netflix and Prime and of course Victoria recorded over the air from PBS. Fox News through the app although it’s buggy. (Yes, to the horror of many of my friends I watch some of Fox News; balances PBS and BBC since I don’t believe that there is or ever will be such a thing as “unbiased” news.)

The remote is an Alex Voice Remote. You can push the button and tell her what you want to do (like skip forward) or watch or you can use the buttons on the remote itself. Allegedly she is only listening when you hold down the microphone button. You can also use the FireTV app as a remote or Alexa, herself. In that case you would just walk into a room and tell Alexa what you want the TV to do. But Alexa and I are no longer on speaking terms and she’s only allowed to listen when I unmute her so just as easy to use the remote.

No question Amazon enabled us to break the dish. I do wonder who will disrupt Amazon when.

See also:

A Tale of Two Antennas – The Cord Cutting Saga Continued

Alexa: The End of a Great Relationship


January 02, 2019

An Invaluable Lesson in Colonial Williamsburg

In Colonial Williamsburg our grandchildren Jack (10) and Lily (9) learned that even the most important arguments have two sides. They also learned a lot of American history.

We went to an enactment called “Trial of a Patriot”. The assumption of this trial was that the British had won at Yorktown and reestablished rule over the rebellious colonies. The Patriot had been an officer in the Virginia militia which fought both the British and those Virginians who remained loyal to the crown; he was being tried for treason by the victorious British. The judge was the Royal Governor, Lord Dunmore, who returned from his exile in New York City after the British victory. We, the audience, were a jury of sorts and allowed to ask questions if we were properly respectful to the Governor and the British Crown.

“God save the King,” said the bailiff as he called the Court to order. “All rise for his excellency Lord Dunmore.” We did.

“This court has no proper authority,” shouted the defendant as he was brought in, bound and somewhat wild-eyed.

“How do you plead?” asked the Judge.

“The charges against me have no validity. I am an officer in the Virginia militia.”

“There is no longer a Virginia militia,” said the judge with a sneer. “You have no right to question the validity of these charges. You must plead guilty or not guilty to the facts alleged against you.”

The Patriot pled not guilty but kept ranting against the authority of the court and the crown. He was gagged and restrained.

A parade of witnesses testified to the Patriot’s guilt. First was a former slave of his who’d spied on him for the British and alleged that he was plotting revolution even before the war. Grandson Jack asked thoughtfully if she had been in a position to hear accurately what the Patriot said. The Patriot, who was his own lawyer, didn’t help himself by treating her as if she were still a slave. He was gagged again.

We heard from loyalists whose possessions he’d seized. He pointed out that he was acting under the authority of the Continental Congress. The judge said that the Continental Congress had no authority so this was no excuse.

The judge instructed us jurors that our duty was to consider only whether or not the facts in the allegations were true in light of the evidence. “Your excellency,” I asked, “if we are not to consider whether the charges themselves are proper, in what venue is the defendant allowed to question their validity?”

“He is charged with treason so has no right to challenge the charge nor the authority of the court.”

But, your excellency, you have stated that he is innocent until proven guilty so surely….”

Both the judge and the rest of the jury were growing tired of my argument. “The jury will proceed to a verdict!”

An overwhelming majority of the jury voted guilty as charged. My grandkids were with the majority. They had taken the instructions seriously.

Lesson one, but not the most important lesson of the trip, was that the losers of a revolution can expect to be treated as traitors.

The next day we went on a tour of the House of Burgesses, the other half of the building where the Governor had held his court. The docent was an articulate spokeswoman for the revolutionary cause. She explained that, as Englishmen, Virginians had a right to expect that taxes would only be levied on them by their own representatives, the Burgesses.

But the British Parliament had ignored these basic rights and imposed the onerous stamp taxes on the colonies. The Burgesses responded with a resolution of condemnation and drafted a letter of complaint to the King as loyal subjects should. Governor Dunmore, he whom we’d seen the night before as judge, suspended the House of Burgesses. He denied Virginians their basic right of self-rule.

Later he allowed the Burgesses to reassemble. They passed a resolution protesting the mass punishment of Bostonians by the British for the Tea Party. Lord Dunmore dissolved the House of Burgesses. They went down the street to a tavern and met behind a sign which said “former House of Burgesses”. Among them were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry. It wasn’t long before they were delegates to the Continental Congress.

The docent explained in the stirring terms of the Declaration of Independence that the British left the Virginians no choice but revolution if they were to defend their rights as free Englishmen.

“Can we change our vote?” Jack and Lily asked.

Thank you, Colonial Williamsburg.

December 04, 2018

Mohammed bin Salman, Putin, and Frackville

MBS and Putin
President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman( (MBS) famously high-fived each other with blood-stained hands at the G-20 Summit. The two share a habit of disposing of their opponents in particularly gruesome ways, perhaps to set an example. Who will save the world from them?

Not President Trump (pictured in the background). He says that American interests force us to overlook their behavior. (To be fair, previous presidents of both parties have condemned such behavior and then done nothing.)

Not the editorial pages of the Washington Post and The New York Times. Putin and MBS are not swayed by liberal public opinion. Not the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, either. These two are not swayed by conservative opinion.

Not Europe. It’s still dependent on Saudi oil and Russian gas.

Certainly not the UN.

Probably not China – unless that’s in China’s interest. And we might not like the result if Russian and Saudi influence is replaced by increased Chinese strength.

Not the US Congress. Bloviating may be effective at home but it’s not much of a force in world affairs.

But Putin and MBS are already being stopped. On Saturday, after the high-five, they shook hands in private to cut oil production in their countries despite the fact (and because of the fact) that both of their economies are completely dependent on oil exports. They had no choice; but they haven’t escaped the trap they’re in. They can either cut production or watch oil prices fall further; in fact, both will happen.

Who did this to them? Who dared to thwart them?


Actually the borough of Frackville wasn’t named after the technology which has dramatically lowered the price of US natural gas and which has made the US practically energy independent and also the largest producer of oil in the world once again.  But Pennsylvania in the Frackville neighborhood is where fracking for natural gas first made a difference  and “Frackville, US”  is quickly diminishing the clout of Putin and MBS.

When oil was over $100/barrel, US frackers in Texas, Oklahoma, and North Dakota deployed their technology at an incredible rate. Saudi Arabia decided to starve them out by letting oil prices fall below $30/barrel. Big mistake. Saudi Arabia was the country that couldn’t afford $30 oil; it had to convince OPEC and Russia to join it in cutting production. Sure enough prices went back up to near $70; but the US frackers went back to work. During the years of low prices they learned to make their technology more efficient. $60 was the new $100. Up went the US rigs; down went prices. Whoops.

There is no out for Putin and MBS. Low prices mean they will eventually be overthrown because of economic collapse in their countries. High prices mean more US production (and others are learning to frack) and lower sales for Russia and Saudi Arabia. Same result.

The US can now laugh at the idea of an “oil embargo”. As we (slowly) build pipelines, we will be able to supply our allies and rivals with oil and natural gas and let them laugh as well. There are no high-fives here for oil-dependent despots.

If Saudi Arabia and Russia interfere in the next US election, they’ll likely favor candidates who propose fracking bans and no more pipelines.

Strange how things work out.

See Oil Prices Are Going Down: The Wickenburg Indicator

November 22, 2018

Thanksgiving Visitors Run Risk of Gobbling


Brave visitors to our house today.


Happy Thanksgiving.


October 24, 2018

What’s Next with Roe v Wade?

In 1973 the Supreme Court acted more like a legislature than the federal court of last appeal when it declared that State laws banning abortion in the first two trimesters of privacy were unconstitutional. This decision ended an era of hypocrisy in which rich guys’ pregnant girlfriends could get abortions (often in Canada) and poor couples had shotgun weddings. Also women had very dangerous illegal abortions. Polls then indicated that Americans favored the legalization of abortion. I certainly agreed with the decision then and still strongly think that access to safe and legal abortion ought to be the law.

The problem with Roe v Wade is that it doesn’t have any firm basis in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution and law; it is not supposed to make new laws even when the need is clear and the public is in favor. Making new laws is what Congress and the states are supposed to do This isn’t just a dry legalistic argument; a Supreme Court which can promulgate what is essentially a law can also unpromulgate that law.

When there was a majority of liberal justices, conservatives thought the Supreme Court had become too important; now that there is a majority of conservative judges, liberals are very uncomfortable with the authority the court has. Both are correct. Nine unelected men and women with life tenure shouldn’t be passing laws. They shouldn’t be responding to public opinion or protests on either side of a controversy; that’s exactly why they have life tenure.

Laws are meant to be changeable. If people decide they don’t like a law Congress passes, they can vote for legislators who will repeal it. When the Supreme Court decides that this or that is constitutional or not constitutional, the decision stands unless and until some future Supreme Court reverses it. The Court is supposed to be following legal principles, not the popular will. So, by good design, there is no way to reverse a Supreme Court decision except the very lengthy processes of amending the Constitution or waiting for justices to die or retire and meanwhile electing presidents who will nominate justices who are likely to reverse the decision. These rancorous days it may also be necessary to have a president who is from the same party as the majority of the Senate in order to make any appointments.

In the context of Roe v Wade, the passion over Supreme Court nominations is understandable even though the bad faith and hypocrisy on both sides is a disgrace. Justice Scalia, who was an opponent of Roe v Wade, wrote “[B]y foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.”

The anguish has certainly been prolonged. Almost every Supreme Court appointment since that decision has been focused on how the nominee is likely to vote on a possible reversal of Roe v Wade. Various alleged (or real) character defects of the nominee are raised. Those who think the nominee is likely to do what they want on Roe v Wade disbelieve the alleged defects; the allegations are believed by those who think the nominee will vote as they would like him or her to do. Because abortion has become a partisan issue (except for New England Republicans), Supreme Court nominations have also become intensely partisan. Most senators know how they’ll vote before the hearings begin, sometimes before they know who the candidate is.

So what happens next?

Since Roe v Wade in 1973 the Court has ruled on five other abortion related cases; in two cases Roe v Wade was upheld by a slim 5-4 vote.  It is almost certain that the Court will hear more case on the issue. Even with a conservative majority which would probably have never voted for Roe v Wade, it is not certain that the Court will overturn the decision. A legal principle called stare decisis (it’s already been decided), discourages overturning past decisions. However, the Supreme Court does not have to and does not always follow stare decisis. One of its most important decisions, Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, which outlawed segregated public schools by declaring “separate but equal” an oxymoron, specifically overturned an earlier decision, Plessy v Ferguson.

If the Supremes overturn Roe v Wade, they don’t outlaw abortion, but they do allow states to do so. Some states have enacted trigger laws which would immediately take effect and ban abortion within their borders. Other states never bothered to repeal antiabortion laws from as far back as the 19th century and these would come back into effect. The situation would be cruel and chaotic, exactly what stare decisis is made to prevent.

On the other hand, if the Court affirms Roe v Wade, the controversy won’t end. Each abortion case ends in some amplification, clarification, and adjustment of the decision. The state of medical science keeps changing; there are also infinite ways states can regulate medical procedures, some of which are “impermissible” bans on abortions, others of which the Court has allowed. Since the Constitution has no guidance on these issues, the Supreme Court continues to act as a super legislature. We will continue to ignore every facet of the qualification of a Supreme Court nominee except his or her likely action on this one issues. Protests which belong in the state capitals will continue at the Supreme Court, which is supposed to ignore such things.  Crucial public policy will be made by the happenstance of who is President when a justice dies or leaves the Court.

A third possibility is that the Court overturn Roe v Wade but use stare decisis to stay its decision by not allowing any changes in state abortion law to take effect for five years. This hiatus is to assure that there is time for each state legislature to do its job in the full glare of local public opinion. No 19th century law will automatically go back in effect. Citizens will be able to pressure their legislatures to overturn triggers. Some states probably will end up banning abortion; most won’t. But the decision will be back in our hands and those of the representatives we do elect and can replace.

I’m not comfortable with any of these outcomes but think that some variant of the third possibility may be best.

October 17, 2018

M's Marvelous Mashup

The Video

You may have to watch twice to see the sprinkler squirt Deer Mary.

Cast of Characters

M: My eight-year-old granddaughter who has engineering interests and skills

Arlo: A home video camera system

LinkTap: An Internet-controllable faucet

IFTTT: If This Then That. A cloud-based service used to connect smart things to each other

Deer Mary: An alpha tester

The Problem

Critters eat gardens both at M’s house and mine. I used Arlo before to capture images of critters in the garden but now it’s time for action.

The Solution (a mashup)

When a critter is spotted, we want a sprinkler to come on and scare it away. Critters come at night after M’s bedtime so she can’t just turn on a sprinkler when they’re spotted. We need automation! Our game plan is to have Arlo open the LinkTap faucet to which a sprinkler is attached, but Arlo and LinkTap don’t know how to talk each other. That’s what IFTTT is for.

The Workplan

  1. Get Arlo set up and working

Inside the Arlo box is a quick start guide. This is where the girl engineer starts. She learns that Arlo talks to the Internet through a box called a gateway which connects to the Internet through the home router and to the Arlo cameras by radio. Once she has her father’s permission, she uses an RJ-45 cable from the box to connect the gateway to the router being careful to listen for the click which means the cable is secure. She finds an available power outlet for the gateway’s adapter and plugs that in. The quick start guide says that lights will blink until two are solid green indicating the gateway has connected to Arlo service in the cloud. Got’em; two green.

Next you need an Arlo account. M goes on the web and sets up the account entering the serial number of the gateway, which her eyes can read much better than mine, into the web page. She names the gateway “puppy” for reasons best known to her.

After putting batteries in an Arlo camera, it’s time to introduce the camera to the gateway by pushing “sync” buttons on both. Three green. Perfect. From the Arlo web page, we can see little sister in front of the camera. Step 1 is done.

  1. Get Arlo working with IFTTT

M goes to and creates an account there. There are lots of pre-packaged IFTTT “applets” on the service but none connecting Arlo to LinkTap. We’re going to have to create our own. M already understands the idea of “if this, then that” from Scratch lessons. We search for Arlo and there is a prepackaged “if” which lets IFTTT listen for an alert from Arlo indicating that it’s seen something. In setting up the alert, M lets IFTTT into her Arlo account to tell the Arlo service where to send the alert.

We want to test the Arlo-IFTTT connection with something easy; so, at first, we make the action one that is also pre-packaged on IFTTT: send a text message. M waves her hand in front of Arlo’s eye; in a few seconds we have the text message. Step 2 is done.

  1. Get LinkTap working

Another quick start guide; another gateway to connect to the router; another device that needs batteries and syncing; another web account to set up. M’s an old hand at all this now. We can turn the sprinkler on and off from the LinkTap web page. Step 3 done.

  1. Connect LinkTap to our IFTTT applet

This turned out harder than I thought. LinkTap has not set up a connector on IFTTT but does have instructions for using HTTP to make your own connection on their website. If you don’t know what HTTP is, you don’t want to know (OK, it’s a basic web protocol); and it isn’t time to teach M HTTP yet either. Her lesson here was seeing me going into deep nerd mode for about 12 hours to debug my non-working HTTP, Google for answers and diagnostic tools, correspond with LinkTap tech support in Australia, and come back in the morning with working code. I think she also saw that it was valuable to have unit tested each piece so that we knew where the problem was when the end-to-end solution didn’t work.

Voila. Critters beware; you will be soaked.

What will M do next?

See also:

Arlo: DIY Home Security

Arlo Captures Critter

Arlo by Night


October 04, 2018

Amazon Wants Congress to Suppress Competition

Retail Giant Trying to Prevent Workers It Doesn’t Hire From Getting a Job

It’s great news that Amazon wants to raise its own minimum wage to $15/hour. Shows the economy is growing and workers are more in demand. Companies which compete with Amazon for workers will also end up paying more. Great, even though we will also pay a greater retail markup for goods.

It’s terrible news that, in the company’s own words, “Amazon’s public policy team will be advocating for an increase in the federal minimum wage.”  

Suppose you’re a local retailer in, say, Vermont and you’re only paying $12/hour to your workers. You don’t have the option of massive automation that Amazon has. But you and your workers might be able to compete with Amazon for some products because your cost of labor is lower. If Amazon has its way, that will be against the law. You must pay what they pay even if it drives you out of business.

Suppose there is no Amazon warehouse in your state or suppose that you don’t meet Amazon’s qualifications for one of their sought-after jobs. Can you take a job at $14/hour while you build your skills? Not if Amazon has its way with Congress. If you don’t qualify for a $15/hour job, you get no job at all.

There couldn’t be a better example of a giant corporation trying to use government to snuff out competition. Bernie Sanders loves what Amazon is doing. To be charitable, he doesn’t understand the effect on small competitors or workers Amazon doesn’t hire. BTW, what do you think the editorial policy of The Washington Post, which Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns, will be on this issue?

October 01, 2018

Are You a Climate Change Denier?

Be careful before you answer; you could be mistaken.

Thanks to climate change, I recently sailed from Bergen, Norway to Lerwick in Scotland’s Shetland Islands. If I’d made this trip just 6000 years ago, I would’ve had to walk. The North Sea, to my ignorant surprise, is very shallow, less than 400 feet deep most of the way across. That’s one of the reasons we sailed past so many oil rigs.

Most of the gene pool in the Shetlands is Scandinavian today. Those genes sailed on Viking boats following roughly the same course we did. The Shetland Islands were larger then and many of the forts built by and against the Vikings have tumbled into the sea along with the decaying cliffs. Climate change.

But there were people in the Shetlands before the Vikings came invading. Both Neolithic and modern humans walked across what is called Doggerland to get to what is now the British Isles. Periods of glaciation apparently wiped out or drove out the early Homo species as well as us Homo Sapiens several times over the last 600,000 years. Watch out for climate change! Our species was finally there to stay about 8000 years ago when the latest warming trend was well-established. The earth kept warming, though; and by 6000 years ago Doggerland became seabed and Britain became the British Isles. (see an excellently sourced Wikipedia article for facts cited here).

Which brings us to a lavishly illustrated and well written NYTimes article last week bemoaning the loss of artifacts in Scotland’s Orkney Islands to the still-rising seas. Correctly the article blames the crumbling cliffs on climate change. There is this very interesting sentence: “Since 1970, Orkney beaches have eroded twice as fast as in the previous century.”

The implication is clearly that the threat to artifacts has been heightened by anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change. Let’s assume that these measurements are accurate and that they can be applied worldwide and that the fluctuation since 1970 is not just a random fluctuation (obviously none of these assumptions are literally true). The implication is that human activity has doubled the rate of sea rise. Looked at another way, if there’d been no anthropogenic input, the sea would still be rising – as it has been for the last 20,000 years – at about half the current rate. All of these artifacts, the Micronesian islands, and all the other areas on earth near sea level would still be slated for inundation just like Doggerland and the former land bridge across the Bering Strait – only it’ll take twice as long. If you don’t believe climate will continue to change, with or without human input, you are denying climate change!

Of course the cycle could reverse as it has before, even though we know very little about what caused these earlier changes. Then we’ll have advancing glaciers rather than rising liquid water to contend with. It’s happened to our species before. Climate changes!

Why am I ranting about this? Clearly I am convinced (“belief” is for religion and not for science) that climate changes; anyone who denies that is clearly uninformed. My concern is that we may be spending vast sums on perhaps dubious ways to prevent climate change instead of spending that money on ameliorating the effect of change, which may be inevitable. If areas of the world are going to become uninhabitable because of rising seas or rising temperatures, shouldn’t we be preparing to help people leave those areas? If other areas will become habitable, as the British Isles did 8000 years ago, shouldn’t we be thinking about how to move people and agriculture there?

Instead we’re allowing and even incenting coastal development with subsidized insurance as if the seas will magically stop rising Coverage of damage from Hurricane Irma, despite the obligatory references to manmade climate change, has been refreshingly accurate in attributing the rising monetary damage from storms to denser and denser seaside development.

We know that climate changes. We know that the direction of climate change for the last 60,000 years has been generally towards warmer (longer term it’s been towards colder). We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (meaning it traps heat which might otherwise leave earth for outer space) and that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing lately and can reasonably attribute a major part of that increase to increased emissions from burning fossil fuels (and non-fossil fuels like wood). Despite a lot of sloppy science and science-writing, we don’t know with any precision how much anthropogenic activity is accelerating climate change. We can’t know that without knowing how much temperatures would be rising in the absence of this activity. We need a baseline but we don’t yet have the science to explain past climate change so we can’t possibly say what climate change will be in the future with or without human intervention.

Many argue that there’s been an increase in warming since the anthropogenic sharp rise in atmospheric CO2. Some of the observations are debatable; but, even if there were no arguments about the facts, the conclusion that the increase in CO2 caused the increase in warming is debatable (that doesn’t mean it’s wrong). The more we learn about natural phenomena, the more we observe that change is rarely smooth but proceeds in a saw-toothed jagged (fractal) pattern. It is wrong to assume that the last 60,000 years of warming have followed an even slope up; they haven’t. It is premature to assume that a 50 year trend is more than a statistical blip or the result of some cause we don’t yet understand.

Climate science is one of the most important studies (with government subsidies) that we ought to be pursuing. But money put into that field will be wasted if it is only spent on reinforcing the politically correct but unproven (but possibly true) thesis that we are both causing the bulk of climate change and that we can significantly slow this change.

Natural climate changes. Can the intellectual climate change enough to allow us to understand the natural climate without slogans, invective, and semi-religious or partisan beliefs (of any flavor) clouding our view? Those who don’t believe that climate will change without human help, don’t believe in climate change any more than those who somehow deny that the climate is changing at all!

See also:

Past Climate Change – the Pictures

Combating Climate Change - The Nuclear Option

Believers and Deniers

September 27, 2018

A Tale of Two Antennas – The Cord Cutting Saga Continued

Old antenna  New antenna
Way back in 2011 I blogged that I bought an antenna for over $200 and was about to start watching free local TV channels over the air. The satellite dish was toast. On the left above is the antenna still not installed. The DIRECTV dish, service now provided by at&t, is still in use.

A couple of things happened along the way. The times I tried to mount the antenna I had only limited success with the heavy thing. Mainly Mary and I started a new company, NG Advantage LLC, and things got busy.

But I’m retired again and still want to get rid of the dish.

DIRECTV service costs over $150/month. We get almost all of our entertainment from Netflix or Amazon Prime so don’t need the satellite for that. Local news and PBS and BBC via PBS are available over the air as are some of the shows we watch mainly on CBS. We can’t get CNN (which I rarely watch anymore) or Fox News (which balances BBC) online except story-by-story, but we’ll learn to live with that.

Antennas have gotten much simpler because it’s easier to process the new digital TV signals than the old analog ones. On the right above is the new antenna. It and ones like it are widely available for about $25. It can hang on a wall or preferably a window. Even a software guy can mount that.

You don’t need a complicated antenna like the one on the left unless you have to rotate your antenna to look at broadcast towers which are located in different directions or you are very, very far away from towers. In our case ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS and Fox are all in the same place on top of Mt. Mansfield 9 miles away and in clear view of our house. The Federal Communication Commission has a web page which shows you where your nearest towers are located and what signal strength you can expect for each network. Below is our map and the description of the signal for our CBS affiliate WCAX.

Los Wcax

Over-the-air broadcast theoretically has better picture quality than cable or satellite because it is not compressed; I’ll let you know if I see a difference. There are also extra channels available over the air. For example, our local PBS station has not only the main station available on cable and satellite but also PBS Kids, PBS Plus (“more local programming”), and @create. Don’t know anything about any of them yet.

This has been tested but still not installed. I’m waiting for the Amazon Fire TV Recast, which will serve as the over-the-air DVR and serve the stream to all my TVs, tablets, and phones but won’t ship until November. We’re not planning to start any new companies before then (or ever).


September 24, 2018

Fear of Ziplining

I’m afraid of heights. Used to close my eyes on roller coasters but got over that. Once crawled all the way around the metal porch at the top of a lighthouse we were visiting because I was too terrified to stand up.

“Do you want to try ziplining?” Mary asked.


For my 75th birthday, Mary arranged a five-day, 140-mile bicycle trip on a rail trail called Le Petit Train du Nord in nearby Quebec.


Notice that Mont-Tremblant is in the middle of the journey. Since we’re tourists on bikes and not bikers on a tour, we decided we’d take a day off in the middle and explore the ski area. So what should we do on our day off? I had some nerding to do in the morning and Mary went out to reconnoiter.

“Well, do you want to try the zipline?”

“I guess,” I said. Maybe we won’t be able to get a reservation, I thought.

No such luck. There was a tour leaving in ten minutes. Five separate zips. The longest such torture course in Quebec. “Can we just do the last short one? We’ve never done this before.”

C'est impossible.” The cruelest words in French.

“Is there an age limit?”

“You have to be seven or above.” She sold us senior tickets. How’s that for an oxymoron? senior tickets on a zipline. Below is us on the first platform before the first short zip – but one that takes you to 90km/hour (60mph) and 300 feet over an abyss.


I’m much more scared than Mary if you can’t tell. In her right hand is a little metal car which a friendly guide places on the cable you see behind my left shoulder. It is attached to the harness by the blue and yellow straps hanging down from Mary’s waist. The gate I’m leaning on opens. You walk down four terrifying steps which project into space; there is no fifth step.


You lean back into your harness. You lift up your legs… The picture below is not me; it’s from a brochure.


Whoosh. Sixty mph is really fast. In theory you don’t need to hold on. I have a death grip on the blue and yellow straps. Oh, no. I’m spinning around and going backwards. Bang; the metal car hits a brake at the other end where the catenary of the cable turns up towards the low platform and clips in. A guide either slows you down or reels you in the rest of the way.

“The next one is much longer.”

“Each one is longer than the last,” says a fellow victim who’d done her homework.

I was still plenty scared. However, it seemed that people who held on to a black handle where the straps attach to the car didn’t spin. This time I had a death grip on the black handle. Sixty mph for 3000 feet is a long time; but I didn’t spin.

“The wind is against us on the next zip. You can’t hold onto the black handle. You also need to draw your legs up into what we call the cannonball so you’ll go faster.”

“What if we don’t?”

“You won’t make it to the other end.”

Mary and I did as we were told. Sure enough, I spun. But that just left me back to the wind so I could see without my eyes tearing. Actually wasn’t so bad.

But one woman didn’t obey orders. She ended dangling from the low point in the cable. A guide hooked his car on the same cable and went out hand-over-hand to her; clipped onto her; and hauled her up hand-over hand to the platform. Would have been ignominious.

The competence of the guides (from a company called ZipTrek Ecotours) made it much less scary than it would’ve been otherwise. They clipped us in, reeled us in, and helped us unclip and were meticulous in explaining what to do and in safety checks for every zip.

By the fifth zip, I let go with both hands.

Volia! and Merci, Marie for making me do it.

August 29, 2018

Regulations are Herbicide for the Weeds of Innovation

Innovation is a weed, not a pampered flower. It grows in the cracks; it grows where it’s not wanted. It’s almost, but not quite, unstoppable. You should be very suspicious that Google and Facebook are suggesting “some” regulation as a way of stopping the behavior which empowered their growth. The herbicide of regulation will kill would-be competitors.  Competitors will be a much more effective brake on the power of these monopolies than any regulator will be.

To further stretch the metaphor, incumbent businesses monopolize the sunlight whenever they can. They cast a mighty shadow. They demand subsidies to prevent them from falling down and crushing everyone. They will only grow in your neighborhood if you pay them to (see Amazon searching for a new headquarters or Foxconn’s Michigan con).

New innovative businesses can bring down the mighty oaks of monopoly. I had the privilege of being part of that creative destruction when then-innovative Voice over IP (VoIP) deflated the bubble of the international telephone voice cartel, run for the benefit of all the giant telcos. The price of calls to India and China from the US went from over a $1/minute to pennies within a year. Guest workers, travelers, and soldiers could afford to call home. Also call centers could be located abroad, to be fair. You might even blame globalization on this success in reducing communications costs.

The carriers fought back, of course. Internationally they tried to give regulatory power over the Internet to the ITU, the UN body which administered the mechanisms of maintaining cartel pricing called international settlements, basically a penalty for any company that dared to lower rates paid to those which kept rates up. See Price – Splitting the Pie – Why Not Just Bill and Keep? for probably more detail than you want on how the cartel operated.

In some countries where huge payments to governments (or government officials) were made by the incumbent telco (which might also belong to the government), the incumbents were successful for a while in blocking VoIP. Even India and China blocked it initially. But the price of having a communication barrier between these countries and the developed world was too high. The regulations stayed on the books but were not enforced.

In the US regional carriers tried to get the FCC to regulate VoIP like a phone monopoly. They even wanted VoIP software in a box regulated because it could be used for voice. The FCC, however, first under Clinton and then under Bush, decided to forbear from such regulation. This forbearance was codified in the FCC’s “Pulver” decision in 2004. I lobbied for this and certainly had an interest in it as a VoIP provider; Google also supported this effort to leave the Internet free of the regulation which had stifled innovation in voice services.

Now we have Skype (old news) and Vonage (even older news). The price of domestic calling is part of an unlimited minutes bundle and only some continued cartel-like behavior among cellular carriers keeps the price of international cellphone calls up – although “free” VoIP is often an alternative.

VoIP, of course, is only one example of what has been possible on a largely unregulated Internet. There are some things which need to be stopped in my opinion. Law enforcement needs to be able to trace the use of the Internet in committing crimes just as it can, with a warrant, tap phones and open mail.

The massive invasions of privacy which we allow out of ignorance, or because we consider them a fair price to pay for “free” service like Google Search and Facebook, need to be fully revealed with at least the weapons of FTC enforcements and class-action suits to discourage misrepresentation.

It has just been publicized that Verizon’s Yahoo subsidiary reads mail in its customers’ inboxes so that it can bundle the customers into categories like “investor” or “traveler” and sell access to the categories to advertisers. To be fair, if they know about it customers CAN opt out. They can also switch from Yahoo Mail to gmail or Microsoft, both of which say they don’t do this (“anymore”, in the case of Google). In this example competition can act as an effective deterrent to this action. No regulation necessary.

But what if Facebook is engaging in a practice you don’t like. If your social life revolves around Facebook (mine doesn’t), you don’t have a practical alternative. I haven’t found a search engine whose results I like better than Google results even though I know my searches are being watched and monetized.

So do we need regulation to protect us from Facebook and Google? Whose lobbyists do you think will write that regulation? Whom do you suppose the regulators will be captured by?

We need innovation to give us alternatives to the giants: a better way to search or even a substitute for what we call searching today which will break the Google monopoly (which was earned in part by very good service). We need social media sites that our friends will flock to or ways to congregate online which don’t require an intermediary.

But revolutionary innovation never seems to fit old regulation. If the Internet giants can spread the herbicide of regulation on the grounds from which innovation would come (using their own current success as an excuse), we won’t get the new companies which can and would bring down the old trees which have grown too far to the sky.

Late breaking: Trump’s call to regulate Google et al because of bias (which all humans have) makes me even more convinced that regulation is more dangerous than helpful. The regulatory herbicide is hard to put back in the bottle. I hope my friends at Google et al will see the danger in their call for regulation “lite”.

August 15, 2018

Tweets from @realedontrusk themselves

[No twitterbots were used to create this post]

2 things u need 2 know: I am v rich & v smart. I am richer & smarter than u.

I make or unmake rules; I do not follow.

In old days I would’ve sucked up 2 press 2 get them 2 cover what I said (& they would’ve screwed it up). Now don’t need them; I tweet; u read. They have 2 reprint (altho doesn’t matter).

Press ppl don’t like me because I don’t suck up 2 them. Tough. Their business model is broken. Mine isn’t. If it was, would fix in a tweet.

Press ppl didn’t like FDR “fireside” chats on radio because direct to real ppl (I know that kind of stuff). Beginning of end for press but they didn’t know then. Don’t know now because they r clueless.

Crooked establishment wants 2 shut me up. Use FBI and SEC 2 investigate my tweets. 1st amendment?

Press whining because I call them liars. They called me liar 1st. Throw stones & hide behind 1st amendment when I throw back. They’re losers & whiners & biz model broke.

Ppl that don’t like me r stupid or crooked or worse. They call me names. I always hit back. They whine like press.

U can retweet me. If u say something good about me, I’ll retweet maybe. Minute of fame 4 u.

My lawyers don’t want me 2 tweet. They say gets me in trouble. Makes their job hard. I say do your job. If I took your advice would be poor & stupid.

Saudi Arabia is smart & rich. I like 2 deal with them. They have no press problems. No ex-wife problems either.

MAGA & buy $TSLA.

August 07, 2018

Discussing Primaries Live on WDEV Today at 11AM ET

I will be live on WDEVat 11am ET today discussing why primary system favors extremes and discord and the easy fix with Bill Sayre. (am 550, fm96. 1, 96.5 & 101.9, stream

Call in on 802-244-1777 or 877-291-8255 to add your opinion or ask a question.

See below for related opinions:

Primary Power

Why Almost Every Vermonter Should Vote for Phil Scott on Primary Day

Vermonters can vote now at your town clerk’s office, by absentee ballot, or at your town’s polling place on August 14th. Please don’t leave the choice of candidates to “them”; please vote!

August 06, 2018

Why Almost Every Vermonter Should Vote for Phil Scott on Primary Day

August 14th is Primary Day in Vermont, where we can freely vote in any party’s primary. This year there are three ballots: Republican, Democratic, and Progressive. The only hitch is that, once you choose a ballot, you can only vote for candidates on that ballot; you can’t split your primary vote (except with write-ins). Choosing a ballot doesn’t tie you to a party in any way in the future; it certainly doesn’t prevent you from splitting your vote across party lines in the general election as I often do.

This year I recommend that Vermonters, regardless of party affiliation or lack of affiliation, vote in the Republican Primary for Governor Phil Scott unless they are vitally interested in the outcome of the Democratic Gubernatorial Primary, which is the only seriously contested statewide race in that party. Scott has earned support both for the economic benefits of his policy and, IMO, for having the political courage to change his mind on the charged issue of gun control. It is also vitally important that there be a moderate Republican alternative to a legislature dominated by Democrats. One party rule is not good no matter which party exercises it.

It will be a shame if this election turns on the issue of gun control, even though people are passionate on either side. General election voters will consider a variety of issues. However, primaries in non-Presidential years traditionally have appallingly low turn-out; in 2014 only 7.7%, 36,100 people decided whom the candidates for Governor of Vermont would be. A small turn-out election is easily dominated by people who are committed to a single issue. That means, frankly, that Phil Scott could lose the primary to Keith Stern, who is running on the gun control issue. I have no personal beef with Stern and he is certainly entitled to run on his beliefs; but it would be a loss for Vermont if Scott is not the Republican nominee. We don’t want to reinforce the general political wisdom that politicians need to cater to the extremes of their party in order to survive primaries; we want to prove that thoughtful people actually bother to turn out and vote in primaries.

Were Keith Stern nominated, he almost certainly would not be elected. So, even if you are passionately opposed to any change in gun control laws, your best strategy to avoid a real draconian threat to second amendment rights is to have Phil Scott back in office and acting as a brake of a left-leaning legislature. A vote for Stern is a protest vote; a vote for Scott is a vote for a moderate candidate who can be reelected governor.

But let’s go beyond gun control. Scott’s policies have been good for Vermont. He assured that the tax laws were modified so that changes to the federal tax law did not result in a $30 million increase in Vermont state income tax; he stopped the legislature from raising residential property taxes although he could not stop them completely from raising the non-residential property tax, even in the face of much-higher than estimated tax revenues. It’s scary to think what might happen to taxes next year if Democrat and Populist domination of Montpelier is complete.

Only Scott’s veto threats are sufficient to get a legislature dominated with a majority which is apparently terrified by the teacher’s union to even consider the educational reform we need for the sake of children and taxpayers. A vote for Scott in the primary is a vote to keep education reform on the table.

Scott and Stern have been in three debates:

WCAX Primary Debate

VPR Primary Debate

Channel 17/ VT Digger Debate

I hope you’ll vote for Phil Scott on primary day; but, even if you don’t, it is still very important that you do vote. Our ballots in the primary actually make more difference than in the general election, since there are more choices and less people voting. In order to make sure we have good candidates to choose from in the general election, we have to vote in the primary.

You can vote now at your town clerk’s office, by absentee ballot, or at your town’s polling place onthe 14th. Please don’t leave the choice of candidates to “them”; please vote!

See also: Primary Power

Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 01/2005