tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14891810346869660752024-03-05T22:57:22.541-08:00Great Lakes SkydockMiscellany amidst the towers of the Windy City.OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-55868619988905399262013-08-08T12:06:00.000-07:002013-08-08T12:06:00.367-07:00The Penthouse Proletariat<p>One thing I've always been annoyed by is the tendency for liberals who are rich to promote policies that are completely contradictory with their lifestyles. While I understand that everyone has failings and elements of hypocrisy, if you believe that excessive consumption is harming the environment, you should reduce your excessive consumption. The lifestyle of a Hollywood star is not compatible with being an economic liberal or critic of conspicuous consumption, but no one seems to notice. </p>
John Nolte's <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/08/01/Does-matt-damon-know-elysium-is-a-metaphor-for-Hollywood">article </a>hits the nail on the head:
<span id="fullpost">
<blockquote>Here is how McCarthy describes the world and plot of what is likely another box-office bomb from star Matt Damon:<br>
"Blomkamp sets the dystopian juices flowing with images of future sprawling slums and urban ruin that one might initially take to be Mexico City or Sao Paulo but that are soon identified as belonging to Los Angeles in 2154. Most of the beleaguered inhabitants seem to speak Spanish and do menial labor if they do anything at all, while good health care is very difficult to come by.<br>
By contrast, hovering far above Earth and appearing like a five-spoked wheel in the sky is Elysium, an enormous space station where the rich live in a stress-free country club environment enhanced by marvelous technology that can cure any ailment, meaning that life can theoretically go on indefinitely."<br>
Dude, if McCarthy's description is accurate (I haven't seen the movie) that is not Los Angeles in the year 2154, that is Los Angeles today.<br>
The only difference is that the "five-spoked wheel in the sky" called Elysium is really -- wait for it -- the Hollywood Hills.<br>
While I have no doubt Blokamp and Damon snickered wildly as they went over the script (probably in the thousand-dollar-a-night Caligula Suite at the W on Sunset Boulevard), what these two left-wing rocket scientists probably missed is that their lofty metaphor (likely aimed at America and Republicans), isn't really a metaphor. The place in which they currently work, snicker, frolic, and make millions, is in fact Elysium.<br>
If you want to experience "Elysium" today, just drive down Wilshire or Melrose. In just a couple of miles those famous boulevards turn from a gorgeous, mile-high, palm tree-lined gilded city where the Matt Damons shop, dine, exercise, enema, valet, facelift, chant, and enjoy the greatest healthcare in the world -- to shit-hole city: urban sprawl, graffiti, crime, filth, and grinding poverty.
But no matter where you are -- even if you're hip-deep in the homeless -- all you need do is look up and there it is; that bright, shiny, magic gated place known as Elysi-- er, the Hollywood Hills.</blockquote>
</span>OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-74931403878445367032013-08-06T11:34:00.000-07:002013-08-06T11:34:01.365-07:00The Liberal VisionThomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution always comes up with trenchant observations, and <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/355148/school-scolds-thomas-sowell">this article</a> in National Review Online was no exception. One point in particular resonated with me:
<blockquote>I suspect that even most conservatives would prefer to live in the kind of world conjured up in the liberals’ imagination rather than in the kind of world we are in fact stuck with.</blockquote>
<p>Who wouldn't want to live in such a place? Problems can be solved with the application of money, the economy can be safely managed by experts, and evil is a sickness that can be eliminated with therapy. It's a veritable heaven compared to the real world. It's also similar to the world I remember imagining as a child. Unfortunately, it has almost no relation to the real world.</p>OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-51671829161054574382013-08-01T14:19:00.002-07:002013-08-01T14:19:56.349-07:00The Raw Deal<p>
Much of life is based on compromises and balancing acts. In the safety industry, we balance the gain life expectancy and reduced incidence of health problems associated with eliminating a problem chemical with the negative effects of eliminating a chemical. It is the same in national security. There is a tradeoff between allowing our national security professionals access to communications without tipping our hand to terrorists, and keeping the government out of our private life. Ever since 9-11 changed how I look at terrorism, I have leaned toward national security. I have no interest in surrendering to Islamic Supremacists, and I am willing to let the military and spies fight the war to win it.
</p>
<p>
What if the government isn't interested in fighting the war? What if the administration likes the powers that were granted to achieve victory, but views Islamic Supremacism as a distraction from its agenda?
I had been planning to make this argument here, but David French got it <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/354923/are-we-trading-privacy-without-gaining-security-david-french">precisely</a> with his most recent <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/354544/there-responsible-national-security-libertarianism-david-french">columns</a>. Intelligence assets and military might are only useful as long as the leadership has the will to use them:
</p>
<blockquote>Those of us in the “national-security Right” (to borrow Mr. McCarthy’s excellent phrase) seek a national defense that is both constitutional and effective, but a defense establishment that lacks the strength of will to act even on the best of intelligence will be utterly ineffective no matter the metadata.</blockquote>
Read the whole thing.OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-43877979110343229192013-07-31T10:52:00.003-07:002013-07-31T10:52:53.642-07:00Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane!<p>I've mentioned Derek Lowe's amazing writing on obnoxious chemicals <a href="http://skydock.blogspot.com/2008/08/ill-pass-on-chlorine-trifluoride.html">before</a>, and his articles have continued while my humble blog was on hiatus. </p>
<p>Take this <a href="http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/11/11/things_i_wont_work_with_hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane.php">gem</a>, for instance. I'm not going to bother excerpting this one - read it all. The whole category of <a href="http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/">things I won't work with</a> is worth a read.</p>
<p>As hilarious as these articles are, he also takes aim more serious subjects, such as a recent post <a href="http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/06/21/eight_toxic_foods_a_little_chemical_education.php">demolishing </a>a Buzzfeed posting on 8 toxic foods. I've run across that kind of crazy before, and some of the claims are so ridiculous that they boggle the mind. For example, claiming bromine being present in a compound somehow gives it the unpleasant properties of the pure element is silly. Next they will be calling table salt (Sodium Chloride) a toxic chemical weapon (Chlorine) that explodes on contact with water (Sodium), or worrying about how water is flammable and explosive, because the H in H<sub>2</sub>O is Hydrogen. I should keep this around in case I ever teach chemistry again - listening in chemistry class will prevent you being taken in by people like the Buzzfeed author.</p>OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-32222564315452448392013-07-30T11:31:00.000-07:002013-07-30T11:31:41.723-07:00Justice for All (including Trayvon Martin)I've been following the story of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin for over a year on <a href="http://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/category/courts-and-cops/the-trayvon-martin-case/">Stately McDaniel Manor</a>. Mike McDaniel has been quite diligent in covering the case. Lawyers William Jacobson and Andrew Branca presented live coverage of the <a href="http://legalinsurrection.com/tag/george-zimmerman-trial/">trial with legal analysis</a>. While they take a pro-defense slant, they present factual arguments for their case. I followed this case in more detail than I have any other trial, because I have a teenage nephew who is multiracial and identifies as black, and I am interested in issues of self-defense. My heart goes out to the victim's family - I can only imagine the pain they feel. If George Zimmerman had committed murder or in any way acted unlawfully, he should have been punished.<br />
With that in mind, I found myself growing more convinced that George Zimmerman acted fully within the bounds of the law, and was in fact a decent guy facing a nightmare situation. I would feel safer with George Zimmerman meeting my nephew in a dark alley than a randomly selected American. This is based on the evidence I have read, not on a pre-conceived notion. I first thought Zimmerman was a cocky guy with a twitchy trigger finger, but I changed my mind. Read on to see why.<br />
<span id="fullpost">
Based on the evidence, there is no reason to believe Zimmerman made the first unlawful act. He was walking in a place where he had every legal right to be. I walk down sidewalks behind people and with people behind me all the time. If Martin felt threatened, he could have headed home or called the police. I know some people have difficulty working with the police, but at the least being at home would have Martin the home-ground advantage if he felt threatened. If he wanted to confront Zimmerman and get him to back off, he could have aggressively told Zimmerman to get lost and even insulted him. That's a legal response to being followed. <br />
Instead, according to both the evidence and his friend Rachel Jeantel, Martin threw the first punch, and started beating on Zimmerman. It's the kind of bad judgement that is all too common among teenagers - I was certainly not immune to that when I was 17. Unfortunately, Martin chose an act that would have given him a stay in jail if police had ended the fight instead Zimmerman's gun. Not only that, but he continued the beating after Zimmerman was clearly defeated. Martin had practiced street fighting before this, and some of his friends were trying to get him to stop before he got into worse trouble. If he had let Zimmerman tap out, he would have probably done jail time, but would probably been out on the streets by now.<br />
Zimmerman cooperated with the police fully, and the initial investigators thought there was not enough evidence to charge him. That was not the only investigation to exonerate Zimmerman - the FBI found no evidence of racism in Zimmerman's actions. He tutored black children, called police to report an 7-year old black kid wandering around without any adult looking after him, opened an insurance business with a black partner, was himself part African American in origin, and even led an effort to get justice for a homeless black man beaten up by a white kid when the police were refusing to act. If George Zimmerman is racist, every white person is racist. <br />
Our legal system is designed to equally apply the law to all people. Justice is for all people, regardless of how they are viewed by the media. Before you judge George Zimmerman, do what the 6 women of the jury did, and carefully consider the evidence before delivering your verdict. <br />
As an aside, there's something I’ve seen a lot from more “establishment”-type conservatives – Zimmerman was found not guilty according to the law, but he was a moron with a hero complex or whatever, and is certainly a person to despise.<br />
That response really gets under my skin. We hear all about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese">Kitty Genovese</a> and people taking action on their own in an emergency. In Chicago, one of the key determinants of how dangerous a neighborhood actually is happens to be the community’s role in addressing crime. People are encouraged to take responsibility and take action.<br />
But the problem with untrained responders is that they will make mistakes. That’s why we have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law">Good Samaritan laws</a>. If you place people at risk for getting out their car and helping, they will drive on by, and not risk it. You can’t have it both ways, unless everyone is given the training to be a first responder.<br />
George Zimmerman actually gives a damn about people, unlike the people pushing the “not guilty but stupid” claim, who would rather see everyone take the safe course and avoid any heroics. It is utterly craven politically-driven cowardice.<br />
</span><br />OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com31tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-77073184234416484012012-05-23T19:36:00.000-07:002013-07-30T12:14:05.791-07:00Brett Kimberlin's LawfareBrett Kimberlin, convicted terrorist bomber, pathological liar, and all-around psychopath, has decided that the First amendment does not apply to people who talk about him. He has relentlessly sued the excellent blogger Aaron Walker (blogs under <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html">Aaron Worthing</a>) and even attempted to frame him for a crime. This all started because he gave minor free legal help to another Kimberlin critic.<br />
<br />
Aaron wasn't the only one targeted. For trying to document the funding sources of Kimberlin's non-profit organizations, <a href="http://theothermccain.com/2012/05/23/he-has-no-f-king-soul/">R. S. McCain was forced to flee</a> to an undisclosed location. Other bloggers like <a href="http://patterico.com/category/brett-kimberlin/">Patterico</a> and <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2011/02/14/As-Hacked-ChamberLeaks-Emails-Break--Left-Scrambles-to-Hide-Ties-to-Domestic-Terrorist">Liberty Chick</a> have also been attacked.<br />
<br />
This type of legal harassment is outright evil. This isn't about right and left, this is about right and wrong, as a commenter said. Anyone concerned about free speech and the rule of law should stand up against this assault. Thus, I have dusted off my old blog to provide a list of supporters and to show my support.
Breibart News has more <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2011/02/14/As-Hacked-ChamberLeaks-Emails-Break--Left-Scrambles-to-Hide-Ties-to-Domestic-Terrorist">disturbing details</a> on Brett's ties to large left wing foundations.
Supporters below.<br />
<span id="fullpost">
<a href="http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/?s=kimberlin">InstaPundit</a> <br />
<a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2012/05/23/free-speech-show-solidarity-for-targeted-conservative-bloggers/">Michelle Malkin</a>
<br />
<a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/23/free-speech-moment-standing-with-stacy-mccain-patterico-liberty-chick-and-aaron-walker/">Ed Morrissey of Hot Air</a>
<br />
<a href="http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2012/05/23/#006534">Day by Day</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/THEHermanCain">Herman Cain</a> <br />
<a href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/329478.php">Ace of Spades</a>
<br />
<a href="http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/212384.php">The Jawa Report</a>
<br />
<a href="http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2012/05/22/free-as-a-bird/">Belmont Club</a>
<br />
<a href="http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/05/free-speech-blogburst.html">BlackFive</a>
<br />
<a href="http://leestranahan.com/friday-may-25th-is-everybody-blog-about-brett-kimberlin-day">Lee Stranahan</a> <br />
<a href="http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=40550">Protein Wisdom</a><br />
<a href="http://littlemissattila.com/?p=25437">Little Miss Attila</a>
<br />
<a href="http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/2012/05/18/gee-this-sounds-so-familiar-if-only-i-could-put-my-finger-on-it/">Five Feet of Fury</a> <br />
<a href="http://www.bob-owens.com/2012/05/why-are-maryland-democrats-letting-the-speedway-bomber-get-away-with-terrorism/">Bob Owens</a>
<br />
<a href="http://pierrelegrand.net/2012/05/23/free-speech-under-attacklets-make-the-left-live-by-its-own-rules.htm">Pierre LeGrande</a> <br />
<a href="http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/05/23/standing-with-stacy-mccain/">GayPatriot</a>
<br />
<a href="http://filmladd.com/?WhatDidBarbaraStreisandKnow">Film Ladd</a> <br />
<a href="http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2012/05/re_free_speech.php">HyScience</a> <br />
<a href="http://www.conservativecommune.com/2012/05/speedway-bomber-brett-kimberlin-harassed-tried-to-frame-blogger-aaron-worthing/">Dan Collins</a> <br />
<a href="http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2012/05/framed.php">Point of Law</a> <br />
<a href="http://overlawyered.com/2012/05/may-18-roundup-3/">Overlawyered</a>
<br />
<a href="http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.ca/2012/05/convicted-terrorist-brett-kimberlin-and.html">Blazing Catfur</a> <br />
<a href="http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/05/17/political-thuggery/">The American Catholic</a> <br />
<a href="http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/05/this-is-horrible/">The Lonely Conservative</a>
</span>OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-26859516141856659852008-08-27T20:42:00.000-07:002008-08-27T20:47:26.256-07:00Go Joe!I guess great minds think alike. Lieberman for <a href="http://www.creators.com/opinion/robert-novak/avoiding-a-lieberman-disaster.html">SecState</a>, not Veep. I posted about this only a few months ago. <br /><br />Hat tip: <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/27/bob-novak-case-against-lieberman-for-vp-being-made-by-lieberman/">Hot Air</a>.OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-29426758782095370742008-08-26T12:39:00.000-07:002013-07-30T12:53:05.182-07:00Inside GeorgiaMichael Totten is an amazing individual. He comes off as almost a daredevil reporter, going to the hot spots of the world and bringing back the story. In this case, he happened to be nearby Georgia in Azerbaijan, and he headed into the conflict. What he found was <a href="http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php">shocking</a>.<br /><br />The conflict has been going on a lot longer than people have thought. The war actually began August <span style="font-style:italic;">6th</span>, and had less to do with controlling the region and more to do with stopping the Russian advance. This has brought his website under cyber-attack, so be patient if you can't get in right away.OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-10561690574189067312008-08-11T18:06:00.000-07:002008-08-26T12:50:09.762-07:00I'm with GeorgiaTo stand with Vladimir Putin or with the people who just finished helping us in Iraq - not a tough choice. I hope we back the Russians down and get them to hold to their borders. Our F-22s need some target practice, and our allies need a hand. Frankly, he US has a lot to gain from knocking Putin around.<br /><br />Wretchard is providing excellent strategic analysis at the <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/">Belmont Club</a>. He's following the Georgian strategy.<br /><br />Interestingly, Georgia and other Caucasus republics are a common setting for conflicts in techno-thrillers and video games. The Tom Clancy stealth game <span style="font-style:italic;">Splinter Cell</span> was actually set in Georgia. The reason is a tinderbox akin to the Balkans, and adventurer/journalist Michael Totten is <a href="http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-explosive-c.php">headed there</a>. He just returned from the Balkans, with stories of the most European Muslim country in existence.OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-42446990807193141332008-08-01T23:35:00.000-07:002008-08-02T03:38:05.606-07:00A Pro-Nuclear Argument......that I hadn't heard before. Something rather rare, to be honest, as I follow the issues quite avidly.<br /><br />The idea is more efficient use of energy will reduce energy use. Unfortunately, it doesn't work out that way:<br /><br /><blockquote>And when it comes to arguing the merits of energy efficiency, Lovins’s prime nemesis is a dead guy – William Stanley Jevons – a British economist who in 1865 determined that increased efficiency won’t cut energy use, it will raise it. “It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuels is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.” And in the 142 years since Jevons put forth that thesis, now commonly known as the Jevons Paradox, he’s yet to be proven wrong.</blockquote><br /><br />It makes sense, once you think about it. More discussion of the concept is here at the <a href="http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/06/amory-lovins-and-his-nuclear-illusion_11.html">Nuclear Notes</a> blog. "Negawatts", for all their usefulness, do not yield megawatts. Now conservation, that is a different story. The comment thread discusses the difference between conservation and increased efficiency. I consider the best way to illustrate the distinction to be the resulting effect. <br /><br />Increased efficiency means you use less energy for the same effect. This is the result of improved systems in the product. Conservation is where less energy is used for a lesser effect. This is the result of changing consumption behaviors. Think of lighting: installing compact fluorescent bulbs increases energy efficiency, while leaving the lights off conserves energy. Conservation can reduce energy usage, but to actually take it to the point of useful reductions, it would need to reduce individual and collective standards of living, That is about as close to a politic sre loser as could exist...<br /><br />More in the series in defense of nuclear power <a href="http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/07/amory-lovins-and-his-nuclear-illusion.html">here</a>.OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-7324738824713788422008-08-01T13:06:00.000-07:002008-08-01T14:28:58.431-07:00Elephant House PartyThanks to <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/01/blackout-pelosi-turns-off-the-lights-as-gop-demands-action-on-drilling/">Allahpundit at HotAir</a>, I just heard that our GOP representatives decided to stay in the House until they can pass the energy policy bill. Speaker Pelosi appears to be acting like a mother with rambunctious kids, by turning the lights and microphones off. Let's just say the party's just getting started. Heck, they ordered pizza!<br /><blockquote><br />Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said the dimly lit chamber is a "vision of the future by the Democrat Party: The lights are out, there's no power, and the air conditioning is gonna go off soon."</blockquote><br /><br />Good one.<br /><br />More updates at <a href="http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/aug/01/breaking-democrats-shut-down-house-to-go-on/">Redstate</a><br /><br />Politico has four parts of coverage <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0808/House_Dems_turn_out_out_the_light_but_GOP_keep_talking.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0808/Dems_turn_out_the_light_but_GOP_wont_go_home_Part_II.html">here.</a><br /> and the <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0808/GOP_talkathon_Part_III_No_shirt_no_tie_No_problem.html?showall">third update</a>, featuring representatives coming back with quips in hand. The atmosphere gets wild in <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0808/GOP_Talkathon_Part_IV_Come_on_Down.html?showall">part four</a>.<br /><span id="fullpost"><br />Updates:<br />Apparently, there was a delay, and they closed the event at 5.<br /><br />They just finished the press conference. Still staying as far as I know. Looks like the police thing was just a threat. <br /><br />It's after 5 Eastern, and they are holding the fort and bring people down. It is on CSPAN-2 currently.<br /><br />As far as I know they are still there as 4:45 Eastern. <br /><br />I said Pelosi was acting like a Mom. Maybe Mommy Dearest might have been more appropriate. <a href="http://patterico.com/2008/08/01/this-is-stunning-kim-jong-pelosi-running-house-like-hugo-chavez/">WLS at Patterico</a> describes the Dear (majority) Leader threatening to call in the cops at 4:30 PM Eastern to clear the place out. This will get... interesting.<br /></span>OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-69032812030322781012008-08-01T09:48:00.000-07:002008-08-01T10:12:20.611-07:00I'll pass on the chlorine trifluorideOne of the more interesting aspects of safety industry is the tales of danger that you pick up from fellow professionals and experience. I once heard of a response team finding a leaking can of potassium cyanide nearby a growing acid spill. They ran out and got the full self-contained breathing apparatus before going any further.<br /><br />There are some experiments and chemicals which make that look like a picnic. These include condensing hydrogen cyanide and compounds that explode without much of a reason. And chlorine trifluoride<br /><span id="fullpost"><br /><blockquote>I have not encountered this fine substance myself, but reading up on its properties immediately gives it a spot on my “no way, no how” list. Let's put it this way: during World War II, the Germans were very interested in using it in self-igniting flamethrowers, but found it too nasty to work with. It is apparently about the most vigorous fluorinating agent known, and i<span style="font-weight:bold;">s much more difficult to handle than fluorine gas</span>. That’s one of those statements you don’t get to hear very often, and it should be enough to make any sensible chemist turn around smartly and head down the hall in the other direction.<br /><br />The compound also a stronger oxidizing agent than oxygen itself, which also puts it into rare territory. That means that it can potentially go on to “burn” things that you would normally consider already burnt to hell and gone, and a practical consequence of that is that it’ll start <span style="font-weight:bold;">roaring reactions with things like bricks and asbestos tile</span>. It’s been used in the semiconductor industry to clean oxides off of surfaces, at which activity it no doubt excels.</blockquote><br /><br />Whoa... (Emphasis mine, taken from <a href="http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2008/02/26/sand_wont_save_you_this_time.php">here</a>)<br /><br />You can see more like these <a href="http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/">here.</a> It is a great little list of nasty substances.<br /></span>OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-30923829703891627492008-07-29T22:15:00.000-07:002008-07-29T22:41:23.801-07:00Apology for a LoserMary Eberstadt has produced an interesting <a href="http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=NDYzNg==">defense</a> of religion against the recent series of books on atheism. It is an interesting satire, and while it lacks the sheer brilliance of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screwtape_Letters">Screwtape Letters</a> (Demons as evil bureaucrats was just perfect, though having a strung-out addict call God a loser is still pretty good), they make some interesting points. <br /><br />I think she overlooks the aspect of <span style="font-style:italic;">God as parent</span> that many atheists argue explains the formation of religion, as well as the attempts to use the modern jihad against all religions. She is spot-on in assessing why atheism isn't going to take off. <br /><br />It would have been nice to have some better explanation of why atheists in general do not slide down the slippery slope. My friend over at ChicagoCon is a fairly harsh atheist, but is not some crazy deviant or monster. There are good explanations for this phenomenon that support religion, but she does not present them.<br /><br />As for myself, I am a lapsed Protestant of unusual beliefs around an orthodox core.OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-18595850067221890942008-07-28T14:17:00.000-07:002008-07-28T14:35:07.154-07:00Funny Fly GeneticistsWhile searching the wiki, I ran across <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HERG">HERG</a> in a serious article on arrhythmias. The acronym stands for Human Ether-a-go-go Related Gene. Thank the wonderfully crazy scientists who study the genetics of the fruit fly. I have done my share of time with FlyNap and tweezers, and I would imagine it would get to the most serious of scientists after a while. Reminds me of a classic I heard from a genetics professor: gene <span style="font-style:italic;">cheapdate</span>, which when mutated will render flies more sensitive to alcohol.<br /><br />A few other classics <a href="http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/genes.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/archive/index.php/t-94262.html">here</a>OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-461321645043713052008-07-12T15:00:00.000-07:002008-07-12T15:01:34.363-07:00A new age of Zeppelins?As an airship aficionado I was quite pleased to read <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/05/business/05dirigible.php?page=1">this story</a> on the resurgence of airship development. It has some flaws - the journalist focused almost exclusively on French airship development - but it discusses the issue well. <br /><br />The airship has had similar strengths and weakness to the ship that travels the waterways. Both the airship and the ship are slower than planes, have better fuel efficiency for the weight they transport, and are tolerant of mechanical failure. The market air freighters will require a more durable material for airship design to reduce the effects of weather.<br /><br />Hat tip: <a href="http://nic.dreamhost.com/2008/07/06/progress-for-airships/">Original Cin</a>OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-31669953191427539762008-07-10T08:36:00.000-07:002013-07-30T12:49:15.330-07:00Science as an adventureOn National Review Online, I was pleased to see an excellent <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjNjYTNjMTVkNmVhMmYxN2JkMWZhMzYzMGNjNzY4ZDE=">article </a>on the refreshing new law in Louisiana. As one who has studied science at the graduate level, it was always amazing to see how different the perception of science that was presented in my earlier education from the actual practice of science. Theories go back and forth, researchers try to either extend or overturn conventional wisdom, groundbreaking work runs into bureaucratic and personal disputes, etc. Much like any other field of human endeavor, science is quite capable of making errors and barking up the wrong tree Fortunately, science includes many ways of correcting errors, including rival researchers eager to disprove your theory.<br /><br /><span id="fullpost"><br /><br />Science also avoids errors by using consensus. Generally, the more researchers who have tested a theory and found it superior to previous knowledge, the more likely it is true. This is necessary to have some form of knowledge in science. A group of researcher seeking to present findings that challenge consensus have to provide very convincing data, as scientists are taught to see most differences from consensus are erroneous. If you notice two like charges apparently attracting, as I experienced in a physics class, you do not assume Coulomb's law is in question. <br /><br />However, most truly dramatic scientific discoveries involve adding up the problems facing the consensus, and composing a rival theory. Some of these types will be cranks or frauds like the cold fusion fiasco, but a significant number will have a useful perspective. After all, scientific consensus has been wrong in the past on the Earth being the center of the universe (Why can't we see an parallax if it is revolving?), the Ether (What wave propagates without a medium?), and even classical mechanics (You expect us to believe that we have an uncertain position and momentum?) Perhaps it could be wrong on something else. And there lies the adventure.<br /><br />The Louisiana law frees up the science classroom from these attempts at enforcing an orthodoxy, and is thus to be commended. Teaching science as it is would be much more exciting for students and better for public knowledge. Next time a news article is reporting that scientists have found some odd medical discovery, people would wonder about what other scientists think of the matter and if other studies have backed it up. It also might make debates on areas where science touches policy, such as climate change and evolution. While my views on these subjects are for a later post, the efforts to crack down on differing theories and brand them as crazy or unscientific are reprehensible. They bring back memories not of the great scientists like Pasteur, Darwin, Einstein, and Curie. Rather, they bring to mind zealous inquisitors enforcing the tenets of an ideological religion.<br /></span>OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-67353511987254928922008-06-20T18:17:00.001-07:002013-07-30T12:50:29.203-07:00Obama - whatever you want him to beObama is an interesting candidate. His supporters are all over the map, and remarkably enthused over him. Christians see him as a fellow Christian based on his professed faith, while Muslims see him as a covert Muslim based on his childhood. Racial separatists see him as the standard bearer for the beliefs he learned under Rev. Wright, while racial reconciliation activists look to his multiracial makeup. Hard leftists lookat his past community organizing activity and work with Ayers* and Dohrn, while moderates look to his current positions. He has courted the Israelis and Palestinians, patriots and anti-American activists, and all races. What is wrong with this? Is not wide appeal necessary to win the election?<br /><br />Yes, but it leaves the candidate with no set position. If everyone projects their desires onto Sen. Obama, what is left that is distinctly Barack? What will he actually be in office? I'd appreciate some clarity, but it seems there really is no pressure on the Senator to do so. When he clarifies a position, he'll lose the other side, so why should he? Normally, you would expect the media to pounce on a politician playing a shell game like this, but they seem too enthralled (a thrill up their legs?) with him to ask tough questions. Sad, really.<br /><br />Perhaps he will run this all the way the White House, but it could just as easily come crashing down. All it takes is a little reporting and a lot of guts.<br /><br /><br />*I met Ayers at an Iraq War Forum. For a man who still advocates explosives as a form of political discourse he was less than terrifying. I'd even say he was charismatic. All in all, he was a fairly likable terrorist.OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-6156964279519433602008-04-13T15:16:00.000-07:002008-04-13T16:00:00.609-07:00China: A uniter, not a dividerWitnessing the outbreak of protests against China's treatment of the people of Tibet is an interesting experience. It is striking just how much diversity there is among the protesters. Citizen photojournalist <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/zombie-chronicles-the-olympic-torch-relay-in-san-francisco/">Zombie </a> documents just how many different groups joined together to protest the Torch rally in San Francisco. I have to say I would normally be opposed to the protest, as I dislike protesting in general, but it seems to be a valid cause. After all, the point of the torch ceremony is to give public support for the Olympics, and what better time to remind people of the darker side of China? This points to a deeper issue.<br /><span id="fullpost"><br /><br />How many of those protesters would be at each others throats on another day? The hard Left would likely have a problem with the South Vietnamese flags, as they are an unpleasant reminder of their past failures. The march even brought out 9/11 conspiracy nuts, who don't get along with any sane person. Conservatives are lining up behind this cause alongside hippies. This doesn't happen often, save in fiction. In fiction, the various enemies unite against a common foe so often it is a cliché. Usually, this foes is such a terrifying threat and menacing evil that it is in the best interests of all to unite.<br /><br />Has China achieved that status? Perhaps it has. It is a post-Communist state that has kept the repression of Maoism while unleashing laissez-faire capitalism to line their pocketbooks. China has no use for petty regulations concerning clean air, drinkable water, worker safety, or even copyrights. Chinese spies regularly attempts to steal both state and corporate secrets, particularly from the United States. It is a state that annexes land for their own use. From a certain perspective, the usual caricature of the United States as a brazen imperialist capitalist authoritarian regime fits China awfully well.<br /><br />The real question is why irhabi terrorists and Islamic supremacists have not united the civilized world against them. Their brutality is well documented, as is their hatred of gays, blacks, Jews, and just about every other victim group. Women are treated as intrinsically evil. They openly mimic the Nazi regime and have declared war on all countries that do not submit to them. How is it that a group of thugs with a level of evilness that would be unbelievable in a fictional work is unable to get people stand together against them?<br /></span>OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-80091107375309435182008-02-17T02:43:00.000-08:002008-02-17T03:22:41.193-08:00Secretary of State for President McCainSenator McCain is going to want to outline cabinet choices for important departments. The state department is a particularly tough choice. Handling the foreign relations of the United States is a big job in and of itself. That is not the only challenge, however. The State department has a very liberal organizational culture (a bit like public health), likely due to the background of those working there. Most international relations students tend to be liberal. Getting Foggy Bottom (a nickname for State) on board with the president's agenda requires a lot of dedication. Condi was proof that being a genius was not good enough. You have to be stubborn and willing to be disliked, or you will go native.<br /><br />Who then do I recommend for this contentious but important post?<br /><br /><span id="fullpost"><br />Senator Joseph Lieberman. The Connecticut Democrat is a long-time friend of McCain, and even more of a maverick in his own party than McCain. His principled stances on foreign policy win him much praise from Republicans and Democrats. I've always hoped he could get a chance at a position in the executive, and I mentioned him in a discussion of pro-defense liberals <a href="http://skydock.blogspot.com/2007/06/america-loves-tony-blair.html">here</a>. Ralph Peters goes into detail about why Joe is a good choice in <a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/02152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_world_according_to_joe_97784.htm?page=0">this NY Post article</a>. Joe is particularly good on the war on terror. <br /><br />He's also easier to confirm than someone like John Bolton, who deserves a spot with a tough bureaucracy like state or intelligence. Sadly, Bolton is so controversial that he will be a hard sell for a top level position. Lieberman could probably pull it off, and actually stay worthwhile as opposed to giving in to pressure.<br /></span>OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-81517562986212016122008-02-14T14:11:00.001-08:002008-02-14T14:42:35.386-08:00Solidarity<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0kLR6S2NAo3rAifFZB6rtszuU5hq1t1ED-l8XAiuj_anChgIi80HjPdJX1z39IyFeoX-rn7N2RQdw47KtiVURweMNDT0JFq6bUMoSrQg7QSX3QZj85LcI7akF0t_0qLMz580raO87Sw/s1600-h/jyllandsposten_bombhead.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0kLR6S2NAo3rAifFZB6rtszuU5hq1t1ED-l8XAiuj_anChgIi80HjPdJX1z39IyFeoX-rn7N2RQdw47KtiVURweMNDT0JFq6bUMoSrQg7QSX3QZj85LcI7akF0t_0qLMz580raO87Sw/s400/jyllandsposten_bombhead.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5166965918111759698" /></a><br /><br />Cartoons are not worth killing over. Ever. Until Muslims learn that free speech applies to their religious figures, they will be unable to live in our societies. I pray the you remain safe, Mr. Westergaard.<br /><br />The estimable Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters has a <a href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016965.php">list of solidarity bloggers</a>, which will hopefully include your humble author.OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-44933806801264467082008-02-14T12:37:00.000-08:002008-07-10T10:40:02.714-07:00A man I'm happy to see deadThe Hezbollah terrorist mastermind Imad Mughniyah has reportedly bit the dust by a car bomb. (I sense some irony) If he is actually dead, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the people who took him out, probably the Mossad. I first read about at <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/02/infamous_hezbollah_terrorist_i.php">Pajamas Media</a> where I came across a link to a bombshell.<br /><br />It was listed as an "Alternate view", but is strangely no longer present. The <a href="http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr010919_1_n.shtml">link</a> is from Jane's, hardly a disreputable source. It is dated 9/19/2001, and it alleges that Imad and Dr. Zawahiri were behind the attacks, sponsored by - Iraq. If this still held as an opinion it changes the entire national security debate. I am attempting to investigate this. (Update after the jump)<br /><span id="fullpost"><br />I sent this to Andrew Cochran , founder of the <a href="http://counterterrorismblog.org/">Counter-Terrorism Blog</a> an email asking if this was the current thought among CT professionals. Here is his response:<br /><blockquote>No - and this article forgot that Al Qaeda was behind Ramzi Yousef's 1995 Bojinka Plot to bomb 11 US jetliners, and that KSM had already planned a second 9/11-type attack, which OBL iced. See http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/08/london_the_latest_in_a_string.php. Certainly Mughniyeh was more experienced as of 2001, but OBL and Zawahiri were brilliant pupils.</blockquote> <br />I'd also imagine the Iraq connection also did not fair well with time. I have read elsewhere that Imad was an inspiration to Al Qaeda. That, and and the blood countless innocents on his hands, is more than enought reason to celebrate his death.<br /></span>OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-26447427541217833572008-02-12T16:26:00.000-08:002013-07-30T11:34:25.028-07:00Let's get serious...We all know that John McCain has clinched the Republican nomination for president. However, not many on the GOP side are happy. (Contrast this with the deification of Obama on the left) The question most are asking is why, but that is easily answered. McCain has repeatedly shown disrespect to the Republican base. His comments on evangelicals turned me off from him in 2000. His stance on immigration was foolish, and he defended it the in the most disgusting matter. For many, he was their last choice as a candidate. This means that a little lack of enthusiasm is understandable.<br /><br />The sizable number of individuals deciding to favor the democrats is a different matter entirely.<br /><br /><span id="fullpost"><br />How is this any different from the krazy kos kids blowing up over Lieberman? What happened to the big tent? <br /><br />The question is one of victory. McCain is not going to surrender in the War. Ever. He does not have a surrender bone in his body. The problem has been and will be getting him lower his guard around us as opposed to staying in fighting mode.<br /><br />The opposition candidates are worthless on the war. They are in a hurry to surrender as soon as they entire the role of Commander in Chief. They won't own the war - did the democrats get any flack for leaving our allies to die in Vietnam? The military also took a long time to recover. Honestly, is there any position where the Democrats are more conservative than McCain?<br /><br />I understand the desire to keep ideological purity, but McGovern and Goldwater showed that this doesn't work. Carter did not inevitably lead to Reagan, and we are still dealing with his fallout. (Iran, anyone?) Clinton did not lead inevitably to Bush - that election was quite close. Not only that, but Bush and even Reagan were less conservative and more maverick than is often remembered. Notably, both favored amnesty for illegals...<br /><br />I hereby endorse McCain-(insert actual conservative here) for president in 2008.<br /></span>OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-4495606301748062082008-02-12T16:25:00.000-08:002008-02-12T16:26:15.444-08:00Back from the dead.Sorry for the hiatus, I'll try to be better at maintaining this site.OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-82033541667658006032007-11-24T23:30:00.000-08:002007-11-25T00:19:46.088-08:00Still No Free LunchWretchard at the Belmont Club, discusses the <a href="http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/11/everthing-is-beautiful-until-it-morphs.html">newly-discovered perils of green buildings</a> with his typical intelligence and eloquence. It seems that designing a building to be energy-efficient also makes it a target for birds. Yet another case of the law of unintended consequences playing havoc with the plans of men. Suddenly, the green strategy is discredited, and yet another green strategy takes its place. The building owners are left holding the bag and wondering why they bothered to build green in the first place.<br /><br />Wrethchard extends this to a discussion of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle">precautionary principle</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol">Kyoto Protocol</a>.<br /><br /><span id="fullpost"><br /><blockquote>But the point is that we expect a return on all the effort being poured into Kyoto and are being charged for the investment. But what if it's a dry hole? What if there's no return? What happens if in fact we have to pay for fixing the damage we did with Kyoto because we didn't care about the science since the "precautionary principle" took care of everything? What then?</blockquote><br /><br />What then indeed? This is the fundamental argument against the precautionary principle cast in an unconventional light. Not only could a decision made without sufficient evidence lead to a solution that fails to work or justify its cost, it could create further problems that we failed to recognize. The pregnant woman has morning sickness - quick, give her the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/thalidomide">thalidomide</a>!<br /><br /><blockquote>'The market will fix it'. Yes, but we've fixed the market because it wasn't working to our satisfaction. Kyoto has the potential to be greatest single boondoggle since Charles Ponzi began his illustrious career. That's not to say it won't benefit mankind. But then, how would we measure that benefit? Oh, I forgot: the precautionary principle renders that question unnecessary.</blockquote><br /><br />Unnecessary for the people who campaign for and launch the program. No cost will fall upon them. Ironically, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi">Charles Ponzi</a> also seemed to have good intentions.<br /><br />There are often delays in publishing environmental and occupational regulations. Much of the time, it is simply the result of industry lobbyists seeking to buy time and stave off reduced profits. However, it would be foolish to always rush to implement new standards before the controversy is addressed. Better to wait and solve the original problem than to hurry and add more problems.<br /></span>OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1489181034686966075.post-52287141807177927882007-09-24T01:45:00.000-07:002007-09-24T01:49:41.247-07:00Alternative Energy: Also good for cutting terror fundingOne of the beneficial side effects of reducing our oil demand is that we reduce the income of major oil producing nations. (It's the simple result of the law of supply and demand) This is especially apparent in the Arab world, where the majority of their GNP is derived from oil. When you consider the backing many of these states provide for terrorism and insurgencies, it makes sense to deny them excessive funding. Israeli writer Yair Lapin lay it out <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3451642,00.html">here.</a><br /><br /><span id="fullpost"><br /><blockquote>Initially I planned to sell myself an immediate holiday. Why should I bother the Israeli public with something that even I think is boring? Then I thought about it a little more and a little more and after two weeks I had an answer. I am a little reluctant here because honestly it’s not politically correct. The only way to sell environmental protection to the Israeli public is to explain the one advantage:<br /><br />It’s a way of screwing the Arabs.<br /> <br />I want to make it clear I am not including in this, God forbid, those peace-loving Arabs who believe in coexistence with the State of Israel. I am talking about the other billion and a half or so for whom the whole issue of environmental protection was created in order to screw them. The only reason this has not been presented to you before is that most of the people who deal with Green activism are well meaning lefties and people who wear round glasses who have no desire to screw anyone. They prefer a quiet clean world where everyone wears white and listens to folk music. That’s very nice but it will never work in Israel. We’re not programmed that way. If we can’t screw someone then we are not interested.<br /><br />But it is possible because in the larger context, environmental protection includes a subject no less important called "alternative sources of energy". Green activists will be happy to explain the details to you, but the bottom line is that burning oil releases soot and heat, contributes to the melting of the icebergs in Antarctica and sends pollution into the atmosphere of this wonderful planet of ours.<br /><br />Crap, I fell asleep again.<br /><br />For example, I would create a much more original environmental start up. I would carve up the Antarctica into shot-glass size ice cubes. The real reason we need to find alternative sources of energy is not the troubled environment but the fact that it's Arabs who sell most of the oil to the rest of the world. The sad outcome of this is that they have lot of money and we know where this money goes: To Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbullah, to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as well as to the funding of terror worldwide much of which is directed at us.<br /><br />It’s aggravating to think that every time we get into the car we are giving money to Hamas, and that is something we Israelis needs to seriously think about. Sixty percent of the country’s oil consumption goes to our vehicles. Wouldn’t it be nice if we were the first to use cars which don’t run on petrol. (The technology exists. It just keeps getting stonewalled by the big oil and automotive interests.) We have everything going for us: We’re smart, technologically savvy and when money is involved we’re pretty industrious. Besides, we are small enough for trials that could be carried out by the entire population and we are big enough to export the technology to the entire world. The Jewish intellect has changed the world in the past and there is no reason it can’t do it again in the future. </blockquote><br /><br />Fire up the nuclear reactors, crank out the biofuels, and conserve some oil. It's time to do our part in shutting down the money supply for Al Qaeda and IEDs. I'm ready for the new propaganda posters - "When you drive alone, you drive with Osama!" <br /></span>OmegaPaladinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16031663925500964350noreply@blogger.com1