Libyan air attacks are NOT unconstitutional

Those of you journalists, political activists, and blogospherians on the right, I suggest you have a seat and pour yourselves another cup ‘o joe.
See, your complaints are identical to leftist wackos about Bush the son over Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush the father in Kuwait, Reagan in the Grenada and Nicaragua, Clinton in the Balkans, Kennedy/Johnson in Vietnam, and Truman in Korea. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

READ THE STUPID WAR POWERS ACT
Mark Levin in his radio show was correct: before you have a bad case of diarrhea of the mouth, read the stupid law for yourself. The reference is USC Title 50 > Chapter 33 > War Powers Resolution. C’mon, do not be so lazy: Google it. I printed it out in Notepad, and it is only 4 pages from my el cheapo HP ink jet printer; there, was that so hard?
I am certainly not an expert, but it does seem that Sections 1541 and 1543 violate that separation of powers thing: Congress makes the law, and the President enforces it. The WPA seems to be telling the President how to do his job.
Also, the original proposal in the Constitutional Convention was for a 3 man council to exercise the powers of President. This idea was shot down, but only because they thought that war could not prosecuted by committee; a wise decision, but Congress appears to have reintroduced this idea via the WPA.

WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHER SAID ABOUT WAR
Despite what you may think, they were rather clear about what they meant. My reference is ‘Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Reported by James Madison’ on page 475-6.

‘ “To make war.”
Mr. Pinkney opposed the vesting this power in the Legislature. Its proceedings were too slow. It would meet but once a year. The House of Representatives would be too numerous for such deliberations. The Senate would be the best depositary, being more acquainted with foreign affairs, and most capable of proper resolutions. If the States are equally represented in Senate, so as to give no advantage to large States, the power will not withstanding be safe, as the small have their all at stake in such cases as well as the large States. It would be singular for one authority to make war, and another peace.
Mr. Butler. The objections against the Legislature lie in great degree against the Senate. He was for vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it.
Mr. Madison and Mr. Gerry moved to insert “declare,” striking out “make” war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.
Mr. Sharman thought it stood very well. The Executive should be able to repel and not to commence war. “Make” better than “declare” the latter narrowing the power too much.
Mr. Gerry never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.
Mr. Elsworth. There is a material difference between the cases of making war and making peace. It should be more easy to get out of war, than into it. War also is a simple and overt declaration, peace attended with intricate & secret negociations.
Mr. Mason. Was against giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred “declare” to “make”.
On the motion to insert “declare” in place of “make”, it was agreed to’.

HOW MANY ANGELS CAN DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN?
To us today, this takes on the air of a quaint thing from yesteryear. However, do not be so cavalier: it encompassed the fundamental ideas of Jesus, Christianity, God, honesty, mercy, and the concept of western civilization itself (the consensus opinion, incidentally, was a dozen). Words mean things.
Do not allow yourself to be caught up in word games as to what constitutes war, and therefore requires a Congressional resolution, and what is an ordinary military operation, which is clearly in the constitutional purview of the Commander-in-Chief.
The same advice applies to deciding the dividing line between a simple military presence in a foreign country and prosecuting war.
(by the way, my previous answer about a dozen, I totally made up; see how easy it is to manipulate language?).

RULE AMERCIA; AMERICA RULES THE SEAS
See, the Founding Fathers did not anticipate a scenario where the US can, with ordinary, par military assets, topple a foreign, sovereign country. They never thought that the US would be the major, geopolitical force determining the future of worldwide humanity.
Therefore, it behooves us even more today than yesterday to discern what the construction workers on the Constitution really intended for our country, rather than what we wish them to say. Now, more than ever, we are in need of wise counsel; contemporary political rhetoric is not an adequate substitute.

INCOMPETANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
Yes, it is true: the President has not been a very effective CIC thus far. Presented with a fork in the road, he went on vacation to Rio. It is not clear what the American goal is in Libya, and his 7 page speech on Monday night only served to muddy the waters further, since we expected clear, unambiguous thinking, not platitudes.
He has not clearly articulated a justification for American military operations in Libya, nor has he gained the support of Congress or the American people.
Nevertheless, being a dweeb is not an impeachable offense.

OK, SMARTY PANTS, WHAT DO YOU THINK?
It seems clear that the FF intended that this country not be taken into war except by a declaration from Congress. Just because the United States can defeat a sovereign, foreign, military power with normal military assets and not by committing the entire nation’s resources to sacrifice is beside the point. The President can defend against sudden attack on his own but not go to war.
By this measure, all these should have had an official declaration of war: Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans, Iraq twice, Afghanistan, and now Libya.
The wild card is: what if the President goes to war on the offensive, gets the support of the citizens, but not get an official declaration of war, but later gets some sort of administrative bill from Congress? This seems to be an end around the Constitution, but, to my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never ruled on this, but there is certainly no lack of opinion on the matter.

high union wages are not a civil right

Nor are they particularly fair: this applies to both gov't and private sector employees. 'Nuf said?

Japanese Nuclear Meltdowns for Dummies

Make no mistake: the US news media is milking the Japanese nuclear disaster for every drop it is worth. Most journalists are hard lefties, and 100% against nuclear power, and their reporting shows it. Yes, I am accusing US journalists of letting their personal political beliefs color their supposed objective news reporting. I wonder how many of them know that the founder of the Sierra Club admits that it was a mistake to oppose nuclear power, and that current journalists are simply swallowing this original credo from the environmental wacko lobby.
Permit me to illustrate.
I herewith regurgitate the junk I found on Wikipedia, that totally correct, totally unimpeachable, totally incapable of being wrong source of information. Any goofball (yes, I qualify, not to mention any journalist writing a story about Fukushima) can look this crap up and get the same info: yes, I do have a BS from UC Berkeley, but this is in pure chemistry and not engineering.

A SCHEMATIC OF FUKUSHIMA
The Daiichi complex has a total of 8 nuclear reactors:
**unit #1, #2, #3 - operational
**unit #4, #5, #6 - down for maintenance
**unit #7, #8 - under construction
‘Daiichi’ means Dai #1; yes, there is a Daini, which is Dai #2 with 4 more reactors, a few miles inland.

NUCLEAR REACTORS ARE EARTHQUAKE PROOF
It is important to note that the 9.0 earthquake is a 100 times (or thereabouts; I still do not understand the Richter scale) stronger than the earthquake destined to hit SF and, by implication, Diablo Canyon. The 9.0 earthquake did not knock out the reactor safety systems: the tsunami did.
OK: big earthquake, and power goes out at the nuclear plant; diesel generators kick in to power the water pumps. OK, so far, so good. Then comes the tsunami, knocking out the diesel generators.
Oops.
What, you mean to tell me that in all of Japan, there are no heavy-lift helicopters and spare, portable diesel electricity generators?
This reminds me of stories over the decades that hurricanes, tornadoes, and ice storms are the real threat to nuclear reactors, not earthquakes.

FULL SPEED AHEAD
There are 2 different types of commercial nuclear reactors: boiling water reactors (BWR) and pressurized water reactors (PWR). BWR are the original designs: the very first US civilian power nuclear reactor in the US was a BWR in the early 50’s, and is the same design in the Daiichi plant. The US Navy totally decommissioned all BWR’s in nuclear powered vessels in service by 1974.
There are 3 dozen nuclear reactors similar to the Daiichi ones currently in service in the US scattered among 2 dozen nuclear facilities. The design is so old, that I count 10 BWR’s that have been decommissioned from old age.
It is important that we proceed full speed ahead building more nuclear reactors. We must decommission these 50-year-old geezers and replace them with the newer, safer, disaster-proof generation of PWR’s.

YEAH, BUT THE NUCLEAR REACTORS EXPLODED
No, the exterior buildings exploded, not the reactor. I would not say exactly that this is by design, but this is actually a good sign. The uranium fuel rods have a zirconium alloy casing: when these go dry, under intense heat, and have water reintroduced, it causes the creation of hydrogen gas. When this gas is released into the containment building, well, ka-boom.
This is actually a good sign. It means that the engineers are getting water into the core, cooling it down.

UNIT #4 FIRE
This is the one event that is worrying. The reactor in #4 is a BWR type 1, which has a bulbous shape. Spent fuel rods are stored in a water pool near the top of the reactor. When this pool goes dry, the rods can overheat, melt, burn, and release airborne radioactive dust into the atmosphere. This is apparently what happened at Unit #4.

TIME IS ON OUR SIDE
If we assume that the engineers successfully inserted the control rods and shut down the reactors in #1, #2, and #3 (a rather big if, I agree) after the earthquake but before the tsunami, then time is on the side of the engineers. When you do this sort of total shut down, it takes a few days for the radioactivity and heat to die down. If they can keep the core cool in the meantime, then the core will gradually decay without a meltdown. The fact that the core has not melted through the containment vessel so far is good sign: each day that passes, the less likely it becomes that the core will melt down.

SPRAYING WATER IS A JOKE
The media reported the dousing of water on the reactors from helicopters and fire boats as a joke: a total, useless, desperation, last ditch effort that will make the nuclear reactors totally unusable.
Totally wrong.
Whenever the safety systems are activated in a nuclear reactor, the unit instantly becomes a has-been, never to be used again.
Also, do you know what the main emergency back up safety system is in a BWR?? Pumps spray water onto the core.

NO ONE HAS DIED FROM THE NUCLEAR REACTOR FAILURE
The earthquake and tsunami has killed 10,000+ people and counting. My prayers to the victims. However, not a single person has died from the nuclear disaster. The failure of the TEPCO power plant has caused terrible inconvenience to the people not to mention the Japanese economy, but no one has died. The TEPCO workers on site trying to control things are rightfully being called heroes, not to mention the walking dead, and I salute them.
However, I wonder if their exposure and danger has been exaggerated by the press. And, the anecdotal accounts indicate the civilian exposure near the reactor complex to radiation has been, thus far, minimal and not life threatening.

President Obama, please interfere in the Revolution in the Middle East

The United States has a sad history of not supporting cries of freedom:

Hungarian Uprising
Czech Spring
Cry Freedom
Tiananmen Square
Tehran protests

In all these cases, if the American president had made a public statement of firm support, not to mention military forces and perhaps a carrier battle group or whatever, the geopolitical map of the world today might be very different and much better.

North Africa and the Middle East are in the midst of a genuine metamorphosis. What will result is very different from exists today. If this totalitarian part of the world is to become a place where freedom and liberty rule, the US and the President must get involved and interfere into what might seem to be a local, internal affair.

You might accuse the President of being a pacifist. Perhaps true, but he certainly would not be the first so. There has always been reluctance to interfere: viz, the Shah, the overthrow of the president of South Vietnam, and Iraq to name just three, because the results are not always positive.

In the present case, the need is all the stronger, because there is a malevolent force already interfering (even if we do not): Iran and radical Islam, and, indirectly, China.

However, if we are to remain a beacon of freedom and liberty for all mankind, we owe it to all those who cry ‘freedom’ to interfere, even if we end up with a bloody nose, regardless of who pumps the oil.

the Tea Party stages a revolt

My hats off to the 50 or so Republicans in the House yesterday, who had the courage of their convictions to vote against the CR (continuing resolution, so that Uncle Sam will not shut down on Friday). The CR had no real budget cuts, so they voted against it, bolting from the House leadership.

They argued, quite correctly, that there is no reason the CR could not have the sort of deep, meaningful spending cuts that we need right now, not a fiscal year from now, including defunding Obamacare. By not including the cuts, it is clear that the House Republican leaders have surrendered on the issue, but will surely give the issue lip-service, but not much more.

I am getting a faintly sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, because I get a funny feeling that I know what is going to happen next.

Anti-Bully Summit, what about the Christians, Mrs. First Lady?

Mrs. First Lady, today you held a summit at the White House against bullying. Bravo. I have always felt that the current cultural credo lacks sufficient politeness, respect, and plain old manners. Is it too much to ask today’s males to act like gentlemen in the old English manner?

However: what about Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa bullying Christians? Followers of Jesus Christ are being bullied, gang-raped, having their houses and business burned to the ground, and ritually beheaded.

At what point can I look forward to a conference at the White House about Christians in the Middle East and North Africa being ‘bullied’ by Muslims?

Mr. President?
Mrs. First Lady?
Hello? (crickets…crickets…crickets)

(note to readers: I suggest you become familiar with the concept of ‘hypocrisy’)

Why Obama Is Fighting So Hard In Wisconsin

The president is committing major political resources in the dust-up between the governor and state legislature against government labor unions.
Question: why is he spending political capital, seemingly prematurely and risking a major political defeat, in what is surely a local conflict?
Answer: if he does not win Wisconsin, he will not get reelected.

Yes, there are a lot of protestors, not to mention sleepovers in the capitol building. However, these are not spontaneous expressions of support for government employee labor unions; these are being bused in from other states and carefully orchestrated by political operatives and organizations slated to work on the President’s reelection campaign in 2012.

Mr. President, you are paranoid

In private fund raisers, out of the media glare, you are claiming that only conservatives are opposing you, and further, that this opposition is entirely from prejudice because of your skin color. Otherwise, everyone would agree with you and you would have your way on every issue.

Not only are you totally wrong, Mr. President, you are totally paranoid.

Conservatives are fighting you in the air, on the beaches, and in the trenches, because, deep down, you are a socialist. You wish to recast American personal liberty and free economic capitalism, into the form of an European-style social democracy. That is, the direction of societal behavior and business activity goes where the government tells them to. You think that you know better, and that, by golly, for their own good, I will impose proper behavior upon them, and they will thank me later when they see how good things have become. Conservatives wish to hold destiny in their own hands, not at the behest of a policy czar that you have personally appointed.

The above is what is called an ‘ad hominem’ attack, that is, attacking the character and integrity of someone rather than their actions and beliefs. How does it feel, Mr. President??

Cutting the Calif budget - you must cut union wages

The following governors have come to this conclusion:

Christie/NJ
Walker/Wisconson
Kasich/Ohio
Daniels/Indiana

And there are surely more to follow, as the cost of civil service labor unions explodes into the outer space, to the point where state tax payers can no longer afford them, regardless of what seems equitable.

The golden state is facing a massive budget deficit. We can no longer afford everything that we are spending. Something will have to give. I put the blame for the massive state budget flatly on the head of the public service labor unions.

Permit me to illustrate.

Take $1.00 in loose change and put it on the table. Now, make two piles: one with 35¢ and the other with 65¢. This is the California state budget: the bigger pile is how much the state spends on wages and fringe benefits, and the smaller pile is the amount of money that actually flows to the citizenry.

Now, imagine that mom has popped her head into the room and announced that, sorry, junior, dad’s hours at his job has been cut, and you must give back 25¢.OK, smarty pants, how you gonna do that?

The only fair way is to cut 8¢ from the small pile, and 17¢ from the bigger pile. Now, imagine that you pound your fist on the table and declare: ‘by golly, this budget deficit is not going to be solved on the backs of the poor’. Bravo: you have a conscious. However, you must now take all 25¢ from the big pile of coins.

Either way, you must cut the union wages of all public service employees: in the first case, you put in a 25% cut in wages and benefits, in the latter case you project a 40% cut.

OK, big boy, what is your choice?

Economics is a Voodoo Science

Thesis: economics is an art, not a science.

If this sounds familiar, yes: I am echoing the Bush ’41 original criticism of Laffer during a Presidential debate during the 1980 primaries. You were 100% wrong about that, ‘HW’. However, his skepticism of economics generally is well noted.

Calling economics a ‘science’ is akin to basing a theory of astrophysics on the doodles of Picasso. Pick up any college level textbook on economics, and you will discover many impressive mathematical equations, charts, and really pretty graphs, but there is much less than meets the eye.

Economics, and what the Federal government should do about it, dominates the headlines.
Problem:
No one really seems to know what will work. Since the fall of 2008, the US economy has been floundering, and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men seem unable to put the economy back together again.

Consider the following news stories:

**cutting the budget will hurt the economy
**cutting the budget will increase GDP and employment
**cutting taxes will increase the budget deficit and cause more unemployment
**cutting taxes will put money in peoples’ pockets and stimulate the economy
**increasing the deficit will create jobs
**increasing the deficit will increase unemployment

All these positions are equally wrong and equally correct. See, economics attempts to predict the behavior of people. If there is one thing that we as a society have not mastered yet, it is that we are unable to predict the behavior of people, whether individually or collectively.

Permit to exhume my old Econ 101 text and present an example.

This is the Cobb-Douglas model of economic output:
GDP = A*((K^a)*(L^(1-a)))
Where:

A = productivity of resources
K = capital resources
L = human resources (i.e. labor)
a = share of income received by capital
1-a = share of income received by labor

OK, this looks nice and solid and scientific, yes?
Well, it is not. It is akin to the scribbles on a cocktail napkin one creates after a couple of expensive cocktails.
What is the numerical value of A? of K? of L? of a?
Typically, the economist plugs it into a spreadsheet, and, via trial and error, comes up with numbers that will correspond with the current year’s economy. Then, he will do some historical calculations, and come up with numbers that seem to explain many years worth of economy, then proceed to apply this info forward.
Question: will his prediction have value? How does it relate to reality?
Answer: no, and it does not.
Final word: sadly, this is how most of economics operates.