Profiling: How To

The President first said: No big deal! Then, he called it a “systemic failure” and a “catastrophe.” He was wrong the first time and half right the second time. There was no catastrophe but it wasn’t thanks to our huge, expensive, cumbersome and troublesome anti-terrorism bureaucracy. It was asleep at the wheel one more time. The catastrophe was avoided because of the terrorist’s own incompetence (or loss of nerve) and because of the presence of mind and courage of a Dutch traveler. (Am I making this up or do I detect a reluctance on the part of the big media to call a foreigner, “a hero”?)

What we have is not working well enough, Even when it works, it’s repellent. The inconvenience of security checks act as a brake on my willingness to travel by air. There is no reason to think I am the only one feeling that way. In response to the failed crime, the airwaves have filled with discussion of “profiling.” Every discussion I have heard treats profiling in terms of physical appearance. It would not be difficult to convince me that preventive physical profiling could be done effectively and should be done. Yet. I try to be sensitive to the sensitivities of others. It’s clear that many Americans find the idea of profiling based on physical appearance disturbing, or even unacceptable. There may even be good historical reasons for this rejection that I will discuss if anyone asks. It seems to me though that a big partial solution is staring us in the face that I have nor heard mention at all. And yes, it involves profiling, another kind of profiling.

On the one hand, a Finnish grandmother who belongs to the Lutheran church is about 35,000 times less likely to blow up anything than a 28-year old Muslim man from Yemen. Yes, I made up this number. The real odds are probably even less than that. On the other hand, international air travel requires certain documents, a passport in almost all cases. Passports show the age and name of the traveler,

Muslim males nearly always have distinctive first name and last names. Even when their last name is generic, their first name comes from a small list of Islamic first names. So, why not profile on the basis of sex, age and name? I mean, create a special security line at airports for all males under a certain age (I think, fifty), who have a Muslim name. Subject them to special scrutiny and frisk them physically or electronically. I am not referring here to any deliberately humiliating or gratuitously disruptive treatment, just to a businesslike standardize procedure. In fact, if such a measure were adopted, one could ease up the inspection of everyone else and all lines would probably move faster, including, the profiling line itself.

Objections to such a scheme are easy to predict: Predominantly Muslim countries would protest. We could call their bluff and point out that international relations are governed by the principle of reciprocity: tit-for-tat. There would be nothing to stop them for subjecting young Christian men entering their territory to equivalent treatment. Some Muslim men would no doubt choose to go elsewhere on vacation or to school than the US. That would be a negative consequence but a price worth paying to avoid millions having their freedom restricted forever without notable gain in their safety. Besides, some of the tiny number of would-be terrorists might also be dissuaded. (A column in the Wall Street journal just observed that there is apparently not an inexhaustible supply of jihad martyrs.)

Next, American Muslims would howl: “Islamophobia!” There are two answers to this accusation. One is that Islamic organizations don’t have a vote until such time as they come to their senses, stop denying reality, and shoulder a big share of the burden their misguided brethren impose on all of us. Shouldering the burden would involve first and foremost making concrete proposals to improve on our common danger from violent jihadists instead of crying “Islamophobia.” Right now, they are worse than useless. Two days after the Christmas Day foiled terrorist act, none of the following organizations had any comments on its website: Islamic Supreme Council of North America; Islamic Circle of North America; Council on Islamic-American Relations. The latter had, prominently displayed, an article about an old fake accusation against a Muslim traveler. The Council on American-Islamic Relations reported simply that Detroit area Muslim leaders did decry the bombing attempt and that they feared “retaliation” and the creation of a “climate of fear.” (Historical note: The fact is that not a single Muslim was murdered in America in retaliation for 9/11. My own very first spontaneous reaction on he morning of 9/11 was: What to do to protect local Muslims? My reaction was wrong, unwarranted.) The Arab-American Institute, an organization for which I have much esteem, had nothing. Al Jazeera in English had nothing by Sunday morning.

Here is a message about how to deal with protests from such organizations: It’s OK to punish mildly persistent collective irresponsibility. Being double-searched at the airport is a mild punishment.

My second response to the silly accusation of Islamophobia, is that allowing large numbers of Muslims to be killed without lifting a finger to protect them either is Islamophobia or, it’s worse than Islamophobia. The fact is that the hapless Nigerian traveling on the day of the main Christian holiday in order to explode an airliner over the largest concentration of Muslims in America (Detroit) was about to assassinate many Muslims. The young Muslim man subjected to the unpleasantness of double scrutiny at the airport will be protecting his mother, his sister and his children. As I keep repeating, violent Jihadists have murdered many more Muslims than they have Christians.

So, it seems to me that it’s simple to improve greatly on both our safety at home and on the chilling effect airport security measures have on our economic life and on our enjoyment of life. Someone is not doing his job or her job, not even thinking about it. And, by the way, nothing like the Christmas Day failed attack took place on Georges W. Bush’s watch.

Christian Terrorism

A Nigerian tries to blow up an airliner over Detroit. Detroit is the lagest Arab city in the US. The plane, flying on Christmas day, must not have been full of Christians. The flight originated in Amsterdam. Why scheduled flights between Amsterdam and the dying city of Detroit? Answer: Passengers from much of the Midea…st who want to go to America embark in Amsterdam, if they don’t catch their flight in London. The first passenger CNN reached by telephone was named “Sayed.” Conclusion: The Nigerian must have been a Christian terrorist trying to murder Muslims.

Good and Bad Wishes

The winter solstice is passed. Days are becoming longer again. I could not wait. There is confusion again in liberal ranks about the meaning of Christmas, I think. This time, it’s not meteorological confusion, it’s theological confusion. I want peace on earth too but not for those who killed us before and don’t miss a chance to tell us they will kill us again as soon as they can. I wish them a slow and painful death, or they can repent and deliver themselves to justice if they prefer. The fact is that there is no ethical system that requires that you love your neighbor if he keeps trying to set your house on fire and burn your children. Correct me if I am wrong.

I am fairly proud of the Republican senators. Not one of them could be bought off. A friend of mine who was  reared in the Middle East is an astute observer of international and of American news. Here is his reaction to the Senate passing of the 200-plus page health insurance boondoggle: Al Qaida won one, finally!

Soon on this blog: Doctor Jacques’ Obama administration  summary.

Merry Christmas if you are a friend of mine or of America. If not, see above.

Four Small Keys to Happiness

I have sorted thing out finally and I am old enough to have rid myself of nearly all social pressures on my preferences. I figure there are only four things I really like, four keys to my happiness. Here they are:

I like writing and I like re-writing. That’s any time of day or night that I am awake. I enjoy writing just about everything, including stories, essays, scholarly papers, but also advertising slogans, and even technical “how-to” notices. I write on my PC but also long-hand, even on the back of envelopes. Sometimes, people even read what I write. My friends think I have a self-esteem problem because I am pleased with just about everything I write. I have no clear idea of what they mean. I am mostly happy because I write nearly every day.

I like foods that taste like themselves, beef that tastes only like beef and fish that tastes like fish. There are a few exceptions though. It’s OK for tripe to carry other flavors. That would be cow stomach, served as menudo, in Spanish, for example. In season, I eat fresh cauliflower raw with a little vinegar. I can do that five meals in a row without tiring. As a rule, I will eat anything any other human being anywhere eats as long as it’s distinctive. I make only two exceptions: Ordinarily, I would not consume people, or even dogs whose name I know.

Nouvelle Cuisine is not for me. It’s just putting together foods that don’t belong on the same plate and sprinkling them with raspberry vinegar. California Cuisine just means eating fresh vegetables. My grandmother advised much the same and she was not from California. Almost any wine will do to accompany my food. I have no refinement in that respect (or in any other) and I don’t pretend to.

I am married to an intelligent, resourceful woman who would rather please me than not, at least much of the time. I am a decent cook myself. My tastes are not luxurious. Usually, my food is satisfying. So, I am happy most of the time.

A silvery, bounding fish hooked while trolling under sail on a sunny day at sea, I like desperately. Why “desperately”? Because it’s only happened four times. Each instance occupies an unseemly amount of space in my pleasure memory.

Making love ziplessly to a needy woman who is almost a stranger, I really, really like. It happened more than four times but it was a long time ago so, I am not even completely sure I was involved anymore.

© Jacques Delacroix 2008, 2009

Ma tempête à moi c’est toi.

Ma femme est comme la mer, comme la Méditerranée précisémment. La plupart du temps, sa beauté scintille au grand soleil. On peut la naviguer alors facilement, même dans une toute petite barque.

Quelquefois, elle s’assombrit soudainement et elle prend la couleur de l’encre violette. Puis sa tempête explose, d’un seul coup, sans prévenir et sans raison. Moi, je tiens bien les avirons et je souque encore plus fort. Bientôt, la mer se calme et je retourne tranquillement à la pêche au plaisir.

©Jacques Delacroix 2009

US President elected Emperor of World, Barack I, in Copenhagen!

The election, by acclamations, took place right after Copenhagen, a normally warm and rainy city, received more than four inches of snow.

But, seriously, once more, Obama managed to piss off everyone. Leftists think he did next to nothing in Denmark. Conservatives did not want him to promise anything because the whole concept of global warming is a cult belief. The Third World maffiosi were the most angry because they were promised peanuts to add to their fleet of gas-guzzling limousines. OK, let’s be fair; I don’t know for a fact that they will use the climate funds from the rich countries on cars. Could be on prostitutes or at the baccarat table in Monte-Carlo instead.

The President-Emperor and the Sec. of State, the ineffable Bill Clinton’s wife, promised 100 billion American dollars yearly by 2020. That’s $600 annually for my wife and me. Places at 2% interest over ten years, that would be: $7500. If I banked that amount, added nothing to it and compounded the same 2% interest for another ten years, that would come to over $9,000.

That’s only direct costs, in the form of additional taxes or of additional borrowing. The indirect costs in the form of strictures on production and transportation would be much greater.

Conservative friends: Relax a US President may not enter into an international agreement without ratification by the Senate. The Kyoto Agreement was rejected by something like 97 to 1.

The Russian Institute of Economic Analysis said Dec, 16th that British climate scientists have been cherry-picking Russian weather data, ignoring data from 75% of all Russian station and 40% of Russia’s surface area. The Russian landmass itself is about 12% o the total world land area.

That’s a new and independent accusation of fraud. It’s not related to the recent scandal (“climategate”) at the University of East Anglia.

Here is the reference to the UK Telegraph article covering this matter:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming

Two fact to remember , taken from a Bjorn Lomborg column in WSJ, Tuesday Dec, 15.

He is the author of a new book Cool it! And previously, of The Skeptical Environmentalist

Lomborg’s approache is interesting because he does not fight any of the warmists’ assumptions or models. He takes them as are and follows them to their logical conclusion.

Here is my summary of two points he makes, with this approach:

1 Fighting malaria: To attack this scourge by reducing carbon emissions (adopting all the assumptions of the warmists) would save one (1) life to 78,000 with more direct measures.

2 Saving the lives of small children. Oxfam ( an old, and, in my opinion, respected charitable organization ) thinks rich nations are going to pay for global warming reduction by diverting money from their foreign aid. If they diverted 50 billions (not that much) 4,5 more million children would die. In return, we would get a reduction of temperature of one thousands of one degree F. That’s 1/1000 of a degree. It’s so little, only sophisticated thermometers can detect it.

I Can Hardly Bear It: A Winter Tale

(For my grand-daughers, Anika Joshi and Meena Delacroix.)

My wife, your Grandma, left the back door open and then, drove off. That’s the door leading to the backyard. There are lots of trees, including fruit trees, and also bushes, in the backyard. Right behind the backyard is a steep cliff covered with tall brambles. Behind the cliff, I don’t know what there is. Could be the forest, with tall redwood trees. Maybe, it’s a very thick forest. Maybe, it goes a long way, right into the hills where wild animals roam.

I walked up the stairs to the upstairs. Sure enough, there was a bear in my room. I was not scared at first because he wasn’t a very big bear. He was barely bigger than I, in fact, that bear. The bear looked tired, worn out, as if he had been traveling for a long time. I was thinking he might be all the way from the mountains of North Africa, a Berber bear, so to speak.

The bear became frightened because he was not expecting me, I guess. Quick, quick, he hid under the bed. Only a little bit of his big bare bear bottom was showing and you could barely see it.

Fast, I pushed some heavy suitcases full of gold against the sides of the bed so he couldn’t get out from underneath the bed and bite me, or even scratch me. (You never know, with bears. Any one bear could be in a real bad mood at any time, especially if he has not eaten anything except a couple of Twinkies.)

I am going to feed that bear a few spoonfuls of honey and a little bottled water every day until he learns to behave hisself (or is it himself?) It’s only going to be a little of each because I don’t want that bear to make big bear messes under my bed. Do you know what I mean?

Bears are stubborn but I am pretty sure that after a few months, he will learn good manners. By that time, it will be winter and the nights will turn cold. I will be glad to let the bear sleep next to me on my bed. Nothing is warmer than warm bear fur on a cold night.

First, of course, I will teach the bear to brush his teeth because I hate bad breath in the dark. And then, he will have to wear pajamas to bed because I can’t bear a bare Berber bear.

© Jacques Delacroix 2009

Am I Smarter Than Everyone? Experts and Advocates (Revised)

“Do you think you are smarter than everyone, Jacques?” asked the young intelligent liberal man with whom I have occasional conversations. He was referring to my deep skepticism regarding global warming, its consequences, its remedies, its very existence, when it comes down to it. He was also implicitly referring to an alleged “consensus” about global warming, of course.

Good question. Let me answer in two steps. First, I don’t think I am smarter than everyone and I don’t have to. Fortunately, the question does not arise. (See Part Two below.) Rather, I think I am smarter than most. It’s not much of a claim. It does not involves much conceit. “Most” means the same as “a majority.” That’s half, or 50%, plus one person. If you divided the human race in two equal halves based on intelligence, I think I would be standing somewhere to the right of the divide. So?

Part One

Here is my second answer to the question (That’s Part One – 2): I am much smarter than most in two important respects. I don’t have a religious fiber in my body and I don’t care if I belong to the club or not. In fact, I would rather not join. Many intelligent people, many much smarter than I, have a religious streak and they crave belonging. (The whole history of Communism in the West tells us that this is true.) Religiosity and wanting to belong have a great deal to do with belief in the global warming syndrome, I am sure.

The global warming syndrome is first and foremost a successful contemporary cult: It has its dogma (the world is ending because of our sins) and its priesthood (climate scientists with no scientific conscience, and other scientists who have no training regarding climate issues, a large majority of signatories of climate change manifestos, by the way.) It has its promised Armageddon, the Death of Life on Earth through global warming. But it’s a religion of redemption, like Christianity. We can still avoid the End, collectively, if we repent, give half of our money to the poor and accept future poverty for ourselves and for the poor themselves in the form of much diminished economic activity. The originality of this cult is that its Holy Places are nomadic. Its Rome used to be Kyoto, then it was Rio; today it’s Copenhagen. It will be somewhere else tomorrow (unless the End catches up with us first, of course. )

The cult also allows for individual salvation but only through rigorous methods: Sinners must reduce their individual carbon footprint, whatever it takes. As in some other religious groups, high-ranking members are exempted, however. The manager of the biggest limousine service in Copenhagen says she had to bring (gasoline and diesel) cars from Sweden and Germany because there aren’t enough in all of Denmark to satisfy the demand from delegates to the climate conference. It has now exceeded 1,200 vehicles of which five (5) are electric. (Confirmed by the Wall Street Journal on 12/14/09.)  I am not that smart actually so, I wonder why militant environmentalists seeking to reduce everyone’s carbon footprint can’t use the city’s vaunted public transportation.

Last but absolutely not least (see below), the global warming cult has its Grand Poopah. Like the Pope in Rome the Grand Poopah is infallible when speaking on matters of faith. No amount of evidence, and certainly, no misdeeds by his clergy, can persuade him to alter the intrinsically truthful dogma.

So, finally to answer the question: Yes, I think I am smarter than most because I am an atheist, Thanks God! None of the trappings of the global warming cult makes any impression on me. Zero! And, no, I have no desire to follow to the cult. As I have said, I have no wish to belong in general. In fact, I take a small and discreet but nevertheless real perverse pleasure in not going to church.

Part Two

The global warming cult uses the idea of science the way the Catholic Church used the arts, graphic, statuary and musical, for centuries, as an attractive wrapping for ideas that are basically unsound and unpalatable. The cult betrays itself when its spokesmen claim that there is a “scientific consensus” about climate change. There isn’t and if there were, it would not matter. The way a scientific theory comes to dominate any part of reality is through elimination of competing theories. That’s what happened with evolutionary theory for example. It was never “proven.” Rather other ways of explaining the same observations fell by the wayside and lost almost all their advocates. The global warming cult tries to pass for “scientific” precisely as it combats as forcefully as it can the consideration, and even the production, of competing explanations.

The public allows this to happen because of an excess of generosity, paradoxically. There is widespread confusion about what the holder of any intellectual position owes the public. The confusion is about the important distinction between “expert” and “advocate.” The American public generously allows the latter to operate with the rules intended for the former.

Experts are your doctor, your dentist, your car mechanic, your “chef de cuisine.” It’s generally accepted that experts’ performance should be assessed as a ratio of good decisions to bad decisions. People don’t withdraw their confidence from an expert because of the occasional misdiagnostic, because of a slip of the drill, or because of the rare extra nut on the car floor. It hurts me to say this but even a boring dish coming from a great chef allows him to remain a great chef. In this country, the courts even admit this kind of assessment. “Negligence” won’t get you much; it takes “gross negligence” to cash out.

An advocate is someone who is trying to make you change your ways and therefore, trying to make you change who you are. Because of the seriousness of their endeavor, and,often, its irreversibility, advocates must be held to a higher standard of truthfulness than are experts. Like this:

“If you don’t know what you are talking about, why should I change my life to make it conform to what you preach?”

And,

“If you have to lie for your cause, it’s a bad cause and I am not for it.”

The global warming cult had some of its clergymen in good standing caught telling untruths recently. The so-called “scientists” at the University of East Anglia both showed that they didn’t know what they were talking about and they lied. To make matters worse, the cult did not immediately spew them out but it tried to defend them and to minimize their crimes against truth. End of story. It’s absolutely fair and intellectually appropriate to stop believing any of the cult’s pronouncements.

And I haven’t even touched on he cult’s heartlessness. The best example is turning food crops into unnecessary and expensive fuel, which was sure to raise the price of food for the poorest of the poor in the world.

By the way, I could have saved you all this tedious reasoning. You just have to look at the cult’s Grand Poopah: Al Gore is an ignoramus who believes the inside of the earth is “millions of degrees” hot (I heard this with my own ears); he is a liar on multiple counts; he is a hypocrite who uses private jets and lives in a house 25 times larger than mine, with a corresponding carbon footprint. He is a moron who could not even carry his own state when he was running for President. That’s the same state of Tennessee where is daddy was a beloved Congressman for nearly thirty years. Of course, he, little Al, invented the Internet, but still!

Reminder: My fellow rationalists, there is not much reason to despair. Whatever, if anything, comes out of Copenhagen, will be an international agreement. Contrary to rumors in some right-wing circles, the President does not have the constitutional authority to enter into such agreements. They must be ratified by the Senate. And whatever has been ratified can be un-ratified after the next election.

Snow, Freezing Temperatures on Monterey Bay; Polar Bears Eat Babies.

Coldest December 8th in 29 years on Monterey Bay according to the National Weather Service. What does it all mean in terms of global warming? Absolutely nothing. To have a trend, you need many points. That’s true irrespective of what you believe to be true. That’s true irrespective of your ideological preference. There is more. Let’s pretend there is a long series of points showing rising temperatures worldwide. (There isn’t.)

If you want to argue that the cause of a trend is some other phenomenon or phenomena, you need another set of points. That’s for a beginning. Global warming advocates tell us that the increased use of coal and petroleum, carbons, is the cause of a global warming trend. That’s what the Copenhagen conference is all about.

If there were such a trend, that second set of points would have to correspond with the first set, the global warming trend set of points. In this case, the first set would have to conform to the second with a lag that makes sense. The lag idea is that what happens tomorrow cannot cause what happens today. In his case, the upward trend in carbon burning must precede the alleged trend in rising world temperatures. This would work if, for example, increasing use of carbon, in the 19^th and 20^th century, was followed by rising temperatures. I am not picky; I would take almost any interpretation of “following” seriously.

In fact, we know for a fact that temperatures in Greenland were much higher in the 11^th and 12^th centuries than they are today, year after year, after year. They were higher than at any time in the past three hundred years. So, the trend in rising temperatures precedes the beginning of serious reliance on carbons, instead of following it. It does so by several centuries. How do I know about medieval temperatures in Greenland? The Scandinavian settlers there ate beef. This means that it was warm enough there to grow hay, which you could not do today. I get this info from Jared Diamond, a committed environmentalist. (Several other postings on this matter on this blog.)

I don’t need to explain why the two trends don’t coincide to show that any other statement of a positive relationship between carbon burning and rising temperatures is wrong, not true to fact. Let me recapitulate: There is no evidence of a recent trend in global warming. If there were, the idea that there is global warming due to man’s use of carbons would be wrong.

I can’t resist pointing out that if there were evidence of rising temperatures and if the two trends coincided better (see above) that would still not demonstrate that increased human reliance on carbon causes rising temperatures. The reason for this is simple: There is no scientist who would go on the record affirming that coincidence in time – even with a lag that makes sense – is good evidence that one thing causes the other. Such a coincidence is only enough to get one interested in the possibility of a causal relationship.

In the meantime, polar bears, both in the Arctic and in Antarctica, are running out of their normal food because of global warming. Adult male bears are reduced to eating their offspring. Just like the lions on the Serengeti plain eat lion cubs. Just like Democrats eat their young (and mine). So what if there were never any bears in Antarctica? My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts. Pleeeease!

There is a, easy-to-read and calm article on the intricacies of the “Climategate” conspiracy to commit fraud in the current issue of the Weekly Standard. ( “Scientists behaving badly,” by Steven F. Hayward, Weekly Standard, Dec. 14^th 2009.)

PS Pres. Obama is a disaster both to his remaining supporters and to his growing legions of opponents. He is going to crash. I just wonder how. Any idea?

The Carbon Footprint: How to Tell the Liars

No one needs to become an expert in climate science. In your daily life, you don’t have to take a two-year course in auto mechanics to make decisions about your car. You just develop a sense for who is honest and competent and who is only one of the two, and who is neither. At this point, with both the media hoopla and the media cover-ups, it’s hard to separate the liars from the dupes, from the few honest scientists who might still be there. Here is one easy way to assess the good faith of participants in the Copenhagen conference:

The conference is supposedly about reducing carbon emissions. The quickest way, the surest way, the best known way, also the cheapest, is nuclear energy. Are they talking about nuclear energy at the conference or not? If they are not, the meeting is not about reducing the carbon footprint. It’s about some other agenda.

The only credible thing in Copenhagen is Bjorn Lomborg’s Consensus Center. Lomborg is this rare thing, a repentant environmental activist. He had been trying to show his former accomplices where Western money would better spent than on reducing our so-called carbon footprint.

If the Copenhagen CO2 conference succeeds, we will have a rare historical event: Future generations may be able to date precisely the reversal of the uninterrupted growth in wealth and human welfare going back to the end of the 19^th century.

If you insist on learning the real science of climate studies on your own, free of cheating, you should active the “Climate change” link on my front page. It takes you to an honest and critical website called, “Watts Up.”