October 05, 2026
The Models Just Stink
Timothy Birdnow
Here is a paper that completely trashed the methodology and problems with models used by the Gang Green. Do read the whole thing.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:36 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
Triaging Diesel
Timothy Birdnow
So what? It's the short term that is critical right now.
AS the Bible says, let your troubles be sufficient unto the day. Yes, this would be temporary but a permanent fix requires the end of the Russo-Ukrainian war and/or a market increase in our ability to produce more diesel for ourselves and others. So immediate action is important, most especially with the election coming up.
It will roil the rest of the world but they didn't want to help us in Iran so why do we care? They are the ones who ended their oil and gas production anyway so tey could play with this green scheme of theirs and try to hobble not just their own economies but the Aerican economy as well.
What do medical people do? They triage. Right now we've got a patient that is bleeding and we have to stop the blood loss. We can find and fix the underlying cause later.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:51 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.
OPECers
Timothy Birdnow
OPEC won't increase production so as to interfere with the American elections by keeping prices high.
Mr. Trump needs to find new ways to motivate them. Obviously they want to see the GOP lose in November and thus wind down the Iran war, despite it being fought in no small part for their benefit.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:45 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.
No Kings While Acting as Praetorian
Timothy Birdnow
Liar liar pants on fire it'll be a cold cell where he will retire!
Smith turned up sporting a "No Kings" tee at a Springstein concert after telling Congress he was absolutely unbiased.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:42 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.
Fox Screw Loose News
Timothy Birdnow
What the eh ee double hockey sticks is wrong with Fox News?
There is zero reason to hire this dirtbag.
"Fair and balanced" is fine but does that mean they should hire on of the surviving chicks from the Manson family? There is balance and there is just insulting the viewers.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:36 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.
The SCOTUS Leaker
Timothy Birdnow
Sam Alito thinks he knows who leaked the results of the Court ruling on abortion.
So what can be done about it?
Probably nothing unless the GOP wins a supermajority in the Senate and keeps the House and impeaches her.
But I do wonder; is it possible for the Court itself to take disciplinary action? As far as I am aware nothing is mentioned at all about such internal matters on the Court. Maybe they acan kick someone off? Doubtful but I don't actually think it impossible. After all, this was a crime and not just a breach of protocol.
Or perhaps they could suspend her.
In 1973 the Supreme Court implemented a code of conduct for it's members. If they can do that why can't they suspend or expel a member?
Here are the five pillars of their code of conduct:
1. A Justice Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary.
2. A Justice Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities.
3. A Justice Should Perform the Duties of Office Fairly, Impartially, and Diligently.
4. A Justice May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities that Are Consistent with the Obligations
of the Judicial Office.
5. A Justice Should Refrain from Political Activity.
It is clear whoever she was, she violated several planks in this platform.
She could, in fact, have gotten one of the Justices killed.
This code has no specified enforcement mechanisms though. But why not? Certainly the Court is an independent branch of government and it requires full impeachment by Congress to remove a member. But the Constitution says nothing about the Court removing a member on it's own.
Yes, that could be a bad idea; if the Left ever gets control they will remoe all Conservatives. But there is a difference between removing a member for so egregious an ethical violation and just for disagreeing. That of course would not stop the Democrats but there is a big distinction.
Whatever the case may be there needs to be punishment for whoever did that.
Here is a rundown of all the duties of the Chief Justice over and above the writing of opinions.
BTW you will notice that the Chief Justice is on the board of these three institutions: the National Gallery of Art, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Hirshorn Museum. You will further notice that these instituions made a sharp left turn while John Roberts sat on their board of directors. Take what you will from that. All three became horribly woke and Roberts apparently didnt speak up.
He is also Chairman of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which is a kind of board of Trustees for the Federal Courts and he runs the Judicial Center, which is heavily involved in education. So Mr. Roberts apparently has failed to do his job in those duties as the lower courts are completely out of control now, even ignoring SCOTUS rulings. Roberts was at the helm as this happened. I warned everyone at the time he was going to be a disaster.
At any rate I suspect there are things Roberts could do. I would start by reassigning the leaker to a mens room in the basement somewhere. By the time she retires nobody will even remember her name.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:31 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 553 words, total size 4 kb.
Son of Bolsonaro Wins - Sort Of
Timothy Birdnow
The Son of Bolsonaro won the Presidency by a small margin in a shocking result in Brazil.
Bolsonaro is Brazil's MABA candidate and it was predicted his Bolshevik opponent Lula would win. Now it goes to a runoff, since nobody got over fifty percent, and that will no doubt be stolen by the Marxist.
Bolsonaro's father is in prison for "corruption" with charges being immediately announced ater the former President challenged the election ala Donald Trump. He was accused of trying to overthrow the government and sent to prison (sound familiar?)
I wouldn't count my chickens; the Left has no pproblem stealing elections and I am pretty sure they will succeed in stealing this one in the runoff. Maybe Trump can do something to help.
If Bolsonaro wins he could pardon his father. That would be the just and fair thing to do. Jail Bolsonaro is out of the actual Big House but locked down under house arrest now.
This will be a watershed moment for Brazil. Across Latin America the radical Left has been in retreat, and now it's Brazil's turn. Brazil has the largest economy in South America and if she goes full Red the whole continent will probably stagnte.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:06 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 2 kb.
Trump's Big Win in Greenland
Timothy Birdnow
I was under the impression that we didn't really gain all that much from the Greenland deal based on what I read about it. (Teach me to listen to the media and Establishment Republicans.) I knew it repealed the updated 2004 agreement that gave both Denmark and Greenland veto power over our building bases and restricted our movements, but I didn't realize how far this new treaty has gone. We now can keep anyone out of Greenland we want and can move about freely and can build bases where we please.
Powerline dishes on just how good this deal is for America.
Arnaud Betrand posted this to his X account and it was reproduced at Powerline:
Ok, we now have the actual text of the Greenland deal (https://whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2026/09/agreement-between-the-government-of-the-united-states-of-america-and-the-government-of-the-kingdom-of-denmark-together-with-the-government-of-greenland-to-amend-and-supplement-the-agreement-of-27-apri/), so we can say how it compares to the existing 1951 arrangement and who, between Trump and Denmark, lied the most in their framing of it.
Long story short – which may surprise some – the Danes lied the most: Trump is pretty much correct in saying that this new deal grants the US control of Greenland.
Let’s look into what changed compared to the 1951 deal.
1) This is now a permanent arrangement: whereas the existing 1951 deal only lasted as long as NATO existed, this one "does not have an end date and may only be amended by mutual consent.”
It even survives a hypothetical future independence of Greenland: in that event, Denmark and Greenland must ensure that the independent Greenlandic state "affirmatively assumeall of the rights and obligations of the Kingdom of Denmark specified in this Agreement.”
2) In the 1951 agreement, the US could set up bases only where both governments agreed, and only on the basis of NATO planning. The new deal locks in three bases: the US can "modernize and expand its activities” at Pituffik, its only base in Greenland until now, and "shall be allowed to establish an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig.” Further bases beyond these 3 can be justified by the defense of "the American continent,” a US interest rather than a NATO one.
Also, quite subtle but this is interesting: Article IV(iii) says that "the United States may establish additional defense areas in Greenland” and that consultations are then held "to decide implementation details based on mutual agreement.” What this means is that the principle of a new base is automatically granted and only the implementation details require agreement.
Article VII also gives the US "the right to raise concerns regarding construction, or change of use” of any building near a US base, after which the parties decide together what to do. Which means that the US has a say over civilian planning around its bases.
3) On US military movement across Greenland, the wording change between the 1951 agreement and this new one is quite funny.
The 1951 text said (Art. V(3)): the US "may enjoy… the right of free access to and movement between the defense areas through Greenland, including territorial waters, by land, air and sea,” but only "in accordance with general rules mutually agreed upon and issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland.”
The new one says: "the United States of America shall enjoy… the right of free access to and movement between the Defense Areas through Greenland, including the Territorial Waters, by land, air and sea.”
That’s it: "May” becomes "shall,” and the US military movement no longer has to follow rules "issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland.” The US also gets something new on top: "undersea access to and movement within the Territorial Waters,” i.e. submarines.
4) Non-NATO exclusion: non-NATO states are barred from military installations or a persistent presence in Greenland unless all three parties approve, giving the US an effective permanent veto. The 1951 deal had no equivalent clause.
5) Investment screening: this is entirely new. "States or investors from a state that is not a member of NATO, a NATO partner, or an EU member state” (i.e. Russia, China, India, the Gulf States, etc.), "shall not be allowed to have (i) control, (ii) significant influence, or (iii) access to non-public information…within Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters), unless agreed between the Parties.”
Again, it basically means that the US has a permanent veto over who can invest in strategic sectors in Greenland, as far as non-NATO or EU states are concerned.
6) Lastly, in stark contrast with the 1951 deal, the framing of the deal changes significantly: this new deal is largely framed around the US.
The 1951 agreement existed only "for the benefit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.” The new one lists the defense of "the American continent” as an objective, celebrates "the irreplaceable role” of the United States military as well as "the United States’ indispensable historical and ongoing contributions to the security and defense of Greenland,” and names the establishment of Trump’s "Golden Dome” missile defense system as a key goal.
So, to sum up:
– The US secured a permanent military foothold that even an independent Greenland would inherit whether it likes it or not– The US now has veto power over any non-NATO military presence in Greenland, and over who can invest in its strategic infrastructure and resources (beyond NATO and the EU)– Denmark signed away its say over the principle of new US bases, with only the right to discuss the "implementation details”– Danish authorities no longer set the rules for US military movement across the island– And all of it is now justified by the defense of "the American continent”
I don’t know in which universe this even remotely "recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination,” as Danish PM Mette Frederiksen put it (https://stm.dk/en/press/press-releases/expected-agreement-on-strengthened-security-in-the-arctic-and-the-north-atlantic-area).
Yes, the preamble of the text cynically "reaffirms” Danish sovereignty but, in my book, when you let a foreign country put bases on your soil, move its troops without following your rules and veto who else can come in, in perpetuity, after it spent two years threatening to take you by force, the word for that is anything but "recognized sovereignty”
Looks like Trump won bigly on this after all.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:55 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1053 words, total size 8 kb.
Rules and Consequences
Timothy Birdnow
Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of the American legal system (except in some specific cases, mostly involving civil law). It is also not innocent until proven unquestionably guilty but until proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt; you can convict a woman of raping and murdering another woman, say,because it is not a reasonable doubt to claim women are nurturers and do not do such things. That may be your personal opinion but it is not a reasonable doubt.
This is important in the debate over the death penalty. At this time in history we not only have a scientific basis to determine guilt or innocence but we also have multiple appeals so that the case will be chewed over worse than abc gum.
This is important in the debate. In the days of the Founding Fathers It was much, much harder to get credible evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You had to have eye-witnesses and physical evidence like a bloody knife or whatnot. Despite that the Founders did not ban capital punishment. They did ban cruel and unusual" punishment, which they put in place to avoid blood feud style retribution. No throwing homosexuals off buildings or 'eye for an eye' punishments where you got a guy's body part off for his cutting someone else. But it was never, ever intended to end capital punishment and in fact that is one of the proscribed punishments for treason IN THE CONSTITUTION. Treason is, by and large, difficult to prove. IF the Founders had intended there to be no executions they would have enumerated that in the founding document.
A murderer forfeits their right to live.
That isn't true of all killers. An accidental killing should not be subject to the death penalty, for instance. A drunk driver might kill a child in a car crash but there was no malice aforethought and as a result the drunk should be punished but not by the ultimate sentence (in that case it would be cruel and unusual punishment). Even someone who stabs his girlfriend may, perhaps, be excused the death penalty (this is where debate will come in, no doubt) if it was done in a fit of rage and the killer out of control. But premeditated murder is absolutely inexcusable and justice demands we carry out sentence.
Justice demands. A civilized society carries out justice. It is exactly why the authorities have the "power of the sword" as the Bible put it "to punish evildoers". It is not to rehabilitate very bad people (you will fail if you try) but because there are certain crimes that justice demands final punishment over. It is not to teach anybody anything; it is to show society at large that we hold a moral code that may not be broken and when someone does so in so egregious a manner then as civilized people we must forfeit their lives.
There are rules and there are consequences. They should be clear and applied equally and fairly, but they should be applied.
I would point out that, while there was always plenty of killing (particularly in the frontier back in the day) America never had the kind of cruelty we are seeing since we restricted the death penalty. Yes, gangsters shot people, and sometimes did worse, but these days ordinary people are committing extraordinarily brutal crimes. IF it is so civilized to end the death penalty then these sorts of crimes should have slowed down. We were told by the anti-death penalty crowd that violence by the State only begets violence from the citizenry. We were lied to.
And even now our squeamishness towards the death penalty has led to executions happening decades after the crime, and in private so they have no chilling effect on other evildoers. The whole point of the death penalty is for it to be public and notorious and for everyone to SEE justice being carried out.
We need to bring back public executions. It's unfortunate but it's necessary.
And how do we judge a society that gives greater rights and has more concern for the villain than the poor victim? What kind of moral code is that?
At any rate this was prompted by the failure to successfully execute Christa Pike, a woman who lured a romantic rival into a remote area, tortured her for over half an hour, cut a pentagram into her chest, then killed her. And after decades on death row she finally went to her execution and it failed because Tennessee was using a method that was too kind and soft.
American Thinker discusses the matter in a post that echoes what I said above, something I've long argued.
The article quotes reports about what happened that day:
Pike murdered her Job Corps classmate Colleen Slemmer, 19, in a jealous rage in January 1995 because she believed the victim was trying to steal her boyfriend, prosecutors said.
Along with her 17-year-old boyfriend Tadaryl Shipp and her friend Shadolla Peterson, also 18, Pike lured Slemmer to an isolated area of the University of Tennessee’s Knoxville campus to brutally torture and kill her.
Peterson acted as a lookout while Pike and Shipp carved a pentagram into Slemmer’s chest with a boxcutter, beat her with a meat cleaver and repeatedly slashed her throat while she pleaded in vain for her life.
At the end of the horrific ordeal, which investigators said lasted at least 30 minutes, Pike murdered Slemmer by bashing her head in with a large chunk of asphalt and then kept a piece of her skull as a souvenir.
Just because she was still in her teens that doesn't excuse this behavior, nor does anything else (like the fact it happened decades ago); she forfeited her right to life when she carried out so brutal a torture/murder. We can have mercy on her soul but her body belongs to the People of the Great State of Tennessee.
Mercy does not compel us to excuse this woman; mercy compels us to bring justice for the victim and the victim's family, who have been imprisoned in hell through no fault of their own. Where is the mercy for THEM?
Where is the mercy for the public at large?
Since we are discussing the Bible (one of the core sources for American jurisprudence) I would like to mention 1 Samuel 15:14. God had commanded King Saul to commit an act of genocide, to put the Amalekites under the "ban" aka wipe them out, their families out, and their livestock out. All of it. It sounds harsh but in those days it was the only way to deal with a corrupting influence like the Amalekites, who would come back to haunt Israel. So God commanded Saul to end them all. Saul found his moral judgement to be superior to that of God's. And in his greed he killed the people but kept their livestock.
When the prophet Samuel arrived he chastised Saul
"And Samuel said, What’s this I’m hearing? The bleating of sheep, the mooing of cattle? What’s going on?”
And Saul tried to excuse his disobedience to God by saying he saved the cattle to make a sacrifice to God, but that wasn't what he was ordered to do.
For this act and a few others God gave Saul over to madness and to his eventual destruction by the Philistines. When God commands you had better obey.
That is not to say we are not to be tempered by mercy, but there are some acts that cannot be forgiven by Man; it is up to God to forgive certain things. Otherwise you will decline, Saul-lie, into madness and eventual destruction.
We now believe we are God's moral superiors and this hubris will not go unpunished. If we cannot execute someone as vile as this gal then how can we enforce any other laws? We no longer hold the moral high ground - it's just power now. We have the power to constrain and to imprison but not the moral right to judge.
THAT is what a refusal to enforce the death penalty ultimately gives us.
And every time we perform an unjust act of mercy we degrade ourselves further and when that happens the State finds easier pickings to uphold their own sense of moral superiority, largely against people who do not deserve it, the good people who are trying to do good and be obedient to God and morally righteous laws. Far easier to arrest a Christian praying at the door of an abortion clinic than to arrest a satanic killer; the Christian will go quietly. It's why oppressive systems become that way in the first place - there is a moral and spiritual myopia that sets in and the people in power are eager to show they have the power to judge the public but don't want to take on the hard work of judging the truly unrighteous. Tyranny is usually born of a myopic vision of justice.
Then the death penalty will be overused; both are flip sides of the same moral myopia.
Author Mike Rogers is absolutely correct in his assessment. A decent people do not reject the death penalty. Nor do they hide it and make it clean and sanitary as we have done. We need to restore public executions to warn evildoers, and to remind ourselves.
And honestly it may be more cruel to leave a woman on death row for a quarter of a century anyway. Better to get it done.
We have to grow up in the Western World. We've become children with juvenile minds and juvenile hearts.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:41 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1611 words, total size 10 kb.
October 03, 2026
Winning in Iran
Timothy Birdnow
Check this out; We are getting 98% of all non-Iranian oil through the Strait of Hormuz and Iran is getting none of theirs out.
We are on the verge of victory.
If oil prices drop - and especially if Iran caves (although I wouldn't hold my breath over that) the election is over. The Democrats are sweating bullets about now, which is quite a feat given they hate all firearms.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:31 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.
Why Venus is Hot
Timothy Birdnow
Well, well, well...turns out Venus is so hot NOT because of carbon dioxide but because of convection issues in the Venusian atmosphere
AbstractA novel axiomatic foundation of entropy has recently been proposed, overcoming the limitations of classical and information-theoretic entropy foundations and eventually unifying probabilistic and physical entropy. A new set of postulates leads to a rigorous, uncertainty-based definition of entropy consistent with the principle of maximum entropy. Entropy is thus a purely stochastic concept quantifying uncertainty, thereby enriching Kolmogorov’s probability system. Applied to gas thermodynamics, the new framework reproduces classical results and derives, rather than assumes, the laws of thermodynamics. In atmospheric applications, entropy maximization yields an isothermal state as the molecular equilibrium. Gravitation does not alter the isothermal state but differentiates it from the isentropic one of macroscopic air parcels, whose motion drives the atmosphere away from equilibrium. Radiatively active gases, through interactions with shortwave and longwave radiation, sustain non-equilibrium vertical profiles of the atmospheric variables. Combined with the Stefan–Boltzmann law, these mechanisms provide a simple, parsimonious, and coherent explanation of observed atmospheric behaviors and the climatic system. The framework highlights thermodynamics as emergent from stochastics, offering new insights into molecular uncertainty, emergence of macroscopic structures, and radiation in shaping Earth’s climate. It also suggests a broader stochastic view of nature and atmospheric processes.Keywords: stochastic thermodynamics; maximum entropy; atmospheric equilibrium; gravitation; radiative cooling
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:22 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.
