Comparison of Politicians vs Promise Keeper

Which of these 4 is “different”?

And in what way?

Which of them would you want to trust if they said “I promise to watch your home while you go on vacation”…

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Comparison of Politicians vs Promise Keeper

  1. A C Osborn says:

    The public are coming around, the “professional politicians” are stunned and never will.
    Doing what you promised during an election campaign is just not de rigueur.

  2. H.R. says:

    The difference is that politicians create problems and then promise to solve them if elected. Then they “need just one more term” to solve the problem, which rarely gets solved.

    If, by chance, they do ‘solve’ a problem then the solution creates even worse problems that need to be ‘solved.’

    Also, howzcome every politician is going to “fight for you” or “fight for or against something?” The only black eye I’ve seen on a politician was on Harry Reid, and according to him, he lost a fight with his exercycle and not fighting for his constituents.

    It’s been better than 150 years since there was a good caning in the Senate and a bit longer since any Politicians fought a duel. So it’s probably been that long since any politician has actually gone to Washington to “fight for you.”

    I think every Congressman and Senator should be required to carry a cane while they are in session. I also think they should allow dueling again, with our representatives being exempt from assault or murder charges if the duel occurs when they are in session. (Really… in this case I’m perfectly OK with taxpayers picking up the tab for injuries on the job or burial expenses. After all, they were fighting for us.)

    Let’s just see who is really going to “fight for us.”

  3. E.M.Smith says:


    AND require that they get their medical treatment at the V.A. Hospital..

  4. philjourdan says:

    Great find! All 4 in one. What makes this so funny is all the idiots of the YSM yelling about how this is causing violence in the mid-east. As if there were none before.

  5. E.M.Smith says:

    I find it interesting that in all the complaining and bitching about Trump doing this, no news program has pointed out Congress made it a LAW to do it.

    So Trump is being lambasted for following the law.

    And not a peep about the other 3 scorning the law and ignoring it.

    Also note how careful Obama is to state “I continue to say” and “I will continue to say” that it’s the capital and NEVER say “it is” or “I will move the embassy”. Just flat out stating he is going to make a statement for effect and do nothing else.

  6. I’ve read that Congress voted unanimously in 1995 to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Every 6 months since then each President has decided to delay it at least 6 months longer. It’s really quite interesting that Trump is being blamed for implementing a unanimous decision of Congress.

    As far as I can see, the Palestinians’ objective is to kick the Israelis out and take the land back, and there is no compromise possible. Unless and until they drop that demand (to erase Israel and scatter/kill the occupants) then I don’t see any peace possible. Moving the US embassy makes no difference, except to Israel.

    Looking at it one way, it looks like the Palestinian Arabs are oppressed and are treated badly by the Israelis. However, maybe if I lived in Israel and kept having to dodge the missiles sent from the Palestinian side I’d see things a bit differently. There’s no doubt that the Arabs who were displaced in order to create Israel were badly treated in 1948. Still, watching the video of the attempts to storm the border, I notice that on the Israeli side the land is farmed and has what appears to be bales of straw in the fields, and the Palestinian side looks like wasteland. As far as I can tell, Gaza doesn’t produce enough food for the population, but then I saw an interview where one Palestinian was wondering where his 100 grandchildren would get work. They’re surviving on government handouts and imported food – not exactly sustainable.

    As far as I can tell, moving the embassy won’t make a lot of difference to the level of violence, except for a temporary uptick in civilians being encouraged to die for an unattainable ideal. The violence is staged and planned, after all, as a spectacle for the MSM to film in order to try to lay guilt-trips on the West. If the Hamas leaders put the effort into generating industry that they put into destruction, maybe they’d get better results.

    Trump has a list of stuff he’s promised to do, and it’s getting ticked off as they happen. We’re just not used to politicians doing what they promised before election. It will be interesting to see if Malaysia has the same thing happen, since it does look promising there.

  7. philjourdan says:

    “So Trump is being lambasted for following the law.”

    Just like immigration. Trump is not using any EOs. He has instructed his people to follow the law. And the YSM and democrats are whining like little children. It seems following the law is now a threat to democracy (for the idiots that keep saying the US is a democracy – Hello Warren).

  8. John F. Hultquist says:

    My mother’s advice: Say what you mean and do what you say.
    Trump has a bit of trouble with the first part; so be careful taking his statements literally.
    Do take him seriously.
    I hope Trump stays well, and wins a second term.

  9. Another Ian says:

    Another Trump accomplishment?

    “Earth Cooling Fastest In A Century – Since Trump Took Office”

  10. Larry Ledwick says:

    Related to that above – given the thermal inertia of an entire planets atmosphere upper layer of ocean and top layer of soil, do those wild swings in temp really make any sense unless there was a radical change in solar constant?

    Or is it an indication that the temperature monitoring system is not fit for purpose?

  11. John F. Hultquist says:

    Try reporting the temperature in Kelvins. Actual numbers. Tends to flatten things out a bit.

  12. E.M.Smith says:


    First off, as John said, use Kelvins. That’s the actual state of things. Then notice that we measure the air. THE most ephemeral part of the planet subject to the most jerking around by everything else. In reality, the temperature of the planet a few feet down in the dirt is essentially a constant. The bottom of the oceans, too. ( IIRC ~4 C +/- a tiny fraction)

    As the winds and tides (driven by solar / lunar forces ) shift the water around, we get huge swings of air temperature and humidity signifying nothing much. Then we measure it badly and average it all the wrong way. Finally we present it as an amplification of the most minor digit.

    Other than that, no problem…

    Well, lots of problems, but more minor ones…

  13. Larry Ledwick says:

    Yes we know, their method of reporting intentionally exaggerates what is really noise in the measurement system presented at full scale in absolute measurements the (warming/cooling) is almost undetectable.

    That said the swing of the “global average temperature” which I have serious doubts is really knowable, by some 1.3 deg C in just a couple years simply defies logic when you consider the true heat sink capacity of the system that can react in that period of time.

    To change the average heat content of the troposphere, top meter or two of the entire world’s oceans and the top 30 -50 cm of the earths continents requires a huge heat flow, either increased loss to the void of space or a sudden and long term drop in energy input world wide from the sun.

    I see no evidence of such changes in in flow or out flow of energy.

  14. E.M.Smith says:

    “To change the average heat content of the troposphere, top meter or two of the entire world’s oceans and the top 30 -50 cm of the earths continents requires a huge heat flow, either increased loss to the void of space or a sudden and long term drop in energy input world wide from the sun.”

    But what if it is NOT changing “top meter or two of the entire world’s oceans and the top 30-50 cm of the earths continents”? What if the dirt is essentially unchanged, and the ocean just burped up a little more cold water from depths? Think, oh, 5 m of water over 1/4 of the ocean surface ‘turning over’ and bringing a cold sink to the surface could cause the air to cool off?

    What about if the heat DISTRIBUTION just shifts a little. The hot air stays more down in the tropics where it isn’t really noticed? Where we have nearly no thermometers like most of the Southern Hemisphere? Then cold can flow down from the North Pole to where we have LOTS of thermometers and “Presto!” the “whole world” is suddenly colder…

    FWIW, my belief is just that the major shift in UV has more heat leaving as the IR does not penetrate the oceans. This causes the lower levels to gradually cool (getting less input) and when they eventually turn over, more ocean driven cooling of the air. At the same time, the shortened atmospheric height effectively moves all things to higher barometric elevations / colder temperatures. Then the added evaporation from the oceans (prompt IR surface evaporation) causes more WATER flux via precipitation (as we’ve seen) and more phase change absorbing heat; less as dry air temperature. Basically wetter is colder and we got wetter.

    So some (large?) part of it isn’t heat arriving or leaving, but a change from sensible heat (temperature) to phase changes. Along with a change from a very low specific heat material (air) to a very high specific heat material (water). Same heat, different dT/dH…

  15. Larry Ledwick says:

    The point I am making is a reasonableness check.

    Ref your comments on soil temperature, the annual subsurface soil temp profile plot shows that even at a depth of 12 feet there is an annual variation. so to cool the average temperature of the earth you would have to change the temperature of say for conversations sake 24 feet of soil and rock world wide, by the anomaly change (that is just for one year of cooling heating)

    Likewise for water but due to its ability to free convect you would have to modify the temperature of all the worlds water to a depth of perhaps 1500 ft. (see illustration of thermocline)

    So at this point you have 2 of the three major heat sinks accounted for, now for the atmopshere let’s just assume that all the annual heat content is captured in the troposphere.

    You now have the mass and specific heat values you need to calculate how much the heat balance must change to effect cooling change they suggest happened over just 3-4 years.

    Take mass of top 24 ft of earths land mass, times its average specific heat, plus the mass of the top 1500 ft of all water on the planet times the specific heat of water, and the top 20,000 – 60,000 ft of atmosphere (depending on longitude) times the specific heat of air, plus the specific heat of all the water vapor, liquid water droplets and ice crystals in the troposphere.

    Do the sums on that and figure out the heat flow change over 3-4 years it would take to change the temperature of all that mass.

    I suspect that number is far bigger that you can hide in daily random variations in solar input and outflow to space.

  16. Larry Ledwick says:

    Yes I agree it is probably just useless noise in the system. I personally think “global average temperature” is for all practical purposes unknowable with our current instrumentation, and possibly unknowable in the required precision with any likely future instrumentation for at least 250 years.

    Which raises the question do we have enough quality data historically to even judge if these random temperature excursions are in any way unusual or troubling?

    I doubt it. Give us 1000 years of good data, and then you can get a hint about what is going on, but weather climate being very fat tail processes require lots and lots and lots and lots of data before you even know what “normal range” is.

  17. John F. Hultquist says:

    @ Larry,
    That’s a lot of calculations to do.
    I’ll get busy in the morning, as I’ve just dusted off the

  18. Larry Ledwick says:

    I had one of those a long time ago – not sure what happened to it.

  19. philjourdan says:

    @John – I still have mine as well – if you need a second one for the calculations. :-)

  20. jim2 says:

    Slide Rule = Logarithmic Fingers

  21. E.M.Smith says:

    Here, you can use mine:

    (actually works! Grab the slide with your mouse and move it! Though calculating the graphic that you move is orders of magnitude more calcs…)

    if you’ve not seen it:
    is about slide rules

  22. John F. Hultquist says:

    RE: the N 909 ES — first of EM’s links:
    That’s amazing. Next thought – – How do they do that?

    Several years ago, at a yard sale, there was a small white rule. Neither the middle-aged woman nor the teen daughter had a clue.
    Already having a better one, I passed.

  23. E.M.Smith says:

    The way it is done is, conceptually, pretty easy.

    3 photos. One each of rule body, slide, and cursor.

    Place in graphics “frames” (technical hand waving here) that constrain their motion. Keep the body still, allow the slide and cursor to move side to side not up and down, inside limits.

    That’s it. The slide rule is just a logarithmic image on a carrier. It doesn’t matter if the material is wood, plastic, metal, or photons from an LED screen ….

  24. Steve C says:

    For day-to-day use I can only recommend the Aristo Nr. 622. It has all the scales I normally need, and the “feel” is perfect, really silky and smooth. (The inner scale on mine is grey, rather than yellow.) Germanic plastic engineering at its finest, and fits a jacket pocket better than the linear sort!

    The comments seem to be drifting a little off course. Because politicians are so damn predictable there’s really nothing new to say? ;-)

  25. H.R. says:

    Steve C: “The comments seem to be drifting a little off course. Because politicians are so damn predictable there’s really nothing new to say? ;-)”

    Since we’ve kept our language fairly clean, it really places some tight boundaries on what can be said about politicians. Besides, I think it’s against E.M.’s policy to insult pond scum, crapweasels, cockroaches, snakes, hell-spawn, nematodes, parasites, jackals, etc. when they cannot write responses to repudiate and disavow politicians to defend the honor of their species :o)

Comments are closed.