October 10th, 2024 • 3h 4m
Shownotes
Every new episode of No Agenda is accompanied by a comprehensive list of shownotes curated by Adam while preparing for the show. Clips played by the hosts during the show can also be found here.
Kamala
Tim Walz calls for elimination of Electoral College | Fox News
Walz was in California Gov. Gavin Newsom's private home in Sacramento when he remarked about the process by which U.S. presidents are elected.
"I think all of us know the Electoral College needs to go," he said, according to a pool report at the event, Bloomberg reported. "We need a national popular vote, but that's not the world we live in."
Big Tech AI and the Socials
DOJ indicates it’s considering Google breakup following monopoly ruling
Game Censorship BOTG
ITM Mr. Curry!!
I thought you and John would be interested in this: My wife and I play a game called Play Nine via the Play Nine app. Within the game there is a chat feature it censors anything that would be considered profanity or “hate speech”, which I understand to a point. But for the hell if it while playing a game with my wife I wanted to see what it would do with political speech and guess what!! Any time the word Trump, Donald, MAGA, or any combination it appears as **** so you would expect the same with Harris or Kamala,…nope, that goes through unless of course it is a slam on Harris, then you get the ****. Its crazy. I attached a video for your viewing in case my explanation isn’t clear.
PS love the show
Kevin
Helene and Milton
History of Hurricane Categories
Good Day Adam.
I got curious about this whole Hurricane "Category" rating scheme. In my opinion it's as useful as a car's Check Engine light. Except there are five lights, labeled 1 thru 5. And the owner's manual says for 5, "Get out of the car and run as fast as you can. It's about to explode!"
Do the EVs even have engines to check?
So here's the dirt on those nonsense numbers. They might as well be Categories "A - E", like the old Disney Parks' ride grading system, for ticket costs. Sorry, it's long because it's "technical".
It was first introduced by a wind engineer (Herbert Saffir) and a meteorologist (Robert Simpson) in 2010. That's why it's called the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale, or SSHWS. Previously, it was SSHS (missing the "W" word). Was that also a snub of George H W Bush?
A previously used system of classifying Atlantic and Pacific storm severity, had more data than just wind speed. Because, they couldn't reliably determine a storm's wind speeds by aircraft. So they used other data, to gauge it's strength, out at sea.
But I guess it was too confusing to the general public, to tell them about storm surge, water temperature, air pressure, etc. So they dumbed it down (thanks, to Robert "Homer" Simpson) to a simplified range of Cardinal numbers. Based only on the Wind speeds.
This scale that was first created by Herbert Saffir, who worked for the U.N. in 1969, to study low-cost housing in hurricane prone areas. While conducting that study, Saffir realized (or UN dictated) that there was no simple means to scare the shit out of the lay-people. So this scale was devised, based on the subjective MSK-64 scale of earthquake damage, and the objective Richter scale of earthquake intensity.
Back then it was called the "Proposed Hurricane Damage Scale (UN 1974)". Based on 2-3 seconds of peak wind gusts, and subjective levels of structural damage. So it was not a "live" storm strength scale, but used for afterward, property damage blaming. And it used "Grades" (1-5), in increments of 30 km/h, starting at 120 km/h (Grade 1) up to 241+ km/h (Grade 5). And nothing for pre-Grade 1 storms.
Saffir submitted this scale to the NHC, where Simpson changed its "Grades" to "Categories". The wind gusts of 2-3 seconds, changed to 1 minute sustained wind speeds. And he added storm surge, and barometric pressure (1st published 1975). In 2009, the NHC eliminated the air pressure and storm surge data from the five categories.
Now called the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale (Experimental), the updated scale became operational on May 15, 2010. So all the past Hurricane "Grades" or "CATs", are nearly meaningless, comparing them to the 2010 scale. Which was again changed in 2012.*
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffir-Simpson_scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffir-Simpson_scale)
According to the updated* 2012 SSHWS:
A Tropical Depression ("D") storm is anything with winds below 39 MPH. A Tropical Storm ("S") is anything with winds from 39 to 74 MPH. That's a "36" wide range, on top of the Depression's range. But one can't really count winds less than 5 MPH. So the Depression range width isn't really "38". Maybe only "28".
A Tropical Depression is just whatever builds up to 38 MPH, but doesn't go over. Sort of a meteorological gray area. Any winds above the Tropical Storm upper limit (73 MPH), lasting for one minute, and the "Category" hurricane scale starts, and storms get people names.
This year, #2 was "Beryl", and #13 is "Milton". Milton Beryl? Did they think nobody would catch that "joke"? And did Beryl "steal" that one, too? Anyway....
A Cat~1 storm is 74 to 95 MPH, that's a "22" wide range. A Cat~2 storm is 96 to 110 MPH, that's a "15" wide range (why 7 less?). A Cat~3 (labeled Major) storm is 111 to 129 MPH, that's a "19" wide range. So why can't the 1st four Cat.s be the same "21" wide? The English to Metric rounding error, defense? I don't buy it.
As you can see, the SSWHS scale favors a quicker Category progression, by making Cat~3 easier to reach, with Cat~2 & 3 weighted as narrower ranges to get thru. Then comes Cat~4's wind speeds.
A Cat~4 storm is 130 to 156 MPH*, that's a whopping "27" wide range. Much wider than the prior three ranges of wind speeds. So Storms can more easily become a Cat~4, and stay within there, for the propaganda records.
A Cat~5 storm is just anything that is 157 MPH and above. One can't calculate its range width, with no top end defined. So whatever wind speed any Cat~5 has ever been the strongest recorded, make that the possible top end of a Cat~5. And I bet its range width is less than the Cat~4's.
Hollywood (aka Norman Lear & CBS-TV) likes to make up propaganda about the weather/climate, so they invented a "Cat~6" (and later a "Cat~7"), as their "Doomsday" number(s). Just letting you know, that's not real. CBS Was 6 years ahead of official SSWHS numbers, and doesn't apply to Tornadoes, anyway! CBS/Lear were WRONG!!
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_6:_Day_of_Destruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_6:_Day_of_Destruction)
* In 2012 the SSHWS was "updated". The excuse was that conversion between English and Metric (MPH To Km/H) caused a "rounding off" error. That on rare occasion, shifted a Cat~4, to a Cat~3. Or even more rarely, to a Cat~5. So in order to fix that, they widened the Cat~4 range, by adding 1 MPH at each end. It use to be 131 to 155 MPH (a 25 wide range). And they shrunk the Cat~3's top speed from 130 MPH, down to 129 MPH. Narrowing its range, from "20", to "19".
They claim that this update doesn't change any Hurricane classifications, on record prior to 2012 (three years worth?). And further claim this update won't change future Hurricane classifications. But I can't possibly see how it couldn't change them. Maybe just 2012's storm season, wasn't. But 2013 and so on, must be.
So the obtainment of more Cat~4 storms, isn't strickly a matter of warmer waters. But Also changing the Category 4 wind speed definition, to a lower number. And widening its speed range from "25" to "27". Shorting Cat~5 a tiny bit (but who cares). And Cat~3 also gets robbed 1 MPH, of its upper limit and range. Nice, huh?
Just to fix a math error, caused by converting English and Metric scales?! This shows how meaningless the Categories are now, and were before. That this error wasn't discovered back in 2010, and remedied before Hurricanes got recorded as Cat~3 or 4, in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans?
This scale was adopted after "Barry S." became POTUS. And it makes Climate Change look worse, by these new numbers. That only goes back to 2009, at the earliest?
I attached two PDF about SSWHS definitions and that 2012 update.
Later, Glenn
===== message ends =====
Diddystein
Buzbee settlements BOTG
Hey Adam, you’ve probably read about Tony Buzbee announcing that he’s already settled with some of the alleged bad actors in the Diddy saga. Here’s a link to [the short video TMZ posted](https://amp.tmz.com/2024/10/07/diddy-indictment-lawyer-tony-buzbee-says-more-celebs-being-sued/), just in case you haven’t seen it yet.
This was the outcome we predicted below when Buzbee said “You know who you are—just come forward now.” I expect more dominoes to fall in the coming weeks.
I was talking to Maggie last night, and she posed a few questions that I think lots of people will ask. I thought it might help if I offered my take on these issues. So here’s a kind of FAQ for your consideration:
- **He hasn’t sued anyone yet. How can he have settlements already?** Buzbee has sent out lots of demand letters. The main purpose of these letters is to extract settlements quickly, before anyone spends a lot of time on a lawsuit. In these cases, some of the recipients decided to settle before getting dragged through very public and humiliating lawsuits. These early settlements will also fund his war chest.
- **What are the settlement terms?** This is almost certainly subject to confidentiality clauses. Still, it’s not hard to imagine what the settlement agreements say. On the one hand, Buzbee’s clients will provide a global release of liability and promise not to sue the demand-letter recipient. Meanwhile, the recipient will pay a sum of money. Buzbee may also require the recipient to cooperate in other cases—definitely a sticky proposition but (in my opinion) necessary to protect the clients’ interests in those other cases. (You don’t want to limit your ability to introduce evidence in the future.)
- **Confidentiality clauses? Does that mean that the settling parties’ identities will remain secret?** No. Nothing will stop the FBI and federal prosecutors in New York from gaining access to the identities of people who settled. The prosecutors need witnesses, and I expect them to pile on.
- **By settling, aren’t these people admitting guilt?** No. I guarantee that there’s a provision in the settlement saying “this is not an admission of liability” and that the demand-letter recipient “denies any and all wrongdoing.” To be clear, this won’t protect the recipient from the threat of prosecution in the future—all we’re saying here is that a settlement is not an _admission_ of guilt.
- **When will Buzbee file the lawsuits?** He signaled that they may come as early as next week, but cautioned people not to read too much into it if that doesn’t happen. Translation: He’s still working with some of the demand-letter recipients and still hopes to settle with them—but he’s keeping the heat on by saying “as early as next week.” Oftentimes, people will drag their feet in settlement negotiations—especially corporate defendants, who have to push through many layers of approval and work out any insurance coverage. (By the way, he said that the first lawsuits will indeed be corporations, a/k/a deep pockets. Good for the war chest.)
Israel vs Everyone
General Milley Investors Dinner Conversation
- History is cyclical. Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 ended the 30
Years War and set the West up for 100 years of peace between large
powers. Broken by the 7 Years War / French and Indian War around 1750.
Then constant state of War until Congress of Vienna established Concert
of Europe in 1815. Peace (among large powers) for 100 years until WWI.
War from 1914-1945. We are now 80 years into current peace established
by rules based order imposed after wwii. Next 20 years will be very
interesting. China, Russia and Iran have every incentive to overthrow
the “rules-based order” that’s governed the world since the Americans
came up with it in a New Hampshire hotel in 1944 (Bretton Woods)
-
China - building their military with eye on seizing Taiwan. Xi says he
wants to take it by 2027, (100yr anniversary of PLA). Maybe. But China
lacks experience and may underestimate difficulty. Important that they
continue to wonder if US would intervene. MacArthur estimated that he’d
need 700k to seize Formosa with 30k Japanese.
-
Gaza - Israel is responding to a horrific attack as you’d expect.
Imagine what we’d do. They’ve been fairly successful with their
strategic goal of destroying Hamas, 2/3 of way there. Haven’t gotten all
of their leadership yet, but coming soon. Their challenge going forward
is that they lack a political message. “All war is politics
administered through organized violence”. Need an alternate path to sell
to Palestinians. Continued collateral damage / civilian deaths makes
that harder. May require Arab Peace Enforcement troops, maybe from
Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
-
Hezbollah - 10x what they were in 2006. 150k missiles stockpiled.
Trained by Quds. Israel disrupted chain of command with pager attack and
eliminating leadership. Then tactical strikes. Effective but creates
new risk of less predictable unorganized Hezbollah cells acting
independently.
- Iran - Unclear what
Israel will hit in Iran but they’ll probably wait until after the High
Holy Days conclude next week. Prob a mix of military, economic, and
symbolic targets. Or maybe I’m wrong and they’ll go downtown. Either
way, will be strong message of “don’t do that again” but stopping short
of delivering a devastating hit. Neither Israel nor Iran want a full
direct war, but sometimes wars happen even when they aren’t wanted.
Would US get involved? Country is 1/3 bigger than Iraq with bigger
military. We could deal with it, but at a significant cost (aircraft,
ships and casualties).
- Iran Nuclear.
Now they are only days/weeks away from having enough Uranium “goo”. But
takes another period of time to package into a missile. Supreme Leader
has not given green light to proceed with spinning the goo. We will know
if/when he does. US policy since GHWB has been that Iran cannot have a
nuke.
- Election. From IR perspective,
choice between Wilsonian collective security or Washingtonian
isolationist philosophy. Both legitimate schools of thought ingrained in
American history.
- Future of Warfare.
Nature of War doesn’t change through history but character of war does
(tactics & tech). Example - gun range increased from 70yds to 400yds
between American Rev and Civil War, General were slow to adapt and it
was a bloodbath. In WWII, Germans, Brits and French had same new tank
tech, radio comms and air support, but Germans came up with best system
(Panzer Divisions) and steamrolled Europe in 18 months, including a
larger French Army. Looking ahead - 1/3 of US military will be robots
in 15 years. Drone tanks, sailor-less ships, more UAVs, etc. China and
Russia will try to do the same. Armed robots powered by AI and Quantum
Computing will have terrifying capabilities. Not looking forward to it.
Important that we lead.
