Joe Biden has only been Vice-President a month, and already he has provided me a steady stream of "dumb" remark articles. In his latest demonstation of stupidity, he remarked that Louisiana was "losing 400 jobs a day," when Louisiana was one of few states actually adding jobs, and Louisiana's unemployment at 5.9% is well under the national average of 7.3%.
Thanks for drawing attention to a Republican success story, Joe.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Selective Cartoon Outrage Makes a Monkey of Democrats
This is the offending New York Post cartoon that Al Sharpton considers an excuse for government imposed censorship and sanctions against free expression. It hurts me to look at it because it reminds me of the terrible tragedy - the horribly maimed woman; the monkey's owner faced with the double tragedy of her friend's injuries and the death of her beloved pet; and the monkey dead because it was overprotective and incapable of understanding a change in its environment.
I looked at the cartoon and saw a monkey killed by the policemen, not President Obama. When I thought further about the meaning of the cartoon, I grasped that it was ridiculing the writers of the stimulus package, as I did in an earlier post. I still didn't think of Obama.
Then it struck me. To the Left, President Bush had been "BushChimpHitler." Many pictures and cartoons compared Bush to Hitler. Many others depicted President Bush as a chimp.
Unlike the Post cartoon, it was clear that President Bush was being compared to a chimp,
Democrats have been very selective about which cartoons they deem cause racial offense. For example, many well-known Leftist cartoonists drew very offensive cartoons of Condoleezza Rice:
This is by the always execrable Ted Rall, who is President of the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists.
This one stereotyping Condi Rice as a slovenly, uneducated Mammy, is by Jeff Danzinger of the Los Angeles Times, syndicated by Tribune Media.
Even Pat Oliphant joins the racial stereotyping parade. Actually, Oliphant has been criticized many times for racist caricatures.
You notice that in each of these cartoons, unlike the Post cartoon, there is no ambiguity about who is being mocked and about the racial connotations.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Liberal Plan to Save Social Security
The San Francisco Chronicle ran an article by a particularly ignorant writer entitled, Federal waste we can end, by Susan Alexander, January 28, 2009. I don’t know how her article could have gotten through an editing process, so I’m assuming The Chronicle’s editors are equally ignorant.
Ms. Alexander used Senator John McCain collecting Social Security payments as an example of what she considers Federal waste. Ms. Alexander admits her essential ignorance of the system she is writing about when she states: “How many working Americans are even aware that wealthy retirees receive Social Security checks? I didn't know until the 2008 presidential campaign, when one very prominent "retiree" revealed that he cashed a hefty Social Security check every month.”
Before I go on, I assume Ms. Alexander realizes that many wealthy Americans now contribute 6.2% of their income (12.4% if self-employed), and have contributed to Social Security all their working lives.
I shouldn’t assume too much about Ms. Alexander’s awareness of what I thought was common knowledge of Social Security. She further paraded her ignorance of Social Security when she continued:
Ms. Alexander, Senator McCain contributed from 3% to over 5% of his income into Social Security during each of his many years of military service. I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised if you didn’t know that military members pay into Social Security.
For many years Congressmen didn’t pay into Social Security, even when military members like Senator McCain did.
Under a law enacted in 1983, all members of Congress both contribute to and receive benefits from the Social Security system. Apparently all of them, not just Senator McCain, are what you, Ms. Alexander, consider too wealthy to receive Social Security.
Where would you draw the line, Ms. Alexander? The top one percent of American households make over $350,000 a year, or about $175,000 per person, which is roughly a Senator’s salary. In the wealthiest one percent there are approximately 380,000 Americans over 65 drawing Social Security, receiving a total of about one billion dollars per year (assuming each wealthy recipient received at least the Social Security maximum of $2,323 per month starting at age 66).
Would stopping Social Security payments to the wealthiest one percent of households save Social Security? The $1 billion saved would be almost 0.2% of the over $600 billion paid out in 2008, or an extra $2 per month to each of the less wealthy recipients.
Do you really consider that meaningful progress towards saving Social Security, Ms. Alexander? Your answer has to be “yes,” or why would you write your article? Or perhaps you assumed that The Chronicle editors and readers would be too dumb to do the numbers. It appears you got that right. Thousands will have read your erroneous article and, like The Chronicle editors, not be able to make a common sense evaluation of your position.
A few will read my blog post and realize the truth, but most of them will be conservatives too. To us it is obvious that Social Security is an enormous waste and, by the way, its unfunded liability is roughly $16 trillion (a couple of trillion dollars more than the United States annual GDP).
If the United States was a business, the government of the United States would take it to court for misstating its liabilities, and shut it down for insolvency.
Ms. Alexander used Senator John McCain collecting Social Security payments as an example of what she considers Federal waste. Ms. Alexander admits her essential ignorance of the system she is writing about when she states: “How many working Americans are even aware that wealthy retirees receive Social Security checks? I didn't know until the 2008 presidential campaign, when one very prominent "retiree" revealed that he cashed a hefty Social Security check every month.”
Before I go on, I assume Ms. Alexander realizes that many wealthy Americans now contribute 6.2% of their income (12.4% if self-employed), and have contributed to Social Security all their working lives.
I shouldn’t assume too much about Ms. Alexander’s awareness of what I thought was common knowledge of Social Security. She further paraded her ignorance of Social Security when she continued:
(Senator McCain’s) earnings in the Senate, where he contributes 6.2 percent of his income into Social Security, apparently entitled him to this handsome sum on some bureaucrat's chart, but isn't there something wrong with this picture?
Ms. Alexander, Senator McCain contributed from 3% to over 5% of his income into Social Security during each of his many years of military service. I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised if you didn’t know that military members pay into Social Security.
For many years Congressmen didn’t pay into Social Security, even when military members like Senator McCain did.
Under a law enacted in 1983, all members of Congress both contribute to and receive benefits from the Social Security system. Apparently all of them, not just Senator McCain, are what you, Ms. Alexander, consider too wealthy to receive Social Security.
Where would you draw the line, Ms. Alexander? The top one percent of American households make over $350,000 a year, or about $175,000 per person, which is roughly a Senator’s salary. In the wealthiest one percent there are approximately 380,000 Americans over 65 drawing Social Security, receiving a total of about one billion dollars per year (assuming each wealthy recipient received at least the Social Security maximum of $2,323 per month starting at age 66).
Would stopping Social Security payments to the wealthiest one percent of households save Social Security? The $1 billion saved would be almost 0.2% of the over $600 billion paid out in 2008, or an extra $2 per month to each of the less wealthy recipients.
Do you really consider that meaningful progress towards saving Social Security, Ms. Alexander? Your answer has to be “yes,” or why would you write your article? Or perhaps you assumed that The Chronicle editors and readers would be too dumb to do the numbers. It appears you got that right. Thousands will have read your erroneous article and, like The Chronicle editors, not be able to make a common sense evaluation of your position.
A few will read my blog post and realize the truth, but most of them will be conservatives too. To us it is obvious that Social Security is an enormous waste and, by the way, its unfunded liability is roughly $16 trillion (a couple of trillion dollars more than the United States annual GDP).
If the United States was a business, the government of the United States would take it to court for misstating its liabilities, and shut it down for insolvency.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
The Big Global Warming Cover Up!
Alice showed me an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, "Hashem Akbari's cool anti-global-warming plan" by Justin Berton (Chronicle Staff Writer, Friday, February 20, 2009), that really had me puzzled.
After getting past the concept of cooling the Earth by painting roofs white and roads a light color, the first real puzzler was the claim of benefits from so doing.
Where did the Akbari team get the above amount of CO2? Sources I've checked show the Earth emits 180 billion tons of CO2 per year, and mankind produces another 6 billion tons a year. Apparently Akbari is claiming his scheme would save all of mankind's CO2 emissions for over a seven year period. How does he do that?
About Akbari's suggestion to retard global warming by painting all roofs and roads a light color:
I don't think you can do anything about the color of the oceans, and they cover 70% of the Earth's surface. Ditto Antarctica - but it's already white anyway. A scan of a globe shows that the less than 25% of it that is neither ice nor ocean appears to be over 99% free of buildings and roads - and huge swaths of it, such as most of Canada, Greenland, and Siberia, don't require air conditioning (or much heating either, since hardly anyone lives there).
Almost all of Australia is uninhabited, and New Zealand too - plus its many glaciers and sheep are already white. Other huge, relatively uninhabited areas include the interiors of South America, North America, North Africa, Saudi Arabia, and the mountain, steppe, and desert regions of Asia.
Alice reminds me that many of the roofs that are candidates for painting already host solar panels. They won't work well covered with white paint, and Alice has forbidden me to paint over the 800 square feet of glass in our sunroom ceiling.
Which brings me to another point. The Sun spends little time directly overhead. In fact, for much of the year, particularly here in Northern California and more northerly, the Sun's rays strike the sides of houses as much or more than the roofs - and none of us have air conditioning - and it's been getting colder the past ten years.
I appreciate that Mr. Hashem Akbari is a big thinker, and he would be a boon to painting and road surfacing businesses. However, I don't think he's noticed how tiny an area he's dealing with in relation to Planet Earth.
I'm afraid Mr. Akbari has spent too much time out in the sunshine without his hat.
This is another solution in search of a problem.
After getting past the concept of cooling the Earth by painting roofs white and roads a light color, the first real puzzler was the claim of benefits from so doing.
In September, Akbari and his team published a study in the academic journal Climatic Change, which found for every 100 square feet of black rooftop converted to white, a building owner could offset about 1 ton of carbon dioxide.
Add to that all the world's paved urban surfaces (Akbari recommends converting black asphalt to an aged concrete color instead of white), and the team concluded enough cooling benefits to offset 44 billion tons of CO2.
Put another way, that's roughly the same amount of CO2 the planet emits every 18 months.
Where did the Akbari team get the above amount of CO2? Sources I've checked show the Earth emits 180 billion tons of CO2 per year, and mankind produces another 6 billion tons a year. Apparently Akbari is claiming his scheme would save all of mankind's CO2 emissions for over a seven year period. How does he do that?
About Akbari's suggestion to retard global warming by painting all roofs and roads a light color:
I don't think you can do anything about the color of the oceans, and they cover 70% of the Earth's surface. Ditto Antarctica - but it's already white anyway. A scan of a globe shows that the less than 25% of it that is neither ice nor ocean appears to be over 99% free of buildings and roads - and huge swaths of it, such as most of Canada, Greenland, and Siberia, don't require air conditioning (or much heating either, since hardly anyone lives there).
Almost all of Australia is uninhabited, and New Zealand too - plus its many glaciers and sheep are already white. Other huge, relatively uninhabited areas include the interiors of South America, North America, North Africa, Saudi Arabia, and the mountain, steppe, and desert regions of Asia.
Alice reminds me that many of the roofs that are candidates for painting already host solar panels. They won't work well covered with white paint, and Alice has forbidden me to paint over the 800 square feet of glass in our sunroom ceiling.
Which brings me to another point. The Sun spends little time directly overhead. In fact, for much of the year, particularly here in Northern California and more northerly, the Sun's rays strike the sides of houses as much or more than the roofs - and none of us have air conditioning - and it's been getting colder the past ten years.
I appreciate that Mr. Hashem Akbari is a big thinker, and he would be a boon to painting and road surfacing businesses. However, I don't think he's noticed how tiny an area he's dealing with in relation to Planet Earth.
I'm afraid Mr. Akbari has spent too much time out in the sunshine without his hat.
This is another solution in search of a problem.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Greenhouse Gases Up, Global Temperatures Down
What does it mean when a cause factor in a model increases, and the effect it is supposed to cause decreases? One reasonable conclusion is that the causative factor in the model is wrong.
Global warming models predict that if greenhouse gases increase, warming increases. Further, if greenhouse gases increase more rapidly than predicted, warming should also increase more rapidly.
Recent increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide indicate it is increasing at a 3.5% rate per year instead of the predicted 0.9%. Therefore, warming should be increasing at an accelerating rate rather than at a reduced or negative rate, as it has in the past decade.
The Master Resource blog notes that global warming models are adrift, and Dr. Patrick J. Michaels shows that temperature observations fall at or below the models' lower temperature predictions. In other words, the models are being proven false by reality.
Time to get some new models.
Global warming models predict that if greenhouse gases increase, warming increases. Further, if greenhouse gases increase more rapidly than predicted, warming should also increase more rapidly.
Recent increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide indicate it is increasing at a 3.5% rate per year instead of the predicted 0.9%. Therefore, warming should be increasing at an accelerating rate rather than at a reduced or negative rate, as it has in the past decade.
The Master Resource blog notes that global warming models are adrift, and Dr. Patrick J. Michaels shows that temperature observations fall at or below the models' lower temperature predictions. In other words, the models are being proven false by reality.
Time to get some new models.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Stumbling, Fumbling, Bumbling Obama Continued
My previous post on this topic was getting so overfilled with updated instances of further stumbling, bumbling, and fumbling that I decided to start a new one.
Leading off, the CEO of Catepillar, Jim Owens, was quoted by Obama as saying that the stimulus, when passed, would cause Catepillar to rescind 22,000 layoff notices issued last month. After Obama made the remark, and later repeated it, Owens was asked if the stimulus package would be able to stop the 22,000 layoffs or not, and answered, "I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again."
Apparently the Democrat's "Great Communicator," is not a "Great Listener."
Come to think of it, he's coming up light in the communications area too, as evidenced by the sudden withdrawal of his Commerce Secretary nominee, Republican Senator Judd Gregg, who found too much to disagree with in Obama's policies. At least Gregg pulled out without an ethics cloud above his head.
Those who want to criticize Senator Gregg for getting cold feet might want to consider that Obama's Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, joined a long line of known tax cheats nominated by Obama, and is notable because he didn't have the decency to withdraw when his $34,000 of tax cheating became public.
On this topic, it goes without saying, but needs to be said because the main stream media ignores it, that Joe Biden deserves a wing in Obama's Stumbling, Fumbling, Bumbling Hall of Infamy all his own. Most recently he clearly forecasted failure of the stimulus even if Obama and the Democrats did everything right.
Fortunately for Obama, no one with any intelligence pays any attention to what Joe Biden says. Unfortunately, that means that most Democrats do take Biden seriously.
It's a fundamental mystery of life how anyone can credit Obama with competence after his selection of Biden as his running mate.
Leading off, the CEO of Catepillar, Jim Owens, was quoted by Obama as saying that the stimulus, when passed, would cause Catepillar to rescind 22,000 layoff notices issued last month. After Obama made the remark, and later repeated it, Owens was asked if the stimulus package would be able to stop the 22,000 layoffs or not, and answered, "I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again."
Apparently the Democrat's "Great Communicator," is not a "Great Listener."
Come to think of it, he's coming up light in the communications area too, as evidenced by the sudden withdrawal of his Commerce Secretary nominee, Republican Senator Judd Gregg, who found too much to disagree with in Obama's policies. At least Gregg pulled out without an ethics cloud above his head.
Those who want to criticize Senator Gregg for getting cold feet might want to consider that Obama's Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, joined a long line of known tax cheats nominated by Obama, and is notable because he didn't have the decency to withdraw when his $34,000 of tax cheating became public.
On this topic, it goes without saying, but needs to be said because the main stream media ignores it, that Joe Biden deserves a wing in Obama's Stumbling, Fumbling, Bumbling Hall of Infamy all his own. Most recently he clearly forecasted failure of the stimulus even if Obama and the Democrats did everything right.
Fortunately for Obama, no one with any intelligence pays any attention to what Joe Biden says. Unfortunately, that means that most Democrats do take Biden seriously.
It's a fundamental mystery of life how anyone can credit Obama with competence after his selection of Biden as his running mate.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
More Dumb Joe Biden Remarks
Joe Biden said "If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, if we stand up there and we really make the tough decisions, there's still a 30 percent chance we're going to get it wrong."
When Obama was asked about Biden's remark at a White House press conference, he commented: "You know, I don't remember exactly what Joe was referring to, not surprisingly."
However, what I believe is the final word on this was left to a commenter on the The Telegraph website, who noted that the Obama administration is not handling the financial crisis with absolute certainty, and is not making the tough decisions. With the stumbling, bumbling, fumbling approach the Obama administration is taking - primarily leaving crafting the stimulus package to the single-digit approval Democrat-led Congress - a 30 percent chance of getting it right would be wildly optimistic.
Test this and see if it seems logical. Obama comes into office with a mandate rarely seen in American politics, a belief that he can walk on water and that he will make everything alright. He joins forces with a Democrat-led Congress that has been in power for two years, got nothing accoplished and nothing right, and has the lowest rating in the history of congressional approval polling. So Obama steps aside and turns the salvation of the nation - most say of the world - to the widely preceived most ineffectual and incompetent group of legislators ever assembled in our nation's capital.
And then in another logic-defying step, they let Joe Biden out to talk about it.
The clowns can entertain, but never make one the Ringmaster.
When Obama was asked about Biden's remark at a White House press conference, he commented: "You know, I don't remember exactly what Joe was referring to, not surprisingly."
However, what I believe is the final word on this was left to a commenter on the The Telegraph website, who noted that the Obama administration is not handling the financial crisis with absolute certainty, and is not making the tough decisions. With the stumbling, bumbling, fumbling approach the Obama administration is taking - primarily leaving crafting the stimulus package to the single-digit approval Democrat-led Congress - a 30 percent chance of getting it right would be wildly optimistic.
Test this and see if it seems logical. Obama comes into office with a mandate rarely seen in American politics, a belief that he can walk on water and that he will make everything alright. He joins forces with a Democrat-led Congress that has been in power for two years, got nothing accoplished and nothing right, and has the lowest rating in the history of congressional approval polling. So Obama steps aside and turns the salvation of the nation - most say of the world - to the widely preceived most ineffectual and incompetent group of legislators ever assembled in our nation's capital.
And then in another logic-defying step, they let Joe Biden out to talk about it.
The clowns can entertain, but never make one the Ringmaster.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Gigantic Snake Proves Global Warming is Ancient News
About 60 million years ago the Earth was much warmer than today, and no one seems to seriously dispute this. A recent find in Colombia of a fossil of an ancient snake that grew to be over 40 feet long indicates that temperatures then were 6 to 8 degrees warmer than today.
Without an SUV in sight.
To me, this is another indication that climate change is natural and constant. To commited global warming alarmists, it's something else. According to paleontologist Jason Head of the University of Toronto Missisauga, senior author of a report on the find in the journal Nature:
Head's statements seem odd, even gratuitous in light of other information he and another paleontologist provided about the gigantic snake. Not only was it warmer then naturally, but the snake's habit was nothing like today's. According to Head: "While related to modern boa constrictors, it behaved more like an anaconda and spent almost all its time in the water."
Adds Paleontologist Jonathan Bloch of the University of Florida, fish fossils were also found that were related to bonefish and tarpon, and that would have lived in brackish seawater. "That indicates it was a big, riverine system close to the ocean."
And obviously not a habitat that would exist today, whether or not there was development or deforestation.
Without an SUV in sight.
To me, this is another indication that climate change is natural and constant. To commited global warming alarmists, it's something else. According to paleontologist Jason Head of the University of Toronto Missisauga, senior author of a report on the find in the journal Nature:
Titanoboa's size gives clues about its environment. A snake's size is related to how warm its environment is. The fossils suggest equatorial temperatures in its day were significantly warmer than they are now, during a time when the world as a whole was warmer. So equatorial temperatures apparently rose along with the global levels, in contrast to the competing hypothesis that they would not go up much, Head noted.
"It's a leap" to apply the conditions of the past to modern climate change, Head said. But given that, the finding still has "some potentially scary implications for what we're doing to the climate today," he said.
The finding suggest the equatorial regions will warm up along with the planet, he said.
"We won't have giant snakes, however, because we are removing most of their habitats by development and deforestation" in equatorial regions.
Head's statements seem odd, even gratuitous in light of other information he and another paleontologist provided about the gigantic snake. Not only was it warmer then naturally, but the snake's habit was nothing like today's. According to Head: "While related to modern boa constrictors, it behaved more like an anaconda and spent almost all its time in the water."
Adds Paleontologist Jonathan Bloch of the University of Florida, fish fossils were also found that were related to bonefish and tarpon, and that would have lived in brackish seawater. "That indicates it was a big, riverine system close to the ocean."
And obviously not a habitat that would exist today, whether or not there was development or deforestation.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Another Chris Matthews Tirade - "Dick Cheney, War Criminal"
As I read Chris Matthews' tirade against Dick Cheney: "100,000 killed, 4,000 Americans dead, 15,000 wounded," I search in vain for equal outrage at the 800,000 to a million Rwandans murdered in 1994 under the benevolent watch of Bill Clinton and kind protection of the United Nations.
Chris, do you know what Bill Clinton said about the Rwandan genocide? He lied.
In 1998 he said: "All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror."
Chris, Bill lied. And lied. And lied.
I'll bet you're surprised.
Chris, I've been Googling for your condemnations of Bill Clinton for the Rwandan genocide, and I haven't found anything. What am I missing? I'll bet somewhere there's a tape of you praising his humility and sincerity as he "apologized."
It probably made your leg tingle when he bit his lip...then bit it again...and again.
There's no one who can fake sincerity like Bill Clinton.
I also search in vain for your, Mr. Matthews, condemnation of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and millions of Iranians, that Saddam had killed. I can't give Bill Clinton credit for saving lots of innocent lives, because he didn't, but President Bush's actions resulted in fewer Iraqis being killed than would have lost their lives under the tender ministrations of Saddam.
A recent study finds that the number of Iraqis killed since Saddam was ousted is about 50,000 instead of your 100,000 figure (and the wildly trumpeted 655,000 included in the thoroughly discredited Lancet study just before the 2006 mid-term elections). As a "journalist" you should know these things, right?
Chris, try this to put things in perspective. If all your friends could kick their drug habits, the 7,000 Mexicans killed in drug wars (10% are innocent bystanders) the past two years (Huffington Post article) would still be alive.
Chris, that sounds like the crowd you run with.
Chris, do you know what Bill Clinton said about the Rwandan genocide? He lied.
In 1998 he said: "All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror."
Chris, Bill lied. And lied. And lied.
I'll bet you're surprised.
During the first three days of the killings U.S. diplomats in Rwanda reported back to Washington that well-armed extremists were intent on eliminating the Tutsi.
Chris, I've been Googling for your condemnations of Bill Clinton for the Rwandan genocide, and I haven't found anything. What am I missing? I'll bet somewhere there's a tape of you praising his humility and sincerity as he "apologized."
It probably made your leg tingle when he bit his lip...then bit it again...and again.
There's no one who can fake sincerity like Bill Clinton.
I also search in vain for your, Mr. Matthews, condemnation of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and millions of Iranians, that Saddam had killed. I can't give Bill Clinton credit for saving lots of innocent lives, because he didn't, but President Bush's actions resulted in fewer Iraqis being killed than would have lost their lives under the tender ministrations of Saddam.
A recent study finds that the number of Iraqis killed since Saddam was ousted is about 50,000 instead of your 100,000 figure (and the wildly trumpeted 655,000 included in the thoroughly discredited Lancet study just before the 2006 mid-term elections). As a "journalist" you should know these things, right?
Chris, try this to put things in perspective. If all your friends could kick their drug habits, the 7,000 Mexicans killed in drug wars (10% are innocent bystanders) the past two years (Huffington Post article) would still be alive.
The gangs make a staggering £15bn a year smuggling heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine and Colombian cocaine to the hip bars and dinner parties of North America and Europe.
Chris, that sounds like the crowd you run with.
Stumbling, Bumbling, Fumbling Obama
The White House is full of hothouse plants. So this is how you fight global warming! The first two weeks of the Obama administration probably seem like déjà vu all over again for Detroit Lions fans.
(Click on the cartoon for a larger image)
(The latest stumbling, bumbling, fumbling Obama UPDATE: Obama likes it toasty warm in the White House. Reported by the New York Times:
Not included in the New York Times article, back in May 18, 2008, CNN.COM has a transcript of a speech Obama gave in Portland, Oregon, about the seriousness of combating global warming. This is an excerpt of that speech:
More "do as I say, not as I do" leadership from the top Democrat?
Obama and Al Gore share the same approach to fighting global warming: "Talk a good fight, but let someone else take the hits." For more, go here:
(The previous latest UPDATE:
Hilda Solis is a nominee I would really like to see tossed out. She's a throwback to the type of union-pandering Democrats that have killed and are killing American industries while claiming to be "saving jobs." Ms. Solis, you can't save union-workers' jobs if union costs and practices drive their employers out of business.)
Now I know what it means when Democrats say that He wants to be just like FDR.
As another digression, Democrats have been bemoaning the fact that a lot of basic manufacturing is done in China and other countries, not here. There’s a really good reason for that – basic economic common sense. Why should we make something simple and inexpensive when another country can make it cheaper? Isn’t it dumb to try to hold on to jobs where our workers are competing with lower paid foreign workers? Why wouldn’t we want to let go of such jobs, and have our citizens do higher skilled, better paying jobs?
Anyway, the bottom line, according to Democrats, is that we can’t Buy American for many goods because we don’t produce them in America anymore.
As I mentioned in a previous blog, Obama may have found the key to increasing tax revenues: just nominate Fat Cat Democrats like Tom Daschle, whose pockets were bulging with stipends from corporations who wanted him to make rain for them from government agencies, and use the confirmation process disclosures to force them to pay their tax liabilities. Then when they cough up their back taxes, dump them and nominate another Fat Cat.
Remember when Joe Biden said it was a pleasure to pay more taxes? Apparently not all Democrats share Joe’s euphoria.
Nancy Killefer, appointed by The President to a new position at the Office of Management and Budget to scrutinize government spending, couldn’t stand up to scrutiny of her own spending.
From Jay Hancock’s blog:
Jay adds that the joke going around Washington is: “Why are Democrats so happy to raise taxes?”
Answer: “They don't pay them.”
(Click on the cartoon for a larger image)(The latest stumbling, bumbling, fumbling Obama UPDATE: Obama likes it toasty warm in the White House. Reported by the New York Times:
He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?" said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. "He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there."
Not included in the New York Times article, back in May 18, 2008, CNN.COM has a transcript of a speech Obama gave in Portland, Oregon, about the seriousness of combating global warming. This is an excerpt of that speech:
We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not leadership.
More "do as I say, not as I do" leadership from the top Democrat?
Obama and Al Gore share the same approach to fighting global warming: "Talk a good fight, but let someone else take the hits." For more, go here:
(S)ome energy experts say Obama, who made energy efficiency a cornerstone of his campaign, needs to stay on message.
"He's got to make every American make a personal commitment" to decrease their own energy use and educate the country about the threat of climate change, he said. "The earlier the president can convey that message the better."
(The previous latest UPDATE:
A Senate committee today abruptly canceled a session to consider President Obama's nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis to be labor secretary in the wake of a report saying that her husband yesterday paid about $6,400 to settle tax liens against his business -- liens that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years.
Hilda Solis is a nominee I would really like to see tossed out. She's a throwback to the type of union-pandering Democrats that have killed and are killing American industries while claiming to be "saving jobs." Ms. Solis, you can't save union-workers' jobs if union costs and practices drive their employers out of business.)
The original post starts here:
The latest was Obama’s about face on a “Buy American” policy in the bailout when Europe and Canada reminded him that trade restrictions are a two-way street – they won’t buy our exports if we won’t buy theirs – and that what He proposed was a violation of World Trade agreements, anyway.
The Man who decried George Bush leading America away from other countries almost invited a Trade War. Fortunately He blinked. But why bring up something so stupid in the first place? Didn’t Democrats and The Obama brag about how They were in tune with the rest of the world, not arrogant like Republicans?
And smarter, too?
As a historical footnote, economists give FDR credit for using restrictive trade practices to deepen and drag out the Great Depression. “Beggar thy neighbor” politics.
Now I know what it means when Democrats say that He wants to be just like FDR.
As another digression, Democrats have been bemoaning the fact that a lot of basic manufacturing is done in China and other countries, not here. There’s a really good reason for that – basic economic common sense. Why should we make something simple and inexpensive when another country can make it cheaper? Isn’t it dumb to try to hold on to jobs where our workers are competing with lower paid foreign workers? Why wouldn’t we want to let go of such jobs, and have our citizens do higher skilled, better paying jobs?
Anyway, the bottom line, according to Democrats, is that we can’t Buy American for many goods because we don’t produce them in America anymore.
As I mentioned in a previous blog, Obama may have found the key to increasing tax revenues: just nominate Fat Cat Democrats like Tom Daschle, whose pockets were bulging with stipends from corporations who wanted him to make rain for them from government agencies, and use the confirmation process disclosures to force them to pay their tax liabilities. Then when they cough up their back taxes, dump them and nominate another Fat Cat.
Remember when Joe Biden said it was a pleasure to pay more taxes? Apparently not all Democrats share Joe’s euphoria.
Nancy Killefer, appointed by The President to a new position at the Office of Management and Budget to scrutinize government spending, couldn’t stand up to scrutiny of her own spending.
From Jay Hancock’s blog:
We have Treasury Secretary (!) Tim Geithner, who didn't pay self-employment tax for Medicare and Social Security for several years. We have Killefer. And don't forget Caroline Kennedy, who seems to have withdrawn from consideration for filling Hillary Clinton's NY Senate seat because of tax issues.
Jay adds that the joke going around Washington is: “Why are Democrats so happy to raise taxes?”
Answer: “They don't pay them.”
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Al Gore is a Climate Change Denier
It’s strange to be called a global warming denier, when I’m a climate change believer. I think man-caused global warming activists are the ones in denial – in denial of natural climate change.
It is ridiculous to think that our current climate is stable, or that we must or even are capable of maintaining it in its current state, or changing it for better or worse.
Only 18,000 years ago, so much water was trapped in ice sheets over the northern hemisphere that sea levels were over 400 feet lower. From Gualala it would have been a six-mile hike to the Pacific shore, and from San Francisco you would have to walk over 27 miles, past the horizon and the Farallon Islands, to reach the beach.
However, about 125,000 years ago sea levels were about 25 feet higher than today, and ocean temperatures averaged almost four degrees Fahrenheit warmer. Northern hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now. Trees grew as far north as the southern portion of Baffin Island, several hundred miles north of the current tree line in the Nunavik region of Quebec. Similarly in Europe, forests grew in Norway well above the Arctic Circle, where they don’t now.
In more recent years – in fact, less than 1,000 years ago – the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. Al Gore’s claim our warm weather is “unprecedented” only holds if you define weather as not including the three warmer periods of the Holocene, which began 10,000 years ago and continues today. The Holocene is an interglacial period in our current ice age, and when it ends soon (in geological terms), our climate will be once again very cold.
Less than 1,000 years ago it was so warm that vineyards flourished in England, where they don’t now. The British say the way to make a small fortune is to have a large one and invest it in vineyards in England.
Al Gore makes fools of many, convincing them that our global warming is unprecedented, but you can’t fool Mother Nature.
It is ridiculous to think that our current climate is stable, or that we must or even are capable of maintaining it in its current state, or changing it for better or worse.
Only 18,000 years ago, so much water was trapped in ice sheets over the northern hemisphere that sea levels were over 400 feet lower. From Gualala it would have been a six-mile hike to the Pacific shore, and from San Francisco you would have to walk over 27 miles, past the horizon and the Farallon Islands, to reach the beach.
However, about 125,000 years ago sea levels were about 25 feet higher than today, and ocean temperatures averaged almost four degrees Fahrenheit warmer. Northern hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now. Trees grew as far north as the southern portion of Baffin Island, several hundred miles north of the current tree line in the Nunavik region of Quebec. Similarly in Europe, forests grew in Norway well above the Arctic Circle, where they don’t now.
In more recent years – in fact, less than 1,000 years ago – the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. Al Gore’s claim our warm weather is “unprecedented” only holds if you define weather as not including the three warmer periods of the Holocene, which began 10,000 years ago and continues today. The Holocene is an interglacial period in our current ice age, and when it ends soon (in geological terms), our climate will be once again very cold.
Less than 1,000 years ago it was so warm that vineyards flourished in England, where they don’t now. The British say the way to make a small fortune is to have a large one and invest it in vineyards in England.
Al Gore makes fools of many, convincing them that our global warming is unprecedented, but you can’t fool Mother Nature.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Democrats Like Spending, Not Paying, Taxes
Democrat eagerness to spend taxpayers' money is only exceeded by their reluctance to pay taxes themselves. Former Senator Tom Daschle is the latest of Obama's nominees to get caught doing major tax avoidance, in this case $128,000 over a three-year period.
You have to give Daschle credit for chutzpah. The man who was in on writing our tax laws for decades made "honest mistakes" in determining what should be included in taxable income.
Apparently the only way to get high-ranking Democrats to pay their back taxes is to nominate them for a high position in the Obama administration, and then do a thorough vetting of their background. That leads me to suggest that Obama create more positions, nominate Democrat high-rollers to fill them, then use the tax revenues generated during the review process to help reduce the deficit.
However, the nominee should then be blocked from taking the position, and another nominee selected. The whole process is wasted if you approve the tax cheats for the jobs anyway, because then they'll just soak up and spend more of the taxpayers' money than they paid back.
The compensation Daschle and other former Democrat legislators are paid are clearly legal bribes for access to Democrat power brokers. Yet Daschle and others resent giving a little back after being enriched so much.
You have to give Daschle credit for chutzpah. The man who was in on writing our tax laws for decades made "honest mistakes" in determining what should be included in taxable income.
Apparently the only way to get high-ranking Democrats to pay their back taxes is to nominate them for a high position in the Obama administration, and then do a thorough vetting of their background. That leads me to suggest that Obama create more positions, nominate Democrat high-rollers to fill them, then use the tax revenues generated during the review process to help reduce the deficit.
However, the nominee should then be blocked from taking the position, and another nominee selected. The whole process is wasted if you approve the tax cheats for the jobs anyway, because then they'll just soak up and spend more of the taxpayers' money than they paid back.
The compensation Daschle and other former Democrat legislators are paid are clearly legal bribes for access to Democrat power brokers. Yet Daschle and others resent giving a little back after being enriched so much.
Obama’s “I Won” More Arrogant than “Mission Accomplished”
Democrats have been ridiculing President Bush for the “Mission Accomplished” sign displayed after the rapid fall of Saddam and his army. Far from being arrogant, the “Mission Accomplished” sign reflected that our military did their job outstandingly. In a very brief period, with amazingly low loss of lives, the formidable Iraq military was defeated.
Our American armed forces accomplished their mission fantastically. They had every right and reason to display their congratulations for the most successful military campaign in history. What followed was the irrationality that accompanies Islam worldwide: one Muslim hates another more than any other, and this has persisted for over a thousand years.
In the unerring certitude of hindsight, we are now aware that Shi’ite and Sunni cannot put aside their murderous animosities, even when released from brutal tyranny and given every opportunity to travel a peaceful and democratic road.
On the other hand, what has Obama “won” except the opportunity to attempt to govern wisely? To date nothing has been accomplished, and Obama and the Democrats’ attempts at solutions to the world’s problems are vague and unformed. When last I was updated, the plan was to have the government spend us into prosperity. If I had known it was that simple, I would want the government to do it all the time, just like California.
I wonder why it works for the federal government and not the states? It must be something about the states having to balance their budgets, and the federal government doesn’t.
What are the objectives of the stimulus package, and how will we know if they have been accomplished?
When that moment comes, Obama can hang his “I Won” sign, but now is too soon.
Our American armed forces accomplished their mission fantastically. They had every right and reason to display their congratulations for the most successful military campaign in history. What followed was the irrationality that accompanies Islam worldwide: one Muslim hates another more than any other, and this has persisted for over a thousand years.
In the unerring certitude of hindsight, we are now aware that Shi’ite and Sunni cannot put aside their murderous animosities, even when released from brutal tyranny and given every opportunity to travel a peaceful and democratic road.
On the other hand, what has Obama “won” except the opportunity to attempt to govern wisely? To date nothing has been accomplished, and Obama and the Democrats’ attempts at solutions to the world’s problems are vague and unformed. When last I was updated, the plan was to have the government spend us into prosperity. If I had known it was that simple, I would want the government to do it all the time, just like California.
I wonder why it works for the federal government and not the states? It must be something about the states having to balance their budgets, and the federal government doesn’t.
What are the objectives of the stimulus package, and how will we know if they have been accomplished?
When that moment comes, Obama can hang his “I Won” sign, but now is too soon.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
A Sensible Statement about Global Warming
Sensible statements about global warming are very rare, and I was amazed to find this one lurking among typical alarmist statements.
If the temperature of the Earth’s surface is changing, something needs to be done to mitigate the effects.
Of course, that is what humans have been doing for thousands of years. Actually, adapting to change is what humans do best.
What do we know about the temperature of the Earth’s surface that is incontrovertible?
Simple.
We know that it is constantly changing.
And we know that we must do something to mitigate the effects of these constant changes.
In Minnesota we put on a thick coat. In Alaska we put on a couple of thick coats. In Oregon and Washington we wear rain clothes and carry umbrellas. In Hawaii, we take off almost everything. In California we complain about everything, demanding perfection in our weather as we do in all things.
Looking back in time, less than 20,000 years ago North America to points south of the Great Lakes was covered by mile-thick ice sheets. Come to think of it, the Great Lakes were a product of that Ice Age.
Obviously, humans mitigated the effects of that climate change by waiting for the ice to melt before living in Chicago.
In more recent years, Americans living in the populous northeastern states found they could find employment and live more comfortably in the warmer southern and western states, and a massive exodus from the colder states ensued. This movement in favor of global warming was abetted by the invention of air conditioning, which mitigated the effects of voluntary climate change.
In the 1930s heat and drought afflicted the Plains States – in particular northern Texas, western Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota, and eastern Colorado and New Mexico. Many of the residents of the Dust Bowl area took action to mitigate the effects of the climate change – they loaded up their trucks and moved to Californy.
Today Canadian and New England “Snow Birds” migrate to Florida and Arizona each winter to mitigate the effects of climate change. For them, warmer is better.
People also move in great masses to mitigate the effects of political climate change, but that’s for another article.
If the temperature of the Earth’s surface is changing, something needs to be done to mitigate the effects.
Of course, that is what humans have been doing for thousands of years. Actually, adapting to change is what humans do best.
What do we know about the temperature of the Earth’s surface that is incontrovertible?
Simple.
We know that it is constantly changing.
And we know that we must do something to mitigate the effects of these constant changes.
In Minnesota we put on a thick coat. In Alaska we put on a couple of thick coats. In Oregon and Washington we wear rain clothes and carry umbrellas. In Hawaii, we take off almost everything. In California we complain about everything, demanding perfection in our weather as we do in all things.
Looking back in time, less than 20,000 years ago North America to points south of the Great Lakes was covered by mile-thick ice sheets. Come to think of it, the Great Lakes were a product of that Ice Age.
Obviously, humans mitigated the effects of that climate change by waiting for the ice to melt before living in Chicago.
In more recent years, Americans living in the populous northeastern states found they could find employment and live more comfortably in the warmer southern and western states, and a massive exodus from the colder states ensued. This movement in favor of global warming was abetted by the invention of air conditioning, which mitigated the effects of voluntary climate change.
In the 1930s heat and drought afflicted the Plains States – in particular northern Texas, western Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota, and eastern Colorado and New Mexico. Many of the residents of the Dust Bowl area took action to mitigate the effects of the climate change – they loaded up their trucks and moved to Californy.
Today Canadian and New England “Snow Birds” migrate to Florida and Arizona each winter to mitigate the effects of climate change. For them, warmer is better.
People also move in great masses to mitigate the effects of political climate change, but that’s for another article.
Dental Implants in Hungary - Not a good idea
Unfortunately, my implant holiday in Hungary did not work from a dental point of view. The upper left implant fell out a month after our return, and when I contacted The Implant Center, they mailed me a screw to be inserted while they repaired the implant and mailed it back to me. The screw was too big. By the time they mailed me the correct size, the hole in my gum had grown closed.
Then my dentist gave me more bad news. "The two upper right implants are mobile. They've failed, and it's just a matter of time before you lose them too."
I gingerly checked them, and they moved a lot side to side. So did the bottom right impant. "They should be very firm, not mobile like that," my dentist said.
The bottom line is that concerning my teeth, I'm worse off now than before I got the implants. It won't be long before all I have are the anchors embedded in my jaws, with no implants in them. Also, the anchors are not compatible with any fixes or repairs I could get in the United States, and there is no reason to believe I could get the dentists in Hungary to make them work any better than they do now. Now with each bite I expect an implant to pop out.
Sometimes saving money can get mighty expensive.
Then my dentist gave me more bad news. "The two upper right implants are mobile. They've failed, and it's just a matter of time before you lose them too."
I gingerly checked them, and they moved a lot side to side. So did the bottom right impant. "They should be very firm, not mobile like that," my dentist said.
The bottom line is that concerning my teeth, I'm worse off now than before I got the implants. It won't be long before all I have are the anchors embedded in my jaws, with no implants in them. Also, the anchors are not compatible with any fixes or repairs I could get in the United States, and there is no reason to believe I could get the dentists in Hungary to make them work any better than they do now. Now with each bite I expect an implant to pop out.
Sometimes saving money can get mighty expensive.
Democrats Put the Bounce in Blagojevich Kangaroo Court
The impeachment of soon-to-be ex-Illinois Governor Blagojevich reminds me of a story about jury selection for a murder trial. An old rancher was called up and as he approached the bench looked around and asked: “Which one of you is the guilty bastard we’re supposed to hang?”
Except the Blagojevich impeachment skipped the parts about impartial jury selection, presumption of innocence, confronting of witnesses, and calling witnesses for the defense.
In truth, I sympathize with the Democrats rush to judgment. If left to his own devices, I wouldn’t be surprised if Blagojevich wouldn’t take out many prominent Illinois politicians, from a list headlined by Rahm Emanuel and Jesse Jackson, Jr.
According to legendary former California Speaker of the Assembly Willie Brown, Governor Blagojevich phoned him when he read an item in Willie’s World, Willie Brown’s column in the Sunday San Francisco Chronicle. In the article Willie opined that all Prosecutor Fitzgerald had on Blagojevich was loose talk, no done deals. Blagojevich told Brown that he had had many “heated conversations” with Rahm Emanuel about the Senate appointment.
This isn’t one of them. This link takes you to a fictional discussion between Blagojevich and Emanuel which was posted on the Daily Kos. Although fiction, it’s as close to fact as you’ll find on Daily Kos, and I’ll bet Fitzgerald has several similar taped conversations which will make much more interesting reading when Blagojevich is called before a real judicial procedure instead of the Illinois kangaroo court.
When Blagojevich is finally brought to trial, which it seems Fitzgerald must do even though all Democrats will object, it will be interesting to learn how well Obama, Emanuel, and Jesse Jackson, Jr. tip-toed through the Chicago cesspool without getting splattered by Blagojevich.
I think that a lot of what Blagojevich tossed around has stuck, and it will be interesting to find out what it was and who were the stuckees.
And to watch the Democrats do all they can to keep embarrassing disclosures from public scrutiny.
Except the Blagojevich impeachment skipped the parts about impartial jury selection, presumption of innocence, confronting of witnesses, and calling witnesses for the defense.
In truth, I sympathize with the Democrats rush to judgment. If left to his own devices, I wouldn’t be surprised if Blagojevich wouldn’t take out many prominent Illinois politicians, from a list headlined by Rahm Emanuel and Jesse Jackson, Jr.
According to legendary former California Speaker of the Assembly Willie Brown, Governor Blagojevich phoned him when he read an item in Willie’s World, Willie Brown’s column in the Sunday San Francisco Chronicle. In the article Willie opined that all Prosecutor Fitzgerald had on Blagojevich was loose talk, no done deals. Blagojevich told Brown that he had had many “heated conversations” with Rahm Emanuel about the Senate appointment.
This isn’t one of them. This link takes you to a fictional discussion between Blagojevich and Emanuel which was posted on the Daily Kos. Although fiction, it’s as close to fact as you’ll find on Daily Kos, and I’ll bet Fitzgerald has several similar taped conversations which will make much more interesting reading when Blagojevich is called before a real judicial procedure instead of the Illinois kangaroo court.
When Blagojevich is finally brought to trial, which it seems Fitzgerald must do even though all Democrats will object, it will be interesting to learn how well Obama, Emanuel, and Jesse Jackson, Jr. tip-toed through the Chicago cesspool without getting splattered by Blagojevich.
I think that a lot of what Blagojevich tossed around has stuck, and it will be interesting to find out what it was and who were the stuckees.
And to watch the Democrats do all they can to keep embarrassing disclosures from public scrutiny.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Global Warming – Ironies Abound
The world – sadly including northern California – is locked up in a deep cold, and still Al Gore took his dog and pony show to Washington, D.C. Neither snow, nor ice, nor other freezing stuff will stay the alarmists in their never-ending quest to sow panic among the uninformed – and reap obscene profits thereby.
James Lovelock, a British scientist approaching a 90th birthday in July, and a dedicated global warming alarmist himself, recently commented on the futility of current efforts to combat global warming by reducing carbon dioxide, saying:
Please allow me to append other examples of idiocy that I presume Mr. Lovelock would find agreeable. In the United States, and in states like California, in cities like San Francisco (and Berkeley, of course), laws are being passed to fight global warming by reducing CO2 emissions in those jurisdictions. Their primary means of reducing CO2 emissions involve the simple act of taxing them, or placing a cap on their creation. What will this do to reduce global CO2 emissions? If you answer fairly and honestly, you will say “nothing.”
If being burdened by added costs drives businesses away from San Francisco, or Berkeley, or California, will atmospheric CO2 be lessened?
Obviously, China, India, and other developing nations are not going to stop their rapid economic development. As we tax and cap ourselves into being increasingly uncompetitive in world markets, the developing countries will take business from us at increasing rates, and in the bargain pollute far more than we would if we continued to do “business as usual.” In this regard I’m not counting CO2 as pollution. The developing countries will, of course, be releasing additional huge quantities of CO2 – that’s how they generate power to increase their production. But they will also be producing the good old standard, garden variety of pollution too – of the air, the water, and destruction of natural habitat.
We’ll be congratulating ourselves as good Californians saving the world from global warming, not considering that if we eliminated all forms of carbon-based energy production in California, including campfires to heat our homes and cook our food, the climate of the world would not notice. Not now, not a hundred years from now, nor a thousand years or more.
We would make of ourselves a monument, dedicated to our arrogance and irrelevancy.
James Lovelock, a British scientist approaching a 90th birthday in July, and a dedicated global warming alarmist himself, recently commented on the futility of current efforts to combat global warming by reducing carbon dioxide, saying:
Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning. I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It's absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2500 square kilometres to produce a gigawatt - that's an awful lot of countryside.
Please allow me to append other examples of idiocy that I presume Mr. Lovelock would find agreeable. In the United States, and in states like California, in cities like San Francisco (and Berkeley, of course), laws are being passed to fight global warming by reducing CO2 emissions in those jurisdictions. Their primary means of reducing CO2 emissions involve the simple act of taxing them, or placing a cap on their creation. What will this do to reduce global CO2 emissions? If you answer fairly and honestly, you will say “nothing.”
If being burdened by added costs drives businesses away from San Francisco, or Berkeley, or California, will atmospheric CO2 be lessened?
Obviously, China, India, and other developing nations are not going to stop their rapid economic development. As we tax and cap ourselves into being increasingly uncompetitive in world markets, the developing countries will take business from us at increasing rates, and in the bargain pollute far more than we would if we continued to do “business as usual.” In this regard I’m not counting CO2 as pollution. The developing countries will, of course, be releasing additional huge quantities of CO2 – that’s how they generate power to increase their production. But they will also be producing the good old standard, garden variety of pollution too – of the air, the water, and destruction of natural habitat.
We’ll be congratulating ourselves as good Californians saving the world from global warming, not considering that if we eliminated all forms of carbon-based energy production in California, including campfires to heat our homes and cook our food, the climate of the world would not notice. Not now, not a hundred years from now, nor a thousand years or more.
We would make of ourselves a monument, dedicated to our arrogance and irrelevancy.
Monday, January 26, 2009
More Global Warming Fear Mongering
Predictably, the global warming fear mongers are trying to regain momentum now that the Obama administration has set up its global warming shop. However, the press release struck me as odd, particularly when I read this:
Who writes this stuff? Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, responsible for about 95% of the greenhouse gas effect. Human activity causes about 0.28% of the total greenhouse effect.
It would be truthful if the writer wrote: "Carbon dioxide accounts for about half of the greenhouse effect if you ignore the 95% due to water vapor."
Perhaps the scientists were only referring to the greenhouse gas effect after ignoring water vapor, the 5%. At that point greenhouse gases caused by human activity are responsible for about 5.53%, since over 94% of greenhouse gases are produced naturally even when water vapor is ignored.
It's easy to understand why water vapor is ignored by global warming alarmists. It's hard to panic rational humans when they are told that the whole problem depends on getting all panicked over the 0.28% of greenhouse gases caused by human activity.
Only a charlatan, or a Democrat politician, would try to get away with such balderdash.
Please excuse the redundancy in the sentence above.
Carbon dioxide accounts for about half of the global warming caused by greenhouse gases, but the other gases are removed from the atmosphere more quickly. Thus, the long-term influence of carbon dioxide will have the greatest effect on climate change, the report said.
Who writes this stuff? Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, responsible for about 95% of the greenhouse gas effect. Human activity causes about 0.28% of the total greenhouse effect.
It would be truthful if the writer wrote: "Carbon dioxide accounts for about half of the greenhouse effect if you ignore the 95% due to water vapor."
Perhaps the scientists were only referring to the greenhouse gas effect after ignoring water vapor, the 5%. At that point greenhouse gases caused by human activity are responsible for about 5.53%, since over 94% of greenhouse gases are produced naturally even when water vapor is ignored.
It's easy to understand why water vapor is ignored by global warming alarmists. It's hard to panic rational humans when they are told that the whole problem depends on getting all panicked over the 0.28% of greenhouse gases caused by human activity.
Only a charlatan, or a Democrat politician, would try to get away with such balderdash.
Please excuse the redundancy in the sentence above.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
“Trickle-Down” Government Spending
Democrats, vociferous opponents and critics of “trickle-down” economics when it came to businesses growing the economy by expanding and hiring more workers (and paying more taxes), are now its strongest supporters when it comes to expanding government and hiring more government workers (by borrowing and spending more).
Why the change? In one word, “control.” In two words, “government control.” Want three words? “Democrat political control.”
The Democrats see the financial crisis as a golden opportunity to increase their share of citizens dependent on government. Over half our citizens pay little (usually none) of total income taxes. Now Democrats promise to pay them more, and tax them even less.
Question. How can you tax someone even less when they don’t pay any income taxes? Answer. By paying them a tax credit, even when they haven’t paid any taxes.
Democrats also are taking advantage by increasing the total of government workers, who are overwhelmingly supporters of Democrats, plus strengthening other Democrat stalwarts, the public employees unions.
All is not rosy for Democrats. Some discouraging words were heard from an unlikely source, the Congressional Budget Office, usually a Democrat lap dog.
Democrats were united in deriding President Bush’s stimulus package of tax refunds, $600 to individuals and $1,200 to married couples. Now it’s déjà vu all over again.
Democrats expect it will be easy to pass their bill in the House and Senate, with at most the support of one or two Republican Senators.
So be it. The stimulus bill will wear an all-Democrat label.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Why the change? In one word, “control.” In two words, “government control.” Want three words? “Democrat political control.”
The Democrats see the financial crisis as a golden opportunity to increase their share of citizens dependent on government. Over half our citizens pay little (usually none) of total income taxes. Now Democrats promise to pay them more, and tax them even less.
Question. How can you tax someone even less when they don’t pay any income taxes? Answer. By paying them a tax credit, even when they haven’t paid any taxes.
Democrats also are taking advantage by increasing the total of government workers, who are overwhelmingly supporters of Democrats, plus strengthening other Democrat stalwarts, the public employees unions.
All is not rosy for Democrats. Some discouraging words were heard from an unlikely source, the Congressional Budget Office, usually a Democrat lap dog.
The Democratic plan took a hit when the Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 7 percent of infrastructure money would make its way into the economy by the end of the year, and only 38 percent would be spent by the end of the 2010 fiscal year. Obama's new White House budget director, Peter Orszag, disputed the findings, saying 75 percent of the money would be spent by fiscal 2010.
Democrats were united in deriding President Bush’s stimulus package of tax refunds, $600 to individuals and $1,200 to married couples. Now it’s déjà vu all over again.
Other parts of the package, including the tax cuts and the direct aid to states, would be injected more quickly into the economy. The bill would offer a payroll tax cut of $500 to individuals who earn less than $75,000 a year, and a $1,000 credit to married couples who earn less than $150,000 a year.
Democrats expect it will be easy to pass their bill in the House and Senate, with at most the support of one or two Republican Senators.
So be it. The stimulus bill will wear an all-Democrat label.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Abolish the Death Penalty
Words I never thought I would write: Abolish the death penalty.
For all practical purposes, capital punishment has already been abolished in the United States. The legalities of finding for capital punishment, and then going through the appeals process, has de facto eliminated executions under the death penalty. Excluding Texas (of 15 executions in 2007, 13 were in Texas), the odds of someone on Death Row being executed are very small – the condemned will live longer on Death Row than outside. Death Row inmates die of many causes, but judicial execution is rarely one of them.
In 2007 there were 3,308 on Death Row in the United States. Since the Death Penalty was reinstated in 1976, there have been 1,138 executions, and over 600,000 murders. Each year since 1976 we’ve executed an average of 38, and over 20,000 have been murdered. Since we only execute to punish murderers, it is obvious that having a Death Penalty (and hardly ever using it), is not a deterrent to murder. Equally obvious is that the tsunami of litigation that follows each death penalty sentence, and delays execution until the condemned die of natural causes, will not go away.
Our system of capital punishment is a creature of legalisms, not justice. The victims of murderers have no rights, no redress, no recourse, and no appeals on the basis of law or mercy. Their murderer, acting as sole judge, jury, and executioner, denied his victim all the rights he enjoys before trail and after conviction.
I’ve known for most of my life that the death penalty was not an effective deterrent to murder, but I supported it because I wanted the murderer to suffer a little of the pain and terror he inflicted on his victims. Rationally, I knew he wouldn’t suffer much, because of our obsession with rendering a monster’s death in the most humane (and antiseptic?) way possible.
I’ve also been aware that our system of infrequent capital punishment is very expensive. In my home state, California, Governor Schwarzenegger wants to expand death row at an estimated cost of $337 million to upgrade security and increase death row's capacity to 1,152 beds. That’s almost $300,000 per inmate just to keep them around a long time in the faint hope that one day we will be able to kill them.
(…In) truth, building more death row prison cells is a concession to the open secret that California's condemned inmates are rarely executed. Since the death penalty was reinstated in California in the 1970s after a brief ban by the U.S. Supreme Court, the state has sent more than 700 men and women to death row and killed 13. An equal number have committed suicide while awaiting an execution date. In all, 54 death row inmates have expired without being executed, most from natural causes.
In essence, we need a bigger Death Row to house the increase in condemned men and women who are not going to be executed. Once the new Death Row is built, the obscene costs won’t go away:
Keeping someone on death row costs $92,000 annually above the cost of a year at a maximum-security state prison, the commission found. The cost of appeals can be three times the cost of the original trial.
I could keep up my Quixotic support of the death penalty. I still believe it is the only real justice for perpetrators of heinous murders. However, the only direction our legal system is taking is towards the elimination of executions regardless of the crime and sentence. If I continue supporting a failed system, I’ll be doubly disappointed because the bad guys aren’t executed, and my taxes will continue to be wasted (at an increasing rate) for lawyers and prison guards.
Getting nothing, and paying more for it, doesn’t make sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)