One of the many problems conservatives have with the health care bill being debated is the government mandate that everyone have insurance.
Conservatives argue, rightly so, that is beyond government's intended reach.
So liberals came up with a "gotcha" question on this point. I've heard it a number of times, including last night at Joe Barton's town hall meeting.
I'm frankly surprised the answer apparently hasn't occurred to anyone who I've heard argue the point.
The question: "Since conservatives are so in favor of government-mandates for auto insurance, why do they have a problem with mandated health coverage?"
It's apples and oranges, people.
I understand 48 states have mandated auto insurance of some type. I'm not sure who requires what. But here in Texas, you must carry liability insurance, which covers damage to other people's property if you're at fault in an accident.
And no, I don't have a problem with that. You drive your car into the back of mine, you better have a way to pay for the damage.
Insuring your own personal health is a different matter entirely.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Yes to Michael Vick
Let's get this right up front. I'm no fan of Michael Vick. Never was, in fact.
While I don't know the man personally, an awful lot I've seen and read about him and his brother over the years places the two fairly high on my Shitty Human Being Scale.
His involvement with a dog-fighting ring and what he did to those animals is nothing short of despicable and certainly only solidified my opinion of him.
But should he be allowed to play in the NFL again?
Yes he should.
I understand the level of disgust and disdain expressed by dog-lovers and, more specifically, lovers of Pit Bulls. I just think their venom should not be directed at the NFL as much as it should be at those responsible for the length of Vick's prison sentence.
Point is, he served the time prescribed by the justice system. He wasn't merely suspended from football for two years. He was suspended from life as an incarcerated prisoner.
He also lost a contract worth more than $100 million. His endorsements, worth tens of millions more, vanished ... more than likely for good. His earning power will never be the same.
He also faces extremely restrictive terms in his reinstatement to the NFL. He will be, for as long as he's remotely associated with the league, under its microscope, and he will face immediate and painful repercussions for sidesteps at which the league would barely scoff if it were most any other player.
I have not heard, for example, of any other player in any other league whose personal finances are an open book to league officials. But the NFL is going to know when Vick buys much more than a pack of gum.
To those who still say that's not enough, that he should never be allowed to play football again, I ask this: Should all people who are found guilty of a crime and pay their "debt to society" by serving a prison sentence also be told they can no longer work in their chosen field?
In very extreme cases, such as convicted pedophiles working as camp counselors for 6-year-olds, yeah, I'll go with you there.
But the most common argument I hear in Vick's case is that he shouldn't be allowed to play football because he's so prominently in the public eye as a role model for kids.
I say bullcrap. For one thing, society needs to get its act together on this subject and stop putting athletes on such a pedestal.
Yes, there are some very good role models in the NFL, in the NBA, in major league baseball. There also is a number equal to that, if not more, of some very bad actors. Trust me on that. I've worked with and among them for much of my adult life.
So at what point on the Shitty Human Being Scale do we say, "you can't be part of this league, because kids watch you"?
Society will cheer on Sundays this fall for guys who have been "punished" for their involvement with drugs. Should our kids be watching them? Others seem to be prone to beating up their wives or girlfriends. How about them? We spend an awful lot of time now demonizing drinking and driving. Any idea how many pro athletes have gotten popped for doing that? Certainly, we should kick them out, too.
And don't even get me started on the bad characters a lot of these players surround themselves with.
My bottom line? You get rid of the bad role models in most any sports league, you're going to wind up with an awfully small league, if one at all.
Is what Vick did detestable? Sure. Should he have been punished more severely? I won't argue that point.
But he paid his debt as ruled in a court of law. And he'll continue to pay.
But now he'll also again play. Rightfully so.
While I don't know the man personally, an awful lot I've seen and read about him and his brother over the years places the two fairly high on my Shitty Human Being Scale.
His involvement with a dog-fighting ring and what he did to those animals is nothing short of despicable and certainly only solidified my opinion of him.
But should he be allowed to play in the NFL again?
Yes he should.
I understand the level of disgust and disdain expressed by dog-lovers and, more specifically, lovers of Pit Bulls. I just think their venom should not be directed at the NFL as much as it should be at those responsible for the length of Vick's prison sentence.
Point is, he served the time prescribed by the justice system. He wasn't merely suspended from football for two years. He was suspended from life as an incarcerated prisoner.
He also lost a contract worth more than $100 million. His endorsements, worth tens of millions more, vanished ... more than likely for good. His earning power will never be the same.
He also faces extremely restrictive terms in his reinstatement to the NFL. He will be, for as long as he's remotely associated with the league, under its microscope, and he will face immediate and painful repercussions for sidesteps at which the league would barely scoff if it were most any other player.
I have not heard, for example, of any other player in any other league whose personal finances are an open book to league officials. But the NFL is going to know when Vick buys much more than a pack of gum.
To those who still say that's not enough, that he should never be allowed to play football again, I ask this: Should all people who are found guilty of a crime and pay their "debt to society" by serving a prison sentence also be told they can no longer work in their chosen field?
In very extreme cases, such as convicted pedophiles working as camp counselors for 6-year-olds, yeah, I'll go with you there.
But the most common argument I hear in Vick's case is that he shouldn't be allowed to play football because he's so prominently in the public eye as a role model for kids.
I say bullcrap. For one thing, society needs to get its act together on this subject and stop putting athletes on such a pedestal.
Yes, there are some very good role models in the NFL, in the NBA, in major league baseball. There also is a number equal to that, if not more, of some very bad actors. Trust me on that. I've worked with and among them for much of my adult life.
So at what point on the Shitty Human Being Scale do we say, "you can't be part of this league, because kids watch you"?
Society will cheer on Sundays this fall for guys who have been "punished" for their involvement with drugs. Should our kids be watching them? Others seem to be prone to beating up their wives or girlfriends. How about them? We spend an awful lot of time now demonizing drinking and driving. Any idea how many pro athletes have gotten popped for doing that? Certainly, we should kick them out, too.
And don't even get me started on the bad characters a lot of these players surround themselves with.
My bottom line? You get rid of the bad role models in most any sports league, you're going to wind up with an awfully small league, if one at all.
Is what Vick did detestable? Sure. Should he have been punished more severely? I won't argue that point.
But he paid his debt as ruled in a court of law. And he'll continue to pay.
But now he'll also again play. Rightfully so.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
They "get it" up north
Very telling commentary from the Canadian Free Press:
Obama’s White House is Falling Down
By Daniel Greenfield Thursday, June 11, 2009
In the sixth month of his presidency, Obama has turned an economic downturn into an economic disaster, taking over and trashing entire companies, and driving the nation deep into deficit spending expected to pass 10 trillion dollars.
Abroad, Obama seems to have no other mode except to continue on with his endless campaign, confusing speechmaking with diplomacy. It is natural enough that Obama, who built his entire campaign on high profile public speeches reported on by an adoring press, understands how to do nothing else but that.
While the press is still chewing over Obama’s Cairo speech, this celebrity style coverage ignores the fact that Obama’s endless world tour is not actually accomplishing anything. Instead his combination of ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries have alienated many of America’s traditional allies. Those who aren’t being quietly angry at Obama, like Brown, Merkel or Netanyahu, instead think of him as as absurdly lightweight, as Sarkozy, King Abdullah or Putin do.
While his officials carry out their dirty economic deeds, Obama responds to any and every crisis as if it were a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland musical, with a cry of, “Let’s put on a show.” Thus far Obama has put on “shows” across America, Europe and the Middle East. And what the adoring media coverage neglects to cover, is that Obama’s shows have solved absolutely nothing. They have served only as high profile entertainment.
Neither alienating America’s traditional allies, through a combination of arrogant bullying and ignorance, nor appeasing America’s enemies, has yielded any actual results. Nor does it seem likely to. Islamic terrorism is not going anywhere, neither are the nuclear threats fromNorth Korea and Iran. While Obama keeps smiling, the global situation keeps growing more grim.
At home, if Obama was elected as depression era entertainment, the charm of his smiles and his constant appearances on magazine covers appear to be wearing thin on the American public. Despite the shrill attacks on Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Enemy of the Weak -- the Democratic party of 2009, is polling a lot like the Republican party of 2008. The Democrats have suddenly become the incumbents, and the only accomplishment they can point to is lavish deficit spending, often on behalf of the very same corporations and causes they once postured against.
The European Union Parliament’s swing to the right cannot be credited to Obama, though doubtlessly some European voters seeing socialist economic crisis management on display in the world’s richest country decided they wanted none of it, but it is part of a general turning against federalism. And Obama’s entire program is dependent on heavily entrenching federalism at the expense of individual and state’s rights. Yet that is precisely his achilles heel with independent voters who are polling against more taxes and expanded government. And no amount of speeches by Obama can wish away his 18 czars or the national debt he has foisted on generation after generation of the American people.
That leaves Obama with a choice between socialism and the independent voter. And thus far he has chosen socialism.
Obama’s tactic of hijacking Bush Administration era policies on the economy and the War on Terror, and exploiting them as trojan horses to promote his own agenda, have left him coping with a backlash from his own party, as well as general Republican opposition.
His Czars are meant to function as the bones in an executive infrastructure accountable to no one, but a lack of accountability isn’t just another word for tyranny, but for incompetence. A functional chain of command is accountable at multiple levels if it is to function effectively. Obama’s White House by contrast is in a state of over-organized chaos, the sort of organized disorganization that undisciplined egotistical leftists naturally create for themselves, complete with multiple overlapping levels of authority and no one in charge but the man at the top, who’s too busy doing other things to actually be in charge.
Dennis Blair as National Intelligence, who collaborated with the Muslim genocide of Christians in East Timor, trying to muscle out the CIA to create his own intelligence network, is typical of the kind of chaos being spawned by every chief in an expanding government bureaucracy working to make sure that all the Indians to him. Similarly the National Security Council wrestling with the State Department, highlighted by Samantha Power getting her own specially created NSC position to butt heads with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, illustrates the state of conflict and chaos in American foreign affairs. A state of chaos so pervasive that incompetence has now become commonplace, and no one can even be found to double check the spelling of a Russian word that is meant to be the theme of American’s diplomatic reconstruction with Russia, or to pick out a gift for the visiting British Prime Minister.
Meanwhile on the economy, Obama exploited the ongoing bailouts, transforming them from bailouts into takeovers meant to shift the balance of power in what had been a democracy and socially engineer not only corporations, but the lives of ordinary Americans. But the public’s patience with corporate bailouts is at an end, most Americans were never happy with them to begin with, and want them to end. The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW might look like a victory in the union ranks, but it doesn’t play too well outside Detroit. And tacking on CAFE standards that will kill the pickup truck and the SUV will badly erode Obama in the swing states, if exploited properly in 2010 and 2012. Despite the constant media barrage, orchestrated out of the White House, the public is growing disenchanted with the performance of Obama and the Democrats.
With unemployment booming and the economy dropping, the jobs aren’t there and the spending is out of control. Republicans today are polling better on ethics and the economy, than the Democrats are. That shows a trend which is likely to register in the mid-term elections in 2010, in the same way that the EU parliamentary elections served as a shock to the system.
In the opposition, Republicans are free to embrace the rhetoric of change, to champion reform and push libertarian ideas about the size and scope of government. In turn all Obama has is his celebrity fueled media spectacle world tour. A charade now serving as a parallel to the depression era entertainment that functioned as escapism in a dour time. But before long, it may be Obama that the American public will want to escape from.
Obama has tried to play Lincoln, Reagan, JFK and FDR -- but in the end he can only play himself, a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head, and trying to drag the country down with him. Obama’s White House is falling down and while the flashbulbs are still glittering and the parties are going on in D.C. and around the world, Obama and the Democratic Congress may be headed for a recession of their own.
Obama’s White House is Falling Down
By Daniel Greenfield Thursday, June 11, 2009
In the sixth month of his presidency, Obama has turned an economic downturn into an economic disaster, taking over and trashing entire companies, and driving the nation deep into deficit spending expected to pass 10 trillion dollars.
Abroad, Obama seems to have no other mode except to continue on with his endless campaign, confusing speechmaking with diplomacy. It is natural enough that Obama, who built his entire campaign on high profile public speeches reported on by an adoring press, understands how to do nothing else but that.
While the press is still chewing over Obama’s Cairo speech, this celebrity style coverage ignores the fact that Obama’s endless world tour is not actually accomplishing anything. Instead his combination of ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries have alienated many of America’s traditional allies. Those who aren’t being quietly angry at Obama, like Brown, Merkel or Netanyahu, instead think of him as as absurdly lightweight, as Sarkozy, King Abdullah or Putin do.
While his officials carry out their dirty economic deeds, Obama responds to any and every crisis as if it were a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland musical, with a cry of, “Let’s put on a show.” Thus far Obama has put on “shows” across America, Europe and the Middle East. And what the adoring media coverage neglects to cover, is that Obama’s shows have solved absolutely nothing. They have served only as high profile entertainment.
Neither alienating America’s traditional allies, through a combination of arrogant bullying and ignorance, nor appeasing America’s enemies, has yielded any actual results. Nor does it seem likely to. Islamic terrorism is not going anywhere, neither are the nuclear threats fromNorth Korea and Iran. While Obama keeps smiling, the global situation keeps growing more grim.
At home, if Obama was elected as depression era entertainment, the charm of his smiles and his constant appearances on magazine covers appear to be wearing thin on the American public. Despite the shrill attacks on Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Enemy of the Weak -- the Democratic party of 2009, is polling a lot like the Republican party of 2008. The Democrats have suddenly become the incumbents, and the only accomplishment they can point to is lavish deficit spending, often on behalf of the very same corporations and causes they once postured against.
The European Union Parliament’s swing to the right cannot be credited to Obama, though doubtlessly some European voters seeing socialist economic crisis management on display in the world’s richest country decided they wanted none of it, but it is part of a general turning against federalism. And Obama’s entire program is dependent on heavily entrenching federalism at the expense of individual and state’s rights. Yet that is precisely his achilles heel with independent voters who are polling against more taxes and expanded government. And no amount of speeches by Obama can wish away his 18 czars or the national debt he has foisted on generation after generation of the American people.
That leaves Obama with a choice between socialism and the independent voter. And thus far he has chosen socialism.
Obama’s tactic of hijacking Bush Administration era policies on the economy and the War on Terror, and exploiting them as trojan horses to promote his own agenda, have left him coping with a backlash from his own party, as well as general Republican opposition.
His Czars are meant to function as the bones in an executive infrastructure accountable to no one, but a lack of accountability isn’t just another word for tyranny, but for incompetence. A functional chain of command is accountable at multiple levels if it is to function effectively. Obama’s White House by contrast is in a state of over-organized chaos, the sort of organized disorganization that undisciplined egotistical leftists naturally create for themselves, complete with multiple overlapping levels of authority and no one in charge but the man at the top, who’s too busy doing other things to actually be in charge.
Dennis Blair as National Intelligence, who collaborated with the Muslim genocide of Christians in East Timor, trying to muscle out the CIA to create his own intelligence network, is typical of the kind of chaos being spawned by every chief in an expanding government bureaucracy working to make sure that all the Indians to him. Similarly the National Security Council wrestling with the State Department, highlighted by Samantha Power getting her own specially created NSC position to butt heads with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, illustrates the state of conflict and chaos in American foreign affairs. A state of chaos so pervasive that incompetence has now become commonplace, and no one can even be found to double check the spelling of a Russian word that is meant to be the theme of American’s diplomatic reconstruction with Russia, or to pick out a gift for the visiting British Prime Minister.
Meanwhile on the economy, Obama exploited the ongoing bailouts, transforming them from bailouts into takeovers meant to shift the balance of power in what had been a democracy and socially engineer not only corporations, but the lives of ordinary Americans. But the public’s patience with corporate bailouts is at an end, most Americans were never happy with them to begin with, and want them to end. The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW might look like a victory in the union ranks, but it doesn’t play too well outside Detroit. And tacking on CAFE standards that will kill the pickup truck and the SUV will badly erode Obama in the swing states, if exploited properly in 2010 and 2012. Despite the constant media barrage, orchestrated out of the White House, the public is growing disenchanted with the performance of Obama and the Democrats.
With unemployment booming and the economy dropping, the jobs aren’t there and the spending is out of control. Republicans today are polling better on ethics and the economy, than the Democrats are. That shows a trend which is likely to register in the mid-term elections in 2010, in the same way that the EU parliamentary elections served as a shock to the system.
In the opposition, Republicans are free to embrace the rhetoric of change, to champion reform and push libertarian ideas about the size and scope of government. In turn all Obama has is his celebrity fueled media spectacle world tour. A charade now serving as a parallel to the depression era entertainment that functioned as escapism in a dour time. But before long, it may be Obama that the American public will want to escape from.
Obama has tried to play Lincoln, Reagan, JFK and FDR -- but in the end he can only play himself, a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head, and trying to drag the country down with him. Obama’s White House is falling down and while the flashbulbs are still glittering and the parties are going on in D.C. and around the world, Obama and the Democratic Congress may be headed for a recession of their own.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
More bad news on the job front
Of course, this is nothing new. It's been long reported (although not by the state-run media, of course) that all these "stimulus" jobs not only weren't going to be permanent, but that the many "green" jobs among them were going to come at a higher cost in terms of job losses.
So let's see ... Cap & Trade policies = higher energy costs for EVERYONE and fewer jobs for ANYONE. Oh yeah, and let's hurry and open those borders while we're at it, shall we? Maybe we can break The Great Depression's unemployment record in Obama's first term!
Now, that's change you can believe in.
From CNSNews.com:
Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.
President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama's economic stimulus package, which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry.
But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain:
"Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.
Obama repeatedly has said that the United States should look to Spain as an example of a country that has successfully applied federal money to green initiatives in order to stimulate its economy.
“Think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy,” said Obama while lobbying Congress, in January to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. “They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.”
“Their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments — investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs — jobs they won’t lose to other countries,” said Obama. “There is no reason we can’t do the same thing right here in America. … In the process, we’ll put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.”
Included in the stimulus package, for example, was $4.5 billion to convert government buildings into high-performance green buildings.
According to the Calzada’s study, Spain is a strong example of the government spending money on green ideas to stimulate its economy.
“No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources,” says the report. “The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s ‘green jobs’ schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs.”
But in the study’s introduction Calzada argues that the renewable jobs program hindered, rather than helped, Spain’s attempts to emerge from its recession.
“The study’s results show how such ‘green jobs’ policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil,” says Calzada. “This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made."
Pat Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, a free market group, told CNSNews.com that the study’s conclusions do not surprise him. He added that the United States should expect similar results with the stimulus money it spends on green initiatives.
“There is no reason to think things will be any different here,” Michaels said. “In the short run you have to ask who is doing the hiring, and in the long run how efficient is it to have people serving technology such as windmills. We are creating inefficiencies.”
Michaels also said he was not surprised by the study’s finding that only one out of 10 jobs were permanent.
“That doesn’t surprise me,” said Michaels. “When we see how imperfect wind energy is and how expensive it is to maintain -- I think many of those jobs will become impermanent here in the U.S. as well.”
Inquiries for comment to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for American Progress were not answered before this story went to press.
(Imported from April 14, 2009)
So let's see ... Cap & Trade policies = higher energy costs for EVERYONE and fewer jobs for ANYONE. Oh yeah, and let's hurry and open those borders while we're at it, shall we? Maybe we can break The Great Depression's unemployment record in Obama's first term!
Now, that's change you can believe in.
From CNSNews.com:
Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.
President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama's economic stimulus package, which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry.
But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain:
"Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.
Obama repeatedly has said that the United States should look to Spain as an example of a country that has successfully applied federal money to green initiatives in order to stimulate its economy.
“Think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy,” said Obama while lobbying Congress, in January to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. “They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.”
“Their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments — investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs — jobs they won’t lose to other countries,” said Obama. “There is no reason we can’t do the same thing right here in America. … In the process, we’ll put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.”
Included in the stimulus package, for example, was $4.5 billion to convert government buildings into high-performance green buildings.
According to the Calzada’s study, Spain is a strong example of the government spending money on green ideas to stimulate its economy.
“No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources,” says the report. “The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s ‘green jobs’ schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs.”
But in the study’s introduction Calzada argues that the renewable jobs program hindered, rather than helped, Spain’s attempts to emerge from its recession.
“The study’s results show how such ‘green jobs’ policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil,” says Calzada. “This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made."
Pat Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, a free market group, told CNSNews.com that the study’s conclusions do not surprise him. He added that the United States should expect similar results with the stimulus money it spends on green initiatives.
“There is no reason to think things will be any different here,” Michaels said. “In the short run you have to ask who is doing the hiring, and in the long run how efficient is it to have people serving technology such as windmills. We are creating inefficiencies.”
Michaels also said he was not surprised by the study’s finding that only one out of 10 jobs were permanent.
“That doesn’t surprise me,” said Michaels. “When we see how imperfect wind energy is and how expensive it is to maintain -- I think many of those jobs will become impermanent here in the U.S. as well.”
Inquiries for comment to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for American Progress were not answered before this story went to press.
(Imported from April 14, 2009)
Will the "great listener" actually listen?
My money is overwhelmingly on "no, he won't." There is simply no amount of evidence or no level of opposition that will sway Obama or the liberals running this country. They've completely sold out to the Al Gore Church of Global Warming nutcases and cannot reverse course.
Even though evidence has and will continue to mount daily to refute their silly notions.
From Newsmax:
Over 100 prominent scientists from more than a dozen countries — including a Nobel Prize winner — have signed a letter to President Barack Obama charging that his views on climate change are “simply incorrect.”
The letter — sponsored by the Cato Institute — cites a statement Obama made in November: “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.”
Under the headline, “With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true,” the scientists state:
“We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now…
“The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”
The 115 signatories include Ivar Giaever, Ph.D., who shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 for his work with superconductors at General Electric; John Blaylock, formerly with the Los Alamos National Laboratory; Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and William Gray, Ph.D., the respected hurricane expert at Colorado State University.
The signers include scientists at Princeton University , U.S. Naval Academy, University of Kansas , University of Oklahoma , University of Colorado , and University of Missouri .
Among the countries represented by the signers are Britain, Canada, Italy, Norway, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Argentina and South Africa.
A number of the scientists are current or former reviewers with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with climate change crusader Al Gore — and have since reversed their views on man-made global warming.
(Imported from April 6, 2009)
Even though evidence has and will continue to mount daily to refute their silly notions.
From Newsmax:
Over 100 prominent scientists from more than a dozen countries — including a Nobel Prize winner — have signed a letter to President Barack Obama charging that his views on climate change are “simply incorrect.”
The letter — sponsored by the Cato Institute — cites a statement Obama made in November: “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.”
Under the headline, “With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true,” the scientists state:
“We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now…
“The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”
The 115 signatories include Ivar Giaever, Ph.D., who shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 for his work with superconductors at General Electric; John Blaylock, formerly with the Los Alamos National Laboratory; Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and William Gray, Ph.D., the respected hurricane expert at Colorado State University.
The signers include scientists at Princeton University , U.S. Naval Academy, University of Kansas , University of Oklahoma , University of Colorado , and University of Missouri .
Among the countries represented by the signers are Britain, Canada, Italy, Norway, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Argentina and South Africa.
A number of the scientists are current or former reviewers with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with climate change crusader Al Gore — and have since reversed their views on man-made global warming.
(Imported from April 6, 2009)
Social Security goes POOF
Chalk up another hit to the country's financial health courtesy of the mind-numbing liberals. The Social Security surplus, expected by most estimates to only last until 2017, has suddenly disappeared (STORY HERE) thanks to Wall Street's plunge.
While blame for the current state of the stock market can certainly be debated (although what continues to happen to it in the coming months and years unequivocally rests at Barack Obama's, Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's feet), the fact that so many of us have been forced to continue to rely on Social Security for a big part of our future retirement income is 100 percent the Democrats' doing.
Just as George Bush sounded warning sirens about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during his first term, only to be rebuffed by Democrats who lied to protect their own, he also made a major bid to reform our dependence on a Social Security system that was headed for the cliff's edge.
He and others saw the coming flood of Boomers retiring and the drain that would put on the system ... hence the estimates that Social Security would go belly-up before many of us reach retirement.
But "noooooooooo" cried the Democrats. They used scare tactics on retirees, telling them that Bush was stealing their money, when his measures specifically excluded them and applied ONLY to younger people. They blocked any kind of legislation from ever having a chance.
Well, now Social Security will only survive month to month. And when that flood of Boomers hits the magic age?
Hope they have a lot of money stuffed in their mattresses.
And a little further down the line are many of us, who nevertheless will have to continue paying into a system that we have NO hope of ever drawing a dime from.
Our money. Flushed away. Our future. Tenuous at best.
Seems to be a pattern with liberals nowadays, doesn't it?
(Imported from April 1, 2009)
While blame for the current state of the stock market can certainly be debated (although what continues to happen to it in the coming months and years unequivocally rests at Barack Obama's, Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's feet), the fact that so many of us have been forced to continue to rely on Social Security for a big part of our future retirement income is 100 percent the Democrats' doing.
Just as George Bush sounded warning sirens about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during his first term, only to be rebuffed by Democrats who lied to protect their own, he also made a major bid to reform our dependence on a Social Security system that was headed for the cliff's edge.
He and others saw the coming flood of Boomers retiring and the drain that would put on the system ... hence the estimates that Social Security would go belly-up before many of us reach retirement.
But "noooooooooo" cried the Democrats. They used scare tactics on retirees, telling them that Bush was stealing their money, when his measures specifically excluded them and applied ONLY to younger people. They blocked any kind of legislation from ever having a chance.
Well, now Social Security will only survive month to month. And when that flood of Boomers hits the magic age?
Hope they have a lot of money stuffed in their mattresses.
And a little further down the line are many of us, who nevertheless will have to continue paying into a system that we have NO hope of ever drawing a dime from.
Our money. Flushed away. Our future. Tenuous at best.
Seems to be a pattern with liberals nowadays, doesn't it?
(Imported from April 1, 2009)
This and that
Ford Motor Company wants another bailout. Only they don't want the government to give them money. They want YOU to give the government money.
Ford CEO Alan Mulally is asking Washington to raise the federal gas tax to make the price per gallon $4 AT THE LOWEST, according to the Wall Street Journal. Ford, you see, has a boatload of these crappy little green cars that it can't unload at any price, largely because the price of gas has fallen about 150 percent since last summer and people are back to buying SUVs and mid-size cars.
This tax increase idea already has been floated on Capitol Hill by a number of libs looking for all the ways they can to pay for their pork. So don't be surprised if by June, we're not well on our way to being right back where we were last summer.
So air up those tires and get a tuneup, eh.
(If you don't recognize the tire/tuneup line, you're probably not alone. That's what Obama said we should all do last summer when gas eclipsed $4. The media, naturally, didn't hold him in anything resembling contempt for saying, essentially, tough sh*t America.)
*****
From Politico:
The eye-popping national debt surpassed $11 trillion Monday, the largest in U.S. history.
The new Treasury Department figures on the national debt were released as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to project that the annual budget deficit will be higher than previously estimated by the White House's Office of Management and Budget. The debt, which refers to the cumulative amount of money the government owes, hit $10.9 trillion on Friday.
The whopping number has major ramifications for President Barack Obama, who is trying to push through a raft of big-ticket bills on health care, energy, education and climate change — while also attempting to stabilize the swooning economy.
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Budget Committee, said Tuesday that the numbers could force Congress to make "adjustments" to Obama's $3.6 trillion budget plan.
Count on making some adjustments yourself. When all this hits the fan down the road, you, Jack & Jill taxpayer, will bend over to a degree you've never ever imagined.
*****
While everyone's roasting AIG execs, wonder if anyone will ask whether Barack Obama plans to return the $101,332 bonus last year from AIG in the form of political contributions? (according to Opensecrets.org. and reported Tuesday by CNN)
Just like the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac political contribution list, the biggest recipients from AIG were Senate banking chairman Chris Dodd (a Democrat, if you're wondering) and Barack Obama.
*****
Say what you will about George W. Bush's politics, but unlike his opponents, Bush puts the country first. He showed that during his eight years in office, and he's showing that now:
CALGARY, Alberta (AP) - Former President George W. Bush says he won't criticize President Barack Obama because Obama "deserves my silence," and says he plans to write a book about the 12 toughest decisions he made in office. Bush's speech Tuesday at a luncheon in Calgary, Alberta was his first since leaving office.
He declined to comment about the Obama administration like former Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney said Sunday that Obama's decisions are threatening the nation's safety.
Bush says he doesn't know what he'll do in the long term but says he'll write a book that will let people determine what they would have done if their most important job was to protect the country.
If this were Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, concerned first and foremost with their living legacies, they'd be in front of microphones every day getting in their digs on the current administration ... as the Clintons and Gore and Carter did to Bush every chance they got starting in January of 2001.
Not only has Bush NOT been visible, he refrains from taking shots when given the chance. Lord knows he easily could when what has happened in Washington the last two months is the antithesis of everything he believes in.
(Imported from March 18, 2009)
Ford CEO Alan Mulally is asking Washington to raise the federal gas tax to make the price per gallon $4 AT THE LOWEST, according to the Wall Street Journal. Ford, you see, has a boatload of these crappy little green cars that it can't unload at any price, largely because the price of gas has fallen about 150 percent since last summer and people are back to buying SUVs and mid-size cars.
This tax increase idea already has been floated on Capitol Hill by a number of libs looking for all the ways they can to pay for their pork. So don't be surprised if by June, we're not well on our way to being right back where we were last summer.
So air up those tires and get a tuneup, eh.
(If you don't recognize the tire/tuneup line, you're probably not alone. That's what Obama said we should all do last summer when gas eclipsed $4. The media, naturally, didn't hold him in anything resembling contempt for saying, essentially, tough sh*t America.)
*****
From Politico:
The eye-popping national debt surpassed $11 trillion Monday, the largest in U.S. history.
The new Treasury Department figures on the national debt were released as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to project that the annual budget deficit will be higher than previously estimated by the White House's Office of Management and Budget. The debt, which refers to the cumulative amount of money the government owes, hit $10.9 trillion on Friday.
The whopping number has major ramifications for President Barack Obama, who is trying to push through a raft of big-ticket bills on health care, energy, education and climate change — while also attempting to stabilize the swooning economy.
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Budget Committee, said Tuesday that the numbers could force Congress to make "adjustments" to Obama's $3.6 trillion budget plan.
Count on making some adjustments yourself. When all this hits the fan down the road, you, Jack & Jill taxpayer, will bend over to a degree you've never ever imagined.
*****
While everyone's roasting AIG execs, wonder if anyone will ask whether Barack Obama plans to return the $101,332 bonus last year from AIG in the form of political contributions? (according to Opensecrets.org. and reported Tuesday by CNN)
Just like the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac political contribution list, the biggest recipients from AIG were Senate banking chairman Chris Dodd (a Democrat, if you're wondering) and Barack Obama.
*****
Say what you will about George W. Bush's politics, but unlike his opponents, Bush puts the country first. He showed that during his eight years in office, and he's showing that now:
CALGARY, Alberta (AP) - Former President George W. Bush says he won't criticize President Barack Obama because Obama "deserves my silence," and says he plans to write a book about the 12 toughest decisions he made in office. Bush's speech Tuesday at a luncheon in Calgary, Alberta was his first since leaving office.
He declined to comment about the Obama administration like former Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney said Sunday that Obama's decisions are threatening the nation's safety.
Bush says he doesn't know what he'll do in the long term but says he'll write a book that will let people determine what they would have done if their most important job was to protect the country.
If this were Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, concerned first and foremost with their living legacies, they'd be in front of microphones every day getting in their digs on the current administration ... as the Clintons and Gore and Carter did to Bush every chance they got starting in January of 2001.
Not only has Bush NOT been visible, he refrains from taking shots when given the chance. Lord knows he easily could when what has happened in Washington the last two months is the antithesis of everything he believes in.
(Imported from March 18, 2009)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)