Global Warming causes......Tornadoes!

More Tornadoes!!

Billy Nye, the science guy, has become Bill Nye, global warming hack.

Here is how he answered to an interview question on CNN:

BILL NYE: The tornadoes very difficult to mathematically connect to climate change, but the rains, the extra warmth in the atmosphere, the extra water vapor in the atmosphere, that’s, those are facts. That’s the real deal. Now, we, we are patriots. We are from the U.S. I am. And you would like the U.S. to be the leader in addressing this problem. We would like to be out in front in trying to deal with whatever it is that’s holding in all this heat and creating all this extra water vapor in the atmosphere. Tornadoes are almost certainly a consequence.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/05/28/bill-nye-science-guy-falsely-claims-not-many-countries-besides-us-hav#ixzz1NyE4g200

Let's decompose what he is saying here:

The tornadoes very difficult to mathematically connect to climate change:  this translates to "there is no evidence of any connections between tornadoes and global warming".  But couched on the passive voice and made to seem like a verbal throw away.  But the truth is clear: there is NO EVIDENCE of a connection. If there was a connection, no matter how tenuous,  he would be waving is about like a warmist Neville Chamberlain.  But he is admitting here that there is ZERO connection.

but the rains, the extra warmth in the atmosphere, the extra water vapor in the atmosphere, that’s, those are facts. :  Um, no. Those are not facts.  Those are the predicted outcomes of global warming that have NOT been shown to be true.  The theory holds these to be true, but the actual climate refuses to cooperate with the theory.  Every prediction made by this theory has been wrong or wildly overstated.  Look back at every chicken little report for the past 30 years.  Not ONE of these predictions has come true.  So if we are not seeing the large and measurable predictions come true, then why should we believe the small non-measurable ones? 

Now, we, we are patriots. We are from the U.S. I am. And you would like the U.S. to be the leader in addressing this problem. We would like to be out in front in trying to deal with whatever it is that’s holding in all this heat and creating all this extra water vapor in the atmosphere.   This blather is all designed to disarm the opponents of global warming.  If you don't agree, you must not love your country!  It is also designed to create distance between the first statement, and the next thing he says, for reasons you will understand shortly..

Tornadoes are almost certainly a consequence:  What?? This is a direct contradiction of what he said in the opening line.  This is a complete lie.  He already said he has no evidence for this.  At all. 

So if we re-state this more plainly, and remove all the blather in the middle, it sounds like this:

"There is no evidence that global warming is connected to tornadoes.  Tornadoes are a result of global warming."

There.  Now that makes more sense!

Fixed that for ya, Bill.

Global Warming causes......More Tornadoes!

Tornadoes!

It did not take long for the global warming crowd to link the tragic tornadoes that have devastated Joplin to the political cause they hold so dear.




http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-29/global-climate-change-freak-storms-are-the-new-normal/full/#

I will spare you reading to whole thing to sum it up thusly:

• Global Warming is causing the severe weather.
• We are all going to die.
• It is all Bush's fault.

The best quote from the article is here:

The Midwest suffered the wettest April in 116 years, forcing the Mississippi to flood thousands of square miles, even as drought-plagued Texas suffered the driest month in a century.


You see?  Global warming causes floods and droughts.  It causes rain! and not rain!

In another whopper, the article notes that there is agreement that climate change is causing everything:

Scientists disagree about whether climate change will bring more intense or frequent tornadoes, but there is wide consensus that the 2 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming of the last century is behind the rise in sea levels, more intense hurricanes, more heat waves, and more droughts and deluges.

Scary!  Except that it ain't true.   Most of the 2 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming came before 1940, ie, before there was any appreciable build up in CO2.   There is also the inconvenient fact that hurricanes are NOT increasing.  Each year for the past 5 years, NOAA has been calling for 'above normal' hurricane activity, and every year they are wrong.

There is no connection between 'global warming' and tornadoes, despite the implications from the media.

Liberal Fantasies - Stop Outsourcing American jobs and punish those who do with higher taxes

The liberal platform I included in an earlier post also includes the following nugget:

Stop Outsourcing American jobs and punish those who do with higher taxes

Let's take a look at what this means.

Stop Outsourcing:  This means using the power of government to prevent people from seeking the lowest cost solution to problems.  This is a form of protectionism.  History shows that protectionism is a disaster, creating more problems that it solves, and ultimately destroying that which it was intended to protect. And how would you enforce this, anyway? 

Kraft, an American company that operates globally, needs to hire more people for a call center to take complaints.  Their customers are all over the world, and Kraft wants to have the lowest cost solution.  So it hires someone in India.  Is that 'outsourcing'?  What if the new hire only takes calls from people in other countries?  Is it still outsourcing? 

This is non-objective law that would be subject to political interpretation.  It would give the government unprecedented power to question EVERY business decision a company makes.  This would require a massive police state and centrally planned economy to enforce.  Thus, it would destroy all jobs, including the ones that are to be protected from'outsourcing'.

American Jobs:  There is no such thing as an "American Job".  There are only jobs.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Just because someone has a job in the US, it does not belong to the US. The American People do not own this job.  It is a private contract between two individuals. 

Again, we get to the problem of enforcement.  What if a Swiss bank hires a Japanese citizen to do Latin American marketing and their offices are based in Miami.  Is this an 'American' job?  What if an American company hires a Frenchman to run the office in Bangalore.  American job?

This is nonsense that would be impossible to enforce under the law. It would again be nothing more than a way for rent-seeking politicians to hold power over the productive people.

punish those who do with higher taxes:  So somehow we are going to arrive at a non-objective definition of outsourcing, and a non-objective definition of 'American Job', then arbitrarily punish people who violate this code by making them pay more money to the government. 

What could possibly go wrong?

Given that politicians want more power and money, we can safely assume that they will want every company paying taxes at the higher rate.  Therefore there will be powerful incentives to find and punish 'guilty' parties.  The resulting witch hunt will make Salem look tame.

We can see then that every premise of this fantasy is evil, or wrong, or both.

But this misses the essential point:  jobs will be created where the most value is created.  And if there is more value being created somewhere else, the capital and the jobs will flow there like an unstoppable tide.  Politicians demanding that outsourcing be stopped might as well command the tide to roll back. 

The laws of nature and economics are immutable.  No amount of liberal - populist rhetoric will change them.  And passing laws to 'save American jobs' will only transfer wealth and power to the political classes and away from the productive sectors of the economy. 

Ruin will surely follow.

Liberal Fantasies - A Right to a Free, Quality Public Education

So the last item in the list is:

A right to a free, quality public education

Let's look at what this means.

'a right' -- in order for something to be a right, it must be inalienable. That is, it cannot be take away from you as it is inherent.   And a right does not create a burden on other people.  For example, you have the right to free speech, but you do not have the right to have an audience.  You cannot force other people to listen, as that would violate their rights.  The same principle applies to other actual rights.  You have the right to keep and bear arms, but you not have the right to have the tax payers buy you a gun.

A 'right' to education would impose a burden on others.  We would be compelled to teach you.  Or to hire teachers to educate you.  Therefore, this cannot be a right.  It imposes a burden on other people, and therefore fails the test of being a right.    In fact, education is a luxury good.  It is a good that people worry about after they have food in their belly, a roof over their head, and enough spare time to educate.  It is most certainly not a right.

'free' -- they mean free to the consumer of the education, of course.  Not free to the taxpayer.  In fact, 'free' public education is the most expensive education that you can buy.  School districts are spending $10-12K per student on education.  This is far from 'free'.

'quality' -- as the last 100 years have demonstrated, there is not much quality in education.  Because the schools are large government run bureaucracies, they lack the incentives to deliver quality goods and services.  Therefore, they get fat and inefficient.  While Federal spending on schools has skyrocketed into the billions, test scores and literacy continue to decline. 

'Public' -- because the schools are public, they are political.  All decisions about curriculum, teachers compensation, standards, etc. becomes political decisions.  And political decisions are not always based on low costs and efficiency, or even with the best interests of the students in mind. 

So we find that almost every word of this fantasy is the opposite of reality. 


None of it has any meaning in the real world, or if it does, it has the opposite meaning to what they intend.

Liberal Fantasies - Tax Fairness

From the The Norman Goldman Show we have a list of Liberal Fantasies that need some attention.

The top of the list is.... Tax Fairness.

1) Tax Fairness - A Progressive Tax on the Koch Bros. and their top 2% buddies;


Is it pedantic to point out that our tax code is already progressive?  The top 5% of income earners paid ~60% of all income taxes.  The bottom 50% paid near-ZERO in income taxes.  So obviously they mean more progressive than the current system.

Minor quibble: Why is the tax on the Koch Bros. and not on George Soros?  Or Warren Buffet? Or any of the uber-rich Hollywood types that are so famously progressive?

Anyway, what moral code are you using when you declare it to be 'fair' that one group pays huge amounts of income tax while another group pays nothing at all? 

The moral code is altruism.  And the political viewpoint that extends from that moral code is called Socialism.

Here is the fantasy part:  the very rich are able to shift tax burdens and take advantage of the complex and loophole ridden Federal tax code.  Raising the rates does not produce more revenue.  History shows that tax revenue hovers at about 20% of GDP no matter what the tax rate. 

So making the rate more 'fair' will only drive economic activity out of this country, increase tax sheltering, and promote tax evasion.

If the Liberals are so intent on 'fairness' in the tax code, why aren't George Soros and Michael Moore paying more than they owe in taxes?  Why wait for the rates to be increased?  Just pony up now. After all, it is only fair!

Liberal Fantasies

I found the following posted on Facebook, and I thought it might be interesting to share;

From the The Norman Goldman Show

We had a VERY spirited show on Monday, May 23, 2001 - about the differences between Democrats and Republicons - and the fact that we have regular nuclear wars within ourselves over MANY issues. I asked that we focus on our core values and only if we have those, amongst us, wandering away from those core values that we attack them and WRITE THEM OFF. As to the other, non-core issues, we can and SHOULD still fight and disagree, but we should NOT throw each other overboard and rip each other limb from limb.

I submit to you that NOT ALL issues are created equal and that we should focus on the things that bind us and VOLUNTARILY stick together so long as we all agree on the core values. QUESTION: WHAT are those core values???

Here is my suggested list:

1) Tax Fairness - A Progressive Tax on the Koch Bros. and their top 2% buddies;

2) No corporate welfare - end the tax subsidies and write-offs;

3) Protect Social Security;

4) Protect Medicare;

5) Stop Outsourcing American jobs and punish those who do with higher taxes;

6) Clean energy and environmental protection;

7) No illegal wiretapping/Patriot Act "big government";

8) Personal privacy - like a woman's right to choose; legalize gay marriage and end the ridiculous "war on drugs" by starting with legalized marijuana;

9) Public financing of campaigns and clean elections with voter verifiable paper trails and no "voter i.d." disenfranchisement;

10) A right to health care, and;

11) A right to a free, quality public education.


It might be interesting to examine what each of these means.

I will follow up in separate posts.

Obama and bin Laden

Obama made a gutsy call! 

Interesting that Obama and his supporters consider it a 'gutsy call' to order an operation against our #1 enemy,  a man whose capture Obama campaigned on in 2008, when 90% of public opinion and 100% of congress would support the call.

Gutsy?  Really?

I mean, he made the right decision, but it was not a gutsy one.

Warning! Fast Food Wrappers may kill you!

From the latest issue of Men's Health:

FAST FOODS BAD WRAP
Some fast-food wrappers are lined with potentially dangerous chemicals that can leach into foods - and into the eaters bloodstream, a University of Toronto study on rats reveals.  These (chemical name), once in the the body, can be broken down into (another chemical), which at high levels, may be a risk factor for liver damage in animals.  More research may show similar effects in humans.

OMG!  Scary!  My fast food wrappers are deadly!!

But wait, what does this really mean?

This is junk science designed to create more FUD around chemicals and cancers.

Let's break this down:

Some fast-food wrappers...  not ALL fast food wrappers, just some.  How many? Most? One?  Since they did not say MOST, we can assume very few have this lining.

can leach into foods -- how long does this leaching take?  Most fast food is exposed to the wrapper for minutes, not hours or days. Not DOES leach, merely 'can' leach.  Which means it probably does not leach under normal conditions.  The leaching probably takes longer than the actual food remains edible.

"these chemicals...can be broken down"  Again, not ARE broken down, just 'can be".  How often?  90% of the time?  1% of the time?

which at high levels -- this is the phrase that pays.  "high levels" usually means they stuff the rats full of the stuff and see what happens.  When you do the math, it shows you would have to eat 10,000 burgers per day to get exposed to that level of the chemical. 

may be a risk factor for liver damage  -- May be a risk factor.... not IS a risk factor. And it is just a 'risk factor', which really means they cannot find a very strong causation link at all. 

in animals -- this is not even shown to be true in humans!  Just rats.

And the story ignores the most pertinent point: Why are these chemicals in the lining in the first place? The most likely explanation is that they kill germs, thus improving the safety of the food.


So, let's rewrite the story as it should have been written:


Some Very few fast-food wrappers are lined with potentially  dangerous beneficial chemicals that can under extreme circumstances over a long period of time, leach into foods - and into the eaters bloodstream, a University of Toronto study on rats reveals.  These (chemical name), once in the the body, can be rarely are broken down into (another chemical), which at high levels, levels that would require you to eat 10,000 tacos per day, may be somehow loosely linked a risk factor for liver damage in animals.  More research money given to the University may show similar effects in humans.


This is totally bogus scare tactics masquerading as science.

35th Anniversary of a Great Day in Baseball

Some moments require no explanation.

If this video doesn't make sense to you, please close your browser window and never return.

One of the greatest moments in Baseball history:

Global Warming is caused by ice makers!!

According to Time Magazine, the big culprit for global warming is... your ice maker!

So they want to impose new regualtions on ice makers, and raise the cost of them. This sort of ban-tax makes no sense when seen from a scientific point of view.  Ice makers contribute a vanishingly small percentage of green house gasses.


It only makes sense when considered from a religous point of view.

You see, environmentalism is a religion. It requires all the basic elements of a religion: a god, a theology, absolute faith, rituals, and sacrifices.

One of the scarifices is human comfort. Turn your air conditioner off, turn the heat down.

And now, warm vodka tonics.

The automatic ice maker is the pinnacle of human acheivement: indoor plumbing, electricity, refrigeration, all combined into a handy, life saving device.

So naturally, it must be eliminated!

Mother Earth has Rights!

Mother Earth has Rights!

UNITED NATIONS — Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving “Mother Earth” the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.

The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to “dominate and exploit” — to the point that the “well-being and existence of many beings” is now threatened.

This is silly, you think.  

This is crazy, you say.  

My back yard can sue me for getting mowed?  The trees have a right not to be turned into housing?  Mother Earth can "Just Say NO!" to oil drilling?

Go ahead people, laugh now while you still can.

This will be the reality within your lifetime. Gaia will have rights and you will lose yours.You doubt that?

Go back 30- 40 years and ask your grandfather if he thought that Americans would ban smoking in bars. Go ask him if he could have imagined mandatory recycling programs in every city. See if he would envision billions of dollars spent to combat ‘Global Warming”.


Go ask him if the miracle cure for malaria, DDT, would be banned. See if he believes that entire forests and rivers will be placed off limits to humans because a snail lives there. Ask him if Alar would be banned from use on apples.

In short, ask anyone from the previous generation if the things we consider ‘normal’ would have been acceptable to them.

The Left works on a different time scale. The left knows that what sounds bat-crap crazy today will sound perfectly reasonable to a future generation that has been exposed to decades of propaganda.

We are losing this fight because the other team is more dedicated and more organized, and they are working on a different time scale

Global Warming causes......Environmental Refugees!

Environmental Refugees! 

When the earth warms under the influence of man made global warming, many millions of people will be displaced.  They will become 'environmental refugees', wandering the globe in search of food and water. 

According to The Guardian:

Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse.

"There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change," Dr Bogardi said. "This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations." [...]

Hans van Ginkel, UN under-secretary-general and rector of the university, said: "This is a highly complex issue, with global organisations already overwhelmed by the demands of conventionally recognised refugees. However, we should prepare now to define, accept and accommodate this new breed of refugee."

So this dire prediction demands immediate action!  We must act immediately in order to save the lives of millions of innocents who will surely die before the end of the decade.

Wait.  This article was published in 2005.   So the 'end of the decade' they are referring to is 2010!

Where are these refugees?  Where is the desertification and the  'effects of climate change' that will drive these people into the arms of the world community?

They don't exist, of course.  Because Global Warming does not exist.  Because all of this AGW nonsense is blown WAY out of proportion and is based on the most speculative ideas and tenuous connections.

Think I am making this up?  Here is the link to the original story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1

So when you read the next set of calamitous predictions, keep in mind that they have never been right in the past.

Ann Barnhardt for President!

Ok, so Ann is crazy, but that only adds to the awesomeness of this rant.

Go Ann!

Gasoline is cheap

There has been a great deal of argle-bargle recently on the price of gasoline.  According to the news, it seems we are headed for $5 per gallon gasoline, and the Apocalypse is not far behind that.

Get real, people, gasoline is a bargain at $5 per gallon.

No other source of energy comes close to the energy density of gasoline.  It packs more punch per pound than any other usable energy source we have invented.  We use a lot of gasoline because it works really well.

The average car goes about 20 miles per gallon of gas.  Think about that. When is the last time you walked 20 miles?  Heck, when is the last time you walked 1 mile?

Try this experiment:  take all the stuff you use or need during a typical day; briefcase, laptop, phone, backpack, sports gear, workout bag, golf clubs, whatever.  Put it on your back.  Walk 20 miles.   When you get there, I will offer you a ride home for $5.  A bargain, right?

Think about it this way: a 20oz latte runs $5 at Starbucks, or about $15 per gallon.  A dollar for a water bottle comes out to $16 gallon. 

Coffee is a luxury item.  Really, you can make it through the day without $5 worth of caffeine.  Water is FREE and widely available, yet you will pay $16 per gallon for it.  Yet you complain about $3-4 for gas?

And gasoline does not just magically appear.

Oil companies explore remote, barren, and inhospitable places searching for oil.  They drill down thousands of feet into the earth to tap oil reservoirs.  They built elaborate pumping stations and pipelines to get the oil out of the ground.  They load the oil on super massive ships and transport it across vast oceans. They unload the oil at a complex and expensive refinery, where it is broken down into its component parts.  The gasoline is then sent through pipelines, barges and trucks to the corner of just about every street in the nation, where it sits in underground storage tanks for you to buy whenever you want.

For a few bucks. 

Think about that for a moment.  Billions of dollars of capital deployed to bring you a commodity that you have no hope of ever finding or making for yourself, and then they only charge you a few dollars for a gallon.

And that gallon will perform more work per pound than any other energy source yet devised.

Yup, gasoline is cheap.

Hypocrite, thy name is The Boss

Bruce Springsteen wants you to pay higher taxes while he applies for tax exemptions

So now we have the spectacle of none other than Bruce Springsteen weighing in on the topic of taxes.  And what does the left-leaning crooner think we ought to do about taxes?  Well, raise them, of course.

Bruce wrote an open letter the the Asbury Park Press critical of Republican Governor Chris Christie's tax policy, lamenting that the state is cutting services but not targeting the rich for more taxes.

It turns out, however, that Bruce does not consider himself to be among those that should pay more in taxes.  He is taking advantage of a tax loophole that allows 'farms' to be taxed a lower rate than homes. 

Springsteen pays more than $138,000 a year in taxes on his three-acre Colts Neck home, but just $4,639 on the adjoining 200 acres, which is organically farmed and has horses, according to the report.

So here we have the Boss trying to tell us that taxes should be raised on everyone else, but he personally takes advantage of tax loopholes to reduce his tax burden. 

Nice work, Bruce.

Intellectual Laziness

Micheal Moore was recently quote as saying some really silly stuff.  His point of view is consistently leftist, with a smattering of outright communism.  His films are shoddy propaganda, so much so, in fact, that Cuba banned his film that touted the Cuban health system.  The Cubans found it to be too biased, and were worried that the Cuban people would be upset by the depiction of a health care system they never have access to.

I am not making this up.  Micheal Moore is too leftist for the commies.


So now Moore is quoted with a factual error, claiming that we are the oldest democracy.

ROSEANNE BARR: Doesn’t it look like we’re all kind of really go to war against all Muslim people? I mean, it’s like five nations now. It’s scary.

MOORE: And I think if you live in the Muslim world, you’re scared by that too. That’s why I think our involvement in this has got to be of a different caliber than military. We can provide other things. I mean we’re the oldest democracy in the history of the world.

Since we are neither a democracy (we are representative constitutional republic) nor the oldest (I think Athens gets the honors here), people are mocking the fat man for getting his facts wrong.  This is a trivial mistake, but one that right wingers would be mocked and derided for making. 

But this is not new for Moore.  All of his facts are wrong or distorted. 

This is what happens when you think you are smarter than you really are, and no one ever challenges your assertions.

I am sure Michael Moore is a reasonably intelligent guy. He is able to make movies, speak in sentences, etc.
But he is convinced that he is smarter than he really is. He has high verbal intelligence, and that is often mistaken for being smart.  This particularly true in the media world where being able to speak well  is considered proof of intelligence. 

And no one ever challenges him on the facts. So he gets intellectually lazy.

Compare and contrast someone like Ann Coulter. Every fact, every comma, every word she says or writes is ‘fact checked’ by the Left. So Ann is careful to do research and back her assertions with facts.

Moore does not get fact checked. Ever. So he is free to be intellectually lazy (and by the look of him, lazy in a number of other ways as well).

So Moore is free to serve up a dog’s breakfast of feelings, illogical assertions, and incorrect facts as the The Truth. He is free to pontificate utter nonsense and communist talking points.  He is free to advocate the demise of the very system that allows him to exist in the first place.  (Name another place in the world where Moore could make the films that he makes and survive.)

And no one ever challenges him on it.

So he continues to stumble along, spouting propaganda and gibberish, all the while being adored by the Left.

Playing the Trump Card

The Birther movement is finally getting it's moment in the sun. 
For the past 3 years a number of people have been insisting that Obama must show his original, long form birth certificate.  Obama has refused to do so.  In fact, he has spent millions on lawyers in an effort to get such requests squashed. 

Donald Trump has now taken up the issue, and raised it on a number of high profile talk shows.  So now the issue is getting some attention from the MSM. 

Some pundits are dismissing this as a hate based witch hunt.  Others continue to ignore it or marginalize the 'birthers' as bunch of nut jobs.  But this is a serious issue.


The issue at hand is nothing less than the most profound Constitutional crisis in the history of our republic.
There is literally no precedent for this if it is found that Obama is not eligible to be President.

OK, so all the laws he passed are null and void. But then what:

• Obama signed the Pigford agreement, paying black farmers for alleged past discrimination. Do they have to give the money back?
• The takeover of GM is null and void. But what? Do the stockholders get their money back? Do the bond holders get a new deal?
• What happens to all of the decisions of the judges that Obama appointed?  Are they null and void as well?  Do they all get re-tried?  And at whose expense?
• What of the Czars and the cabinet officers? How do you actually undo all of the acts and regulations of people appointed by Obama?

This would get ugly really fast.

And then think of the legal repercussions:

• Obama: is he put in jail? On what charge? Treason? How do you commit treason if you are not a citizen?  Impeachment, certainly. But then what? Deportation back to Kenya?
• The people that signed election certifications: Each state requires a signed affidavit that they candidate is able to be on the ballot, etc.  Do you throw the election certifiers in jail in every state he was on the ballot?
• Hawaii: They are refusing to release the document, and so presumably know it’s contents or the fact that it does not exists. Are they thrown in jail?
• Civil unrest: The unions are threatening revolution over the issue of health care contributions. Imagine what they will do when their primary sponsor is impeached. I would predict rioting in the streets.

Fasten your seat belts, people. This could get really interesting.

Let there be Light!

Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has outlawed the single most important invention of the last 200 years.

No other invention has brought so much benefit to mankind at so little cost.   Yes, the incandescent light bulb, the source of light for billions of people, has been outlawed by congress.

For the vast majority of human history, we have lived in darkness.  And not just metaphorical darkness.  Actual darkness.  Light was a rare and expensive luxury.  People worshipped the sun and had great festivals to mark the longest and the shortest days of the year.  Many hours were spent in the darkness, huddled against the monsters of the long, dark night.  The only sources of useful light were candles or oil lamps, and both were luxury items that the masses could not afford.

Candles and oil lamps are also incredibly dangerous.  Fire was an ever present threat that killed many people.

The light bulb changes all of that. Now, we hardly notice the amount of light in the outside world, for we have the safe and trusty light bulb to banish the darkness. 

The light bulb has transformed human society.  People are freed from the shackles of sunlight, and can work or play around the clock.  This has led to a great leap in human productivity.  When we say that we are burning the midnight oil, what we really mean is that we are using a light bulb to vanquish the darkness.

This arrangement has worked incredibly well for a long time, with a few minor issues.  You see, it seems that the light bulb is not efficient.

Much of the energy consumed is wasted in the form of heat.  And the amount of power used to create light is much higher than in some of the alternative sources of light, like the big, bulky fluorescent bulbs. 

With the introduction of compact fluorescent bulbs, there came predictions that the reign of the incandescent bulb was over, and that we would all switch to these new, energy saving devices.  The second coming of light, so to speak.

But the switch over never came, and the CFL bulbs never captured a material share of the market.  People did not like them.  They were expensive, did not produce very good light, and a poor investment, costing ten times a regular light bulb. .

This lack of free market adoption is not good enough for the nanny staters and enviro-nazis.   They want to save the planet, and see the incandescent bulb as a threat to the environment.  So it must go, no matter the consequences.

So they gave up waiting for the masses to see the light on CFL's, and demanded that people be forced to buy them.  They argued that CFL's work just as well, last many times longer, and save large amounts of energy.

Incredibly, congress agreed, and banished the incandescent bulbs to the darkness.  Effective next year, we will no longer be able to purchase the good old light bulb.  Only CFL's are allowed.

Now there are some problems with CFL's. Namely, they suck.

They don't work: one of the great uses of light bulbs is instant light.  You walk into a room, flip a switch, and presto, you can see.  CFL's don't work that way.  Not only do they emit a harsh light, but it takes some 15 minutes for the bulb to reach full brightness.  This is a bad solution for bulbs in places like storage closets, garages, and any place where the light is not left on for a long time.

The Return on investment is bad:  The CFL's cost more.  A lot more.  Like 10 times as much as an incandescent bulb.  But they are supposed to last for years longer.  Except that they do not.  Breakage aside, the CFL's are not lasting as long as was promised. They tend to burn out faster in situations where they are turned on and off a lot.  All of which means you never get back the 10x cost for bulb.

They are a toxic waste hazard:  The CFL's contain mercury.  This is REALLY DANGEROUS chemical.  Unlike Alar and every other faux chemical scare the left has inflicted upon us over the past decade, this stuff is deadly.  The EPA published guidelines on how to clean up after a broken CFL bulb.  3 pages of instructions including opening doors and windows and turning off the heat. . So if your kids are horsing around in the bedroom and break a bulb, you have to cool off the entire house to the outside temperature in order to keep poisonous gases from spreading throughout your home.   How much energy am I saving when I open all my windows in January? 

See the Federal guidelines here:
http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup-detailed.htm



How much are we saving here, exactly?

But none of this matters.  We must bow to the environmental gods and use these crappy bulbs to light our lives. 

And all of this data was available before the law was passed, so none of this is a surprise.

So it seems like this was deliberate.  The green movement has been accused of trying to move us back to the stone age.  In this case, however, they are merely regressing civilization to the Dark Agees.

Executive Appointments -- Stop the Madness

The executive branch, i.e., the President, has the power to appoint people to various offices, including the Supreme Court.

The Senate has oversight, and must consent to any appointment. 

From the Constitution:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


Currently this system is being abused. 

The language is clear: the Senate must approve all appointments.  In reality, the Senate simply ignores its duties and does not bring candidates up for a vote.

The President is then forced to make appointments while the Senate is in recess, and these appointees never get confirmed by the Senate.

This creates majot dysfunction, and the final result is unconstitutional.

I proposed the following changes:

The Senate must vote on every executive appointment within 90 days. Failure to hold vote will be considered dereliction of duty, and will result in the automatic impeachment of all Senators of the party that control the Senate at that time.  Special elections will be held to fill these seats.

All recess appointments shall be subject to Senate confirmation within 30 days of congress being convened.  All officers appointed during a recess shall not remain in that office for more than 120 days.

This will return the process to the balance of power envisioned by the Constitution.

Hannity is missing the point!

Sean Hannity is a great American.  But he completely missed the point in this debate.

He is talking with Michelle Bachman and Anthony Weiner about budget, taxes, and spending. 

Rep. Weiner is a left wing lunatic, who cackles mirthlessly and repeats the same statement: :we have a deficit because we gave tax cuts to the millionaires and billionaires and we have to pay for that".

Hannity proceed to argue on the details: Obama signed it, the rich pay enough now, we spend too much.

Weiner say in response "one of the ways we spend money is by giving to millionaires and billionaires.

Hannity continues on, and the never really reach a conclusion, other than Weiner laughing like a psychotic.

Sean misses the point completely by not rejecting the premise of the point: tax cuts are not "spending money".  When people keep their own hard earned money it is NOT federal spending. 

Weiner's premise is that all money belongs to the government, and through the tax code they allow us to have some of it to spend for ourselves.  And that when I keep money in my pocket, this counts as 'spending' by the Federal government.

This is not true.  At least in a free republic.

The only system of government in which Rep. Weiner's premise is true is in a communist state. 

So rather than accept the premise, then argue the details, Sean should have stopped the discussion and rejected the basic premise.

Global Warming causes......not much

Global Warming causes...less damage than the alternative.

The recent topic of melting glaciers got me thinking about the fact that not too long ago there were huge glaciers covering most of North America.

These glaciers pushed south while crushing the land below under immense weight and pressure.  They destroyed virtually all life before them, and scraped much of the terrain of the continent into the sea.   Bad, scary stuff.

On the plus side, we have been left with some charming geologic features like Long Island, Cape Cod, Glacier National Park, and the Kettle Moraine area.

Thirty years ago the press was sounding the alarm that the Ice Ages were returning.  They pointed out that glaciation occurred in cycles, and we were well overdue for the next one.   These claims were based on cooling trends and the long term changes in the climate.

Imagine for a moment what would happen to civilization if everything north of the Mason-Dixon line was crushed under a mile thick sheet of ice.  All of Canada, Chicago, New York, Boston, gone.  All of the wheat belt of the Dakotas, all of the lumber producing forest of the north, gone.  Northern Europe, all of Russia, most of China, covered in ice.

Some of the most productive regions on earth would be destroyed.  Human civilization would probably collapse, with food scarce and the entire planet subject to severe cold and short growing seasons.  Billions of people would perish.

Now the AGW crowd claims that we are all going to die from the effects of Climate Change. But not from the another Ice Age. They now claim the earth is warming and it is the fault of industrialized nations and the CO2 output.   They have made wildly exaggerated claims about the seas rising, deserts flourishing, and earthquakes running amok.  They have even made movies and documentaries about the effects of global warming.

We know that these effects are overstated because the earth has been warmer in the past, and these warm times coincide with times when man flourished.  In fact, the medieval warm period was once referred to as the 'climactic optimum' by the poor bastards that were freezing their butts off in Europe during the Little Ice Age that followed.

But even these hysterical warmist claims of climatic Armageddon are less severe than the known effects of another Ice Age.

If we had the power to choose (which we do not), we would choose warming over cooling.  Every time.  All of the supposed effects of AGW can be overcome with ease compared with the difficulty of stopping a glacier from crushing the life out of your civilization.

So here we are trying to combat the relatively minor and hypothetical damage that might occur if AGW is real, all the while increasing the risk that glaciers will wipe civilization off the face of the planet.

Now if you want absolute proof that colder weather is more damaging than warmer weather, here it is:

When they made the movie The Day After Tomorrow to highlight the dangers of global warming, they made COLD WEATHER the central dramatic problem of the film.  How strange is it that the biggest killer in a story about warmer temperatures is the cold, and the characters spend the entire film trying to stay warm in the face of a deep freeze.

They had to do this to make the film interesting.  A bunch of people sitting around in wife beater t-shirts saying "how 'bout  this heat" does not make for a dramatic blockbuster.   Humans instinctively know that cold is scarier than heat, and a drama based on people sweating would be boring (A Streetcar Named Desire notwithstanding).

So, AGW is likely a bunch of baloney, but even if it is not, it is better than the alternative of another Ice Age.

Global Warming causes......

Earthquakes!

That's right, folks.  When the temperature of the air warms up a few degrees, the effect on geologic faults that lie 6 miles below the surface of the earth is immediate and severe.  The huge tectonic plates begin to cavort wildly, and presto! Severe earthquakes.

OK, this is obviously silly.

But the actual claim by the Global Warming Mongers is not much more valid.

In the wake of the horrific tragedy in Japan, the media weave into the reports of earthquake damage the claim that increased seismic activity is one of the threats posed by Climate Change.  This, of course, is  part of the strategy to 'never let a good crisis go to waste'.

They must advance to mantra of Global Warming, no matter how absurd or in poor taste. (Thousands are dead, but never mind that.  We must advance the cause!)

The theory is as follows:  Huge glaciers sit atop the land, and the immense weight of the ice is pressing down on the rock.  As warming causes the ice to melt, the weight is released, causing the land to rise.  This rise will then trigger increased activity along seismic fault lines, and we will have more earthquakes.

The Facts:  The glaciers do, in fact, push down on the bedrock with enormous weight, pushing the land down.  When the weight of the ice is released, the land does spring back to it's previous level.  It does this on a geologic time scale, ie, over tens of thousands of years.

One place where we see this is the Canadian Shield.  Having been compressed during the last ice age, it is in the process of rebounding, rising a few centimeters per year.  It has been doing this for some 10,000 years, since the time when mile-thick glaciers covered the northern hemishpere.

There is no evidence that this effect causes earthquakes.  And since the last ice age ended over 10,000 years ago, if the rebound effect did cause earthquakes it would be causing what we consider the 'normal' amount of earthquakes, as we do not have records during a time when the earth was not rebounding.

But none of this matters, because these minor changes in the level of the plates are NOT what causes major earthquakes. (We will only consider major earthquakes here, as minor ones are of no consequence to human life. There are thousands of tiny earthquakes everyday, and they are picked up only on the most sensitive instruments.)

Earthquakes are cause by plate tectonics. This is the process by which the major land masses float around on the molten surface of the earth's core, colliding with one another and causing vibrations in the crust as they ride atop one another, or slip past each other.  The plates move at rates of several centimeters a year. They get stuck in certain spots where stress builds up.  When something breaks, the plates snap forward to release the stress.

When the movement is large (measured in meters) we get large earthquakes.

This only applies when motion of the plate is opposed by another plate. There is nothing to stop the upward movement of the land as it rebounds from the weight of the glaciers, so they don't get 'stuck' when moving like this.

So the idea that global warming causes earthquakes is stupid and has no basis in science. It is an example of the vast over reach of the GW crowd.  They are so desperate to scare people into supporting their ideas, they are wildly overplaying their hand. 

The next time you hear something is caused by global warming, don't believe it.

Hypocrite, thy name is the MSM

Ok, this is a fairly shopworn topic, but I can only take so much before I snap.

The Mainstream Media is so over-the-top hypocritical that even satire is no longer possible.

One example:

Several months ago a congresswoman from Arizona was shot.  The MSM immediately blamed Sara Palin and the 'angry tone' of the Tea Party right for inspiring the shooter.  The fact that the shooter was a statanist with no ties to anything remotely associated with either Palin or the Tea Party did not matter.  We were subjected to weeks of coverage demanding a 'new civility' and endless moralizing about the use of certain words and phrases. 

So without a single example of threats or any other connection to the right, we get endless coverage of the need to take the 'heated rhetoric' out of politics.

Now we have a little disagreement in Wisconsin over the rights of government Unions to collectively bargain.  The professional Left turns out in droves to protest, and the mobs turn angry.  There are pictures of Gov. Walker as Hitler, pictures with crosshairs, signs demanding violence, and actual death threats.  Yes.  Actual threats of bombs and murder from the Left.

And what do we hear from the MSM?  Nothing.  Calls for civility? Connections between the violence and the leaders of the Left? Nope. 

Instead, the MSM joins in with the linguistic violence.  This week in Time Magazine, they call the Govenor a deadman, with a headline calling him a 'deadman Walker".

So much for the new civility.

There is no longer even a pretense at fairness or balance.  In fact, there is not even an effort to make it News.  It is pure propaganda.

And it is so over the top biased as to defy parody.  How do you lampoon something that is already a joke?

My new man crush..... Charlie Sheen

Charlie Sheen is in the middle of a well publicized breakdown.  His career is in a shambles, his smash hit television show is no longer in production, he is twice divorced, and has been sent into rehab. 

 

Yet my love for him knows no bounds.

 

This is a recent crush.  In fact, I have never seen an episode of the show that was netting him a few million bucks a show.  Nor have I seen many of his movies. 

 

Over the last few days, however, I have come to appreciate the man in full that is Charlie Sheen.   Oh, sure, he is drug addled and completely off the tracks.  And is prone to violent outbursts, prolonged drug binges, and porn star fueled orgies. 

 

But I am beginning to love him for one thing: completely unfiltered responses.  Here are the top ten quotes (so far) from the indominatable Mr. Sheen:

1. "I got tiger blood, man. My brain...fires in a way that is - I don't know, maybe not from this particular terrestrial realm."
2. "I am on a drug. It's called Charlie Sheen. It's not available because if you try it, you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body."
3. “I’m tired of pretending like I’m not special. I’m tired of pretending like I’m not bitchin’, a total freakin’ rock star from Mars.”
4. "I'm bi-winning. I win here and I win there. Now what? If I'm bi-polar, aren't there moments where a guy like crashes in the corner like, 'Oh my God, it's all my mom's fault!' Shut up! Shut up! Stop! Move forward."
5. I'm sorry, man, but I've got magic. I've got poetry in my fingertips. Most of the time — and this includes naps — I'm an F-18, bro. And I will destroy you in the air. I will deploy my ordinance to the ground."
6. On his daily life: "It's perfect. It's awesome. Every day is just filled with just wins. All we do is put wins in the record books. We win so radically in our underwear before our first cup of coffee, it's scary. People say it's lonely at the top, but I sure like the view." "It's a polygamy story...All my guy friends are gonna like throw tomatoes at me. It's like an organic union of the hearts."
7. "That's how I roll. And if it's too gnarly for people, then buh-bye."
8. "I probably took more than anybody could survive. ... I was bangin' seven-gram rocks and finishing them because that's how I roll, because I have one speed, one gear. ... I'm different. I have a different constitution, I have a different brain, I have a different heart. I got tiger blood, man. Dying's for fools, dying's for amateurs."
9. On his two girlfriends: "You've read about the goddesses, come on. They're an international sensation. These are my girlfriends. These are the women that I love that have completed the three parts of my heart. ... It's a polygamy story. All my guy friends are gonna like throw tomatoes at me. It's like an organic union of the hearts."

Pure Awesomeness.  Pure Win!

Winner!

A legal reform for the ages...

I once met a guy at a bar.  Ok, I have met a lot of people at bars.  But this guy was special.

He claimed to be an attorney, and not just any attorney.  He claimed to be the youngest attorney to have argued a case before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Wow.  Cool story, bro.

What, I asked, did you argue.

He proceeded to explain that he had defended a death row criminal and gotten the guy sprung out of jail.  He had murdered a bunch of people, but the cops screwed something up, and so the guy ended up walking away.

Curious, I asked the attorney if he was concerned that he had released a dangerous and guilty criminal back into the world.  He, of course, was shocked that I would ask such a thing.  His job, he said, was to do his best to defend people, even the guilty, and get them out of jail in anyway possible.

Hmm.  Really? 

It seems to me he is applying the wrong standard.  What he ought to be interested in is Justice.  Yes, with a capital J.

Attorneys are too far removed from the consequences of their actions.  Prosecutors only care about getting convictions, defendant's attorney's only care about getting their client off.

I would proposed the following changes to the system:

1.  If any defendant is convicted of a crime and it later comes to light that the prosecution withheld evidence, committed fraud, or otherwise engaged in misconduct, then the defendant will be released and the prosecutor and anyone else involved in the wrongful conviction will be sentenced to serve time equal to the original sentence of the defendant.

2.  Any attorney that argues for the release of a defendant and wins shall have the defendant released into their custody for 30 days.  The defendant will then live in the same house as the attorney and their family for the 30 days. 

In this way, over zealous prosecutors will be punished for committing fraud or misconduct.  And if defendants attorney's think that the criminals should be released to spend time with the rest of us, then they wont mind having them under the same roof for a few weeks.

Does your stupidity make me a racist?

We have now reached a new low in race baiting industry.  It used to be that you had to say something that was actually racist in order to be accused of racism. 

Now, any use of the work 'black', or any word that even sounds like a potentially offensive word will cause you to be accused of racism.

Here are a few examples:

(Dallas News) — A special meeting about Dallas County traffic tickets turned tense and bizarre this afternoon.County commissioners were discussing problems with the central collections office that is used to process traffic ticket payments and handle other paperwork normally done by the JP Courts.


Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, who is white, said it seemed that central collections “has become a black hole” because paperwork reportedly has become lost in the office.


Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, interrupted him with a loud “Excuse me!” He then corrected his colleague, saying the office has become a “white hole.”


That prompted Judge Thomas Jones, who is black, to demand an apology from Mayfield for his racially insensitive analogy.


Mayfield shot back that it was a figure of speech and a science term. A black hole, according to Webster’s, is perhaps “the invisible remains of a collapsed star, with an intense gravitational field from which neither light nor matter can escape.”

Black Hole....the new N-word!

The word 'niggardly' has also caused some angst:

• In 1999, a white aide to the black mayor of Washington, D.C., resigned after a black colleague complained that he used the term when discussing how he would handle the budget. The aide was later rehired.
• Debate also was triggered when a North Carolina teacher was reprimanded in 2002 and sent for sensitivity training after teaching the word to her class during a vocabulary lesson.
• The Dallas Morning News banned the word after complaints were lodged over its appearance in a restaurant review, Salon.com reported.
• But Britain's Economist magazine reportedly was simply amused in 1995 to receive a letter of complaint from a Boston reader offended by seeing the word in a technology story

Niggardly, of course, means miserly or cheap.  And it has no linguistic or historical relationship to 'nigger'.  'Black hole' is a scientific term, and it has come into common usage to mean a place where objects get sucked in but never come out.   There is no racial connotation whatsoever.

But this does not matter to the perpetually offended and the profoundly stupid.  They are offended because it sounds like a racist term.  Or as one of these morons put it when the actual meaning of the word was explained to them "what matters is that I thought it was offensive".  

This is an absurd standard.  Now, what I say is not objectively evaluated, but rather, it is filtered through the ignorance and stupidity of the listener.  Your stupidity makes me a racist.

This idiotic standard has led to some very strange statements.  The media are so afraid of offending they always use the term african-american to describe people of color.  Which leads the embarrasment of Nelson Mandela, the leader of South Africa, to be described on TV news as the "african-american leader of South Africa". 

Some apologists for this farce have pointed out that there are other words that have the same meaning, and we could just use those words in order to avoid potential offense.  They are advocating 'separate but equal' vocabulary, it seems.

How far does this go?  May I call a spade a spade? Can I offend someone by stating the weather is a bit nippy?  Or that there is a chink in the armor?  How about those little bugs?  Do we change the name from chigger to something else? 

The new standard for offensive language is now wholly subjective, and apparently based on the IQ of the person you are addressing. 

How do you assess IQ when addressing a stranger?  Well, you cannot base it on appearance, job, title, or anything else. One of the people offended by 'black hole' was a judge!!  Therefore, the only rational standard you can use is the color of their skin, not the content of their vocabulary.

So we find ourselves in a strange spot.  In order not to be called a racist, we must look at the skin color of the person to whom we are speaking, and then avoid certain perfectly normal words for fear of offending them. 

Who is racist now?

Pirates of the Third World

Personally, I thought we had the pirate problem solved.  You know, the Shores of Tripoli, millions for defense and not a penny for tribute, and all that.

But apparently not.

Right now there are some serious problems with piracy around the globe.

From the Christian Science Monitor today:

"The hijacking of two oil tankers in two days, together containing $260 million worth of cargo, has stoked new concern about the world's inability to halt the threat of Somali piracy in the Indian Ocean"

It is estimated that piracy is costing the global economy $5-8 Billion per year. Piracy is the mortal enemy of civilization, and must be eradicated.

I can solve the piracy issue in 90 days, and at a cost well below $5-8 billion.

Piracy will be a thing of the past 90 days after the United States implements the following policies:

1. All persons engaged in piracy will be captured or killed by United States military forces
2. All vessels, vehicles, aircraft or other means of transportation that used by pirates or supporting piracy will be deemed pirate vessels, and will captured or destroyed by United States military forces.
3. All beaches, villages, ports, towns, or cities found to be aiding, hosting, hiding abetting or otherwise involved in piracy will be deemd pirate havens and captured or destroyed by United States military forces.
4. Any municipal, local, state or national government found to be supporting or accomodating pirates or piracy will be deemed pirate governments, and will be captured or destroyed by United States military forces.
5. No ransoms shall be paid for any vessel or crew captured by pirates.  United States military forces will sink or destroy any vessel for which ransom was paid to prior to it being returned to its original owner. 

There you go.  Within 30 days the issue of piracy would be solved forever.  OK, make it 90 days in case some of the pirates don't get the word fast enough

We have pirates because we are paying people to be pirates.  They are capturing $200MM vessels and asking for $5MM ransoms. And they are getting paid.

The only way to stop piracy is to make it a losing proposition.  By killing pirates and destroying the places where they seek shelter, you will reduce the number of pirates.

By refusing to pay ransom. and forcing the rest of the world to go along with this policy by sinking ransomed ships, you will quickly take all the profit out of piracy.   And with no profits, there are no pirates.

We claim piracy is a difficult challenge.  Really, we just lack the will to stop it.

Global Warming causes......Colder weather!

....colder weather!


Of course it does.  You see, as things get warmer, it will be colder.  And we will get more snow.   You see, Climate Change is the answer to everything!

Baloney.  This entire theory is a bunch of hogwash.

The global warmer types are claiming that the huge storm that just pasted the midwest with snow are the result of 'Climate Change" brought on by mankind's pollution.

They claim, with a straight face, apparently, warm air carries more moisture, and when it collides with cold air, the result is snow. More snow than we got in the past.  So when it snows and the temperatures plummet to 5 degrees below zero, this is because we are warming the planet.

Does this make any sense?  Well, no.  Not really.

If you buy into the theory of Global Warming (now called Climate Change, since they have figured out that the earth is not getting any warmer), then the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will act as an insulating blanket.  This will reduce the amount of heat radiating back into space, and the globe will warm up.

The physics of the theory predict that the warming will happen primarily in the coldest air over the northern landmasses.

If this is true, then the difference in temperature between the warm equatorial areas and the cooler northern latitudes will be smaller that it is today.  The equator will be slightly warmer, and the poles will be a lot warmer.

Which means that the amount of water picked up by the warm air will not change much (the equator does not warm up that much) but the cold air masses will pack much less punch.  The resulting storms will be less powerful.  There will be less snow, less violent storms, and a higher percentage of rain than snow.

When Climate Changers claim that AGW is causing snow, not only are they shameless liars, but they are contradicting their own theory.


It is interesting that none of the predicted effects of global warming are happening.

Increased CO2 leads to increased temperatures: FALSE, there is no increase in global temps measured in the last 10 years.

Climate Change causes big storms: FALSE, the actual science behind this demonstrates this is false.

So, we have a theory based on false claims, manufactured data, secret computer models, and notes that were destroyed when the dog ate their homework.


I think it is pretty clear by now that the theory of Climate Change is bunk.

Are Liberals Retarded? Or, Do They Think Everyone Else Is???

Ezra Klein of the Washington Post recently wrote an article claiming that we should stop donating to private charities and, instead, donate to think tanks and policy groups that will direct the government to solve the problems.

His reasoning in the article is, well, stupid.  The essence of his argument is as follows:

Charities do a better job solving problems than the government as the government is blunt and inefficient
Most people understand this and give money directly to charities.
Charities have limits on scope and scale, government does not
Therefore, we should not donate to charities, but rather to 'think tanks' that make government act more like private charities
The government will then do the charity work
This extends your charity dollar farther, and is therefore good.

There are several problems with this reasoning, and the essesnce of it is captured in the 9th paragraph.  Klein claims that "if you donate to a food bank, it can provide only as much food as your money can buy".  So far, so good.  Then he claims that we should instead fund non-profits that will persuade legislators to create a new program that can "do much more than any single food bank".

So he is proposing that we donate money to create new programs that will feed people we chose not to feed directly.  Where does the money for the new programs come from?  Who pays for that?   Well, the taxpayer, of course.  But the logially retarded Mr. Klein does not seem to understand that 'programs' are funded by tax dollars, ie, out of the same pocket that the donations came from.

This is the essence of all liberal thinking.  Taxes are magic.  The money just appears.  It does not come from the pockets of the taxpayers.  

Think about what he is saying.  Don't feed people yourself.  Let them go hungry today.  Instead, influence Congress to take money from other people to feed the hungry at a later date.  If, of course, any of them are still alive. 

Of course, Mr. Klein does understand that taxpayer dollars come from taxpayers. He is just banking on the fact that other people pay more in taxes than he does.  So the best use of his 'charity' dollars is to force you to pay for the things that he values. 

So I ask...retarded or does he think we are retarded?

A Rose by Any Other Name

Politicians love themselves.  They love to see themselves on TV, to see their name in print, and on the news.  They will do just about anything for 15 minutes of fame.  Just spell their name right!

As it turns out, they will also do anything to get their names on something more permanent.  Like a building.  Or a bridge.  Or even a library.

This is the ultimate high for them.  To be immortalized. To be honored. And to do it all with other people's money!

Perhaps the worst example is Robert Byrd of West Virginia.  He has plastered his name on just about every federally funded object in the state.  There are something like 1,342 building, roads or bridges named after him.  OK, I made that number up.  But the real number is a big one.

One of several dozen buildings named after Senator Byrd

Why?  Why do we feel the need to feed the ego's of these people? They did not pay for the building, we, the taxpayers, paid for the building. The politicians do not deserve to have their name on on a building -- they have done nothing to deserve this honor other than force us to pay for it.

So I proposed that we take their names of the stuff that we have paid for and put the names of ordinary citizens on them. 

Wait, not ordinary citizens. Let's name stuff after people that deserve to be immortalized.  Let's name them after those that have given the last full measure of their devotion; our war heroes.   We know the names of hundreds of politicians. Their names are part of the fabric of our lives.  The Eisenhower. Reagan International Airport. The Daley Center.  But know one knows the names of those that gave their lives to defend our country.

I propose that the following changes be made to the names of all Federally funded projects.

1. Politicians are not eligible have things named after them until 75 years after their death. 
2. All projects shall have a name assigned that is selected from a master list of names.
3. The master list shall be composed of people who served our country in a heroic capacity; winners of military decorations such as the Medal of Honor, the Navy cross, the silver star, etc and politicians who have been dead for at least 75 years. 

The names shall be selected in order, and all buildings and other objects not in compliance with this rule shall be re-named. 

In this way, we can stop these bombastic and egotistic people from glorifying themselves with other peoples money and focus instead on those that deserve to be remembered.    Our war heroes. 

I would much rather drive down the Adelbert Ames highway than the Robert F. Byrd Parkway.

Who is Adelbert Ames?   My point exactly.