whiney whiney whiney......

One of the most irritating things I find with today's Democrats is the constant victim mentality that brings about incessant whineyness. The constant refrain that even though they lost that they "deserve" something or that the loss was due to some big conspiracy. Now, that this has been embedded in liberal DNA it's coming back to bite them.

This is evident in the way that the Democrat Party is divided by those who won the primary and those who did not - but just can't let it go. The articles titled "Clinton die-hards voice anger in convention protest" and "Many Clinton Supporters Say Speech Didn't Heal Divisions" say it all. It talks about not being able to "Forgive" Obama. Forgive? What in the world has he done that deserves "forgiveness" other than win a political contest? They demand that 18 million votes should count for something. Um - they did. But you still lost. And now the victims are coming out of the woodwork to claim the DNC set it up and made their candidate lose - so it's a conspiracy and they have been wronged!

I just don't get it. But I'm glad to see they're starting to eat their own. This is the same whiney bullshit that has come out of the last two elections. Obviously if you lose, it's not because the other guys was better, it's because the other guy cheated. It's this mentality that forces the DNC and RNC to send lawyers to polling places in advance. To pre-build the case that the other side cheated and is trying to disenfranchise the voter. This just shows how fragmented the Democratic party is and it's a serious point of weakness. This also shows whats wrong with our two partys. Extreme Left and Extreme Right - both foregoing common sense, principles, and the constitution in order to consolidate power and win an election.

It's also interesting that in many polls Sen Obama is losing ground instead of getting the historical bump in the polls from his VP announcement and the convention. This only further fuels the fires that Hillary stoked by saying he can't beat McCain.

Of course, former President Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton hasn't been helping much with his back handed and under his breath comments about Obama. One thing I've got to give the Billary Team some credit for is that they've always been good at triangulation and strategery so you know that these comments, as well as the insistance that her name be entered into nomination thereby keeping her supports foaming at the mouth, are all part of a grander plan.

The only grander plan I can think of is that they really want Obama to lose so they can give out a triple dose of "i told ya so" and not have to wait 8 years to give it another shot. Hillary is 60 and waiting 4 years isn't a big deal. Eight years however....that may be a bit too much since they're making such a big deal about McCain's age. I truly believe the Clintons are power hungry and would prefer another Democrat loss over having to wait even longer for another shot.

I've watched about 10 total minute of the convention this week. It wasn't 10 minutes in a row - I just can't take much of reporters/hournalists fawning over the Dem effette. It's disgusting to watch but i'll be interested to see if the same reporters and news network play as nice at the RNC . I did catch one small segment that interested me - and showed the bias of this particular broadcast.

They were posting comments up on a big screen that were coming from John Q Citizen - and all of them were showing support for raising taxes. Every one of them. Some were well written and slammed Bush's MBA with statements about not knowing that raising revenue is what is needed when businesses need more money. Not one of them mentioned reducing costs or gave an opposing view. I wonder what the political inclination of the folks picking the posts could be? Reducing costs is usually the first step in business when money gets tight. No one likes to tell their customers that the price is going up because some customers won't accept it.....except the government, and they think it's their money anyway. My point is, this is a strong indicator of what to expect if there is an Obama administration.

Raising taxes to distribute wealth based on a socialist ideal of equality and not based on effort or talent.

I'm gonna stop now before I spin off into 30 more paragraphs about taxes, government and impending socialism.

Even LUC says WTF!

I had no intention of posting today. I didn't wake up cranky. Didn't have the itch to rant. Then I read an article that said Most companies don't pay income taxes. Those damn corporations and their shady ways. Screwing the little guy once again. Bastards!

Go ahead. Read it. I'll wait here.

Now that you're back did you notice some important things? Let's start with who requested the report. That would be two Democrat Senators looking to rally the wretched poor against the evil empires.

"It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.

Shameful I say. Just friggin shameful. Of course, no where in that report did it say that those companies actually made big profits. (Where is my "Jump to Conclusions Mat"?)

With the attention span most Americans have these days they'll probably stop there and sharpen their chad punchers so they can go vote for the Goliath killers. What they'll have missed is important.

The next two paragraphs tell the story though. The guy from the CATO Institute explains that Limited Liability Corps and "S" Corps pay taxes through the individual owners personal income taxes....and then he says fully half of todays corporations fall into these categories.

Are you ready for some math....I hope so.

If 2/3s of corporations didn't pay income taxes - yet half of all corporations fall into the LLC/S Corp realm, what does that leave us? ok - for the public school educated - 2/3 = 66% so 66% - 50% would leave us with 16% of companies in the US that didnt' pay income taxes.

So 16% of businesses didn't pay taxes. Why could that be? I dunno - if a business has a loss for the year, they have no tax obligation. If a business gets tax credits that are large enough to offset their tax burden - no tax obligation. If a business re-invests in itself for growth - that could reduce or eliminate a tax obligation.

So who doesn't believe that 16% of businesses in any given year would have a loss and therefore no tax burden?

This is just another case of Democrats trying to instigate further class-warfare in our society. I've said it before - here it is again - Karl Marx would be proud. The funny thing is, for every rediculously paid CEO there are thousands and thousands of small businesses that aren't necessarily making their owners rich. They are giving people jobs. Paying taxes. Paying taxes for the people that they gave jobs to. Building the economy one small sale at a time.

Something else these Democrat class warfare proponents won't tell you - for every employee that a company pays, they also pay a percentage above and beyond the salary. For many this is another 20% tithe to uncle sam for basically doing squat.

Don't let em rip our society apart with this foolishness. America is about being the land of opportunity and not the land of guaranteed results. If you want to succeed it should be on your own merits and not because the government pulled someone down to meet you halfway (which is never halfway).

End the class warfare.

Government control...

It's been a month since I last blathered on here - even though I've had plenty to say I just haven't had the time. However, there are two unrelated items that bring me to my keyboard and away from enjoying the hazy, lazy days of summer.

This is about control. Every time a government organization comes up with a way to "save" us - regardless of whether it's federal, state or local - it is about control. Control over what you can think, hear, see, read, smoke, drink, eat or do. Make no mistake - it is about control. Taking it slowly, with small steps, chipping away at your personal liberties in the name of helping. It's the slow trickle of water that forms the Grand Canyon and it's been happening since the late 1800s.

Our first item takes to Washington, DC where the elite and effete of liberty thieves take up residence. One of the many targets is something called the "Fairness Doctrine". (side note: these folks may not know their ass from a hole in the ground, but they can surely name their legislation in ways that would make PT Barnum proud). The Fairness Doctrine is a relic of the past that forced broadcasters to give equal time to opposing points of view. On the surface it sounds like a well intentioned effort. (Paging LUC!) In it's day it was meant to enhance the discussion. Today, however, it's intention is to combat the successes of conservative talk radio. The liberals couldn't do it in the marketplace since it seems that every effort by them to establish a talk radio presence ends up in a financial failure. Radio Stations, when faced with the choice of putting up money losing content for an equal amount of money making content, will choose the path of least resistance and just find something else to run in the time slots. This will have a chilling effect on the public discourse that occurs on these shows. If radio stations thought they could have successful shows based on liberal ideas and hosts - then they would carry them. It's about ad dollars and not political persuasion for the owners of radio stations.

The scary part of this is the potential for the "Fairness Doctrine" to potentially be extended elsewhere. Imagine the cry that wold come from Hollywood when our government decides that movies and TV shows need to be rolled into the doctrine. What about magazines, newspapers, and blogs? The Fairness Doctrine is an assault on the rights afforded by the first amendment. All because the left can't figure out how to succeed on the radio.

One congressman has put forward a bill to abolish the Fairness Doctrine forever. That bill will never make it to the floor for a vote as long as Democrats control the congress. Write your congressman and senator (you can do it online - Senators - Congressmen)

Next on the hit parade is another, smaller, government entity that feels the need to think for the people they represent. Los Angeles City Council has decide that poor people don't deserve the same choices as the rest of us. Or perhaps they've concluded that poor people are too dumb to make the right choices. Either way - this is just wrong.

The LA City Council has decided to ban fast food franchises in one of the poorest parts of the city because poor people are getting too fat. Once again, government feels the need to think for the people. They wrap it up in a package that seems like they are doing this to help (and I'm sure the council is well intentioned) but regardless of their intentions it's an assault on liberty. First is taking away the choices of the citizen, the option and ability to make their own decisions. Second is taking away the potential positive economic impact of new business in an area that needs an infusion of jobs to help the poor raise themselves out of poverty. The feds just increased the minimum wage and now the local government has just limited the number of jobs that would potentially be created in that area. Jobs that would be directly impacted by the increase in minimum wage. All in the name of babysitting the citizenry.

I'd like to point out the craziness that is America's poor people being too fat. The left likes to always compare the US to the rest of the world so lets do that a bit. America's poor are too fat - the world's poor go hungry and starve. America's poor have televisions, dvd players, cell phones and cars. The world's poor live in mud huts (if they're lucky) and don't have running water or electricity. America's poor have every advantage to pull themselves out of their condition if they choose to work for it. Free education, plenty of jobs, and the freedom of movement in search of success. The world's poor rarely can move beyond their local boundries (unless they become refugees due to war, genocide, etc). Get no education. Have no job prospects regardless of their desire to change their situation. America's poor in the current age are living more comfortably, with more amenities, than our parents and grandparents had while working for a living. America's poor would be the rich folks in most of the world's villages.

Government control. It's all about control of the citizenry. It's about making the people of this country more and more dependent on Uncle Sam. It's about power in the hands of the few. Our government has forgotten that they work for the people and not the other way around. It's the audacity that our government takes 30% of our hard earned income in order for it to pay for itself. It's the forced redistribution of wealth. The vilification of those that succeed as not paying enough. Needing to "Pay Back" which would imply that their success has been given and not earned. It's the top 1% paying more than 40% of the bill - the top 5% pay 90%....and then still being called greedy. It's about initiating class warfare to keep the populace off balance and distracted. It's about shredding the bill of rights in the name of "fairness" and the bastardization of that word.

It's about getting and keeping control.

Transformation

No - this isn't a Kafka-esque change from human to bug,

It is, however, a result of serious thought and consideration over the past several months (maybe years). I've been a Republican all my life - my first vote as an 18 year old was for Ronald Reagan. Even when I thought the Republican candidate wasn't the strongest, I figured that the conservative values and ideals that the party stood for still made them a better candidate that the other guy. And for the most part I stand by those decisions. I can't imagine how a President Gore would've handled the attacks on 9/11. I can't see anything good coming from a Kerry presidency. But now we're looking down the barrel of an Obama-led country and the Republicans have put forth a strange little man that seems completely out of touch with America. Now, this strange little man has my utmost respect for his service to our great country and his subsequent imprisonment. But I don't necessarily think that makes him the best guy for the job. On the other hand, the rest of the herd running in the Republican primary weren't a whole lot better.

But I digress. My view of the party that I have supported for years (yes, a card carrying member even!) has changed considerably over the past 10-15 years. The party that was supposed to be for smaller government has out-spent and expanded the government more than even the most liberal of administrations while still cutting taxes and further indebting future generations. They have limited personal liberties in the name of security. They have allowed religion to become too much of an influence in the governance of the nation. They have allowed our nations borders to continue to be open passageways. They have, in effect, failed the conservative agenda which is supposed to include smaller government and more individual liberty.

Please don't misunderstand the above paragraph. I fully believe that the Democrats in control would work hard on the project of ever increasing government intrusion into our lives in the name of "fairness" or "leveling the playing field". Their values of redistribution of wealth and trying to hook the citizens on the teet of the government will lead us down the road to a socialist or Marxist society. It's started with Social Security and government run schools (don't we call those indoctrination centers when they are in other countries?) then moved to Welfare and next is Healthcare, Energy and Banking. With each of these "services" being provided by the government we give up more liberty and control of our lives. When government provides everything we need, they can just as easily take it away.

"With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320

As a people, we already work for the first 5 months of the year in order to cover our tax burden. How ridiculous is that concept? And there is no option to not pay. We are forced to give up a significant portion of the compensation for our labors under threat of violence or imprisonment. And a significant portion of that goes to those that choose not to work. That choose not to make themselves ready or prepared for employment. That choose to live off the teet of government.

"To constrain the brute force of the people, [the European governments] deem it necessary to keep them down by hard labor, poverty and ignorance, and to take from them, as from bees, so much of their earnings, as that unremitting labor shall be necessary to obtain a sufficient surplus to sustain a scanty and miserable life." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:440

Liberals have become the thought police of Orwell's vision in the book 1984. PC language is becoming law and don't you dare have that thought that might not be consistent with the collective. Speak up and you're considered mean-spirited. Think about that word "mean-spirited". They are referring to someone as having an evil soul, unsaveable, and not to be tolerated. If you disagree with them, head straight to the exorcist to get yourself straightened out.

While I may have problems with the direction of the Republican party, I fear for this country if or when Democrats gain control of the Executive and Legislative branches of our federal government.

So - I don't identify with either major party, then what's a voter to do. That's a really good question. Personally (and here's the transformation part), I have read the platform for the Libertarian party and agree with it. I suggest you give it a look. It seems to be the only political party that is paying attention to the constitution and the dreams of such nut bags as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington and the rest. You know, those crazy bastards that took on the King of England and kicked his ass all in the name of ending a suffocating tyranny and injustice and for the pursuit of liberty. Yeah, those guys.

Give the platform an honest read and tell me we wouldn't be better off.

Now, I'm a realist. I know that there won't be giant tsunami of Libertarian-ness sweeping across the country all at once. I know that even if, by some quirk of electronic voting screwiness, we get a Libertarian president they will have to deal with a legislature that is deeply rooted in their partisan alliances. I know that a large part of the major party base constituents (bible thumpers for the right, socialists on the left) would never go along with some crazy idea like personal liberty.

However! Seeing a better platform. Seeing goals that empower an individual and not a government body. Seeing the value of personal responsibility. Seeing what can only be defined as freedom - we can each begin to make more informed decisions. We can make demands of our employees up on Capital Hill and in the White House. We can shape the debate. We can speak out against the extreme. We can say....

I'm not a party drone. I exist in between the extremes of politics that have had the podium for 20 years. I demand liberty. I demand an end to government that seeks only power over the individual. I demand that the government abide by the constitution and the intentions for freedom and liberty stated and advocated by our founding fathers. I demand a government that does not see the rewards of my labors as an opportunity to fill their coffers. I demand freedom and liberty for all individuals including the right for individuals to live with the consequences of their own decisions. I demand to be heard.

We are the silent majority. We are Americans. The time for silence is over.

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

Quick Hits

There is so much going on these days, and I've got job and a family to take care of, so I jsut plain ol' don't have time to vent or comment on everything that strikes my fancy. If you haven't noticed, I'm a little long winded on my posts, so until someone is willing to pay me for my stupid opinions, I'll have to be choosey....but there's a bunch of stuff I'd like to mention:

1. Tiger Woods and the US Open: This has to be one of the toughest S.O.B.s out there. To walk 91 holes (thats 6 or 7 miles per day for 5 days) on a torn ACL and two stress fractures is a huge feat. To do that, and win the US Open, is beyond my ability to come up with superlatives. Even with such a huge handicap he's still better than everyone else out there. I'm glad he's taking the time off to heal so we can keep watching him in the future. I just hope he doesn't get so comfy that he decidees to retire with his gagillions of dollars and beautiful family.
2. Gay Marriage in California: Good for them! I've never understood the aversion to this. If it's against religion, then that religion should be able to say "no, you can't marry in our church". But we're not talking about religion. This is about the government recognizing that people of the same sex can have fall in love and be legally tied together. This goes to giving the spouse certain rights over healthcare decisions, estate rights, etc. Not to mention, we heterosexual folks haven't done really well with the whole sanctity of marriage thing anyway. And I speak from experience.
3. Flooding in the Mid-West: You folks that are going through this are in my thoughts and I hope everything works out in the end and you can rebuild your lives. Please, do not expect the government to be wholley responsible for your well being. I haven't heard the cries about the government not doing enough, and for that I applaud you. I imagine it's more of a common-sense and self-reliant approach to life that seems to be prevalent in middle america.
4. Al Gore's Power: And by this I mean, the amount of power his big honkin Tennessee house is using. Looks like after spending a shload of money on greening up the house, he's increased his overall usage by 10%. In one month he consumes nearly twice the power that we regular shmoes use in a year. Doctor, heal thy self and quit telling me what to do.
5. The Politicization of Science and the effort to dismantle the first amendment: The opening paragraph to this story says it all "James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer." Uh, what? Since when was an opposing position to a scientific theory a bad thing? This guys is pretty self important as he celebrates the 20th anniversary of his speech. Feh.
6. Obama calls for oil crackdown? Looks like the heir apparent to the US throne is already preparing to jump in and fiddle around with free markets and capiltalism. Pay attention to this and expect more of it in the coming years. The answer, of course, is that we need to drill, drill, build some nuclear Plants, and then drill some more.
7. I'm halfway through a book by Neal Boortz called Somebody's Gotta Say It. Not only is Mr Boortz really funny he lays bare some of the countries biggest problems AND offers his ideas for fixing it. The best part is that Liberals think he's a Neo-Con and Conservatives think he's a bleeding heart liberal. When in reality he's a libertarian.
   

Karl Marx would be proud....

The 2008 General Election has kicked off - Obama vs. McCain - and it's getting a little crazy already.  I'm not a fan of either of these fellows and if the past two weeks of campaigning is any indication, I won't be changing my mind anytime soon.  There is one major difference that I've seen.  Obama wants to increase governments role in our lives and in the process reach into our pockets even deeper.  McCain?  Well, there's no telling.   He's flipped on his opinions and previous statements so much that he has no definitive position.  Both options are scary.

Not nearly as scary as the House Democrats calling for nationalizing the oil refineries.   Have we just transported to Venezuela, Cuba, or the old Soviet Union?   How can this government, that has botched every major long term social initiative from Social Security to Medicare/Medicaid to Education to Welfare, expect to be able to efficiently run a fuel production and distribution operation?  Oh yeah, they'll keep prices down by paying for it with our tax dollars and when they fark it up even more, they'll just raise the tax rate some more.

I hate the whole slippery slope axiom - but boy does it ever apply here.   Give the government the oil refineries and next on the hit list will be the transportation of fuel - because they'll "make too much money".  Then it will be the gas  stations - because they'll "make too much money".  Then it will be the auto industry because they're obviously not producing the "right kind" of car to be fuel efficient.

Here's a solution.  Approve the construction of more refineries operated by people that have an interest in it's success.  Approve drilling in ANWR and off the coast.   Someone is already out off the coast of florida, in international waters, sucking up the oil.   And its not us.  If environmentalism is what is keeping us from doing it - well someone else already is and they may not have the standards and restrictions that US oil drilling operations would have.  So besides the obvious advantages to reducing our foreign oil needs, we could actually be helping the environment by being the one's out there.

In addition, we need to approve the construction of more Nuclear Power Plants.   France has a shload of them.   Yes.  France.    The cheese eating surrender monkeys that liberals have a love affair with - have dozens and dozens of Nuclear Power Plants.   Guess what, less reliance on foreign oil to power their homes, businesses and factories.   

On a side note - I heard recently that all of the nuclear waste generated since the 1950s is so small that it would only fill a high school gymnasium.  I don't know if that is correct or not, but if it is - then what the hell is the problem?  Very little waste for a huge gain.  So dig the hole in Yucca mountain and shut up.

Another interesting note - 15% of the cost of every gallon of gasoline is in the form of taxes.  4% is profit to the oil companies.  Somehow the politicians have diverted the American consumers attention to the "evil oil empires" as the bad guys when its our government that takes the lions share for doing nothing and the oil companies take their 4% for doing everything.  Sounds very much like the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984.

The Democrat response to all of these suggestions, and the direct response by their presidential candidate, is that none of these will lower the cost of gas today.  Well, I'd have to agree to a point.  Except for one thing.   None of their suggestions will either.  Increasing fuel mileage (CAFE) standards?   Thats always phased in over 10 years.   Alternative fuels?  Still being developed.   Phased in over several years.  CF lightbulbs?  Phased in over several years - and really, how much will that help?  Have you seen the cleanup procedures if you break one?   This is a big ship - it doesn't turn on a dime.  But it doesn't change direction at all if you never start turning the wheel.

Now for the part where I don't agree - according to the Future's Traders, you know the ones that the Dems are blaming for driving up the price, they trade based on long term forecasts and ride trends.   They don't make the trends, they ride them.   If you change the trend, they will trade accordingly.  By some estimates, if the US were to announce that we would allow drilling offshore and/or in ANWR we would change the trend to the point where within a few months the cost of a barrel of oil could drop $30-$40.  That sounds like an immediate impact.

Speaking of trends, have you noticed the teflon-ness of the Dem controlled congress.   The divert blame to oil companies and Futures Traders without ever mentioning that we haven't allowed anyone to explore for new oil or build refineries or build Nuclear Plants in 30 years.  They fail to mention the very successful lobbying efforts by the environmental movement that has helped to put us into this position.  That conveniently forget that we've been trying to do the ANWR thing for over 10 years - with some of the same arguments back then that it wouldn't help us immediately.  Had we started 10 years ago, then we would be reaping the rewards right now when we need it most.

Which is why our shortsighted politicians (of either party), who seem to only worry about the next election cycle, and the behemoth that is the US Government should NEVER be put in charge of anything more than national defense.

But their answer is to nationalize the refineries just like they want to nationalize healthcare to add to their nationalization of education, retirement, and welfare.  All things that the government sucks at doing.  What's next?  Farms?  Grocery Stores?  Businesses?  Welcome to the collective.

Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams and the rest must be spinning in their graves.  Karl, however, is smiling the big smile.  The Democratic Party is working very hard to fulfill Marx's prediction that  Communism will take over without ever firing a shot.

Cap'n Trade saves the day! (or, keep your hand on your wallet)

Look!  Up in the sky!  It's a bird!  It's a plane!  It's Cap'n Trade!

No, wait, it's not a superhero.  Or a cereal.  It's another grand government initiative to obfuscate their intent to reach into our pockets and further control our lives.

So what is Cap-and-Trade?   It's an economic/environmental theory that says governments should come up with a very complex plan to sell pollution credits to companies and then let those companies that don't use them all to trade (sell) them.  Gosh that sounds great.....until you see how it works and what wrath LUC will bring.   Everyone likes sausage, no one likes to see how it's made.  And the Senate is about to start the grinding.

I would wax eloquent on the problems inherent in the whole Cap-and-Trade scheme (and thats the only way to describe it) but George Will, someone infinitely smarter than I, has said it best.

In case you don't have time to read the whole article by Mr Will, here are some highlights:

"The Wall Street Journal underestimates cap-and-trade’s perniciousness when it says the scheme would create a new right (“allowances”) to produce carbon dioxide and would put a price on the right. Actually, because freedom is the silence of the law, that right has always existed in the absence of prohibitions. With cap-and-trade, government would create a right for itself — an extraordinarily lucrative right to ration Americans’ exercise of their traditional rights."

"A carbon tax would be too clear and candid for political comfort. It would clearly be what cap-and-trade deviously is, a tax, but one with a known cost. Therefore, taxpayers would demand a commensurate reduction of other taxes. Cap-and-trade — government auctioning permits for businesses to continue to do business — is a huge tax hidden in a bureaucratic labyrinth of opaque permit transactions."

"Lieberman guesses that the market value of all permits would be “about $7-trillion by 2050.” Will that staggering sum pay for a $7-trillion reduction of other taxes? Not exactly.
It would go to a Climate Change Credit Corp., which Lieberman calls “a private-public entity” that, operating outside the budget process, would invest “in many things.” This would be industrial policy, i.e., socialism, on a grand scale — government picking winners and losers, all of whom will have powerful incentives to invest in lobbyists to influence government’s thousands of new wealth-allocating decisions."

"...global temperatures have not risen in a decade. So Congress might be arriving late at the save-the-planet party. Better late than never? No. When government, ever eager to expand its grip on the governed and their wealth, manufactures hysteria as an excuse for doing so, then: better never."

So, the Republican candidate has chosen to pander to the environmental crowd and support a solution that will undoubtedly result in a beaurocratic  cluster-uh.....you know.

Deity help us all.......

Buying the nomination?

While getting my fill of the news this morning I saw this little ditty about Hillary Clinton negotiating with the Obama camp on her departure from the race. 

It appears that in her state of denial over the past few months her campaign has gotten itself in debt to the tune of $40million.  Thats after already spending upwards of $200million just to lose.   This includes $11million of her own cash she's loaned to her campaign.  

Of course,  no one wants to lose a hard fought campaign and then end up taking a second job in order to pay everyone off, so what's a candidate to do?

Why, sell her endorsement of course!

I'm sure this isn't illegal or anything, otherwise we wouldn't be finding out about it before it actually happens, but it sure does smack of buying the nomination.   $40 million to stop the attack machine and gather up her supporters....sounds like a deal.  

It just sounds shady.

But that's the mindset of the modern liberal.   She made the decision to keep spending money, when the donations aren't there.  She made the decision to keep running her campaign and zipping around the country, but on credit.  And now that it's obvious (and has been for awhile) that she can't win she wants someone else to bail her out of her financial mess of her own making.

Sounds like alot of legislation.  SOMEONE SAVE ME FROM MYSELF!  has become the cry du jour.

But hey, sell your support to the highest bidder.....lobbyists, take note.  

Note to Sen McCain:   Got a spare $45million to garner nearly half the dem vote?  Might be time for a counter offer and buy yourself a presidency.  It seems to be for sale this year.

Endorsements

When are politicians going to actually grow some spine?

I've been watching the spectacle that is the presidential primary marathon (why the hell did they start so early?) and once the Republican nominee was done it was time to turn our attention to the dueling victims Barack and Hillary. Why "victims", because at one point or another each of these campaigns has either stated, or hinted, that there were racist/sexist intentions in the voters hearts as a way of explaining their poor results in various state races. Oh woe is me. And the scary part is that one of these two victim mongers will probably be leading the US for the next four years. Of course, the choice on the other side of the aisle isn't any better. Perhaps Bob Barr has a chance.....

But now that it looks like Senator Obama will get the nomination his endorsers are coming out of the closet. Which is the point of todays rant.

The spineless Super Delegates and other political figures that have held back their choice until someone looks like a clear winner carry some of the blame for this primary season being so up in the air. If these "undecided" folks had any common sense, moral compass, intestinal fortitude or whatever you want to call it...they would have thrown their support behind the candidate that they felt was best for their party and their country.

Instead, they wait to place their bets moments before the race is finished. It's a purely selfish move intended to make sure they don't publicly back a losing candidate. It has nothing to do with making the right choice - but the politically correct choice. It's also about selling their "vote" or endorsement to the highest bidder. Whether it's backing for major initiatives/pet projects or the ambassadorship to a cozy but stable island nation. These super delegates are SELLING their vote and with the race as tight as it's been, it's a bull market for Super Delegate Votes.

The same goes for those politicians that aren't one of the chosen Supers. John Edwards finally endorsed Obama - and there's talk of VP-ness in his future. His endorsement was bought and paid for by that possibility. We have to wonder if the Obama/Clinton roles were reversed would Edwards be talking about how Hillary understands the two americas?

Don't misunderstand. If the Republican race were turning out like the Dem race, those Republicans would be doing the same thing. There isn't much difference in the acts/actions of todays politician.

I must say, and this isn't easy for me to type, but Ted Kennedy is about the only politico that came out early with his endorsement and has stuck by it. Mr Chappaquiddick earned a little bit of my respect for showing some spine and casting his lot early. Of course, at his age/stature he really doesn't have much to lose if he ends up backing the wrong horse. I'm sure there have been others - and they too should be commended.

To the rest of them - grow a pair.

I would've written this...

if I had any real writing skills. This is an amazing article (speech?) by Michael Crichton that solidly hits the nail on the head about the negative influence that politics and public policy are having on science.

It's a long read but well worth it....... Aliens Cause Global Warming

Fiddle, Fiddle, Fiddle

How are US politicians like Nero?? They love to fiddle. It's no surprise that they're considering fiddling with something that will undoubtedly bring the wrath of LUC*.

In an article from thehill.com today, the House Republican leadership is taking jabs at the Democrat majority and calling them out on a promise they made in the 2006 mid-term elections. This promise was that the Dems had a plan to bring down the price of gas. (fiddle fiddle fiddle)

Back in 2006 during the run up to the elections Nancy Pelosi said "Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.” (fiddle fiddle fiddle)

Generally I enjoy watching politicians from each party take jabs at eachother. Some of these folks can be pretty funny with their one-liners, sound bites and ridiculous overstatements. It usually means they're too busy playing this game to go about figuring out how to insert more government into our lives. But poking the bear this time may be bad for us all.

Reading Speaker Pelosi's comments sends a chill down my spine. I'm no economist, but I'll attempt to use common sense to break down the segments of their plan.

- Price Gouging: Ok, gouging is bad. But how will they define gouging? Is it simply the gas station owner that doubles the price of gas in a disaster area? How does this apply when the cost of the barrel of oil is going up and gas prices rise accordingly? They couldn't be just trying to appeal to a base instinct that we're all possibly getting screwed by the evil oil companies, could they? fiddle fiddle fiddle

- Tax Breaks/Subsidies/Royalty Relief for Oil Companies: Once again, I'm no economist, but if you take away these things from the oil companies, won't that increase their cost of doing business and then be reflected in the price at the pump? I believe that all of those incentives, given by our very same government years ago, was to help keep the cost of gas unnaturally low. So a long time ago our government fiddled with economic factors and now think that by taking away those they'll be helping? While I wholeheartedly agree that those things should never have been put in place to begin with, to think that taking them away will save me money when I buy gasoline is worse than naive. Do the Dems really think that the oil companies will just dip into profits to make up the difference? fiddle fiddle fiddle

- Alternative Fuels - well, we see whats happening with that grand plan. Now we're running up the price of food. As I wrote in my "Just Chill" post a few days ago, the rush to alternatives fuels has had an effect on the availability and price of food on a global scale. Should we be looking at alternatives to fossil fuels, absolutely, but in the rush to score political points - LUC* wins. fiddle fiddle fiddle

I'd like to make one additional point about those big ol' evil oil companies and their profits. What many don't consider is that gone are the days where these companies were owned by a single person or family who reap the rewards of huge profits. These companies are owned by stockholders and a large chunk of their stock sits in funds managed by pensions, 401(k), and other retirement plans. Basically, these companies are owned by a large number of Americans. It's these people who reap the rewards, whose investment or retirement portfolios grow, and who will be able to retire just a little more comfortably or send their kids to college because they've had big evil oil in their holdings. Damn those evil oil companies for making money in a capitalist society.

It's also these evil corporations that are doing the most research into replacing their cash cow of fossil fuels. If you pay attention to commercials produced by BP, Exxon, et al you'll see they are starting to refer to themselves as energy companies. This is a signal that they see the fossil fuels business as one that will transform into an alternative energy business, whether it's hydrogen, ethanol, or whatever else those really smart folks in the lab can come up with. It's in their best interest to be the ones that come up with the solution.

I recently had a conversation with someone that held the belief that big oil was keeping secret an alternative. Besides being a little too conspiracy bound, it defies some of the basic tenets of capitalism. These companies want to be the first on the block to deliver a better, cheaper product. My belief is, that much like biofuels, it's just not been cost effective yet. When the breakthrough happens where prices/costs are in line with consumer expectations - then you'll see the new energy sources come to the forefront. Are they keeping something secret. Absolutely. But it's not a part of a conspiracy, it's called keeping a trade secret. Should they announce and publish work that is promising so that everyone can do it? No. Not just no. Hell No. They are in business to make money and giving away trade secrets would be bad for their business.

But none of these breakthroughs will come from the folks inside the beltway and no matter how much they practice the violin, it will always just be fiddle fiddle fiddle.

* LUC: Law of Unintended Consequences

Happy Earth Day

Seriously. Happy Earth Day. It used to be called Arbor Day and you'd go out and plant a tree and get all naturey. Earth Day came into vogue in 1970 and has become a day to recognize that governments and evil industrial tycoons are trying to rape the earth for their own gains. All right, that may be a bit of an overstatement.

Interestingly enough though, I came across this interview with Al Gore in the The Sun. Strangely the interview was conducted by the Consumer Affairs Correspondent, which seems to be either an insult to Mr Gore, a sign that his star power is fading, or Consumer Affairs doesn't mean the same thing in the UK as it does here. Based on the fluffiness of the interview though I don't think option 3 is the one. But that's not why the interview was interesting.

First is his acknowledgment that the regular everyday population have much bigger things to worry about. Sure they're concerned about the environment, but they have other concerns that take higher priority like food, shelter, safety, et al. Apparently Uncle Al has run nose first into the wall marked Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Of course, he throws out more scare tactics (the polar ice caps will be gone in 5 years - then where will you get ice for your scotch???) and blames the US for not taking the lead in destroying economies to potentially save the earth...uh, if we're right.

Next he shucks and jives at questions about his Hollywood jet-setting friends being really bad at the whole carbon footprint thing. Which of course he wouldn't go out on the limb and say they should cut that crap out - they are, after all rich and can he really likes being a Hollywood guy.

In contrast, he sluffs off the only real hard question in the interview. That question is related to the fact that with the credit crises and economic woes that the average person is more interested in saving their own financial butt. To which he says that we should still spend extra money being green because it's a long term investment that will pay off over time.

So it's ok for his hollywood friends to take private jets all over the world, live in big mansions with huge energy needs and a giant carbon footprint - but we peons should sacrifice to save the planet?

He then moves on to the Blame America First mantra with this line:

" The US has failed to live up to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon emissions."

So I went out to Wikipedia and checked out what they had on the Kyoto Protocol. It's interesting. I will paraphrase.......

In July 1997, before it was finalized, the US Senate voted NOT to be a signatory without additional stipulations such as including provisions for developing and already industrialized nations. (In fact, China is not obligated to reduce or maintain any kind of Co2 levels, they just have to report on what they're tossing into the sky. And being such an open society I can't imagine they'd fudge the numbers a bit. China is about to pass the US as the largest carbon emitter in the world.)

So, the US Senate said not to sign it. And Al Gore (then VP) signed it anyway. Mr Gore at the time said the US should not ratify it until such time as those conditions set forth by the Senate were included. From what I've read, those provisions still haven't been met.

The Clinton Administration (of which Al was second in command) never submitted the protocol to the Senate to be ratified. His own administration did nothing with it.

The Bush Administration is of the same opinion as the Clinton Admin and has not (will not) submit to the protocol.

But Big Al has no problem blaming Mr Bush.

In fact, Mr Gore believes that bigger and more government is what is needed to force society to go green. Yes, thats what we need. Because Government has a long history of solving problems successfully.

I'm just happy he didn't win in 2000.

So, Happy Earth Day/Arbor Day. Enjoy the bounty that is Mother Earth and don't let the politicians ruin your fun.

Just chill - a diatribe on Global Warming

Global warming is obviously in the news quite a bit and once again, the Law of Unintended Consequences is responding in force.

It's terribly unfortunate that such an important topic has been ripped out of the hands of scientists and been usurped by politicians. As soon as that happened debate was squashed, common sense went out the window, and even bigger - possibly global - government is being discussed. The UN wants to start taxing the world for CO2 emissions.

Former VP Gore has made it his mission to try and be the leading advocate of the end of world predictions and has only succeeded in further raising the white noise with his doom and gloom slideshow. But that slideshow, and his movie, has been show to be full of errors and assumptions that no scientist would have the stones to claim as pure fact. He is, as a politician, trying to sway the world to his point of view and will discount anything that offers a counterpoint. This is what politicians do. I applaud him for his passion and fervor - but an issue that has such global effects - whether it's the warming itself or the unsustainable costs associated with his solution - really deserve further study by the scientific community without any political interference or sway. Otherwise it's not science and we get shortchanged and coerced into a solutions that may not be right.

I'm not implying that Mr Gore (or any of the Global Warming advocates) is evil - I do believe that he is all worked up because he truly believes in his quest. I do believe that his personal investment in this cause, and his background in politics and how to get things done in that realm, is what drives his overstatements and efforts. And he's been successful in furthering his position.

My position on this is that we should be much better stewards of the earth. Reducing pollution, properly overseeing the reasonable use of our natural resources, and finding alternatives to our use of fossil fuels should be the tasks laid before us. We shouldn't be destroying economies in the chase to solve an issue that is badly misrepresented by the politicians and has no guarantee of success. The fact that reports are now coming out that the global temperature has stabilized since 1997 shows that we just don't know enough. My personal opinion is that 10 years is not enough to prove or disprove anything - and neither is 30 years - nor 100 years. Thirty years ago these same "Climate Change" folks were talking about an upcoming Ice Age - 15 years later it turned to Warming. How can we possibly think we know enough to make such potentially devastating solutions as spelled out by the Mr Gore or the UN IPCC.

In his books and lectures, Bjorn Lomborg talks extensively about man-made global warming but also discusses a less fanatical and rhetorical response. Common sense solutions to solving problems and the expectation that innovation will be the answer is a foundation of his arguments. He's not a global warming denier - he does disagree with the solutions proposed by the politicians. The doom and gloomers always seem to account for increases in population and pollution but leave out other factors such as reduced emissions and other technological innovations that change the equation dramatically. He gave a talk at Google as part of their Authors at Google series. It's worth a viewing.

So how does any/all of this apply to my first law of politics? Well, if you've been paying attention to the news lately you'll see that food prices are increasing and it's being tied to the increased use of food for fuel. The Law of Unintended Consequences knows no mercy……..suddenly, now that ethanol is becoming popular the price of corn goes up, thereby making the production of ethanol no longer cost effective. The old “if gas goes to $3 it’ll make sense” axiom is no longer valid since it assumed corn prices would stay stable……and who wants to base their energy policy on something that is completely out of their control…..a couple of years of drought/floods/etc, which we have NO control over, would cause much greater problems than oil “shortages”…which are really refining shortages. Not to mention, if we’re going to do ethanol we should be doing it with sugar cane. The fermentation process that produces ethanol is all about the natural sugars and, well, sugar cane by its very nature should produce more ethanol per acre than corn would. But once again, relying on the mercy of mother nature to not screw with crop production (and by extension our energy sources) is a really bad idea.

And now the cost of FOOD is going up because the demand for a base product (corn) is rising. The ripple effect (increases in prices for meat and other corn based products) will cause a demand that our government do something about it as the poor can no longer afford to eat the basics. More food stamps. More taxpayer funded subsidies to corn producers/distributors to attempt to drive the price down (a bad idea to set this precedent but a quick fix that’ll score politicians points). They’ll fiddle with the commodities/futures market which will only delay a real solution and make the problem nearly unfixable in the future. Once again, treating a symptom instead of finding a cure. What the government needs to do is review the farm subsidies they already hand out for NOT growing crops and eliminate them. Because of US Agricultural production being greater than the global need for that product, the US Government has been paying farmers to not farm as much as they can…this was their first (and continuing) effort at fiddling with the market so the price of a bushel of something doesn’t get so low that no one can afford to be a farmer. Now we don’t have enough production (because those subsidies are still there) and to properly fix this it’ll take a couple of growing seasons…..but no one wants to wait for that. If I’m a farmer and have the choice of getting guaranteed money to not farm all of my land or I can farm it and hope that nothing bad will happen (drought, insects, etc) and that the price will be right come harvest time…..I’d take the guaranteed money…..thus keeping prices up and we all take it in the shorts at the gas pumps and the grocery stores.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080403/corn_at_6.html?.v=6

It didn’t take long for the UN to start blaming the US……of course, 6 months ago the US was being vilified for not doing enough environmentally………

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/14/ccview114.xml

(Of course, I could get into an entirely new rant on the UN, it's corruption, it's impotence, and it's obvious distaste for the US - but I'll save that for another day and attempt to stay focused.)

I recently heard a statistic (although I don't recall the source so this may be wrong) that the US has somewhere around 1000 years of oil within it's reach. But we can't get to it because of the success the environmentalists are having in the political world. It seems to me that reducing our dependence on foreign oil sources and having the economic boost that the oil industry would bring to OUR SHORES in the form of jobs, oil exports, and reducing the price at the pump would be worth a few thousand acres of land to get to it. Not to mention, using Mr Lomborgs line of thinking, we would be ever improving technology in the meantime to reduce our demand for fossil fuels. I sometimes wonder that if the environmental groups would spend more money on funding research into alternatives fuels, instead of launching yet another lobbying effort, would get us to the new solutions quicker.

So we all just need to chill out a bit - not get hysterical and jump at solutions offered by whomever shouts the loudest, and shouts down those that disagree. There is still much discussion, research, and innovation to be had.

Thanks for reading and have a great day....

This is new for me...

This is my first blog and I make no guarantees or promises about the amount or frequencies of new posts. This is more of place for me to vent and if anyone reads it, then fine, if not...that too is ok.

Most of my topics will be on the subject of our government, politics, politicians, and how all of those need to chill out and reduce their footprint in our lives. The way I see it, the majority of our problems in this country are a result of well intended politicians trying to ease a symptom while never working towards a cure. And the Law of Unintended Consequences eventually catches up to us. If Doctors worked the same way as politicians then they'd prescribe aspirin to relieve the pain of a brain tumor and hope the tumor just goes away since there's no pain.

I believe the governments that preside over our lives - Federal, State, and Local - have been consolidating power over the past 100 years and have grown beyond their ability to manage it. And they shouldn't even be doing that....they've created generations of people that expect the government to bail them out of every bump in the road regardless of who created that bump.

The perfect example is this effort to fiddle with mortgages and bailout folks that made bad decisions in the past few years and now must pay the price. I'm one of those people. I refinanced with a variable rate a few years ago and now am paying the price for having a few years of lower payments. Do I want the government to save me?? No. I'm working on a solution whether it's selling or refinancing to a fixed rate. Is it tough on my finances until that happens....yup. Should our government set a precedent that you can risk everything because there's really no risk...we'll save you? Hell No.

Will it be tough on some families - yes. absolutely. And they have my sympathies. But they also signed a contract to generally buy a house they couldn't afford. And the chickens have come home to roost. Figure out your options. Work with your lender. And do what you need to do. You took a risk and it didn't work out. Don't take money out of my pocket to bail yourself out. You might as well come steal my property to make your next payment.

Once again though, the President and candidates are all calling for government to fiddle with symptoms and not the cause. Lets bail out everyone - throw a bunch of money around that doesn't belong to them - and maybe gain votes for us/our party.

At the same time, the government (which really isn't the government - it's a private institution called the Federal Reserve - more on this in future posts) is printing and releasing cash like there's no tomorrow - further reducing the dollar's buying power and driving up the cost of pretty much everything. For those that may not have considered this - the reason a barrel of oil is continuing to reach new highs is because the dollar is worth less. It has nothing to do with production or availability or refining capacity or demand or anything else. Our dollar is weaker therefore it takes more of them to buy stuff. It's as simple as that.

Once again - the politicians are treating a symptom and not the disease.

I guess I'll stop here for now .....but there's plenty more to come.....