Conservative Donnybrook

The Pope has indicated that he believes “climate change” is man made. He states:

“It should be evident that the ecological crisis cannot be viewed in isolation from other related questions, since it is closely linked to the notion of development…. [It] is a moral issue, one that requires immediate action.”

We all, okay most of us, know that the Pope is infallible on doctrines of faith but no where else. The Pope, in spite of the climate emails scandal, has chosen to side with what appears to be false information. He continues:

environmental degradation is often due to the lack of far-sighted official policies or to the pursuit of myopic economic interests, which then, tragically, become a serious threat to creation….. [T]he causes of the present ecological crisis is the historical responsibility of the industrialized countries.

Let this be a lesson to all Catholics: The Pope is not always right and disagreeing with the Pope on matters not related to a Doctrine of Faith is not in any way sinful or even necessarily incorrect. Your Holiness, I respectfully dissent.

Let’s hope so. This may be, as the writing notes, the “Greatest scandal in modern science.” I prefer we’all return to real  issues, not lies, nor divisive distractions and name calling.

More links:

The FACTS

The Humor

Like KSM, al-Gore should have his day in court.

On the same day that Michael Jackson beat it for the great beyond, Pelosi and her cohort passed the largest tax increase in the history of history. Perhaps you missed it; the news tended to focus only on the passing of a pop singer of doubtful moral character to the exclusion of a number of other stories. Can anybody tell me what ever happened with that North Korean freighter that the U.S. Navy was bird-dogging? Anybody hear about the AMA revolting against Obama’s healthcare scheme? You might have heard that we won the war in Iraq. Maybe not. Did anyone hear that an American soldier was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan this week? How about that Barack Obama’s nominee for the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy was overturned this week by that same Court?

If you can’t beat ‘em, I suppose, you join ‘em. So, I will show how even the the Michael Jackson estate would be affected by the Cap and Trade bill that the House of Representatives passed last week. But first, a little about the bill itself. The bill itself states that its purpose is ”[t]o create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.” Some of that may need to be explained. For instance, global warming pollution is carbon dioxide – the same stuff you exhale. Indeed, each respirating organism on earth is now categorized as a polluter. For an idea of what “transitioning to a clean energy economy” looks like, take a look at Spain. Apparently, if we look at Spain, it is possible to create clean energy jobs, but each one will cost between $750,000 and $1.4 million and will cost 2.2 jobs in other areas per job created. On other hand, we will be saving the planet, right?

But, how do they propose to do it? The bill is designed to increase the price of energy in order to drive down consumption.

During the campaign, Obama also pledged that he would never raise taxes in any form on Americans making less than $250,000 per year. But his cap and trade tax is estimated to cost American families almost $2,000 a year when it becomes effective, growing to almost $7,000 a year for a family of four by 2035. That will be paid through higher prices for electricity, oil, gasoline, natural gas, home heating oil, coal, food, and every product that is produced or transported using energy.

In short the Cap and Trade proposal passed out of the House last week is a “Tax on Everything” – everything that uses energy. An interesting exercise is to try to think of anything that you purchase that requires no energy to produce, deliver, sell, or consume. The increased costs associated with that energy usage will be embedded in the price of every consumer good and service that Americans utilize. As a result, Americans will purchase fewer goods and services. If Americans purchase fewer goods and services, then companies who provide those goods and services will be forced to cut production (read: jobs). But, hey, we’re saving the planet.

One of my “favorite” provisions of the bill is in sections 201-203, which requires every State to adopt the building codes of California. (See ACES Sec. 201(c)(3) which reads “COMPLIANT CODE — For the purposes of meeting the target described in subsection (a)(1)(A) [which required that State's become compliant within one year of enactment] for residential buildings, a State that adopts the code represented in California’s Title 24-2009 by the date two years after the enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 shall be considered to have met the requirements of this subsection for the applicable period.”) The code then goes on to dictate to State legislatures the legislation it is required to pass and the timeline on which it is required to pass it.  The States are to be denied federal funding from the Act if they are found to be noncompliant. Indeed, if  the State fails to enforce compliant building codes within 2 years, the Secretary of Energy shall enforce the codes within that State.

The bill requires not only new buildings to satisfy whatever arbitrary standard the Secretary chooses, but it also places the burden on homeowners of existing houses to “retrofit” their property before they are allowed to sell them. This provision alone will place an incredible economic burden on homeowners whether they earn $250,000 or not.  Their mobility, their choice of where to live, their ability to change jobs will be affected by this single onerous provision. But, we will gladly sacrifice our freedom because it’s saving the planet, right? I hope MJ installed new windows and an EnergyStar compliant furnace before he died, otherwise his estate’s going to get hit with a gigantic bill to retrofit Neverland Ranch before they can sell it and distribute the proceeds to his heirs.

There is plenty more where that came from in the bill that has nothing to do with the actual Cap and Trade bits and which are sure to raise the eyebrows (or ire) of anyone who loves his freedom. For instance, there is an entire section regulating outdoor lightbulbs to be brighter and last longer. There’s even a provision regulating the type of bulb one can use to illuminate their artwork, including mandating its color spectrum and power factor.

As mentioned earlier, outrageously, this bill passed the House of Representatives 219-212. Now the bill goes to the Senate. If the Senate passes the bill, it will become law. If the Senate passes any kind of compromise bill, it will go to conference and will become law in some form. The only hope now is that the Senate stops this bill dead. “Obi Wan Senati, you’re our only hope!”

After all that, I apologize, but I don’t really care how this bill will affect the Jackson estate. I can assure you it would be bad. But, thanks for all the MJ Googlers for stopping in.

Obama announced yesterday that Corporate Auto Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards would be raised to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. Mugging for the photo op, were Governors Jennifer Granholm (MI), Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA), and Deval Patrick(MA), each of whom presides over some of the worst economic conditions in their respective states and each having proven to be inept at balancing a budget. The president and governors were abetted by Union capo, Ron Gettelfinger and members of Congress. Smiles and backpats were the order of the day.

Meanwhile, I can’t help but wonder. ARE THEY INSANE? Haven’t we been hearing about the bad financial straits that the automakers have been suffering through recently? Why in the world would anyone do anything to increase the cost of their products when they are having a hard time selling their products as it is? One estimate is that the new standard will add $4,000 to $10,000 to the cost of each new vehicle. It seems the administration and his admirers have set out to destroy the automakers even as they lavish untold amounts of taxpayer monies upon them.

The model is not new. It seems that Obama is following a model in which you take a formerly productive member of society, promise to pay him money seized from other taxpayers, and meanwhile create roadblocks to allowing that member of society becoming productive again. This way, one can create a dependent constituency who, even if he realizes that he has become a slave and is being hurt by the “kindness” being shown him by his master, nonetheless can see no option but to vote to keep the checks coming. Obama seems to be offering the carrot to the automakers at the same time he is making more carrots more necessary.

The rational thing to do at this point when the automakers are struggling to survive would be to lighten the regulatory burden that Big Government has placed on them. Instead, it appears the federal government will be increasing the regulatory burden of 49 states, by exporting California’s repressive auto emission standards to the rest of the nation, further increasing the costs associated with the automakers’ products for the other 49.

None of this will be good for the automakers and it certainly will hurt the consumer on Main Street.

I say we let them list the little pikas as an endangered species as long as they will agree that their numbers are a direct reflection of the threat of global warming. If their numbers go up, we needn’t worry about global warming because it will be proof that the claims are bogus. If their numbers go down, then that will be taken as proof of the truth of global warming. Meanwhile, we engage in a strenuous breeding program intended to support the population of the “threatened” species.

If I know anything about rodents, they are notoriously easy to breed. I remember we had two gerbils when I was a wee lad. Both of them were “females.” The next thing we knew, we were being run out of house and home by a profusion of gerbils. I remember my mother drving down some country road with a boxful of gerbils and stopping every quarter mile or so and lobbing out handfuls of gerbils into the ditch. I often wonder if Streamwood, Illinois (which was pretty much a wilderness in those days) is overrun with wild gerbils today.

We should pick any two pikas, place them in an aquarium with plenty of cardboard to chew on, and by the end of the month, we are likely to have 40 or fifty to release into the wild. If 100 or 200 people did this, we could put these sorts of tactics to force “global warming” scare tactics to rest for a time. They started it; but this is easily a fight we can win. I say we make them look stupid.

As a service to the hordes of readers of Conservative Donnybrook, I have read the House version of Obama’s $825 billion economic stimulus package so you don’t have to.

General Attributes of the Plan

As mentioned above the current overall price tag (before amendments and the inevitable earmark add-ons) is $825 billion. That is split into two general categories of spending.

The first category is $275 billion in “economic recovery tax cuts.” Presumably this is the “tax cuts for 95% of Americans” that Obama continuously talked about on the campaign trail. If there are 305 million Americans and they split the tax cut evenly, each would enjoy a lessened tax burden of $949.09 each. I’ll take it gladly; indeed, they owe us more of our own money back. Unfortunately, this will almost certainly be offset by the sun-setting of the Bush tax cuts, which there is little doubt Congress and the President will allow to expire.

The second category is $550 billion in “targeted priority investments.” According to the summary from the Committee on Appropriations, “[t]his package is the crucial first step in a concerted effort to create and save 3 to 4 million jobs, jumpstart our economy, and being the process of transforming it for the 21^st century.” The committee summary goes on to state that, “with the passage of this package, unemployment rates are expected to rise to between eight and nine percent this year. Without this package, we are warned that unemployment could explode to near twelve percent.” As such, assuming these numbers are correct and this package would prevent the unemployment rate from experiencing an additional 3% rise, the package will prevent the loss of 3.93 million jobs* through new unemployment claims. This means that by their own numbers, this package will not create any new jobs, as Obama has been touting, but rather would prevent the anticipated loss of 4 million jobs.

* In case anyone is interested, I came up with this number by looking at the increase in unemployment as reported on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website (http://www.bls.gov/ces/) for the December report. That report said unemployment rose from 6.8% to 7.2% or by +0.4%. That increase corresponded with a decrease in the number of jobs of 524,000. If 0.4% is equivalent to 524,000 jobs, then 4% would equal 3.93 million jobs.

The summary acknowledges that the plan will result in “a large deficit for years to come.” But, justifies its passage by playing on the fears of not passing it: “Without it, those deficits will be devastating [as though the deficits we invite will not be] and we will face the risk of economic chaos.”

Since 2001, as worker productivity went up, 96% of the income growth in this country went to the wealthiest 10% of society [I assume they are not referring to the government]. While they were benefiting from record high worker productivity, the remaining 90% of Americans were struggling to sustain their standard [sic] of living. They sustained it by borrowing…and borrowing…and borrowing, and when they couldn’t borrow anymore, the bottom fell out. This plan will strengthen the middle class, not just Wall Street CEOs and special interests in Washington [who have already received government welfare in the form of bailouts which took priority over taxpayer relief].

Finally, before getting into the specifics of the “targeted priority investments,” it should be noted that “[t]here are no earmarks in this package.” I guess I don’t really know what an earmark, because I thought it was an appropriation that was targeted to a particular project, or “priority investment,” if you prefer. Oh well. Orwell lives.

One last note before we dive into an examination of the specific spending proposals. We should probably keep in mind that, according to most of the economists I’ve heard speak about the crisis, the overriding problem is that credit is unavailable to consumers and businesses. It is probably helpful to hold this in the forefront of one’s thoughts as he approaches each of these broad spending categories. A thoughtful person would probably ask, “Does this spending help to free up credit to consumers and businesses?” Continue Reading »

On this day when the temperature last I checked in Indianapolis was minus three degrees Fahrenheit, that would be -3° F for those of you who are digitally inclined, and -19.4 C for our European friends, I have officially made the switch to aerosol cans for all of my underarm needs. If, that is, I can still find spray-on deodorant. It occurs to me that the only people who could possibly be put off in any way about the scare mongering which is global warming are those who live in temperate (for now) climates. In Florida and San Diego, if the hinterlands warm, there is little need for us to travel to your states/cities on vacation. On the other hand, it might play havoc with the ice fishing industry in Minnesota, by reducing it by a couple weeks. But, after all, who is interested in ice fishing? (Other than my father who seems to have a sort of obsession with sitting in a canvas shack freezing his ass off and telling his grandkids that the suffering they are experiencing is “fun.”)

As for me, I welcome global warming and its salutory effect it will have on my home. Indeed, it might forestall my wife’s insistent calls for me to take another bar exam in a warmer climate. For that reason alone, I am trading in my Mazda for a Hummer and switching to aerosol cans wherever possible.

UPDATE: Eek! Now that I look (a couple hours later it is 10° F! Global warming is true. Look what has happened in the last few hours! (Indeed, it is scary, but it feels downright balmy out there now after the last two days).

“No, honey, it wasn’t me. I swear it was the bush.”

According to researchers in Tibet, it might have been the gladiola who dealt it. It turns out that according to the estimates of one researcher, plants may contribute up to 236 million tonnes of methane gas to the atmosphere. Considering that methane has been implicated as a greenhouse gas which contributes to the looming global warming catastrophe, I wonder if we will next be directed to Round-up our yards and assiduously guard against weeds.

Maybe we should consider dissolving some Beano into water when we water our flower beds.

Yes. I am referring to a Canadian paper about Canadian politicians, but that doesn’t automatically make everything it says full of crap. In fact, this story hits the nail on the head.

Both McCain and Obama favor the implementation of a cap-and-trade system similar to Europe’s. Yet, as our somehow-not-full-of-crap Canadian reporter notes:

It’s not just that carbon taxes and cap-and-trade don’t remove one molecule of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It’s that our politicians are ignoring evidence they’re ineffective, impractical, outdated and punitive.

Look at Europe’s Emissions Trading Scheme, the world’s largest cap-and-trade carbon market.

Among its other fiascoes (windfall profits for energy companies and speculators, skyrocketing electricity prices for consumers) emissions are going up.

In other words, it’s not just Canadian politicians, they’re all guzzling the Kool-Aid about as fast as it can be mixed up and poured over ice. The worst part is that cap-and-trade will result in higher energy prices precisely when the energy market is shoving prices into the rude end of the spectrum. These proposals would put an even harsher pinch on American families than would doing nothing. And would accomplish nothing respect to climate change (assuming that it is caused by humans, and that carbon usage is the culprit, and that we can effect the climate by reducing carbon usage, etc.).

While I am on the topic of so-called global climate change, I happened upon a completely unrelated article that may call into question whether human activity can be blamed for climate change at all. These stories (here, here, and here) cast doubt on the assertion that anything humans are doing (or could refrain from doing) would have any effect on the climate. A key point to keep in mind while perusing those stories: there are no (and never have been) humans on Mars, no SUVs, no industry.

Well, maybe its just ABC’s viewer ratings.  In September, the American Broadcasting Company will begin airing a propaganda series titled “Earth 2100.”  The series will chronicle how the destruction of the world, particularly America, will unfold over the next 90 years. 

From man-made climate change (which appears to be no more than a myth) to devastating wars (we are currently in an unparallel period of a global lull in wars); ABC seeks to convince YOU that the sky is falling.  Unless we convert to solar power, eat wheat grass and make our clothes out of renewable hemp the world is doomed.

This sort of Chicken Little mentality does nothing to help the true problem; humanity has lost its way.  We have little left to conquer of this planet; we are convinced we know everything there is to know about life on Earth.  This, not the fallacy of certain doom, is our problem.  The false pretense of absolute knowledge is public and personal enemy number one.  Overcome the belief that Man is the end-all be-all of the entire universe and we will find that mysteries and knowledge we have yet to imagine await our species for eternity. 

Or, if you believe ABC, wear hemp, eat all organic, drink wheat grass and only use solar power and MAYBE you will survive for the next 90 years.  I say smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em

The old saying is: “Yeah, but what does that have to do with the price of bananas?”

Well, when it comes to oil, a lot. OPEC’s president says oil could hit $200 per barrel. The problem, of course, is that the price of everything which is shipped (which is pretty much everything other than online services) is affected by the price of oil. I recently reported on a trucker revolt in downtown Indy. Those revolts have been spreading throughout the country. When trucking companies are hit with high oil prices, does anyone think they absorb the cost? Of course, they don’t. That cost gets priced into the goods we buy.

Last year, we hit $100 per barrel for oil and, at that time, the price of unleaded gasoline was nearly $3 per gallon. When (note I did not say if) the price of oil hits $200 per barrel, gas prices will likely be $6 per gallon. I drive a fuel efficient import (made in Marysville, Ohio before anyone gets all kooky and talking about how they bought a Ford, which was built in either Canada or Mexico, tells how I should support American cars) and the other day my 12 gallon tank cost me over $40 to fill up, with $50 bills not far off. Those sorts of bills used to be reserved for the SUV driving populace. Forty dollars used to be my entire budget for gasoline for an entire month. Consider this: semi trucks typically have 300 (some have 325) gallon tanks.  At $4.16 for a gallon of diesel, which is a decent price right now, it would cost the average trucker nearly $1,250.00 to fill ‘er up.

I used to work at the fuel desk at a truck stop (third shift – drank tons of coffee), and it was a gigantic sale when someone spent $300 to fuel their truck. Now that would get them about two truck stops down the road. I understand their angst and realize that if nothing is done, we’ll soon feel their pain.

Diverting grain to be used to create fuel is not the answer. First, it is extremely expensive to accomplish – more than to drill for oil, or buy from the Middle East. And, second, it drives up the cost of almost every food item, which of course impacts poor people, who spend more as a percentage of their income on food, disproportionately.

Surprisingly, Barack Obama, who seems to be clueless whenever he begins to talk about actual policies as opposed to grand ideas like change, is somehow opposed to relieving the consumer from the burden of government taxes on fuel. Hillary, at least, gets it. McCain has been out front on this issue. But even McCain’s plan is a stopgap measure. First, a hiatus on the gas tax would eventually impact our roads, which the tragedy in Minneapolis teaches us are in a deplorable state. But, second, that sort of relief, while welcome, is temporary. The real problem is that demand has far outstripped supply and OPEC refuses to pump more oil.

Continue Reading »

I was listening to Dennis Miller’s radio show on the way home from work today and one of the callers had a great suggestion, which I will plagiarize now. Build a fence between Mexico and the United States out of solar panels and donate the energy to border households. Dennis and I (although Dennis didn’t know about my approval) thought the idea was brilliant. If you make the immigration issue a cause in the energy crisis and also pledge to lower carbon dioxide emissions (through solar energy) NO ONE can object to building the fence then. We’ll have a fifteen layer impregnable Maginot line on our border with Mexico within weeks! (Granted, it won’t keep Germans out).

Pure brilliance as far as I’m concerned. I would link to that portion of the program, but the capitalist pig who is Dennis Miller requires that you pay him money to get audio of his past shows. (I don’t blame him; I would do the same thing. I don’t want to work forever!)