All I really need to know about Global Warming I learned in Bali

(originally posted December 13,2007

I learned Bali is a south sea island where the number of jets delegates to the IPCC's 31st meeting flew in on exceeded the capacity of the airport forcing empty airplanes to fly to other facilities (on other islands and Australia) and return empty to pick up thier passengers.

Which of course leads to my next lesson, that the delegates so concerned about the climate never heard of car pooling. Strange, because car pooling has been a topic real environmentalists care about for decades.

And that segues into my next lesson, that global warming cultists are f*cking nuts. In order to discuss carbon emissions - which is what the global alarmists have changed the debate to, it is not about the climate, it is about carbon credits - they choose an out of the way, remote Island that EVERY freakin' delegate from every other country HAS to fly to. (Global alarmists have already identified air travel as being the second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide next to coal burning plants.)

I also learn what a hypocritical lying sack that Al Gore is. Like the rest of the global alarmists he is not concerned with the environment, he is all about carbon credits. When Al Gore was vice president he did nothing to get the US to ratify Kyoto... but now that he has a foundation and a corporation to take your carbon offset money he is all about Kyoto.

But all you need to know about the IPCC global alarming scheme can be summed up by one of the participants:

The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also
advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of
wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner
coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

It is not about the environment as they prove by their fetish about carbon credits, it is all about money.

Iran, the poor little rich country

The politics of the Middle East is very complicated and centers on three different components, religion, ethnicity and oil.

The religious angle is always played up because it is the easiest (for Westerners) to understand but usually detracts from the real issues involved. Ethnicity is very important, as the tribal bonds are tighter than the religious bonds, although most tribes are united by a common religious belief. What is easily attributed as sectarian violence often stems from the tribal instinct to keep the other tribes off your property, so you can secure natural resources for your own tribe. This ethnic fighting has occurred since before history in Africa and the Middle East. In Africa we say it is “tribal” in nature, in the Middle East we call it sectarian in nature, but it really is the same.

That leaves oil. Oil and natural gas is the lifeblood of that region. Saudi Arabia has sunk the most money into their infrastructure and relied on private companies to keep costs down, it costs SA just over $3 for every barrel they produce, the rest is profit. It costs Iran about $25 a barrel to produce oil. Iran has been using their more meager profits to modernize their military and infrastructure while trying to build nuclear power plants. Iran has not be investing in it’s petroleum industry and has such draconian profit sharing plans for companies that drill in Iran that they are having trouble getting anyone to help modernize their drilling equipment. Italy is in and India just announced they will be operating platforms, but Total (France) and Shell (Netherlands) have been holdouts for better development contracts (more money). Iran needs nukes in a big way, but not necessarily for weapons, they have the second largest oil reserves and the largest natural gas reserves and they have to import both in order to meet their own domestic needs.

The real reason Iran wants OPEC to lower production quotas has less to do with them wanting the price to go up… which they do desperately… it is because their drilling and petroleum infrastructure has been neglected which has led to the high cost of production as well as reduced production. Iran is unable to meet its production quota. By reducing the quota to below their current level they will be able to take some of the profits from the higher priced oil to modernize or offer incentives to their drilling partners.

The main stumbling blocks in Iran’s desire to control OPEC has been SA, Kuwait and UAE, with SA acting as the ringleader. Iran has attempted to sow the seeds of dissent in SA and SA’s defense forces are occupied infiltrating and eliminating home grown terror cells. They have successfully recruited people to act outside SA, such as the 9/11 hijackers and the fighters in Iraq. The SA terrorists won’t do much except voice opposition to the Royal Family, and not just because SA takes a hard line in dealing with dissenters, but because the tribal bonds that are there.

Since the US provides security for SA, they are free to do other things with their vast oil petroleum wealth. As long as the US is there they don’t fear a direct assault from the Iranian army and the US already disarmed the Iraqi army, so they face no threats. But in order to pay back the US SA keeps oil production up to keep the prices low enough to keep Iran on the ropes. The countries aligned with SA are keeping oil prices low so Iran cannot wage war. Their funding for Hezbollah has decreased, they are barely able to pump enough petroleum to keep themselves solvent, their military is large but under funded and under equipped. They can do just so much with the limited income they have.

So they kick out the UN inspectors hoping that will force an embargo or other sanctions so they can garner sympathy from their remaining allies. The US is not pressing for sanctions knowing that will be the result, but the US has been keeping pressure up along the Iran/Iraq border depriving Iraqi insurgents with much needed equipment and money.

Bush (with the help of the Arab members of OPEC) is essentially doing the same to Iran as Reagan did to the USSR, without the Cold War. Iran is less able to fund Hezbollah because they are funding the Iraqi terror cells. Iran cannot develop it’s petroleum or energy infrastructures because they are funding a nuclear weapons program. In the meantime the Iranian citizens are angry about lack of services and oil profit sharing like their Arab neighbors. Now the Iranian clerics are seeing the light and are beginning to remind Ahmadinejan he is not the supreme ruler of the country and are tempering his anti-American rhetoric.

For all the rest of his faults Ahmadinejan is smart enough to know that to deal with a determined opponent such as Bush Jr. you have to maintain your course and not deviate or capitulate. But he should remember the revolution that saw him rise to power was not based on politics, but was lead by the hard line clerics. Crossing Bush is one thing, but he should ask the Shah about the undoing of the monarchy, the clerics run Iran, not the politicians.

(And for those who missed it, I maintain that the Saudis and the rest of the Arab petroleum producers have united with the US against Iran from before the beginning of the liberation of Iraq, not on the battlefield, but on the economic front lines.)

We don't need facts, we're more smarter than you

The Public Health Council of New Jersey decided that they know better than anyone else and despite public outcry against it "recommended" mandated flu vaccines for preschool children who attend day care or preschool.

A cynical person would say that perhaps New Jersey being home to every major pharmaceutical company (the few that aren't headquartered here still have a significant presence) factored into their decision.

And while this intrudes into the state mandating vaccines for non-public health reasons, clearly entering the realm of a nanny government (the Council praised this initiative as it will reduce the number of children hospitalized - but declined to give any statistics) it may in fact be increasing the threat to the public health. I am of course refering to the casual relationship between the increase in mandated vaccines and autism.

For decades groups have tried to make their case that the chemical thimerosal, used as a presevative in vaccines, was a cause for the marked increases in autism and behavior disorders. And during that time the CDC, NIH, and pharmaceutical companies all dismissed that contention, saying that the low amounts of merury in thimerosal would not cause those diseases. As more and more people began to support the anti-thimerosal campaign the rhetoric changed and the CDC started saying that the limited amount of mercury alone would not contribute to autism.

In the mid- to late- 90's, quietly, and with little fanfare, the CDC had manufacturers of childhood vaccines limit the amount of thimerosal to "trace amounts", meaning 1 microgram. They also began to describe mercury, a powerful nuerotoxin, as an organic compound... as if being organic made it safer... arsenic and bella donna are also organic.

The issue specifically with flu vaccines, besides that influenza is typically not a public health issue, is that it is exempt from the trace amount rules for childhood vaccines and that while very small quantities of the vaccine are available with low or no levels of thimerosal they are reserved for states like California where they ban mercury containing vaccines for use on children.

While the CDC and other scientists have searched for links between specific vaccines, such as MMR or Hib and autism, there have been no published studies looking at the possible effects of multiple vaccines and the cummulative effects of exposure to mercury and the other metals, such as aluminum that is used as a preservative in vacccines. They have not studied a link between exposure to the toxic thimerosal and the high fevers that often accompany a vaccination.

With the new flu vaccine being given annually, between 6 months and 6 years children in NJ will be subject to 11 vaccines, often they are given multiple shots at the same time making any reaction virtually impossible to trace and increasing the amount of exposure to thimerosal.

And what makes this totally unbelievable was it was done on the heels of Merck, HQ'd in NJ, recalling 1 million doses of the childhood Hib vaccine.

Live in New Jersey? Call Governor Jon Corzine (609-292-6000) and tell him to reject the Public Health Council's suggestion or mandate that all vaccines be mercury-free.

Global warming anyone?

Much to the chagrin of global warming cultists the Antarctic ice sheets are growing, both in size and thickness. Of course the southern hemisphere is entering its summer phase so ice bergs will be calved, giving global warming alarmists more to be, well, alarmed about. However, this a natural process. And along with the ice bergs will be millions of tons of water... none of which will affect the depth of the world's oceans.
And in three months the ice sheets will start growing again, as they have been since the 1980s, however it is their rapid growth over the last 5 years that has gotten the attention of scientists.

Now lets go north... way, way north, to the Arctic ice cap. The summer of 2007 saw unprecedented melting of the ice cap. All media outlets showed pictures of polar bears on ice flows that were slowly melting and told of the way that man has doomed the arctic ice cap and all creatures living on it.

What the media has inconveniently not told the truth about is the equally unprecedented freezing of the ice cap to cover almost all of the surface of the cap lost to melting. The freeze occurred so quickly that on December 1st the ice cap was the size it normally does not attain until February 15. You see, what the alarmists in the cult of global warming do not want you to know, and their accomplices in the media won't tell you, is that the ice caps normally melt and refreeze every year. Certainly not the whole cap, and it is only fair to mention that a thaw on the magnitude of 2007 has never been recorded before, taking a fair amount of "old" ice with it. But the fact remains that the ice refroze at a record pace as well.
And now lets look at the other major northern ice cap, the Greenland ice cap. Like Antarctica this cap has several distinct ice fields or flows. In 1991 a flow of fresh glacier water began pouring out of the north east ice field where it had never been detected before. But it took until 2007 to identify the cause for the rapid decline on the size of this ice field... the earth! The crust is fairly thin in that area and the earth's magma is melting the glacier.

Now if there is a natural (not man made) explanation for Greenland, could there be a similar reason for the quick melt, followed by an even quicker freeze, such as a vent that belched out warm gasses for a few months, increased wind patterns, or maybe a slow moving lava flow such as seen in the Hawaiian islands? Chances are we'll never know because "the debate is over" and the facts are not important to the global warming cult!

The Hero of Chappaquidick

(originally posted December 11, 2007)

When I heard Teddy Kennedy stirred out of his booze induced coma to speak I was shocked.
But what he had to say was alarming. Not so much what he said but why in the name of all that is good could he at all think it is appropriate.

Not wanting to let a good thing pass by him Teddy Kennedy decided to jump on the anti-torture bandwagon and exercise (no pun intended) his Bush Derangement skills.
So Teddy Kennedy, the hero of Chappaquidick, denounced water boarding, apparently he is against an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.

FACT: More people have drowned in Teddy Kennedy's Oldsmobile than being water boarded.

Which of course brings us back to why Mr Compassion claims to be for amnesty... because as he said:

"I just couldn't bear someone dying in a river while trying to make a better life for themselves."

Tell that to the Kopechne's Ted. But really... enough with the water references you idiot!

I'll take myths for $800 Alex

Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia, needed to demonstrate a quick break with his predecessor and wanted to make one that also would show he is not going to blindly follow the US, as he often accused his long time political opponent John Howard of doing. So as soon as he won he said he will sign the Kyoto Protocol, and on December 3rd he officially signed onto the document. At first I had said "he officially signed onto the agreement," but that is not entirely true. Rudd, does not agree with the Kyoto Protocol and said he will not accede to any limits beyond what he proposed, not will Australia pay any proposed fines for non-compliance with the accord.

Since Rudd won and said he will be signing the protocol Australia has been applying diplomatic pressure on the US to sign on as well. Fortunately George Bush has shown some restraint and not buckled under pressure... yet. OK, so at this point I could take the low road and declare Rudd a typical, hypocritical politician and declare that the debate is over.

However, his hypocrisy goes deeper than simply signing the Kyoto protocol and pressuring the US to do the same, while saying he will not be held to the carbon dioxide limits imposed. Rudd has also gone on record for saying he supports a massive pulp mill project. Proving that he is either a moron or really thinks carbon dioxide is the only pollutant in the world... which would make him a moron... especially since part of his pledged support was to not protect old growth trees from being harvested to support the mill. He also must be willing to commit additional water resources to the project in a country battling with a decade long drought.

So we have him agreeing that global warming exists, but indicating that only carbon dioxide causes it. Deforestation must not be a possible cause in his mind, he also conveniently ignores the massive amounts of water vapor emitted by paper mills. Plus the other sources of pollution, not the least significant is the truck traffic in and out of the plant. Add to that the water runoff caused by deforestation means rain will runoff instead of being absorbed into the aquifer can ruin the land despite the best land management intentions, once the trees are gone the land is vulnerable.

The problem, and my eventual point, is that people are so caught up on the myth of global warming that they are forgetting that there are other forms of pollution that pose serious threats to the planet.

Not that I mean to pick on my Aussie friends... but more insanity from down under regarding mythical global warming and farsical carbon offsets...

Baby tax needed to save planet, claims expert

Global warming is devloping a cult-like following where people feel obligated to link everything that is happening to global warming... amazingly without proof. Because the global warming cult is faith based, they believe in it therefore it must be so, to the great relief of those perpetrating the fraud who are relieved of the burder of having to provide any proof to support their incredible claims.

When good libs go bad

I had some things going on this morning so as I drove around I listened to the resurrected Imus in the Morning show. My a.m. drive used to consist of Air America until they just turned so vehemently anti-American it can no longer be listened to by any sane person, or I listened to Curtis and Kuby who occupied the spot now filled by Imus.

Imus had a woman from a Bronx organization looking to get donations for a health clinic her group was building and he started the segment by handing her a large check. Imus' wife Deidre was also there as she is helping to rebuild the building occupied by the group as a green building. Deidre Imus runs a non-profit, the Deirdre Imus Environmental Center for Pediatric Oncology, that, among other things, consults on, and advocates for, green buildings.
During the segment Dierdre and the representative for the community group were talking about how hard it can be to get donations for the non-profits when Imus asked why the government is not doing anything to help them.

Which brings me to the point of today's rant... why do people think the government has an obligation to dump tax dollars into problems that are better addressed at the local level by community groups?

Leftist and socialist programs have bloated the federal government to the point it is not able to even perform its essential tasks as set forth by the constitution. Private non-profits and faith based groups have always been far more successful at raising funds and helping people that the government. Private groups focus on helping individuals out of their dilemmas while providing them with the necessary skills for self reliance. Government programs foster laziness and penalize success encouraging people to stay un- or under- employed, affecting self confidence, self respect and making slaves out of the recipients.

Last week I spent a few days with Catholic Charities gutting a house in New Orleans. Catholic Charities is one of the faith based/community groups charged with gutting houses so building permits can be issued to reconstruct and reoccupy the houses affected by Katrina. This is the third time I've been down there working with Catholic Charities.

When I was talking with them they mentioned the number of houses they had left to do, and I noted that the number had increased from the last time, the rep reported that NOLA based groups were pulling out of their responsibilities because the city has reduced their funding and those groups don't want to spend "their" money helping to repair the city, even though they solicit and continue to receive donations from around the country specifically for that purpose.

I donate to private charities, I volunteer my time with several non-profits, including my local rescue squad, I also provide free training in various subjects to local emergency squads. I am not saying this to blow my own horn, I am mentioning it solely because volunteering and donating to help one's neighbor is what made, and makes, this a great country. When the government tries to do things more money goes to administering the program than benefiting the program, it creates another bureaucracy that needs never ending supplies of tax dollars, and most importantly... when the government decides who and how to help it forces you to pay (in the form of taxes) even though it may be a cause you personally disagree with.

So while Imus should be applauded for his donation to the charity, his work on behave of autism awareness, and of course his own charity, the Don Imus ranch, he, and all liberals, need to break out of the leftardian "why isn't the government doing more?" mentality. The government is not supposed to be our nanny, nor is it supposed to take care of us like we are their children. It was said best by the last competent Democrat POTUS:

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."

On election day "The people have spoken!", today we're as dumb as a box of rocks

(originally posted November 10, 2007)



The day after election day politicians still remember people played a part in them getting into office. They speak of "mandates" (the more time an elected official says mandate in their speech the thinner the margin the won by) or they repeat their campaign promises and say "the people have spoken". Then the cameras turn off and its back to their offices to determine how to best pay back their political donors and forward their own personal agenda. Two shining examples of this are the Governors of Oregon and New Jersey.

Last week I crowed about many states voting down public bonding questions. The mandate that almost universally sent throughout the country (there were a few notable exceptions) was that the people spoke and rejected their state and local government's uncontrollable desire to raise taxes, often for things the private sector could do better.

The governor of Oregon, Ted Kulongoski, has been pushing for years to increase the cigarette tax through the legislature, the appropriate method for such legislation. However his attempts were thwarted by "House Republicans" who objected to A) the wording of the legislation that did not set aside the added revenues for the proposed health care plan, and B) using cigarette taxes as guaranteed income since the estimated income is based on the current number of packs sold and does not include the number of people who would quit after the tax tripled.

So after his pet project got spanked down hard (60-40) did Governor Kulongoski say "the people have spoken, they mandate no new taxes"? No he said they were "confused", "didn't understand the issue" and "were deceived by the tobacco companies who bought the elections". Yes the tobacco companies spent an estimated $12 million on advertising against Measure 50, about 75% of what was spent trying to pass it, and that doesn't include the governor's use of tax dollars to propagate the measure in the first place.


What Kulongoski, like many urban liberals, don't seem to understand (or remember in Kulongoski's case since he was born in rural Missouri) is that rural farmers, who understand self reliance and are living a near subsistence existence themselves, don't understand why they have to pay extra so others can get health care.

But fear not, the hubris of Kulongoski is not faltering. After dismissing the real mandate that the people don't want a tax increase, he said he will reintroduce it in the state legislature. WTH? He played the nuclear option of going for a constitutional amendment to increase the taxes and the people, in a resounding voice, said "NO!!!", and he proposes to raise it again in 2008, and if necessary 2009. This is not about serving the people of Oregon who clearly did not agree with measure 50, it is about serving himself.


But when you talk about self serving you should immediately think of Jon Corzine, the Governor of New Jersey who was elected to the US Senate but resigned to run for Governor because he is a megalomaniac and his hubris couldn't deal with being one of 435 members of the US congress, his ego could only be satiated by being sole executive of a state with a budget and GDP exceeding half the countries in the world.

New Jersey voted down 2 of 3 public questions that addressed bonding and raising taxes. The one that rankled Corzine's feathers the most was rejecting his crusade for state funded stem cell research. Jon Corzine believes so much in state funded stem cell research that he put up almost $200K of his own money to publicize the issue. Corzine chalks up the question's resounding failure (55-45, a political landslide) to "uninformed voters" who "fell prey to a campaign of fear", led by "the Catholic Church and other groups".


What makes Jon Corzine's emotional and dismissive remarks about the "uninformed" voters of New Jersey, is that many people in NJ have an understanding of the market and understand that if embryonic stem cell research promised so much, the pharm houses and bio-techs would be throwing money at it like a fireman throwing water on a fire. In 2006, the New Jersey legislature passed a law setting up a $270 million stem cell research fund, with the stipulation it not be used for embryonic research. The defeated public question removed such stipulation and in fact listed diseases "such as Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, diabetes, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, sickle cell anemia and spinal cord injuries."

But private industry is not throwing money at embryonic stem cell research, because unlike the misinformation distributed to NJ voters in the guise of an interpretation, business will back a winning cause that will earn it money. Embryonic stem cell research has, after decades of research, failed to produce anything useful. Adult stem cell research has been wildly successful, and despite the ever growing list of cures and treatments developed, since the strands created in the labs are shorter deemed to not have the same potential as embryonic research.


Corzine, who amassed his vast fortune on Wall Street, knows that once embryonic stem cell research is proven to be useful corporations will toss around all of the money that they have to develop cures for the diseases stated above, but until then they will concentrate their efforts on adult stem cell research and medicines to attenuate the symptoms of them. They will continue to put the lion share of their money where they will get results, and invest more frugally in non performing avenues, such as embryonic stem cell research.

But the issue of stem cell research is not totally germane to my point. What is central to my argument is Jon Corzine's disingenuous denial that the people are not informed. To the contrary, the voters in NJ know the truth behind the issue, it is not based on scientific data, it is based on emotion and emotion alone. The fact remains the proposition lost not because of the excuses Jon Corzine and his followers offered, but because the voters, who were hailed as geniuses for putting him in office, are smarter than he gives us credit for... and we're tired of paying the highest property taxes in the country.

New Jersey: at the forefront of separating taxpayers from their money

(originally posted November 2, 2007)

New Jersey, on the heels of successfully raising the sales tax from six to seven per cent without a revolt similar to the one that rode Jim Florio out of the Governor's Mansion has decided they will leave it up to voters to raise their own taxes. There are four public questions on the ballot this year, three of them are looking to mandate allocations of money. These alocations, if approved must be met before any of the revenue sources that traditionally fund the general treasury actualy get there.

In layman's terms, allocating this money means more money will be needed to complete the regular budget. This means fees and taxes will have to increase to make up the money these allocations mandate if the questions pass. So what are the pressing issues our legislators want us to legislate by public question, essentially voing for potentially unbridled tax increases to pay for them. (Public questions in NJ are not like public referendums, in NJ public questions are forwarded by Trenton or approval by taxpayers, usually asking to make minor wording changes to the state constitution or dedicate funding apart from the general treasury.)

Public Question 1: Dedicates annual revenue of an amount equal to a tax rate of 1% under the state sales tax for property tax reform.

So a few months after raising our sales tax rate by 1% to meet general treasury obligations they want to dedicate it towards property tax relief. So once it gets rededicated how does the treasury shortfall get readdressed, why by raising the sales tax again by another percent. So in essence it is asking voters to approve raising their own taxes! You are essentially voting to tax yourelf to provide tax relief.

Public Question 2: Stem Cell Research Bond Issue

There is no need to publically fund stem cell research. Lots of institutes, research labs and universities, and corporations are funding the research into stem cell research. It is embryonic stem cell research that needs funding. And why? Because embryonic stem cell research has never yielded any results. They are so far away from any solid results that the pharmaceutical houses and bio-meds are heavily invested in it. (New Jersey is far and away the bio-med/pharm capital of the world, without exception, if their headquarters isn't here than they have labs and offices.)

But the most telling aspect of this is that New Jersey's governor, Jon Corzine, made his hundred's of millions of dollars at Goldman Sachs... an investment company. He should know that is there was any potential in embryonic stem cell research Wall Street and the bio-med/pharms would be clmouring for a piece of the action.

Public Question 3: Green Acres, Farmland, Blue Acres, and Historical Preservation Act of 2007

Who could oppose a bond to dedicate a mere 200 million to buying open space, preserving farms, buying houses in historic flood zones, and historical property preservation? Well, I for one. If there was a not for profit established to conduct this work I would gladly donate to it, perhaps in excess of the money my tax burden for them would be. But the nagging fact remains that in the corrupt state of New Jersey a disproportionate amount of Green Acres and Farmland money goes to politically connected entities.

Much like Lee Iacocca did with the restoration of Ellis Island a quai-public/private collaboration could yield better results than simply shoveling tax money into the pockets of political allies. Plus the line in the law that says the blue acres funding will only be used to buy property from willing sellers in flood plains is reminescent of similar actions in the past when people were forced to sell only to have the property redeveloped. It smacks of eminent domain.

So yes I oppose all three of these public questions. And I hope any New Jerseyan's who read this vote no to public questions 1, 2, and 3.

Public question 4 is to change the wording in the consitution regarding who is eligile to vote. The current wording says "idiot or insane person" and suggests changing it to a more politically correct substitute. I hope everyone votes no for the first 3 questions and yes for the fourth. Not because I favor being PC, but so Trenton gets the message that we oppose their irresponsible tax and spend policies and that we read and understood the questions. In Trenton when a public question they want to pass is defeated they always blame it on the electorate not understanding the question.

All governments need to learn that their citizens are not a limitless source of cash they can go to everytime they want to spend more money.

Scientology faces criminal charges

(originally posted September 12, 2007)

I know that Belgium looking into Scientology as a criminal enterprise is not news, its been going on for over a decade. Personally it affects me not, I just wanted to use the headline of this story because it whips scientologists up into a frenzy when their science fiction cult gets less than favorable press. Hey, I love Star Wars but I don't call myself a Jedi Knight in the service of the Force.

But I'm not here to knock around Scientology. For that go here: http://www.xenu.net/

I read this story, Scientology faces criminal charges, with a mild amount of amusement because Europe loves to tell the US what to do and the US State Department basically tells Belgium to try living by the same standards they set for others. The article states:
Belgium, Germany and other European countries have been criticized by the State Department for labeling Scientology as a cult or sect and enacting laws to restrict its operations. The German government considers Scientology a commercial enterprise that takes advantage of vulnerable people.

In Washington, the State Department said that if Belgian authorities "have evidence that individuals violated Belgian law, they should take appropriate legal steps consistent with Belgium's international obligations to protect freedom of thought, conscience and religion."
"We would, however, oppose any effort to stigmatize an entire group based solely upon reglious beliefs and would be concerned over infringement of any individual's rights because of religious affiliation," the State Department spokesman's office said.

My original thought was to congratulate Belgium, Germany and the other European countries that recognized Scientology as a cult, sect, commercial enterprise, and in the case of Belgium, to also recognize it as a criminal enterprise. But after reading the story it occured to me that the US State Department was not only interferring with a sovereign nation's criminal investigation of a glorified science fiction club, but they were advocating Scientology as a legitimate religion.

When did it become the purview of the State Department to advocate any religion? Last I checked the "separation of church and state" would preclude the State Department from advocating a religion, especially one based on a (bad) science fiction novel. Normally the Commerce Department would be called upon to defend US corporations but since the cult of Scientology is tax exempt there is no financial reason them to do so. As a matter of fact, there is no need for the goverment to take any actions to assist Scientology defend themselves.

Let their Hollywood elite pony up for the lawyers, keep my tax dollars out of it.

Global Warming vs. Caring for the Environment

Global warming is a real issue, Earth's average temperature is getting warmer. This is caused by several factors.

• Solar activity


• Urbanization


• Deforestation


• Pollution


• Green House Gases

Man contributes to 4 of these 5.

Urbanization creates "heat bubbles". This effect can also lead to suspect data readings as land based temperature sensors tend to be located near urban centers the average temperature will always be warmer. The larger the area and the more concrete and buildings the more skewed the reading can be. Plus that also means more electricity for the infrastructure and the concentration of pollutants is generally more than the local environment, with reduced natural resources, such as trees and vegetation, can bear.

Deforestation is reducing the earth's natural cooling mechanism, as well as contributing to massive pollution due to burning huge expanses of forest every year. And since forests remove not just CO2 but also serve to help filter particulates form the air the effect is multiplied. Plus bare ground heats faster and retains the heat longer than trees.

Pollution is perhaps man's worse contribution to the environment. Snow contaminated with particulates falls onto permanent snow caps, but since that snow is not pure white it no longer reflects the majority of the sun's energy but absorbs it, making that snow melt faster. The particulates continue to gather on the snow cap absorbing heat continuing the process. Particulates, along with VOC's and ozone combine to form smog. Air pollution contributes to respiratory distress and negatively impacts the quality of life of many people. Particulates also absorb heat in the atmosphere allowing the air to heat up leading to the chemical reactions that cause haze and smog. Nitrous oxide and ozone also contribute to respiratory problems for millions of people.

Green house gases are a wide variety of gases that all contribute to a theory called the green house effect. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and groups of fluorocarbon containing gases make up the bulk of green house gases. For millions of years water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other gases formed the natural green house effect that allowed life as we know it to flourish on Earth. Without this atmospheric phenomenon the average temperature would be about 40 degrees F.

The problem is in determining how each of the 5 major factors I've listed have worked together to create the problem we are now experiencing. The biggest contribution to the increase in earth's temperature is due to solar activity. The rise in temperatures of our neighbors in the solar system bears testament to that fact. But the other four factors also play a role in warming the environment.

And here lies the crux of the problem. Developing countries and the UN have said that they will not address urbanization, deforestation or pollution as they will pose impediments to the developing nations and give an unfair advantage to the nations that developed their economies prior to the recognition that those practices on a global scale are bad. So the US will not address 3 of the 5 issues, 4 of the 5 since they cannot do anything about solar activity.

That means the UN has to focus on green house gases. Of the green house gases they can do little about the major contributor, water vapor, so the IPCC doesn’t list it as a green house gas. They don’t want to address methane, the next worse contributor, because while already developed nations can address the primary sources of methane (farms and landfills) developing nations do not want to direct any resources to pollution control. That leaves nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide and the fluorocarbons. Like CO2, NO2 is primarily formed as a byproduct of combustion, especially of fossil fuels. Nitrous oxide is associated more with air pollution than global warming so to avoid muddying the waters of global warming vs. air pollution they don’t address it except as tail pipe emission from cars although that is a negligible source on modern vehicles.

That leaves the UN with little choice than to declare carbon dioxide as the main cause of global warming. And in doing so they arranged a group of scientists to validate faulty science and declared the debate over.

Unfortunately for the UN there are a huge number of respected scientists (and rational thinking people) that have declared the debate far from over. They have pointed out that carbon dioxide may be one piece of the puzzle but it not the defining issue.

As long as China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Malaysia and other countries spew forth so much pollution their countries are enveloped in a brown haze that is often visible from space the issue of global warming is moot as far as I am concerned. The potential effects of air pollution, particulates and gases, are a much more serious threat to the health of the globe and it’s inhabitants than a random and meaningless carbon dioxide theory that is based more on economics than science.

We don't need more nanny state, we need more liberty

Once again the government of several states have discovered something we need to be protected from... this time it is texting while driving.

A little insight... drunk driving laws, seat belt laws, child seat laws, air bags, cell phone and now texting (it's really the same thing!) laws, are all courtesy of your friendly insurance industry. The same with bicycle helmet laws and most other laws that are in place to protect us, the truth is they are to protect the insurance industry's profits and give the government more control over your basic liberties. The tell tale signature of the insurance industry is that they associate the activity with drunken driving. Because we all know how dangerous DWI/DUI is since MADD has been telling us about it for 2 decades. And where do you think the major funding for MADD came from?

Nine in 10 Americans say ban texting while driving

But there is no need to legislate against texting while driving; there are already distracted driving laws and careless and reckless driving laws on the books. If you're swerving in traffic the police have reason to stop you, if you cross the line while texting and don't signal it is an unsafe lane change, if you have an accident because you are texting it is careless or even reckless driving.

The most telling and frightening part of the published study is that 89% of the respondents said that they think the government needs to pass laws against texting and driving, while 66% admit to reading messages and 57% admit to ending them. I find it amazing that 66% of the people surveyed lack the basic self discipline to put down the damn phone while they are driving after admitting it is a dangerous act, but I am astonished that they feel that they need the government to pass a law to control them and prevent them from doing it.

The reason that we are losing our basic liberties to the state is not so much that they pass laws to curtail our freedom without our consent but rather because many people lack the personal responsibility to control their own actions and have to ask the government to be their mommy to tell everyone not to do it. Even those of us capable of identifying a dangerous act and exercising the self discipline to not do it.

Every time we allow (or ask!) the government to enact a law to protect us we are giving up another basic liberty and the state gains just a little more control over our personal lives. Why do we need more restrictive laws, why can't adults be expected to exercise personal responsibility and not do stupid and dangerous things?

Be a responsible adult... just say NO to the nanny state!

Notify the next of kin: The NYT is circling the drain

The New York Times, the venerable “Old Gray Lady”, formerly known as ‘The Paper of Record”, is shrinking. First in July of 2006 they announced a host of cost saving strategies, including mass layoffs, reducing the number of news pages, shutting a state of the art printing press facility, increasing newstand price, and reducing the size of the paper from 13.5 inches to the “industry standard” 12 inches.

Today began the new NYT 12 inch format. It is telling that the paper that all others aspired to be is resorting to follow “industry standard”; the NYT was the standard the industry tried to match. This reduced size paper is being rolled out a year ahead of schedule but the estimated cost savings have dropped from $30 million to $10 million a year. The cost of newsprint hasn’t dropped; in fact it has gone up so the savings should increase… unless of course the circulation has dropped in which case the projected savings indicate that reduction in circulation.

The New York Times has even resorted to a practice it once derided, giving deep discounts to subscribers in order to boost circulation costs. The Old Gray Lady was once above such obviously desperate tactics to generate ad revenues.

The NYT claims ad revenues are streaming out of the print papers and finding its way to “new media” sources. They are of course full of crap, their cross-town quasi-tabloid cousins, the NY News and the NY Post, are raking in cash. Across the Hudson River The Star-Ledger is setting the standard for paper circulation and profitability. There is money in print journalism and newspapers; the argument that it is disappearing is just plain wrong.

The reason for the NYT ignominious downfall is their editorial slant, which has bled over from the editorial page to affect the news content of their paper. Over the last decade or so the paper has allowed their left-of-socialism editorial stance affect the quality of their reporting. Once the paper’s bias was too blatant to ignore they started to hemorrhage customers and revenue. It used to be de rigueur for businessmen to be seen carrying their New York Times under their arms on, and under, the streets of The Big Apple. It was posited that a large percentage of the NYT was for posturing purposes and were never opened.

But rather than learn the key lesson from the failure of Air America, the NYT has actually picked up the pace on it’s leftist views, rebuking the proof that ultra left media is not a profitable venture. The ultra left accounts for a mere 5% of the population and it does not carry over well to moderates who are squeamish about extremism. Nor does it attract advertisers, which are the lifeblood of any media venture.

Unfortunately the publishers of the New York Times allowed their leftists beliefs to bias their reporting of the news. And it is impossible to be a virgin again, the NYT, or more likely the next owner of the NYT, will have a hard uphill battle to regain the credibility that the “Paper of Record” once had. Until then it is just another leftist tabloid, like the Village Voice, just not as entertaining.

Hate Crimes: The state knows what you are thinking

I’ve been kicking around ideas for this blog for over two months. The problem is I always get stuck on one thing… a corroborating main stream media story to tie things together. In this case the “Paper of Record” not only served as that source, but made it a slam dunk.

No Hate Required for Hate Crime in Gay Man’s Death, Judge Rules


Hate crime statutes vary from state to state and they are not equally applied. First point, and I hope everyone agrees with me on this basic issue, all crimes are driven from some form of disregard for the rights of another. It is too easy, and sometimes false to say all crime involves hate, because there are cases where people rob for medicine for a loved one and others who are sociopaths and don’t hate anyone, they don’t recognize them as equals. Hate for the victim doesn’t apply in either of those cases.


My main reason for disliking hate crime statutes is that they invoke shadows of the dreaded “Thought Police” rounding up those who don’t share the same ideas as the state. The original hate laws were passed to be used as mitigating circumstances for use at sentencing but have since morphed into being a crime in and of itself. And now, bringing the statutes full circle and making my fears a reality, a NY judge ruled that you can be guilty of a hate crime even without hate being involved in the crime. In other words, the state will decide if your crime involved hate or not.


Yes, the state has the obligation to protect its citizens, but to decide what the offender was thinking when he committed the crime exceeds the constitutional mandates of protection and borders on enslavement. Besides, using the judge’s logic in her decision that the criminals targeted their victim because of his sexual orientation then rape would almost always be a hate crime since the rapist almost always targets women.


Hate crime statues began to get passed due to knee jerk reactions to unusually brutal acts of violence. But it is the acts of violence that should be against the law, not what people think. It could be argued that it is someone’s inalienable right to dislike another person, race of people, or anyone they want to dislike, based upon totally subjective criteria that they alone set.

Hate crime statutes bordered on infringing upon free speech and freedom of expression prior to Judge Konvisor’s decision, she just knocked over the shaky house of cards these statutes were built out of when she declared the state can decide your frame of mind when the crime was committed.

Once again it is political correctness and liberalism that bring us closer to George Orwell’s Big Brother The left always screech that conservatism is gunning to take away your rights, and yet it is the liberal policies that are turning our constitutional rights into legislated permission and privileges.

How can the debate be over? It never even started!

(originally posted July 18, 2007)



I have conducted a fair amount of reading about the various aspects of global warming. Enough so that saying it is a mere interest does not describe it properly; passion or fetish might be more appropriate terms. Not out of a desire to be an expert, but out of the desire to prove that corn derived ethanol is a bad idea and is equally bad for the environment and us, and also to prove that the ultra-left has high-jacked what should be a debate on how pollution effects the environment and what, if anything, can or should be done to stop it. The thing has taken of a life of it's own however, and the more I read the more I see the same assumptions based upon the same theories, but no data to support it.

Despite claims to the contrary, the science is far from settled, shockingly so. Best estimates are that human activity account for 40 to 60 percent of the rise in temperature. With a range that wide the scientific debate is far from over. And even then scientists cannot agree on which human activities, such as green house gas emissions, deforestation, urbanization, or air pollution have the greatest effect or how much synergy exists between them.

Why is this? Because the research has not been done.

When one reads the various articles and "research" and then looks at the footnotes and bibliographies one realizes that most of the printed matter relies not on original research, but rather rehashes old theories, some of which has not been critically reviewed. In the scientific world research is conducted and published in a scientific journal where other scientists examine the data, looking to support the theory or find flaws in it. Often other scientists use another's theory as a steppingstone for additional research using a revised theory, or they just try to duplicate it to prove it faulty.

There is a media explosion is in response to the public's demand for information. What used to be published in scientific journals is being published in science hobby magazines. Besides the author's fee the researcher also gets to propose a theory, with little or no supporting data, without the trouble of having to do hard research or subject their work to review. That has led to a number of sources that publish what on the surface appears to be scientific data but is really just an article for a magazine written by someone who refers on another's work. There is no research involved, which is why it is in a science hobby periodical and not a scientific journal.

"An Inconvenient Truth" relies on faulty data and unproven science, and yet it is shown in schools as an educational documentary, when in fact it is a piece of emotional propaganda unable to support its theories. The left has even instituted a practice of defying those they brand as "deniers" to prove they are wrong, rather that providing the documentation to prove they are correct. That is not science; that is propaganda. Science is about facts and data, not offset credits and tax-free foundations. And it is certainly not about emotional blackmail. The environmental extremists and some opportunists have hijacked the issue and have deemed the debate over when in fact the true scientific debate never began.

******
One important thing to add. An entry in a scientific journal has to be factually sound and is subject to peer review. An article for Newsweek, Time magazine or the science hobby magazine is not the same as research as there is no critical review and frequently the only research cited is conducted by others, making it more of an untested theory than scientific data.

Fire or Ice: The terrorists in the media can't make up their minds

The media, besides being the puppets (or perhaps the puppetmasters) of the left, are also terrorists. Remember that the media's main priority is to get advertising dollars. And ad dollars are driven by ratings (sales, viewers). And nothing sells like telling someone they are going to die. The media always reproaches the right for being fear mongers, while they have been disingenuously practicing it for over 100 years.

Once the media became commercialized, truth and what was right took a back seat to ad sales. That led to the rise of sensationalism over journalism.

There is a 2006 study by the Business and Media Institute, formerly the Media Research Center, called "FIRE AND ICE". It traces not just the history of global climate change, from global cooling to global warming to clobal cooling to global warming, but rather focuses on the media's fear mongering over 100 years.

It is a case study in how the media have used this topic over the last 100+ years to manipulate people... to scare people... and to sell their agendas.

An Inconvenient Agenda

Noam Mohr is a physicist whose "hockey stick" graph showing the earth's warming trend was prominently featured in "An Inconvenient truth." Prior to the movie's release an academic review of the data showed some irregularities which were subsequently corrected. But the new graph proved, ironically, that the truth was inconvenient to the movie's producers who opted with the original graph because it was "less confusing".

Now Noam Mohr is being cast aside by the global warming community because he has published that environmental groups have hijacked his studies and twisted them to say carbon dioxide is the main component in global warming. Mohr further says that it is methane and other greenhouse gasses that have the greatest impact on the warming patterns.

And Mohr's solution? The most dramatic way to decrease methane is for everyone to become vegetarians!

A New Global Warming Strategy: by Noam Mohr

He is not the only scientist to say methane and other green house gasses are greater contributors to global warming than carbon dioxide. But he is the only one to propose vegetarianism as a possible fix.

Which is not what those poised to rake in a few billion in donations and carbon offsets want to be heard. Fortunately for them Mohr is committed enough to his ideals that he is quite a prolific author and even the environmentalists have begun to question his motives (and sanity). Kosher slaughterhouse horrors highlight cruelty of modern meat by Noam Mohr. So the carbon dioxide cultists are casting aside his recent articles saying that he has an agenda to further his cause of vegetarianism. But they are somehow comfortable misrepresenting his earlier data on global warming.

It appears as they too have an agenda... which I believe is greed. The carbon dioxide cultists have devleoped an ingenious system of polluting, and then paying others not to pollute for them. They call these offset credits. You calculate how much carbon you "generate" and pay one of the approved offset brokers who forward that money to companies who use low pollution technoolgy... after deducting a small administrative fee.

Call me Comrade

OK, since noon I've had about a case of beer, so take this in it's proper perspective... but Fidel Castro, the UN, and I have all said the same thing... that corn ethanol will lead to higher grain prices, and that will have world wide effects, most noticeably in food and feed grain prices.

U.N. official says bio fuels raise food supply risk

The problem is multifold. Corn raised for ethanol does not have to be the more expensive corn used for food, nor the more moderately priced corn used for feed grain. But the price per bushel for "corn" does not discriminate between the grade of corn. And since the price is so high it is encouraging growers of other, less profitable crops, to plant corn instead. This will increase the prices of the diverted crops, as well as the price of corn and corn based products. The range or corn based products is enormous, but if you include the pork, beef, and poultry raised on corn, and their byproducts of meats, gelatin, and dairy products, you can see how the prices of food will skyrocket. And the crops being diverted to ethanol corn include cotton, sugar beets, soya, wheat, and oats. This means those crops will also increase in price, affecting the end products of cereals, breads, sugar, baked goods, soda, and an endless list of food products.

But the UN is not concerned about the USA paying high prices for food. The UN is concerned that the 40% of the world's population that depends on the US for grains and milk will have to pay more. Most of the world that buys our feed grain, food grain, and dairy already pays more than they can, they certainly pay a larger percentage of their income than the US citizens do.
And Fidel Castro certainly does not care about how much the US has to pay. He is acting as Hugo Chavez' mouthpiece, who does not want the US, Brazil, and other South American countries to form an ethanol cartel to compete against OPEC. Not that Castro cares about OPEC, but he is in alliance with Russia, China and Venezuela, all who have similar, but differenting, reasons for being against ethanol. Russia and Venezuela because they have petroleum they want to sell, and China because they want to buy cheap grain and they are drilling for oil a few miles off the coast of the Florida Keys in Cuban waters.

I however, am also against corn ethanol, but the reasons are USA-centric. Food prices have already gone up, meat, dairy, cereal, poultry, soda, baked goods... virtually everything! Plus ethanol is not better for the environment. While it may reduce greenhouse gases at the tailpipe, it generates a lot at the distillery, not to mention that the exhaust exacerbates respiratory problems. Bio-diesel made from soya or peanut oil does not cause these problems but Americans have an unnatural aversion to driving a diesel powered car. But as one who also studied Africa and the starvation and atrocities that occur there I am also painfully aware that when US farmers divert crops from the food or feed chain it affects people worldwide.

Ethanol blog 5/27/07

Ethanol blog 5/30/07

Ethanol blog 6/12/07

*****
As an aside, have you any idea what it feels like to see that an issue you have supported for months is championed by Fidel Castro and the UN!!! Despite the public support by communists and socialists I still maintain that corn derived ethanol is a huge mistake and cellulose or sugar derived ethanol are better, and more efficient, alternatives.

Serial homophobe plays the race card

Isaiah Washington, a mediocre actor, played the race card in making himself the victim of his series of insensitive remarks that cost him his job.

In playing the race card, a typical disingenuous act when people do despicable things and want to still be seen as a sympathetic person, Washington took it up a notch by insulting sucessful black actors.

"My mistake was believing that I would get the support from my network and all of my cast mates across the board. My mistake was believing I could correct a wrong with honesty and sincerity," he said in the interview posted online Thursday.

"My mistake was thinking black people get second chances. I was wrong on all fronts," he said.
His unwillingness to act like a submissive black at work was part of the problem, Washington said.

"Well, it didn't help me on the set that I was a black man who wasn't a mush-mouth Negro walking around with his head in his hands all the time. I didn't speak like I'd just left the plantation and that
can be a problem for people sometime," he said.

Instead of facing the reality that his apologies were lame as they generated more controversy that the original remarks, Washington downplays the idea he may just be an ass, he wants everyone to think it is just because he is black.

And he claims he is the victim because he didn't act like "a submissive black", wasn't a "mush mouth negro" and didn't speak like he "just left the plantation." I'm sure the scores of successful actors thank you for suggesting they succeeded because they did all those things you claim to be above.

There are real victims of racism, and everytime the race card is played by people like Isaiah Washington, those victims lose their voice. And in trying to defend his indefensible actions he not only denied justice to the real victims of racism, but he also managed to take away the successes of the scores of actors in Hollywoood who have talent.

Ex-`Grey's' star cites racism for firing

Just Shut "The Chuck" Up

Chuck "E Cheese" Schumer has called for an "import czar" in light of the wave of tainted goods entering the US food supply.


Chuck has always been a fan of expanding the bloated bureaucracy in Washington. Never mind that customs, the FDA, and four other already existing bureaucracies already control everything imported into the US.


During one of his latest whiney press conferences Schumer unveiled his latest brain storm is the Import Czar. In case you missed it:


"There are more than a half dozen federal agencies responsible for monitoring, testing, and blocking dangerous or tainted shipments," the Schumer statement said. "This maze includes cabinet level departments, independent agencies and administrations within executive agencies, all operating with different regula- tions, rules and protocols."


So rather than address the subject and appoint a lead organization to help coordinate and assign areas of responsibility he wants to appoint an Import Czar. And along with the Czar comes his administrative staff and the government continues its inexhorable growth at the expense of the taxpayers.

These federal "czars" have been the ultimate in wastes of time and money and have never addressed or solved any of the problems they have been "empowered" to handle. The key being the word empower.

• Drug Czar: has no real authority and has accomplished nothing
  
• AIDS Czar: has no real authority and has acomplished nothing
  
• War Czar: has no real authority and will accomplish nothing
  
• Import Czar: need i continue?
  

How can anyone suggest with a straight face that Washington doesn't have enough bureaucrats already?

Perhaps the problem is that there is too much bureaucracy! The government is so large it is unable to handle even the most perfunctory tasks. Clinton/Gore ran on the promise to reinvent government, and they did, they made it larger and it still doesn't work. Maybe someone needs to reinvent government by making it smaller and more efficient.

But I guarantee you Chuck Schumer will not be that person!

The Supreme Court rules racism is wrong... liberals are confused

The US Supreme Court ruled that using race as a condition of ensuring diversity is wrong. The Chief Justice summed it up perfectly when he said, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

This is another example of liberals being confused and taking their eye off the ball. The issue at hand is not strictly liberal vs. conservative, although the media would have you believe so by identifying the justices in the majority as conservative, and refering to the dissenting justices as liberal. The make up of the Supreme Court is 4 conservative/constitutionalists, 3 liberal/ social activists, 1 moderate/constitutionalist, and 1 moderate/social activist. So while the article may be technically correct in assigning the labels "liberal" and "conservative", those political stances are virtually insignificant when examining the ideological differences at play.

The ideological split is that 5 of the justices see themselves being the final arbiters in determining if laws and decisions are based on a firm constitutional foundation. The other 4 see themselves as legislators without accountability.

Court limits schools considering race

Perspective vs. Spin

I am unapologetically conservative. But everything I discuss is factual, I actually take time to research a topic before talking about it. But when I do write it is with a conservative perspective because I have right leaning ideologies. But I do not ignore facts, or use dubious information to support my argument... that is called spin.

The main stream media has an anti-Bush, anti-Republican agenda, they write their headlines and "research" their stories to spin stories to favor the left. By spin I mean use facts that only support their agenda, ignoring, or more accurately choosing not to report, those items that would make the story more balanced and factually correct and give the viewer a better perspective of the issue. The main stream media cannot allow their viewers to make up their own minds, they need to control the input so they can control the message, and hence the viewer.

That is spin. Ignoring facts and/or using disinformation to change the context of the story to suit one's agenda or motive.

I do not ignore facts, I do debunk disinformation.

I have always angered those who claim they were conservatives when they mean Republicans because I always said Bush failed the conservatives. Now it's cool to say you don't like Bush... which I do, the economy has been great for more than half a decade. But to the left I'm a Bush apologist when I point out the Clintons, John Kerry and hundreds of our elected Representatives emphatically knew that Saddam had an advanced program of WMD.

Your SUV is afffecting Mars

(originally posted June 26, 2007)




Mars is experiencing a dust storm, the likes of which are unknown here on Earth. And the culprit? Extreme solar activity.


Huge Dust Storm Breaks Out on Mars


Apparently we must have generated so much carbon dioxide that it left earth's atmosphere, broke free of the earth's gravity and is now enveloping the Red Planet.


Dust storm thousands of miles across are pummeling the planet. But somehow the solar activity that effects Mars, about 78 million miles further than the Earth, is not contributing to Earth's climate change at all.

Two cloture votes for Monday

(originally posted June 22, 2007)



Both of these bills are bad legislation (as is most legislation)!!!

When the senate reconvenes at 1 pm on Monday the first order of business will be to vote for cloture on HR 800... an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act. The purpose behind this amendment is to make union organizing easier, make it easier for labor unions to accuse an employer of using unfair labor tactics and to provide for emergency injunctions against employers accused of unfair labor practices.

It also includes a provision for "open voting" when organizing unions at workplaces. This means employees' votes are cast in the open, running against the American doctrine of closed ballots to protect people from reprisals. Employees who vote to organize unions are protected under existing federal law, but reprisals from co-workers for failing to vote for unions are not.
Everyone knows this so when unions hold open voting the union wins about 80% of the time.
This is designer legislation determined to give the faltering labor unions a last gasp as working.

Currently labor unions represent just over 12,000,000 employees, most of them government employees. They need to expand their base since most union jobs have vanished. Of course there is no coincidence that union jobs disappear, the modern labor union chokes the life out of business. Again, going against American tradition, it rewards longevity instead of initiative.
Just as businesses should not be over-regulated and we should have a free and open economy, labor unions do not need any assistance getting members. We have empirical data that labor unions choke the life out of American industry. If labor wants to organize they will, but forcing an open vote where employees will be under pressure to vote for the union is intimidation. That the government would allow the practice is shocking, that they would legislate top make it legal is stupefying.

Write to your Senators this weekend to vote for no cloture on HR 800... we want open debate on the measure, not back room designer legislation politics.

(To make matters worse the Senate voted Friday to waive the mandatory quorum rules for this measure.)

And right after HR 800 the senate moves for a cloture vote S 1639... the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. Remind your senators this weekend to vote no cloture for that as well.

The debate is not over, the American people have spoken against it, make the Senate do their duty as the representatives of the people.

FIND YOUR SENATORS HERE

Call, fax, or email... do something to stop it so you won't have to complain about it later!!!

ADDED: correction, after rereading the daily record the cloture votes are tentatively scheduled for Tuesday am. But they voted to hold the HR 800 cloture vote without a quorum, clearing it for Monday which means S1639 could possibly be heard on Monday. It doesn't matter if it is Monday or Tuesday... call, fax, or email your Senators before it is too late.

The Senate Fails Again

(originally posted June 21, 2007)

The Senate passed HR6, the Clean Energy Act. Being good intentioned, but ill informed, the Senate made sure that lots of attention was given to ethanol.

Bills such as this often contain lots of proposed legislation that is closely related to the title of the bill, some that is distantly related to the topic at hand, and some that draws no correllation.

But ethanol is NOT clean energy, it is a tool for energy independence.
Ethanol from corn... the Senate's pet project... takes more energy to create than it yields, with the added penalty of increasing almost all food products. And that harms not only the US, but all of the countries that import our corn for livestock feed. The distilling process creates a vast quantity of CO2 and the tailpipe emissions aggravate athsma symptoms and cause other respiratory problems. Since Brazil has been so reliant upon ethanol there is little need for environmental impact studies, the effects are well documented.

Building nuclear power plants is a better tools for clean energy AND energy independence. Once we shutter coal fired power plants we can invest in coal cracking plants that extract fuel from coal, same with the oil impreganted shale. Those two sources of petroleum, on top of our reserves would reduce our imported of oil dramatically. Yes nuke plants create waste, a moderate amount annually, appromimately 1/2 ton, or two 55 gallons barrels. The waste can be processed, but right now the number of plants in operatoin make processing the waste unfeasible considering the cost of the plant, build more nukes and the costs come in line.

There is another factor for energy independence that is always ignored... recycling. Almost all plastic gathered for recycling is sent either to landfills (bet your local DPW never told you that) or to Asia. While the petroleum cannot be (feasably) extracted from the plastic, the plastic can be ground and reused in most cases. Right now the vast majority of our recycling goes to China. There it is made into new items for much less than the cost of virgin resin. An enormous level of our imported oil goes into the plastics sector.

The Senate had the oportunity to listen to the experts and come up with a comprehensive bill that focused on Clean a Energy AND Energy Independence. Instead they chose to listen to the lobbyists and are mislabeling ethanol as a clean energy source. This win for the lobbyists will have huge negative economic impacts that will effect everyone.