Egad, here he goes again with the videos. Well, just one this time.
Ezra Levant is Canadian, but he is right on in this video. Obama, like the previous worst president in American history, Jimmy Carter has proven that he prefers thugs and dictators over democracies and the American people. We, the American people, have been thrown under the bus.
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of idiots such as those who made him their president.” — This quote was translated into English from an article appearing in the Czech Republic as published in the Prager Zeitung of 28 April 2011.
So when does the United States get its balls back? And I ask that after being a good little citizen and not making a fuss when I wasn't allowed to accompany my 17 year old daughter into the airport. She'll be out of the country for a month, and I wanted to see her off. She's too old to be a minor, so I was out of luck. As I was walking out of the airport, I had the same thoughts that I'm sure millions of others have had - why? Why are we pandering to Islam like we weren't the most powerful nation the world has ever seen? Why are we expected to feel so guilty at being the recipients of generations of people who have, over the past two centuries created a society that has become the envy of the world so much so, that rather than try to emulate it and create wealth and plenty for all, these barbarian thugs work day and night to destroy it? And there are Americans who agree that we must tear it all down so that we can live as miserably as the poorest wretch in the in the most corrupt dictatorship we can imagine. What the hell happened to us?
Even those who don't want it torn down, still bow to the insanity of political correctness. What do we know about Islam and terrorism that we aren't allowed to say in public? And why aren't we allowed to say it? Oh yeah. We might humiliate the followers for the Religion of They're Not All Terrorists. So what?
Instead of admitting the well-documented, historically accurate, hysterically ignored connection, our government spends millions of dollars to create an airport security system specifically designed to humiliate the traveler. And they do it while apologizing to Muslims when one gets caught trying to game that system, by making it even more uncomfortable for the rest of us. Metal detectors? Sure. Take off your shoes? Of course. Only tiny amounts of liquids? You bet. Full body grope? Well . . . uh . . . I mean - Oh OK, it's for my own safety. I don't know much about Islamic humor (whether or not it's even allowed), but the imams and other Islamic authorities must laugh at us whenever they see an news article or an Internet photo of a young child groped, or a woman in a wheel chair being forced to remove her adult undergarment. Because, as we are repeatedly admonished, it's wrong to profile.
No it isn't. We force ourselves into this idiotic, suicidal situation for the express purpose of not humiliating the followers of Mohammed - who want us to abandon our freedoms and live under "enlightened" Sharia law. We could adopt the methods used by the Israelis at their airports. But that too would humiliate Muslims, wouldn't it? We wouldn't want that to happen. That would be Islamophobic.
But that's not the only problem. How many of us are buying appliances and cars dictated and designed by the environmental movement? Our children are being scared into believing that if they don't reduce their and our standard of living, the Earth will soon become uninhabitable and all the cute, cuddly animals (like polar bears) in the world will curl up and die. Politics of fear anyone?
And what happens when it does get hot outside? Take a day like today for instance? We get warnings. We have an ozone action day. We are advised how to dress and how to act while we're outside. Conversely, when the temperature dips low in the winter, we have cold advisories.
When I was growing up, there were these beings known as mothers who made sure that we were dressed properly for the weather before they threw us out of the house to play. When it was hot, we wore shorts. We played in the pool. When there was no pool, we played in the sprinkler. When we got hot and the sweat was poring down our faces from playing baseball, or football, or riding our bikes, or just chasing each other up and down the street, we drank out of the hose or we went in for a drink. Then we were kicked back outside. In the winter, wearing jackets, gloves, long johns, and boots, even though it was cold to the touch, we played with the snow. Can you believe it? We made snow men. We made snowballs and threw them at each other. And we did many other dangerous things out in the heat and the cold. Somehow, between our mothers and us, we figured out that if we're sweating, it's hot, and if our nose hairs are stiffening up when we breath, it's cold.
I'm going to end this post on a positive note. Somebody sent me the following video as an email. There are some Americans who still have balls, but we need to work together in order to reinvigorate our nation. We need to walk proudly with the understanding that not everyone is going to like us, especially if they are citizens of the 57 states - holy Obama, Batman - I mean of the 57 countries of the OIC. The only thing they deserve from us is a one finger salute. Hold all foreign aid, stop infiltration - I mean immigration - no I was right with infiltration, from any and all of these nations.
It's time to dump the Democrats. They are killing us slowly, but they will be the death of our nation.
Every year over Labor Day Weekend we go camping with a group of families from our synagogue. And every year I take a nature walk with my daughter and her camera. This year my wife came with us. My son, who always had better things to do, has, like many other of the children who used to come with us, aged out of camping. Once they hit college, they've got better things to do. In his case, it was work. That's good. He needs to work. The three of us did have a nice walk though, and my daughter got a few good photos.
I took another walk by myself. It was on another trail. This one butts up to a swamp at one point, or is it a bog? Or a wetland? I'm not sure. But there are frogs, turtles, dragonflies and other critters. It's full of lily pads for the critters to frolic around on, and under, and around, and it's not very big. The trail actually goes around the whole thing and is maybe a half mile long. There is only one point where you don't have to walk very far to get close enough to the swamp to get your feet wet. My daughter and I always stop at this edge and try to catch a look or two at the swamp inhabitants, but usually all we catch are the remains of the splash as they dart away from us. But we do tend to talk as we walk, and we are also usually swatting at mosquitoes. You would think the dragonflies would take care of that problem, but they don't. Sheer laziness, I tell you.
We had a cool Labor Day weekend in Michigan this year, so I was able to stand at swamp's edge and just watch without being bothered by little bloodsuckers. The first thing that happens whenever we walk up to the swamp is that we hear splashes of creatures swimming away. And then we try to catch glimpses of them as they swim about.
They splashed away as always, but as I stood without moving, they slowly returned to their normal activities. There were turtles swimming around, carefully and in a zig-zag pattern, making their way back to the shore. Some of them were even climbing back out of the water to sun themselves on logs. One tried a few times and kept falling off a stick that was too thin to balance on. I was being watched though. I shifted into a Gary Paulsen mode, trying to become part of the landscape so that the animals would ignore me enough so that I could watch them. A muskrat swam pretty close to me but took off when it realized that I was a big dangerous person. Frogs went back to their habit of just sitting there waiting for food to fly by. And I stood still, only moving my eyes for about a half hour.
It was fascinating being able to watch things that had been hidden from me before. I imagine that our ancestors who had to hunt for their food needed this type of patience every day in order to be able to eat. Animals who serve as prey are always on the lookout for predators or anything that shouldn't be there and might be dangerous, like the guy standing there in jeans, sweatshirt, and baseball cap. One never knows.
My main concern was somebody coming down the path and ruining my "nature time". It didn't happen, but finally I had to move. As soon as I did, all of the turtles and frogs that has worked their way close to shore dove underwater and scattered.
It was over. I went back to the campsite to read and chat with the other people we camp with every year. I'll do it again next year. Maybe my daughter will be patient enough to stand there with me.
I know making assumptions is one of those practices that can make one look foolish, but I'm going to assume that the following letter from Thursday's Detroit Free Press is from someone who proudly refers to herself as an environmentalist.
I'm an old woman who strives to lessen the impact of my carbon footprint so my grandchildren and their children can flourish on a healthy Earth. I have little patience for those who whine about looking at a sunset through the wings of a windmill that's a mile or more distant.
I have seen the windmills in Pennsylvania and think they look majestic. They have an aura of power with grace. The concern that waterfront properties would drop in value is nonsense. People will always want waterfront property, and those who can afford it will buy it.
Michigan has nearly 1,000 miles of shoreline where clean wind energy is available. Why is it taking us so long to take advantage of this?
That windmills may be a danger to migratory birds is a concern, but birds will learn the dangers of flying near windmills and avoid them. Your recent article focused only on opposition to wind power ("Will Canada's wind turbine's invade lakes?" Feb. 26). Your coverage should be more balanced.
Earth will survive no matter what we do. What's at stake is the planet's ability to support human life.
I have no problem with a person thinking that windmills look majestic even though I think they are as attractive as a barbed wire fence. I don't care that she thinks property values won't go down. Maybe they won't if the entire Lake Michigan coastline is filled with them and there is no way to escape them if one wants property on Lake Michigan.
But, "birds will learn the dangers . . . and avoid them"? Under that line of reasoning, we no longer need the Endangered Species Act. If migratory birds can learn to avoid windmills, surely other animals can learn to avoid the human caused dangers that affect them. Whales can learn to dodge harpoons. Wolves can learn to avoid hunters and traps. Spotted owls can learn to nest in other trees. Migratory sea turtles can learn to lay their eggs on beaches that don't attract tourists.
In fact, rather than protect any animal species, can't we find animal trainers who will teach them to alter their behavior so that they aren't affected by human activities? I suggest this as the new mission of PETA, Greenpeace, and all of those other "save the earth" groups. Teach the animals new modes of behavior so that they on longer need protection.
And then start building nuclear power plants and allow drilling for oil in the United States. Windmills are still a bad idea.
It seems that some people don't want wind turbines in their backyard, or in the waters by their homes. According to this article,
A proposal to construct a massive wind turbine farm, capable of producing 1,000 megawatts of power, over 100 square miles of Lake Michigan, a few miles offshore from Pentwater and Ludington, has many residents howling.
At a meeting in Ludington last week, residents gasped and jaws dropped when developers unveiled drawings showing 100 building-size turbines spinning within sight of Lake Michigan beaches.
"Would anyone put these in the Grand Canyon? This is our Grand Canyon, our beautiful spot," said Pentwater resident Mary Stiphany, adding that the hulking turbines would obstruct views and hurt tourism. "It would be such an eyesore."
The response is an indication that making the dream of alternative energy real in a spot as treasured as the Great Lakes may be harder than imagined. The plan also raises questions that have yet to be answered about offshore wind power in Michigan, such as where turbines belong, how leases would work and who would issue permits.
Satellite data show that some of the strongest winds in the country are offshore, including winds over the Great Lakes.
Personally, I wouldn't want all of those wind turbines in my neighborhood either. They're noisy and ugly and they take up a lot of room. Has anybody ever bothered doing an Environmental Impact Statement on these monsters? Way back many years ago in my college days, working for a local suburb, I had to go out and gather data on a city project to extend a sidewalk, so that an environmental impact statement could be prepared. But this 100 square mile, bird-killing eyesore gets a pass? Apparently we now ask no questions of the apparently green.
While I wouldn't want wind turbines in my backyard, I could easily coexist with a nuclear power plant. They take up much less room to put out the same amount of energy. They're much less of a blot on the landscape. They're much quieter. They don't kill birds. They don't put out any of that nasty carbon dioxide stuff, which by government decree has become a pollutant. And according to Yahoo Answers,
By comparison, the Fermi nuclear power plant near Monroe, Michigan sits on a site of about 2 square miles and produces 1,150 megawatts of electricity 24 hours a day for 18 months straight.
They reliably produce the energy we need to run a modern society. Yes, they produce waste. There will always be some kind of waste or downside to any method of energy production. I can't help thinking though, that most of the growing monetary cost to nuclear energy production and waste disposal is due more to political considerations rather than actual cost. Those brilliant scientific minds who have half of the population of the Earth afraid of climate change caused by that new pollutant, carbon dioxide, have also created a climate of fear when it comes to nuclear energy. If there is any scientific validity to that fear, I'd like to see it so that I too, can be among the enlightened.
When it comes to solar power,
At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solar panels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles.
The New York Times reports on Sen. Dianne Feinstein's latest effort to spur block the development of clean, renewable energy facilities:
Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region.
But before the bill to create two new Mojave national monuments has even had its first hearing, the California Democrat has largely achieved her aim. Regardless of the legislation’s fate, her opposition means that few if any power plants are likely to be built in the monument area, a complication in California’s effort to achieve its aggressive goals for renewable energy.
So where is the energy to power our country supposed to come from? Maybe The Professor has the answer. Washington and the greenies sure don't.
I first read this article in the Detroit Free Press. It annoyed me at its simplistic and biased premise. Then it showed up on Little Green Footballs. And it bothered me more. I'm not going to jump on the "let's trash LGF" bandwagon, but for somebody who seems to pride himself on getting all of the information before entering into a fray, this post seems more of a knee jerk by Charles Johnson.
At age 45, after giving birth to 13 children in her village of thatch roofs and bare feet, Beatrice Adongo made a discovery that startled her: birth control.
"I delivered all these children because I didn't know there was another way," said Adongo, who started on a free quarterly contraceptive injection last year. Surrounded by her weary-faced brood, her 21-month-old boy clutching at her faded blue dress, she added glumly: "I fear we are already too many in this family."
On a continent where fewer than one in five married women use modern contraception, an explosion of unplanned pregnancies is threatening to bury Adongo's family and a generation of Africans under a mountain of poverty.
Promoting birth control in Africa faces a host of obstacles — patriarchal customs, religious taboos, ill-equipped public health systems — but experts also blame a powerful, more distant force: the U.S. government.
Under President George W. Bush , the United States withdrew from its decades-long role as a global leader in supporting family planning, driven by a conservative ideology that favored abstinence and shied away from providing contraceptive devices in developing countries, even to married women.
As I recall from just being alive for the past 50 or so years, Uganda has had other problems that have been much larger than a lack of contraception. Remember Idi Amin?
Idi Amin Dada, who became known as the 'Butcher of Uganda' for his brutal, despotic rule whilst president of Uganda in the 1970s, is possibly the most notorious of all Africa's post-independence dictators. Amin seized power in a military coup in 1971 and ruled over Uganda for 8 years. Estimates for the number of his opponents who were either killed, tortured, or imprisoned vary from 100,000 to half a million. He was ousted in 1979 by Ugandan nationalists, after which he fled into exile.
That's got to slow down a society's rise no matter how many children women are having. They got rid of him, but as always on the African continent, more troubles followed. Today, Uganda faces The Lord's Resistance Army, as twisted a group of primitive barbarian thugs as I've ever read about.
The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) , led by Joseph Kony, operated in the north from bases in southern Sudan. The LRA committed numerous abuses and atrocities, including the abduction, rape, maiming, and killing of civilians, including children. In addition to destabilising northern Uganda from bases in Sudan, the LRA congregated in the Bunia area in eastern Congo. They linked up with the Army for the Liberation of Rwanda (ALIR) and other rebel groups battling with forces from the Rally for Congolese Democracy (RCD)
Then there is the AIDS problem and the lack of tourism. Frankly, I'd want to know that I'd be safe from marauding bands of the LRA before I went to visit Uganda. And increased access to contraception will to what to slow down the spread of AIDS? Does the spread of AIDS have any effect on the economy? I'm guessing "yes."
To believe that poverty in Uganda is being caused by lack of birth control is naive. To present it as a news story in order to promote a "green" agenda and take another whack at the Bush Administration is dishonest. Treating the Ugandan population as pawns in this green Bush trashing article is criminal. How does this help Uganda rise out of poverty? It doesn't. In order to raise their standard of living, Ugandans would have to increase their "carbon footprint", and among Greenies that is a mortal sin. Better they should remain poor but have fewer children. That means fewer tiny poverty stricken carbon emitters, and the Greenies can pat themselves on the back for reducing the number of Ugandan poor.
As a final question, once contraception is available to Ugandan women, what will the excuse for Ugandan poverty be in a generation when women only have a child or two? Or will the greenies even care any more?
Let's see. In a few years we won't be allowed to use incandescent light bulbs. If we don't have health insurance we can face fines and possible jail time. We shouldn't use oil from Islamic nations, but we aren't allowed to drill our own or build nuclear power plants to power the future battery powered automobiles, which I'm sure we will be "encouraged" to buy in order to "save the planet." Muslims who promote and engage in Jihad are the victims and the people that they murder are - um - are - the oppressors? And that's not just in Israel any more. Local Detroit papers went on for days with articles about how the local Muslim community was afraid of that backlash that we've been warned about since September 12, 2001, you know, due to the latest unfortunate incident where a Muslim is stricken with Sudden Jihad Syndrome, this time at Ft. Hood, where a Muslim major went on a short shooting spree that had nothing to do with the fact that he's Muslim - and well, I'm sure everyone has read about all of those politically incorrect red flags that were ignored, since had anyone in authority taken action, they would have been roundly attacked by CAIR and their fellow traveling diversity mongers. And yes, many fellow citizens have allowed themselves to be convinced that this had nothing to do with Islam.
And then there's this piece by Mark Steyn about how we're poised to loose even more of our formerly Constitutionally protected, but granted by our Creator, rights.
I’m always appreciative when a fellow says what he really means. Tim Flannery, the jet-setting doomsaying global warm-monger from down under, was in Ottawa the other day promoting his latest eco-tract, and offered a few thoughts on “Copenhagen”—which is transnational-speak for December’s UN Convention on Climate Change. “We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen,” remarked professor Flannery. “We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will influence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.”
Hold that thought: “They deal with every aspect of our life.” Did you know every aspect of your life was being negotiated at Copenhagen? But in a good way! So no need to worry. After all, we all care about the environment, don’t we? So we ought to do something about it, right? And, since “the environment” isn’t just in your town or county but spreads across the entire planet, we can only really do something at the planetary level. But what to do? According to paragraph 38 on page 18 of the latest negotiating text, the convention will set up a “government” to manage the “new funds” and the “related facilitative processes.”
The whole thing is worth reading because one, it's by Mark Steyn, and two, we need to pay attention to what these "selfless" environmentalists have in store for the rest of us.
As our rights are slowly eaten away, it appears that it is with the blessings of a large portion of our fellow American citizens. Of the 53% of the voters who elected our current president, there are many who did not know his real agenda. Some of them foolishly depended on the Obama-loving, Bush-hating MSM for their information. Others were just stupid. But a lot of folks agree wholeheartedly with the Obama agenda. For example, there was this letter in today's Detroit Free Press.
Thanks for the comprehensive coverage of Michigan tax needs and present income statistics.
You report, "The top 5% of households in Michigan now have as much or more income than the bottom half." Anyone who reads this and does not support a graduated income tax either didn't graduate from the 7th grade, or did graduate from Harvard Business School and is now one of the millionaires or billionaires protecting their incomes in that 5% bracket.
It's not hard to guess who is fighting the graduated income tax movement, and who is funding it.
Most of your readers are too young to remember the days when our country and leaders believed in a sane and fair distribution of wealth in this country.
In the '50s, we had an excess profits tax where companies had to pay their excess profits in taxes or give the money to their employees in bonuses. Blue-collar workers received healthy bonuses every quarter at the company where I worked.
Excess profits? How much is excess? And what will this writer say when some bureaucrat decides that he has to part with more of his excess income? I bet this is a person who decries "obscene" profits too . . . as opposed to merely erotic profits, or "artistic" or . . . you get the idea. Too many people today find freedom an irksome burden and are looking for scapegoats for their problems. Obama and the Democratic Congress are helping out with lists of the most popular, you know, Fox News, Big Pharma, Wall Street, the Insurance Industry.
But remember - Obama and his cronies, and environmentalists, and the diversity lobby, and the Islamic community have your best interests at heart. They know what's better for you much better than you do. After all, they're intellectuals.
When Critical Thinking Skills are Allowed to Evaporate
The Detroit Free Press no longer questions the government. Now that The Obama is firmly ensconced in the White House with family and dog, any pronouncements that come from Washington D.C. contain nothing but the truth, even when he tries to rule by royal fiat. Regarding the new auto emissions mandate from the Obama administration for example,
But the sweeping deal announced Tuesday on auto emission and mileage standards does indeed appear to be good for just about everybody -- assuming the vehicles it spawns are appealing to consumers.
OK, so there is one caveat. However,
The requirements will add an estimated $1,300 to the cost of vehicles, but the government says that will be offset by savings in gasoline.
The government says? Wasn't it the job of newspapers, once long ago in the fading mists of time, to question what the government says? Especially now that they are telling the auto companies how to make cars and will soon be telling the consumer what to buy? Can I see the congressional engineering degrees? Can I see the grease under Obama's fingernails from endless hours working on the engine of his SUV? Or was it removed during his last manicure?
The upside for the nation is cleaner air, which could lead to lower health care costs, and less dependence on oil. At a time when this country is using 20 million barrels of oil a day, Obama said that the plan will yield a savings of 1.8 billion barrels by 2016, or about what America imported last year from Saudi Arabia, Libya, Venezuela and Nigeria combined.
Get that? Obama said. Yes, that Obama. And he says . . . so it must be true! It's Obama. If Obama mandates that all cars and trucks in the U.S. run on unicorn farts by 2017, the Free Press would fawn over that too. And this is a Detroit paper. Detroit and automobiles used to go together like lox and bagels. Now the auto industry has been replaced in the hearts of Free Press editors, by their one true love, Obama.
Meanwhile, there are places where clear and critical thinking is still the order of the day, where the official word of the government, even if it is the Obama government, is questioned. The editors at National Review Online understand what is passing over the heads of the sycophantic idiots at the Free Press.
Obama’s hard sell — “This is a winning proposition for folks looking to buy a car” — is premised on some sketchy math. For one thing, experts outside the administration say the added per-vehicle cost could go as high as $8,000. You can’t save money getting more miles to the gallon if you can’t afford the car in the first place. For another, those estimated savings are based on the administration’s ability to predict gas prices seven to ten years into the future. If gas is still as cheap as it is now, savings on better mileage could be minimal.
Even if gas prices go up, the savings Obama predicts might not materialize. Cars that are more fuel efficient are cheaper to drive, increasing the likelihood that people will drive more. That wouldn’t just offset the savings — it would also offset promised reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions and oil imports, to say nothing of adding to congestion.
There's more of course, but it's based on facts that the Free Press is willing to ignore in deference to the one they will not question.
And if Obama and his environmentalist pals had their way, this is what we'd all be driving.
Enjoy these Earth Day predictions from the first Earth Day in 1970. You'll howl with laughter. You'll cry out in derision at the fools of today who are old enough to remember these dire predictions, but who still believe the newest phony predictions. You'll wonder why these pious frauds, who have lost their critical thinking skills, pass these insane, paralyzing fears on to their offspring. I'm going to add this link to my sidebar. It's too good to forget. Thanks to American Digest for linking to it.
Somebody screwed up at the Detroit Free Press today. They ran an editorial on energy that made sense. It wasn't by one their own. Rather it's by Russ Harding, former director of the Department of Environmental Quality, and who is now director of the Property Rights Initiative at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland Michigan. Here's the whole thing.
By means of an executive directive, Gov. Jennifer Granholm made good on her State of the State promise to restrict new coal-fired power plants. The negative effects on Michigan's energy future were not long in coming -- the next day the Bay City Times reported that five pending power plant projects have been put on hold. Before more damage is done, the governor should rescind this directive, or the Legislature should prohibit such a moratorium.
The governor's directive instructs the Department of Environmental Quality to halt environmental permits for new coal plants unless it determines that "a reasonable electricity generation need exists" and that there is no "feasible and prudent alternative."
I was director of the DEQ for nearly eight years and can testify that the agency is ill-equipped to consider factors other than environmental ones. Requiring the DEQ to make critical decisions about Michigan's future energy mix is a recipe for stagnation or worse.
Those decisions should be left to the private sector, with environmental regulators limited to enforcing clean air and water standards on whatever type of plant is built. If there is any greater role for the state, it should be performed by the Public Service Commission.
Beyond that, politicians should be honest about energy realities. According to the PSC, coal generated 68.9% of the electricity consumed in the state in 2007, followed by nuclear at 23.3%. Renewable fuels provided l% percent of our energy needs -- with wind comprising just 0.05%.
The notion that alternative sources can provide more than a fraction of the energy required by a modern industrial economy is nonsense. Honest environmentalists admit that their real agenda is to radically scale back the size of our economy, lowering our standard of living.
Politicians enacting policies that bring this about either support that agenda, are ignorant of the realities, or are taking political benefits today while calculating they will be long gone before the bitter consequences hit home. That applies to the virtual moratorium on new coal plants and legislation passed last year mandating that 10% of Michigan's electricity come from renewable energy by 2015.
Meeting that mandate is impossible without a major scaling back of our economy. Wind energy is unreliable and must be backed up with other sources, usually natural gas-fired power plants. These plants are expensive to operate, and energy from them will consume a larger share of the discretionary income of Michigan families and businesses. And you don't have to be an expert to know that Michigan's solar energy potential is limited.
Last year, Granholm boasted that Sweden had created hundreds of thousands of renewable energy jobs (although she hasn't been able to support these claims). It's ironic that Sweden just announced that it is lifting a moratorium on building new nuclear power plants, rather than gradually closing down existing ones, as previously planned.
Sweden learned that it can't meet its people's power needs through wind and other renewable energy sources. We can only hope that policymakers here stop pretending that Michigan can, because without coal, the last person leaving Michigan won't have lights to turn off.
Environmental scaremongers, like the fellow from the Sierra Club who made the mistake of knocking on my door earlier this evening, will, I'm sure, offer arguments against Mr. Harding.
They need to read this article from City Journal on California's energy problems.
In truth, however, the Golden State’s energy leadership is a mirage. California’s environmental policies have made it heavily dependent on other states for power; generated some of the highest, business-crippling energy costs in the country; and left it vulnerable to periodic electricity shortages. Its economic growth has occurred not because of, but despite, those policies, which would be disastrous if extended to the rest of the country.
and
A dirty secret about California’s energy economy is that it imports lots of energy from neighboring states to make up for the shortfall caused by having too few power plants. Up to 20 percent of the state’s power comes from coal-burning plants in Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, and Montana, and another significant portion comes from large-scale hydropower in Oregon, Washington State, and the Hoover Dam near Las Vegas. “California practices a sort of energy colonialism,” says James Lucier of Capital Alpha Partners, a Washington, D.C.–area investment group. “They rely on western states to supply them with power generation they are unwilling to build for themselves”—and leave those states to deal with the resulting pollution.
Another secret: California’s proud claim to have kept per-capita energy consumption flat while growing its economy is less impressive than it seems. The state has some of the highest energy prices in the country—nearly twice the national average, a 2002 Milken Institute study found—largely because of regulations and government mandates to use expensive renewable sources of power. As a result, heavy manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries have been fleeing the Golden State in droves for lower-cost locales. Twenty years ago or so, you could count eight automobile factories in California; today, there’s just one, and it’s the same story with other industries, from chemicals to aerospace. Yet Californians still enjoy the fruits of those manufacturing industries—driving cars built in the Midwest and the South, importing chemicals and resins and paints and plastics produced elsewhere, and flying on jumbo jets manufactured in places like Everett, Washington. California can pretend to have controlled energy consumption, but it has just displaced it.
It's a bit lengthy, but it's well worth reading to see what the fate of every state in the U.S. could be if we were to follow California's "enlightened" approach to generating electricity, something Governor Granholm of Michigan seems intent on doing, even though we, in Michigan, are in quite enough trouble already.
Yes, you too can sock it to those nasty capitalist oil companies and those evil speculators when you buy the greenest car on the market. It's the only Al Gore approved auto there is. John Travolta, Sting, John Edwards, and Arianna Huffington all have one parked in their garage between their SUVs and their private jets. So, just like you did when you attended the Live Earth Concert, help save the Earth and buy one today! In fact this car is so fuel efficient, so green, so unique, it had to be given a name that sets it apart from other mere automobiles.
It's called the Yabadabadomobile, and if you are as serious about the environment as you claim to be, you will buy one as soon as you return from the Rothbury Festival. You will be the greenest person on your block, and all of your friends will be green with envy.
The standard Yabadabadomobile is shown above. Check out the option packages at your local dealer.
Environmental doomsayers have been predicting . . . uh . . . doom . . . for the past 40 years. I remember in elementary and junior high school, way back in the 1960s, reading and hearing all of the rabid, fear inducing pronouncements on the end of civilization, the end of the human race, the end of all life on Earth, the end of the Earth. And yet, here in the future, in the 21st century, for heaven's sake, the human population of the Earth has doubled. That can only mean that the Earth, civilization, and humanity are still here.
The doomsayers are still crying out with their message of death, doom, and destruction. This time, THIS TIME, they insist, as they've been warning us all along, we really are doomed. Or are we?
Back in the 1968, Paul Ehrlich's predictions of doom and gloom in his book, The Population Bomb never came to pass. Did he recant his obviously mistaken thesis? No, that mode of thought where you admit your mistakes when they are proven wrong, is passe in some circles. Instead, he restated the same thing in a later book, The Population Explosion, which may have come out in 1991. He also had an article in The Atlantic back in 1997, saying much of the same stuff that he claimed in his books. Michael Fumento fisks that article and Mr. Ehrlich here.
Ehrlich, a butterfly specialist, began his spectacular doomsaying career back in 1968 with his best-selling book "The Population Bomb." Among his predictions then and since:
* "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death." (1968) * "Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969) * "I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." (1969) * "Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." (1976)
It's not only Paul Ehrlich though. There are websites devoted to predicting the same unfounded Malthusian garbage that Ehrlich has made a career out of. At Culture Change, we are warned that,
The ecosystem's capacity for humans has been exceeded by a factor of ten, according to the logic of Overshoot by William Catton: the amount of stored energy from the sun (including fossil fuels) humans use is the equivalent of ten earths' intake of usable solar energy for photosynthesis.
If one tenth of today's population is what thereby could survive sustainably, that would have to be in a healthy ecosystem. But when the ecosystem has been poisoned, trashed and depleted—e.g., millions of tons of topsoil are lost daily due to modern agricultural practices—then the survival rate would only be perhaps one tenth of the one tenth! Intrinsic is the role of petroleum, which is going to "be history" early this century.
World population growth has slowed down a little in recent years, like a runaway train dropping down to 90 miles per hour from 100 miles per hour. Unfortunately, the world's biggest polluter, the U.S., has a hidden policy for population growth through massive and mostly legal immigration. The U.S. is headed for over 300,000,000 people before 2010. No other industrial nation is growing in population, besides the UK. Perhaps the estimate of 1/3 the world's present waste being generated by the U.S. is too low by now.
And wouldn't you know it, they're fans of Paul Ehrlich. They recommend his latest book on the dangers of overpopulation, written with Anne Ehrlich, One With Nineveh. This guy never gives up. But why should he, when he's got an audience that will lap up every incorrect claim with the same view that even though the reality is the exact opposite of his Ehrlich's predictions, if we just wait long enough-.
On the other hand, along with the afore mentioned Michael Fumento, we have Walter Williams. And Williams says,
For most of mankind's existence, he has been self-sufficient and spent most of his time simply eking out a living. In pre-industrial societies, and in some places today, the most optimistic scenario for the ordinary person was to be able to eke out enough to meet his physical needs for another day. With the rise of industrialization and development of markets, and the concomitant rise in human productivity that yielded seemingly ceaseless economic progress, it was no longer necessary for mankind to spend his entire day to meet his physical needs. People became able to satisfy these needs with less and less time. This made it possible for more people to have the time to read, become educated in the sciences and liberal arts, gain more knowledge and become more productive. The resulting wealth also enabled them the opportunity to develop spiritually and culturally through attending the arts and participate in other life activities that were formerly within the purview of the rich.
Contrary to the myths we hear about how overpopulation causes poverty, poor health, unemployment, malnutrition and overcrowding, human beings are the most valuable resource and the more of them the better. There is absolutely no relationship between high populations and economic despair.
His message is the exact opposite of Ehrlich, Gore, and the other environmental snake oil salesmen. So which one is right?
Look around you. Compare what humanity has now to what it had 40, or 100, or 1000 years ago, and you can only conclude (if you're being honest and apolitical) that Williams is correct. So why do so many people still accept what Ehrlich says? I don't know, but I have to assume that it has a lot to do with the kind of thinking that still accepts Communism as a viable economic system even though it has a perfect 100% record of failure, the same people that still believe that children don't need explicit phonics instruction in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
So I will keep hounding my elected representatives to let oil companies drill in ANWR and on the continental shelf, keep taxes low, and stay out of people's business, because, as Walter Williams says,
The greatest threat to mankind's prosperity is government. A recent example is Zimbabwe's increasing misery. Like our country, Zimbabwe had a flourishing agriculture sector, so much so it was called the breadbasket of southern Africa. Today, its people are on the brink of starvation as a result of its government. It's the same story in many countries — government interference with mankind's natural tendency to engage in wealth-producing activities. Blaming poverty on overpopulation not only lets governments off the hook; it encourages the enactment of harmful policies.
UPDATE: I forgot to include this George Carlin video. While I don't agree with all of what he says (But I do agree with a lot on this one), I completely respect his delight in getting as many people angry with him as he can. I found it at American Digest. This is George Carlin, so there is a LANGUAGE WARNING.
A rare voice of sanity intrudes on the Detroit Free Press' editorial page. With all of the focus on the renewable energy sources, we tend to forget that, at least for now, whether we like it or not, the world's economy runs on oil . . . black gold . . . Texas tea. I'm sure the Free Press has been receiving furious emails throughout the day for having the audacity to run a column that calls for using the oil we can get to, but they did run it. The Free Press does run contrary opinions occasionally. This is one of them.
At a time when saying anything good about fossil fuels is like declaring war on the environment, it may seem like wishful thinking to press for an expansion of U.S. oil refining capacity.
Yet it is precisely this sort of thinking that is necessary if we are to make use of a vast, secure and reliable supply of fuel from Canada's oil sands.
The tar sands hold an estimated 174 billion barrels of crude oil, making Canada's oil sands deposits second only to Saudi Arabia in global reserves. The United States currently obtains a million barrels of oil a day from Canada's tar sands. With planned investments, the daily supply could exceed 3 million barrels by 2015.
But extracting heavy oil from tar sands and transporting it by pipeline for refining is a difficult and costly process. Producers are developing new drilling techniques to reduce the large volumes of natural gas and water needed to separate the oil from sand. And the oil companies, which have pledged to reduce greenhouse emissions in their operations, are making the needed investments to meet environmental regulations.
But then there are the environmentalists who want to hold our economy hostage.
Although President George W. Bush has publicly welcomed production of Canadian tar sands oil, Congress last year passed legislation that prohibits the government from using alternative fuels that have a larger carbon footprint than conventional oil.
As a result, the U.S. Defense Department is unable to use jet fuel made from tar sands oil even though greenhouse gas emissions per barrel of tar sands oil have fallen 32% since 1990.
Now California is moving to disallow the use of tar sands oil under a recently approved low-carbon fuels standard sought by environmental groups, and Illinois is among a dozen states also considering such a standard. Environment Illinois has vowed to challenge any refinery expansion or modification permits that would facilitate greater use of tar sands oil, and has asked the Great Lakes state governors to impose such a ban.
It's time to create a grass root fight to free our economy from the dictatorial restraints of the environmental lobby.
When even the New York Times runs a negative article on ethanol, you know that people are starting to discover the scam.
MOUNDVILLE, Ala. — After residents of the Riverbend Farms subdivision noticed that an oily, fetid substance had begun fouling the Black Warrior River, which runs through their backyards, Mark Storey, a retired petroleum plant worker, hopped into his boat to follow it upstream to its source.
Nelson Brooke, the executive director of Black Warrior Riverkeeper, walked along an area of the river near Moundville, Ala.
Oil and grease from a biodiesel plant had been released.
It turned out to be an old chemical factory that had been converted into Alabama’s first biodiesel plant, a refinery that intended to turn soybean oil into earth-friendly fuel.
“I’m all for the plant,” Mr. Storey said. “But I was really amazed that a plant like that would produce anything that could get into the river without taking the necessary precautions.”
But the oily sheen on the water returned again and again, and a laboratory analysis of a sample taken in March 2007 revealed that the ribbon of oil and grease being released by the plant — it resembled Italian salad dressing — was 450 times higher than permit levels typically allow, and that it had drifted at least two miles downstream.
The spills, at the Alabama Biodiesel Corporation plant outside this city about 17 miles from Tuscaloosa, are similar to others that have come from biofuel plants in the Midwest. The discharges, which can be hazardous to birds and fish, have many people scratching their heads over the seeming incongruity of pollution from an industry that sells products with the promise of blue skies and clear streams.
“Ironic, isn’t it?” said Barbara Lynch, who supervises environmental compliance inspectors for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. “This is big business. There’s a lot of money involved.”
So let's review. Food prices are rising because so much of our food crop is being diverted to biofuels. The government takes on more debt and skews the market due to subsidies to biofuel producers because biofuels can't compete on their own in the free market. The natural landscape of our county is damaged in order to plant more crops to be turned into biofuel. There is more environmental damage. And now we have to deal with pollution from biofuel plants?
On the other hand, there is the energy source that dares not speak its name: nuclear. The fear mongers would have us run screaming at the mere mention of the word with thoughts of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and The China Syndrome colliding in our minds. However,
Consider: At an average 1,000 megawatt coal plant, a train with 110 railroad cars, each loaded with 20 tons of coal, arrives every five days. Each carload will provide 20 minutes of electricity. When burned, one ton of coal will throw three tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We now burn 1 billion tons of coal a year—up from 500 million tons in 1976. This coal produces 40 percent of our greenhouse gases and 20 percent of the world’s carbon emissions.
By contrast, consider a 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor. Every two years a fleet of flatbed trucks pulls up to the reactor to deliver a load of fuel rods. These rods are only mildly radio-active and can be handled with gloves. They will be loaded into the reactor, where they will remain for six years (only one-third of the rods are replaced at each refueling). The replaced rods will be removed and transferred to a storage pool inside the containment structure, where they can remain indefinitely (three feet of water blocks the radiation). There is no exhaust, no carbon emissions, no sulfur sludge to be carted away hourly and heaped into vast dumps. There is no release into the environment. The fuel rods come out looking exactly as they did going in, except that they are now more highly radioactive. There is no air pollution, no water pollution, and no ground pollution.
You should especially read about the objections to nuclear energy.
Another objection to nuclear power is the supposed waste it produces. But this is a mischaracterization. A spent fuel rod is 95 percent U-238. This is the same material we can find in a shovel full of dirt from our back yards. Of the remaining five percent, most is useful, but small amounts should probably be placed in a repository such as Yucca Mountain. The useful parts—uranium-235 and plutonium (a manmade element produced from U-238)—can be recycled as fuel. In fact, we are currently recycling plutonium from Russian nuclear missiles. Of the 20 percent of our power that comes from nuclear sources, half is produced from recycled Russian bombs. Many of the remaining isotopes are useful in industry or radiological medicine—now used in 40 percent of all medical procedures. It is only cesium-137 and strontium-90, which have half-lives of 28 and 30 years, respectively, that need to be stored in protective areas.
Environmentalist fear mongers are hoping that no one look into their claims. They get angry when people do. And over the past few generations they've conditioned a docile public to accept their semi-regular pronouncements of doom, and to panic every time a new prediction of death and destruction is brought forth. It doesn't matter that all of the past predictions of a falling sky have proven false. We are trained to forget the past. This one, this time, they assure us, is the real thing. They have computer models to prove it. And they have propaganda campaigns to shut down their critics. Are they part of the global Jihad? They do seem to have the same end, the destruction of Western Civilization. But rather than a seventh century caliphate as their utopia, they yearn for the fantasy past of the noble savage, when people lived at peace with their neighbors and in harmony with the Earth. Only someone who truly has forgotten or never studied the past can believe in either one of those fantasies.
Both the Islamic fantasy and the environmental fantasy have to be stopped because unfortunately we live in the real world.
UPDATE: Here is a great piece on the connection between biofuels and famine.
I linked to this one from American Digest. It's an article in the Wall Street Journal. It's another load of reasons why we shouldn't buy into the biofuel scam, no matter how the environmental lobby tries to scare us into believing that we are killing the planet. Unfortunately, Congress and the president have bought the whole line of crap.
The ink is still moist on Capitol Hill's latest energy bill and, as if on cue, a scientific avalanche is demolishing its assumptions. To wit, trendy climate-change policies like ethanol and other biofuels are actually worse for the environment than fossil fuels. Then again, Washington's energy neuroses are more political than practical, so it's easy for the Solons and greens to ignore what would usually be called evidence.
The rebukes arrive via two new studies in Science, a peer-reviewed journal not known for right-wing proclivities. The first, by ecologists at Princeton and the Woods Hole Research Center, reviews the environmental consequences of increased biofuel consumption, which had never been examined comprehensively. Of course, that didn't stop Congress and the Bush Administration from jacking up the U.S. mandate to 36 billion gallons by 2022, a fivefold increase from a mere two years ago. Such policies are supposedly justified because corn-based ethanol and other "alternatives" result in (very modest) reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions when mixed with gasoline.
Read the whole thing and be sickened. How is it that after almost fifty years of variations of "the sky is falling due to the effects of humankind", anyone still buys into this lunacy?
George Will has in interesting column in the current Newsweek on the government's idiotic, ill-conceived rush to embrace and subsidize biofuels.
To avoid drilling for oil in ANWR's moonscape, the planet savers evidently prefer destroying forests, even though they absorb greenhouse gases. Will ethanol prevent more carbon-dioxide emissions than would have been absorbed by the trees cut down to clear land for the production of crops for ethanol? Be that as it may, governments mandating the use of biofuels are one reason for the global rise in food prices, which is driving demand for more arable land. That demand is driving the destruction of forests—and animal habitats. In Indonesia alone, 44 million acres have been razed to make way for production of palm oil.
Back in the days when I distrusted rational thought from the Right in favor of what passes for rational thought on the Left, George Will used to make me angry.
Dr. Sanity in a totally unrelated post offers a lengthy analysis on the sexual maladjustment and complete misogynistic mindset of Islam that forces men to become murderers and to abuse their women and children in order to avoid "humiliation". Laws that demean women and allow for their abuse and dehumanization are codified in Sharia law, as are excuses for the sexual abuse of children.
Glazov goes on to argue that Islamist terror can be thought of in part, at least, as a response to sexual rage, frustration, and the humiliation of being connected to a "degraded mother." Thus the men in the culture must constantly assert their masculinity, defend their masculine "honor", and strike out in rage against any who "shame" them.
This is apparent in the sexual mutilation of terror victims who are perceived as "inferior" by the Islamists, and on a par with women of their own culture. It is also seen in the Freudian symbolism of the barbaric act of beheading; as well as in the ubiquitous rape of non-muslim women around the world.
To some extent, such behavior has been seen in all cultures that debase or oppress women. In misogynistic cultures (and individuals) there is usually both the revulsion of the "whore" combined with a perverse obsession with, attraction to, and idealization of "perfection" in a woman (the "madonna" complex). In order to be idealized, women must be stripped of any hint of sexuality.
and
Needless to say, the family dynamics in viciously misogynic cultures like those dominated by Islamic extremists, create severely impaired girls and boys. It has been noted by many researchers and observers that children of both sexes are routinely physically and sexually abused by male relatives (indeed there are religious rules in Islam that designate under what circumstances babies may be used for sexual gratification by adults) . The boys are publicly circumcised and the girls clitoridectomized. Since a woman's behavior is the source of all shame and dishonor for the men in Islamic society, women must be ruthlessly controlled. The degree of control is proportional to the degree of sexual repression and frustration (and hence rage) that is mandated by the culture/religion.
and
Male children in societies that demonize or debase women must overemphasize their "maleness" in order to separate from the mother. As grown men, far from being able to mitigate the aggressive impulses of a child, such men will encourage these impulses in order to "prove" to the world at large that they (and later, their sons)have not been "feminized". Cultures where women have extremely low status almost always encourage the development of inadequate, "macho" men, who need to prove their manliness and constantly.
EINSIEDELN, Switzerland -- A librarian at a 10th-Century monastery leads a visitor beneath the vaulted ceilings of the archive past the skulls of two former abbots.
He pushes aside medieval ledgers of indulgences and absolutions, pulls out one of 13 bound diaries inscribed from 1671 to 1704 and starts to read about the weather.
"Jan. 11 was so frightfully cold that all of the communion wine froze," says an entry from 1684 by Brother Josef Dietrich, governor and so-called weatherman of the once-powerful Einsiedeln Monastery. "Since I've been an ordained priest, the sacrament has never frozen in the chalice."
"But on Jan. 13 it got even worse, and one could say it has never been so cold in human memory," he adds.
Diaries of day-to-day weather details from the age before 19th-Century standardized thermometers are proving of great value to scientists who study today's climate.
Historical accounts once were largely ignored, as they were thought to be fraught with inaccuracy or were simply inaccessible or illegible.
But the booming interest in climate change has transformed the study of ancient weather records from what was once a "wallflower science," said Christian Pfister, a climate historian at the University of Bern.
To the Free Press, this supports the global warming hypothesis. They don't stop to ask why the Earth has been steadily warming for the past 500 years (or if it has been steadily warming) long before coal burning factories or SUVs were around. They also don't go back any farther than is convenient for their pet theory, for example, back to the time when Greenland was actually green. They demand scientific accuracy as long as that accuracy doesn't disprove their current hysteria.
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.
The true believers have their doubts. There simply must be other explanations. And if they can't find them, they will create them.
On the other hand, good science is not about consensus (ask Galileo) as Al Gore and his climate change hysterics claim. It's about debate and testing hypotheses. It's also about honesty, which seems to be in short supply amongst those who claim that the debate is over.
I found some others who are going to speak for me. I didn't mean for this to happen, they just happened to say some things that don't need to be rewritten, they only need to be read.
First up is Dr. Sanity presenting valid reasons why there is so little that qualifies as Islamic science. Read the links in her post too.
In October, Malaysia's first astronaut will join a Russian crew and blast off into space. The news of a Muslim astronaut was cause for celebration in the Islamic world, but then certain questions started popping up. How will he face Mecca during his five daily prayers while his space ship is whizzing around the Earth? How can he hold the prayer position in zero gravity? Such concerns may sound absurd to us, but the Malaysian space chief is taking them quite seriously. A team of Muslim scholars and scientists has spent more than a year drawing up an Islamic code of conduct for space travel.
This story illustrates the obstacles that face scientists in Muslim countries. While it's always risky to draw generalizations about Islam, even conservative Muslims admit that the Islamic world lags far behind the West in science and technology. This is a big problem for Muslims who envy the economic and military power of the United States.
What's so striking about the Muslim predicament is that the Islamic world was once the unrivaled center of science and philosophy.
Next we have two articles, one by Thomas Sowell that I linked to previously, but I'm doing it again because it follows the same line of thought from a Walter Williams post on how environmentalism has killed thousands if not millions of human beings over the past 50 - 60 years. Thomas Sowell says,
The other recent tragedy that has held the nation's painful attention — the mine cave-in in Utah — also has implications that few seem to notice.
We could have far fewer men going down into those mines in the first place if we could use other readily available and economically viable substitutes for coal, such as nuclear power or more of our own oil.
Here too, politics is the problem. The only "alternative energy sources" that are on the political agenda are those few very expensive options that environmentalist zealots approve.
Nuclear power is not on the green zealots' approved list, even though nuclear power is widely used in other countries.
Some say nuclear power is not safe. But nothing is categorically "safe." The only serious question is how its safety compares to that of alternative ways of generating energy.
Ask the families of the trapped miners if they think mining is safe. Ask them if they would rather face the grim reality of a death in their family or the hypothetical possibility of inconveniencing some caribou in Alaska.
In the wake of Hurricane Betsy, which struck New Orleans in 1965, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed building flood gates on Lake Pontchartrain, like those in the Netherlands that protect cities from North Sea storms. In 1977, the gates were about to be built, but the Environmental Defense Fund and Save Our Wetlands sought a court injunction to block the project.
According to John Berlau's recent book, "Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism is Hazardous to Your Health," U.S. Attorney Gerald Gallinghouse told the court that not building the gates could kill thousands of New Orleanians. Judge Charles Schwartz issued the injunction despite the evidence refuting claims of environmental damage.
And even more importantly,
Environmental extremists see DDT in a different light. Alexander King, co-founder of the Club of Rome, said, "In Guyana, within almost two years, it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time, the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem." Jeff Hoffman, environmental attorney, wrote on grist.org, "Malaria was actually a natural population control, and DDT has caused a massive population explosion in some places where it has eradicated malaria. More fundamentally, why should humans get priority over other forms of life? . . . I don't see any respect for mosquitoes in these posts."
Speaking of placing ideology over human life here is another one by Williams on the stifling of dissenting opinions on the global cooling - I mean global warming - I mean climate change front.
Finally, here is the story, in three parts of a Montana woman who hunts Islamic terrorists on the Internet. She's worked with the FBI to help capture and prosecute some of these clowns. Part 1. Part 2. Part 3.
It's 3 a.m., early May 2002. By now, she is continuing physical therapy, but she's done with the pain pills and the cane. The jihadists, though, have become central in her life.
Go on, I dare you, she murmurs as she finds her way to a new Web site, The Arab Castle. OK, she says. Watch this.
"Death to America," she types in Arabic, a phrase now as familiar as "Good morning."
It has been eight months since 9/11, and Rossmiller is well on her way toward completing online Arabic courses from the Arab Academy in Cairo and from the State University of New York at Buffalo. She waits for a reply.
An answer comes quickly enough: "I wish someone would blow up the American base in Afghanistan," a person writes in Arabic.
"It would be great," another responds.
No one corrects her, which must mean Rossmiller has said it right, in the right spot. She's elated. They're buying me as one of them.
Having digested a clutch of Arab novels, Rossmiller uses the devices of fiction to invent characters she can be on the Web.
She must be specific and nuanced to be believed, she thinks, but one persona is not enough.
It's a control thing, she decides. If I can have an effect on them, then maybe I can stop the evil they do.
Rossmiller begins to fill notebooks with detailed aspects of her made-up characters - names, photos, occupations. Some are good at bomb-making. Others are facile with small weapons.
I've got some real doozies here, Rossmiller says to herself as she reviews her ensemble of grim operators, her own fictional collection of serial killers.
Soon Rossmiller has created around three dozen "people." She searches Web sites for obituaries with pictures, then alters the images so relatives wouldn't recognize them.
The photos are mostly for herself, to keep a picture in her head of whom she's supposed to be, a sense of her character. Once in a while, someone asks to see whom he's talking to, and Rossmiller can oblige.
She researches mosques in Jordan and Pakistan to learn their street locations and the names of their imams. This way, she can make authentic references during online chats.
After several months, she has developed quite a correspondence with dozens of people who seem to believe she is whoever she says she is.
Oil prices go up because of years environmental hysteria have us too paralyzed with fear to build refineries, dig for domestic oil, or build nuclear power plants. Our 21st century economy is in the hands of demented 7th century religious imperialist thugs, and our leaders are too afraid to loosen that grip. Rather than demonize the barbarians or environmentalists that hold our economy hostage, Congress and other ignorant dopes attack the oil industry because their profits are too high.
The Detroit Free Press was always on board, giving space to any idiot who was willing to attack the oil companies. Just as they've always been sympathetic to the Israel bashers, anyone targeting big oil was welcome company. Now our food prices are set to rise almost as high as our gasoline prices. Are we victims of price gouging from farmers or our local grocery stores? Heavens no.
Get ready to pay $4.50 a gallon this summer -- for milk.
Gasoline prices over $3 a gallon have grabbed consumers' attention, but dairy products and other corn-dependent foods are expected to rise at an even faster rate.
This is happening because of an explosion in the production of ethanol, a gasoline additive touted by the president, automakers and farmers as a way to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.
Up to 20% of the nation's corn crop -- 18% in Michigan -- is now being channeled to ethanol production. That increased demand means the price of corn used to feed cattle and pigs and to make cereals and sweeteners is going up -- 61% between September and May.
Together with the rising costs of wheat and other commodities, corn demand is pushing overall food prices up 4% this year, compared with 2% a year ago, and driving up the costs of breakfast foods -- eggs, bacon, cereal, milk and potatoes -- as much as 10%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Chris Galen, a spokesman for the Arlington, Va.-based National Milk Producers Federation, predicts that the price of a gallon of reduced (2%) fat milk in metro Detroit, which started the year at $2.97 and is now around $3.08, could spike another $1.50 a gallon by the fall.
They expect us to buy some wacky "supply and demand" explanation. Why don't they give the oil companies the same slack? Oh yeah. Oil isn't as environmentally correct as ethanol; except ethanol will cause an increase in pesticide use and a decrease in the natural landscape as more land has to be cleared for corn, not to mention using up more water from underground aquifers. From what I've read, ethanol is a losing proposition all the way around.
Even worse,
But in the past five years, four ethanol refineries have been built in Michigan, with another seven in construction or being proposed. The state has created 20 agriculture renaissance zones, which offer tax incentives for companies to build ethanol and other renewable energy facilities.
Michigan's automakers also have joined the push.
General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and the Chrysler Group have been touting the environmental virtues of flexible fuel vehicles that can run on an 85% ethanol fuel blend called E85. The automakers get credit for making such vehicles under the government's current fuel-economy standards. Ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline and reduces auto emissions, although it produces less energy and reduces gas mileage.
It's not bad enough that Michigan's economy is in the toilet due to the decline of the American auto industry, now we in Michigan are pinning our hopes to a bigger loser. I understand Congress going for ethanol. They are buying votes from environmentalists and corn producing states. Why, in so many industries, though, are people who should know better working against their better interests?
"No one can find a safe way out for himself if socety is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result." -- Ludwig von Mises
War's legitimate object is more perfect peace. Flavius Vegitius Renatus
This is an optional footer. If you want text here, place it inside these tags, and remove this comment.
CHALLAH AKBAR
