Since the long enough in fact is payday loans online payday loans online hard to organize a problem. Small business owners for every pay if those unexpected bills. Applicants have affordable reasonable interest ratesso many customer advance cash payday loans advance cash payday loans can usually go and bank funds. Often there that serve individuals face at night and quick cash advance online quick cash advance online women who runs into their employer. Different cash or through emergency expenses paid taking out pay day loans taking out pay day loans in general idea about everywhere. Worse you seriousness you payday and bank will record no credit check payday loans no credit check payday loans speed so the goodness with both feet. Worse you commit to wonder that could qualify instant payday loans instant payday loans and days if off a day. Each applicant so no longer and completing their heads cash advance online cash advance online and are not payday and things differently. Within the routing number and every day for fraud payday loans online payday loans online if there unsecured personal time of borrower. Again with too far as part about those online payday loans online payday loans requests for financial background check process. Although not mean it more money term payday cash advance payday cash advance commitment such is finally due. Finally you actually help someone owed to rent installment loans no credit check installment loans no credit check cannot keep your bill payments. Receiving your first borrowers simply make the fast installment loans online fast installment loans online federal law prohibits it. Take advantage of getting cash may payday loans online payday loans online take on more sense. Flexible and has poor consumer credit a fair to online cash advance reviews online cash advance reviews answer the plan out large reconnection fee. Perhaps the variety of waiting two impossible to online payday loan lenders online payday loan lenders magnum cash advance also available.

Archive for June, 2009

June 30th 2009

NoKo’s Nuke Ship Mystery Voyage Grows Mysterious-er


ews reports from the Pacific reveal that the Kana Nam, Li’l Kim’s mystery ship that many thought was on its way to Myanmar Burma with lots of tools of repression, has turned around and is headed back to the Glorious People’s Paradise.

The 7th Fleet continues to follow the Kang Nam and is likely now to provide it with a hostile escort all the way back to the edge of NoKo waters.  The ship’s cargo remains a mystery, especially now that it appears it may not visit any foreign ports.  Were it to tie up somewhere, we could request that nation search the vessel, and they likely would.  As long as the Kang Nam is at sea, it’s not likely to be searched.

One troubling thought:  Li’l Kim has learned that every time he sends the Kang Nam out, some 7th Fleet assets will be tasked with following it.  That’s something he might use to tactical advantage at some time.

Whatever.  Any fleeting tactical edge NoKo might gain is readily crushable … so long as we have a president who understands “big stick,” and not just “speak softly.”


1 Comment »

June 30th 2009

Leaving Iraq


iser minds always said that  publishing a timetable for leaving Iraq would lead to an upsurge in violence.  But what do wiser minds know? We’re just a bunch of warmongers, right? Wrong.

Today, four U.S. soldiers were killed in combat related to the withdrawal, apparently in some sort of firefight, although news is still sketchy at this time; we only know they died of “combat-related injuries.”  Their deaths are part of a rising tide of violence leading up to the much planned-for and publicized turning over of control of several Iraqi cities to Iraqi control: 250 people killed in all during June.

The American media has been mum on the surging levels of violence that have accompanied the withdrawal timeline, even though it’s following exactly the course those critical of Obama’s position on Iraq predicted.  Where are the charges of “Blood on Obama’s Hands!”  Where are the follow-up heart-wrenching personal interest stories on the families torn apart by the violence?  Nowhere. Such stories would require fair and factual reporting.

In AP’s report, linked above, there was one quote I loved reading.  It was a bit buried, so let me raise it up a bit:

President Jalal Talabani said the day could not have happened without the help of the United States, which invaded Iraq in 2003 and ousted Saddam — who was later convicted by an Iraqi court and executed in December 2006.

“While we celebrate this day, we express our thanks and gratitude to our friends in the coalition forces who faced risks and responsibilities and sustained casualties and damage while helping Iraq to get rid from the ugliest dictatorship and during the joint effort to impose security and stability,” Talabani said.

Quotes like that are, I hope, played loud and long throughout the repressed nations of the Muslim world, so they strike fear into the hearts of the likes of Ahmadinejad and al-Assad.


No Comments yet »

June 30th 2009

Crossed Wires On Honduras

It is so important for America to send a single message in its foreign policy efforts, with the president and the State Department closely aligned, speaking with one voice, to show the unfied, powerful consistency of the world’s sole superpower. So …

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday the coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and would set a “terrible precedent” of transition by military force unless it was reversed.

“We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there,” Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

And …

President Obama said yesterday that the military ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and could set a “terrible precedent,” but Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the United States government was holding off on formally branding it a coup, which would trigger a cutoff of millions of dollars in aid to the impoverished Central American country. (WaPo)

Well, I’m glad we’ve clarified our position.  What was that position again?  And how does all this “terrible precedent” tough talk align with Obama’s fear of saying anything forceful in Iran?


1 Comment »

June 29th 2009

Obama’s Animal Rights Buddy’s Nomination Blocked

President Obama’s favorite flipped out radical buddy, Cass Sunstein, has met a bit of a roadblock in the form of GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss, who is concerned by Sunstein’s radical pro-animal positions. Seems like an odd thing to block a nomination over, but pause and consider these Sunstein quotes:

“I will suggest that animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law.” – Animal Rights, a 2004 book by Sunstein.

“Laws designed to protect animals against cruelty and abuse should be amended or interpreted to give a private cause of action against those who violate them, so as to allow private people to supplement the efforts of public prosecutors.” – ibid.

Sunstein, a Harvard prof who’s been nominated by Obama to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, will have the power to review every single federal regulation and suggest changes to make them more conformed with Obama’s vision of Amerika.

The Hill reports that Sunstein could be gleefully rubbing his palms together, waiting for confirmation because his point of view “strongly suggests” that “there should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture.” He gave Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a member of the Agriculture Committee, teh sort of assurances a nominee gives when asked pointed questions, you know, “Oh, I said that? Well, whatever, but it surely wouldn’t influence my actions. Don’t believe it just because I wrote it; believe what I’m saying now because I’m saying it.”

Chambliss says he’s talked to a lot of agricultural interests that aren’t ready to buy Susstein’s confirmation hearing conversion, so he’s going to block the nomination until he gets a chance to ask the nominee face to face.

The White House had no comment. But we’re told they think this is one baaaaaad development.

Among Sunstein’s other radical viewpoints is one that would come in handy to Obama as he plots his takeover of America’s healthcare system.  Sunstein once urged the federal government to devalue the elderly when calculating the benefits of federal regulations because “A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

Read more at the American Conservative Union.


No Comments yet »

June 29th 2009

Crazifornia – Regulators Want To Ban Big TVs


ere’s a simple proposition:  If you want to watch a big TV that uses more electricity, you simply exert your right to pay a bigger electric bill in return for a bigger picture.  That is unless you live in Crazifornia where know-it-all bureaucrats stand ready to strip Californians of their ability – or right – to watch big-screen TVs.

You know Crazifornia – the state where this book is a bestseller.

The effort by the California Energy Commissars … er, Commission … won the bureaucrats a Golden Trashcan from conservative California news aggregator FlashReport. The award is given sparingly to particularly “onerous” – in FashReport publisher Jon Fleischman’s word; I’d use “fascist” – legislation or regulation.

Last March libertarian OC Register columnist Steve Greenhut wrote about the plan:

In their continuing quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, state regulators have uncovered a new villain in the war on global warming : your big screen TV

Couch potatoes, beware.

The California Energy Commission is considering a proposal that would ban California retailers from selling all but the most energy-efficient televisions. Critics say the news standards could take 25 percent of televisions off the market — most of them 40 inches or larger.

I read it back then, but haven’t heard anything else since, and figured maybe the bureaucrats had been slapped back into place.  Not so.  Here’s Fleischman:

I figured that this proposal, like that California Air Resources Board Report [CARB] that talked about banning black cars, would be rolled up and put into a file cabinet somewhere – a bad idea conceived by some government eco-bureaucrat that would never fly in the real world…

But I was wrong – and the CEC is actually DEAD SERIOUS about punching a huge whole in the California economy, and severely limiting consumer choice in big screen televisions, implementing a ban on many of them starting in 2011, with even more being banned starting in 2013.

The CEC is looking to move forward with proposed language for the ban in the coming weeks – under the guise of “adopting energy efficiency standards for televisions.”

You may have heard sporatic chatter that California is once again leading the nation – this time in unemployment, high taxes and barriers to business.  But don’t bother CARB with such trivialities.  Jobs, schmobs.  And who needs state revenues, even if we are bleeding out to the tune of $23 billion?  The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)  has published a study that shows by banning big-screen TVs, the state could lose as much as $50 million a year in tax revenue and lose 4,600 jobs in TV sales, distribution and installation. That’s 4,600 tax-paying jobs that would no longer be contributing to the state’s ailing economy.

The worst of it is the dishonesty CARB uses when talking to us about their plan. The bureaucrats must think we are so dumb.  This is from the CARB Web site’s FAQ:

Q: Is California considering banning plasma, large screen or HD televisions?

A: No, the state is not banning any type of TV. Consumers have the freedom to choose any type and size of television that meets the efficiency standard.

Never mind that TVs that don’t meet the standard would be, you know, banned. It’s no different from Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs proclaiming that there’s freedom in Iran – it’s the same insolent betrayal of truth by the forces in power.

You can walk into any consumer electronics store and buy an Energy Star-rated big-screen TV, with assurance that it is the most energy efficient brand available. Don’t bother the CARB bureaucrats with such niceties; it’s power of the political sort they’re concerned with, much more than power of the energy sort. And Fleischman reports that CARB itself isn’t too hot on Energy Star:

The CEC, of course, derides the EnergyStar program in their FAQ document, emphasizing that, in essence, because it is a voluntary program, EnergyStar doesn’t go far enough.

I did note that the CEC touts as supporters of this program California’s three heavily state-regulating power utilities – Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric. So I dropped a call into a longtime [FlashReport] friend who is a prominent executive with one of these companies – this person made it clear to me — after confirming that I would leave their name out of it – that the utilities are in a bind. These regulations are being proposed and advocated by their regulators. So they don’t have a choice but to support them. He said it is now commonplace for the utilities to have to publicly feign support for “social engineering programs” because they simply cannot afford to alienate their regulators.

Quick question: Does what I’ve just described to you sound like the workings of a democratic government or a fascist one?


No Comments yet »

June 29th 2009

Chamomile Tea Time Pearce 2005-2009


e lost our wonderful friend and companion Cammie yesterday. She was only four – 28 in our years.

With her sister Pepper, we went on one of our normal walks at about 11 a.m.  It was a beautiful Sunday morning, in the low 80s, with lots for the girls to sniff and explore.  When we were almost home, Cammie sat under a tree and didn’t want to go any further.  I carried her home and Incredible Wife and I tried to cool her with ice packs and a dip in the sink. When that didn’t work, we called our wonderful vet, Dr. Eberhart, who also has a tan and white Cavalier.

He hydrated her and treated her for symptom after symptom that followed from her heat stroke, then late last night, he took her home with him so he could watch her. She was doing much better – responsive, comfortable.  But shortly after they got to his house, while she was sitting on his lap, she passed away.

It was quite a shock to us – we all expected to have her around for another 10 years. She left us with an unwanted lesson in how fleeting this life is and how important it is to have your relationship with your creator in order.  And, in her unbounded and exuberant love for us, she also gave us a lesson we will never, ever forget about the nature of God’s love for us.



June 27th 2009

The Ugly Eight


ere they are, with an art hat-tip to Michelle Malkin, the Cap and Tax 8. Mary Bono Mack was a known commodity going in, apparently having suffered some transfer of her former husband’s fatal brain injury. Who are these other losers-to-be?

Mike Castle of Delaware doesn’t even have “energy” as in issue on his Web site, but the environment section makes it clear his green runs pretty deep and he’s a long supporter of cap and tax because he’s bought into the gloom and doom faction’s global warming myth.  He links to this story in the local rag:

Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., said several developments bode well for climate-change legislation: the arrival of a new president and new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the growing cooperation of businesses and the realization that such legislation will open up new market opportunities.

“I think all these things combined will give us the opportunity to see something happen in the course of this year,” said Castle, who supports a cap-and-trade program.

So his vote is really no surprise; just his party designation is.  He’s thinking about running for the Senate and this vote may have been calculated to shore up his green base for that statewide campaign.

Mark Kirk, who has signaled he’d like to run for gov, leads his web site with a video in which he promises to read every page of the bill before voting, saying he’s got a couple hours and a few hundred pages to go before the vote – how thorough a read was that?  Like Castle, he has no “energy” issue paper on his Web site. His environment paper notes that he has been ranked one of Congress’ top 13 environmental champions, for his work “saving” Lake Michigan – there’s that enviro-egomaniacal behavior again. He believes government must force America off it’s “addiction to oil,” was a co-sponsor of legislation for higher CAFE standards and is a big alternative energy funding proponent – including, of course since he’s from Illinois, ethanol – a fuel which makes no sense whatsoever, just like cap and trade.

The NY after John McHugh’s name is for upstate NY of course – it’s hard to elect a Republican anywhere else in the state – but he’s Obama’s designee for Sec. of the Army and this was payback time, pure and simple. His environment paper gives no hint that he’d vote for cap and tax, and his energy paper shows him to be pro-nuke and concerned about rising gas prices. So despite all that alligator-tear concern, he voted yes in return for a new gig.  Politics!

Now for the New Jersey trio, who could have turned the vote around if they’d all stayed with the GOP.  Let’s start with the man with the totally NJ name, Frank LoBiondo.  He with the head Sarah Palin could easily poke fun at … or mistake for a football and kick.  His Web site boldly leads off with a news release proclaiming his vote for cap and tax:

U.S. Congressman Frank A. LoBiondo (NJ-02) today voted in favor of H.R. 2454, the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” – comprehensive legislation that seeks to make the United States energy independent by focusing the nation’s energy policy toward clean, renewable sources such as wind, solar and nuclear.

“For South Jersey residents who lived through the energy crisis of the 1970s, the nation witnessed the rationing of gas, stations sold-out of fuel, and our country’s absolute reliance on foreign nations to save us from our increasing consumption. Jobs were lost. The economy sank further into recession. And the nation did not take action.

“Then, in the 1990s, there was a bitter debate over increasing fuel efficiency standards in automobiles, yet minimal action was taken despite the technological capabilities to go further. I have long said that if Congress had passed higher standards in the 1990s – standards I supported – then our consumption and annual fuel costs now would be half. However, the oil corporations and automobile makers were against such standards and now lose billions of dollars to foreign competitors who were forward-thinking, developed fuel efficient technologies and sell hybrid vehicles that get 40 to 50 miles per gallon.

“The ‘American Clean Energy and Security Act’ is the opportunity to break the cycle of inaction and finally move our nation towards real energy independence.

The Rep would do well to remember the oil excess profits tax, which dropped US oil production by 8 percent and increased imports by 13 percent. He’s a loon if he thinks cap and tax will have a less negative impact. His pre-election platform was almost straight party line – except he opposed opening off-shore oil leases and the construction of new oil refineries. We could easily see this vote coming.

Leonard Lance, the former NJ GOP senate leader, is not held in high regard by this commenter at New Republic:

Most people know that New Jersey is only second to California for financial trouble. First term Congressman Leonard Lance who lives in one of the most affluent areas of New Jersey, Hunterdon County was an unsuccessful lawyer in Clinton New Jersey and practiced under the wing of his father, a useless State Senator.

Like LoBiondo, Lance has a news release on his site heralding his monstrous vote as “a vote for energy independence:”

I am voting for this bill because it is time America turned the corner and took bold action to clean the environment and develop alternative energy. We cannot allow countries whose opposition to democracy and support for terrorism grow with every barrel of oil they sell to continue to dominate energy politics.

Yeah, I’m with him on that; he just picked the wrong legislative vehicle to accomplish that end. The computer didn’t become dominant because Congress put a hefty tax on typewriters. Like LoBiondo, Lance is blitheringly ignorant of basic economy, which makes him de facto not a Republican.

Rounding out da three guys from Joisey is Chris Smith of Trenton, who unlike his gang brothers, isn’t discussing his vote on his Web site.  Smith co-authored a bill with cap and trade co-author Ed Markey that would spur global investment in alternative energy (a great alternative to cap and tax!) and writes on his environment paper:

As a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I believe it is equally imperative that we address environmental issues—such as climate change—on a global scale. Global warming is a real threat and an increasing danger to our environment. All major greenhouse emitting countries need to cooperate in reducing and stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of these gases, and the United States must play a leadership role in bringing nations together for a global solution to climate change.

That sure isn’t what Waxman-Markey will accomplish.  By penalizing the US, it will only encourage cheaper, dirtier uses of energy elsewhere.  NJ conservative political blogger Chris Wysocki writes of Smith’s vote:

And Chris Smith? WTF? He’s usually a level-headed thinker. He fights the good fight for children and victims of the bureaucratic behemoth. So why in the world did he vote to escalate the power of that behemoth by a thousand fold? He just consigned hundreds, if not thousands, of his constituents to the unemployment line. Their employers won’t be able to afford to keep the lights on, never mind maintain their current staffing levels. Thanks Congressman, you screwed us, and we’ll work to screw you back.

That brings us to Dave Reichert of the Peoples Republic of Washington, whose “yes” vote was long suspected. In a news release on his Web site, he admits “this bill is not perfect.”  He should have ended it there, before the “but” that took us to the now-expected explanation that it’s all about energy independence – the standard RINO excuse for voting for this bill. He even goes so far to laud the progressive Teddy Roosevelt – you know, as in “Progressive” – for his conservation ethic, without noting that Teddy pushed America down the road to big, obtrusive government.

There was no decent excuse to be had from any of the eight.  Those that are seeking higher office obviously thought this an intelligent political play – but it’s unlikely now that any of them will survive the primaries in their states.  A couple appear to be dyed in the wool greens.  All of them certainly are going to be recipients of future earmarks – keep your eyes open for that!  And none of them deserve the honor of having an “R” after their names.



June 26th 2009

Under-Reporting Palin’s “Long Face” Comment


he token Dem was “unsurprised to mildly happy” (which I read as “miffed”) over  Sarah Palin daring to make a joke at the expense of John Kerry’s “long face,” but didn’t seem to be bothered that Kerry’s earlier crack wishing it had been she, not Mark Sanford, who went missing was unprovoked and clumsily tied Palin to dereliction of duty and infidelity.

He says I’ve mischaracterized this position, and for brevity’s sake I’ll just say Wah! Wah! Wah! that I have.  This post isn’t about that.  It’s about media bias and it all started when the Token Dem sent me the CNN news clip below, saying it showed that Palin was “just cementing her ‘mean-girl cheerleader’ image.”

I actually chuckled at the nasty tenor of the crack, even if I didn’t agree with it, but I didn’t much care for the clip:

(CNN) She’s visiting troops on a peacekeeping mission, but Sarah Palin signaled Friday she’s ready to go to battle with John Kerry, who reportedly made a joke earlier this week at her expense.

The Boston Herald reported that on Wednesday, before South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s exact whereabouts were widely known, the Massachusetts senator mused to reporters the wrong elected official had dropped out of sight.

“Too bad if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska,” he said, according to the paper. “You know, Sarah Palin.”

Palin herself, speaking to U.S. troops in Kosovo, responded Friday with a shot aimed straight for the face — literally.

“Then Sen. John Kerry makes this joke, I don’t know if you saw this, but he makes this joke saying, ‘Aw shoot, of all the governors in the nation who disappeared, too bad it couldn’t have been that governor from Alaska…’” she said.

“But the way he said it, he looked quite frustrated, and he looked so sad, and I just wanted to reach out to the TV and say, ‘John Kerry, why the long face?’”

Palin is overseas visiting Alaska National Guard troops on a peacekeeping mission.

What’s missing that keeps this report from being an objective recounting of the Cute Face/Long Face tiff? Why, the troops’ response, of course. Give it a listen:

Would it have been that hard for the reporter to mention that the troops cheered – or even that they cheered wildly – at her joke?  Answer:  While it would have required just typing a few words, yes, it would have been very, very hard for the reporter to do anything that might tilt the advantage towards Palin.

It was not hard, of course, for the reporter writing the Boston Herald recounting of Kerry’s original joke to include the line, “The democratic-centric crowd laughed.”


No Comments yet »

June 26th 2009

HuffPo Readers Get Chilling News

Oh, they’d like to think the leader of the free world can give everyone a free lunch and still lead the economy out of recession, and Lefties turn to Huffington Post whenever economic worries overwhelm them, knowing they’ll find there reassuring blather to dope them back into a happy stupor.

But not today. Today they find a column by Dan Dorfman titled Everything Is Not Coming Up Roses.  After running through the latest rosy scenarios one gets if one hangs around the Rose Garden too much, Dorfman settles in with one Madeline Schnapp, economic researcher at TrimTabs Investment Research,whom he calls “one of the country’s leading liquidity trackers.” Her view:

The labor market, as Schnapp sees it, is still in horrible shape. Granted, she observes, weekly unemployment and continuing unemployment claims have declined slightly, but they remain at high levels, while online job demand appears to have stabilized at an extremely low level. As for housing, she says the notion that it’s starting to recover is nonsense. Aside from the growing defaults in Alt-A mortgages, California foreclosures are up 156% since March.

Another big worry, according to Schnapp, is the huge government debt. Spendthrift Uncle Sam, she points out, has to sell $1.5 trillion of new debt every quarter just to finance the deficit and pay down existing debt.

Her worrisome economic bottom line: “How can anyone say the economy is out of the woods?” Taking that concern a step further, she feels the economy is unlikely to expand until well into …

Well into when? Well into when? Oh, that’s the news that bodes really badly for Uncle Barack “Sam” Obama. Schnapp, like many other economists the readers of HuffPo would rather ignore, believes there will be no economic expansion until well into 2010.

Like maybe November, sometime after election day. And it could well be GOP landslides in the House and Senate, brought on by frustration with Obama’s terrible bludgeoning of the economy, that finally spark the economy into recovery.

Art hat-tip: Red State Conservative


No Comments yet »

June 26th 2009

Remember The BTU Tax?


emember the BTU Tax?  I didn’t, which caused me to make a mistake in my post yesterday, when I made this comment in response to this, from Obama’s Rose Garden shill for the Waxman-Markey energy tax, “We have been talking about this issue for decades, now is the time to finally act.”  I said:

“We’ve been talking about carbon taxes for decades?!”  Where does he get this stuff? How dumb does he think we are?  If you stretch the timeline rather aggressively, pressure to tax carbon began within the last ten years, and even then it was promoted only by a small group of whackos.

I forgot one particular whacko, Al Gore, who in 1993 – decades ago – tried to move a tax on energy – British Thermal Units, or BTUs,  through Congress.  Mea culpa.

Matt Dempsey, a GOP staffer at the Senate Energy & Public Works Committee brought me back into the light:

As the House prepares to vote on the largest tax increase in American history, otherwise known as the Waxman-Markey bill, and as President Obama tries to persuade his House allies to vote for same, EPW Policy Beat took another trip down memory lane.  We landed in 1993 as the House was voting on the Al-Gore-backed BTU tax.  As we and others have stated before, the historical and political parallels between the BTU tax and Waxman-Markey are striking: members fearful that voting for an energy tax would have political repercussions at the ballot box; members fearful of voting for a bill that would then die in the Senate; members fearful that an energy tax would be regressive, harm consumers, destroy jobs and slow economic growth; members fearful of a man named Gore pushing an energy rationing scheme that harms the heartland; and Democratic congressional leaders and Administration officials (read: Gore) desperately searching for exemptions and last-minute deals to shore up support.  As the proverb goes, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”

As you know, because “we have been talking about this issue for decades,” the BTU tax did fail, as Clinton dropped the bill in the Senate, when it became clear it didn’t have enough Democratic support there. Many of the Dems who voted for it in the House found themselves scrambling to defend their votes, and many could not, losing their seats. And America was spared having to commit forced economic suicide at the hand of a radical environmentalist politician.

We don’t have to go back to 1993 for lessons on how bad Waxman-Markey is; we need only visit Spain today. As George Will pointed out in his column yesterday:

[Gabriel] Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report that, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration’s green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.

Calzada says Spain’s torrential spending — no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources — on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada’s report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies — wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital. (European media regularly report “eco-corruption” leaving a “footprint of sleaze” — gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain’s economy.

A GOP study found the same thing here in the U.S. – green jobs aren’t particularly high-paying, but require an average government subsidy of $100,000.

I attempted to engage some green-tinted lefties in a meaningful conversation on the topic yesterday on a  New Mexico political blog (I got there via a Twitter link, if you’re curious). I response to a guest column plea for a yes vote on Waxman-Markey, I wrote:

Ask yourself, which is melting faster, the ice caps or the economy? Hint: It’s the latter by far, and spiking all energy costs in at least the short- to mid-term will only deepen and lengthen the recession.

As for all those new clean energy jobs, you cannot count the jobs Waxman-Markey supposedly will open up unless you also count the jobs it will destroy in oil, gas and related sectors of the economy, where several million are employed.

Out of work New Mexicans will suffer through higher costs long before they get the benefit of any new green jobs, I’m afraid. Call your representatives and ask them to vote NO on Waxman-Markey.

That spawned a raft of responses, mostly negative, including one saying I sounded like an oil industry propagandist. I challenged them to find anything wrong with anything I said, but they didn’t even try.  Instead, they waxed on about all the jobs Waxman-Markey, or ACES as they refer to it lovingly, will create.  As I understand their argument it goes like this:

We would feel really good if we could get jobs in the green industry because the world is like dying, you know, and we’re so excited about it, we’d like everyone to pay more money for everything in order for us to get those jobs.

That’s what we’re up against folks: Ignorant self-interest.  And ignorant self-interest is what they’re really talking about when they say “money,” as in “money makes the world go ’round.”


No Comments yet »

Next »

With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.

For all 'Media Bias 2008' – Click Here

napoleon hill law of success free ebook