Radioactive Communist Zombies

Radioactive Communsist Zombies: The Novel

"A highly imaginative adventure."

"The story pulled me right in!"

They live among us. We know they are there. No government can control them; no authority can stop them. Some are evil. Some are good. All are powerful. They inhabit our myths and fairy tales. But what if they were real, the witches, wizards, and fairy godmothers? What if they were called "adepts" and were organized into guilds for mutual protection and benefit? And what if they started mucking around with the affairs of "lessers" (that is, those humans not able to match their powers)?

During the height of the Cold War, Michael Vaughan is a rogue without a guild. He survives by working for the CIA as NOC (Non-Official Cover). Shortly after the funeral of President Joe Kennedy, Jr., he is sent to Cuba to assassinate Castro. There he finds himself in a cat-and-mouse game with adepts working for Fidel.

You've read the blog, now read the novel.  Radioactive Communist Zombies, a novel of magic, intrigue, and action.

Now available for Kindle and all free Kindle apps for Mac/PC, iPad, and smart phones.   

Save a Fish: Lose Your House

A federal judge has told the Forest Service that it needs to revisit the environmental impact of fire retardant drops to fight forest fires.  They judge said the current one isn't adequate.  The AP reports:

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, Mont., ruled that the current environmental assessment is inadequate in light of federal biologists' findings that fire retardant that lands in creeks and on rare plants jeopardize the survival of endangered species and their habitat.

How often does this happen? About 0.01% of the time.  But still, the judge ruled:

The judge also found Fish and Wildlife and the fisheries service violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to include an "incidental take permit" in the biological opinion that would allow killing some endangered species. The agencies had argued they would consider permits on a case-by-case basis.

The Forest Service, for it's part, worries that if they don't do everything necessary to fight a forest fire, they could be liable for someone losing their house or their life.  Which sounds like a valid concern.

Luckily the judge hasn't said the Forest Service can't use fire retardant . . . yet.  He's given the Forest Service until the end of next year to do a more complete study on the impact of fire retardant.  Let's hope the Forest Service can placate the judge (and the environmentalist plaintiffs in the lawsuit that caused all this).  Otherwise, some people might lose their houses or their lives to protect a fish or plant.

Environmentalists always have their priorities straight and it isn't humans.

The Chevy Volt Doesn't Make Sense (or Cents)

I had planned to sit down and do the math today on the Chevrolet Volt's economics now that Government Motors has announced the sticker price of $41,000.  And let me add, that I think that's going to be low after destination charges, dealer markups, and if you want any options like, oh, leather seats (and leather seat warmers for those cold days that will cut the range substantially so they probably aren't even available).  But I digress.

I was going to do the math but (Hat Tip Instapundit) someone else already did it for me.

The bottom line (emphasis original):

Under these assumptions, best case (all electric Volt miles), you save $915/year driving the Volt. To gain back your $10,000 price premium, you will have to drive the Volt for 9.3 years, 1.3 year longer than the battery warranty.

And replacing that battery pack is going to be expensive.

 

So you're going to really want to show off your green cred or be bad at math to want a Volt.  Don't know how many folks there are out there like that (of course, the Prius doesn't pencil out, either, and Toyota is selling scads of them).

 

UPDATE: Planet Gore reports:

After driving GM’s new, plug-in electric Chevy Volt, Late Night funnyman Jay Leno quipped that “if you didn’t know, you might think it’s a Cobalt” — a reference to GM’s pedestrian, $15-grand, entry-level small car.

Ouch. Who would buy a $41,000 Cobalt? Or even a $33,500 Cobalt (federal tax credit included).

Does this mean no leather seat option?

Dry

It's a rare day I can't find anything to blog about.  But today is such a day.

So I'll leave you with a not-so-random headline:

France declares war against al-Qaida

Which begs the question, how long until France surrenders to al-Qaida?

What's a Life Worth to the U.N.? Less Than a Day

A U.N. war crimes tribunal sentences a mass murderer to 35 years for the deaths of over 16,000 people.  With time served, he'll spend only 19 years behind bars.

Thirty-five years works out to a little more than 19 hours per life.  However, the U.N. tribunal had its reasons, according to the AP:

Judges said that in handing down their verdict Monday, they took into consideration the historical context of the atrocities: The 1975-79 regime was the product of the Cold War times.

Oh, it's all the U.S. and Soviet Union's fault, then?

This is why we can't trust the U.N. to deal with terrorists, criminals, or rouge countries (i.e., Iran).  They obviously do not have the best interests of victims (or potential victims) at heart.  They would rather bash the U.S. than hand down a just sentence. 

Ethanol: Such a Bargain

Been a while since we bashed ethanol.

But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is now doing it for us.  The Wall Street Journal explains in an unsigned editorial:

CBO also estimates that cutting carbon emissions by one metric ton via ethanol runs to $754. To put that number in perspective, the budget gnomes estimate that the price for a ton of carbon under the cap-and-tax program that the House passed last summer would be about $26 in 2019.

(Some reports say it doesn't reduce carbon emissions at all.)

Which, of course, begs the question, why do we subsidize ethanol  (and require its use) at all?

And the answer is: Powerful farm-state Senators and the EthanolIowa caucus.

Time like these I think a benevolent dictatorship would be preferable to what we have now.  Or maybe just following the Constitution.

World Running Out of Internet Addresses?

It's a disaster 30 years in the making.

You see, the interent address for this blog is not radioactivecommunistzombies.com, it's 68.178.232.100.  That's called the IP address and there's only about 232 million of them left.

Thirty years ago, the current standard in IP address was developed and it was called IPv4.  But no one then imagined it couldn't be enough IP addresses.  As Fox News reports:

When the IPv4 protocol was developed 30 years ago, it seemed to be a reasonable attempt at providing enough addresses," carrier relations manager at Australian internet service provider (ISP) Internode John Lindsay told the Herald.

"Bearing in mind that at that point personal computers didn't really exist, the idea that mobile phones might want an IP address hadn't occurred to anybody because mobile phones hadn't been invented [and] the idea that air-conditioners and refrigerators might want them was utterly ludicrous."

So John Lindsay is predicting the world runs out of IP addresses in 340 days (July 1, 2011).

There is a solution but it's painful.  It's called IPv6 and it would give every human on Earth more than 4 billion IP addresses each.

Problem is, switching every device over to IPv6 would require all devices connected to the internet to be reconfigured or upgraded.  That's every personal computer, every server, every smart phone, every video game system, every other thing connected to the internet.  And that's going to be tough.

The stop gap measures:

In the meantime ISPs may force multiple customers to share IP addresses, which may lead to common applications, such as Gmail and iTunes, ceasing to work.

There are also fears a black market of IP addresses may spring up.  Don't know how that would work, but it might be interesting.  Hang on to those IP addresses, they might be going up in value.  I also have no idea how you might do that.

Range Anxiety

As the push comes to put more electric cars on the road (Obama wants one million by 2015) one problem is going to rear its ugly head: range anxiety.

That is, fear that the car will not go as far as needed and charging stations are few and far between.  Joel Schectman, an AP writer, tells us what the problem is:

Drivers want electric cars but worry they won't have enough juice to make long trips. After all, what good is going green if you get stranded with a dead battery?

It's a fear that automakers must overcome as they push to sell more battery-powered cars. So government and business are taking steps to reassure drivers by building up the nation's network of electric charging stations.

Range anxiety is a legitimate fear.  And partly because "refueling" takes so dang long:

Most public stations will take eight hours to juice up a car all the way, about the same as chargers in individual homes. These plugs could work for people who have chargers near their offices, but wouldn't work for quick refueling. Even a partial charge will take awhile — two-and-a-half hours to get 30 miles. A limited number of the chargers will be fast-chargers. If you can find one, it will still take 30 minutes for a full powerup.

Thirty minutes isn't bad (but a lot longer than the few minutes it takes to put gasoline in a car) but an 8-hour stop for fuel just isn't practical.

And that's the problem with electric cars.  They can still only remain commuter cars, driven short distances.  But when the family wants to drive to grandma's house or Disneyland, they are going to need an internal combustion engine to get there.  Which is why the Chevy Volt makes a little more sense but still people are probably going to need two cars.  And a lot of folks (especially after paying the premium an electric car requires) aren't going to be able to afford it.

So Obama will reach his goal only if there's enough rich fools to buy one million very impractical cars.

Is Obama Trying to Make Gasoline Expensive?

Remember $4/gallon gasoline?  It looks like the Obama Administration would like to return us to those days.  According to Mario Loyola writing in the August 2nd edition of National Review (NRODT), Obama is taking steps to cause a fuel shortage:

The moratorium on offshore drilling; the browbeating of BP into disgorging assets regardless of actual liability; the EPA’s unjustifiable quashing of licenses for most of the refineries in Texas, supposedly over air-pollution concerns;the Interior Department’s failure to process license renewals for a slew of shallow-water wells, which are much less tricky than those in deep water—all these actions bespeak a desire to create a hostile regulatory environment for oil extraction.

Why would Obama do this?

Many of Obama’s supporters—those at the Brookings Institution, for example—seem to think that a severe oil shortage is precisely what we need to save the environment and kick-start the transition to green energy.

In other words, to shock the public into demanding we spend billions on "green energy" so we don't have oil shocks like the one Obama purposely created again.

He is trying to manipulate the economy, cause you pain and cost you money, to push his political agenda.  And manipulate you into supporting it.

Which is typical of Obama's "I know best for you" attitude.  If the American people don't support something he think is best, he'll make sure they will want to.  It's a planned gasoline famine . . . for your own good.

Che Guevara

Watch this:

The Deficit Lie

Veronique de Rugy points outin The Corner that the deficit is going up, predicted to be larger next year by $150 billion for a total of $1.4 trillion (That's TRILLION).  As Ms. de Rugy points out (links original):

This is bad news for the American people, not only because more deficit is bad and unemployment remains high (even Krugman is down), but also because the administration and the Deficit Commission are already setting the stage for increased taxes in the future.

The narrative goes like this: The deficit is getting worse because of a lack in tax revenue, and while we don't have recommendations about how to cut spending, we can tell you right now that we need more taxes.

But tax revenues are not the problem, spending is the problem.  Yes, tax revenues are down a little, but spending is way up.  As Ms. de Rugy states (pdf file):

In 2009, the government added [to the deficit] an additional $592 billion: $245 billion for the financial bailout and $347 billion for stimulus spending.

That increased the deficit 209%

Now the solution that is going to come out of Washington will not be to cut spending.  Spending is like a drug to politicians.  The more they spend, the more they want to spend.  No, the "solution" will be higher and/or new taxes.  This will, of course, according to economists in the Obama Administration, shrink the economy further.

Which will cause the tax revenues to decrease and cause the deficit to increase which will cause there to be calls for more or higher taxes.  Until we're Greece.

Thursday Night Ramble

I have no one thing to blog about, so here's some thoughts about what's in the news:

The Democrat-controlled House voted and President Obama signed the extension of unemployment benefits, virtually guaranteeing higher unemployment and more calls for extending benefits (not to mention increasing an already astronomically high deficit).

Charles Rangle, the head tax-writer in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has been charged by the House Ethics Panel with "ethics misdeeds."  At least one of those misdeeds is failure to pay taxes.  That is, violating the laws he helped write.  Ignorance of the law is no excuse so I doubt familiarity is, either.  Oh, yeah, paying taxes is for little people.

The Democrat-controlled Senate will not consider a climate-change bill that would have increased the cost of electricity for millions of American households.  They are, according to some, waiting for the lame duck session after the election.  Ah, Democrats, why do you insist on screwing up the country? 

Government Cracks Down on . . . Shower Heads

Remember those low-flow shower heads?

In fact, you probably have some in your house.

But, evil of evils, some people have been getting away with shower heads that don't meet government requirements.

In its on-going effort to save the planet (from what?) the government is going to crack down on shower heads.  The Wall Street Journal has the story (sub probably required):

Regulators are going after some of the luxury shower fixtures that took off in the housing boom. Many have multiple nozzles, cost thousands of dollars and emit as many as 12 gallons of water a minute. In May, the [Department of Energy] DOE stunned the plumbing-products industry when it said it would adopt a strict definition of the term "showerhead" in enforcing standards that have been on the books—but largely unenforced—for nearly 20 years.

That means restricting shower heads to 2.5 gallons per minute flow.

"Did Congress limit consumer choice? Absolutely," the DOE's Mr. Harris says. "When you waste water, you waste energy." Each multi-head shower fixture uses an extra 40 to 80 thermal units of energy per year, equivalent to 50 gallons of gasoline, or one barrel of oil, he says.

In other words: if you want to pay extra to have an extra nice shower head that puts out more than 2.5 gallons per minute, you can't.  You have no choice.  The government has spoken and you shall obey.  So even if you can afford a 12 gallon per minute shower head, you are not allowed one.

Well, at least it's not fatal like CAFE standards.  Which also limits your choice in automobiles.  As the WSJ reports:

The showdown is a challenge to President Barack Obama and his energy secretary, Steven Chu, as they try to cajole—or compel—Americans to use water and energy more efficiently. Mr. Chu, a self-described "zealot" for energy efficiency, says he crawls around in his attic in his spare time installing extra insulation.

If Mr. Chu wishes to be a "zealot" he should not be in government.  This is just typical of command and control leftist government that wants to run your life for the betterment of  . . . whatever they want.  "First they came for the shower heads . . ."

Government Outsources Everything; Everything Works Better

A city in California fired all its employees and outsourced everything (some to other governments).  And . . . it worked better.  The New Yuck Times (!) reports:

At first, people in this poor, long-troubled and heavily Hispanic city southeast of Los Angeles braced for anarchy.

Senior citizens were afraid they would be assaulted as they walked down the street. Parents worried the parks would be shut and their children would have nowhere to safely play. Landlords said their tenants had begun suggesting that without city-run services they would no longer feel obliged to pay rent.

The apocalypse never arrived. In fact, it seems this city was so bad at being a city that outsourcing — so far, at least — is being viewed as an act of municipal genius.

Now this is an extreme case.  But what can the private sector do better then the government?  Pretty much everything.  Usually faster, cheaper, and better.  About the only thing I think couldn't be privatized is police forces.

And this city shows it's possible.  Maybe the Federal government could start outsourcing.  But what private company could replace Obama?

Creating Unemployment, Not Jobs

Extending jobless benefits has passed the Senate now (by one vote) after some tack-ons were tacked off and some RINOs decided to vote for it.  Most Republicans were against the bill because it uses borrowing to pay for the benefits and they wanted to cut spending in other places, instead.  The Democrats think this is going to help the economy:

"This bill is about jobs because unemployment insurance goes to people who will spend it immediately," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. "That would increase economic demand. And that would help support our fragile economic recovery."

Right.  We discussed yesterday why this isn't so.

And today the Wall Street Journal expounds on that in an unsigned editorial.

Mr. Obama was nonetheless obliged to concede that, 18 months after his $862 billion stimulus, there are still five job seekers for every job opening and that 2.5 million Americans will soon run out of unemployment benefits. What happens when the 99 weeks of benefits run out? Will the President demand that they be extended to three years, or four?

And extending jobless benefits causes unemployment.  How's that?  Well, if you want more of something, subsidize it.  If you want less, tax it. (So why do we tax prosperity and subsidize poverty?)  And unemployment benefits subsidize unemployment:

A March 2010 economic report by Michael Feroli of J.P. Morgan Chase examined several studies and concluded that "lengthened availability of jobless benefits has raised the unemployment rate by 1.5% points."

A 2006 NBER study by Raj Chetty of UC Berkeley on a related subject begins, "It is well known that unemployment benefits raise unemployment durations."

Add to it that it will increase the debt and you have a recipe for a slower recovery and more unemployment.  But that's Obamanomics for you: a slow, painful economy and masses of debt.

More Indications of How Obamacare will Work?

Okay, I may have gone too far when I compared North Korean health care with Obamacare.  Or maybe not.  Nobody complained but then again, nobody reads this blog.

Anyway, another cautionary tale for the world of universal health care.  In the U.K., the health care system is having a "cash crisis" leaving patients to suffer.  The U.K. Telegraph reports:

Women in labour have been forced to wait while epidural equipment was borrowed from other hospitals, while other patients have been denied chest drains and radiology supplies, according to doctors at South London Healthcare Trust.

Minutes of a meeting between medical staff and the trust’s chief executive say “cash flow” problems at the trust which has a £50 million deficit, mean vital equipment is regularly not ordered . . .

Minutes of a meeting of the medical staff committee of Princess Royal University Hospital in Bromley say managers acknowledged that “crude measures” introduced to cut spending had affected clinical supplies, meaning that stocks had run out when they were needed.

So, the government-run health care system ran out of cash, couldn't afford supplies, and patients suffered.

When the government decides what's spent on health care, and not the market, this is the kind of situation you have.

And that is the slippery slope Obamacare is leading us to.

Ripping Up Paved Roads

Used to be paved roads was a sign of progress.  A town or county with gravel roads was considered backward and poor.  Maybe they still are.  But according to an article (sub probably required) on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal, there's going to be more of them.

Why?  Because jurisdictions are going broke and can't afford to repair and maintain paved roads.  So they are ripping them up and replacing pavement with gravel:

In Michigan, at least 38 of the 83 counties have converted some asphalt roads to gravel in recent years. Last year, South Dakota turned at least 100 miles of asphalt road surfaces to gravel. Counties in Alabama and Pennsylvania have begun downgrading asphalt roads to cheaper chip-and-seal road, also known as "poor man's pavement." Some counties in Ohio are simply letting roads erode to gravel.

The moves have angered some residents because of the choking dust and windshield-cracking stones that gravel roads can kick up, not to mention the jarring "washboard" effect of driving on rutted gravel.

But higher taxes for road maintenance are equally unpopular. In June, Stutsman County [North Dakota] residents rejected a measure that would have generated more money for roads by increasing property and sales taxes.

So what are counties spending their money on, if not roads?  I'll bet a lot of things people would rather they didn't but they are required to by state or federal regulations.  And while residents don't want to pay higher taxes (and who can blame them?) they probably wish the counties would maintain their paved roads.

How Not to Run the Economy

Every now and then the Wall Street Journal will run an op-ed by someone who doesn't fall in line with the Journal's usual opinions (and they have their token liberal(sub probably required) columnist, too).

One such contrary piece was published today (Monday).  It's by Alan S. Blinder (no joke) who is described as: "a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University and vice chairman of the Promontory Interfinancial Network, is a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board."

In his piece (sub probably required), Mr. Blinder says Obama's economy polices are correct:

While [the Obama Administration] now eschews the phrase "fiscal stimulus," it wants to extend unemployment benefits and initiate or strengthen several other programs to create spending and jobs. But it also wants to let the Bush tax cuts end on schedule for those earning over (roughly) $250,000 a year.

(Actually, if Congress doesn't act, and it doesn't look like they will, those tax cuts will expire for everybody who pays income taxes.)

Mr. Binder agrees with the Obama plan:

Let the upper-income tax cuts expire on schedule at year end. That would save the government an estimated $75 billion over the next two years. However, it would also diminish aggregate demand a bit. So, instead of using the $75 billion to reduce the deficit, spend it on unemployment benefits, food stamps and the like for two years. That would surely put more spending into the economy than the tax hike takes out, thus creating jobs.

Really?  Taxing and spending will create more jobs then allowing people to keep, spend, and invest their money as they see fit.  This is like saying your car will run better if you take out half the gas, burn half of that on the ground, and then put the remainder into a car that doesn't work.  First you take the gas out (taxes), then you burn half of it on the ground (bureaucratic costs of redistributing wealth), then you put it in a car that doesn't work (unemployment payments).

With economic policies like these, who needs recessions?  We'll be in a lost-decade depression very quickly.