Radioactive Communist Zombies

Monday Night Ramble

It's Monday Night and I don't have anything to blog about.

Netflix is being weird.  Two movies arrived back today.  But instead of sending me my #1 and #2 choices in my queue, they have sent #3 and, as of this writing, haven't decided what else to send.  Oh, and #1 and #2 are suddenly on "Short Wait."  Very annoying.  Am I being throttled?

The Super Bowl ads were lame this year.  But the game was good.  The Audi Green Police ad has caused a stir.  I told the wife, "Don't laugh, it's coming."  Actually, in some jurisdictions, it's here.  And the Focus on the Family ad was about as offensive as a bowl of chocolate pudding.

The Federal government is going to form a "Climate Change Agency" if they can get congressional approval:

Portions of the Weather Service that have been studying climate, as well as offices from some other NOAA agencies, will be transferred to the new NOAA Climate Service.

The new agency will initially be led by Thomas Karl, director of the current National Climatic Data Center. The Climate Service will be headquartered in Washington and will have six regional directors across the country.

Which is just what we need: more bureaucracy.  Of course, they can't do anything right now 'cause D.C. has been shut down by two or more feet of snow.

Global Warming Backlash

California's anti-global warming law is, according to the LA Times, "a model for other state and federal efforts [to combat global warming]" is under attack in the Golden State.  In what supporters hope will kick-start a national rebellion against anti-global warming laws, an initiative is on the ballot suspending the state's carbon control laws until unemployment drops to 5.5% (it's currently at 12.4%).

Of course, the global warming alarmists are against it:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has made climate change one of his signature issues, is reportedly asking major companies to remain on the sidelines. The governor "absolutely opposes" the initiative, said spokesman Aaron McLear, adding that it is "deceptively written to protect big polluters and would keep us from staying No. 1 in the country in creating clean tech jobs."

Yes, you've created so many clean tech jobs your unemployment is 2.7 points higher than the nation's horrible 9.7%.

This could be the start of a national back-lash against climate change regulations.  People see them as the job killers that they are.   

Gas Tax Revenue Down

Be careful what you ask for.  After years of nagging drivers to drive less, take public transport, and drive more efficient cars (and mandating more efficient cars), people aren't buying as much gas.  And that means gas tax revenue is down.  Washington State particularly has a problem, as the Seattle Times reports:

To the list of woes facing a cash-strapped state government, now add fuel efficiency.

In Washington, motorists pay 37.5 cents on each gallon of gas. The money generates the bulk of revenue needed to build and maintain state highways, and it's a significant source of money for county road projects as well.

Here's the problem: Motorists require much less gas than they used to.

Automobiles are more fuel-efficient, people are driving less and, increasingly, they are driving automobiles that aren't powered by petroleum at all.

This trend could result in a $3.8 billion shortfall by the year 2025.

So what's the solution?  More taxes, of course:

As one possible long-term solution, the JTC's report recommends tying the gas tax to the Consumer Price Index. Hammond said indexing the gas tax could help revenue keep pace with demand for major transportation improvements when the economy's growing, while contracting during hard times.

But that means, (like Washington State's minimum wage that is tied to inflation) the gas tax will just keep going up and up except for those rare years like this year when inflation is negative.

Or they could start taxing you by the mile driven, as some states have proposed.  But those have huge potential for letting the government know not only how much you drive by where and how you drive.

But in some way government will get their money.  The only question is, how much and how much loss of privacy will it cost you.

Cellphone Laws Do Not Reduce Crashes

Remember when using a cellphone while driving was supposed to be a bad as driving drunk?  So some states, including Washington State, have mandated no hand held cell phone usage while driving (it's still okay to use a hands-free device).

The Wall Street Journal today has a piece (sub might be required) about how those cell phone bans have not reduced crashes:

[A] study released recently by the Highway Loss Data Institute and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety . . . found no significant reduction in accident claims in states that have banned the use of hand-held cellphones behind the wheel.

Really!

In New York state, for example, the legislature forbade motorists to use hand-held mobile phones while driving in November 2001. Driver phone use fell by an estimated 47%, the HLDI/IIHS study found. Yet while monthly collision claims in New York did show a decline after the ban, that drop had actually begun before the ban was enacted.

In California, a hand-held cellphone ban became law in July 2008. But HLDI found "no notable change was apparent" because of the ban. Likewise, accident claims in Connecticut and Washington, D.C., didn't show a significant change in accident claims after the bans, or compared to other states that had no cellphone bans.

So why are we banning cellphone usage while driving?  Because politicians always have to DO SOMETHING about any problem, perceived or real.  And thanks to this study, we're probably in for more politicians doing SOMETHING:

Some in the safety community say the failure to see lower crash rates suggests stronger enforcement is needed. Others suggest that the ban on holding a phone doesn't attack the real problem, which is the distraction of talking to someone who's not in the car. The study's results could give ammunition to those who say that future legislation or regulation on distracted driving needs to have a broader focus than just holding a handset.

In other words, ban cellphone usage even with hands-free devices.

Now Washington State has a ban on texting while driving which I completely agree with.  But banning cellphone usage totally just doesn't make sense.  Unless you're also going to ban smoking, eating, and talking to people in the car while driving, too.

Risk of "Crippling" Cyber Attack

The United States is at risk of a crippling cyber attack that could "wreak havoc" on the country because the "technological balance" makes it much easier to launch a cyber strike than defend against it, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said Tuesday.

Yeah, like you couldn't read this blog!

But seriously, as Fox News reports(you decide), a cyber attack would be devastating if it interrupted internet:

"Attacks against networks that control the critical infrastructure in this country ... could wreak havoc," Blair said. "Cyber defenders right now, it's simply the facts of the matter, have to spend more and work harder than the attackers do, and our efforts frankly are not strong enough to recognize, deal with that reality." 

Think how much business gets done in this country via internet (email, ecommerce, VIOP, etc.).  But that's not all that happening on the internet:

Blair also told Congress Tuesday that the Internet is providing the fuel for the growing problem of "homegrown radicalization." 

"That ... has been one of the most dangerous uses of the Internet," Blair said, explaining that foreign groups are using the Internet to organize attacks, give instructions and arrange financing.

Which just goes to show, most any technology is a double-edge sword.  It can be the must useful thing in the world, but it can also harbor dangers.

Tax and Spend (and Spend and Spend and Spend)

The Obama Administration has proposed at whopping $3.8 trillion budget.  If the population of the U.S. is 304 million people, that's $12,500 per person in the country. For a family of four that's $50,000.

And Obama is proposing a trillion dollars in new taxes over the next ten years.  Despite that, deficit spending and the national debt are reaching new levels: $1.56 trillion this year alone!  That's 41% of the budget.  That's $5,100 per person.

Of course, all this has to go through the sausage grinder that is Congress, first.  Knowing them they'll increase spending and maybe taxes.

I'm just lost for words.  This President wants to spend us into the third world.  Look for inflation and maybe hyper inflation to come soon.  Meanwhile, China will hold more and more of our debt.  What ever happened to the left's worry about deficit spending that was so prevalent during the Bush years? 

We have to get Republicans into Congress this year to stop this madness.  And we need to get someone in the White House who doesn't believe Keynesian economics.  Or this country will never be the same.