Radioactive Communist Zombies

State of the Union, 2012

Good evening, my fellow Americans.  I come to you in the fourth year of our Minor Set-Back, caused, of course, by the failed policies of the Republicans and George W. Bush.  We have striven hard to reduce unemployment by raising tariffs, taxes, and the minimum wage and increased regulations on the market.  But the damage done by the Republicans and George W. Bush was too great and we still need more time to fix the Minor Set-Back.  But we will get unemployment below 20% during my second term in office.

Secretary of Education Ayers is happy to report that high school seniors have all been through sensitivity training and while test scores haven't improved as much as we'd like, thanks to the failed policies of George W. Bush, all students graduating high school will know that it's racist to criticize the policies of this Administration.

We have extended the "Free Speech for All Doctrine" to satellite radio, print media, and the web, ensuring that all Americans have a voice and corporate America is not the only voice heard.  Prosecutions of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other voices of intolerance are proceeding under our Human Rights Commissions.  There have been hundreds of thousands of prosecutions of purveyors of hate and intolerance.  Intolerance will not be tolerated, be it on the web, radio, print, books, or spoken word.

We have extended voting rights to all.  Same day registration, no ID checks, and allowing Internet voting have ensured no one is denied the right to vote.  The unprecedented turn out in the 2010 election of 450 million voters show how successful this program is.  The fact that Democrats won every seat in Congress except three shows how Republicans and George W. Bush were suppressing the will of the people.

The two Constitutional amendments we have proposed have been ratified by almost enough states.  The first, allowing redistribution of wealth should be ratified soon.  The second, naming me President for Life, is going a bit slower.  I urge states to ratify these important amendments.

The bill before Congress to implement sharia law needs full approval before the deadline Osama bin Ladin has given us before a nuclear device goes off in a major American city.  Our best diplomatic efforts with bin Ladin and Iran have, unfortunately, failed, due to the policies of the Republicans and George W. Bush.

 But tonight, the state of our union is strong, and will be more so when the Constitution is amended and sharia law is implemented.

Thank you and good night and me bless the United States of America

Meet the New Change; Same as the Old Change

Thomas Sowell has, as usual, a brilliant piece in the Investor's Business Daily on Barack Obama.  As Mr. Sowell points out, Obama is offering nothing new under the sun:

Policies that he proposes under the banner of "change" are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries — and failed repeatedly in other countries.

Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.

The economies of China and India began their takeoff into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the U.S. under the magic mantra of "change."

Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.

Unemployment was 9% when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down, and reached 25% before the decade was over.

Higher taxes to "spread the wealth around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.

And his idea of using diplomacy rather than force to deal with Iran's ambitions to get nuclear weapons, is nothing new:

If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.

Again, same old same old and same disastrous consequences.  And when it comes to playing with Iran, the stakes are much higher than merely an economic meltdown:

In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country in order to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for George W. Bush. But he didn't have nuclear weapons to back up that threat — yet.

Imagine Iran blackmailing the United States.  Or a nuclear-armed bin Laden.  These are the real consequences of Barack Obama's tried-and-failed policies.

Read the Sowell piece before voting.

Wind Energy: Unreliable AND Expensive, Too!

Okay, wind energy not only has a huge carbon footprint and makes blackouts more likely, and is, of course, unreliable, it's also damned expensive.

Drew Thornly writing in Planet Gore looks at Texas, which has become a haven of wind farms (links original):

The Lone Star State’s renewable-energy mandates — combined with the federal government’s generous tax credit for wind-energy production — have helped Texas become the nation’s leading installer of wind-energy capacity. You won’t find much opposition here to wind energy’s rapid expansion, because so much money is pouring into the state. It’s all fun and games — until Texas consumers pay the long-term price for everyone else’s short-term gain.

And pay they will. In my just published study, Texas Wind Energy: Past, Present, and Future (PDF here), we estimate that forcing even modest levels of wind-energy generation on Texans will cost ratepayers and taxpayers up to $4 billion a year, and at least $60 billion through 2025. Apply these numbers on a national scale with the idea of replacing coal or natural gas — or both — with wind, and the numbers become staggering.

Seems $60 billion could buy a lot of more reliable energy.

All this for an energy source that relies on the wind, which isn't very cooperative and (unlike, say, water) can't be stored.

The greatest impediment to wind’s large-scale contribution to our energy supply is its intermittent nature. The wind must blow in order for wind turbines to produce power — peak capacity comes when the wind blows at about 31 miles per hour. But because those conditions are rare, wind turbines typically produce only around 30 percent of their installed capacity over time.

And the electricity can't be stored, either.  So when the wind blows and the demand isn't there, the electricity goes to waste (this is probably why you see stationary windmills).  When the wind isn't blowing and there is demand, there has to be something to replace that capacity.  In Texas, it's natural gas fired generators which spew CO₂.

According to this story in the Washington Post, a 1,400 MW nuclear plant costs $2.6 billion to build.  So for their $60 billion Texans could have 23 nuclear power plants putting out 32,200 MW of electricity 24/7 no matter if the wind blows or not.

Shock: Obama Running Misleading Ad

Okay, not really a shock.  But watch this:

Note that a middle class family does better under McCain's tax proposals and there would be more job growth with McCain.

No Dam Difference

(Hat Tip Olympia Business Watch.)

The Fraser River in Canada has zero dams.  The Columbia and Snake rivers have multiple dams.  In which river system do fish have better survival rates?  Neither.  As the Portland Oregonian reports:

[A] striking new study released Monday found that for some endangered salmon and steelhead stocks, just as many young fish survive their journey through the Snake and Columbia dams as survive a similar trip down Canada's Fraser River, which has no dams.

How can this be? 

Well, it's probably because millions of dollars have been spent to make the dams more fish friendly.  So much so, that fish survival rates are close to that of a river with no dams.  So enjoy that salmon steak, it cost taxpayers and ratepayers millions.

And these results give lie to those that say we need to remove dams to save the salmon. 

Cars are More Energy Efficient than Mass Transit?

So, if you want to reduce energy usage (why?) what's the best choice?  Hop in your car, turn on the radio, go when you want in comfort and privacy?  Or wait for mass transit, stand in the elements, sit next to a stranger (who only bathes in odd numbered years), and stop every two blocks and take twice as long to get there?

Believe it or not, it's the former.  Yes, cars are more energy efficient than most mass transit.

Randall O'Toole did a study for Cato Institute titled "Does Rail Transit Save Energy or Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?"  His findings?

An average passenger car (not SUV) burns 3,445 BTUs per passenger mile (moving one person one mile).  A light rail system burns 3,465 BTUs per passenger mile.  A mass transit bus burns 4,365 BTU's per passenger mile if it's got an internal combustion engine.  If it runs off of electricity, it burns 3,923 BTU's per passenger mile.  Better, but still more than a car.

Now, SUV's and trucks don't do so well.  They burn 4,423 BTU's to move you one mile.  So if you own one of them, you might want to consider mass transit (yet another reason not to own an SUV).

So, save the planet: drive your car.

Obama's Plans to Ruin the Energy Sector

What will Barack Obama do if elected President in the area of energy?  According to an article in the Wall Street Journal (sub required, I think), a lot.

First of all, he has broad plans to "fight" global warming.  Obama wants to reduce U.S. carbon emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.  How would he do this?

One is his cap and trade proposal.  He would auction off carbon permits, i.e., a huge tax increase on energy that will most likely go into subsidising "green collar" jobs.  (McCain has a cap and trade program but he initially gives away the permits.)

Obama will also increase the ethanol mandate to 60 billion gallons by 2030 (67% higher than now) and: 

Mr. Obama would also double fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks; mandate that all new vehicles are flex-fuel, which means able to run on any blend of gasoline and ethanol; require that all new buildings are carbon-neutral by 2030, in addition to multiple other efficiency rules to discourage energy consumption; and detail a 10-year, $150 billion project of government-directed research into alternative energy technologies.

So he's going to ruin cars even more than CAFE has already.

While John McCain wants to expand nuclear power (which doesn't put out any greenhouse gases), Obama wants to mandate that utilities generate at least 25% of their power by 2025 from noncarbon sources such as unreliable wind and solar (See here for a story about a wind farm company that didn't make as much electricity and thus money as hoped because the wind didn't blow).

Obama is, according to the article, hostile to coal despite the fact it supplies 50% of America's electricity.  He's all for "clean coal" but that has yet to be commercially developed and like his 25% of power from noncarbon sources, is probably a pipe dream.

And finally, a Democrat Congress with an Obama administration would reinstate the off-shore drilling ban that Congress let lapse, making us more dependent on foreign oil and unreliable or expensive boondoggles like ethanol or solar and wind.

Like other areas of the economy, we can't afford an Obama presidency.

Obama: Courts Should Have Redistributed Wealth

A 2001 radio interview has come to light (you can hear excerpt from it here) where Barack Obama says the Warren Court was not radical enough in that it didn't correct basic problems in the Constitution and "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."

This is scary.  The Warren Court was not radical enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted"?  This is what Obama believes.  The Constitution he will have to swear to uphold and defend is fatally flawed because it constrains his ability to redistribute wealth, perhaps even along racial (calling it "civil rights") lines?

As Investor's Business Daily points out:

Congress too is eagerly getting ready to enact "redistributive change." Last week, top House Democrats discussed taxing Americans' pretax contributions to 401(k) plans, with the promise of tens of billions of dollars in new government revenues every year — plus forcing workers to invest in government debt, shifting trillions of dollars from private savings to government control.

Could that be part of what Obama meant in Colorado this weekend when he warned, "make no mistake . . . we will all need to sacrifice"? Was it part of what running mate Joe Biden meant last week when he said of corporate executives, "their pensions go first"? Do workers' pensions then "go" next?

This man is a hard core socialist at heart.  He is not Bill Clinton or even Al Gore.  He is the most liberal man to be a major party nomenee probably ever.  His election will change this country forever and for the worse.  

 

Mid-Season Coaching Change at UW?

The University of Washington Huskies are, after a 33-7 rout by Notre Dame yesterday, at 0-7 for the season and in last place in the Pac-10.  Things are looking bad for UW coach Tyrone Willingham who is 11-32 with the Huskies.

An article in today's Seattle Times speculates that Willingham may be short on time at UW:

But Willingham very well could be gone at any time. Athletic director Scott Woodward has stated many times that he does not believe that an in-season coaching change is a prudent move, yet the Huskies have now dropped nine straight dating back to last season and are assured of not going to a bowl game for the sixth consecutive year.

Yesterday's solitary touchdown against the Fighting Irish was against players who "never play" according to Irish coach Charlie Weis.  This Husky team is in trouble.

How much is Willingham's fault?  Due to his recruiting, he has a passel of very young players.  Perhaps in a few years they'll be great and the Huskies will be playing much better.  But right now, who knows.  Star quarterback Jake Locker is out with a broken thumb that he got blocking.  Why was a quarterback blocking?  If Locker hadn't gotten hurt it would have been considered a brilliant tactic.

So a combination of poor coaching and bad luck has brought the Huskies to their only second 0-7 season in their history.

But who will replace Willingham?  And who can do more with what is there to work with?  Firing the coach will do little to improve the performance of a very young team. 

Maybe I Don't Want to go to Australia

Lots of places I want to visit in the world and Australia is one of them.  But I'm having second thoughts after reading this report and seeing the picture accompanying it at left (click for larger view).  As the report states:

THIS amazing image of a mammoth spider devouring a bird was taken in the backyard of a property near Cairns . . . The photo, believed to have been taken earlier this week, shows the spider clenching its legs around a lifeless bird trapped in a web at a property near Atherton, west of Cairns.

Joel Shakespeare, the head spider keeper at NSW's Australian Reptile Park, has told ninemsn the spider was a golden orb weaver.

"Normally they prey on large insects, it's unusual to see one eating a bird," he said.

Mr Shakepeare said he had seen Golden Orb Weaver spiders as big as a human hand but the northern species in tropical areas were known to grow larger. 

A spider larger than a human hand?  Capable of eating a bird?

Now I'm not afraid of spiders as a general rule.  But I really don't want to be where ones that size are roaming around freely.  I mean, what if you stepped on it?

Still probably visit Australia if I get the chance.  I'll just watch were I step.  And look out for large webs.