Radioactive Communist Zombies

Drug Deaths Exceed Traffic Deaths in Some States

On this day when we (kinda) mourn the passing of Saturn (after 19 years of making mediocre small cars and no profit) comes news that traffic safety has improved and drug abuse has so increased that in sixteen states (including Washington State), drugs now kill more people than cars:

Experts said the startling shift reflects two opposite trends: Driving is becoming safer, and the legal and illegal use of powerful prescription painkillers is on the rise.

Driving is becoming more safe?  Yep:

Nationally, the death rate from traffic accidents fell by about 6.5 percent from 1999 through 2006 - from 15.3 deaths per 100,000 people to 14.3 per 100,000, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Remember way back when when the Republicans repealed the 65/55 mile per hour speed limit (1995 I believe that was)?  And safety Nazis screamed about the carnage that would ensue on our highways as (most) states increased their speed limits?  Remember that?

Well, then how come in Massachusetts, drug deaths are double highway deaths?

Now, I don't want to make light of these tragic deaths from over-dosing on drugs (or long term damage done by drugs).  But when can we admit that speed limits have little to do with traffic safety?

Cap and Trade: Senate Version

The Wall Street Journal is reporting (sub probably required) that Senators Barbara Boxer (Dumb-California) and John Kerry (Dumber-Massachusetts) will introduce their version of cap and trade legislation in the Senate.  In contrast with Waxman-Markey (see here, here, here, and here), Boxer-Kerry will require faster reductions in greenhouse gases:

The proposal calls for cutting U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions 20% from 2005 levels by 2020, according to a copy of a draft, as well as people close to the matter.

The House bill, which passed in June, calls for cutting emissions 17% over the same period.

Which is just making a bad idea worse.

And speaking of bad ideas, Planet Gore is reporting that the Boxer-Kerry bill drops a provision that's in Waxman-Markey that stops the EPA from controlling greenhouse gases through the Clean Air Act.

So we get cap-and-trade and all the stupid crap that goes along with it (Renewable Energy Standard, etc.) along with EPA enforcement of 250 tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

Luckily, cap and trade will have a hard time in the Senate getting 60 votes.  But even then, the EPA still will be empowered to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.  So we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Ain't it fun living in a Democrat-controlled world.  

San Francisco on the Palouse

(Hat tip Washington Policy Blog)

Some residents of Spokane, Washington want to turn their city into San Francisco in one fell swoop.  A group called "Envision Spokane" has a ballot proposition for November (Proposition 4) which they are calling a "Community Bill of Rights."  Its provisions come right out of the leftist wish list:

• Residents have the right to a locally-based economy,
• Residents have the right to affordable preventative health care,
• Residents have the right to affordable and safe housing,
• Residents have the right to affordable and renewable energy,
• The natural environment has the right to exist and flourish,
• Residents have the right to determine the future of their neighborhoods,
• Workers have the right to be paid the prevailing wage, and the right to work as apprentices, on certain construction projects,
• Workers have the right to employer neutrality when unionizing, and the right to constitutional protections within the workplace

That first one is further explained as:

Residents have the right to a locally-based economy to ensure local job creation and enhance local business opportunities. The right shall include the right to have local monies reinvested locally by lending institutions, and the right to equal access to capital, credit, contracts, incentives, and services for businesses owned by Spokane residents.

Which seems to mean banks wouldn't be able to take money deposited in Spokane and loan it out in, say, Seattle.

But how is a city going to assure "affordable preventative health care" without huge tax increases to pay for it (or for that matter, how is Obamacare going to do that?)?

And some of these are contradictory since affordable housing will be made less affordable by the regulations needed to allow the natural environment "to exist and flourish"

Oh, and that "employer neutrality" means employers won't be able to tell their side of the story during a unionization drive.  In other words, it's an unconstitutional "gag rule" on employers.

With luck the fine residents of Spokane will reject this.  Or they will see their economy stagnate, their taxes go up, and their city become less livable. 

Fines and Jail for Babysitting

(Hat Tip Instapundit)

A Michigan woman is facing fines or jail for watching her neighbors kids:

Lisa Snyder of Middleville says her neighborhood school bus stop is right in front of her home. It arrives after her neighbors need to be at work, so she watches three of their children for 15-40 minutes until the bus comes.

The Department of Human Services received a complaint that Snyder was operating an illegal child care home. DHS contacted Snyder and told her to get licensed, stop watching her neighbors' kids, or face the consequences.

Why is the state doing this?

A DHS spokesperson would not comment on the specifics of the case but says they have no choice but to comply with state law, which is designed to protect Michigan children.

This is ridiculous.  This woman, who doesn't get paid, watches children for her neighbors, keeping them safe, and the state, in order to "protect Michigan children" tells her to stop.

Welcome to the brave new world of government where helping out is against the law.

Voting With Their (Rich) Feet

When the states needed money, some of them did the dumb thing of raising taxes in the middle of a recession.  And, according to the Wall Street Journal's Wealth Blog eight states specifically raised taxes on the "rich" (links original):

A record eight states have raised taxes on top earners this year, including Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Wisconsin.

The idea, to paraphrase Willie Sutton, is that wealthy taxpayers are where the money is.

But in what should come as no surprise to anyone with a lick of economic sense: the taxes did not raise the funds they were advertised to.  Why not?

Well, in the case of New York, some folks simply moved away--voting with their feet:

Now, early revenue figures suggest that taxing the wealthy more under this year's state budget may have driven away richer New Yorkers. That could make the economic comeback for the state even harder . . .

"People aren't wedded to a geographic place as they once were. It's a different world," New York Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch said.

Ravitch said last year's surcharge on income taxes for the next three years won't likely meet budget expectations. He said Albany must look to politically difficult spending cuts, rather than more taxes, to meet a deepening shortfall that Paterson estimated Wednesday could reach $3 billion.

And since rich people tend to be business people who create jobs, they are driving away the very people they need to make the recovery happen.  They are, in essence, killing the goose that lays the golden recovery.

But what do politicians know?  "Tax the Rich" is a typical Democrat mantra.  And they are ignorant of just don't care what the consequences are to the economy. 

Home Again

Been on yet another business trip.  Luckily this one was by car so no flying, no TSA, no hours in a cramped airplane seat.

So blogging has been non-existent for the past few days.  And tonight there's not much I feel like blogging about.  So here's some things to look at in lieu of my usual ramblings (sorta Instapundit style):

Greens stop a green energy project in California

An "android" sex doll

Environuts are now attacking toilet paper.

Government is subsidizing $88,000 luxury cars.

And greens are against green jobs (big surprise there).

Party Like it's 1875

Can the developed world cut its greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions to levels environmentalists want without doing a large amount of harm to the economy?  According to Steven F. Hayward writing in today's Wall Street Journal, the answer is a clear, "No."  To do cut ghg emissions that much would require using a lot less energy.  How much less?

 For the U.S., the 80% target means reducing fossil-fuel greenhouse-gas emissions to a level the nation last experienced in 1910. On a per-capita basis, we'd have to go back to the level of about 1875.

You know, 1875, before electricity, cars, computers, etc.

But can't we get energy from other sources that don't spew ghgs?  Yes, to a point.  But at what cost:

The basic problem is that current and proposed alternatives—solar, wind, biofuels, hydrogen, more nukes—are much more expensive than fossil fuels. Credible estimates for implementing low or noncarbon energy in the U.S. over the next generation start in the low trillions of dollars. Reasonable people will argue how much this will pinch economic growth, but no one can doubt that the sign will be negative.

And with fossil fuel, you cannot help but produce CO₂.  There is no way you can reduce CO₂ emissions through technology.  The only way to do it is to burn less fuel.  So the alternative is to spend trillions on unreliable wind and solar ('cause the greens don't want nukes, either).

And energy is key:

Energy is not like other goods that can be substituted or done without. It has rightly been called the master resource, because it is fundamental to everything else in the economy. There are no examples of a nation that grew wealthy on expensive energy.

But there are examples of nations growing poorer on "renewable" energy (viz Spain).  And what about increased efficiency?  Well, you reach the point of diminishing returns:

Over the past few decades, the U.S. has become more carbon-efficient while boosting its economic growth. But, for all our efforts, emissions keep going up. Hitting the 80% target by 2050 would mean roughly tripling our efficiency improvements and sustaining them for years to come—surely an impossible feat.

So it's live like your great great grandparents did (i.e., 1875 style) or produce more greenhouse gas or spend trillions converting the economy over to renewable energy.  Trillions that will then not be available to create jobs, improve household wealth or income, and keep children out of poverty.

Sounds like a bad deal all around. 

UW Huskies are Ranked

From laughing stock to ranked in three games.  Last season the University of Washington Huskies couldn't buy a victory and had the PAC-10's first no-win season.  Now, after beating #3 USC the Dawgs are ranked.  Okay, it's #24 out of 25 rankings.  But we'll take it.

The USC Trojans slipped to #12, the largest drop in the polls. (UPDATE: Actually, BYU had the largest drop in the polls, from #7 to #19.)

Is it too soon to hope for a winning season?

What is a First Lady to Do?

(Hat Tip Washington Policy Blog) Next time some Obama Administration crony lectures you about driving too much, just remember the choices Michelle Obama made when she needed some vegetables.  As Dana Milbank of the Washington Post reports:

Let's say you're preparing dinner and you realize with dismay that you don't have any certified organic Tuscan kale. What to do?

Here's how Michelle Obama handled this very predicament Thursday afternoon:

The Secret Service and the D.C. police brought in three dozen vehicles and shut down H Street, Vermont Avenue, two lanes of I Street and an entrance to the McPherson Square Metro station. They swept the area, in front of the Department of Veterans Affairs, with bomb-sniffing dogs and installed magnetometers in the middle of the street, put up barricades to keep pedestrians out, and took positions with binoculars atop trucks. Though the produce stand was only a block or so from the White House, the first lady hopped into her armored limousine and pulled into the market amid the wail of sirens.

Then, and only then, could Obama purchase her leafy greens.

Three dozen vehicles?  Armored limousine to travel a block?  Probably spent tens of thousands of dollars of government money to get some kale.  A carbon footprint of, what, a ton of CO₂?

This yet another example of the hubris and disdain for other people this administration shows every day.  Remember when candidate Obama said:

We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

And now Michelle can use three dozen cars to go fetch kale?  And remember last winter when Obama was keeping the Oval Office warm enough to grow orchids?

I guess conserving is for the little people.

Huskies Beat USC!

In an upset that pretty much no one expected, the University of Washington Huskies beat the USC Trojans 13 - 16.  USC was, before this meeting, ranked #3 in the nation where UW is coming off their worse season ever.  But with a new coach and new attitude, the Dawgs are now 2-1 (1-0 in conference).  UW hasn't beaten USC since 2001.

I was at the game (which is why this post is so late; had to drive home). 

After USC's first drive in which they seemed to run unopposed into the end zone, I thought the game was going to be over quickly.  But Washington came alive and its defense didn't allow USC one single 3rd down conversion and force three turn-overs.  USC has more yards, more sacks, and more first downs.  But UW had more points, including a tie-breaking field goal with 3 seconds left in the game. 

I snapped the following picture with my cell phone (thus its poor quality) as fans rushed the field after the game (click for full sized view):

Next week the Huskies play the Stanford Cardinal at Stanford.  Stanford is also 2-1 (1-0 in Conference after beating the WSU Cougars).

Go Huskies!