Radioactive Communist Zombies

Climate Change: Greens Latest Scam to Control You

I'm not here to argue the scientific basis or facts of anthropogenic climate change (nee, global warming).  I believe there is enough doubt in the "settled science" that it's not worth destroying our economy over (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).  (I could link more but I won't.)

And we are not short of oil.  In fact, proven reserves as of January 1, 2009 are 1,342,207,000,000 barrels (1.34 trillion) according to the Department of Energy.  And that's just proven reserves as we keep finding more and more oil.

According to this website, the world burns about 85,085,664 barrels of oil per day.  Sounds like a lot but simple math shows that's enough to last the world 43 years at current consumption levels and current proven reserves.  And some say there's another trillion barrels out there if we'd just go find it.  And that's another 32 years worth of oil.  So that's 75 years worth of oil probably out there.  We are not short of oil.

So why are we putting in stricter Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules, forcing cars to be downsized, underpowered, and less safe?  Why are some calling for a tax on burning fossil fuels.  Why are incandescent light bulbs being banned?

Why?  Because of the theory that humans are causing climate change.  It's the moving goal posts.  First environmentalists went for low-hanging fruit: cleaning up the water and the air.  And we did that and I'm glad we did (I've been in countries where they haven't).  But that wasn't good enough, so we had to clean up aerosols, and sulfates, and other less harmful pollutants.  But that wasn't enough, so now the very CO₂ from combustion of hydrocarbons is "pollution."

And the reason for that is: the greens' desire to run your life.  Climate change gives them the ultimate excuse to put them in charge of your life.  Nearly everything you do is bad for the environment, so nearly everything you do needs to be controlled by the over-whelming government control of the greens' wet dreams.  The greens want to rule by diktat.  Democracy is too messy.  The masses might not vote to impoverish themselves.

Environmentalism and the mother of all environmental causes, climate change, are simply excuses to control and run your life for you per the desires of the leftists.  There was a time when the environment needed cleaning.  But no more burning rivers, the ecomentalists need more excuses to control you.  And global warming climate change is the perfect excuse.

First Principles: Morality of Government

When you wake up on a Saturday thinking about politics, you know you need a life.

I've been thinking about the morality of being a libertarian/conservative (or as I put it "conservatarian").   Is it "good" (in the moral sense) to be for smaller government, more personal responsibility, lower taxes, and other tenets of libertarianism.

And the answer is . . . a resounding "yes."  But why?  Simply this: all government power comes from violence or the threat of violence.  In dealing with criminals, terrorists, and other hostile governments this is appropriate and necessary (and ironically, this is where the left least wants the government to use its power).

But all government power comes from violence or the threat of it.  The power to tax, the power to regulate, the power to take money from you and give it to others, all comes from the end of a gun.  The government will--eventually--threaten you with violence if you refuse to accede to its smallest demands.  Take jaywalking for example.  If you think you should be responsible for deciding when and where you cross the street, and an agent of the government catches you, and you refuse to submit to government's authority, you will have a gun pointed at you.

How's that?  Well, you'll get a ticket.  You refuse to pay it.  Eventually there'll be a warrant for your arrest.  You're now labeled a "criminal" (for jaywalking).  The cops will come to get you, and if you "resist arrest" and they will use force on you.  You will have to use force to resist.  And it will escalate to guns being drawn and if you fight against that, they will shoot and possibly kill you.  For jaywalking.  Or not paying taxes.  Or driving faster than some number a politician or bureaucrat pulled out of their ear.

Now the left likes to claim they are moral because they take your money (through threats of violence) and give it to others.  This is about as moral as giving an alcoholic another drink.  They hook people on the drug of dependency, making them almost less than human as they look to government, to violence, to feed, clothe, and house them.  And with health care deform, the left wants to extend that dependency to everyone.

And of course the left is for gun control: only allowing the government to have guns.  This only enhances the power of their violence and the inability of people to fight the excesses of government.

So the question is: is it moral to use violence to control people?  The answer is: by and large, no.

For my thoughts on capitalism, see here.

Global Warming Lawsuit

Blogging has been light (okay, non-existent) because I was out of town Wednesday and Thursday on business.  So sorry to my loyal readers (both of them).

A while back we discussed global warming lawsuits.  Well, according to the "On the Docket" blog over at Forbes, they are not being very successful.  (You should be thankful for that.)  According to blogger Daniel Fisher:

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided, in a convoluted and dissent-provoking way, not to decide a politically charged global-warming lawsuit against ExxonMobil, BP, AES, Dow Chemical and most of the rest of the American industrial establishment.

In an order issued this afternoon, five judges on the Fifth Circuit dismissed an appeal of a lower-court decision throwing out the case. The plaintiffs, property owners on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, accused the industrial companies of spewing greenhouse gases into the air and helping to cause global warming, rising waters, hurricanes and all manner of other natural disasters. A lower court dismissed the case, saying the plaintiffs didn't have standing to sue and the core issues were political, not judicial, in nature.

But that won't be the end of the story . . . nooooooo [links original]:

Not to worry. Global warming is the next tobacco -- or maybe asbestos -- and deep-pocketed lawyers including Steve Berman , who served as a "special attorney general" for the states in the tobacco case, want to see this through. So far a court in the Ninth Circuit has dismissed a case and the Second Circuit has waved one through. At the heart of it all is a dispute over whether lawyers and judges can determine whether and which companies must pay for global warming, or whether this is a matter for legislators to decide. Look for a Supreme Court appeal soon.

Just think . . . if you can extract billions of dollars from U.S. industry for supposed damage caused by creating wealth, employing people, providing products people want, you can . . . well, screw up the economy big time.  But some lawyers will get very rich.

The Vanity of Big Government

I wish I could write like Mark Steyn.  But I can't, so I'll just link you to his brilliant piece on Obama and big government.  Read the whole thing (As Glen Reynolds would say).

UPDATE: Here's yet another brilliant essay by Mr. Steyn on some of the same themes.

Please Drive When You are Driving

And you thought texting while driving was bad (and it is; don't do it).  A study of driving habits of drivers shows we do a lot more than text behind the wheel.  Fox News reports:

According to a scientific survey commissioned by hands-free headset maker Jabra, while 28 percent of respondents in six countries including the United States say that they’ve texted behind the wheel, 72 percent eat or drink regularly, and 35 percent admit to getting dressed or undressed. Although no connection is made, that last point may be related to the fact that 29 percent have kissed while driving and more than half that, fully 15 percent, have engaged in sexual intercourse or another sexual act. Freshening up by styling hair or applying makeup is done by 23 percent and 13 percent of those surveyed.

I'm guilty of drinking (nonalcoholic) beverages while driving.  Haven't eaten while driving for a while.  But having sex?  No wonder people drive like idiots.

The survey showed "only" 5% will admit to playing video games while driving.  This is ridiculous.  When you are driving a 2-ton machine that can kill: pay attention to what you're doing.

Besides, I might be coming up behind you in the left lane.

More Stimulus Plans to Ruin the Economy More

Oh, man, as if the $862 billion deficit busting, unemployment raising stimulus wasn't enough, the Spendocrats in Congress and President Obama want to spend another $190 billion most of which will just be debt.  As the Wall Street Journal reports (sub possibly needed) in an unsigned editorial:

There's $24 billion to help states pay the exploding tab for Medicaid, the same program that ObamaCare expands by some 16 million new recipients. The bill also offers $1 billion for summer jobs for teens, whose jobless rate is 25.4% . . .

The biggest item is $65 billion to prevent a 21% cut in Medicare physician reimbursements. Democrats promised this to the American Medical Association in return for its ObamaCare support, but they left the $65 billion out of the health-care law to make it look less expensive. Now they're pushing it through under separate cover when they assume the press corps won't notice.

The $47 billion to extend unemployment insurance to nearly two full years will bring the total spent on this program to $137 billion during this recession—five times more than in either of the prior two recessions. That's nearly as much as the federal corporate income raised in 2009.

Wow, that's a lot of spending.  As Ronald Reagan said: a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking real money.  And this bill is full of corporate welfare (which I thought the Spendocrats didn't like).

And now there's a study out showing the increased government spending has a negative effect on the economy (Hat Tip Washington Policy Blog).  From the Harvard Business School and National Bureau of Economic Research, the study shows that the more powerful a district's representatives, the less corporate expenditure on investments there is.  You see, having a powerful member of Congress means more government spending in the district and more government spending dampens private investment.  After all, why compete with a government that can print money?

Which is yet another reason why stimulus doesn't stimulate.

Just think, if we hadn't borrowed our way into massive debt in the name of stimulus, spent all that money, the economy might be turned around by  now.  But looking at the Dow and other economic indicators, it's too much to hope for.

The Last Hours of 24

For those of you on the East Coast, it's already started: the last two hours of "24".  (I still have an hour to wait.)

I've watched "24" unlike I've watched any television program in a long time.  I caught every episode of every season. 

I didn't start watching "24" until the second season (and boy, was it confusing at first as I didn't know who anyone was and there were lots of blondes).   I was almost immediately hooked and got the first season from Netflix to catch up.

Conservatives tended to like "24" due to its unflinching view of terrorism.  And Jack pulled no punches (literally).  If Jack needed information to stop a terrorist threat, he used whatever "aggressive interrogation" techniques it required.

But as Jonah Goldberg pointed out in National Review (NRODT) that "24" also showed government bureaucrats as nearly omnipotent in their ability to gather information when needed.  And very little (if anything) in government is that efficient.

This last season of "24" has been a good one, one of the better of the eight.  The show is definitely going out with a bang and on top (despite declining viewer ship).

Now the only thing to watch on Monday nights will be Top Gear.  Tuesdays nothing. Wednesdays Mythbusters, Thursday through Saturday nothing, and finally on Sunday Simpsons and Family Guy.

Oh well, just more time to blog.  

Autism and Vaccines

Google "autism vaccines" and see how many hits you get, like this one, claiming the tiny amount of mercury in vaccines (used as a preservative) is causing autism.  Old myths die hard.

Today it was announced that the doctor who first made the autism and vaccine link has been banned from practicing medicine in the U.K.  As the AP reports:

The doctor whose research linking autism and the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella influenced millions of parents to refuse the shot for their children was banned Monday from practicing medicine in his native Britain.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield's 1998 study was discredited — but vaccination rates have never fully recovered and he continues to enjoy a vocal following, helped in the U.S. by endorsements from celebrities like Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy.

This despite the fact Wakefield has been totally debunked:

The council was acting on a finding in January that Wakefield and two other doctors showed a "callous disregard" for the children in their study, published in 1998 in the medical journal Lancet. The medical body said Wakefield took blood samples from children at his son's birthday party, paying them 5 pounds (about $7.20) each and later joked about the incident.

The study has since been widely rejected. From 1998-2004, studies in journals including the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, Pediatrics and BMJ published papers showing no link between autism and the measles vaccine.

Because of Wakefield's "study" millions of children have not be vaccinated for measles, mumps and rubella and many have gotten sick and some have died.

But the fears of the masses are not easily allayed.  It'll probably be years before vaccination rates are high enough again to prevent outbreaks of these preventable diseases.  And the problem with this form of mass hysteria, this one endangers children.

Oh, and what has caused the increase in autism?  Mostly women having children later in life.

Scientists Say: Here Comes Global Cooling

While the EPA is getting ready to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (mostly CO₂) under the Clean Air Act and about every week there's a new bill to reduce GHG emissions in the U.S. Senate, some scientists are saying global warming is over and it's time to get ready for global cooling.  (Well, the climate has cooled for the past 10 years or so.)  As Investors' Business Daily reports in an unsigned editorial:

"Global warming is over — at least for a few decades," Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told the gathering. "However, the bad news is that global cooling is even more harmful to humans than global warming, and a cause for greater concern."

Easterbrook and 74 other presenters at the conference said what everyone already knows, having shoveled record amounts of global warming off our sidewalks and driveways last winter.

Yep, it's getting chilly.

Another presenter, James M. Taylor, an environmental policy expert and a fellow at the Heartland Institute, said that global cooling is happening now.

He pointed to data provided by the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab showing snow records from the last 10 years exceeding the records set in the 1960s and 1970s.

And you thought the science was settled on anthropogenic global warming?  That's because all the mainstream media listens to are the alarmist who have a stake in global warming (usually in the form of money to fund their research).

If this were just a scientific curiosity, that'd be one thing.  But policy is being made in the name of "stopping" global warming (viz, EPA) which will reduce your freedoms and your wealth (not to mention take all the fun out of driving).

But can we at least admit there's some doubt about anthropogenic global warming and maybe it's all just natural?

Cars are Going to Get Worse

After decreeing that all cars suck the Obama Administration wants them to suck worse in the future.  As AP reports:

President Barack Obama is ordering federal agencies to work up national mileage and emissions standards for big rig and work trucks for the first time, seeking to limit pollution from the large vehicles that contribute a disproportionate share of it.

In a ceremony in the Rose Garden Friday Obama also ordered federal agencies that have already brought out new standards for cars and light trucks for the 2012-2016 model years to begin work on even stronger rules for 2017 and beyond.

Of course, the "pollution" they are talking about is CO₂.  You know, what plants need to survive.

All this because of supposed global warming and the desire to control you.   And global warming might just be an artifact of urban heat islands.