WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration and New York agreed Saturday on a compromise creating a more secure driver's license for U.S. citizens and allowing illegal immigrants to get a version. New York is the fourth state to reach such an agreement, after Arizona, Vermont and Washington. The issue is pressing for border states, where new and tighter rules are soon to go into effect for crossings.
The deal comes about one month after New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer announced a plan whereby illegal immigrants with a valid foreign passport could obtain a license. The agreement with the Homeland Security Department will create a three-tier license system in New York, the largest state to sign on so far to the government's post-Sept. 11 effort to make identification cards more secure.
Spitzer, who has faced much criticism on the issue, said the deal means New York "will usher in the most secure licensing system in the nation." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he was not happy that New York intended to issue IDs to illegal immigrants. But he said there was nothing he could do to stop it. "I don't endorse giving licenses to people who are not here legally, but federal law does allow states to make that choice," Chertoff said.
New York will produce one ID that will be as secure as a passport and is intended for people who soon will need to meet such requirements, even for a short drive to Canada.
A second version of the license will meet new federal standards of the Real ID Act, a law designed to make it much harder for illegal immigrants or would-be terrorists to obtain licenses.
A third type of license will be available to undocumented immigrants. Spitzer has said this ID will make the state more secure by bringing those people "out of the shadows" and into American society, and by lowering auto insurance rates. New York has between 500,000 and 1 million undocumented immigrants, many of whom are driving without a license and car insurance or with fake driver's licenses, Spitzer in September when he announced his executive order.
The administration has not finalized standards for Real ID-compliant driver's licenses, but Spitzer said he believed the new licenses would meet those standards or come very close.
Many states have complained it is far too expensive to comply with the new law. Neither the governor nor Chertoff would say how much it would cost to put the system in place or who would pay for it.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
A real climate expert speaks out
Notable & Quotable
WSJ, October 25, 2007; Page A23
John Christy of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (co-recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize) responds to questions by CNN anchor Miles O'Brien:
O'BRIEN: I assume you're not happy about sharing this award with Al Gore. You going to renounce it in some way?
CHRISTY: Well, as a scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, I always thought that -- I may sound like the Grinch who stole Christmas here -- that prizes were given for performance, and not for promotional activities.
And, when I look at the world, I see that the carbon dioxide rate is increasing, and energy demand, of course, is increasing. And that's because, without energy, life is brutal and short. So, I don't see very much effect in trying to scare people into not using energy, when it is the very basis of how we can live in our society.
O'BRIEN: So, what about the movie ["An Inconvenient Truth"]; do you take issue with, then, Dr. Christy?
CHRISTY: Well, there's any number of things.
I suppose, fundamentally, it's the fact that someone is speaking about a science that I have been very heavily involved with and have labored so hard in, and been humiliated by, in the sense that the climate is so difficult to understand, Mother Nature is so complex, and so the uncertainties are great, and then to hear someone speak with such certainty and such confidence about what the climate is going to do is -- well, I suppose I could be kind and say, it's annoying to me.
O'BRIEN: But you just got through saying that the carbon dioxide levels are up. Temperatures are going up. There is a certain degree of certainty that goes along with that, right?
CHRISTY: Well, the carbon dioxide is going up. And remember that carbon dioxide is plant food in the fundamental sense. All of life depends on the fact carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere. So, we're fortunate it's not a toxic gas. But, on the other hand, what is the climate doing. And when we build -- and I'm one of the few people in the world that actually builds these climate data sets -- we don't see the catastrophic changes that are being promoted all over the place.
For example, I suppose CNN did not announce two weeks ago when the Antarctic sea ice extent reached its all-time maximum, even though, in the Arctic in the North Pole, it reached its all-time minimum.
WSJ, October 25, 2007; Page A23
John Christy of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (co-recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize) responds to questions by CNN anchor Miles O'Brien:
O'BRIEN: I assume you're not happy about sharing this award with Al Gore. You going to renounce it in some way?
CHRISTY: Well, as a scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, I always thought that -- I may sound like the Grinch who stole Christmas here -- that prizes were given for performance, and not for promotional activities.
And, when I look at the world, I see that the carbon dioxide rate is increasing, and energy demand, of course, is increasing. And that's because, without energy, life is brutal and short. So, I don't see very much effect in trying to scare people into not using energy, when it is the very basis of how we can live in our society.
O'BRIEN: So, what about the movie ["An Inconvenient Truth"]; do you take issue with, then, Dr. Christy?
CHRISTY: Well, there's any number of things.
I suppose, fundamentally, it's the fact that someone is speaking about a science that I have been very heavily involved with and have labored so hard in, and been humiliated by, in the sense that the climate is so difficult to understand, Mother Nature is so complex, and so the uncertainties are great, and then to hear someone speak with such certainty and such confidence about what the climate is going to do is -- well, I suppose I could be kind and say, it's annoying to me.
O'BRIEN: But you just got through saying that the carbon dioxide levels are up. Temperatures are going up. There is a certain degree of certainty that goes along with that, right?
CHRISTY: Well, the carbon dioxide is going up. And remember that carbon dioxide is plant food in the fundamental sense. All of life depends on the fact carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere. So, we're fortunate it's not a toxic gas. But, on the other hand, what is the climate doing. And when we build -- and I'm one of the few people in the world that actually builds these climate data sets -- we don't see the catastrophic changes that are being promoted all over the place.
For example, I suppose CNN did not announce two weeks ago when the Antarctic sea ice extent reached its all-time maximum, even though, in the Arctic in the North Pole, it reached its all-time minimum.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Party of the Little People?!
The Corporate Welfare CongressOctober 23, 2007; Page A18
Perhaps you've heard that this is the Congress for "the little guy," the "forgotten" middle class, the working stiff. If that was the plan, it isn't working. On present trends, the 110th Congress will go down as one of the biggest blowouts in corporate welfare history.
That's saying something, considering that the last GOP Congress gave big business some $92 billion a year in subsidies, according to the Cato Institute. Cato's latest analysis indicates that if all the pending spending bills pass, corporate welfare will exceed $100 billion in direct outlays in 2008.
The handouts for the rich that have a good chance of passing include the most expensive farm bill ever; a rise in the mortgage limits on loans that can be securitized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; some $2 billion in loan guarantees to ethanol producers; and expansions in flood and terrorism insurance to benefit home builders, mortgage banks, and real estate developers.
Many of the 40 largest existing corporate welfare are set to get a raise, including the Commerce Department's $116 million manufacturing extension program, the $100 million Advanced Technology Program (which funds R&D for the likes of IBM, General Electric and Xerox), and the $200 million Agriculture Market Access Program, which underwrites foreign advertising for the likes of Pillsbury and Dole. We'd call all of this the "K Street" project, but even Tom DeLay never thought this big:
Big agribusiness. The House has already passed a five-year farm bill with a cost of $286 billion. The USDA calculates that two-thirds of these subsidies are directed to the richest 10% of farmers. The huge cooperatives that grow rice, cotton, corn, wheat and soybeans will get $7.5 billion a year. These handouts will come despite record crop prices, and farm land selling at an average of 18% above a year ago. The USDA estimates that farm net income will reach $87 billion this year, nearly 50% higher than in 2006.
Ethanol. On top of the 51 cent per gallon tax credit for this inefficient fuel, the Senate energy bill requires a doubling of ethanol production from corn, $500 million in new direct payments to ethanol producers, and $2 billion more for loan guarantees for new ethanol refineries.
Big Sugar. The farm bill requires the USDA to buy up domestic sugar equal to the amount that is imported from Mexico under Nafta, which is a disguised form of trade protection. This sweet deal is like requiring the Transportation Department to purchase a Ford and GM car for every Nissan and Toyota imported into the U.S. The taxpayer cost: $1.4 billion.
Flood insurance. The House has passed a bill that replenishes a fund drained by Hurricane Katrina. But along the way it also raises the maximum coverage limits, and for the first time covers wind damage for commercial properties. The National Taxpayers Union calculates that taxpayers could be on the hook for $100 billion of future losses.
Terror insurance. On September 19, the House approved a new federal terrorism backstop for developers at an estimated 10-year cost of $10.4 billion. The original terrorism insurance bill, passed in the wake of 9/11, was supposed to be temporary. But under pressure from business lobbies and insurers, industry won a 15-year extension covering up to 90% of terrorism-related losses.
"Renewable" fuels. Energy bills moving through Congress tax oil companies and pass most of the $25 billion or so in expected revenue to wind, solar and Midwestern biofuels companies, even though private venture capital for such fuels hit new peaks in 2005 and 2006. For 20 years, the feds have poured more than $10 billion into this industry with little reduction in U.S. oil dependence.
Corporate pork. There are 13,000 earmarks in this year's appropriations bills, including hundreds that benefit narrow business groups. Such as: $500,000 to build a baseball stadium for the Cincinnati Reds minor league team in Billings, Montana; $150,000 for the Troy, Michigan Chamber of Commerce; $500,000 for the Arkansas World Trade Center; $4 million for a rail bridge for CSX railroad.
If you want to know how good liberals can tolerate such largesse for the rich, keep in mind that in Washington quids often come with a quo. The latest FEC fundraising reports indicate that industry lobbyists have shifted their allegiance from Republicans and are now funneling cash to Democrats they expect to hold their majority. Roll Call newspaper, which covers Congress, reports that in the first half of 2007 business lobbyists gave "all or most of their cash to Democratic candidates and party committees."
They're getting their money's worth.
Perhaps you've heard that this is the Congress for "the little guy," the "forgotten" middle class, the working stiff. If that was the plan, it isn't working. On present trends, the 110th Congress will go down as one of the biggest blowouts in corporate welfare history.
That's saying something, considering that the last GOP Congress gave big business some $92 billion a year in subsidies, according to the Cato Institute. Cato's latest analysis indicates that if all the pending spending bills pass, corporate welfare will exceed $100 billion in direct outlays in 2008.
The handouts for the rich that have a good chance of passing include the most expensive farm bill ever; a rise in the mortgage limits on loans that can be securitized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; some $2 billion in loan guarantees to ethanol producers; and expansions in flood and terrorism insurance to benefit home builders, mortgage banks, and real estate developers.
Many of the 40 largest existing corporate welfare are set to get a raise, including the Commerce Department's $116 million manufacturing extension program, the $100 million Advanced Technology Program (which funds R&D for the likes of IBM, General Electric and Xerox), and the $200 million Agriculture Market Access Program, which underwrites foreign advertising for the likes of Pillsbury and Dole. We'd call all of this the "K Street" project, but even Tom DeLay never thought this big:
Big agribusiness. The House has already passed a five-year farm bill with a cost of $286 billion. The USDA calculates that two-thirds of these subsidies are directed to the richest 10% of farmers. The huge cooperatives that grow rice, cotton, corn, wheat and soybeans will get $7.5 billion a year. These handouts will come despite record crop prices, and farm land selling at an average of 18% above a year ago. The USDA estimates that farm net income will reach $87 billion this year, nearly 50% higher than in 2006.
Ethanol. On top of the 51 cent per gallon tax credit for this inefficient fuel, the Senate energy bill requires a doubling of ethanol production from corn, $500 million in new direct payments to ethanol producers, and $2 billion more for loan guarantees for new ethanol refineries.
Big Sugar. The farm bill requires the USDA to buy up domestic sugar equal to the amount that is imported from Mexico under Nafta, which is a disguised form of trade protection. This sweet deal is like requiring the Transportation Department to purchase a Ford and GM car for every Nissan and Toyota imported into the U.S. The taxpayer cost: $1.4 billion.
Flood insurance. The House has passed a bill that replenishes a fund drained by Hurricane Katrina. But along the way it also raises the maximum coverage limits, and for the first time covers wind damage for commercial properties. The National Taxpayers Union calculates that taxpayers could be on the hook for $100 billion of future losses.
Terror insurance. On September 19, the House approved a new federal terrorism backstop for developers at an estimated 10-year cost of $10.4 billion. The original terrorism insurance bill, passed in the wake of 9/11, was supposed to be temporary. But under pressure from business lobbies and insurers, industry won a 15-year extension covering up to 90% of terrorism-related losses.
"Renewable" fuels. Energy bills moving through Congress tax oil companies and pass most of the $25 billion or so in expected revenue to wind, solar and Midwestern biofuels companies, even though private venture capital for such fuels hit new peaks in 2005 and 2006. For 20 years, the feds have poured more than $10 billion into this industry with little reduction in U.S. oil dependence.
Corporate pork. There are 13,000 earmarks in this year's appropriations bills, including hundreds that benefit narrow business groups. Such as: $500,000 to build a baseball stadium for the Cincinnati Reds minor league team in Billings, Montana; $150,000 for the Troy, Michigan Chamber of Commerce; $500,000 for the Arkansas World Trade Center; $4 million for a rail bridge for CSX railroad.
If you want to know how good liberals can tolerate such largesse for the rich, keep in mind that in Washington quids often come with a quo. The latest FEC fundraising reports indicate that industry lobbyists have shifted their allegiance from Republicans and are now funneling cash to Democrats they expect to hold their majority. Roll Call newspaper, which covers Congress, reports that in the first half of 2007 business lobbyists gave "all or most of their cash to Democratic candidates and party committees."
They're getting their money's worth.
Global Warming? Give me a Break!
John Stossel Exposes Global Warming Myths
"20/20” co-anchor John Stossel is going on the attack against “experts” who warn about manmade global warming – along the way berating Al Gore for saying the debate over climate change is over.
In a release from ABC previewing Stossel’s report on Friday’s “20/20,” the veteran newsman and Newsmax pundit – who won 19 Emmys exposing scammers and con artists – says:
“This week on ‘20/20’ (in our new 8 p.m. Eastern time slot) I say ‘Give Me a Break!’ to our Nobel Prize-winning Vice President.
“Mr. Gore says ‘The debate is over,’ and those who disagree with his take on global warming have been ‘purchased’ in order to create ‘the illusion of a debate.’ Nonsense. It's as if the Vice President and his allies in the environmental movement plan to win the debate through intimidation. I interview some scientists who won't be intimidated, even though one has had his life threatened for speaking up.
“The Vice President's much-applauded movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ claims warming is man’s fault and a coming crisis! While the earth has certainly warmed over the last century, plenty of independent scientists say scientists cannot be sure that man caused the warming or that warming will be a crisis.
“They say the computer models that are used to predict the disasters don’t include important variables because scientists don’t fully understand them. For example, warming may cause cloud formations that reflect sun and cool the earth. The computer models cannot know. These scientists call global warming activism more of a religious movement than science.”
Gore's film is filled with “misleading messages,” says Stossel.
“It suggests polar bears are disappearing and that ‘sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet.’ I interview children who are scared. They believe the polar bears are already going extinct and that the oceans will soon rise even higher than 20 feet, drowning them and their parents.
“But polar bear populations appear to be steady or increasing, and a 20-foot rise is a theoretical possibility that wouldn't happen for millennia. The IPCC, the group that shared last week’s Nobel Prize with the Vice President, says in 100 years the oceans might rise 7 to 24 inches, not 20 feet. Now a British judge has ruled that British schools must disclose to students nine inaccuracies in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ if they play the movie in class.”
Stossel said it’s “nonsense” for Gore to suggest that we can stop global warming by doing things like changing light bulbs and driving less.
“The only practical thing we can do today that would make a difference in CO2 output is to launch a major shift toward nuclear energy. But the environmental movement rarely utters the word nuclear.
“I suspect that next year's government boondoggle will be massive spending on carbon-reducing technology.
“It reminds me of George Mason University Economics Department Chairman Don Boudreax's suggestion that such schemes really mean ‘government seizing enormous amounts of additional power in order to embark upon schemes of social engineering - schemes whose pursuit gratifies the abstract fantasies of the theory class and, simultaneously, lines the very real pockets of politically powerful corporations, organizations, and “experts."’
“He is so right. The abstract fantasies of the theory class will soon send huge chunks of your money to politicians, friends, activist scientists, and politically savvy corporations.
“The debate is over? That makes me say GIVE ME A BREAK!”
"20/20” co-anchor John Stossel is going on the attack against “experts” who warn about manmade global warming – along the way berating Al Gore for saying the debate over climate change is over.
In a release from ABC previewing Stossel’s report on Friday’s “20/20,” the veteran newsman and Newsmax pundit – who won 19 Emmys exposing scammers and con artists – says:
“This week on ‘20/20’ (in our new 8 p.m. Eastern time slot) I say ‘Give Me a Break!’ to our Nobel Prize-winning Vice President.
“Mr. Gore says ‘The debate is over,’ and those who disagree with his take on global warming have been ‘purchased’ in order to create ‘the illusion of a debate.’ Nonsense. It's as if the Vice President and his allies in the environmental movement plan to win the debate through intimidation. I interview some scientists who won't be intimidated, even though one has had his life threatened for speaking up.
“The Vice President's much-applauded movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ claims warming is man’s fault and a coming crisis! While the earth has certainly warmed over the last century, plenty of independent scientists say scientists cannot be sure that man caused the warming or that warming will be a crisis.
“They say the computer models that are used to predict the disasters don’t include important variables because scientists don’t fully understand them. For example, warming may cause cloud formations that reflect sun and cool the earth. The computer models cannot know. These scientists call global warming activism more of a religious movement than science.”
Gore's film is filled with “misleading messages,” says Stossel.
“It suggests polar bears are disappearing and that ‘sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet.’ I interview children who are scared. They believe the polar bears are already going extinct and that the oceans will soon rise even higher than 20 feet, drowning them and their parents.
“But polar bear populations appear to be steady or increasing, and a 20-foot rise is a theoretical possibility that wouldn't happen for millennia. The IPCC, the group that shared last week’s Nobel Prize with the Vice President, says in 100 years the oceans might rise 7 to 24 inches, not 20 feet. Now a British judge has ruled that British schools must disclose to students nine inaccuracies in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ if they play the movie in class.”
Stossel said it’s “nonsense” for Gore to suggest that we can stop global warming by doing things like changing light bulbs and driving less.
“The only practical thing we can do today that would make a difference in CO2 output is to launch a major shift toward nuclear energy. But the environmental movement rarely utters the word nuclear.
“I suspect that next year's government boondoggle will be massive spending on carbon-reducing technology.
“It reminds me of George Mason University Economics Department Chairman Don Boudreax's suggestion that such schemes really mean ‘government seizing enormous amounts of additional power in order to embark upon schemes of social engineering - schemes whose pursuit gratifies the abstract fantasies of the theory class and, simultaneously, lines the very real pockets of politically powerful corporations, organizations, and “experts."’
“He is so right. The abstract fantasies of the theory class will soon send huge chunks of your money to politicians, friends, activist scientists, and politically savvy corporations.
“The debate is over? That makes me say GIVE ME A BREAK!”
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The global-warming hucksters
The scaremongers are not always wrong. The Trojans should have listened to Cassandra. But history shows that the scaremongers are usually wrong.
Parson Malthus predicted mass starvation 250 years ago, as the population was growing geometrically, doubling each generation, while agricultural production was going arithmetically, by 2 percent or so a year. But today, with perhaps 1 percent of our population in full-time food production, we are the best-fed and fattest 300 million people on Earth.
Karl Marx was proven dead wrong about the immiseration of the masses under capitalism and the coming revolution in the industrial West, though they still have hopes at Harvard.
Neville Chute's "On the Beach" proved as fictional as "Dr. Strangelove" and "Seven Days in May." Paul Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" never exploded. It fizzled when the Birth Dearth followed the Baby Boom.
"The Crash of '79" never happened. Instead, we got Ronald Reagan and record prosperity. The Club of Rome notwithstanding, we did not run out of oil. The world did not end in Y2K, when we crossed the millennium, as some had prophesied. "Nuclear winter," where we were all going to freeze to death after the soot from Reagan's nuclear war blotted out the sun, didn't quite happen. Rather, the Soviet Empire gave up the ghost.
(Column continues below)
Is then global warming – a steady rise in the temperature of the Earth to where the polar ice caps melt, oceans rise 23 feet, cities sink into the sea and horrendous hurricanes devastate the land – an imminent and mortal danger?
Put me down as a disbeliever.
Like the panics of bygone eras, this one has the aspect of yet another re-enactment of the Big Con. The huckster arrives in town, tells all the rubes that disaster impends for them and their families, but says there may be one last chance they can be saved – but it will take a lot of money. And the folks should go about collecting it, right now.
This, it seems to me, is what the global-warming scare and scam are all about – frightening Americans into transferring sovereignty, power and wealth to a global political elite that claims it alone understands the crisis and it alone can save us from impending disaster.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, from which China and India were exempt, the United States was to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels, which could not be done without inducing a new Depression and reducing the standard of living of the American people. So, we ignored Kyoto – and how have we suffered? The Europeans who signed on also largely ignored it. How have they suffered?
We are told global warming was responsible for the hurricane summer of Katrina and Rita that devastated Texas, Mississippi and New Orleans. Yet Dr. William Gray, perhaps the nation's foremost expert on hurricanes, says he and his most experienced colleagues believe humans have little impact on global warming and global warming cannot explain the frequency or ferocity of hurricanes. After all, we had more hurricanes in the first half of the 20th century than in the last 50 years, as global warming was taking place.
"We're brainwashing our children," says Gray. "They're going to the Gore movie ('An Inconvenient Truth') and being fed all this. It's ridiculous. .. We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was."
Gray does concede that for a scholar to question global warming can put his next federal grant in mortal peril.
While modest warming has taken place, there is no conclusive evidence human beings are responsible, no conclusive evidence Earth's temperature is rising dangerously or will reach intolerable levels and no conclusive evidence that warming will do more harm than good.
The glaciers may be receding, but the polar bear population is growing, alarmingly in some Canadian Indian villages. Though more people on our planet of 6 billion may die of heat, estimates are that many more may be spared death from the cold. The Arctic ice cap may be shrinking, but that may mean year-round passage through northern Canadian waters from the Atlantic to the Pacific and the immense resources of the Arctic made more accessible to man. Why else did Vladimir Putin's boys make their dash to claim the pole?
The mammoth government we have today is a result of politicians rushing to solve "crises" by creating and empowering new federal agencies.
Whether it's hunger, poverty or homelessness, in the end, the poor are always with us, but now we have something else always with us: scores of thousands of federal bureaucrats and armies of academics to study the problem and assess the progress, with all their pay and benefits provided by our tax dollars.
Cal Coolidge said that when you see 10 troubles coming up the road toward you, sometimes the best thing to do is nothing, because nine of them will fall into the ditch before they get to you. And so it will be with global warming, if we don't sell out America to the hucksters who would save us
Parson Malthus predicted mass starvation 250 years ago, as the population was growing geometrically, doubling each generation, while agricultural production was going arithmetically, by 2 percent or so a year. But today, with perhaps 1 percent of our population in full-time food production, we are the best-fed and fattest 300 million people on Earth.
Karl Marx was proven dead wrong about the immiseration of the masses under capitalism and the coming revolution in the industrial West, though they still have hopes at Harvard.
Neville Chute's "On the Beach" proved as fictional as "Dr. Strangelove" and "Seven Days in May." Paul Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" never exploded. It fizzled when the Birth Dearth followed the Baby Boom.
"The Crash of '79" never happened. Instead, we got Ronald Reagan and record prosperity. The Club of Rome notwithstanding, we did not run out of oil. The world did not end in Y2K, when we crossed the millennium, as some had prophesied. "Nuclear winter," where we were all going to freeze to death after the soot from Reagan's nuclear war blotted out the sun, didn't quite happen. Rather, the Soviet Empire gave up the ghost.
(Column continues below)
Is then global warming – a steady rise in the temperature of the Earth to where the polar ice caps melt, oceans rise 23 feet, cities sink into the sea and horrendous hurricanes devastate the land – an imminent and mortal danger?
Put me down as a disbeliever.
Like the panics of bygone eras, this one has the aspect of yet another re-enactment of the Big Con. The huckster arrives in town, tells all the rubes that disaster impends for them and their families, but says there may be one last chance they can be saved – but it will take a lot of money. And the folks should go about collecting it, right now.
This, it seems to me, is what the global-warming scare and scam are all about – frightening Americans into transferring sovereignty, power and wealth to a global political elite that claims it alone understands the crisis and it alone can save us from impending disaster.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, from which China and India were exempt, the United States was to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels, which could not be done without inducing a new Depression and reducing the standard of living of the American people. So, we ignored Kyoto – and how have we suffered? The Europeans who signed on also largely ignored it. How have they suffered?
We are told global warming was responsible for the hurricane summer of Katrina and Rita that devastated Texas, Mississippi and New Orleans. Yet Dr. William Gray, perhaps the nation's foremost expert on hurricanes, says he and his most experienced colleagues believe humans have little impact on global warming and global warming cannot explain the frequency or ferocity of hurricanes. After all, we had more hurricanes in the first half of the 20th century than in the last 50 years, as global warming was taking place.
"We're brainwashing our children," says Gray. "They're going to the Gore movie ('An Inconvenient Truth') and being fed all this. It's ridiculous. .. We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was."
Gray does concede that for a scholar to question global warming can put his next federal grant in mortal peril.
While modest warming has taken place, there is no conclusive evidence human beings are responsible, no conclusive evidence Earth's temperature is rising dangerously or will reach intolerable levels and no conclusive evidence that warming will do more harm than good.
The glaciers may be receding, but the polar bear population is growing, alarmingly in some Canadian Indian villages. Though more people on our planet of 6 billion may die of heat, estimates are that many more may be spared death from the cold. The Arctic ice cap may be shrinking, but that may mean year-round passage through northern Canadian waters from the Atlantic to the Pacific and the immense resources of the Arctic made more accessible to man. Why else did Vladimir Putin's boys make their dash to claim the pole?
The mammoth government we have today is a result of politicians rushing to solve "crises" by creating and empowering new federal agencies.
Whether it's hunger, poverty or homelessness, in the end, the poor are always with us, but now we have something else always with us: scores of thousands of federal bureaucrats and armies of academics to study the problem and assess the progress, with all their pay and benefits provided by our tax dollars.
Cal Coolidge said that when you see 10 troubles coming up the road toward you, sometimes the best thing to do is nothing, because nine of them will fall into the ditch before they get to you. And so it will be with global warming, if we don't sell out America to the hucksters who would save us
Friday, October 19, 2007
Hillary "clarifies" her health care plan....again
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that immigrants living in the U.S. illegally would not be covered by her proposed universal health care plan.
True to form, she then waffled on to say she supports basic health services for illegal immigrants, including hospitalization and treatment of acute conditions. Working as an HR professional, I'm well aware of the cost of hospitalization and trips to the ER--they're the top 2 costs in all of health care! I also witness a large number of people misusing these services, for instance, going to the ER for colds, flu-like sypmtoms and splinters.
"People who are here legally deserve some better treatment and acceptance in the law than people who are not here legally," she said. "These are hard choices." What's so hard about it? Why do I as one of the legal citizens paying the bill deserve just "some" better treatment than people who shouldn't be here in the first place, never pay a dime for their health care, and blatently disrespect and disregard our system to remain in this country? Frankly, there is no acceptance for that in the law, that's why they're called ILLEGAL aliens.
True to form, she then waffled on to say she supports basic health services for illegal immigrants, including hospitalization and treatment of acute conditions. Working as an HR professional, I'm well aware of the cost of hospitalization and trips to the ER--they're the top 2 costs in all of health care! I also witness a large number of people misusing these services, for instance, going to the ER for colds, flu-like sypmtoms and splinters.
"People who are here legally deserve some better treatment and acceptance in the law than people who are not here legally," she said. "These are hard choices." What's so hard about it? Why do I as one of the legal citizens paying the bill deserve just "some" better treatment than people who shouldn't be here in the first place, never pay a dime for their health care, and blatently disrespect and disregard our system to remain in this country? Frankly, there is no acceptance for that in the law, that's why they're called ILLEGAL aliens.
Separating church and state?
The actual provision in the Constitution that so many erroneously believe "separates church and state" simply says that Congress will take no action favoring one religion over another or attempting to establish a state religion. Within that context, the actions taken by the city governement of Bloomington, IN (removing a copy of the 10 Commandments and installing Buddhist statues and religious paintings in City Hall and throughout the town) create a clear double standard and from my perspective clearly favor Buddhism over Christianity.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58216
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58216
Thursday, October 18, 2007
No Juice for YOU!
Interesting article on the choice not to build new coal fired power plants that could generate power for 20 million homes.
And the only thing missing from this Orwellian enviro-fascist comment is some scary organ music accompanied by the sound of an evil dictator's maniacal laughter:
Peter Altman, a climate policy specialist with the National Environmental Trust, said the latest report reinforces the need for Congress to do more to encourage conservation, which could ease the demand for new plants. "The whole question of how many coal plants will be built is based on how much electricity we need. It is within our power to reduce demand," he said.
Peter Altman, a climate policy specialist with the National Environmental Trust, said the latest report reinforces the need for Congress to do more to encourage conservation, which could ease the demand for new plants. "The whole question of how many coal plants will be built is based on how much electricity we need. It is within our power to reduce demand," he said.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Dredging up the Past
The Democrat Congress passes a resolution condemning Turkey for the Armenian Genocide 100 years ago. Since we've had two resolutions in years past condemning the atrocity, why do it again now? Simple: the Turks support us in the Iraq war. This is how desperate the Democrats have become to secure our defeat.
Gore Gets Cold Shoulder
(published in the Sydney Morning Times, October 12, 2007)
ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.
His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.
"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."
Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.
But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.
However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.
"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.
During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.
He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.
"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.
He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.
His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.
"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."
Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.
But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.
However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.
"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.
During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.
He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.
"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.
He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
Friday, October 12, 2007
Bush: we all worship the same God.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071010/COMMENTARY09/110100009/1008
In addition to this thought provoking editorial in the Washington Times, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (carm.org) has created a useful chart that shows the conflicting claims of classic Christian belief and Muslim doctrines. It is worth studying, whatever one's faith.
http://www.carm.org/islam/grid.htm
In addition to this thought provoking editorial in the Washington Times, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (carm.org) has created a useful chart that shows the conflicting claims of classic Christian belief and Muslim doctrines. It is worth studying, whatever one's faith.
http://www.carm.org/islam/grid.htm
Lesser of the evils
Great editorial in the Washington Times. Here's an exerpt that sums up what I've come to believe is the crux of the issue in 2008.
James Dobson and his colleagues speak of principles over power. This is exactly wrong. Any of the major GOP presidential candidates will deliver a conservative program. It won't be pure. But never in the history of democratic republics has any administration acted with "pure" conservatism or "pure" liberalism. The alternative to a Republican Executive, in real terms, is unthinkable in its consequences--a generation or more of unrelenting tax-and-spend economic policies, an increase of abortion-on-demand, unending interventionist liberal federal courts and a foreign policy that caves into international public opinion and weakens our military defense and national security.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071012/EDITORIAL/110120004
James Dobson and his colleagues speak of principles over power. This is exactly wrong. Any of the major GOP presidential candidates will deliver a conservative program. It won't be pure. But never in the history of democratic republics has any administration acted with "pure" conservatism or "pure" liberalism. The alternative to a Republican Executive, in real terms, is unthinkable in its consequences--a generation or more of unrelenting tax-and-spend economic policies, an increase of abortion-on-demand, unending interventionist liberal federal courts and a foreign policy that caves into international public opinion and weakens our military defense and national security.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071012/EDITORIAL/110120004
People skeptical about success of atheist talk radio
This title is a quote from Fox News about the the new talk radio show for atheists being aired this week on XM. But if you ask me, it's more of a punchline to the ironic joke that this project will surely turn out to be. Don't get me wrong, as the world's biggest Seinfeld fan I loved a 20 minute comedy show about nothing. But imagine tuning into a full hour of serious radio programming about nothing, for people who believe in nothing--what's the point? Like listening to a bitter old married couple argue about everything and come to the conclusion that neither one knows what they're talking about. Just like the Costanzas who could only agree on their dislike of the Seinfelds. No wonder people are skeptical about its success.
Nobel Prize still noble?
This morning, as I made the daily trip up to my 11th floor office, the first thing I saw broadcast on Elevator TV was Algore's gleaming smile over the caption "Gore wins Nobel Prize". As a rational, thoughtful man with some time on my hands, I began to wonder what the Nobel prize was really all about. After all, I thought that it was the purview of visionary scientists and literary icons to take home the prize. I suppose that some may consider the invention of global warming to be a great boon to mankind (at least those who are employed by environmental "science" and lobbyist groups), but I wasn't sure that really qualified him to win a Nobel prize. My curiosity piqued, I decided to do a little research using one of Alley G's previous inventions, the Internet (btw, did he win a prize for that too, or was that the year Yassar Arafat stole the show for ordering an increase in the handicapped population of the Middle East?)
In creating his annual prizes for physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and the promotion of world peace, Alfred Nobel stated the desire in his will to honor "those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." An earlier draft of Nobel's will also stipulated that prizes in all categories should be "a reward for the most important pioneering discoveries or works in the field of knowledge and progress."
OK, can anyone explain how calls for a carbon tax, caps on production and denial of feasible electricity to third world nations (all in the name of "saving the planet") provide either a benefit to mankind or advance knowledge and progress? As a matter of fact, Algore's pontifications on global warming seem to ignore the fact that in the 70's everyone lived in fear of the next ice age. Or that in the 30's newspapers were reporting melting ice flows contibuting to polar bear extinctions and floods of Biblical proportion. Rather than advancing knowledge, that's a better illustration of those ignorant of history being doomed to repeat it.
In creating his annual prizes for physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and the promotion of world peace, Alfred Nobel stated the desire in his will to honor "those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." An earlier draft of Nobel's will also stipulated that prizes in all categories should be "a reward for the most important pioneering discoveries or works in the field of knowledge and progress."
OK, can anyone explain how calls for a carbon tax, caps on production and denial of feasible electricity to third world nations (all in the name of "saving the planet") provide either a benefit to mankind or advance knowledge and progress? As a matter of fact, Algore's pontifications on global warming seem to ignore the fact that in the 70's everyone lived in fear of the next ice age. Or that in the 30's newspapers were reporting melting ice flows contibuting to polar bear extinctions and floods of Biblical proportion. Rather than advancing knowledge, that's a better illustration of those ignorant of history being doomed to repeat it.
Although I ony had a few minutes to look into the Nobel prize and its previous recipients, seeing Gore's name on the roster along with Carter and Arafat has led me to believe that the title of this award is fast becoming an oxymoron.
Yahoo news posted an interesting article on this topic, that's worth a read: http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20071012/cm_rcp/al_gore_and_the_mission_of_the
Yahoo news posted an interesting article on this topic, that's worth a read: http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20071012/cm_rcp/al_gore_and_the_mission_of_the
If ignorance is really bliss, Tryphorgettin is for you!
Click or copy/paste this link to one of the funnier You Tube videos I've seen in a while.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-45tIkUGIjo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcq%2Dadm01%2Ejfk1%2Epremiereradio%2Enet%3A4502%2Fhome%2Fdaily%2Fsite%5F100507%2Fhome%2Eguest%2Ehtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-45tIkUGIjo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcq%2Dadm01%2Ejfk1%2Epremiereradio%2Enet%3A4502%2Fhome%2Fdaily%2Fsite%5F100507%2Fhome%2Eguest%2Ehtml
Thursday, October 11, 2007
One good story, better than 10 flashy slides
As one of six speakers at a recent event, I had the chance to observe & learn from some truly exceptional leaders in the world of Training & Development. I was amazed by the amount of research, data and business process models they had developed for their companies and were presenting to the audience. This being one of the few times I had been asked to present without the option of using a slideshow, I opted to highlight a few measurable success stories to illustrate the value my company brings to our clients through the Training department. My few minutes in the spotlight may not have imparted a "Ninth Secret of highly effective people", but they were one of the few times during the session that I noticed the audeince nodding and laughing in a way that told me they were engaged. I think there's an important lesson here--whether your role is that of speaker, manager, parent, friend, spouse, people will respond better to one good story than scads of good data or 10 flashy PowerPoint slides. And the best data tells us that people learn better when they're happy. So if you can get somebody laughing, it's a good sign that they're getting your point.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Contributor
As the invite would have it, I find myself as a "Contributor" to The real life times blog. Instead of weaving the tales of how and why, when and where, I'll keep it simple: Jay and I have enjoyed one another since the day our heads were nearly full grown, but our bodies stood a mere three-foot-something. The picture above is evidence of how we have remained astonished by the mystery of a relationship that began in the late 70s.
Spending habits
Adam Smith once wrote that "what's considered prudence for a small family cannot be considered folly for a great kingdom". I often think about that when I pay my skyrocketing property taxes, fight bogus unemployment claims or read about the Dept. of Interior under Clinton losing 2 billion dollars worth of our money. I used to lose change around my house, but then I came up with a system that works pretty well. When I come home from work I throw all my coins in a drawer by the front hall closet. That way I can pool my resources to get 55 cent refills of Starbucks coffee (which anyone can do, so long as you save your cup for next time). Before stumbling on this frugal system of mine, I thought I'd try a more political means of purchasing coffee. I simply knocked on my neighbor's door, told him I'd lost all of my coffee money somewhere so would he please give me a couple bucks to go down to Starbucks. He told me I was crazy and where did I get off asking for his money to feed my wants & needs. I guess I just assumed that as a good liberal he would have been accustomed to the practice of frivolous spending funded by taxation. And anyway, studies show that drinking a cup of coffee each day will make me more alert and less likely to get certain forms of cancer. Clearly, he couldn't care less about my health or well-bing. Glad I didn't ask him for a hundred bucks so I could go get a physical! I suppose it takes a real politician to pull that off...
Monday, October 8, 2007
.jpg)
During a recent trip to Charleston, SC my wife and I made a stop at the greatest cigar bar on the planet. What's so great about it? Aside from the decor, the mint julips and the comfortable view of Market St. from my second floor perch in an overstuffed chair, this particular establishment sold "legal Cubans". How do they do it? They just happened to import dozens of cases from Havana before the embargo. I had no idea that a humidor could keep a cigar that long. As I sat smoking my cigar, reflecting on the fact that I may not see another legal Cuban for quite some time (even after Castro finally cashes in his chips), I remembered a funny story about Alexander the Great. The conquering hero was said to have visited a famous philosopher one afternoon in the capital city of a newly "acquired" land. He quite magnanimously asked the philosopher if there was anything that he could do for him. To which the philosopher responded, "yes, please stand a little less between me and the sun". There's a good lesson there as we once again approach election season...well it's over a year away, but seems like everyone is talking about it anyway. As I listen to so many candidates promise to give us great "free stuff" and eradicate illiteracy, war and hunger, I'd like to suggest that America was doing just fine before big government regulation of everything under the sun. So if you ask me what the greatest thing the next wave of national, regional, local leadership could do for me...stand a little less between me and my cigars!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)