who's your nanny?

Environmentalism Extremes

I just walked past a co-worker's desk and noticed a bag of Eco Golf tees, biodegradable golf tees that apparently degrade naturally in less than 60 days and help "save millions of trees that are cut down each year in order to produce traditional wood tees."

As a small business owner myself, I'm intrigued by all sorts of interesting business ventures. Inasmuch as it's even any of my business to offer my opinion on the merits of any product that's found its place among voluntary consumers, I just think initiatives aimed at preserving renewable natural resources are a little over the top.

Trees are wood; tees generally are made of wood; wood is biodegradable; and trees can be replanted. What is it that I'm missing here? I mean, we could all forgo toilet tissue in the bathroom in favor of our hands again too, but I just don't see that as much of a win for humanity at the end of the day.

Ducks Are Stupid (But Probably Smarter Than We Are)

I'm in a little bit of a funk. I really couldn't care less about Mark Sanford's affair or who his mistress is; or the cause of Michael Jackson's death, or his funeral arrangements; or Kim Jong's "vows" (again) to nuke the U.S.; or a "climate change" bill that would further wreck the economy; or the neverending propaganda from the state insisting there's a swine flu epidemic.

No, what I really thought was interesting this morning was that there were two mallard ducks -- one male, one female -- sitting in the middle of my street who really didn't care one way or the other whether I ran them over or not. Seriously, it wasn't until I drove right up to them and stopped that the male began to think about standing up. But by that time you know I coulda ... ka-blam!

Which got me to thinking. Are these ducks so stupid that they honestly don't know they should move out of the way of two tons of steel? And if so, what's that say about the PETArds who defend such idiocy?

Or, since mallards (like virtually all waterfowl) are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, have these creatures simply come to entrust their safety to the state so completely that they actually believe a stupid treaty will spare them a fate that is all too predictable for anyone who makes a habit of playing in traffic?

Of course, I swerved around these two lovebirds this morning. But I may just have to teach them both a lesson on my way home from work tonight if they're still relying on that silly treaty. After all, according to the state's logic, it'd be for their own good.

Dear Envirofascists:

We won't go down without a fight. (But we will go down on your mom -- d'oh!) 

    

"Global warming": 31,478 scientists deny it.

(Thanks to my wife for snapping this today in the BJ's parking lot.)

We Are All Slaves

Don't blame anyone but yourself if one day you wake up and find you don't even have the freedom to take a leak without first checking in with your slavemaster known as the state. After all, Emperor Obama and his little flying monkeys like Nancy Pelosi are making clear they intend to centrally plan, control, and micromanage every aspect of our lives.

In answering a question from a student about how Pelosi was going to get Americans to cut back on their carbon emissions, the leading Democratic lawmaker said it was important to educate children on how to conserve energy and for citizens to build more environmentally friendly homes.

"We have so much room for improvement," she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility."

By the way, my grandmother would have laughed at all the enviro-ninnies today who so pusillanimously capitulate to the nanny-statists.

Commuters Bad, Imperial Airlines Good

In no apparent sense of irony, Emperor Obama is planning a "green" overhaul of the American automobile industry as his fleet of imperial aircraft soars into southern Maryland this weekend for the NAS Pax River airshow.

The Holy One wants us to believe that those of us left with a job are going to destroy the environment if we drive to work in cars that run on gasoline, all while each of the Blue Angels burns 1,500 gallons of jet fuel an hour as they boast the glory of the state a few hundred feet above mesmerized onlookers.

Military airshows are meant to do one thing and one thing only: distract taxpayers from the true nature of these warplanes. Give a few of them a pretty paintjob and we "Ooh!" and "Ahh!" as they swoosh by. Anything to prevent us from thinking about the JDAMs they drop on women as they change their babies' diapers in some tent in Iraq.

But enough about war. They're just stupid fucking foreigners anyway. They practically deserve to die because they don't speak English, right? Let's talk about something more important, like the environment or money. Seriously, I know it's Friday but let's do a little math. Lots of planes burn lots of fuel during airshows, but we'll stick to the Blue Angels. Like I said they're pretty. And everybody knows nothing can be bad if it's pretty.

Six F/A-18 Blue Angels will fly tomorrow and Sunday. They always bring a spare but we won't even worry about him. The gas he burns during practice barely counts if he doesn't get off the bench on gameday.

So you've got six Blue Angels burning between 1,000 and 1,500 gallons of fuel per hour during normal flight (plus about 10,000-15,000 pounds of fuel per hour (or about 3,000 gallons) in afterburner, which admittedly they'll probably only do a few times to show off). Consdering each of them will also suck down at least 1,000 pounds of fuel (or about 150 gallons) on takeoff and the initial climb, it's safe to say each fighter will consume a minimum of 1,000 gallons of fuel during the airshow if they fly for only a half-hour. Multiply this by six planes and two different shows and you're looking at 12,000 gallons of jet fuel for a weekend show. And this obviously isn't even taking into consideration the fuel they'll burn as they practice or fly back home following the show.

Why do I mention all this? Well, aside from the many thousands of dollars that will be robbed from taxpayers wasted to put on this spectacle -- even at wholesale it costs $3,000 to $4,000 an hour in fuel alone to operate one of these jets -- the state wants us to take full responsibility for polluting the environment while it gets a free pass.

After all, I probably put about 50 gallons a month into my truck. Over the course of one year that's about 600 gallons of gas, or just about half of what one of the Blue Angels will blow through during one half-hour performance. Now, I realize there are many more people like me across the country than there are the Blue Angels, but when you figure the Angels are flying 36 official shows this year in addition to 52 one-hour practice sessions over the course of nine months at Pensacola, you're easily talking over a million gallons of fuel being burned solely by one branch of the military's show squadron.

So, honestly, the next time King Barack deigns to lecture me about my fuel consumption and the "toll" it's taking on the almighty environment, I hope he knows he can put it in his tailpipe and smoke it.

I'll Take My Totalitarianism in Green, Please

Don't look now, but Barack Obama's horrific "green agenda" is beginning to hit its stride, and the table has been set with the nationalization of the American auto industry. After installing a task force to micromanage the daily operations at General Motors and forcing out Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, the U.S. government is now poised to assume majority ownership of GM.

As LewRockwell.com columnist Karen De Coster remarked yesterday, "controlling this company will allow the feds to ram their socialist-totalitarian, green agenda down all of our throats," and she is absolutely right. After all, if your goal is to regulate the behavior of virtually everyone in the country in one fell swoop, there's no better way to do so than to exert authoritarian control over something we all do every day: drive.

In his quest to alienate global trading partners from South America and the Middle East, Obama will start small by increasing fuel economy standards. If you think your little plastic cars are ugly and unsafe now, just give Our Holy Savior some time. As he states in black and white in his energy and environment agenda, the president will offer tax credits to encourage Americans to purchase the one million "plug-in hybrid cars" he wants to get on the road by 2015. (Personally, I think this number is incredibly low. Once the totalitarian state assumes outright control over the production of who knows how many American-made automobiles, gas tanks might be as hard to find as steel bumpers in another five years.)

Incidentally, I noticed just last night one of the less conspicuous ways the state is exerting its bias against "gas-guzzlers." I was up in Arlington, Virginia at the Hard Times Cafe for a DC101 Chili Cookoff meeting and was told to park in a free lot under the Department of Human Services building. The parking spaces were definitely big enough to accommodate anyone driving a Barbiemobile, but things got a little dicey as I tried to wedge my Toyota Tundra between a support beam and the car next to me. The joy (and by joy I mean evil) of public property is that the government can literally crowd out anyone who doesn't conform to its demands.

But automobile mandates may not be the worst of Obama's plans. He also wants to implement a putrid cap-and-trade program that would ostensibly reduce 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a move that the Environmental Protection Agency has forecast would cost the economy $2.9 trillion and ultimately reduce GDP by 6.9 percent -- a figure comparable with the economic meltdown of 1929 and 1930. But heck, maybe that's not such a bad price to pay for directives that are predicted to reduce the average global temperature by a whopping 0.10 to 0.20 degrees Celsius.

Worse still is Obama's promise to "create millions of new green jobs." As if it isn't bad enough to rob taxpayers blind in order to implement even more make-work programs so the government can hire millions more employees who can't be fired, we don't even know what these job might entail. However, given that the president has already begun pushing his "national civilian security force," which he promises will be as strong as the U.S. army, does it require an overactive imagination to believe that these new "green jobs" will be accompanied by a "Green Stasi" comprising individuals whose sole purpose will be to regulate our every move and enforce tyrannical environmental mandates?

There's a name for Obama's plans for state-controlled capitalism. It's called fascism. And it's all beginning with the government's assumption of control over what has been one of the world's largest and most influential manufacturers.

Only you and I can control how it ends.

Global Warming...Er, Cooling...Er, Whatever!

I know there must be at least a couple other people on Earth who roll their eyes or choke back a little vomit every time they hear those inane commercials imploring us to "save the planet," or whatever else it is that the knee-jerk doom-and-gloomers believe we should do in order to prevent the certain death that awaits us all if we fail to genuflect reflexively to their tree gods.

But get a load of this. I know this report comes from Faux News and all, but still...

Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

I'm no mathematician, but if ice is melting on the western coast but expanding everywhere else, even if it's only on the eastern coast, doesn't that mean we've pretty much got what you call a wash?

Of course, such arcane concepts as logic and reason hardly apply to the self-righteous, ignorant, naive, or otherwise hysterically misguided who believe everything the state wants them to.

The only thing worse than being an unwitting dupe is being a witting one.

I Hate Environmentalists

Not people (like me) who don't go out of their way to trash the environment by littering wantonly or dumping chemicals into lakes and rivers, mind you; but people who are responsible for lobbying the state to either force or incentivize businesses and consumers to use certain products over others.

Take, for instance, coffee cups. I'm not a huge coffee drinker, and until very recently I never drank the stuff; but combine a toddler, reduced sleep, and nine-hour workdays and, well, you get the point.

So I figured I'd grab some coffee during my lunch break today. If I'm being honest, unless I'm drinking a caramel frappuccino from Starbucks -- which, let's face it, is really a milkshake with caffeine -- I think most coffee tastes like crap in the grand scheme of things. (To me, drinking coffee is purely utilitarian: I put it in my body, I stay awake longer -- or at least long enough to get home from work and replace it with beer.)

Of course, it would be nice if I could simply judge coffee on its merits alone. Unfortunately, however, there's no coffee that can't be made worse by serving it in a paper freaking cup. In fact, I refuse to drink coffee out of cardboard if styrofoam is available -- which, thanks to the green bigots, is less and less likely by the day.

Since I can basically only afford gas station coffee on a regular basis, it's usually Sheetz vs. Wawa -- and I find myself purchasing the brutal brews from Sheetz instead of the tastier stuff Wawa has to offer because Sheetz provides styrofoam cups. Once you throw Wawa's into their paper cups, thus scalding your fingers on the napalm-hot surface despite the addition of those worthless cardboard "protector" rings, it's no contest.

Crappy coffee is still better than less crappy coffee if it tastes like you're licking the latter off newspaper.

Plastic Sailboat to Sail from California to Australia

The Plastiki, a 60-foot sailboat made from more than 12,000 plastic bottles, isn't the first plastic bottle boat ever to set sail, but David de Rothschild says he wants to make a point.

De Rothschild hopes his one-of-a-kind vessel, now being built on a San Francisco pier, will boost recycling of plastic bottles, which he says are a symbol of global waste. Except for the masts, which are metal, everything on the 60-foot catamaran is made from recycled plastic.

"It's all sail power," he said. "The idea is to put no kind of pollution back into the atmosphere, or into our oceans for that matter, so everything on the boat will be composted. Everything will be recycled. Even the vessel is going to end up being recycled when we finish."

I think the greater point here is that empty plastic bottles float, but hey, whatever.. uh.. floats your boat.

GE Hearts Fascism

Tim Carney has an excellent article today in the DC Examiner about how General Electric has successfully lobbyied the corporatist Obama administration to impose "greenhouse gas" emission restrictions, from which it plans to profit rather lucratively at our expense.

Reviewing their lobbying filings, you might think you were looking at Al Gore’s agenda. GE’s specific lobbying issues included the “Climate Stewardship Act,” “Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act,” “Global Warming Reduction Act,” “Federal Government Greenhouse Gas Registry Act,” “Low Carbon Economy Act,” and “Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.”

This isn’t altruism or public relations. GE has started a joint venture called Greenhouse Gas Services, which invests in — and hopes to manage the trade in — greenhouse gas credits. But these investments and this trading floor are of basically no use and nearly no value without government restrictions on greenhouse gases.

Hence the lobbying, buttressed by generous campaign contributions: Employees and executives gave $1.35 million to politicians in the past election while GE’s political action committee shelled out $1.55 million. About 64 percent of this $2.9 million went to Democrats, with Obama easily the top recipient of GE money.

But Blagojevich is harangued for allegedly looking to sell a Senate seat.

(Via Karen De Coster)

Maryland's Enviro-Fascists on the Move Again

On February 20, a bill (HB 1368) was introduced in the Maryland House of Delegates that would further restrict waterfront property owners from protecting their land from erosion and even prohibit them from building piers extending into the state's glorious waterways.

A choice snippet:

(2) A PERSON EXERCISING A RIGHT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS INTO THE WATER IN FRONT OF THE LAND TO PRESERVE THAT PERSON’S ACCESS TO THE NAVIGABLE WATER UNDER PARAGRAPH (1) OF THIS SUBSECTION MAY NOT EXTEND THE IMPROVEMENTS OVER VEGETATED STATE WETLANDS.

If you read this bill closely, you'll notice a footer that reads, "CAPITALS INDICATE MATTER ADDED TO EXISTING LAW."

The Maryland House already banned "hard" shorelines (rock rip rap, wooden or steel bulkheads, etc.) last year, so it's important to recognize that, should this bill pass, the term "improvements" would necessarily prohibit property owners from even maintaining hard shorelines that were legal prior to the bill's passage.

In other words, waterfront owners are facing the prospect of tearing out shoreline protection that works and replacing it with "natural" shorelines (marsh grasses), which aren't nearly as effective at preventing erosion and also smell like sewage when the tide goes out.

Moreover, it's already difficult enough to get a pier permit in Maryland; now the state is trying to ban landowners from even replacing rotten decking or pilings on existing piers -- after all, how hard will it be for the state to claim that vegetation exists beneath all state wetlands?

States that aren't completely fascist usually include grandfather clauses in bills, which allow property owners to continue to operate under the conditions they agreed to when they initially purchased their property. Not Maryland. We here in the "Free State" (!) are continually bombarded by the state's fascists and their silly mandates. And now they're trying to run waterfront construction workers out of business and rob waterfront residents from enjoying the fruits of their own labor -- to say nothing of destroying property values.

Up with seaweed and snakes! To hell with the humans -- well, at least those of us who don't share familial or political connections with Maryland's green bigots.

If I've misunderstood the intent of this bill, someone please let me know. I've never wanted to be wrong so much in my life. And I know I've used the term "property owner" a few times herein, but it was mostly for ease of comprehension. As we should all know by now, there is no such thing as property rights, especially here in the People's Republik of Maryland. When the government retains the right to confiscate your property -- from your paycheck to your pier to your very person -- we are merely all wards of the state, whether we realize it or not.

'Green' Bigots Kill

While the "experts" blame the Australian wildfires on "climate change," Warwick Spooner, who lost his mother and brother in the blazes, knows where the finger really needs to be pointed: at lawmakers who implement "green" policies preventing property owners from clearing trees and bushland posing fire hazards.

"We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down," said Spooner.

A Dip in the Hudson, Courtesy of the State?

I have a relatively small following on this blog, but there's little doubt that the quality of its readers more than makes up for the lack in quantity.

I wrote a quick post yesterday on the U.S. Airways plane crash into the Hudson River, rather sarcastically pointing out that government regulations protecting waterfowl probably didn't do much to prevent a flock of birds from nearly killing over a hundred people.

Well, frequent reader and commenter Kramer, who also happens to be an accomplished pilot, briefly elaborates on just how responsible the government may actually be for this near-catastrophe.

First the TSA, Now This

I know I'm not the only person who refuses to fly (forced family vacations notwithstanding) because of the petty tyrants who staff the TSA. But that aside, I have a pretty solid fear of flying in general. Or more to the point, a fear of falling.

This pretty much sums it up.

NEW YORK – A US Airways pilot ditched his disabled jetliner into the frigid Hudson River on Thursday afternoon after a collision with a flock of birds apparently knocked out both engines, but rescuers pulled all 155 people on board into boats as the plane sank. There were no immediate reports of any serious injuries.

Honestly, I'm not sure I wouldn't rather just explode immediately than be forced to tread the cesspool known as the Hudson, but, thanks to the skill of the pilots, everyone survived the crash. Endless federal aviation regulations are bad enough, but I think we can all agree this is a perfect example of why air travel should never be socialized.

Good thing we protect all those birds. I wish the pilots luck in dealing with the impending onslaught from PETA.

Don't Run A-Fowl of Maryland's Hunting Laws

I sure hope there aren't any Marylanders out there who need to take advantage of hunting natural wildlife so they can more affordably feed their families. You know, bustling economy and all.

Effective for the 2008-09 game bird hunting seasons, anyone hunting migratory game birds in Maryland must obtain a Maryland Migratory Game Bird Stamp -- even if he's hunting on his own property (!).

Moreover, it is illegal to hunt waterfowl with bait -- corn, wheat, or other feed -- and an area is considered baited for 10 days even if all bait has been removed.

But it gets better:

... waterfowl may not be hunted in areas where seed-producing plants (natural or agricultural) have been manipulated (e.g., mowed, knocked-down, etc.). It is also unlawful to hunt waterfowl in areas where small grains have been top sown or broadcast on top of the soil, leaving the grain available to feeding birds.

If I'm interpreting these laws correctly, they are as much an attack on farmers and homeowners as an attack on hunters. What this essentially means is that if you're trying to grow grass in your lawn or plants in your field, you're not allowed to kill flying pests that swoop in and eat all your seed, thus destroying your property.

You may, however, hunt waterfowl on land where any seeds have germinated and plant growth has occurred -- in other words, where birds are unlikely to be in the first place unless you bait them (which, as we all know, is illegal).

I've saved the very best for last:

Maryland’s baiting regulation is more restrictive than federal regulations. In Maryland’s migratory bird baiting regulation it is not necessary for a hunter to know that an area is baited to be in violation.

But of course. How's the ol' saying go? Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. "Ignorance of the law excuses no one." Very convenient for our friends running the state!

So remember, friends, countrymen, fellow unfortunate schmucks like me who live in the People's Republik of Maryland: The statist hacks in Annapolis and their environmentalist enablers care much more about plant and animal life than they do about you. And they've got the guns to prove it. 

Say, what kind of bait works best for politicians? (Oh, just kidding, Big Brother... ya know I love ya!)

Obama's New Cash Cow

Could very well be...well...cows.

Under the guise of regulating greenhouse gases, the federal government -- you know, that entity that's constantly reminding us how much it "protects" us -- wants to increase the prices we'll pay for food and dairy products.

The New York Farm Bureau assigned a price tag to the cost of greenhouse gas regulation by the EPA in a release last month.

“The tax for dairy cows could be $175 per cow, and $87.50 per head of beef cattle. The tax on hogs would upwards of $20 per hog,” the release said. “Any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain permits.”

Kate Galbraith, correspondent for The New York Times, noted on the Times’ “Green Inc.” blog that such a “proposal is far from being enacted” and that the “hysteria may be premature.”

But Rick Krause, senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau, warned it’s certainly feasible – especially based on the rhetoric of President-elect Barack Obama and the use of the EPA to combat global warming. Such action by an Obama administration would take an act of Congress for livestock to be exempt.

Such a tax would be a further act of violence against small farms in general and consumers in particular.

No Blood for Ethanol!

Steven Chu, Our Holy Savior's pick to head the unconstitutional and worthless Department of Energy, wants the federal government to "boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" -- ostensibly to coerce nonviolent people into buying more fuel efficient cars, traveling less, abandoning jobs or homes in order to move closer to work, and resorting to inefficient and costly public transportation.

Oh, and don't forget the benefit to his scientist pals in the alternative energies field that would benefit financially from all the corporate welfare subsidies, research grants, and mandates aimed at artificially increasing demand for fuels that couldn't otherwise compete with coal, oil, and nuclear energy on the open market.

Considering gas at the station closest to my house is going for $1.59 right now, it might be a good idea to round up as many 55-gallon drums as I can find and start hoarding for use over the next couple years. At less than $88 a drum at current prices, I'd be able to fill my tank almost three times for what it would cost everyone else for a mere half a tank once gas hits $8 a gallon!

Of course, the state would put an end to this rather quickly. Surely they would rush to pass anti-"hoarding" legislation to prevent gas stations from raising their prices once they caught on to this little scheme and responded to the spike in demand. After all, only the government's allowed to gouge us!

The End to Whatever's Left of the Free Market?

I've long been a skeptic of global warming -- or global climate change, as the kids tend to call it more and more these days. But if the manufacturing industry in America ever completely grinds to a halt, I'll bet it will have occurred almost solely as a result of massive economic interventions (taxes, trade barriers, regulations) imposed by politicians masquerading as our protectors from this mythical specter.

If the prospect of real economic ruin isn't already on the horizon as a result of gratuitous federal bailouts, it will be as the government -- an all-Democrat Obama adminstration and Congress, in particular -- uses these taxpayer-pillaging, market-destroying welfare subsidies over the next several years as industry bribes to advance the environmentalist agenda.

In fact, Tim Carney laid out a persuasive argument in yesterday's DC Examiner about how this process likely will originate with the America automobile industry, whose executives have been lining up at the federal trough recently and begging for their share of the easy money.

... Democrats, controlling both chambers of Congress for the past two years, never passed a bill addressing the [regulation of greenhouse gases]. Now, they can follow government’s three-step process for turning previously hesitant business into pro-regulation advocates ... (1) offer massive taxpayer bailouts to the company; (2) make the bailout cash contingent on the business “voluntarily” adopting policies you prescribe; (3) sit back as that business soon starts lobbying to impose the same restrictions on all companies.

In the auto industry’s case it’s pretty easy to see how this will play out. Congress and the White House, without having to pass a new regulation, can require the suffering automakers to create more hydrogen-powered cars, plug-in hybrids, or cars that can run on high-ethanol blends. This isn’t technically a regulation: it’s government placing conditions on access to taxpayer money.

But once GM and Ford are forced into following whatever green marching orders Obama sends down, then the companies become an ally to the carbon-cappers. If Detroit is bending over backwards to reduce CO2 emissions, you can bet they will start lobbying to require all cars sold in America to meet whatever standard they’re meeting. In other words, the conditions Detroit will agree in order to get bailout cash will soon be imposed on even those automakers (like Honda and Toyota) not begging for federal handouts.

The American auto industry is already failing because Detroit's pumping out cars nobody wants. Therefore, the logical answer is to roll out even more worthless, lightweight death traps nobody wants as long as the feds will socialize your losses. Sure, you might need to sell your soul to the state, but hey, that's a small price to pay as long as you get to keep your jet-setting lifestyle and play the world's finest golf courses.

Actually, I'll do Carney one better when he says these bribes wouldn't be akin to outright regulation so much as "conditions on access to taxpayer money." Technically he's right, but what this really is is a form of economic fascism: the corporatist state, using various coercive methods, co-opts industry as a proxy through which it can do its bidding.

Unfortunately, this scenario probably isn't a matter of if, but when. And when the state necessarily assumes control of production, privatizing profits and socializing losses, what you've got is the polar opposite of the free market.

The opposite of wealth is poverty, which overwhelmingly has been the standard of living throughout history wherever the central state has managed economies. If people really want to improve the environment and save the earth, their best bet is to encourage the government to get the hell out of the way and to rely instead on capitalism.

Nature Is the Enemy

How far we as a civilization have regressed: Where once man understood that nature was his enemy, we now elect presidents driven by the dogma of "environmentalism" who itch to use violence to ensure we're ultimately defeated by it.

All We Are Saying, Is Give Police a Chance

It's starkly ironic that Barack Obama, the man who rose to prominence as the "peace" candidate by talking of his opposition to the Iraq war while doing nothing in the Senate to defund it, will now set about to "change the world" by pointing his guns at as many people as he can.

I see little evidence suggesting that B.O. won't stink up the Oval Office just as badly as George Bush has, but his legacy will begin here at home as he goes to war with liberty.

Captain America will seize upon his Democratic monopoly and embark on a global mission to impose suffocating "carbon taxes" and even tighter environmental regulations on private corporations and homeowners under the guise of saving the planet; wars -- on "terror" and "drugs," among other likely inventions -- will continue, if not expand, at the hands of imperialistic military policy overseas and a growing domestic police state; central banking will play an even greater role in the economy as President Obama and the Fed prolong inflationary policies, issuing unfunded bailouts and "stimulus payments" and perpetuating the myth that free markets and "deregulation" have been the cause of our economic crisis; medical care will deteriorate as increasingly nationalized health programs result in diminished quality of service and lower profits; and small businesses (and, subsequently, their employees) will suffer under increased federal mandates as fascist policies like minimum wage hikes, forced unionization, and price controls gain even more prominence as the value of the dollar continues to fall.

Our Holy Savior dangerously believes that coercive government, replete with paternatlistic regulation and control, is the source of all good in the world and that we merely need the "right person" in charge of the evil, corrupt regime -- him. I fear what lies ahead, but given the direction we're clearly headed, the quicker the empire collapses, the better.

Why I Don't Trust Environmentalists

Because they want to kill everyone. Here's the concluding passage:

Just as Nazis and Communists loathed capitalism, so do today’s environmentalists. Greenies hate private property, they hate human liberty, they hate prosperity, they hate modern-day industry, and they hate the free market. They will always choose beavers, trees, and rock formations over people. Environmentalists are using climate change (the big lie), wetlands legislation, the Endangered Species Act, and myriad other legal constraints to slowly choke off capitalism and supplant it with socialism. Of course, their desire is to exercise control over a much smaller population than exists today – Jacques-Yves Cousteau even stated that the ideal human population would be "…limited to 100,000 people, but educated and respectful of nature." So who decides to kill whom? When you sum all of this up, Greenies simply detest the human race. Accordingly, environmentalism is the deepest and broadest form of racism known to mankind.

Your Government at Work

FEMA continues to demonstrate its competence, this time in the wake of Hurricane Ike.

Steny Hoyer Needs a Zero-Day Workweek

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer wants government employees to be unproductive for two more hours every day.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., has asked the Office of Personnel Management to tell him by Aug. 31 what it would take for federal agencies to move to a four-day, 40-hour week schedule by the end of fiscal 2008, a move he said would decrease traffic congestion and gas consumption.

Abolishing federal employment altogether would save a lot of gas.

Don't Litter!

The North Carolina Dept. of Transportation is heading a "beautification project" that, in part, punishes motorists for littering. It will force compliance by subjecting litterbugs to any or all of the following punishments: up to a $2,000 fine, community service work, and one point on a driver's license. At least that's what I learned from an advertisment on a plastic bag someone in my office left on the countertop in the kitchen.

Gotta love the State. Expanding fines for moving violations to include non-moving violations.

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!

A Penn and Teller assistant convinces a horde of environmentalists to sign a ban on -- wait for it -- water.

I have to agree with my friend Brady who sent me this and says, "We're doomed."

(Via LRC.)

Gavin Newsom's Hypocrisy

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom wants to impose fines up to $1,000 on city residents who don't sort their trash according to his office's diktats.

This is the same mayor who couldn't even be bothered to recycle his vows to his wife, right?

Enviro-Fascists on the Move

I've been meaning to post this for a couple days now, but being that there's only so many hours in a day and all...via WYN stalwart Wolf:

I listen to Bill Bennett's show on Sirius every morning on my way to work, and he had a guest host today (Congressman Ernest Istook, according to his web site) who was talking about some new regulations coming out from the EPA that would regulate CO2 emissions.  From the sounds of it, this would regulate everything from lawnmowers to factories, to powerplants and would cost TRILLIONS of dollars over 40 years to lower the average temperature of the Earth 1/100th (!!) of a degree.  Got that?  1/100th!!!  In the meantime, it would cause the price of everything to skyrocket as companies struggled to meet these new regulations... everything from light bulbs to refrigerators to generators to electricity and gas themselves would be impacted.  The host specifically mentioned that EVERY SINGLE PART of the internal combustion engine is impacted by these proposed regulations.  He, or his guest -- I don't recall -- also specifically mentioned that lawn mowers, as an example, would be required to meet "grass-mile" standards similar to miles per gallon standards for cars.

Didn't see this coming. Is right now a good time to remind you how much I hate politicians?

Entrapment in PA?

According to my wife, Fox News reported last night that citations and fines are being issued to Somerville, Pa., residents who have standing water in their pools because it breeds mosquitoes.

Yes, local laws can be a nuisance, but wait until these folks drain their pools and the EPA is all over them for disturbing a "natural habitat."

Roy Hart -- Latest Victim of Maryland's Fascist Bureaucrats

A St. Mary's County zoning appeals board told Hollywood residents Roy and Jane Hart that they cannot complete construction on a home they have been remodeling since 1986.

The zoning appeals board ruled that the building permit did expire, that there was never a vested right to continue its construction and turned down an application for after-the-fact approval.

The house cannot be finished where it is now, but it could be physically relocated farther away from the water.

The decision can be appealed to circuit court.

The unfinished house is in within 100 feet of the shoreline. Chesapeake Bay Critical Area regulations prohibit structures in the buffer, but the foundation of the house was poured before the regulations were adopted locally in 1990.

The house can be "physically relocated?" The "decision can be appealed" to a higher court? At what cost to these homeowners? Certainly the fascist bureaucrats who have no vested personal interest or stake in the outcome of these hearings will bear any costs, whether monetary or emotional.

Anyone who thinks the building permit process exists for any reason other than to serve as a tax on construction is pathetically naive. For the most part, homeowners go along to get along and pay their fees to the state and county so they can get on with actually enjoying the property they've paid for. But when these criminals in suits who sit on planning and zoning boards start casting votes that essentially rob homeowners of their land and rights, there's no denying the fact that when push comes to shove, there really is no such thing as property rights as long as government is involved.

This is yet another example of the government punishing people for the mere potential to do harm; it's apparently too much to expect our public "servants" to resign themselves to sanctioning only those who've actually caused property damage as a result of their actions.

No doubt these county regulators believe they're serving a greater purpose as they assert unilateral force upon non-violent citizens, but they're nothing more than cowards hiding beneath Mother Nature's skirt as they bully the rest of us under the guise of protecting the environment.

Lunch Links

- California to require new cars to be labeled with a "global warming score." What's next, forcing people to wear tags indicating how much they weigh?

- Cynthia Rodriguez files for divorce from Alex amid allegations that the slugger was "brainwashed" by Madonna into having an extramarital affair. Damn, A-Rod, didn't you see Body of Evidence? The bitch is good!

- Two brothers in Big Sur heroically and successfully protected their family's 55-acre property from wildfire literally by fighting fire with fire -- with a controlled burn known as a backfire -- but did so against government orders to stop. You guessed it: one brother went to jail.

- Did the U.S. play a role in secret Korean executions?

- Fascist senator John Warner (R-Va.) wants a return to federally mandated lower speed limits in the name of "energy efficiency." Why not just cut to the chase and order us all to pedal around on bicycles, John?

The New Communism..

..is environmentalism, says Czech president Vaclav Klaus.

"I understand that global warming is a religion conceived to suppress human freedom," he told editors and reporters at The Washington Times. "It is used to justify an enormous scope for government intervention vis-a-vis the markets and personal freedom."

$12-a-Gallon Gas?

This is what some are predicting, but it wouldn't happen if the U.S. lifted its environmental restrictions on energy production and allowed more producers into the market, or merely allowed more substantial production among existing energy companies (it could also end a pointless war that's driving up demand for oil as American taxpayers fork out over $5 billion a year to gas up machinery in Iraq).

Rising prices indicate increasing market demand and send a signal to companies that there are profits to be made, whereby drawing more players into competition for these revenues and subsequently driving prices back down.

But then again, this is assuming a relatively stable dollar, and I suppose anything's possible if runaway inflation renders your currency less and less valuable by the day.

After all, given that the dollar currently is trading at $1.57 against the euro (as it has roughly for the past month), a dollar is worth about €0.63 -- meaning that a gallon of gas would still only cost $2.38 today instead of the $3.79 I spotted this morning on the drive to work if the two currencies traded evenly, as they did only a few years ago.

Given the fact that gas here in Southern Maryland was $3.23 about two months ago, using today's exchange rate it would have cost about $2.03 a gallon were the dollar even with the euro -- meaning that gasoline really would have increased only 35 cents -- or about 17 percent -- in the past two months, reflecting a pretty normal increase in demand heading into the summer months.

I'd be willing to bet most of us aren't making 17 percent more than we were back when the dollar and euro were about even (I know I'm not), which means that these normal upticks in demand now account for a much greater chunk of our real income than they once did before inflation began to skyrocket.

Obama Is a Lunatic

From a rally two days ago in Oregon:

"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.

No, only King Barack will enjoy the fruits of wealth from the White House while forcing the rest of us to ration our gas, meals, and utilities.

This guy's a whackjob who would probably make us nostalgic for a W presidency.

Self-Promo

My latest article runs today in the Baltimore Examiner and points out the real intent behind Maryland's tightened restrictions on waterfront development. (Hint: Lawmakers want to outlaw it altogether.)

Right Idea, Wrong Plan

Maryland Sen. Roy Dyson argues in a recent op-ed that the Thomas Johnson Bridge that spans St. Mary's and Calvert counties is in desperate need of replacement, or at the very least relief from the volume of traffic it's expected to withstand each day.

I don't agree with Dyson about much, and not least his general outlook that all problems big and small can be fixed by the government, but he's right that this bridge -- colloquially known as the Solomons Bridge -- is frighteningly unsafe.

About 20 years ago, the bridge was closed for months, due to structural deficiencies. It got another band aid treatment. That's all it ever gets. A boat's eye view of the underside of the bridge is hair-raising. It is braced and over-braced. Its pilings appear to be in various stages of rot. For years, I have said…and I repeat it now "I don't think it's (the Thomas Johnson Bridge) safe."

It's funny that the shot of the "band-aid" braces included with Dyson's article only shows two reinforcement rods. One day I'll grab some photos from my boat showing braces containing at least eight rods.

This bridge needs to be replaced. My wife and I are so sick of traveling over it every day that we're in the process of trying to move to St. Mary's county so we won't need to cross it to get to work anymore. But aside from the hassle of traffic congestion, sooner or later many people are going to be killed by this bridge when a section plummets into the Patuxent River. Take a second and write that down. It's a virtual certainty.

While Dyson has the right idea here, it's too bad he doesn't push for outright privatization of the bridge. At this point, I'm not sure how many contractors out there would want to assume ownership given the headaches associated with building on or over the water in Maryland, but it would certainly speed up the improvement/replacement process if we didn't have to put our faith in the state to clean up this mess. Governments generally don't act until it's too late -- and that usually means that someone has to die before any money is allocated to fix anything.

We can kill two birds with one stone before we have to kill dozens of people with one bridge. Privatizing the TJ Bridge would mean saving taxpayers the burden of footing the bill while at the same time removing much of the bureaucracy that will ultimately hold up this project for years.

(Thanks to Rick.)

Corporate Fascism

The "green" boondoggle at General Electric.

Ethanol Subsidies Kill

As if the United States weren't cultivating enough hate around the world with its mindless wars, its environmental policies are causing surges in food prices around the world that are materializing in the form of riots and starvation.

World Bank President Robert Zoellick has said the surging costs could mean "seven lost years" in the fight against worldwide poverty.

"While many are worrying about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs, and it is getting more and more difficult every day," Zoellick said late last week in a speech opening meetings with finance ministers.

[...]

"In just two months," Zoellick said in his speech, "rice prices have skyrocketed to near historical levels, rising by around 75 percent globally and more in some markets, with more likely to come. In Bangladesh, a 2-kilogram bag of rice ... now consumes about half of the daily income of a poor family."

The price of wheat has jumped 120 percent in the past year, he said -- meaning that the price of a loaf of bread has more than doubled in places where the poor spend as much as 75 percent of their income on food.

Because ethanol is made with corn, U.S. government subsidies have contributed not only to an increased demand for corn itself but also for farmland in general, which has led to higher costs for everything from rice and corn to hops and beef -- and, subsequently, any product that is then made with these goods.

And what's the U.S.'s answer to these spiking food prices and riots? Why, more subsidies of course! Brilliant.

(In addition, see my piece on how bans on trans fats have also contributed to this problem.)

Maryland's War on Property Rights

These are some trying times for Marylanders who live on environmentally-regulated "critical area" lands -- or, for that matter, for anyone with aspirations of living on or near any of the "Free State'"s peaceful waterways.

Oxymora aside, pardon me while I choke back tears of laughter at the suggestion that Maryland is in any way "free"; when state authorities dictate for landowners the terms of their property's use, you’re living in more of a "fascist fiefdom" than anything.

Maryland legislators recently amended a bill toughening critical area laws in order to ease its setback restrictions, shrinking the proposed 300-foot housing setback to 200 feet. Environmentalists and other proponents of the new, tighter regulations view this amendment as weakening a bill aimed at "saving" the Chesapeake Bay, while opponents recognize it for what it really is: a mere decrease of an increase upon present suffocating development limits.

Existing laws prevent any property development within 100 feet of the bay and its tributaries. This point shouldn't need to be reinforced, but private property does not belong to the state (by definition, at least); it's either fully owned by you or another private party -- say, your landlord or a bank in the event you fail to make your mortgage payments. Therefore, unless the government purchases an easement on your property, it has no moral authority whatsoever to compel you to follow directives on how it's to be used.

Also realize that a 100 foot buffer isn't just "100 feet" -- it's a 100 linear foot setback from the high water mark that spans the length of your property. So if, for example, you own a 110-foot stretch of waterfront, the government is restricting you from even touching 11,000 square feet of your land, which works out to be a little more than a quarter-acre. Now consider that the original bill called for a setback of 300 feet. That's three-quarters of an acre of your property on which you would not be able to build. And as it stands, the new setback will be 200 feet, which in our example would prevent property owners from using a half-acre of their own land (!).

Maryland Sen. J. Lowell Stoltzfus, a Republican, warned that this new legislation would immediately decrease property values, while Sen. Brian E. Frosh, a Democrat, said the bill would have the opposite effect on these values, sending them ever higher. Interestingly enough, both men are correct depending on one's particular situation.

Specifically, Sen. Frosh is quoted by the Baltimore Sun as saying:

"It's not a question of whether you can build a house on your property, it's a question of where you can build a house," he said, noting that it would just have to be farther back from the water.

How interesting, Senator. Apparently property owners across the state are sitting on boundless expanses of land.

I wonder how many people lucky enough to be able to find and afford waterfront property in Maryland even own a half-acre of land (which, incidentally, will easily run you anywhere between $300,000 to 400,000 or more for the lot alone in today's market). If you've purchased a half-acre lot and you get wrapped up in these new regulations before you break ground, your property will effectively be rendered worthless as a result of this new bill, as there will be no room remaining on your lot on which to build a house. In this regard, Sen. Stoltzfus's warning is deadly accurate.

On the other hand, if you're a wealthy Marylander who's purchased five or ten acres of waterfront property -- you're a Democratic senator sitting on the General Assembly, for instance -- sure, you probably don't care too much whether you have to bump your house a half-acre backward. (More likely, though, you'd qualify for some exemption as a result of your status as a Very Special Person.)

But Frosh is right -- this bill will have the immediate effect of raising property values for all waterfront landowners. Prices will rise not only because waterfront lots will simply have to be larger to comply with the new building regulations, but the laws will also further artificially limit supply. And, of course, this will additionally limit the supply of hard-working, middle-income taxpayers who will one day be able to realize their dream of living on the water.

Platitudes about saving our waterways or wildlife aside, what no one seems to be talking about here is the fact that we do not need government regulations to prevent pollution of Maryland's waters, nor are these regulations likely to noticeably improve water quality anyhow.

Whether government-mandated setbacks are 100, 200, 300 or 1000 feet, one need not be a scientist to realize rainwater will still run into the bay, rivers, and creeks; boaters will still disturb some fish and sea turtles while they enjoy summer weekends; power plants and factories may still dump waste into the water. And regardless of coercive government restrictions, anyone suspected of violating the property rights of another through environmental pollution can still be sued for civil or criminal negligence.

In short, these property-grabbing, preemptive regulations are good for nothing but trampling property rights and increasing costs to property owners -- whether by reducing the enjoyment one gets from using his land, placing waterfront prices out of reach, or even rendering some properties unbuildable for the unluckiest victims of this elitist legislation.

Whereas the free market provides value for the consumer through competition, the government's monopoly on the use of force results in inefficiency, higher costs, waste, theft, and corruption.

Ironically, most Maryland politicians believe they can protect the environment by violating property rights; but it's their collective disrespect for these rights that prevents them from realizing that protection of private property is the solution to environmental abuses in the first place.

Maryland Works Overtime to Usurp Property Rights

Maryland legislators are so intent on trampling property rights that they're even meeting on weekends to do it. Last Saturday, the House pushed through a bill banning rip rap and other "hard" shorelines that homeowners install to prevent erosion.

The House of Delegates voted 114-22 to ban most so-called "hard" shorelines such as concrete seawalls or stone piles once favored by homeowners to prevent erosion.

Scientists now say those types of "hard" shorelines hurt the environment and leave waterfront development prone to storm damage because marshes and sandy shorelines act as natural buffers when hurricanes or nor'easters hit.

But some homeowners prefer "hard" shorelines because they allow development closer to the water, leading to a feisty debate Saturday over whether Maryland should require pricey but in some cases undesirable "soft" shorelines such as marshes and grasses.

"We're trying to work toward a natural shoreline," said Delegate Barbara Frush, D-Prince George's, who argued for the bill in a rare Saturday session of the legislature.

Leave it to environmentalists to complain even when property owners try to protect the environment.

Homeowners don't prefer "hard" shorelines over marshes and grasses because they allow them build closer to the water; they prefer them because marshes smell like shit. Literally. Grassy marshes might look pretty at high tide, but be sure to grab your gas mask if you're anywhere around them as the tide goes out.

Simply put, forcing homeowners to install sea grass instead of concrete, wood, or stone sea walls will reduce property values. And regardless of what "scientists" say, property owners bear the burden if their property is damaged during a storm, so they retain the natural right to determine how best to protect it.

What this bill really comes down to is the so-called protection of sea life. Environmentalists argue that turtles and other creatures can't live in "unnatural" environments like rip rap. Turtles have been around since the dinosaurs, but apparently they're just suddenly going to stop learning how to adapt to their surroundings.

I don't know many people who think it's cool to destroy the environment and the wildlife that inhabits it -- notwithstanding the fact that anyone who does so is guilty of infringing on the property rights of others -- but to listen to Maryland politicians, you'd think people who oppose this stupid bill were pushing to drain the Chesapeake and install a parking lot.

O'Malley the Fascist

It would be easier to just pack up now and hand your house and land over to the state of Maryland, rather than wait around for Gov. Martin [Owe]'Malley to cause your slow, painful death.

It's actually been a few days since Gov. Douchebag has proposed yet another innovative plan to steal our property out from under our noses, so, as if right on cue, yesterday he announced an initiative that would impose even more building restrictions on waterfront property owners.

Gov. Martin O'Malley called yesterday for passage of his proposal to tighten Chesapeake Bay shoreline development restrictions, saying the 24-year-old Critical Area law needs to be upgraded to stem the decline of the troubled estuary.

Speaking at a news conference at the water's edge at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation headquarters in Annapolis, O'Malley said shoreline development is a major reason for the deterioration of the bay's water quality and wildlife.

"If we don't take greater action to reverse where the Chesapeake Bay is headed, the bay is going to be extinct, for all intents and purposes, for aquatic life," he said, and for all that the bay represents to Marylanders.

This shrill little bitch sure is Hillary's lapdog, isn't he? The bay is going to be extinct? One wonders how ever it has survived the past 24 years.

The administration's legislation would grant greater authority to the 29-member state commission that oversees development within the 1,000-foot strip of bay front known as "critical area" because it helps keep pollution from washing into the water and protects wildlife habitat. The measure would curb local officials' power to grant exceptions, or variances, from waterfront building limits and would rein in their ability to permit new growth along undisturbed stretches of shoreline.

According to a separate report, violation of this law would cost offenders up to $10,000 a day (!).

Also contained within O'Malley's bill is a provision "to expand from 100 feet to 300 feet the setback from the water required for new homes along rural stretches of shoreline."

Here we're no longer talking about fining private contractors for violating building codes; the governor is laying the foundation to harass every single residential waterfront property owner in the state for touching anything on his or her property within 300 feet of Maryland's waterways.

It isn't clear whether this $10,000 fine will also apply to homeowners who have the audacity to chop down ratty trees they don't like, but O'Malley's plan looks less like concern for the Chesapeake Bay than it does a tyrannical revenue-generating scheme. After all, how many of your constituents in Baltimore are going to complain when you fleece those "rich" waterfront homeowners in the 'burbs, right Martin?

There's one easy way to prevent development along the bay: Don't zone it for development. I don't believe the state should rob taxpayers to maintain public property, but that would be a helluva lot better than imposing fascist policies preventing property owners from using their land as they like so long as it hurts no one else. Of course, that would mean our dear governor wouldn't be able to collect those almighty property taxes he needs to fund his all his welfare programs.

Government is the opposite of freedom. If anything's going to be extinct soon in Maryland, it's property rights. But why protect property rights when you reserve a monopoly on the use of force? Better to simultaneously rape the citizens and ensure re-election by pandering to green bigots, eh Benito?

Green Christmas

Indicating yet again that President Bush believes the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper," he is set to sign a sweeping energy bill thrust upon us via legislative fiat.

In an attempt to provide clarity on the issue of radical environmentalism, I think I'll turn to the great orator Denny Crane, whose wisdom I quote from memory from last night's episode of Boston Legal: "I hope the environment survives. I really do. I'm just sick and tired of you smug, hybrid-driving socialists telling the rest of us how to live our lives!"

McCain's Plan for Perpetual War

Leaving aside the nutty belief that governments can influence the weather, John McCain's plans to fight climate change and end dependence on foreign oil will actually make the U.S. vulnerable to the very attacks he believes his policies would prevent.

“Great nations don’t leave the ‘lifeblood’ of their economy in the hands of foreign cartels or bet their future on a commodity located in countries where authoritarians repress their people and terrorists find their main support,” he said.

McCain added that its energy dependence makes the U.S. vulnerable to attacks.

I'd rather live in a free nation than a "great nation." Trading partners don't usually bomb one another.

O'Malley's Misplaced Priorities

My latest article runs today in the Baynet and discusses Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley's blind obeisance to big government.

Socialism Alive and Well in Maryland

Maryland teachers are none too happy after learning that Gov. Martin O'Malley and his pals in the Democrat-controlled General Assembly are set to cut expected aid to local school districts by $152 million in the next fiscal year.

School personnel throughout the state fear that these cuts will mean little to no annual raises over the next two years, encourage veteran teachers to leave the work force, and make it much more difficult for Maryland to attract teachers from out of state.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to preface my forthcoming comments by stating that I oppose the entire concept of government education, whether regarding its production or funding. Indeed, I quit teaching in 1999 due primarily to this very fact. If I had my way, we'd take this $152 million and the billions more we spend on public education and return it all to taxpayers.

But of course, that ain't gonna happen anytime soon so it makes a little more sense to address this issue within the realm of reality. And the reality of the situation is that Marylanders pay almost a billion dollars in property taxes every year, about half of which go to public school funding. Moreover, given the fact that politicians endlessly exploit children as an excuse to justify state funding of goods that parents should be paying for, we should all be able to admit that most people (unfortunately) view public education as a legitimate function of government -- meaning that if the budget needed to be slashed in order to meet a certain limit, you'd think cutting funding for teachers and students would fall into the category of last resort.

I'm not suggesting we should feel sorry for state education employees when $5.4 billion of O'Malley's $30 billion operating budget -- or a full 18 percent -- goes to the department of education (not including higher education), especially when you consider that another $400 million in capital outlays will be spent on public school construction projects. After all, teachers have summers off and enjoy top notch benefits packages. However, from a teacher's perspective, it really shouldn't be too much to ask that salaries keep pace with inflation (which is caused by the government's manipulation of the money supply in the first place).

Aside from the fact that some of Maryland's new public schools look like country clubs (take a look at Huntingtown High School in Calvert County the next time you drive down Rte. 4), a quick glance at O'Malley's budget reveals any number of appropriations that could be sacrificed so teachers wouldn't potentially have to be. Perhaps the governor could cut his $3.9 million in aid to non-public schools. Or maybe trim from his special home loan programs, or from the bloated transit or highway administrations. Got almost $2 billion to work with there, Gov.

Former governor Robert Ehrlich wrote a good op-ed back in October outlining how he was able to stay within his budget without raising taxes (granted, he did raise some fees), something Martin O'Malley couldn't even accomplish within his first year on the job. Instead of instructing state agencies to budget under the assumption that they would receive 12 percent less money than the previous year, as his predecessor did, O'Malley simply increased taxes to cover programs he couldn't afford to fund -- the state sales tax, the corporate income tax, and the cigarette tax are all going up, and O'Malley worked his marxian magic on the personal income tax structure to give lower earners a break at the expense of those who make more. Ehrlich put it best:

Here's what leaders in Maryland don't get: We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. With creativity and slower budget growth, legislators can align Maryland's spending with its needs without raising taxes. Yet they inherently believe that low taxes are a problem that must be "fixed" in order to expand government's reach into our wallets and our lives.

Ehrlich himself was certainly no stranger to spending, but the answer to closing a deficit is not to further steal from taxpayers, the vast majority of whom don't use even a fraction of the programs they pay for. For sake of argument, to the extent we're assuming that a governor has justification to levy taxes for legitimate government functions, the "answer" would be to trade less important programs for those deemed more important. As immoral as it is to force people to pay for services they don't need or want, it's even more unconscionable to behave as a gluttonous wretch, increasingly grabbing more and more of other people's property in order to redistribute it among everyone else.

But that's the obvious problem with socialism. A handful of dependents benefit at the expense of many independents. And even where a majority of voters agrees to grant to the state the power to provide services that could just as easily be left to the private sector, there is virtually no limit to the number of government-run social programs in which the state will engage. Here's a glimpse into the breakdown of O'Malley's education budget alone: $1.7 million for "environmental education"; over $126 million for "limited English proficient"; over $7.4 million for "food services program"; and my personal favorite, over $2.9 million for "innovative programs." Oooh, innovative programs!

If that's not enough to make you happy to be a taxpayer, maybe you'll enjoy O'Malley's capital budget, which is the governor's plan to finance long-term outlays, such as for fixed assets like facilities and equipment. Or, you know, for empty land.

That's right. Maryland's Program Open Space has wasted taxpayer money for years! But don't worry, teachers. I'm sure you're willing to take an income hit just so your governor can afford to blow almost half a billion dollars on the departments of the environment and natural resources (now I know why all those DNR officers are so eager to pull us over when we leave Tiki Bar by boat after a couple mai tais).

While we get to pay more than $232 million so the government can manage water and sewerage, O'Malley is fleecing us to the tune of $170 million so the government can buy up land you're not allowed to. According to the Project Open Space website, "Today there are more than 5,000 individual county and municipal parks and conservation areas that exist because of the program." Well, goodie. I can't remember the last time I've used one of them, and I'm fairly sure that if there were enough demand for parks and conservation areas, private organizations would be plenty willing to buy them up and charge admission for people who care to visit.

This is running long, so I won't even get into the fact that the most highly populated Maryland counties -- like Montgomery, Prince George's, Baltimore, and Anne Arundel -- are the beneficiaries of most of our tax dollars, even though every taxpayer across the state pays an equal amount in taxes and fees (except for those "Richie Riches," of course, who will be getting screwed in income taxes even harder now than they were before). And I'm sure all you teachers are happy to know that private entities like the Birchmere Music Hall, Southern Maryland Stadium, and private schools and hospitals will be the recipients of almost $20 million combined in state grants and other government funding.

I feel like I need to take a shower after defending government teachers (no offense), but you get the idea. If we're going to be expected to pay so much in taxes, fines, and fees to the government, the very least we should expect is that these monies are used for those all-too-widely-accepted responsibilities of government -- for schools, roads, bridges, libraries, courts, and the like; not for straight-up subsidies and handouts to politically connected private businesses and non-profit organizations, to say nothing of the myriad social welfare programs everywhere you look.

Martin O'Malley is nothing if not a populist who endlessly appeals to Maryland's "working people" by trying to create a dichotomy between "the people" and some perceived elite (as if that would justify policies that discriminate against one class in favor of another). Witness this quote, given last week after O'Malley signed his new tax increases into law: "It was hard to ask people to do more, but it would have been irresponsible to not ask the people of our state to choose to make progress.''

I was "asked" to "make progress"? Sorry, but you don't "ask" anyone to do anything at the point of a gun. I don't know about anyone else, but it sure as hell feels like I've been coerced.

Today is America Recycles Day

Big whoop.

I thought I'd celebrate by recycling this article I wrote two years ago, which argues that: everyone recycles, we all do it whether we realize it or not, government recycling programs more or less force us to recycle just for the sake of recycling, and it's little more than a waste of time and resources to recycle things like paper and plastic.

Al Gore III Busted

Al Gore's son was arrested last night on "suspicion of drug possession." He wasn't drunk or stoned, mind you, just in possession of a plant.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The 24-year-old son of former Vice President Al Gore was arrested for drug possession on Wednesday after he was stopped for speeding in his hybrid Toyota Prius, a sheriff's official said.

Al Gore III -- whose father is a leading advocate of policies to fight global warming -- was driving his environmentally friendly car at about 100 miles per hour on a freeway south of Los Angeles when he was pulled over by an Orange County sheriff's deputy at about 2:15 a.m.

Personally, I think the guy should get some type of award for getting a hybrid to 100 mph.

Close This CAFE

Examiner columnist Tim Carney has an eye-opening piece today on CAFE standards, their impact on automakers and consumers, and the politicians and special interest lobbies that stand to gain most from these draconian regulations.

Proponents dismiss automaker grumbling about stricter CAFE standards as foot-dragging and argue that heightened mileage requirements would benefit consumers and the environment, but the verdict on that argument is still out.

For one thing, nothing currently keeps consumers from buying cars that get better gas mileage — mandating improved fleet mileage actually reduces consumer choice. Secondly, greater fuel efficiency may not result in less fuel use — it encourages drivers to drive more, possibly making no impact on oil dependency and certainly increasing traffic congestion.

Most importantly, stricter CAFE rules cost lives. CAFE pushes consumers to buy smaller cars, which are less safe in case of accidents. The National Academy of Sciences in 2002 released a paper that showed that CAFE results in an additional 2,000 highway deaths per year.

If it weren't immoral enough to impose regulations on the private sector that likely result in little to no benefit to the environment, Congress is content to sacrifice human lives for political gain.

See also my piece on ethanol subsidization and how this alternative fuel has been shown to mangle boat engines.

Top of the Food Chain, My Patoot!

Infuriating as environmental regulations can be to people who have the audacity to believe they actually deserve to enjoy property they've purchased, I suppose it's nice to know that we here in Maryland aren't alone.

Courtesy of my buddy Kevin at BfloBlog, it seems the rather pesky Henslow's sparrow is preventing a developer from moving forward with a major housing project in Lancaster, N.Y.

Described by birders as “an uncommon and famously inconspicuous bird,” the small, brownish, black-streaked sparrows are considered by the state Department of Environmental Conservation to be threatened. But by the time the birds were discovered in 2000 on open grasslands just south of William Street near Bowen Road, the land already had been approved for development.

Homes now stand on uncontested parts of the property, but preservationists are blocking a new wave of construction of at least 25 homes with an estimated worth of $6 million.

“As long as the site serves as a habitat for these protected birds, disturbance is prohibited,” DEC spokeswoman Lori O’- Connell said.

What madness. All for a bird that's neither common nor noticeable.

Battle Creek Update II

We're getting there. After publishing updates on the Battle Creek sandbar situation yesterday, I've received further clarification from Corinne Cook on what's actually going on here. Yesterday's update was the result of information Ms. Cook obtained via a phone conversation with a representative from Calvert County (Md.) Soil Conservation. Today's update is a bit more accurate, as the information comes straight from an email Ms. Cook received from Bill Clark, district manager at the Calvert Soil Conservation District.

First, however, I must note that Ms. Cook has informed me that she was originally misinformed about a couple specifics related to ownership of the Battle Creek sandbar and the cost of the sea grass planting. As you will read, the land was never owned by Y.D. Hance, and the cost to taxpayers to plant the sea grass was actually $17,000, not $1,700.

Okay, here's the email from Soil Conservation (emphasis mine):

Calvert County government will be re-building the bridge at the end of Chaneyville Road that leads into Lower Marlboro.  As part of the construction they will be affecting several thousand square feet of tidal wetland.  The Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Department of Environment is requiring them to mitigate for this disturbance by creating tidal wetland else where [sic].  This is a requirement under the federal 404/401 wetland permitting process.

The creation of tidal wetlands has several critical components that need to be there for a wetland to work.  One place was found that meets all the criteria.  This was the sand spit at the Well’s [sic] farm.  This farm, on the north side of Battle Creek, is owned by Susie and Walt Wells.  It was never owned by Y.D.Hance.  He owned the farm up on the hill but not the lower fields.  All of this farm land, including the sand spit, is private property.  The sand spit was put into an easement program so that the created wetland must remain there in perpetuity. Since the area is being used for mitigation, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Department of Environment have a major concern that the area remain an established wetland.  If the area is destroyed or the plantings removed then Calvert County government [ahem, taxpayers!] will have to pay for the replanting.  The cost of the project was $17,000.

Tidal wetlands provide major benefits to the Patuxent River.  They help improve water quality, provide habitat protection for small fish, crabs, and provide a nesting spot for the endangered Diamondback turtle.  The addition of this wetland will help enhance the water quality and wildlife benefits in that area of the Patuxent River.  I was out there last week and there were several turtles laying eggs among the plantings we did, so the area is already working as designed.

So there you have it, dear taxpayers, you get to help foot the bill for a "wetlands" project so the Diamondback turtle (Terrapin, actually) will have more comfortable nesting spots. A turtle is more important than you are. Don't you feel good?

By the way, before you answer that, you may want to consider that the Diamondback likely faces a much greater threat from connoisseurs of turtle soup than it ever would from a handful of boaters in Maryland during the summer. But hey, as long as the Terrapin's the state reptile of Maryland and the mascot of the state's most popular college, golly gee, I guess it's just fine to fleece taxpayers to "protect" the poor little thing!

I don't question the argument that tidal wetlands provide benefits to the Patuxent River, or any river for that matter. What I do question, however, is why it's the government's responsibility to oversee such projects. Or, more specifically, I question the morality of forcing all taxpayers to fund these types of environmental projects. If this conservation is so important, certainly the state can manage programs funded by voluntary donations to the cause.

I'll note one final thing. The email from Soil Conservation states that the sand spit (sandbar) was put into an easement program so that the (artificially) created wetland would remain forever and ever and ever. Fine. The Wellses may have consented to the county's request to create the wetland, but even if they didn't, you could bet your lunch money that the government would have simply forced them to if it had no other options (given its requirement under those almighty federal provisions and all). So, if I understand this correctly, the county has essentially purchased an easement on the Wellses property, the funding of which it can now just pass off to taxpayers to continually maintain. High five!

If the government places restrictions on the use of private property, it damn well should pay property owners for its de facto ownership of our land. After all, the county doesn't pay me not to cut down the trees in my backyard, but it nevertheless prohibits me from doing so. It could at least put these particular proposals and regulations to a referendum. Indeed, I'm sure my buddy would have loved it if he could have relied on taxpayers to shell out the $60,000 he had to pay a few years ago for 4,000 grass plants after Hurricane Isabel pummelled 500 feet of his shoreline -- as he says, no grant, no interest free loan, no tax credit, no nothing.

And you know what? He'd also be the first to admit there shouldn't be any government assistance in such matters. He willingly bought his land. It's his to maintain, no one else's.

So it should go for all property owners. Even families who think their money's more important than yours and mine.

***
Related posts:
Battle Creek Update
Maryland Boaters and Taxpayers Take One On the Chin

Battle Creek Update

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about how the Battle Creek sandbar in Calvert County, Maryland was essentially commandeered by the state. In a nutshell, the state decided to plant sea grass on a sandbar patronized at low tide by boaters, which has effectively rendered it useless to the taxpayers who just paid for the grass.

Well, as a result of my original post, Corinne Cook, clerk to the board of Calvert County commissioners, set about investigating this matter a bit further. Ms. Cook spoke with a representative at Calvert County Soil Conservation and put the information he shared into an email, which I've reprinted in part here:

1.  The sandbar is in fact privately owned by Walt and Susie Hance Wells, originally owned by Y.D. (Young Duke) Hance, Susie's father.
 
2.  The State (or County) did a project elsewhere in the County that disturbed wetland, so therefore, they had to find a place to plant on another site in order to stay within guidelines.
 
3.  Soil Conservation sought out the [Wellses] to use the sandbar as it was a perfect place for a wetland planting . . . according to them.
 
4.  The [Wellses] gladly allowed the County to do this as they were having problems with OTHER visitors to the sandbar.

Given that I was told by the son of the owners of the land connected to the Battle Creek sandbar that the sandbar is in fact public property, it seems that there may be some confusion as to who actually owns it. However, as I'm not in a position at this point to dispute the veracity of the information divulged by the representative at Soil Conservation, I'll go ahead and assume that the sandbar is privately owned by the Wellses.

At any rate, it appears the Wellses were indeed growing weary of boaters playing loud music and leaving trash on the sandbar. Therefore, if it's true that the state requested the owners' permission to plant sea grass on their sandbar, there's nothing you, I, or the general public can do about it insofar that we'd have any right to tell a family what it's to do with its property. Indeed, the Wells family could deed the property to the state if it chose to do so.

However, we do have plenty of right to protest when the state decides to misuse public funds -- in this case, when it decides to subsidize wealthy landowners at the expense of taxpayers. The Wells family may have no problem with Soil Conservation's decision to plant the sea grass -- they very well may have preferred it -- but that certainly doesn't necessarily legitimize the expenditure of taxpayer resources to do it. Indeed, Ms. Cook notes that "taxpayers paid approximately $1,700 to have the planting done by the County." I suppose I should go ahead and put in my request now for Calvert County to reseed my yard in the fall.

This issue is nothing if not entirely confusing. For one thing, Ms. Cook originally spoke with the Calvert County commissioners with whom she works, and she was told they essentially could do nothing because this is a state issue -- even though you'll notice that the planting of sea grass was actually done by Calvert County Soil Conservation. This is precisely the type of confusion that is bred when the government more or less has carte blanche when it comes to spending our money.

Moreover, it's practically impossible to even track where taxpayer money is coming from in the first place these days, given that the federal government subsidizes any number of projects for the states, which in turn subsidize local governments. And good luck getting your upstanding representatives to admit where they're spending all your hard-earned money.

The U.S. is little more than a centrally-planned state today, and it's all too evident that private property rights have been a significant casualty of this continuing encroachment on our rights and property. However, this shouldn't be too surprising because the government doesn't care about our property. We are merely wards of the state, hosts on which parasitic, power-hungry politicians can feast by confiscating our income and assets in order to enrich themselves along with their closest friends and special interest supporters.

Think I'm joking? Whether politicians facilitate land deals to transfer wealth from one property owner to another, stadium deals that fleece taxpayers in order to subsidize gazillionaire professional sports team owners, or relatively small land grabs like the Battle Creek sandbar, it's all theft. Theft that results from the compulsory taxation of citizens who may have no use whatsoever for the projects at hand. Theft that would get you and me rightly thrown in jail if we did to another what the government does to us.

If the Wellses are fed up with boaters using their property, they -- not the government -- are responsible for taking the first steps to prohibit such use. "No Trespassing" signs cost about two bucks at Wal-Mart. Shotguns are a bit more expensive. They -- not the taxpayers -- can pay to have sea grass planted on their sandbar. And if these measures fail, they have every right to expect their land to be protected from trespassers by the police, who are supposedly first and foremost entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing laws upholding our property rights.

To be fair, the Wellses apparently didn't have any problem with local boaters using their sandbar, and only began to grow frustrated when out-of-towners began to abuse it. However, because they weren't willing to do what virtually everyone else does and use their own money to protect their property, local taxpayers are the ones left with the bill. They should know better. So should politicians and bureaucrats who work for the state and county.

And with any luck, Maryland taxpayers will know all about this fiasco in short order and demand much more accountability and responsibility from their government officials.

UPDATE: Ms. Cook has informed us that she was originally misinformed as to the cost of the wetland project. It was actually $17,000, not $1,700. As she rightly observes, what a difference a zero can make!