who's your nanny?

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.

Blame Global Warming Hysteria for the Housing Bubble

It's not as far-fetched as you might think, writes Steve Greenhut.

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.

'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.

Friends of Liberty in Surprising Places

Jim Fedako has a very good article about a weatherman in Ohio who questions anthropogenic global warming and is a friend of liberty.

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.

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.

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?

I Could Kiss Penn Jillette on the Mouth

Teller, too, but...well...he's just not as funny because he never talks. And I like tall dudes.

I just watched their latest episode of "Bulls...!" on Showtime titled "Being Green" (yeah, yeah, I know, it was a rerun of last week's original). Let's just say Leno and his "man in the street" interviews have nothing on some of the enviro-wingnuts Penn and Teller tracked down for this show.

You can find plenty of other articles and videos exposing the fraud that is global warming -- or, more to the point, this collective belief that we must "solve" a "problem" that's hardly apparent -- but none will be as funny as this. Priceless.

If nothing else, after watching these YouTube clips you'll have a rock-solid understand of how so many dumbass politicians get elected in this country.

(Did I link the show enough?)

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?

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."

'Cap and Trade' Cloture Vote Defeated

The Boxer amendment, known colloquially as "cap and trade," which amends the bill that would place limits on carbon emissions in the attempt to decrease greenhouse gas pollution, has been stopped in the Senate for the time being. Here's the vote.

"Cap and trade" would place centrally-regulated limits on the amount of pollution companies can emit. In a silly game that makes sense only to those who believe the federal government should control the economy in the first place, companies would be issued "emissions permits" and allowed to emit X amount of pollution. However, companies that needed to increase emissions in order to exist would then purchase credits from companies that didn't, effectively punishing "buyers" for polluting and rewarding "sellers" for having lower emissions.

So, "cap and trade" is really just another tax, though one through which politicians are hoping to hoodwink gullible Americans, as economist Bob Murphy explains here.

Cap and trade is not a market-based solution.  It relies on a political scheme to increase costs, and can therefore be justly viewed as a tax, stealthy or otherwise, on energy - the lifeblood of our economy.  So here’s the real difference: cap and trade masks the causes of higher consumer prices much better than a straightforward tax.  And that is precisely why so many politicians endorse it.

As an aside, note that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama bothered to vote on this amendment -- perhaps ironic given both candidates' infatuation with global warming -- apparently too busy campaigning for even more power on the taxpayers' dime.

I'm torn. I don't know whether I'm offended that we pay their inflated congressional salaries and numerous benefits when they're hardly at the office; or whether I'd be all the more willing to pay for them if every one of our representatives would promise never again to step foot in Congress and vote for laws that continually strip us of our rights.

Question of the Century

I don't write a lot about global warming, mainly because I don't feel I have much to contribute to the conversation in terms of scientific expertise. But the topic actually came up yesterday after a meeting at work, and it got me thinking about a couple things.

For starters, I don't doubt that the Earth is trending warmer at the moment or that humans are responsible for generating carbon emissions that contribute to higher temperatures. What I do question, however, is whether these supposed temperature changes are anything more than negligible increases that will have any negative impact on the environment whatsoever; are any different than cycles that can be observed historically if we bother to look; can be addressed by politicians without significantly compromising the economic well-being of the world economy and standard of living of people everywhere; and, most imporantly, why people assume the government is even capable of "saving the planet" in the first place.

It amazes me how quickly people are swept up in crazes of the moment. Special interest groups, politicians, and activists of all stripes obviously realize they can convince the masses to join in their latest crusade du jour as long as they spend enough money and time advertising and breeding hysteria. It's virtually common knowledge today that if we don't "go green" immediately, we'll all go the way of the dinosaur within the next 50 years.

But even assuming this were true, who/what do you want in charge of your fate? The state? Apparently the government does such a bang-up job managing schools, the economy, war, Social Security, roads, and bridges that we automatically believe it would be any more competent or efficient when it comes to protecting us from the mood swings of Mother Nature.

A wise man once wrote that all the things we love we owe to capitalism. This is true. When we think about all the conveniences in our lives that make us happy -- whether it's the internet, cell phones, speedboats, sportscars, or baby back ribs -- they exist despite the government, not because of it.

I may not know much about science, but I know enough about statism and human nature to understand that our best hope of living long, healthy lives -- and guaranteeing that same fate for our children and grandchildren -- rests with individuals left free to create and profit from innovations as yet unseen but nevertheless ultimately demanded by consumers who share similar aspirations for prosperity.

(For some excellent self-study of this topic, read A Layman's Guide to Man-Made Global Warming, by Warren Meyer.)

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.

Buffalo Bill

Wild Bill Clinton was busy in Buffalo yesterday raising $200,000 for his wife's presidential bid. At $1,250 per person, I'd say IQ isn't necessarily directly related to income.

In his typical tutorial style, Clinton broke down the campaign into issues that he said will dominate in 2008. He talked about “growing inequality” that manifests itself in vast economic and educational gaps between the rich and poor of America and the world. He said the hardest assignment for the next president will be getting out of Iraq in a timely fashion and attacking a global warming problem exacerbated by an exponentially growing population explosion.

“These are the things that keep Buffalo from making a complete economic rebound today,” he said.

Coupla' things. First off, I doubt Hillary has any intention of getting out of Iraq anytime soon, or at least reigning back the American war machine, if this video is any indication. Wars have always been used as great excuses for increasing the scope of government, and HRC is nothing if not a big-government socialist.

And hey, since we've already got a "war on drugs," a "war on obesity," and a "war on terror," we might as well have a "war on global warming," too, right? Any idea how all these "new wars" will be paid for, people?

And you in Buffalo: yeah, you. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe -- just maybe -- your stagnant economy has something to do with continually electing liberal Democrats who tax and regulate the shit out of you? Just sayin'.

On the bright side, according to James Ostrowski, Bill Clinton was greeted by a big "Ron Paul Revolution" sign during his visit, indicating that not everyone in Western New York is a complete idiot.

My New Hero

Roger Daltry warms the cockles of my heart.

I don't know if I like him more for mocking politicians and rock stars for arrogantly believing they can save the world in a weekend, or for implying that Al Gore is a self-righteous dipshit.

Either way, I'll be throwing in Baba O'Reilly tonight and cracking a cold one to Roger.

Want to Save the Planet?

Capitalize on capitalism.

Read this to see what I'm talking about.

But I Can Wipe My Own Ass! I Can Wipe My Own Ass!

Well, not if Sheryl Crow has anything to say about it.

Time to lay off the crack, sweetheart.

Five Myths About Global Warming

CEI's Iain Murray has the skinny.

I Think We All Need To Chill

Apparently, it's all of a sudden a surprise that our nannies don't adhere to the same standards they expect from the rest of us.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Al Gore, a leading voice against global warming, is being criticized by a conservative group that claims his Nashville mansion uses too much electricity. A Gore spokeswoman said the former vice president invests in enough renewable energy to make up for the home's power consumption.

On Sunday, Gore's documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth," which chronicled his campaign against global warming, won an Academy Award.

The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research issued a statement saying Gore was not doing enough to reduce his own electricity consumption. The group disputes that global warming is a serious problem.

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is obviously just pointing out Gore's hypocrisy, but it's no more their business how much energy the Gores want to use than it is Al Gore's business how much I want to.

Nancy Pelosi to Play Mother Nature

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced her intention to create a special committee to lead government efforts to deal with global warming. Apparently, she intends to reduce greenhouse gases, which essentially means reducing economic freedom and vigor of the economy by imposing more and more taxes and regulations on businesses that use fossil fuels.

If you think we're just talking about regulating big oil companies here, be sure to note that the economy will suffer as small businesses across the country that use fuels will be forced to comply with government restrictions on emissions. So companies that hire employees to use trucks, lawn mowers, cars, airplanes, boats, steamships, go-karts, weed whackers, pressure washers, generators, you name it, will most likely be caught up in regulations that artificialy raise the costs of doing business, and ultimately threaten the very existence of those businesses.

I don't doubt that there is some merit to the idea that the earth is becoming warmer. I am, however, skeptical that it is warming at a rate that is at all dangerous, or at least deserving of all the hysteria we can read about by doing a simple Google search.

Or perhaps my skepticism simply stems from comments like this:

"I promise to do everything in my power to achieve energy independence ... and to stop global warming," Pelosi said.

Arrogance and absurdity aside, if it's a problem that can be stopped by merely one person, it ain't much of a problem in my book.

Ugh, Snow

Great. As I type I look out the window to find snow flurries. In Maryland, of all places, which I'd figure is far enough down the latitude ladder to at least keep this to a little rain shower.

I was really hoping this whole global warming thing was true.

"No Ice at All"?

Boy, the global warming hysterics sure are working overtime. An AP video clip reports that scientists are "stunned by the loss of Arctic ice this year." McGill University's Bruno Tremblay says we're no longer seeing a steady decline of ice, but that we're reaching a "tipping point," where you have a rapid decline "and you lose all your ice within a decade or so."

You know, because he can obviously point to a time in history when it's happened before.

Cuckoo In California

Jay Ambrose scolds California in an Examiner op-ed today for approving injudicious legislation aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent over the next quarter-century.

The California legislation calling for reductions of these emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 depends for its success on technologies that don’t yet exist, which datum in and of itself should make any reasonable citizen of that state ponder the hubris and vacuousness — the downright looniness — that would lead elected officials to think they can mandate breakthrough innovations. If that’s a possibility, let’s do it for all sorts of human issues. Let’s pass bills curing all illness by whatever date we like. Why, what legislator could be so callous as to hold back?

Ambrose makes a good point. Given that research portending the impending doom from global warming is inconclusive at best, I can't help but believe this type of legislation is pure nonsense. Indeed, it reminds me of Rep. Ben Cardin's recent pledge to "lick cancer by 2015." But hey, what's a little political hanky-panky if it helps to snow the electorate into a few more votes for your team, right?

According to a report on California's new legislation, which I linked to above, "California's heavy industry, electric utilities and refineries will be subject to limits on emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, emitted when coal, oil and gas are burned."

This is the exact type of government meddling that can bankrupt an economy over time, as suffocating regulations that artificially increase costs push businesses out of the area or cause them to go under as consumer demand decreases as prices inevitably  rise -- all as a result of government force imposed in response to an issue that we can't even agree is a real problem. And here's the kicker: It'll be the very same politicians who are now pushing this intrusive legislation who will be the first to complain about energy companies "gouging" their customers when the costs of compliance steadily increase.

I'd be interested to know if Gov. Schwarzenegger or anyone in the California legislature has taken the time to read Thomas Moore's Climate of Fear, which should be required reading for anyone interested in the global warming debate -- and not least those who are trusted to determine social and economic policy. Moore, a scholar with the Cato Institute, argues that we shouldn't worry about global warming. And according to a Cato synopsis of the book, although "conventional wisdom says that global warming is a serious problem," restrictive government regulations on emissions will only "lower productivity and standards of living around the world."

This book isn't exactly pleasure reading, as it offers many graphs and statistics supporting Moore's thesis, including his claim that "carbon dioxide emissions, coupled with warmer autumns and winters, would boost agricultural production, reduce heating costs, improve transportation, and cut fatalities." But it's one that needs to be read.

Or, we could take the easy way out and buy into shifty political rhetoric and careless government policy that could quite easily account for the exact opposite effects.