Friday, April 30, 2010

Do as I say, not as I do!

Ah, the environmentalist Left. Never a group to disappoint when it comes to double-standards. Demanding obedience from the poor, unwashed masses but refusing to follow their own admonitions (paging Al Gore!). Here is the latest example of the hypocrisy of our self-appointed stewards of the environment. The crying and moaning about "climate change" inexorably leads to calls for more responsible, renewable energy and what better resource is available than the wind (especially given how much hot air is generated by the windbags on the East Coast)? Well that is fine and dandy, as long as it doesn't impede the ambiance of Cape Cod, home to oh so many limousine liberals.

Gov't OKs 1st US offshore wind farm, off Mass.

BOSTON – A whole new way of generating electricity in the U.S. drew a big step closer to reality Wednesday, and it could look like this: 130 windmills, 440 feet tall, rising from the ocean a few miles off Cape Cod.

After more than eight years of lawsuits and government reviews, the Obama administration cleared the way for the nation's first offshore wind farm.

"We are beginning a new direction in our nation's energy future," U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar declared in announcing his approval of the $2 billion Cape Wind project, which would finally allow the U.S. to join the list of major countries that are producing electricity from sea breezes.

The project has faced intense opposition from two Indian tribes and some environmentalists and residents, including the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who warned that the windmills could mar the ocean view. They would be visible from the Kennedy compound at Hyannis Port.


Ah the late Senator Kennedy, hypocritical even from beyond the grave. How can one even consider marring the ocean view of the Kennedy's! They have done so much for America, like....um, like.....well I am sure they have done lots of improve this country. What next, a new nuclear power plant in San Francisco?! Put the windmills out among the dirty people of the Midwest, not where the elite of America live!

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

News flash: Obama sez women are individuals!

Picking a pro-abortion Supreme Court justice is apparently NOT above his paygrade

No shocker here as President Obama predictably is seeking a pro-abortion candidate to replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

"You know, I am somebody who believes women should have the ability to make often very difficult decisions about their own bodies and issues of reproduction," the president said. "I don't have litmus tests around any of these issues but I will say that I want somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women's rights.

"Part of what our core constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily integrity and women are not exempt from that," he added.


That is great news! Individuals in America includes women! I can’t wait to tell my daughters that thanks to the courageous stance of President Obama, they are now included in the group known as “individuals”. It is a proud, proud day for America! Of course there is no surer sign of a person being an individual than having the right to kill a baby.

It would be nice if the President, the world’s most powerful man, had the courage and integrity to just say it like it is. He wants a nominee who will be a reliable vote in favor of legalized abortion. Everyone with half a brain knows it. If this is such an important right, shouldn’t we be able to actually utter the word “abortion” instead of dancing around it and hiding it in legalese?

I didn’t expect Obama to put forth a pro-life nominee. Nor did I expect him to actually show some honesty about what he is looking for. I just wish the pro-abortion forces would have the intestinal fortitude to say “abortion” instead of “women’s health” or “reproductive rights”. It says a lot about someone that they are afraid to even name what they are standing up for.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Our old friend Bill and his same old rhetoric

I should have seen this coming. With the government growing at a break-neck pace and people starting to make some noise about it, the Left rolls out Bill Clinton with this same old rhetoric linking anyone who objects to the impoverishing of America through enormous government spending with the nutjobs who blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma City.

Former President Clinton on Sunday broadened his warning that Tea Party protesters could feed violence reminiscent of the Oklahoma City bombing, suggesting "right-wing media" and the blogosphere could be culpable for any future politically fueled extremism as well.

The former president, speaking on ABC's "This Week," elaborated on his controversial comments from Friday, when he drew parallels between the modern Tea Party movement and the anti-government rage of the mid-'90s that preceded the 1995 Oklahoma City attack that killed 168 people and injured hundreds more.

Clinton said Sunday that political dissent is necessary, but "demonization" of government is dangerous -- citing the uptick in threats made against members of Congress and other officials.


That bogeyman never gets old for Bill. As soon as the people start getting uppity, roll out the dire warnings about domestic terrorism and raise the specter of Oklahoma City sprinkled with commentary suggesting that "right wing talk shows" are fueling the flames. I lived through the early 90's and the rage against the government now is infinitely greater and infinitely more justified.

I guess it is OK when the media demonized President Bush and protesters compared him to Adolf Hitler. When the Left uses over the top rhetoric it is merely exercising free speech. When a conservative dares to speak up, it is hate speech that inspires others to violence. What is forgotten is that Tea Party protests have thus far been violence free. In fact the only violent demonstrations we see on a large scale are those that are put on by leftist-anarchists types (like anytime there is an economic conference, the leftist crackpots are out in force striking a blow for the little guy by throwing rocks through the windows of a Starbucks!). The reason Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Fox News are thriving is that people are tired of the one-sided rhetoric we have been fed by the "mainstream" media for decades. At least conservatives admit what they are and that they have a bias.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Another day, another grim report on the future of America

Yet another sobering message on the debt, this time in USA Today (aka News for people who don’t like to read). Here are a pivotal couple of passages:

Although a solution to the nation's $12.8 trillion debt remains elusive, most of the nation's power brokers agree on the problem: America owes too much money.

By 2020, the taxes it is projected to collect barely would cover the benefits it has promised and the interest it must pay. Without changes, almost nothing will be left for defense, education, veterans or anything else.


That is just staggering. I like the way it is described because when you deal with numbers like “trillions”, it loses any meaning to people. I have only seen $1 million once, in a sealed bag in a vault. I used to deal regularly with amounts in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash but even a couple hundred thousand in cash is a tiny fraction of one trillion dollars. When you look at it as described above, it makes more sense. In ten years, TEN YEARS, we will have only enough tax revenue to cover the debt and the entitlement programs we have already promised with basically no money for defense (something the Federal government is supposed to do, unlike providing retirement income) or any of the other myriad “discretionary” programs the government funds.

We need some dramatic cuts in entitlement spending right now. Not in ten years, right now. Instead what we have been served up is a huge new entitlement that any sane person realizes is going to cost way more than expected and way more than the revenue it is going to bring in. We can keep printing up new money but that Ponzi scheme writ large is eventually going to collapse or lead to hyperinflation.

We are facing a future of job-killing tax rates, shared misery, collapsing credit worthiness for the U.S., civil unrest and likely out of control inflation. I don’t think there will be a safe place for any except the super-rich. The solutions to this problem are found in cuts, i.e. cutting spending and cutting it dramatically. We are going to have to essentially eliminate the old age entitlement programs for younger Americans. We will still have to pay for it until the current recipients all die off but we are never going to “benefit” from it. People in their 20’s, 30’s and 40’s are going to have to not only fund programs for others that they will never see, they are going to have to find ways to save for their own retirement on their own while paying for a massive number of entitled seniors that live longer and longer with an ever shrinking number of workers to support them. Because we as a people have been too greedy, too selfish, too lazy and too spineless to address these problems, it is too late and we have destroyed America for our kids.

Ah, forget it. Let’s all just watch American Idol and pretend nothing is wrong. I am sure the problem will just fix itself.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Uncommon honesty from a climate change alarmist

I read this a few weeks ago and appreciated the uncommon honesty exhibited by the interviewee. It appeared in The Guardian and the interviewee was one James Lovelock. The topic was climate change and the impact of the scandals on the movement. Near the end of the interview was this exchange:

On how humans will ever manage to tackle climate change:

We need a more authoritative world. We've become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It's all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can't do that. You've got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.

But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.

Ah, so there it is and I appreciate Mr. Lovelock having the courage to say it. Granted he is kind of a kook but in a prophetic kind of way, saying what others are thinking in the movement. In order to battle "climate change" people are going to have to give up their freedom and turn the governments and economies of the world over to self-appointed prophets of environmental doom based on dubious science. Mr. Lovelock is about the only one saying it out loud but it is clearly the goal of the climate change folks, people who see the bogeyman of global warming as a convenient cover to get rid of old-fashioned notions like freedom and liberty and replace them with a theocracy of scientists. I wish more environmentalists would be more open about saying this so we could see where there motivation really lies.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

For all of the Glenn Beck devotees out there

Glenn Beck really exposes his true motivation in an interesting interview in Forbes magazine:

With a deadpan, Beck insists that he is not political: "I could give a flying crap about the political process." Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. "We're an entertainment company," Beck says. He has managed to monetize virtually everything that comes out of his mouth. He gets $13 million a year from print (books plus the ten-issue-a-year magazine Fusion). Radio brings in $10 million. Digital (including a newsletter, the ad-supported Glennbeck.com and merchandise) pulls in $4 million. Speaking and events are good for $3 million and television for $2 million. Over several days in mid-March Beck allowed a reporter to follow him through his multimedia incarnations, with one exception, his 5 p.m. daily show on Fox News, which attracts just under 3 million viewers.

Beck is about the money and the way he makes it is as an entertainer. People like Beck and Rush and Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter are no different from people like Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore and the erstwhile Senator from Minnesota Al Franken. They are entertainers, first and foremost, and in it for the money. That is understandable, after all as a conservative making money makes sense but the motivation here is important to understand.

Treating Glenn Beck as a serious political voice is like treating Joel Osteen as a serious theologian. Beck and company are great for sound bytes and overheated rhetoric. For actual substantive conversations? Not so much. Too many conservatives follow and defend Beck without question. Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck are fine for entertainment but always remember that they are entertainers above all else. I think this quote captures Beck perfectly:

"I don't necessarily believe that [what Beck says] is reflective of his own personal politics--I don't even know if he has personal politics," says Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers, a trade magazine devoted to talk radio. "I see him as a performer."