Naive Hippies Vote too

Let us retrace the events leading up the murder. Scarlett's mother Fiona had left her daughter in Anjuna [in Goa, Scarlett was age 15, got murdered], in the care of tour guide Julio Lobo and his two aunts, while she and the rest of the family went off to another "hippy" resort further south.

She claims she thought Scarlett and Lobo were just friends, although she later learned they were having a sexual relationship after reading her diary.

Before I launch into a tirade, let me say, no one deserves to have the child murdered… no matter how stupid, selfish or foolish they may be.

However, I must take task with those commenters that seek to instantly absolve her of responsibility. Would they do the same for a father who gave an 8 year old a loaded gun for his birthday or a mother who left a 2 year old locked in a car while she was shopping on a hot summer day?

These are the same naïve hippies that mindlessly rallied against Blair and felt that the cause of Islamic terrorism was British policy. Their naivite (and copious drug use) causes them to be blind to potential danger. They fail to recognize that some people are just evil.

Constitutional Intrepretation of Gun Rights Vs Abortion

It humorous to see liberals try to nitpick the wording of the 2nd amendment to argue that there is no individual right to own guns, yet generously delve into the

Liberals cannot find a right to own guns in this phrase:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

However liberals amazingly find the right to an abortion in this phrase:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Obama's Speech - Motivations

One has to wonder WHY Obama didn't give a speech as magnanimous as the one Victor Davis Hanson suggested. It must have crossed at least one advisors mind. There are the oblivious reasons of arrogance or elitism, but what if Obama just owes a few too many favors back in Chicago? His meteoric rise wasn't without some behind-the-scenes support. For all of his talk of new politics, he is probably beholden to several old political strings. Perhaps he was “strongly cautioned” against disowning Wright.

The Candy Black Market

Like all bans, a black market develops. This time it’s candy.
The same people who are be appalled at the Puritan’s eponymous view of controlling sex, do not blink twice when the current government tries it’s own version of Puritanism.

VICTORVILLE — With candy sales banned on school campuses, sugar pushers are the latest trend at local schools. Backpacks are filled with Snickers and Twinkees for all sweet tooths willing to pay the price.

“It’s created a little underground economy, with businessmen selling everything from a pack of skittles to an energy drink,” said Jim Nason, principal at Hook Junior High School in Victorville.

This has become a lucrative business, Nason said, and those kids are walking around campus with upwards of $40 in their pockets and disrupting class to make a sale.

Schools have been individually banning junk-food sales for years, and enforcement was increased in 2005 when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger passed legislation to combat childhood obesity, according to the office of the governor.

Moreon Global Warming

Because I believe incessant chatter about "reducing CO2" to fight "global warming" has infected politics, I want to keep a repository of reasons to question the conventional wisdom.

1. The talk of global warming taxes scares energy dependent businesses away from in America. Due to the heighten talk about global warming taxation, businesses already have to consider that there will steep tax on energy in the next decade. This potential tax will weigh against any decision to invest in America and will accelerate the loss of existing manufacturing jobs to the third world because we are now even more uncompetitive.



2. Why do the advocates of anthropogenic global warming allow China and India to continue developing? If taxes reduce the demand for energy (and hence CO2 emissions) in the US and Europe, while China and India continue their growth, the aggregate CO2 emission will not diminish. If global warming was really so devastating, proponents of CO2 control would be saying the China and India must stop their advancement.



3. CO2 is the natural result of combustion. In its purest and simplest form: natural gas + oxygen = water + carbon dioxide. The only way to reduce CO2 is to reduce the use of energy via combustion. The only way to reduce energy usage is to tax it very heavily.



4. Taxing energy is a regressive tax that will ultimately hurt the poor the most. If the cost to get to work and to heat your house is increased, while your pay remains the same...well, you can see what happens.



5. What caused the global warming after the ice ages and why is that different from today?

Carbon Tax / Payroll Tax Swap?

From NR:
I’d be interested in hearing from Planet Gore contributors and readers — particularly the number-crunchers among you — on Gil Metcalf's idea for a revenue-neutral carbon tax: swapping a carbon tax for a reduction in payroll taxes. Metcalf, a Tufts economist and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, wrote a policy brief on the topic...

My response which got "published":

Swapping a payroll tax for carbon tax is a flawed idea, because not everyone will experience the tax swap as neutral. Each decision to live in America or do business in America is done at an individual level, not at an aggregate level. While the average individual person may pay no more taxes initially with such a swap, an energy-dependent business will likely see increased taxation as a result.

Imagine an industrial business that has previously invested in a significant increase in automation. The new reduction in payroll tax will be heavily outweighed by a higher carbon tax. So that business would likely decline to invest further in America, and seriously consider moving its equipment and operation elsewhere.

Ethanol doesn’t help the farmer

My father-in-law is an medium sized corn farmer (about 1400 acres) and the ethanol boom hasn't put a Cadillac in his garage. On the contrary, he dislikes the ethanol mandates.  Although there has been a substantial increase in the price of corn, expense of growing corn have followed a similar pattern. The price of corn seed, fertilizer, herbicide have all risen dramatically. Additionally, the cost of water for irrigation has skyrocketed, since, as you noted, ethanol plants use copious amounts of water.

Many average-sized farmers also have some livestock since it has historically acted as a natural hedge against potentially weak crop prices. Any gain in the margin on corn is eliminated by the loss on livestock. While some of the very large corn farmers may see benefit, the average farmer doesn't find himself living on Easy Street.

Politicians and Infidelity

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/03/12/non-judgmental_nonsense

Adding to the article, I've always felt the question of character in situations of non-criminal infidelity by politicans to be paramount.

Suppose a male politican who cheated on his wife is up for re-election. Conventional wisdom says "that's his private life".

However, the man made a solemn vow, before God, to a woman to be faithful. If he cannot keep THAT promise, how can I as a voter expect that he'll keep the various campaign promises he makes?

The Analytical Midgets at Reuters

In its latest batch of shoddy reporting, Reuters reports on the results of a poll that evaluates how often blogs are read. As a result of its sophomoric approach, the readership of blogs, and inherently their importance, is drastically downplayed. While we know that 0% of people read my blog, we should put the aggregate amount of blog readers in the context of those of us that are politically active.

If we assume that the minimum standard for being politically active is voting in the midterm election, the average voter turnout in a midterm election since I’ve been alive has been 38.2%.

Since 22% of respondents say they read blogs regularly, then 58% of people who are at least midly interested in politics read blogs regularly. Blogs seem more important now don’t they?

Reuters also says that 56% of people never read political blogs. Well, only 52.5% of people vote in a Presidential election. Stop the presses! In other words, 8.5% of people who vote in Presidential elections never read blogs. While there may be some people who vote who don't read blogs (and vice-versa), the key take-away is that it is influence of political blogs should be put into context of those who vote.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A majority of Americans do not read political blogs, the online commentaries that have proliferated in the race for the U.S. presidency, according to a poll released on Monday.
Only 22 percent of people responding to the poll said they read blogs regularly, meaning several times a month or more, according to the survey conducted by Harris Interactive.
Political blogs, in which writers, pundits and other participants voice opinions in online forums, burst into the spotlight in the 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns. Some of the most high-profile blogs are influential on campaign strategies, media coverage and public perception of the candidates and issues.
Unlike traditional, mainstream media, blogs often adopt a specific point of view. Critics complain they can contain unchecked facts, are poorly edited and use unreliable sources.
Despite the attention blogs can get, the poll said 56 percent of Americans say they never read blogs that discuss politics. Another 23 percent read them several times a year, the survey showed....

Spitzer: Pride Cometh Before the Fall

Steamrolling NY Governor Elliott Spitzer who adovcated gay marriage, promoted drivers licenses for illegals, harassed crisis pregnancy centers, used the police to spy on a political opponent has found himself caught in a prostitution sting and is expected to resign.

I'm not sure if schadefreude is feeling a Christian should have, but perhaps God will consider this a legitimate exception!

Update: After thinking about it, feeling good about Spitzer getting caught isn’t a bad feeling and it isn’t really schadefruede. It’s like feeling good when a thief gets caught. Pure schadefreude would be feeling good if his house got hit by a tornado or his wife got cancer.

The Economic Costs of Global Warming Have Arrived

For the people who aren't convinced that global warming is a man-created problem, they rightly worry that global warming legislation (taxing carbon emissions) will adversely effect the economy. What few realize is that even the threat of global warming is already hurting the wallets of Americans and the economy in general in two places, the future industry and the electric industry.

Business leaders who develop plans for the future of their companies evaluates the benefits and costs of many issues. On top of all the issues, one now must add the threat of global warming taxes. If I decide to invest money to build a factory which emits CO2, I now have to consider the fact that there could be a heavy global warming tax in the United States. So with that stark possibility, do I build my factory in the US, or do I go elsewhere?

The other hit to your wallet will be in your electric bill. Like oil, the price of natural gas has risen dramatically over the last 8 years. (Today's price is about $9.80/mmBTU). Many existing power plants use natural gas and a technology that costs about $0.10-0.12 for the fuel alone to generate one kilowatt-hr of electricity. The newer technology, will cost about $0.07-8 per KW-hr for fuel alone for a natural gas plant (based on today's price of gas $9.80/mmBTU). A coal fired power plant will cost about $0.02-$0.03 for the fuel to generate 1 KW-hr.

If you were to build a new power plant, with the stark price difference, the obvious choice is to use coal. Wrong, the fears that surround global warming taxation is so strong, that despite the obvious price spread, companies will still choose natural gas plant. This will only further increase the demand for natural gas, while the supply remains relatively constant.

Why natural gas over coal? Natural gas has a better heat rate, meaning that to generate the same amount of electricity, natural gas will emit about 40% less CO2 than natural gas. That spread has caused electricity providers to chose natural gas despite the cost difference. There are some additional capital costs required with a coal plant, but it is minor considering the $0.05-0.08 spread between coal and natural gas. The real deciding factor is the carbon tax.


If you believe that global wamring is man-caused, choosing natural gas as fuel sourced is only an incremental reduction in CO2. The only way to get rid of CO2 is to stop combustion. Combustion in its simplest, complete form is CH4 + 2O2 = heat + 2H20 + CO2. So the only way to remove CO2 is to remove the combustion itself.

Senator Obama's Contenious Middle Name

There's often mention of some talk or writings by some right leaning commentators about Barack Obama's middle name. Recently a radio talk show host Bill Cunningham made some press by repeatedly referring to Barack Obama as Barack Hussein Obama. Others have referred him to as "B. Hussein Obama." It is done to emphasize the fact that Hussein is an Arab (Muslim) name.

I must warn my fellow conservatives that this is a horrible strategy. (Who this warming will reach is questionable at best). What subsequently happens is that Barack Obama defends his middle name and lambastes the xenophobes on the right.

The end result is the debate gets shifted away from Barack Obama the left wing, tax loving, socialist, who is so strongly pro-abortion that he voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions (an act that even NARAL didn't oppose). It gets moved to sanctimonious defense of a man's name, that wasn't chosen by him. Barack didn't pick his name or where he was born, but he can pick his philosophy and religion. His philosophy is one of extreme socialism. His religion is a non-denominational Christian (as far as Hillary knows), and attends a very Afro-Centric Church. His Church's "non-negotiable commitment to Africa" is fair game for discussion. The leader of United States should be focused on America.

A final thought is the question of would you not support Barack Hussein Obama if he was a devout pro-life Christian, who supported the economic principles espoused by Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Friedrch von Hayek?