Caroline Kennedy tells Daily News: I wouldn't be beholden to anybody
So Caroline Kennedy wants to, you know, be the Senator, you know, from the state of, you know, New York. I don't, you know, know if, you know, she's, you know, qualified. I suppose, you know, that her, you know, heritage and activism, you know, set her apart from, you know, other candidates, but, you know, what else does she, you know, bring to the table. Apparently, you know, the ability to connect, you know, with the non-voting public. You know, teenagers! She, you know, apparently, you know, speaks their, you know, language.
The other day I was in the post office trying to get out a few last-minute items. The lady in front of me had two cute little girls with her. As children often do, they became fidgety and started wandering around the area. I became quickly aware that one of the girls' names is Kennedy. Apparently a first name. "Kennedy, get back in line please. Kennedy, stay next to me please." This went on. I almost, ALMOST, leaned over to the woman and said, "Cheer up, your daughter is qualified to be Senator from the state of New York!" Almost!
Sunday, December 28, 2008
2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved - Telegraph
2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved - Telegraph
So my friend at anamericanidiot.wordpress.com posted a great blog about the global warming hoax. Fortunately for us all the Brits seem to be leading the way on the anti-global warming movement. This article is a good time capsule since it catalogs a point in time when the tide started to shift. I feel it will take a few more years for us to come to this realization here in the States. We now have an unadulterated, unabashed, global warming alarmist in the White House (well, not NOW, but soon). This guy is proposing a cap and trade system which he says will drive up energy costs and could bankrupt the coal industry if they try to build new plants.
In case you're not aware of the meaning of "cap and trade," I'll do my best to explain. Apparently, Obama wants to pass regulations limiting the amount of emissions any company can emit safely. That's the cap. If the company exceeds that limit, they will be fined. These fines will go to companies who emit less than their allotment. Essentially, the offending company is "trading" emissions with other companies. Obama's idea is to make the cap so low for some companies and the fines so high that they will either raise prices (which will of course stifle business) or force them into bankruptcy, if not in fact close altogether.
I know, I'm just an Obama-hater. No one would ever get elected with a scheme like this as a cornerstone of their energy policy. If they did have this agenda, they would keep this completely quiet so no one would ever know about it until they were in office and it was too late. Oh yeah. . .?!?
Let's pick up a couple of these points. First, he says that his plan is the most aggressive. This means that the "cap" will be VERY low and the "trade" will be VERY costly. He then brags about being the first one to advocate a 100% auction. This means the cap will be Z E R O!!! That is to say, the number one supplier of electricity to our nation will not be allowed to emit ANY "greenhouse" gasses!! That's when he says they can build new plants if they want to (which we will eventually have to do, or we will have to do with less energy) but it will bankrupt them.
Here's where the plan starts to fall apart. Obama believes that this will raise billions which he will spend on new technologies. The problem is as he has stated: that the heavy fines will stifle business so much that companies will not be able to pay the fines. This will, of course, require heavier fines, which will put more companies out of business. This is what always happens when you start taxing a behavior in order to raise money for some special project. If the goal of the tax is to raise money, it will fail. Sometimes I would advocate a tax if the goal is to curb a certain activity. Taxing an activity always reduces the activity. But if the goal is to raise money for new technologies, taxing the coal industry and others at such a high rate will cause havoc.
Our hope at this point is that he has surrounded himself with clearer heads. As usual, time will tell. I don't think the global warming hysteria has left Washington yet though.
So my friend at anamericanidiot.wordpress.com posted a great blog about the global warming hoax. Fortunately for us all the Brits seem to be leading the way on the anti-global warming movement. This article is a good time capsule since it catalogs a point in time when the tide started to shift. I feel it will take a few more years for us to come to this realization here in the States. We now have an unadulterated, unabashed, global warming alarmist in the White House (well, not NOW, but soon). This guy is proposing a cap and trade system which he says will drive up energy costs and could bankrupt the coal industry if they try to build new plants.
In case you're not aware of the meaning of "cap and trade," I'll do my best to explain. Apparently, Obama wants to pass regulations limiting the amount of emissions any company can emit safely. That's the cap. If the company exceeds that limit, they will be fined. These fines will go to companies who emit less than their allotment. Essentially, the offending company is "trading" emissions with other companies. Obama's idea is to make the cap so low for some companies and the fines so high that they will either raise prices (which will of course stifle business) or force them into bankruptcy, if not in fact close altogether.
I know, I'm just an Obama-hater. No one would ever get elected with a scheme like this as a cornerstone of their energy policy. If they did have this agenda, they would keep this completely quiet so no one would ever know about it until they were in office and it was too late. Oh yeah. . .?!?
Let's pick up a couple of these points. First, he says that his plan is the most aggressive. This means that the "cap" will be VERY low and the "trade" will be VERY costly. He then brags about being the first one to advocate a 100% auction. This means the cap will be Z E R O!!! That is to say, the number one supplier of electricity to our nation will not be allowed to emit ANY "greenhouse" gasses!! That's when he says they can build new plants if they want to (which we will eventually have to do, or we will have to do with less energy) but it will bankrupt them.
Here's where the plan starts to fall apart. Obama believes that this will raise billions which he will spend on new technologies. The problem is as he has stated: that the heavy fines will stifle business so much that companies will not be able to pay the fines. This will, of course, require heavier fines, which will put more companies out of business. This is what always happens when you start taxing a behavior in order to raise money for some special project. If the goal of the tax is to raise money, it will fail. Sometimes I would advocate a tax if the goal is to curb a certain activity. Taxing an activity always reduces the activity. But if the goal is to raise money for new technologies, taxing the coal industry and others at such a high rate will cause havoc.
Our hope at this point is that he has surrounded himself with clearer heads. As usual, time will tell. I don't think the global warming hysteria has left Washington yet though.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Obama Interviewed In Blagojevich Probe - December 23, 2008
Obama Interviewed In Blagojevich Probe - December 23, 2008
Well, it doesn't look like I've blogged about this yet. I made a few comments on anamericanidots blog so let me get you up to date. This is what I said back on Dec. 10:
"This presents a whole slew of possibilities. First, will Obama be indicted before the inauguration. If so, does he resign and we end up with Biden? If he’s not indicted, does he offer a Presidential pardon to Blago to keep his mouth shut? Who’s behind this investigation? Whoever it is doesn’t have the Democrats’ best interests at heart so naming names wouldn’t be a big problem for them. We certianly know Barry has no problem with hardball politics. Look how he got Ryan’s divorce papers made public so he could win the US Senate virtually unopposed. But did he do anything illegal? I find it interesting that Obama came right out with the comment, “I’ve had no contact with the governor’s office.” Really? You never spoke to the Governor of your state concerning who you think should take over your seat? Let’s assume that’s not crazy on the face of it, but we have evidence that in fact he did. Axelrod says he did and Drudge has a link with the headline, “Nov.5: ‘Ill. Gov to meet with Obama today.’” The story has apparently been taken down and Axelrod says he “apparently” misspoke. So what are they hiding? Time will tell. (And perhaps Atty. Fitzgerald will too!)
"Did you see the picture of Obama SHAKING HANDS with Blago from Dec. 2?!? As Hannity said, if you’re shaking my hand, I’d call that contact. Are we supposed to believe that Obama and Blago were in the same room and DIDN’T talk about the Senate seat? I know. . . it’s just innuendo. . .there’s no evidence. . .yeah, and you didn’t have sex with that woman. Man, does this feel familiar. At least we don’t have to worry about what the nation will be talking about for the next four years. It won’t be Iraq, the economy, national defense, health care, education, tax cuts, or anything else. It will be the ongoing investigations coming out of Chicago! Keep an eye on my blog for more info."
It's taken me a couple of weeks to get up to speed on this. We now know that YES! in fact someone from Obama's office DID have contact with the Gov. This would presumably explain the very strained comment from Barry that "I -- I had no contact with the governor or his office so we -- uhhh, I was not aware of..." Notice the quick change from "we" to "I." But right now, all we have is the word of Obama's attorney, Greg Craig, that Obama didn't talk to Blago. Funny name - Greg Craig. Sound familiar? It sure did to me! Greg Craig was Clinton's attorney during the Lewinsky debacle. Well, one of them anyway. Craig was in charge of the impeachment defense. Nice job Craig. And congratulations on the new appointment to White House counsel. Oh, you're the President's attorney again? Nice.
Wait a minute, I thought we all voted for change we could believe in! Let's see, we have Clinton's former attorney, Clinton's former Deputy Attorney General, Clinton's former Energy Secretary, and Clinton's former. . .er. . .I mean current wife! Just to name a few. Man change sure looks familiar. But I digress.
So Greg Craig is the guy who's going to be advising Obama on legal matters. I wonder if he was the guy who advised Bill Clinton when he told the American people (with the appropriate finger wag) that "I did not have sexual relations with that woman. . ." or if he was the one who told Clinton to admit that he had had an "improper physical relationship" with Ms. Lewinsky. Whichever, the point is that, as I mentioned before, we will be talking about this for months if not in fact years from now. This will haunt Obama's Presidency throughout. He already had a cloud of controversy over him from his associations with Wright, Ayers, and Phleger et al. Now we can add Blago to the list.
Make no mistake. I'm not so sure that there is anything to this whole Senate seat issue. Maybe Obama's nose is clean as far as this particular issue is concerned. The question is: what does Blago have on Obama that he's willing to give up to save himself?!? Obama was a fast riser in the completely corrupt Chicago political machine. It's almost funny to watch this now as the players are all falling over themselves to get rid of Blago, not just because he's corrupt, but because of how it opens up new positions for others to move up. That is to say that in the middle of this corruption scandal, there are all new ones being dreamed up by those who have their sights set on the Governor's office. Seriously, it's like the old Soviet power struggles. Get rid of the head and everybody fights for the chance to move up.
So out of this pool of corruption comes the lily white (figuratively of course) Obama. He who had no idea that Rev. Wright was saying these offensive things from the pulpit. He who had no idea that he was launching his political career in the living room of an admitted terrorist. He who can't produce a valid birth certificate. And he isn't even in office yet. If the transition is any indication of what the next four years are going to be like, this should be a lot of fun and I'm probably going to run out of cyberspace to blog about all of this. Let's just hope it keeps him too preoccupied to raise our taxes!
Well, it doesn't look like I've blogged about this yet. I made a few comments on anamericanidots blog so let me get you up to date. This is what I said back on Dec. 10:
"This presents a whole slew of possibilities. First, will Obama be indicted before the inauguration. If so, does he resign and we end up with Biden? If he’s not indicted, does he offer a Presidential pardon to Blago to keep his mouth shut? Who’s behind this investigation? Whoever it is doesn’t have the Democrats’ best interests at heart so naming names wouldn’t be a big problem for them. We certianly know Barry has no problem with hardball politics. Look how he got Ryan’s divorce papers made public so he could win the US Senate virtually unopposed. But did he do anything illegal? I find it interesting that Obama came right out with the comment, “I’ve had no contact with the governor’s office.” Really? You never spoke to the Governor of your state concerning who you think should take over your seat? Let’s assume that’s not crazy on the face of it, but we have evidence that in fact he did. Axelrod says he did and Drudge has a link with the headline, “Nov.5: ‘Ill. Gov to meet with Obama today.’” The story has apparently been taken down and Axelrod says he “apparently” misspoke. So what are they hiding? Time will tell. (And perhaps Atty. Fitzgerald will too!)
"Did you see the picture of Obama SHAKING HANDS with Blago from Dec. 2?!? As Hannity said, if you’re shaking my hand, I’d call that contact. Are we supposed to believe that Obama and Blago were in the same room and DIDN’T talk about the Senate seat? I know. . . it’s just innuendo. . .there’s no evidence. . .yeah, and you didn’t have sex with that woman. Man, does this feel familiar. At least we don’t have to worry about what the nation will be talking about for the next four years. It won’t be Iraq, the economy, national defense, health care, education, tax cuts, or anything else. It will be the ongoing investigations coming out of Chicago! Keep an eye on my blog for more info."
It's taken me a couple of weeks to get up to speed on this. We now know that YES! in fact someone from Obama's office DID have contact with the Gov. This would presumably explain the very strained comment from Barry that "I -- I had no contact with the governor or his office so we -- uhhh, I was not aware of..." Notice the quick change from "we" to "I." But right now, all we have is the word of Obama's attorney, Greg Craig, that Obama didn't talk to Blago. Funny name - Greg Craig. Sound familiar? It sure did to me! Greg Craig was Clinton's attorney during the Lewinsky debacle. Well, one of them anyway. Craig was in charge of the impeachment defense. Nice job Craig. And congratulations on the new appointment to White House counsel. Oh, you're the President's attorney again? Nice.
Wait a minute, I thought we all voted for change we could believe in! Let's see, we have Clinton's former attorney, Clinton's former Deputy Attorney General, Clinton's former Energy Secretary, and Clinton's former. . .er. . .I mean current wife! Just to name a few. Man change sure looks familiar. But I digress.
So Greg Craig is the guy who's going to be advising Obama on legal matters. I wonder if he was the guy who advised Bill Clinton when he told the American people (with the appropriate finger wag) that "I did not have sexual relations with that woman. . ." or if he was the one who told Clinton to admit that he had had an "improper physical relationship" with Ms. Lewinsky. Whichever, the point is that, as I mentioned before, we will be talking about this for months if not in fact years from now. This will haunt Obama's Presidency throughout. He already had a cloud of controversy over him from his associations with Wright, Ayers, and Phleger et al. Now we can add Blago to the list.
Make no mistake. I'm not so sure that there is anything to this whole Senate seat issue. Maybe Obama's nose is clean as far as this particular issue is concerned. The question is: what does Blago have on Obama that he's willing to give up to save himself?!? Obama was a fast riser in the completely corrupt Chicago political machine. It's almost funny to watch this now as the players are all falling over themselves to get rid of Blago, not just because he's corrupt, but because of how it opens up new positions for others to move up. That is to say that in the middle of this corruption scandal, there are all new ones being dreamed up by those who have their sights set on the Governor's office. Seriously, it's like the old Soviet power struggles. Get rid of the head and everybody fights for the chance to move up.
So out of this pool of corruption comes the lily white (figuratively of course) Obama. He who had no idea that Rev. Wright was saying these offensive things from the pulpit. He who had no idea that he was launching his political career in the living room of an admitted terrorist. He who can't produce a valid birth certificate. And he isn't even in office yet. If the transition is any indication of what the next four years are going to be like, this should be a lot of fun and I'm probably going to run out of cyberspace to blog about all of this. Let's just hope it keeps him too preoccupied to raise our taxes!
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Lansing, we have a problem!
Take a moment to view the video I've posted from "Your World" on Fox News. This is the mayor of Lansing, MI, answering questions about the UAW's president implying that people who are against the auto industry bailout are insane. Well, the head of the UAW is an idiot for saying that and I won't waste my time on him. But it was the mayor's comments that got me out of my seat near the end. See if you are as outraged as I am.
Did I hear the Mayor of Lansing correctly? Did he just say that in order to compete with foreign car manufacturers, we need to get rid of capitalist principles?!? Doesn't he realize that it is the removal of capitalist principles that is stifling the car manufacturers here in the States?!? During a conversation about how the auto industry has been losing market share for decades, the Mayor raises the issue of trade. Apparently he feels that the US manufacturers are at a disadvantage to people who have to pay to ship their products half way around the world! At one point, the Mayor asks the rhetorical question, "What happened in textiles, electronics, steel, and furniture?" I'll tell you what happened: THEY WERE UNIONIZED!!! Ever heard of Norma Rae?!? I'm all for humane treatment of workers, but when the unions start holding companies hostage for wages that aren't supported by the market, then who should be surprised by the companies going under?
At the very end of the conversation though is when I blew a gasket. Mayor Virg says that we are unilaterally disarming the American companies because we expect them to follow a capitalist rubric when the rest of the world does not have the same "restriction." With all due respect, your honor, if you think it is our capitalist system that is holding us back, you are clearly unaware of what's been happening to the American auto industry for 30 years or more. Allow me to enlighten you. For years now, we have mandated a variety of safety features, mileage standards, and emission standards, not to mention how the unions have been guaranteeing extensive pensions and higher wages than foreign companies do. These are not the hallmarks of a free-market capitalist business model. The free market would dictate whether or not certain safety features are included or not (thank you Ralph Nader). If people think that a safer car is worth more, then they will pay for it. If a job pays a certain amount of money, then that's what the job is worth. If the job only pays a small wage to hold down costs, then it is up to the workers to decided whether they want to work for that amount of money.
The fact of the matter is this: it was free-market capitalism which got the auto industries to be the great model of American achievement they have become and it will be free-market capitalism which will get them out of it. If the Mayor of Lansing, Michigan thinks that the free market is an albatross around the neck of the auto industry (and he apparently does), we have bigger problems than I thought. He is clearly not alone and it is the basis for much of this bailout talk we have been hearing for many months now. What we are experiencing now is not the FAILURE of the free-market system, it is an example of what happens when the free market is tampered with. Auto, housing, oil, have all had their industry tampered with by massive federal intervention. All for very noble causes I'm sure. But we are reaping now the seeds of intervention we have been sowing for more than 30 years. We can no longer artificially prop up an industry which has lost its way. It's time to let the auto companies go into bankruptcy, renegotiate their union contracts, and pay their people a wage more comparable to those auto workers in the southern states.
Did I hear the Mayor of Lansing correctly? Did he just say that in order to compete with foreign car manufacturers, we need to get rid of capitalist principles?!? Doesn't he realize that it is the removal of capitalist principles that is stifling the car manufacturers here in the States?!? During a conversation about how the auto industry has been losing market share for decades, the Mayor raises the issue of trade. Apparently he feels that the US manufacturers are at a disadvantage to people who have to pay to ship their products half way around the world! At one point, the Mayor asks the rhetorical question, "What happened in textiles, electronics, steel, and furniture?" I'll tell you what happened: THEY WERE UNIONIZED!!! Ever heard of Norma Rae?!? I'm all for humane treatment of workers, but when the unions start holding companies hostage for wages that aren't supported by the market, then who should be surprised by the companies going under?
At the very end of the conversation though is when I blew a gasket. Mayor Virg says that we are unilaterally disarming the American companies because we expect them to follow a capitalist rubric when the rest of the world does not have the same "restriction." With all due respect, your honor, if you think it is our capitalist system that is holding us back, you are clearly unaware of what's been happening to the American auto industry for 30 years or more. Allow me to enlighten you. For years now, we have mandated a variety of safety features, mileage standards, and emission standards, not to mention how the unions have been guaranteeing extensive pensions and higher wages than foreign companies do. These are not the hallmarks of a free-market capitalist business model. The free market would dictate whether or not certain safety features are included or not (thank you Ralph Nader). If people think that a safer car is worth more, then they will pay for it. If a job pays a certain amount of money, then that's what the job is worth. If the job only pays a small wage to hold down costs, then it is up to the workers to decided whether they want to work for that amount of money.
The fact of the matter is this: it was free-market capitalism which got the auto industries to be the great model of American achievement they have become and it will be free-market capitalism which will get them out of it. If the Mayor of Lansing, Michigan thinks that the free market is an albatross around the neck of the auto industry (and he apparently does), we have bigger problems than I thought. He is clearly not alone and it is the basis for much of this bailout talk we have been hearing for many months now. What we are experiencing now is not the FAILURE of the free-market system, it is an example of what happens when the free market is tampered with. Auto, housing, oil, have all had their industry tampered with by massive federal intervention. All for very noble causes I'm sure. But we are reaping now the seeds of intervention we have been sowing for more than 30 years. We can no longer artificially prop up an industry which has lost its way. It's time to let the auto companies go into bankruptcy, renegotiate their union contracts, and pay their people a wage more comparable to those auto workers in the southern states.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
