## How much is a trillion dollars? – Updated

Posted: June 30, 2009 in Abortion, Crooks & Liars, Economics, Environmentalism, Obamania, Politics

If you haven’t seen it already, the UK Sun does a great job of breaking down how much actual money is a “trillion” dollars:

72 years to print a trillion dollars

The US Bureau Of Engraving And Printing produces 38million notes a day, so printing one trillion new notes from scratch and working seven days a week would take just over 72 years.

If the world’s leaders spent the one trillion dollars at the rate of a dollar a second, they would still be spending it in 31,689 years. On the other hand, if they want to get through it all within ten years, they would need to spend 3,169 dollars a second.

It also costs 6.4 cents to print each note – so it’s a good job the massive sum will be passed on electronically.

Otherwise there would be a 64billion dollar black hole in the leaders’ historic bailout package, which would rather defeat the point.

Pretty disturbing, all in all.  How many tons of paper, gallons of ink?  In a way it’s too bad that most of these transactions take place electronically.  If Obama had to print it all off, the environmentalists never would have let the thing pass.  It would have killed too many trees!

UPDATE:

A trillion dollars in \$1 bills would weigh approximately 1.1 Million TONS!

A Nimitz-class aircraft carrier weighs in at around 97 thousand tons.

So, doing the math, \$1 Trillion dollars in \$1 dollar bills would weigh more than 11 aircraft carriers!

Keep in mind that Obama’s Spendulous deficit is forecast to be as much as 7 TRILLION or higher.  So, 77 aircraft carriers stacked up.

That’s a helluva lot of money.

If we figure that 1 ton of uncoated virgin (non-recycled) printing and office paper uses 24 trees, and figuring that since money is printed on some pretty high-end paper that this is probably a fair equivalent, that means that, printing off 1 trillion dollars in \$1 dollar bills would require 26,400,000 trees!

## Agenda 21: The Birth Parent of Cap and Trade

Posted: June 29, 2009 in BCWYAF, Blitherings, Crooks & Liars, Economics, Environmentalism, LIEberals, Obama, Politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Well, since the “Cap-n-Trade” Bill, code named H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, aka the Waxman-Markey contribution to national decline has passed into law, thanks quite literally to the eight Republicans who voted for it, Republicans who it will be shown, I’m sure, to have some sort of financial interest to gain, I thought it my duty to sully the shiny venier of this thing a bit by giving you some of the background of the philosophy behind this movement.

It’s called “Agenda 21.” As early as 1992, the UN passed a resolution called the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.  This was the framework around which the much more detailed and ambitious “Agenda 21” was constructed.  Though it is the form of an “advisory” resolution, bearing no legal weight with non-signatories, its content and verbiage are clearly reflected in a great deal of the “green” legislation still being forced on American citizens over 15 years later.

Below are some of the “Principles” of the Agenda in which I think you might be interested (all emphasis mine):

Principle 2

States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, {{and here’s the “but”}}and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or ontrol do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

Which can, of course, be taken to mean almost anything, because under current definitions, any “greenhouse gas” emissions affect global climate, and so anything you “emit” affects “other states.  So this clause is in effect, self-nullifying.  You can can do whatever you want as a nation, as long as you can guarantee that your pollution won’t cross national boundaries. Right.

Principle 5

All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world.

Because the “disparities” in standard of living are somehow “unfair.”  What this fails to consider is that one absolutely essential elements of eradicating poverty is dragging people kicking and screaming into the 21st century, not returning us to the stone age through misguided and counterproductive environmental do-goodedness!  You notice it says, “decrease the disparities.”  I doesn’t mention which direction you should move to close the gap!  Make the poor rich by making the rich poorer, and we’ll meet somewhere in the middle.  Doesn’t this sound like Obama’s “spread the wealth around” idea? Gee, I wonder where he got it?

Principle 13

States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage.

Look at that for a sec.  We are encouraged/required to codify into national law procedures for compensating “victims of pollution.”  How delightfully vague!  So now we move beyong hate crimes, to environmental crimes.  Or maybe that’s now redundant, eh?

Principle 15

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities.  Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

BINGO!  Lack of scientific certainty shouldn’t stand in the way of passing a whole boatload of environmental policies designed not so much to save the environment, as to generate cash for social programs and politicial agenda setting.  Is this sounding oh so vaguely familiar, when our POTUS appoints an “environmental” czar with no scientific training, but lots of financial experience?  With the “global warming” scare being debunked by more and more of the scientific community, and yet still being ramrodded into law by a compliant legislative branch?

Principle 21

The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be mobilized to forge a global partnership in order to achieve sustainable development and ensure a better future for all.

AmeriCorps anyone?  Mandatory service in exchange for tuition?  This ringing any bells?

Here’s a nice one:

4.22. They should also encourage the emergence of an informed consumer public and assist individuals and households to make environmentally informed choices by:

(a) Providing information on the consequences of consumption choices and behaviour so as to encourage demand for environmentally sound products and use of products;

(b) Making consumers aware of the health and environmental impact of products, through such means as consumer legislation and environmental labelling;

Think about how everything you hear these days is about “being green.”  It’s green construction, and green products, and green this and green that.   It’s not merely a reflection of a growing social consciousness about these issues, it is a carefully managed and orchestrated campaign to INSTILL this “consciousness” in society.  What, don’t you care about the environment?  Well, then, give up phosphates in your dishwashing detergent, hater!

In short, we are being brainwashed.  According to a plan, and a schedule.

The clincher is right here in paragragh 4.25, labelled “Moving towards environmentally sound pricing.”  And I quote:

4.25. Some progress has begun in the use of appropriate economic instruments to influence consumer behaviour. These instruments include environmental charges and taxes, deposit/refund systems, etc. This process should be encouraged in the light of country-specific conditions.

Cap & Trade, as billed and promised, is a mechanism whereby we force consumers to consume less by imposing “environmental charges & taxes” on both products and the means of production.  Obama wasn’t kidding around when he said, quite clearly, that he intended to destroy coal-based electricity in this country.  Captain Trade is certainly powerful enough to do it!

You owe it to yourself to read up on Agenda 21, and the other UN-“mandated” programs that are behind all this green mania.  If it doesn’t shock you, then you are one of “them.”

Bill Clinton tried to push through the Kyoto Protocol, but Congress was at least semi-conscious enough at the time to see what a nightmare that thing would have been economically for our country.  Now Pres. Obama has managed to push through the Waxman Cap & Trade nightmare, which will accomplish much the same thing.

If your realize nothing else from this post, realize that all that is being promoted under the auspices of “enviromentalism” has, at its core, the goal of compliance with global mandates designed to bring us more and more under the authority of organizations like the UN.

Locally, as in, in this country, it’s also about using a mechanism against which they’ve already made it hard to argue, and nearly impossible to oppose, in order to generate new revenue streams for funding socialist welfare programs like the “health care plan” and all the other things rolled up in the stiumulous packages.

You were wondering how they were going to pay for all that?  Here ya go.

These people care far less about preserveing the environment than they do about getting their hands on your money.  What little they will leave you.

THIS IS NOT ACCIDENTAL.  This is a premeditated, long-running agenda.   And it is Euro-style marxist dialectic to its core.

To sum up:  It is the stated intention of the marxist environmental movement which is slowly ruining this country to pass legislation and impose fees and fines to the point where goods and services become so expensive that you are forced to use less.  The money made from all these extortion schemes will then be funnelled to the “poor” countries via mechanisms such as, you guessed it, the United Nations…the very organization pushing these agendas.  A rather suspicious conflict of interest, wouldn’t you say?

And all those companies poised to make millions trading in carbon offsets.

Posted: June 27, 2009 in Crooks & Liars, Economics, Environmentalism, Meltdown, Nut Jobs, Obama, Obamania, Politics, Rants, Utter Inshanity!

This is what a Democratically controlled congress gets you.

Cap and Trade in all it’s glory. Hello \$5 a gallon for gas, and double or triple your electricity bill in the next 10 years.

Bastards.  We are so phuq’d.

## Global Warming and The Downing Street Memo

Posted: June 26, 2009 in BCWYAF, Crooks & Liars, Economics, Environmentalism, Global Warming, LIEberals, Nut Jobs, Obama, War
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

In the run up to the second Iraq war, there came to light a document which came to be know as the “Downing Street Memo.”  The crux of this document is that it reflected the author’s concerns that the culture in the White House at the time was such that there was only one right answer, and that answer was war with Iraq.

Intelligence estimates and analysis were feared to be colored by this culture, tuned and filtered or “cherry picked” to give the most damning possible indictments of Iraqi weapons programs, even if the evidence did not fully support such a view.  To quote, “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy“.

Dissenting opinions were hushed up or buried, and the view seemed to be that since Pres. Bush had already decided in his mind to use military force, that the discussion was over, and efforts should cease to be about finding the truth, but rather, become oriented towards supporting the pre-established conclusion.

This document is often spoken of as a “smoking gun,” potential grounds for impeachment, and/or a clear revelation of the “rush to war,” demonstrating a resolve to take one certain course of action, regardless of what alternatives some naysayers might have suggested.   Sadly, a great deal of this seems to have been true.

The mindset, the policies, the actions reflected in the Downing Street Memo have been used by Pres. Bush’s many ardent critics and enemies as justification for their outrage, often bordering on hatred.  How COULD he just ignore evidence which didn’t support his view!?  How can we trust an administration that shows itself deaf and blind to any information save for that it wants to hear!?

Fast forward to 2009.

Many quite rational and sane voices on the “Right”, and now increasingly from all walks of scientific and political life, have become open sceptics about the “incontrovertible” nature of the “evidence” supporting global warming.   The science is weak, the evidence lacking, and the prophecies of doom and gloom wholly unsupportable.  Yet, despite the growing volume and number of protests, there still seems to be a prevailing culture of there being only “one right answer” in many circles.  There is a culture of implicit acceptance of all things global warming…as long as they paint a dark and terrible picture requiring immediate and expensive action.  More and more is seems that the available intelligence is being “cherry-picked” to support the pre-established conclusion, and that which doesn’t is ignored. To quote, “the intelligence and facts [are] being fixed around the policy“.

Now, via Michelle Malkin, I wonder if we are finally being provided with Global Warming’s version of the “Downing Street Memo?”

EPA plays hide and seek; suppressed report revealed

From Ms. Malkin’s article:

The free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington (where I served as a journalism fellow in 1995) obtained a set of internal e-mails exposing Team Obama’s willful and reckless disregard for data that undermine the illusion of “consensus.”

Sound familiar?

Later on, quoting senior supervisor Al McGartland of the Environmental Protection Agency with regards to a subordinate’s report that didn’t support the desired findings:

“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

Read the rest.  It’s really quite disturbing.  For all the frothing fist-waving and chest-beating of the vocal left about the Evil that was BushCheneyRumsfeldSatanHitler, for all the demands for impeachment and talk of war crimes, for all the hearfelt insistence that Bush “lied us into war,” what, I wonder, will be the response by the Left to this EPA whitewashing of evidence countering their own carefully nurtured global warming hysteria?

How many millions and billions will we spend “fighting an unjust war” against global warming?  Is Barack Obama lying is into this war?  Is there only one right answer in the Obama administration with respect to global warming?

The screaming Progs have long lamented the “irresponsible deficit” inflicted on the American people by Bush’s war for oil.

Yet, how many trillions of dollars are we being forced to swallow in Obama’s war AGAINST oil?

How many people will die of starvation because we are using 1/3 of our corn crop to produce ethanol rather than export as food for hungry nations?  What will happen to our economy when the cost of houses doubles as they must be built to new, and very expensive…”green” standards?  When our electricy costs triple because we have outlawed efficient coal-fired energy plants and refuse to embrace nuclear energy?  All in the name of “complying” with an ill-considered and unsupportable global warming policy?

Many would suggest that Iraq didn’t pose a threat to the US, and so our war was illegal and immoral.  I’d like to suggest that the “war on global warming” is even more unjustified, illegal, and immoral, and poses a great threat to our country than Iraq ever did, or that global warming itself ever will.

## Why I Hate The Environment

Posted: June 17, 2009 in Environmentalism, Global Warming, Rants, Utter Inshanity!

They took out the paper towels in the bathroom to save paper, and replaced it with an electric blow dryer thing. Ah, but wait, to save electricity, it is a low power “green” dryer that essential wafts a warm breeze over my hands.

I want enough wind power to peel skin cells off the back of my hand, taking any germs with them.

But nooooooooo.  Gotta be green.  And damp.

I hate the environment.  GIVE ME BACK MY PAPER TOWELS!!!  {{shakes fist in impotent fury at a deaf and uncaring world.}}

## Global warming continues to wreak its deadly havoc

Posted: January 28, 2009 in Crooks & Liars, Economics, Environmentalism, Global Warming, LIEberals, Politics, Science

Winter storms stretch to New England

The storms have cut power to tens of thousands of homes, glazed roads and been blamed for at least five deaths.

Thus, of course, further emphasizing the desperate need for drastic measures to combat global warming, such as spending millions of the creation of the position of  a global warming “czar”, with the requisite increase in bureaucracy by creating a new “federal department” to develop a national global warming strategy.

So, do you spend money to create a panel of “experts” to study a nebulous, ill-defined bugaboo called global warming…?

Or…do you instead “spend” that money in the form of reduced taxes on heating oil to provide real help to real people freezing their collective arses off?

I guess it depend on how “progressive” you are.

## This just in…”Bad weather is caused by lack of funding.”

Posted: August 22, 2008 in Environmentalism, Evolution, Global Warming, Politics, Science, Utter Inshanity!

Climate change scientists and researchers who rely on Government grants for their livelihood, are apparently insisting that more government grants are needed to adequately study climate change.  Shocking, I know.

Scientists: U.S. not prepared for severe weather, climate change
{insert sirens, screaming, clips of black and white 1950’s B-movie disaster films, giant mutant ants eating police cars, etc.}}

Wow.  I’m shocked I tell you, just shocked!  In related news, foxes call for building of more hen houses for them to guard.

Now, I know the link is from “just a blog,” but it’s from a CNN blog, right?  Doesn’t that make it subject to all those multiple layers of fact checking and all that?  And yet this thing is the single greatest testament to the maddening doublespeak and vague obfuscation used so often by the global warming climate change nuts that I’ve seen in a while.  But wait, it get’s better…

Scientists cannot fully understand or deal with the impacts of climate change without the proper political leadership, and without funding for scientific observation and computing.

Scientists cannot fully understand climate change without the proper political leadership.  Just sort of savor that for a minute; let it roll around the ganglia and sink in a bit.  The trained, educated, Masters and PHD holding elite of the intelligentsia are struggling to understand climate change because they don’t have the right kind of POLITICAL leadership?  Huh?!

The scientists are making five recommendations they say will improve the country’s resilience to severe weather and climate change

Because without a full-on media blitz and complete with streaming video and annoying pop-up ads, the American people will be left to just blindly deal with seasonal weather extremes like they’ve been doing for the last 230+ years.  And the price tag for all this?

The group says lawmakers will need to add about \$9 billion to the current \$10 billion that is budgeted over the next five years.

But wait a minute!  I thought global warming climate change was a forgone conclusion, a done deal, an immutable fact right up there with evolution and the 9/11 coverup?  You mean {{shocked gasp}} there are things we don’t know?  Can’t predict?  Are inadequately measuring?  OH. THE. HORROR!   And then of course, from the Blinding Flash of the Obvious department, we get this little jewel:

Whether it is hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, floods, snow, or drought, 75% of natural disasters around the world are triggered by weather and climate.

That’s right folks, you heard it here first.  Tornadoes, floods, snow and drought are caused by…wait for it…WEATHER.  And not just weather, but EXTREME weather.  Weather we will quite simply be unable to understand or predict without 19 Billion dollars in additional federal funding.

But wait, I say again.  I thought we had a “consensus” from the “majority of scientists” throught the “global scientific community” penning all sorts of strident missives about the types, severity, and near imminence of doom based on global warming climate change?  Did this lady not get the memo about “don’t mess with the meme?”

“Frankly, we think this is one of the most pressing problems facing humankind, but it just happens to be on a longer scale than a lot of problems our country faces,” said Fellows.

That’s right.  We need to be long-visioned about this, invest in the future, prepare our country for the worst.  Except when it comes to drilling for oil, because we won’t see any results for 7-10 years, you know.

So, in conclusion, global warming climate change is a confirmed fact, even though we don’t know enough about it because Washington has short-changed us on the funds.  And we can predict all sorts of dire consequences to global warming climate change, complete with fancy graphs and pie charts, and cool multi-media morphing animations showing jungles getting swallowed up by deserts, but you know, we can’t do REALLY cool graphs and 3D CGI graphics and cutting edge holographic surround-sound experience-based “teaching tools” at museums and theme parks, because the Government is more worried about funding the military and feeding the poor, and such.  Short-sighted mouth breathers that they are.  We must act now!

I dearly love the fact that in the entire linked article, the words “global warming” are nowhere to be found.  This term is now tres passe’.  Why, you ask?  Because in my neck of the woods, in Spokane, WA, they’ve experienced one of the coolest summers on record.  The temperature this week has been in the 50’s, with rain and hail.  In AUGUST.  So the term “global warming” rings a little hollow, and now it’s “climate change” and “extreme weather.”

And “give us more funding or we’ll all die.”  Subtle, guys.  Subtle.

UPDATE:
Me, I question the timing.  I have this vague suspicion that the thinly veiled suggestion of stronger “political leadership” in the area of climate change might, just MIGHT be meant to suggest that we elect someone a little stronger on the whole global warming thing than, perhaps oh say, the Republicans have been.  Cuz, you know, CNN is so fair and balanced and all that.

Posted: August 20, 2008 in Abortion, Blitherings, Celebrating Diversity, Environmentalism, Global Warming, Politics, Random Observations

A day late and a dollar short, but that’s my usual M.O. anyway.

I didn’t get to watch all of the interview, debate, whatever it was with Rick Warren and the two presumptive presidential nominees, but I did get to see enough of both segments to get a representative taste of it all.

What I thought was the most interesting was the clear and almost irreconcilable philosophical disconnect between the two camps.  On questions of taxes, McCain was able to present the, to me, most common sense view that the best way to strengthen the economy, the best way to increase individual security and stability is to give them more of their own money with which to make choices.

I heard from Obama the basic tenet of progressive socialism that the rich bear some sort of inherently greater burden of responsibility to pay for social programs than anybody else.  If you make over \$250,000, then you are going to take it in the shorts on taxes because you are (ptooie) rich.  What these social engineering crusaders seem constitutionally unable to comprehend is the simple reality that rich people spend more money because they have more money to spend.  The more penalties you put on being successful, the more burdensome you make it to have disposable income, the more you hamstring any kind of economic growth.  You’d think this to be self-evident, but the lofty idealism of the Progs sees higher taxes and centralized government as the cure for it all.  Here’s your government health care and like it.  No, really, you have to sign up, and you HAVE to pay X% of your income to support it.  You know, for the poor.  And the children.

I found it interesting that when asked which Supreme Court judges they wouldn’t have nominated, Obama named the conservative ones, and McCain named the liberal ones.  Which I guess ultimately shows that there’s probably a pretty good mix as it is.

As interesting as the actual interviews were the regular breaks to the commentator panel.  I just shook my head after a piece of the McCain portion, where the Democrat analyst was clucking and fretting and just generally all atwitter.  He was comfortably predictable as he trotted out the same tired old bugaboo about Roe V. Wade.   One of the most oft repeated memes amongst the Progs is the idea that one too many conservative justices on the Supreme Court, just let the ideological balance shift ever so slightly in the “wrong” direction, and the first thing they’ll do after fluffing their robes and dusting their wigs is overturn Roe V. Wade.  The big, dark, scary monster under the bed is that this will of course, by direct inference, lead to back alleys run red with blood from coat hanger abortions by savage, unscrupulous hacks preying on poor defensless teens who couldn’t seem to manage any other form of birth control.

Nevermind the fact that all overturning Roe V. Wade will do is return the decision on whether or not to ban abortion BACK TO THE STATES.  Roe v. Wade is one of the single most egregious violations of the principles of Federalism and States rights ever to hit the books.  Roe V. Wade only stated that it was unconstitutional for STATES to ban abortion, reserving that right solely at the Federal level.  The only thing that would result from round-filing this ridiculous piece of legislation jurisprudence is that States would be free, once again, to determine what happens inside their borders with respect to abortion.  But that kind of silliness simply can’t be allowed now, can it?

I also heard, yet again, the strange “7-10 years” mantra from the Dem side wrt domestic oil drilling.  I simply cannot comprehend how an otherwise seemingly intelligent human being can continue to parrot the nonsense that, since we won’t see results for 7-10 years from increased domestic oil drilling, then we shouldn’t start. Huh?!  NO, they cry!  We need better solutions, NOW! Not ten years from now!  Well no shit, Sherlock.  Let’s find some great, solid, workable short-term solutions, WHILE WE STEADILY BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY FOR OUR GRADE SCHOOLERS TO HAVE AFFORDABLE FUEL WHEN THEY START DRIVING 10 YEARS FROM NOW!   Is that as far the the “vision” of our Prog brethren extends?  Less than seven years?  Anything past that simply isn’t worth considering?  Idiots.

For a group of folks who are so “all about the children” all the time, they don’t seem to be real bright on providing for these same kids’ futures.

I didn’t see anything that radically changed my mind in this forum.  I thought B.O. was smooth as butter, baby.  He also deftly avoided answering/committing to a position on several of the tough questions.  I thought McCain was much more blunt, and direct, but he seemed to have a lot more of the common-sense answers and solutions to problems that I would expect.  He also talked around several of the thornier issues, but overall, I came away with a clearer understanding of his positions than Obama’s.

I just can’t get my head around the globalist, socialist, “rich people are bad and poor people are somehow developmentally disabled and need the Goverment to look after them” mentality that is modern progressive liberalism.  They say they demand an energy policy, but oppose nuclear fuel, building more refineries or drilling domestically, while we continue to send huge chunks of our GNP to foreign oil interests who are showing increasing hostility to us in the world market place.  Face it folks, we are a fossil-fuel based economy and have been for a hundred years.  That isn’t going to change overnight.  Sure, yes, absolutely, let’s find a way to change that, work for a brighter tomorrow and all that.  But let us also be starkly realistic about our ongoing energy needs for the next 20 or 30 years.

They say they are for the children, and yet excorciate anyone who would monkey with the sacrosanct Grail that is abortion.  B.O. said that he would support deploying troops in support of our national interests, but thinks we need to “dialogue” with militant Islam.

After all is said and done, though, I often wonder if we don’t make just a liiiiitle too big a deal about this whole thing.  We aren’t electing a king.   Appointing a chancellor.  There is no imperial decree.  The balance of powers still works…shakily at times…but it works.  As yet no President has managed to set aside the Constitution.  It’s Congress where the real sausage is made.  So, instead of making this one man the make or break all, the catastrophic tragedy or penultimate hope of the country, let’s just find the guy that will be the most likely to work within the system to do what’s best for the country overall.

Of the two serious choices we’ve got, I’ve got to say that the best person for that job is McCain.

## Thoughts on Politics

Posted: February 4, 2008 in Abortion, ACLU, Celebrating Diversity, Environmentalism, Politics

I must admit to sharing what seems to be a fairly sweeping sense of dismay amongst the political traditionalists after Fred Thompson pulled the plug on his campaign.  He seemed to be the only candidate who held actual traditional, constitutionalist views about government.  With him gone, we seemed to be faced with various flavors of socialism, and a few borderline conservatives who lack the credibility and gravitas many were looking for in Fred T.

So, where does that leave the traditionalist, the constitutional literalist, the classic liberal vs. the “progressivist?”  Yet again, instead of a candidate that we can get excited about, we are having to chose what seems to be the least worst option.

Like “Two Dogs“, I am not one of those who advocates speaking through our silence, or sending a “message” by boycotting election day.  The only message that sends is, “Here you go Democratic Socialist Party, knock yourselves out.”

Because make no mistake, that’s the struggle we face.  Through an ever-increasing sense of personal entitlement, through an ever-decreasing sense of personal responsibility or moral accountability, our country is on a path towards the very kind of socialist domination and subjugation foretold in books like “1984.”  The kind of world lived out in Hilter’s socialist/fascist Germany.  Because “we” as a nation of voting citizens demand that the government to do more and more for us, we are increasingly likely to get just exactly what we asked for; and this always comes at a price.  In order to do more FOR us, they must of necessity take more FROM us!  In order to be coddled, we must first be herded and corralled, so that we are more easily managed.

You can see this shift towards socialism in our government schools, with “cooperative learning” and “outcomes-based education,” where excellence is discounted in favor of conformity and ensuring everyone achieves to the same level…regardless of how low that level may ultimately be.  It’s called the “lowest common denominator.”

In case you missed it, January 22nd was the anniversary of the day when five judicial vigilantes somehow managed to find a justification for preventing individual states from banning abortion in the phrase:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Go on.  Take your time. Look for it.  I’ll wait.  Trust me, men much smarter than me clearly found it in there, so, it must be, right?

Look at the track record of the 9th Cirlce of Hell Circuit Court of Appeals.  Look at what’s going on in San Fransisco and other parts of the People’s Republic of California (otherwise known as the PRC).  This is the progressive utopian vision that the likes of Shrillary and Obama want for this country.  And if you think McCain is much different, you haven’t read his bio or looked at his voting record in Congress.

Lest there be any doubt, there is an ideological conflict going on in this country.  The lines are becoming clearer and clearer between the two camps, and the divide wider and wider.   And it’s starting to look more and more like the traditionalists are on the ropes.  I think part of the problem is that we, as the traditionalists and Classical Liberals, attempt to rely heavily on cognition and rationality and an appeal to truth and facts, whereas the Progressives are wielding a much more effective bludgeon in the form of appeals to emotion, and “It’s for the ChildrenTM“, and “But What About The Environment (BWATE)?”, and the ephemeral right of a woman to choose death for her unborn child.  They’ve got a better spin machine.  They can kick out the kind of the emotion-stirring propoganda that would make Kim Jong il proud as punch.

Whereas we cannot afford to let ourselves sink to that level, we cannot abandon Truth for a catchy jingle or a teary-eyed drama-queen approach; we’ve got to do better, we’ve got to BE better than that.

The Progs have spun themselves into a bit of a corner, though.  Their election rhetoric has devolved into, “Do I elect a black man or a woman?”  To which minority group do I lend my emotional support?  Which one do I feel less guilty about?  Never mind which candidate is more qualified.  It goes back to who gets the props, who is the most successful to an emotional appeal based on a sense of entitlement and an overwheening emphasis on “equality at all costs.”

Maybe that’s the place to start.  Hold their hypocrisy up to the light.  By making race the issue, they’ve become racists.  By making gender the issue, they’ve become sexist.  They promise free health-care for 10 million children, but provide no insight into from where the money for that will come.  They decry tax cuts for the rich and big business, despite the fact that these are the very people paying the wages of the middle and low-income wage earner!  If you make the rich poorer, you make the poor poorer.  But that doesn’t play as well when appealing to emotion, does it?

You would think you could look at the history of the socialist ethic, its overly-centralized governments, the nationalization of business, the over-regulation of personal liberties, and see the flaws.  You’d think that you could in turn hold these failures up against the amazing successes of a representative republic running on free-market capitalism…and that would be that.  But sadly, no.

Emotionalism rules the day, and righteous indignation trumps thoughtful debate at every turn.  It’s disheartening at times, but we can’t give up.  This country was founded on a set of principles totally unique in history, a paradigm once branded “The Great Experiment.”  The traditionalist says that the experiment was a rousing success; the progressive says that it should never have been attempted, or at best was deeply flawed and needs to be “corrected.”

Which one are you?

## Enviro-OOPS!

Posted: December 18, 2007 in Environmentalism

From the “but…but….but…” Dept.:

Corn boom could expand ‘dead zone’ in Gulf

The nation’s corn crop is fertilized with millions of pounds of nitrogen-based fertilizer. And when that nitrogen runs off fields in Corn Belt states, it makes its way to the Mississippi River and eventually pours into the Gulf, where it contributes to a growing “dead zone” — a 7,900-square-mile patch so depleted of oxygen that fish, crabs and shrimp suffocate.

Hmmm. Let us consider. What ultimately will prove more harmful for the Gulf ecosystem: Drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, the environmental impacts of which are minimal, OR, pushing “alternative” fuels which result in the dumping of tons of poisonous waste into the Gulf?

I wonder if anyone factored in the carbon emission from all those extra tractors, harvesters, semi-trucks and other machines required to farm all this extra land?  I wonder how that compares to the emissions required to process oil from an off-shore oil rig pumped right into tanks via pipeline?