Archive for June, 2009

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.

Or, how about this:

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!

 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.

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.

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.

In betwixt and between all the impassioned outcrys both from within and without Iran regarding their most recent “election,” I find that all the intensity and furor suddenly begs the question:

Why all of a sudden do we see such a fervor from the voting public in Iran?

More importantly, why are we HEARING about it, from within what has traditionally been a country with a very tight hold on not only its media, but its people?

My personal opinion is that this is the result of the very kind of “domino theory” that Iran and the other countries of the Middle East feared would result from a successful Iraq.

There was more at stake than meets the eye for Iran, Syria, Jordan, and yes, even our “ally” Saudi Arabia.  There was a reason that a large (disproportionately so) number of the “insurgents’ we were capturing or killing in Iraq were from these countries.   They saw very clearly the threat posed in the Middle East by a stable, US-friendly democracy.  And it wasn’t because of the oil.

As Pres. Bush and his advisors correctly surmised, in the context of the “Long War” perhaps the best way to defeat the violence of militant Islamic extremists — despite the hardships we might face in the relative short term — was to establish a country where freedom, not fear, ruled the day.  To show that the “Great Experiment” could even work within the context of Islam. (more…)

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.}}

Listening to the radio on the way to work this morning, I heard something that chilled me to my very core.  I literally got a chill down my spine.  I quite literally spoke out loud, “Oh, shit.”

It was a “top of the hour” news blurb about how the push for Hate Crimes legislation is gaining steam, being pushed through Congress to bring harsher penalties to those who commit crimes motivated by hate.  You know, rather than the much nobler greed, anger, disinterest, or predatory exploitation.  It’s HATE that we have to watch out for, right?  I mean, in addition to all those “love crimes” we’ve got on the books.  But I digress.

What really rocked me back on my heels was one sentence that came across towards the end of the sound bite.  Some mouthpiece promoting the legislation spoke of trying to keep better track of “bias motivated events.”

Bias. Motivated. Events.  Think about that fer just a sec.

In one swift and subtle movement, we knocked the edges off the definition of “hate crime” and squishy-coated it down into “bias motivated events.”

Can you see the inherent, insidious danger here?

If someone mugs a pedestrian, say, man dressed up in women’s clothes, does this constitute a hate crime?  What is the burden of proof to say that the alleged criminal  didn’t target this person because of their “lifestyle”.  What if the crook took the dude’s predilections for frills and lace to suggest he might be an easy target.  Not because the crook hated the tranny, but because he figured he/she might be an easy mark.  Too effeminate to fight back, who knows?

Instead of 6 months, suspended, for attempted robbery, our felon gets 5 years because it’s a “hate crime.”

But wait.  This goes back to prosecuting intent, rather than actions.  If I further dumb this down to say that any “bias-motivated event” can be prosecuted, ANYTHING I DO that is motivated by my personal bias or worldview, can now become prosecutable.

Anything.

Say a church decides that since Sally has decided to become Sam, that maybe we don’t want him/her teaching Sunday School anymore.  Is that my right as a private institution, or is it now a hate crime, because it was motivated by a religious bias against Transgendereds?  Not that we hate them, but just that we don’t want them teaching our sunday school class.  That’s not hate, it’s bias.  Instead of just being unfaaaaaaaair, is it now also a hate crime?

If I choose not to rent to a couple of guys because they look, act, and sound like belligerent gang bangers, can I be prosecuted for my “bias” against thugs who will likely wreck my rental?

If a pastor speaks out against men preying on boys for sexual exploitation, can I be prosecuted for a hate crime because of my BIAS?

This is an incredibly dangerous area, a slippery slope that, in the name of protecting rights, will end up destroying them.  I mean, short of a diary, a blog post, or a text message, etc., how can you prove INTENT behind an individual’s action?  Do gays, or blacks, or hispanics have special protections against crimes that others don’t?  Shouldn’t all be equal under the law?

Robbery, murder, rape, arson.  They are crimes.  They are illegal.  They shouldn’t be MORE illegal because of who the victim is.  WHY I committed the crime might make me an asshole, a reporbate, a truly descpicable human being.  Sadly, or thankfully, there’s no law (yet) against being an asshole.  It is only the CRIME I commit which makes me a criminal, regardless of my motivations for it.

Isn’t that what this trend in hate crimes suggests?  That eventually, what you THINK about a situation will have as much legal weight as what you actually DID about it?

Scary stuff.  Beyond even 1984.  Madness.