Liberals Hate Unintended Consequences

Here's why:

Shortly after the boondoggle known as the health care bill was passed, corporations discovered that the bill had a lot of detrimental factors to it, which, as Nancy Pelosi infamously said, we couldn’t find out until the bill was passed. As such, upon its passage, corporations began taking write-downs due to the elimination, by the new law, of many deductions they had previously been allowed to take.

This didn’t sit well with Representative Waxman, being utterly ignorant in the ways of business, and it got his rather unfortunate nose out of joint. He decided to use strong arm tactics, in his position as Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and demanded various things from corporations, including confidential memos. Egregious enough as that was, he didn’t stop there. Unfortunately for him and his fellow Democrats, there were unintended consequences of his strong arm tactics. They ended up revealing the intended consequences of the Health Care Bill: No more employer-provided health care for you.

Waxman was angry that corporations were performing analysis, as they have a duty to do for their stockholders and so that they can, you know, remain financially feasible and not go out of business. That concept is foreign to the current crop of Democrats. Profits are evil! Instead, they believe that corporations are beholden to The State ™ and those beliefs led him to this:

But Waxman didn’t simply request documents related to the write down issue. He wanted every document the companies created that discussed what the bill would do to their most uncontrollable expense: healthcare costs.

The request yielded 1,100 pages of documents from four major employers: AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar and Deere (DE, Fortune 500). No sooner did the Democrats on the Energy Committee read them than they abruptly cancelled the hearings. On April 14, the Committee’s majority staff issued a memo stating that the write downs were “proper and in accordance with SEC rules.” The committee also stated that the memos took a generally sunny view of the new legislation. The documents, said the Democrats’ memo, show that “the overall impact of health reform on large employers could be beneficial.”

Nowhere in the five-page report did the majority staff mention that not one, but all four companies, were weighing the costs and benefits of dropping their coverage.

In his utter audacity and abuse of power, paired with his woeful ignorance and incompetence, Waxman ended up revealing that the health care bill is designed so that the government can fully take over the entire health care market. So much for that oft-repeated “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” promise of Obama’s. I, of course, use the term “promise” loosely, as that is how Obama plays with the truth.

For many corporations, it will now be in their best interests and financially preferable to drop employer-provided coverage, pay the penalty and create scores of newly uninsured. Guess where those newly unisured will go? Into one of the “exchanges”, a pre-cursor to a single-payer, government-covered system.

A document prepared for Verizon by consulting firm Hewitt Resources stated, “Even though the proposed assessments [on companies that do not provide health care] are material, they are modest when compared to the average cost of health care,” and that to avoid costs and regulations, “employers may consider exiting the health care market and send employees to the Exchanges.” (Under the new bill, employees who lose their coverage will purchase health care through state-run exchanges.)

Kenneth Huhn, vice president of labor relations at Deere, said in an internal email that his company should look at the alternatives to providing health benefits, which “would amount to denying coverage and just paying the penalty,” and that he felt he already had the ability to make this change under his company’s labor agreement. Caterpillar felt it would have to give “serious consideration” to the penalty option.

Huh. That doesn’t sound like “you can keep your plan” to me. Oh, and that whole For The 26 Year Old Children ™ deal? It makes it far costlier. It’s a ridiculous premise to begin with — if my daughter expects me to pay for her health insurance at age 26, I’ll have failed as a mother. Further, by insanely claiming that 26 year old adults are still children, Obama and the Democrats have punished all working parents.

Both Caterpillar (CAT, Fortune 500) and Verizon believe the requirement to allow dependents to remain on their parents’ policies until age 26 will prove costly. Caterpillar puts the added expense at $20 million a year.

All of the above was conveniently left out of the Committee’s report. It must have just slipped their minds and they forgot to mention it. Nope. It’s because Democrats lie. Including lies of omission. You see, not only will you lose your employer-based health care, but the resulting increase in government paid health care will cause federal health care costs to rise. You get to bend over and cough not once, but twice!

What does it mean for health care reform if the employer-sponsored regime collapses? By Fortune’s reckoning, each person who’s dropped would cost the government an average of around $2,100 after deducting the extra taxes collected on their additional pay. So if 50% of people covered by company plans get dumped, federal health care costs will rise by $160 billion a year in 2016, in addition to the $93 billion in subsidies already forecast by the CBO. Of course, as we’ve seen throughout the health care reform process, it’s impossible to know for certain what the unintended consequences of these actions will be.

I beg to differ with one part. They aren’t unintended consequences; they were intended. They knew this. It was the entire plan, no matter how often they lied about it and corruptly tried to hide the facts. Because it was never about cost savings or health care itself, was it? It was about the government and increasing it’s power. Not only at all costs, but at our cost, sadly.

Oops...!

On the other hand, it sure is helpful to the rest of us who aren't trying to lie and deceive to pass a monster takeover that most of the country doesn't want.

There's my two cents.

Government Competence And The Non-Existent Death Panels

What a great sign of things to come:

A woman battling a cancer battle was dealt a surprise blow by Uncle Sam this month.

Diana Smith has gone through six months of radiation and chemotherapy -- one week out of every month. She is in remission and had a donor for a transplant; being in remission is prerequisite for the transplant.

But her hopes of receiving the transplant were dashed in March, when she says, the Social Security Administration contacted her –without her soliciting it -- and told her that her three year-old son was entitled to receive Social Security disability payments. Even though she didn't ask for it, she signed the form and received her son's first check check.

In April, Medicaid canceled her universal health care policy because her income level had risen with her son's payments – making her ineligible for the insurance program.

The problem is Jackson Memorial Hospital cannot provide the procedure because the risk is too high. The universal policy from Medicaid helps shield the hospital from liability in this kind of case. Without it, they are subject to liability issues.

Even though Smith offered to cancel her son's disability benefits, she was told it's too late.

"She's gone through six months worth of radiation and chemo, her body can't take anymore. If they don't allow her to have this transplant coming up right now next week, they're in effect signing her death warrant," said her friend Tom Noonan.

"I want to live to see my son grow up and get on with my life," Smith told CBS4's Ted Scouten.

As a result of the WFOR CBS 4 report, State Sen. Dave Aronberg is prepared to take action over the weekend. Social Security officials are also looking into the case to make the surgery happen on Tuesday as had been planned.

Hm, so let's see here.  The government came to Ms. Smith and offered her financial assistance for her son.  She took it, which bumped her into a higher tax bracket, which then invalidated her universal Medicaid health coverage.  If she doesn't get that coverage restored, it's essentially a death sentence.  When she offered to cancel her son's payments, she was told to take the pain pill and die, just as Barack Obama wants.

The upside here is that Ms. Smith will probably get things sorted out due to the national attention she's getting now.  The downside is, of course: what if it was you, and what if you didn't get this level of national attention?  Do you trust the government not to botch your health care once it's paying for everything and making all the decisions?  And speaking of decisions, remember that Medicaid is the single largest denier of insurance claims, larger than any of the eeeeevil private insurance companies.  When you stop to think about it, this situation sounds startlingly similar to the death panels that supposedly don't exist, doesn't it?  Hmmm...

All the more reason to be demanding a full repeal of DemCare as soon as possible, with nothing less as an acceptable outcome.

There's my two cents.

Too Good To Be True: Congress Loses Health Care Due To DemCare!

Oh, this is just plain awesome:

Turns out that fantastically long, mind-bogglingly complex bills which no one has actually read may create unintended consequences. Remember how they forgot to require insurers to cover kids with preexisting conditions? Oh, and they forgot initially to let young adults be covered by their parents' insurance until Reid fixed it in reconciliation. Now this. Who knew that when Pelosi said they'd have to pass the bill so that people could find out what's in it, "people" meant Congress?

I'd call it comedy gold if not for the obvious point raised by the Times: "If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?"

The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.

But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.

The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible "drafting error," the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.

Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, "a law takes effect on the date of its enactment" unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.

In other words, theoretically the law kicks them out of the federal health plan now in order to force them to join insurance exchanges … that don't exist yet. Looking forward to tomorrow, when we're inevitably told that they meant to do that.

You can bet your bottom dollar that they'll fix this little oversight pronto.  After all, Congress knows full well what they've forced onto the American people, and there is absolutely no way in hell they are going to subject themselves to the same.  Still, I think it's comedy gold to see this when, if Congress had simply heeded the American people in the first place, this would never have happened.

The irony is pretty ironic, don't you think?

There's my two cents.

Cut Up Your Plastic!

Fast! Yesterday the new credit card law took effect, and it's not all rosy:

Who said the 111th Congress has never accomplished anything? Today, major parts of the Credit Card Act of 2009 take effect. Enacted last May with great fanfare, the legislation restricts rate increases on existing balances, requires promotional rates to last at least six months, limits over-limit fees, mandates 45 days notice before certain terms of service can be changed, and imposes a host of other requirements intended to help credit card users.

So should consumers be celebrating? Maybe not quite yet. As it turns out, the legislation ran smack dab into the Law of Unintended Consequences, likely leaving consumers worse — not better — off.

As a first matter, credit card issuers have been raising rates in anticipation of the new limits. In fact, according to one report, annual percentage rates (APR) for new cards averaged 13.46% last week, compared to 11.51% a year ago. At the same time, the once nearly extinct annual fee is making a comeback.

And there are new fees as well: Fifth Third Bancorp, for instance, has announced it will charge a $19 inactivity fee for cards not used for a year. JPMorgan Chase is raising balance transfer fees from 3% to 5%, and minimum payments from 3% of balances to 5%. Discover is adding a 2% fee for transactions made outside the United States.

So much for Congress’ claim that it would save consumers money. Even worse, the new, supposedly pro-consumer law is making credit harder to get in the first place. The amound of credit made available, in fact, nosedived 7% from March to September of last year. Some — especially low-income and younger consumers — may be left without credit entirely.

As unintended as these consequences may have been, they certainly were not unforeseeable. Congress — and the Administration — were warned of such un-consumer friendly results, but chose to ignore them, opting instead to pose as the consumer’s protector as they enacted the legislation, hoping that those consumers wouldn’t connect the dots once the downside hit.

And, rather than scramble to undo the damage, Congress may soon double down on its mistake. Under financial services reform legislation being considered in the Senate, a new consumer financial services agency would be created, with broad-ranging powers to regulate not just credit cards, but the whole spectrum of consumer financial services.

The legislation, however, neglects to repeal the law of unintended consequences. Despite all the efforts to protect them, consumers should not feel very safe.

Why is it that so many attempts by liberals to 'help' people have so many unintended consequences?

Regardless, you might want to not only get all your cards paid off quickly, but then stop using them and close the accounts. If they're going to charge you not to use them, I say we should oblige and make it official.

There's my two cents.

Stupid Liberal Policies, Part 67,249

This poor kid:

Zachary is six years old and was a first grader at Downes Elementary School in Newark, Delaware.

He is a smart, happy, outgoing child who plays Little League Baseball, is a Cub Scout, studies martial arts, is actively involved in his church youth group, and is actively involved in school activities. Last year he participated in the school talent show, the science fair, and the PTA "Reflections" Art Contest, for which he won first place in the State of Delaware for his film, "What Is My Job?" Zachary reads above grade level and has very advanced math skills as well.

His mother is the Co-President of the Downes Elementary PTA, the Director of the Youth Ministry for Skyline United Methodist Church, was the homeroom parent for his class, and a full-time Project Management consultant. His step-father was the director of the school talent show, producer of the school yearbook, and coordinator for the Downes Elementary Mom's Breakfast. His father is active and involved in Zachary's life, helps out with school fundraisers and appeared with Zachary in the talent show in June.

Zachary's education and emotional well-being have been impacted because of the zero tolerance policy of the Christina School District. He is not the only "collateral damage" that has happened due to the "zero tolerance" rules set forth in the Christina School District's Code of Conduct. Numerous cases are heard each month which end in expulsion or "alternative placement" into the Douglass School. Many of these children are innocent victims of decisions being made based on extreme, zero tolerance rules.

On Tuesday, September 29th, Zachary brought his camping utensil to school to use at lunch (spoon, fork, bottle opener, and knife). As he was getting off the bus, a teacher asked him what he was holding in his hand. Zachary showed it to her and explained why he had brought it… to eat his lunch. The teacher gave the utensil to the principal, at which point Zach was suspended from school pending a school district hearing.

The School District committee recommended that he be alternatively placed at The Douglass School, a reform school for juvenile delinquents. This is the same school where they place children who have severe behavioral problems and who are guilty of such offenses as assault and battery, rape, drug offenses, concealing a deadly weapon, and more. Since there is absolutely zero chance that we will allow that to happen, the only hope for Zachary being able to rejoin his friends at Downes Elementary is if Christina School District Superintendent Marcia Lyles or the Christina School Board intervenes to overturn the committee's decision.

Did you catch the fact that HE IS SIX YEARS OLD?!?!?! We haven't spoken to anybody who believes that the zero tolerance policy is either rational or reasonable, but the District continues to follow it in spite of legislation (HB 120) that calls for school districts to use sound judgment in reviewing these cases.

As the father of a 7-year old boy myself, I can personally vouch that stuff like this happens all the time according to kid logic.  Of course he should bring his favorite tool to school to eat lunch with it!  Of course you should wear the black Batman socks with the blue Batman pants!  Of course you should paint a picture  All of that just makes sense for a kid that age.

For any school to enact policies like this zero tolerance stuff is ludicrous, especially when it hammers an otherwise great student and well-adjusted kid, potentially casting him out from a good school to a school for juvenile delinquents.  If there is any better way to ruin this boy's academic life, I can't think of what it might be.  This is truly an outrage and a tragedy.

Michelle Malkin adds this:

There's a school board meeting tonight for those in the Christina School District.

Petition, contact info, and more at www.helpzachary.com.

***

Related video at Hot Air.

This is insanity.  Visit the links, and do what you can to help this kid, and all other kids in the same kind of destructive liberal 'zero tolerance policy' schools.

There's my two cents.

Cash For Clunkers' Failed Greenery

Do you remember one of the primary purposes of this whole idea of 'cash for clunkers'?  It was to promote greenery by persuading people to trade in their old gas guzzlers and upgrade to new, more fuel efficient cars, right?  Um...that's not really working out:

Robert Hemsley was one of the first customers to take advantage of the deals offered at Sheehy Auto Stores in Annapolis, Md. Hemsley says he wasn't thinking about the environment when he went to the showroom — it was finances: "Just saving money, stayin' alive, making a buck, paying my bills."

Hemsley traded a 12-year-old Chevy van that got 14 miles a gallon for a Nissan Cube that gets 30 mpg on the highway. He says he'll cut his gas costs by almost two-thirds.

But even before Hemsley drove out of the lot, his new car had actually added carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. That's because it takes electricity to make a new car, and fuel to ship it.

"The estimates vary, but somewhere between 3 and, say, 12 tons of CO2 are produced for every car you make," says William Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University.

Chameides calculates that if you trade in an 18 mpg clunker for a 22 mpg new car (22 miles per gallon is the minimum mileage allowed for a new car under the program), it would take five and a half years of typical driving to offset the new car's carbon footprint. With trucks, it might take eight or nine years, he says.

Aw, gee whiz!  Can anyone say unintended consequences?  Kinda' reminds me of this:

The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate "green cars" is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the "dead zone" around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist's nightmare.

"The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside," said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn't end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce nickel foam. From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven't even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius's arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called 'Dust to Dust', the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

Dead zone?  Moon rover testing??  Acid rain?!  Floating all around the world in ***GASP*** cargo ships?!

But at least those environmentalists feel really good about driving their Prius.  That's what really counts, you know.

There's my two cents.

Dems Preemptively Save Kill More Jobs

This is becoming a depressingly regular occurrence (emphasis mine):

The Democrats are working toward some "unintended consequences" that are very, very obvious and the effects are going to be disastrous for our economy.

As the House Republican Conference notes,

Press reports indicate that Finance Committee negotiators may require employers that do not offer coverage to pay for half of the cost of any Medicaid beneficiaries employed by the firm, as well as the full cost of any "low-income" subsidies for individuals with income up to three times the federal poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four).

Groups from the Heritage Foundation to the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities have criticized the Finance Committee proposal, which could in practice lead to hiring discrimination against low-wage workers. For instance, a single mother would prove much less attractive to an employer from a financial perspective than a college-age student from a wealthy family—the former would cost the firm additional money in "fair share" contributions, while the latter would not.

In many cases, the cost of the "fair share" penalty may actually exceed the "pay-or-play" tax on businesses proposed in the House legislation. For instance, under the House bill (H.R. 3200) an employer who cannot afford to offer health coverage would pay $1,664 in tax penalties per year for a full-time worker making $10 per hour. If that employer were subjected to a "fair share" contribution equaling even half of the cost of insurance subsidies in the Exchange, the tax on that business would be significantly higher—as average subsidy amounts would total nearly $5,000 per year under most legislative proposals being considered. A "fair share" penalty of $2,500 would serve as a further disincentive to hire low-wage workers, as employers would be hit with high tax penalties on only a certain segment of the targeted workforce—individuals from poorer backgrounds.

As the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities noted, "the ["fair share"] proposal also could discourage the hiring of low-income people with disabilities who have no choice but to enroll in Medicaid" in order to obtain proper treatment for their disabilities.

All of this is obvious to people who've run businesses. But then the Democrats drafting this stuff wouldn't know anything about that.

Did you catch that?  Even liberal think tanks are hammering this policy!  You know it's got to be awful if that's happening.

Remind me again why it's the Democrat party that is supposedly on the little poor person's side...?

There's my two cents.

Tonight's Obamacare Cheerleading Session

Obamacare is sinking.

There is disarray in the House with dozens of Dems publicly saying they won't support it, and in the Senate we're now hearing that Obama's plea for a vote before the August recess just isn't going to happen. Most importantly, an increasing majority -- now 53% -- of Americans are opposed to Obamacare. The numbers indicate a 14-point swing from just last month, including 2 to 1 opposition in Independents and huge majority opposition throughout all segments of the middle class.

All this is giving the White House some nuclear caliber heartburn, as Obama is on record saying this is his primary legislative objective for the year. He is hanging his hat on Obamacare, and to lose it would not only puncture his image as an invincible President, but it would also gush blood in the water for every other issue to come.

In fact, Obama is apparently so desperate to claim success on this issue that though he doesn't even support the actual bill in either house of Congress, he will probably sign whatever bill lands on his desk.

Reverting back to campaign mode once again, the One again took to network television tonight to beg the American people to buy his load of garbage. How did it go? Well...let's just say it wasn't his best performance. RedState summarizes:

Tonight’s presser was simply more of the same from the self-styled “agent of change” and “post-partisan politician”: Pure politics, unwavering liberal ideology, appallingly transparent scare tactics, demonization of a nameless opposition, and an argument so thick with straw men that the President had better wait until he’s several hundred meters away to light his next cigarette, lest the entire building go up in flames.

Obama’s declaration tonight that the health care overhaul debate is “not about [him],” because he has “great health insurance, and so does every member of Congress” is pure canned comedy.

First of all, the claim that this is “not about” him is laughable on its face, given his accusation that those in his own party who don’t drop their objections to the fact the health overhaul bills currently in Congress will cause costs and deficits to skyrocket while utterly failing to improve coverage and care are “going to destroy [his] presidency.”

Second, everybody knows Obama and Congress have, as the President put it, “great health insurance.” The problem is that the coverage he and his Congressional allies are attempting to foist on the rest of us is far from “great.” If it were on par with what he and Congress are receiving now, then neither Obama nor his Congressional allies would object to Reps. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and John Fleming’s (R-LA) amendments that would automatically disenroll all federal elected officials from the President on down from their current “great health insurance” and replace that insurance with the Democrats’ proposed “public option” — government-run insurance plan — as their sole source of health coverage.

Like the failed “stimulus package,” President Obama is set on imposing his will on both Congress and the American people by ramming through a thousand-plus page bill that would be transformational to our economic system before any — including those expected to vote on it — have had a chance to read through it, let alone assess the proposal’s short- and long-term consequences (both intended and unintended).

The reason for this is clear. Unlike the “stimulus,” the health care overhaul isn’t a case of “not wasting a crisis,” as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel so bluntly framed the “stimulus” debate earlier this year. Rather, Obama is seeking to shove his health care overhaul through Congress, and to impose it on the American people, as quickly as possible because every day that goes by it — like him — becomes less popular with those who will have to deal with its rules, regulations, and intended and unintended effects.

The fact that a majority of Americans don’t want any part of Obama’s government-centric health care overhaul masquerading as “reform” hasn’t stopped this elected executive or his allies among those who supposedly represent the will of their constituents. Instead, it has made the thin-skinned, hyper-partisan President Obama ratchet up his rhetoric even higher, taking on a full blown “You’re Either With Us or Against America” stance that cannot help but remind Americans of what he really (amazingly) is: the living embodiment of the left’s hated caricature of his predecessor.

Ace of Spades goes into a few of the gory details:

For those who missed it, the President went very low tonight. I'm not talking about the lies (there were too many to recount here), the contortions ("I'm not attacking Republicans" about two minutes after attacking Republicans), and the incoherence (e.g. "Senior citizens who right now have a so-called donut hole in their plan, where after spending a certain amount on prescription drugs suddenly they drop off a cliff and they've got to pocket the entire cost, suddenly half of that is filled.").

I'm talking about foot-in-mouth soundbites. Let's count them down:

4. The Sacrifices Americans Must Make

The question was: "Do you think -- do you accept the premise that other than some tax increases on the wealthiest Americans, the American people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen?"

The president answered: "They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. And I -- speaking as an American, I think that's the kind of change you want."

Like cheeseburgers and cigarettes and alcohol and cars that drive faster than 25 miles per hour?

3. Economics 101 FAIL

"Having a public plan out there that also shows that maybe if you take some of the profit motive out, maybe if you are reducing some of the administrative costs, that you can get an even better deal, that's going to incentivize the private sector to do even better."

2. I Don't Know Anything, But I Know the Police Acted Stupidly

On the professor arrested following a confrontation with a police officer after he broke into his own house: "Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts. ...

"Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly."

1. Doctors Want to Take Your Kids' Tonsils For Profit

Again, another answer unrelated to any question asked: "Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. So if they're looking and you come in and you've got a bad sore throat or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, "You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out."

In all, he had some very clear villains in tonight's performance: doctors, insurers, Republicans, and the Cambridge police department. A full transcript of the press conference is available here.

In short, he's getting desperate.

Now, don't go soft...if he can round up -- i.e. buy off -- enough Dems in the House, Obamacare will happen. Though he's now fighting an uphill battle, it's still one that he could win.

Unless the American people get involved. Take a moment to call your Senators and Representative, and tell them what you think of Obamacare. The middle class gets results when it decides to engage in politics, so this is your chance to be heard on one of the most critical issues of our day.

Then, there's one thing left to do: hang this issue as an anchor around Obama's neck. The responsibility for even attempting to do this to America needs to land solidly where it truly lies. If that happens, we'll see another change in 2010, and it won't be heading to the Left.

There's my two cents.

Florida City Gives Workers A Collective Wedgie

Hmmm... (emphasis mine):

A Florida city is cleaning up with a new dress code that requires city workers to wear underwear and use deodorant.

The city council in Brooksville north of Tampa recently approved a dress code that instructs employees to observe "strict personal hygiene."

It also prohibits exposed underwear, clothing with foul language, "sexually provocative" clothes and piercings anywhere except the ears.

Repeat offenders can be fired.

The city council approved the dress code 4-1 as part of a wider effort to update existing policies and ordinances.

The one vote in opposition came from Mayor Joe Bernadini. He said the underwear edict "takes away freedom of choice."

Thought-provoking question #1:  how are they going to enforce this policy?  (I sense some forthcoming unintended consequences...)

Thought-provoking question #2: when liberals control your skivvies, what else is left?

There's my two cents.

Global Warming Update

The wackos are still at it, so it's time for another update.  For starters, how about we ask our friends in North Dakota about global warming:

Snow has fallen in Dickinson in June, the first time in nearly 60 years the city has seen snow past May.

National Weather Service meteorologist Janine Vining in Bismarck says there were unofficial reports of a couple of inches of snow in Dickinson on Saturday.

Vining says snow in North Dakota in June is uncommon, though it's not unheard of. She says other parts of the state have seen June snow within the past 10 years.

Or, how about Green Bay:

If it seemed cold to you in Green Bay on Saturday, it was.

The high temperature for the day, reached at 9:50 a.m., was 52. That set a record for the lowest high temperature for June 6, according to the National Weather Service office in Ashwaubenon.

The old mark was 53, set in 1943.

Similar records were set across Wisconsin today. Manitowoc's high was 54, breaking the record of 56 set in 1935. In central Wisconsin, records were set in Stevens Point, Wisconsin Rapids, Marshfield and Merrill, all breaking marks set in 1935.

Better get used to it. There are showers and thunderstorms in the forecast for Green Bay through Monday night, with highs of 55 on Sunday and 59 on Monday.

Dire, indeed.  How about a quick look at Antarctica:

I know we're supposed to have great confidence in the effects of global warming as conveyed to us by our betters in the scientific community, but it appears that the consensus view of how much sea levels would rise were Antarctica's western ice sheet to melt has just been cut in half:

A new analysis halves longstanding projections of how much sea levels could rise if Antarctica's massive western ice sheets fully disintegrated as a result of global warming.

The flow of ice into the sea would probably raise sea levels about 10 feet rather than 20 feet, according to the analysis, published in the May 15 issue of the journal Science.

Maybe it's possible that the "scientific consensus" of how quickly surface temperatures will rise is also wrong? Or can science now accurately predict climate in 100 years even as meteorologists struggle to predict the weather in 100 hours?

These are just a couple of the more recent reports that continue to pound empirical nail after empirical nail into the coffin of the global warming hoax.  Here's another:

U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher was in a froth, and his audience loved it.

The California Republican was talking about global warming and could barely contain his disgust.

"Al Gore has been wrong all along!" Rohrabacher yelled into the microphone. "This is outrageous! All of this is wrong! The people who have stifled this debate have an agenda that is just frightening!"

Welcome to the third annual International Conference on Climate Change, a daylong session of speeches and scientific presentations that took place Tuesday just blocks from the U.S. Capitol. Almost no media covered the event.

Organized by The Heartland Institute and other conservative think tanks and groups, the conference drew about 250 guests, most of them researchers and policy analysts, some from as far away as Japan and Australia.

An entire international conference for global warming skeptics, many of whom are very smart and accomplished scientific experts (unlike certain *cough cough* ex-politicians)?  So much for consensus.  Sure, the number may have been relatively small, but there are thousands more out there, as has been reported on this blog any number of times.  Bottom line: anyone still claiming that global warming is a crisis-inducing problem is either lying, has a personal agenda, or is simply ignorant.

Part of the problem for all this skepticism may be revelations like this:

Watts Up With That? has an ongoing series, "How Not To Measure Temperature." It illustrates obvious temperature measuring problems - like placing weather stations next to AC units that blow hot air all around them. Well, there's been a response:

Apparently, the NWS thought enough of the criticism of the siting next to a/c heat exchangers to do something about it. And, I've been hearing from time to time, that stations that volunteers have visited and we have showcased in "How Not To Measure Temperature, Part X" have been quietly cleaned up.

That's lovely - it's nice that something is at least being done. The essential dishonesty of the "quiet" cleanups is disturbing, though. Not least because it's going to facilitate the ongoing switch from global warming hype to global cooling hype.

An objective look at the actual evidence proves only that there are cycles of warming and cooling, as there have been for as long as we've been keeping track of temperatures.  And yet...Obama and the Democrats are rushing to slam through all kinds of legislation to combat global warming, as if the cycle is going to continue indefinitely only in this one direction, which is as intellectually vacant as an episode of The Simpsons.  It's a dishonest ploy that would be amusing if their proposed solutions didn't destroy the economy, or at minimum have serious unintended consequences.

Look at some of the newest solutions being proposed which will affect you:

Global Warming International Flight Tax

This new levy on international air travel, proposed by a coalition of the world's 50 least developed nations, intends to raise money from wealthy countries in order to finance anti-climate change campaigns in those too poor to develop and implement such plans of their own. From the Guardian:

Developing countries, backed by the UN, argue that they will need hundreds of billions of dollars a year to adapt themselves to climate-related disasters, loss of crops and water supplies, which they are already experiencing as temperatures around the world rise."

Apparently, with a little "ingenuity," the UN climate geniuses have discovered that it's quite easy to raise money via taxation. This brainstorming on revenue-raising has taken place in full ignorance of potential unintended consequences.

Think Twice About Using Green Transport

You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint -- the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.

So you always prefer to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.

Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study.

Its authors point out an array of factors that are often unknown to the public.

These are hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple "tailpipe" tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip.

Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at the University of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.

In some circumstances, for instance, it could be more eco-friendly to drive into a city -- even in an SUV, the bete noire of green groups -- rather than take a suburban train.

I harp and chant about unintended consequences and stupid liberal solutions offered by crazy environmentalist wackos for a reason.  When their ridiculous notions begin damaging the economy -- which in turn causes real damage to real people and families -- I think it goes too far.  I'm all for protecting the environment, cleaning up our messes, and so on, but I look at these things in terms of prioritization, and with me the priority always lands on the side of benefitting human beings.  Environmentalist wackos, on the other hand, always seem to end up supporting what harms human beings the most, whether they mean to or not.  With them, it's not the results that count, but rather the good intentions driving the effort.  With me, intentions don't matter...end results do.

There's my two cents.

Worthy Investments

Heritage posts about a couple of wonderful examples of the results of liberal environmentalism. Enjoy:

Speaking at an Air Force base near Las Vegas, President Obama pointed to a field of solar panels and boldly declared, “The first is a solar energy technologies program that will help replicate the success of the Nellis project in cities and states across America.” Obama,

visiting Nellis Air Force Base between fundraising events in Las Vegas and Los Angeles, toured the largest solar power plant of its kind in the Western Hemisphere, a collection of more than 72,000 panels built on 140 acres, including part of an old landfill. The plant, a public-private venture that cost $100 million, generates about a quarter of the electricity used on the base, where 12,000 people live and work.

The president said the project created 200 jobs and will save the Air Force nearly $1 million a year while reducing carbon pollution by 24,000 tons a year — the equivalent of removing 4,000 cars from U.S. roads.”

Economist Russ Roberts responds: “A project that costs $100 million (though I’d guess this number probably doesn’t include the land costs) to save almost $1 million a year? There’s a name for that—a lousy investment. And creating 200 jobs? Not really. The project employed 200 people. Not the same thing.”

Also under the category of bad energy investments:

When Stephen Munday spent £20,000 ($31,857) on a wind turbine to generate electricity for his home, he was proud to be doing his bit for the environment. The turbine generated five kilowatts of electricity a day - the equivalent of boiling 300 kettles - and provided two-thirds of the family’s energy needs. It also saved them an average of £500 ($796) a year in electricity costs.”

What would’ve been a 40 year investment for Stephen Munday (slightly less than the government’s 100 year investment), is now turning into a complete boondoggle:

He got planning permission and put up the 40ft device two years ago, making sure he stuck to strict noise level limits. But neighbours still complained that the sound was annoying - and now the local council has ordered him to switch it off.

Officials declared that the sound - which Mr Munday says is ‘the same pitch as a dishwasher and quieter than birdsong’ - constituted a nuisance, and issued a Noise Abatement Order. Electrician Mr Munday, 55, and his wife Sandra, a veterinary nurse, challenged the decision by the Vale of White Horse district council in Oxfordshire. But Didcot magistrates rejected their appeal and they were left to pick up the £5,392 ($8,594) court costs as well. “

To recap: They spent $100 million to save $1 million per year at Nellis and Mr. Munday spent nearly $32,000 to save about $800 annually.

There’s a reason after years of preferential treatment wind and solar only provide a small fraction of America’s energy needs. Dollars and sense. Regardless of how much energy renewable energy provides for the U.S., the decision should be left to the private sector and not the government.

Note to Nevada and Obama: If you want actual jobs that promote clean and affordable energy, open Yucca Mountain.

As always, the unintended consequences end up being far more expensive to the idiots who got suckered into implementing the 'green' solutions. This is exactly why we should avoid environmental legislation like Obama's cap-and-tax plan. It's humorous when it costs one wacko a whole lot of money to be 'green' for no benefit...it's entirely different to destroy the entire American economy to be 'green' for no benefit.

There's my two cents.

More On Those Memos

The controversy around the release of those memos is continuing to spiral. Yesterday I posted about how Congress -- who is now SHOCKED that this went on -- actually knew about all of this stuff for years and approved of it. Now, it gets even juicier:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi denied today that she had been told that waterboarding or other illegal interrogation methods were being used on terrorist detainees.

"We were not, I repeat, we were not told that waterboarding or any of these other interrogation methods were used. What they did tell us was they had some legislative counsel opinions," Pelosi said at an afternoon press conference. "And if and when they would be used, they would brief Congress at that time."

First, these methods weren't 'illegal' until Obama made them that way. Second, she's lying through her teeth, as we've already demonstrated. But, let's do it again.

Pelosi said she knew nothing. Then she said this:

So, now she knows they were talking about those methods but didn't realize they would actually -- GASP -- use them. Rep. Peter Hoekstra called bull:

Fox News also discovered at least 30 separate briefings about waterboarding:

FOX News has learned there were more than 30 meetings and briefings with members of Congress on the subject since 2002.

The first such briefing dealt with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, the Al Qaeda operations chief who ran the training camps in Afghanistan where the Sept. 11 hijackers were trained. Sources said California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, now the speaker of the House, attended the meeting with then-Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla. (who later became CIA director), and she did not raise any objections.

The briefings were given to the chairmen and ranking members of the intelligence committees in the House and Senate until 2006. That could cover Sen. John Rockefeller, W.Va., and Rep. Jane Harman, Calif., both Democrats, as well as Sen. Pat Roberts, Kan., Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C., Sen. Richard Shelby, Ala., and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, Mich., all Republicans.

Defenders of the interrogation program note that if Congress had wanted to kill the program, all it had to do was withhold funding, which didn't happen.

There is a load of crap involved here, and it's starting to smell worse by the day!

As the controversy mounts, more calls are being made for the release of the entire set of memos that started the whole argument, in the interest of full transparency. The political fallout for this brazen attack on the previous administration is doing some serious damage, and more will come if this line is pursued. Hillbuzz puts it like this:

Scoring points with the Left by attacking the former Administration is pointless, because it will alienate people in the middle who voted for the current President, but now realize what a giant mistake they made. We have never done this sort of thing in this country. Even Ford and Carter, following Nixon, did not move backwards and attack their predecessors along political lines. This is a dangerous, dangerous precedent. A President who espouses socialist tendencies and Rules for Radicalism should be very careful when setting these sorts of precedents, because whatever he does to former President George W. Bush and his Administration will most certainly be done to him in 4 years by his Republican successor. Being weak, meek, and bowing to the Saudi King while mollycoddling terrorists sure invites a President Palin to remedy the current President’s profound testosterone deficit. Effete and naive are the order of the day in this White House; couple that with perceived attacks on the people who have kept us safe for 8 years, and add in whatever fallout will come from this Administration’s naive, genteel approach to the threats America faces, and it’s hard to imagine centrist Americans being deluded by the kumbaya malarkey four years hence. Really, more so than that, it’s hard to imagine Republicans sitting home again in four years, claiming “another Carter will get us another Reagan”, and letting someone like the current President take office believing “there’s not much damage he can do in four years”. Well, there certainly is a great deal of damage he can do in four years…and that damage is starting to show itself now.

American history is chock full of unintended consequences.

I can't say I disagree! But neither can the professionals. Former CIA chief Porter Goss, for example:

“For the first time in my experience we’ve crossed the red line of properly protecting our national security in order to gain partisan political advantage.”

Welcome to the Obama era. One telling sign of disingenuousness is that these charges are being answered by political operatives in the Obama administration rather than national security experts. The spin machine is going full speed, and people are not comforted by it.

In a statement that is almost breathtaking for its sheer audacity and hypocrisy, Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder said:

"It is certainly the intention of this administration not to play hide and seek, or not to release certain things," said Holder. "It is not our intention to try to advance a political agenda or to try to hide things from the American people."

You mean besides the fact that you literally JUST DID THIS?! Release the memos, Mr. President. Man up. Follow through on your promises and stop acting like a partisan goon for a change. After all, if you're so confident that you're right, you shouldn't fear the truth being made known, right?

All of this mess has prompted Hoekstra to call for a new investigation:

...Members of Congress calling for an investigation of the enhanced interrogation program should remember that such an investigation can't be a selective review of information, or solely focus on the lawyers who wrote the memos, or the low-level employees who carried out this program. I have asked Mr. Blair to provide me with a list of the dates, locations and names of all members of Congress who attended briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques.

Any investigation must include this information as part of a review of those in Congress and the Bush administration who reviewed and supported this program. To get a complete picture of the enhanced interrogation program, a fair investigation will also require that the Obama administration release the memos requested by former Vice President Dick Cheney on the successes of this program.

An honest and thorough review of the enhanced interrogation program must also assess the likely damage done to U.S. national security by Mr. Obama's decision to release the memos over the objections of Mr. Panetta and four of his predecessors. Such a review should assess what this decision communicated to our enemies, and also whether it will discourage intelligence professionals from offering their frank opinions in sensitive counterterrorist cases for fear that they will be prosecuted by a future administration.

Perhaps we need an investigation not of the enhanced interrogation program, but of what the Obama administration may be doing to endanger the security our nation has enjoyed because of interrogations and other antiterrorism measures implemented since Sept. 12, 2001.

An investigation into how much damage Obama has done to our national security? Boy, wouldn't that be a fat report! As Gateway Pundit put it: "It took Barack Obama less than 100 days to destroy this nation's economy and now its national security. How's that for change?"

Unbelievably, Obama is instead releasing more photographs from alleged 'torturous' abuses at Abu Ghraib, which is a very bad idea:

The photos, taken from Air Force and Army criminal investigations, are apparently not as shocking as the photographs from the Abu Ghraib investigation that became a lasting symbol of U.S. mistakes in Iraq. But some show military personnel intimidating or threatening detainees by pointing weapons at them. Military officers have been court-martialed for threatening detainees at gunpoint.

"This will constitute visual proof that, unlike the Bush administration's claim, the abuse was not confined to Abu Ghraib and was not aberrational,"said Amrit Singh, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which obtained the agreement as part of a long-running legal battle for documents related to Bush-era anti-terror policies[...]

The duh factor is high:

Defense Department officials would not say exactly what is contained in the photos, but said they are concerned the release could incite a backlash in the Middle East.

"My sense is the president was trying to please a lot of audiences at one time and that over the last (week) he has totally failed to put the mind of the intelligence community at ease," said Mark Lowenthal, a former senior adviser to one-time CIA Director George Tenet. "He is going to end up with a national clandestine service that will not be willing to do anything because they feel he will not be there for them when they need him."

This idiotic White House is doing literally everything possible to enable our enemies and hamstring those who would defend us from those enemies.

Sleep well tonight.

There's my two cents.

It's Earth Day Again!

For my previous Earth Day posts, go here and here; for this year, I'm just going to report a series of stories that should probably be discussed on this day. Enjoy!

Great news: only 34% of Americans now believe global warming is caused by man, down a whopping 13% from a year ago. The problem, of course, is that our political leaders are way behind the curve of the American people (as usual), and they're still going to try to push through some disastrous legislation to 'combat' it. Once again, they will be enacting supremely oppressive legislation over the objection of most of the country.

A look at some real numbers and empirical evidence clearly shows that the planet is cooling, not warming, and has been for several years. [Don't tell the environmentalist wackos, though - they still won't believe you.] Even mainstream outlets are suggesting we put that whole warming nonsense on hold. And yet, we still have the same old environmentalist wackos decrying coal and other forms of energy production, and our President is promising to bankrupt the coal industry, which just so happens to provide 50% of our entire nation's power! How do you think that's going to work out?

A true constant on environmental issues is unintended consequences. Green activities always have unintended consequences. Here's another example after a 2005 law was passed to give tax subsidies to companies using alternative fuels:

Turns out the paper industry has long used something called the "kraft" process to make paper. One byproduct is a sludge called "black liquor," which the industry has used for decades to fuel its plants. Black liquor is cost-effective, makes plants nearly self-sufficient, and, most importantly (at least for this story), definitely falls under Congress's definition of an "alternative fuel."

All of which has allowed the paper industry to start collecting giant federal payments for doing nothing more than what it has done for decades. And in fairness, why not? If Congress is going to lard up the tax code with thousands of complex provisions designed to "encourage" behavior, it shouldn't be surprised when those already practicing said behavior line up for their reward, too.

But this, in turn, has tossed up uncomfortable questions. The paper industry argues that if the government is going to be in the business of rewarding good behavior, it ought to do it equally. Is green policy only to be aimed at dirty or economically unviable actors? Is black liquor any less useful than ethanol or biodiesel, and if so why? If not, shouldn't Washington encourage its use? Isn't every green subsidy in fact the basis for a trade dispute? These are questions Congress has no interest in confronting, since it would expose the muddle that is its entire green-energy program.

But unintended consequences never stop the green zealots from barging forward on the latest crusade. Speaking of unintended consequences, did you know that ethanol actually caused higher food prices this past year while also providing more greenhouse gases than normal gasoline? Similarly, measures intended to control pollution actually caused the melting of Arctic ice. But don't worry, that was years ago...the ice is actually growing right now, so the reality is that the only thing melting away is the media's credibility for constantly reporting these falsehoods.

Elephant Forum suggests that if greenhouse gases are the culprit, maybe we should regulate the hot air coming out of the mouths of our politicians. An excellent idea!

The big environmental news of the moment is, of course, the ruling from the EPA that air is now harmful to the planet and needs to be regulated. I trust you have enough of a brain to figure out that this is one of the stupidest things ever said by mankind, but let's look at the intent behind this idiocy. This is nothing more than the latest attempt by radical Leftists to micromanage everything about the United States, especially the economy and who has how much money for what use. It's a good thing these environmentalist wackos aren't more interested in the political issues than in the science, or they might try to take advantage of things, you know? In reality, if Obama and the Dems get their wishlist of environmental laws, it will actually cost over $7 trillion and 800,000 jobs every year...for no noticeable effect on the environment. Sounds like good recession-time policy, don't you think?

But Obama and the U.N. aren't willing to stop there. In the name of climate change legislation, they're intent on destroying the entire global economy, too.

There's just one problem. Renewable energy is the road less traveled for a reason - it doesn't work. For example, in Spain, they got suckered into going green on a national level and discovered that for every 'green job' created, 2.2 normal jobs were lost. I don't remember much from college calculus, but I'm pretty sure that's a losing proposition.

Interestingly, did you know that it is only when a society becomes wealthy that it gets obsessed with 'greenery'? Apparently, it's only when a nation has enough time and money on its hands that they make up problems like climate change to worry about. Also, did you know that the goal of those green-obsessed souls -- to return the earth to its pristine natural state -- is actually achieved best by those same wealthy countries? Turns out that pristine natural state -- in other words, poor, underdeveloped, third-world countries -- doesn't work so well in keeping things green after all. Go figure.

There's a very interesting plan released by the Obama administration lately, where they plan to blast reflective particles of pollution into the upper atmosphere to protect us from killer sunrays. Um...okay. Work with me here. I thought that:
1. atmospheric pollution was causing global warming
2. global warming is the result of man's meddling

However, what Obama is saying with this new plan is:
1. atmosphereic pollution can protect us from global warming
2. global warming is the result of the sun

So which is it? Can any sane person actually believe this set of diametrically opposed statements? Do you see why I freely call them 'wackos' now? They're so caught up in their green religion that facts, history, and logic have no place. They are so thorougly blinded that they come up with plans that are exactly opposite their stated core beliefs. I think 'wacko' is being generous, now that I think about it.

Okay, okay. So I've trashed environmentalists long enough. What do I believe about preserving the environment? Am I an Earth hater?

Far from it.

I love this planet, and I think its incredible beauty and insanely complex intricacy is a gift straight from God. Genesis lays it out:

1:27 And God made man in his image, in the image of God he made him: male and female he made them.
1:28 And God gave them his blessing and said to them, Be fertile and have increase, and make the earth full and be masters of it; be rulers over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing moving on the earth.
1:29 And God said, See, I have given you every plant producing seed, on the face of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit producing seed: they will be for your food:
1:30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the air and every living thing moving on the face of the earth I have given every green plant for food: and it was so.
1:31 And God saw everything which he had made and it was very good.

I believe our role as the primary species on this planet -- the only one gifted with true awareness of self and higher intelligence -- is to be the caretakers of everything around us. We are meant to wisely use the resources we find here on Earth, not to squander them and rape the natural beauty of this planet. But, make no mistake, we are the masters here. If a question of priority comes up -- say, should we shut down the entire logging industry to save a blue-spotted tree grub -- my vote is in favor of the humanity every time. People come first. Don't blame me, take it up with God. He's the one who called that arrangement 'very good'.

In our role as stewards of this planet, let us not forget that the people are the prize creation here. God made people different from all the other organisms on this planet, and gave us a higher purpose. We are the ones who set the agenda, and we are the ones who hold the trump card when the rubber meets the road. I pity those who don't see -- or remember -- that fact, and I am genuinely saddened at the kind of existence a person must live to believe that they are no more important than a blade of grass or a worm.

So, I believe in caring for the environment, and in doing all we can to preserve it. This world is a fantastically beautiful place, if we care to slow down and take a look around once in a while. If you haven't done so, I'd highly recommend getting your hands on the Discovery Channel's Planet Earth series. It will blow your mind.

As will this incredible creation called Earth. Enjoy it, especially today. We have many reasons to celebrate!

There's my two cents.

Freaking Morons Are Running The Country

This just in:

The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday is expected to formally declare carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that threaten public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that for the first time will regulate the gases blamed for global warming.

So, our wacko government, in its infinite wisdom, has declared that air is harmful to life on the planet, and will begin regulating it.

Some questions:
1. What happens when unregulated air floats across international borders?  Will it be taxed at the same rate, say, in Canada as in the U.S.?  How will we track the air as it moves back and forth so we know which is the regulated air and which is not?
2. Since plants are the biggest users of CO2 -- the most 'harmful' greenhouse gas -- will they be charged with a usage tax of some kind?  Surely that's fair, as all other organic life forms (like humans) have to deal with their destructive habits, right?  It works for cigarettes, so why not CO2?  What bureaucracy will be put in place to manage the collections of that tax?
3. Under the assumption that the goal of regulation is to reduce something, we can then also assume that the goal of regulating air will be to reduce it.  What happens if we succeed?

But, as is typical with this administration, it gets even worse if you read between the lines (i.e. backwards through the liberal-speak):

But even as the E.P.A. begins the process of regulating these substances, Congress is engaged in writing wide-ranging energy and climate change legislation that will pre-empt any action taken by the agency. President Obama and Lisa P. Jackson, the agency's administrator, have repeatedly said they much prefer that Congress address global warming rather than have the E.P.A. tackle it through administrative action.

This says that Obama would prefer legislation over regulation, but since he's a liberal, we know his definitions aren't what normal people understand to be accurate for those words.  Case in point from the liberal translation guide:

lie
- what it really means: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth
- meaning as understood by liberals: the proper way to hide one's liberal preferences; excessive use is grounds for promotion

So, what the above statement actually means is that while Obama says he'd prefer legislation over regulation, he actually means the opposite.

And that fits with his character and track record - he's signed a bunch of executive orders setting policy without resorting legislation, he's shoved through thousands of pages of bills without giving Congress the time to read them much less analyze them or take testimony on them, and he's given the Treasury Secretary unlimited power over hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money without any taxpayer accountability.  No, it's clear that Obama doesn't want to bother with that pesky process known as passing legislation any more than necessary since it requires far too much transparency and accountability, which he's studiously avoided at every turn.

So, while Congress slogs through the process, his pets at the EPA will go ahead and shackle the country with disastrous new environmental regulations without any recourse for the American people who will inevitably suffer.  And hey, if those regulations just happen to be in effect for a few months or years while Congress works on the legislation -- or longer, in case the American people stand up and rightfully kill this legislation in Congress -- that's okay, right?  Right?

Because we know that when environmentalist wackos go to work, there are never any unintended consequences, and they always have humanity's best interests at heart.

There's my two cents.