Carbongate

Dr. John Ray, Brisbane, Australia writes about our President, our EPA, a report that the Earth is cooling, and will through 2030. Carbongate.

Chris Beck illustrates with bombast and hyperbole, what Dr. John lays out. That an EPA report describing how the Earth is cooling - not warming - was inconvenient. Instead of publishing the report, and risking passage of the horrendous Waxman-Markey Tax and Tax bill, the inconvenient facts were suppressed. Instead, at 3 am last Friday - 15 hours before the final vote, hundreds of pages of amendments were added to the Tax and Tax bill.

While the Tax and Tax bill (some call it Cap and Trade, with a glint of mischief in their eye) claims to intend to reduce carbon emissions - the reality is that bill doesn't have anything in it that might change carbon emissions. The thing is about creating government controls, government bureaucracies - and, in true Chicago-Corrupt style - ultimately, power. Power through binding sycophants through patronage, putting friends and family and others one wants to bind to them on the government payroll.

It looks like everyone wins - through bigger budgets and more buddies on the payroll - except maybe the Coast Guard and DARPA. Maybe the bill doesn't affect the CDC, but that might be the only oversight.

The Tax and Tax bill is a boondoggle that will cost and cost, and only the amount of hot air (useless rhetoric) around the bill will affect the climate.

I mean, if I wanted to change the amount of fossil fuels consumed, I would limit imports and mining. Simple, cheap, effective. If I wanted to reduce the effect on the climate of today's automobiles, I would restrict building new cars, and restrict the ability to trade cars before they are 20 years old. (Making a new car takes more energy than a gas-guzzler can consume, once constructed, in many years.)

Our nation faces a number of crises, economic instability due to high taxes and government interference, as well as due to varying availability of inexpensive energy. We face serious water shortages in the near future, especially shortages of drinkable water. Reliance on transportation of food and products from across the nation and from around the world when transportation costs have become increasingly more volatile, when the costs of farming continue to increase, when the interference of government - including stupid patenting of food crops to limit the ability of the American farmer to react to changing weather patterns, reliance of exported food as an expression of foreign policy and the way American agriculture relies on artificial fertilizer to sustain high yields. I suspect not all the food riots in the coming year will be outside the US.

The B. Hussein Obama government has complained that the economic recovery is slowed not by high (and rising) unemployment, but by reduced spending.

Hint: If you keep businesses in business and making a profit, they keep people on the job, and the people working have money to spend, to keep the precious economy running and maybe even improving.

Instead, B. Hussein Obama is "troubled" when unrest and dissent are reported on TV. He doesn't care about the unrests, only publishing the report of the unrest.

Sleep well, Mr. "let no crisis go unexploited" President. Richard Nixon remembered Watergate all his days. How long will Carbongate, lying to Congress and America about the end of global warming, follow you?

News flash! Jobless people spend less!

Sharon Astyk of Casaubon's Book writes about "You Aren’t Losing Your Job, You are Holding Back Consumer Spending!". Sharon writes well, and this piece is brief and pithy.

Sharon may have intended to be sarcastic or snarky, about how unemployed people are slowing the recovery.

But just think, if a $30k job former-worker can hold back the economy, just think what damage a millionaire does when he doesn't spend have his income. Like, when he pays higher taxes.

Or a billion dollar corporation that all of a sudden faces millions and millions of new taxes that they now cannot spend to support their suppliers and shareholders. Why, with passage of one cap-and-tax bill, Congress could be making millions of shareholders act just like fired people - burdens on the economy. And, of course, there is the point that the cap-and-tax legislation passed by the House of Representatives is about taxes, and is only intended to *appear* to limit carbon dioxide production.

I am amazed at how people worry about the economy, and support "redistributing the wealth" at the same time. In the past plundering and pillaging barbarians *planned* to burn their victims to the ground, with nary a thought about what anyone would have to eat tomorrow. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Cap and Tax passed the House - and the funeral effect

OK, so the smokescreen that raises taxes on industry (i.e. costs jobs, impairs business, raises prices on goods made and services, too) got passed in the House.

Does this mean change for the funeral industry?

I mean, making and transporting steel or plastic coffins takes lots of fossil fuels to manufacture and transport coffins and vaults. So, is this the end of using vaults and coffins to bury the Dearly Departed - are we back to wrapping in an old blanket, and waiting for the dirt to settle later before leveling off the dirt?

Does this mean the end of cremation? Cremation takes tremendous energy to consume a human body. And that release how many pounds (hundreds of pounds, in some cases!) of carbon into the atmosphere!

So, should we do what has worked for hundreds of years for some cultures, put up a rack about head high in some place you don't normally frequent, and let the body . . . umm, dry out? Weather, cure? What do you call it as the gooey stuff feeds flies and birds, and the bones weather to dust and fragments? But at least, the carbon stays un-aired. Sort of.

Will we have to combine industries? Use jet engines, supertanker engines, and utility power plants for dual use - generate steam, generate hot water and pipe them to houses and business campuses, as well as use for body cremation? No, no, that is solving the wrong problem. Burning bodies - human and animal - turns organic matter to airborne carbon dioxide - that increases the taxes, as well as offending the "sequester the carbon" tree huggers.

Well, I guess it looks like blankets, then. Maybe this will be a good way to handle old nylon and polyester blankets, bury them for good.

Everyone does know, right, that this is a pure tax bill, and can have no effect on amount of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere? That B. Hussein Obama's stated intention to "redistribute" wealth - crush and destroy people with money that he hasn't take yet - is right on track to get where he wants to go? That the Thug from Chicago is completely uninterested in preserving America, the Constitution, freedom, or the economy?

Just remember that, when you need to arrange funeral services. Or fuel your car, or apply for a new job or unemployment insurance.

Eric Karjaluoto writes at Ideas on Ideas, about "Epitaph for a plastic man", on the death of Michael Jackson.

Like many of the summaries of the life that Michael Jackson lived, Mr. Karjaluoto points out the revered music Jackson performed, and the alleged misdeeds.

The summary of how Jackson progressed from the first appearances I recall on the Andy Williams show - as a child, with the Jackson Five - to his death, is blamed mostly on the "toxic" nature of fame and media attention.

I think it is the other way around. People with no character, no ethics, willing to do and be anything to anyone - find a refuge in public performance. Musicians that know music and aren't drawn to a place of responsibility in their community will deceive themselves, telling themselves that the show is for the fans. The reality is that they only live vicariously.

The other significant memories of Michael Jackson that I carry with me are second hand, both of them satires.

Berkeley Breathed did a comic strip in the '80s called "Bloom County". In one episode a no-morals character is doing a Pepsi commercial as a musician, when he catches fire - too much mascara on his chest hairs. This lampooned a commercial that caught fire on Jackson - I never saw the commercial, only news reports. I loved the several days that the topic played on Bloom County.

The other legacy is enduring. "Weird" Al Yankovic writes and records parody songs. I can never hear the strains of "Beat It" without thinking the song that I recall from the Dr. Demento (Funny songs for fun people!) radio show - "Eat it!" will always be the hallmark for me, and Jackson's version just doesn't measure up.

Michael Jackson was younger than I am, by about seven (7) years. I always thought of him as closer to my age. But his music? That was a world away from mine. "Ben", the movie and song of a pet rat, are excellent performances. I could almost "Thriller", "Beat it", etc. variations on that ballad made for Jackson's voice - with little value added in meaning, in maturity, in soul, for all the years between.

Michael Jackson had brothers - four of them appeared with Michael on those long-ago Andy Williams shows, and recorded some really fine music. Jermain tried to care for Michael - and likely helped cover up some of the deviant stuff that came about in recent (and not-so-recent) years. I haven't kept up with them, but the other Jackson's haven't been making headlines and police blotters. With the same initial TV and other media exposure, we have four shining examples of citizenship and personal integrity greater than the late Michael Jackson.

Mr Karjaluoto in his article examines the forgiveness that a tainted icon receives, like Michael Jackson, on his death. Much of the predation is forgiven and glossed over, the accomplishments (recorded music and videos, and "Ben", of course) are sung widely.

I think much of this is something that also occurs in the justice system. A criminal act, a despicable act, an act of disrespect, is abhorred and reviled mostly - because we fear a repeat, fear another will be injured or harmed. On his death, Michael Jackson is no longer capable of harming the growth of another young man, of twisting another primate from healthy attitudes and behavior. We can replay his music and enjoy the vicarious performance without worrying that a new record release means another accusation of child molestation - the two events were paired, recently, almost as publicity ploys or distractions from prosecution, whichever.

Without Jackson's music I would be bereft of several "Weird" Al Yankovic parodies. And that feels like a pretty lame epitaph, for a plastic man.

Why Barry don't care if Iran spills over onto the US

Ann Coulter dissects B. Hussein Obama's poseur representations about the recent election in Iran and the resulting protests - Obama to Iran: Let Them Eat Ice Cream.

Two things pop out at me.

1) The reference to the tragic death of protester Neda Agha Soltan. Video and pictures of her body have swept the Internet.

2) Ms. Coulter disparages both the US President and the French President with a back-handed reference, "You might be a scaredy-cat if ... the president of France is talking tougher than you are."

First, the death of a girl storming a barricade during a revolution has become a symbol of America. What we call the Statue of Liberty was a gift to the United States - from the same France that Ann Coulter now disparages for their fall in WWII. The real life "liberty" figure was a young woman, carrying a torch of the period, protesting and attacking the then-government of France in the French Revolution (1789–1799).

I can see where President Barack Hussein Obama would prefer to have this particular symbol - a young woman protesting a decadent and corrupt government - become a rallying cry. It had a marked effect on the French of the day, and symbolizes freedom from the tyranny that some of Obama's plans and programs verge on today. President B. Hussein Obama does not want Americans to be thinking in terms of rebellion or illegitimate government.

And that leads to the second point that stands out for me in Ann's excellent HumanEvents.com article. That is, she disparages letting the French president sound more forceful that our own Barry-baby.

See, the French, like the UK, are dealing with a vast influx of Muslims and Islamic influences, including regions falling under Sharia (Muslim) law rather than national or local law. The French have a vested interest in siding with Muslim moderates of any stripe. The Muslim influence has been growing in Europe and has been even more disruptive than Californias fleeing to other states - and wreaking California-style legislative and social mischief "just like back home." In 1990, Coloradans called the California-refugee problem, "Californication."

On the other hand, we have President B. Hussein Obama that left his church of 20 years when it didn't further his career anymore. This same Barack Hussein Obama that was schooled, initially, in hard-core Muslim schools overseas by his Muslim father. This same Oh! Bummer! that doesn't mind a growing Muslim influence at all, since he has no Christian background to feel threatened over.

So of course President Obama sounds less militant or concerned that France does - he isn't worried about what might happen - it seems win-win to him.

Californians address money problem: Stop earning money.

According to an article on the BusinessWire.com: AHF to L.A. County: Shut Down Porn Sets.

Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that an actress working in the business — a mainstay of the San Fernando Valley economy — tested HIV positive at the industry-affiliated Adult Industry Medical Foundation’s (AIM) testing clinic in early June. The paper subsequently reported that as many as 16 actors and actresses in the adult entertainment industry had tested positive for HIV since 2004; however, on Wednesday, the Los Angeles Times reported that County public health officials backtracked away from those claims, noting that while 16 individuals had indeed tested positive at AIM’s testing clinic, they could not confirm that any of those individuals were currently employed as performers in the industry.

Wow. 16 people tested positive in 5 years. An outbreak. Oops - and 15 of those may or may not have been involved in adult films. In California. One assumes that most of them were sexually active, and didn't catch HIV from flatulence. Oh, my.

So, obviously the headline-grabbing, career-making move is for do-gooders to . . . shut down an influx to California of billions of dollars. Let's see, at 12% (my guess) tax rate, that would be - hundreds of millions of tax revenue. That would be enough to, I don't know, put a couple of state and county workers out of a job? Cause a benefit program or two to cut back? Shut down a school?

Seems like the right trade-off. While the adult industry, for their own reasons, have a stellar record of managing STD risk, including HIV/AIDS, California seems hell-bent on forbidding business of any sort to thrive.

Not to lump raising livestock and adult videos into the same lump, but they sure seem to have the same caliber of enemy.

And this is *not* a California problem. California has been driving it's citizens out into the rest of the nation for decades, with it's combination of punitive taxes and punitive business policies. And those ex-patriots taint their adoptive homes with demands for California-style spending.

About those 'Phantom' traffic jams

Wired.com reports that MIT is following up on Japanese research into traffic jams that happen without having a wreck or other restriction on the road to explain why cars are stopped, waiting - for the cars ahead to move out.

A team of MIT mathematicians has developed a model that describes how and under what conditions such jams form, which could help road designers minimize the odds of their formation. The researchers reported their findings May 26 in the online edition of Physical Review E.

Key to the new study is the realization that the mathematics of such jams, which the researchers call "jamitons," are strikingly similar to the equations that describe detonation waves produced by explosions, says Aslan Kasimov, lecturer in MIT's Department of Mathematics. That discovery enabled the team to solve traffic jam equations that were first theorized in the 1950s.

So I wrote to Elizabeth Thomson at MIT.

Ms. Thomson,

Some time back I listened to the audio book, "The Goal", Eliyahu M. Goldratt, circa 1993-94. The premise of this business book was to apply physics understanding of interdependent events to improve productivity.

Application to traffic seemed obvious. Interdependent events, cars following each other in lane of traffic, combined with statistical variation - the different acceleration and braking rates of vehicles, determined by vehicle loading and capacity, and driver inclination, are the reason for traffic jams.

Given a vehicle encroaching on the vehicle behind - by driving slower, entering a busy lane too close to the following vehicle, or braking for a real or perceived hazard, causes all vehicles behind to slow. Unfortunately, the various rates of speed recovery of the affected vehicles prevents complete recovery of the preceding progress of vehicles down the lane of traffic.

The solution seem obvious to me - enforce existing laws about safe following distances. Enforce laws preventing a vehicle changing lanes to close to a vehicle already in the lane ('cutting off' the following vehicle).

Safe following distances are set by *posted* speed limits, not vehicle speed. Enforce safe following distances even when stopped for the vehicle ahead - and traffic jams will evaporate on their own. You also lose the critical aggregate density of idling vehicles that contributes to dense air pollution due to traffic jams.

I recall my driving-ed instructor explaining about pulling up behind the vehicle ahead when stopping at a stop light. I believe this "common sense" rule actually violates traffic laws regarding safe following distance - and compromises the ability of roads to handle heavy traffic rates. In all instances, I think keeping the prescribed safe following distance from the vehicle ahead *accelerates* traffic throughput as a function of vehicles per unit of time.

When a driver experiences dismay or fear at road conditions, and expresses distress by slowing, I consider that a "flinch". Flinching occurs when someone changes lanes or enters the roadway too close to oncoming traffic, and any oncoming driver slows whether to avoid an accident, or because they, rightly or wrongly, fear the potential of a collision. The flinch affects cars behind, because they then flinch - and pull closer to the vehicle ahead as the vehicle speeds decline. This compression of vehicle spacing in distance is directly related to a compression of vehicle spacing in time - and each vehicle will recover some or all of the previous speed, depending on space to the vehicle ahead, speed of preceding vehicles, etc.

The region where traffic compression in time occurs can be thought of as a source of vehicles. Until all vehicles involved have been released from the compression, that is, the traffic jam works it's way through, the likelihood is that additional vehicles will continue to arrive at the back of the queue and stacked up for later release, before all preceding vehicles compressed in time and distance are released at their lower speed and higher density. The higher density, or compressed time, restricts the ability of any individual vehicle to resume free-road speed and separation in time and distance.

My solution is to ticket everyone in a traffic jam that comes to rest or approaches the vehicle ahead within the safe following distance. This brings awareness of this particular law to the attention of drivers. Avoiding tickets by coming to rest safely spaced, drivers reduce the constraint on easing the traffic jam by relaxing the compression restraint that slows relief of the jamiton.

This is a community-type suggestions. A driver does nothing for himself/herself by maintaining a safe following distance (except for reduction in driving stress, reduction in risk of collision, and avoiding violation of the laws about safe following distances). Traffic wise, the driver that maintains the safe following distance only reduces the likelihood that some drivers *behind* the vehicle will be involved in a slow-down. Keeping the safe distance back reduces the likelihood of a flinch, and the reduced compression factor permits release of the jam before it forms - before another vehicle can arrive in the region and experience the cascading compression we call a traffic jam.

Brad Kruse
Ponca City, OK

A Troubled Barack Hussein Obama - wants violence off TV

Rachel Lucas' blog (I don't think this blog means what you think it means) touched on the recent election in Iran, “God help the people of Iran. We sure won’t.” and the way conservative British accounts deride Obama's weak response. (Obama, VP Biden, Sec'y State Clinton all made public statements, that they wouldn't comment on the election in Iran.)

Last night one commenter pointed out that Obama made a statement:

“I am deeply troubled by the violence I have been seeing on television. I think the democratic process, free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they are troubled.”

The commenter, mightysamurai, criticized the weakness of the statement, that "troubling" was the strongest that could be said of the violence, censorship, and brutality of officials of the Ahmadinejad government.

My own feeling is

POTUS Barack Hussein Obama is fully and completely backing Iran’s Ahmadinejad. He finds it troubling to find violence *on television*. Get the TV cameras turned off, and both will be much happier.

Another commenter pointed out how quickly Obama could hound a GM CEO out of office, but won't criticize a brutal tyrant that happens to have oil - and an army - for resources. Perhaps Obama is thinking appeasement will work with this tyrant, since he is a Muslim believer, after all. That, and Obama's actions don't hold up so well, if you look at the legality of some of his actions (dismantling and parceling out Chrysler and GM, firing an investigator annoying one of Obama's buddies, signing an Executive Order requiring Federal construction use only Union labor, in defiance of states passing Right To Work laws, etc.) I still wonder at what a new President could have done to try to influence the Supreme Court, that caused Judge Souter to retire.

Obama certainly seems sympathetic with Ahmadinejad's moves to silence dissenters rather than defend free speech. Just ask Rush Limbaugh about attacks from the White House.

There are still rumblings and dissent in the US. Perhaps Barack Hussein Obama is concerned that he will need to be stifling the cameras to keep violence and protest from "troubling" Americans, at least, the Americans supporting Oh! Bummer!

PM: Barack Hussen Obama - a Secret Agenda?

Nathan at One Man's Vote highlights a letter that has been floating about the blogosphere, an open letter to President Barack Hussein Obama.

Mr. Pritchett, according to Snopes, is a former vice president of Proctor & Gamble.

Snopes.com is a respected online authority that chronicles and reports authenticity of myths, urban legends - and questionable statements.

The letter runs down a startling list of actions and background influences in the Obama administration that just don't add up. You could not make a better background for an Al-Queda, organized crime, or Muslim puppet intent on weakening or destroying the US.

Barack Hussein Obama is so darned smart - he tells us so, often - but keeps repeating egregious errors. Chris Muir's DayByDayCartoon.com comic strip refers to the insanity of the "stimulous" package demonstrated at politicalmath.wordpress.com as well as elsewhere.

Are Pelosi and Reid unwitting dupes in a move deliberately designed to cripple the US' ability to respond to threats, to drain the economy to ruin, and to disable America? Because it sure looks like that is the President's agenda.

Treason or stupid - I don't see much of any other explanation for President Barack Hussein Obama's inadequacy.

Obama - Still violating the Constitution's protection of gun ownership

Billll's Idle Mind calls to attention this report, of Obama using foreign agencies and treaties to get around Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms (the 2nd amendment).

The President of the United States is tasked with creating and exercising foreign policy in the name of the United States. Any treaties are signed by the President - but must be ratified, or confirmed, by the US Senate before they become binding on America.

President Clinton signed this Organization of American States (about Latin America) treaty. But the Senate at the time would not ratify it. Points of the treaty that concern me include registration, denying licenses to gun dealers, and wording that prevents use of firearms "that may or are suspected" to violate human rights. A tyrant, someone intent on disarming opposition, would find language like this sufficient to say, "Why, a gun can be used to hurt someone. So, we can't allow anyone to have a gun. Except for people that work for me, of course."

Gun violence is increasing here in heartland America. Drive-by shootings and neighborhood shootings in Ponca City, OK, are more prominent and frequent than in previous years - and involve more drug deals and often Mexicans, indicating drug cartel involvement. Ponca City is a rural community, about 25,000 people, in quiet northern Oklahoma.

Laws do not disarm criminals. They disarm the law-abiding. Time after time, communities that have passed ordnances requiring every head of household to own and possess a firearm - see crime rates drop. On the other hand, gun-free zones such as schools, shopping malls, and college campuses have been the traditional setting for mass shootings - the shooter is promised a lack of opposition.

There is a perspective that one that does not carry a legally licensed, concealed carry weapon is as much to blame for hazards in their community as the thugs carrying guns to commit robberies, assaults, and murders. Tyrants in particular, as Machiavelli pointed out in 15th century Italy, focus first on disarming the populace before taking advantage of the state.

Whether Obama would be a threat to the people of the US, after disarming the nation, isn't the real problem. The real problem is that a disarmed United States would be too tempting a target for foreign nations and criminal elements, as well as corrupt local influences, to leave intact and unassailed. Just look at our schools, our shopping malls, our college campuses for the effect disarming and bans on guns have on the lawless.

Dealergate, Redistributing the wealth - of political opponents.

Apparently, POTUS (President of the United States) Barack Hussein Obama has no problem with making his friends richer. It seems all a Chrysler dealer had to do to survive the cutbacks - was to avoid contributing to the Republican party.

It isn't rumor. Chrysler dealers that contributed to the Republicans, or maybe failed to contribute to the Democrats - are the dealerships that Chrysler/Obama/UAW are closing.

You can read about the deal on blogs.
Doug Ross @ Journal RED ALERT: Did anti-Obama campaign contributions dictate which Chrysler dealers were shuttered?

As an employee of one of the affected dealerships... First, this isn't just Chrysler's decision. They were forced into bankruptcy by President Obama. .. My dealership is in the top 125 out of the 3500 plus dealerships nationwide...yet we are on the list. We are not small nor are we rural. We are in a large major metropolitan area... Secondly, Chrysler is already "shopping" for dealers to take over the open "points" (another name for franchise) left by the closed dealerships. ... Lastly, and more importantly, every state has franchise law in affect that protect companies from this very thing - being forced out of business under the cloak of bankruptcy with out the benefit of due process. This is illegal!

US News & World Report Are Democrats Behind Closing Republican-Owned Chrysler Dealerships?

It may well be that America's automobile dealers are more Republican as a group; therefore any list of them would almost certainly contain more Republicans than Democrats. So it is terribly premature to allege, as some are already doing, that this is some kind of political retaliation by the White House and the labor unions against Republican donors.

On the other hand it does raise some questions that it are fair to ask and should be answered.

In May when the announcement came that some dealerships would be closing - it wasn't clear to me why. Why fire sales people if you are still selling product? Servicing purchased cars has always been lucrative business - one reason the service shops all have a salesroom out front is to maintain their service business flow.

Then the 800 dealers - of 3200 - were announced. And the closing dealers can all be traced back to patterns of political donations, to Republican action committees and candidates.

Realistically, the United Auto Workers union holds 55% ownership in Chrysler, per the Government agreement. So the closings may actually be union driven. It is no secret that labor unions tend to agitate around elections, and sponsor "public interest" advertising that just happens to support Democrat policies and candidates, and/or smearing Republican candidates and proposals. The "non affiliated" advertising has long been a bonus for Democratic candidates - they get the ads out, and the Unions pay for them. This makes Democrat ad money go further.

So what if the labor unions are targeting dealerships - to reduce campaign contributions that they will be opposing in upcoming elections?

Whether organized labor Democratic party, POTUS Barack Hussein Obama/Michelle Obama's own private agenda, or the money guys backing Obama back in Chicago - this slant on closing businesses of political opponents seems to me to be interfering in a federal election.