Fresh on the heals of Keith Ellison defying all logic and facts and coming to the conclusion if people had more money they wouldn’t be broke, Eleanor Holmes Norton has dropped this bit of wisdom on us as well:
Kinda curious, if the thugs prefer empty premises, why does DC have one of the highest murder rates in the country?
OK, see if this logic makes sense: If they were responsible gun owners in the first place, the ban would never have been necessary now would it? We didn’t concern ourselves too much with the people who had guns and never used them and kept them properly stored. We read about the people who broke the law and used them. Kinda like cars. We don’t concern ourselves too much with someone driving right. When someone kills someone with a car, THEN we deal with it. But, no one has banned the car. And, trust me, cars can be a lot more lethal than a pistol.
Anyways, what Ms. Holmes Norton is NOW suggesting is rather than allowing only the criminals to have guns against a defenseless law-abiding society, she just wants to allow only criminals to OWN guns against a defenseless law-abiding society.
Big whuppin difference dontcha think?
Know what I think? I think it would be a good idea for every criminal to think there was someone at home ready to defend their property and more than capable of doing it. So, I’d be encouraging everyone in DC to rush out and buy a gun and learn how to use it safely. If they chose not to buy one, then no one’s the wiser. Including the thugs responsible for one of the highest murder rates in the country in a city with “no guns” and robbing empty premises.
And, if Ms. Holmes Norton needs to look to a community that is safe for ideas, she could look at the very bottom of the list. Plano, TX. I’m sure she knows what Texans think about their guns. Try passing a ban there sometime and see what happens.
17
Jul
Representative Keith Ellison submitted this letter to The Hill blogs:
We have to consider the 30 years of stagnant wages that your average Americans have had to face. That fact is that the reason we have people refinancing their homes, getting home equity loans, getting high rate interest credit cards and petty loans is because wages have been flat. We need to pursue a higher wage strategy. Humphrey-Hawkins required that the Fed not only try to maintain loan inflation, but also increase full employment. Full employment, with the increased productivity rates that we would experience, would have meant that people would have been making more money. If people would have been making more money, people would not be in the difficult, dire straits that they are in today. I think that we have to look beyond just the current crisis in to the larger framework.
What dimension does this guy live in? I’m not sure I’ve ever read a more completely clueless statement in my lifetime.
To wit. “Wages” can otherwise be called “Per Capita Income”. Now, those figures are very easily obtained. If Keith had looked, he would have seen this:
In other words, “wages” have grown 400% over 30 years. What is “stagnant” about that?
Then, we have to look at “full employment”:
We are closer to “full employment” than we were in 1976.
So, the actual evidence is more people are working and making more than they were 30 years ago. Completely contradicting Keith Ellison’s assertion. This guy couldn’t be more wrong if he tried. So, his solution that more people have jobs that pay more money is flawed as well.
So, what is the root of this mess? Paul Krugman I think did the absolutely best job illustrating it.
Paul Krugman illustrates where the problem is
The foreclosure rate for fixed rate loans has dropped substantially since 2000. The Primes have stayed pretty much level. The only area to increase, and to say the least, spike, is the Subprime Adjustable Rate. Now, what does Paul also point to that means something in this discussion?
Paul Krugman illustrates the average price of a house
Starting around 1998 or so, the average price of a house exploded, doubling in about five years. Problem is, there was nothing to support this. People were borrowing twice as much money to build the same house as they did in 1995. Wages were increasing, but not that fast. A lot of this “bubble” was financed, obviously, with risky loans. Now, those risky loans are biting the careless and greedy loaners that issued them. The additional effect is that those risky institutions making those loans also held a lot of traditional loans. As they got in trouble with the risky loans, it affected the more traditional loans. Additionally, since the average price of a house was twice as much, it required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to access more credit. Now, in addition to risky loans hammering the private sector, it is believed that some of those same institutions that were issuing those risky loans, like Indymac, were also sending Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bogus loan applications that should never have been in the traditional mortgages in the first place, thereby increasing the exposure to risky loans for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
So, what needs to be done? In my opinion, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae need to re-examine their portfolio of mortgages received from Countrywide and Indymac. Possibly foreclosing on those that should never have been there in the first place. In the meantime, the feds need to make the traditional market more accessible to safer loans by raising the mortgage limits for applicants.
That’s really about it.
And you know what, that’s already being done.
In the meantime, the companies that ignored the rules will be absorbed in the market place. Countrywide’s already being absorbed, Indymac will be absorbed by someone else I imagine. So, rather than imposing his Utopian dream of a purely communist society, I think Keith Ellison just needs to stay out of issues he clearly is completely clueless about.
And quite frankly Minnesota, you guys have elected a blitehring idiot. Please, for the sake of the rest of the country, do the right thing.
In my opinion, 9/11 was largely the responsibility of Jamie Gorelick. Jamie Gorelick is pure evil. Period. Her name figures prominently in several domestic disasters. Sure, she didn’t break the levees in New Orleans, but it was the climate of non-communication between agencies that contributed to the problems in a substantial way. So yeah, some of the blame for the consequences of Katrina can be attributed to her.
I mean, her name is mentioned in association with:
- Waco
- Ruby Ridge
- Although she handled the Oklahoma City bombing fairly competently, it was HOW the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents were handled, in a large part by Gorelick, that led to the bombing.
- Sandy Berger’s thefts
- Able Danger
- 9/11, repeatedly
- The legal wrong side of the Duke Lacrosse rape case ( which involved, par for course, ignoring obvious evidence. )
- The bad situation of Fannie Mae due to lack of oversight and cooperation with auditors by the board she was a member of.
- And, believe it or not, she’s now part of the exploding gasoline prices crisis as she’s a board member for Schlumberger Ltd. An oil field developer. She was hired there in 2002. Pretty much when the War in Iraq started. You know, the war everyone tried to blame on Dick Cheney and Haliburton. BTW, Schlumberger is a direct competitor to Haliburton. Schlumberger was directed by John Deutch from 1998 until 2007. You remember John Deutch, he was the CIA director who downsized the CIA following the collapse of the Soviet Union and thereby pretty much eliminated our foreign intelligence operations. It was this lack of foreign intelligence that was directly blamed for 9/11. jamie Gorelick’s wall was the other primary reason. John hired Jamie. Schlumberger lost out to Halliburton. Repeating the past, John’s gone now, Jamie’s not. In the meantime, who’s the primary benefactor in the US for NOT driving down the price of oil by developing more wells? You guessed it, Schlumberger vis a vis Jamie Gorelick:
- Of course, they wouldn’t be successful at it if it weren’t for the complete support of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, who REFUSE to do the right thing and allow OTHER companies to do the drilling that Schlumberger apparently refuses to do.
How many more disasters does this woman have to be involved in before CNN and MSNBC out her?
I will admit Jamie Gorelick’s life reads like a movie. Only problem is it would be a bizarro Forrest Gump where horrible things happen to millions of people every time she steps into the picture. It’d probably be a huge hit though.
15
Jul
This has got to be the stupidest/funniest thing I’ve seen in a while:
Once again, the innocent peeps of the US, primarily South Carolinians, were made aware of this very, very, bad idea by a blog, The Palmetto Scoop. The political reaction in South Carolina was fast and furious.
South Carolina governor Mark Sanford said the governor felt it was inappropriate as well. In the article, they mention Sanford is a potential running mate for John McCain. I had never heard this, but it makes the story a little more “national”. Fact is, I don’t think he is.
My second thought on this is who at the state level would have thought this was an idea that didn’t merit public input? I mean, it’s public tax dollars at work here, I think the public should have been made aware that a PR campaign to attract alternative lifestyles to their neighborhood was being pondered.
The tourism department quickly said it was canceling payment of its $5,000 fee for the posters, which it said were approved by a low-level state worker who did not run the idea by senior officials. The employee, who was not identified, resigned last week, the agency said.
Now, I don’t just quite buy that a major PR campaign targeting another country to attract alternative lifestyles would be made by a “low-level state worker” without anyone else knowing about it. Now, I think that “low-level state worker” should be fired for being so inconsiderate of who’s money they were spending. But, I think their supervisor probably needs to go as well for being so clueless as to what their subordinates are doing.
In the big picture of things, if South Carolina doesn’t want to appeal to gays, it’s no big deal to me. There’s not really a whole lot to do in South Carolina that couldn’t be done somewhere else. For example, my friends recently took their two very young, impressionable, girls to Dollywood for a family getaway. Once they got there, turned out it was “Out at the Park“. If you go to Disney World the first week of June, you can be assured to see lots of gays there that week as well. And, of course, there’s always New Orleans, Miami, and Key West. Being straight there just kinda seems out of place. So, the fact that South Carolina wants to have a particular PR angle of appealing to people with kids that don’t really want to explain what “gay” is to five year olds is a pretty good angle to me. In fact, at this point in my life, it’s a lot more appealing than Dollywood, Disneyworld, New Orleans, Miami, or Key West.
Now, the hook against South Carolina’s values was given as:
Gay tourism is a $64.5 billion market in the United States, the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association estimates, and more than 75 cities around the world have gay-themed campaigns that create no controversy.
The issue here is how many “normal” tourism dollars are lost by people who don’t want to subject their small children to alternative lifestyles? Used to I’d go to any theme park without hesitation. Now, I think twice about places like Dollywood and Disney World because there is no telling what will be there. Now, granted, the peeps at Dollywood were a lot more discreet than the peeps at Disney World, it’s still just not something I want to explain to my very inquisitive five year old boy. I don’t want to tell him what they’re doing is wrong, and I sure as hell don’t want him thinking what they are doing is something he should be doing as well. So, rather than risk it, I’ll double-check which alternative lifestyle is frequenting the park and see if it falls within an acceptible range of what I want my child exposed to at a family theme park.
Or, I’ll just take the family to Myrtle Beach again and take the kid to Disney World when he’s eighteen.
14
Jul
Here’s the story:
Some say Pixar is pushing the message that overweight people are draining the resources of the planet and perpetuating the myth that obese are lazy and gluttonous.
There’s only one problem I have here, it’s all based on wrong information. Whoever these people are protesting, they obviously haven’t seen the movie. If they had, they’d know that this is what destroyed Earth:
And due to the thin man detroying the Earth, over many generations, man no longer had a need to walk, and therefore devolved into muscleless blobs.
This is soooo typical to me of so much outrage in the world. Complete ignorance. I also dealt with a post from somewhere else that claimed bailing private corporate monsters Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was yet another example of US government fascism. Fascism? Let’s look closer:
..a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
OK, someone want to explain to me how raising the credit line of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac constitutes an example of fascism? It’s not even a lender in the purest sense. It just purchases mortgages from local banks so they can allow other people to get mortgages. It doesn’t “regiment” commerce, it expands it for the private sector. The word “fascism” has absolutely no bearing at all in debating whether the government expanding their line of credit has merit or not. None. And, obese people being offended with Wall-E is eqaully ignorant as well.
I just wish people would do an iota of research before being outraged.
Barack Obama’s having a rough week.
First, he did the very odd thing of stating very publicly he liked President Bush’s Faith Based Initiative so much he wanted to expand it. That drew the ire of the Reverend Jesse Jackson:
Now, I don’t think the reverend was terribly upset that Obama wanted to expand the opportunities for religious social programs to do good, I think it was because he did the unthinkable and supported a wildly conservative President’s idea. Luckily for Obama, people have focused more on his nuts and not on the fact that it was spoken by a wildly liberal, race baiting African American. This is the core of Obama’s support ( wildly liberal, not necessarily African American ).
Then to further antagonize the wildliy liberal Russ Feingold offered this piece of advice for Obama:
To which Obama’s immediate reaction to Feingold was:
| Akaka (D-HI), Nay Alexander (R-TN), Yea Allard (R-CO), Yea Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Nay Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Bond (R-MO), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Nay Brown (D-OH), Nay Brownback (R-KS), Yea Bunning (R-KY), Yea Burr (R-NC), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Cardin (D-MD), Nay Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Clinton (D-NY), Nay Coburn (R-OK), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Coleman (R-MN), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea DeMint (R-SC), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Nay Dole (R-NC), Yea |
Domenici (R-NM), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Ensign (R-NV), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea Feingold (D-WI), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Gregg (R-NH), Yea Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay Levin (D-MI), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea Martinez (R-FL), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea |
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay Sessions (R-AL), Not Voting Shelby (R-AL), Yea Smith (R-OR), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay |
Now, even the ACLU condemned this piece of legislation. So, we’ve got Rev. Jesse Jackson, ACLU, And Russ Feingold condemning Obama in about a week. That’s pretty tough for any candidate. Now, all of them have said they’re still hot for Obama. But, it seems a little more shallow now than it did last week to me. Even the wildly liberal DailyKos couldn’t find it in their soul to look for an upside to this. He did however, remarkably find a way to blame it on Republicans and media. ( Clue here Kos guys, Obama did the deed because he’s scared to death about an issue. How often will he capitulate on other conservative issues like, oh, let’s say, Faith Based Initiatives? )
Bottom line, this has been a rather disastrous week for Obama. Is he dead in the water? No way. He’s fresh, he’s enthusiastic, and he’s got Hollywood and main stream media completely in his pocket. However, the more he panders to the issues he’s staked his career by opposing to this point, the less enthusiastic his core will become. And, if he thinks by pandering to the conservatives will make them forget his previous history, he’ll learn a very powerful message in politics: Convservative voters never forget. Liberal voters generally tend to be a lot more flexible. However, it was Bush’s pandering to the “center” early in his presidency that cost him his unfettered support of his core. And, for the next eight years, he’s had only tepid support since. It was only the incredibly inept candidacy of John Kerry that kept him in office. The problem for Obama in my opinion, is John McCain is no John Kerry.
Via See-Dubya at Michelle Malkin’s blog, with an assist from Gasbuddy:
Apparently Nancy is finally starting to feel the heat. So, she came up with the ultimate solution her feable mind could produce:
Now, I’m going to make this as simple as possible. Basically she’s stating that by releasing 30 million gallons, we could drop the price of oil by five dollars a gallon. Here is why this is screwed:
- In 1990, the price of crude was about $23.00 a barrel. Dropping the price $8 meant a about a 33% drop in the price of gas. The price of gas at the pump dropped from about $1.27 to about $1.01. That meant something.
- In 2000, the price of crude dropped from $30.94 to $20.38. That meant something. THe price at the pump peaked at about $1.65, then dropped to $1.38 by the end of the year. Although a 16% drop, it was quickly erased within six months of 2001.
- In 2005, the problem was not a market issue, but rather a one-time event that disrupted the US’s ability to refine crude. By releasing the strategic reserve, it simply kept the supply going until the rigs and refineries could be repaired.
Now, the point is, 30 million gallons in 1991 supplied about 2 days of US average consumption. In 2000, it supplied about one and a half days. I don’t count 2005 because that was a very proper reaction to an extinuating event the strategic reserve is actually designed for. In 2008, it still is about one and one half days. In 1991, it had an impact on price. In 2000 it basically did not. What would be the difference? See if this makes sense:
| 2000 | 4.797 | 19.701 | 52.167 | 76.665 |
| 2001 | 4.918 | 19.648 | 52.836 | 77.403 |
| 2002 | 5.162 | 19.762 | 53.116 | 78.040 |
| 2003 | 5.580 | 20.034 | 54.002 | 79.616 |
| 2004 | 6.438 | 20.732 | 55.158 | 82.327 |
| 2005 | 6.721 | 20.802 | 56.129 | 83.652 |
| 2006 | 7.201 | 20.687 | 56.816 | 84.705 |
| 2007 | 7.578 | 20.698 | 57.267 | 85.543 |
| 2008 | 8.017 | 20.296 | 58.087 | 86.400 |
| 2009 | 8.420 | 20.339 | 58.999 | 87.758 |
That is a chart showing world consumption. In 2000, the US consumed about 19.701 million barrels a day. Projected for 2009, the US is about 20.339. Now, that’s not much of an increase. In 1991, it was about 16 million. Bottom line, the US isn’t using much more than we did in 1991. Taking into consideration the economic growth since 1991, the US is actually profoundly more efficient than it was in 1991. Now, that first column of figures about doubles in the last ten years. That folks, is China. The fourth column is the rest of the world besides the US and China. Now, where the problem is, is that in 2000, OPEC was a surplus supplier. They were producing more than they were selling. Now, the reverse is true due exclusively to the fact that China and the rest of the world are demanding more. Not the US. Does it get any clearer than that?
Apparently not to Nancy.
She still refuses to encourage any production that would offset the supply that OPEC can not meet. The result of OPEC not being able to meet that demand is skyrocketing crude prices. Even simple math should tell her that $8, being a 33% drop in crude that resulted in a 25% drop in gas price didn’t get the full value of the crude discount. There’s an 8% discrepency. So, doing the math, if she gets $8 on $145, which is 5.5%, and loses the same 8% of that, that would be a 5% cut on price. That folks, would amount to 21 cents on $4.15. The price of gas rose faster than that last week alone. And, given the world demand that we are so reliant on, I doubt we’d get even that because OPEC will simply sell that 30 million barrels to someone else, China or India I’m sure would take it in a heartbeat. And, then, we’d have to re-supply teh SPR at a much higher price anyway or risk complete collapse economically if another Katrina does occur.
Simple fact here Nancy, there are no magic bullets. We have to re-think and re-tool our supply mechanism before this goes away. And, until this goes away, we will not be in a position to shake down OPEC like we could twenty years ago.
Do I think Nancy Pelosi is truly that stupid? Yes I do. However, I truly believe there are a lot of people in this country that will buy her hrhetoric simply because they love to hate our President.
An article today pointed to the fact that not all National Rifle Association members are against Obama. Heck, Obama even has the support of the American Hunters and Shooters Association. Hey, since it has the words “hunter” and “shooter” in its title, it’s got to be about guys who like to shoot things with guns, and therefore a competitor to NRA. Right?
Not so fast.
This is not the Hunter’s Shooter Association. That’s where the buck drops. For that matter, it’s not about shooting guns at all. It’s about protecting the places where a person might hunt. And, it’s about hunting without guns, since they are very vocal anti-gun activists, while stating very publicly otherwise. The damning evidence to me personally is this statement:
Today, Justice Scalia confirms what AHSA has long advocated: Americans enjoy an individual right to keep and bear arms, but that right is not unlimited. As Justice Scalia wrote:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…
They crop off the rest. The rest is more important legally than the part they quote. It defines the limitations. And, those limitations are very distinct and clear. It does not limit a person’s ability to OBTAIN a firearm, it defines what conditions a person might LOSE that firearm. It also defines what might be considered “unusual weapons”. This folks, is about as deceptive as you can get while quoting the Supreme Court.
They then go on to support the FBI’s ability to screen gun applicants. Now, that sounds fine and good, but, that puts control over who does, and does not have, the right to bear a firearm directly in the hands of the federal government. Which is EXACTLY what Heller vs DC decided, of which they quoted Judge Scalia. The right to bear arms is unlimited, the right to KEEP arms is limited. So, which is it AHSA?
Basically, this bunch strikes me as being a front for a bunch of elitist gun control activists. They have their guns, but want the ability to make sure some people can’t have theirs. And, they think it’s just as important that hunters be kept OFF as much hunting terrain in the US as possible. And, of course, felons, mentally handicapped, and other undesirables just can’t have any guns at all.
That folks, just ain’t how it works. Either the Second Amendment guarantees the right to milita or not. It doesn’t fudge that issue. It is damned impossible to form a militia if the average citizen does not have a firearm. Granted there can be limitations to what a “firearm” is. But, in the day the authors wrote the Constitution, it would have either been a rifle or pistol. Those two in my opinion are off the table for debate. Now, in my perfect world even a felon could have the gun of their choice. Since they were in prison, it wouldn’t do them much good. Mentally handicapped people having guns has never been an issue. It just made political sense since most of them can’t vote the bastards out. So, what is the point of the American Hunters and Shooters Association, which is not the Hunters and Shooters Association, and does not advocate the rights of shooters?
My guess?
“Our party will never be the choice of the NRA and I’m not looking to be the candidate of the NRA,” “Courage means standing up for gun safety, not retreating from the issue out of political fear.” – John Kerry, September 2, 2003
The Democrats were tired of being beaten to death by the NRA. So, wanna guess who this mysterious American Hunters and Shooters Association is endorsng?
Of course, in the article, Schoenke refuses to name how many members he has or how many states he plans to target. But, he will raise a million bucks to support the candidate with a proven history of supporting gun control laws against the candidate with a history of opposing gun control. The logic he uses to base this support for Obama? The fact that McCain supported background checks on gun-show sales. Which, is exactly what they want and what upsets NRA. That folks, merits a multi-million dollar all-out blitz for the candidate who has supported NUMEROUS total gun bans and lives in a community, happily, that bans personal handguns in the home.
This couldn’t get any weirder if I tried to make it up.
Bottom line, this is the bizarro-NRA that CNN and others is using as evidence that the pro-gun crowd is split between Obama and McCain:
And as long as people just look and say “Hey, gun owners love Obama too!”, the media will once again tell you how to think if you don’t fact-check what they are saying. And if you refuse to do so, don’t come whining to me about big brother.
The jam we’re in right now was put in place thirty years ago. In that time, we’ve gone from being an energy exporter to an energy junkie. It really doesn’t matter where we get our hit, so long as we don’t have to accept any responsibility for it. For instance:
- Oil – The Democrats absolutely refuse to allow drilling where our largest reserves are. The coast is off-limits, ANWR is off-limits, national parks is off-limits. On and on it goes. Oil is basically off the table as a short term solution.
- Coal – Harry Reid claims it makes us sick. Even Susan Estrich agrees with Harry on this one, claiming the Republicans are misguided in eveb considering clean coal as an option. Coal is off the table as a short term solution. It doesn’t matter tho, according to Nancy and Harry, much to Susan’s relief, coal is not an option.
- Since we’re not allowing ourselves to drill ourselves out of this mess, people like John Warner are proposing ways to save energy, like lowering the federal speed limit to 55. On the related poll at CNN, 62% of Americans oppose doing that.
- The only nuclear news this week is that the Palo Verde plant might be able stay open a little longer. All the other news is dominated by France, who is wanting to build the world’s largest reactor just so they can say they have the world’s largest reactor. They already have the most. France, to date, has not melted in radioactive waste. In fact, it’s an energy export industry now. Just like the US was thirty years ago. They’re not over-run in nuclear waste either, they re-package it using US technology.
- GM announced it’s having all kinds of problems selling it’s fleet of huge gas-guzzling road hogs. If you look at their web page on this year’s models, it’s dominated by huge gas-guzzling road hogs. Not one single hybrid or electric car is featured.
Bottom line, people just want this problem to go away without sacrificing anything. Folks, that just ain’t happening. People are just going to have to accept the fact that certain needless moral standards are going to have to give or we’re going to dig ourselves into an even deeper energy mess. OPEC knows we’re too proud to beg. They know people like Susan Estrich will be Republican until using unpopular energy options are considered. They know the average guy would rather pay out the butt to drive 70 mph rather than slowing down to ease demand. They know people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid won’t even consider drilling for oil in a forest no man ever sees because they have staked their claim that Republicans sold out to big oil. They know most of the US fears things they don’t understand and won’t take the time to do the research to understand nuclear. They know all this. We blast it all over CNN and Foxnews for all the world to see. Hollywood makes movies every year telling the world we’ll have to live in a spaceship for 700 years because we’re trashing the Earth or something of the sort. Even if we try to bluff OPEC by saying we’re drilling for new oil in North Dakota, Nancy and Harry come back as quick as they can to tell the world that they think all fossil fuels are bad and they won’t allow anything more than what we’re doing now. Their solution is the path we’re on now. Make gas and coal so expensive the average guy will go out and buy all the other options.
The only problem is, Nancy and Harry, right now, there are no other options and the economy’s tanking because of that. And, if the economy continues to tank, we won’t have the resources necessary to develop those other options any time soon. And, if that happens, people like us will start building houses with fireplaces and burn trash to subsidize our heating bills. And, when that happens, which I’m sure it already is to some degree, Nancy can kiss her global warming initiatives good-bye. And when oil does run out completely, unless the Nancy’s and Harry’s are actually developing new energy sources instead of bizarre pie-in-the-sky assumptions like “preferring solar”, global warming will no longer even be an issue because people will be burning whatever they can get their hands on to stay warm and riding on horses that fart every quarter mile.
And, as long as people across the US give the Nancy’s and Harry’s a pass for doing nothing but aggravating the situation, we’re heading down that road a lot faster than people think.
At this point in time, McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush. That doesn’t surprise me too much. However, we have Obama running with Bush’s Faith Based Initiative while touting McCain as “four more years of Bush“.
What makes that situation even more fun is if you Google “Obama four more years of Bush”, you get “Obama FOR more years of Bush”. Even the internets can’t keep it straight apparently.
