There's gold in them-thar emissions

Back in 2007, the EPA succeeded in perhaps one of its most consequential schemes ever. That was the year the Supreme Court held, in Massachusetts v. EPA, that the agency had the authority to regulate so-called greenhouse gases as it does general types of pollution.

Think about this. Throughout the history of the EPA, we've all understood pretty well what air pollution is. It's something we've put into the air that doesn't belong there. So particulate matter and even finer elements have always been a big deal. Smog, acid rain, etc. It's not hard to understand and we've pretty much rid ourselves of those problems relative to our past habits, both from vehicles and industry.

But WAIT. Apparently, some of the naturally-occurring elements in the universe are also a problem. Mind you, anything that occurs in a high enough concentration can kill or do bad things. But no, that's not what we are talking about. For example, I believe Carbon Monoxide is a greenhouse gas. Well, of course that can kill you, as anyone will tell you. Why else do we have all these new fancy detection devices in every new home?

Except, if you notice, the levels (parts per million measurements) dictated by the EPA demonstrate that the regulations have nothing to do with harmful effects. Indeed, the regulators acknowledge that concentrations aren't the problem. The globe is pretty forgiving in how these naturally-occurring atmospheric gases are dispersed.

So how did these gases, which in the atmosphere have no ability to harm anyone, suddenly become pollutants? Well, they will eventually kill us all through global warming, apparently.
That's right, the U.S. Government now sets air quality standards based on something other than air quality.

And....
As usual, there is money to be made. BP Cherry Point Refinery, through a Northwest Clean Air "Agency" grant, has awarded nearly $3.2 million to Whatcom County projects in order to offset its upcoming carbon footprint expansion. 

In a cruel twist of irony, the refinery is only increasing its greenhouse gas output due to a new low-sulfer diesel production facility. That's right, an effort to fight REAL pollution is causing the plant to run afoul of EPA greenhouse gas standards. So they voluntarily find an "authority" like the Clean Air group and funnel money to a bunch of local pet green projects that, until now, would have been pie in the sky. Mind you, we have no idea how effective some of these efforts will be anyway, which is why no one is funding them privately in the first place.

Read more »

Wasting his time or ours

"The logic that they can persuade us to negotiate through sanctions is just a failure,"
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — Monday, 26 July, 2010



Did Saddam ever taunt us like this? I mean, the argument from appeasers and co. has always been that sanctions equal an effective means of getting someone's attention. Then you have Russia saying (convincingly) they will only drive them away from the table. Similarly you have China sabotaging efforts to bring North Korea to talks. Read more »

Upside down

Via Powerline blog:

"We thought we'd never see the day when the President of France shows more resolve than America's Commander in Chief for confronting one of the gravest challenges to global security. But here we are."

Canada toys with deserter protections

This is always an interesting topic — the Canadian sentiment toward American deserters. It's near and dear to me, since I have a cousin who left the U.S. to avoid Vietnam service. He's done pretty well for himself in B.C. Every time I hear someone mention the town in which he settled, I ask if they know so-and-so. You'd be surprised how many answer yes.

So Canadians are still in this same mood of providing sanctuary to those who desert...

The bill, introduced by the Liberal Party's Gerard Kennedy, would allow other countries' military deserters to stay in Canada if their refusal to serve is based on sincere moral, political or religious objections.

Parliament has already voted twice to support war resisters, but those were non-binding motions.

Most war resisters in Canada are U.S. military personnel who have refused to participate in the Iraq War on the grounds that it's illegal and immoral.

There are thought to be about 200 American military deserters who have come to Canada to avoid service in Iraq.

Except it's more. After all, military service is now voluntary. Why would you want to give someone a chance to escape what they truly committed themselves to doing? It's pathetic.

Draft-dodgers? Not anymore. Just cowards.

Required viewing

This is a half-hour of your life you will not regret investing if you haven't heard this speech. Not much changes. Just the numbers.

Thoughts on work, value and growth

Yes, it's a pretty depressing time. Everyone knows it -- even those who profess to have "hope" in the government. Even they can feel it. Only problem is, they can't tell you why.

That's not the only problem, mind you. Many others who have no faith or hope in the government (like me and hopefully you), can't articulate what the problem is either.

Why is it wrong to give money to automakers? No one knows, of course, because they don't know why they are failing. Many of them don't realize that you and I are the objective reason why this economy can't recover. Never before in our nation's history has a good work ethic been so closely connected with the nation's well being.

Allow me to illustrate it with some personal experience:

I was talking recently to a veteran of the company I work for (which I won't disclose). He shared with me a time in the past when his manager purposefully backed up jobs in the plant and took longer with each one, much to the chagrin of those who had a life and wanted to get home to their wife and kids. As was evident to everyone under him, he did this so he could rack up as much overtime hours as he could.
*End of personal experience*

What is you're reaction to this kind of man? In a good economy, a lazy plant manager like this can often get away with it -- since he is often able to establish the long hours as status quo and the company, which has no shortage of business, can still make money.

In a bad economy, because of this man's actions, the company will be unable to lower prices because it costs so much to produce goods that other companies can produce cheaper. If the business is smart, it feels free to take a hard look at the plant's operation and search for ways to become more efficient. If they discover the manager's dishonesty, they will either correct his actions or replace him. Either way, the plant will become more efficient in order to produce goods at the prices consumers can afford.

Simple?

Unless...

...someone tells you that the business has no right to make an arbitrary decision regarding the manager who has worked for decades at the company -- someone like a union boss who is looking out for the thief and the lazy man. So the business is unable to fire the person who is costing them money. The high costs keep getting passed to consumers, who look for competitors, or find ways to live without the product. Company sells or goes bankrupt, costing everyone their job.

Do people know that one man's bad work ethic can cost dozens of jobs if he is not justly fired? It's a simple but profoundly ignored truth that man will take as much as he can get with as little work as possible. If you tell a business owner that he has no authority to demand and reward high productivity and efficiency, you essentially give him no ability to provide any job in the first place because no one will advance based on merit.

Bring out your dead

Detroit...in happier times.

Can someone tell me something hopeful about this city? I agree it may seem like this reporter is sensationalizing it, but this story actually seems quite measured in its approach to the issue and the particular incident.

The incident was a dead man which stayed in the bottom of an elevator shaft in an abandoned building, even though people know he was there for some time.

"Why didn't your friend call the police?"

"He was trespassing and didn't want to get in trouble," the caller replied. As it happens, the caller's friend is an urban explorer who gets thrills rummaging through and photographing the ruins of Detroit. It turns out that this explorer last week was playing hockey with a group of other explorers on the frozen waters that had collected in the basement of the building. None of the men called the police, the explorer said. They, in fact, continued their hockey game.

Later we find, many of the homeless people living in the building just assumed someone else would call the authorities.

A colony of homeless men live in the warehouse. Wednesday morning a few fires were burning inside oil drums. Scott Ruben, 38, huddled under filthy blankets not 20 paces from the elevator shaft.

"Yeah, I seen him," Ruben said. The snow outside howled. The heat from the can warped the landscape of rotting buildings and razor wire.
...
His shack mate, Kenneth Williams, 47, returned at that point with an armload of wood.

"Yeah, he's been down there since last month at least."

I have heard similar stories about New York City and how people just assume someone else will deal with it, even if there is a dead man in their path -- and that from the same person who had interesting stories about Detroit.

Bush's loosened tongue

Our president is making a hard push to defend American capitalism. If only he was doing this his whole term and working to push our economic system toward something free. His current defense acts as if we are already free. We aren't but I'm glad he pushing back against those ready to completely destroy the free market.

Here is the story about his speech in New York and an excerpt below.

"Ultimately, the best evidence for free market capitalism is its performance compared to other economic systems," Mr. Bush said Thursday. "Free markets allowed Japan -- an island nation with few natural resources -- to recover from war and grow into the world's second-largest economy. Free markets allowed South Korea to make itself one of the most technologically advanced societies in the world. Free markets turned small areas like Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan into global economic players. And today, the success of the world's largest economies comes from their embrace of free markets.

"Meanwhile, nations that have pursued other models have experienced devastating results. Soviet communism starved millions, bankrupted an empire, and collapsed as decisively as the Berlin Wall. Cuba, once known for its vast fields of cane, is now forced to ration sugar. And while Iran sits atop giant oil reserves, its people cannot put enough gasoline in their cars.

"The record is unmistakable: If you seek economic growth, if you seek opportunity, if you seek social justice and human dignity, the free market system is the way. The triumph of free market capitalism has been proven across time, geography, culture, and faith. And it would a terrible mistake to allow a few months of crisis to undermine 60 years of success."

'Gun free' no more

I've been waiting for this. After all, it's not like we can have undercover student cops, like we have air marshals flying among airplane passengers. We finally have a school district in the U.S. where teachers can carry firearms.

Trustees at the Harrold Independent School District approved a district policy change last October so employees can carry concealed firearms to deter and protect against school shootings, provided the gun-toting teachers follow certain requirements.

In order for teachers and staff to carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations and have to use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.

Maybe it will also have the added effect of making kids pay attention in class.

Ron Paul regression part 2

I suspected I might need to follow the previous entry up, but not this soon -- but here we are, thanks to Casey and his comments on the imported Facebook note.

The first thing that needs to be clarified is one point I alluded to in the last post but may not have communicated very well (and I may just stick with this topic here). To be specific, the naming of supposed "constitutional principles" as having anything to do with the way we create and maintain our current foreign policy. What I need here is for someone to name the specific part of the constitution that deals with this issue -- the truth is that it simply delegates the power of treaties to the president and the power of war to both the legislature and president. Beyond this, there is no "principle" to tell us exactly what the substance of our foreign policy should be.

That puts the issue squarely into the sphere of conditional policies that depend on what we can learn of both our world situation and our enemies. Just like the Monroe Doctrine was composed as an answer to European interest in the Western Hemisphere. Before that, Washington and Adams had very strong and correct views about our abstinence from involvement with European conflict and ambition. Jefferson turned that on its head and pushed us to be more favorable toward France -- a big mistake -- and we eventually paid for it since we were in no way ready.

Washington is often cited for his advice to keep clear of such things. He lectures at length on the topic in his farewell address of 1796.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

So what peculiar situation is Washington referring to? He explains it a paragraph before:

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

I'm sad to say first that we are no longer anywhere close to being detached or distant from any other country. Perhaps there are those, as in the 1930's, who believe we can ignore much of the malicious ambitions that that run rampant abroad. Indeed Britain, being separate from the continent, held to a similar policy at various intervals and one can't help but think that their help in "pacifying" Hitler had a great deal to do with the idea that they were detached enough to not have as much at stake. I'm sure the Czech people realized they had been sacrificed for an illusion.

I'm not saying Washington was wrong. He was absolutely right. However, that doesn't mean that Monroe was wrong when he unilaterally extended our sphere of specific influence to the entire Western Hemisphere. The same wisdom was being applied -- the point was the same: to minimize the danger of foreign (European) encroachment.

Washington makes no argument for Ron Paul's "nonintervention" here. Key to recognizing this is the fact that Washington bases our neutrality on our ability to be untouchable. Nations will leave us alone when "under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us..." So the real question to ask in order to bring this issue home is where the bar is today for us to remain impervious to foreign demands? The principle can and should be the same all along.

Ok, that's one more stab for now.

Ron Paul regression

First, let's clear the air:

Dr. Paul has a lot of awesome things to say. I fancy myself somewhat of a libertarian myself -- I strongly support free trade and believe that it is the greatest possible good to the most amount of people. You can't artificially enhance wealth in one area without hurting someone else. You must allow those who have the ability and capital to put it to work and only then are you most likely to improve the people in the poorest bracket (here or abroad). Wealth is not a static number that has to be smoothed out over a large number of people -- all that does is create a large number of poor people. Rather, wealth is created! It is alive and holds potential for more wealth -- I don't believe Jesus was just talking about divine justice when he talked about more being given to the haves. It makes complete sense when you talk about to parable of the talents -- wisdom does not let resources lie dormant.

And now for three crucial problems with Dr. Paul (let's limit ourselves).

First, free trade does not happen in a vacuum. But if I have heard the good doctor correctly, that's the practical result of his logic. He seems to do just fine when talking about the problems with our own government meddling in private enterprise, but as soon as foreign influence is added to the equation, he seems to become a protectionist in spite of himself. Sure he has the same goal as I do -- to keep trade unhindered -- but the result of his proposals would completely stymie the global economy, or at least any investment the U.S. could reasonably make to remain competitive in the global economy. Paul seems oppose pretty much every single "treaty" we are a part of -- basically because they require some kind of subordination. What treaty doesn't, and yet the constitution provides for them. The irony is that we don't participate in a myriad of them out there (International Criminal Court for one) and those that we do (WTO), we often end up bucking anyway -- just ask the Canadians in the softwood lumber dispute. Treaties and mitigating bodies are usually made to discourage protectionism (tariffs), which just hurts everybody.

And moving on to the second problem...

"Noninterventionism."

If Ron Paul were able to map out exactly what this means, then I would be impressed. Because so far, all I've heard is isolationism -- the same brand that gave us WWII.

Call this the basic foreign policy problem. The idea that we can be passive and never get into any trouble is to deny both reality and history. Paul and Co. cite our our first foreign policy (which they also confuse with the original intent of the constitution) as mandating nonintervention (isolation), a gospel principle that means we can never, no matter what the times, think outside our borders. The problem is that we haven't had a policy like that since the Monroe Doctrine gave us a boast in the world. Besides which, we also are faced with the facts that precipitated WWII. One has only to remember Neville Chamberlain's pronouncement that we had achieved "peace in our time" after giving way to Hitler's demands -- and you know the rest of the story.

Additionally, Mr. Paul complains that "often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised." This is indeed true. But to make blanket statements about individual decisions made by multiple administrations with different state departments over a period of several decades, and say you are going to do different *breath* is rubbish. Foreign policy mistakes are inevitable because everyone is hated by someone. You CANNOT make everyone happy by minding your own business and then expect to have a free trade going on.

The third problem with Paul is the one that should be staring everyone in the face -- and ultimately will keep him from getting elected. To be exact he promotes getting rid of the CIA, IRS, et al. Normally this would be something that piques my interest. But try to find a coherent explanation of how this would work (or even a carefully dealt with reason for doing it in the first place), and one comes up short. Granted we all have our frustrations with these various departments and organizations (and I won't even get into all of them), but the fact is, you can't sit back and say "shoot em all" without telling me you have a better idea -- you can't even guarantee that you wouldn't just come up with a worse abuser of power!

I'm going to let this one fly now, having had only sporadic moments over the last month when I could sit and chew on it. I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible in the process, so bear with me.