Timothy Birdnow

If anyone doubts that the lunatics are running the asylum, this story should disabuse that notion:

On 20 May, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that United States currency illegally discriminates against blind people. Noting the difficulty that blind people face in handling paper money, the court held that the federal Rehabilitation Act requires the federal government to change the currency. The majority discussed several methods of making paper money more readable to the blind, including changing the size of the bills and inserting Braille features to allow the blind to determine the denomination of their bank notes.

Without question, the blind face difficulty in handling paper money. However, judges are not currency designers. A court-ordered change in the currency is a solution that is worse than the underlying problem.

From the Federalist Patriot

From Tim:

What next?  A court order to allow Stephen Hawking to sing in the opera?  The world cannot be made just, and the left`s determination to overcome any sort of obstacles in life do little but spread the injustice to the many.  Shafting everybody is not an optimal answer.

It never occured to these twits to let the market address this issue; a scanner would be easy to build that would tell a blind person what bills he or she is handling.  Duhhh!!!  Instead, the courts want to force a multi-billion dollar scheme on the American taxpayer in order to redress a problem peculiar to a few individuals.

But liberal thought is all about spreading the negative rather than building the positive.  Freedom to the left means being unhindered by any sort of built-in limitations, and if that freedom inconveniences others that is too bad.  The concept of freedom held by liberals obligates others to surrender freedoms (and money) of their own, and often to no availe, because the freedom demanded is a freedom from natural limitations, not artificially imposed barriers.

The galling thing is that often the ``rights`` demanded (real rights do not obligate others) are at odds with the majority view, and thus offend those who are being forced to help the individual exercise this supposed freedom.  Consider gay marriage; there is nothing stopping two men from forming any sort of personal covenant or performing any sort of ceremony they wish.  But that is not at issue.  This isn`t a real marriage because it is not legally recognized.  Of course, it is not marriage in any sense of the word, since marriage has a definite meaning and this does not fit the definition.  But that is immaterial, since certain men want a legal blessing to their inappropriate behavior, and demand that all countenance what the many see as immoral.  This is a ``right`` that is entirely predicated on changing the views and behavior of others, and as such is no right at all. 

Consider the many ``rights`` championed by the left; anti-discrimination laws of all stripes, affirmative action, the supposed right to free speech in which the demand is not the right to speak freely but to be heard (Air America and the Fairness Doctrine anyone?)  If the liberals would not speak of these things as rights but as mercies it would be different, because we are all free to convince others of the correctness of our viewpoints.  But the left uses the force of law to impose their vision of what is correct on those who would not comply, thus denying the noncompliant their rights to freedom.  The freedom championed by liberals entails tyranny for those compelled to support those freedoms against their will. 

There is no right to eyesight.  Vision is a gift from God, and blindness is a terrible cross to bear, but the suffering of the individual in no way demands redress by the public at large.  Charity, yes, if given freely, but it does not obligate.  It`s time America wake up to that fact.
 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:24 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 754 words, total size 5 kb.

Eric Trager over at Commentaries has about the return to Frankishness by Zarkosy in his policy blunders in Lebanon.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 2 kb.

Tim, remember the article by Mary Grabar (Yes, Barack Obama, We are Bitter), the English PhD teacher whose mother came from Slovenia and cleaned houses? You posted her article. http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/the_bitter_american_middle_and_white_elitist_snobbery_from_the_obamas
 
Well, now she is setting up a website with photos of regualar people's families that will include immigrants, factory workers, soldiers, farmers, small town folks, etc. I already sent Mary one of my dad in our first small store in the East Bronx, him standing in a narrow isle. Behind him is the small back room where he used to sleep in the afternoon because every day he got up around 5 am to go to work. Mary emailed me back, saying she will include this photo, as well as my comments.
 
I thought you and your readers would be interested in submitting your own photos from your family histories of parents or grandparents who stuggled to make a living and maintained their dignity, even if Barack Obama and his elitist buddies think you are "bitter people who stick to your guns and religion." If you are related to Hillary Clinton, no photos of her drinking beer and shots from the campaign trail, though.
 
Below is the information and the link in Mary Grabar's own words.
 
Jack Kemp
 
Hi, readers.  I'm updating and expanding my web page, and will have a new site that will support a forum and blog for readers who identified with my column, "Yes, Barack Obama, We Are Bitter."

Thanks!
Mary

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

This from Townhall courtesy of Wil Wirtanen:

Futures Markets

By Walter E. Williams

In searching for villains for rising food and oil prices, some commentators have turned to speculators, namely people trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and similar exchanges around the world. A sample of the claims: "Biofuels and droughts can't fully explain the recent food crisis -- hedge funds and small investors bear some responsibility for global hunger." "The global food crisis is likely to persist if speculative investment by the corporate world is not reined in soon, warned a top expert responsible for reporting to the United Nations on human rights violations." "Financial speculators reap profits from global hunger."

Instead of condemning commodity speculation, we ought to recognize the vital function it serves. Let's look at it with a simplified example that captures the essence of speculation in commodity futures markets.

Say that today's price of corn is $6 a bushel. I have a hunch that because of future supply and demand conditions, such as drought, war and increased other uses for corn, that in May 2009 corn will sell for $12 a bushel. I stand to make a lot of money if I buy corn now for $6 a bushel, hold it, and in May 2009 sell it for $12 a bushel. Sure, I've made a bundle of money for myself but is my speculative activity deserving of condemnation? The answer is no; I've served a valuable social function.

Supposing my guess is correct about future supply and demand conditions and corn will be scarcer in the future, what is the socially wise thing to do now so that more will be available in the future? The answer is to use less corn now. How do you get people to voluntarily use less corn now? If you said, "Let the price rise," go to the head of the class. That is exactly what happens as other speculators and I buy corn now. Today's price of corn will be bided up. The result is people will use less corn now and more corn will be available in May 2009 than would be the case if the current price of corn remained at $6. The valuable function of futures markets is that of allocating goods over time. It is wise to take the future into account in decisions that one makes today.

The futures market is no bed of roses. My guess could be wrong. There could be a bumper crop of corn and its May 2009 price might be $3 a bushel. I'd have to sell corn that I bought today for $6 a bushel for $3 in May 2009 and suffer a big loss.

We all are speculators to one degree or another. Last August, my home heating oil company offered its customers a deal. I purchased 900 gallons of oil for a spot price of $2.64 a gallon. I made the purchase with the expectation that oil prices would rise over the winter months. The previous year, I purchased 900 gallons and lost because heating oil fell from the spot price at which it was purchased. Another example is when you expect gasoline prices to be higher next week; you fill up you tank this week.

The futures market, which takes into account both the present and the future availability of goods, is a vital part of a smoothly functioning economy. Unfortunately, that fact provides little comfort to people frustrated over the high prices of food and fuel. As such, it provides fodder for political demagogues, charlatans and quacks who rush in with blame and prepare "solutions" for the problems they themselves have created -- the high prices for food and fuel are directly linked to the policies of the White House and Congress.
 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 635 words, total size 4 kb.

This from Jack Kemp courtesy of Dana Mathewson of Minnesota:

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/05/barack-obama-ran-on-marxist-party-line.html
Thursday, May 29, 2008

Barack Obama Ran On A MARXIST PARTY Line in 1996

It seems that Senator Obama's Old party was called the New Party. The party was a Marxist Political coalition. This was not a guilt by association thing. Senator Obama sought out their nomination. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers. Read more on the Marxist endorsement that Barack Obama sought out:

Co-founded in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison), the New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party.

Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party's Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members.

The New Party's modus operandi included the political strategy of "electoral fusion," where it would nominate, for various political offices, candidates from other parties (usually Democrats), thereby enabling each of those candidates to occupy more than one ballot line in the voting booth. By so doing, the New Party often was able to influence candidates' platforms. (Fusion of this type is permitted in seven states -- Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont -- but is common only in New York.)

Though Illinois was not one of the states that permitted electoral fusion, in 1995 Barack Obama nonetheless sought the New Party's endorsement for his 1996 state senate run. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers.

In 1996, three of the four candidates endorsed by the New Party won their electoral primaries. The three victors included Barack Obama (in the 13th State Senate District), Danny Davis (in the 7th Congressional District), and Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in the 7th Subcircuit Court. All four candidates attended an April 11, 1996 New Party membership meeting to express their gratitude for the party's support.

The New Party's various chapters similarly helped to elect dozens of other political candidates in a host of American cities.

One of the more notable New Party members was Carl Davidson, a Chicago-based Marxist who became a political supporter of Barack Obama in the mid-1990s.

In 1997 the New Party's influence declined precipitously after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that electoral fusion was not protected by the First Amendment's freedom of association clause. By 1998 the party was essentially defunct. Daniel Canto and other key party members went on to establish a new organization with similar ideals, the Working Families Party of New York.- SourceDiscoverthenetworks.org

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 4 kb.

This from the American Prowler, courtesy of Jack Kemp:

 
http://www.theamericanprowler.com/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13292
 
Eminentoes
No, You Can’t
By John Samples
Published 5/30/2008 12:08:15 AM

Much has been made about Barack Obama's difficulties attracting the votes of conservative Democrats. Some say his problems go back to his race. Others cite his comments about guns and religion. Still others say his social liberalism turns off conservatives in both parties. Obama, and liberal Democrats in general, do have a cultural problem with conservative Democrats. But the problem goes well beyond guns and God.

Americans on the whole are optimistic and expect their elected leaders to promise a better future. Americans are generally optimistic because they believe in personal responsibility and the rewards of work. Individuals are in charge of their fates and not the victims of impersonal forces.

In 2005, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 68 percent of the general population agreed that "Most people who want to get ahead can make it if they're willing to work hard." They also found that about 80 percent of Americans agree that "everyone has it in their own power to succeed."

Some Americans, however, are not optimistic. In 2005, the Pew Research Center identified a group called Disadvantaged Democrats. This group is important to Democratic presidential candidates. Voters from this group made up 22 percent of John Kerry's total vote in 2004.

DISADVANTAGED DEMOCRATS differ from most Americans on personal responsibility. Only 14 percent think that people can get ahead by working hard. Seventy-nine percent say that hard work does not guarantee success, and 76 percent hold that view strongly.

The Pew researchers also note that only 44 percent of Disadvantaged Democrats say that everyone has the power to succeed, while 47 percent take the fatalistic view that success in life is determined by forces outside one's own control. Not surprisingly, this group strongly supports more government spending on the poor. For these voters, wealth comes from government largesse rather than individual effort.

Disadvantaged Democrats may not have read John Rawls, but their attitudes are quintessentially liberal. The poor are victims of society, and government does justice by redistributing wealth from the rich (who don't deserve it) to the poor (who do). Hope for a better future comes from the tax man, the social worker, and the guaranteed income.

Culturally Conservative Democrats do not buy this part of liberalism. Pew found that 83 percent of conservative Democrats believe that most people can get ahead if they are willing to work. About 68 percent of the general population shares that view.

The attitudes of Conservative Democrats on personal responsibility are the mirror image of those espoused by Disadvantaged Democrats, even though both groups have similar economic situations. Conservative Democrats are also no more likely than the average person to think government should increase welfare spending.

CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS are also important to Barack Obama's presidential effort. Pew reports such Democrats compose 15 percent of registered voters. Sixty-five percent of Conservative Democrats voted for John Kerry.

John McCain may appeal to Conservative Democrats. Conservative Democrats may see in McCain a fellow traveler on the question of personal responsibility.

Barack Obama has tried hard to avoid being labeled a liberal. However, he has also continually blamed Republicans and business corporations for all the economic challenges faced by voters.

In part, Obama is just running against the status quo like every challenger. But he is also seems to say Americans are victims of the fates and that hope comes from the government. "Yes, we can" is becoming "No, you can't" followed by "here's a program." That inclination could be fatal in the fall.

Yet another path lies open to Sen. Obama who has promised a new politics that transcends the failed ideologies of the past. His claim to be the harbinger of a new politics would be more credible if he jettisoned the liberal shibboleths of victimhood and dependence, a change that would appeal to the culture of Conservative Democrats.

In doing well in this way, Obama might also do good. His endorsement of work, optimism and personal responsibility might encourage Disadvantaged Democrats to adopt the dominant culture of work, success, and real hope.

A politics of "Yes, you can" from the Democratic presidential candidate would be change everyone can believe in, conservatives included.

(John Samples is the director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute and author of The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform.)

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 748 words, total size 5 kb.

This courtesy of Jack Kemp:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05302008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/every_university_a_junkie_113134.htm

EVERY UNIVERSITY A JUNKIE
By NEAL MCCLUSKEY

May 30, 2008 -- FOR a junkie, a "crisis" is being unable to get the drugs he craves. American higher education is just such a junkie - with the federal government acting as the enabler who gives him another fix, rather than pointing him toward rehab.

In its latest beg for a fix, Higher Ed cries that the credit crunch will make it harder for students to get loans. Last week, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings rushed in to enable the junkies - announcing that, if needed to keep aid flowing, her department will buy loans and forward federal money to guaranty agencies to ensure that every eligible student gets as much aid as possible.

Spellings got the go-ahead to keep the aid flow going back in May. In the same law, Congress (responding to Ivory Tower panic) raised the limits on some federal loans and made it easier for parents with bad credit to borrow from Washington.

This is just the latest chapter in Higher Ed's government dependency.

A college can only charge as much as students are willing and able to pay. In recent decades, though, federal (and some state) lawmakers have forked over ever-more money to student aid - enabling colleges to charge exorbitant prices.

Consider the per-pupil cost of tuition, fees, room and board, as tracked by the College Board. At private US four-year institutions, the "price" of college rose to an average of $30,367 for the 2006-07 school year - up 208 percent over the last two decades. At public four-year institutions, the rise was almost 216 percent.

Overall inflation in that period? Consumer prices rose about 84 percent. It's clear that Higher Ed's got a big problem.

How do we know the problem isn't just that colleges' own expenses are rising?

Consider two costs - energy and staff.

Energy costs have ballooned nationwide - but they've risen faster on campus. A recent Forbes analysis found that the cost of "heating, cooling and powering" colleges rose 124 percent between 1983 and 2007, while businesses saw only a 60 percent rise. Our colleges and universities plainly haven't felt the same pressures to achieve energy efficiency.

And, in an era when the private sector has been pruning management fat, Higher Ed's been adding it: Federal education statistics show that the number of campus executives and administrators per hundred students grew by more than a fifth from 1976 to 2005.

In other words, colleges and universities have been able to raise prices with impunity - and even add to their fat - because government's ensured that students can pay.

It's a vicious cycle: Parents and students complain that the cost of college is too high. Politicians, seeking votes, boost aid. Colleges, competing for better-heeled students, offer nicer amenities and charge higher tuition. Parents and students complain again - and the addiction deepens.

The only people with the power to force Higher Ed into rehab are the politicians, who could slow down aid and get the Ivory Tower on the road to recovery. But few pols are willing to engage in "tough love."

Indeed, the credit crunch offered politicians built-in cover to begin weaning Higher Ed off of easy money - by claiming that bigger problems forced their hands. Instead, they once again increased the flow of taxpayer dollars.

There's no other conclusion: The Ivory Tower is addicted to taxpayer cash, and Washington is happy to keep the junkie hooked.

(Neal McCluskey is associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom and author of "Feds in the Classroom: How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples and Compromises American Education.")

End Article

A NOTE FROM TIM

Mr. McCluskey offers a very good argument here; when anything is subsidized the price will invariably rise.  Subsidies are essentially free money, at least to the producer, and here the producers are the Universities who offer an ever-weaker product for an ever-increasing price. 

Government meddling in market economics at the university level is a large part of why the Left has been so successful in turning those institutions into indoctrination machines; the University is more beholden to government largesse than to the customers and the alumni. There is no need to make middle-America happy (the parents, students, and alumni) because they just don`t need their money that badly.  As a result, ideologues are allowed to engage in rants of personal opinion when they are supposed to be conveying information to students.  Tenure is, of course, part of the problem, since professors can guarantee their jobs, but there is no pressured toward reform as long as the financial pipeline stretches from Washington.

It is also a large cause of the decline in education across the board; college now takes the place of high school, spending the first two years teaching basic skills to students.  The notion that everyone deserves to go to college cheapened the value of higher education, and fostered a view that has downgraded each successive level of schooling. Everyone can pass the buck, play stupid games like watching Al Gore`s movie instead of teaching the basic skills because the next grade level can clean up the mess.  The mess gets passed along so that high school seniors are woefully ignorant, and these unprepared and incapable students are therefore encouraged to attend college to finish learning what they should have learned earlier. 

Of course, many do not learn it at all, but the idea that the university level is for ``finishing`` rather than higher education is a powerful inducement to downgrade education across the board. Naturally, if the Federal money is available for college, it MUST be made available for a school system that is failing its students!  The same problems with tenure for incompetent teachers-along with teacher`s unions-spreads this disease to every public educational institution. 

I realize that we`ll never be able to get the Federal money out of education, but we should at least demand accountability; that money should decline for poor performance, not improve.  School that fail in their mission should be squeezed to force them to do better instead of being rewarded for their failure.

This is, of course, much more difficult at the university level, but now impossible.  Frankly, I would love to see student aid drastically reduced, because it would drive prices way down.  Again, it won`t happen, because too many little piglets are feeding off the sow. 

There are ways of increasing accountability; tenure should be revokable if a teacher is failing to actually teach, and what goes on in the classrooms should be under a sunshine law where students may freely tape and report professorial abuses. If a professor of, say, English rants about George Bush for an entire class, he is cheating his students-and their parents. He is charging his students large amounts of money for essentially no work. He should be subject to a revocation of his tenure-or at least the students who object should be able to get a refund on their tuition. The spending of Univesity money should likewise be available under a sunshine law, so that the customers may know they aren`t being cheated.  Students and doners should receive quarterly financial reports, holding the administrators to account. Admission standards should be tightened. 

The idea that professors should be free to do what they wished is an old one, stemming from the Middle Ages and being a necessity when kings were likely to lop off your head for crossing them.  Intellectual freedom meant that the University-then an autonomous political entity-would back a faculty member who offended the sovereign.  Offending the sovereign was easy, and so this idea of tenure was logical then.

But not now; the government does not interfere with research, unless by interfere (as many liberals would claim) it is meant they won`t support offensive research.  Tenure is now a cloak to hide the outrages of radicals masquerading as professors.  The pipeline of government money to these institutions has guaranteed a radicalization of higher education, because the money-without strings-frees those institutions from having to produce a superior product to entice donations and to charge higher tuition.  The radicals can sit ensconced in their secure positions, freed from any sort of pressures to perform to even a minimal standard.  This system is horribly antiquated, and must be changed.

A good start would be to reduce the flow of capital from our pockets to these abusive institutions via Uncle Sam.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1417 words, total size 9 kb.

By Jack Kemp (not the politician):
 
I tried to get my mind off of politics for a while, so I rented the movie "Interview," with Steve Buscemi and Sienna Miller, mostly for the director's (Buscemi's) commentary (I had seen the film in a movie house). Once again, I failed.
 
It turns out, this movie was originally a Dutch film made by Theo Van Gogh, the filmmaker murdered by a Muslim on the streets of Amsterdam for making a short film critical of how Islam treats women.
 
What was most interesting in the interviews with various actors, technical staff, script writers, etc., one person mention that Van Gogh "died" with no further explanation. And only Steve Buscemi stated that he was "tragically murdered." In the actual director's comments, he expanded on that and talked about specifically why he was murdered.
 
So what makes Buscemi the only one with the balls to speak the truth? Well, he's the star and the director of this film. But he is also a former New York City fireman who probably lost a lot of friends on September 11th. And in his comments, he notes in passing that he has worked as a moving man on a truck. Buscemi, like many 1940s actors, comes from regular working people. And he obviously isn't a pretty boy.
 
This made me recall the night at the Oscars in 1978 when Vanessa Redgrave used the platform to denounce Israel to perhaps two billion viewers. The next person at the podium was Richard Dreyfuss, a Jew who then said nothing. In fact, he looked scared to me. According to Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dreyfus
 
"Dreyfuss was born in Brooklyn, New York, the son of Norman, an attorney and restaurateur, and Geraldine, a peace activist.[1] "
END OF QUOTE
 
The next person to the podium was also Jewish, but not so passive. He was screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky. His background was somewhat different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddy_Chayefsky
 
"Born in the Bronx, New York in 1923 to Ukrainian [1] Jewish parents, Chayefsky attended the City College of New York and Fordham University. He served in the U.S. Army during World War II and was awarded a Purple Heart."
END OF QUOTE
 
Chayefsky got up and said his mother would "kill him" if he didn't answer back to Redgrave's words, and he proceeded to denounce her. Actually, it was his conscience that would not allow him to be still. Perhaps peace activist lawyers like the elder Dreyfuss raise their children without a conscience. Once again, Chayefsky, a regular guy with poor immigrant parents who did not put on airs about being above it all, told it like it is.
 
We need more people in Hollywood - and Congress - who are in touch with real life.
 
Jack
 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.

The Greens never cease to amaze me!  Mike W. forwards one of the vilest things I have ever encountered-a ``piggy calculator`` which tells children when they should die based on their environmental impact!

How often have we been told that children must not be judged in any way, that we cannot have games with winners, competitive grading systems, cannot even discipline unruly children for fear of damaging their fragile self esteem, yet we can tell them when we think they should DIE because of the way they behave in relations to the environment.  Mustn`t hurt their self-esteem, unless it`s to advance a leftist agenda!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

World Net Daily has <a href=http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65577>more on Obama`s grandfather military stories</a>.

It turns out gramps never saw combat at all, signed up six months after Pearl Harbor, and was never around any Nazi concentration camps.  This is just another fish tale by a man who finds it difficult to tell reality from fantasy.

Or is he just lying?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

Karl Rove`s analysis of ``if it ain`t Barack, don`t fix it`` Obama`s vision of history from an article in the Wall Street Journal courtesy of Wil Wirtanen:

Obama's Revisionist History
By KARL ROVE
May 29, 2008; Page A15

This week's minor controversy about Barack Obama's claim that an uncle liberated Auschwitz was quickly put to rest by his campaign. They conceded that it was a great uncle whose unit liberated Buchenwald, 500 miles away.

But other, much more troubling, episodes have provided a revealing glimpse into a candidate who instinctively resorts to parsing, evasions and misdirection. The saga over Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Exhibit A. In just 62 days, Americans were treated to eight different explanations.

First, on Feb. 25, Mr. Obama downplayed Rev. Wright's divisiveness, saying he was "like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with." A week later, Mr. Obama insisted, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial," suggesting that Rev. Wright was criticized because "he was one of the leaders in calling for divestment from South Africa and some other issues like that."

The issue exploded on March 13, when ABC showed excerpts from Rev. Wright's sermons. Mr. Obama's spokesman said the senator "deeply disagrees" with Rev. Wright's statements, but "now that he is retired, that doesn't detract from Sen. Obama's affection for Rev. Wright or his appreciation for the good works he has done."

The next day, Mr. Obama offered a fourth defense: "The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation." Mr. Obama also told the Chicago Tribune, "In fairness to him, this was sort of a greatest hits. They basically culled five or six sermons out of 30 years of preaching."

Then, four days later, in Philadelphia, Mr. Obama finally repudiated Rev. Wright's comments, saying they "denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation." But Mr. Obama went on to say, "I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother. . . ."

Ten days later, Mr. Obama said if Rev. Wright had not retired as Trinity's pastor, and "had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended . . . then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church." (Never mind that Rev. Wright had made no such acknowledgment.)

On April 28, at the National Press Club, Rev. Wright re-emerged, not to apologize but to repeat some of his most offensive lines. This provoked an eighth defense: "[W]hatever relationship I had with Rev. Wright has changed, as a consequence of this. I don't think that he showed much concern for me. More importantly, I don't think he showed much concern for what we are trying to do in this campaign . . . ." Self-interest is a powerful, but not noble, sentiment in politics.

The Rev. Wright affair is just one instance where the Illinois senator has said something wrong or offensive, and then offered shifting explanations for his views. Consider flag pins.

Mr. Obama told an Iowa radio station last October he didn't wear an American flag lapel pin because, after 9/11, it had "became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues . . . ." His campaign issued a statement that "Senator Obama believes that being a patriot is about more than a symbol." To highlight his own moral superiority, he denigrated the patriotism of those who wore a flag.

Yet by April, campaigning in culturally conservative Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama was blaming others for the controversy he'd created, claiming, "I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins. This is the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with and, once again, distracts us . . . ." A month later Mr. Obama was once again wearing a pin, saying "Sometimes I wear it, sometimes I don't."

The Obama revision tour has been seen elsewhere. Last July, Mr. Obama pledged to meet personally and without precondition, during his first year, the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Criticized afterwards, he made his pledge more explicitly, naming Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Venezuela strongman Hugo Chávez as leaders he would grace with first-year visits.

By October, Mr. Obama was backpedaling, talking about needing "some progress or some indication of good faith," and by April, "sufficient preparation." It got so bad his foreign policy advisers were (falsely) denying he'd ever said he'd meet with Mr. Ahmadinejad`` even as he still defended his original pledge to have meetings without precondition.

The list goes on. Mr. Obama's problem is a campaign that's personality-driven rather than idea-driven. Thus incidents calling into question his persona and character can have especially devastating consequences.

Stripped of his mystique as a different kind of office seeker, he could become just another liberal politician, only one who parses, evades, dissembles and condescends. That narrative is beginning to take hold. If those impressions harden into firm judgments, Mr. Obama will have a very difficult time in November.

(Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.)

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 891 words, total size 5 kb.

This from the incomparable Thomas Sowell at Townhall, courtesy of Wil Wirtanen:

Mascot Politics
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Years ago, when Jack Greenberg left the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to become a professor at Columbia University, he announced that he was going to make it a point to hire a black secretary at Columbia.

This would of course make whomever he hired be seen as a token black, rather than as someone selected on the basis of competence.

This reminded me of the first time I went to Milton Friedman's office when I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago back in 1960, and I noticed that he had a black secretary. This was four years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and there was no such thing as affirmative action.

It so happened that Milton Friedman had another black secretary decades later, at the Hoover Institution-- and she was respected as one of the best secretaries around.

When I mentioned to someone at the Hoover Institution that I was having a hard time finding a secretary who could handle a tough job in my absence, I was told that I needed someone like Milton Friedman's secretary-- and that there were not many like her.

At no time in all these years did I hear Milton Friedman say, either publicly or privately, that he had a black secretary.

William F. Buckley's wife once mentioned in passing, at dinner in her home, that she had been involved for years in working with a school in Harlem. But I never heard her or Bill Buckley ever say that publicly.

Nor do conservatives who were in the civil rights marches in the South, back when that was dangerous, make that a big deal.

For people on the left, however, blacks are trophies or mascots, and must therefore be put on display. Nowhere is that more true than in politics.

The problem with being a mascot is that you are a symbol of someone else's significance or virtue. The actual well-being of a mascot is not the point.

Liberals all across the country have not hesitated to destroy black neighborhoods in the name of "urban renewal," often replacing working-class neighborhoods with upscale homes and pricey businesses-- neither of which the former residents can afford.

In academia, lower admissions standards for black students is about having them as a visible presence, even if mismatching them with the particular college or university produces high dropout rates.

The black students who don't make it are replaced by others, and when many of them don't make it, there are still more others.

The point is to have black faces on campus, as mascots symbolizing what great people there are running the college or university.

Many, if not most, of the black students who do not make it at big-name, high-pressure institutions are perfectly qualified to succeed at the normal range of colleges and universities.

Most white students would also punch out if admitted to schools for which they don't have the same qualifications as the other students. But nobody needs white mascots.

Various empirical studies have indicated that blacks succeed best at institutions where there is little or no difference between their qualifications and the qualifications of the other students around them.

This is not rocket science but it is amazing how much effort and cleverness have gone into denying the obvious.

A study by Professor Richard Sander of the UCLA law school suggests that there may be fewer black lawyers as a result of "affirmative action" admissions to law schools that are a mismatch for the individuals admitted.

Leaping to the defense of black criminals is another common practice among liberals who need black mascots. Most of the crimes committed by black criminals are committed against other blacks. But, again, the actual well-being of mascots is not the point.

Politicians who use blacks as mascots do not hesitate to throw blacks to the wolves for the benefit of the teachers' unions, the green zealots whose restrictions make housing unaffordable, or people who keep low-price stores like Wal-Mart out of their cities.

Using human beings as mascots is not idealism. It is self-aggrandizement that is ugly in both its concept and its consequences.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 713 words, total size 4 kb.

More from Jack Kemp on Obama`s Nazi concentration camps comments:

Sen. Obama tried to put a spin on his Auschwitz story by later stating that his great uncle, a white man, did liberate a concentration camp in Germany while serving in the American Army.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2740383620080527?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

To quote from the article:

'Obama's campaign said the candidate meant to say that his great-uncle, Charlie Payne, had helped liberate a part of the Buchenwald camp, not Auschwitz.

"Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

Burton said in the statement that Obama's great uncle served in the 89th Infantry Division that entered Germany in 1945 and on April 4 overran Ohrdruf, a subcamp of the Buchenwald concentration camp.'

END OF QUOTE

So this is the action of a "Typical White Person?" It seems Obama is often talking about white racism - until such time as he is looking for Jewish and white Christian votes. Then his uncle is acknowledged as a champion of anti-racism for his efforts in liberating a concentration camp.

I wonder if Obama would have advocated negotiating with the Nazis at the gate. But then again, many of the guards and comandants fled concentration camps as Allied soldiers neared their gates.

Jack

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

By Jack Kemp (not the politician):
 
As the son of an Auschwitz survivor, civil language can not express my anger at this bald faced - and stupid - lie. Does he believe his uncle was a volunteer in the Soviet Army?
 
According to Fox News,
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/27/recollection-of-obama-familys-service-missing-key-details/
 
"Barack Obama is getting called out again for his knowledge of history, including his own family’s, after declaring to veterans on Memorial Day that his uncle helped liberate the Auschwitz death camp at the end of World War II.
Two problems with the tale: Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet Army, and Obama’s American mother was an only child."

END OF QUOTE

Does Obama really believe that no one in America knows who liberated Auschwitz - or knows his mother had no brother?

If he is looking for the decendants of Holocaust survivors vote, he apparently believes they don't know which army liberated which concentration camp. Nothing can be further from the truth. This is an insulting statement equvalent to a Republican saying in 2008 that he personally fought in the Civil War at the Battle(s) of Bull Run to free blacks.

Does Obama also believe that the words he now so carelessly speaks on the campaign trail are not picked up, repeated and recorded for playback on the internet?

As Rush Limbaugh says, this man isn't fit to be elected dog catcher.

When I was in college many years ago, there was an Iranian grad student in a class of mine who said that on the big agricultural states (lost from my memory) was mostly urban, that he had read it in a book, implying it was thus true. Every one in the class knew better and politely disagreed with him. But that student, who showed an understandable unfamiliarity with the US wasn't running for President. It is time to tell Barack Obama that his lack of knowledge is woefully inadequate to become the president, in no uncertain terms. To paraphrase the late Ann Richards, his Ivy League cocoon has lead him to believe that because Harvard got him to third base, he thinks he has hit a triple against the best pitching out there. His knowledge of history and geography is worthy a failing grade. Does Sen. Obama understand that Poland is east of Germany and that American troops arriving from France would probably not go further east Germany itself?

As for Obama's other remarks about Memorial Day, he stated that http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65449

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes, and I see many of them in the audience here today, our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."
END OF QUOTE
 
Apparently not only does he not understand that Memorial Day commemerates those who died in the service of our country, but that a "fallen hero" is a poetic term for someone who fell and died, not just fell wounded. Did he see many wounded in the audience with visible injuries?
 
After hearing these documented remarks by Obama, I believe he should be made to take a drug test - and a history test.
 
Jack Kemp
 
Full article:
 
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/27/recollection-of-obama-familys-service-missing-key-details/

Recollection of Obama Uncle’s War Service Missing Key Details
by FOXNews.com
Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Barack Obama is getting called out again for his knowledge of history, including his own family’s, after declaring to veterans on Memorial Day that his uncle helped liberate the Auschwitz death camp at the end of World War II.
Two problems with the tale: Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet Army, and Obama’s American mother was an only child.

Speaking in Las Cruces, N.M., on Monday, the Democratic presidential candidate said he did not serve, but comes from a family that did sacrifice for the nation. He was speaking about the many members of the military who suffer post traumatic stress disorder and should be given better care.

``I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps and the story in our family is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn’t leave the house for six months, right. Now obviously something had really affected him deeply but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,`` he said.

However, a quick check on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Web site shows that Soviet forces were the first to approach Auschwitz, which was in Poland.

``On Jan. 27, 1945, the Soviet army entered Auschwitz and liberated more than 7,000 remaining prisoners,`` the site reads.

U.S. forces did liberate several camps, including Ohrdruf Concentration Camp on April 4, 1945; Mittelbau-Dora Concentration Camp on April 11, 1945; Buchenwald on April 12, 1945; Dachau on April 29, 1945; and Mauthausen on May 5, 1945.

Obama was raised in part by his grandparents, and his father served in the second World War.

A request for clarification has been made to the Obama campaign. Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee seized on the comments.

``Barack Obama’s dubious claim is inconsistent with world history and demands an explanation. It was Soviet troops that liberated Auschwitz, so unless his uncle was serving in the Red Army, there’s no way Obama’s statement yesterday can be true. Obama’s frequent exaggerations and outright distortions raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead as commander in chief``, said RNC Press Secretary Alex Conant.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 921 words, total size 6 kb.

This from Wil Wirtanen:

The WSJ looks into its crystal ball at a Democrat victory.

Wil

Granholm's Tax Warning

May 28, 2008; Page A16
It's no fun to kick a state when it's down, especially when the local politicians are doing a fine job of it, but the latest news of Michigan's deepening budget woe is a national warning of what happens when you raise taxes in a weak economy.

Officials in Lansing reported this month that the state faces a revenue shortfall between $350 million and $550 million next budget year. This is a major embarrassment for Governor Jennifer Granholm, the second-term Democrat who shut down the state government last year until the Legislature approved Michigan's biggest tax hike in a generation. Her tax plan raised the state income tax rate to 4.35% from 3.9%, and increased the state's tax on gross business receipts by 22%. Ms. Granholm argued that these new taxes would raise some $1.3 billion in new revenue that could be "invested" in social spending and new businesses and lead to a Michigan renaissance.

Not quite. Six months later one-third of the expected revenues have vanished as the state's economy continues to struggle. Income tax collections are falling behind estimates, as are property tax receipts and those from the state's transaction tax on home sales.

Michigan is now in the 18th month of a state-wide recession, and the unemployment rate of 6.9% remains far above the national rate of 5%. Ms. Granholm blames the nationwide mortgage meltdown and higher energy prices for the job losses and disappearing revenues, but this Great Lakes state is in its own unique hole. Nearby Illinois (5.4% jobless rate) and even Ohio (5.6%) are doing better.

Leon Drolet, the head of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, complains that "we are witnessing the Detroit-ification of Michigan." By that he means that the same high tax and spend policies that have hollowed out the Motor City are now infecting many other areas of the state.

The tax hikes have done nothing but accelerate the departures of families and businesses. Michigan ranks fourth of the 50 states in declining home values, and these days about two families leave for every family that moves in. Making matters worse is that property taxes are continuing to rise by the rate of overall inflation, while home values fall. Michigan natives grumble that the only reason more people aren't blazing a path out of the state is they can't sell their homes. Research by former Comerica economist David Littmann finds that about the only industry still growing in Michigan is government. Ms. Granholm's $44.8 billion budget this year further fattened agency payrolls.

There's another national lesson from the Granholm tax dud. If Democrats believe that anger over the economy and high gas prices have put voters in a receptive mood for higher taxes, they should visit the Wolverine State.

Just a few weeks ago taxpayer advocates collected enough signatures in suburban Detroit for a ballot initiative to recall powerful Speaker of the House Andy Dillon, who was one of last year's tax-hike ringleaders. Voters seem to think there would be rough justice if for once politicians, rather than workers, lose their jobs from higher taxes.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 540 words, total size 3 kb.

TImothy Birdnow

I found this at Physorg.com. I am quite incredulous about claims of cold fusion; time will tell!

Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion
 
On May 22, researchers at Osaka University presented the first demonstration of cold fusion since an unsuccessful attempt in 1989 that has clouded the field to this day.

To many people, cold fusion sounds too good to be true. The idea is that, by creating nuclear fusion at room temperature, researchers can generate a nearly unlimited source of power that uses water as fuel and produces almost zero waste. Essentially, cold fusion would make oil obsolete.

However, many experts debate whether money should be spent on cold fusion research or applied to more realistic alternative energy solutions. For decades, researchers around the world have been simply trying to show that cold fusion is indeed possible, but they´ve yet to take that important first step.

Now, esteemed Physics Professor Yoshiaki Arata of Osaka University in Japan claims to have made the first successful demonstration of cold fusion. Last Thursday, May 22, Arata and his colleague Yue-Chang Zhang of Shianghai Jiotong University presented the cold fusion demonstration to 60 onlookers, including other physicists, as well as reporters from six major newspapers and two TV studios. If Arata and Zhang´s demonstration is real, it could lead to a future of new, clean, and cheap energy generation.

In their experiment, the physicists forced deuterium gas into a cell containing a mixture of palladium and zirconium oxide, which absorbed the deuterium to produce a dense "pynco" deuterium. In this dense state, the deuterium nuclei from different atoms were so close together that they fused to produce helium nuclei.

Evidence for the occurrence of this fusion came from measuring the temperature inside the cell. When Arata first injected the deuterium gas, the temperature rose to about 70° C (158° F), which Arata explained was due to nuclear and chemical reactions. When he turned the gas off, the temperature inside the cell remained warmer than the cell wall for 50 hours, which Arata said was an effect of nuclear fusion.

While Arata´s demonstration looked promising to his audience, the real test is still to come: duplication. Many scientists and others are now recalling the infamous 1989 demonstration by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, who claimed to produce controlled nuclear fusion in a glass jar at room temperature. However, no one - including Fleischmann and Pons - could duplicate the experiment, leading many people to consider cold fusion a pseudoscience to this day.

But one witness at the recent demonstration, physicist Akito Takahashi of Osaka University, thought that the experiment should be able to be repeated.

"Arata and Zhang demonstrated very successfully the generation of continuous excess energy [heat] from ZrO2-nano-Pd sample powders under D2 gas charging and generation of helium-4," Takahashi told New Energy Times. "The demonstrated live data looked just like data they reported in their published papers [J. High Temp. Soc. Jpn, Feb. and March issues, 2008]. This demonstration showed that the method is highly reproducible."

In addition, researchers will have to repeat the experiment with larger amounts of the palladium and zirconium oxide mixture in order to generate larger quantities of energy.

via: Physics World and New Energy Times

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 537 words, total size 4 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

When I was a boy, I had a book that discussed some of the more enjoyable aspects of science (such as the fact that the bubble-chamber, used in nuclear research, was invented by a guy looking at his beer in a bar).  Being written by a man named Pyke (I don`t recall his first name), one chapter is devoted to a daring project during the Second World War to build aircraft carriers out of ice.  This project-much favored by Winston Churchill-would have made it possible to build HUGE carriers that were nearly impervious to U-Boat attacks. 

The leader of the project-named Habbakuk-was a man named Geoffrey Pyke-the author`s brother.  Pyke`s team realized that regular ice would be insufficient for the task, and experimented with adding wood pulps and sawdust to the water before freezing.  With a mix of 14% wood pulps or sawdust and 86% water, the result was a very hard, flexible substance that melted far slower than pure ice and was a durable as concrete.  Lord Mountbatten, who had championed the project for Pyke, illustrated this the old-fashioned way in a meeting with Churchill and other government officials in Alberta; he had two blocks of ice, one regular and one Pykrete (as it was named, although the man credited with inventing the substance was one Max Perutz) and fired a pistol into both.  The regular ice shattered like, well, ice but the bullet ricocheted off the Pykrete, nearly hitting an observer. 

I was reminded of this today by Al Fin in a blogpost he wrote about Pykrete and its many possible uses.

Pykrete is an amazing invention, one that was shelved after the War and largely forgotten.  Al explores some potential uses for this material.

I think Pykrete would be especially useful in space construction.  Imagine a moonbase built of Pykrete; take an inflatable form, pump water and wood pulp into it, then let it freeze during the lunar night. The result would be a building with thick walls as strong as steel.  The density of the ice would make it safe from solar storms and cosmic rays, and it would act as a water-storage tank to be tapped when needed.  A reflective blanket to keep sunlight off during the day would guarantee the structural integrity of the Pykrete, and the interior could be insulated and furnished in any manner desired.  This would require a lot of water (perhaps brought from the lunar south pole?) and the wood pulp would either need to be brought from Earth or home grown. Pykrete can be made from any fibrous material, so fast-growing things like bamboo could be used to produce it.

This could be used in space itself as easily, or even on Mars or some of the Jovian moons.  The reflective ``skin`` would act to stop the Pykrete from sublimating as well as act as a form for construction. 

Why dig deep into the ground if we don`t have to?  One of the problems with any space structure is the dangers from radiation, and that can be prevented by encasing the structure-and the life within-in a dense layer of ice.  There would be no reason to lug all sorts of building material and digging equipment to the lunar surface if we use Pykrete. We`re going to need tanks to hold water anyway, so why not simply use it to make our buildings?  It would be ridiculously easy to work, and would require little maintenance in a vacuum provided care is taken. 

Another idea I`ve read to simplify lunar colony construction suggested using long, snakelike bags and filling them with moondust.  This type of construction has been used on Earth with good results.  I suppose we`ll have to rename them Moonbags instead of Earthbags, but the principle is simple; pour sand/dust/rocks into the bags and lay them to form walls and roofs.  Build them as corbelled domes and them cover the domes with more lunar regolith.  It`s not a bad idea.

But I like the idea of using Pykrete better; it would be easier to manipulate and would kill two birds with one stone.  Mix and pour!  There would be no need for backhoes, for sifting machines, for ways of moving the moonbags. 

Pykrete could also be useful for underwater research stations at the poles, or even for moving freshwater icebergs!  Imagine building a giant Pykrete ``cup``, then obtaining an iceberg from the poles.  Float the berg in the Pykrete container, then move the whole thing to some droughty piece of property like Namibia.  Anchor your Pykrete holding chamber off the coast, run pipes to the berg, and you have fresh drinking water for a city!  The Pykrete melts far more slowly, and can be kept cold, while insulating the iceberg. 

The use of Pykrete for space construction is the best idea, in my view.  Of course, one has to have access to lots of water as well as a means of acquiring the necessary wood pulps.  Water is scarce on the Moon, although there is some at both poles-especially the south-and in the permanent shadows of some craters.  We may want to fetch an ice asteroid from the Belt, or capture a comet if we intend to build extensively with Pykrete.  Mars, on the other hand, would be the perfect place for this type of construction; you still need a heavy radiation shield on the Martian surface, and it is easily cold enough to keep the Pykrete solid.  Regular ice may be too brittle on Mars, but Pykrete?  We could grow the trees needed for the wood pulp in greenhouses, and there would be plenty of water. Enormous cities made entirely of Pykrete could be built on Mars, with periscopes to bring in sunlight and Martian regolith ground up to make soil.  If we ever successfully terraform Mars we would simply melt down our Pykrete cities and viola!  Instant open-air communities!

I think this forgotten idea may yet return.  It would be interesting to see if it tried.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1005 words, total size 6 kb.

Wil Wirtanen forwards this Wall Street Journal piece:

Climate Reality Bites
May 27, 2008; Page A20

The global warming debate arrives in the Senate next week, and it's about time. Finally, the Members will have to vote on something real, as opposed to their buck-passing to courts and regulators, and their easy trashing of President Bush.

The vehicle is a bill that principal sponsors Joe Lieberman and John Warner are calling "landmark legislation." They're too modest. Warner-Lieberman would impose the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s.

Thankfully, the American system makes it hard for colossal tax and regulatory burdens to foxtrot into law without scrutiny. So we hope our politicians will take responsibility for the global-warming policies they say they favor. Or even begin to understand what they say they favor. For a bill as grandly ambitious as Warner-Lieberman, very few staff, much less Senators, even know what's in it. The press corps mainly cheerleads this political fad, without examining how it would work or what it would cost. So allow us to fill in some of the details.

* * *
Almost all economic activity requires energy, and about 85% of U.S. energy generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. For centuries, these emissions were considered the natural byproduct of combustion. As recently as the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, they were consciously not even described as a "pollutant." But now that the politicians want to decrease those emissions, the government must create a new commodity, the right to create CO2, and put a price on it. This is an unprecedented tax that would profoundly touch every corner of American life.

The policy preferred by the environmental lobby is called cap and trade. The government would set a limit on emissions that declines every year. The goal of Warner-Lieberman is to return to 2005 levels by 2012, and to reduce that by 30% by 2030.

"Allowances" for emissions would be distributed to covered businesses, power, oil, gas, heavy industry, manufacturing, etc. If they produced less than their allotment, the companies could sell the allowances, or trade them. Cap and trade limits on energy are thus sometimes misleadingly described as a "free market" policy that would create the flexibility for CO2 reductions how and where they are least expensive. But the limits are still a huge tax.

And for the most part, the politicians favor cap and trade because it is an indirect tax. A direct tax, say, on gasoline, would be far more transparent, but it would also be unpopular. Cap and trade is a tax imposed on business, disguising the true costs and thus making it more politically palatable. In reality, firms will merely pass on these costs to customers, and ultimately down the energy chain to all Americans. Higher prices are what are supposed to motivate the investments and behavioral changes required to use less carbon.

The other reason politicians like cap and trade is because it gives them a cut of the action and the ability to pick winners and losers. Some of the allowances would be given away, at least at the start, while the rest would be auctioned off, with the share of auctions increasing over time. This is a giant revenue grab. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these auctions would net $304 billion by 2013 and $1.19 trillion over the next decade. Since the government controls the number and distribution of allowances, it is also handing itself the political right to influence the price of every good and service in the economy.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that this meddling would cause a cumulative reduction in the growth of GDP by between 0.9% and 3.8% by 2030. Add 20 years, and the reduction is between 2.4% and 6.9%, that is, from $1 trillion to $2.8 trillion.

These estimates assume that electricity prices will increase by 44% above what they would otherwise be by 2030. They also assume that existing coal-fired power plants, which currently provide about 50% of U.S. electric power, will be shut down  to be replaced with at least 150% growth in new nuclear facilities, plus other "alternatives." Yet there are only 104 current U.S. nuclear plants, and the industry itself says it's optimistic to think even 30 more can be built by 2020.

In fact, it is pointless to project so far out over multiple decades, since no one knows how markets and consumers would respond, whether the rules would remain constant, or what new technologies might come along. While moralizing about America, most of Europe has failed to meet its mandatory cap and trade goals under the Kyoto Protocol. But the U.S. isn't Italy; we will enforce our laws. So our guess is that these cost estimates are invariably far too low.

In a bow to this reality, California Democrat Barbara Boxer last week introduced 157 pages of amendments to Warner-Lieberman. Most notably, she sets aside at least $800 billion through 2050 for consumer tax relief. So while imposing a huge new tax on all Americans, she vouchsafes to return some of the money to some people. Needless to say, the Senator will be the judge of who receives her dispensation.

Ms. Boxer's amendment shows that cap and trade is also a massive wealth redistribution scheme – all mediated by her and her fellow Platonic rulers. Oh, and she also includes an "emergency off-ramp," should costs prove too onerous. This is really a political "off-ramp" to make Warner-Lieberman seem less dangerous, but you can imagine her reaction if some future Republican President decided to take it.

The upshot is that trillions in assets and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and the bureaucracy, all for greenhouse gas reductions that would have a meaningless impact on global carbon emissions if China and India don't participate. And only somewhat less meaningless if they do.

* * *
Warner-Lieberman has no chance of becoming law this year with President Bush in the White House. But the goal of this Senate exercise is political  to get Members on the record early, preferably before the burdens of cap and trade become more widely understood; to give Democrats a campaign issue; and to pour the legislative foundation that the next Administration could cite as it attempts to regulate carbon limits while waiting for Congress to act.

So by all means let's have this debate amid $4 gasoline, and not only on C-Span. If Americans are going to cede this much power to the political class, they at least ought to do it knowing the price they will pay.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1112 words, total size 7 kb.

This from Wil Wirtanen:

Tim,

I followed this MA insurance plan from the beginning.  It was my biggest sticking point on Romney.  This program has gone the way of TennCare in Tennessee, and every other universal healthcare.  High cost with steep escalating annual costs and low service levels.

Obviously, Hilderbeast and Osama Bama are not fit for office since they can not learn from everyone else’s bad experience.

Wil

The New Big Dig

May 21, 2008

Mitt Romney's presidential run is history, but it looks as if the taxpayers of Massachusetts will be paying for it for years to come. The former Governor had hoped to ride his grand state "universal" health-care reform of 2006 to the White House, but his state's residents are now having to live with what he and the state's Democratic Legislature passed. As the Boston press likes to say, it's "the new Big Dig."

The showpiece of RomneyCare was its individual mandate, a requirement that all Massachusetts residents obtain health insurance by July of last year or else pay penalties. The idea was that getting everyone into the insurance system would eliminate the "free-rider" problem of those who refuse to buy insurance but then go to emergency rooms when they're sick; thus costs would fall. "Will it work? I'm optimistic, but time will tell," Mr. Romney wrote in these pages in 2006.

Well, the returns are rolling in, and the critics look prescient. First, the plan isn't "universal" at all: About 350,000 more people are now insured in Massachusetts since the reform passed. Federal estimates put the prior number of uninsured at more than 657,000, so there was a reduction. But it was not secured through the market reforms that Governor Romney promised. Instead, Massachusetts also created a new state entitlement that is already trembling on the verge of bankruptcy inside of a year.

Some two-thirds of the growth in coverage owes to a low- or no-cost public insurance option. Called Commonwealth Care, it uses a sliding income scale to subsidize coverage for everyone under 300% of the federal poverty level, or about $63,000 for a family of four. Commonwealth Care also accounts for 60% of statewide growth in individual insurance over the last year, and the trend is expected to accelerate, perhaps double.

One lesson here is that while pledging "universal" coverage is easy, the harder problem is paying for it. This year's appropriation for Commonwealth Care was $472 million, but officials have asked for an add-on that will bring it to $625 million. For 2009, Governor Deval Patrick requested $869 million but has already conceded that even that huge figure is too low. Over the coming decade, the expected overruns float in as much as $4 billion over budget. It's too early to tell how much is new coverage or if state programs are displacing private insurance.

The "new Big Dig" moniker refers to the legendary cost overruns when Boston rebuilt its traffic system. Now state legislators are pushing new schemes to offset RomneyCare's runaway expenses, including reductions in state payments to doctors and hospitals, enlarged business penalties, an increase in the state tobacco tax, and more restrictions on drug companies and insurers.

Mr. Romney's fundamental mistake was focusing on making health insurance "universal" without first reforming the private insurance market. The "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurance options has barely been used, as lower-income workers flood to the public option. Meanwhile, low-cost private insurers continue to avoid the state because it imposes multiple and costly mandates on all policies.

Hailed at first as a new national model, the Massachusetts nonmiracle ought to be a warning to Washington. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both proposing versions of RomneyCare on a national scale, with similar promises that covering everyone under a government plan will reduce costs. Mr. Obama at least argues that more people would be covered were insurance more affordable. But his solution is Massachusetts on steroids, make insurance less expensive for policyholders by transferring the extra costs onto the government. Mrs. Clinton likes that but also wants the individual mandate, despite the mediocre results so far.

The real problem in health care is the way the tax code and third-party payment system distort incentives. That's where John McCain has been focusing his reform efforts, because that really does have the potential to reduce costs while covering more of the uninsured, and Republicans ought to follow his lead.

In this respect paradoxically, we can be thankful that Massachusetts ignored the cost problems that doomed other recent liberal health insurance overhauls in California, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Illinois. The Bay State is showing everyone how not to reform health care.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 784 words, total size 5 kb.

This from Dana Mathewson in Minnesota, courtesy of Jack Kemp:

http://www.urgentagenda.com/PERMALINKS%20III%20MAY%2008%20-/PERM%20MAY%2008-2/26.PYLE.html

ERNIE PYLE

On Memorial Day it's appropriate to recall the great writing of the World War II reporter, Ernie Pyle, who was killed on the island of Ie Shima, off the coast of Okinawa, on April 18, 1945.  Ernie Pyle didn't write about the generals or the so-called "big picture."  He wrote about the ordinary soldiers from ordinary towns doing extraordinary things.  One of his most famous pieces is about the death of an Army captain, and the respect that his men had for him.  If you've never read it, today is the day to do so:

ERNIE PYLE:

The Death of Captain Waskow

AT THE FRONT LINES IN ITALY, January 10, 1944 - In this war I have known a lot of officers who were loved and respected by the soldiers under them. But never have I crossed the trail of any man as beloved as Capt. Henry T. Waskow of Belton, Texas.

Capt. Waskow was a company commander in the 36th Division. He had led his company since long before it left the States. He was very young, only in his middle twenties, but he carried in him a sincerity and gentleness that made people want to be guided by him.

"After my own father, he came next," a sergeant told me.

"He always looked after us," a soldier said. "He'd go to bat for us every time."

"I've never knowed him to do anything unfair," another one said.

I was at the foot of the mule trail the night they brought Capt. Waskow's body down. The moon was nearly full at the time, and you could see far up the trail, and even part way across the valley below. Soldiers made shadows in the moonlight as they walked.

Dead men had been coming down the mountain all evening, lashed onto the backs of mules. They came lying belly-down across the wooden pack-saddles, their heads hanging down on the left side of the mule, their stiffened legs sticking out awkwardly from the other side, bobbing up and down as the mule walked.

The Italian mule-skinners were afraid to walk beside dead men, so Americans had to lead the mules down that night. Even the Americans were reluctant to unlash and lift off the bodies at the bottom, so an officer had to do it himself, and ask others to help.

The first one came early in the morning. They slid him down from the mule and stood him on his feet for a moment, while they got a new grip. In the half light he might have been merely a sick man standing there, leaning on the others. Then they laid him on the ground in the shadow of the low stone wall alongside the road.

I don't know who that first one was. You feel small in the presence of dead men, and ashamed at being alive, and you don't ask silly questions.

We left him there beside the road, that first one, and we all went back into the cowshed and sat on water cans or lay on the straw, waiting for the next batch of mules.

Somebody said the dead soldier had been dead for four days, and then nobody said anything more about it. We talked soldier talk for an hour or more. The dead man lay all alone outside in the shadow of the low stone wall.

Then a soldier came into the cowshed and said there were some more bodies outside. We went out into the road. Four mules stood there, in the moonlight, in the road where the trail came down off the mountain. The soldiers who led them stood there waiting. "This one is Captain Waskow," one of them said quietly.

Two men unlashed his body from the mule and lifted it off and laid it in the shadow beside the low stone wall. Other men took the other bodies off. Finally there were five lying end to end in a long row, alongside the road. You don't cover up dead men in the combat zone. They just lie there in the shadows until somebody else comes after them.

The unburdened mules moved off to their olive orchard. The men in the road seemed reluctant to leave. They stood around, and gradually one by one I could sense them moving close to Capt. Waskow's body. Not so much to look, I think, as to say something in finality to him, and to themselves. I stood close by and I could hear.

One soldier came and looked down, and he said out loud, "God damn it." That's all he said, and then he walked away. Another one came. He said, "God damn it to hell anyway." He looked down for a few last moments, and then he turned and left.

Another man came; I think he was an officer. It was hard to tell officers from men in the half light, for all were bearded and grimy dirty. The man looked down into the dead captain's face, and then he spoke directly to him, as though he were alive. He said: "I'm sorry, old man."

Then a soldier came and stood beside the officer, and bent over, and he too spoke to his dead captain, not in a whisper but awfully tenderly, and he said:

"I sure am sorry, sir."

Then the first man squatted down, and he reached down and took the dead hand, and he sat there for a full five minutes, holding the dead hand in his own and looking intently into the dead face, and he never uttered a sound all the time he sat there.

And finally he put the hand down, and then reached up and gently straightened the points of the captain's shirt collar, and then he sort of rearranged the tattered edges of his uniform around the wound. And then he got up and walked away down the road in the moonlight, all alone.

After that the rest of us went back into the cowshed, leaving the five dead men lying in a line, end to end, in the shadow of the low stone wall. We lay down on the straw in the cowshed, and pretty soon we were all asleep.

Please compare that to the kind of "journalism" we're getting today.

May 26, 2008. 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1068 words, total size 6 kb.