The Smoke Break

You want some brie with that whine?

EPA Fails To Properly Assess Risk Of Greenhouse Gases

By

Pushed by the Supreme Court to make a determination whether “greenhouse gases” are dangerous to public health, the EPA recently decided that CO2 is a Very Bad Thing.  You know CO2, that pesky stuff that is part of the circle of life because all us mammals exhale it and then trees and other growing plants inhale it because they need it to survive, and then they exhale oxygen that we in turn inhale because we need it to survive, and so on.

This definition of CO2 as a danger to public health fits in very nicely with President Obama and his administration’s push for cap & trade.  You know cap & trade, that pesky little credit scheme for alleged polluters that Obama “promises” us isn’t a tax but will raise the price of everything from heating and cooling to transportion to goods and even food because manufacturers have to recoup their increased cost of doing business and the only way to do that is to pass on their costs to we, the consumers. 

Well, even though it’s now obvious the change Obama spouts on about on his never-ending campaign trail means only grabbing what’s left of it in our wallets, it seems that some folks in Obama’s administration have taken a look at what will happen if the government steps in to regulate greenhouse gases during this truly manmade “climate change” in the American economy.  And what they see is what many of us have been saying all along.

Cap and trade, not CO2, is the Very Bad Thing.

CBS’s Jake Tapper has reported that an interagency review memo warns the EPA that government regulation is not only a bad move economically, but it also raises the more dangerous question about government regulation.  Here are some of the highlights:

 The finding rests heavily on the precautionary principle, but the amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about basic facts surrounding GHGs seem to stretch the precautionary principle to providing for regulation in the face of unprecedented uncertainty.

Since tropospheric ozone is already regulated under the Clean Air Act, EPA should explain why those regulations are inadequate to protect public health from the ozone impacts of climate change.

The Finding should also acknowledge that EPA has not undertaken a systematic risk analysis or cost-benefit analysis.

 …there is a concern that EPA is making a finding based on

(1) “harm” from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects,

(2) available scientific data that purports to conclusively establish the nature and extent of the adverse public health and welfare impacts are almost exclusively from non-EPA sources, and

(3) applying a dramatically expanded precautionary principle.

If EPA goes forward with a finding of endangerment for all 6 GHGs, it could be establishing a relaxed and expansive new standard for endangerment. Subsequently, EPA would be petitioned to find endangerment and regulate many other “pollutants” for the sake of the precautionary principle (e.g., electromagnetic fields, perchlorates, endocrine disruptors, and noise).

Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the CAA for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.

To the extent that climate change alters our environment, it will create incentives for innovation and adaptation that mitigate the damages from climate change. The document should note this possibility and how it affects the likely impacts of climate change.

…the document would appear more balanced if it also highlighted whether particular regions of the US would benefit, and to what extent these positive impacts would mitigate negative impacts elsewhere in the United States.

…there should be a consideration of the fertilizing effect of CO2, which may overwhelm the negative impact of additional hot days on agricultural yields in some regions of the US.

… it is not clear why they [perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride] are included in the endangerment and “cause or contribute” findings.

 EPA would benefit from making its position explicit in this proposal. Commenters are sure to take this important issue on in some fashion so EPA may as well do what it can to shape the debate and the comments being invited.

 The proposed Finding erroneously suggests that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts an increase in both crop and forest production in the U.S.  Significant increases in production may be possible within North America as a whole, but are unlikely within the U.S. itself.

These are your tax dollars at (shoddy) work, but the administration isn’t listening, of course.  Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) was to meet with his Democrat pals behind closed doors today (there’s more of that promised “transparency” for you)  to discuss his “Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” – because the President would prefer legislation instead of demanding it himself.  The better to claim the resulting economic collapse isn’t his fault, of course.

 

 

White House Forced To Admit Economic Forecast Was Wrong

By

Last November White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel opined, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”  And so instead of following the time-tested, crucial first step in crisis management – stop and assess the situation – the Obama administration furiously wrote scripts to pander panic and went into a full-blown feeding frenzy, throwing billions of hard-earned taxpayer money to stimulate, to TARP, and finally to “budget” the country out of the current financial crisis.  A financial crisis, mind you, that was orchestrated by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and the Democratic majority in Congress during the Bush administration.

There were some less self-absorbed, cooler heads who pointed out that the economy would recovery quite nicely all by its lonesome, thankyouverymuch, if we did absolutely nothing.  If we let the poorly-run companies fail and the free market prevail, natural law would soon show all the bluster as little more than a blip on history’s radar.

They were right.  (Check out this chart that tells the story much better than words.)

It is being reported today that the much-vaunted economic recovery just ain’t happenin’.  And it ain’t gonna happen at all this year; we’ll be lucky if we see some relief next year.  There are no jobs being created – as promised – just more and more jobs continuing to disappear.  Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, took advantage of the piss-poor forecasts to tell everyone that the real problem isn’t the government spending trillions of dollars it doesn’t have to take over the private sector; no, no, the real problem is all the money the government spends on health care.

So of course the answer is to applaud the President cutting a piddly one-half of one percent from the budget (that’s .05%) and to encourage the insanity of spending an unfathomable amount of money – that we don’t have now and won’t have later – to nationalize health care. 

I keep flashing back to FDR’s same failed “progressive” policies and that it was only WWII that pulled us out of the Great Depression.  And sometimes I fear we are being deliberately set up for another great war.

Works for me if all the Democrats are drafted to the front lines first and our Commander in Chief leads the charge himself, flanked by Pelosi, Reid, and Frank.  But then, that teleprompter would make him such an easy target….

The 3rd Side Of The Story

By

As more and more increasingly dangerous infringements on America’s freedoms continue to roll out of Congress like those Easter eggs across the White House lawn, I often want to ask President Obama just who he thinks he is?  Having written 2 autobiographies, however, he’s already given us his version.

But there are always 3 sides to a story.  His side,  the other side, and then the truth.

I’d venture to guess that anyone who has ever wondered about Obama’s legitimacy with regards to being able to hold the office of the Presidency has seen various bits and pieces that question it as they have been raised by a great number of people.  And anyone who has ever wondered about his political views has seen various bits and pieces gathered by a great number of people about his associations with people like Bill Ayers and ties to groups like ACORN.  I recently again came across a piece written by Don Fredrick that is, quite frankly, a stomach-turning timeline of the life of Barck Hussein Obama.  With painstaking precision, Mr. Fredrick presents a picture that is compelling in its sheer volume of damning evidence that the lowest common denominator in America has dropped lower than anyone could have imagined, or that the man elected to be President of the United States is, if not a complete and utter sham, then truly a clear and present danger to everything upon which this country was founded.

You may read it for yourself right here*.  And while it explains the razorblade down which America is now sliding, perhaps you, too, will find yourself asking why, when it would be so easy to put all of the questions to rest, why Barack Hussein Obama and those who surround him would choose to remain silent?  Why doesn’t the media, who loves nothing more than chasing innuendo and creating a juicy scandal, pick up this ball and run with it?  Why are lawyers on retainer around the country to block all access to President Obama’s public records, yet he’s willing to show classified documents to both our friends and our enemies around the world?

There’s an old saying that goes, “He who has nothing to hide, hides nothing.”   Or, in President Obama’s own words, “transparency”.

Some might dare call it honesty.

 

 

 

 

 

* used with written permission, copyright Don Fredrick at www.colony14.net

A Humane Step

By

The European Union voted by overwhelming majority this past Tuesday to ban the import of all seal products.  The BBC spoke with MEPs Diana Wallis, who drafted the parliament’s report on the trade in seal products, Arlese McCarthy, British Labor chair of the Parliament’s EU internal market committee, and Carl Schlyter, the Swedish Green who sits on the Parliament’s environment committee.  They noted that this follows the wishes of the majority of people, not only in the EU, but around the world, and they reiterated that despite the blatant and pathetic misuse of indigenous people by commercial fisheries to plead their case, the ban will not prevent indigenous people from continuing their sustainable hunts, nor will it stop their ability to sell by-products (crafts, etc.)  The ban also allows for what most of us already recognize as “game management” hunting, however, under the ban this may not be done for profit.

I personally applaud their actions.  It has already impacted this year’s Canadian slaughter – only 17% of this year’s quota have suffered the horrific cruelty of inept bludgeoning and being skinned alive.  And the price of baby seal pelts is down 86% as compared to 2006.

Canada and Norway continue to rattle their sabres, of course, threatening to take their case to the World Trade Organization, but with so many countries around the world having already closed their doors to baby seal pelts and products, they no longer have much of a case.  I pity the Canadians, whose government will spend more money to fight the ban than it brings in for a small number of non-indigenous people and an even smaller number of heavily-subsidized businesses, and particularly with the losses already seen this spring the reality is that those subsidies spent by Canada to support their “hunt” could put its handful of participants on the government dole for the 2-3 months some of them spend wacking babies, with money to spare.  Monies that could be better used to find realistic ways to co-exist with all the species involved, instead of erroneously blaming seals for the negative results of their overfishing practices.  Spurred on, I should add, by the world’s continuing great and greedy appetite for fish-on-demand; something that the EU would be wise to properly address themselves since they, too, are a part of the world’s overfishing problem. 

This is a tough issue, to be sure.  I continue to read the arguments coming from both sides; some sensible and practical, others purely emotional and inflammatory.  And I will be the first to say there aren’t any easy answers.  My personal stance is that there should never, ever be a market for cruelty (whether it is the exploitation of animals or humans) and that is the basis of my own personal and long-standing wish to see this particularly barbaric practice stopped.  Yet simple, moral goodness dictates we must watch out for one another, both humans and non-humans, and if we collectively choose to create a vacuum, we must consider that nature abhors them and then consider what may fill it, and make an honest attempt to steer those consequences towards something that is for the betterment of all involved.  In this case, better for baby seals, who will not find their first few weeks of life an encounter with abject pain and horrific suffering, and better for those about whom it may be said know no better than to mete out such cruelty on an annual basis, having grown up with an extremely limited perspective that fosters seeing other species as mere things instead of sentient beings. 

To those who are quick to make their justification for allowing any country to slaughter baby seals by comparing it to the oft-inhumaneness of agribusiness meat farming I say only that this is simply one step.  One small step, but it is one in the right direction.  It is one small manifestation of the thought that perhaps we can do things better, do things with less deliberate cruelty to those who share this world with we humans, and to take any action in that direction is something positive.

Pushing For Fair & Balanced Reporting?

By

“It is important, though, for all of you, as you’re writing up these stories, to recognize that $17 billion taken out of our discretionary, non-defense budget, as well as portions of our defense budget, are significant.  They mean something.”

President Obama told journalists directly that they should stress the fact that the cuts are “significant”. 

As one article notes, $17 billion is, indeed, a large number.  When seen in a vacuum.  But as anyone with even the most rudimentary grasp of mathematics is seeing, when compared to his $3.55 trillion 2010 budget and the 10-year projections now over $12 trillion, it’s just a drop in the bucket.

They mean something, alright. 

Change.

Chump change.

Still Nothing Good About ACORN

By

Glenn Beck interviewed Scott Levenson yesterday.  Mr. Levenson is the national spokesman for ACORN and I don’t know if he thought that trying to mimic Obama’s ridiculous performance on the Leno show was the way to go or if he’s really that big a hairball, but the point is if Levenson is the best that ACORN can do, then the dumbing down of America is surely real.  ACORN is currently up on charges of voter fraud in 14 states, and Levenson actually kept a straight face as he said it was only “employees” being charged.  Which is, of course, a bald-faced lie.  The organization itself is named in the Nevada lawsuit, for example, and that lawsuits continue to be filed speaks loudly of a pattern of criminal behavior that can be blamed only on those running it, for corporate culture is something imaged and then reinforced from the top down.

This win at all costs criminal mentality is, of course, the environment in which President Obama thrived early in his career.  Though he’s tried to distant himself from them ever since their criminal tactics began to surface, he’s not yet managed to shut down free speech and this part of his history cannot be rewritten to put him in a more favorable light.  Quite telling is that ACORN continues to reap the benefits of its association with the President, including his representing them in a 1995 lawsuit, standing to receive some $2 billion in TARP funds as well as assist with the 2010 census. 

Surely it isn’t a far stretch to imagine that an organization capable of drumming up voter registrations for some 30,000 people in Marion County, Indiana in 2008 – all of whom were NOT eligible to even register – is also capable of making sure that the census count that determines things like government representation comes out just the way their community organizer in chief wants it to come out. 

Equally frightening to think Obama could say “I won” with a straight face, isn’t it?

When Left Isn’t Right

By

This whole mess in which we find ourselves is made up of numerous strands, each interwoven with the others.  But underneath the fabric it creates lies perhaps the real root cause and that is an overall shift in cultural norms.  Certainly the media has always had a rather liberal bent; indeed, liberalism is rather the media’s very DNA for it has historically been the herald of every people’s movement away from tyranny and abuse.

When the media moves as far to the left as is the case in America and such overarching abundance as is found here deteriorates into materialism, things quickly begin to sour.  Andrew Klavan is a screenwriter, author, and contributor at PajamasMedia and one of his recent posts looks at the souring American culture from a unique perspective.  I recommend it highly.

But it was one of the comments on this piece that caught my attention.  One “Paul from Hamburg” posted, “The coverage of the tea parties did have one positive effect. It is now incredibly easy to separate the serious journalists and commentators from the Democratic shills:  Anyone who said “tea bag” can’t be considered a journalist.”

Touche.  In a nutshell, this statement authenticates Klavan’s exhortations to set aside the need for validation from those who wish the country to have only a single voice and to pursue excellence in the creative arenas based on the time-honored principles that are now so often met with ridicule.

For it is only by standing up for what is right and doing what is right, in all areas, that we can make the positive difference so desperately needed to save this country.

Negotiating Bankruptcy, Chicago-Style

By

What do GM and the Obama administration have in common?  In street vernacular, today’s phrase is “big dicks”.

Allegations are now surfacing that direct threats by the administration were used to cave certain Chrysler creditors into accepting bankruptcy restructuring agreements.  Certain senior creditors who protested their legal position of meriting payment in full before junior creditors and have now filed a motion against the Obamafioso on the reasonable and compelling basis that the government is in violation of the 5th Amendment.

One participant in negotiations said that the administration’s tactic was to present what one described as a  “madman theory of the presidency” in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.  I take it seriously when the mainstream media – after bashing every move made by President Bush during his presidency – doesn’t consider any of this something worth reporting.

Meantime,  GM’s back in the spotlight as it is again noted they spend some $17 million a year helping its retirees buy Viagra.

A Sign At The Times

By

You know things are going terribly wrong when the New York Times decides to reach for ratings by swinging the blade of President Obama’s infamous campaign trail budget scalpel right at at the throats of the administration.

In a “scoop” piece posted the other day, it leaked a report about the advertising campaign underway to change public perceptions of global warming and therefore gain public acceptance of the administration’s wish to further enslave, then drown the country in its idiotic tax scheme of cap & trade.  The alleged research upon which the summary report is based is being done by an organization called “ecoAmerica” (among ecoAmerica’s advisors is Wes Boyd, from MoveOn.org, which speaks volumes about their credibility and real intent).  Here is a snippet of its published statement of purpose.  Pay close attention to the italicized words:

Our biggest environmental challenge is global warming.
Al Gore labels it a “planetary emergency” and won
an Oscar and a Nobel Prize for getting the word out.
Magazines, movies, corporations, NGO’s, universities
and state governments have been sounding the alarm
and taking steps to address the issue.

Yet, Pew’s annual survey on public policy released in
January 2008 reports that global warming declined
from 38% to 35% as a “top priority” for Americans
over the past year. We rank it 20 on a list of 21
priorities. This is not a good sign if you’re working
to accelerate and enhance environmental solutions.

If we want Americans to change their priorities,
we need to change ours. Too often we think of people
primarily as just a step on the way to public policy.
We need to make people themselves a priority.

That’s our mission at ecoAmerica. We work to restore
deep and comprehensive connections between mainstream
Americans and their natural world, and change
their personal and voting behaviors.

 

I’m all for treading lightly across our Mother Earth, but the only ones who are going to benefit from all of this nonsense are the environmental groups who are utterly dependent upon having some crisis or another as their reason d’etre and donations so they don’t have to get a real job, people like Al Gore, who pollute their way around the world spreading the false gospel of fear, a handful of businesses hand-picked by the administration to handle the logistics of cap & trade, and other countries around the world who will more than happy to take in American manufacturing jobs.

It’s all very sneaky and slimey.  But par for the course from our community organizer in chief.