Random Readings

First Item:

Not believing in the greenhouse effect, I mean global warming, I mean "climate change" is not a kook-fringe position. Even some of the authors of the UN's climate reports don't believe it.

See this story.

By the way, have you noticed how the problem has morphed over the years?

I remember reading all about "The Greenhouse Effect" in elementary school and junior high. A specific, verifiable problem with a specific, verifiable mechanism driving it, which turned out to specifically not be happening.

Next, we heard about global warming. A specific, verifiable problem with a vague mechanism driving it, that turns out to have happened for about 30 years, but now . . . not so much.

Enter "climate change." This may be a winner. This is the real "change we can believe in" Both the problem and the mechanism are vague enough that no one can disprove them. Earth gets warmer = climate change! Earth gets colder = climate change! Every honest person, when asked "is the climate changing?" must answer "yes." Then the yelling about the horrors of capitalism, the evils of SUVs and the poor polar bears starts, and no one listens to the rest of the answer (from the article):

what do I believe about climate change? Firstly climate change is real, and has occurred on Earth for at least 4 billion years as long as an atmosphere and oceans have existed. Climate change occurs in cycles at various time scales, with the shorter time scales known as weather (by convention the distinction is 35 years). Trying to stop or control climate change is akin to stopping ocean tides. Secondly, I believe human activities affect climate, otherwise why would I bother with a mortgage. The climate inside my house is different to the climate that would exist if my house were gone.

Second Item:

Maryland has done us a service by demonstrating the effects of a huge tax increase on "the wealthy." The Wall street Journal has the story here.

Basically they raised the tax rate on those making over $1 million dollars a year. Here's what happened:

The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it." One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.

Huh, who'd have thought? As the article explains "this is one reason that depending on the rich to finance government is so ill-advised: Progressive tax rates create mountains of cash during good times that vanish during recessions."

Putin's Genius

I read a very insightful article today on how Vladimir Putin's totalitarianism can survive when so many others have failed.

The author points out the one crucial difference which seems to make his rule palatable to ordinary Russians. I think he is absolutely correct. It's a thought I've had floating around in my head for a while.

People are often more tolerant of Government interference in big things than in little ones.

The new czar saw that most human beings don't care who governs them, as long as the government minds its own business. And if the ruler can revive the illusion of national power, so much the better.

In my way of thinking, this is a symptom of all forms of socialism, and part of what make socialism attractive to so many. Wants are supplied, and all that's required politically is to do nothing.

The author characterizes the unspoken bargain Putin has struck with the Russian people as:

"I get the political power, you get material progress and social freedoms. Behave in the streets, and I'll stay out of your sheets."

Do what you want on your own time in your own home, and the government will leave you alone, but the "commanding heights" of the political and economic life of the nation are off limits. Wear what you want, say what you want to your friends, buy the nice products we import for you, and be content. Protesting, public criticism, political opposition - these are signs of ingratitude and threaten the status quo.

Shamelessly cynical, Putin goes through the stage-managed forms of democracy. He even permits scripted media criticism of the state (though not of himself).

But there are limits to the new totalitarianism's tolerance. You can call Putin a baboon-butt monkey-boy over the vodka bottle at your kitchen table - but don't do it in public.

Cross that line and you are, literally, dead. A deal's a deal.

Amen

A great article in the UK Daily Mail today on the true motivations of a segment of the environmental movement.

Jonathon Porritt, the [UK] Government's 'green' adviser, has said that couples who have more than two children are being 'irresponsible' by creating an unbearable burden on the environment.

Curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must therefore be at the heart of policies to fight man-made global warming.

Apparently this is all because people have to accept responsibility 'for their total environmental footprint'.

That's what having children amounts to, apparently, in his mind.

The blessings of a large family and the contribution this makes to prosperity and progress don't figure at all. Instead, children are to be measured solely by their burdensome impact on the planet.

What kind of sinister and dehumanised mindset is this? It is no coincidence that the country which comes nearest to Jonathon's ideal society is Communist China, which imposed a murderously cruel policy of restricting families to one child apiece. For the desire to reduce the number of children that parents produce is innately totalitarian.

I can't say it any better.

Read the rest of it here.

Common Sense . . . Almost

I was reading about the California Woman who just gave birth to octuplets. The poor lady had 6 kids already.

It seems like the media has no shortage of advice and criticism for her. Some stories imply that any sane person would have aborted several of the babies, others wonder about a possible breach of medical ethics by the doctor who implanted 8 embryos in the first place.

I'm glad she didn't abort them, I do wonder about the doctor though. Fox news tries to at least be helpful

"Eating, sleeping and bathing are the key areas to get scheduled," he said. "The same goes for mom and dad. Parents need to make sure they're whole or else they won't be valuable to their children."

Good, so far so good, just good common sense, but then common sense seems to go right out the window:

Sophy said the expense of raising 14 children will likely be prohibitive, citing studies that estimate it costs roughly $2.5 million to raise a child to adulthood. Using that math, raising 14 children would cost roughly $35 million.

"And that's basic stuff," he said. "That doesn't include swimming lessons and things like that. It's very costly and hopefully the planning that needs to be done was done upfront."

What the heck? 2.5 million dollars? For one child? Who won't even know how to swim? I don't even have to think to know that that is patently absurd.

If your family makes $100,000 a year and spends every penny on only one child for 20 years that's still only 2 million dollars. Throw in a $100,000 college education, and another $100,000 for law school, and you're still not there.

Common sense should tell you that many people who don't earn 2.5 million dollars in their lifetime successfully raise children to adulthood. For example, the median income in the U.S. is about $50,000. that median earner will need 50 years to make 2.5 million. Obviously it doesn't cost them 2.5 million to raise one child.

The reporter makes matters worse by simply regurgitating the number and then calculating that it will take 35 million dollars to raise the 14 children in the family.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Unintentional Insight

Every now and then someone says something which unintentionally offers insight into a deeper issue. This time it was Ashley Dupre (Former NY gov. Eliot Spitzer's former callgirl (does that make sense)).

Anyway, she gave an interview to People magazine in which she (of course) asserts "I'm just a normal girl" yada, yada, yada. Then this unintentional insight:

In the interview, Dupré also opens up about her troubled past — running away at age 17 into a non-stop life of drinking and partying and how a girl from the suburbs could fathom becoming a prostitute: "This wasn't any different than going on a date with someone you barely knew and hooking up with them," she reasoned. "The only difference is I can pay my rent."

Hmmm . . . profound. Any promiscuous people care to explain the difference? When a culture cheapens sex, as ours has, to a harmless recreational activity, what is the harm in getting paid for it? Cruise directors get paid. Personal trainers get paid. Vacation planners get paid. Recreation is big businesss.

Yet people still seem to draw a line between 'sleeping with someone you'll never see again' and 'sleeping with someone you'll never see again . . . who gives you $100' and they declare the former normal and natural, and the latter contemptable.

Not seeing the difference myself . . . except, as Ashley said - one can pay the rent.

Change You Can Believe In - Part I: Economics.

(Sorry, this is a little long).

I was glancing through Senator Obama's "Blueprint For Change" which outlines his policies and priorities, when I began to wonder how much spending has been promised. I decided to search to whole document and find out. All quotes are directly from Obama's Blueprint. Keep in mind that these are only the items that Obama has promised that include a specific dollar amount. I've done my best to weed out duplicate spending and to be generally fair. Let's start with a piece of Obama's plan I agree with:

Obama will reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules, so that new spending or tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts or new revenue (ie tax increases) elsewhere.

Well, it's about time! Keep this in mind. I'll come back to it later. Let's take a look at how much spending Senator Obama will need to offset.

---

First direct spending promises:

reduce a typical family’s premiums by as much as $2,500 per year (through government-funded health care)

Cost: 100 billion dollars/year (400 billion for his first term)

(Guessing conservatively, at an average of $1000 times 100 million families; this jives with Obama's own estimated cost for his health insurance plan).

$10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems.

Cost: 10 billion/year (50 billion total)

Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs (of FMLA reform)

Total cost: 1.5 billion total

Create Automatic Workplace Pensions -employers who do not currently offer a retirement plan, will be required to enroll their employees in a direct-deposit IRA account that is compatible to existing direct-deposit payroll systems...His plan will match 50 percent of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn less than $75,000.

This one is hard to price. Considering the number of families earning less than 75,000 (a large majority) the cost could be enormous. Besides, I thought social security was the answer:

“We … have an obligation to protect Social Security and ensure that it’s a safety net the American people can count on today, tomorrow and forever.
–Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 27, 2007

So, we won't count that one.

Obama will invest $150 billion over ten years to deploy clean technologies

Cost: 15 billion/year (150 billion total)

Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years

Cost: 10 billion/year (50 billion total)

Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs

Cost: .2 billion/year (1 billion total)

He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees

cost: 2 billion total

he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal (cutting world poverty)

Total cost: 25 billion/year

Total Spending: 679.5 billion dollars.

Total ongoing yearly spending: 160.2 billion dollars.

---

Now let's look at new tax cuts:

Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay

Cost: 20 billion/year (if 20% of families are "working").

Obama will create a new “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family.

Cost: 20 billion/year (see above assumptions)

Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide tax relief to homeowners who do not itemize. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners

Cost: 5 billion dollars

an immediate tax cut averaging $1,400 to 7 million seniors

Cost: 9.8 billion dollars

Obama will create a new  American Opportunity Tax Credit...This $4,000 tax credit will be fully refundable...

Also very hard to value. Potentially huge. We'll ignore this one too.

Total tax cuts per year: 54.8 billion dollars.

---

So, by Obama's own reckoning, every year (for at least 5 years)the federal government will need to come up with a minimum of 215 billion dollars additional tax revenue (54.8 billion + 160.2) if Obama is really going to offset these expenses. Of course this also assumes zero spending growth for every other government agency and program: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Military spending, interest on the debt, Education, etc . . . . or Obama could cut spending . . . (yeah, that's going to happen).

Total federal tax revenue for 2007 was 2568 billion dollars. The needed tax increase will, therefore, be 8.4% on average for every taxpaying entity in America. The reality will be much greater for some taxpayers and corporations than others given the fact that nearly 50% of taxpayers pay no income taxes, and Obama's stated preference for raising taxes only on corporations and "the rich."

This minimum increase excludes onetime spending and several ongoing programs I listed above. It also excludes many other programs, funds, grants, commissions and panels which are promised but not given a dollar value.

It also does not include the "cap and trade" carbon reduction program which amounts to an enormous tax on energy production. It also excludes the "windfall profits tax" on the oil companies. It does not include the cost to business of increasing the minimum wage or of compliance with any of the additional regulations Obama proposes.

Finally, this assumes that nothing goes over-budget - this is the government we're talking about here.

This is the minimum cost of "change you can believe in."

Current Oil and Gas Prices are Self-inflicted Wounds

For several reasons, I always enjoy finding articles that summarize everything I've been thinking on a current issue. First, it confirms what I've always thought - "I'm a smart guy." Second, it saves me the trouble of composing long blog posts - I can just cut, paste and link. Much easier.

so I'm glad I found this post on the real political and historical reasons for the current "energy crisis."

Short version: Congressional dismay about high gas prices is like me blindfolding myself and then complaining when I bump into things a lot.

Long Version:

Americans feeling the pinch at the pump should recognize that the wealthiest nation on the planet has nothing but itself to blame for the third in a series of energy crises that began when Richard Nixon was still in office.

Having largely ignored the previous two shots across the bow — the first coming in 1973 when OPEC decided to ban sales of oil to nations that supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War, and the second in 1979 after the Islamic Revolution in Iran — the U.S. seems determined to repeat the mistakes of the past.

What should make Americans on both sides of the aisle even more ashamed is that before the first energy crisis, the United States produced 11.428 million barrels of oil per day. This represented 66 percent of the 17.308 million barrels we consumed that year.

Compare that to 2007, when America produced 8.481 million barrels per day, or only 41 percent of the 20.7 million barrels consumed. Such is the result of the so-called energy policies of seven White Houses and 17 Congresses controlled by both Democrats and Republicans.

Yet, today’s politicians — mostly on the left side of the aisle, of course — have the gall to place all the blame for rising energy prices on increased demand from expanding economies like China and India.

At least those countries are participating in exploration efforts to expand their own supplies. China’s oil production has almost doubled since 1980, while India’s has grown by an astounding 375 percent. At the same time, U.S. production has declined by 22 percent. . .

Closer to home, our neighbors also ramped up oil production. To the south, Mexico has seen its crude output jump 64 percent since 1980, while Canada’s increased 85 percent.

Did I mention that our production declined by 22 percent in the same period?

Putting this in its proper perspective, if America had responded to the second energy crisis by increasing oil production only at the average rate of our North American neighbors, we’d currently be supplying ourselves with 18.86 million barrels of crude per day, or 91 percent of our usage.

It's not as if we don't have the oil available. According to an April 2006 study done for the Library of Congress:

Oil shale is prevalent in the western states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The resource potential of these shales is estimated to be the equivalent of 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in place. . . . In comparison, Saudi Arabia reportedly holds proved reserves of 267 billion barrels.

That doesn't include ANWR, and it doesn't include offshore drilling.

The real problem, I believe, is that liberals, and environmentalists in particular, want oil to be expensive. Read the words of Sen. Obama when ask his opinion of high oil prices:

I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money in their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more rapidly, particularly U.S. automakers.

I think most people fail to see the need for an adjustment at all. the article points out that Democrats don't have this attitude about other scarce "resources."

Why has one political party for nearly four decades viewed energy crises through the narrow prism of learning to adjust to higher prices and declining resources, as opposed to aggressively finding and producing more of what the country and the economy needs?

Such questions seem particularly relevant given how this same party views hunger in our nation and throughout the world. The answer isn’t for those that have less to make an adjustment and adapt to their impoverished condition. 'Adjust to having less' is certainly not the Left’s prescription for Americans lacking health insurance.

Democrats want government to increase the supply of food and medical care to those deemed financially incapable of providing for themselves.

Why doesn’t the same hold true for energy?

The "New Homeless"

CNN ran a very misleadingly-titled article today: Mom Forced to Live in Car With Dogs. What an outrageous example of elder abuse, right?... No. Kids out of control and trashed the house?... No. A fire or flood?... No.

This poor lady is a member of the "middle class homeless." At the beginning of the article I felt bad for her, but as I read, I gradually found it harder and harder to really sympathize. Let's just say she's not your stereotypical homeless person.

Barbara Harvey climbs into the back of her small Honda sport utility vehicle and snuggles with her two golden retrievers, her head nestled on a pillow propped against the driver's seat. Californian Barbara Harvey says she is forced to sleep in her car with her dogs after losing her job earlier this year.

Poor lady. But wait, she owns a Honda SUV? Oh, then I saw the dateline: "Santa Barbara, CA," so it's all relative. (a late-model Honda CRV in Santa Barbara is like a 78 Chevy Nova anywhere else, right?). She also owns (and feeds) two large dogs. Just the bare necessities for her. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a country where the homeless can't even afford to support two large dogs when forced to live in their SUV.

A former loan processor, the 67-year-old mother of three grown children said she never thought she'd spend her golden years sleeping in her car in a parking lot. . .

Harvey was forced into homelessness this year after being laid off. She said that three-quarters of her income went to paying rent in Santa Barbara, where the median house. . . costs more than $1 million. She lost her condo two months ago and had little savings as backup.

Gee, I wonder why she wasn't able to save anything. Must be George Bush's fault. There might be a place or two where it would be cheaper to live. Especially when you have transportation and no steady job tying you down! That just makes me feel like shouting - MOVE TO A NORMAL TOWN!! The rich can barely afford to live in Santa Barbara.

And her children must be real deadbeats, not helping their mom, huh?

Her 19-year-old daughter moved in with friends to avoid being homeless. Her other children live overseas, and she didn't want to tell them about her living status.

Even if her children offered to help, she said, she wouldn't accept it.

She wouldn't accept help from her own children? But she'll complain to CNN! Are we supposed to just ignore this and feel sorry for her anyway? At least she's an optimist when her daughter calls. (on her cell phone?)

"My daughter especially is very unhappy. Sometimes she'll cry, and she'll call and say, 'Mom, I just can't stand it that you are living in a car,' " Harvey said. "I'll say, 'You know what? This is OK for right now, because I'm safe, I'm healthy, the dogs are doing OK, and I have a job, and things will get better."

Well, as long as the dogs are OK! Things WON'T get better, not in Santa Barbara they won't. Get in your car and leave, find an affordable apartment in an affordable town, get rid of the dogs, and the cell phone and, for crying out loud, talk to your children!

The article quotes an economist blaming the California housing crisis and the dearth of affordable housing in Santa Barbara. blah, blah, blah. The real issue here is stubborn pride and a fundamental disconnect from the realities of life. Unfortunate, yes, but not unforeseeable, and certainly not irreparable.

Discriminatory Dollars

A federal court ruled today that the treasury department discriminates against the blind by . . . get this . . . printing money!

Well, not exactly. But, the court did rule that the fact that different denominations aren't distinguishable by touch violates the Rehabilitation Act. In essence, the government needs to make sure that blind people can tell a $5 from a $10 from a $20 by touch.

I'm not saying this isn't a problem, but where does it end? Aren't the Homeland Security color alerts discriminatory? How does someone know what an "orange" threat level is if they've never seen color?

There's no really effective way to comply with this decision. Make each denomination a different size? won't they need to carry several reference cards for comparison? (not to mention the forced redesign or replacement of every single vending machine / ATM / counting machine / ticket machine / cash register / wallet in the country). Print raised marks on the bills? That will last until the bill gets wadded up or washed, and what a great way to counterfeit! a few minutes with a needle, and viola! all my ones are twenties. Texture? How many different textures are there, and do they survive wadding?

Some difficulty is, I think, an inevitable result of blindness. That's why it is called a handicap. There's nothing wrong with trying to help the blind, but I don't think the court thought this one through.

Incidentally, I'm not simply being "ableist", the American Federation for the Blind opposes changing the money too.

At Last, Vindication!

I am a well-known water hater. I just plain don't like it. Therefore, I just plain don't drink it unless there is no other choice. For years people have been telling me that I need to drink 'x' glasses of water a day. I have always politely maintained that this was a load of crap. Regardless of whether you believe in God or Darwin, our water regulating mechanism (drink when you're thirsty) just works. Now, thanks to the wonders of modern science, I can say:

I TOLD YOU SO!!!

Some highlights:

Scientists say there is no evidence drinking large amounts of water is beneficial for the average healthy person, and do not even know how this widely held belief came about.

I blame it on WATER NAZIS!. . . or the bottled water industry, take your pick.

Specialists in kidney conditions in America reviewed research on claims eight 8oz glasses of water help flush toxins from the body, preventing weight gain and improving skin tone.

Note that these are kidney specialists, not witch doctors, or Reiki healers.

No single study indicated average healthy people needed to drink this amount of water - a total of 3.3 pints - each day. . . no studies have found any benefit to the organs of increased water intake.

So, I don't want to hear anything else about kidney stones either.

On average, the body uses between 1.7 and 2.6 pints (one-1.5 litres) of water daily and more in high temperatures or when exercising.

This is replaced through drinks but a large amount is also contained in food, so it is not necessary to drink an equivalent amount to replace water levels.

I've been sayin' it for years! (not that I'm gloating or anything).

And, in closing, I'd just like to reiterate the scientists' warning to all Water Nazis about the dangerousness and potential lethality of their addiction.

Too much water can affect the balance of salts in the body causing "water intoxication", which can be fatal.

Please, get help before it's too late!

Captain Obvious

I hate to rag on my Alma Mater, but the findings in this article should be glaringly obvious.

A new study out of Brigham Young University suggests that first-born children get thousands of hours more attention from their parents.

This latest study follows recent national reports that first-born children make more money, have more education and score higher on IQ tests.

Anyone with more than one child would likely not need a study to confirm the parental time differential. Part of it is, as the article says, parental laziness, but part of it may be just efficiency. After the first child, the parents have the routine down, and it takes less time to do everything. Some of it may also be down to the younger children spending time with siblings instead of Mom and Dad. I know Isaac will often follow his older brothers around rather than play with me. They're just more fun I guess.

On a related note, since Becky and I are both first children . . . na-nee na-nee boo boo (as the twins say) we always knew we were the favorites! ;)