People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

No Energy Policy At All

Imagine a candidate for high office telling the American people that the way to win the war is to change the design of our soldiers' uniforms. Not realistic? Insane?

Along those lines, here's Sixth District congressional candidate Sam Rasoul's solution to another very serious - and worsening - emergency:

Rasoul outlines his energy policies
By Mason Adams, the Roanoke Times

Sixth District congressional candidate Sam Rasoul said Wednesday that the United States must invest more money in alternative energy sources and energy efficiency to protect national security and spur the economy.

Rasoul, a Democrat who is challenging Republican incumbent Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke County, said during a news conference at the Roanoke County-Salem Jail that the country missed an opportunity to achieve energy independence during the gas crisis of the 1970s, but failed to follow up and now buys nearly 70 percent of its oil from other countries.

"I now call on Americans to rally around a national energy revolution," Rasoul said. "My focus will be on the importance of energy diversification as a national security issue, how an energy solution can fuel economic growth for decades to come ..." (link)

And I call upon the Red Sea to part.

I have to tell you, I get a kick out of reading the details of these "energy policies" being put forth by Democrats these days. Mark Warner's comprehensive and complex fantasy comes to mind. These guys are falling all over themselves trying to come up with a meaningful solution to the world's energy shortage that doesn't include the energy generation sources that currently produce 99.5% of the world's power - coal, gas, oil, and nuclear. They instead focus on that 0.5% - biomass, wind, and solar. The "alternative energy sources" that Rasoul refers to.

Zero point five percent.

With the emphasis on the zero.

I hate to burst their bubble but estimates show that, even if the wind, solar, and biomass industries are infused with massive amounts of (taxpayers') investment capital, bringing about 10% growth per year to each, the percentage of power generated by the three will still only amount to 1% of the total by the year 2030.

One percent.

This comes from Reuters:

Despite the growing popularity of renewable energy sources -- top competitors like BP and Chevron Corp. dabble in it -- Exxon Mobil Corp. has shied away from investing in solar and wind energy, arguing that the business is viable only with Uncle Sam's help.

Exxon estimates solar and wind energy demand will grow at a 10 percent rate annually over the next 25 years, but only on the back of government subsidies and tax breaks to spur investment in cleaner, environment-friendly energy sources.

Strip out the handouts, and investing in wind and solar energy would be nonstarters, the manager of Exxon's energy demand and supply forecasting division told Reuters last week.

Exxon says that even if the economics made sense, solar and wind energy would stand to make up only a tiny slice of a company that posted nearly $300 billion (165 billion pounds) in annual revenues last year, surpassing the gross domestic product of countries like Indonesia and Austria.

That's because solar and wind energy will together only command 1 percent of the total energy mix in 2030 despite growing at a fast clip, from a roughly 0.5 percent share now, Exxon estimates. (link)

So this Rasoul character is going to solve the planet's energy emergency by ... rubbing two sticks together. Or the equivalent thereof.

That's going to solve our problems? Please. Don't insult our intelligence.

On Yesterday's Debate

If you want to find out who won yesterday's debate between former Governors Jim Gilmore and Mark Warner, you can turn to the Washington Post - and not learn a damn thing - or you can go to an unbiased source who always delivers the real skinny on such matters.

SWAC Girl:

[S]ometimes I feel as if I'm in a parallel universe from the mainstream media. They called it a draw.

That may be, but for Mark Warner to have the rock star status he has, he did not turn in all that great a performance. In fact, his face got red and little white splotches came out on his jaw when he didn't answer the questions and Gov. Gilmore held him to it.

I thought Gov. Gilmore stayed on message on two important themes: trust and energy. Who do the people of Virginia trust ... Mark Warner who promised not to raise taxes but then pushed through the largest tax increase in Virginia history? Or Jim Gilmore who kept his promise to remove the odious car tax? There is so much to write about this that I can hardly wait to get started.

Where else are you going to read that Mark Warner had a red, splotchy face whenever he was cornered by Jim Gilmore?

The only thing I haven't been able to determine is whether Warner was asked in the debate if he was going to lie to the people of Virginia again about not raising our taxes. But maybe it was at that point that he got those little white splotchy things to break out all over. Humiliation, I'm told, will do that to a person.

In any case, it appears that Gilmore whooped up on his opponent in their first debate. Here's to the better man for it.

And here's to you, SWAC Girl, for bringing the news to the people of Virginia.

Don't Be Poking Fun At The Black Chick

Here I thought those Muslims around the world were out of their minds when they went nuts over a Danish cartoon that depicted the prophet Mohammed in a less-than-flattering way. My thought at the time was: How backward and closed-minded can you be? It's a cartoon.

It turns out that those neanderthals don't hold a candle to our very own liberal elite in this country who have gone absolutely ballistic over ... a cartoon. Talk about getting their panties in a bunch ...
Black. Female. Accomplished. Attacked.
By Sophia A. Nelson, writing in the Washington Post

There she is -- no, not Miss America, but the Angela-Davis-Afro-wearing, machine-gun-toting, angry, unpatriotic Michelle Obama, greeting her husband with a fist bump instead of a kiss on the cheek. [jf: see it here]

It was supposed to be satire, but the caricature of Barack Obama and his wife that appeared on the cover of the New Yorker last week rightly caused a major flap. And among black professional women like me and many of my sisters in the Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority, who happened to be gathered last week in Washington for our 100th anniversary celebration, the mischaracterization of Michelle hit the rawest of nerves.

Welcome to our world.

Sad to say, but what Obama has undergone, though it's on a national stage and on a much more prominent scale, is nothing new to professional African American women. We endure this type of labeling all the time. (link)
Sure you do, babe. I'll just bet you've had to endure countless charges of being "Angela-Davis-Afro-wearing, machine-gun-toting, angry, unpatriotic" businesswomen as you go through life looking for someone to please knock that chip off your shoulder(s).

So what are you going to do about this affront to your afro-womanhood? Burn the cartoonist in effigy? Riot in the streets? Decree a fatwah on all who work at The New Yorker? React like the morons who killed one another in the name of The Religion of Peace?

I say take a pill. And get over yourself. It's a cartoon.

Jihad, American style. May God have mercy.

Kill Me Now

Supreme Court Justice Hillary? If that's not enough to get you to the polls come November ...
Some Legal Activists Have Hearts Set on 'True Liberal'
By Robert Barnes and Kevin Merida, Washington Post Staff Writers

It could be seen as the sincerest form of flattery: Ask some activists on the left the kind of Supreme Court justice they would like to see a President Obama appoint, and the name you hear most is the same justice they most often denounce.

They want their own Antonin Scalia. Or rather, an anti-Scalia, an individual who can easily articulate a liberal interpretation of the Constitution, offer a quick sound bite and be prepared to mix it up with conservative activists beyond the marble and red velvet of the Supreme Court.

Some have even mentioned Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the role ... (
Since qualifications don't really matter any more (think in terms of Steve Urkel being the leader of the free world who appointed her to the High Court), this ought to be acceptable. After all, her extensive legal background in doctoring Rose Law Firm billing records, and in getting coffee for the partners, more than allows for her to sit atop the Supreme Court throne. Right?

I'm not ready for this.

Seems Only Right

Like the rest of America, I cringe at the thought of a convicted murderer, after having served his prison sentence, walking the streets with a loaded weapon in his hand. But he, like the rest of us, has certain constitutional rights that should not be infringed. After all, it's not the gun; it's what he does with it that makes for a problem.

I had to think through my position on this subject when I read the following:
Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons
By Mark Sherman, The Associated Press

Washington (AP) - Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.

As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.

"Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer. (link)
A good argument can be made that felons forfeit their rights once convicted. And I support that argument. But I don't support any argument that requires the forfeiture of all rights in perpetuity. The right to self-defense is one that should transcend any need for, or interest in, ongoing punitive measures once these guys and gals have served their time and are turned loose on the streets.

What Kind Of Country Do We Live In?

Where people are reduced to skin and bones from a lack of money for food.

* Note: Don't blame me. I'm just the messenger.

Ah, Youth

These fellas thought they had it all figured out:

The Final Exam

Not long ago there were four Virginia Tech sophomores taking chemistry and all of them had an 'A' so far. These four friends were so confident that they would ace the course that, the weekend before finals, they decided to visit some friends and have a big party, rather than study like all the other students in the class.

And party they did. They had a great time but, after all the hearty drinking and merrymaking, they slept all day Sunday and didn't make it back to Virginia Tech until early Monday morning.

Rather than take the final then, they decided to skip class and, after the final, they would explain to their professor why they missed it.

They said that they visited friends but on the way back their car had had a flat tire. As a result, they couldn't get back in time and missed the final.

The professor seemed to buy their story and agreed to let them make up the final the next day. The guys were excited and relieved.

They buckled down and studied that night for the exam.

The next day the Professor placed them in separate rooms and gave them each a test booklet. They quickly answered the first problem worth 5 points. Cool, they thought! Each one in separate rooms, thinking this was going to be easy.

Then they turned the page. On the second page was written ...

For 95 points: Which tire? _________

Author unknown