Quote

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

Friday, December 05, 2008

Get Your Own House In Order, Pal

This just chaps my butt:
Kaine backs climate efforts
By Michael Sluss, The Roanoke Times

Richmond -- Gov. Tim Kaine on Thursday embraced a new, far-reaching target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and said he will seek additional funding for some environmental initiatives despite Virginia's severe budget shortfall.

Kaine told his Commission on Climate Change that he will support the panel's recommendation to pursue a more aggressive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions than his administration had originally proposed. The panel recommended that Virginia reduce emissions by 25 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.

Kaine last year advanced a long-range energy plan that called for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2025, but didn't go beyond that. He praised the panel for setting a further-reaching target. [link]
The year 2025. A demand for an 80% cut in emissions long after he's gone and unable to be held accountable for his silly decrees. Why not 110%, Tim? 220%? They are no less achievable than an 80% cut in emissions our way of life.

And another thing - this one far more important - being the typical Democrat, you find it to be your responsibility to dictate to the rest of us - including in particular the business community - how we are going to live our lives. This while your administration is in crisis for over-spending and under-revenuing. What's the latest number on that shortfall? $2.5 billion? And you're wasting our time on "climate change"? I don't blame you for wanting to change the subject, but is making silly pronouncements on global warming really part of the job duties and responsibilities of a governor, especially at a time when the finances we entrusted to you are in crisis?

Key word being RESPONSIBILITY.

Get OUR house in order, man. Then we'll talk.

As Only The Wall Street Journal Can Put It

The only paper in America that people (including me) buy just to get their hands on the editorial page.

Today the page goes after Obama and his daily abrogation of campaign promises. The most recent being that awful Jimmy Carter era windfall profits tax idiocy:
Barack's Windfall Reversal
Here comes the 'change' part of his Administration.
editorial

One of Barack Obama's emerging political qualities is how casually he has been dumping the ballast of his campaign promises. The latest lousy policy to go over the side is a windfall profits tax on U.S. oil companies.

Throughout his run for President, Mr. Obama argued the industry deserved special taxation on its "excess" earnings. He planned to use the proceeds to fund an "emergency" round of $1,000 rebate checks for families. "It isn't right that oil companies are making record profits when ordinary Americans are going into debt trying to pay rising energy costs," he said.

Mr. Obama never did offer a good or even particular reason for the oil majors to face this Carter-era inspiration -- apart from appeasing the populist furies. And he couldn't, either, given that multiple other industries profit more both in absolute terms and in returns on equity or sales. Nor could he account for the fact the tax confiscation would merely be passed along to the public in forgone investment in new exploration and production (and thus higher prices at the pump) or lower dividends.

Now with the election safely over, a transition spokesman explained this week that the drop in oil prices to $50 a barrel has made the windfall tax a dead letter. Left unexplained was why the oil companies suddenly decided to stop profiteering, or manipulating commodity prices, or whatever it was they were supposedly doing. But be thankful for small mercies. It is reassuring that Mr. Obama's calls to arbitrarily soak an unpopular business were merely rooted in political expediency, not some economic philosophy. [link]
"It is reassuring that Mr. Obama's calls to arbitrarily soak an unpopular business were merely rooted in political expediency, not some economic philosophy." It don't get better than that.

A Sign Of The Times

This Smells

The Washington Post this morning provides us with details of "a 38 page study" underwritten "by a group of more than 300 U.S. mayors" that purports to show that "states with lax gun laws had higher rates of handgun killings, fatal shootings of police officers, and sales of weapons that were used in crimes in other states."

See "Report Links State Gun Laws To Rates of Slayings, Trafficking"

The odd thing is, the Post doesn't tell us who conducted the study.

And the Post doesn't provide us with a link on the internet so that we can find the study, if it exists at all.

And the Post isn't clear as to whether the "study" was underwritten by "more than 300 mayors" or more than 300 cash-strapped cities with mayors who have better things to spend taxpayer money on but chose instead to waste it on another gun control study, the methodology of which we aren't made privy to.

The "study" is to be released this month, we're told. If those who put it together were confident of its veracity and that its methodology was beyond reproach, would they have gone about publicizing its "findings" in this manner?

Does this smell?

So, Will The 'Nurse' Be Arrested?

I'm trying to get past the thought that an abortion clinic even has a nurse on staff. For what exactly? But there's a more important story here. Lawbreaking:
Video captures abortion coaching
By Victor Morton, The Washington Times

Planned Parenthood of Indiana has suspended a nurse after the release of an undercover videotape showing her coaching a supposed 13-year-old on how to duck Indiana's laws about parental consent on abortion and the reporting of child sex abuse.

The videotape shows Lila Rose, the president of a university pro-life group and a brunette, posing as a blond 13-year-old girl named "Brianna" and telling the Planned Parenthood nurse at the clinic in Bloomington, Ind., that she is pregnant by a 31-year-old man.

"I am supposed to report [you] to Child Protective Services," the nurse says on the videotape, though she assures "Brianna" that she will not do so if she can tell a plausible different story.

"I didn´t hear the age. I don´t want to know the age," the nurse says at a later point on the tape. [link]
Arrest her. If not for killing little babies, or being an accessory, for encouraging someone she thought was a minor to break the law and for scheming to defy it.

Jail time is appropriate. So appropriate.

Food For Thought

If GM, Ford, and Chrysler each declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy, are all their new-car warranties (each a contract between the manufacturer and the buyer) that are in place null and void? Suppose they'd do that?

The Blind Leading The Blind

Congress is now going to require the (no longer -) Big Three automakers to include an emphasis on environmentally friendly automobiles in their recovery plans if the CEO's thereof think they are going to get a bailout. Our august Washington legislators have determined, being experts on the subject, that alternative vehicles are the way of the future, and they've therefore declared the future to be now. And those CEO's, surprise, surprise, are eagerly willing to oblige.

But what if the marketplace says otherwise? What if people don't want to buy tiny little tin vehicles that are uncomfortable, ride rough, look like dog houses, and are difficult to handle? And worst of all, what if they don't want to have to stop every 50 miles* - for an hour each time - and recharge depleted batteries? And what if people want to get to their destination within a reasonable amount of time? And what about safety issues? And why would a sane person pay three times as much for all of the above when he can buy a nice Kia or Hyundai that gets good gas mileage and survives remarkably well in crash tests?

What favors have GM, Ford, and Chrysler done themselves under those circumstances if they rush headlong into production of electric (or, to a lesser extent, hybrid) cars?

Uh, fellas, here's a news flash:
Electric shock as sales of green cars go into reverse
By Ben Webster, Times of London

Sales of electric cars have fallen by more than half this year, according to figures released two days after the Government’s climate change advisory body predicted a huge increase.

Only 156 electric cars were sold from January to October, compared with 374 for the same period last year.

Nice Car Company, one of the two main British distributors of electric cars, went into administration yesterday. Set up in 2006, the company had been selling an all-electric version of the French-made Aixam Mega. It had also planned to bring a range of new models to market by the end of the year. However, sales dropped to fewer than one car a week. [link]
With all that said, how's this for wishful thinking?
The Committee on Climate Change said on Monday it expected electric and hybrid vehicles to form up to 40 per cent of cars on the road by 2020.
Only if one of two things happens. Either (a) the fairy godmother waves her magic wand and makes the electric and hybrid vehicles both affordable and utilitarian or (b) 40% of the driving public is forced at the point of a gun to own one of the damn things.

My money's on (b).

- - -

Oops. Sorry. The Chevy Volt will go only 40 miles between charges.

Obama Was Going To End The War

And then he wasn't:
Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality
By Thom Shanker, The New York Times

Washington — On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.

But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.

“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team. [link]
Could you repeat that, Barry? Only this time in English?

You're going to remove all "combat" troops from Iraq by May, 2010, but you are going to leave perhaps tens of thousands of "non-combat" soldiers and marines (who'll be fully armed and combat-ready, but not) to "protect" civilians there, but not protect them to the point where they have to shoot at bad guys because that would constitute combat and those troops will have been removed from theater.

What?

Campaigning was so much easier, wasn't it, dude? You could make shit up as you went along and, whether it made sense or not, whether it was ludicrous or not, you could count on the media spinning your pronouncements in the most positive way.

But now you da' man. And you're required to have a plan. A coherent plan. Having second thoughts yet?

- - -

Oh, by the way, to those of you who were referred to as fools in a weblog post the other day for believing this joker's campaign pledges ... it still stands.