Sunday, January 25, 2009
"I don’t know how any representative could be more responsive to the needs of the people he represents than to directly create jobs for them."
Right. And the miserably impoverished Soviet people were much appreciative of every job that was created for them by their benevolent central planner.
In one of her top-rated shows this season,used her Jan. 5 episode to publicly confess, in a gauzy, soft-palette setting, her mortification and shame at hitting 200 (maybe more?) pounds.
"I am embarrassed," she said. "All the money and all the fame and all the attention and the glamorous life and the success doesn't mean one thing if you can't control your own being." Twenty-two years on, Oprah Winfrey - America's most prominent secular spiritual leader, who has stated that her life's work is to help all Americans "live your best life" and has deployed an army of self-help gurus to that effect - continues to publicly grapple with her weight and, it seems, her despair.
Why can't America's self-help queen help herself?
Because she's a flaming liberal? Isn't that what liberals are famous for? Doing unto others that which they can't - or won't - do unto themselves? (see the piece about environmentalists below).
Oprah is fat and miserable. Her show dwells each day (I'm told) on helping others with their self-esteem issues. And her show is watched - and she is adored - by millions of fat, miserable, help-seeking women in America.
That's kinda like wanting an habitual reckless driver behind the wheel of that US Airways plane that went down in the Hudson River the other day, isn't it?
But that seems to be the America we live in. One big confessional. One yearning for ... role models?
And we wonder why this country is so messed up.
The famously inarticulate and incoherent Maureen Dowd, columnist for the New York Times, is upset that New York Governor David Paterson didn't pick the now-famously inarticulate and incoherent Caroline Kennedy to be Hillary's replacement in the Senate.
It somehow seems fitting.
It took some time but I finally came to the realization: This ain't bright.
So now I limit myself to three. Or four. A day.
So what do I read this morning? I have another reason for drinking the nectar of the caffeine gods besides it going down so well while blogging. It keeps me clear-headed.
A study says so:
Coffee Linked to Lower Dementia RiskThere you have it. Excessive consumption of coffee makes you smarter.
By Nicholas Bakalar, The New York Times
Drinking coffee may do more than just keep you awake. A new study suggests an intriguing potential link to mental health later in life, as well.
A team of Swedish and Danish researchers tracked coffee consumption in a group of 1,409 middle-age men and women for an average of 21 years. During that time, 61 participants developed dementia, 48 with Alzheimer’s disease.
After controlling for numerous socioeconomic and health factors, including high cholesterol and high blood pressure, the scientists found that the subjects who had reported drinking three to five cups of coffee daily were 65 percent less likely to have developed dementia, compared with those who drank two cups or less. [link]
Anyway, here's to Maxwell House. Thanks for the memories. Er, to be precise, thanks for allowing me the ability to have memories.
Looks like I could use that second cup. 5:03am. Right on time.
It don't get better than this: "Blowhards."
But the editorial makes a larger point, one about "alternative energies" in general. They're not viable. By a long shot:
Bill Delahunt, the windy Cape Democrat, also denounced the action as "a $2 billion project that depends on significant taxpayer subsidies while potentially doubling power costs for the region."President Obama is known as a dreamer. On this subject, keep dreamin', pal.
Good to see the Congressman now recognizes the limitations of green tech, such as its tendency to boost consumer electricity prices -- but his makeover as taxpayer champion is a bit belated. Green energy has been on the subsidy take for years, including in 2005 when Mr. Delahunt was calling for "an Apollo project for alternative energy sources, for hybrid engines, for biodiesel, for wind and solar and everything else." The reality is that all such projects are only commercially viable because of political patronage.
Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf ran the numbers and found that the effective tax rate for wind is minus-163.8%. In other words, every dollar a wind firm spends is subsidized to the tune of 64 cents from the government. The Energy Information Administration estimates that wind receives $23.37 in government benefits per megawatt hour -- compared to, say, 44 cents for coal. Despite these taxpayer crutches, wind only provides a little under 1% of U.S. net electric generation.
President Obama seems determined to unload even more subsidies on green developers as he seeks to boost renewables to 10% of the U.S. electricity mix by the end of his first term and 25% by 2025; their share today is about 9% (5.8% of which is hydropower).
Environmentalists love the idea of milking Mother Nature for power, but they hate the hardware needed to make it work: huge windmills, acres of solar panels, high-voltage transmission lines to connect them to the places where people live. Of course, they still totally, absolutely, wholeheartedly support green energy -- as long as it gets built where someone else goes yachting.Sound familiar to you environmentalists up in grossly liberal northern Virginia who are fighting the construction of those high-voltage electric lines that will allow you to continue to consume more power than the rest of us here in Virginia combined?
Environmentalism. The ultimate ego trip.