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

Wednesday, February 02, 2011

I Wonder Why

Obama saying it don't make it so.

His goal?  One million electric cars on the road by 2015.

Why won't that happen?

From the Washington Post article:
The federal government is already offering incentives as high as $7,500 for consumers to buy plug-in cars and putting up $2.4 billion for battery and electric-car manufacturing.

But even with that encouragement, the public's adoption of electric vehicles could be slow.

The $32,780 Leaf and the $41,000 Volt cost far more than a comparably sized car with a gas engine [1], which typically sells for $20,000. The battery range of the Leaf, which is all electric, is less than 100 miles [2], and places where batteries can be replenished are sparse at best [3]. Also, it can take hours to recharge [3].

As a result, many automakers have balked at making the investments to mass produce plug-in vehicles.
(1) They're extremely expensive.

(2) They're extremely inefficient.

(3) They're extremely inconvenient.

(Not to mention the fact that (4) they're extremely ugly.)

Other than that what's not to love?

Obama predicts we'll see one million electric cars on the road in four years.

I predict we'll have to go to a museum to see them at all.

Stalinists In America Are Alive & Well

And wield a great deal of power.

See "My Scary Encounter With Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley."

It could just as easily have been entitled "My Scary Encounter With University of Chicago Administrators Who Claim they Strive For Free and Open Discussion  On Campus But Who, In Fact, Are More Than Willing To Crush Dissent If That Dissent Riles The Politburo."

May God have mercy.

No. No Connection Whatsoever.

The two just happen to appear in the same thought process.

Weak of mind?  Or too-sinister by half.  You decide.

Here's the New York Times's executive editor explaining what he isn't referring to as he refers to it:
We have had a lot of talk since the Gabby Giffords attempted murder about civility in our national discourse, and I make no connection between the guy who shot those people in Tucson and the national discourse. But it is true that the national discourse is more polarized and strident than it has been in the past, and to some extent, I would lay that at the feet of Rupert Murdoch.
What exactly is Bill Keller laying at the feet of Rupert Murdock?

Real slick, dude.

Either that or really obtuse.


The Democrats have decided to hold their next presidential convention in The South.

A question: Is The South required to let them?

Stupid. Stupid.

Mike Barnicle, leftist pundit, frequent contributor to MSNBC, plagiarist, first class nitwit, shows the world what he knows about guns:

"It's easier to buy an AK-47 assault weapon than it is to buy an automobile in some states."

Earth to radical leftist: It's illegal in ALL states to buy an AK-47 - unless it's pre-1986 vintage.  And even then you need to find someone with a Class III Federal Firearms License to sell it to you.  Otherwise, the purchase, and even ownership, will send you up the river.

Easy?  Find one and try it, genius.

It's Good To Know Who's On Your Side ...

... and who's not.

You know all that talk in Washington about "greenhouse gases"?  Well, it's not just talk.  It's turned into action.

On the part of the EPA.

It's shutting down coal mines.

And who blocked efforts to prevent the EPA from doing that?

James Webb.

And now that mines are being closed - now that the lion is out of its cage - who wants to try and put it back in?

James Webb.

You're a little late, Mr. Webb.

And people have lost their jobs because you made the decision to side with the radical environmentalists.   When it counted.
EPA decision on Spruce No. 1 Mine big news in coalfields, beyond
By Debra McCown, Bristol Herald Courier

Abingdon, Va. – Though the controversial Spruce No. 1 Mine is in West Virginia, it has been viewed by many throughout the Appalachian region as a telltale for which way the regulatory wind is blowing.

Operated by a subsidiary of Arch Coal, it was the largest surface mine to be permitted in Appalachia, but with permits granted only after an extensive environmental review and litigation. And now, the EPA is vetoing a water permit issued in 2007 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Spruce No. 1 Mine.

For activists opposed to mountaintop mining, it’s long been a symbol, the quintessential example of how mining has become too large and too destructive. For the coal industry, it’s viewed as a picture of the dramatic extent to which government bureaucracy stands in the way of progress.

In a statement released Thursday, the Sierra Club announced its support for the decision by EPA to veto the water permit and thanked the Obama Administration for its work on the issue.

Coal industry advocates like Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., meanwhile, condemned the EPA’s decision as one that will stall the nation’s recovery from recession, in addition to creating hardships in the coalfields.

Arch announced that it will appeal the issue in the courts.

In Southwest Virginia, longtime activist Kathy Selvage said she’s “ecstatic” about the EPA’s decision and hopes the decision to revoke the Spruce permit will be followed by more efforts to stop surface mining in the region.

“I would like to see it curtailed in every situation where it is damaging the water supplies,” said Selvage, a lifelong Wise County resident with family ties to the land that stretch back to the 1800s. “I hope that they have the courage to stand strong against the backlash that I expect to come from the coal industry.”

In Virginia, Selvage said, she’s hopeful the EPA will decide not to issue anymore permits for mountaintop mining, and then review existing projects and revoke the permits of any that are doing irreparable harm to water supplies.

Bill Bledsoe, executive director of the Norton-based Virginia Mining Association, said the decision means “that everyone’s going to be looking over their shoulder seeing if it’s the EPA coming.”

“To give the EPA that much authority and the willingness to use it means that investors are going to be very cautious about investing in supplying energy when the federal government can nullify those investments and send your workforce home simply because they, on second thought or hindsight, decide that’s what they want to do,” Bledsoe said.

“This EPA veto power doesn’t extend only to coal; it extends to anything. It means EPA can come in and shut any operation down without due process.” [link]
The environmental radicals around here are "ecstatic," Mr. Webb.   Ecstatic that miners here may lose their jobs.  That people living on the edge of poverty may be pushed - by your actions - over the edge.

How proud you must be.

Yet now we hear that you've had a change of heart.  That you see the error of your ways.

It's a little late for the families who depended on Spruce Mine No. 1 for a paycheck, pal.

And, if your best bud in the White House gets his way, it may be too late for every family in Dickenson, Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazewell, and Wise Counties who depend on coal for their families' existence.

Too late, sir.  Too late.

- - -

A portent of things to come?  We can only hope ...
Sen. Webb raises $12K in final quarter of 2010
By Shane D'Aprile, The Hill

Sen. Jim Webb's (D-Va.) latest fundraising numbers won't do much to ease the concerns of Virginia Democrats, worried that the senator isn't doing nearly enough to gear up for a 2012 challenge from former Sen. George Allen (R-Va.).

Webb, who still hasn't made his reelection plans known, raised just over $12,000 during the final quarter of 2010. [link]
Some will argue - and Webb probably accepts it as a given - that with the Washington Post doing the campaign management for him, as it did to its eternal discredit in 2006, he doesn't need to raise a lot of cash for his run for reelection.  And it's with considerable justification that he thinks that way.

Still, I'm taking this news as being an indication that James Webb will not seek reelection.  Call it wishful thinking.

Work Your Magic, Dude.

I hold out little hope that an opportunity for a vote to come up in the Senate to repeal Obamacare will ever come as long as the Democrats hold the majority.  But if anyone on the planet can get it to the floor, it's this guy:
Mitch McConnell grabs opening for health care vote
By Jennifer Haberkorn and Shira Toeplitz, Politico

The Senate could vote as soon as Tuesday afternoon on a procedural measure to allow for repealing the health care overhaul.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says Democrats plan to dispense with a Republican amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill that would repeal the health care law. Another vote could be held to repeal the 1099 tax reporting requirements in the health law.

Reid told reporters he expects a procedural vote “sometime today.”

“We want to get it out of their system very quickly,” Reid said. “We’ve tried, and tried and tried to come up with something that was reasonable on the 1099 health care provision that we all feel should be modified.”

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) introduced the amendment today.

“Shortly, I will lay down an amendment to repeal Obamacare,” McConnell announced to reporters at a press conference after the luncheon. “I’m pleased to announce that all 47 of my members will be voting to repeal ObamaCare.” [link]
47 is light years from the 60 that will be needed to get past a certain filibuster.  But an up-or-down vote would put a whole lot of Democrats - many of whom will be running for reelection in 2012 - on record.  And as our health care delivery system begins to fail as the worst of the Obamacare provisions kick in, that would be valuable information to take into the voting booth.

Between now and then it'll be "death by a thousand cuts."

Will it happen?  Will there be a repeal vote?  Probably not.

But here's to Mitch for trying.


This is one of those news items that make you go ... what?!

I read the headline and couldn't believe it:

I understand the sentiment - and the sound logic behind such a move - but aren't we battling the statists among us over the mandatory insurance provision in Obamacare right now? Do we really want to go down that road and try to force everyone to buy a gun?

Here's the detail:
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.
Oh, my.  And all five sponsors of the bill are Republicans.

Good grief.

And then I read further ...
Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.
Aha! This is nothing short of fantastic!

Talk about hoisting Obama and his big-government ilk with their own petard!

Seems proper - requiring that everyone own a gun - now that I think about it. And a bottle of bourbon for medicinal purposes too.

Want to go down that road? You make your list, I'll make my list.

Hat tip to Hot Air.