Posting this from 30000+ ft
24 December 2012
17 December 2012
Gun-grabbers
It happens every time.
A tragedy like the massacre of 27 adults and children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, is cause to mourn for most rational people. For the left-wing gun grabbers, it's a time to act, before strong emotions give way to logic and reason.
Soledad O'Brien goes on about how "a rational person could say that having access to a high-powered semiautomatic rifle is inappropriate. That there's no reason to go deer hunting with that, there's no reason to have access to that. And that is the connection that these killers have access to those weapons."
Ms. O'Brien, do you know what a semi-automatic rifle is? It fires a single bullet every time the trigger is pulled.
So does a revolver.
But the word "semi-automatic" gets gun-control advocates in a tizzy. I think they picture a hail of bullets spewing from the barrel and tearing through the flesh of innocents. Yes, the bullets come out a rate defined by how fast the shooter can squeeze the trigger and for the gun to load the next bullet from the magazine.
What galls me is this attitude of "We know what's best for you." It's not just limited to guns. Drive an SUV? These nosy, ruthless bastards will stop at nothing to force you drive a hybrid or electric vehicle with the relative safety of a gas tank inside a cardboard box. But you're getting great gas mileage, they'll tell you. You're saving the planet!
But I can't haul lumber for my home addition, or river rock for my landscaping project.
Well, you don't need that much space to live in, anyway. And your desire to not live in a cramped shitty apartment in a dense, high-tax, crime-ridden urban center contributes to urban sprawl, and prevents us from controlling all aspects of your life!
But that's the point!
The gun-grabbers then try to tell you that the point of the Second Amendment is for a militia. Even if that interpretation was accurate (and the learned folks in the black robes in the highest court of the land do not think it is), the militia was made of citizenry who often brought their own weapons to the field of battle. That's what distinguishes a militia from an army. As Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia observed, if the Second Amendment is meant to apply to collective rights, it is unique amongst the other rights all reserved to individuals in the Constitution.
Then there's the inconvenient facts in this particular case:
A tragedy like the massacre of 27 adults and children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, is cause to mourn for most rational people. For the left-wing gun grabbers, it's a time to act, before strong emotions give way to logic and reason.
Soledad O'Brien goes on about how "a rational person could say that having access to a high-powered semiautomatic rifle is inappropriate. That there's no reason to go deer hunting with that, there's no reason to have access to that. And that is the connection that these killers have access to those weapons."
Ms. O'Brien, do you know what a semi-automatic rifle is? It fires a single bullet every time the trigger is pulled.
So does a revolver.
But the word "semi-automatic" gets gun-control advocates in a tizzy. I think they picture a hail of bullets spewing from the barrel and tearing through the flesh of innocents. Yes, the bullets come out a rate defined by how fast the shooter can squeeze the trigger and for the gun to load the next bullet from the magazine.
What galls me is this attitude of "We know what's best for you." It's not just limited to guns. Drive an SUV? These nosy, ruthless bastards will stop at nothing to force you drive a hybrid or electric vehicle with the relative safety of a gas tank inside a cardboard box. But you're getting great gas mileage, they'll tell you. You're saving the planet!
But I can't haul lumber for my home addition, or river rock for my landscaping project.
Well, you don't need that much space to live in, anyway. And your desire to not live in a cramped shitty apartment in a dense, high-tax, crime-ridden urban center contributes to urban sprawl, and prevents us from controlling all aspects of your life!
But that's the point!
The gun-grabbers then try to tell you that the point of the Second Amendment is for a militia. Even if that interpretation was accurate (and the learned folks in the black robes in the highest court of the land do not think it is), the militia was made of citizenry who often brought their own weapons to the field of battle. That's what distinguishes a militia from an army. As Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia observed, if the Second Amendment is meant to apply to collective rights, it is unique amongst the other rights all reserved to individuals in the Constitution.
Then there's the inconvenient facts in this particular case:
- Adam Lanza, with his history of mental illness, did not legally obtain the firearms used in the shooting. They were registered to his mother.
- Indications are that Lanza attempted to purchase a "long gun" about a week before the shooting, but was denied because he didn't want to subject to the required background check and 14-day waiting period. Sounds like someone who either was impatient or knew he would be rejected. At this time, it's unclear whether Lanza had been diagnosed with mental illness. If he had, the federal authorities would know, and he could forget about the gun. By refusing to submit to a background check and thus in effect withdrawing his application for the gun, Lanza may well have avoided showing up on the feds' radar.
- The Bushmaster .223 rifle, reportedly used in the shooting, is a semi-automatic rifle, but it is not an assault rifle. An assault rifle is a select-fire weapon, capable of burst or automatic fire.
07 November 2012
Can we survive another four?
Albert Einstein is often quoted as describing insanity as performing the same action repeatedly and expecting different results.
Tonight, America's voters have spoken. And they voted for insanity.
What does it say when I catch a glimpse of CNN covering the election results tonight, and they point out three-quarters of those exit-polled did not agree that the solution to our economic woes lies in raising taxes? The CNN host was confused by the results, pointing out the same people were telling the pollsters that they voted to re-elect Barack Obama!
As I write this, it's been a little over a week since Hurricane Sandy wreaked untold billions of dollars worth of damage on the states of New England. Residents of New Jersey and New York still without electricity. Or heat. Or with more than a foot of water in their living rooms. Tone-deaf New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg decides to continue as planned with the marathon, then reverses himself when he no doubt realized how heartless it looked to have people from out of town force newly-homeless residents out of hotel rooms and then run in a marathon.
Speaking of heartless, I'm given to wonder if these people still without the basic luxuries of life we take for granted here in the industrialized world wish that Sandy had struck a week earlier, or the election had been a week later. We're seeing a failure of Big Government.
A Big Government that Mr. Obama espouses. Government which can violate centuries of established contract law and nullify the pensions of 20,000 non-unionized Delphi workers in favor of UAW workers who reliably helped deliver the election to Obama tonight. All due respect to Mr. Romney, but it isn't a question of whether Detroit should be allowed to die. Detroit has already died. GM has already died. They can't compete! They're making a product that consumers don't want (e.g. the Chevy Volt). The taxpayers still own a sizable share of GM. Funny, my dividend check hasn't arrived in the mail...
It's just one of many policies I disagree with this president on. The math just doesn't add up. But trying to convince the short-term beneficiaries of the long-term cost of these freebies is an exercise in futility. A recent interview asked S.E. Cupp what her favorite joke was. Her answer: "Keynesian Economics". And she's absolutely right. You can't prime the pump forever. Eventually, the bill for this massive debt will come due. And the near-majority of the country that lives off the fruits of the near-minority's labors will turn to the "wealthy" to pay the bill, only to find the wealthy aren't there anymore. The smart ones will have relocated themselves and their wealth to a more hospitable climate, if it exists. The not-so-smart ones will be next to you in the bread lines.
Unlike my colleagues on the opposite side of the political spectrum, I prefer not to wallow in despair because my guy lost the election. I prefer to see the silver lining. Four years ago, then-Senator Obama's election ended up resulting in my being laid off after almost twelve years of employment with a defense contractor. In the three years since finding myself unemployed for a few months, losing a beloved pet at a too-young age, and exiting a loveless relationship, I opted to relocate from Minnesota to Iowa in pursuit of a contract position. I found a new job with a well-known employer. I not only enjoy the job immensely and recognize its greater room for growth, but my move resulted in me meeting my future wife. In adapting to my new circumstances, I found new opportunities and reaped new benefits. Even tonight, my sour mood has brightened a little as I count my blessings.
I also notice the trend. Now that Obama has a record (of failures, I might add), his staggering election win in 2008 has been chipped away at a little bit. Perhaps people who voted for Obama in 2008 realized their mistake? Perhaps more people will be introspective in these coming four years, and we can slowly pull our country back from the fiscal cliff that stands between us remaining an economic superpower and us becoming a banana republic.
Tonight, America's voters have spoken. And they voted for insanity.
What does it say when I catch a glimpse of CNN covering the election results tonight, and they point out three-quarters of those exit-polled did not agree that the solution to our economic woes lies in raising taxes? The CNN host was confused by the results, pointing out the same people were telling the pollsters that they voted to re-elect Barack Obama!
As I write this, it's been a little over a week since Hurricane Sandy wreaked untold billions of dollars worth of damage on the states of New England. Residents of New Jersey and New York still without electricity. Or heat. Or with more than a foot of water in their living rooms. Tone-deaf New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg decides to continue as planned with the marathon, then reverses himself when he no doubt realized how heartless it looked to have people from out of town force newly-homeless residents out of hotel rooms and then run in a marathon.
Speaking of heartless, I'm given to wonder if these people still without the basic luxuries of life we take for granted here in the industrialized world wish that Sandy had struck a week earlier, or the election had been a week later. We're seeing a failure of Big Government.
A Big Government that Mr. Obama espouses. Government which can violate centuries of established contract law and nullify the pensions of 20,000 non-unionized Delphi workers in favor of UAW workers who reliably helped deliver the election to Obama tonight. All due respect to Mr. Romney, but it isn't a question of whether Detroit should be allowed to die. Detroit has already died. GM has already died. They can't compete! They're making a product that consumers don't want (e.g. the Chevy Volt). The taxpayers still own a sizable share of GM. Funny, my dividend check hasn't arrived in the mail...
It's just one of many policies I disagree with this president on. The math just doesn't add up. But trying to convince the short-term beneficiaries of the long-term cost of these freebies is an exercise in futility. A recent interview asked S.E. Cupp what her favorite joke was. Her answer: "Keynesian Economics". And she's absolutely right. You can't prime the pump forever. Eventually, the bill for this massive debt will come due. And the near-majority of the country that lives off the fruits of the near-minority's labors will turn to the "wealthy" to pay the bill, only to find the wealthy aren't there anymore. The smart ones will have relocated themselves and their wealth to a more hospitable climate, if it exists. The not-so-smart ones will be next to you in the bread lines.
Unlike my colleagues on the opposite side of the political spectrum, I prefer not to wallow in despair because my guy lost the election. I prefer to see the silver lining. Four years ago, then-Senator Obama's election ended up resulting in my being laid off after almost twelve years of employment with a defense contractor. In the three years since finding myself unemployed for a few months, losing a beloved pet at a too-young age, and exiting a loveless relationship, I opted to relocate from Minnesota to Iowa in pursuit of a contract position. I found a new job with a well-known employer. I not only enjoy the job immensely and recognize its greater room for growth, but my move resulted in me meeting my future wife. In adapting to my new circumstances, I found new opportunities and reaped new benefits. Even tonight, my sour mood has brightened a little as I count my blessings.
I also notice the trend. Now that Obama has a record (of failures, I might add), his staggering election win in 2008 has been chipped away at a little bit. Perhaps people who voted for Obama in 2008 realized their mistake? Perhaps more people will be introspective in these coming four years, and we can slowly pull our country back from the fiscal cliff that stands between us remaining an economic superpower and us becoming a banana republic.
15 September 2012
09:20:29
I wrote the following post on 13 September at around 10:00 CDT:
Nine hours, twenty minutes, twenty-nine seconds.I keep looking at it, thinking about the change it represents. A choice. To live the rest of my life wondering about the what-ifs, or to be brave and be a man. To be like my father. Like my grandfather, his father, and his father, and so forth back to the beginning. I'm grateful for the choice they made, as it enables me to express a wide range of emotions and resolve in this hastily written screed.A choice. To turn my back on the bizarre romanticism of the loner, or to take the first step of changing that.What if I can't? What if it's a mistake?But I know I can, and I know it's not. I just know.Nine hours, eleven minutes, twenty-one seconds.I resist the temptation to take it out of the locked cabinet again. To gaze upon it. Part of me is worried that someone will see me moping over such a silly object, and ask me why I have it. Part of me is worried someone won't.I can't wait to take it with me to the airport. I can't wait to nervously worry about it falling out of my pocket. And I can't wait until I get down on my right knee, take it out of my pocket, take her left hand, and show it to her. And I can't wait until I ask her to be my wife.Nine hours, five minutes, forty-nine seconds. Maybe I'll sneak another quick look.
She said yes.
02 September 2012
Spoiling the memory of a great man by linking him to your political agenda
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120901/OPINION04/309010032/Letter-to-the-editor-Honor-Neil-Armstrong-by-honoring-science?Opinion
That's what Ira Lacher of Des Moines does in this recent letter to the editor:
Mr. Lacher does something common amongst the elitist mindset: He mocks and belittles a differing opinion.
Opinion. Not fact.
Evolution, in spite of supporting data, is still just a theory.
As for the crack about "profound ignorance about human biology", I'll grant Mr. Lacher that Todd Akin is a moron. Even the GOP wanted him to drop out of the race after his idiotic comments about legitimate rape and the female human body having the ability to shut down and prevent pregnancy.
As for global warming, what indisputable evidence is Mr. Lacher referring to? The land-based temperature-monitoring stations with their data corrupted by placement by burn barrels, air conditioner exhaust fans, and asphalt? The refusal by climate scientists to share their climate models's algorithms and raw data with the scientific community and the public, especially when being funded by public funds? The use of satellite data to measure sea ice coverage in two dimensions instead of a more realistic three? Or how about models using this imperfect data to dictate economic and national security policies, when the data is at best 50-100 years old, an infinitesimal fraction of the geological estimate of the planet's 4.6 billion year age? How about e-mails amongst scientists using phrases like "hide the decline"?
Little Ice Age?
Medieval Warming Period?
The Year Without Summer?
Ice cores that show CO2 atmospheric concentrations in Earth's distant past succeeding temperature increases, as opposed to preceding them?
Face it, Mr. Lacher, it's not settled science. It's not indisputable.
Mr. Lacher may be correct in stating there's a war on science. But it's been perpetrated by alarmists who seem content to take shortcuts in the scientific method. Who label people who dispute their findings as "deniers", which I've stated before is more telling about the rigidity of the alarmists' belief in those conclusions than in skeptics inclusion of data that doesn't support the conclusions. Skeptics who don't accept the explanations for the data's exclusion.
One more thing, Mr. Lacher. It's not the "anti-science" types whom are the reason why the next explorer who walks on the moon probably won't be an American: It's Barack Obama.
That's what Ira Lacher of Des Moines does in this recent letter to the editor:
For those of us fortunate enough to have lived during the 1960s and to have been transfixed by the shadowy images on our black-and-white TVs, the image of Neil Armstrong descending the spindly leg of the lunar module signaled a bright future with unfathomable possibilities.
On Dec. 7, it will have been 40 years since the last human walked on the moon. Forty years!
Where the reaches of space once beckoned, like a gateway to the future itself, those gates now appear padlocked. If my children see another human walking on the moon or another planet, the explorer most likely will not be an American.
This is because in the intervening years, America has been subjected to a war on science, research and education. Some elected officials want our children to be taught that Adam and Eve shared the Earth with dinosaurs 2,000 years ago. Others bring to the policy-making table a profound ignorance about human biology. The indisputable, increasing evidence of global warming is treated as a hoax. And there is a concerted effort to equate unprovable religious belief with observable and verifiable scientific observation.
Progress toward knowledge is not an inexorable line upward. There are dips and troughs. But hasn’t this trough lasted long enough? Wouldn’t it be an appropriate legacy to the memory of Neil Armstrong if America could find its sanity and regain the high ground on the road to science and learning?Mr. Lacher would be surprised to find that I agree with him that we should teach science in school. I don't agree with teaching Creationism in schools, but I also don't agree in suppressing the very mention of it.
Mr. Lacher does something common amongst the elitist mindset: He mocks and belittles a differing opinion.
Opinion. Not fact.
Evolution, in spite of supporting data, is still just a theory.
As for the crack about "profound ignorance about human biology", I'll grant Mr. Lacher that Todd Akin is a moron. Even the GOP wanted him to drop out of the race after his idiotic comments about legitimate rape and the female human body having the ability to shut down and prevent pregnancy.
As for global warming, what indisputable evidence is Mr. Lacher referring to? The land-based temperature-monitoring stations with their data corrupted by placement by burn barrels, air conditioner exhaust fans, and asphalt? The refusal by climate scientists to share their climate models's algorithms and raw data with the scientific community and the public, especially when being funded by public funds? The use of satellite data to measure sea ice coverage in two dimensions instead of a more realistic three? Or how about models using this imperfect data to dictate economic and national security policies, when the data is at best 50-100 years old, an infinitesimal fraction of the geological estimate of the planet's 4.6 billion year age? How about e-mails amongst scientists using phrases like "hide the decline"?
Little Ice Age?
Medieval Warming Period?
The Year Without Summer?
Ice cores that show CO2 atmospheric concentrations in Earth's distant past succeeding temperature increases, as opposed to preceding them?
Face it, Mr. Lacher, it's not settled science. It's not indisputable.
Mr. Lacher may be correct in stating there's a war on science. But it's been perpetrated by alarmists who seem content to take shortcuts in the scientific method. Who label people who dispute their findings as "deniers", which I've stated before is more telling about the rigidity of the alarmists' belief in those conclusions than in skeptics inclusion of data that doesn't support the conclusions. Skeptics who don't accept the explanations for the data's exclusion.
One more thing, Mr. Lacher. It's not the "anti-science" types whom are the reason why the next explorer who walks on the moon probably won't be an American: It's Barack Obama.
29 August 2012
Stupidity personified
Charles F. Schafer of Pella, IA isn't content to just not mow his lawn, he wants the rest of us to be a slob like him:
First of all, what is a scientific reality? Reality is defined as including "everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible."
So is global warming observable? Well, if it's occurring, it's not directly observable. That's pretty much the core of the debate between scientists with differing viewpoints (or as lefties call them, "scientists" versus "climate change deniers").
So, since global warming isn't directly observable, Charles' opening statement is an opinion, not fact. By the way, according to many climate blogs (such as Grist), even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow (in other words, took a step back into the Stone Age), the climate change is still going to happen.
Strike two, Charles, and we're still in the first paragraph.
Now, on to his attack on lawn mowers. Charles doesn't seem to acknowledge that all mowers are not gas-powered. Or powered at all, for that matter.
I have an electric mower. If it gets charged by electricity derived from wind or solar, I'm not burning fossil fuels, am I? I also have a manual reel mower, which is 100% human-powered. The only fossil fuels burned with regards to that mower were in its manufacture!
Then Charles goes after cows. Follow his thought processes to their logical conclusion, he wants us to stop raising cattle and dairy cows. The well-intentioned tyrant deep down in Charles' psyche wants to make us all into vegans.
Scary thought: Charles will probably vote in November.
Then come the comments:
Global warming is one of Rick's oft-commented topics. Too bad he lacks perspective. From No Tricks Zone, we learn that the ice melt Rick's so worried about accounts for 0.0006%!
Incidentally, sea ice coverage (which I'll point out is in two dimensions, because satellites can't determine thickness of the ice) has only been measured since 1970. To put in relative terms, if Earth was 1 year old, we've been collecting data on sea ice for just about 288 milliseconds!
I especially like Whitten's comment about how Florida is at risk because much of the state is an elevation of 10 feet MSL. News flash to Rick: Florida used to be underwater. From Volusia County Heritage:
Hmm, that's interesting. Florida has been steadily been reclaimed by the ocean over the past 12,000 years. I forget, when did we first start driving SUVs? Maybe 20 years ago?
Perspective is everything.
Global warming is a scientific reality. We can stop it by stopping something that we’re doing: mowing grass. The mowers burn fossil fuels, which emit gases, which get into our stratosphere and prevent heat from escaping from our atmosphere.Charles just violated the old saw about how it's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Short grass is boring to look at anyway.
With all the money and time we would save by not mowing we could plant shrubs and trees. They’re able to assuage our nature deprivation disorder, and they give off oxygen, which is an “anti-greenhouse gas.” Methane is another — and a very important — greenhouse gas. Cows are the main methane makers. It’s in their poop, which should be scooped up and not left out in the open to give off methane.
Better yet would be to stop eating cow meat. If we stop eating cows, farmers will stop raising them. Oh, I almost forgot. You’ve also got to quit consuming dairy products. Becoming a vegan would be very good for your health and the health of your favorite planet.
First of all, what is a scientific reality? Reality is defined as including "everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible."
So is global warming observable? Well, if it's occurring, it's not directly observable. That's pretty much the core of the debate between scientists with differing viewpoints (or as lefties call them, "scientists" versus "climate change deniers").
So, since global warming isn't directly observable, Charles' opening statement is an opinion, not fact. By the way, according to many climate blogs (such as Grist), even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow (in other words, took a step back into the Stone Age), the climate change is still going to happen.
Strike two, Charles, and we're still in the first paragraph.
Now, on to his attack on lawn mowers. Charles doesn't seem to acknowledge that all mowers are not gas-powered. Or powered at all, for that matter.
I have an electric mower. If it gets charged by electricity derived from wind or solar, I'm not burning fossil fuels, am I? I also have a manual reel mower, which is 100% human-powered. The only fossil fuels burned with regards to that mower were in its manufacture!
Then Charles goes after cows. Follow his thought processes to their logical conclusion, he wants us to stop raising cattle and dairy cows. The well-intentioned tyrant deep down in Charles' psyche wants to make us all into vegans.
Scary thought: Charles will probably vote in November.
Then come the comments:
Incidentally, sea ice coverage (which I'll point out is in two dimensions, because satellites can't determine thickness of the ice) has only been measured since 1970. To put in relative terms, if Earth was 1 year old, we've been collecting data on sea ice for just about 288 milliseconds!
I especially like Whitten's comment about how Florida is at risk because much of the state is an elevation of 10 feet MSL. News flash to Rick: Florida used to be underwater. From Volusia County Heritage:
Florida, the land, having been mostly under water since the Jurassic period, is relatively young by geological standards, rising out of the ocean within the last 25 million years.Additionally, Volusia County Heritage has a graphic showing where Florida's coastlines were in the past compared to now:
Hmm, that's interesting. Florida has been steadily been reclaimed by the ocean over the past 12,000 years. I forget, when did we first start driving SUVs? Maybe 20 years ago?
Perspective is everything.
28 August 2012
Wind, solar, and perpetuating convenient lies
So, one of the campaign issues of interest to Iowa is Mitt Romney's differing approach to wind energy subsidies, compared with President Obama.
No surprise, the businessman in Romney doesn't understand why we throw good taxpayer dollars after bad into an industry that doesn't seem to support itself.
Here's the uncomfortable truth: Wind and solar are simply not cost-effective. You won't see a lot of private companies and individuals rushing to be the first in line to throw money at something that shows no indications of becoming profitable any time soon.
But government doesn't have that problem, because they're always spending someone else's money, and right away the incentive to spend that money wisely is taken away.
Look at solar. I recall one caller to a talk-radio program years ago that sang his praises of solar. He'd put the panels on his house, and they'd paid for themselves in energy cost savings after about 10 years. But, he cautioned, he didn't pay full cost on the panels. He'd gotten a sizeable tax credit. He told the talk-radio host he'd run the numbers on if he'd paid full cost: It would've taken 20 years for him to recoup the money on his investment. Guess what the life expectancy of the panels are?
If you said "20 years", you get a gold star.
Wind energy is no different. For the amount of land each windmill takes up, you'd think they produce a fair amount of power. Not so. I've heard from sources of questionable veracity that wind energy accounts for 20% of the energy market. In the windier, wide-open spaces outside of Des Moines, I could see that the windmills, collectively, produce that power in windy conditions.
But what about the cost? Does wind energy provide a return on investment?
Not exactly. About 50% of the total cost of energy production through wind is subsidized by taxpayer dollars (citation needed).
On 17 August, the Des Moines Register carried this letter to the editor:
Uh, yeah, that's not a surprise. But tell me how it makes it right, just because Iowa politicians support this particular earmark because it keeps their constituents happy. I remember when Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) supported continued funding of the Crusader artillery vehicle when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld put the program on the chopping block, despite Wellstone being a dove his whole political career. Wellstone, despite the belief that he was some sort of populist, was still a politician. He acknowledged that a defense contractor in his home state employed a great many of his constituents. Constituents whose jobs were threatened.
I've never understood this faith some people place in politicians. When voting, a healthy dose of cynicism and a questioning of the politician's motivations is warranted. I recall when then-candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) was going to let his closest supporters know of his pick for running mate by text message at 3 a.m. But the system failed, and many already knew it was to be Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) by 1 a.m. So the text messages weren't sent. A Obama-supporting friend of mine complained about the text message business the next day. I made the following cynical comment:
And yet, my cynicism still doesn't prepare me for how uninformed some of the commenters to Mr. Powell's letter to the editor were. Of course, somebody had to pull the oil-and-natural gas card, falsely stating that we should do away with oil and natural gas subsidies.
Agreed. Except....(deep breath)...WE...DON'T...SUBSIDIZE...OIL...OR...NATURAL...GAS.
Where does this misleading talking point come from? A very good blog explains it well. From Virginia Right!:
Better still, just ask the lefties to identify just one of the subsidies the oil and natural gas companies receive, sit back, and watch their heads spin.
It's cheap entertainment, but it pays to be frugal in this economy.
No surprise, the businessman in Romney doesn't understand why we throw good taxpayer dollars after bad into an industry that doesn't seem to support itself.
Here's the uncomfortable truth: Wind and solar are simply not cost-effective. You won't see a lot of private companies and individuals rushing to be the first in line to throw money at something that shows no indications of becoming profitable any time soon.
But government doesn't have that problem, because they're always spending someone else's money, and right away the incentive to spend that money wisely is taken away.
Look at solar. I recall one caller to a talk-radio program years ago that sang his praises of solar. He'd put the panels on his house, and they'd paid for themselves in energy cost savings after about 10 years. But, he cautioned, he didn't pay full cost on the panels. He'd gotten a sizeable tax credit. He told the talk-radio host he'd run the numbers on if he'd paid full cost: It would've taken 20 years for him to recoup the money on his investment. Guess what the life expectancy of the panels are?
If you said "20 years", you get a gold star.
Wind energy is no different. For the amount of land each windmill takes up, you'd think they produce a fair amount of power. Not so. I've heard from sources of questionable veracity that wind energy accounts for 20% of the energy market. In the windier, wide-open spaces outside of Des Moines, I could see that the windmills, collectively, produce that power in windy conditions.
But what about the cost? Does wind energy provide a return on investment?
Not exactly. About 50% of the total cost of energy production through wind is subsidized by taxpayer dollars (citation needed).
On 17 August, the Des Moines Register carried this letter to the editor:
Yes, wind energy supports employment in Iowa. But there are hidden costs.
We all know about tax credits subsidizing wind energy. But there are costs included in all of our power bills. Wind energy is an unreliable source of power. But the utilities are required to purchase the electricity whenever it is available, whether they need it or not. Of course the predetermined price of wind-energy power exceeds the cost of energy generated by more conventional means.
We have been told by green energy groups that profitability is just around the corner. I am tired of waiting. When is the government going to cease picking winners and losers in the marketplace? If the wind-energy tax credits are abolished I suspect that wind power will be “gone with the wind.”
Amen! Every time, I see or hear the ad criticizing Mitt Romney for his refusal to support subsidies for wind energy, I cringe. The ad cites how the Republican governor and both the Democrat and Republican senators from Iowa support this spending of taxpayer dollars.— Richard L. Powell, Grimes
Uh, yeah, that's not a surprise. But tell me how it makes it right, just because Iowa politicians support this particular earmark because it keeps their constituents happy. I remember when Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) supported continued funding of the Crusader artillery vehicle when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld put the program on the chopping block, despite Wellstone being a dove his whole political career. Wellstone, despite the belief that he was some sort of populist, was still a politician. He acknowledged that a defense contractor in his home state employed a great many of his constituents. Constituents whose jobs were threatened.
I've never understood this faith some people place in politicians. When voting, a healthy dose of cynicism and a questioning of the politician's motivations is warranted. I recall when then-candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) was going to let his closest supporters know of his pick for running mate by text message at 3 a.m. But the system failed, and many already knew it was to be Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) by 1 a.m. So the text messages weren't sent. A Obama-supporting friend of mine complained about the text message business the next day. I made the following cynical comment:
"Imagine that. A politician saying one thing and doing another."Her reaction was priceless: It was like I'd clocked her on the side of the head with a 2x4.
And yet, my cynicism still doesn't prepare me for how uninformed some of the commenters to Mr. Powell's letter to the editor were. Of course, somebody had to pull the oil-and-natural gas card, falsely stating that we should do away with oil and natural gas subsidies.
Agreed. Except....(deep breath)...WE...DON'T...SUBSIDIZE...OIL...OR...NATURAL...GAS.
Where does this misleading talking point come from? A very good blog explains it well. From Virginia Right!:
A subsidy is a government payment, usually for doing nothing. Like welfare or payments not to grow crops.
Oil companies simply get tax deductions like every other business. Not subsidies.
What these tax deductions do is encourage things like equipment, machinery and vehicles to be replaced faster than it might otherwise be done. When these items are fully depreciated, businesses are incentivised to to replace them rather than hold onto them for a few more years through tax deductions.
So what Obama wants to do is target the oil industry for higher taxes and fewer deductions, not eliminate of subsidies, because none exist.
And we all know the result. Lower profits due to taxes will be replaced at the pumps in higher prices.
And worse, oil companies will slow down purchases of machinery, tools, vehicles and other items. Which will make a pretty large impact on the rest of the economy – in a negative way.I recommend reading the whole article. The author does a good job of disarming a favorite lefty talking point.
The fact is, the more money oil companies make, the more money they pay in taxes.
Better still, just ask the lefties to identify just one of the subsidies the oil and natural gas companies receive, sit back, and watch their heads spin.
It's cheap entertainment, but it pays to be frugal in this economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)