Listen Up Marines! R. Lee Ermey has a few things to say!

Ignore the lame-o house band doing the Stones cover.  R. Lee Ermey comes out, says a few nice things, then let's us know what's on his mind.

Stolen from Ace

You guys probably know this scene well, but here's R. Lee Ermey in his prime being an Old School Marine

May not be kosher in the new gay-friendly military.

Dr. No predicts "Apocalyptic Pain" is headed our way.

(I intend for this post to sound a little sarcastic.) Here is some paranoia from Dr. No who is actually Senator Tom Coburn. He made this statement when referring to our Nations debt and overall economic situation.

'Apocalyptic pain' from an out-of-control debt could cause 18 percent unemployment and a massive contraction in the economy that would destroy the middle class, a leading Republican deficit hawk said in an interview that aired Sunday.

[...]

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who recently issued a report on government waste, warned that the U.S. only has about three or four years to get its fiscal house in order or it could find itself facing austerity measures seen in Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and earlier in Japan.

'The history of republics is they average 200 years of life. And they all fail in the history over fiscal matters. They rot from within before they collapse or are attacked,' Coburn told 'Fox News Sunday.'

'The problem that faces our country today, the last 30 years we have lived off the future, and the bill is coming due,' he added.
[...]
'I think you'll see a 15 to 18 percent unemployment rate. I think you will see an 8 to 9 percent decline in GDP. I think you'll see the middle class just destroyed if we don't do this. And the people that it will harm the most will be the poorest of the poor, because we'll print money to try to debase our currency and get out of it and what you will see is hyperinflation,' Coburn said.

'If we didn't take some pain now, we're going to experience apocalyptic pain, and it's going to be out of our control. The idea should be that we control it,' he said.
[...]
'I don't care if you're rich or poor, liberal or conservative. If we don't fix the problems in front of us, everybody is going to pay a significant price,' he said.

If the Republicans can't get the Country's finances back in shape in the next couple of years, what has been happening in Europe could be headed our way according to Coburn. You use to only hear this type of dire prediction by talk show hosts. Now it is coming from our Senators. Senator Coburn did pledge to not run for another term, so maybe that is why he is willing to be so honest about the situation our Country faces. America is special and we don't have to worry about the fate that has befallen other nations in the past as noted above. Our government is like the con artist who gets a loan and then pays for this loan with another loan and so on. (My economic textbook said that national debt is not anything to worry about as the government can just roll over its debt and pay for its existing debts by issuing more debt in the form of treasuries. But if the markets loose faith in the governments ability to pay back that debt, they will demand higher interest rates which will make the cost of servicing this debt prohibitive. This is what happened in Greece and Ireland.) It seems as if the economic con game that is our nations economy is coming to an end of sorts. Pain is about to befall us. Stay out of debt.

Merry Christmas! Go Ducks!

What a great time of year. The Ducks are going to the National Championship, the Seahawks are still in the playoff hunt (I would bet on them winning the division), my fantasy football team is in the championship ($180 to the winner), beer to be drunk, presents to open, the house is being taken over by republicans, I just found out that we will be having another glorious son, and my family is in good health. Lets not let trivial political issues affect us this Christmas and toast a drink to the good life!

PS Ducks are gonna kick some southern ass. Ducks win 38-34. You heard it here first.

Oregon - Where the Socialist Dream Lives On

As the Republican wave swept over the country, liberal enclaves on the West Coast and the Northeast held onto the Obama dream, at least a little while longer.  No place more so than Oregon, where the makeup of the House & Senate members remained unchanged (4 Democrats/1 Republican in the House, 2 Democrat Senators), and where an ex-two term liberal governor was elected to the post again.  Oregon hasn't had a Republican governor since the '80's.

In January 2010, while the country was slipping into a deep recession and Tea Party mania was sweeping the land, Oregon stood strong and voted in favor of Measure 67, which according to Ballot Pedia:

increase(d) taxes in the state by $733 million through increasing the state’s corporate minimum tax, raising taxes on the state’s high-income individuals and raising income taxes on businesses.

I don't recall the ballot measure, but I know that in 2009, as the state unemployment rate was skyrocketing, my own Multnomah County voted on a property tax hike to make sure the teachers got their 3% pay raise, even while everyone else was headed to the unemployment lines. Such is the perspective of most Oregonians that anything and everything must be done to keep the State government unions fully funded and in power.

Oregon's success in implimenting its socialist policies is reflected in its unemployment rate, which is a full 3% higher than the already way-too-high national average.

Now the Wall Street Journal has come out with an article showing how the taxation of the rich has led to a loss of tax income for the state, a result that will surprise no RTP&GGer (the link is to the TaxProf blog as you need a subscription to see the actual WSJ article):

Oregon raised its income tax on the richest 2% of its residents last year to fix its budget hole, but now the state treasury admits it collected nearly one-third less revenue than the bean counters projected. ...

In 2009 the state legislature raised the tax rate to 10.8% on joint-filer income of between $250,000 and $500,000, and to 11% on income above $500,000. Only New York City's rate is higher. Oregon's liberal voters ratified the tax increase on individuals and another on businesses in January of this year, no doubt feeling good about their "shared sacrifice."

Congratulations. Instead of $180 million collected last year from the new tax, the state received $130 million. ...

How could this socialist policy fail? Taxing the rich is the way to prosperity for all, right? As Obama said, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody", and "I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money". Well, that kind of deep, perceptive thought, that could only come from the Ivy League-educated, results in this:

One reason revenues are so low is that about one-quarter of the rich tax filers seem to have gone missing. The state expected 38,000 Oregonians to pay the higher tax, but only 28,000 did. Funny how that always happens. These numbers are in line with a Cascade Policy Institute study, based on interstate migration patterns, predicting that the tax surcharge would lead to 80,000 fewer wealthy tax filers in Oregon over the next decade. ...

Barack and you other socialists, maybe you should make sure you imprison the wealthy so they can't pick up and leave before you rape them of their hard-earned or easily-earned dough.

The sad thing is, the majority of Oregonians embrace these kinds of policies.  Heavy sigh.

The Government Now Has The Power To Regulate The Internet .

Net "neutrality" has passed which will help to make the Internet a public utility and regulated as such. Congress voted against this and the courts ruled that this was not legal. Well that does not matter to those with "The Unconstrained Vision". The current administration will just bypass all of the traditional restraints on government power. When restraints on the government's power prevent it from doing beneficial things, then these restraints are viewed as a negative thing by those wishing to remake a better society and must by destroyed or bypassed as in this case. The Congress is becoming irrelevant just as it did during the downfall of the Roman empire. Net "Neutrality" was passed under the guise of protecting the consumer and giving them more choice. As President Obama said about the new rules, it"'will help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet while encouraging innovation, protecting consumer choice, and defending free speech.'" That is double speak straight out of the novel "1984" as these new regulations do the exact opposite. As Rush Limbaugh stated, "It is a solution in search of a problem". He did a concise over view of the topic far better than I could and I won't repeat it. These new rules basically allows the government to regulate content on the Internet. The same argument that is used for controlling the "public airwaves" for the purpose of regulating talk radio--which happens to be the governments biggest obstacle to ramming through its agenda of having more power that will enable it to do good more things for us--is being used for regulating the Internet . These new rules will led to the government controlling content on the Internet and regulate dissenting voices that might get in the way of the government doing good on our behalf. Putting Net Neutrality into the broader context, the free flow of information is always a threat to governments that need more power--to do good in the eyes of Liberals, read "A Conflict Of Visions" by Thomas Sowell--to help people out. There are those that truly want more power to do what they view as beneficial things for humanity and there are those that use this excuse to increase their power. The worst elements, such as those that seek power in and of itself, rise to the top in such a welfare system that is created with the intentions of helping people as it eventually collapses and necessitates and leads to totalitarian power to make the whole system work, see the example of health care and the government forcing us to buy insurance and telling us what to eat. In the case of controlling the Internet, it will be this totalitarian power that will be using this new control in the future.

Net "Neutrality" is about controlling voices of opposition to the government's agenda,

Now, Copps,' one of the Democrat commissioners, "said that he wanted to ensure that the Internet doesn't travel down the same road of special interest consolidation and gatekeeper control that other media and communications industries like radio, TV, film, and cable have traveled.'

They are worried to death that the Internet is gonna become the next conservative talk radio and Fox News, and that's what they're not gonna permit. That's what so-called net neutrality is all about: To make sure that the voices of minorities and the displaced and the dis-financed and the disabused and the whoevers are equally heard. 'What a historic tragedy it would be,' Copps said, 'to let the fate,' that fate, meaning what's happened to talk radio and Fox News, 'befall the dynamism of the Internet.' That's from an earlier app story. Yeah, so we would really hate to see that -- and by the way, they don't have any regulatory authority over cable TV and they haven't asserted it, and that's what galls 'em about Fox. They are trying to control Fox on the basis that Fox does news.

One thing that is worth noting is that Google supported this. Why would big business support government regulation? Would this not hurt big business? A lot of the negative attributes that people ascribe to capitalism is actually the result of the collusion of big government and big business--corporatism. This collusion started under our first modern President Teddy Roosevelt. Big businesses like government regulation because it gives them certainty and an unfair advantage against their smaller competitors because they can afford to comply with the regulations while the smaller businesses can't. Government regulation also helps to prevent competitors from popping up because of the onerous and costly effects of the regulations. Government also likes big business and wants to enact a partnership with them for the purpose of achieving their beneficial goals. Both parties benefit in this Corporatist Fascist model while the people's freedom is the loser. America is not a free enterprise system and has not been for some time now. It is a mixed economic model with free enterprise and government control. This system started out with the free enterprise being the dominate element and the government control being the subordinate element. For quit some time these roles have been in the process of being reversed so that now the government control is becoming the dominate element and to eventually the the only element.

Our health care system and one sixth of our economy has been completely overhauled into a government-controlled model, the financial and banking industry has been basically taken over along with the car industry, the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy has been repealed, the Internet has now fallen under the regulatory foot of the government, and the START treaty looks like it will be passed. President Obama and the Democratic Congress has been very successful in "Fundamentally Transforming" America. The foundation for a new system has been and is in the process of being built, to paraphrase a Congressman referring to Obamacare. This new system is vastly different in a negative sense, change in and of itself is not a negative thing, from what this Country was founded as. All that can be done to these achievements by the new Congress and the new future Republican President, this is still up in the air, is making little reforms in the newly created structure and not getting rid of this structure or replacing it with a free market one. The full effects and force of this fundamental transformation won't be felt for another couple of decades.

This is rock #10

When I was first getting in to music these were the few christian bands that really rocked. I remember going to bed to the Supertones album every night for like a month.
Supertones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFQKequLo3A
DC Talks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQZVzKKfVhw
Officer Negative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A83pZxL2cvo

Federal Budget Update

No time for much talking, just a quick note that fiscal conservatives won a very good (but not great) victory in the big budget battle that just was resolved. From the Washington Examiner via Hot Air

A new analysis by a group of federal-spending watchdogs shows a striking imbalance between the parties when it comes to earmark requests. Democrats remain raging spenders, while Republicans have made enormous strides in cleaning up their act. In the Senate, the GOP made only one-third as many earmark requests as Democrats for 2011, and in the House, Republicans have nearly given up earmarking altogether — while Democrats roll on.
The watchdog groups — Taxpayers for Common Sense, WashingtonWatch.com, and Taxpayers Against Earmarks — counted total earmark requests in the 2011 budget. Those requests were made by lawmakers earlier this year, but Democratic leaders, afraid that their party’s spending priorities might cost them at the polls, decided not to pass a budget before the Nov. 2 elections. This week, they distilled those earmark requests — threw some out, combined others — into the omnibus bill that was under consideration in the Senate until Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled it Thursday night. While that bill was loaded with spending, looking back at the original earmark requests tells us a lot about the spending inclinations of both parties.
In the 2011 House budget, the groups found that House Democrats requested 18,189 earmarks, which would cost the taxpayers a total of $51.7 billion, while House Republicans requested just 241 earmarks, for a total of $1 billion.
Where did those GOP earmark requests come from? Just four Republican lawmakers: South Carolina Rep. Henry Brown, who did not run for re-election this year; Louisiana Rep. Joseph Cao, who lost his bid for re-election; maverick Texas Rep. Ron Paul; and spending king Rep. Don Young of Alaska. The other Republican members of the House — 174 of them — requested a total of zero earmarks.

Republican Senators didn't behave so honorably, but, still the overall result is very good. Another win for the Tea Party: though out of power in the White House and both Houses of Congress, fiscal conservatives were able to impose their will on the ultra liberals (as in liberal with taxpayer money) that currently theoretically control our government. Let's hope Republicans can step it up to the next level in the next Congress.  They better, or else!

Viriginia Gov Proposes Cancelling Govt Funding of Public Broadcasting

Jeff started a media series.  I've got a couple here in my hip pocket too, so here's the 1st one:
In Nov 2009, we saw the 1st indication that the luster was coming off the Obama halo when Virginia and New Jersey elected fiscally conservative governors.  Virginia is a traditionally conservative (though not traditionally Republican) state that has been trending liberal lately.  New Jersey was a Republican state when I was young, but it has been deep blue for decades now.  New Jersey elected Chris Christie, who needs no introduction to RTP&GGers.  Virginia elected Bob McDonnell, who I don't know that we've mentioned before.  Well, he's just given us a reason to honor his election:

“Public broadcasting is a wonderful resource, providing quality programming that is cherished by many,” McDonnell said. “However, in our modern media world there are thousands upon thousands of content providers operating in the free market. They compete with each other, and viewers and listeners have their choice as to what to tune into or turn on. Simply put, it doesn’t make sense to have some stations with the competitive advantage of being funded by taxpayer dollars. The decision to eliminate state funding of public broadcasting is driven by the fundamental need to reestablish the proper role of government, and budget accordingly.”

I agree completely with him. I actually watch a lot of the Oregon Public Broadcasting TV, I love the Mystery shows, and also, at least used to listen to NPR religiously. I used to donate regularly to Oregon Public Broadcasting too.  I still think they do a thorough job reporting, though you've got to take the reporting with their heavy liberal bias.  NPR and Mystery should be able to market themselves in the real world, not depend on taxes, state or federal, for survival.  If they can maintain their broadcasting strictly through donations, more power to them, but people who don't choose to listen to those stations shouldn't have to pay for them, particularly in the modern media world and the modern fiscal world.

If McDonnell can succeed here, this will be a tremendous example for the rest of the country!

The Government Now Has The Power To Regulate The Volume Of Audio On Commercials.

I first saw this news on Fox News. I thought is was interesting as it represents the broader goal of the government to control the Internet and all other forms of media through net neutrality. I wonder what kind of precedent this new power will set and how it will be used in the future.

President Obama on Wednesday signed into law a bill that will regulate the volume of television commercials. According to the White House, the 'Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation' or 'CALM' Act 'requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prescribe a regulation limiting the volume of audio on commercials.' The regulation applies to 'television broadcast stations, cable operators, and other multichannel video programming distributors.' Under the new law, commercials can be only as loud as the decibel level of regular programming.

The "Calm" act sounds lovely and soothing. I am glad that the government is there to protect us from loud commercials. I have not read anything that stated the rational behind this new regulation. It simply appears to be a power grab by the government. Maybe a lot of people called the FCC to complain about loud commercials. This is a perfect example of the type of tyranny that America is headed for: a soft-mild-loving-caring tyranny.

Ethanol Update

I'm pretty sure National Review editor Rich Lowry browses RTP&GG because this article he just wrote at Real Clear Politics could have been lifted right out of our article, and Jeff's comments!  He adds some follow-on information if you read the whole thing, that tends to confirm Jeff's fears that Republicans aren't going to be able to rein in the goverment bloat.  However, remember this is still the lame duck Democratic Congress.  I am still confident this thing will be brought under control, at least to a certain extend.  Anyway, some quotes from Lowry's article that may seem oddly familiar:

When Al Gore drops an environmental fad, it has truly reached its expiration date.

In his wisdom, the Goracle recently acknowledged what almost all disinterested observers concluded long ago: Ethanol is a fraud. It has no environmental benefits, and harmful side effects. The subsidies that support its use are an object lesson in the incorrigibility of Washington's gross special-interest politics. It is the monster that ate America's corn crop.
"It is not good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol," the former vice president and Noble Peace Prize recipient said, referring to corn-based ethanol. He called the fuel "a mistake," and confessed one reason he fell so hard for it is that he "had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa." These farmers vote in the First in the Nation caucuses and practically insist that their favored presidential candidates drink ethanol at breakfast and hail it as the nectar of the gods.

The Porkmeisters pushing hard for this now are a bipartisan group: chiefly, the two Senators from Iowa, Democrat Tom Harkin and Republican Chuck Grassley. This budget proposal with the ethanol subsidies looked like it was going to pass with Republican support as well as President Obama's. But, after the full extent of the pork has been revealed, many Republicans are backing away from this initially-bipartisan effort that at first look didn't seem unreasonable.

More:

The multiple layers of subsidization have their own perversity. Since there's already a mandate to blend ethanol into gasoline, the tax credit is giving away money for something that would happen anyway. Environmental groups say this pads the bottom line of Big Oil. Harry de Gorter of the free-market Cato Institute has a more complicated take -- the subsidy decreases the cost and therefore the price of gasoline, effectively subsidizing its consumption. Your Congress at work.

But, read the whole thing if you're interested in this and if you want to see how close we came to Lowry's article!

Eco-Tyranny #3 About to Fall?

[Author's note-this post has been re-written in light of the math error made in the original article and the subsequent change in economic benefit]  Another scam effort at Federal Government tyranny that has been creeping along and was about to become a real pain to forced on the common man may be about to subside.  Not go away, but subside:

Republican Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan – the man running against Texas Rep. Joe Barton to be Chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee in the next Congress– has reversed his position on CFL light bulbs. The move is significant not only because Upton wants to be chairman of one of the House’s most powerful committees, but also because he championed the incandescent bulb ban and switch to CFLs just three short years ago.

I guess I had sort of heard that they were going to phase out incandescent bulbs, but I didn't really think they would do it. Evidently, this liberal Republican from Michigan, has introduced a bill that was passed that would sunset incandescent bulbs. I knew that some states were doing that, but I didn't think the Feds were going to try to do that.

I detect a sleezy politician here: not 'til the nation got rocked by the Tea Party does this slimeball see the infringement on an individual's right to run his life and the obligation of the Federal government to keep their nose out of business they have no constitutional mandate to stick it in. Rack up another victory for the Tea Party, at least hopefully, soon.

We should have ToeJamm run another economic analysis for us I am glad ToeJamm checked my math for us, plus, I have since gone to the store and gotten more facts, so am not entirely winging it with some of my figures: No, I'll do it this time.  The cost of electricity in households across the nation varies quite a bit, but I think 10¢ a kilowatt-hour (kWh) is a fair number. Portland probably pays more, because PGE is very expensive, but other places probably pay less. 17¢ a kWh is probably on the high end.  A kilowatt-hour means 1000 watts for 1 hour. That would be equivalent to letting your wife or girlfriend's hair dryer run for an hour: costs you 10¢. Electricity, even now, is quite a bargain for what you can do with it. OK, now I normally use 60W incandescent bulbs in my house. The equivalent-brightness CFL bulb is 20W. So, for me to change to an equivalent-brightness CFL would save me 40W. If I leave my CFL lightbulb on for an hour I've saved myself 40 watt-hours of electricity. Note, not 40 kilowatt-hours, but 40 watt-hours.  So, if my electricity costs 10¢/kWh and I've saved 40 Wh of electricity, how much money have I saved?  By my calculation, I save 0.04¢ an hour by using a CFL bulb, but that calculation is wrong, per ToeJamm, it is 0.4¢ an hour saved.  But still, that's a savings, right?  Well, what about the costs?  A pack of four incandescent bulbs costs about $2, so 50¢ each.  One CFL bulb costs from $6-$8. I bought a pack of four today for $14.00, so $3.50 per bulb  How long does the CFL bulb have to run before you make your money back from your big investment?  Let's choose $6 $3.50 for the CFL bulb, even though they're often more expensive.  $6 3.50- $0.50 = $5.50 $3.00 for the difference between the two.  So, $5.50 $3= ($0.0044/hr) x X hrs.  Solving for X gives 13,750 750 hours or 573 days of continuous use to break even.  My 60W bulb says it will last for 1500 hours.  I did a test once between a 60W incandescent and a 20W CFL on the same light switch, the CFL lasted about twice as long as the incandescent however, the CFL bulbs I bought today say they will last 8000 hours.  I don't believe that for a typical application, as I have tested it out repeatedly in my house and they don't significantly outlast incandescent bulbs. so that modifies the equation a tiny bit,  but, in a nutshell, you will never come close to making your money back.  Now, who's the sucker I mean responsible environmentalist?  Well, I own some CFLs, so count me as one of those suckers people who know the value of a dollar.   But, it was my choice to be a sucker make the purchase.  That's fair.  But, these statist, mother-knows-best, nannies want to force us all to involuntarily lower our standard of living have the government make our shopping choices for us for a very small comparative benefit.  They WILL be defeated.

It's a trend, Jeff!

PS: And that doesn't even take into account the question I raised when we discussed Prius'.  Why is the CFL bulb so expensive?  Again, cost is relative to the energy required to construct, in a nutshell.  My guess is you need to subtract quite a bit from your electricity savings in the whole-earth calculation of your power consumption because so much energy was used to build the CFL bulb as opposed to the incandescent in the first place, but I don't feel like expending the energy to prove that.

PPS: Besides being able to sound our arguments off each other to see where we have significant flaws, we get to learn things through the time we put investigating and discussing our article.  I am very happy to learn that it does make economic sense to buy CFL bulbs!

It Was 30 Years Ago, Today...

He was living in New York at the time, and was very happy there.  He said that he wished he had spent his whole life there.  But, then paid the price. 

I was not impressed with John's post-Beatle production, (The Beatles had been broken up for ten years when he was shot) not just because the music wasn't that great, but because he seemed so bitter.  He wrote some bitter songs in The Beatles too, and that helped add an edge to them, but, it's my old bugaboo, when the bitterness gets one-dimensional, it wears thin.  However, the assasination guaranteed there would be no Beatle reunions.  That added a great deal of downerness to the whole situation, because a whole generation had continued to hope that someday, The Beatles would get back together.

There was a huge vigil in Central Park to honor him,. I think Papa said that he saw it.

The World's Energy Juggernaut?

The Canadian newspaper The Globe & Mail has put out an article titled "North America: The New Energy Kingdom,  that should raise eyebrows of those not deeply knowledgeable of the situation of fossil fuel capacities in the world.  It turns out that the US and Canada actually dominate many areas of fossil-fuel energy production, even now, and they are increasing their share in many areas.  A read-the-whole-thing article if you're interested in this kind of thing, but they're not the kind of facts you'll see in the MSM.  A few choice cuts that may rock your world:

The American Petroleum Institute reports that the United States produced more crude oil in October than it has ever produced in a single month, “peak oil” or not.

But, I thought all our wells were going to play out in the '90's!

The New York Times observed: “Just as it seemed that the world was running on fumes, giant oil fields were discovered off the coasts of Brazil and Africa, and Canadian oil sands projects expanded so fast, they now provide North America with more oil than Saudi Arabia. In addition, the United States has increased domestic oil production for the first time in a generation.” Further still: “Another wave of natural gas drilling has taken off in shale rock fields across the United States, and more shale gas drilling is just beginning in Europe and Asia.”

and

With rising production from shale fields, the U.S. surpassed Russia last year to become the world’s largest supplier of natural gas. Shale now accounts for 10 per cent of the country’s natural gas production – up from 2 per cent in 1990.

The natural gas one really was a surprise to me; I thought we got most of ours from Canada.

They sum up with

Within a decade or so, North America will almost certainly emerge as the world’s biggest supplier – and exporter – of reasonably cheap energy.

But read it all and get some learnin'.

PS: However, we'll probably also be the world's biggest supplier of stupidly expensive energy too with all our windmills and solar panels, so we probably won't see a benefit in our checkbooks.

Another Eco-Scam Being Thrown Under the Bus?

You might not have noticed, but the successor of the Copenhagen Global Warming conference is happening right now in Cancun, Mexico.  Smart of the organizers to hold it in Cancun, to avoid the sudden appearance of blizzards during their meeting, though, if Al Gore makes an appearance, anything can happen.  Why no coverage?  Why no triumphal attendance by our Glorious President who said,"this is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal"?

The Copenhagen summit, well covered by RTP&GG in this and other posts, was supposed to be the Global Warmingists' moist, hot, wet dream, where the wealth re-distributions craved by 1st World Socialists and 3rd World Dictators would be finally set in motion, to supposedly finance everyone's reduction of fossil fuel use, and would be signed by the planet's new savior, Jesus I mean, Barack Obama and implemented by the leaders of the world.  It ended in a shambles for reasons covered elsewhere on RTP&GG, and was the 2nd big failure by our One True Messiah after he was elected, and is certainly one of his biggest humiliations (an enterprising RTP&GGer could make a good article titled "The Humiliations of our Dear Leader").  What was supposed to be eco-socialists' crowning achievement actually was the point where the Global Warming movement nosedived into general discredit.  Now, no one is paying any attention to what those scammers are saying or doing in Cancun.  The MSM is avoiding it because it will remind everyone of one of Obama's first big failures, and the humiliation of one of their sacred shibboleths.

But, I'm not here to talk about Cancun.  I'm here to talk about how a tightening budget environment, and the new vigilance being shown on the Federal budget (by Tea Partiers, forced on politicians) is about to kick another huge eco-scam into the dustbin of history.  Ethanol (aka grain alcohol or everclear) now makes up 15% of the gas we put in our cars, by Federal decree, not by any economic value obtained.  It has been a major boon to corn farmers in the Midwest and around the world, who saw the price they got for corn skyrocket once ethanol was made mandatory.  Ethanol was supposed to be a boon to the planet, as it was a 'renewable resource' because of course, we can keep growing corn (the question of how much petroleum product is now used in fertilizer by agribusiness will not be pursued here).  And of course it was pitched that highly processing corn and burning alcohol was somehow being green.  As usual with eco-scams, the technology can't stand on its own feet on the economic merits: according to the Congressional Budget Office, taxpayers pay $1.78 for every gallon of ethanol. 

A report in mid-July by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the subsidy is something of a boondoggle in part because a gallon of ethanol delivers two-thirds the energy content of a gallon of gas.

"Because 1.48 gallons of ethanol are required to provide as much energy as a gallon of gasoline, the 45 cent credit for each gallon of ethanol is equivalent to paying blenders 67 cents for each gallon of gasoline that ethanol displaces," it said.

In all, taxpayers pay $1.78 for every gallon when fuel is made from corn, CBO said.

These taxes are paid both in the direct purchase and in Federal taxes.   That's a lot of money being paid to make you feel warm and fuzzy about doing good things for the environment.  But how green is it?  Even its green attractiveness is finally being called into question, says a professor involved in a study by Stanford University: 

Prof. JACOBSON: Ozone that's formed is formed from the emissions of either ethanol vehicles or gasoline vehicles. And there - or have been technologies that have been introduced that have reduced the amount of ozone significantly. For example, the catalytic converter reduced the ozone. And there are other technologies that potentially could be used to reduce ozone further.

In fact, in this study we assumed there are going to be technological improvements. Just to put in perspective, gasoline vehicles in the United States kill about 10,000 people prematurely each year. Now, if we convert to ethanol, what I found was that this might increase slightly by about 200 deaths per year.

So it's not a large increase over gasoline. But the key is it's not an improvement over gasoline as has been suggested. The key is whether we can do a lot better than gasoline. And there are technologies out there that could eliminate all these deaths, particularly, battery electric vehicles where the electricity is provided by renewable energy such as wind and solar power. And also hydrogen fuel cell vehicles where the hydrogen is produced by wind and solar power and also hydroelectric geothermal power.

That study is not totally convincing to me I suppose.  His conclusions, that electrical powered cars are cleaner where the electricity is provided by renewable wind and solar power is utter bullshit, as there is no place in the United States where the majority or even a significant minority of power is provided by wind or solar power.  This casts doubt onto the believe-ability of the rest of the study, regardless of what prestigious academic institution produced it.  But, assuming he knows what he's talking about, your $1.78/gal in taxes for ethanol is going towards the great green good of killing 200 more people per year than regular gasoline.  I hope you feel good about that.  I wonder if the professor is including the starvation deaths from the increased food prices the ethanol project has produced.  Odd that he didn't mention a true green power: hydroelectric dams.  What's up with these agendas dudes?

Well, I'm wandering...Let's get back on track:

The Goreacle Himself, the snakeoil saleman to the world, has now made a shocking, if not surprising admission:

"One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president" in 2000.

Imagine, pushing a major change in our gasoline industry primarily to win votes through pork.  Tell me it ain't so, Al!  Next thing you say, is the whole global warming movement is a scam too!  Shocking, but not surprising.  Notice he said "made that mistake".  The mistake was pushing ethanol.  When Al Gore admits it's a mistake, you know the end is near.  [a small aside: credit Tennesseans for knowing a scam when the hear one: if Al Gore had been able to win in his home state in 2000, he would have been president.]  This particular pork project shoved pork to farmers, so probably a mostly Republican group of recipients.  So, of course the bottom will fall out of support for this as the Coastal libs will have no real (ie voter) reason to support it (from Hot Air):

Has the federal government’s appetite for ethanol ended? A bipartisan group of Senators signed a letter today calling for an end to subsidies and tariffs designed to protect and enhance domestic production of ethanol, which has been until recently the darling of the alternative-energy movement. In a sign of how far ethanol subsidies have fallen from favor, the letter addressed to both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell has the signatures of such liberal luminaries as Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and the newly-elected Chris Coons

When you've lost Barbara Boxer, you've lost the liberal base. Farmers cry, "goodbye sweet pork-laden scam, goodbye."

Herr Stadler is not afraid to call a Muslim terrorist a Muslim terrorist

If you need to bitch someone out, I think the German language is best for doing it.  Here, a member of the Austrian parliament delivers a severe tongue lashing to the Turkish Ambassador.  If more governmental leaders would act like this, we would solve the problem of Islamic terror in the West.

How do we stop the crazed Odinist fundamentalists?!

It's so obvious who the real terrorists are: blonde, blue-eyed young men who worship Odin and have names like Ingmar Johanssen.  So, why in the heck are we groping old women with names like Maria Gutierrez? 

This humorous article makes its points (that I of course agree with) in a fun way.

Pictured are Odin and his Raven guides Huginn and Muninn (spirit and mind) along with, curiously for a supposed religion of peace, a seaxe.  So an example of Scando-Anglo-Saxon terror.

EU's Sovereign Debt Crisis And The Centralization Of Power Within The EU.

Ireland has recently accepted/forced to accept a 85 billion euro bailout and Portugal, Spain, Italy are falling like dominoes. The debt contagion is spreading throughout the peripheral nations and will eventually make its way to the core. This is a very good video titled "Von Rompuy:Pin-up boy for Eurosceptics" showing a member of the UK Independence Party Nigel Farage's message to the EU president and those that still wish to keep the European Union dream alive: "The dream is up". Farage's rant against the EU points out that current events in the EU could be leading to the end of the EU and if it doesn't then it will lead to people rallying around nationalism and violence because "when you rob people of their democracy and their identity. Then they are left with nationalism and violence".
(Picture) European Union: European Day poster, 2000. Photograph. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Web. 30 Nov. 2010

(http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/196399/93978/Europe-Day-poster-2000).

And continuing on the ideal that the current events in the EU are leading to the fragmentation of the EU here is a good article from CNBC,

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the possibility of a political breakup of the European Union. Just before Thanksgiving, I wrote— not ironically — about whether a crypto-breakup of Europe might already be underway in the sovereign debt markets.
Today, a new idea that is at least as unsettling: Fragmentation in Europe, not just along national lines, but along class and economic lines as well.

Michael Pettis, a Professor of Finance at Peking University and a frequent writer on international economics wrote in a recent blog post, in reference to Europe's most economically troubled nations:

'Political radicalism in these countries will rise inexorably as a consequence of rising class conflict. As Keynes pointed out as far back as 1922, the process of adjusting the currency and debt will primarily be one of assigning the costs to different economic groups, and this is never an easy or conflict-free exercise.'

This is indeed a frightening scenario. If, as Milton Friedman suggested in 1965 'We are all Keynesians now,' perhaps it is time to think through some of the darker ramifications for Europe.[...] In the United States, we tend to underestimate the significant ideological grip socialism held in Europe for much of the 20th century.[...] While those examples might indeed be outliers, the policies of many European Union nations are influenced by the fundamental structure of their governments: parliamentary democracies.[...] The upside of the parliamentary system is the promise of an intellectual openness to a broader spectrum of political opinion. The downside is the possibility that small parties—and with them fringe movements—can accumulate a share of power disproportionate to their representation in the general population. (In an example from the opposite side of the political spectrum, the broad Swedish left is apoplectic over the rise of a political party alleged to have racist roots.)

In short, due to cultural, historical, and structural factors at play in Europe, it seems impossible to rule out the possibility of social fragmentation along class and economic lines. In certain European intellectual circles, that oft-quoted line from The Communist Manifesto[sic] —that 'The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles'—is more than just a ancient relic. It's a political truism.

As Farage notes in his speech, hopefully the Euro project will be destroyed by the markets before this happens. Looking at the fact that these PIIGS nations are receiving bailouts, it doesn't seem that the EU leaders are unwilling to let the free market work. There is too much political capital invested in the concept of the EU.
(Picture) European Union. Flag. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Web. 30 Nov. 2010
(http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/196399/92316/Flag-of-the-European-Union).

A good article from the Ludgwig Von Mises institute states that these debt crises is leading to a centralization of power in the EU,

Finally, the bailout leads to a centralization of power in the European Union. European politicians already indirectly determine the Irish budget. For instance, they tell the Irish government to increase taxes, such as the sales tax. They also put tremendous pressure on the Irish government to abandon its policy of a low corporate-tax rate, a policy that many European politicians regard as 'fiscal dumping."' Here, at last, the Irish government resisted.

In the short run, one may find some positive aspects of the determination of fiscal policies by Brussels or indirectly by Germany. When Germany or Brussels tells Spain, Greece, or Ireland to reduce their deficits, the result for people living in these countries may be a reduced size of the government in the short run. But such centralization of power in the EU will likely prove to be disastrous for liberty in the long run. The European interventionists now claim that because there is one central bank we need one economic policy.

One factor that frequently hampers governments' attempts to increase their power via increases in taxation or regulation is the competition of other governments. If taxes get too high in a country, economic agents will flee to countries with lower tax rates (such as Ireland, with its low corporate tax rate). If economic policy is centralized in the European Union, this limitation on government power is eliminated. European politicians already aim at a harmonization of fiscal policies and talk about benchmarks for tax rates. Once fiscal policies are harmonized, there will be a tendency toward an increase of power in Brussels and then toward an increase of tax rates throughout the eurozone.

The euro might be saved, but at the cost of building a strong, central European state, as national policymaking is transferred to Brussels in exchange for bailouts. The turmoil produced by the euro will then have served as an instrument for the development of a centralized state in Europe.

This article also describes the problem with the concept of the EU project: it created the incentives for small EU nations to run up massive deficits.

This article notes the Ireland bailout is not about Ireland but it is about the European project,

What you need to know about Ireland's economic crisis is that it's not about Ireland: a small country of slightly more than 4 million people and an economy of roughly $200 billion. It's about Europe. For decades, Europe has pursued two great political projects. One is the democratic welfare state, designed to improve economic justice through various social safety nets. The other is European unity, symbolized by the creation in 1999 of a single currency -- the euro -- now used by 16 countries. The fact that both contributed to Ireland's troubles suggests that Europe could be on the brink of a broader crisis.

Ireland's problems are not isolated, and if they portend a wider meltdown, this would mark a dangerous new phase in the global economic turmoil that began in 2007. Europe represents about one-fifth of the world economy, comparable to the U.S. share. If the continent relapsed into recession, worldwide economic nationalism would intensify, as the already-weak global recovery faltered and countries competed for scarce sales. For example: Europe buys about 25 percent of America's exports, which would suffer. Protectionism and predatory behavior would increase.

Europe's problems can easily spread to the rest of the world. America could possibly have a very similar situation to the EU with its individual states. The concept of the Euro is being put before the economic well being of the individual EU nations and the whole European economy.

The events in the EU illustrates how that the concept of socialism is an economic failure and how that it leads to centralization of power among various governmental entities. In the case of the EU, it is the result of the attempts by them to prevent the economic collapse that is the inevitable result of socialism. If the concept of the EU does not end but continues to be pursued, it will lead to a more centralized European governing body that is built on very shaky economic ground that will possibly collapse into a very different system of government. Friedrich Hayek warned that socialist planning leads to situation where "totalitarian powers will get the upper hand",

I have never accused the old socialist parties of deliberately aiming at a totalitarian regime, but' What I have argued in this book[The Road To Serfdom], and what the British experience convinces me even more to be true, is that the unforeseen but inevitable consequences of socialist planning create a state of affairs in which, if the policy is to be pursued, totalitarian forces will get the upper hand. I explicitly stress that 'socialism can be put into practice only by methods of which most socialist disapprove' and even add that in this 'old socialist parties were inhibited by their democratic ideals' and that 'they did not posses the ruthlessness required for the performance of their chosen task'.

As Farage notes in his address to the EU president, democratic principles are being put aside for the purpose of maintaining the EU. From what I gleam from the various commentary that I have heard on business shows like CNBC's "Squawk box", the situation in Europe is leading to an inevitable collapse of the EU system. What system of government will emerge out of the possible future economic collapse of the European socialist model?

MELKOR SPEAKS: Obamacare vs Invasive TSA Searches

Melkor sent me the following to post:

Non-Security related analogy:  although it's being litigated, Obamacare is stating that it is in the people's interest that everyone should have healthcare.  The gov't is implicitly saying this by fining (whether through taxes or otherwise) those who don't get it, thus encouraging us to get it.  We say healthcare is in our interest both from an overt, people should be taken care of, but more importantly, because it's in the general interest for everyone to have healthcare:  It is the uninsured that pose a significant externality upon the majority of people with healthcare since they lack preventative care that would treat most maladies in a more efficient manner.  We are removing this externality by paying for it through Obamacare.  Lets take this one step further, we are saying that it is in society's interest for people to be given regular physicals and check ups, pap smears and prostate examinations, because it makes it net-cheaper for the rest of society but also because we say people should just see a doctor.  Thus, your precious liberals have already stated that they want people to see us naked because it's "whats best for us" and moderates have partially signed on because they think it's whats cheaper.

Security Analogy:  If, by now, you understand what I'm hinting at (that is, the gov't is saying we should have doctors grab us and say cough because we think it's good and also because it might be cheaper for society at large) you are probably yelling, "I can choose not to get the healthcare" (and suffer the fine) or, "I don't have to get the physical or pap smear even if I'm paying for Obama care."  Well, you can not only opt in to whatever search you want by the TSA, but can opt out of the search entirely by seeking an alternative mode of transportation.  The searches that are protected by the constitution are not those that people can opt out of.  You are free from the police taking you and forcibly searching you.  On the other hand, the gov't has already created non negotiable searches in areas that are in the national interest:  Can you opt out of a search when you enter a Court?  What about the National Archives, US Customs & Commerce building, the National Gallery of Art, Military installations?  Can you opt out of being searched when you enter Wall Street or any of the Federal Reserve Banks?  What about when you enter the country?  What about when the gov't forces sensitive industries (Power, telecom, Defense, Urban sanitation/water servicesm, etc) to incur increased costs (mind you, with no compensation) by mandating them to implace security procedures against terrorist and cyber attacks, should the gov't be allowed to hurt these firms this way?  We/not rights extremists/society/America say yes, because we need to internalize the externality of security.  This isn't a new thing and this isn't a pathway to dictatorship.  If Russia does a denial of service attack, if China obtains industrial technology and produces same good without spending on R&D for it, or a plane explodes at a massive international financial installation, we all pay for it even if we aren't hurt/killed by it.  It is better for gov't to intervene in this case and force either a limitation on our rights, a policy mandate, or a tax, in order for the majority to be benefited.  The bill of rights was not intended for externalities of someone's use of their civil rights to infringe on others, it's not a blank check and never was meant to be.

Some News That Point Towards A Future Economic Degringolade.

I am doing a short post on two videos I found interesting about QE 2 and the European economic situation and an interesting poll about Americans' views on the viability of marriage. (The first two videos are worth a watch while the other links aren't as interesting but they are informative.) I came across this interesting animated video from the Ludwig Von Mises Institute's website that is about the recent Federal Reserve decision to purchase 600 billion more dollars of assets which is known as QE 2. It is a short and humorous overview of QE 2.

It looks like there is still a lot of economic and social troubles going on in the EU. This is a good video that is a warning for America to not go down the same socialist economic path that Europe has. Sadly America is headed towards this situation. One question I have with all of these strikes going on over in the EU is when election time comes around for these various nations will these people vote the officials in office who will continue to make the necessary spending cuts and the other hard changes?

And on the subject of the EU, Ireland will possibly be needing a bailout from the EU and the IMF. Ireland is reluctant to receive a bailout as it will threaten their sovereignty and will possibly force them to give up their low corporate tax rate because the other EU nations will not want to be giving Ireland bailout money which will allow Ireland to maintain its low corporate tax rate. Ireland's low tax rate attracts capital and businesses away from other EU nations. I have read that Ireland does not have a lot of natural resources and its low cooperate tax rate is very important to its economy as it is its main way to attract capital which makes up for the nation's lack of natural resources. And according to Financial Times, as a result of Ireland's banking crisis,"'four of the five domestic lenders are set to be state owned, with only Bank of Ireland in the short term likely to remain outside the grasp of state ownership'". From looking at this fact, and what resulted from the similar situation in America, it appears that these various economic problems coalesce economic functions that were once performed by the private sector in to the hands of the government. If being bailed out is something that has to happen and is a good thing, why would Ireland be quick to deny the need for a bailout and reluctant to receive one? It appears as if there are strings that are attached to this bailout money which results in a loss of sovereignty as evident in the concerns being voiced by Ireland. Of course the PIIGS nations probably should lose some of their sovereignty since they are threatening the stability of the greater EU. The only question is if the broader EU governing body will be able to bring about more prudent economic policy to these PIIGS nations and the greater EU. Bailing out these nations don't force the necessary and painful structural changes to occur as they allow for halfway measures to be implemented in the place of the necessary ones which means they have the effect of kicking the can down the road. These troubled nations, PIIGS, are making changes but it is yet to be seen if they are the necessary structural changes or just half way measures, from what I have read and seen from various commentary on business shows the latter scenario appears to be the case especially in the case of Greece. It is evident from the various protest occurring in Greece and even France that the measures so far taken to address these economic problems are very unpopular. If necessary changes were to have happened then these bailouts would not have been needed, but then there would have been a collapse of these economies that would have spread to the greater EU and that would have probably brought about social instability. Hopefully, the EU will be better able to handle such a situation when and if such a situation happens at a later date. Note that America could soon be facing a situation similar to the EU's as many of its states will probably require a bail out in the coming year[s], California being one example. It still appears as if the EU and the world is headed towards a future economic degringolade.

And here is an interesting article for those who think that the stock market is back to where it was in 2008, "Adjusted for inflation (as per the Bureau of Labor Statistics), the Dow would have to reach 13,570 to equal the 'purchasing power' value of Dow 11,000 in 2001. ($1 in 2001 equals $1.23 in 2010.)"

And there was an interesting poll that found that there is an increase in the number of people who thing that marriage is becoming obsolete.

Nearly four in 10 Americans think marriage is becoming obsolete, according to a new survey that reveals changing attitudes on gay marriage, unwed couples and the definition of what a family is.[...]Among the biggest changes in Americans' attitude toward marriage was the number of those who now believe the institution is becoming obsolete. Thirty-nine percent of respondents said they believe that's the case, compared with 28 percent who said that when Time magazine asked the same question in 1978. [...]Some 86 percent of respondents said they consider a single parent and child to be a family, and 80 percent said unmarried couples living together with children are families. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) said they think a gay or lesbian couple raising a child constitutes a family. But even though a majority (88 percent) think a childless married couple is a family, a similar majority thinks a childless unmarried couple is not.

I found this interesting because the traditional family is the foundation of our society and this one of the reason that those who wish to change our society, mostly the Left, promote anything that will help destroy it: gay marriage, cultural themes that run throughout popular culture like music and that promote single motherhood and that having a kid outside of marriage is acceptable, a government that helps replace the need for a father and the traditional family with welfare, and etc. I was also reading the "Communist Manifesto" where it states that the destruction of the traditional family will be necessary to bring about the Revolution of the Proletariat,

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

This is a couple of little news bits that I found interesting and relevant. They don't necessarily mean that some future decline in the situation of the world will occur, but they do point one to look in that direction.

Expert Analyst disses Prius

Noted auto and economic super-genius, Cher, weighs in on the utility of a Prius:

“I researched all the hybrid stuff and its pretty much all bulls**t,” Cher said when asked about her vehicle preferences.

Pretty much to the point. QED.

Face, ToeJamm.

Going Green!

Here are a few ways you can "go green" and it will not be a hinderance on your life.


1) Use Winco’s green fabric bags for your groceries (or your favorite grocer’s bags). They only cost $0.88 at Winco. If you notify the cashier that you are using them he/she will deduct $0.18 from your total. I will only need to shop 24.444444 times and they will pay for themselves. I probably shop at Winco around 25 times a year. If you are wondering, “What am I going to do for trash bags?” I would tell you to continue using paper bags because grocery plastic bags are too small for a customary kitchen trash can. I accumulate more bags then necessary to reuse anyway and more than half of them end up as garbage.
2) Recycle your used car oil or have it done at a local oil shop (they recycle).
3) If its yellow let it mellow and if it’s brown flush it down. I piss in my toilet at least twice before I flush it. Patrick can piss like ten times before I have to flush his.
4) Turn your lights off when leaving a room. Try to make it a habit.
5) Turn down your thermostat one little itty bitty degree lower. Chances are you won’t notice.
6) Start a recycling routine. It can be fun with the kids!
7) Bring one of your favorite fabric grocery bags with you when you go on your walk in the city park . There will certainly be some trash to pick up.
8) Buy a Prius!
9) When you chop down a precious Christmas tree be sure to plant two more. This is also a great one with the kids!
10) Try more outdoor entertainment. Hiking, skiing, jogging (not on a treadmill), Frisbee, basketball etc. These activities can be healthy and more refreshing then sitting in front of the boob tube.

Major Success for Obama - Wall Street Journal

via Hot Air: The Wall Street Journal reports

Has there ever been a major economic summit where a U.S. President and his Treasury Secretary were as thoroughly rebuffed as they were at this week's G-20 meeting in Seoul? We can't think of one. President Obama failed to achieve any of his main goals while getting pounded by other world leaders for failing U.S. policies and lagging growth.

That's how the article starts. They don't back off in the rest of the article as they dish out a savage pounding to Obama.  I won't link the myriad articles that say how smart Obama is (without offering any concrete evidence), but if he really is as smart as they say he is, then he must be humiliating himself (as the President of the United States) and his country on purpose.  If that is his purpose: to massively redistribute wealth from wealth producers to wealth consumers in America, and from America to the rest of the world, and destroy America's standing in the world, he's doing a marvelous job. 

More:

The world also rejected Mr. Geithner's high-profile call for a 4% limit on a nation's trade surplus or deficit, which would amount to new political controls on trade and capital flows. This contradicts at least three decades of U.S. policy advice against national barriers to the flow of money and goods. We don't like to see U.S. Treasury Secretaries so completely shot down by the rest of the world, except when they are so clearly misguided.

A major 'Read the whole thing' article.  I don't feel like doing in-depth writing right now.  But, also check out the Hot Air link.  They juxtapose the WSJ article (of course the capitalist pigs hate him) with a similar article criticizing him almost as harshly in the San Franscisco Chronicle.  Good times.  Though not for our country.

Global Warming - "It's Dead for the Foreseeable Future"

Yay!!!  The last nail in the Global Warming Scam is hammered home: 

The closing this week of the Chicago Climate Exchange, which was envisioned to be the key player in the trillion-dollar "cap and trade" market, was the final nail in the coffin of the Obama administration's effort to pass the controversial program meant to combat global warming.

This Carbon trading exchange is a scam that Al Gore was in on the ground floor. To see it fall warms the cockles of my Global Cooling chilled heart.

"When those that voted for the measure in 2009 went home on July 4th after the vote, they met widespread outrage among their constituents," said Nick Loris, an analyst with Heritage Foundation. Conservatives renamed the idea "cap and tax," and they began an assault on the program.

In the last week, following the Nov. 2 Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, the slide became an avalanche. Investors in CCX, including Sandor and former Vice President Al Gore, sold the exchange to a company involved in commodities trading.

Don't cry for the perpetrators, the brains behind it is $90 million richer, and a chief backer is president of the United States:

The Exchange was the brainchild of Richard Sandor, an economist and professor at Northwestern University, and it was modeled after a successful program that was launched in 1990 and helped control acid rain in the Midwest. It was initially funded by a $1.1 million grant from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago, and President Obama was a board member at the time.

It doesn't say how much Al Gore made out of it, but my guess is he's not hurting.

It's bad form to brag and gloat and say "I told you so", but I've been harping on this scam since 2005, in the face of hipsters, leftists, and concerned Conservatives even, so it feels very good to me. Excuse me, I'm going to bask in the glow of shattered statists' dreams for a while.

QE 2 And You.

(This is a long post but it is very pertinent to one's life and is very interesting. At least read the first article linked and the one below by Ayn Rand.) This is very big news and will directly impact YOU not too far in the future by devaluing your dollar and savings by at least 10-20%. If you have a decent sized savings, you had better put it in an inflation protected investment, always a good advice. This is a great article to read to better understand the global monetary system from Mises dot org, it is long but will help you to understand the economy. The economy is slow and the Fed, America's central bank, is worried about deflation. Inflation is around 1.2%, the average rate of inflation is around 3%, and this is below their target rate of around 1.7-2.0 % which means we are experiencing disinflation, the rate of inflation is slowing. According to The Mises Institute, the Fed determines the rate of inflation by looking at the Consumer Price Index CPI which does not include energy or food prices among other things: "Besides nitpicking the construction of CPI data, there is the problem of focusing just on consumer prices in the first place. For example, according to the latest report of the Producer Price Index, in the last year prices for finished goods are up 4.0 percent, the prices for intermediate goods are up 5.6 percent, and prices for crude goods are up a whopping 20.3 percent." One of the reasons all consumer product's prices do not reflect this increase is that businesses are absorbing the cost of higher input costs at the moment as I concluded in this report(I could be wrong on this as I came to this conclusion myself.),

Procter & Gamble Co.'s (PG) fiscal first-quarter earnings fell 6.8% on the sale of its pharmaceuticals business last year, even as the company's margins took a hit from higher commodity costs.
Earnings topped the company's forecast. The consumer-products giant is in the midst of a broad push to grab market share around the world. It has launched products, marketed its offerings more aggressively and offered consumers more promotions. Higher raw material costs, however, are now putting more pressure on manufacturers. P&G competitor Kimberly-Clark Corp. (KMB) earlier this week reported that third-quarter earnings fell 19%, hurt by rising commodities costs.
Raw materials have started to pressure a range of companies from makers of pizza to sellers of paper towels. Pulp costs have been a pressure for Kimberly-Clark, which makes such brands as Kleenex tissues and Scott paper towels. BMO Capital Markets analyst Connie Maneaty noted that prices for a key variety of pulp are off their peak to $975 a metric ton, but still 12% higher than the average of $870 a metric ton from early this year. Kimberly-Clark lowered its 2010 earnings guidance this week, partly because of input cost pressures. P&G also makes a variety of paper products like Charmin toilet paper and Bounty paper towels. Companies like P&G also use a variety of plastics and packaging for the shampoos and lotions they sell. In the three months ended June spot prices for plastic resin were up roughly 20% to 30% from a year earlier, estimates Caris & Co. analyst Linda Bolton Weiser. "We are now seeing those costs flow through," she said. P&G on Wednesday didn't break out the impact of different commodities on its earnings.
Speaking to reporters, Chief Executive Bob McDonald said consumer demand is still "dampened" in the U.S. Some food companies in the U.S. are starting to raise prices, with General Mills (GIS) recently announcing increases on some cereal prices. P&G said it will push to offset commodity price pressures with cost savings rather than price rises, McDonald said. In cases where price increases are necessary, the company will choose to do so through the launch of innovative new products, he said. P&G has been curbing costs to offset the pressure from commodities.
Commodities aren't the only challenge these companies face. While developing markets continue to grow fast, sales on daily consumer goods in developed markets and especially the U.S. have stayed sluggish.

While inflation appears to be lower than what the Fed's target rate is, inflation is higher when counting a broader range of prices. Even though the broader range of prices are higher the Fed wants, they still want to implement a policy to increase inflation to meet its target rate for inflation.

To revive the economy and to meet its target rate for inflation, the Fed has decided to do a second round of quantitative easing, QE 2, to be followed by QE 3 and QE 4 according to Roubini who predicted the financial crisis and is fairly respected as he appears on business news networks and is watched fairly closely. Quantitative easing is where the Fed ties to increase the money supply in an attempt to jump start the economy. "The Federal Reserve will buy an additional $600 billion of Treasuries through June[2011], expanding record stimulus and risking its credibility in a bid to reduce unemployment and avert deflation." To buy back Treasuries, the Fed will be paying money for them. What will the Fed be paying for it with? Today, every dollar the government spends it must borrow over 40 cents of it. The Fed will be buying these Treasuries by printing money. The problem with the economy is not a lack of money out there as consumers, businesses, and banks are sitting on around 2 trillion dollars. This could be one of the reasons that inflation appears to be low, especially when considering the amount of money pumped into the economy during QE 1 which was around 1.7 trillion dollars as a massive amount of money is not circulating in the economy. The reason they are sitting on this money and not spending it is a lack of confidence. So pumping more money into the system doesn't seem to make sense and will only make inflation worse when all of this money that consumers, businesses, and banks are sitting on plus this 600 billion dollars start circulating in the economy. QE 1 and 2 will drastically increase the money supply. This in turn will increase the rate of inflation.

The recent action by the Fed is not making other Nations happy as this will devalue their investment they have made in the dollar by buying America's debt. I heard on CNBC's Squawk Box that the German Central bank called the recent action by the Fed "Clueless". And China is not happy with the Fed's action, "'As long as the world exercises no restraint in issuing global currencies such as the dollar -- and this is not easy -- then the occurrence of another crisis is inevitable, as quite a few wise Westerners lament,' Xia Bin, an advisor to China's central bank wrote in a newspaper managed by the bank."

Rush Limbaugh's take,

RUSH: By the way, folks, it is official. I told you this earlier in the day. I told you to be on the lookout for two things today, and it's not an accident the Fed meeting is today when everybody else is looking at the election returns. 'Federal Reserve to buy an additional $600 billion of long-term Treasuries by the end of the second quarter of next year.' QE2. They're not 'buying' anything. They're printing it. They are printing $600 billion, long-term Treasuries. Well, one of the primary uses of the money will be... (sigh) I don't know how to explain this. Just -- I'm telling you this is true. I can't give you the machinations for it. It's gonna end up invested at Wall Street, it's gonna end up invested in stocks, in businesses to make it look legit and okay. It's made to look like this is helping the economy grow. It's done so that Democrats can say, 'Look, look, our policies are helping the economy.'

Now, normally they run Wall Street down, they hatred, in favor of Main Street. Now all of a sudden they're gonna be looking at Wall Street. 'Look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average! Look at our policies! Look the growth of this economy! It's happening, it's just lagging, but we and our policies are bringing the country back.' That's what this is for. The money will end up in the stock market. You know what I'm gonna do? My job is to make the complex understandable, and I'm gonna do that in this case. I do not have the time here to explain the route that all this takes, but I will. For now, don't doubt me. This money is to do two things, the printed money. End up in the stock market to show growth there, and -- and -- to inflate the currency. That is the secondary purpose here, the beginning of the inflation-deflation cycle.

This is the fastest way to retire debt. When you don't have the ability to earn enough money to pay it off the fastest way is to inflate the currency. So this will allow the Fed and the regime to say that their policies are resulting in deficit reduction and savers. All of a sudden, by the way, you're gonna take it in the shorts here again. The money you've got socked away is gonna become worth less is that the regime can show the world that its policies are growing the government. So it is now official out there. QE2, Quantitative Easing, the printing of the money, is also another way for the Democrats to get control of Wall Street. "What do you mean, Rush? What do you mean?"

Wall Street's a bunch of welfare recipients today. All this money invested in equities, all this money invested in stocks, where's it coming from? It's not coming from John Q. Public. It's coming from Ben Bernanke. It's coming from the Federal Reserve -- and what they give, they can take away. Don't doubt me. That's why, folks, those of us who have been saying it having saying it: Last night [Nov 2] was just the beginning. Last night didn't solve anything. There's a long way to go. That's why don't be depressed. Don't be. Last night was a wipeout. Last night was such a wonderful event to build on. You may interpret what I'm saying as equating where we are to helplessness. I am not at all saying that. Don't misunderstand me. Yes, there are large forces, powerful forces. They don't always win.

This action by the Fed and the overall global economic situaiton is causing people to predict "doom and gloom".The US government does not have enough money to retire its debt so it will try to inflate its way out of it by just printing money. This action has lead to the comparison between America's current situation with that of the Weimar Republic where they tried the exact same thing and which eventually ended up with Hitler. I don't know if these two events can be accurately compared. Glenn Beck thinks that the world's current economic situation is leading to the collapse of the dollar followed by a "new global order". Will this just end up like the Carter years? I don't know. Were people making the same dire predictions during the Carter years as they are now? We had the Carter years and America is still here.

Continuing on the vain of some "new world order" resulting from the current economic situation, this from the 1st article above and first published in 2005,

It is now all too clear that the world has become fed up with the unprecedented inflation, in the United States and throughout the world, that has been sparked by the fluctuating fiat currency era inaugurated in 1973. We are also weary of the extreme volatility and unpredictability of currency exchange rates. This volatility is the consequence of the national fiat-money system, which fragmented the world's money and added artificial political instability to the natural uncertainty in the free-market price system. The Friedmanite dream of fluctuating fiat money lies in ashes, and there is an understandable yearning to return to an international money with fixed exchange rates.

Unfortunately, the classical gold standard lies forgotten, and the ultimate goal of most American and world leaders is the old Keynesian vision of a one-world fiat paper standard, a new currency unit issued by a World Reserve Bank (WRB). Whether the new currency be termed 'the bancor' (offered by Keynes), the 'unita' (proposed by World War II US Treasury official Harry Dexter White), or the "phoenix" (suggested by The Economist) is unimportant. The vital point is that such an international paper currency, while indeed free of balance-of-payments crises (since the WRB could issue as much bancors as it wished and supply them to its country of choice), would provide for an open channel for unlimited world-wide inflation, unchecked by either balance-of-payments crises or by declines in exchange rates.

The WRB would then be the all-powerful determinant of the world's money supply and its national distribution. The WRB could and would subject the world to what it believes will be a wisely-controlled inflation. Unfortunately, there would then be nothing standing in the way of the unimaginably catastrophic economic holocaust of world-wide runaway inflation, nothing, that is, except the dubious capacity of the WRB to fine-tune the world economy.

While a world-wide paper unit and central bank remain the ultimate goal of world's Keynesian-oriented leaders, the more realistic and proximate goal is a return to a glorified Bretton Woods scheme, except this time without the check of any backing in gold. Already the world's major central banks are attempting to 'coordinate' monetary and economic policies, harmonize rates of inflation, and fix exchange rates. The militant drive for a European paper currency issued by a European central bank seems on the verge of success. This goal is being sold to the gullible public by the fallacious claim that a free-trade European Economic Community (EEC) necessarily requires an overarching European bureaucracy, a uniformity of taxation throughout the EEC, and, in particular, a European central bank and paper unit. Once that is achieved, closer coordination with the Federal Reserve and other major central banks will follow immediately. And then, could a World Central Bank be far behind? Short of that ultimate goal, however, we may soon be plunged into yet another Bretton Woods, with all the attendant crises of the balance of payments and Gresham's Law that follow from fixed exchange rates in a world of fiat moneys.

From the entire article above, it does seem like the status quo in the global monetary framework can't last and a "new global monetary" order would seem to solve these problems with the current one. I don't think you can ascribe any nefarious schemes to these developments. Although I do question the foundations that this new system is being set up on, if there is such a thing. Going back on the gold standard does not seem like a possibility as of now.

Another good article about the overall structure of the economy is "Egalitarianism and Inflation" by Ayn Rand. I read this article about two years ago and after taking a macro economic, reading my textbook, and gaining a better understanding of the economy works I found this article to be an accurate description of the how the economy works.

Inflation is a man-made scourge, made possible by the fact that most men do not understand it. It is a crime committed on so large a scale that its size is its protection: the integrating capacity of the victims’ minds breaks down before the magnitude—and the seeming complexity—of the crime, which permits it to be committed openly, in public. For centuries, inflation has been wrecking one country after another, yet men learn nothing, offer no resistance, and perish—not like animals driven to slaughter, but worse: like animals stampeding in search of a butcher. [...]You have all heard of some manipulator who does not work, but lives in luxury by obtaining a loan, which he the repays by obtaining another loan elsewhere, which he repays by obtaining another loan, etc. You know that his policy can’t go on forever, that it catches up with him eventually and he crashes. But what if that manipulator is the government.

Inflation eats up a nations stock seed or capital that makes future production possible.

The overall situation of the U.S. economy according to Senator Gregg,

Sen. Judd Gregg warns that the United States could end up in dire financial straits like Greece's in a few years if it doesn’t cut its deficit and debt — and quickly.

The federal government and state governments are facing massive debts moving forward. States alone are looking at unfunded pension shortfalls for police, emergency, and government workers totaling between $3 trillion and $5 trillion during the next two decades, the Economist magazine reported recently.

'This nation is on a course where if we don’t do something about it, get federal situation, the fiscal policy [under control], we’re Greece. We’re a banana republic,' Gregg told CNBC.

'Our status as a nation is threatened by what we’ve got coming at us in the area of deficit and debt. And it’s only a few more years, at the most, that we have to work with here before the market says, ‘Sorry, your currency is something we cannot continue to defend.'

Senator Gregg is only one of many voices echoing the very same warning. A lot of my posts on the economy details this. The fact is that [IF], the key word is if, America and the world doesn't make a major change in its economic course, there will be a major world economic upheaval in the future. To what extent the upheaval will be and how the world will react to this is up in the air.

The bottom line: the stock market will likely be boosted in the sort term, inflation will be a very serious problem in the not-to-distant future and it already is with the rise in commodity prices, the U.S. Dollar could decline another 20% , and this action is more of the same bad policy that will set up the eventual global economic correction/collapse to be even worse than it otherwise would have been. This new policy is simply trying the very same policy, QE 1 after the economic downturn of 08, that failed earlier. This is BIG news for those that care about their economic future as this will further exacerbate the current global economic situation, and it would do you well to become more educated on this and the overall economic situation so that you can position yourself to succeed in the future. Or you can just ignore it and, uh, fall on your face like everyone else.