Low-Cost Tech Could Cool Planet

by Ari Armstrong | 1:55 pm, November 9, 2009

The following article originally was published November 9 by Grand Junction’s Free Press.

If planet did warm, low-cost tech could cool it

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

In our last column we expressed skepticism that human-caused global warming will ever amount to much. We have little trust in the politically subsidized computer simulations responsible for most of the fuss. Obviously, natural causes play a major role in climate change, and historically carbon dioxide levels have followed — not caused — warmer temperatures.

The “precautionary principle” counsels us to act even if the risk is uncertain. Unfortunately, few environmentalists practice much caution regarding the economy. While the harms of climate change are speculative, the harms of widespread political economic controls are certain and severe.

But what if? What if the earth did warm from man-made (or entirely natural) causes, and what if this caused significant problems for people? If that were the case, then low-cost technology could quickly solve the problem, argue Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner in SuperFreakonomics.

Levitt and Dubner have been accused of claiming a consensus for global cooling in the 1970s, misrepresenting other people’s work, and other failings. We’ve read a number of these criticisms, and we’ve read the book. We conclude that various detractors are smearing SuperFreakonomics to suppress its information. Read the book and reach your own conclusions.

The book devotes the last of five chapters to climate change. However, Chapter 4 sets the stage by describing “cheap and simple” solutions to various problems. For example, better hand cleansing in hospitals dramatically decreased deaths. Forceps have saved the lives of babies and mothers. Fertilizing crops with ammonium nitrate has dramatically increased yields. The polio vaccine wiped out that disease. Seat belts curbed auto deaths.

The final example of the chapter is a proposal to control hurricanes. Nathan Myhrvold of Intellectual Ventures developed the idea based on a plan of British engineer Stephen Salter. The proposal is to employ a bunch of “large, floating” rings in troubled spots of the ocean. Waves of warm water lap into the rings, pushing the warm water down a tube and bringing cooler water to the surface. Goodbye hurricanes.

The chapter on climate change focuses on two other ideas floating around Intellectual Ventures for cooling the earth. One plan involves pumping sulfur dioxide through a long hose into the upper atmosphere, mimicking the cooling effects of natural volcanic eruptions. This would quickly cool the earth, yet the effects would rapidly disappear if pumping stopped. The other plan is to seed more clouds over the ocean.*

Cooling the earth with sulfur dioxide would cost an estimated $100 million per year, less than what environmentalists spend fear mongering. Dramatically cutting carbon dioxide emissions would cost an estimated trillion dollars per year, or 10,000 times as much.

Moreover, cutting carbon emissions wouldn’t accomplish much. Beyond the problem of getting developing nations such as China to curb emissions — fat chance — “the existing carbon dioxide would remain in the atmosphere for several generations,” Levitt and Dubner point out.

So, given that the sulfur dioxide pump is radically cheaper, safer, and more feasible, many environmentalists conclude that we should only limit carbon emissions instead. Al Gore thinks it’s “nuts” to explore geoengineering solutions like the pump.

Environmentalists don’t worry that volcanos emit sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, naturally cooling the earth. But many are dead set against humans doing the same thing. Why? Because, to the radical environmentalist, anything “natural” is good, and anything human is bad. Such environmentalists really don’t care about the earth’s temperature. What they care about is limiting human activity.

While geoengineering is the big take-home point, Levitt and Dubner challenge a number of environmentalist dogmas along the way. For example, “buying locally produced food actually increases greenhouse-gas emissions” because “big farms are far more efficient than small farms.”

Myhrvold believes that wind and other alternative energies — touted by our “New Energy Economy” governor as a pretext for corporate welfare — “don’t scale to a sufficient degree” to replace traditional energy. He adds that solar cells are not perfect: “only about 12 percent [of light] gets turned into electricity, and the rest is reradiated as heat — which contributes to global warming.”

Meanwhile, the authors suggest, we should not forget the benefits of modern energy. Before the gas-powered automobile, people used horses, and this generated a great deal of manure. Imagine vacant lots with manure “piled as high as sixty feet.” Imagine manure “lining city streets like banks of snow.” Thank human ingenuity for automobiles and the oil that powers them.

In the 1800s, American lights relied on harvesting thousands of whales each year. Our authors write, “The new oil industry… functioned as the original Endangered Species Act, saving the whale from near-certain extinction.”

We worry a bit about the book’s treatment of a few topics such as altruism. Yet, while SuperFreakonomics may be a fancy title for plain old economics mixed with clever research, it offers a wealth of fascinating insights.

* November 13 update: Here’s something not mentioned in the book: one young scientist thinks CO2-eating rocks might help.

Pelosi health care bill & rationing: H1N1 vaccine an example

by Brian Schwartz | 1:34 pm, November 9, 2009

If you want a taste of what more politically-controlled medicine would look like, check out this story from MSNBC about how Wall Street executives have access while others wait.

The Wall Street Journal also reports:
The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urged health officials around the country Thursday to ensure swine-flu vaccine is [...]

Do We Still Celebrate the Berlin Wall’s Collapse 20 Years Later?

by Ben DeGrow | 12:20 pm, November 9, 2009

Twenty years ago today the Berlin Wall came down. Not exactly breaking news for my well-informed readers, but the significance of the event is hard to overstate. For five minutes of valuable reflection on the power of freedom with a stirring Beethoven soundtrack, check out this terrific video from the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

When the wall [...]

Dr. Jeffrey Miron on “An Economic Analysis of Drug Legalization”

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 12:19 pm, November 9, 2009

Even if you completely disagree, ESPECIALLY if you completely disagree, tune in for this perspective. If nothing else, you will gain a better understanding of freedom and why you are against it.

News Continues to Roll in about Home Grown Jihadist Nidal Hasan

by Mr. Bob | 9:04 am, November 9, 2009

#tcot #gwot #muslim #Hasan #teaparty
Among other things like swearing to defend the constitution, a US Armed Forces member must swear or affirm ;

“I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause …. I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.”

Remember the Beltway Sniper? He is schedule to be executed tomorrow.
We can only hope that the Fort Hood murderer meets the same end…they are of the same mass murdering cultish line of craziness.

Apparently Mr Hasan was a Jihadist and outspoken about it but you would not know that unless you read the non-US media.

Quote of the day from Dr. Bill Bennet; If we can discharge officers and enlisted personnel for being gay, we can separate them and discharge them for being Muslim radicals, can we not? Or has, indeed, political correctness so infected our institutions that the U.S. military is now affected, too? Read his full article

Not only did this murderer use the American military to get an education and a rank he was unworthy of he also;
played a homeland security advisory role in President Barack Obama’s transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document.

The Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University published a document May 19, entitled “Thinking Anew – Security Priorities for the Next Administration: Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force, April 2008 – January 2009,” in which Hasan of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine is listed on page 29 of the document as a Task Force Event Participant.

Hasan received his medical degree from the military’s Uniformed Services University School in Bethesda, Md., in 2001. READ THE REST

Fox News has a very good report today including an eyewitness account.

A black weekend in American history as Pelosicare passes House

by Rossputin | 4:05 am, November 9, 2009

On Saturday, by a vote of 220-215 with the support of just one Republican, House Democrats passed their version of health care reform, a $1.3 trillion (and that will be too low, and just for the first decade) monstrosity of taxes, penalties, bureaucracies, and European-style socialism that will, if it ever actual takes effect, destroy both the American economy and its health care system.

It’s almost amusing to see so many of the Democrats’ photo-op pictures showing California’s George Miller standing with Nancy Pelosi.  Miller could easily be the worst member of Congress, absolutely owned by labor unions.  That’s whose bill just got passed, despite the tax on “Cadillac plans” which unions oppose.

I felt sick to my stomach when I read the news of the bill’s passage.  That said, I remind myself of my own statements that we are living “Atlas Shrugged” and things will not get better until the public – who too often want everything for free – realize that their dreams of gifts from government forever are fatally flawed.  The public must come to learn, and they can probably only truly learn it if the lesson is very painful, that “free” things from government are poisonous fruit, the most important result of which will be the loss of their ability to gain decent employment.

I think the House bill will be dramatically modified in conference if a bill gets through the Senate, which is a 50/50 proposition at best right now.  Certainly, no bill with a public option will pass the Senate.  However, the fact that such a leftist bill passed the House will put pressure on Senate conferees to move left…a fact which could cement the no votes of the one or two or three moderate Democrats in the Senate (plus Olympia Snowe) whom we are sadly reliant on to save the nation.

Don’t forget, the House is a much more radical place than the Senate, and it happens frequently that the worst ideas do get passed the the House.  (For example, they’ve also already passed a cap-and-trade bill that probably won’t get passed in the Senate either.)

Furthermore, the Democrats had to get something passed or risk their Messiah, The One, becoming a lame duck earlier than any president in US history.  With luck, he still will, if Harry Reid is unable to bully Senate Democrats the way Pelosi was able to with House Democrats.

Let’s give the American people some time to digest what’s just happened in the House, and particularly the votes of any Blue Dog Democrats who caved in to the Pelosi pressure.

The good news, if one felt compelled to find a silver lining in this extremely dark cloud, is that it probably means massive Democratic losses in elections a year from now.  (Indeed, the reason Pelosi pushed for such a fast vote was because the thought of losing the next election will become ever more intense among Democratic “moderates” in coming months.)  I have been been betting on Republicans taking back the majority in the 2010 elections, roughly risking $3 to win $7 with each “contract” I trade.

I would like to see 50 Republican candidates running on a platform of co-sponsoring a bill which would simply repeal any health care “reform” that passes before the next election.  Obviously, no repeal can happen while Obama is President, but it would send an extremely strong message.

Make no mistake, we are in a war against domestic socialism every bit as much as we’re in a war against radical Islam.  And just like in the war with Islam, every once in a while you will find American fanatics doing terrible things to other Americans.  That’s what happened at Fort Hood earlier last week and, in a much subtler but more pernicious way, that’s what happened in the House of Representatives on Saturday.  May history judge them similarly.

Anh “Joseph” Cao: The Only Republican to vote for Democrats’ heatlh care monstrosity

by Rossputin | 3:59 am, November 9, 2009

The only Republican to vote for Nancy Pelosi’s disastrous health care bill was Joseph Cao, from inner-city New Orleans.

I have two things to say to Mr. Cao:

First, in supporting your vote, you argued that you did it because health insurance costs “are exploding”. But anybody who’s been paying even the slightest bit of attention would know that the Democrats’ bill will cause health care costs to increase even more rapidly.  Therefore, what you must be saying is that you voted for the bill because you believe it will give hand-outs, paid for by others, to your constituents.  There is a name for that sort of economic thinking, which brings me to my second point:

Your father was an officer in the South Vietnamese Army.  How many of your relatives fought and bled and died – and how many young Americans did the same for your family’s country – in an effort to defeat precisely the sort of economic thinking (and the same sort of megalomaniac, ego-driven statists) whom you just joined?

The idea that someone like you, with such close and personal ties to the battle against communism, would now vote like a communist is nothing short of shameful.

Better than from a Cracker Jack box?

by Rossputin | 3:52 am, November 9, 2009

H/T Greg Staff…

Regulatory changes necessary to lower prescription drug costs

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 7:00 pm, November 8, 2009

Part Two of the Capitalist Manifesto for Healthcare Reform: Lowering prescription drug costs.  Adapted from a piece originally published by Jimmy Sengenberger in the Regis University Highlander newspaper.

Ronald Reagan once said, “Individual freedom and ingenuity are at the very core of everything we’ve accomplished.”

Indeed, everything that has made America great has come from empowering the people, including and especially when it comes to the market.  Capitalism has been the engine of prosperity for this country going back to its founding.  As such, I am now proposing that Congress and the President consider the “Capitalist Manifesto for Healthcare Reform,” several specific, free-market fixes for the healthcare problem.

In the first article of this series, I examined the importance of breaking down two critical barriers to competition: the third-party based system that sets consumers apart from paying and decision-making and state laws prohibiting insurance purchases across state lines.  Cost and affordability, not quality of care, are the key issues with our healthcare system.  So let’s look at another way in which we can directly empower the individual beyond increased choice and expand affordability—by adjusting policies surrounding the importation of cheaper prescription drugs.

High Costs: Prescription drug costs often contribute greatly to higher healthcare costs.  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the number of prescriptions purchased in the U.S. between 1994 and 2004 was a whopping 68 percent, with prices averaging increases of 8.3 percent yearly during that period.  “Although still only a modest part of total health care spending in the U.S (11 percent),” they note, “with so many people relying on prescriptions, the cost implications loom large for the American public, health insurers, and government payers.”  The problems lie in Research and Development spending—specifically, patents and FDA regulations—and the fact that importing prescription drugs is illegal under current U.S. law.

Patents: Both patents and FDA regulations are significant contributors to $800 million in costs to launch a single new pharmaceutical product—costs which result in higher prices for consumers.  First, patents are designed to give a company temporary monopoly on the product so that they can recover their R&D spending.  A patent lasts 20 years, yet as the CATO Institute’s Roger Pilon points out, “the effective life for drug patents is about nine years.”  Logically, the shorter the time, the higher companies must charge per unit during that time to make up for the costs.  This process must be changed to permit the same amount of patent time that other products have.

FDA Regulations: Then there are regulations.  Today, according to PHRMA, the process of discovery to FDA approval takes an average of 12 to 15 years.  As such, many people who would accept the risks involved suffer during this time.  As economist Milton Friedman suggested, “[T]he one big development you could make would be to go back [to the situation where you have] the FDA certify safety…but not efficacy, and let the market itself work in determining efficacy.”

Indeed, the FDA should test only for safety and allow doctors and consumers to judge efficacy, which would decrease costs substantially and thus allow for cheaper medications.  By altering the regulatory process, more innovation and development will result in addition to lower prices.

Prescription Drug Importation: Finally, current law makes it illegal for prescription drugs to come to the U.S. from anyone other than the American producer.  As of now, they must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for importation.  Consequently, competition between prescription drug providers is stifled, as U.S. manufacturers lack the incentive to cut prices to beat out lower-priced contenders.  But individuals, states and cities are already beginning to avoid these laws and import drugs from other countries.  This should be made official: by permitting the importation of lower-cost prescription drugs from countries like Canada, consumers will have a larger list of affordable, cheaper medications to choose from.

Of course, we do have a right to know if what we’re buying hasn’t been FDA, so what’s to say that the government can’t mandate that imported prescription drugs say “NOT APPROVED BY FDA” in big, bold letters and be placed in sections stating “NOT APPROVED BY FDA” in the pharmacy?  Leave it up to me and my doctor, not big brother Sam, to decide whether or not I want to buy a cheaper drug from Canada, approved by their version of the FDA, instead of the more expensive product from Georgia.

There are other concerns as well.  The Heritage Foundation’s Nina Owcharenko, for instance, makes a good point: prescription drugs in other, Westernized countries are fixed in accordance with price controls, which would distort the international market and advantage foreign manufacturers.

However, we must recognize that the vast majority of R&D costs are being paid for by the Americans, with other countries essentially getting a free pass.  The U.S. is the only nation where market dynamics of supply and demand play out in pharmaceuticals—and with good reason.  Price controls in other countries, as Owcharenko points out, reduce R&D spending (not costs) for new drugs by as much as $5 to $8 billion each year and trials for new medical compounds by as much as 50-60 percent.

But as long as the ban on importation is in effect, American drug manufacturers are going to recoup their R&D costs here instead of pushing supply and demand principles on other countries—meaning higher prices for us.  Essentially, prices are set differently in the U.S. from other countries, meaning the U.S. shoulders the cost burden.

By eliminating the importation ban, other countries will have no choice but to react to supply and demand principles, as American manufacturers will find it necessary to cut prices at home and raise them abroad.  Thus, other countries will have to share in R&D costs, which is long overdue.

As Roger Pilon notes, pharmaceuticals can use contractual agreements (to do such things as restrict drug resale), limits on supply, and export pressures, among other things, to help ensure that foreign countries are not undercutting the company.  In effect, American manufacturers will be encouraged to do whatever they can to discourage importation in order to maintain their market share, which can be done by lowering prices here and raising prices elsewhere.

Should the U.S. government repair the patent process, refocus FDA regulations and permit the importation of prescription drugs, Americans of all stripes will surely benefit from a noticeable reduction of healthcare expenses.

Health care bill & the death of freedom

by Brian Schwartz | 4:41 pm, November 8, 2009

From the Washington Examimer:
That American citizens should be fined or even put in federal prison for refusing to purchase government-approved health insurance is as un-American as any idea we can imagine. But such a mandate is the very heart of the bill written behind closed doors by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her privileged pals. [...]

Health reform bill and preexisting conditions

by Brian Schwartz | 1:45 pm, November 8, 2009

Section 211-213 of HR 3962 basically says that insurance companies must offer coverage (guaranteed issue) and charge the same premium (community rating) to everyone regardless of their medical history.  The November 8  Daily Camera (Boulder, CO) printed my brief opposition to such political controls:
Should government force you to pay more for medical insurance so others [...]

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discusses Colorado Supreme Court outrageous rulings on Backbone Radio (710 KNUS Denver, 1460 KZNT CO Springs) tonight at 7PM

by CTBC Director | 7:10 am, November 8, 2009

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold joins Backbone Radio on 710 KNUS (1460 KZNT in Colorado Springs) at 7PM tonight (Sunday) to discuss the most recent outrageous and unconstitutional Colorado Supreme Court ruling, which asserted the authority of the courts (vs. elected representatives) to decide on school funding levels, along with other examples of the Mullarkey Court’s repeated assaults on the Colorado [...]

One of the best notes ever regarding gay marriage

by Rossputin | 5:36 am, November 8, 2009

Over at Andrew Breitbart’s BigHollywood.com, the openly gay Charles Winecoff has written one of the best articles I’ve read on the issue of gay marriage – and it’s not just one of the best because his policy solution is the same as mine.

I highly recommend you read:

Note to Andrew Sullivan: Don’t Blame Breitbart For My Thought Crimes

Unintentional Humor of the Year

by Justin Longo | 11:35 pm, November 7, 2009

Great quote from Nancy Pelosi on the House passing health care “reform:” A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later. That quote pretty much sums it up. Nothing more needs to be said.

Obama elitism

by El Marco | 10:28 pm, November 7, 2009

Short of stating it explicitly, elitism implies that “the masses” are mindless, spiritless creatures without free will, always in need of the largesse of the state, and for their own good the state ought to nationalize the country’s r…

Obamacare: This goes where???

by Rossputin | 5:05 am, November 7, 2009

I don’t know who created this cartoon, but it made me laugh out loud.  The truth hurts, maybe literally…

Dems regege on health care bill transparancy

by Brian Schwartz | 9:28 pm, November 6, 2009

From John Fund in the Wall Street Journal:
Back in September, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters she was “absolutely” committed to having the final language of any health care bill posted on the Internet for 72 hours before a vote on the House floor.
Well, the bill isn’t finished, with major issues such as taxpayer funding [...]

Funny Friday Cartoon of the Day

by Mr. Bob | 4:52 pm, November 6, 2009

#tcot #teaparty #crapsandwich
Go Here to HolyCoast.com

Reminder: Call Congress Today to Oppose H.R. 3962 Obama Care

by Ben DeGrow | 4:04 pm, November 6, 2009

I was planning to post a notice today about the need to take action against the Pelosi version of Obama Care. And today is the time to do it! But being busy, I got permission to paste this email (with a couple slight tweaks) from a friend:

Hello to all!
If you want tax dollars funding abortions [...]

Udall Harms Consumers

by Ari Armstrong | 2:26 pm, November 6, 2009

Senator Mark Udall pushed a law harming consumers, and now he is blaming other victims of his unjust law — credit card companies — for the harm that he caused.

As I wrote earlier this year, Udall advocated a law violating contracts between credit card companies and their customers. I summarized, “The new controls will have two main effects. They will ensure that the young and the poor have less access to credit. And they will make it harder for responsible cardholders to negotiate good terms.”

I didn’t write about another, short-term harm of the bill. Because Udall’s controls make it harder for credit card companies to charge irresponsible borrowers higher rates, some of those companies responded by charging some higher rates immediately, before the law went into effect. This is a predictable response. If a credit card company thinks a customer might become a problem, say by getting overextended and missing payments, Udall’s bill gave those companies the incentive to take action before the bill limited their ability to act consistent with their contract with the customer.

In other words, Udall screwed customers who might have faced higher rates in the future by sticking them with immediately higher rates.

This is a classic case of a legislator blaming his victims for the harmful consequences of unjust legislation.

So what is Udall’s response? Is it to admit his mistake and repeal the unjust law? Of course not. Now Udall is pushing a new law to hasten the implementation of the old law.

Credit card companies have probably already responded to the bill, so the new law will not save anybody from higher rates. Nor will it save anybody from the harms of the initial legislation. Because credit card companies will have a harder time raising rates on irresponsible borrowers, they will be less likely to issue cards to riskier clients. In other words, Udall’s bill screws the poor, the young, and those trying to get back on their financial feet. Udall will make sure that, rather than get less-favorable credit terms, some such people will get no credit terms.

As the Wall Street Journal explained on October 29:

But if customers are being taken to the cleaners, it is because U.S. lawmakers like Mr. Dodd sent them there. In May, Congress passed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act, which bars rate increases without a 45-day notification. To reduce their risk under this law, banks in the U.S. are rushing to raise rates before it takes effect in February. Thus the Senator’s latest political grandstand.

In the unlikely event that Mr. Dodd’s new legislation passes, banks would limit their risk in other ways, such as canceling cards or refusing to extend credit to marginal customers. The unavailability of credit can also be a burden on struggling families, not to mention having a depressive effect on the economy.

What’s amazing is that, even as he explains how his bill harmed consumers, he can’t stop crowing about it or making empty promises to fix it.

In an October 29 e-mail, Udall writes:

The last thing families and small businesses need is their credit card company jacking up rates with no warning – but that’s exactly what’s happening. In the first six months of this year – as Congress was writing common-sense reforms – credit card companies raised rates an average of 20 percent, according to one study. It’s wrong, families need immediate relief, and that’s why I’ve introduced two bills to put an end to credit card companies’ abuses. This is something I’ve been fighting for since I served in the U.S. House of Representatives, and I’m going to ensure we do everything in our power to prevent credit card companies from taking advantage of consumers. …

Earlier this year, we passed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act (Credit CARD Act) to prevent credit card companies from unfairly squeezing their customers with excessive rate hikes and predatory billing practices. That bill gave credit card companies until February of next year to implement many of the reforms. But instead of playing by the rules, credit card companies have been taking advantage of the implementation period to jack up already high interest rates even higher. The result is unfair rates that are further burdening families that were already struggling with debt.

I’ve introduced two bills to put a stop to this. One bill, which I introduced this week with Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, would freeze interest rates immediately, giving consumers some immediate relief. The second, which I introduced last week, would move up the date for reforms to go into effect by more than two months, to Dec. 1, 2009, preventing companies from gaming the system and protecting consumers who play by the rules. This is like the classic story of David vs. Goliath – and I’m happy to take on Goliath.

If Udall wishes to catch a glimpse of Goliath he need look no further than the mirror.

In a November 5 e-mail, Udall continues:

In May, the president signed sweeping new legislation to protect consumers from abusive credit practices.

The bill, which I cosponsored, gave credit card companies until February 2010 to institute common sense reforms, like requiring advance notice of interest-rate increases, banning the practice of universal default, and protections for young people.

Instead of using this “grace period” to update their computer systems and implement the new policies, credit card companies put the squeeze on hard working, responsible credit card users by unfairly jacking up their rates.

Udall issued a media release to the same effect.

Udall is incensed that his bill prompted credit card companies to raise rates in some cases. But he apparently cannot even conceive of solving the problem by repealing its cause: his own bill.

Unfortunately, Udall is not the only legislator playing this game. The November 5 Denver Daily reports:

With Colorado Congresswoman Betsy Markey leading the charge, the U.S. House yesterday voted to move up the deadline for credit card companies to comply with federal credit card reform legislation.

The 331-92 vote came after Markey, D-Fort Collins, expressed great anger and frustration over credit card companies changing agreements — including raising interest rates on consumers by as much as double — in anticipation of the legislation. …

“I am appalled at the complete and utter disdain with which credit card companies are treating their customers,” Markey said in a statement following the vote.

And I am appalled at the complete and utter disdain with which Senator Udall and Representative Markey are treating their constituents. Udall and Markey should stop hurting people.

Empty, Silly Platitudes

by Justin Longo | 11:25 am, November 6, 2009

From the Colorado Springs Gazette article titled, “Fort Hood shooter wanted U.S. out of Iraq, Afghanistan,” Lee said Hasan had hoped Obama would pull troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq and got into frequent arguments with others in the military who supported the wars. But…. I thought they hate us for our freedom? Not convinced?  [...]

Updates on the shooting at Fort Hood – opinion of a serviceman

by Mr. Bob | 9:21 am, November 6, 2009

#muslim #tcot #redco #teaparty
Lots of bad journalism yesterday and I fell into it too. CORRECTIONs; He was a lifelong Muslim not a recent convert. And he survived. Reports yesterday were that he was killed.

Fox has the latest HERE

My personal opinion is he freaked because he was about to be deployed (even though that is part of being in the military and everyone knows it.) OR he was a devout follower of Mohammad and felt he was serving his fake god by killing American Soldiers. …I don’t know which. It is harder for me to believe the first one than the second.

Lots of question are being asked about how this could happen. A couple of answers; Base security (which is a civilian contractor in most cases now) don’t search your car when you go in. They check your ID and your car for proper tags. Base MP’s do search some cars randomly with Dogs.

I can imagine that when I have to go on base again in a couple weeks its going to be a long line and I’ll need to give myself a lot of extra time that morning. I never liked that they are tying to save money and personnel by hiring security guards…I have a very low opinion of security guards and I have many stories as to why.

How Long for Michael Bennet to Decide on Fed Reserve Transparency?

by Ben DeGrow | 9:06 am, November 6, 2009

In a savvy political move that promotes a good, old-fashioned commonsense idea — something very rare in the halls of Congress — Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck has called on incumbent appointee Michael Bennet to join the bipartisan Congressional co-sponsorship of a very important transparency bill:

In an e-mail to Bennet, Buck, a Republican candidate [...]

US unemployment rate rises to 26 year high of 10.2%. How many jobs has Obama “created or saved now”?

by Rossputin | 8:38 am, November 6, 2009

Not much needs to be added to the somber statistic except to wonder how it will effect waivering Democratic votes on the House health care “reform” bill, given that all but the most far-left of the Dems must understand that the measure will be extremely destructive to American employment.

Canadian unemployment made a similiar unexpectedly high jump during October.

I’ve written in the past, about the so-called “stimulus” plan, that it was never intended to stimulate the economy at the time it was passed.  Instead, the Administration has been keeping its powder dry so that it could pump hundreds of billions of dollars of your money into temporary, mostly-union, jobs in  the middle of 2010 in order to minimize Democratic election losses next November.  I stand by that prediction of their intent.

However, just as nobody but the far left puts any credibility in the “jobs created or saved” statistics put out by the Administration, these make-work jobs – most often in places which already have relatively low unemployment and on projects which are not the most necessary – will not work into beneficial economic news for Obama.  (If employment begins to rise noticeably in the next 6 months, it will be in spite of, not because of, his economic policies.  And most of the nation knows it.)

Speaking of “jobs created or saved”, did you see this story about a community organization which reported more jobs created or saved than they have in total employees at the place?  When even the AP is shredding Obama’s numbers, you know they must be unbelievably blatant lies.

With the persistent uncertainty about what productive sector of society the Democrats will target for tax increases, regulation, or just threats, and the upcoming barrage of tax hikes, anywhere from fairly large to a tsunami of economic destruction (if the tax hikes in the House health care “reform” bill were to pass), very few businesses will be looking to expand.  I see no reason for any substantial improvement in unemployment until these issues are resolved in a way that’s better than anything the Democrats are currently proposing.  If anything were to lower the  unemployment rate, it would probably be discouraged would-be workers simply giving up on finding a job.

Nothing says “vote out the party in power” like high unemployment.  If I were a Democrat in a conservative or even moderate district, I’d be extremely nervous for my political future right now.  All the more so with the GOP domination in Wednesday’s most important elections.  Again, I wonder if today’s news will make it more difficult for Nancy Pelosi to come up with 218 votes for her takeover of 1/6th of our economy.

$500 lunch?

by Amy Oliver | 6:42 am, November 6, 2009

Apparently the state provides $500 lunches and taxpayers don’t need to know about them according to State Controller David McDermott.
The Denver Post reports that State Rep. BJ Nikkel, sponsor of the Colorado Taxpayer Transparency Act, accuses McDermott of violating the spirit of the law, violating taxpayer trust and violating transparency.
It’s easy to see Rep Nikkel’s point when McDermott [...]

Fort Hood murderer a Muslim U.S. Army psychiatrist

by Rossputin | 2:54 am, November 6, 2009

I have a few questions for you, my readers, at the end of this note.  I hope you’ll take a moment to respond with your answers as comments to this post.

Yesterday’s horrific murder of at least 12 soldiers at the Army base at Fort Hood, Texas, was reportedly committed by U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a psychiatrist who lived in suburban Maryland.

Hasan is an American citizen with reports varying as to whether his parents are Jordanian or Palestinian.  (The could be both, as many Palestinians became refugees in Jordan during the various wars in the region.) Some news reports are saying that Hasan was a convert to Islam (including in the video below), but it is being reported by Fox News that a cousin says he was born and raised Muslim, and was not a later-in-life convert.

In either case, it is clear that Hasan was a religious Muslim: A Washington Examiner article quotes a local Muslim leader as saying that Hasan went to prayers on a daily basis. And from a Washington Post article:

Hasan attended the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring and was “very devout,” according to Faizul Khan, a former imam at the center. Khan said Hasan attended prayers at least once a day, seven days a week, often in his Army fatigues.

Khan also said Hasan applied to an annual matrimonial seminar that matches Muslims looking for spouses. “I don’t think he ever had a match, because he had too many conditions,” Khan said.

I would love to know more about this “Community Center” to find out if it is a center for radicalism.  Hasan is described by the imam and others as not expressing radical views, but if they were feeding him radical views that is just what they would say.  (And of course they would probably say the same thing if it were true.)

Quoting further from the Examiner article: “At Fort Hood, Hasan exhibited a troubled state of mind. Retired Col. Terry Lee, who worked with Hasan at the psych ward at Fort Hood, told Fox News that about six months ago he heard Hasan say, “Maybe the Muslims should rise up and fight against the aggressor,” in Iraq and Afghanistan – referring to the U.S. Army.”

Here’s some video of an interview with Col. Lee:

It is also being reported that Major Hasan received a poor job review while working at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (a poor review generally being a death sentence to any advancement in the military) as well as that Hasan had been harrassed in the military for being Muslim.

Unless Hasan left a note, we may never know his true motivation. According to ABC News, “Hasan’s cousin Nader Hasan said that she believed it was his upcoming deployment combined with the wartime horror stories he heard from his patients that set him off. Hasan had recently hired an attorney to help him get out of the military.”

American Muslim groups are issuing condemnations of the murders, knowing that Hasan’s attack will increase, at least temporarily, fear of and anger towards Muslims.

So here are my questions for you:

Is it rational for this horror to increase someone’s distrust of an American Muslim, particularly one who seems quite religious?  Are Thursday’s events likely to have that effect on you?

Do you believe that Americans who are or who become religious Muslims are likely to put a higher value on their religion than on their nation?  If so, do you believe it is more true of religions Muslims than of devout people of other religions?

Do you think the American military could legally do anything to more closely surveil its Muslim members, and if they could do you think they should?

Do you believe CAIR when they condemn Hasan’s murderous attack?

Bizarro Health Care ‘Reform’: Expect Less, Pay More

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, November 6, 2009

Pajamas Media was kind enough to publish my article about the Democrats’ “Bizarro” health care reform. Here’s the first few paragraphs:
Expect less, pay more. It’s not the slogan for some “Bizarro World” Target store in a comic book; it’s an accurate slogan for congressional Democrats’ health care “reform” proposals. They include a new government-run insurance [...]

Scott McInnis’ No-Debate Strategy: “Party Unity for Me, But Not for Thee”

by Ben DeGrow | 10:37 pm, November 5, 2009

In a Denver Post column today, Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis justifies his decision not to engage in debates with his primary opponents Josh Penry and Dan Maes: “I will work diligently over the next year to ensure that our party is unified, and that we avoid past mistakes where Republicans wrote the Democrats’ television [...]

Health Care March on the Capitol–PPC’s DC Special Report

by elpresidente | 8:26 pm, November 5, 2009

Army: 12 dead in attacks at Fort Hood,

by Mr. Bob | 4:22 pm, November 5, 2009

Not much detail yet. Lt. Gen Bob Cone said at a news conference that one shooter has been killed and two suspects were apprehended on Thursday. He says they are all U.S. soldiers.

The shooting began around 1:30 p.m. Cone says that all the casualties took place at the base’s Soldier Readiness Center where soldiers who are about to be deployed or who are returning undergo medical screening.

He says the primary shooter used two handguns in the attack.

Unconfirmed but heard from media source; the soldier who killed 12 and wounded 31 at ft. hood is Major Malik Nadal Hassan, a recent convert to Islam.

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers