Tag Archives: zBarack Obama

Why Global Warming Isn't About Rising Temperatures

For the last several days I have been considering global warming.  Trying to see it from both sides.  I really am trying to understand what is driving the debate and how it is constructed.  My conclusion kinda surprised me.  I don’t think that the whole Global Warming “movement” is about “climate change”.

I do think that there are people that feel:

  1. The world is warming
  2. That man is contributing to this warming
  3. That we can do something to reduce this man-made impact
  4. And that we should do that thing

However, I don’t think that those people make up the majority of this movement.  And to the extent that they are in this movement, they are being hijacked into something much much larger than they realize.

On the other “side”, I see very few people whom I would describe as “Deniers”.  That is, a group of people who either:

  1. Deny the world is warming
  2. Deny that man contributes to warming, if it exists

Instead, what I find are “skeptics”.  And I think the term “skeptic” applies more to the “extent and mitigation” rather than to the whole, “are we warming at all” side of the debate.  I happen to fall into this “skeptic” camp.  That is, I am willing to accept that the planet is warming, that man contributes [in a couple of ways-more on that] and that I remain unconvinced the mitigating solutions are required.

Be that as it may, during my contemplation I found it unimaginable that something like global warming should fall along party lines.  Taxes?  Sure.  War?  Sure.  Education?  Sure.  But this?  No way.  There are simply too many gun loving, huntin-hikin-campin conservatives out there that LOVE the world we live in to make it so.  Clearly, then, there is SOMETHING else in this debate that is driving the divide.  And maybe it took Copenhagen to make it clear to me.

This isn’t about warming and cooling.  Finding solutions to either or proving the data.  This is about:

Socialism, the other spectre Karl Marx spoke about, which walks here too, rather it is like a counter-spectre. Socialism, this is the direction, this is the path to save the planet, I don’t have the least doubt. Capitalism is the road to hell, to the destruction of the world. We say this from Venezuela, which because of socialism faces threats from the U.S. Empire.

From the countries that comprise ALBA, the Bolivarian Alliance, we call, and I want to, with respect, but from my soul, call in the name of many on this planet, we say to governments and peoples of the Earth, to paraphrase Simón Bolívar, the Liberator: If the destructive nature of capitalism opposes us, let’s fight against it and make it obey us, let’s not wait idly by for the death of humanity.

History calls on us to unite and to fight.

If capitalism resists, we are obliged to take up a battle against capitalism and open the way for the salvation of the human species. It’s up to us, raising the banners of Christ, Mohammed, equality, love, justice, humanity, the true and most profound humanism. If we don’t do it, the most wonderful creation of the universe, the human being, will disappear, it will disappear.

This isn’t about the climate.  This is about something much much more insidious than that.

Hopey Changey

For all the talk about Obama making nice with our friends and enemies around the world, you would be surprised to see this:

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran’s hardline rulers sent uncompromising signals to foes at home and abroad on Wednesday, warning of possible legal action against opposition leaders and testing an upgraded missile that could reach Israel.

We were promised the turning of the page when it came to US foreign relations.  This was said, mind you, with the implicit suggestion that this turning of the page would help “heal us” and allow the world to see us in a better light.

I don’t think it’s working.

When MSNBC is Bashing the Leftists…..

In a sign that the shine is wearing off I am beginning to see a change of tone in the selection of stories on some major news outlets.  For about 2 years, the only things we saw on such leftist sites as msnbc were stories that painted the liberal agenda.

However, in the last few months I have started to see more stories that are less than complimentary of the left.  This one included:

Automakers are promising that affordable plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will be available in the next couple of years, but a new report contends that it will be decades before the fuel savings and lower emissions make up for the high cost of batteries.

In their eternal quest to regulate, the left continually misses the boat on larger picture issues.

I mean, how do you miss the obvious:

The per-mile cost of running an electric vehicle has been estimated at about a quarter of the equivalent cost for gasoline, which has led some experts and consumers to see plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or PHEVs, as the cure for what ails America’s energy economy.

The research council’s report, however, estimates that it could be 2028 or later before the fuel savings outweigh the additional up-front cost for plug-in vehicles.

When it comes to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, the report said regular hybrid vehicles such as the present-day Prius might well be more environmentally friendly — unless power companies start phasing out the use of coal and other fossil fuels for electricity generation.

Slow down.  Take your time.  Get it right.

Simply Amazing

I don’t know why a child can do something that has evaded scientists the globe over.

But he did.

Hat Tip: Watts Up With That

More of the Same

Wanna know why we are in the trouble we’re in right now?  People spent too much money.  Many times, money they didn’t even have.  They either bought a house they had no business buying or they refinanced that house and spent the money somewhere else.

Either way, we simply spent too much money.

And the only way that we are going to be able to get better is to let this thing play out.  The over spending, and the bubble that it created,  has GOT to play out, and get out, of the system.  Pure and simple.

Which makes me shake my head when I read this:

Under the program, eligible borrowers who are behind or at risk of default can have their mortgage interest rate reduced to as low as 2 percent for five years. They are given temporary modifications, which are supposed to become permanent after borrowers make three payments on time and complete necessary paperwork, including proof of income and a hardship letter.

See, the Government has set up a program that allows folks who are in trouble with their mortgage to get help.  Ignore, for a second if you can, the fact that the government has no business stepping and helping these people.  Focus instead on if the program works or not:

Only one in three homeowners who have signed up for the Obama administration’s mortgage relief plan have sent back the necessary paperwork, highlighting continuing problems for the government’s effort to stem the foreclosure crisis.

It doesn’t.  And how could it?

Lenders, however, say the majority of borrowers either don’t complete the paperwork or don’t make the payments. At Bank of America, for example, only a quarter of the 65,000 borrowers in trial modifications have sent back their paperwork.

The bank blamed “ineffective communications with customers, shortcomings in document maintenance, misunderstandings about program requirements, and the inability to comply by some borrowers,” according to written remarks from Jack Schakett, Bank of America’s credit loss mitigation strategies executive.

I mean seriously.  Can you imagine going to the DMV for help on your mortgage?  Can you imagine the confusion that must reign at these offices?

Government.  Sheesh

One and Done

Using this graphing tool we are seeing that “The ONE” can’t even beat Carter.  This may be the ONLY good news concerning Obama.

Here is a graph showing Obama’s approval rating so far:

Obama's Approval Rating to Date

This graph shows Obama AND Carter for the same time periods:

Obama vs. Carter Approval Rating to Date

Let’s only hope for change.

Could This Turn Out Any Other Way?

Look, there are over paid people in this world.  Athletes.  Movie stars.  Middle managers at large corporations.  Sure.  I get it.  And to a l ot of people, people who really work and work physically, the money that some of the people make is gross.  That being said, the market adjusts pretty well and compensates those people fairly well.

Is shoveling horse manure more physically demanding than running a large Fortune 50 account?  Yup.  Are more people suited to shoveling manure than managing said account?  Just as sure.  Hence, the value of the skill is different and the compensation changes.

Which just makes this news predictable:

Anastasia Kelly, general counsel of AIG , Rodney Martin, head of one of AIG’s international life insurance businesses; William Dooley, who runs the financial-services division including AIG Financial Products; Nicholas Walsh, vice chairman and head of the international property and casualty unit; and John Doyle, who runs the U.S. property and casualty division, said in written notices Dec. 1 that they’re willing to leave by the end of 2009…

In October, Feinberg cut 2009 compensation for AIG’s top 13 employees by 57%, including limiting most base salaries to no more than $500,000. Another 12 top employees had already left before the review began, according to the WSJ.

Now, you can argue that execs are overpaid.  And you might even be able to convince some people of that fact.  But what you CAN’T prove is that THESE execs are overpaid in relation to their peers.  These people, in theory, are among the best in the world at what they do.  There might be only a few hundred who have the ability to rise to the positions these people have.  And that is among billions of people.  They SHOULD be paid well.

Now they will, just not at AIG.

Seriously Confused

This time, it’s me I am accusing.  Not Obama.

I have been reading the reports of the unemployment situation today and two things have stood out. The first, from the BLS:

The unemployment rate edged down to 10.0 percent in November, and nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged (-11,000)

And the second from MarketWatch:

The report was much better than expected by economists surveyed by MarketWatch, who were looking for 100,000 fewer jobs…

Okay, let’s start with #2 first.  I have seen several reports that show November was expected to lose 100,000 to 130,000 jobs.  And we came in losing only 11,000.  No one, not ONE single person O have seen has stopped and said, “Huh”?  This is off by just a little bit folks.  These guys were off by a FACTOR OF TEN!  No one is THAT wrong and gets away with it.  Unless of course, you are Al Gore.

So, okay, experts were wrong.  And by a lot.  But that gets us to point #1.  We still lost jobs.

In October, unemployment stood at 10.2%.  We lost jobs.  Even if it was only 1, we lost net jobs.  The rate HAS to stay the same or get worse.  Right?  Wrong.  We lost job AND the unemployment rate got better.

Weird.

Unrelated news.  Houston is expecting 2 inches of snow.  Silly polar bears need migrate!

Note to Obama

Obama is having his jobs summit today; in fact it may already be over.  In the spirit of wondering how to create more jobs, I noticed that Krugman has a solution:

Meanwhile, the federal government could provide jobs by … providing jobs. It’s time for at least a small-scale version of the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration, one that would offer relatively low-paying (but much better than nothing) public-service employment. There would be accusations that the government was creating make-work jobs, but the W.P.A. left many solid achievements in its wake. And the key point is that direct public employment can create a lot of jobs at relatively low cost. In a proposal to be released today, the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank, argues that spending $40 billion a year for three years on public-service employment would create a million jobs, which sounds about right.

That got me to thinking.  There are currently about 15.7 million unemployed people in America.  Almost all are receiving some form of unemployment benefits.  How about instead of spending $40 billion a year for 3 years like Krugman says, we just make these people do the work he is suggesting and call ’em jobs?  Why would we create a program to offer “relatively low-paying” jobs for people to work when we already have a program that offers “relatively low-paying” jobs where people have to do–NOTHING!?

Krugman.  Sheesh.

Hat tip:  Forbes

California: Part II

A lot of talk going on about projections and what ifs.  So much so, that for many of us, we begin to lose sight of  “what is” within the forest of  theoretical science.  Sometimes, really, a picture is simply worth a thousand words.  Or maybe, a picture is not having to read a thousand words.

Who get's it? Who doesn't.

Why, you may ask, is the unemployment rate so much higher in California than in Texas?

What’s the worst state to do business in? According to readers of Chief Executive magazine, it’s California. In the same poll, Texas won first place as the best state in which to put your headquarters. As reported in The Economist, the two largest states in the nation have very different philosophies and very different success rates.

The article goes on to mention why Texas is doing a better job:

  1. Texans on average believe in laissez-faire markets with an emphasis on individual responsibility.  Since the ’80s, California’s policy-makers have favored central planning solutions and a reliance on a government social safety net.
  2. Californians have largely treated environmentalism as a “religious sacrament” rather than as one component among many in maximizing people’s quality of life.
  3. California has placed “ethnic diversity” above “assimilation,” while Texas has done the opposite.
  4. Texas has focused on streamlining the regulatory and litigation burden on its residents.  Meanwhile, California’s government has attempted to use regulation and litigation to transfer wealth from its creators to various special-interest constituencies.

The whole article is an awesome read as a “how to guide” for planners.  It would be great if Barack Obama would read it.

Hat Tip Mark Perry and Rick Perry