October 06, 2005
Electric Venom notes that boobies are back in action in New Orleans.
August 04, 2005
GARAMENDI'S INCREDIBLY BIASED REPORT
California's Insurance Commissioner released a report (available here) on the state of insurance for Californians. The report is an incredibly biased and opinionated report. It even admits on page 4 that "This is not a neutral presentation of the facts." . . . .I'm not making this up. In the same paragraph it goes on to say that the report is Garamendi's "views and opinions." Wow.
Garamendi doesn't hesitate to beat the drum of class warfare. On page 6 he states that "We are already well on our way to having an inequitable health care system where the wealthy live and prosper while others are priced out." [read: the poor will not live and prosper] Garamendi also resurrects (without providing any clarity) the ominous claim that 45 million Americans lack health insurance coverage on page 6. (I discuss this 45 million number here)
I'm going to dig into the report and see what other misrepresentations it contains.
August 02, 2005
AND THEY BILL THEMSELVES AS MORE CIVIL
You can't homeschool your kids in Germany. This from the country that thinks itself more civilized than the U.S. Of course, the teachers unions in this state have always fought homeschooling.
According to the petty tyrants, "The parents’ right to personally educate their children would prevent the children from growing up to be responsible individuals within society.” Talk about a non sequitur.
August 01, 2005
Well, I am an anarchist according to this quiz, with my Green side pulling in a distant second. I think the results are a bit screwy because several questions are too vague to answer with certainty:
(#16) Should people control the government? [As opposed to robots? Hamsters? What, do people not control the government when it is an oligarchy?]
(#22) Do you believe violence is an appropriate way to gain power? [How big is the boot of oppression? Is it the Hillary Clinton type of namby-pamby regulatory abuse ("Eat your fucking vegatables, now!")? Or the Daily Kos type ("They work for Halliburton [or Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Food, Big anything]. Screw them and their rights.")?]
(#23) Do you believe in the use of propaganda? [huh? You mean, like, marketing? Agressive marketing? Or do you mean lying?]
I think that it is much more instructive to ask people these questions:
- Do you think the United States Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to dictate how many gallons of water a toilet should hold?
- Do you believe the United States Constitution says what it means or means what you say?
Anypoop, nobody is asking me to create a quiz so this may be for nothing.
July 31, 2005
REPUBLICANS ARE EXTREMISTS, PART XXVIII
Lonewacko fisks Wapo columnist Marcela Sanchez's column regarding immigration. You know, some columnists fancy themselves as academics. And, like academics, with so much time on their hands they oftentimes just let fantasy take over their thought process to try to sound thoughtful.
THONG MARKET CRASHING
Apparently the thong market bubble burst.
July 30, 2005
In anticipation of Jerry Brown's run for Attorney General in California, I hope he gets beaten over the head repeatedly by this story. "Economic Blight" my ass. How about "Socialist Blight." Reason Magazine website makes note of numerous cities' run to the courthouse in light of the Kelo decision.
July 29, 2005
ZERBERT = JAIL TIME
Memento Moron highlights the tragic consequences when boobs are given police powers.
SEPTEMBER SURPRISE FOR JOHN ROBERTS
Rosenblog convinces me that Roberts is toast. You can't defeat the Britney-loving demographic when it gets mobilized.
ILLEGAL VOTERS IN WASHINGTON STATE
THe Evergreen Freedom Foundation is challenging an illegal voter . . . .who happens to be a justice on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Air America has accounting problems. . . . .but, how is that possible? They are smarter and care more than the rest of us.
July 17, 2005
BACK AT YOU
I've been absent for a while, but now I have returned. For starters, you can view the news headlines at Basil's Blog that the Google staff in their News division would truly like to emulate.
May 06, 2005
ANOTHER INITIATIVE COMIN'
Capitol Notes reports that Citizens to Save Californians has begun submitting signatures to the Secretary of State that relate to CSC's budget process initiative known as 'Live Within Our Means.' I think the lefty groups will line up behind this big time. Restricting the amount government largesse is virtually the same thing as restricting their income (i.e., unions, social service groups, etc.)
SACRAMENTO BEE FAULTS U.S., NOT IRAN
In one of the most bizarre and naive editorials I have read in a while, the Sacramento Bee appears to go out of its way to justify Iran's contention that it shouldn't have to forego development of its nuclear capabilities until the U.S. reduces its nuclear arsenal.
The editorial discussed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Instead of calling Iran's argument pretext for the real reasons it wants to keep nuclear capabilities, the Bee states: "Unless the major nuclear powers, led by the United States and Russia, take steps to further shrink their arsenals, persuading nuclear wannabes to forgo such weapons, and to comply with stricter controls on the use of nuclear fuels, could be virtually impossible."
What a joke. The International Atomic Energy Agency recently heard evidence of Iran's violations of the NPT, which included: (1) refusing inspections of certain military sites suspected of conducting nuclear research, (2) constructing tunnels under a nuclear research site, and (3) various other violations. Remember, it was just late last year where Iran seemed to be on the verge of freezing its enriched uranium program. I don't seem to recall it making a deal out of US's purported feet dragging on reducing its own arsenal.
Instead of critical thinking or throwing criticism where it is most warranted, the Bee just regurgitates leftist illogic.
SACRAMENTO BEE GIVES READERS ECONOMICS LESSON
Predictably, however, it boils the concepts down so much in its editorial that they omit crucial information. But hey, there is only so much room to write the editorial.
In short, the Bee states that America's future energy policy will come through increasing taxes. That is, increasing taxes on SUV's, gasoline, and probably many more things.
But there is something funny about the editorial. The editorial has no clear point and the arguments are scattered. The Bee concludes that the US needs a new energy policy, one based on higher taxes, instead of a policy of trying to deliver inexpensive fuel to US consumers. The Bee never explains why we need this new policy. It merely makes the ominous statement, "Ahead are some challenging choices, and the longer we put them off, the more painful the day of reckoning will become." What day of reckoning? When fuel becomes really, really, really expensive? When there is no more oil to be found?
First, if fossil fuels continue to climb in cost, then it becomes economical to go after oil reserves we know exist, but which are not otherwise economically feasible to extract, as explained here by Peter Huber. The higher oil prices also means that it is economically feasible to explore in areas that were previously uneconomical to explore, namely, the bottom of the oceans (rumor is, oceans comprise a large percentage of the earth's surface). And hey, what is the effect of new oil coming into the market. That's right kiddies, reduced prices.
Second, although the Bee would like to see higher taxes on fuel because it would cause people to utilize (presumably) less fuel-intensive means of going about their lives. The Bee does not explain, or perhaps it does not realize, that people use fuel-intensive means of going about their lives (e.g., using cars) because it is economically feasible and convenient. The money and time people save by using cars and the cheap gasoline they pump into them means they can use that saved money and time on other things they find useful, e.g., healthcare, time with family, food.
If the Bee's policy of higher taxes went into effect, fewer people would drive and more people would change the way they go about their lives. Except, the people no longer driving still have to get their kids home from school, do the shopping, etc. So what is the cost to people in terms of money and convenience of changing their lifestyle? The monetary cost may go up or down, but the convenience will definitely decrease immensely. Why? Before and after the tax people are going to make decisions based on those factors. You have to assume that their choice to use (and pay for) the car maximized the convenience and minimized the cost to do so.
Third, the Bee states that if we reduced demand for fossil fuels, the energy companies would reduce prices. The Bee doesn’t explain that as the price goes down, it becomes more attractive to buy. In other words, if there are other people, say, the emerging markets of India, China, and Russia, who are ready to purchase the fossil fuels, the net effect on the price of fossil fuels by the US’s reduction in demand may be nothing.
Fourth, how exactly does raising taxes solve the economic plight Americans now face with high energy costs? Again, what the hell is the point of their editorial. Taxes for taxes sake?
I lied above when I said the Bee didn't have a clear reason for advocating higher taxes as a way to reduce demand. The Bee states quite clearly that it would hit BIG OIL where it hurts. The Bee states:
The world's four largest oil companies made nearly $24 billion in profits - in the first three months of this year alone.
Want to hit the oil companies where it really hurts by lowering demand? That's possible, but it means investing in a new energy future with much higher energy taxes and, perhaps, slowing down a bit on the highway.
There's good policy. Higher taxes for everyone to screw over BIG OIL. Talk about liberal bias.