This is instructive.
First of all, the author presumes that the only reason that the US sells arms to Taiwan is to annoy China (i.e. there can be no legitimate reason for the Taiwanese to want to defend themselves).
But this is the telling paragraph, one that exemplifies the China that is emerging:
It is time for the U.S. to change its hegemonic way of thinking. Since China dares to challenge the U.S. while it is still in its stage of nation-building, others should be able to comprehend what the U.S. is doing based on how China deals with the U.S.'s provocation and persistently hypocritical ways. Now, perhaps people will change their favorable opinions of Obama overnight. If you think your country's national interests are important and you choose to continually challenge China, treading on China's core interests, then you have to pay the price for doing so!
In other words, your national interests are subordinate to those of China: that is the core of hegemony, when nation-states place their own interests below the interests of the state claiming hegemony.
Welcome to the brave new world of Chinese hegemony: you will have to pay a price for placing your own national interests before those of China.
Dienstag, Februar 09, 2010
Basis For The Coming Green Boom?
This peaked my curiosity.
A family reduced their electricity bill to zero and "reaped" a carbon credit as a result, selling it then on an exchange and pocketing the money.
Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?
Until you do the math.
The family involved spent at least $58 000 to reduce their electricity bill to zero: further, they changed their energy usage so that their footprint was minimized.
The sale? $21.50.
Of which the exchange took 20% as a fee. That's $4.30.
Hence they were able to sell their carbon credit for $17.20.
The exchange is owned by an energy broker (no conflict of interests there, eh?), The joke: the exchange doesn't merely run the transactions, it also verifies the "personal carbon credits" (nooo conflict of interest there, either, move along, move along).
Apparently the credit can be issued monthly, but that's not clear: further, it's measured as a reduction from the previous year's month, hence after 1 year of no usage of the external electricity, the income dries up (since you can't reduce zero any further...).
So, let's calculate the return: for any individual month, assuming the price remains, it's a return of 0.03%; if the return were to be constant for one year, that's a return on investment of ... 0.36%.
For the credit to bring any sort of more realistic return, it would have be an order of magnitude larger: for a 5% return, for instance, before fees, the credit would have to be valued at $240/month. At that rate, the investment pays for itself over a 20-year period, ignoring opportunity costs and maintenance.
We don't know from the story, however, what the family was saving, nor do we know the details of the energy system installed. But choosing to install solar power on the basis of being able to sell their carbon credits would be a terrible way to finance it: if the rate continues at this pace, they'll pay off their investment in ... well, suffice to say that at this rate, their great-great-great-grandchildren will start turning a profit.
The problem here is that solar electricity is a bad investment: in many cases it may make eminent sense to do so over a long period of time. Rather, the problem is that this exchange cannot provide any meaningful impetus for home owners to invest in solar power unless it is required by law: the market here is virtually non-existent, as transaction costs are vastly too high (20%?!) and the return is irrelevant.
This is not the basis for a coming Green boom, or even an uptick in interest in solar power: rather, it shows the fundamental lack of understanding that there is no real market for carbon credits. Period.
A family reduced their electricity bill to zero and "reaped" a carbon credit as a result, selling it then on an exchange and pocketing the money.
Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?
Until you do the math.
The family involved spent at least $58 000 to reduce their electricity bill to zero: further, they changed their energy usage so that their footprint was minimized.
The sale? $21.50.
Of which the exchange took 20% as a fee. That's $4.30.
Hence they were able to sell their carbon credit for $17.20.
The exchange is owned by an energy broker (no conflict of interests there, eh?), The joke: the exchange doesn't merely run the transactions, it also verifies the "personal carbon credits" (nooo conflict of interest there, either, move along, move along).
Apparently the credit can be issued monthly, but that's not clear: further, it's measured as a reduction from the previous year's month, hence after 1 year of no usage of the external electricity, the income dries up (since you can't reduce zero any further...).
So, let's calculate the return: for any individual month, assuming the price remains, it's a return of 0.03%; if the return were to be constant for one year, that's a return on investment of ... 0.36%.
For the credit to bring any sort of more realistic return, it would have be an order of magnitude larger: for a 5% return, for instance, before fees, the credit would have to be valued at $240/month. At that rate, the investment pays for itself over a 20-year period, ignoring opportunity costs and maintenance.
We don't know from the story, however, what the family was saving, nor do we know the details of the energy system installed. But choosing to install solar power on the basis of being able to sell their carbon credits would be a terrible way to finance it: if the rate continues at this pace, they'll pay off their investment in ... well, suffice to say that at this rate, their great-great-great-grandchildren will start turning a profit.
The problem here is that solar electricity is a bad investment: in many cases it may make eminent sense to do so over a long period of time. Rather, the problem is that this exchange cannot provide any meaningful impetus for home owners to invest in solar power unless it is required by law: the market here is virtually non-existent, as transaction costs are vastly too high (20%?!) and the return is irrelevant.
This is not the basis for a coming Green boom, or even an uptick in interest in solar power: rather, it shows the fundamental lack of understanding that there is no real market for carbon credits. Period.
Montag, Februar 08, 2010
Why We Should Be Happy To Be A Republic...
The Democrats keep on forgetting that the United States is not a democracy: it is a democratic republic.
Read what Thomas Frank writes in the WSJ:
You see, populism is really nothing less than the demands of the mob, of the emotionally distraught who want vengeance on whichever devil brought them into the state of affairs that they find themselves in, and above all is a tool for the cynical politician and party which manipulates the mob into torching whatever that politician and party finds undesirable, then justifying it "in the name of the people".
But more fundamentally, Frank seems to truly believe that an elected official is beholden to the interests that elected him, rather than being elected to act as their representative. What is the difference?
Huge: representing someone is not the same as doing as one is told by those who elected him. In one elects someone with character and resolve; in the other, one elects someone who grovels and will appease. World of difference there.
It's not so much that individual Democrats don't believe that we are a republic: it's much more that the ideal Democrat is simply a cog in the machine, a cynical participant in the manipulation of the masses for the goals of the party.
Which does describe the perfect Democrat.
Frank's further legerdemain is weak: by claiming that it is the right that practices populism, he fails to understand what drove his examples. Joe The Plumber wasn't railing against policies that prevented the rich from getting even richer, but rather against policies that make it hard for the middle class to keep up with the Joneses. He makes the mistake of mixing tax protests with pro-life protests, as if the two had anything to do with either populism or the Republican party.
He fails to understand that populism is the rule of the mob: he'd love to see the designated victims of his party - the bankers (except when they donate to the Democrats, of course, and hence receive enlightenment and dispensation) and the financiers - be taken down.
Little does he understand that the founding fathers didn't want a democracy exactly for that reason.
They might also begin searching for a different term to describe the situation when elected representatives start doing what their constituents want them to do. My suggestion: Call it "democracy."
That's democracy: that is the rule of the mob, as political philosophers have rightly pointed out over the ages.
That's why we should be happy to be a republic. One whose actors are determined by a democratic process, but not one that panders to the mob.
Unless their name be "Democrat".
Read what Thomas Frank writes in the WSJ:
What is populism? To judge by this coverage, populism is a trick that politicians perform—a clumsy disguise they adopt or a fake-folksy rhetorical line they try to put over. Populism is a species of demagogy, a backwoods form of class war, a sinister cross of Lenin with Li'l Abner.
Populism also seems to mean liberalism, only expressed in more fiery language than the pallid, technocratic drone that makes Washington happy. But whatever they mean by it, journalists and opinionators seem to agree that populism is dangerous. It scares the markets. And it is the duty of every right-thinking citizen to resist it.
Now, Frank begs the question here: he doesn't talk about what the real danger of populism: instead, he goes off on a historical tangent that has little or nothing to do with the subject at hand.You see, populism is really nothing less than the demands of the mob, of the emotionally distraught who want vengeance on whichever devil brought them into the state of affairs that they find themselves in, and above all is a tool for the cynical politician and party which manipulates the mob into torching whatever that politician and party finds undesirable, then justifying it "in the name of the people".
But more fundamentally, Frank seems to truly believe that an elected official is beholden to the interests that elected him, rather than being elected to act as their representative. What is the difference?
Huge: representing someone is not the same as doing as one is told by those who elected him. In one elects someone with character and resolve; in the other, one elects someone who grovels and will appease. World of difference there.
It's not so much that individual Democrats don't believe that we are a republic: it's much more that the ideal Democrat is simply a cog in the machine, a cynical participant in the manipulation of the masses for the goals of the party.
Which does describe the perfect Democrat.
Frank's further legerdemain is weak: by claiming that it is the right that practices populism, he fails to understand what drove his examples. Joe The Plumber wasn't railing against policies that prevented the rich from getting even richer, but rather against policies that make it hard for the middle class to keep up with the Joneses. He makes the mistake of mixing tax protests with pro-life protests, as if the two had anything to do with either populism or the Republican party.
He fails to understand that populism is the rule of the mob: he'd love to see the designated victims of his party - the bankers (except when they donate to the Democrats, of course, and hence receive enlightenment and dispensation) and the financiers - be taken down.
Little does he understand that the founding fathers didn't want a democracy exactly for that reason.
They might also begin searching for a different term to describe the situation when elected representatives start doing what their constituents want them to do. My suggestion: Call it "democracy."
That's democracy: that is the rule of the mob, as political philosophers have rightly pointed out over the ages.
That's why we should be happy to be a republic. One whose actors are determined by a democratic process, but not one that panders to the mob.
Unless their name be "Democrat".
Freitag, Februar 05, 2010
Progressive, Regressive, What's The Difference?
The basic idea about progressive taxes is that the more income you earn, the more you can "afford" taxes, at least in terms of actually dollars being paid. The less you earn, the more painful each and every tax dollar becomes.
Fair enough: indeed, the fundamental idea behind progressive taxes is that it is fair for those who are earning significantly more should bear more of the burden.
So what's this all about?
Here's the chart:
That's not a progressive tax curve: that is a regressive tax curve.
In other words, the taxes paid by those less well off are, proportionately, higher than those better off.
The exact opposite of what a progressive tax should be.
In other words, as can be seen here, the tax policy of the Obama Administration, the most liberal administration since the Carter years, is clearly and unmistakeably regressive, not progressive.
To be fair, the chart shows that the current situation is also regressive: but the cumulative effects of what the Obama Administration plans makes the situation worse, not better.
Oh, and by worse I mean this: look how the overall tax burden is set to increase massively. We're not talking a small change, a couple of points here and there: someone earning $30k/year will see their income tax increase from 20% of income to 30% of income: that's a change from $6k to $9k, meaning 10% less income. The proportional increases are particularly strong in the lower-income to middle-income brackets.
The mind boggles.
Hat tip to TaxProf.
Fair enough: indeed, the fundamental idea behind progressive taxes is that it is fair for those who are earning significantly more should bear more of the burden.
So what's this all about?
Here's the chart:
That's not a progressive tax curve: that is a regressive tax curve.
In other words, the taxes paid by those less well off are, proportionately, higher than those better off.
The exact opposite of what a progressive tax should be.
In other words, as can be seen here, the tax policy of the Obama Administration, the most liberal administration since the Carter years, is clearly and unmistakeably regressive, not progressive.
To be fair, the chart shows that the current situation is also regressive: but the cumulative effects of what the Obama Administration plans makes the situation worse, not better.
Oh, and by worse I mean this: look how the overall tax burden is set to increase massively. We're not talking a small change, a couple of points here and there: someone earning $30k/year will see their income tax increase from 20% of income to 30% of income: that's a change from $6k to $9k, meaning 10% less income. The proportional increases are particularly strong in the lower-income to middle-income brackets.
The mind boggles.
Hat tip to TaxProf.
Donnerstag, Februar 04, 2010
A Lovely Turn of Phrase...
"The Hysterical Subjunctive:" I love the phrase.
Read this here.
This term was coined by m in: 1999 Eur. J. Phys. 20 357-364, for an article called "Science or Anti-Science?", which reviewed the hysteria generated by the anti-fluoridation advocates.
In grammar, the subjunctive is used as a verb mood in a dependent clause to express wishes, commands, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, necessity, or statements that are contrary to fact at present.
The hysterical subjunctive takes that one step further, demanding, insisting upon a course of action taken with no basis, with no clear goals, but taken on the basis of unmanageable fear, of emotional excess.
The drama queens of the left loved the chiliastic mood of the doom-and-destruction greens and when the two merged we got the Watermelon People, green on the outside, red on the inside.
A perfect marriage for an ideology disgraced by the murder, literally, of hundreds of millions world-wide, disgraced by the utter failure of its economic tenets to feed and clothe its subjects, let alone bury their competitors. A perfect marriage for those who despised industry, who were romanticists and believers of Rousseau and his belief in the uncorrupted morals of man in his natural state, that man in his wild state was innately good and it was civilization that corrupted.
But a fatally flawed one, dependent on deliberate lies: the story is simply too good for it not to be the case. The useful idiots - Lenin never said this, but rather "utter buffoon", "чрезвычайный простак" - were more than happy to trust the experts, the noble scientists who were beyond reproach and the closest thing to the savior of the world that you can find outside of established religions, showing the way to a brighter, nobler, cleaner and greener future, to be built on the destruction of modern capitalism.
Fundamentally, at the end of the day, we could reduce the difference to this: as Philip Stott put it, it's the choice between Turnip Wine and Single Malt Scotch.
The hysterical subjunctive indeed.
Read this here.
This term was coined by m in: 1999 Eur. J. Phys. 20 357-364, for an article called "Science or Anti-Science?", which reviewed the hysteria generated by the anti-fluoridation advocates.
In grammar, the subjunctive is used as a verb mood in a dependent clause to express wishes, commands, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, necessity, or statements that are contrary to fact at present.
The hysterical subjunctive takes that one step further, demanding, insisting upon a course of action taken with no basis, with no clear goals, but taken on the basis of unmanageable fear, of emotional excess.
The drama queens of the left loved the chiliastic mood of the doom-and-destruction greens and when the two merged we got the Watermelon People, green on the outside, red on the inside.
A perfect marriage for an ideology disgraced by the murder, literally, of hundreds of millions world-wide, disgraced by the utter failure of its economic tenets to feed and clothe its subjects, let alone bury their competitors. A perfect marriage for those who despised industry, who were romanticists and believers of Rousseau and his belief in the uncorrupted morals of man in his natural state, that man in his wild state was innately good and it was civilization that corrupted.
But a fatally flawed one, dependent on deliberate lies: the story is simply too good for it not to be the case. The useful idiots - Lenin never said this, but rather "utter buffoon", "чрезвычайный простак" - were more than happy to trust the experts, the noble scientists who were beyond reproach and the closest thing to the savior of the world that you can find outside of established religions, showing the way to a brighter, nobler, cleaner and greener future, to be built on the destruction of modern capitalism.
Fundamentally, at the end of the day, we could reduce the difference to this: as Philip Stott put it, it's the choice between Turnip Wine and Single Malt Scotch.
The hysterical subjunctive indeed.
Mittwoch, Jänner 27, 2010
This Was To Be Expected...
I saw the first moon landing, of Apollo 11, in Eureka, California.
I remember the last one as well.
And now it appears that President Obama has decided that there are better things to do with the money, and that it's not worth doing.
Or is he?
In the news story - actually, it's probably something somebody said sounded like something good - there is a small glimmer of hope, one that I expect is being used to deflect dismay before, at a later date, the door is closed with a resounding slam: privatization of space.
However, this isn't being done for the reasons stated. Rather, it's being done because the President can't be bothered to make the commitment - never mind funding, the commitment is the key thing (or is it?) - to keep manned space flight up and going in the United States, just as the Russian, Chinese and even Indian space programs start to pick up.
On the one hand, it is a devastating indictment of the lack of vision from a President who ran on being a visionary: abandoning space in order to spend the money "here at home" is extraordinarily short-sighted, catering to that soulless and humorless cohort of the Democratic Party who has always claimed that the entire space program is a waste of money, better spent solving the problems we have here on Earth.
To quote:
...the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change — and on a new technology research and development program ...
This is nothing less than saying "okay, we need space to prove that global warming is happening, but outside of that, we'll pretend to be researching, meaning that outside of a few million spent on that, effectively returning NASA to its earliest days designing airfoils and the like, we wind down the rest of the programs and turn off the lights.
Now, to scandalize my readers, consider this: it's an idea.
NASA has blown it, big time. They blew it with the Shuttle, they've blown it with the Ares follow-on project that should have flown by now, instead of being billions over budget and years late, they've blown it on so many levels that it really isn't funny any more.
As if it ever had been.
Let's take the President at his word, that he will allow private launch services to go commercial and that US needs will be met by these.
Seriously.
Let's shut NASA down. Entirely. All of it. That's $20bn saved. Give $5bn in prize money: $2bn for the first company to put 10 people on the moon for 30 days and bring them back safely; $1bn for the company that puts 1000 kilos into a stable geostationary orbit for less than $100/kilo launch costs with potential for mass-production and later man-rated transport services; $1bn for the company that puts 100 000 kilos into low earth orbit for less than $100/kilo launch costs; the final $1bn is for small-scale prizes for reducing costs and increasing energy efficiency.
Let all those aerospace engineers go. Fire them. They'll either find work with the new companies, or they won't. There is hope that the bureaucracy at NASA can be finally killed off. I'll believe it when I see the stake in the bones as they crumble to powder in the sun.
That's cash, straight, not subject to any taxation or other conditions.
The conditions?
None. Oh, sure, the usual down-range requirements so that no idiot sends up a rocket that lands in the middle of a major city because a $25 gasket failed. Outside of that: zilch. Let the pioneer spirit return, financed by crazy old men with stars in their eyes.
It worked for Heinlein.
And by no conditions, I mean no conditions: no UN saying that we should preserve the moon for all of humanity, hence no commercial exploitation. How many rockets does the UN have? Exactly.
And in the legislation that dissolves NASA, there should be the following clause:
Congress shall pass no law, nor shall any President issue a declaration, limiting or forbidding the commercial use of space, except for such rules developed by the FAA to ensure the orderly commercial exploitation of neath-Earth orbit and beyond.
That should really be a constitutional amendment, but let's not get greedy.
If this doesn't happen, then NASA will be maintained as a retirement home for the US aerospace industry, China, India and Russia will own the high ground, and ... all that money saved will be wasted on government programs that make the problems here on Earth, that "need to be solved", all that much more worse.
I remember the last one as well.
And now it appears that President Obama has decided that there are better things to do with the money, and that it's not worth doing.
Or is he?
In the news story - actually, it's probably something somebody said sounded like something good - there is a small glimmer of hope, one that I expect is being used to deflect dismay before, at a later date, the door is closed with a resounding slam: privatization of space.
However, this isn't being done for the reasons stated. Rather, it's being done because the President can't be bothered to make the commitment - never mind funding, the commitment is the key thing (or is it?) - to keep manned space flight up and going in the United States, just as the Russian, Chinese and even Indian space programs start to pick up.
On the one hand, it is a devastating indictment of the lack of vision from a President who ran on being a visionary: abandoning space in order to spend the money "here at home" is extraordinarily short-sighted, catering to that soulless and humorless cohort of the Democratic Party who has always claimed that the entire space program is a waste of money, better spent solving the problems we have here on Earth.
To quote:
...the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change — and on a new technology research and development program ...
This is nothing less than saying "okay, we need space to prove that global warming is happening, but outside of that, we'll pretend to be researching, meaning that outside of a few million spent on that, effectively returning NASA to its earliest days designing airfoils and the like, we wind down the rest of the programs and turn off the lights.
Now, to scandalize my readers, consider this: it's an idea.
NASA has blown it, big time. They blew it with the Shuttle, they've blown it with the Ares follow-on project that should have flown by now, instead of being billions over budget and years late, they've blown it on so many levels that it really isn't funny any more.
As if it ever had been.
Let's take the President at his word, that he will allow private launch services to go commercial and that US needs will be met by these.
Seriously.
Let's shut NASA down. Entirely. All of it. That's $20bn saved. Give $5bn in prize money: $2bn for the first company to put 10 people on the moon for 30 days and bring them back safely; $1bn for the company that puts 1000 kilos into a stable geostationary orbit for less than $100/kilo launch costs with potential for mass-production and later man-rated transport services; $1bn for the company that puts 100 000 kilos into low earth orbit for less than $100/kilo launch costs; the final $1bn is for small-scale prizes for reducing costs and increasing energy efficiency.
Let all those aerospace engineers go. Fire them. They'll either find work with the new companies, or they won't. There is hope that the bureaucracy at NASA can be finally killed off. I'll believe it when I see the stake in the bones as they crumble to powder in the sun.
That's cash, straight, not subject to any taxation or other conditions.
The conditions?
None. Oh, sure, the usual down-range requirements so that no idiot sends up a rocket that lands in the middle of a major city because a $25 gasket failed. Outside of that: zilch. Let the pioneer spirit return, financed by crazy old men with stars in their eyes.
It worked for Heinlein.
And by no conditions, I mean no conditions: no UN saying that we should preserve the moon for all of humanity, hence no commercial exploitation. How many rockets does the UN have? Exactly.
And in the legislation that dissolves NASA, there should be the following clause:
Congress shall pass no law, nor shall any President issue a declaration, limiting or forbidding the commercial use of space, except for such rules developed by the FAA to ensure the orderly commercial exploitation of neath-Earth orbit and beyond.
That should really be a constitutional amendment, but let's not get greedy.
If this doesn't happen, then NASA will be maintained as a retirement home for the US aerospace industry, China, India and Russia will own the high ground, and ... all that money saved will be wasted on government programs that make the problems here on Earth, that "need to be solved", all that much more worse.
The Fix Was In...
Read this to understand the driving force behind the Obama Presidency and the current state of the Democratic Party.
A building was sold in Chicago for $7.7mn despite there being a credible bid for $9mn. The seller? The City of Chicago, which decided to forgo $1.3mn in revenue from the sale. The buyer was/is a big contributor to the Obama Campaign and the person in charge of selling city properties is ... the treasurer of the Obama Victory Fund.
The buyers "invested" $50k in "campaign donations" and saved $1.3mn in purchasing costs. That's a ... 26:1 return on equity.
The losers? The citizens of Chicago, who lost $1.3mn.
Corruption by any other name...
A building was sold in Chicago for $7.7mn despite there being a credible bid for $9mn. The seller? The City of Chicago, which decided to forgo $1.3mn in revenue from the sale. The buyer was/is a big contributor to the Obama Campaign and the person in charge of selling city properties is ... the treasurer of the Obama Victory Fund.
The buyers "invested" $50k in "campaign donations" and saved $1.3mn in purchasing costs. That's a ... 26:1 return on equity.
The losers? The citizens of Chicago, who lost $1.3mn.
Corruption by any other name...
Dienstag, Jänner 26, 2010
Just One Small Step...
This is brilliant.
It also appears to be working.
Corruption kills social contracts, kills citizen participation, kills representative government, kills progress, kills justice.
It's one small step. Making it patently clear to those taking bribes that they are corrupt is one small step.
Corruption also simply kills: it kills by selling medications from hospitals; it kills by taking money needed for clean water; it kills by diverting money from the public to the private sector.
Corruption isn't limited: it is pervasive when those corrupted can hide and not be called to account.
It also appears to be working.
Corruption kills social contracts, kills citizen participation, kills representative government, kills progress, kills justice.
It's one small step. Making it patently clear to those taking bribes that they are corrupt is one small step.
Corruption also simply kills: it kills by selling medications from hospitals; it kills by taking money needed for clean water; it kills by diverting money from the public to the private sector.
Corruption isn't limited: it is pervasive when those corrupted can hide and not be called to account.
A Question Best Left Unanswered...
This caught my eye in today's WSJ's Best Of The Web Today from James Taranto.
You'll have scroll down a bit: it's about campaign financing.
The killer quote:
In other words, as a result of the Watergate-era campaign finance restrictions, it is now settled law that congressmen are sufficiently corruptible that they can't be trusted with campaign donations of more than a few thousand dollars.
I dare say that this is a widely-held opinion, given the rate at which those serving in Congress are caught taking bribes, having money that they can't account for (in their freezers to keep it from spoiling, no doubt) and generally behaving like, well, Congresscritters.
Is there a wonder why Congress is held in such contempt? Check the polls about the standing of Congress, and it is surprising that even 10% of people think favorably of Congress. The only institution that can change this is... the American people, by voting the corrupt bastards (and bitches) out of office. Corruption has reached a point where only a moral revolt against the excesses of the 1968 generation can clean the stables, so to speak, of the muck that has accumulated. While I see the Republican sins as sins of venal men, weak and corruptible, I see the Democrats as having dedicated themselves to large-scale sinning, as we've seen with the whole sub-prime crisis, more than happy to have the US taxpayer pick up the bill for Congress' sins.
But what James Taranto says is particularly relevant:
Which raises the question: How can they be trusted with our tax dollars?
The answer, of course: they can't be.
Government in general can never be trusted: that is one of the reasons why the US constitution is such a subversive document. It says that people can criticize the government, that the government can't disarm them, that the government has only those rights explicitly given to them and all other rights belong to the people, not the government.
That is why we have a Republic with a written constitution that requires a lot of work to change. It's the best defense against the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of a government that has all the rights except those it deigns to grant its citizens.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the US Constitution is the most subversive document ever published. With it, citizens can deny tyrants and the corrupt from taking over the system, and the system of checks and balances has, as we've recently seen, even worked when only one part of the system refuses to countenance the sins of the other two.
You'll have scroll down a bit: it's about campaign financing.
The killer quote:
In other words, as a result of the Watergate-era campaign finance restrictions, it is now settled law that congressmen are sufficiently corruptible that they can't be trusted with campaign donations of more than a few thousand dollars.
I dare say that this is a widely-held opinion, given the rate at which those serving in Congress are caught taking bribes, having money that they can't account for (in their freezers to keep it from spoiling, no doubt) and generally behaving like, well, Congresscritters.
Is there a wonder why Congress is held in such contempt? Check the polls about the standing of Congress, and it is surprising that even 10% of people think favorably of Congress. The only institution that can change this is... the American people, by voting the corrupt bastards (and bitches) out of office. Corruption has reached a point where only a moral revolt against the excesses of the 1968 generation can clean the stables, so to speak, of the muck that has accumulated. While I see the Republican sins as sins of venal men, weak and corruptible, I see the Democrats as having dedicated themselves to large-scale sinning, as we've seen with the whole sub-prime crisis, more than happy to have the US taxpayer pick up the bill for Congress' sins.
But what James Taranto says is particularly relevant:
Which raises the question: How can they be trusted with our tax dollars?
The answer, of course: they can't be.
Government in general can never be trusted: that is one of the reasons why the US constitution is such a subversive document. It says that people can criticize the government, that the government can't disarm them, that the government has only those rights explicitly given to them and all other rights belong to the people, not the government.
That is why we have a Republic with a written constitution that requires a lot of work to change. It's the best defense against the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of a government that has all the rights except those it deigns to grant its citizens.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the US Constitution is the most subversive document ever published. With it, citizens can deny tyrants and the corrupt from taking over the system, and the system of checks and balances has, as we've recently seen, even worked when only one part of the system refuses to countenance the sins of the other two.
Montag, Jänner 25, 2010
Green Imperialism...
This from Cato's web site, but originally from the Economic Times (India).
Those in charge of the IPCC have abysmally failed in their task: to hide inconsistencies in data and theory, to prevent anyone from noticing the man behind the curtain.
Climategate-II is also a sad example of green imperialism. Rather than accept the findings of foreign scientists alone, Jairam Ramesh, India's environment minister, appointed a panel of Indian scientists on Himalayan melting. "My concern is that this comes from western scientists ... it is high time India makes an investment in understanding what is happening in the Himalayan ecosystem."
Basically, the Indian government analyzed what was claimed by the Green Imperialists and found out that it was ... wrong. Not merely a little bit wrong, perhaps a bit too over-zealous in analysis, something that is forgivable and acceptable if you believe in the greater "truth".
But no, instead:
And what must be the consequences?
Clearly the true climate denier is Pachauri: he swears by glacial apocalypse even after its exposure as a hoax. When the Raina panel produced solid scientific evidence challenging the glacier melting thesis. Pachauri instantly decried it as schoolboy science and said condescendingly that it was not peer-reviewed. Yet he was happily willing to sanctify schoolboy speculation on glacial melting, and so were other members of the IPCC. All their high-faulting talk of peer-reviewed science proved to be just a tactic to keep out inconvenient views. IPCC scientists responsible for this fiasco must resign. The 2007 IPCC report must be amended, preferably with an apology.
The likelihood that Pachauri, the man in charge of the IPCC, who has politically corrupted the entire IPCC with his actions, would actually do the right thing and resign, is about as likely as Ceausescu, the Romanian dictator, admitting that he had made mistakes and would turn over the government in Romania (back then) over to the party, to appoint a successor.
Instead, as Pachauri will also do, he remained until the bitter end, put up against a wall and shot with his wife to put an end to it.
Not that this will happen as such to Pauchari: rather, he will fight to the bitter end and will, at the end of the day when the entire IPCC fraud is exposed and brought to the light of day, continue to deny that he has ever done anything but Speak The Truth.
This has been the greatest problem of the Green movement from day one: the belief - sincere but misplaced - that saving the world is a chiliastic undertaking, an undertaking to bring in a new millennium where the problems of the world are solved and heaven will be ordained upon the Earth.
Just like the chiliastics of the first milllenia, the modern-day preachers of the Green Revolution, romanticists and imperialists alike, cannot abide the light of reason.
Those in charge of the IPCC have abysmally failed in their task: to hide inconsistencies in data and theory, to prevent anyone from noticing the man behind the curtain.
Climategate-II is also a sad example of green imperialism. Rather than accept the findings of foreign scientists alone, Jairam Ramesh, India's environment minister, appointed a panel of Indian scientists on Himalayan melting. "My concern is that this comes from western scientists ... it is high time India makes an investment in understanding what is happening in the Himalayan ecosystem."
Basically, the Indian government analyzed what was claimed by the Green Imperialists and found out that it was ... wrong. Not merely a little bit wrong, perhaps a bit too over-zealous in analysis, something that is forgivable and acceptable if you believe in the greater "truth".
But no, instead:
Various green NGOs — including one I respect, the Centre for Science and Environment — backed the IPCC against the Raina Panel. They blindly echoed western scientists with less intimate knowledge of the Himalayas than our own scientists. Stalin would have called this a case of Indian compradors acting as the lackeys of western imperialists, and on this occasion I would find it hard to disagree with him.
These green groups claim to be watchdogs for civil society, and often do a good job. But in this case they blithely allowed a hoax to go unchallenged for two years.
Hence: those whose ideology blinds them to empirical reality are the lackeys, not of western imperialists, but rather of the Green Imperialists.And what must be the consequences?
Clearly the true climate denier is Pachauri: he swears by glacial apocalypse even after its exposure as a hoax. When the Raina panel produced solid scientific evidence challenging the glacier melting thesis. Pachauri instantly decried it as schoolboy science and said condescendingly that it was not peer-reviewed. Yet he was happily willing to sanctify schoolboy speculation on glacial melting, and so were other members of the IPCC. All their high-faulting talk of peer-reviewed science proved to be just a tactic to keep out inconvenient views. IPCC scientists responsible for this fiasco must resign. The 2007 IPCC report must be amended, preferably with an apology.
The likelihood that Pachauri, the man in charge of the IPCC, who has politically corrupted the entire IPCC with his actions, would actually do the right thing and resign, is about as likely as Ceausescu, the Romanian dictator, admitting that he had made mistakes and would turn over the government in Romania (back then) over to the party, to appoint a successor.
Instead, as Pachauri will also do, he remained until the bitter end, put up against a wall and shot with his wife to put an end to it.
Not that this will happen as such to Pauchari: rather, he will fight to the bitter end and will, at the end of the day when the entire IPCC fraud is exposed and brought to the light of day, continue to deny that he has ever done anything but Speak The Truth.
This has been the greatest problem of the Green movement from day one: the belief - sincere but misplaced - that saving the world is a chiliastic undertaking, an undertaking to bring in a new millennium where the problems of the world are solved and heaven will be ordained upon the Earth.
Just like the chiliastics of the first milllenia, the modern-day preachers of the Green Revolution, romanticists and imperialists alike, cannot abide the light of reason.
Britain, Blair and Bloody-Mindedness...
There is the old saying that every country gets the government it deserves, one way or another.
One must ask, then, what the UK has done to deserve Labour. Or, more exactly what it did to deserve Blair.
But not Tony: in this case, it's Cherie.
While Tony Blair is to be admired for a number of his actions, his wife ...
Well, simply read this.
Ye gods.
The idea that the wife of a former head of state would take on a case that is aimed at forcing that state to pay for actions taken 50 years ago is ... mind-boggling.
Words fail me: let us put this in perspective, if we can.
For the American reader: this would be as if Hillary Clinton, instead of becoming Secretary of State, had decided, instead, to file suit against the United States of America for treaty violations against native Americans.
While this would be a nice fantasy for the left - finally, one of their own speaking "truth" to power! - it would be, effectively, a direct attack on the country that her husband had served - regardless of what one might think of his Presidency, President Clinton did that - and to which they were, in their own (and sometimes convoluted) ways, and are, dedicated. Politics (should: the Democrats have had problems with this) ends at the water's edge: there is no honor in serving those who would damage the country, and justice, if that is what is sought, is not served by having the President's wife take up the call for a foreign power. This is, in the realm of American politics, simply inconceivable. Period.
But not, apparently, for Ms. Blair:
The barrister wife of former British prime minister Tony Blair will represent a group of Australian Aborigines suing the British government over nuclear testing on their land, a report said Saturday.
One must ask, then, what the UK has done to deserve Labour. Or, more exactly what it did to deserve Blair.
But not Tony: in this case, it's Cherie.
While Tony Blair is to be admired for a number of his actions, his wife ...
Well, simply read this.
Ye gods.
The idea that the wife of a former head of state would take on a case that is aimed at forcing that state to pay for actions taken 50 years ago is ... mind-boggling.
Words fail me: let us put this in perspective, if we can.
For the American reader: this would be as if Hillary Clinton, instead of becoming Secretary of State, had decided, instead, to file suit against the United States of America for treaty violations against native Americans.
While this would be a nice fantasy for the left - finally, one of their own speaking "truth" to power! - it would be, effectively, a direct attack on the country that her husband had served - regardless of what one might think of his Presidency, President Clinton did that - and to which they were, in their own (and sometimes convoluted) ways, and are, dedicated. Politics (should: the Democrats have had problems with this) ends at the water's edge: there is no honor in serving those who would damage the country, and justice, if that is what is sought, is not served by having the President's wife take up the call for a foreign power. This is, in the realm of American politics, simply inconceivable. Period.
But not, apparently, for Ms. Blair:
The barrister wife of former British prime minister Tony Blair will represent a group of Australian Aborigines suing the British government over nuclear testing on their land, a report said Saturday.
Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement spokesman Neil Gillespie said Cherie Blair had been engaged by a group from Emu Field, in Australia's red desert centre, who are seeking compensation over 1953 atomic tests by Britain.
Five cases had been lodged in the British courts over illnesses allegedly linked to the fallout from two nuclear weapons exploded in the Great Victoria Desert in October 1953.
The thing is: these were addressed by the courts in the past (1985, 1993), and the only thing the folks involved are really looking for is simply more money.
For the wife of the former leader of the country to take on foreign interests - and these are foreign interests - and to sue the government that her husband, at one point, led, is ... indicative of the mind-set, I fear, that dominates the Labour movement in the UK.
Which means that the idea of politicians owing loyalty to King and Country is as outmoded as working to earn a living. Rather, it's pandering to your internationalist base, much like preferring to live off the dole rather than work an unskilled job.
What ever has happened to Great Britain?
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)
