by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent
Joe Romm of the liberalista Center for American Progress (posting at Climateprogress.org) has spent much time promoting the global warming environoia legislation of his facial and ideological likeness, Rep. Henry Waxman, during the last few days. But yesterday, marking the first 100 days of Obama, he became more reflective (appropriate for a lazy Sunday) over the historic significance of the first black/green president. While three months ago liberals and media formerly known as mainstream marveled simply over his election, Romm already places Obama high in the historical ranks while demoting others:
Obama has clearly demonstrated he has a serious chance to be the first President since FDR to remake the country through his positive vision. Indeed, if Obama is a two-term president, if he achieves even half of what he has set out to, he will likely be remembered as “the green FDR.” (Romm’s emphasis)
As an interesting side note, President Reagan, who is held in some esteem with historians these days, will almost certainly be relegated to a second-tier, if not third-tier, president by the painful dual realities of global warming and peak oil. After all, it was Ronald Reagan who put conservatives strongly and permanently on the pro-pollution, anti-efficiency, anti-clean-energy side, where they remain today. It is Reagan, more than anyone else, who put the GOP on the self-destructively wrong side of scientific reality (though Newt Gingrich is a close second).
Romm goes on to rebuke the “establishment” media who “doesn’t get global warming” (but Joe — they try so hard!). But that’s just Joe being Joe. Meanwhile, take a look again and dare to tell me that Romm and Waxman were not built from the same transparencies in the scaremongering Identikit.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
Senin, 27 April 2009
Is Texas the new California?
by Marlo Lewis
Texas, once known for its oil tycoons and cattle barons, is now a stage on which renewable-energy moguls preen and strut. But whereas demand for Texas oil and cattle was market-driven, the State’s renewable boom is a creature of politics. Robert L. Bradley, Jr., an historian of political capitalism, chronicles the lastest chapter in the Lone Star State’s patronage of Big Green here.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
Texas, once known for its oil tycoons and cattle barons, is now a stage on which renewable-energy moguls preen and strut. But whereas demand for Texas oil and cattle was market-driven, the State’s renewable boom is a creature of politics. Robert L. Bradley, Jr., an historian of political capitalism, chronicles the lastest chapter in the Lone Star State’s patronage of Big Green here.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
Climate or Potholes?
by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent
n North Carolina legislators and environmental regulators have redirected gas tax revenues from road maintenance and repair to politically-motivated efforts such as propping up The Climate Registry and Attorney General Roy Cooper’s case against the Tennessee Valley Authority. The John Locke Foundation’s Roy Cordato puts it all together from stories published in Carolina Journal, JLF’s newspaper:
The Climate Registry’s mission has nothing to do with the emissions regulated by the state. As reported by (CJ’s David) Bass, the Climate Registry’s “goal is to persuade companies, organizations, and state and local governments to report their greenhouse gas emissions in hopes of curbing climate change.” On its Web site, CR states that “the Registry supports both voluntary and mandatory reporting programs.”
In other words, part of the registry’s goal is to have carbon dioxide, which supporters believe is causing global warming, declared a pollutant by state and federal governments. As an aside, there has been no net warming since 1998. What Carolina Journal has uncovered is that DAQ allocated $100,000 simply as a donation to CR’s activities. Half of this money was from DAQ’s gasoline tax allocation, i.e., from the pockets of drivers who are slamming into potholes across the state because DOT cannot find the resources to have them filled.
Cordato also highlights how gas tax income for the state was detoured to high-priced lawyers working on the TVA case, in which Cooper — with no other grounds for litigation — sued the neighboring utility on “nuisance” grounds.
Bass’ second story focuses on a much greater sum — $1 million. This also came from DAQ’s allocation of gasoline taxes, but apparently with some resistance. In the April issue of Carolina Journal, Bass reports on $1 million of gas tax money that was transferred to Attorney General Roy Cooper’s office. The purpose of this transfer was to help fund the AG’s lawsuit against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a federal government agency that produces electricity from coal-fired power plants, as do most power plants in North Carolina. The state was suing the TVA for pollution problems in North Carolina that are allegedly being caused by emissions from the TVA plants.
As Bass reported, this rather large sum of gas tax money ultimately went to pay the cost of very high-priced law firms. The Ayres Law Group and the Resolution Law Group were hired by the AG’s office at rates of up to $515 per hour with work by paralegals (nonlawyers typically trained at community colleges) being billed at $100 per hour. Among the extravagant expenses reported was a bill for almost $7,000 by the Resolution Law Group for a one-month stay by a paralegal in a king suite at the Embassy Suites Hotel at the Chevy Chase Pavilion in Washington, D.C. This is a high-end luxury resort hotel.
So, how bad are the roads in your state? Are gas tax revenues being derailed to instead to pay agenda-driven, high-priced lawyers, and to promote the climate alarmism agenda? Chances are good that they are.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
n North Carolina legislators and environmental regulators have redirected gas tax revenues from road maintenance and repair to politically-motivated efforts such as propping up The Climate Registry and Attorney General Roy Cooper’s case against the Tennessee Valley Authority. The John Locke Foundation’s Roy Cordato puts it all together from stories published in Carolina Journal, JLF’s newspaper:
The Climate Registry’s mission has nothing to do with the emissions regulated by the state. As reported by (CJ’s David) Bass, the Climate Registry’s “goal is to persuade companies, organizations, and state and local governments to report their greenhouse gas emissions in hopes of curbing climate change.” On its Web site, CR states that “the Registry supports both voluntary and mandatory reporting programs.”
In other words, part of the registry’s goal is to have carbon dioxide, which supporters believe is causing global warming, declared a pollutant by state and federal governments. As an aside, there has been no net warming since 1998. What Carolina Journal has uncovered is that DAQ allocated $100,000 simply as a donation to CR’s activities. Half of this money was from DAQ’s gasoline tax allocation, i.e., from the pockets of drivers who are slamming into potholes across the state because DOT cannot find the resources to have them filled.
Cordato also highlights how gas tax income for the state was detoured to high-priced lawyers working on the TVA case, in which Cooper — with no other grounds for litigation — sued the neighboring utility on “nuisance” grounds.
Bass’ second story focuses on a much greater sum — $1 million. This also came from DAQ’s allocation of gasoline taxes, but apparently with some resistance. In the April issue of Carolina Journal, Bass reports on $1 million of gas tax money that was transferred to Attorney General Roy Cooper’s office. The purpose of this transfer was to help fund the AG’s lawsuit against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a federal government agency that produces electricity from coal-fired power plants, as do most power plants in North Carolina. The state was suing the TVA for pollution problems in North Carolina that are allegedly being caused by emissions from the TVA plants.
As Bass reported, this rather large sum of gas tax money ultimately went to pay the cost of very high-priced law firms. The Ayres Law Group and the Resolution Law Group were hired by the AG’s office at rates of up to $515 per hour with work by paralegals (nonlawyers typically trained at community colleges) being billed at $100 per hour. Among the extravagant expenses reported was a bill for almost $7,000 by the Resolution Law Group for a one-month stay by a paralegal in a king suite at the Embassy Suites Hotel at the Chevy Chase Pavilion in Washington, D.C. This is a high-end luxury resort hotel.
So, how bad are the roads in your state? Are gas tax revenues being derailed to instead to pay agenda-driven, high-priced lawyers, and to promote the climate alarmism agenda? Chances are good that they are.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
Obama: 100 Days of Lies and Broken Promises
by Hans Bader
Obama has asked the big three networks to give him a free hour of air time on his hundredth day in office. They have said they’ll probably give it to him — not surprising if you consider all the support they gave him in the 2008 election.
One thing they probably won’t do is ask him any inconvenient questions about all his broken campaign promises, like his pledge to enact a “net spending cut,” his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year, and his promise not to sign bills without first giving the public five days of notice. Obama has broken his campaign promises far more flagrantly than his predecessors did in their first 100 days in office.
The Congressional Budget Office says that Obama’s proposed budgets will explode the national debt through massive spending increases, increasing the already large deficits left behind by the Bush Administration from $4.4 trillion to $9.3 trillion. His record-setting budgets flagrantly violate his promise to propose a “net spending cut.”
Obama broke his campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year by signing a regressive SCHIP excise tax increase, and by proposing a cap-and-trade energy tax that could charge up to $2 trillion, a massive cost that Obama himself has said will be passed “on to consumers,” as well as homeowners and motorists. (In 2008, Obama privately admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle that if he was elected, electricity bills would “skyrocket” under his Administration, but it didn’t report that).
Over and over again, Obama has broken his campaign promise to give the public five days of notice before signing bills into law, including his very first law, the trial-lawyer backed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Obama also repeatedly made false claims about the Supreme Court decision that the Ledbetter law overruled, misstating the facts of that case and how long it gives employees to sue over pay discrimination.
Obama broke seven campaign promises dealing with transparency and clean government in signing the $800 billion stimulus package, much of whose contents were secret until shortly before Congress voted on it, and whose 1400 pages went unread by most Congressmen who voted on it.
Obama’s broken promises are part of a larger pattern of dishonesty. Obama claimed his $800 billion stimulus package was needed to avert “irreversible decline.” But the Congressional Budget Office concluded before and after its passage that the stimulus package will actually cut the size of the economy in the long run. Obama’s budgets don’t add up, either, piling up $9.3 trillion in red ink, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a staggering $2.3 trillion more than Obama claimed.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
Obama has asked the big three networks to give him a free hour of air time on his hundredth day in office. They have said they’ll probably give it to him — not surprising if you consider all the support they gave him in the 2008 election.
One thing they probably won’t do is ask him any inconvenient questions about all his broken campaign promises, like his pledge to enact a “net spending cut,” his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year, and his promise not to sign bills without first giving the public five days of notice. Obama has broken his campaign promises far more flagrantly than his predecessors did in their first 100 days in office.
The Congressional Budget Office says that Obama’s proposed budgets will explode the national debt through massive spending increases, increasing the already large deficits left behind by the Bush Administration from $4.4 trillion to $9.3 trillion. His record-setting budgets flagrantly violate his promise to propose a “net spending cut.”
Obama broke his campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year by signing a regressive SCHIP excise tax increase, and by proposing a cap-and-trade energy tax that could charge up to $2 trillion, a massive cost that Obama himself has said will be passed “on to consumers,” as well as homeowners and motorists. (In 2008, Obama privately admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle that if he was elected, electricity bills would “skyrocket” under his Administration, but it didn’t report that).
Over and over again, Obama has broken his campaign promise to give the public five days of notice before signing bills into law, including his very first law, the trial-lawyer backed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Obama also repeatedly made false claims about the Supreme Court decision that the Ledbetter law overruled, misstating the facts of that case and how long it gives employees to sue over pay discrimination.
Obama broke seven campaign promises dealing with transparency and clean government in signing the $800 billion stimulus package, much of whose contents were secret until shortly before Congress voted on it, and whose 1400 pages went unread by most Congressmen who voted on it.
Obama’s broken promises are part of a larger pattern of dishonesty. Obama claimed his $800 billion stimulus package was needed to avert “irreversible decline.” But the Congressional Budget Office concluded before and after its passage that the stimulus package will actually cut the size of the economy in the long run. Obama’s budgets don’t add up, either, piling up $9.3 trillion in red ink, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a staggering $2.3 trillion more than Obama claimed.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
Comedic highlights of the Waxman-Markey bill hearing
by Marlo Lewis
File these vignettes among the endless list of political inanities that would be uproariously funny if the potential economic fallout were not so toxic.
Yesterday, in honor of Earth Day, House Energy & Commece Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) held an interminable hearing on global warming legislation that he and Rep. Ed Markey (D-CA) have drafted.
Ranking Member Joe Barton of Texas today issued a press release providing some comedic highlights from the proceeding. A grim green award goes to anyone who can read it without laughing.
Scenes from an Earth Day Hearing, Part II
House Energy & Commerce Committee, April 21-23
April 23, 2009
Is $8 gas good or bad? Energy Secretary: ‘Yes’
REP. CLIFF STEARNS, R-Fla.: Last September you made a statement that somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe, which at the time exceeded $8 a gallon. As Secretary of Energy, will you speak for or against any measures that would raise the price of gasoline?
SEC. CHU: As Secretary of Energy, I think especially now in today’s economic climate it would be completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline. And so we are looking forward to reducing the price of transportation in the American family. And this is done by encouraging fuel-efficient cars; this is done by developing alternative forms of fuel like biofuels that can lead to a separate source, an independent source of transportation fuel.
REP. STEARNS: But you can’t honestly believe that you want the American people to pay for gasoline at the prices, the level in Europe?
SEC. CHU: No, we don’t.
REP. STEARNS: No. But somehow, your statement, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” doesn’t that sound a little bit silly in retrospect for you to say that?
SEC. CHU: Yes.
Huh? What was the question? Nukes? Ah…, we’ll…uh…work on it…hmmm.
REP. STEARNS: The first question I have is, this is directed to the Secretary of Energy. During your confirmation hearing, you testified that DOE has a legal obligation to safely dispose of nuclear waste. You said, “I’m supportive of the fact that the nuclear industry is and should have to be part of our energy mix in this century.” Doesn’t it concern you then that nuclear energy does not even seem to be a part of this bill? I think this is a follow-up to Mr. Upton’s question.
SEC. CHU: Well, while not specifically part of this bill, if you look at the sum package of all the bills like the American Recovery Act, nuclear energy is supported in those other bills.
REP. STEARNS: But don’t you think there should be a separate title in this bill for nuclear energy? Just yes or no.
SEC. CHU: Pardon? What was the question?
REP. STEARNS: Do you think there should be a separate title in this bill for nuclear energy? Just yes or no.
SEC. CHU: We’re looking forward to working with the committee on –
REP. STEARNS: No. Just yes or no. Do you think it should be? Can I have your yes or no answer?
SEC. CHU: A separate title in nuclear energy?
REP. STEARNS: Yes. Yes or no?
SEC. CHU: I think nuclear energy can be mentioned in this bill, but again it’s working with this committee and the administration in developing –
REP. STEARNS: Is that a “no” then? You don’t think that –
SEC. CHU: No. That was a, that was a – we will look forward to working with the committee and making sure that nuclear energy is part of our energy mix.
Green jobs go missing
REP. ED WHITFIELD, R-Ky.: I wanted to ask you all, you Mr. Chu particularly and Ms. Jackson, if you had read Gabriel Alvarez’ study – he’s at King Juan Carlos’s University in Madrid. And he used empirical data based on the government subsidizing renewable energy in Spain. And he came up with the conclusion exactly how much every job cost. And I know that President Obama in this renewable energy package is modeling using Spain as a model, one of the models. But for every job created in the renewable energy sector, so-called green job, that they lost 2.2 jobs. And this is a 50-page empirical study that he conducted. And I was just, have either one of you seen his study?
MS. JACKSON: No. I’m not familiar with his study….
We didn’t model that
REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-La.: Administrator Jackson, in your opening statement you talked about the jobs that would be created – green jobs that would be created under a cap-and-trade bill. Can you quantify how many jobs you estimate would be created under this legislation?
MS. JACKSON: I believe what I said, sir, is that this is a jobs bill and that the discussion draft bill in its entirety is aimed to jumpstart our move into the green economy.
REP. SCALISE: And I think you quoted President Obama saying that it was his opinion that he would – that this bill would create millions of jobs. I think you used the term “millions.” Is there anything that you can base your determination on how many jobs will be created?
MS. JACKSON: EPA has not done a model or any kind of modeling on jobs creation numbers.
Doomsday comes early to Ohio
REP. SCALISE: And, I mean, while you might not be a jobs expert, you’re obviously talking about, you know, and touting this bill as a jobs bill. If you would claim that it would create jobs, are you making an assumption that it won’t lose any jobs, that no jobs will be lost? Or if you don’t make that claim, how many jobs would you expect to be lost? Because groups have made very large claims. I mean, the National Association of Manufacturers claims our country would lose 3 to 4 million jobs as a result of a cap and trade energy tax.
So I just wanted to know if you or any members of the panel want to answer that question.
MS. JACKSON: I’ll go first and –
(Cross talk.)
REP. SCALISE: – if you would.
MS. JACKSON: I know that lobbyists keep playing large doomsday scenarios – quiet deaths for businesses across the country. That’s what lobbyists said about the Clean Air Act in 1990 and it didn’t happen. In fact, the U.S. economy grew 64 percent…
…REP. JOHN SHIMKUS, R-Illinois: Let me ask Administrator Jackson. Do you know how many jobs – coal miner jobs were lost in Ohio because of the Clean Air Act amendments which you were addressing earlier?
MS. JACKSON: No, sir.
REP. SHIMKUS: Thirty-five-thousand.
I know what the policy is because I saw it on the TV
EPA ADMINISTRATOR. JACKSON: The administration has no goal that is nefarious for coal. The president, on TV, in ads I see him talking about clean coal and how clean coal is crucial not only for the environment but to create jobs…
These buffooneries speak for themselves. The only comment I’d like to add is that Ms. Jackson should watch television (or Youtube) more often. Evidently, she missed these clips in which presidential candidate Obama acknowledged that his cap-and-trade plan would “necessarily” cause electricity prices to “skyrocket” and “bankrupt” anyone foolish enough to invest in new coal generation.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
File these vignettes among the endless list of political inanities that would be uproariously funny if the potential economic fallout were not so toxic.
Yesterday, in honor of Earth Day, House Energy & Commece Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) held an interminable hearing on global warming legislation that he and Rep. Ed Markey (D-CA) have drafted.
Ranking Member Joe Barton of Texas today issued a press release providing some comedic highlights from the proceeding. A grim green award goes to anyone who can read it without laughing.
Scenes from an Earth Day Hearing, Part II
House Energy & Commerce Committee, April 21-23
April 23, 2009
Is $8 gas good or bad? Energy Secretary: ‘Yes’
REP. CLIFF STEARNS, R-Fla.: Last September you made a statement that somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe, which at the time exceeded $8 a gallon. As Secretary of Energy, will you speak for or against any measures that would raise the price of gasoline?
SEC. CHU: As Secretary of Energy, I think especially now in today’s economic climate it would be completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline. And so we are looking forward to reducing the price of transportation in the American family. And this is done by encouraging fuel-efficient cars; this is done by developing alternative forms of fuel like biofuels that can lead to a separate source, an independent source of transportation fuel.
REP. STEARNS: But you can’t honestly believe that you want the American people to pay for gasoline at the prices, the level in Europe?
SEC. CHU: No, we don’t.
REP. STEARNS: No. But somehow, your statement, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” doesn’t that sound a little bit silly in retrospect for you to say that?
SEC. CHU: Yes.
Huh? What was the question? Nukes? Ah…, we’ll…uh…work on it…hmmm.
REP. STEARNS: The first question I have is, this is directed to the Secretary of Energy. During your confirmation hearing, you testified that DOE has a legal obligation to safely dispose of nuclear waste. You said, “I’m supportive of the fact that the nuclear industry is and should have to be part of our energy mix in this century.” Doesn’t it concern you then that nuclear energy does not even seem to be a part of this bill? I think this is a follow-up to Mr. Upton’s question.
SEC. CHU: Well, while not specifically part of this bill, if you look at the sum package of all the bills like the American Recovery Act, nuclear energy is supported in those other bills.
REP. STEARNS: But don’t you think there should be a separate title in this bill for nuclear energy? Just yes or no.
SEC. CHU: Pardon? What was the question?
REP. STEARNS: Do you think there should be a separate title in this bill for nuclear energy? Just yes or no.
SEC. CHU: We’re looking forward to working with the committee on –
REP. STEARNS: No. Just yes or no. Do you think it should be? Can I have your yes or no answer?
SEC. CHU: A separate title in nuclear energy?
REP. STEARNS: Yes. Yes or no?
SEC. CHU: I think nuclear energy can be mentioned in this bill, but again it’s working with this committee and the administration in developing –
REP. STEARNS: Is that a “no” then? You don’t think that –
SEC. CHU: No. That was a, that was a – we will look forward to working with the committee and making sure that nuclear energy is part of our energy mix.
Green jobs go missing
REP. ED WHITFIELD, R-Ky.: I wanted to ask you all, you Mr. Chu particularly and Ms. Jackson, if you had read Gabriel Alvarez’ study – he’s at King Juan Carlos’s University in Madrid. And he used empirical data based on the government subsidizing renewable energy in Spain. And he came up with the conclusion exactly how much every job cost. And I know that President Obama in this renewable energy package is modeling using Spain as a model, one of the models. But for every job created in the renewable energy sector, so-called green job, that they lost 2.2 jobs. And this is a 50-page empirical study that he conducted. And I was just, have either one of you seen his study?
MS. JACKSON: No. I’m not familiar with his study….
We didn’t model that
REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-La.: Administrator Jackson, in your opening statement you talked about the jobs that would be created – green jobs that would be created under a cap-and-trade bill. Can you quantify how many jobs you estimate would be created under this legislation?
MS. JACKSON: I believe what I said, sir, is that this is a jobs bill and that the discussion draft bill in its entirety is aimed to jumpstart our move into the green economy.
REP. SCALISE: And I think you quoted President Obama saying that it was his opinion that he would – that this bill would create millions of jobs. I think you used the term “millions.” Is there anything that you can base your determination on how many jobs will be created?
MS. JACKSON: EPA has not done a model or any kind of modeling on jobs creation numbers.
Doomsday comes early to Ohio
REP. SCALISE: And, I mean, while you might not be a jobs expert, you’re obviously talking about, you know, and touting this bill as a jobs bill. If you would claim that it would create jobs, are you making an assumption that it won’t lose any jobs, that no jobs will be lost? Or if you don’t make that claim, how many jobs would you expect to be lost? Because groups have made very large claims. I mean, the National Association of Manufacturers claims our country would lose 3 to 4 million jobs as a result of a cap and trade energy tax.
So I just wanted to know if you or any members of the panel want to answer that question.
MS. JACKSON: I’ll go first and –
(Cross talk.)
REP. SCALISE: – if you would.
MS. JACKSON: I know that lobbyists keep playing large doomsday scenarios – quiet deaths for businesses across the country. That’s what lobbyists said about the Clean Air Act in 1990 and it didn’t happen. In fact, the U.S. economy grew 64 percent…
…REP. JOHN SHIMKUS, R-Illinois: Let me ask Administrator Jackson. Do you know how many jobs – coal miner jobs were lost in Ohio because of the Clean Air Act amendments which you were addressing earlier?
MS. JACKSON: No, sir.
REP. SHIMKUS: Thirty-five-thousand.
I know what the policy is because I saw it on the TV
EPA ADMINISTRATOR. JACKSON: The administration has no goal that is nefarious for coal. The president, on TV, in ads I see him talking about clean coal and how clean coal is crucial not only for the environment but to create jobs…
These buffooneries speak for themselves. The only comment I’d like to add is that Ms. Jackson should watch television (or Youtube) more often. Evidently, she missed these clips in which presidential candidate Obama acknowledged that his cap-and-trade plan would “necessarily” cause electricity prices to “skyrocket” and “bankrupt” anyone foolish enough to invest in new coal generation.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
Minggu, 19 April 2009
The Liberal War on Science
by Hans Bader
April 15, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
Christina Hoff Sommers writes about a looming liberal war on science. Based on a campaign promise Obama made to feminist groups in October 2008, Sommers foresees the Obama Administration moving to artificially cap male enrollment in math and science classes to achieve gender proportionality — the way that Title IX currently caps male participation in intercollegiate athletics. The result could be a substantial reduction in the number of scientists graduating from America’s colleges and universities.
Critics have long argued that the Title IX cap is in tension with the Supreme Court’s warnings against proportional representation. In a ruling by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Supreme Court said that it is “completely unrealistic” to argue that women and minorities should be represented in each field or activity “in lockstep proportion to their representation in the local population.” (See Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989)). In an earlier ruling, Justice O’Connor noted that it is “unrealistic to assume that unlawful discrimination is the sole cause of people failing to gravitate to jobs and employers in accord with the laws of chance.” (See Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust Co. (1988)).
But the Title IX athletics regulation mandates proportional representation. It contains three alternatives for compliance, but two of them are illusory in the long run. The first way (and only permanent way) to comply is to adopt a quota that artificially caps male participation. The second and third ways, which are only short-term fixes, involve continuous expansion of participation by, or satisfaction of all desire to compete by, the “underrepresented” sex. In a world of finite resources, these latter two ways can only work for a short period of time. I used to work at the agency, the Office for Civil Rights, that administers this regulation, and I think that it would be a mistake to apply standards designed for allocating resources among all-male and all-female sports teams to the very different context of math and science classes, which are coed.
But this is not an Administration that is very good with math and numbers. Obama claimed his $800 billion stimulus package was needed to avert “irreversible decline.” But the Congressional Budget Office says it will actually cut the size of the economy in the long run. His budgets don’t add up, either, piling up $9.3 trillion in red ink, and breaking his promises to enact a “net spending cut” and not raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year.
Some liberal publications are suspicious of scientific advances. The agronomist Norman Borlaug, who pioneered the Green Revolution, saved perhaps a billion lives in the Third World by developing high-yield, disease-resistant crops through biotechnology. For this, he received the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Congressional Medal of Honor. For this, he was smeared in the liberal magazine The Nation, which has an irrational phobia of biotechnology and genetic engineering, as being “the biggest killer of all.”
Similarly, the Danish researcher Bjorn Lomborg was demonized and investigated after accurately pointing out that global warming is less of a threat to human health than AIDS and malnutrition.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
April 15, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
Christina Hoff Sommers writes about a looming liberal war on science. Based on a campaign promise Obama made to feminist groups in October 2008, Sommers foresees the Obama Administration moving to artificially cap male enrollment in math and science classes to achieve gender proportionality — the way that Title IX currently caps male participation in intercollegiate athletics. The result could be a substantial reduction in the number of scientists graduating from America’s colleges and universities.
Critics have long argued that the Title IX cap is in tension with the Supreme Court’s warnings against proportional representation. In a ruling by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Supreme Court said that it is “completely unrealistic” to argue that women and minorities should be represented in each field or activity “in lockstep proportion to their representation in the local population.” (See Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989)). In an earlier ruling, Justice O’Connor noted that it is “unrealistic to assume that unlawful discrimination is the sole cause of people failing to gravitate to jobs and employers in accord with the laws of chance.” (See Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust Co. (1988)).
But the Title IX athletics regulation mandates proportional representation. It contains three alternatives for compliance, but two of them are illusory in the long run. The first way (and only permanent way) to comply is to adopt a quota that artificially caps male participation. The second and third ways, which are only short-term fixes, involve continuous expansion of participation by, or satisfaction of all desire to compete by, the “underrepresented” sex. In a world of finite resources, these latter two ways can only work for a short period of time. I used to work at the agency, the Office for Civil Rights, that administers this regulation, and I think that it would be a mistake to apply standards designed for allocating resources among all-male and all-female sports teams to the very different context of math and science classes, which are coed.
But this is not an Administration that is very good with math and numbers. Obama claimed his $800 billion stimulus package was needed to avert “irreversible decline.” But the Congressional Budget Office says it will actually cut the size of the economy in the long run. His budgets don’t add up, either, piling up $9.3 trillion in red ink, and breaking his promises to enact a “net spending cut” and not raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year.
Some liberal publications are suspicious of scientific advances. The agronomist Norman Borlaug, who pioneered the Green Revolution, saved perhaps a billion lives in the Third World by developing high-yield, disease-resistant crops through biotechnology. For this, he received the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Congressional Medal of Honor. For this, he was smeared in the liberal magazine The Nation, which has an irrational phobia of biotechnology and genetic engineering, as being “the biggest killer of all.”
Similarly, the Danish researcher Bjorn Lomborg was demonized and investigated after accurately pointing out that global warming is less of a threat to human health than AIDS and malnutrition.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
Devoted to Death
by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent
April 15, 2009 @ 11:48 am
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety earlier this week reported how smaller, more fuel-efficient automobiles are less safe than larger vehicles, and my John Locke Foundation colleague Roy Cordato noted how well it fits the policy prescriptions of global warming alarmists:
I guess maybe that’s why the greens like these cars. Not only do they reduce atmospheric CO2 but they help cut down on the surplus population.
Lest you think that’s an exaggeration, just read for yourself about the population control (i.e., abortion) funding efforts of wealthy environmental activist foundations such as the Turner Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and others. Or you could read about it at the Acton Institute site.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
April 15, 2009 @ 11:48 am
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety earlier this week reported how smaller, more fuel-efficient automobiles are less safe than larger vehicles, and my John Locke Foundation colleague Roy Cordato noted how well it fits the policy prescriptions of global warming alarmists:
I guess maybe that’s why the greens like these cars. Not only do they reduce atmospheric CO2 but they help cut down on the surplus population.
Lest you think that’s an exaggeration, just read for yourself about the population control (i.e., abortion) funding efforts of wealthy environmental activist foundations such as the Turner Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and others. Or you could read about it at the Acton Institute site.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
It’s Not Just Income Tax
by Iain Murray
April 15, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Let’s not forget on this day that government has worked out a lot more ways to appropriate your money than income tax. Sales Tax is the one we come across most often, but at least it’s out in the open and you see it being added to every purchase you make (an example of tax transparency not enjoyed by most of the world). It is the hidden taxes - the “stealth taxes” - that are perhaps an even bigger problem. When government taxes a particular activity, often at the source, so that costs are passed on to the end consumer - you and me - without us appreciating it, then government has acheived revenue without responsibility.
That is why “cap and trade,” the fashionable measure for imposing fees on emitters of greenhouse gases, is such an insidious idea. Ostensibly, the fees would provide a ‘market-based’ incentive for emitters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In practice, it would raise energy prices, as both President Obama and Rep. Henry Waxman (D. - Hollywood Millionaires) have admitted. Thankfully, the vast majority of Senators have realized that cap-and-trade is a tax, which is why on April 1 they passed by the margin of 98-0 an amendment to the budget “To protect middle-income taxpayers from tax increases by providing a point of order against legislation that increase taxes on them, including taxes that arise, directly or indirectly, from Federal revenues derived from climate change or similar legislation.” That amendment essentially recognizes cap-and-trade as a stealth tax, one that Americans for Tax Reform have calculated as amounting to $3000 for each family.
So where does this leave us? The EPA is announcing that they will hold a knife to the nation’s throat if this tax doesn’t get passed. There’s responsible government for you! The intelligent environmentalists at The Breakthrough Institute recognize the folly of this strategy, but, sad to say, intelligent voices in the environmentalist movement are very rarely listened to.
In the face of this assault of Green Taxes, there may be no alternative but to hold a Green Tea Party. Watch this space.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
April 15, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Let’s not forget on this day that government has worked out a lot more ways to appropriate your money than income tax. Sales Tax is the one we come across most often, but at least it’s out in the open and you see it being added to every purchase you make (an example of tax transparency not enjoyed by most of the world). It is the hidden taxes - the “stealth taxes” - that are perhaps an even bigger problem. When government taxes a particular activity, often at the source, so that costs are passed on to the end consumer - you and me - without us appreciating it, then government has acheived revenue without responsibility.
That is why “cap and trade,” the fashionable measure for imposing fees on emitters of greenhouse gases, is such an insidious idea. Ostensibly, the fees would provide a ‘market-based’ incentive for emitters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In practice, it would raise energy prices, as both President Obama and Rep. Henry Waxman (D. - Hollywood Millionaires) have admitted. Thankfully, the vast majority of Senators have realized that cap-and-trade is a tax, which is why on April 1 they passed by the margin of 98-0 an amendment to the budget “To protect middle-income taxpayers from tax increases by providing a point of order against legislation that increase taxes on them, including taxes that arise, directly or indirectly, from Federal revenues derived from climate change or similar legislation.” That amendment essentially recognizes cap-and-trade as a stealth tax, one that Americans for Tax Reform have calculated as amounting to $3000 for each family.
So where does this leave us? The EPA is announcing that they will hold a knife to the nation’s throat if this tax doesn’t get passed. There’s responsible government for you! The intelligent environmentalists at The Breakthrough Institute recognize the folly of this strategy, but, sad to say, intelligent voices in the environmentalist movement are very rarely listened to.
In the face of this assault of Green Taxes, there may be no alternative but to hold a Green Tea Party. Watch this space.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
Report on Chris Horner/James White Debate
by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent
April 14, 2009 @ 11:39 am
John Andrews, director of The Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University, has checked in with a report about the debate last week between “Red Hot Lies” author Chris Horner and climatologist James White. Andrews says that despite an audience that far exceeded the auditorium’s capacity of 300, the Denver-area media (not surprisingly) ignored the event:
For example, editors at Channel 7 for some reason didn’t feel this fit their upcoming series on green issues, while Denver Post environment reporter Mark Jaffe told me archly that Horner’s presence made this occasion “not a debate… not news.”
But CCU and the Centennial Institute shrugged off the snub. As I pointed out to Jaffe, our two nationally-known experts on climate science and climate policy seemed to think it was a debate. So did a century-old local university. So did our capacity crowd of several hundred open-minded Coloradans. If the MSM choose to be close-minded about this, it’s really their problem, not ours.
Didn’t a major newspaper just close in Denver?
Meanwhile, I hope these little events (like the recent one between John Christy and William Schlesinger) will continue and then the public will benefit from all perspectives on the issue.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
April 14, 2009 @ 11:39 am
John Andrews, director of The Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University, has checked in with a report about the debate last week between “Red Hot Lies” author Chris Horner and climatologist James White. Andrews says that despite an audience that far exceeded the auditorium’s capacity of 300, the Denver-area media (not surprisingly) ignored the event:
For example, editors at Channel 7 for some reason didn’t feel this fit their upcoming series on green issues, while Denver Post environment reporter Mark Jaffe told me archly that Horner’s presence made this occasion “not a debate… not news.”
But CCU and the Centennial Institute shrugged off the snub. As I pointed out to Jaffe, our two nationally-known experts on climate science and climate policy seemed to think it was a debate. So did a century-old local university. So did our capacity crowd of several hundred open-minded Coloradans. If the MSM choose to be close-minded about this, it’s really their problem, not ours.
Didn’t a major newspaper just close in Denver?
Meanwhile, I hope these little events (like the recent one between John Christy and William Schlesinger) will continue and then the public will benefit from all perspectives on the issue.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
Kamis, 09 April 2009
One Down, Six to Go!
by Fred Smith
April 08, 2009 @ 9:39 am
Oh the Worries of Our Modern Malthusians! In Washington this week, the Anarctica and Arctic Councils met for the first time. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, used the occasion to discuss the problems that global warming was “causing” in these areas. Among the myriad disasters is the possibility that the region’s energy resources will become available and that an all-year passage around the pole might open.
As I recall my history, European explorers spent centuries searching for a Northwest Passage. Given the massive increases in global trade, the efficiencies that this would provide could give our flagging global economy a significant boost – and reduce energy use also. And increasing access to new secure energy reserves (especially given that Norwegian and Alaskan activities have already shown we can extract such resources safely) would do much to address energy security concerns. But to our Modern Malthusians, these are problems!
As I remember geography there were seven continents – North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia/New Zealand, and Anarctica. Since humanity never reached the latter continent, it had no real defenders and, thus, in 1959, the global Antarctic Treaty, transformed it forever into a ward of the United Nations. The treaty suggests the global goals of our Modern Malthusians.
There is a total ban on economic activity, even though continental drift over the eons has meant that Anarctica might well have extensive fossil fuel reserves. The treaty forbids almost all economic activities but does authorize residency by “scientists.” This illustrates another bias of the left – “Research good, technology bad!” In her speech however, Hillary went further calling for tourist restrictions (so much for eco-tourism). One begins to understand – to protect the planet, we must wall it off from humanity!
An ambitious goal but one that shouldn’t be ignored. Malthusians have now captured one continent – only six to go!
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
April 08, 2009 @ 9:39 am
Oh the Worries of Our Modern Malthusians! In Washington this week, the Anarctica and Arctic Councils met for the first time. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, used the occasion to discuss the problems that global warming was “causing” in these areas. Among the myriad disasters is the possibility that the region’s energy resources will become available and that an all-year passage around the pole might open.
As I recall my history, European explorers spent centuries searching for a Northwest Passage. Given the massive increases in global trade, the efficiencies that this would provide could give our flagging global economy a significant boost – and reduce energy use also. And increasing access to new secure energy reserves (especially given that Norwegian and Alaskan activities have already shown we can extract such resources safely) would do much to address energy security concerns. But to our Modern Malthusians, these are problems!
As I remember geography there were seven continents – North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia/New Zealand, and Anarctica. Since humanity never reached the latter continent, it had no real defenders and, thus, in 1959, the global Antarctic Treaty, transformed it forever into a ward of the United Nations. The treaty suggests the global goals of our Modern Malthusians.
There is a total ban on economic activity, even though continental drift over the eons has meant that Anarctica might well have extensive fossil fuel reserves. The treaty forbids almost all economic activities but does authorize residency by “scientists.” This illustrates another bias of the left – “Research good, technology bad!” In her speech however, Hillary went further calling for tourist restrictions (so much for eco-tourism). One begins to understand – to protect the planet, we must wall it off from humanity!
An ambitious goal but one that shouldn’t be ignored. Malthusians have now captured one continent – only six to go!
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
DeSmogBlog: What About Me?
by William Yeatman
April 07, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
Yesterday DeSmogBlog added 7 more entries to its Global Warming Denier Database, which is touted as “an extensive database of individuals involved in the global warming denial industry.”
I took a look at the Database, and I am outraged. Why I am I not on the list!!??
Not only am I an unabashed global warming denier*, I personally contribute almost as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as mega-emitter Al Gore, alarmist hypocrite.
I understand that I might be too small a fish to warrant entry onto the list. After all, I am a lowly policy analyst. That said, the author of the Global Warming Denier Database, Kevin Grandia, lists “event planning” as an area of expertise, and I’ve been a caterer, so perhaps I am suitably qualified.
In any case, if you are reading this, please contact DeSmogBlog (here) and demand that I, William Yeatman, join the list of global warming deniers.
* It hasn’t warmed in 7 years. Al Gore says that “there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this: When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer.” Well, emissions keep going up, yet temperatures stay the same. Where’s the warming?
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
April 07, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
Yesterday DeSmogBlog added 7 more entries to its Global Warming Denier Database, which is touted as “an extensive database of individuals involved in the global warming denial industry.”
I took a look at the Database, and I am outraged. Why I am I not on the list!!??
Not only am I an unabashed global warming denier*, I personally contribute almost as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as mega-emitter Al Gore, alarmist hypocrite.
I understand that I might be too small a fish to warrant entry onto the list. After all, I am a lowly policy analyst. That said, the author of the Global Warming Denier Database, Kevin Grandia, lists “event planning” as an area of expertise, and I’ve been a caterer, so perhaps I am suitably qualified.
In any case, if you are reading this, please contact DeSmogBlog (here) and demand that I, William Yeatman, join the list of global warming deniers.
* It hasn’t warmed in 7 years. Al Gore says that “there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this: When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer.” Well, emissions keep going up, yet temperatures stay the same. Where’s the warming?
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
India calls carbon tariffs protectionist
by Fran Smith
April 07, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
At the Bonn, Germany, UN meetings on global warming issues, India urged rich countries not to use “green” protectionism by imposing carbon tariffs on carbon-intensive products from poor countries. India’s special envoy to the talks, Shyam Saran, was quoted as saying:
“That is simply not acceptable, that is protectionism.”
“We should be very careful that we don’t start going in that direction. We welcome any kind of arrangement … where there can be a sharing of experience or best practices for any of these energy-intensive sectors.”
Earlier, China’s top climate change official had warned about possible retaliation if carbon tariffs were assessed, as was suggested by the U.S. Secretary of Energy. Sounds like this issue is shaping up as the rich against the poor, i.e., already industrialized and developed countries attempting to penalize those emerging economies dependent on energy use for their continued economic growth.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
April 07, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
At the Bonn, Germany, UN meetings on global warming issues, India urged rich countries not to use “green” protectionism by imposing carbon tariffs on carbon-intensive products from poor countries. India’s special envoy to the talks, Shyam Saran, was quoted as saying:
“That is simply not acceptable, that is protectionism.”
“We should be very careful that we don’t start going in that direction. We welcome any kind of arrangement … where there can be a sharing of experience or best practices for any of these energy-intensive sectors.”
Earlier, China’s top climate change official had warned about possible retaliation if carbon tariffs were assessed, as was suggested by the U.S. Secretary of Energy. Sounds like this issue is shaping up as the rich against the poor, i.e., already industrialized and developed countries attempting to penalize those emerging economies dependent on energy use for their continued economic growth.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
LibertyWeek 37: Slicin’ and Dyson
by Richard Morrison
April 06, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
Your host Richard Morrison sits down this week with special guest co-hosts Michelle Minton and William Yeatman for LibertyWeek 37 (regular co-host Cord Blomquist is on the road). We start off with a profile of visionary physicist and global warming skeptic Freeman Dyson, then spend some time WILBing around to improve our productivity at the office, and move on to sixteen full ounces of barkeeper honesty. Finally we take a look at the Chicago factor in Olympic News.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
April 06, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
Your host Richard Morrison sits down this week with special guest co-hosts Michelle Minton and William Yeatman for LibertyWeek 37 (regular co-host Cord Blomquist is on the road). We start off with a profile of visionary physicist and global warming skeptic Freeman Dyson, then spend some time WILBing around to improve our productivity at the office, and move on to sixteen full ounces of barkeeper honesty. Finally we take a look at the Chicago factor in Olympic News.
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)