The Global Warming Scam(?)

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:””; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>


/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

It appears to me that the argument for AGW has been carried by pompous, preachy messengers, and regardless of the science behind it AGW needs better messengers if it is to have political life.

Shouting FILTHY FINITE FOSSIL FUELS, creating an adversary relationship with legacy fuel providers that actually heat our homes and move our cars, and belonging to the Gulfstream IV club does nothing in the political sense to bring home any message they may have.

The messengers are the problem with AGW. There must be a message somewhere between scientists, who are notoriously poor communicators, and scaremongers who do not walk the walk, where rationality exists on this issue.

I have not yet seen it.

Advertisements

Sources of Information

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:””; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>


/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

There is a constant barrage of snide remarks about where conservatives get their information, and constant blasting by name of Limbaugh and O’Reilly

I will admit to listening/watching both, and using their links to get further information. There is no “reliability” factor I can find for them, but there is a knowledgeability rating for their audiences.

Using “High knowledge” as a factor.as determined by a questionnaire of information, nd not trying to post everything, just the ones more interesting to me, this is the List:

NPR (44);

Hardball (43),

Hannity (42),

Rush (36),

BBC (34),

Colbert (34),

News Hour (33),

Sunday AM Shows (32),

O’Reilly (28),

Lou Dobbs (27),

Cable News (25),

MSNBC (25),

C-SPAN (24),

NBC News (21),

Larry King/ABC News/CNN/Fox News tied at (19).

The national average was 18, and those that ranked below 18 included religious radio, local TV, the National Inquirer, CNBC, Weather Channel, Access Hollywood, personality magazines, and CBS News.

Now liberals may not like the information given on one or more of theses sources, but their audiences are comparatively informed.

The Stimulus as Described by Robert Reich

“I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs [hopefully being created by government spending] not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers.” Robert Reich, Obama Administration designer of the stimulus packages.

 

At first I was concerned that unskilled workers would be preferred to build bridges, but then I remembered the Congressional Budget Office estimate that less than half the stimulus money would be spent before 2011 — by which time it is likely the recession will be over.

 

Of course, the environmental lobby is not going to let anything get built anyway, so the government may just as well throw the money down the bank drain.

 

Housing Stimulus


st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:””; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>


/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Let me propose another stimulus plan. I believe that the proximate cause of the economic downturn was the housing market bubble, and regardless who was at fault that segment of the economy needs a boost.

The reason it needs a boost has less to do with any accompanying industry (real estate, construction, lending) than it does with basic economic confidence – people’s wealth is largely in their homes, and when that wealth diminishes they delay spending.

IF that analysis is correct, the natural demographic cycle needs to be jump-started. The government should buy terribly distressed homes in, for example but not limited to Detroit where homes go for as low as $10,000, as a supply of low-income homes.

(This plan does not address foreclosed homes, or short-sale homes because those Sellers have no ability to purchase other homes. It is designed to boost sales among those who can, and wish to sell and buy elsewhere but in this market have no hope for a sale to start the process. There are many.)

Those sales should be dependent upon the Sellers purchase of another home anywhere in the United States, with escrows to close simultaneously. At some point, the plan will generate movement in the market and once the market starts it is self0sustaining, hopefully without the market distortions that brought about our housing crash.

I understand the objection will be that it will continue to concentrate the low-income people into low-income neighborhoods in low-income areas, but mine is an economic stimulus plan, not a social engineering plan.

“Nobody gets it if there ain’t any!”

Economic Stimulus

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:””; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>


/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

If the federal government wishes to stimulate the economy, it could do it much more easily by simply giving everyone a “Geithner Tax Holiday” – simply leave everyone with no tax for last year.

That would stimulate the heck out of the economy, and take the pressure off those who have lost their job, or whose job is endangered. People like me are spending like mad already, and I would do more if I had more.

The loss of income to the government approximates the amount that they will spend trying to stimulate the economy, but place the money at the working end, not the executive end of the economy.

The disadvantage of my proposal is that it does not comport with social engineering, does not redistribute wealth except naturally, does not employ more government workers…all it does is leave individuals and sub-chapter S individuals with MONEY THEY HAVE ALREADY EARNED.

(But it would stimulate the economy, which I thought was the plan.)

Good Luck, Coach!

Every sports team owner analyzes the head coach as a disciplinarian or a “players coach.”

Most teams find it desirable to change to a players coach after years under a disciplinarian. (And vice versa.) The success of a team under one style or another is more dependent on the type of players than anything else, and how they respond to the style of the coach.

Every team responds positively to a new coach the day after the coach takes over. The response of the team members later depends on the decisions the coach makes, not on the cheering of the crowds who were happy he was selected.

But the team is still the team, and the coach cannot make them what they are not. Silk purses and sows ears and all that, you know.

Winning is all that matters (particularly after a losing season,) not who gets what assignments, play calling or clock management. Just winning.

Good luck, Coach. It is a new season. (The review of the situation from the Briefing Book this morning must have been a shock. It ain’t gonna’ get better tomorrow morning, either.)

Loans for Nothing Down

I just had a call from a lender who offered home loan money with nothing down, to people with a 640 or above FICO score.

 

Isn’t that the seminal cause of our current problem?

 

Isn’t it amazing how stupid business can afford to be when they know that the federal government will back their bad decisions with taxpayer cash?

 

No-fault business to go with our no-fault insurance and our no-fault divorce.