Compared to What? [Yuval Levin] (via NRO--link included):
Who says the Democrats haven’t moved public opinion in the health care debate? According to a new Rasmussen poll out today, they have steadily persuaded more and more Americans that the health care system we have is a good one.
Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters nationwide now rate the U.S. health care system as good or excellent. That marks a steady increase from 44% at the beginning of October, 35% in May and 29% a year-and-a-half ago.
This surely isn’t how the Democrats want to see public opinion moving, but it’s how they have been moving it. By comparison with the system envisioned in the House and Senate health care bills, our current system certainly does look excellent.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Dr K: health care bills already diminishing jobs
Krauthammer's Take [NRO Staff]:
On the Democrats’ zeal for health care at a time of economic stagnation:
In fact, in the version unveiled in the Senate, there is an increase in the Medicare payroll tax, which is precisely the opposite of what you want when you have over 10 percent unemployment. It discourages employment.
And the whole health-care obsession, which is essentially what the Democrats have been involved with over the entire year, [comes] at a time when people want the administration and the Congress to be looking at in addressing the economy as a whole. [Instead,] they spent all this effort on health care.
In and of itself, it [health-care reform] is retarding hiring, because if you are a small or medium-sized business, you are not going to hire while you have hanging over your head a bill that could increase health-care costs for every employee, or you might have to pay a penalty if you don't subsidize health insurance for your employees.
Already, you've got employers holding back because of the general economic conditions and the threat of higher taxes, and now you add on to that the uncertainty of the health-care proposal.
The administration is doing everything it can to discourage hiring at a time when it is deploring the high unemployment rate and touting, as we saw in the clip with poor old Joe [Biden], the robust growth rate, which is [now calculated to be] a lot less robust than the administration had announced.
On the Democrats’ zeal for health care at a time of economic stagnation:
In fact, in the version unveiled in the Senate, there is an increase in the Medicare payroll tax, which is precisely the opposite of what you want when you have over 10 percent unemployment. It discourages employment.
And the whole health-care obsession, which is essentially what the Democrats have been involved with over the entire year, [comes] at a time when people want the administration and the Congress to be looking at in addressing the economy as a whole. [Instead,] they spent all this effort on health care.
In and of itself, it [health-care reform] is retarding hiring, because if you are a small or medium-sized business, you are not going to hire while you have hanging over your head a bill that could increase health-care costs for every employee, or you might have to pay a penalty if you don't subsidize health insurance for your employees.
Already, you've got employers holding back because of the general economic conditions and the threat of higher taxes, and now you add on to that the uncertainty of the health-care proposal.
The administration is doing everything it can to discourage hiring at a time when it is deploring the high unemployment rate and touting, as we saw in the clip with poor old Joe [Biden], the robust growth rate, which is [now calculated to be] a lot less robust than the administration had announced.
State, local budgets inexorably undermined
Another Downside of Bailout Nation [John Hood] (via NRO)
Among the many reasons to be infuriated at the massive expansion of borrowing and spending by the federal government is that the relationship between Washington and other levels of government is being warped beyond recognition.
Federal funds are now the single-largest revenue source for state and local governments, edging out retail sales taxes. Of course, all federal funds derive from taxpayers who also live in states and localities, so the fiction of “free” money from “Washington” is one of the problems with this. Essentially, Congress and the administration issued a bunch of federal debt to finance state and local operating deficits — a subversion of legal and constitutional rules against the practice in most parts of the country, by the way — and thus bailed out state and local politicians who would have otherwise had to take responsibility for their past fiscal decisions and enact larger budget savings or tax hikes. Reckless fiscal policies, in other words, have been rewarded. Expect more.
Now that the Feds are their biggest paymaster, state and localities will face even more perverse incentives. Fiscal policy decisions previously made elsewhere will now be made in Washington, where special-interest pleading is usually more egregious than in legislatures or city halls. And I'd be willing to bet a significant sum (though I'd prefer to risk dollars than gold certificates) that Congress will end up renewing a significant share of the supposedly short-term “stimulus” bailout of states and localities in 2011.
Among the many reasons to be infuriated at the massive expansion of borrowing and spending by the federal government is that the relationship between Washington and other levels of government is being warped beyond recognition.
Federal funds are now the single-largest revenue source for state and local governments, edging out retail sales taxes. Of course, all federal funds derive from taxpayers who also live in states and localities, so the fiction of “free” money from “Washington” is one of the problems with this. Essentially, Congress and the administration issued a bunch of federal debt to finance state and local operating deficits — a subversion of legal and constitutional rules against the practice in most parts of the country, by the way — and thus bailed out state and local politicians who would have otherwise had to take responsibility for their past fiscal decisions and enact larger budget savings or tax hikes. Reckless fiscal policies, in other words, have been rewarded. Expect more.
Now that the Feds are their biggest paymaster, state and localities will face even more perverse incentives. Fiscal policy decisions previously made elsewhere will now be made in Washington, where special-interest pleading is usually more egregious than in legislatures or city halls. And I'd be willing to bet a significant sum (though I'd prefer to risk dollars than gold certificates) that Congress will end up renewing a significant share of the supposedly short-term “stimulus” bailout of states and localities in 2011.
Actual temperatures can be useful--no warming
Here is the link to "the oldest thermometer record in existence" from England (as you can see--no trend to get panicked over):
http://i37.tinypic.com/14t0abr.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/14t0abr.jpg
Economy: Obama spin/propaganda or reality
Read the following AP semi-fawning, fully-in-pr-mode, stenographer-for-Gibbs-talking-points article on the November jobs report. Only lost 11,000 jobs?! Rate down to 10%?! Best this year?! Just consider what happens in November every year: holiday workers get hired--temporary jobs but lots of them. So, even with that hiring, no jobs gained, just not many lost. Wanna guess what happens in January? What'll be the spin then?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091204/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_economy
Now, for a little reality check, read the following analysis of what will, WILL, keep employment in the doldrums for the foreseeable future:
Wachovia’s John Silvia:
In recent years, permanent layoffs have surpassed temporary layoffs and this is reflected in the rapid rise in the mean duration of unemployment. In addition, the disparity of unemployment by education levels signals that the demand of employers for more highly educated workers does not fit well with the available supply of workers. Current policy initiatives have perverse economic effects. Health care mandates will likely raise the cost of labor and thereby discourage hiring.
Second, the increase in the minimum wage has clearly negatively impacted hiring teenage workers evident in the recent increase in teenage unemployment rates. Cap-and-trade will likely increase the cost of energy and transportation for employers and thereby reduce any funds left to hire workers. At present, the uncertainty about potential micro policies is more than offsetting any positive impact on jobs from the fiscal stimulus.
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/11/30/why-the-us-may-have-a-long-term-unemployment-problem/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091204/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_economy
Now, for a little reality check, read the following analysis of what will, WILL, keep employment in the doldrums for the foreseeable future:
Wachovia’s John Silvia:
In recent years, permanent layoffs have surpassed temporary layoffs and this is reflected in the rapid rise in the mean duration of unemployment. In addition, the disparity of unemployment by education levels signals that the demand of employers for more highly educated workers does not fit well with the available supply of workers. Current policy initiatives have perverse economic effects. Health care mandates will likely raise the cost of labor and thereby discourage hiring.
Second, the increase in the minimum wage has clearly negatively impacted hiring teenage workers evident in the recent increase in teenage unemployment rates. Cap-and-trade will likely increase the cost of energy and transportation for employers and thereby reduce any funds left to hire workers. At present, the uncertainty about potential micro policies is more than offsetting any positive impact on jobs from the fiscal stimulus.
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/11/30/why-the-us-may-have-a-long-term-unemployment-problem/
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Read all you can handle: bad results of O-care
From the many comments/emails from actual practicing physicians, sent to Hugh Hewitt:
http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/
http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/
Doctor/Senator Coburn speaking truth to power
You simply must take the time to listen to Doctor Coburn, Senator:
Doc Coburn Explains Exactly What Obamacare Will Do To Seniors Posted by: Duane R. Patterson (via Hugh Hewitt)
This was from the Senate debate early this morning. If you didn't hear it on the radio this afternoon, you really owe it to yourself to watch what this health care "reform" debate is leading to, if President Obama and the Democrats get their way.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/36ac0c2f-4e72-4270-bcb9-f374b2f2a588
Doc Coburn Explains Exactly What Obamacare Will Do To Seniors Posted by: Duane R. Patterson (via Hugh Hewitt)
This was from the Senate debate early this morning. If you didn't hear it on the radio this afternoon, you really owe it to yourself to watch what this health care "reform" debate is leading to, if President Obama and the Democrats get their way.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/36ac0c2f-4e72-4270-bcb9-f374b2f2a588
Lest we forget the health care fraud we face
Mending Health Care [Yuval Levin] (via NRO):
These days, it seems like the actual arguments for the Democrats’ health-care proposals have all faded away. Remember back when OMB Director Peter Orszag was on television all the time talking about reducing costs? Have you seen him lately? Me neither. The case for Obamacare as cost reduction just won’t pass the laugh test anymore, and no one seems to make it. The case for covering everyone isn’t heard all that much either, since the Democrats’ plans won’t do that. The case for improved efficiency hasn’t really survived the machinations necessary to get a bill through the House and to get another to the Senate floor — as what remains after the wheeling and dealing is anything but efficient. It seems like the only case being made to (and by) wavering Democrats in Congress now is that the bill just has to pass. History is calling, we have never been closer to agreement, this is our chance, do it for the president, and on and on. The theory is that it’s this or nothing; some combination of the Reid and Pelosi bills has to pass or else we just leave our health-care system as it is.
But as Sen. Tom Coburn and former Deputy HHS Secretary (and regular Cornerite) Tevi Troy argue over at Forbes, this is no way to think about public policy. The notion that our only options are a massive new entitlement (complete with huge job-killing tax increases, a bloated new government program, and ridiculous budget gimmicks, but no real means to cut health-care costs) or just doing nothing simply isn’t true. There are lots of other options, and there is plenty of time to think them through and make some changes that actually improve our system. The two basic premises the Democrats are advancing at the moment — this or nothing, and now or never — are both false. As Coburn and Troy point out, there are better ways.
These days, it seems like the actual arguments for the Democrats’ health-care proposals have all faded away. Remember back when OMB Director Peter Orszag was on television all the time talking about reducing costs? Have you seen him lately? Me neither. The case for Obamacare as cost reduction just won’t pass the laugh test anymore, and no one seems to make it. The case for covering everyone isn’t heard all that much either, since the Democrats’ plans won’t do that. The case for improved efficiency hasn’t really survived the machinations necessary to get a bill through the House and to get another to the Senate floor — as what remains after the wheeling and dealing is anything but efficient. It seems like the only case being made to (and by) wavering Democrats in Congress now is that the bill just has to pass. History is calling, we have never been closer to agreement, this is our chance, do it for the president, and on and on. The theory is that it’s this or nothing; some combination of the Reid and Pelosi bills has to pass or else we just leave our health-care system as it is.
But as Sen. Tom Coburn and former Deputy HHS Secretary (and regular Cornerite) Tevi Troy argue over at Forbes, this is no way to think about public policy. The notion that our only options are a massive new entitlement (complete with huge job-killing tax increases, a bloated new government program, and ridiculous budget gimmicks, but no real means to cut health-care costs) or just doing nothing simply isn’t true. There are lots of other options, and there is plenty of time to think them through and make some changes that actually improve our system. The two basic premises the Democrats are advancing at the moment — this or nothing, and now or never — are both false. As Coburn and Troy point out, there are better ways.
Part 2 of the top down thuggery of pro-Obots
"Anatomy of a Beat-Down Part 2: Why Kenneth Gladney Was Beaten And by Whom" by Stage Right via Breitbart/Big Government
Yesterday we discussed the events leading up to the August 6th health care town hall meeting featuring Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO). The event was hosted by Health Care For American Now (HCAN) and Organizing for America (OFA), the former a front group for Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the latter an off-shoot of the Obama Campaign now run by the Democratic National Committee (DNC). We revealed a four page document released by HCAN two days before the August 6th town hall meeting. In that document, guidelines are revealed for members of HCAN (union members) on how best to stifle the protestations of ObamaCare.
The meetings hosted by HCAN (like the one on August 6th in St. Louis) were set up using these rules. Americans showed up at these meetings thinking that it would be an opportunity to address their elected representatives and talk to them about the single most important piece of legislation our congress has proposed in decades. Instead, they were pushed to the back of the room and shouted down by the well-trained SEIU members. Eventually, an American citizen who was distributing “Don’t Tread on Me” flags and buttons was assaulted by a handful of the SEIU members. His name is Kenneth Gladney.
Let’s look at that memo and how it matches the events of August 6th:....
It is hard to not reach the conclusion that the events of August 6th were a result that could have been expected given the rhetoric from elected officials in the Democratic Party (Speaker Pelosi saying the protesters carries swastikas) and the President’s Advisers (Jim Messina telling Senators “if they hit you, we will punch them back twice as hard”) coupled with the instructions handed down to obedient union members by their union leaders. If you agree that HCAN and OFA were instrumental in creating the climate for violent confrontation that led to Kenneth Gladney’s assault, then it is important to learn about the leadership of HCAN and the SEIU members who are suspects in the assault and learn who they are and what might have motivated their actions.
Here's the must read rest:
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/01/anatomy-of-a-beat-down-part-2-why-kenneth-gladney-was-beaten-and-by-whom/
Yesterday we discussed the events leading up to the August 6th health care town hall meeting featuring Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO). The event was hosted by Health Care For American Now (HCAN) and Organizing for America (OFA), the former a front group for Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the latter an off-shoot of the Obama Campaign now run by the Democratic National Committee (DNC). We revealed a four page document released by HCAN two days before the August 6th town hall meeting. In that document, guidelines are revealed for members of HCAN (union members) on how best to stifle the protestations of ObamaCare.
The meetings hosted by HCAN (like the one on August 6th in St. Louis) were set up using these rules. Americans showed up at these meetings thinking that it would be an opportunity to address their elected representatives and talk to them about the single most important piece of legislation our congress has proposed in decades. Instead, they were pushed to the back of the room and shouted down by the well-trained SEIU members. Eventually, an American citizen who was distributing “Don’t Tread on Me” flags and buttons was assaulted by a handful of the SEIU members. His name is Kenneth Gladney.
Let’s look at that memo and how it matches the events of August 6th:....
It is hard to not reach the conclusion that the events of August 6th were a result that could have been expected given the rhetoric from elected officials in the Democratic Party (Speaker Pelosi saying the protesters carries swastikas) and the President’s Advisers (Jim Messina telling Senators “if they hit you, we will punch them back twice as hard”) coupled with the instructions handed down to obedient union members by their union leaders. If you agree that HCAN and OFA were instrumental in creating the climate for violent confrontation that led to Kenneth Gladney’s assault, then it is important to learn about the leadership of HCAN and the SEIU members who are suspects in the assault and learn who they are and what might have motivated their actions.
Here's the must read rest:
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/01/anatomy-of-a-beat-down-part-2-why-kenneth-gladney-was-beaten-and-by-whom/
Overseas reviews of Obama: not-so-adoring
The Unmasking of Barack Obama by Peter Wehner:
The overseas reviews for President Obama’s foreign policy are starting to pour in — and they’re not favorable. Bob Ainsworth, the British defense secretary, has blamed Obama for the decline in British public support for the war in Afghanistan. According to the Telegraph:
"Mr. Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticizing the U.S. President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban. A “period of hiatus” in Washington — and a lack of clear direction — had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said. Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr. Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defense chiefs echoing the concerns."
The President is “Obama the Impotent,” according to Steven Hill of the Guardian. The Economist calls Obama the “Pacific (and pussyfooting) president.” The Financial Times refers to “relations between the U.S. and Europe, which started the year of talks as allies, near breakdown.” The German magazine Der Spiegel accuses the president of being “dishonest with Europe” on the subject of climate change. Another withering piece in Der Spiegel, titled “Obama’s Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on the World Stage,” lists the instances in which Obama is being rolled. The Jerusalem Post puts it this way: “Everybody is saying no to the American president these days. And it’s not just that they’re saying no, it’s also the way they’re saying no.” “He talks too much,” a Saudi academic who had once been smitten with Barack Obama tells the Middle East scholar Fouad Ajami. The Saudi “has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory,” according to Ajami. But “he is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.”
Indeed he has — and only Obama and his increasingly clueless administration seem unaware of this.
On almost every front, progress is nonexistent. In many instances, things are getting worse rather than better. ...
Read the rest with links: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/182091
The overseas reviews for President Obama’s foreign policy are starting to pour in — and they’re not favorable. Bob Ainsworth, the British defense secretary, has blamed Obama for the decline in British public support for the war in Afghanistan. According to the Telegraph:
"Mr. Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticizing the U.S. President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban. A “period of hiatus” in Washington — and a lack of clear direction — had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said. Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr. Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defense chiefs echoing the concerns."
The President is “Obama the Impotent,” according to Steven Hill of the Guardian. The Economist calls Obama the “Pacific (and pussyfooting) president.” The Financial Times refers to “relations between the U.S. and Europe, which started the year of talks as allies, near breakdown.” The German magazine Der Spiegel accuses the president of being “dishonest with Europe” on the subject of climate change. Another withering piece in Der Spiegel, titled “Obama’s Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on the World Stage,” lists the instances in which Obama is being rolled. The Jerusalem Post puts it this way: “Everybody is saying no to the American president these days. And it’s not just that they’re saying no, it’s also the way they’re saying no.” “He talks too much,” a Saudi academic who had once been smitten with Barack Obama tells the Middle East scholar Fouad Ajami. The Saudi “has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory,” according to Ajami. But “he is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.”
Indeed he has — and only Obama and his increasingly clueless administration seem unaware of this.
On almost every front, progress is nonexistent. In many instances, things are getting worse rather than better. ...
Read the rest with links: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/182091
Sahah Palin governing philosophy in action
Sarah Palin's Governing Philosophy Emerges In "Going Rogue" (via Rhiel World blog)
Based upon an Op-Ed in the Appeal-Democrat, it's suggested that, far from a political neophyte, Sarah Palin possesses a critical instinct for a governing style consistent with limited, cost-effective governing - and that she's resistant to being drawn in to the type of conventional wisdom that often moves politicians to the Left post-election.
"You can't help but notice that just about everyone who is part of the political establishment detests Sarah Palin. And you can't help but notice that Palin couldn't care less.
"Early in the second chapter of "Going Rogue," a chapter titled "Kitchen-Table Politics," you learn everything you need to know to understand why. This is the way Palin has been wired for a very long time. During her two terms on the Wasilla City Council, followed by two terms as the city's mayor, she consistently demonstrated a refreshing immunity to the insider mentality that tends to afflict people who serve in government at any level."
Palin is said to have resisted the type of influence peddling to which many politicians succumb, even when it meant going against her early political mentors. While the governing mentality first demonstrated itself in Wasilla, it's claimed it stayed with her right to the Governor's office in Juneau.
"In one of the first tests of her independence, Palin opposed a proposal touted by Carney, her political patron, to force residents to pay for neighborhood trash pickup rather than hauling their garbage to the dump themselves, as most did, and as Palin says she still does. Why was this so important to Carney? Because he owned the local garbage truck company."
The portrait of Palin that emerges is not someone who is anti-government, but someone who is focused on making government provide critical services and programs, while trimming out the fat.
"During her terms on the council, she consistently opposed heavy-handed community planning initiatives and burdensome taxes. But she was not anti-government, as she explains: As a council member, I focused on what I believed to be the key functions of government: infrastructure development, fiscal responsibility and simply being on the side of the people."
Several of the controversies that ensnared her early on are said to be the result of that mentality, as opposed to Palin being someone who didn't know what she was about, or enjoyed making enemies just for spite. Fans of Sarah Palin are likely to find the op-ed a refreshing read for its take on the former Governor.
"The chief of police flat-out refused to even look for budget savings, beginning a chilly relationship that ultimately resulted in Palin firing him and — get this — being sued by him for sex discrimination. (It took three years, but Palin was vindicated — another harbinger of things to come.)
"Among Palin-haters, one of the most popular canards is that she is an airhead, and clearly not capable of dealing with the intricacies of government. As this chapter demonstrates, nothing could be further from the truth.
"Palin not only has a keen grasp of the details of governing and budgeting, she also understands the political difficulties inherent in making government responsive. Many of her antagonists at the national level scoffed at the notion that her experience in Wasilla was of any value. Quite the contrary, local government is where a public official's decisions have the most direct impact on the electorate. It's where you really have to understand the ins and outs of what you're doing.
"No voting for bills without reading them first."
See original for links:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/11/sarah-palins-governing-philosophy-emerges-in-going-rogue.html
Based upon an Op-Ed in the Appeal-Democrat, it's suggested that, far from a political neophyte, Sarah Palin possesses a critical instinct for a governing style consistent with limited, cost-effective governing - and that she's resistant to being drawn in to the type of conventional wisdom that often moves politicians to the Left post-election.
"You can't help but notice that just about everyone who is part of the political establishment detests Sarah Palin. And you can't help but notice that Palin couldn't care less.
"Early in the second chapter of "Going Rogue," a chapter titled "Kitchen-Table Politics," you learn everything you need to know to understand why. This is the way Palin has been wired for a very long time. During her two terms on the Wasilla City Council, followed by two terms as the city's mayor, she consistently demonstrated a refreshing immunity to the insider mentality that tends to afflict people who serve in government at any level."
Palin is said to have resisted the type of influence peddling to which many politicians succumb, even when it meant going against her early political mentors. While the governing mentality first demonstrated itself in Wasilla, it's claimed it stayed with her right to the Governor's office in Juneau.
"In one of the first tests of her independence, Palin opposed a proposal touted by Carney, her political patron, to force residents to pay for neighborhood trash pickup rather than hauling their garbage to the dump themselves, as most did, and as Palin says she still does. Why was this so important to Carney? Because he owned the local garbage truck company."
The portrait of Palin that emerges is not someone who is anti-government, but someone who is focused on making government provide critical services and programs, while trimming out the fat.
"During her terms on the council, she consistently opposed heavy-handed community planning initiatives and burdensome taxes. But she was not anti-government, as she explains: As a council member, I focused on what I believed to be the key functions of government: infrastructure development, fiscal responsibility and simply being on the side of the people."
Several of the controversies that ensnared her early on are said to be the result of that mentality, as opposed to Palin being someone who didn't know what she was about, or enjoyed making enemies just for spite. Fans of Sarah Palin are likely to find the op-ed a refreshing read for its take on the former Governor.
"The chief of police flat-out refused to even look for budget savings, beginning a chilly relationship that ultimately resulted in Palin firing him and — get this — being sued by him for sex discrimination. (It took three years, but Palin was vindicated — another harbinger of things to come.)
"Among Palin-haters, one of the most popular canards is that she is an airhead, and clearly not capable of dealing with the intricacies of government. As this chapter demonstrates, nothing could be further from the truth.
"Palin not only has a keen grasp of the details of governing and budgeting, she also understands the political difficulties inherent in making government responsive. Many of her antagonists at the national level scoffed at the notion that her experience in Wasilla was of any value. Quite the contrary, local government is where a public official's decisions have the most direct impact on the electorate. It's where you really have to understand the ins and outs of what you're doing.
"No voting for bills without reading them first."
See original for links:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/11/sarah-palins-governing-philosophy-emerges-in-going-rogue.html
Thuggery against townhallers run from top
DP: This Big Government expose shows how the real "brownshirts" of violence on behalf of a fascist government are not on the right--but on the left:
Anatomy of a Beat-Down Part 1: Why Kenneth Gladney Was Beaten, And by Whom...by Stage Right
On August 6, 2009 two Service Employee International Union (SEIU) leaders and a volunteer for Organizing for America (OFA) assaulted Kenneth Gladney outside of Rep. Russ Carnahan’s Town hall meeting on health care. The perpetrators were arrested at the scene of the crime, and three months later charges have finally been filed.
Much has been said in the past three months about this incident. Here at Big Government calls have been made for justice, for formal charges and mostly for the mass media to follow the story and delve into the government’s role in this violent attempt to intimidate and silence dissent. We can no longer wait for the establishment journalists to connect the dots and bring to light the insidious relationships between the SEIU, OFA, Russ Carnaham’s office and the Obama Administration.
Was this assault merely a flare up of tempers during a heated exchange of rival political camps? Or was it a coordinated attempt to silence the scores of protesters who had been so effective at swaying public opinion against the President’s health care scheme? Today, Big Government will bring to light documents that read like an instruction manual for the SEIU forces in St. Louis the evening of August 6th. We will also show that on the very same evening of the St. Louis assault, an almost identical scene played out in Tampa Bay, Florida. Also involving SEIU and OFA. Also resulting in hordes of union members shouting down and physically evicting protesters from a U.S. Representative’s Town hall meeting. Finally, we will introduce all of the various players in leadership roles at these organizations, what they said in instructing their members in how to fight back against the Town hall protesters, and how these individuals all connect to each other and to the Obama Administration. As I said, we’ve been waiting for the “Real” journalists to do this, we’ve waited long enough.
Here's the link to part 1: http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/30/anatomy-of-a-beat-down-part-1-why-kenneth-gladney-was-beaten-and-by-whom/
Anatomy of a Beat-Down Part 1: Why Kenneth Gladney Was Beaten, And by Whom...by Stage Right
On August 6, 2009 two Service Employee International Union (SEIU) leaders and a volunteer for Organizing for America (OFA) assaulted Kenneth Gladney outside of Rep. Russ Carnahan’s Town hall meeting on health care. The perpetrators were arrested at the scene of the crime, and three months later charges have finally been filed.
Much has been said in the past three months about this incident. Here at Big Government calls have been made for justice, for formal charges and mostly for the mass media to follow the story and delve into the government’s role in this violent attempt to intimidate and silence dissent. We can no longer wait for the establishment journalists to connect the dots and bring to light the insidious relationships between the SEIU, OFA, Russ Carnaham’s office and the Obama Administration.
Was this assault merely a flare up of tempers during a heated exchange of rival political camps? Or was it a coordinated attempt to silence the scores of protesters who had been so effective at swaying public opinion against the President’s health care scheme? Today, Big Government will bring to light documents that read like an instruction manual for the SEIU forces in St. Louis the evening of August 6th. We will also show that on the very same evening of the St. Louis assault, an almost identical scene played out in Tampa Bay, Florida. Also involving SEIU and OFA. Also resulting in hordes of union members shouting down and physically evicting protesters from a U.S. Representative’s Town hall meeting. Finally, we will introduce all of the various players in leadership roles at these organizations, what they said in instructing their members in how to fight back against the Town hall protesters, and how these individuals all connect to each other and to the Obama Administration. As I said, we’ve been waiting for the “Real” journalists to do this, we’ve waited long enough.
Here's the link to part 1: http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/30/anatomy-of-a-beat-down-part-1-why-kenneth-gladney-was-beaten-and-by-whom/
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Americans...don't...want...Obama/Reid/Pelosi
RASMUSSEN: 41% favor Congressional health care plan, 53% oppose… 22% Strongly Favor, 40% Strongly Oppose.
Posted at 1:29 pm by Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit)
Posted at 1:29 pm by Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit)
Using UK non-necessary deaths: 50K here...
...if the American standards of cancer-fighting were lowered to that of UK; i.e. if Obama/Pelosi/Reid-care gets implemented with the predictable cost-cutting and rationing that all gov't run systems have:
Monday, November 30, 2009
10,000 Unnecessary Cancer Deaths (in Britain)
Another day, another exposé by a British newspaper about the failure of nationalized health care. This time, it's the left-wing The Guardian reflecting on how delays in cancer care cause 10,000 unnecessary deaths each year compared to other European countries:
Up to 10,000 people die needlessly of cancer every year because their condition is diagnosed too late, according to research by the government's director of cancer services. The figure is twice the previous estimate for preventable deaths....
Britain is poor by international standards at diagnosing cancer. [Prof. Mike] Richards's findings will add urgency to the NHS's efforts to improve early diagnosis....
Richards found that "late diagnosis was almost certainly a major contributor to poor survival in England for all three cancers", but also identified low rates of surgical intervention being received by cancer patients as another key reason for poor survival rates.
Research by academics at Durham University led by Prof Greg Rubin has identified five types of delay in NHS cancer care: "patient delay", "doctor delay", "delay in primary care [at GPs' surgeries]", "system delay" and "delay in secondary care [at hospitals]"....
Since Britain's population is less than one-fifth that of the U.S., the equivalent number of unnecessary deaths in the U.S. would exceed 50,000. The U.S. has cancer survival rates which exceed even the better European countries, so that number may be higher.
Keep that in mind the next time you hear Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) and others throw around fictitious numbers about how many people die in the U.S. from lack of insurance. And this week as Harry Reid and the Democrats tout how Reid's plan will save families in the "non-group" market $500 on private insurance.
Still nothing to see here, move along.
From Legal Insurrection blog:
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/11/10000-unnecessary-cancer-deaths-in.html
Monday, November 30, 2009
10,000 Unnecessary Cancer Deaths (in Britain)
Another day, another exposé by a British newspaper about the failure of nationalized health care. This time, it's the left-wing The Guardian reflecting on how delays in cancer care cause 10,000 unnecessary deaths each year compared to other European countries:
Up to 10,000 people die needlessly of cancer every year because their condition is diagnosed too late, according to research by the government's director of cancer services. The figure is twice the previous estimate for preventable deaths....
Britain is poor by international standards at diagnosing cancer. [Prof. Mike] Richards's findings will add urgency to the NHS's efforts to improve early diagnosis....
Richards found that "late diagnosis was almost certainly a major contributor to poor survival in England for all three cancers", but also identified low rates of surgical intervention being received by cancer patients as another key reason for poor survival rates.
Research by academics at Durham University led by Prof Greg Rubin has identified five types of delay in NHS cancer care: "patient delay", "doctor delay", "delay in primary care [at GPs' surgeries]", "system delay" and "delay in secondary care [at hospitals]"....
Since Britain's population is less than one-fifth that of the U.S., the equivalent number of unnecessary deaths in the U.S. would exceed 50,000. The U.S. has cancer survival rates which exceed even the better European countries, so that number may be higher.
Keep that in mind the next time you hear Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) and others throw around fictitious numbers about how many people die in the U.S. from lack of insurance. And this week as Harry Reid and the Democrats tout how Reid's plan will save families in the "non-group" market $500 on private insurance.
Still nothing to see here, move along.
From Legal Insurrection blog:
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/11/10000-unnecessary-cancer-deaths-in.html
Dr K says, eloquently, just kill the bill, burn it
WASHINGTON -- The United States has the best health care in the world -- but because of its inefficiencies, also the most expensive. The fundamental problem with the 2,074-page Senate health-care bill (as with its 2,014-page House counterpart) is that it wildly compounds the complexity by adding hundreds of new provisions, regulations, mandates, committees and other arbitrary bureaucratic inventions.
Worse, they are packed into a monstrous package without any regard to each other. The only thing linking these changes -- such as the 118 new boards, commissions and programs -- is political expediency. Each must be able to garner just enough votes to pass. There is not even a pretense of a unifying vision or conceptual harmony.
The result is an overregulated, overbureaucratized system of surpassing arbitrariness and inefficiency. Throw a dart at the Senate tome:
-- You'll find mandates with financial penalties -- the amounts picked out of a hat.
-- You'll find insurance companies (who live and die by their actuarial skills) told exactly what weight to give risk factors, such as age. Currently insurance premiums for 20-somethings are about one-sixth the premiums for 60-somethings. The House bill dictates the young shall now pay at minimum one-half; the Senate bill, one-third -- numbers picked out of a hat.
-- You'll find sliding scales for health-insurance subsidies -- percentages picked out of a hat -- that will radically raise marginal income tax rates for middle- class recipients, among other crazy unintended consequences.
The bill is irredeemable. It should not only be defeated. It should be immolated, its ashes scattered over the Senate swimming pool.
Then do health care the right way -- one reform at a time, each simple and simplifying, aimed at reducing complexity, arbitrariness and inefficiency.
First, tort reform...
Second, even more simple and simplifying, abolish the prohibition against buying health insurance across state lines...
Read the rest and pass on if you want to save the best health care in the world:
http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/11/27/kill_the_bills_do_health_reform_right
Worse, they are packed into a monstrous package without any regard to each other. The only thing linking these changes -- such as the 118 new boards, commissions and programs -- is political expediency. Each must be able to garner just enough votes to pass. There is not even a pretense of a unifying vision or conceptual harmony.
The result is an overregulated, overbureaucratized system of surpassing arbitrariness and inefficiency. Throw a dart at the Senate tome:
-- You'll find mandates with financial penalties -- the amounts picked out of a hat.
-- You'll find insurance companies (who live and die by their actuarial skills) told exactly what weight to give risk factors, such as age. Currently insurance premiums for 20-somethings are about one-sixth the premiums for 60-somethings. The House bill dictates the young shall now pay at minimum one-half; the Senate bill, one-third -- numbers picked out of a hat.
-- You'll find sliding scales for health-insurance subsidies -- percentages picked out of a hat -- that will radically raise marginal income tax rates for middle- class recipients, among other crazy unintended consequences.
The bill is irredeemable. It should not only be defeated. It should be immolated, its ashes scattered over the Senate swimming pool.
Then do health care the right way -- one reform at a time, each simple and simplifying, aimed at reducing complexity, arbitrariness and inefficiency.
First, tort reform...
Second, even more simple and simplifying, abolish the prohibition against buying health insurance across state lines...
Read the rest and pass on if you want to save the best health care in the world:
http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/11/27/kill_the_bills_do_health_reform_right
Meanwhile--ACORN crimes not investigated
The Obama-Holder Justice Department turns a blind eye to ACORN Paul at Powerline
As I noted yesterday, ACORN caught a break from the Department of Justice when DOJ decided, based on a strained reading of the applicable statute, that the Obama administration can lawfully pay ACORN for services provided under contracts signed before Congress banned the government from providing money to the group. But ACORN arguably caught a bigger break by virtue of the Justice Department's unwillingness to investigate this corrupt organization.
In California, the state's liberal Attorney General, Jerry Brown, has launched an investigation of ACORN. Given the evidence of its unlawful activities, and its status as a recipient of substantial federal funds, one might have expected the Department of Justice to do the same. But under Obama-Holder, DOJ apparently has no interest in doing so.
A friend who has experience in these matters puts DOJ's lack of interest in perspective:
"DOJ has initiated grand jury probes of major businesses, and government contractors, with far less in the way of evidence than is available in the public domain on ACORN right now. It's also ironic that the DOJ has had in place for several years a Procurement Fraud Task Force that goes after contractors who receive federal funds through fraud or collusion, or bribery, or the like. And in the new administration, DOJ announced with fanfare a so-called "Recovery Initiative" that will target fraud and abuse in connection with the expenditure of "stimulus" money. Some of those very dollars are probably going to ACORN, but somehow the Recovery Initiative folks appear not to have noticed."
In response to the California investigation, ACORN's San Diego Country office discarded documents in large quantities just days before investigators were scheduled to visit. My friend points out that one reason DOJ issues subpoenas when it has reason to believe federal contractors may have engaged in misconduct is precisely to freeze a universe of documents, since it is an obvious federal felony to destroy records under subpoena. But Holder's DOJ saw no reason to issue any subpoenas.
My friend concludes:
"So, the New Black Panthers get a pass on voter intimidation. The ACORN fraudsters get a pass on tax fraud and God knows what all. Members of Congress and administration appointees need not bother with tax compliance, and can dance around any number of improprieties.
"But, defend the country by engaging in aggressive interrogation of terrorist murderers using methods specifically approved by the DOJ under the previous administration? Watch out. Eric Holder and his DOJ -- now so heavily populated with fancy lawyers who, in private practice, gave those same terrorist murderers free legal services -- will investigate you relentlessly.
"Respect for the law is not something valued by this administration's DOJ, much less by its "community organizers." I predict we'll see worse on this front before we see better. "
Use link to access original post with links: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025050.php
As I noted yesterday, ACORN caught a break from the Department of Justice when DOJ decided, based on a strained reading of the applicable statute, that the Obama administration can lawfully pay ACORN for services provided under contracts signed before Congress banned the government from providing money to the group. But ACORN arguably caught a bigger break by virtue of the Justice Department's unwillingness to investigate this corrupt organization.
In California, the state's liberal Attorney General, Jerry Brown, has launched an investigation of ACORN. Given the evidence of its unlawful activities, and its status as a recipient of substantial federal funds, one might have expected the Department of Justice to do the same. But under Obama-Holder, DOJ apparently has no interest in doing so.
A friend who has experience in these matters puts DOJ's lack of interest in perspective:
"DOJ has initiated grand jury probes of major businesses, and government contractors, with far less in the way of evidence than is available in the public domain on ACORN right now. It's also ironic that the DOJ has had in place for several years a Procurement Fraud Task Force that goes after contractors who receive federal funds through fraud or collusion, or bribery, or the like. And in the new administration, DOJ announced with fanfare a so-called "Recovery Initiative" that will target fraud and abuse in connection with the expenditure of "stimulus" money. Some of those very dollars are probably going to ACORN, but somehow the Recovery Initiative folks appear not to have noticed."
In response to the California investigation, ACORN's San Diego Country office discarded documents in large quantities just days before investigators were scheduled to visit. My friend points out that one reason DOJ issues subpoenas when it has reason to believe federal contractors may have engaged in misconduct is precisely to freeze a universe of documents, since it is an obvious federal felony to destroy records under subpoena. But Holder's DOJ saw no reason to issue any subpoenas.
My friend concludes:
"So, the New Black Panthers get a pass on voter intimidation. The ACORN fraudsters get a pass on tax fraud and God knows what all. Members of Congress and administration appointees need not bother with tax compliance, and can dance around any number of improprieties.
"But, defend the country by engaging in aggressive interrogation of terrorist murderers using methods specifically approved by the DOJ under the previous administration? Watch out. Eric Holder and his DOJ -- now so heavily populated with fancy lawyers who, in private practice, gave those same terrorist murderers free legal services -- will investigate you relentlessly.
"Respect for the law is not something valued by this administration's DOJ, much less by its "community organizers." I predict we'll see worse on this front before we see better. "
Use link to access original post with links: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025050.php
Reynolds' cogent comments: Climate-gate
"Glenn Harlan Reynolds: Climategate denial foundering on army of Davids" By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds
November 29, 2009 Last week a hacker -- or, perhaps more likely, an inside "whistleblower" -- leaked huge amounts of data from the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia in Britain. The leaks demonstrated that many "insider" scientists were conspiring to block publication of dissenting views in peer-reviewed journals, while suggesting that there was data-fudging, and deliberate evasion of Freedom Of Information requests, perhaps even including deliberate destruction of data.
Worse still, the computer models themselves appear to be jerry-rigged and deeply flawed. As Declan McCullagh reported on the CBS News website, independent programmers were appalled:
“As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.
“One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: ‘I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources.’
“Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: ‘Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!’ and ‘APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION.’ Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: ‘Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!’”
None of this inspires confidence. As Megan McArdle noted on the Atlantic Monthly's website: "The IPCC report, which is the most widely relied upon in policy circles, uses this model to estimate the costs of global warming. If those costs are unreliable, then any cost-benefit analysis is totally worthless. Obviously, this also casts their reluctance to conform with FOI requests in a slightly different light.”
Yes, they're acting as if they've got something to hide. But the establishment's response has been to ignore the problem and hope it goes away.
Climate Czar Carol Browner responded: "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."
The problem is that the "2,500 scientists" she refers to were relying on data and models that, it now appears, may have been fake. Garbage in, garbage out. Plenty of scientists believed in Piltdown Man, too, for a while...
Read the original for links to email sources:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Climategate-denial-foundering-on-army-of-Davids-8595184-76420732.html
November 29, 2009 Last week a hacker -- or, perhaps more likely, an inside "whistleblower" -- leaked huge amounts of data from the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia in Britain. The leaks demonstrated that many "insider" scientists were conspiring to block publication of dissenting views in peer-reviewed journals, while suggesting that there was data-fudging, and deliberate evasion of Freedom Of Information requests, perhaps even including deliberate destruction of data.
Worse still, the computer models themselves appear to be jerry-rigged and deeply flawed. As Declan McCullagh reported on the CBS News website, independent programmers were appalled:
“As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.
“One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: ‘I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources.’
“Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: ‘Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!’ and ‘APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION.’ Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: ‘Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!’”
None of this inspires confidence. As Megan McArdle noted on the Atlantic Monthly's website: "The IPCC report, which is the most widely relied upon in policy circles, uses this model to estimate the costs of global warming. If those costs are unreliable, then any cost-benefit analysis is totally worthless. Obviously, this also casts their reluctance to conform with FOI requests in a slightly different light.”
Yes, they're acting as if they've got something to hide. But the establishment's response has been to ignore the problem and hope it goes away.
Climate Czar Carol Browner responded: "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."
The problem is that the "2,500 scientists" she refers to were relying on data and models that, it now appears, may have been fake. Garbage in, garbage out. Plenty of scientists believed in Piltdown Man, too, for a while...
Read the original for links to email sources:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Climategate-denial-foundering-on-army-of-Davids-8595184-76420732.html
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
"The Dog Ate My Tree Rings" [Mark Steyn]
The most obvious thing that strikes anyone wading through the CRU documents is how easy it was for a small number of "experts" to propel their data-raped conclusions first into a "peer-reviewed" "consensus" and then up through western governments into the international fait accomplis of Kyoto, the IPCC and now Copenhagen. I initially assumed stuff like this was just a bit of naked obstructionism toward a few troublemakers:
"I find it hard to believe that the British Antarctic Survey would permit the deletion of relevant files for two recent publications or that there aren't any backups for the deleted data on institutional servers."
But no, it was systemic. Hysterical queens like Gordon Brown are demanding we introduce global taxation, micro-regulation of every aspect of your life, massive multi-trillion dollar transfers from the productive sector to eco-rackets and transnational bureaucracies, bovine flatulence levies and extraterrestrial surveillance of once sovereign states on the basis of fevered speculations for which there is no raw data:
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years...
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building...
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible."
No raw data, huh? But why let that stand in your way?
"Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe."
But don't worry. It'll all be very scientific. Your carbon allowance numbers will be kept in a big database. Maybe in East Anglia?
The most obvious thing that strikes anyone wading through the CRU documents is how easy it was for a small number of "experts" to propel their data-raped conclusions first into a "peer-reviewed" "consensus" and then up through western governments into the international fait accomplis of Kyoto, the IPCC and now Copenhagen. I initially assumed stuff like this was just a bit of naked obstructionism toward a few troublemakers:
"I find it hard to believe that the British Antarctic Survey would permit the deletion of relevant files for two recent publications or that there aren't any backups for the deleted data on institutional servers."
But no, it was systemic. Hysterical queens like Gordon Brown are demanding we introduce global taxation, micro-regulation of every aspect of your life, massive multi-trillion dollar transfers from the productive sector to eco-rackets and transnational bureaucracies, bovine flatulence levies and extraterrestrial surveillance of once sovereign states on the basis of fevered speculations for which there is no raw data:
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years...
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building...
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible."
No raw data, huh? But why let that stand in your way?
"Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe."
But don't worry. It'll all be very scientific. Your carbon allowance numbers will be kept in a big database. Maybe in East Anglia?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)