Archive for the ‘California’ Category

Stupid liberals!

February 11, 2007

Hi Brit,

I was reading this, Hybrid-Only Car Service Launches in San Francisco, and it hit me as to just how stupid liberals are, as a general rule.  The key point in this is that, according to the story, the idea is to make rich people flying into Nanny Pelosi’s home town feel better by taking “green” transportation around town, after dumping untold tons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere while flying in a fuel waisting jet.  Then I read the details, and was shocked.  Keep in mind that the article is tainted with the usual liberal bias, even though it does throw in a tiny hit about the jet travel thing, but it also includes, “with a fleet of leather-seated Priuses.”  I’m sure that the reporter, not knowing squat about Global Warming, didn’t think twice about this.  However, the secondary part of the Climate Change Conspiracy, the one that really gets the radical liberals frothing at the mouth over its potential for bringing about social change, is the implication of cow farts in heating up the globe.  That would, of course, be the methane content in the massive flatulence produced by our bovine food supply, which is an excuse for left wing groups to insist everyone turn vegetarian.  Thus the paradoxical nature of a “green” car with leather seats.  Oh, well, I am assuming that the leather was produced from cow hide and not Jews, but that is most likely a safe assumption.

the Grit

How long can you hold your breath?

February 9, 2007

Hi Brit,

I just read this, Congress eyes legislation to fight climate change, and immediately asked myself “how long can I hold my breath?”  After all, each of us expel the Evil Greenhouse Gas CO2 with each breath, and, now that Nanny Pelosi has the issue firmly clinched in her dentures, I expect that soon we will be faced with a Breath Tax, to encourage us to slow down our individual contributions to Global Warming.  By my quick, and not necessarily totally accurate, calculations, we in the US can offset her jet set life style if we each take 30 fewer breaths per day.  Of course, this increased interest in decreasing our breath rates will have at least one benefit, that being, getting some of the joggers off the road.

Although, considering that:

The White House said Snow was referring to figures from the International Energy Agency that from 2000 to 2004, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion grew by 1.7 percent, while in the European Union such emissions grew by 5 percent.  From: U.S. cuts emissions better than Europe: White House.

It would seem obvious to any rational person, thus excluding most Democrats I admit, that we are on the correct path to achieve the liberal agenda of reducing CO2 emissions without further Government meddling.  With liberals in control, of course, they will ignore the facts, raise taxes and piddle around in our lives until they manage to, not only, increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions, but, also, screw up our economy.  Typical.

the Grit

You want speed? You can’t handle speed!

February 7, 2007

Hi Brit,

Just reading about this made me need to take some quiet time in the corner, Air Force Tests Ballistic Missile in California.  This missile went 4,200 miles in about 20 minutes, which is 210 miles per minute, or, 3.5 miles per second.  If that ride wouldn’t make you need to change your shorts, you have mighty fine self control.

the Grit

Global Warming 2007

February 4, 2007

Hi Grit

I believe our first post on the issue of Global Warming was getting on for three months ago. Since then I have participated a few times and read with interest all of the comments from both sides of the divide, along with studying all of the literature that people who have commented have posted have directed us towards. I hasten to add here that I am not a scientist, so there are aspects that I would not understand. However, I consider myself an intelligent person capable of assimilating sufficient data and making a reasoned judgement. Therefore, I feel that I have a reasonable understanding of the issues so far made available. A rider to this of course is that, in view of the enormous amount of data on the subject, both for and against, it is impossible for any one individual, scientists included, to be able to assimilate it all and I would be no exception to that rule.

I do not intend this post to become embroiled in detailed scientific argument, as that will produce just a series of scientific counter arguments from both sides. It is my intention to comment on the structure and management of the analysis and the way the global warming issue is being handled.

With the IPCC report being published this month (February 2007) and it being one of a series being produced this year, many are claiming that this puts beyond doubt all of the global warming issues, particularly with regard to this being a “man-made” phenomena. However, whilst I accept that global warming exists, there are several factors that I would take issue with, both in terms of the report itself and the general reaction.

My first point of concern here is the secret nature of parts of the process building up to the report issue. In letters to Governments and Organisations in December and October 2006, although having made these letters public, they have deleted text within them, which appears to be access to the draft report. This raises two issues. Firstly, as the report is intended to benefit all of mankind, why is there a need for withholding any information? Secondly, does one presuppose that, by virtue of some deletions there could be changes of significance that the IPCC would rather the public did not see? In my view, transparency in this above all issues facing mankind is of paramount importance. Anything less is unacceptable.

(Un)Certainty – In a document issued in July 2005, the IPCC issued guidance notes regarding the ways the lead authors should address uncertainty. It could be construed that some of these guidance are of a leading nature as it is asking that all issues to be consistent with the approach determined in the document. Another issue related to this document, which I will come to later is Table 4 – Likelihood Scale (on page 4.)

Consensus – My understanding of the term consensus is that it is the agreement of the majority, after having mitigated the objections of the opposing views. I read somewhere that, in this report it was to be a consensus of 300. I believe this needs more clarification. Bearing in mind that the report was produced by over 2,500 scientists, plus 800 contributing authors, plus 450 lead authors, I have difficulty in equating the consensus of 300 with these figures and feel they need further explanation.

Confidence – The levels of confidence are divided into five sectors, as can be seen on page 3 (table 3) of the summary report. On the other hand, the likelihood scale is divided by seven. In my view, this inequality between the two scales is confusing. Surely, it would have been more rational to have equal divisions on the two scales.

2.) The Response
In a number of areas, the immediate response to the report has not been rational. The hype concentrated on the term moved from “likely” to “very likely.” As you say Grit, the latter term relates to 90% probability. However, this also does not accurately reflect the findings of the report.

On the summary for policymakers, page 3, there is a chart of human influence on trends. The chart lists seven areas of influence under three references. The term “very likely” only appears in two instances. In media and other responses, there is no reference to other aspects of this table. Whilst I do not blame the scientists for this, it does appear that the “powers that be” are guilty of misrepresentation in this instance. Again, this raises suspicions in the minds of the public and questions as to the agenda for the report.

Is it thought that the public is not intelligent enough to understand the full information or was the hype deliberately directed by politicians?

3.) Remedies
It is disappointing to learn that a detailed study on remedies will not be available from the IPCC until later in the year. If, as has been reported, we only have ten years to address this problem, I fail to see any conceivable reason why the research on remedies was not designed to produce results in the same timescale as this current report. Six months or more has been lost. The argument that the scale of the problem has only just been defined does not wash as this report follows on from one that was issued six years ago.

Of the remedies that are being put into action, there are some issues as well. Firstly, there is serious concern regarding the consequences on remedies and cooperation between agencies. The case of Basel in Switzerland as I reported earlier is a classic example. Looking to achieve global warming saving measures, people began drilling into the earth’s surface starting a chain tremor reaction that they cannot possibly control, potentially unleashing more harm than good. How many more projects are being mishandled in this way?

In addition, there is the problem that has been raised regarding the potential danger from energy saving light. Has anyone evaluated the potential future harm of following this route, if not, why not?

Only a few weeks I posed the question how do we know that remedies can be controlled. The above are two obvious examples of that not being the case.

Another contentious issue is nuclear energy. Scientists say that this will go a long way to addressing the global warming issue, and I agree that this is one of the most efficient ways of producing energy. However, it is almost impossible to use this option within a volatile world, where there are countries such as Iran and North Korea who could not be guaranteed to utilise this method for peaceful purposes. Similarly, accidents happen as we saw in Russia, and that can be equally damaging.

In the UK, the go ahead has been given to build two huge wind farms off the coast. All of the reporting on this has concentrated on the benefits, which is admirable. Nevertheless, little has been written about the downside of such action. The effect on the bird life needs to be identified, an area where naturalists have raised concerns. But what about the effect on tides and wave patterns?

Finally, in this section, I would like to ask why existing remedies, which require little cost, are not being used. For example, with the airline issue there is a “greener” fuel available, but is currently only being used in military aircraft. The emission levels are significantly lower than normal aircraft fuel and there is, as I understand it, no cost differential. I have heard that the argument against it is safety, which I find incredible. Are we saying that the lives of the military are of less value than other citizens? If not, take the step and change the fuel.

4.) The Carbon Footprint
Much is being made of the need to reduce the global footprint. However, there seems to be a great deal of double standards in this area. The media, the UK BBC organisation being a case in point, are saying that their contribution is by publishing the issues and that, in some way, this seems to exempt them from responding to the carbon footprint limitations. At the same time, the IPCC, governments and other NGO’s are spending millions of dollars transporting thousands of people to conferences and meetings all over the globe. Yet, these organisations are asking us, airlines, and other sectors to reduce our carbon footprint. Surely, one should lead by example. Whatever happened to the ability to achieve video and Internet conferencing?

There is a lot of pressure being placed upon airlines to cut their carbon footprint, yet unless I have missed it, no one has answered the question of why, in the 24 hours post 9/11 when most air travel was grounded, there was an increase in earth warming for that day. Has anyone analysed what effect reducing the carbon footprint, particularly in air travel, will have in this respect? In other words, has the downside of the equation been quantified?

In my view, one of the largest and most expensive carbon footprints is laid by governments nationally and globally. Yet, we see no clear picture of measures that these people are taking steps to address this. In the UK, politicians are asking us to reduce our carbon footprint, and even putting pressure on the Royal family to do so. All well and good, but what do we see the politicians doing? The answer is very little. Do not ask me to do something unless you are prepared to match it and lead by example Mr Government.

5.) Political
I have to admit that I was amazed at the token gestures made by some governments by calling for an hour without lights. This seems to me to have been counter-productive. Did anyone monitor the results of these actions? As I have said, I am no scientist, but from what little I know the resultant surge from it, with all electrical compliances being switched on again more than counteracts the benefits of the gesture in the first place. Has there been a study made of this and is it a responsible response? Surely, such theatricals should have been left until the position was well known by the public and they could have been advised about the cost.

In respect of the above, the political response is similar in many ways to the media reaction. It is uncontrolled, irrational and without serious thought as to how to present the issue in a way that will generate the right response. The political response between nations is also not harmonious, which does little to engender confidence.

6.) The media Circus
Unfortunately, the media circus has continued, even on the latest event. I watched a news programme in the UK, which was designed purely to entertain the public, rather than get the message across. In this programme, they spend the time passing a copy of the report through screens to reporters in different countries, such as Europe, Australia, India and the US. No attempt is made to explain the message properly.

In addition to the previously mentioned carbon footprint of this situation, I noticed also another problem. The report they were passing was a fake. They were wads of blank paper with just the title cover printed. It was obvious from the reporter’s comments that none of them had read any of the documents and it was just a publicity stunt to show how clever the network was.

Can this be the right approach to what is meant to be a serious matter? I seriously doubt it.

7.) The Cost
Another issue that really annoys me is cost, and here I am talking about the financial side. Every aspect of the global warming issue in terms of conservation and remedies always seems to be followed by additional cost to the individual. What happens to the resultant savings from change? Who gets those?

Leaving aside the dangers of energy efficient light bulbs discussed earlier, one of the main reasons their use is limited is the cost. In the UK, they are over 6 times the price of current bulbs. If politicians and scientists are serious about this issue, then use some of the billions of waste to reduce the cost of remedies to a competitive level. It is a short-term commitment. Then demand will grow and the effective change desired will be achieved with far more speed and fluency. Another example is public transport service. Raising prices and cutting services on what is considered a “greener” method of transport does not seem to me to be an approach that will increase its usage.

Every time someone mentions global warming, it seems to result in the public having to put their hands in their pockets. Is it any wonder that this meets with resistance?

8.) Kyoto Agreement
There have been arguments about the effectiveness of the Kyoto agreement, mainly centring on those countries that have not signed up to it. However, there are countries within the agreement that have not met their targets, such as Canada. Before the world goes off trying to find another agreement, we need to know how effective this one has been, and that information has not been publicly forthcoming.

How many countries met the targets set? What effect has it had on carbon emissions? How much worse would it have been were the agreement not in place? Surely, we are entitled to this information in the public arena. If it has not been effective, even with those countries that signed up, then it is the wrong answer or structure and we need to look for another resolution.

The other matter here is the developing countries, which has still not been properly addressed in my view. All this documentation seems to be indicating that the only way they can help is to deprive themselves of the advances in technology that the developed world has. Is this going to be acceptable to them? I cannot see this being the case. Therefore any agreement needs to take their situation into account, without placing an untenable burden on the developed world. 

9.) Nation, NGO Bashing and fairness
Why is it that every time there is an issue of global importance there is an automatic nation, NGO or business witch-hunt? This posturing does nothing to confirm the validity of the situation, in fact the opposite. The French attack on the US is a prime example. It is almost as if it is just a fight amongst politicians to see who can be top dog, rather than a serious issues that requires global accord. Besides, there are other countries that have taken the same stance as the US, so singling out the big boy on the block is not only unfair, it smacks of this will get me the biggest headline. Countries antagonising each other will lead only to one conclusion, namely that nothing constructive will be done.

Other sectors are also being bashed, in my view sometimes unfairly. Business is always a favourite. Whilst I accept that, in some cases their response is not good on some issues, they are generally responsive to consumer demands. In the case of global warming, it is fair to say that in many cases business is being far more positive in their actions than politicians are. For example, the supermarket industry in the UK is taking active reduction measures, whereas politicians are looking at costly offset programmes, which in the end are second best options.

Similarly, I object to some of the rhetoric and language that is used by the various lobbies on global warming, from both sides of the divide. To call someone a denialist or sceptics because they do not accept ones argument is as bad as calling someone an “eco-nut” for proposing the argument in the first place. Serious issues demand serious discussion and conversation and this requires patience. At present, the stance taken by some scientists and many politicians on the issue of global warming is too dictatorial, dismissive and impatient. All it does is make both sides more entrenched in their views, which is counter-productive.

The problem with a divide of this nature is that both sides lose. Both sides spend so much time attacking the other that they do not a) fully understand the argument of the other and b) do not gain from the potential valid points within the others cases, validity that could be of significance to their own studies.

I do not consider myself a denialist or a sceptic on this issue. However, I am also not going to be sat down and told this is the problem and anyone who disagrees is wrong. I need to understand the full facts supporting the issue, including analysis of assumptions; explanations of provable facts and honest acceptance and discussion on those that cannot be proven. I want risk assessment on all aspects of the issue, including remedies and I want acknowledgement of and discussion regarding opposing views.

As I said previously, one of the things that infuriate me about the current IPCC/Political situation is the piecemeal approach. In my years as a business consultant any report that I produced did not only identify and make conclusions about the problem, it was also required to provide recommendations that had been expertly evaluated. If it did not I was failing in my task. Governments and the scientific world have taken six years to prepare this report. I fail to see why, at the same time, and for publication at the same date, the remedial data could not have been produced.

the Brit

Queen Pelosi?

February 2, 2007

Hi Brit,

I knew when the election results came in last year the Pelosi would be a constant source of inspiration.  I didn’t think it would be this good though, Speaker pursues military flights.  The key to this story is not that Queen Pelosi wants free rides in military planes, being secure and staying in contact with Washington is part of her job as Speaker.  However, she is also demanding, “regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation.”  Sorry, Nanny Pelosi.  You’re are Speaker of the House, not royalty.  Family and friends have to fly commercial.  That’s the price you pay for the new ethics rules.  Besides, you shouldn’t be flying anyway.  Don’t you believe in Global Warming?  Aren’t you concerned about the size of your carbon footprint?  Oh, I forgot.  All that stuff only applies to us peasants.

the Grit

The mask continues to slip from the face of liberalism.

February 1, 2007

Hi Brit,

It seems that the recent victory of the Democrats may well be their destruction.  Power has already started going to their heads, and, in the internal struggle for position and status, their true nature is coming out: Sanchez Accuses Democrat of Calling Her a ‘Whore,’ Resigns from Hispanic Group.  True or not the accusation brings to light the sexism rampant in the liberal camp, while the very existence of a separate group open only to Hispanics shows their embrace of racism.  No wonder liberals are so eager to pass laws against these things; having these afflictions themselves, they assume the worst in everyone.

the Grit

Pelosi’s home town drama.

February 1, 2007

Hi Brit,

This goes a ways toward explaining why Nanny Pelosi is, let us say, a bit confused about how much Government people really need, AIDE QUITS AS NEWSOM’S AFFAIR WITH HIS WIFE IS REVEALED.  The steamy details boil down to, the Mayor of San Francisco at one time was sleeping with his secretary who was the wife of his campaign manager, and all was fine until the wife in question confessed to her husband during a rehab program for substance abuse, after which the aide told the Mayor off then quit.  Apparently, none of the governed are upset, with the exception of the guy who quit, and the Mayor is sad that the guy who’s wife he banged won’t stay on the job.  Environment, it would seem, does play a significant role in how people turn out.

the Grit

Look out! The light bulb police are coming!

January 31, 2007

Hi Brit,

Besides being a sign of the end of the world, it’s also one of the most ridiculous things I’ve read lately, California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012.  (notice the target date)  Of course, since this will leave the poor in the dark, the State will, no doubt, pass out the free bulbs along with free condoms.  However, considering the eco-freak attitude of California’s population, this also proves that they are either poorly informed or insane.  You have read the packages on those fluorescent bulbs, haven’t you?  They contain mercury.  That is, they contain it until they break.  You can’t even throw them in the trash, least they contaminate the local landfill.  So, between all the extra hazardous material clean up teams, the cost of special disposal on a grand scale, and the expense of a light bulb police force to make certain no one smuggles an evil incandescent bulb into the state, I’m not even sure it will save energy.

the Grit

LA Latinos Shaken, But Not By Quake

January 26, 2007

Hi Brit,

According to this story, California Latinos fearful after immigration raids, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) finally seems to be doing its job.  Of course, the liberal press, represented this time by Tim Gaynor, who wrote the piece, are taking the side of the poor scared law breaking criminal illegal aliens.  I say they should be scared, all criminals should!  Get out of my country and take Tim Gaynor with you!

Oh, and not only is ICE doing a better job, they’re also getting more creative in naming their operations.  The one in the article that has the liberals all upset was called, “Operation Return to Sender.”   Assuming that the Feds didn’t waste money hiring a consultant to come up with that, I offer my admiration and congratulations.

the Grit

Sick in San Francisco

January 25, 2007

Hi Brit,

It looks like San Francisco didn’t send all its liberals to Washington.  Apparently they kept enough to pass a new law, Paid Sick and Take-Care-of-Your-Neighbor Days to Be Mandatory in San Francisco.  How appropriate that Nanny Pelosi’s home town is taking a giant step forward in the race to achieve a total socialist Nanny State.  I’m surprised that they didn’t go ahead and require the employer to deliver a bowl of chicken soup and a bottle of aspirin the the “sick” employee, on foot, to reduce carbon emissions.  Ah, how I long for the days when the mountain range and desert that perpetrates me from the liberal bastion that is California offered some protection from their insanity.

the Grit

Hillary not liberal enough?

January 25, 2007

Hi Brit,

It seems there is some politics inside politics out on the Left Coast, Hillary’s Hollywood Friends Switch Sides.  Could it be that Hillary isn’t liberal enough for the Rich and Famous?  Or, has sexism come to Tinsel Town?  Perhaps, and I’ll go out on a limb here, it’s because Senator Clinton is a bitch?  Well, that one probably isn’t right.  The liberal elite have plenty of bitches among their number, so they should be used to that.  Ah, I’ve got it, Barack Obama is the Antichrist and has them under his spell.  And not the Spawn of Satan, could it be that the mysterious would-be-President is even more liberal than the Wicked Witch of New York?

As to Senator Obama, there’s also a rumor going around that he’s a Muslim and attended a madrassa while his family lived in Indonesia, Obama Versus Fox News.   I saw a bit on this last week, but figured it was too good to be true.  However, now that I’ve read that piece, I begin to feel that the Secretive Senator does protest too much.  Not to fear, I’m so sure the liberal press will not sleep until they cover up the truth behind this ugly rumor.  Oh, I meant to say, uncover the truth.  Sorry.  My bad.

the Grit

Celebrities cause climate change!

January 24, 2007

Hi Brit,

While I have suspected this for a while now, finally there’s proof: The private jet set.  Sure, the Rich and Famous talk a fine game, and are quick to tell us common folk not to drive gas guzzling SUVs, but they don’t seem to have any problems zipping around in private jets.  You know, I can’t think of any mode of transportation that belches more CO2 per person mile than a jet.  For that matter, I seem to recall reading that almost all of our Congress people fly home every weekend and back to DC on Monday.  For the Speaker Lady, that’s several thousand high pollution miles.  It makes one wonder just how much of the Global Warming “problem” is actually caused by the very people who are so intent on making us sacrifice to fix it. 

So, I think the first thing Nanny Pelosi should do to prove her sincerity about stopping Climate Change, is to ban private ownership of aircraft.  She should also impose an “air miles” allotment scheme like they’re planning on doing for Carbon emissions.  Then, if the Rich and Famous want to live the jet set life, they’ll have to share some of that wealth.

the Grit

Hollywood should worry about their own neighborhood

January 21, 2007

Hi Brit,

Speaking of Celebrities telling other people how to live, I came across this story: L.A. Vows Gang Crackdown After Kids Die and it got me to thinking that Hollywood, the center of all things Celebrity, is in Los Angeles.  So I looked up crime statistics for the area, Crime Maps and COMPSTAT (click on City – Wide Crime Statistics.)  Wow!  35 murders in less than a month, along with 54 rapes, 1049 robberies, and 915 aggravated assaults.  I’d say the Rich and Famous need to clean up their own neighborhood, a notoriously liberal area by the way, before they try and spread their political ideology to the rest of the country. 

 the grit

Kiss my ass Robert Redford!

January 19, 2007

Hi Brit,

It never ceases to both amaze and anger me at how the liberal elite consider themselves to be our betters.  In this case it’s a fine actor who has allowed his celebrity to go to his head that is making an ass out of himself by thinking being famous makes him smart, Redford demands apology over Iraq

Robert, considering that your fame and fortune rest on your pretty face (it was once) and your ability to say what others have written in a believable way, you should be happy sitting in the corner dreaming of days past when most people knew who you are.  At the same time, you should also remember that the people who cared what you thought were few and far between, and, over the decades as your talent and beauty faded, their numbers have dwindled.  While I have enjoyed your work in the past, for which I thank you, you have been well rewarded and seem to enjoy a life style far better than that of the average person.  I would point out, however, that your continued luxurious wealth only puts the lie to your supposed liberal ideas, as a true liberal would long ago have given all his money to the poor that he claims to care so greatly for.  Console yourself that you are not alone in this hypocrisy; there are hundreds of your fat cat brothers and sisters paying lip service to socialist values, while living the good life and avoiding paying every tax their accountants can sneak around.  Personally, I don’t understand how any of you can stand to look in a mirror.

So, getting back to the report of your political rant, since I know you can read, else you wouldn’t have been able to memorize the lines which made you rich, I would suggest that, rather than speaking of things you obviously know so little about, you spend your twilight hours reading history.  Between chapters, you can pause, briefly, to kiss my ass.

the Grit

Bush or Pelosi? Go for conviction and that begins with B.

January 16, 2007

Hey Grit,

As a Brit I probably should not be getting involved in this debate, but what the heck my countrymen and friends are in Iraq, so why not. In addition, our heir to the throne, Prince Harry, is about to join the British forces in Iraq as well, and I quite like the guy.

So here goes! If asked to support the policies of Bush or Pelosi on this issue, I would side with the President. Many would criticise that decision, but I think it is well founded for a number of reasons.

It seems to me that in a number of countries when the lastest war with Iraq was about to start, that opposition parties and a large number of people, supported the effort to remove Sadam Hussain. Now that, to many, that reason has been achieved, they seem to want to get the heck out and leave the rest too it.

I don’t know how many British troops have died in Iraq, but it is several hundreds. Add that to your 3,000 and others, and that is heck of a lot of individuals who, on the basis of support for the war, went and laid down their lives as asked by their country. It appears to me that, turning around and walking away at this time is being disrespectful to those service men and women. At least Bush is showing respect for these people.

They died to free oppressed people and there is still work to do. The new democratic government of Iraq, having been given a chance through the blood of these people, need help to finish the job of creating a just society. Give them that chance.

the Brit

Who has bigger stones, Pelosi or Bush?

January 16, 2007

Hi Brit,

Since both our countries are in the Iraq war together, I thought you might be interested in this political smack down, Pelosi warns Bush shouldn’t ‘abuse power’ on troop escalation.  I know Pelosi and her pack of snarling liberal Democrats talk a good game, but one has to wonder if they’re brave enough to cut funding for troops in the field?  My guess is  that they won’t dare.  However, there are some Republicans that may take Pelosi’s side, although that may just be a ploy to lure her into a trap.  Good times; good times.

the Grit

Global Warming politics heats up.

January 13, 2007

Hi Brit,

Once again, I told you so 😉  Six senators back mandatory greenhouse gas cuts, and it’s not just liberals playing the climate crisis card, conservatives are in on this one as well.  And, of course, the liberal press won’t report just how much this is going to add to our utility bills, which are not insignificant at the moment, thank you very much.  It would also stifle attempts to expand our electric production, so California can look forward to more rolling blackouts in the future, which, I have no doubt, will be blamed on President Bush, who will deserve it if he signs any such legislation into law.  I’m going to save the list of Senators sponsoring this bill, and the list of those who vote for it, and can promise them now that my vote won’t tally under their names, unless the electronic voting machines are, as suggested, rigged.

the Grit

Pelosi dines at Big Business trough!

January 12, 2007

Hi Brit,

It’s amusing to watch the players change, while the the game stays the same.  Instead of following up on her promise to run an honest and open Congress, Nanny Pelosi is dishing out the political favors for Big Business in her home district of San Francisco.  This time, she’s directed the party of the people, that would be Democrats, in a scheme to get credit for raising the minimum wage, while helping her home town cronies by screwing the workers in American Samoa:

GOP hits Pelosi’s ‘hypocrisy’ on wage bill

The only way I can figure this one out is that our Speaker Lady doesn’t consider Samoans to be people.  Well, she could just be on the take from the tuna companies.  Someone who out in SF should keep an eye on her house to see if any tuna shaped packages are delivered.

the Grit

California seduces one more to the dark side.

January 10, 2007

Hi Brit,

In my continuing quest to figure out what character flaw or genetic defect turns people into liberals, I’ve been thrown a curve ball.  Sure I know Arnold runs with a bad crowd, including Teddy Kennedy, a known rich and famous elitist drunken sexist liberal murderer, but, I had high hopes for Schwarzenegger.  Hell, if anybody should understand the value of hard work and self determination it should be him, right?  Unfortunately, it seems he’s been blinded by the dark side of political power, Schwarzenegger: Calif. is ‘nation-state’ leading world.  Apparently we do need to toughen up that citizenship test, especially the parts concerning the Constitution and the Civil War.

the Grit

Arnold terminates California health care

January 9, 2007

Hi Brit,

Does it ever seem to you that power drives people crazy?  I often feel that way, and here’s a good example of it: Gov. seeks sweeping health system reforms.  Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is registered as a Republican, although he doesn’t seem to have read the party platform, wants everyone in California to have health insurance, while at the same time bringing down health care costs.  To do this, he wants to tax businesses, doctors, and hospitals.  Right off the top, it seems obvious that taxing doctors and hospitals isn’t going to lower health care costs, assuming, of course, that one wants doctors and hospitals to stay in California.  Which, may well be at the heart of Arnold’s plan.  After all, if no health care is available, health care costs drop to zero, and the Government gets to keep the tax on business to waste on other projects.  Perhaps the Governator is taking the right approach after all.  Somehow though, I expect to pay for part of this somewhere down the line.

the Grit