My First Comic In 20 Years!

I have truly been slacking. When I was a kid I used to draw all of the time. And while I do creative artistic work with regularity, i don't really spend any time drawing comics, at least not to any level of completion.

Well tonight as I was headed home I had this thought that I needed to put down on paper. A couple hours later after digitally coloring it and adding captions, here it is! (Clicking the comic will open a larger version)




Feel free to leave me your thoughts in the form of comments!

climate scheming

As reported by the BBC, hackers target a lead climate research unit's server to capture files and private emails. They successfully downloaded a number of very damaging emails where scientists were discussing topics such as: ouster the scientists who don't agree with them, hiding climate study results that don't agree with their conclusions, altering data to support their perspectives, etc.

The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) hacked email system included emails from a veritable "Who's who" of AGW climate scientists, so says the climategate web site. So this brings into question the work directly contributed to the IPCC report very much at the center of the AGW debate.

The site climate gate has also reported the story has been in contact with individuals who were included in the list of hacked emails willing to confirm that the emails matched emails they previously authored. At the same time both climate gate and the BBC have reported that the hacked group is willing to verify that they were hacked but were unwilling to address any specific questions about the contact of the emails or documents.

I think it is reasonable to demand more verification of the facts, and it is not reasonable for this group to simply be unwilling to face the accusation posed by their own hacked emails. At the same time I am not surprised that they are willing to simply not address those very disturbing emails. In one of the emails they are completely honest (privately with each other) about refusing to provide all of the supporting data and models associated with one of their "scientific" conclusions.

Four of the biggest posed cover-ups in those emails have everything to do with [1] screening comments on the supposedly neutral RealClimate.org website to ensure a pro-AGW message, [2] "fixing" data to make the historical record appear to consistently rise in temperature over the industrial revolution period, [3] altering land and ocean temperature difference data to hide the reasonable conclusion that the models do not take into account the amount of "urban island" warming heat measurement effect and [4] hiding the fact that measured temperature trends for the last entire decade breaks their trend and invalidates their trending models' conclusions. These three pieces of evidence, acknowledged by these AGW advocates who's science found the results and are now scheming to hide the evidence, would be a significant and reasonable breach in the armor of the AGW initiative.

What does that mean for average Americans?

It means that AGW as a factor in making political decisions is now reasonably in question and that AGW skeptical science results aren't just coming from skeptics but from the models of pro-AGW scientists. We can now put our carbon-tax checkbooks away and ask people like Al Gore to go sell crazy somewhere else.

Dreams Of War

I woke up this morning face down in my bed. My brain was fuzzy from the deep sleep I just had and I wasn't sure what was real and what was not.

Last nights dream had me sitting along a concrete wall with a crowd of people wearing jeans and jackets or military camouflage. I was still near home in the Arlington area, but along a road that seems to be on a hill. As I looked down the road the sky grew darker and there were flashes of colored lights and the sounds of explosions like faint thunder.

The soldiers around me seemed experienced and calm but also a little anxious. The scene began to make sense as it would seem that the civilian people in the crowd were joining the military in battle down the hill. It was an all-hands-on-deck moment where anyone who could fight was about to.

I was as cool as... ok, completely not true. When faced with the fact that I was in the masses about to go down the hill I started to think about the mortal possibilities. I said to myself, “I don't want to die.” The soldier to my right turned and said, “What? Did you say something?” I repeated my self only a little louder for sympathies sake. Everyone was going down the hill. There was no getting out of it and I was prepared to go. But I was also marking the moment, acknowledging that it could be my last on the planet.

There were soldiers and civilians walking around everywhere making preparations. Then people started going over and down the hill. I turned to the soldier on my left and smiled. She seemed experienced but also empathized with my cavalcade of emotions. People were moving forward now. I reached over for the soldier and for some reason we kissed. It was just simple human contact I think. The desire to connect with something positive and full of normalcy that I think caused that to happen. I don't know.

The hilarious thing to me is that I am the first guy in a movie that instinctively calls out “Come on! Do we have time for this?” in a theater when two characters kiss in the middle of an action sequence. Now, while my motivation didn't really parallel the passion that you see on the silver screen in a action-moment-kiss I think I could understand how if given the right amount of stress and time, such a thing could actually happen.

I woke up after that, my alarm calling me from my sleep.

I can say that this is likely a media dream. Between reading the book “flashforward” to watching the TV shows “V” and “Flashforward” and recently beating the video game “Modern Warefare 2” and all of the press talking about a Congress bankrupting the country, the idea of being engaged in a bunch of unsettling upheaval where regular citizens have to get involved or get plowed under seems to be at the front of my mind.

Save Money, Get Breast Cancer

The American Cancer Society is not recommending any changes to breast cancer screening, despite what a government task force says about self and mammogram breast cancer screening.

You might wonder why I would care about this issue. Am I just being political somehow? Yes and no. I lost my mother to cancer and I am hopeful that people will keep an eye on potentially political decisions on health care.

For the last 20 years the American Cancer Society has recommended that women start preventative exams at the age of 40 and recommends self exams regularly and mammograms once per year. At the same time the government committee called the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force claims that the costs associated with breast cancer screening and biopsy scares a lot of people unnecessarily and doesn't “substantially” improve the odds for survival.

I recall when my friend Gregg became sick with cancer. He and his wife did everything they possibly could to fight, fight, fight. I seriously doubt that they weighed the idea of not trying something because the odds weren't “substantial.”

In the case of my mother, every medical professional agreed: if her cancer had been caught earlier, it wouldn't have been fatal. In her case colon cancer became liver cancer which eventually spread until her body couldn't fight it any longer.

According to Dr. Otis Brawley, the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, “This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over.” He went on to say that the committee is “essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them.”

While Medicare and private insurance companies are currently not announcing any changes in coverage at this time, they admit that the U.S. Preventative Service Task Force reports do influence the coverage plans of those groups.

All of this to say, I believe we are looking at an in-kind example of government managed health care decision models that would change the rules for mandated insurance coverage and cost containment. If you haven't been paying attention, it would be likely true that a government run health option would decide rules like this and fine health insurance that didn't “competitively” conform to the types of service decided by new government managed health care rules.

What is even more disconcerting is the idea that these declarations are coming from a preventative task force. This is like your local Police deciding not to respond to all 911 calls because, statistically a certain number of crimes never get solved. At what point should efforts in prevention decide to stop passing along preventative advice and instead only pass along advice proportionate to the amount of potential benefit? I know the answer to that one. Never! Nobody wants to be a cancer statistic.

So with respect to statistics, and in conclusion, let's briefly review a few stats. According to cancer.gov, if you are woman who is diagnosed with breast cancer...

• you are 1 in 233 if you are in your 30s
• you are 1 in 69 if you are in your 40s
• you are 1 in 38 if you are in your 50s
• you are 1 in 27 if you are in your 60s

Which of those statistics do you want to become? If I could ask your families and friends that question, I know the answer would unanimously be, "You are 1 person fully worthy of not becoming a cancer statistic."

Health Insurance For Illegal Immigrants

Congress has made a lot of statements about Health Care Reform and specifically providing a public option. People who have read the bills proposed have shown serious concern about supporting a bill that funds a government run health insurance plan, especially a plan that can be utilized by people who are not here legally. Here is the idea...

In a nutshell, not everyone benefiting from the plan will be paying taxes. In fact, quite a few will not be paying taxes. So those who are paying taxes (that's you middle-class) will be financially backing this plan and so naturally you might prefer the the idea that IF you are going to pay then you would rather limit your financial investment to only paying for people who are currently citizens or who have undergone the complicated, lengthy and costly process of earning the right to be here legally. Now... I have lost most of your at this point! Most of you either don't want the public option (because it has almost nothing to do with reform in reality) or don't want a plan that pretends to save you money on health insurance only to crank the cost back up again through new taxes! I get you!!! But stay with me.

As a protective measure to at least mitigate some risk with regard to paying for illegal immigrant health care a number of senators have proposed passing an amendment to any health care bill that closes the illegal immigrant loophole. Well, as reasonable as that sounds, Dems won't have it.

"I would find it extremely difficult to vote for any measure that denies undocumented workers health care," said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat. He said undocumented workers should be allowed access to insurance coverage provided that they get no tax assistance.

This sneaky little health care quote above is from the Washington Times newspaper. Breaking his verbiage down, this is what he means:

• I would find it extremely difficult to vote for any measure that denies undocumented workers health care: the missing word here is "coverage." Nobody is talking about denying health care. If someone gets sick in America and they are not FROM America, we do not refuse them health care. What we don't do is pay their bill... well, in some cases. To date, many hospitals have philanthropic arms that "forgive" medical bills for people. So, nobody is really talking about refusing health care to anyone. The Illinois Democrat is simply making an emotional appeal here. What he really means is that he WANTS to allow people who are living here illegally the ability to participate in the public health care insurance option.
  
  
• He said undocumented workers should be allowed access to insurance coverage provided that they get no tax assistance : This means that the illegal immigrant CAN take part and sign up for a public option. What he doesn't want to allow is the Federal Government cutting that illegal immigrant a "tax credit" check that further subsidizes that public health care option provided by the Federally Funded Health Insurance Plan!!!

You see there are two moving parts in this plan. First, the whole plan will be funded through taxation (now basically admitted when Congress asked state Governors to sign a letter that committed states to help fund the Congressional Health Care Scam.. I mean Plan.) Secondly, in addition to the existence of a Federally run Health Insurance public option plan they want to cut checks to people (also paid by you in taxation) in the form of a "tax credit" to make the plan more affordable.

Note that this week Republicans are also going to present a plan to help control the rising cost of Health Care. This is a very limited plan with a number of reforms (many in the legal realm) that would likely lower the cost of health care due to reduced number of fraudulent lawsuits which would in return likely reduce the number of unnecessary butt-covering procedures that doctors have learned to employ to simply reduce their legal exposure but that do not help the person who is undergoing the procedure or bearing the cost of that procedure. Keep an eye out for that proposal and read up on it. It actually works to achieve the initial goal of Health Care reform!

Health Care Reform Passing The Bill

So in a revelation shared by the Washington Times newspaper Congress has asked state Democrat Governors to sign a letter to Congress promising to locally fund the medicare portion of the health care bill.

Basically, Congress can't find a way to make their health care plan affordable so they are hiding cost at the state level. What does this mean to us?

Well, first off it means that Congress can't balance the cost of this program. Secondly, it means that your local state politicians will have to raise money to pay for these programs. Said another way, Congress is looking to find a way to semantically claim they have an affordable plan while pushing program taxation down to a state decision so that they don't get blamed for it.

What is the outcome of this? Well in the case of a number of state governors they are either refusing to sign the letter or are getting vocal about the Fed not printing more funny money to pay for these programs we cannot afford.

So, let's add up the score so far. Dems in Congress can't balance the cost of the plan. A number of Dems have gotten vocal about refusing to support a plan with a public option. Other Dems don't think the cost is something American can wisely invest in right now. So Congress reaches down to the state level in search of more support and more than 25% of those politically aligned Governors are vocal about the fiscally irresponsible budget-busting nature of the Congressional plan. In my score book the American's are still loosing the Congressional Health Care Reform game!

Nick Hornby, Naked

“Tomorrow morning, a hand full of middle-aged men would be regretting that they had gone to bed much too late.”

- Nick Hornby from Juliet, Naked

About one week ago I was looking for something new to read and noticed that the new Nick Hornby book was about to hit stands. So on my Kindle DX I decided to try out the whole advanced order thing. The Kindle is supposed to download the book auto-magically the morning that the book release happens. If you are a fanatically fast reader then you could have consumed it before the typical 10am rush to pick the book up at a Barnes and Noble. I however, was not in a rush.

Jumping ahead: Yesterday morning I was thinking about how I was enjoying the book and googled Nick Hornby to see if I was remembering a story correctly. Within a few clicks on was on his website where, to my surprise, I realized that he would be a few miles away in the bookstore Politics and Prose right here in town. So right after work I threw on the ipod, grabbed my satchel bag and hit the metro.

For the next fourty minutes with a train change I was able to devour a few more chapters of Juliet, Naked, reminding me about why I enjoy his books.

One mile walk later after my final metro destination I was sitting just a couple of rows away from the front of the podium. The room was filling quickly and we had another 40 minutes of waiting to do. I strategically placed myself on the side of the room with two doors and an office. I figured he would walk into the room from that corn if he shows up at all!

Lo and behold, about ten minutes before the beginning of the talk I noticed he was standing in the glass window of the room adjacent to me chatting with the bookstore event hosts. How fun.

The time with Nick started off with him updating everyone on his recent efforts and then he dove right into reading two excerpts from his book. The first was from a bit I had already read and I found it very interesting that he audibly “performed” his characters by taking on a different persona when each one spoke. It reminded me of my mother reading a children's book to some kids in her old classroom. The second piece was from a bit I had not yet read and frankly I didn't want to spoil it so in classic guy-style I willed myself into a mentally vegetative state so I would be sure and not retain any of what he read at that point... totally worked!

After the reading they setup two microphones and streams of people lined up to ask all manner of questions. All I can say is that he was quite a patient and down to earth man. One person who prefaced his question with a very articulately accurate and eloquently detailed history of the forgotten industrial working class in England asked "Who, in fact, are your books audience?" As I turned my eyes to Nick Hornby, his eyes went from wide-eyed near-panic to smiling and he said "Thank you for that!" I think he too was wondering where the mans dissertation was going and if he would be ready to speak to the question at all! Funny stuff.

After the lecture he was supposed to sign books, or butts or foreheads or whatever and so I quickly re-purchased my favorite book of his, “How To Be Good” rather than have him sign my Kindle... or my butt.

In line I had the pleasure of meeting quite a few other Nick Hornby fans where we exchanged notes on favorite NH characters and stories as well as other authors and books. The 30+ minutes in line went quickly being surrounded with well-read and well-mannered people with apt social skills and a desire to tell their personal stories.

When it was my opportunity I handed him my book and said, “I... your book... so much...in the one with the.... and YOU!....thank you!”

Just kidding. I didn't fumble my way through it. I had a chance to say hello and thank him for his books and tell him how I liked them and ask him if he ever went skydiving. OK, not that last question, but we did speak briefly and it was a pretty fun experience.

Bill Clinton on Meet The Press

This Sunday on "Meet The Press" former president Bill Clinton spent some time talking about the continued war on terror. The conversation focused on efforts in Afghanistan.

He was asked the question "Will committing tens of thousands of U.S. troops to the war in Afghanistan make Americans safer?"

I found Bill Clintons response very thought-provoking.

'The answer to that is maybe..."

He went on to quote General McChrystal, "...we have to have an "Iraqi surge in Anbar."

Former President Clinton added "that worked well there... I think what the president is saying without saying it... is that an American surge in Afghanistan maybe be a necessary condition for success."

This is interesting for two reasons: political and for national safety.

Political:

All personal politics aside, I sometimes find it difficult to differentiate between someones ideological position and their political pandering. For example, nearing the end of the last presidential election cycle then-presidential-candidate Barack Obama stated his opposition to the Iraqi surge that then-President George Bush was supporting in the war effort in Iraq. When it was soon considered to be a success the press asked Obama how he felt about the surge effort and he remained steadfastly opposed to it, refusing to call it a success (is that ideological or political?) He could be legitimately ideologically opposed or he could have just been politically pandering.

We are now facing the fact that General McChrystal is recommending we learn from the successful surge effort in Iraq and have American forces "surge" in Afghanistan. According to Bill Clinton "that worked well there" and so we should do it because it may make Americans safer.

So what will Obama do? Was his previous opposition ideological? If so, we should see him challenge the General and oppose calling up more U.S. troops for service. That would be an ideological response. If he sends the troops in for an approved surge effort, then it wasn't ideological.

National Safety:

Some might object the premise of former President Bill Clintons arguments. Those individuals may not like the idea that any war effort is required to successfully protect Americans from Al Qaeda, which is what makes the follow-on question equally as interesting.

"What specific threat does Al Qaeda pose to the United States?"

Clinton responded, "They have proven that, alone, among all the non-state actors, they have the power to organize and execute leathal assaults far from their home base."

Clinton went on to say, "Since we've driven them into the mountains... in the ill-defined border between Pakistan and Afghanistan... their movements (and) communications have been constrained... and they've not been nearly as free to organize and mount such attacks."

The interviewer then quoted former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying, "If you abandon Afghanistan, you'll have another 9-11 in the U.S."

After briefly discussing the additional measures of protection in place around the world to stave off such attacks Clinton went on to say, "It's impossible to know that with certainty... but I would agree with her to the extent that if (Al Qaeda) have freedom of movement in Afghanistan, it will increase by some significant factor, the likelihood, that they will attack successfully, if not in the United States, somewhere else against people we consider our allies, that we have to be concerned about."

I really hope that Obama DVRed Clinton on Meet the Press. I think he should be taking notes because the man is doling out an education on foreign policy (and I am not even a Bill Clinton fan!)

In a conversation lasting less than 10 minutes Bill Clinton:

• Affirmed the Surge in Iraq.
• Made statements about the near impending necessity to surge in Afghanistan which would qualify him as a "war-monger" under the same criteria as other so-called war-mongering politicians.
• Affirmed that pinning Al Qaeda to the mountains of Afghanistan (a move in place since the "Bush Regime" .. no real progress since then) has been effective in hold down their efforts in terror.
• Affirmed the idea that a war on terror on foreign soil is in the best interest of Americans back in the United States (something people ideologically opposed to the war said was a false assertion coming from former president George Bush.)
  

If you are paying close attention former President Bill Clinton seems to be speaking quite freely these days. It truly appears he is willing to set down his political hat from time to time and discuss the war on terror without filtering for a political agenda or for partisan points. I mention this because I know people who were ready to vote for Obama simply because Obama appeared to not be a "war-monger" based on what had been his ideological stand against the war on terror.

Every day it seems that what was perceived as a commitment to ideology has been traded in for political pandering. From Iraq and Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay to invoking secrecy and non-open communication on various White House related fronts, it looks more and more like Obama was stroking the heartstrings of ideologists within a typical political agenda to romance would-be voters.

The point of sharing this isn't to call Obama a hypocrite. It is an effort to demonstrate that sometimes ideology in the hands of a politician is nothing more than political pandering. So I now mentally weigh the outcomes of the following two ideologies/panderings:

• John McCain was accused of fear-mongering when he would talk about the threat of a repeat 9-11 on U.S. soil and why fighting the war on terror seemed to be important. If he was ideologically defending the right to go find the self-proclaimed terrorists and bring them to justice, does that justify scaring people into that agenda? So, said another way, McCain show the threat without explaining, like Clinton, that there is no impending certainty, only an increased likelihood of attack, to justify going after self-proclaimed terrorists. Is leaving out the Clinton-esk differentiation of increased likelihood as opposed to perceived impending certainty fear-mongering? Maybe so.
  
  
• Barack Obama was accused of pandering to people fed up with the cost/risk/death of war for the purpose of winning votes, only to continue the same practices previously qualified as war-mongering. Said another way, Obama seems to be willing to talk against surges and war-mongering while being elected, but willing to take the same "war-mongering" actions that people elected him to stop. Is saying one thing to take a political stand with voters and then doing the opposite ideological pandering? I think so.

Which is worse? Scaring people into doing what you said you would do, or pandering to people but doing what you said you wouldn't do? Oh, I wish we didn't have to deal with either.

It seems that surging and fighting and defending to protect people from individuals or groups who are proactively threatening or have perpetrated terror is the definitive action of the president no matter who ends up being president. If you are ideologically opposed to that, then you have an up-hill battle to climb. And if you are looking to vote for senators in the coming election cycle who do not fear-monger or pander to your ideological position, well... good luck.

Watch video of the interview here:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Activist vs Extremist

“Well, she is an environmental activist,” or “He's a political extremist!”

We've all heard this, one way or another. These terms get word-smithed into various conversations as tiny little golden nuggets or strategically placed verbiage bombs of analysis to persuade the listener. I recall a day when these nouns had real meaning, but today they are generalized into social stereotypes.

Another such term was “fundamentalist” used specifically and most commonly along with a reference to someone involved with organized religion. But to be a fundamentalist you had to earn it. You didn't just “think” a certain way, you had to act our in a certain detrimental manner. “religious fundamentalist” were blowing themselves up or taking an entire 747 hostage.

Today these terms mean only one thing: you get involved with a goal of affecting some kind of outcome. The only other differentiating factor is whether that involvement is viewed as positive or negatively correlated with the person performing the analysis. For example, imagine someone who advocates for the environment. If they picketed dirty businesses or advocate frequently for public recycling, or attempt to get people to sign petitions, “well, she is an environmental activist.” The key is that you believe a certain thing and then that you try to have an influence on the world around you. But activist isn't a dirty word. It just seems to mean “involved” but in a way that the person doing the analysis prefers.

Now let's look at the other side. If someone is involved in wanting to influence the world around them toward their values but the person doing the analysis of their behavior doesn't like what they are doing, then you simply change the noun from “activist” to “extremist.”

Let's go back to the environmentalist. Take them off the picket line and simply have them sign a petition to require all city management to recycle. They value the environment and they are taking action via their signature. But if people don't like that petition they just cast it as an “petition put forth by environmental extremists,” and suddenly it gets the right negative spin. In this scenario, “extremist” is basically reduced to meaning “I don't like your cause because I don't share your perspective and I will call it extreme because you are getting involved but not in ways that I support."

Back to “fundamentalist.” The greatest abuse of word-smithing seems to happen around this generalized label. According to the free dictionary the term is defined as (1) a religious group, (2) adhering to fundamental core beliefs, (3) who are intolerant of other perspectives, and (3) who are militant (historically.) But that definition is changing. Today people get called “fundamentalists” for simply promoting a piece of legislation. In fact, to judge something as “not tolerant” is a pretty subjective act in reality. For example, let's remove militant and religious from the definition altogether and see how this terms could be applied under a looser definition like what we experience today.

Let's go back to the environmentalist. They want a bill that requires city management offices to recycle. In that law they in fact want to require that recycling be mandated. So, any law like this qualifies as “intolerant” because it makes no room for alternative perspectives on recycling. By definition only one perspective wins and it would be called "a law" and laws have a funny way of not tolerating being broken. Next the proposition of recycling would be considered adherence to a core environmental protective belief. It isn't a loose definition. It is a core belief that drives one to feel that to protect the environment we need to save it from ourselves.

(Before I go on, I want you to understand that I am not advocated against recycling. It is just an analysis of terms here. Please stick with me. We are almost there.

So by examining any effort to move a belief into law we could well define the advocates of that belief as “fundamentalist.” Suddenly the term gets smothered to nothing and what was an “environmental activist” has moved to “environmental extremist” or worse yet “environmental fundamentalist.” But these are just words.

Crazy as it may seem I think it is time to rethink our dialog. It is one thing to examine history and talk about our values and align ourselves with belief systems or liken one thing to another thing to more clearly understand it. But these terms are just labels meant to influence how you feel about the person or the associated defining adjective...

education advocate, animal rights activist, political extremist, religious fundamentalist, etc.

The more obvious attempts at influencing you come in their one-two combination as they sandwich the adjective...

extreme left-wing fundamentalist

So the next time you get into a conversation and someone starts talking about an activist, extremist or fundamentalist, don't assume you know what they mean. Maybe they are imagining the old definition of fundamentalist, and you might want to ask a refining question. For heaven's sake, don't get sucked into the buzzword war...

“Those crazy neo-environmental fundamentalists are trying to get my office to recycle.”

You reply, “Did they hijack your garbage can again?”

Your friend ponders your question, "Ah, no, but they are trying to create a rule about recycling."

In an effort to cool his jets you offer an equally silly buzzword-laden reply, "Those fascist totalitarianists should keep their garbage-management-values to themselves and let us LIVE OUR LIVES!!!"

The Cap And Trade Market Is The New Wallstreet

The word on the street is that the Carbon Pollution (still only a theory and disproved more and more everyday by observed non-anomilic science) “Cap and Trade” is poised to make certain folks into quick billionaires. GE is one of those companies. There are many others. Here is how this will work.

For some time now a number of companies organized as a group called “USCAP” have teamed up to recommend how cap and trade works. The gist is, based on recommended levels for carbon pollution, companies in the US would be awarded credits. If you are beating the cap then you get credits and if you are exceeding the cap then you need to go out and buy credits due to your credit deficit. Over the course of the next 50 years those credits would be progressively reduced lower carbon pollution numbers (wait for it.) Here is the problem.

1. Carbon pollution is not science nor are the standards. They are manufactured "Caps" (I will explain how these Caps came to be in the next point.)
   
2. The USCAP group is recommending standards that stack the deck in their favor. If the government adopts their recommendation, then since those companies have a head start on adhering to the standard they would be awarded an inequitable number of credits.

As a result many other companies would have to go to them to buy credits. And companies like GE are then awarded in the billions of dollars. Years later after politicians are willing to agree with the current science debunking AGW and proving we are on a new cooling trend, rather than returning all of our money they will only claim we've now solved AGW at a globally and ecologically infeasible speed and now we can stop doing Cap and Trade and energy taxes... wait a minute, WHO AM I KIDDING?

If the government can crank up personal energy taxes, why would they EVER STOP? And if companies can OWN the Cap and Trade system before it even gets going, how hard will they lobby Congress to keep that cashcow alive long after Anthropogenic Global Warming pseudo-science is debunked publicly?

Well, the answer is, they won't stop. This is a new industry they are creating. And we are not talking about companies trading billions based on carbon credit trading alone. Here is where you are I come in.

Carbon Cap and Trade laws would very quickly affect the average American household at the rate of over $3,000 per year. This is already all over the news based on the plan being proposed. If you think you have a tight budget now, imagine finding another $3,000 per year to handle trickle down Cap and Trade economics. If you are single with a roommate renting a home, well then it will only be $1,500+ for you, but I am sure you are now doing the math. As energy costs go up, also due specifically to energy taxes, it is being estimated that people will retire older electronic devices and from who will they purchase those new devices? Two letters: G.E.

This also affects companies and communities. G.E. is not only a major participant in crafting the Cap and Trade recommendations to the US Government but it is the largest manufacturer of the purported consumer AND company AND community level “solutions”. Where will people buy windmills from? New generator? Updated "low polution" arcraft engines? G.E. And this is only one company in the mix.

Let's talk about oil. Since the beginning of AGW theories ExxonMobil has been quit public about disputing the science behind the claims. And while they have not publicly changed their position, they are surprisingly getting involved in USCAP to help shape those policies before they become laws. So they aren't debating the fact that they don't believe in AGW anymore today than they did yesterday. They are only reading the writing on the wall and grabbing a seat at the big table so they can be one of the key families in the new enviro-mafia.

So (like usual) let’s do the math:

Cap and Trade doesn’t solve any problems, it creates a new trade market.

Moreover it creates or IMPLEMENTS a scheduled problem for average Americans to which that same group “creating” the problem will then be the very group providing the solution. The last time I heard a storyline like this I think I was watching the movie “The Godfather.” I am just starting to really understand those funny new “Tea Parties” in the news these days. You know? Those blips in the news where the media tells you that a few people got together to complain about taxes? Well, historically, people got pretty pissed because England wanted to get more money out of the colonies, so while England controlled the tea being exported to the colonies, they saw an opportunity in controlling the taxes associated with them. To be fair, Cap and Trade is just a new Tea Tax. But in this case it isn't tea they are taxing, it is carbon - the most prevelant element in the known universe. Said another way, if America could tax you for breathing, comparitively they couldn't raise as much funding as the AGW carbon "polution" taxation market will be able to do.

So, am I nuts? Where do I get the guts to call Cap and Trade a planned ploy to create a problem and then pimp the only solution? Well, just follow the story for yourself…

OK, be a good American and read these two articles:

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em: Industry owns Cap and Trade rather than really being about Green Legislation

…and…

Cap and Trade Slumlords: If going green is so altruistic, how did Al Gore go from a net worth of $2 million at the end of his vice presidency to over $100 million in only eight years due to the new green market?

...and if you prefer to watch video instead then check out...

The Party Of No

It is time for a "political" reality check and they are accompanied by a few "scenarios" I would like to run past you. Give your most honest answer to the following questions:

1. Your kid just blew his allowance on candy, ate it all, got sick from it, and now has your checkbook. That kid is now saying that the only way to keep from getting more sick is to get a bit more of the "hair of the dog that bit him" and needs you to finance the next candy run. "Mom, I am sick! This is the recommendation from the person holding your checkbook! Are you really just going to do NOTHING!? I am sick and getting sicker... what is your ANSWER?" Yes or No. (Remember, your only option is Yes = more candy, or NO = be accused of doing nothing.)
   
   
2. Your neighbor drove home last night drunk... into the side of their house. Their entire home is now an uninhabitable portico. Give it a few more hours and the roof will cave in. The people in the next town think that the house looks horrible and that crappy drive-through home must be bringing down the value of your home. So here is the thing. Those folks from the next town over think that they should do something about this and so they grab your checkbook. The "thing" they do is tell you, "Hey, if we don't stabilize this house so that your reckless drunk-of-a-neighbor can keep living there then it won't bode well for you. This is the recommendation from the person holding your checkbook! Are you really just going to do NOTHING!? They are about to not be able to live in that house... what is your ANSWER?" Yes or No. (Remember, your only option is Yes = spend your hard earned money on refinancing your neighbors ability to continue living in that house regardless of their relationship to that property, how they got into it, or how they are taking care of business, or NO = be accused of doing nothing.)
   
   
3. You check your bank account only to find out that your spend-thrift spouse has slowly been bleeding dry your retirement on various pet projects that are all currently falling to pieces around you (sculptures in the back yard, half a hole dug for an in-ground pool, a few half-built guest houses designed for a couple visiting relatives now all semi-permanent homes to two dozen people you don't know demanding better room service.) You recall having "financial risk" conversations about this sort of thing previously, and you even wanted to set thresholds on those accounts but couldn't get your spouse to agree... now you know why. You confront your spouse, and that spouse simply yells at you saying "Well, your name is on the account too, YOU should have STOPPED ME! So really this is your fault! Moreover, we have half a pool here and people need their pillows fluffed, so I need you to go take out another mortgage on the house so we can finish this pool and buy bigger pillows! This is the recommendation from the person holding a copy of your checkbook! Are you really just going to do NOTHING!? This POOL AIN'T GONNA SWIM IN ITSELF HERE!!! ...what is your ANSWER?" Yes or No. (Remember, Yes = refinance your own home to save, stabilize and bring to fruition a number of projects that are full-on imploding in your own backyard, or No = be accused of doing nothing.)

My best guess is that even the most conservative or liberal individual can think of a dozen very reasonable alternatives to any of these crazy scenarios to make for a positive outcome. Being given no options where only agreeing makes you look reasonable and disagreeing makes you look like a jerk IS unreasonable. Did you enjoy being pigeonholed into simply agreeing with someone who was threatening to call you bad-names if you didn't? The fact is, it is tyranny to pretend like you are getting choices when you aren't.

When the Henry Ford was selling his Model T in the 1920s and was asked "What colors will it come in?" his reply was, "You can have any color you want, as long as that color is black." Well, this is the mantra of the Democrats in congress as well as our President at the moment. "You can have any change you want, as long as it's the change we are promoting," with the caveat, "and if you don't want our change, screw your alternatives, you are just the 'party of no' that's what you are."

If you are an American and you believe in democracy then you have to stand up to this tyrannical rediculum that is forcing their agenda without debate and calling anyone who opposes them bad-names, creating political commercials and smear campaigns to propagandize the masses! (and before you run out and blame Republicans for the defense-related political decisions of the post-9-11-era, go back and look at debates and voting records on those issues before your polarize your perspective. Things can change and should. But they should change because it is the change we want(sound familiar) and not because one group calls us names if we want to look at our options.)

Favorite Quote of the Day

"...and this is case-and-point that the Federal Government needs to get their heads out of their..."
- Government Consultant

I think there needs to be an OverheardInDC.com website like overheardinnewyork.com where people can add such quotes.

This was the tail end of a conversation about how the government is currently creating opportunities that allow certain bailout beneficiaries the ability to double-dip into deep Federal pockets (and by Federal pockets I really mean the pockets lined with money that is defered debt that will live like a weight on the backs of soon-to-be-employed generations like my young niece and nephew.)

Only in America do we entrust trillions of dollars to the same leadership that not only caused the problem but as well didn't see it coming. At a time when our government should be focused on putting out the fires across our enblazoned economy, they are spending money on making the fire department prettier.

The Polls Are In: Big Media Lost

Of 100% percent of Americans influenced by big media, 115% of them claimed to be influenced from 0 to 250% of the time.

Statistics make my head hurt. Not really, but what is worse is when statistics hold no bearing on reality. In a last ditch effort to do the political thing before it drives me crazy I thought I would share some of these more recent stats with everyone.

In the last two elections, polls leading up to and in the election had George W. Bush losing the presidential race, or at least that is what Big Media would like you to think.

Over the last two elections, two major blunders seemed (to me) to play out: everyone thought that young adults were going to come out in droves and vote. At the same time, big media houses promoting statistics that didn't represent reality seemed to have an adverse affect on the looser (presumptively, I will admit. It seems that if people think their candidate is winning, then they don't bother going out to vote.)

Ignoring statistics completely, based on the buzz that surrounds Obama vs. McCain, which way do you think the country is leaning? If the amount of support and buzz equals poll results, what do you think those statistics should look like? Is Obama leading the charge for change in the minds of American voters? Is McCain the maverick this country needs according to poll results?

Surprisingly I haven't heard a lot about polls so far this election. If I do, then they are about a very specific demographic on a very specific topic. But what about polls with regard to the general election. Let's take a look at the same poll source that the LA Times refers to.

Before you run out to re-examine the political bias of the LA Times, understand that RealClearPolitics is there source (in some cases.) RealClearPolitics takes a look at a number of polling firms to get a larger picture of how the polls measure up across polling companies. So how do the numbers look at this time then?

According to the polls page of RealClearPolitics when taking into account polls from the major networks, Associated press, Gallup and others (ten sources in all on the frontpage) seven show McCain leading the polls, two show Obama with a one point gain, and one shows a tie, giving McCain more than a two point lead (notice that USA Today shows McCain in more of a lead than FOX News.)

Interesting stuff.

Side-note: RealClearPolitics, on the same page, offers insight into the approval rating for congress. Wow. Hanging at or around an all time low. Asking the same question as this article in the LA Times, wasn't this the congress that outed the GOP and took over the majority role, campaigning for change, promising to clean up Congress? So let me get this right. Campaigning for change, promising to clean up congress, in the voting majority, outcome equalling the lowest ratings of Congress in history. I know that I definitely hear the press talk about how frustrated and disappointed and unapproving the population is of Republican President George W. Bush. Seldom do we hear that the Democrat-led-Congress is also achieving an all time low in the minds of voters. Blameshifting asside, Washington seems romantically infatuated with promoting change. Sadly, current history tells us that we as a population are just getting hoodwinked by politicians again and again, bringing us the earcandy that we love and not delivering much else.

Again, if you want change, then look at the change-agenda of the presidential candidates this election and hope that your candidate will do what they say. All we have is hope. "But Steve, I don't trust the other guy. He is shady. I am voting for the lesser of two evils." Ah, they are all Shady, don't kid yourself. Just vote for the one who's talking points you most agree with and hope they keep their word.

I have said it before. I think all of the candidates have issues that make them look good or bad, visionary or revisionistic, substantial or shallow, etc. I am just affraid that this election might be the biggest goof-up in history when we simply don't take the time to listen and learn, but rather we are obessing about what Sarah Palin might have said about Dinosaurs. (if you don't want to take the time to follow the link, here is the hint: the quote was a fake quote made up as a joke.)

So whether you think Sarah Palin doesn't have the prerequisit experience to be Vice President, or if you think that Obama, who has less years of experience than Palin, doesn't have enough experience to be President, get into the real facts and stop pimping rediculum.

UPDATE: A friend of mine sent me a couple link that might be of value to you. Yahoo! has setup a political dashboard that simplifies a view into general election polls. You can view this here:

Yahoo! Election 08 Political Dashboard

As well, if you are interested in hearing about why the nation is going McCain, here is an article from Politico on Yahoo! News.

On the topic of: War Isn't Very Pro-Life

Recently someone I know made such a statement. It is a good one to think about. I don't mean that anecdotally. I mean, I hope you really think through this one. And whether you fall into pro-life position or not, or an anti-war position or not, I thought this would be an interesting statement to examine.

First, let’s talk about what sucks about these “labels” here:

Pro-life: The idea here is that “pro-life” means all life is sanctimonious and we should honor it in a vacuum. In reality, anyone who says they believe this is a bit more ideological than they are being realistic. The majority of people I know, eat harvested vegetables, and hamburgers, have been hurt enough in a personal way to wish someone else wasn’t on the planet (that last bit is pretty heavy, but in some cases sadly true.) I think the real definition of pro-life had everything to do with defending defenseless babies. On the flip side I think that statement offended folks on the other side of the fence because I do not know a single pro-choicer who felt they were the implied “pro-death.” So, I will grant anyone the possibility that if they say “pro-life” they mean those terms under some new definition, but I really think the issue was about defending the life of humans who couldn’t defend themselves.

War: Nobody is about to put a great definition to war. Outside of Hollywood and a few historical figures with clinical issues, I don’t think that anyone would say that war happens, for the sake of war and in a vacuum. So let’s put a couple definitions to it for the sake of argument:

“War is about death.”

Based on a definition like that, I don’t know anyone who is pro-war. Based on a definition like that, I can see how “war is not very pro-life.” But I don’t think that the goal of war is to cause death, as if an end in itself. In fact if we follow the rules of war at all in the world, we honor our enemies when we defeat them in a battle by not killing them. So this definition, while it may be true that people do die in war, is too simplistic a definition and more importantly doesn’t make sense as a definition (unless again, we are talking about Hollywood or a few crazy people from history.) What about this definition:

“War is standing terror in the face and saying, not only will we not give one more inch to you, but we will take back what was stolen in defense of the defenseless.”

I think that people can see a definition like this, but because of death, they struggle with it. Is war, is standing our ground and taken lost ground back worth the cost of the loss of so much life? I surely cannot answer that but I could imagine giving my life for a cause! (mind you I said imagine… I have never really come too close but a few times stood across from Russian solders with guns wondering if maybe I was about to?) If I give my life for a cause, then is war in that case OK? If in giving my life in defense of something I also at the same time defend my life, does that suddenly make me a war-monger? I think maybe you can see how answering this question becomes complicated. Apparently, for those living in a vacuum defending against tyranny or even fighting for the right against tyranny, if it ends in death, like the vacuum-sealed definition of pro-life above, death and killing is always a moral wrong and so they join Bruce Springsteen in asking the question, “War, what is it good for?” But I have found that many people, like I said above, will kill for food or defend their families to the death, but after seven degrees of separation from war they start to imagine that these simpler definitions actually make sense. I don't see how they can.

I have heard people say that defending war at a peacetime is like being a vegetarian between meals, meaning that once war is upon you, you won’t care about the value of it any more. You will just want out of it. I believe that to be true (that doesn't mean we should get out, but we surely might want to.) I have heard Hollywood say that once you are in war you forget about politics and are just trying to save yourself and your friends to your left and to your right. I also remember talking to World War II vets who talked about their duty to defend against tyrannical figures like Adolf Hitler. There are always so many reactions: from fear, to friendship, to duty and honor. All of them are valid and make the whole thing complex and multifaceted. I suppose if I were in the service or married to someone who was, I might feel these ideas hit closer to home. But I would honor the career decision of my spouse. rather than say that if her career bring her into participating in war, regardless of defending life and values, she is now not very pro-life (or pro-death as it implies, however you can stomache it.)

So in the end I don’t know that I have convinced you or me that “war is (or isn’t) very pro-life” other than to say that I think that statement is light and un-inspected at best. It is anecdotally quotable at worst as an over-simplification of the complexity and origin of why we might defend helpless babies, pigeonhole pro-choice folks as if they are pro-death, or feel reasonably that anyone is pro-war under the definition that war is killing for the sake of killing. I imagine that the quote is simply being passed along without thinking about these ideas, and so that is why I share them.

Maybe you have thoughts of your own? Feel free to comment. Remember, it’s only a monologue if you refuse to turn it into a dialog!

Flip-flopping politicians?

Yes. This is yet another blog entry out on the web that is curiously questioning what is going on inside the mind of Barack Obama.

According to MSNBC news, over the past few weeks Obama has made a few moves that are getting him labeled as a flip-flopper. (As well, so that people don't accuse MSNBC of being a conservative media perspective, here is Bob Herbert of the New York Times questioning Obama's politics!) For example, do you recall the heat he and Sen. Hilary Clinton got into when Hillary talked about a need to get out of Iraq, but Obama said that she landed way to far into the conservative political perspective on that point? He was all about making it a priority to get out of Iraq. The devil in the details, he more recently revealed a plan / recommendation that got us out of Iraq in 16 months (so 1.33 years after he would theoretically get into office.) Now, he saying that he doesn't want to undervalue the progress that is being made in Iraq, the "gains" that we are working hard to establish, so he is ready to be more flexible on when we leave in hopes that even more progress is made toward stability. Wait? He claimed we shouldn't be there to begin with? And he has been screaming "get out" for more than a year now. I know people who are ready to vote for Obama almost completely on this issue alone! Suddenly progress is happening, so he jumps on board and getting the troops home is less of a priority? At best, this leaves people wondering what his priorities and motivation really are here. Apparently, knowing his rhetoric isn't nearly enough. He was raging against a "stay the course" conservative proposal, and now suddenly he seems to support it.

In addition to that, he recently supported an augmented surveillance intelligence bill. This was a bit of a shocker to most, in that he is suddenly running against the majority opinion of his party.

As well, Barack had a fairly firm position about thoughts on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has suddenly softened and at the same time he publicly supported the Supreme Courts ruling in favor of upholding citizen gun owning laws (this was about the Supreme Court overturning a hand gun ban in DC) as well as landing in a more conservative perspective on the death penalty. Wow! Who is this guy? (Actually, the issue of being OK with the death penalty in the case of intense issues like "child rape" is a known issue that Obama somewhat supported before. It was only recently that is has become a political opportunity to re-brand him as a more politically moderate candidate. That doesn't stop press folks like Bob Herbert from calling his support of the death penalty in any form "barbaric.")

Now, a naive person might (only might) think that "this is the true perspective" of Obama finally coming through. Or they might ask the question, "Wouldn't this mean that He is a candidate that more people can get behind?" but really I think it begs another question altogether.

I think the question is, if these more recent political moves reflect a side to Obama we are only now being exposed to (he never voted like this in his previous years of politics -- he always voted the party line, nearly 100% of the time), then is his short run in federal politics significant enough to really throw our weight behind in an election? Said another way, if these decisions blur our political view and understanding of him (and the experts say it raises reasonable questions) then how do we back him, if we are not honestly sure how he truly stands on these issues? I would grant enough grace to the general population in that I don't think people could have imagined that he would be doing and saying some of the stuff he is siding with these days, so they could reasonably question this whole "change" rhetoric and at this point not be accused of flip-flopping themselves.

Personally, I think we can see with more certainty the positions of McCain and Clinton. It has me wondering if the Democratic party might want to reconsider the candidate they are backing. Or in reality, they likely will not reconsider. Why? Because Washington already knows he is a politician like all of them. The best we could hope for is a good guess on how they will truly act and react as president. In the case of Obama, he can motivate you and make you feel you are on the team, but the question is, where is this team going, really.

In conclusion, I think that this significantly raises into question what sort of "change" Obama has been imagining, if he is now siding with stuff that we imagined he previously wanted to change. Or are these recent political decisions reducing his "change" speeches into hype-rhetoric to get people excited (i.e. "Hey, I want change and he wants change. We must want the same change!? Go Obama, go!"). Maybe what we are seeing is a man who wants votes so he is compromising his values to gain more middle-ground? Who knows, and that is the problem. As Markos Moutlisas writes in his blog entry on July 8th, Obama is "now acting like every other politician. For those who thought he was something 'new' and 'different', fact is, he's behaving like every other politician before him."

I would love to hear peoples thoughts on this. If anyone wants to blog their own explanations of what this is really all about, write about it on your blog and add a link to the blog entry in my comments on my blog here!