Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
Albert Einstein
Earlier One-Off Post: Is Rich Lowry Right?
Guest Rant of the Day
So we are doomed to see Britain’s lights going out, all because the feather-headed lunatics in charge of our energy policy still believe that they’ve got to do something to save the planet from that CO2-induced global warming which this weekend has been covering much of the country up to a foot deep in snow. Meanwhile, the Indians are planning to build 455 new coal-fired power stations which will add more CO2 to the atmosphere of the planet every week than Britain emits in a year.- Christopher Booker, Telegraph (HT Carpe Diem)Reason's Nanny of the Month
Definitely not what I encountered on my last visit of Starbucks, but really I'm more impressed by, and more likely to tip, a friendly, attentive middle-aged waitress whom keeps my cup filled; why should people be threatened by what can be seen on any beach for free?
1913: A Bad Year... The Income Tax, the Fed, the Popular Election of Senators
Probably people would question the last point: indeed, do you honestly believe that the 87% Democratic state legislature of Massachusetts would have chosen Scott Brown to the reminder of Ted Kennedy's term in office? How could I reject something as intuitively obvious and democratic as the direct election of senators? Recall before that, senators served at the discretion of state legislatures... And these days you have the sad case of Blago whom thought that being able to name a replacement to Obama's Senate seat was his "golden ticket"...
We see self-financed millionaires trying to win Senate seats (granted, you still have to win a primary and general elections), out-of-state groups or even the political opposition pushing less viable candidates to nominations (e.'g., Delaware and Missouri) or influence the general election, e.g., Nevada.
Crazy Conspiracy Theories
I'm not going to embarrass the financial newsletter publisher by identifying it, but it's probably the wildest conspiracy theory I've heard involving Obama to date.
According to this one, Obama will order (via the EPA) a cessation to all fracking activity. The fracking process has yielded significant increases in new domestic supplies of oil and especially natural gas. Environmental activists have been fear-mongering about leakage of fracking chemicals into aquifers or drinking water supplies (for one brief, balanced discussion of this issue see here). (Other fear-mongering includes an exacerbation of earthquake risk, etc.) In any event, the conspiracy theorist suggestions that this edict would deal a heavy economic blow to several energy-producing states, notably North Dakota and Texas. And recall there was a kerfuffle a few months back about Texans considering secession from the US.
Texas entered the union with a fairly unique stipulation allowing the state to subdivide into 5 states; in this theory, Texas would respond by exercising its split-state option, potentially adding up to 8 new GOP senators. The theorist suggests Obama would crack down on Texas, possibly arresting the state government, including the legislature.
This is almost as delusional as the cost projections of ObamaCare. First, natural gas by fracking has lowered utility costs across the country. Second, natural gas emits half the CO2 of other carbon-based fuels; Obama is also trying to get truck fleets to be converted to run on natural gas, and coal-based plants are being replaced with natural gas ones. All of Obama's green-energy boondoggles haven't had the impact of much cheaper natural gas. Shale development adds good-paying jobs and tax revenue. Any moratorium in fracking would likely cause natural gas prices, utility rates, etc., to skyrocket. Obama has tried to claim credit for less foreign oil imports. Fracking has been going on for years with minimal adverse environmental impact. There would be a heavy political price to Obama, and I think, just as in the case of Obama's illegal moratorium on Gulf offshore drilling, existing vendors will be backed up in court.
Once Again, the Gay Marriage Kerfuffle
Any familiar reader knows that I support the traditional definition of marriage, although I am fine with legally equivalent domestic partnerships/civil unions for gays and believe the State has no right intervening in the private lives of mutually consenting gay people. I don't intend to repeat myself here--I just want to briefly respond to certain talking points.
First, on the Defense of Marriage Act. I have already written I think if there is a substantive ruling, it will be that a state definition of marriage (including gay marriage) will take precedence over a more restrictive federal one. I don't think it will find a constitutional right to marry for nontraditional lifestyles.
Hearing Obama's SCOTUS justices question the motive of DOMA was patently absurd. At the time of DOMA, no state had legalized gay marriage. It simply stated for the record the de facto common definition of marriage in all states since the nation's beginning. DOMA did not forbid the states' rights to expand marriage to nontraditional relationships. I also point out the traditional definition of marriage underscored concerns about polygamy in the Utah territory before it won statehood.
Bill O'Reilly recently opined that the gay marriage people had a more compelling argument, that all opponents could do is reference their Bible. NONSENSE! The traditional definition of marriage has been observed across cultures and religions. Straights did not invent marriage to exclude gay marriage. It has been around for at least 6000 years. It no doubt evolved as a way of promoting social stability and providing a context for procreation and sustainability of society. Procreation is decided by natural, not arbitrary factors. Straights did not arbitrarily restrict gays from marriage or revoke that right. Any right existed by judicial fiat. Gays have been trying to extend marriage. And let me point out in California, gay domestic partners already enjoyed marriage-like legal rights. Many of us against extending the definition note that the stability of marriage and family has suffered since the sexual revolution and are worried about the unintended consequences of socially experimental policies.
Finally, the latest issue of Time announces the American people have already decided the issue (presumably in favor of "gay marriage"). This is a load of crap and wishful thinking: a couple of vaguely worded polls and only a couple of recent close victories in a couple of very liberal states where pro-marriage forces were heavily outspent and out-organized. What about the majority of states which have already reaffirmed traditional marriage, most by wide margin? No doubt younger people are influenced by openly pro-gay groupthink Big Entertainment and academia.. Probably a number of people feel it's a case of "be careful of what you wish for"--Jimmy Kimmel quipped that he was looking forward to 'Gay Divorce Court'.
Political Cartoon
Think that the government will fish you out? Maybe if you're in your prime earning years... Who else is going to pay its taxes or buy its bonds?
 |
| Courtesy of IBD's Michael Ramirez and Townhall |
Earth, Wind and Fire, "Getaway"
