I am getting more and more puzzled by the use of race in this election and more and more disheartened by what that shows about America.

I feel like a lone voice in America protesting the use of race as a polarizing and defining characteristic.

While Biden can say how much of a transformative thing it will be to elect a black man, Ferraro is blasted for noting that Obama's race was an obvious factor in his candidacy.

In fact several high profile mentions of race have been made late, both here and internationally, all pointing fingers to how good it will be to elect a black man, and more importantly, how bad it will be if we don't.

The fact is that if Obama is not elected president, the only aspect of his candidacy that will matter will be that of race.

We may not have the race riots and such that people like Al Sharpton have warned of, but we will certainly have a national debate about race, and about how we are still stuck in the days of Jim Crow because those racist white folk will not break their racial fears and hatred long enough to elect a black man.

We will be subject to (highly paid) expert after expert trotted out in a line all with woeful dour faces bemoaning our loss of progress in equality.

We will have white shills to run apologies for the rest of the poor unenlightened racists.

And little will be said about the fact that maybe some people believe that McCain might be a better choice for president.

It doesn't matter that Obama's policies are nothing special despite his claims to be the candidate of change and hope. It certainly won't matter that he himself noted in 2004 that he would not run in 2008 because he would not be ready. Nor will it matter that his years of legislative service have left little signs of innovation or leadership. In fact little of anything.

Race.

His associations with former terrorists will obviously not be an issue, nor will his advisers having anti semitic views.

No, it will be his race.

The stage has been clearly set already such that no matter how decisive a win among any demographic of voters for McCain, the loss will still be seen as a setback to racial equality, and a slap in the face of Dr King's dream.

So what does that say about us? First, it does not say we are racists.

It actually says that we fear racism. We fear the accusations. We fear the implications and the insinuations.

Our history is clear about the horrific acts of racism in America, and the stigma of being called a racist is one of the most dire, at least to the whites in America. Blacks are insulated by the modern mindset that says that they cannot be racists, because only whites are. Google institutional racism, cultural racism or white privilege to see.

Or read this.

Racial guilt is for sale in every corner of America.

What this really shows is that we have not come as far as we want to think we have. Oh not in the attitudes of white people. I think the claims that whites harbor inborn institutional racism are bogus. I think the real problem is that many minorities are harboring a sense of racial paranoia.

I am not even claiming I blame them necessarily, I think the fact that so many bad things have been done that a certain amount of distrust may be warranted.

My problem is that too many minorities are far to eager to assume racism any time a white person is on the other side of the debate. The vast majority of whites in America are not racist, and wish only to live in equality. They also at some level would like people to stop poking trembling fingers of outrage in their faces anytime an situation they are involved in involves a person of color.

What I also really have a problem with is the race baiter's who manipulate, use and flat out depend on that distrust for their livelihood, for their success and for their rise to power. And let me assure, you there is a huge industry that depends on race as its motivator.

Obama preaches a good fair message, but his campaign and almost all of his ardent supporters in some sense display this manipulation. They are all depending on race bringing in the black vote and on racial paranoia keeping people from voting against him.

Lost amid this is any sense of whether Obama is good for the country. In reality he offers nothing new, so the race between him and Palin McCain is in most ways the race race we have run for the last 30 years. The liberal v Conservative showdown, where Abortion is more important than national security as far as some people are concerned.

Without his race to galvanize his base, he would be just another junior senator.

So what does this show? It shows that racism is no longer a cultural condition.

it is a product, an industry, a tool and a tactic.

And that's the real problem.

That's just how I see it, Straight Up,

Washington has a plethora of industry, but there are two names that pretty much come to people's minds when they think of the state: Boeing and Microsoft. I have worked for both, and while I have mentioned my high tech industry experiences, I don't talk about Boeing much.

I hired on to the 777 plant in Everett in 1996, about a year and a half after I left the Air Force.

Prior to my hiring on, in 1995, I began to pay attention to Boeing. It was just prior to Christmas in 1995. I heard the stories and saw the TV reports. Christmas shopping at the Auburn Super Mall we drove past the picket lines.

I noticed something. Boeing had offered them a new contract at around 45 days and they were voting on it. A person labeled as a Union Officer came on TV expressing his optimism. The membership flatly rejected it. Shortly afterward, the same guy spoke on TV about how he had been pretty sure the Members would reject it.

I admit, I laughed. I figured if that was the kind of dufas they elected, oh well.

The strike went another 3 weeks or so finally ending at 69 days.

When I hired on in 1996, the veterans and old timers were still crowing about that strike.

I mentioned to one what I had noticed, and he nodded sagely, and told me a startling accusation: the union was in cahoots with Boeing management and the strike had been engineered deliberately.

NOTE: Obviously I need to add the disclaimer, this is not my theory, but that of a veteran employee.

So intrigued (hey it beat working) I asked him to explain. He claimed that Boeing as behind in planning and production on the 777, and rather then pay penalties for delays, they could take advantage of a 45 day extension on contracts that was allowed during - you guessed it - contract disputes.

So, he claimed that Boeing deliberately offered a crappy contract on day one, and forced the strike. Then, around day 45, when they lost the extension, they offered the real contract.

He cackled slyly at this point. here was his moment of pride: The union was wise to them, and stuck it to them by refusing it, and going on strike longer. He said it was a brilliant plan that gained them a much better contract, and showed them who was boss.

I didn't take him all that seriously, at least not then. But then i heard essentially the same story from several other veterans.

Added to it was the shocking accusation that senior Union Officials were in on it the whole time.

Now as to that last line. the fact that I was told this prior to a Union election may have more to do with it than anything else. So I am not accusing the union of any chicanery.

In fact, I am not accusing Boeing either. I am merely recounting an interesting conspiracy theory since it seems to echo some interesting present events.

You see, the present climate is that the union is ready to strike, and coincidentally, Boeing is having some design issues on the new Dreamliner.

Coincidence? More than likely.

But as the news stories carried the story about the possibility of another strike, I had a flashback to those conversations. I can't help but wonder:

And oddly, a quick Google Search found a few stories with other people making that claim this year and in years past, including these stories about 1995 (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/archives/1995/9510090061.asp, http://www.themilitant.com/1995/5943/5943_1.html). I also found this strike FAQ from 1995 which mentions directly the "45 day Myth" but offers two different alternatives as to what it means: (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19951123&slug=2154115)

Q. What about the 45-day "myth"?

A. It's a concept often mentioned, but unconfirmed, by Boeing and union officials. One version says Boeing wanted a strike for at least 45 days, a point when penalty-clauses for late deliveries would be lifted. Another has it that the company wanted to settle in 45 days because that's when penalties kicked in. There are other variations.

And just to be fair, I also found links accusing the Union itself of engineering the strikes to make sure the Union stayed prominent, and to keep Boeing defensive and other self serving accusations.

So how about it readers, can anyone confirm the sentiments or perhaps refute the accusations?

Let's talk....

Yes, I admit, it is a stunt.  But it is a brilliant one.  Here is the situation:

Last week the House adjourned for the 5 week summer break.  Republicans were trying to force a vote on the oil drilling issue and on energy in general.  The Democrats, lead by Speaker Pelosi would have none of it, and they voted to adjourn anyway.

So the Republicans didn't.  They refused to leave and ended up essentially performing a sit in protest.

Pelosi not to be deterred, ordered the lights turned out, and when that didn't deter them, she ordered the capital police to clear the House.

As Hot Air noted:

A transparent stunt but an awfully shrewd one. The cameras are off so we're forced to rely on Politico for running updates. What a scene:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House and turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m. and are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess…

"This is the people's House," Rep, Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) said. "This is not Pelosi's politiburo."

It's brilliant.  Bloody brilliant.  

As I said early, yes, this is a stunt.  This is clearly the Republicans taking advantage of the inaction of the Democrats.  Of course it is.  And were the situations reversed, the Democrats would do the same thing.  The fact is that both political parties would glad take an opportunity like this to throw the other under the bus.  That is the reality of politics.

The fact is that politics is dirty.   And both parties are masters.

But there is no doubt that the Republicans have the moral high ground as expanding drilling or at least trying to do something proactive about the oil prices is highly attractive to the general population.

And it should be.  This is clearly a no brainer situation.

The facts are simple.  We are too dependent on foreign oil, where we import more then we produce.  Leave OPEC out of it, we get almost as much from non OPEC countries like Canada and Mexico as we do from the evil OPEC producers.

I don't care which countries we import from, the fact is that if we import more then we produce, we are at the mercy of the people we import it from.

Granted there is more at issue then who we buy from.  The fact we buy Gasoline refined in Canada instead of refining it ourselves is also a concern, and it should.

We have the ability and resources to do it ourselves, we need to become more self sufficient.

The real obstacle to our progress here is not the oil companies, nor is it OPEC.  It is the US government, and all the obstacles and bureaucratic hindrances we place in front of new oil drilling and new refineries.   If our government is actually invested in the best welfare of our Nation, they would look into all the possibilities.

They don't.  Many of them see only one choice.

They only to want to ease our reliance on oil by expanding research into alternative fuels, such as solar and ethanol. They see our reliance on oil itself as the problem not just who we are dependent on. They want to end the use of fossil fuels as soon as possible, regardless of the cost. This is the only acceptable solution.

Some instead see many opportunities and choices.  They want to increase drilling to increase our domestic production, and a corresponding increase in our refining capability as well.  They reason that fossil fuels are an essential element to our social fabric, and that despite the desires to end our overall reliance, we will continue to need them for decades to come, acknowledging that fossil fuels.

They are right.  Our society relies on petroleum far to heavily to discard it quickly.

The Liberal demagogues would have you believe that this is a one solution problem, and that the Republicans are drill happy with no other acceptable options but that is terrible incorrect.

Republicans see this as a multilevel approach type of problem.

Sure, increasing production lowers external reliance, but the truth is that Democrats are right, reliance on oil is part of the problem.

Where the Democrats fall short is their assumption we need to end all use of fossil fuels completely.  We don't.

We can make them cleaner and reduce their use gradually while new technology is introduced.

The real flaw in the argument that Pelosi and her ilk use is that the technology to end the reliance on fossil fuels exists now, and that we can just switch.

We can't.

Someday, we might.  But presently there is no reliable alternative that actually provides our needs.

That means we need obviously need to support more research, something anyone in their right mind can see.

But equally obvious we need to come up with immediate solutions as well as long term.

The Democrats like Pelosi, who is more concerned with her book tour than she is with solving problems, refuse to do anything, because doing nothing provides their base with warm fuzzies that she is on their page with their environmental nannyism. 

In fact, all they are doing is alienating the people they claim  are there core people, the low and middle income Americans.

You see, the Average Joe feels the heat of the high prices a whole lot more than the Latte Liberals like Pelosi.  She won't suffer with the high prices, she can afford it, and she can afford the 10 dollar gallon gas that some Democrats are hoping for.

The Average Joe has seen their transportation prices nearly double under Democratic leadership, and they are pissed.  The sweeping out of Republicans in 2006 did nothing to make their lives better, it has resulted in just the opposite.

Granted, I cannot necessarily blame the Democrats for the increases, but I can blame them for inaction, and the lowly ratings for congressional approval mean that the average person seems to agree.

That is the reality that the Republicans are tapping in to.  They see the unhappiness and the see something they can bring resonance to.

The revolt in the House of Representatives is kind of like the Boston tea party.  It solves nothing, it will result in nothing, but it clearly is popular and makes the other side look foolish, and it sends a clear message.

It may be a stunt or an opportunity, but it is a very effective one, and they are doing the right thing regardless.

So far I have seen two ads promoting incumbent governor Chris Gregoire, and both had the same theme:  George Bush.

In both ads a comparison was made to how Gregoire was nothing like George Bush.

I have one question:  Did I miss something, or is Bush running for Governor of Washington?

Seriously, the ads are frankly no better than the Better Then Bush sentiments in the 2004 presidential elections.

One of the ads does carry it further and that provides the connection:  they are trying to pain challenger Dino Rossi as "another George Bush" thereby scaring us into not voting for him.

Dino's ad, by comparison targets the Washington's government at it;s weakest areas, traffic, taxes, small businesses and education.

David Postman of the Seattle Times caught the comparison and the flaws:

Gregoire ad is off-base on Rossi v. Roe v. Wade

Gov. Christine Gregoire is airing a radio ad that tries to draw an ideological connection between her opponent, Republican Dino Rossi, and President George W. Bush.

But the ad pushes Rossi a bit further to the right than facts support. Rossi doesn't help himself much on this front, given that when it comes to the issue of abortion, he refuses to clearly state his position.

The ad runs one minute and is airing statewide. It opens with a narrator who asks: "When you hear the name Dino Rossi, what other name comes to mind?"

Gregoire's answer is Bush, of course. The ad lists several issues, including children's health insurance, stem-cell research, global warming and abortion, where Rossi and Bush are on the other side from Gregoire.

And those positions are fairly fundamental with conservatives, so it appears to me that this is less about Rossi as it is about Bush.

The fact is that the Democrats seem to be wanting to draw on the negative numbers that Bush has had latently, so they will capitalize on any connection to the President that they can.

Now the fact is that Gregoire's ad is full of complaints about Rossi's policies, so there is plenty of negativity to go around.  but since he has not been in politics for many years, the complaints sometimes ring hollow because for the last 4 years, he has not been a factor in the day to day business of Olympia.

That is why they must associate them with a person they can demonize and therefore demonize him by association.

And this is also why Dino's ads may have more traction.  He has 4 years of Gregoire actively playing governor to deal with, to analyze and to show the flaws in.

This campaign will likely prove to be much more entertaining than the presidential race.

Particularly if the best that the Washington Democrats can come up with is a recycled "Better Than Bush".

The headline at Michelle Malkin's site implies something very daunting:

The Donkey Congress is allergic to debate

Conservative stalwart Sens. Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint blew the whistle  last  week on a new report from the Congressional Research Service showing that 94 percent of bills passed in thee Dem-controlled Senate have been rammed through without debate or vote.

Via CNS:

Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) dismissed Democratic claims of obstructionism and expressed outrage last week over a government report that shows the majority of bills that have passed in the Democrat-controlled Senate of the 110th Congress have done so without any debate or even a vote.

"The U.S. Senate has a nine percent approval rating, because the American people believe that much of our work is done in secret with no debate, no transparency and no accountability," Coburn told reporters at press conference Wednesday at the Capitol.

This clearly implies outrage over a procedure where a motion or bill is passed using Unanimous Consent.  This is clearly blamed on the Democrat leadership:

"This report shows that the reality is worse than the public's fears. Instead of encouraging open debate, I'm disappointed that Majority Leader Reid often chooses secrecy or demagoguery," he added.

Coburn was referring to a non-partisan study released on June 10 by the government's Congressional Research Service (CRS), which indicates that 855 of the 911 bills passed by the Senate of the 110th Congress have been streamlined by Democratic Party leadership with a procedural tactic known as Unanimous Consent (UC), which requires no debate or even a vote.

So roughly 94%.

The idea sound fairly damning.  Are Democrats really so underhanded now that they have control?

Not really.

The first thing I noted in examining the PDF file is that quite a few of the measures passed are meaningless procedural matters:

S.Res.1 A resolution informing the President of the United States that a quorum of each House is assembled.

S.Res.2 A resolution informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is assembled.

S.Res.3 A resolution to elect Robert C. Byrd, a Senator from the State of West Virginia, to be President pro tempore of the Senate of the United States.

S.Res.4 A resolution notifying the President of the United States of the election of a President pro tempore.

S.Res.5 A resolution notifying the House of Representatives of the election of a President pro tempore. 

In fact the majority of them are simple matter that are advisory, laudatory or otherwise non substantive.  A quick scan of the PDF did find some matters that likely had fiscal impact, but I did not find anything massively troubling.

I have to allow that I only did a quick scan, but still, most of the matters were trivial

At issue really is the accusation that this can be used to pass major items without debate:

From Sen. DeMint's office:

The 855 bills that have been secretly passed spend more than $9 billion, though a final total is not available because many of the bills were rushed through before a cost analysis could be performed.

Senator DeMint: "It would surprise many Americans to learn that the 'World's Greatest Deliberative Body' passes the overwhelming majority of legislation without any debate at all. Democrats think they are entitled to pass bills without debate or votes, and they've tried to ram them through right before recess to pressure us to give up. But, Senators shouldn't fear debate on these important bills. It's in the best traditions of our republic to demand the Senate actually do its job and have a public debate on bills that expand government and increase the burden on taxpayers. Senator Reid can complain all he wants, but Republicans represent millions of Americans whose voices are being silenced by Democrat strong-arm tactics."

It sounds horrible, but in reality it is not that insidious.  The document provided includes a short description of how UC works:

It is often possible for the Senate to approve a measure by unanimous consent, with few or no amendments and with virtually no discussion. Nearly every day the Senate is in session, the majority and minority leaders consult to identiffy bills and resolutions that have been "cleared" by the Senators in both parties. A measure is considered cleared if no Senator has responded to a party leadership request to inform leadership that he or she is opposed to passage of the measure without debate.

This implies that a matter cannot be cleared for UC unless the leadership of both parties concurs that there none of their members are wanting more debate.

In fact the rules regarding UC can actually be used to create gridlock, not avoid it, by demanding debate on trivial matters:

With the Senate's traditional August recess about to start, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevv.) has repeatedly accused Republicans, however, and especially Coburn and DeMint, of blocking UC on legislation that he says is critical to the well-being of many Americans.

I can see the strategic advantage to both parties for using this as a delaying tactic, so the fact is that this is looking like just another aspect of our Congressional system that encourages delay, gridlock and partisan games.

So yes, while I would guess this could be accused, the fact is that the accusation that 94% of all bills pass this way does not mean they did not get heard and approved by both parties, and I have not seen direct proof that the Democrats are taking advantage of the procedure. 

While the two sides are pointing fingers at each other as being obstructionist, in reality, they both are.   That's politics as normal in DC, and it always has been. 

So with all due respect to Michelle, I think this is much ado over nothing.

We pause in our political blogging for some personal reflections.

I got an email from an old Military friend today.

It made my day.

A big shout out to Eric, and congrats on making Chief! Hope I get down your way soon.

It reminds me that even though many years pass, sometimes those ties we form never go away.

A few years ago I did an almost frantic amount of research and contact and 'found' a lot of friends I had lost. I got in touch with people I had not seen since High School, and few even earlier that that. in 2002 I drove around for a week visiting several and reacquainting myself with them and their families.

A few I had been in casual contact with, but not many. Many I have stayed in pretty consistent contact with since, some have slipped away into memories, but at some time I am sure those doors will open again.

A few will never be far from my thoughts and I am sure I will be burning many cell phone minutes just checking in now and then.

Friendship is so fragile and yet at the same time, it contains some of the strongest ties of all.

I called up Jim, and dropped in on him a few years ago after about a 12 year lapse. He and I look nothing like we used to, all of our children are mostly grown, and many other fairly significant changes.

And yet, within a few moments, time was erased and we were back in high school almost.

The same happened with Dave, with Luke and many more I wont mention.

We reserve places in our hearts for people, and even if we close those doors for years, a chance reopening often returns us to the last time we saw them, near enough anyway.

None of us are who we expected to be, we have all faced different paths and experiences, and a few of us gained a little extra tonnage, damn the bad luck.

But the people we are, the person in the shell, we carry a unique quality that seems to transcend that. Call it the soul, or the essence, or just the memories, whatever you like. There are just some things about people that I will never forget.

I am blessed really, I have been able to find so many beloved friends, even though there are many memorable and very missed exceptions.

I never really payed attention to it when I was wasting all those years far away. So many lost years.

But at the same time, there is something about my age that brings about this longing to reconnect, to turn back the hands of time and to give that old friend a call.

Many people resist it, not wishing to reopen some doors. I can respect that. But I also discovered that when I did so, when I sent some mail out of the blue, I found a few people who missed me as much as I missed them.

So take the chance, you may find it to be worth it.

To all my friends, past and present, thank you making my life that much richer.

But if the while I think on thee, dear friend,
All losses are restored and sorrows end.
~William Shakespeare

I have friends in overalls whose friendship I would not swap for the favor of the kings of the world.
~Thomas A. Edison

Note to readers who may not understand my position regarding climate change and environmentalism: I support conservation and responsible ecology and action. I do not support alarmism, pseudo science, hypocrisy concerning special interest and excessive governmental intervention into matters which a free market will easily handle much better without imposing additional and unecessary taxes. Please read this post with that in mind.

I haven't taken the time to put together a round up of the Enviro-nitwit Supreme and all the other fun, so now seems like a good time.

I do want to note one thing though, and that is the I am retiring the phrase "eco-nazi" from the blog, except in rare occasions.

I decided that the term "Eco-Nanny" instead.  It seems to fit the "we know what's best for you" mentality that so many of these idiots seem to favor.

With that in mind, let's see what's going on.

First up is the Mighty Alarmists Supreme, the Grand Goracle, the mighty Al Gore, the biggest nanny of them all.

Al has taken on a new target for his science-less propaganda:  Bloggers.

Gore pushes environment with activist bloggers

Former Vice President Al Gore made a surprise appearance Saturday at the Netroots Nation conference, a gathering of nearly 2,000 left-leaning bloggers and political organizers. He urged the activists to mobilize for global climate protection by amplifying his call to generate all the nation's electricity from renewable sources like wind, solar and geothermal in 10 years.

...

Gore, who joined Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during her session at the convention, praised the bloggers as being at the forefront of reclaiming American democracy.

"Thank you for the movement that you have created," Gore said. "I can't tell you how important I think it is that you continue what you are doing."

Of course the movement the nutroots have created is mindless extremism, but ok.

Gore said the seriousness of the climate problem is related to the economic and security crises of U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Recent Republican calls to battle rising oil prices with more drilling are "absurd" and a bit like curing a hangover with another drink, he said.

 Of course his stupid remarks went a little further:

Gore compares offshore drilling to invasion of Iraq

"The defenders of the status quo are the ones who have dug us into this hole," he said, commenting that Americans have been "so often fooled into finding a remedy for a problem" that has nothing to do with the problem at hand -- pointing to the invasion of Iraq when America was attacked by terrorists in Afghanistan as an example.

"The engines of distraction and the great concentrated power of communication that you've seen turned on this issue or that issue is already hard at work," he says.

He should know.  He has been pushing pseudo science and alarmism for what, thirty years or so?  And all along he keeps predicting dire consequences within 10-20 years.  Fortunately the time line keeps getting pushed back with each hysterical prediction.

Of course, this line was very relevant:

"The economics of renewables are becoming very attractive," Gore said.

Finally, some truth from the great one, if only the media would report it:

Will Media Report Gore's Stake in Electricity Conversion?

As my fellow NewsBuster Amy Ridenour accurately reported, global warming obsessed media are predictably gushing over Nobel Laureate Al Gore's call for America to completely convert all of its electricity production to solar, wind, and other renewable sources by 2018 (photo courtesy AFP).

As they gush, fawn, and genuflect, will press members dare to point out that Gore is heavily invested in companies which manufacture that which he's recommending America convert to?

After all, as NewsBusters reported on April 11, Gore admitted his financial stake in such things to an audience in Monterey, California, back in March (video available here, relevant section begins at minute 15:00):

There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so I'll have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.

As Gore spoke these words, pictures of electric cars, windmills and solar panels appeared in multiple slides on the screen with company names at the bottom such as Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power).

Now, seven months later, he's proposing:

Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the Earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses. And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of U.S. electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America. 

The quickest, cheapest, most efficient, and best way to start using all of this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power, and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses.

Check. Invested in all that!

We could further increase the value and efficiency of a unified national grid by helping our struggling auto companies switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars and save those auto jobs and renew our auto companies.

Check. Invested in that, too!

Will media members EVER make this connection and report it? Or, is that too much like journalism?

Granted, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being passionate enough to invest in what you believe in, but at the same time, there is something called conflict of interest to be considered, and considering he already has a huge stake in the carbon credit scams, this adds to the suspicion that he is in this for the money.

Speaking of carbon credits, I wonder how much his own entourage costs him?

Limousine liberal video of the day: Gore and his gas-guzzling fans exposed!

You're going to love this video from Americans for Prosperity, whose staff caught eco-hypocrisy on full display at Al Gore's big energy sermon in Washington, D.C. earlier today.

Ed Frank writes: "We're back from Al Gore's big global warming speech, and boy did we have a great time! We had a dedicated band of taxpayer advocates out in force, pointing out the high economic cost of global warming alarmism - starting with $8 a gallon gasoline. Of course, we saw plenty of hypocrisy -- especially the fact that Gore didn't ride his bike or take public transporation to the event. He didn't even take his Prius! Instead, he brought a fleet of two Lincoln Town Cars and a Chevy Suburban SUV! Even worse, the driver of the Town Car that eventually whisked away Gore's wife and daughter left the engine idling and the AC cranking for 20 minutes before they finally left!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESxvY1tQHTo

Meanwhile, as Michelle Malkin reports in the same story, the rock solid consensus on man made global warming is under attack from within:

Top news this morning…"The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming 'incontrovertible.'"

The APS later released a statement contradicting this, and apparently this is an internal fight, where one faction doubts the consensus and wants debate, while the rest want to hold tight to the consensus with no debate, a patently unscientific stance.

Regardless, the truth is slowly emerging about the reality of climate change science:

Blowing the Whistle on Global Warming

David Evans was a consultant to the "Australian Greenhouse Office" from 1999 to 2005. He is a former global warming alarmist; however, he is also a scientist who goes where the evidence leads him. In this important article in The Australian, he blows the whistle on the fraud that many of the world's governments are in the midst of perpetrating:

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

And there you have the reality of climate change.  Do you dare to examine the real facts?

In other interesting Environmental news, Washington Senator Maria Cantwell reveals the real agenda for the democratic congress and gas prices:

Why Democrats don't want to lower gas prices

A Democratic senator on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee inadvertently explained why her colleagues have no intention of ending the moratorium on offshore oil drilling or increasing the areas open for exploration and production – no matter how popular the idea might be with gas prices soaring.

In an interview with Bloomberg TV's "Money and Politics" last night, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., explained Democrats don't want to increase supplies of oil and gasoline because they want to wean Americans off of petroleum products.

Asked point-blank if Democrats in the Senate would consider how increasing the supply of oil would lower the prices that are pinching U.S. consumers, Cantwell replied: "Oh, we definitely want to move beyond petroleum. And so there will be a supply side offered by the Democrats and it will include everything from battery technology to making sure that we have good home domestic supply, and looking, as I said about moving faster on those kind of things like wind and solar that can help us with our high cost of natural gas."

And here you see why I like the term Eco-Nanny so much.  The democrats and eco-nannies have decided that they are a better judge of what is best for us than we are.

 Here are a few more examples:

No Plastic Bags in LA Stores Beginning July 2010

The City Council voted Tuesday to ban plastic shopping bags from stores beginning July 1, 2010. Shoppers can either bring their own bags or pay 25 cents for a paper bag.

And...

Grocery bag fee headed to full council

The full City Council is expected to vote on the proposals Monday that were passed Tuesday by a committee. If adopted, the new legislation will launch a 90-day campaign to educate residents and shoppers before the 20-cent per bag fee goes into effect on Jan. 1.

The ban on plastic foam food take-out containers and cups also will take effect that day, if approved. However, a ban on plastic meat trays will be delayed for a year, allowing stores time to figure out alternatives.

Despite the fact that plastic bags are not actually a huge environmental risk and are 100% recyclable, they are the bad thing du jour.  We cannot be trusted to use our bags responsibly, so we will be banned form using them, or taxed if we do.

Nanny nanny nanny.

Meanwhile, Tom Brokaw calls for sacrifice, Robert Redford writes poetry, hybrid cars are a danger to the blind, and Harrison Ford waxes his chest for the Environment.

Have fun with that... owwww.

Anyway, enjoy the links, and see you next week for the next Eco-Nanny roundup.

I have enjoyed making snarky comments about the gas prices and the complete failure of the democrat leadership to do anything about it.  Bad enough that prices have doubled since the democrats were elected, but now that they are historically high, they are paralyzed by the necessity to pander to their environmental base.

And make no mistake, that's what this is all about.  The democrats know the environmental lobby has a huge voice and they don't want to be seen as caving in to the pressures of the evil oil barons.

Some friends of mine and I have been having a spirited debate about this, and we all tend to agree that dependency on foreign oil is a problem.  But, I wonder how many people realize that the biggest importer of oil and petroleum to the US is not a bunch of greedy Arabs, it is Canada.  Not only that, but 40% of our oil imports come from non OPEC countries.  Canada and Mexico alone sell us about one third of our imports. 

Or that while we import 10 million barrels a day or so, we produce more then 5 Million domestically.

Heck if we could double our production, we would lower our dependency by about 50%.

So this is not about OPEC, and not about the middle east (since quite a few countries in OPEC are not in Asia), it is about speculators and supply and demand.  Economics.  It is a matter of increasing supply.

So why then wouldn't you want to explore a chance to add to our choices of supply?  Aside from pressure from eco nazis, one reason we stopped US based drilling was because it was so cheap to import it.

Well it isn't anymore, is it?  So why not open up some of the abandoned fields and look for more?

President Bush today opened the door to more off shore drilling, and congress should grow a pair of nads and tell the eco nazis to take a back seat to reality and get cracking.  Sure, we can continue to develop alternatives.  But in the mean time we need immediate solutions.

Critics nay say drilling, claiming we would have to wait ten years to see the benefit.  Maybe so.

But affordable non petroleum alternatives are not going to happen over night either.

So why not let both sides benefit?  Aren't more ideas and optsoin better then less?

And one other thing.  I found this nifty chart showing the relationship between US oil prices and crude oil prices. (click for the full size)

Funny.  If i am reading this right, oil prices are climbing much faster then gas prices.

I guess the evil oil barons forgot to gouge a few dollars here and there.

The point?  It could be worse.

And the other point?  It could get better if Congress would cowboy up and DO SOMETHING.

Thank God we elected the "New Direction Democrats".

The question is on the lips of many.  Some  decry our failings and insist they are endemic, and show the decline of our Country's greatness. 

They point to our prosperity as evidence of our selfishness. 

They point at our innovation and insist that we are lazy and weak.

They insist that in their lives we have never done anything worthy of pride.

Some point to the White House and our president, and decry his failings and decide the America has suffered under his leadership.  They accuse him of crimes and demand his oust.

They demonstrate against our Military, and defame them.  They falsely accuse them of crimes and atrocities.

They protest in the streets against the war we fight, against our foreign policy, against our leaders, against our culture and against religion.

The take the symbols of our country and deface them in protest.

They write articles and blogs and columns pointing our in glorious prose and detail the sins of our country, past present ad future.

So I ask myself:  In the face of so much hatred, disappointment and vile rhetoric, is America Still Great?

You bet your arse it is.  The proof is in the protest to start with.

We are virtually unique in the world where so much protest and anti government sentiment can be openly displayed, and not just tolerated, but downright celebrated.

Our Constitution, which continues to thrive despite the naysayers best arguments, protects those who speak against America the loudest.

For every person who speaks about how America has declined in greatness, their very words continue to prove we are still great.  All the Journalists that write diatribes against America do so because America values the freedom of dissent.

For those who protest our Military, and slander them, the fact they can do such acts is a testimony to how well our Military has preserved those freedoms.

America is not just a nation, a collection of laws and people, it is also the debate on what constitutes greatness, and it is coil and churn of those ideas.

America is not the boundaries of our states, it is the limitless, boundless world of our ideas and our beliefs.

There are many reasons to love America and to be assured of her greatness.  The free market; the free elections; the limitless opportunity for success and prosperity; the myriad cultures and faiths; the determination to be free in the face of all adversity:  all of these speak to the greatness of America.

But sometimes I think that the ability to argue about that greatness is our greatest strength. 

You see, I am not afraid of debate.  I am not afraid of those who take my dearest ideals and trample them in their own ideals.  Iron sharpens iron.  The strength of our ideals is seen when they are tested.   So I am not afraid to defend my ideals.

In fact, I enjoy it.  I am passionate about America. 

So:  Is America Great?

As long as men are free to argue the point it must be.

Take your time today and consider and reflect, then Celebrate! Celebrate! Celebrate!

Whether you like it or not, we still live in the greatest country in the world.

Here are a few of my favorite quotes:

I love America more than any other country in this world; and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.  ~James Baldwin

America is a passionate idea or it is nothing.  America is a human brotherhood or it is chaos.  ~Max Lerner, Actions and Passions, 1949

America is a nation with many flaws, but hopes so vast that only the cowardly would refuse to acknowledge them.  ~James Michener

When an American says that he loves his country, he means not only that he loves the New England hills, the prairies glistening in the sun, the wide and rising plains, the great mountains, and the sea.  He means that he loves an inner air, an inner light in which freedom lives and in which a man can draw the breath of self-respect.  ~Adlai Stevenson

This, then, is the state of the union:  free and restless, growing and full of hope.  So it was in the beginning.  So it shall always be, while God is willing, and we are strong enough to keep the faith.  ~Lyndon B. Johnson

No jokes, this is a tragedy.  Darcy Burner, the democrat nominee to the 8th District Congressional seat, lost her home to a fire this morning.

The Burner's and their dog escaped injury, and their cat was lost.

As I said, this is every family's nightmare.  To be woken up at 7am by your child telling you his room is on fire is an experience I am happy to avoid.  Thank God they did waken and escape.

Now the cause is under investigation, with rumours off a gas main blowing and a faulty light in the child's room running forefront.

The fact it started in a child's room might lead to other speculation, as it would not be the first time that a child has done something tragically stupid.

Hopefully not.

What I was curious about when I read this story this afternoon was how long it would take our local loony left to blame this on the republicans.

I didn't have long to wait, nor was I the first to wonder.  Browsing to Horsesass.org, the local den of rabid liberals, and a stronghold of Burner Support, I was not disappointed.

Here are a couple examples from the comments:

Blue John spews:

It's a sad world where I considered that it could be some sort of republican dirty trick. "Can't win legitimately, so burn her house down and distract her, at the very least."

ME spews:

No conspiracy needed… just a right-wing jerk with a gas can and a chip on his shoulder.

I'm sure there aren't any of THOSE types around there.

My Left Foot spews:

By the way, just where was Reichert this morning??

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmm??

ByeByeGOP spews:

Which of the right wing f**kh**s did this and will there be justice? I knew the righties would resort to this s**t. It's all they have - it's all they can do. They can't win with ideas so they try to win with intimidation! Come to my house b*****s and you'll find it tougher to burn down.

We need to start a reward fund that leads to putting the right wing p***k in jail.

Steve spews:

@87 Hmm, more likely it was those commie-fascists at the BIAW. I hear they have some recent experience with torching homes.

Of course at least one Righty had their comment:

mark spews:

Darcy "Burner" ahhhhahhhhh. She probably owes

more on her house than it's worth. Couldn't

get that fancy Countrywide deal like the rest

of the Democrats. What a bunch.

All the above are uncalled for.

Look, I have no love for this woman.  During her last campaign, she misrepresented herself as a former Microsoft Executive, which she was not, nor was she even close.  Her ads were typical democrat hatchet pieces and she has even less experience then Obama...a scary thought on it's own.

But I don't think anyone honest would wish this kind of loss on anyone.

Now, several times on the Blog above right wingers made mention to how Goldy was being hypocritical.  He took her tragedy and turning it into a pimp for donations and volunteers...to her campaign.  Goldy, aka David Goldstein is several anti republican democrat, such that he is quite unhinged quite often.

The accusation was made that he would be must less saddened and compassionate if this had happened to Rep Dave Reichert or any other prominent republican, and frankly, I agree.

His typical irrational hatred of all things conservative is renowned. 

But that is his blog, and if the right wingers dislike it, they should move on.   Expecting otherwise would be like waiting for leopard to change his spots.

This blog was nothing more then what you would expect at Horsesass.org, including the comments.

Sad.