Pat Proxy Post: Putting frivolity "down to zero!"

Well, after the recent wintry weather in the Midwest, this column of Pat's from February 2008 seems quite appropriate:

Scant doubts linger as to the rhetorical resolve of the save-the-polar-bears acolytes. The rage is getting pollution “down to zero,” proclaims climatechallenge.org, whose logo is a new-age Iwo Jima memorial of earthies courageously raising a wind turbine.

Why, anyone over 30 might ask, is the target “down to zero,” and not, say, happy flapper-era levels? As someone under 30, I’d suggest it is due to the feisty catchiness of the Captain Planet jingle circa ’91 – he’s our hero, gonna put pollution down to zero! – scrubbed into the inchoate neuro pathways of today’s twenty somethings.

Now, if I had the audacity to call myself an “environmentalist” for the mere fact that I wanted the government to control how people use energy in accordance with my Armageddon predictions, I should find Bob Dylan’s “A Hard Rain’s a-Gonna Fall” a more versatile rouser (though perhaps less forth-right). Acid rain’s a-gonna fall, my blue-eyed son. Rain’s a-gonna fall in winter instead of snow, my darling young one. “I’ll stand in the ocean until I start sinkin,” in17 eustatic inches of ocean water by 2100. Woe is “the poet who died in the gutter,” unable to escape the acidic reservoir.

But more woeful is the environmental left, which, its poets having died, must make do with a terribly stodgy campaign of meaningless catchphrases. Be “green” and “fight” “global warming” by reducing your “carbon foot-print.” Greenland is not green, thanks to an insufficiently warm globe. But Greenlanders are presumably “greener” than Americans. US soldiers do real fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq daily, but as a freshman environmentalist told the Washington Post last year, “I’m fighting for my future.” Someone make sure he gets a PTSD debriefing before it’s over.

Luther College appointed its “first sustainability intern” last month to “promote campus sustainability initiatives and monitor college operations from an environmental perspective.” What does environmental sustainability mean? Sustain what? Sustain the incredibly complex and unpredictable weather patterns and life cycles of the earth? OK, sign me up, and ring a cowbell when the intern has successfully sustained the earth as it ought to be.
I’ve lobbied adamantly for an “Islamic Radicalism” course at Luther, only to be jeered by professors and student leaders for unrealistic requests. “But changing the very heavens!” as Mark Steyn frames the enviro-jihad, “that we can do!”

What are sure to change if this frivolous crusade persists are our priorities. I endured unmolested the Captain Planet charade because the bad guys were the “eco-villains.” Today we’re all eco-villains. If carbon is a pollutant, so are humans. This is why a British woman had an abortion last December: “a baby would pollute the planet,” she said.

My childhood fear was the fat kid with the Joe Pesci insecurity complex that stole candy. Yet, “For many children and young adults,” the Washington Post reports with feigned regret, “global warming is the atomic bomb of today.” Forget the real atomic bombs, with which megalomaniacal caliphate-building Islamists threaten to kill Americans. Your life-perpetuating carbon usage summoned deadly tornadoes in Tennessee (says John Kerry), wildfires in California (says Harry Reid), and drought-induced genocide in Sudan (says Ban Ki-Moon).

Hopefully government checks the pesky facts before it trades free-enterprise for masochistic “sustainability”. California’s legislators propose remotely controlling homeowners’ thermostats. And last month the insipidly titled Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Panel recommended lower speed limits, mandatory light bulbs, and restrictions on where people can live and how many miles they can drive. But what’s the pretext? China is having its worst winter in 50 years and Buenos Aires just had its first snowfall in 89 years. Wind-chills reached 60 below in Minnesota this month. The number of violent (F3-F5) tornadoes has fallen each year from 1950-2006. The IPCC reneged on its apocalyptic predictions last February, as did NASA last April on its hottest years to date. Perhaps if a butterfly’s flutter can cause a typhoon continents away, the role of solar radiation and the maunder minimum in the negative feedback loop merit examination.

If I were an investor and I heard this “green” razzmatazz about putting pollution “down to zero,” I might avoid the oil industry…and the car, housing, construction, and business-in-general industries. Our economy’s sickness certainly wouldn’t perplex me.

The enviro-clerisy’s double-talk is shamelessly cheap, but its effects will be disastrously expensive.

"Won't You Stay, Just a Little Bit Longer"

Sitting here on the Founder’s Porch, I raise my metaphorical glass of ice-cold, frothy beer and drink a toast. I lament the departure of a close friend of these United States: capitalism. At least for now, we have really done ourselves in. The boys on the hill have put the economic system that brought us unimaginable wealth, stability, and prosperity in the penalty box indefinitely. Unruly deficits, shoddy economics, wasteful spending, and malignant government all cultivated by the economic policies of the Obama administration and congress are the giants we face. I’m not going to beat you over the head with arguments for why capitalism is good (weighty and sharp as they are). Rather, allow me to show you how the horrifying misery of its alternative.

The plans of Pres. Obama and congress are a $787 billion hoodwink. This bill will stimulate many things: the welfare junkies getting doped on easy handouts. Pres. Obama’s policies will spark the exodus of American financial and executive talent to a place they can make more than $500k—perhaps the NBA, where valuable skills (proper English notwithstanding) are well compensated. The bill will perk up new interest in irresponsible borrowing and lending now there are assurances of “Asset Recovery” if the milk gets sour. It will surely stimulate the egos of profligate politicians coddling themselves over what a good job they did while trying not a drool at the same time—a difficult feat for the likes of Reid and Pelosi.

And lest we forget, the initial cost of the stimulus, bailouts, asset recoveries, etc. are of course just what we will pay up front. These policies will cost billions more in lost development, mal-investment, inflation, and further financial losses. The fundamental problem is that when government spending does not produce anything. Under market conditions capital is purchased by entrepreneurs, they invest, hire managers and workers, they work to use the capital to make something that people will buy. The raw capital is taken from one state and refined, combined, etc. to create something of more value. Government spending does not create any net increase in value. There is no capital conversion into more valuable goods. So when the government takes oh say…$787 billion of raw capital out of the economy and re-injects it, there is a huge waste. There’s the loss on what that money could have built. We all miss out on the development, job creation, and benefits of new commerce.

Economically, there has been a heritage of arguing for “stimulus” but this new bill ignores them. John Maynard Keynes, the authority in the field of government interventionist economics argued that increasing spending and running deficits would “jump start” the economy. It is a fiscal policy theory that politicians are more than willing to try when there are contractions in the economy. The theory which should be the backbone for the most recent binge in spending from D.C. is entirely contingent on increasing spending temporarily during a contraction and slashing spending during growth. The funny part about the “stimulus” is that most of the spending is a permanent increase in budget. It defies the very economic theory that supports it existence. This point is meant simply to demonstrate that the “stimulus” is not an economic bill at all: it’s a subversive and destructive bill meant to consolidate government power and left-wing social agendas. It's meant to give more leverage to the government. Now they can tell all their little pets who were once self-sufficient citizens, "if you don't vote for me again, I'll take away your welfare, social security, medicare, asset recovery plan, (insert favorite government waste here)".

The waste in this bill is despicable. One might mistake the capital building for a butcher shop with the way they are cranking out the sausage. You know the saying, “you don’t want to be around while they make the sausage”? Well, the boys on the hill are certainly taking all the choicest cuts of pork for this bill. Frankly, I don’t know what’s stimulating about $1.2 billion for “youth activities”, $850 million for Amtrak which runs astronomical deficits, or $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland. Check out this list here, it’s not all the ridiculous stuff in the bill but it comes from CNN.com, not known for being a bastion of conservative politics.

We’ve kissed capitalism good bye. It was good to us and we bite the hand that feeds. I’m sure there are many who won’t miss it for the moment. There are likely many who are glad to see it gone. For now, I look to the vindication thinkers like myself will feel when interest rates rise, inflation stifles us, production stalls, and burdensome taxes break the backs of American workers. I for one have a quiet and somber refrain murmuring in my mind. Here's to capitialism: “won’t you stay, just a little bit longer”.

Joe Crede Signs with Minnesota Twins

In a very un-Twins-like move, it appears as though the team has signed White Sox third baseman Joe Crede to a one year deal. As a Twins fan, you've got to love this move. Crede is an injury liabilty, yes. But, the upside of this signing is that you don't lose anything if he doesn't pan out or is further plagued by injuries. Gardenhire will just move back to his Buscher/Harris platoon approach at Third base, a combination that helped put the Twins into a one game playoff with the White Sox last year. Crede is a solid veteran and should be a big pickup for the Twins.

If Delmon Young (who is very, well, young) can mature into the power hitter people say he will, we could be looking at a very scary lineup: 1: Denard Span 2: Alexi Casilla 3. Joe Mauer 4. Justin Morneau 5. Joe Crede 6. Delmon Young 7. Jason Kubel (sometimes Cuddyer) 8. Nick Punto/Brendan Harris 9. Carlos Gomez

On the surface, this seems like a great move by the Minnesota Twins.

Pat Proxy Post

Note: While Pat is at Army OCS, we picked out a few of his previous columns to reprint them. This particular column is especially applicable to Obama's Stimulus Package, in which there was $400 for HIV prevention, but that provision did not make the final bill due to Republican objection. According to The Southern Voice, "the final stimulus measure allocates $650 million to “carry out evidence-based clinical and community-based prevention and wellness strategies authorized by the [U.S.] Public Health Service Act, as determined by the [HHS] Secretary, that deliver specific, measurable health outcomes that address chronic disease rates.”Activists familiar with AIDS programs said the language opens the way for the HHS secretary to allocate at least some of the $650 million for HIV-prevention programs." This post is a column from his days at Luther College in October of 2005.

Reconsidering AIDS Efforts, October 2005

Think you’re safe from AIDS? Think again. Straight or gay, chaste or promiscuous, sober or spun - anyone can get AIDS, and MTV wants to make sure you know it. An MTV segment that aired in 2003 called “It Could Be You: True Life” featured teens that looked just like the show’s suburban audience. Then they revealed they were HIV positive.

The 2004 comedy “Team America: World Police” picked up on the AIDS scare. One scene depicts the Broadway musical “Lease” with a song proclaiming “everyone has AIDS!” “My father, my sister, my uncle and my cousin and her best friend…the pope has got it and so do you!” the movie’s hero sings.

Maybe Bernard Goldberg didn’t get the memo. The mole that raised questions a few years ago about Dan Rather’s biases in his insipidly titled book, “Bias,” criticized CBS for its special, “The Killer Next Door,” of 1992. He claimed it gave the impression that “AIDS was now everyone’s disease,” and puzzled readers by offering statistics showing that 90% of Americans with AIDS were homosexuals, bisexuals, or junkies. I don’t buy it Bernie. CBS would never report something it doesn’t know to be true.

All sarcasm aside, AIDS is a serious subject. For the 40 million people infected with HIV, it’s a matter of life and death. Maybe this is why it’s political suicide to raise questions about how to prevent it and how to spend donations to help those that have it. Rep. Jim Nussle cut funds for AIDS relief in Africa in 2004, and in protest Luther students called for the school to revoke his Distinguished Service Award.

The African kleptocrats and the World Bank crooks were probably just as upset about Rep. Nussle’s decision to prioritize in war-time spending. Sub-Suharan Africa received $114 billion in world aid between ’95 and ’02, but due to corruption and poor economic infrastructure the region has made little progress. The 2004 Economic Freedom of the World Report listed Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Guinea-Bissau, the Republic of Congo, and Burundi in the bottom 7 percent of its efficiency rankings, mostly attributed to a lack of a sound money supply. Even if we donate supplies, not money, AIDS is going no where until these governments make some substantial economic reforms. Uganda’s success over the past 15 years (climbing halfway up the list) proves governmental change is possible and fruitful. Until other sub-Saharan countries follow Uganda’s lead, AIDS donations will be trifling.

While governmental problems hinder African AIDS efforts, the trouble in the US lies in generating a truthful message about the disease and appropriating funds to the most relevant projects. The scare-tactics warning that AIDS will be everyone’s problem soon are failing the test of time. As of two years ago, the cumulative number of AIDS cases reported in Iowa’s history was only 1,567. Dr. Howard Dean claims “this is a medical condition that does not discriminate.” True, but misleading. The groups most affected by AIDS are homosexual men, blacks, and drug-users. So why not admit this and spend more money working with these groups? While the percentage of cases transmitted heterosexually has increased, it still only accounts for a third of all cases. Trying to scare everyone to action is a disservice to the groups that need the most attention.

Fighting AIDS is a noble cause, but unless we fight it the right way we are doing its victims an injustice.

Sec. of State to Voters: Please Commit Fraud

Around six weeks ago, I wrote my local State Senator a note regarding the Franken-Coleman debacle and the subsequent voting recount. I simply asked that as long they were recounting votes, that he support some measure to make sure the votes were actually legal ballots. I asked him to call for a review of the integrity of each ballot cast. Today, I received his response:

“Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:19:21 -0600

From: jmarty@senate.mn

Subject: Voter Integrity

Dear Stephen,

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the integrity of the election process in Minnesota. I believe we should continue Minnesota’s legacy of fair elections, which includes both working to prevent fraud and protecting our citizens’ constitutional right to vote.

Creating a photo identification requirement to vote would disenfranchise thousands of legally-registered voters. The Secretary of State’s Office estimates that there are 135,000 senior citizens in the state that don’t have a driver’s license or a Minnesota ID card.

Likewise, eliminating same-day voter registration would deter voter participation. People register on election day for a number of reasons, such as recently moving to a new residence. I do not believe that anyone should be disenfranchised from their legal right to vote simply because of moving or economic hardship.

I should also point out that under current Minnesota law any individual who commits voter fraud, such as voting more than once, misrepresenting their identity in applying for a ballot, or aiding someone who is not eligible to vote, is guilty of a felony.

This session, I expect the Secretary of State to come forward with a number of proposed changes to the oversight of the voter registration process which will help ensure that only legally-eligible people vote. These changes will continue to enhance the national reputation Minnesota holds of reliable and honest elections.

Sincerely,

John Marty

JM: cm

John Marty

328 State Capitol

St Paul, MN 55155

651.296.5645”

I sent this to him In response moments ago:

“From: Stephen Hann (stephen.d.hann@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 2/11/09 10:47 AM
To: jmarty@senate.mn

Sen. Marty:

Thank you kindly for your response. I greatly appreciate it. However, I don't understand why you insist that we do not need stricter voting integrity.

You argue for no voter ID required claiming it would disenfranchise senior citizens. However, it is plainly true that I could round up a group of illegitimate voters and vouch for all of them; thus giving them the ability to vote with no proof of their citizenship. It is also true that if they are not English-speaking, I could enter in to the booth with them to interpret the ballot as I see fit.

Asking senior citizens to do their civic duty and get a voter ID card is a small price to pay for legitimate elections. The lack of integrity in our voting registration invites fraud and abuse.

You also claim that same-day registration is essential to encouraging voting. Unfortunately the potential gain is not worth the risk. I recently moved across the Twin Cities and there was absolutely nothing preventing me (outside of my dutiful citizenship) from voting in my old district and proceeding to "same-day" register in my new district and vote there as well. Do you honestly believe that abuse and lack of legitimacy takes place because of these laws (or lack thereof)? When it is so easy to abuse the system we the citizens of the State ought not to have any measure of confidence in the legitimacy of our elections.

There are no measures in place to prevent any of this from happening. I understand there are laws in place to punish voting fraud. But where are the laws to prevent it in the first place? By your logic it would make no sense for banks to hire security guards because there are laws to prosecute larceny. Do you safely trust your emails to be sent without any data security because there are laws to punish computer crimes? This is patently absurd Sen. Marty, much like your argument that I need not worry because fraudulent voters might be convicted of a felony. What steps are in place to catch voter fraud after the fact? I do not feel any safer knowing there is a threat of prosecution. That does not make our elections legitimate any more than retroactive laws prevent crime.

Fundamentally, your position is untenable. Your preference for easy voting and super-enfranchisement causes more harm than erring on the side of security and integrity. If I vote illegally it causes two harms: one, I have broken the law and cast an illegitimante vote. It is a vote that offers illegal and undue support to a candidate. And two: I have subsequently canceled out a perfectly legitimate vote with my faulty one. But if we err on my side, the only possible harm that could take place is that someone who should be able to vote was not allowed to do so because they didn't register early enough, a fault of no one but their own self. But, the current policies of the State invite and welcome abuse, fraud, and illegitimacy. In short, it's easy to perpetrate voting crimes. It is likely that elections are tainted and democracy failed by your voting policies.

I humbly ask that you support stricter laws on voting registration.

Regards,

Stephen D. Hann”

Is the "F" for "Free Trade"?

This little note was inspired by the UFC (well, actually it by Rob’s comments regarding the sport). He raised an excellent point. It is one truth among a litany of veritable economic laws that the Obama administration chooses to ignore.

Rob bashfully admitted that he would rather support Georges St-Pierre—a French Canadian—over the American fighter B. J. Penn. Why? The reason was simple. Despite being foreign (French and Canadian at that), he is the better man. He “represents all that is right with the sport of MMA”. My dear friend, you should not be ashamed. Choosing the best regardless of national origin is what fuels international trade and makes us rich.

It is a timeless principle of economics. Two people can produce more than just one; but not just twice as much, a greater amount than that. As each specializes in his art, he becomes better and more efficient than if left to produce many things. We all agree, it’s easier to be a master of one thing than of many. Elementary as it is, that principle makes trade work. The Chinese excel at manufacturing. The Swiss make excellent watches. Germans engineer spine-tingling automobiles. We trade our best for theirs, so literally we get the best of both worlds.

However, the boys on the Hill have a favorite card to play when conditions are right: protectionism. It’s a perennial favorite of presidents and legislators. Of course, they love trade; well they love trading our economic growth to get votes from the auto industry, steel makers, (insert domestic producer here), etc. “Stimulus Pt. Deux” contains some “buy American” provisions that will only keep prices high and make matters worse. There is a litany of problems with this government binge-spending and this is one of them.

Tariffs, protectionism, and over-regulation in general are a net loss for the United States. History quite clearly shows that it wasn’t the stock market crash that sent the entire economy into violent contraction and The Great Depression. It was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. The Obama administration and his ghastly counterpart in the House, Comrade Nancy Pelosi, have decided to ignore the facts they may find disagreeable to their social agenda. Bush was no hero for the international market either. Any gains made in Free Trade were mitigated by his shameful support of steel, softwood lumber, and even shrimp tariffs.

One can make the argument for tariffs, but not on economic grounds. It becomes a value-based issue. If you can convince the court of public opinion that American steel is so superior to Europe’s that paying a premium is worth it, I’d say more power to you. Then there would be no need for tariffs. But this is impossible. It can’t be done. So instead of letting open and fair competition deliver the best products, the government intervenes and literally forces you to pay higher costs to suit a value judgment rather than free choice.

So Rob, I encourage you to pick the best. And don’t let anyone force you to pay a premium to do it.