Original: May 1, 2007
===============
Just in case you were wondering how that check you sent to Uncle Sam a few weeks ago is being spent, here's part of it: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (aka: Department of Political Correctness) is suing the Salvation Army.
One of the things the Salvation Army does that I applaud (and there are many), is require its employees to speak English. In 2003, a federal judge in Boston issued an opinion upholding that policy. A year later, a Salvation Army thrift shop in Framingham, Mass. did what, by any measure, was the right thing, it gave two of its Hispanic employees a full year to learn English. By rights, they could have handed them a check and said 'adios.' But they didn't, they gave the employees, who had already been working there for five years, another full year to comply with the organization's policy. In 2005, when the workers still could not speak English, they were fired. That should be the end of the story – actually, it shouldn't be a story at all, people get fired every day that you and I don't really need to know about.
Enter your tax dollars at work. The EEOC decided the Salvation Army's actions had caused "emotional pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation and inconvenience," and sued them. What? These yahoos had been on the job for five years and had not learned enough English to communicate effectively with their co-workers. The good people at the Salvation Army (and they are good people, you can't argue that) gave them another year to boost their skills and they didn't. The Salvation Army should sue the two workers for that year's salary!
But no, instead we have a government-run, taxpayer-funded organization screwing around with a faith-based, charitable, not-for-profit organization. And now there are two piles of money that came from you being spent on idiocy: Your tax dollars are paying for government lawyers who are prosecuting the Salvation Army. The change you drop in their bucket each Christmas is being spent, instead of on continuing their charitable work, on more lawyers to defend their right to require those they hire to speak their language.
¡Dios mio! ¿Qué está sucediendo aquí?
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Media Bias?
Original: May 1, 2007
===============
No matter which side of the aisle you sit on, someone in your camp has, and will again make an argument that the media is biased – for the other guys. You decide:
The Pew Research Center released a survey last week that indicated 31 percent of Americans know who the current Vice President is. The same survey showed only 37 percent of Americans are aware that the Chief Justice is conservative, 79 percent could not name Robert Gates as the Secretary of Defense and less than half knew Nancy Pelosi is the House Speaker.
Also last week, a Washington Post – ABC News poll indicated that a full two thirds of Americans see political motivations behind last year's firings of eight chief federal prosecutors.
Are these the same politically – savvy Americans who didn't know who the Vice President was? Are we to believe that the same people who don't know who the SecDef is have done enough research and paid close enough attention to come to an informed decision about the U.S. Attorney firings?
===============
No matter which side of the aisle you sit on, someone in your camp has, and will again make an argument that the media is biased – for the other guys. You decide:
The Pew Research Center released a survey last week that indicated 31 percent of Americans know who the current Vice President is. The same survey showed only 37 percent of Americans are aware that the Chief Justice is conservative, 79 percent could not name Robert Gates as the Secretary of Defense and less than half knew Nancy Pelosi is the House Speaker.
Also last week, a Washington Post – ABC News poll indicated that a full two thirds of Americans see political motivations behind last year's firings of eight chief federal prosecutors.
Are these the same politically – savvy Americans who didn't know who the Vice President was? Are we to believe that the same people who don't know who the SecDef is have done enough research and paid close enough attention to come to an informed decision about the U.S. Attorney firings?
How to sound like an Idiot
Original: April 24, 2007
================
"Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines -- along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly -- the right to own guns. That's an apples and oranges list if there ever was one. Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much... [The students at Virginia Tech] were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a.22-caliber handgun…" And the victims of the World Trade Center tragedy weren't killed by Islamic jihadists, they were killed by airplanes. Idiot.
He continues…"Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger. The probability of the Virginia Tech gun massacre happening would have been greatly reduced if guns weren't so easily available to ordinary citizens..." -- Tom Plate, former editor of the editorial pages of The Los Angeles Times. Cho Seung-Hui was not an ordinary citizen. He was a deranged individual who methodically planned the destruction of 32 ordinary citizens.
If you can get past the sarcastic disdain he shows for the document that guarantees his right to sound like an idiot in public, he still sounds like an idiot.
In a study of multiple-victim public shootings in the U.S. from 1977 to 1999, Dr. John Lott and Bill Landes (University of Chicago law school) showed that when states passed right-to-carry laws, the rate of multiple victim public shootings fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple victim public shootings fell even further, on average by 78 percent.
Those are real numbers. Plate and those like him cannot give real numbers that would support taking away guns from law abiding ordinary citizens. There's no question that there are too many guns out there in the hands of the wrong people. There are also too many automobiles out there being driven by criminals and the just plain stupid. And they kill thousands of people each year. Does that mean we should pass laws that would take cars away from everyone who drives the speed limit and wears their seatbelt?
================
"Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines -- along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly -- the right to own guns. That's an apples and oranges list if there ever was one. Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much... [The students at Virginia Tech] were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a.22-caliber handgun…" And the victims of the World Trade Center tragedy weren't killed by Islamic jihadists, they were killed by airplanes. Idiot.
He continues…"Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger. The probability of the Virginia Tech gun massacre happening would have been greatly reduced if guns weren't so easily available to ordinary citizens..." -- Tom Plate, former editor of the editorial pages of The Los Angeles Times. Cho Seung-Hui was not an ordinary citizen. He was a deranged individual who methodically planned the destruction of 32 ordinary citizens.
If you can get past the sarcastic disdain he shows for the document that guarantees his right to sound like an idiot in public, he still sounds like an idiot.
In a study of multiple-victim public shootings in the U.S. from 1977 to 1999, Dr. John Lott and Bill Landes (University of Chicago law school) showed that when states passed right-to-carry laws, the rate of multiple victim public shootings fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple victim public shootings fell even further, on average by 78 percent.
Those are real numbers. Plate and those like him cannot give real numbers that would support taking away guns from law abiding ordinary citizens. There's no question that there are too many guns out there in the hands of the wrong people. There are also too many automobiles out there being driven by criminals and the just plain stupid. And they kill thousands of people each year. Does that mean we should pass laws that would take cars away from everyone who drives the speed limit and wears their seatbelt?
Gunman
Original: April 13, 2007
Why is Cho Seung-Hui continually refered to by the media as the gunman and not the murderer? If he had gone on a stabbing rampage with a knife, would he be refered to as the knifeman?
What if he clubbed someone with a baseball bat? Would he then be batman?
Why is Cho Seung-Hui continually refered to by the media as the gunman and not the murderer? If he had gone on a stabbing rampage with a knife, would he be refered to as the knifeman?
What if he clubbed someone with a baseball bat? Would he then be batman?
Attention Huffington Zealots
Original: April 20, 2007
================
I'm not wearing orange and maroon today because my uniform is made up of shades of tan and green. Having said that, I feel deeply for the families who lots loved ones this past Monday at Virginia Tech. I'm sorry for your loss, I wish it hadn't happened.
One of the more disgusting byproducts of this tragedy is the increase in idiots using it as a springboard to launch more of their anti second amendment rhetoric.
I'm just going to make two points on the topic and then shut up. Disclaimer: If you think Katie Couric or Paula Zhan are good reporters, stop reading now, I'm just going to piss you off.
In her post yesterday afternoon, Arianna Huffington went out of her way to point out that the weapons used by that miscreant Cho Seung-Hui on Monday were semiautomatic, and that he was able to obtain them legally.
To her and every other lefty out there, I offer this: Be thankful Virginia has such "dangerous" gun laws that allowed him to purchase two rather benign weapons. Had he decided, like the vast majority of America's criminal element, to obtain his weapons illegally, I would venture to guess that they would not have been semiautomatic. What sort of destruction would have been wrought had he delved into the illegal gun market and come up with a couple of automatic handguns? Thirty-two grieving families could easily have turned into 92.
Brought back to the spotlight is the Virginia state legislature's debacle last January when they shot down a bill that would have allowed students and staff, who have valid concealed handgun permits, to carry their guns on campus. Idiots.
Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia, Jan. 16, 2002. Peter Odighizuwa, a student from Nigeria, killed the school's dean, a professor and a student, and wounded three others. Mr. Odighizuwa's spree was cut short because two students went to their cars, retrieved their handguns, and with the help of an unarmed student subdued Mr. Odighizuwa.
Pearl, Mississippi, Oct. 1, 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham took his rifle to school and began shooting his classmates. His spree was stopped when Assistant Principal Joel Myrick raced to his pickup, retrieved his .45 pistol, and subdued him.
Virginia Tech Associate Vice President Larry Hincker and the rest of his pink-bellied cohorts took away the student and staff's ability to defend themselves. Somebody should have been able to shoot that socially retarded twerp before his body count grew as high as it did.
Veritas vos Liberabit
================
I'm not wearing orange and maroon today because my uniform is made up of shades of tan and green. Having said that, I feel deeply for the families who lots loved ones this past Monday at Virginia Tech. I'm sorry for your loss, I wish it hadn't happened.
One of the more disgusting byproducts of this tragedy is the increase in idiots using it as a springboard to launch more of their anti second amendment rhetoric.
I'm just going to make two points on the topic and then shut up. Disclaimer: If you think Katie Couric or Paula Zhan are good reporters, stop reading now, I'm just going to piss you off.
In her post yesterday afternoon, Arianna Huffington went out of her way to point out that the weapons used by that miscreant Cho Seung-Hui on Monday were semiautomatic, and that he was able to obtain them legally.
To her and every other lefty out there, I offer this: Be thankful Virginia has such "dangerous" gun laws that allowed him to purchase two rather benign weapons. Had he decided, like the vast majority of America's criminal element, to obtain his weapons illegally, I would venture to guess that they would not have been semiautomatic. What sort of destruction would have been wrought had he delved into the illegal gun market and come up with a couple of automatic handguns? Thirty-two grieving families could easily have turned into 92.
Brought back to the spotlight is the Virginia state legislature's debacle last January when they shot down a bill that would have allowed students and staff, who have valid concealed handgun permits, to carry their guns on campus. Idiots.
Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia, Jan. 16, 2002. Peter Odighizuwa, a student from Nigeria, killed the school's dean, a professor and a student, and wounded three others. Mr. Odighizuwa's spree was cut short because two students went to their cars, retrieved their handguns, and with the help of an unarmed student subdued Mr. Odighizuwa.
Pearl, Mississippi, Oct. 1, 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham took his rifle to school and began shooting his classmates. His spree was stopped when Assistant Principal Joel Myrick raced to his pickup, retrieved his .45 pistol, and subdued him.
Virginia Tech Associate Vice President Larry Hincker and the rest of his pink-bellied cohorts took away the student and staff's ability to defend themselves. Somebody should have been able to shoot that socially retarded twerp before his body count grew as high as it did.
Veritas vos Liberabit
Heterophobia
Sen. Vitter Outed As Heterosexual: Heterophobia Feared
by Mac Johnson
Posted: 07/13/2007
Washington was rocked -- ROCKED -- this week when it was revealed that Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, is a practicing heterosexual. The news came as part of a larger bombshell, as Vitter's name was revealed to be on the client list of the so-called "D.C. Madam" (who is apparently not Nancy Pelosi, by the way, but a physical prostitute.)
Vitter, obviously unfamiliar with how to react when one's sexual identity is made public, immediately apologized and foolishly focused on the paying-for-sex aspect of the whole affair. He also used the word "sin," which at the time that this column went to press, I was unable to find a definition for in my official media dictionary.
Contrast this to the way Congressman Barney Frank reacted when it was revealed that he was living with a male prostitute, who was running a gay escort service out of Frank's home -- when not having Frank try to influence his probation officer or having sex with Frank in the Congressional gym (or perhaps it was the page in the gym? -- oh well, it's so hard to keep our congressmen straight!). When caught, Frank ignored the whole whore-mongering detail and focused instead on declaring his true sexual identity from the rooftops. Once safely homosexual, Frank was immune to all other criticism for being a sugar daddy to a coin-operated boy-toy pimp with a felony conviction for "production of obscene items involving a juvenile." I also believe that had Frank had a private sector job, Human Resources might have wanted to talk to him for inappropriate use of a company thigh-master.
Frank was reelected for life as a sort of mascot for Massachusetts sensibilities and declared "courageous." Clearly, anyone who found Frank's whoring a bit unbecoming of a public servant was a homophobic hater.
I would like to point out to Senator Vitter that the same opportunity exists for him now. David, embrace your rampant and unabashed heterosexuality and become a shining example of heterosexual identity. OUT OF THE BROTHEL AND INTO THE STREET! Too long have heterosexual males been persecuted and criticized for who they are. Dang it, you can't control who you love, you can only negotiate a better rate.
After years of being told not to stare, not to make innuendos, not to make any particularly funny jokes at work, and to report to Human Resources for remedial Sensitivity Training and Sexual Harassment class, I've had enough. I want a protected legal status for my "sexual identity". I want a bumper sticker. I want a parade, and dammit, I want to pick out who gets to ride on my float according to my blatant personal "lookism."
There is just one word for the dark motivation behind Vitter's outing and that is HETEROPHOBIA! There I said it. If this country wants to erase its lingering legacy of heterophobia, then I want heterosexual scandals to be treated with equal stupidity. Vitter must be re-elected, cleansed, treated with kid gloves by the media, and if he has a lisp then no one must ever make fun of it --EVER-- or else be called an ignorant heterophobe. Also, Vitter should probably have a marine sanctuary named after him; and why doesn't this man have a design show on "HGTV"?!
OK, that last joke was just gratuitous, but I'm on an indignant campaign to have my carnal instincts recognized as an important topic for public validation, approval, and celebration. I have further demands: a return of "The Man Show", the appointment of Leeann Tweeden to the Supreme Court (clearly a redesign of the robes will have to follow), and the reopening of all the recently closed New England "Hooters" restaurants (obvious victims of the culinary heterophobia of the northeastern elite). And basically, I want to live like a budget Kennedy and be told I'm good.
Senator Vitter, stand up for who you are (other than being a whore chaser, I mean), and lead this movement. Look into the camera and tell the world, "I am a Straight-American." Don't give in to the pressure of the heterophobes -- chief among which is Larry The Flynt, who when reached for comment while regenerating in a pit of slime aboard a hovering party ship on his home planet, had this to say, "Ow Argh… I tup myselp wi a tuna fish arghhhhhhhh…."
Flynt, publisher of Hustler (the trailer park behind Playboy's Mansion) and all around great role model for children, claims to have been the one that outed Vitter in order to punish "hypocrisy." Flynt may just be jealous, however, since as a man without any morals or limits he can never be called a hypocrite himself, unless of course, he suddenly judged himself disgusting.
In fact, I'm a huge fan of hypocrisy, since the alternative is apparently a world without standards for anyone, lest someone risk being called a hypocrite. Here is the difference between the average hypocrite and the average liberal: the hypocrite has the common courtesy to be embarrassed about what he does. The liberal thinks what he does should be taught to your children at school.
So I dream of a world with a bit more public hypocrisy.
I'm not defending Vitter; I'm just making a few observations on things. So don't judge me, you heterophobic hypocrites. Celebrate my diversity.
by Mac Johnson
Posted: 07/13/2007
Washington was rocked -- ROCKED -- this week when it was revealed that Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, is a practicing heterosexual. The news came as part of a larger bombshell, as Vitter's name was revealed to be on the client list of the so-called "D.C. Madam" (who is apparently not Nancy Pelosi, by the way, but a physical prostitute.)
Vitter, obviously unfamiliar with how to react when one's sexual identity is made public, immediately apologized and foolishly focused on the paying-for-sex aspect of the whole affair. He also used the word "sin," which at the time that this column went to press, I was unable to find a definition for in my official media dictionary.
Contrast this to the way Congressman Barney Frank reacted when it was revealed that he was living with a male prostitute, who was running a gay escort service out of Frank's home -- when not having Frank try to influence his probation officer or having sex with Frank in the Congressional gym (or perhaps it was the page in the gym? -- oh well, it's so hard to keep our congressmen straight!). When caught, Frank ignored the whole whore-mongering detail and focused instead on declaring his true sexual identity from the rooftops. Once safely homosexual, Frank was immune to all other criticism for being a sugar daddy to a coin-operated boy-toy pimp with a felony conviction for "production of obscene items involving a juvenile." I also believe that had Frank had a private sector job, Human Resources might have wanted to talk to him for inappropriate use of a company thigh-master.
Frank was reelected for life as a sort of mascot for Massachusetts sensibilities and declared "courageous." Clearly, anyone who found Frank's whoring a bit unbecoming of a public servant was a homophobic hater.
I would like to point out to Senator Vitter that the same opportunity exists for him now. David, embrace your rampant and unabashed heterosexuality and become a shining example of heterosexual identity. OUT OF THE BROTHEL AND INTO THE STREET! Too long have heterosexual males been persecuted and criticized for who they are. Dang it, you can't control who you love, you can only negotiate a better rate.
After years of being told not to stare, not to make innuendos, not to make any particularly funny jokes at work, and to report to Human Resources for remedial Sensitivity Training and Sexual Harassment class, I've had enough. I want a protected legal status for my "sexual identity". I want a bumper sticker. I want a parade, and dammit, I want to pick out who gets to ride on my float according to my blatant personal "lookism."
There is just one word for the dark motivation behind Vitter's outing and that is HETEROPHOBIA! There I said it. If this country wants to erase its lingering legacy of heterophobia, then I want heterosexual scandals to be treated with equal stupidity. Vitter must be re-elected, cleansed, treated with kid gloves by the media, and if he has a lisp then no one must ever make fun of it --EVER-- or else be called an ignorant heterophobe. Also, Vitter should probably have a marine sanctuary named after him; and why doesn't this man have a design show on "HGTV"?!
OK, that last joke was just gratuitous, but I'm on an indignant campaign to have my carnal instincts recognized as an important topic for public validation, approval, and celebration. I have further demands: a return of "The Man Show", the appointment of Leeann Tweeden to the Supreme Court (clearly a redesign of the robes will have to follow), and the reopening of all the recently closed New England "Hooters" restaurants (obvious victims of the culinary heterophobia of the northeastern elite). And basically, I want to live like a budget Kennedy and be told I'm good.
Senator Vitter, stand up for who you are (other than being a whore chaser, I mean), and lead this movement. Look into the camera and tell the world, "I am a Straight-American." Don't give in to the pressure of the heterophobes -- chief among which is Larry The Flynt, who when reached for comment while regenerating in a pit of slime aboard a hovering party ship on his home planet, had this to say, "Ow Argh… I tup myselp wi a tuna fish arghhhhhhhh…."
Flynt, publisher of Hustler (the trailer park behind Playboy's Mansion) and all around great role model for children, claims to have been the one that outed Vitter in order to punish "hypocrisy." Flynt may just be jealous, however, since as a man without any morals or limits he can never be called a hypocrite himself, unless of course, he suddenly judged himself disgusting.
In fact, I'm a huge fan of hypocrisy, since the alternative is apparently a world without standards for anyone, lest someone risk being called a hypocrite. Here is the difference between the average hypocrite and the average liberal: the hypocrite has the common courtesy to be embarrassed about what he does. The liberal thinks what he does should be taught to your children at school.
So I dream of a world with a bit more public hypocrisy.
I'm not defending Vitter; I'm just making a few observations on things. So don't judge me, you heterophobic hypocrites. Celebrate my diversity.
Reserved disdain
Original: June 26, 2007
================
On his HuffPo blog on Saturday, Russell Shaw posted an article titled Another Reason Some Conservatives Hate Immigrants. He points out specific groups of conservatives who he believes may be more prone to such narrow-mindedness. Being a member of one of his example groups who does in fact not hate immigrants, I took particular offense. I immediately posted a comment on the site in response to his article. The comment was promptly removed by the site moderators. It is conceivable that it was removed because my comment violated HuffPo's ad hominem attack rules, I did call him an idiot, and said something about him spewing. My second, more dispassionate comment, has thus far met the moderator's standards and is still on the site. I've included it here as well.
==========================================================================
My previous comment was removed for violating the ad hominem attack rules. Mea culpa.
I strongly disagree with Mr. Shaw in his assertion that conservatives as a whole hate (or at least exhibit disdain for) immigrants. My mother is an immigrant, I certainly don't hate her. The gentlemen who installed my carpet a few weeks ago are immigrants, I feel no disdain for them. They are hard workers who are actively occupied with learning the English language. Both excellent examples of what a legal immigrant looks like.
The vast majority of conservatives with whom I have spoken on the subject (I belong to one of Mr. Shaw's example groups, the military, so, as he points out, I know a lot of conservatives) agree with me that legal immigration is a good thing. It's the illegal immigrants we hold in contempt, not because they speak with an accent, but because they have subverted the laws of our Nation and now suckle at the teat of my tax dollar.
Research at the Heritage Foundation suggests that the average illegal immigrant family receives about $30,000 annually in government benefits. But that same family pays only $9,000 in taxes. That's $21,000 that the government is taking from you and me and giving to someone who is in this country illegally.
Conservative disdain is reserved for the politicians and citizens who support these illegal immigrants. Our scorn is set aside for those who would foist upon us the burden of care for 12 million people who disregard the rule of law of the country they purport to want to be part of.
==================================================================
================
On his HuffPo blog on Saturday, Russell Shaw posted an article titled Another Reason Some Conservatives Hate Immigrants. He points out specific groups of conservatives who he believes may be more prone to such narrow-mindedness. Being a member of one of his example groups who does in fact not hate immigrants, I took particular offense. I immediately posted a comment on the site in response to his article. The comment was promptly removed by the site moderators. It is conceivable that it was removed because my comment violated HuffPo's ad hominem attack rules, I did call him an idiot, and said something about him spewing. My second, more dispassionate comment, has thus far met the moderator's standards and is still on the site. I've included it here as well.
==========================================================================
My previous comment was removed for violating the ad hominem attack rules. Mea culpa.
I strongly disagree with Mr. Shaw in his assertion that conservatives as a whole hate (or at least exhibit disdain for) immigrants. My mother is an immigrant, I certainly don't hate her. The gentlemen who installed my carpet a few weeks ago are immigrants, I feel no disdain for them. They are hard workers who are actively occupied with learning the English language. Both excellent examples of what a legal immigrant looks like.
The vast majority of conservatives with whom I have spoken on the subject (I belong to one of Mr. Shaw's example groups, the military, so, as he points out, I know a lot of conservatives) agree with me that legal immigration is a good thing. It's the illegal immigrants we hold in contempt, not because they speak with an accent, but because they have subverted the laws of our Nation and now suckle at the teat of my tax dollar.
Research at the Heritage Foundation suggests that the average illegal immigrant family receives about $30,000 annually in government benefits. But that same family pays only $9,000 in taxes. That's $21,000 that the government is taking from you and me and giving to someone who is in this country illegally.
Conservative disdain is reserved for the politicians and citizens who support these illegal immigrants. Our scorn is set aside for those who would foist upon us the burden of care for 12 million people who disregard the rule of law of the country they purport to want to be part of.
==================================================================
DC offline: I would like to question briefly your designation of "those who would foist upon us the burden of care for 12 million people who disregard the rule of law of the country they purport to want to be part of."
According to the paragraph above that designation, an ILLEGAL immigrant family ALREADY sucks $21,000 out of our taxpayer pockets. Giving these people a pathway to legalization will not add to that number, since it is a burden we are already paying.
If anything, if these ILLEGALS were able to become LEGAL, wouldn't our relative share of tax burden be lessened? I assume that the $21,000 per family that the Heritage Foundation cites is a relatively high number compared to our tax burden for poor LEGAL families, correct?
Doesn't it therefore stand to reason that granting a pathway to legalization for these ILLEGAL families would reduce the total number of ILLEGALS in this country and thus LESSEN the overall tax burden for the rest of us?
Maybe my logic is totally upside down, but I'm having a hard time understanding what the problem is here.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'll be the first to admit that economics much beyond balancing my checkbook are not my strong point. So instead of trying to blunder my way through it, I'll post Robert Rector's (the author of the Heritage Foundation research) rebuttal to some other's rebuttal of his research.But beyond the economics, it goes against my core to, basically, reclassify 12 million criminals as not criminals, simply because...why? If my tax dollars must be spent on illegal immigrants, I would rather it be spent deporting every last one of them. I don't care if they are Bosnian, Mexican, Indian or Canadian; high school basketball coach, maid, construction worker or dental hygienist. If they are here illegally, get them out. Once they have returned to their own country, if they turn around and come back legally, I will welcome them with open arms (an American flag in one hand and an English for Dummies book in the other.)
Spinning the Real Costs of Illegals
Robert Rector
Monday's column from the Administration's Karl Zinsmeister and Edward Lazear ("Lead Weight or Gold Mine: What are the True Costs of Immigration?" June 25, RCP) is a study in misdirection and misstatement. Since they devote much of their piece to attacking my research, I'd like to set the record straight.
Let's start with a brief review of what my research into the fiscal cost of low-skill households has actually found:* Low-skill individuals (i.e., those without a high school degree) receive far more in benefits and services than they pay in taxes.
* The net fiscal cost of the families headed by low-skill immigrants is not markedly different from the cost of families headed by low-skill non-immigrants.
* Low-skill immigrants receive, on average, three dollars in government benefits for each dollar of taxes paid. This imbalance generates a net cost of $89 billion per year on U.S. taxpayers. Over a lifetime the typical low-skill immigrant household costs taxpayers $1.2 million dollars.
* Immigrants are disproportionately low-skilled. One-third of all immigrants and more than half (50 to 60 percent) of illegal immigrants lack a high school degree.
* In contrast to low- and moderate-skill immigrants, immigrants with college education will pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.
My conclusion: Immigration policy should seek to increase the number of high-skill immigrants entering the country and sharply decrease the number of low-skill, fiscally dependent immigrants.
Future taxpayer costs will only rise under policies that increase the number of low-skill immigrants entering the U.S., their length of stay in the country, or their access to government benefits and services. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the Senate immigration bill does. The cost of amnesty alone will reach $2.6 trillion once the recipients reach retirement age.
To defend this exorbitantly expensive legislation, Zinsmeister and Lazear must resort to inaccurate or misleading assertions. For example, they claim that, under the Senate immigration bill, amnesty recipients will receive little or no welfare.
While the Senate bill would delay most amnesty recipients' access to welfare until some 10 to 13 years after enactment, any of their children born here would have immediate access to all welfare programs, guaranteed for a lifetime.
Moreover, the initial limitation on receipt of means-tested welfare will have only a small effect on governmental costs. The average adult amnesty recipient can be expected to live more than 50 years after receiving his Z visa. Most, then will be fully eligible for welfare during the last 35 to 40 years of their lives. And use of welfare during these years will be heavy.
Zinsmeister and Lazear argue that amnesty recipients must earn access to welfare "the old fashioned way," as if that creates some great protection for taxpayers. Unfortunately, low-skill immigrant families who access the welfare system "the old fashioned way" receive, on average, $10, 500 per year in means-tested welfare benefits, a half-million dollars over a lifetime.
Suggesting that amnesty recipients will be net tax contributors, Zinsmeister and Lazear go so far as to claim they will actually increase the revenue available to support Social Security and Medicare. But this is true for high-skill immigrants only. The majority of those who would receive amnesty are low-skill workers, and another 25 percent have only a high school degree. Experience shows that these immigrant groups will be a net burden to taxpayers over the entire course of their lives.
That reality destroys the authors' suggestion that amnesty will help keep Social Security afloat. In the not too distant future, the Social Security trust fund will be in deficit. Government will have to use general revenues to help pay promised benefits. Since amnesty recipients and their families will consume more government revenues that they contribute, they will undermine the financial support for U.S. retirees even before they reach retirement age themselves.
Zinsmeister and Lazear claim the Senate bill will "sharply improve" the fiscal balance sheet by switching to a merit-based system that will increase the proportion of high-skilled workers among future immigrants.
But the merit system is actually designed to confer citizenship on low-skill "temporary guest workers" rather than bring professionals from abroad. The point system for selecting green card holders is far from merit-based. For example, green card applicants get lots of points if they are working in "high demand" occupations, which include janitor, waitress, sales clerk, fast food worker, freight handler, laborer, grounds keeper, food preparation worker, maid, and house cleaner. With a recommendation from her employer, a high school dropout working in a McDonald's will outscore an applicant with a Ph.D. trying to enter the country from abroad.
Nor do the authors mention that the bill will triple the annual rate of family-chain migration to 440,000 annually, bringing in up to 5.9 million over the next decade. Family-chain immigrants are predominately low-skilled: 60 percent have only a high school degree or less; 38 percent lack a high school degree.
The column falsely asserts that "low-skill immigrants are actually comparatively self-sufficient compared to low skill native households." Actually, wages, tax payments, and reliance on welfare are quite similar for the two groups. Low-skill non-immigrants differ from immigrants primarily because they are more likely to be elderly and therefore less likely to be employed.
The authors accurately note that the children of low-skill immigrants do better than their parents. With higher education levels, they will receive fewer welfare benefits and pay more in taxes. But despite this progress, the children of immigrant dropouts will remain a net drain on taxpayers.
Why so? Because the educational attainments of low-skill immigrants' offspring aren't as elevated as Zinsmeister and Lazear imply. They correctly trumpet that the "children of immigrant parents are 12 percent more likely to obtain a college degree than other natives." They fail to note that the relevant group, children of low-skill immigrants, have below average educational attainments. For example, the children of Hispanic dropout parents are three times more likely to drop out of high school, and 75 percent less likely to have a college degree, than the general population.
The descendents of immigrant dropouts do not become net tax contributors until the third generation. This means that the net fiscal impact of low-skill immigrants will remain negative for 50 to 60 years after their arrival in the U.S.
The main fiscal impact of S.1348 occurs through (1) the grant of amnesty, which gives 12 million predominantly low-skilled, illegal immigrants access to Social Security, Medicare and welfare benefits, and (2) a dramatic increase in chain immigration, also dominated by the low-skilled. Zinsmeister's and Lazear's talk about tax-generating, college-educated immigrants is a red herring, designed to obscure the obvious fiscal consequences of the legislation. Touting "merit-based" provisions that assure only a steady flow of "high tech" waitresses, janitors and fast food workers reveals how indefensible the bill actually is.
High-school dropouts are extremely expensive. It doesn't matter whether they come from Ohio, Tennessee or Mexico. It does matter that the Senate immigration bill would increase the flow of poorly educated immigrants into the U.S. and give millions of poorly educated aliens already here access to government benefits. The bill for U.S. taxpayers will be gargantuan.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Free for Me, but not for Thee
Original: June 26, 2007
================
A few days ago I ran across an article that bemoaned the preponderance of conservative talk shows on our Nation's airways that seemed to be stifling the expression of the "progressive" viewpoint. I cannot remember who wrote it, but one of their proposed solutions to this "problem" was tighter regulatory control of the public airway licensing process. I was pondering how to best express my thoughts on this idiocy when I found the following article. Mr. Kelly says pretty much what I wanted to say, but probably better. He also addresses a couple other topics in a manner I agree with. Read on….
Liberals vs. Free Speech
Jack Kelly
Are there moderate Muslims? And if there are, why aren't they speaking out against the beheaders and the suicide bombers?
A lot of people ask those questions. Canadian filmmaker Martyn Burke set out to answer them. He made a documentary. "Islam vs. Islamist," which was financed in part by a $675,000 grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Mr. Burke hired journalists who reported from Denmark, France, Canada and the United States. There are a great many moderate Muslims, they found, but they don't speak out because they are intimidated by threats of coercion, ostracism and physical violence from the Islamists in their communities.
Mr. Burke's findings are important, but this column is about why the Public Broadcasting System chose not to air his documentary.
PBS had two objections, Mr. Burke told Bill Steigerwald of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. The first was that Mr. Burke showed "favoritism" to those Muslims who don't want to blow up their neighbors.
"Basically, the attitude...was that the Muslims we were portraying as the moderates were in some way, in their view, not true Muslims because they were Westernized," Mr. Burke told Mr. Steigerwald. "They felt the Islamists somehow represented a truer strain of Islam."
PBS also objected to Mr. Burke's co-producers, Frank Gaffney, a former assistant secretary of defense, and Alex Alexiev, a former RAND corporation expert on Islamic extremism.
"They demanded that I fire my two partners, because my partners were conservatives," Mr. Burke said.
PBS is the beau ideal of many liberals when it comes to free speech. Their point of view is subsidized by the taxpayers. Other points of view are suppressed.
In another triumph for the liberal view of free speech (free for me but not for thee), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled city officials may override the First Amendment if the exercise of free speech by some city employees offends the delicate sensibilities of liberals.
Some black Christian women who work for the city of Oakland, California produced a flier in which they said "marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values." This was treated as "hate speech" by the city government after another city employee, who is a lesbian, said she "felt threatened" by the sentiment expressed.
Defending marriage is now a firing offense in Oakland, where, however, city officials see nothing inappropriate about permitting gay rights groups to advertise "Happy Coming Out Day" over the city communications system.
Liberal intolerance of other than liberal opinions is behind efforts to reinstate the inaptly named "Fairness doctrine" in radio.
A think tank funded in large part by George Soros and headed by former Clinton aide John Podesta has noted with alarm that 91 percent of total weekday talk programming is conservative. Mr. Podesta attributed the gap between conservative and "progressive" talk radio to "multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system." He proposed new regulations to restrict conservatives and subsidize liberals.
But liberal talk radio is failing not because of "multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system." It's failing because hardly anyone listens to it. Expensive efforts like Air America with big stars such as "comedian" Al Franken flopped because the audience for liberal talk is tiny.
Talk radio is an interactive medium. There may be something in that format that is especially appealing to conservatives. But I suspect talk radio has become a conservative bastion chiefly because the broadcast television networks, two of the three cable networks, and a large majority of the nation's most prominent newspapers and magazines -- not to mention publicly funded PBS and NPR -- are in liberal hands. There are few outlets for conservative expression other than talk radio and Fox News.
Since liberals control most -- and the most important -- media, it is hypocritical of them to wring their hands over conservative domination of talk radio. But many liberals will not be happy until all viewpoints other than their own have been suppressed.
I see this every day at the very liberal newspaper where I work. Conservatives often write angry letters to the editor, criticizing the arguments made in an editorial, or what they perceive as the slant in a news story. Liberals unhappy with my columns often demand that I be fired. They object not just to my point of view, but to the fact that it was expressed. Scratch a liberal, and you'll often find a fascist underneath.
================
A few days ago I ran across an article that bemoaned the preponderance of conservative talk shows on our Nation's airways that seemed to be stifling the expression of the "progressive" viewpoint. I cannot remember who wrote it, but one of their proposed solutions to this "problem" was tighter regulatory control of the public airway licensing process. I was pondering how to best express my thoughts on this idiocy when I found the following article. Mr. Kelly says pretty much what I wanted to say, but probably better. He also addresses a couple other topics in a manner I agree with. Read on….
Liberals vs. Free Speech
Jack Kelly
Are there moderate Muslims? And if there are, why aren't they speaking out against the beheaders and the suicide bombers?
A lot of people ask those questions. Canadian filmmaker Martyn Burke set out to answer them. He made a documentary. "Islam vs. Islamist," which was financed in part by a $675,000 grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Mr. Burke hired journalists who reported from Denmark, France, Canada and the United States. There are a great many moderate Muslims, they found, but they don't speak out because they are intimidated by threats of coercion, ostracism and physical violence from the Islamists in their communities.
Mr. Burke's findings are important, but this column is about why the Public Broadcasting System chose not to air his documentary.
PBS had two objections, Mr. Burke told Bill Steigerwald of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. The first was that Mr. Burke showed "favoritism" to those Muslims who don't want to blow up their neighbors.
"Basically, the attitude...was that the Muslims we were portraying as the moderates were in some way, in their view, not true Muslims because they were Westernized," Mr. Burke told Mr. Steigerwald. "They felt the Islamists somehow represented a truer strain of Islam."
PBS also objected to Mr. Burke's co-producers, Frank Gaffney, a former assistant secretary of defense, and Alex Alexiev, a former RAND corporation expert on Islamic extremism.
"They demanded that I fire my two partners, because my partners were conservatives," Mr. Burke said.
PBS is the beau ideal of many liberals when it comes to free speech. Their point of view is subsidized by the taxpayers. Other points of view are suppressed.
In another triumph for the liberal view of free speech (free for me but not for thee), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled city officials may override the First Amendment if the exercise of free speech by some city employees offends the delicate sensibilities of liberals.
Some black Christian women who work for the city of Oakland, California produced a flier in which they said "marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values." This was treated as "hate speech" by the city government after another city employee, who is a lesbian, said she "felt threatened" by the sentiment expressed.
Defending marriage is now a firing offense in Oakland, where, however, city officials see nothing inappropriate about permitting gay rights groups to advertise "Happy Coming Out Day" over the city communications system.
Liberal intolerance of other than liberal opinions is behind efforts to reinstate the inaptly named "Fairness doctrine" in radio.
A think tank funded in large part by George Soros and headed by former Clinton aide John Podesta has noted with alarm that 91 percent of total weekday talk programming is conservative. Mr. Podesta attributed the gap between conservative and "progressive" talk radio to "multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system." He proposed new regulations to restrict conservatives and subsidize liberals.
But liberal talk radio is failing not because of "multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system." It's failing because hardly anyone listens to it. Expensive efforts like Air America with big stars such as "comedian" Al Franken flopped because the audience for liberal talk is tiny.
Talk radio is an interactive medium. There may be something in that format that is especially appealing to conservatives. But I suspect talk radio has become a conservative bastion chiefly because the broadcast television networks, two of the three cable networks, and a large majority of the nation's most prominent newspapers and magazines -- not to mention publicly funded PBS and NPR -- are in liberal hands. There are few outlets for conservative expression other than talk radio and Fox News.
Since liberals control most -- and the most important -- media, it is hypocritical of them to wring their hands over conservative domination of talk radio. But many liberals will not be happy until all viewpoints other than their own have been suppressed.
I see this every day at the very liberal newspaper where I work. Conservatives often write angry letters to the editor, criticizing the arguments made in an editorial, or what they perceive as the slant in a news story. Liberals unhappy with my columns often demand that I be fired. They object not just to my point of view, but to the fact that it was expressed. Scratch a liberal, and you'll often find a fascist underneath.
And then the waiting was over.
Today I am extraordinarily elated and dreadfully depressed at the same time. Impossible? Today I talked with my friend Soukhi for the first time in about three years. She's been stationed in Okinawa, Japan for a few years so we've had to rely on the occasional email. Anyone who knows me knows I'm not good at keeping up that way. But today we talked. And it was good. She is a friend among friends. She told me today that God has a plan for everything, even if we don't understand it right now (and we rarely do.) It turns out that His plan for me right now is for me to not get promoted. I've been waiting, like a junior asking the cheerleader captain to the prom, since Friday (actually for the last two months, while the board has been deciding, they just finished Friday) to find out if I'd been selected for promotion this year. The list came out today, and you've guessed by now that my name was not on it. I could bitch for a few paragraphs as to why my name was not on that list, but I'm not going to. I believe I've been done an injustice by my superiors, but I'm also OK with it. For two reasons. I firmly believe God was not ready for me to be promoted yet; He's got a time set for me. The second reason is this: I'm serving the greatest nation in history, as part of the greatest fighting organization in the World. While the (minute) monetary compensation, along with the respect from my peers would be nice, I don't need either to be personally successful. I'm doing the job I've been given to do and will continue to do it as a Staff Sergeant. When God and the Marine Corps decide I need to be a Gunnery Sergeant, I will be happy to pin that on my collar. Until and beyond then; I am one of those men standing ready to do violence on your behalf so you may sleep peaceful at night. Semper Fidelis.
Just the facts, ma'am
Original: June 7, 2007
===============
Almost 10 years ago now I attended a school to become a basically trained photojournalist for the military. Nothing too intense, the first three months of the school focused on print journalism and the second half on broadcast, altogether about the equivalent of an Associates degree; just the basics.
Like many schools I've attended, I didn't pay real close attention. One thing I do remember learning though is that within the broad scope of journalism, there are a number of subsets, and each of these categories has its own set of rules.
When reporting news, one should apply the Dragnet method of "Just the facts ma'am." Feature writing gives one license to bust out his book of adverbs and adjectives and other such flowery language. Those smart enough to write for an opinion column, or produce an editorial are allowed to – you guessed it – opine and editorialize. And never the thrain (there are no rules here, so I can make up words) shall meet.
I made you suffer through all of that to show you this:
The White House suffered an embarrassing setback in its effort to try detainees at Guantánamo Bay on Monday when military judges threw out all charges against the first two prisoners to come before the newly-constituted commission. – Financial Times, June 4, 2007.
Which could just have easily been written like this:
Military judges on Monday threw out all charges against the first two Guantánamo Bay prisoners to come before the newly- constituted commission.
Without debating support or lack thereof for the White House or its current occupant, I will ask this question: Did Mr. Sevastopulo need to throw in his two cents in labeling the incidents as embarrassing for the White House?
The expression of dissatisfaction with an administration's policies/actions is an important part of any democracy, but it's not news. Neither is gloating over perceived failure of those policies of actions.
To paraphrase my friend Eric, I am rather enamored with my own opinion so I understand the draw toward editorializing, which is one of the reasons I don't really like writing news. It's boring. But when I do, I do it with the stoic tenacity of Jack Webb. I'm often enthralled by other's opinions as well, but they don't belong in the news.
In reporting news, today's media needs to take a step back to yesteryear and borrow a page from Webb's book and start giving us just the facts.
===============
Almost 10 years ago now I attended a school to become a basically trained photojournalist for the military. Nothing too intense, the first three months of the school focused on print journalism and the second half on broadcast, altogether about the equivalent of an Associates degree; just the basics.
Like many schools I've attended, I didn't pay real close attention. One thing I do remember learning though is that within the broad scope of journalism, there are a number of subsets, and each of these categories has its own set of rules.
When reporting news, one should apply the Dragnet method of "Just the facts ma'am." Feature writing gives one license to bust out his book of adverbs and adjectives and other such flowery language. Those smart enough to write for an opinion column, or produce an editorial are allowed to – you guessed it – opine and editorialize. And never the thrain (there are no rules here, so I can make up words) shall meet.
I made you suffer through all of that to show you this:
The White House suffered an embarrassing setback in its effort to try detainees at Guantánamo Bay on Monday when military judges threw out all charges against the first two prisoners to come before the newly-constituted commission. – Financial Times, June 4, 2007.
Which could just have easily been written like this:
Military judges on Monday threw out all charges against the first two Guantánamo Bay prisoners to come before the newly- constituted commission.
Without debating support or lack thereof for the White House or its current occupant, I will ask this question: Did Mr. Sevastopulo need to throw in his two cents in labeling the incidents as embarrassing for the White House?
The expression of dissatisfaction with an administration's policies/actions is an important part of any democracy, but it's not news. Neither is gloating over perceived failure of those policies of actions.
To paraphrase my friend Eric, I am rather enamored with my own opinion so I understand the draw toward editorializing, which is one of the reasons I don't really like writing news. It's boring. But when I do, I do it with the stoic tenacity of Jack Webb. I'm often enthralled by other's opinions as well, but they don't belong in the news.
In reporting news, today's media needs to take a step back to yesteryear and borrow a page from Webb's book and start giving us just the facts.
Evolution of the political landscape
Original: May 25, 2007
================
The Dems have become socialists and the Reps have become Dems. Where does that leave the rest of us?
================
The Dems have become socialists and the Reps have become Dems. Where does that leave the rest of us?
Quit bashin' my ride!
Original: May 10, 2007
================
I generally start each morning browsing through the opinion pieces on Yahoo! News. They're far more interesting than anything that passes for news these days. Like the news headlines, a good number of the opinion headlines have the word Iraq in them. These are generally the ones I click on first.
One of the headlines that caught my eye yesterday morning was "Dave Johnson: Paying The Costs Of The Iraq Occupation -- And Stopping It." Go ahead and follow the link if you'd like, but it wasn't the content of his post that prompted me to add my own two cents. Johnson ended his thoughts about paying for the war in Iraq with this: "This is an opportunity for Bush supporters to -- for the first time -- do more than put "support the troops" stickers on their SUVs." It was his not-so-subtle bash on SUVs that caught my attention.
I drive a Jeep Wrangler, before that it was a Jeep Cherokee that I finally beat into submission after about 200K miles. It's true, they burn a little more gas than your average rice burner, but I can drive it just about any damn place I want. I'm guessing Mr. Johnson drives a Prius, or some other such go-kart-like debacle. (Yes, that is disdain you hear in my voice, I can't stand those freakish little things.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not ignorant of our need to protect our environment; it is imperative that we be good stewards of the gifts God gives us. All the light bulbs in my home are fluorescent, I participate with enthusiasm in our city's recycling program, I fertilize my lawn with its own clippings, and so on… But you can't convince me that my SUV is a bad thing, especially if you compare it to a hybrid vehicle. Let's take a look at that little halfling, the Prius.
It depends on two engines. The first is a small internal combustion engine, used mainly for initial acceleration (0-30 mph). So if you live and drive in the city, don't spend the extra money for a battery you'll barely use. The second engine, used to keep the car moving once it's up to speed, is driven by that battery city-dwellers won't use. It's this second motor, specifically the battery, that is cause for the greatest concern.
The battery is made from nickel that is mined in Sudbury, Ontario and is smelted in a nearby facility. The sulfur dioxide produced by the mining and smelting operations and vented into the local atmosphere, and the resulting acid rain, has left the surrounding landscape barren to the point that NASA has used it for training because of its similarities with lunar landscape.
Toyota purchases about 1,000 tons of this nickel from Canada each year. From Sudbury, it is shipped to Wales to be refined, and then on to China where it is turned into nickel foam. The nickel foam then travels from China to Toyota's battery plant in Japan. All in all, it travels about 10,000 miles via container ship and diesel train. Plus the trip from Japan to Suburbia, USA.
When you look at the whole life of the car, from concept to scrap yard, the Prius ends up costing, in energy dollars per mile, about $3.25 per mile over an expected 100,000-mile lifespan. This figure takes into account everything from design costs to fuel burned in parts transport to electricity used in production, and myriad other factors. Apply all those same factors to enemy #1 of the green police, the Hummer, and you get an energy-cost average of a whopping $1.95/mile. A list of the top 10 most energy efficient vehicles (whole-life) includes my Wrangler in the number three spot at $0.60/mile. The list does not include any hybrid vehicles.
Put most simply, used energy produces pollution of some kind; over its entire life a Prius will use approximately 80% more energy than my Jeep.
To Mr. Johnson I make this request: Next time you feel the need to talk smack about Bush and/or his supporters, leave us SUV drivers out of it. I'm going four-wheeling.
==================================================================
DC offline had this to say:
Frikkin' fascinating! If your numbers are right - that's great news; I loved my Wrangler (and gave it up for reasons other than environmental, by the way).
================
I generally start each morning browsing through the opinion pieces on Yahoo! News. They're far more interesting than anything that passes for news these days. Like the news headlines, a good number of the opinion headlines have the word Iraq in them. These are generally the ones I click on first.
One of the headlines that caught my eye yesterday morning was "Dave Johnson: Paying The Costs Of The Iraq Occupation -- And Stopping It." Go ahead and follow the link if you'd like, but it wasn't the content of his post that prompted me to add my own two cents. Johnson ended his thoughts about paying for the war in Iraq with this: "This is an opportunity for Bush supporters to -- for the first time -- do more than put "support the troops" stickers on their SUVs." It was his not-so-subtle bash on SUVs that caught my attention.
I drive a Jeep Wrangler, before that it was a Jeep Cherokee that I finally beat into submission after about 200K miles. It's true, they burn a little more gas than your average rice burner, but I can drive it just about any damn place I want. I'm guessing Mr. Johnson drives a Prius, or some other such go-kart-like debacle. (Yes, that is disdain you hear in my voice, I can't stand those freakish little things.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not ignorant of our need to protect our environment; it is imperative that we be good stewards of the gifts God gives us. All the light bulbs in my home are fluorescent, I participate with enthusiasm in our city's recycling program, I fertilize my lawn with its own clippings, and so on… But you can't convince me that my SUV is a bad thing, especially if you compare it to a hybrid vehicle. Let's take a look at that little halfling, the Prius.
It depends on two engines. The first is a small internal combustion engine, used mainly for initial acceleration (0-30 mph). So if you live and drive in the city, don't spend the extra money for a battery you'll barely use. The second engine, used to keep the car moving once it's up to speed, is driven by that battery city-dwellers won't use. It's this second motor, specifically the battery, that is cause for the greatest concern.
The battery is made from nickel that is mined in Sudbury, Ontario and is smelted in a nearby facility. The sulfur dioxide produced by the mining and smelting operations and vented into the local atmosphere, and the resulting acid rain, has left the surrounding landscape barren to the point that NASA has used it for training because of its similarities with lunar landscape.
Toyota purchases about 1,000 tons of this nickel from Canada each year. From Sudbury, it is shipped to Wales to be refined, and then on to China where it is turned into nickel foam. The nickel foam then travels from China to Toyota's battery plant in Japan. All in all, it travels about 10,000 miles via container ship and diesel train. Plus the trip from Japan to Suburbia, USA.
When you look at the whole life of the car, from concept to scrap yard, the Prius ends up costing, in energy dollars per mile, about $3.25 per mile over an expected 100,000-mile lifespan. This figure takes into account everything from design costs to fuel burned in parts transport to electricity used in production, and myriad other factors. Apply all those same factors to enemy #1 of the green police, the Hummer, and you get an energy-cost average of a whopping $1.95/mile. A list of the top 10 most energy efficient vehicles (whole-life) includes my Wrangler in the number three spot at $0.60/mile. The list does not include any hybrid vehicles.
Put most simply, used energy produces pollution of some kind; over its entire life a Prius will use approximately 80% more energy than my Jeep.
To Mr. Johnson I make this request: Next time you feel the need to talk smack about Bush and/or his supporters, leave us SUV drivers out of it. I'm going four-wheeling.
==================================================================
DC offline had this to say:
Frikkin' fascinating! If your numbers are right - that's great news; I loved my Wrangler (and gave it up for reasons other than environmental, by the way).
Them vs. them vs. the rest of us
Original: May 3, 2007
================
Democrats and Republicans alike piss me off. Basically politicians in general. Few among them maintain the internal fortitude to both say and do what is right once they don the mantle of elected official. Of course, as with all groups of people as large as that of our body of lawmakers and leaders, there is a spectrum.
In my mind, on one side of the spectrum are men like Fred Thompson, the one time senator from Tennessee and current purveyor of Law and Order in the land of make-believe. (Just for fun, let's call this the Right side of the spectrum.)
On the other side (This is the Left side now.) are men (and women) like Harry Reid, our current Senate Majority Leader.
Somewhere in the middle are men like John McCain. He is a man about whom I am torn. As a former Marine and prisoner of war, I see him as a hero. (That's not a knee-jerk reaction – Murtha's an idiot.) When he needed to be, he was a good and courageous warrior. On the other hand, he's been in Washington a long time. Over the years he's said and done some things that, to my not so much educated and politically unsavvy mind, seem to be bad for our country.
On to the reason for writing today: He said sometime good, something very important. On Tuesday, McCain spoke at the Hoover Institution. Quite honestly, I didn't pay much attention to his prepared speech. It was what he said in a press conference after the speech that caught my attention as being courageous. He said "I would much rather lose a campaign than lose a war." For someone seriously trying to become our Nation's next president, saying that in public takes balls.
Now, whether he falls to the Right, Left or Middle in your own interpretation of the spectrum, those I have put on the Left are undoubtedly giddy at McCain's remark. On numerous occasions they have made it very clear they would much rather lose the war we are currently engaged in if it means they can win an election. They are willing to sacrifice our security for the chance to wield more power over you and me.
He still won't get my vote – I still hoping Thompson will officially make the plunge – but I applaud his courage in at least saying what is right.
================
Democrats and Republicans alike piss me off. Basically politicians in general. Few among them maintain the internal fortitude to both say and do what is right once they don the mantle of elected official. Of course, as with all groups of people as large as that of our body of lawmakers and leaders, there is a spectrum.
In my mind, on one side of the spectrum are men like Fred Thompson, the one time senator from Tennessee and current purveyor of Law and Order in the land of make-believe. (Just for fun, let's call this the Right side of the spectrum.)
On the other side (This is the Left side now.) are men (and women) like Harry Reid, our current Senate Majority Leader.
Somewhere in the middle are men like John McCain. He is a man about whom I am torn. As a former Marine and prisoner of war, I see him as a hero. (That's not a knee-jerk reaction – Murtha's an idiot.) When he needed to be, he was a good and courageous warrior. On the other hand, he's been in Washington a long time. Over the years he's said and done some things that, to my not so much educated and politically unsavvy mind, seem to be bad for our country.
On to the reason for writing today: He said sometime good, something very important. On Tuesday, McCain spoke at the Hoover Institution. Quite honestly, I didn't pay much attention to his prepared speech. It was what he said in a press conference after the speech that caught my attention as being courageous. He said "I would much rather lose a campaign than lose a war." For someone seriously trying to become our Nation's next president, saying that in public takes balls.
Now, whether he falls to the Right, Left or Middle in your own interpretation of the spectrum, those I have put on the Left are undoubtedly giddy at McCain's remark. On numerous occasions they have made it very clear they would much rather lose the war we are currently engaged in if it means they can win an election. They are willing to sacrifice our security for the chance to wield more power over you and me.
He still won't get my vote – I still hoping Thompson will officially make the plunge – but I applaud his courage in at least saying what is right.
Not all lawyers are bad
Original: May 2, 2007
================
As I was wandering the internet yesterday, I ran across something that reminded me that May 1 is not only May Day, it is also National Law Day. So I wandered down the hall to wish our Staff Judge Advocate a "Happy Law Day." She had forgotten, we chuckled a little bit, I went back to me desk. About half an hour later she sent out this e-mail to everyone (about 200 people):
ALCON:
Today, May 1st, is National Law Day. As we are all so busy getting ready for AS07, I thought we'd dispense with a formal Law Day program and instead have an informal discussion at the Bay Breeze [a little bar on the beach right down the road] on Friday, 4 May at 1630, about the significance of the 21st Amendment to the Constitution. I will be exercising my Constitutional rights by buying a beverage for all those who participate. Happy Law Day!
Happy Law Day indeed!
================
As I was wandering the internet yesterday, I ran across something that reminded me that May 1 is not only May Day, it is also National Law Day. So I wandered down the hall to wish our Staff Judge Advocate a "Happy Law Day." She had forgotten, we chuckled a little bit, I went back to me desk. About half an hour later she sent out this e-mail to everyone (about 200 people):
ALCON:
Today, May 1st, is National Law Day. As we are all so busy getting ready for AS07, I thought we'd dispense with a formal Law Day program and instead have an informal discussion at the Bay Breeze [a little bar on the beach right down the road] on Friday, 4 May at 1630, about the significance of the 21st Amendment to the Constitution. I will be exercising my Constitutional rights by buying a beverage for all those who participate. Happy Law Day!
Happy Law Day indeed!
Fence or no Fence?
Original: May 1, 2007
===============
LOS ANGELES - Angry over recent raids and frustrated with Congress, thousands of people protested across the country Tuesday to demand a path to citizenship for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.
So says the Associated Press today.
There is a path: Go back home, go to the American embassy, apply for a visa, wait. Just like every other LEGAL immigrant. Like my mother and her family did.
And while you're waiting, learn English.
===============
LOS ANGELES - Angry over recent raids and frustrated with Congress, thousands of people protested across the country Tuesday to demand a path to citizenship for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.
So says the Associated Press today.
There is a path: Go back home, go to the American embassy, apply for a visa, wait. Just like every other LEGAL immigrant. Like my mother and her family did.
And while you're waiting, learn English.
My second, first blog
This is the second of my first two blogs. All the stuff I've actually written is somewhere else right now. If you'll be patient, I'll dig it up and put it here for you to read. That is all.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)