Duthie On...

Wow. This post, on successful government reform in New Zealand, is remarkable and inspiring. If nothing else, it gives one hope that perhaps there will be at least some last bastion of liberty in the world if the libs have their way here in the U.S. Certainly, I'll have to put NZ on my list of places to visit soon.

A powerful indictment of CO2 restrictions as a means to combat "climate change":

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

Read the whole thing, in particular the list of signatories, which includes several IPCC reviewers. Wonder why their opinions didn't make it into the Summary for Policymakers? Oh yeah, that's right, because the summary is written by policy wonks, not scientists, and the wonks are bound and determined to hype the so-called "climate crisis" at all costs. Yeah...OK.

Don't fight, adapt

Chictivism (shēk'tə-vĭz'əm)

n.

1. the fashionable support of a particular political or charitable cause
2. the attempt to improve ones social status with peers through political activism

see chictivist, Tibet, ribbons

There's so much wrong with this story that it's hard to know where to begin:

A powerful federal arts commission is urging that the sculpture of Martin Luther King Jr. proposed for a memorial on the Tidal Basin be reworked because it is too "confrontational" and reminiscent of political art in totalitarian states.

The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts thinks "the colossal scale and Social Realist style of the proposed statue recalls a genre of political sculpture that has recently been pulled down in other countries," commission secretary Thomas Luebke said in a letter in April.

By law, no project like the memorial can go forward without approval from the commission, the federal agency that advises the government on public design and aesthetics in the capital.

A model of the statue has been built in China. The project's chief architect, Ed Jackson Jr., huddled with advisers this week in Ann Arbor, Mich., to discuss ways to address the commission's objections before sculpting of the granite statue begins.

One question I have is why we need a "U.S. Commisson of Fine Arts" in the first place. But more shocking and important is the question of what on earth the foundation building the King memorial is thinking by having the statue built in China by a sculptor with a lifelong stipend from the Chinese Communist government. Should it be surprising to anyone that such a sculpture done by a man living on the payroll of a totalitarian government would be "reminiscent of political art in totalitarian states?" Well, duh!

The issue, however, should be less about the aesthetics of the design, and more about the message that is sent when you have a monument to a man who was dedicated to freedom being created in a place that is one of the least free places on earth, by a man in the employ of a totalitarian government. Sculptor Lei Yixin may be a fine artist, and perhaps he secretly yearns for a free China as I'm sure many Chinese do. But according to the story he's "known for his monumental works of figures such as Mao Zedong..." To me, that should've been a red flag, so to speak.

Perhaps this commission is trying to remedy that situation through the only tools they have. But it seems to me that the Chinese communist government has already been handed a propaganda victory here. They can claim with great pride that their house sculptor was chosen to memorialize King, and that there's no way that would happen if the lies others keep telling about their human rights record were true.

Really sad...and where are the donors who put up the money for this memorial? Why aren't they outraged?

Unhappy With 'Confrontational' Image, U.S. Panel Wants King Statue Reworked

Guess I won't be shopping at Whole Foods anytime soon:

Whole Foods Market won't offer plastic shopping bags at their stores after Earth Day this year. It is a savvy move for the upscale natural foods retailer, who estimates that by the end of the year the policy will have averted use of 100 million new plastic grocery bags at their 270 stores. It won't save the company any money-since the paper and multi-use bags that will replace plastic bags at their stores cost more to manufacture, stock and handle-but it is a savvy public relations move that will likely help to soothe the guilty environmental consciences of devoted Whole Foods shoppers who, like most Americans, believe paper bags are environmentally superior to plastic bags.

Unfortunately, the reality is that paper isn't better than plastic.

What's sad about this is that Whole Foods, which is run by a Libertarian, is now limiting the choices of their customers in a way that's likely to be harmful to the environment, because it plays to their incorrect preconceptions about which choice is better for the environment. While it's not surprising to see a company go for the easy profit rather than educate their customers, it's disappointing nonetheless.

Reason Foundation Commentary: Paper Grocery Bags Require More Energy Than Plastic Bags

Almost 4 full months to earn enough to pay your taxes...too much:

In answer to a request from a Democrat in western Pennsylvania to "stop these abortions," Obama reportedly said:

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

"punished with a baby?" Could it be, perhaps, that part of the reason folks like Obama and his ilk find abortion acceptable is that they're able to say such a thing out loud? Babies are not punishment, nor are they fashion accessories, nor mere inconveniences to be swept away when someone "make[s] a mistake." If Obama thinks it's unfair to "punish" his daughters with a baby for making a mistake (I'm guessing the mistake in Obama's book is in not using protection, as opposed to, I don't know, choosing abstinence), why is it that he feels it's OK to punish the baby with death?

And what does it say for Obama's trust in his daughters (or lack thereof) that he does not believe that he can teach them to refrain from sex in their teens? That he's really concerned about them getting a sexually transmitted disease at age 16?

Beyond that, I'm not aware of any abstinence-only sex ed program anywhere that prevents parents from giving their children whatever information about sex they believe is appropriate. There's no state compulsion preventing you from "giv[ing] them information." Unlike other sex ed programs, which may or may not provide the option for parents to opt out their kids if they disapprove of the curriculum. Funny how the Democrats claim to be pro-choice, except when the choice in question conflicts with the indoctrination or program they want.

Lastly I can't help but be appalled at all of the commenters falling all over themselves congratulating Obama on his great answer to the question. So full of nuance. Sad.

Ben Smith's Blog - Politico.com

Here's why:

A California woman was shot to death as she pleaded with emergency dispatchers to come and help her. Her death will not make the network news programs this evening, but this is the latest reminder that we must take responsibility for our own safety and not rely on the police.

This post shows the difference that owning and knowing how to use a gun in self-defense can make. While I'm sure the woman in that 911 call was traumatized by the experience, thanks to being armed, she is still alive.

I don't think anyone should take lightly the notion of killing another human being, even in self-defense. But given the alternatives, defending oneself with a firearm seems a much better option than just hoping the police will arrive in time.

Cato-at-liberty » Victim Shot While Calling 911

Who would have predicted this:

Compact fluorescent light bulbs, long touted by environmentalists as a more efficient and longer-lasting alternative to the incandescent bulbs that have lighted homes for more than a century, are running into resistance from waste industry officials and some environmental scientists, who warn that the bulbs’ poisonous innards pose a bigger threat to health and the environment than previously thought.

Oh yeah, that's right...I did, almost a year ago:

So it seems to me that even granting the best possible assumptions for CFL supporters we are going to end up trading mercury emissions in US coal-fired plants for:

1. Mercury emissions from Chinese coal-fired plants
2. Mercury pollution at CFL facilities in China
3. Mercury pollution in the US waste stream

This just doesn't seem like a wise trade-off to me.

The article notes:

As long as the mercury is contained in the bulb, CFLs are perfectly safe. But eventually, any bulbs — even CFLs — break or burn out, and most consumers simply throw them out in the trash, said Ellen Silbergeld, a professor of environmental health sciences at Johns Hopkins University and editor of the journal Environmental Research.

“This is an enormous amount of mercury that’s going to enter the waste stream at present with no preparation for it,” she said.

Welcome to the party, folks.

Oh, and make sure to read the sidebar to the article, too, which contains the 11-step process the EPA recommends for cleanup after a CFL breaks. Thanks, but not in this house, at least not until the federal ban on incandescent bulbs kicks in.

One last thing...the article doesn't do the math, but here's an interesting quote:

Consumers bought more than 300 million CFLs last year, according to industry figures, but they may be simply trading one problem (low energy-efficiency) for another (hazardous materials by the millions of pounds going right into the earth).

Let's see...5 milligrams of mercury per bulb (.005 grams) x 300,000,000 bulbs is about 1.5 million grams of mercury, or 1,500 kilograms. That's one and a half tons of mercury that may potentially enter the waste stream or end up elsewhere in the environment. And that's before the federal ban on incandescent bulbs takes effect. That's a lot of mercury to trade for warming that may not even be happening anymore.

Shining a light on fluorescent bulbs - Environment- msnbc.com

There appears to be some enthusiasm for the idea of John McCain choosing Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal as his running mate, to reach out to the GOP conservative base:

Even as the Democratic presidential contest seems to be morphing into Dr. Doolittle's mythical beast with a head at each end, the pushmi-pullyu, John McCain has the chance to make a leisurely choice of potential running mates. But he had better not wait too long.
The spectacle of a third of voters in the Republican primaries in Texas and Ohio voting for the doomed candidacy of Mike Huckabee suggests strongly that McCain still hasn't won over the base of the Republican Party. It's a question of trust, but verify. As Hillary Clinton says of Barack Obama, one speech does not make up for her experience as a housewife at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Nor can one speech by McCain at CPAC win over a disgruntled base of folks who may very well stay home, as they did for G.H.W. Bush the second time and for Bob Dole. The base is looking for action, not words.

That's why McCain's choice of vice presidential running mate can make or break his candidacy. The party's professional trunk-waving pachyderms and the beltway bozos who think that pragmatism will win the new day are already offering up a list of business-as-usual candidates. But pragmatism is not practical in the long run. There's Governor Whatshisname from one of those Ice Belt states that always seem to be ready to fall over the border into Canada. Then there's that other governor in Florida who, seizing the opportunity, endorsed McCain four days before the primary. Some are getting excited about Condoleezza Rice, who puts forward a pretty face even as she has done nothing but act as a front for the Foreign Service Corps establishment ever since she got the job.
No, this is the time for change, real change. This is a time for someone whom everybody knows to be the rising star of the GOP, the new governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal.

I disagree, at least in part because my priority isn't electing McCain, but preserving and promoting conservatism. Tapping Jindal as a running mate might well be a smart move for McCain, but it would probably be a bad move for Jindal, and for conservatism in general. Here's why. Given Jindal's remarkable early successes in pushing through significant ethics reforms in a two-week special session of the Louisiana legislature, there's good reason to believe that he may be able to demonstrate, through one of our "laboratories of democracy," the ability of conservative ideas to win, and to work. If Jindal jumps to run as VP to McCain, that potential is thrown away, and jumping ship so early in his term could undermine Jindal's ability to achieve similar successes later on, should the McCain/Jindal ticket fail in the general election.

Instead, Jindal should remain in Louisiana, and rack up as many conservative success stories as possible. Should McCain win in the general, it's possible that he might choose to step down after one term, in which case Jindal would be well-positioned for a GOP run in 2012. Similarly, if Clinton wins in the general, Jindal would be positioned to challenge in 2012. In either case, the experience of a nearly full term as governor of a southern state, and one in desperate need of reform, would serve Jindal far better in my opinion than four years as veep.

And even if McCain won and chose to run again in 2012 Jindal is young enough, at 36, to bide his time and build more experience and success as a governor.

Lucier is correct to call Jindal a "rising star of the GOP." It would be a shame to slow that rise by chaining him to McCain.

The American Spectator via the Wall Street Journal