…one of the suggestions offered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act is to levy a tax on livestock.
Seriously? Taxing cows, and pigs because they cause green house emissions? Seriously? This is some kind of pre-pre-pre April Fool’s joke,…right?
The EPA has this to say about the evil and vile livestock:
“If GHG emissions from agricultural sources are regulated under the CAA, numerous farming operations that currently are not subject to the costly and time-consuming Title V permitting process would, for the first time, become covered entities. Even very small agricultural operations would meet a 100-tons-per-year emissions threshold. For example, dairy facilities with over 25 cows, beef cattle operations of over 50 cattle, swine operations with over 200 hogs, and farms with over 500 acres of corn may need to get a Title V permit. It is neither efficient nor practical to require permitting and reporting of GHG emissions from farms of this size. Excluding only the 200,000 largest commercial farms, our agricultural landscape is comprised of 1.9 million farms with an average value of production of $25,589 on 271 acres. These operations simply could not bear the regulatory compliance costs that would be involved.”
Sheesh…and you thought it would be better under Barak Hussein Obama.
Last night I caught the beginning of the 10 pm news. This story was the lead. I noticed that, while the names and states these asshats represent were discussed, their party affiliation was not.
Now, way back in high school and college when I was taking journalism classes, we learned that when dealing with an elected official..like say…oh…a congressman, the proper syntax (ok, they said ’style’ but I prefer syntax) is to state the person’s name, then in parentheses their party affiliation and state. Here is an example Sen. Robert Dole (R-KS). See? Always with the party.
But the news story last night, it didn’t tell us if the lawmakers that took the Saddam sponsored junket were dems or repubs. I told the 5/8 and No. 1 Son that those three had to be democrats, because if they had been republicans, the news bimbo would have said so. Instead of the headline being "Saddam Paid for Lawmakers’ Iraq Trip" the headline would have read "Saddam Paid for Republican Lawmakers’ Iraq Trip."
No. 1 Son had some trouble understanding why. I tried to explain to him that the news reporting is mostly biased towards the leftards. That most of the reporters and editors are leftards, and glorify the likes Chavez and Castro, which is why we see so little news about the piss-poor living conditions, and the atrocious human rights violations that occur there.
I don’t think he completely understood what I was getting at. But he’ll learn. We all had to learn that lesson. The hard lesson when we discovered that Dan and Peter and Tom weren’t giving us the full, un-biased skinny and any damn thing they talked about.
Now, the question is, did these fellows know their trip was sponsored by the Butcher of Baghdad? Probably not. I don’t believe that any lawmaker who would travel to Iraq on the eve of the US invasion could be smart enough to figure it out. But then again, only they know. I mean, it was, after all, paid for by a charity group. And seriously, how would these male-bimbos know they guy who runs the charity was getting oil in exchange for getting them to Iraq?
I’m certain though, if the congressmen would have been republicans, we’d be hearing all the screaming and crying of corruption that the leftards are so good at spewing.
In Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged” all of the industrialists, the movers and shakers of the world, went on strike. They just up and quit doing business, and withdrew from the world into a secreted mountain valley. They did not sell their businesses, rather, they simply chained the doors and walked away. They went away until such a time as the world, without rational, logical, thinking people to work in it, simply fell into chaos.
They were driven to this desperate act by the governments. All of which (with the exception of the good ol’ US of A) were referred to as People’s Republics, i.e. “The People’s Republic of Argentina”, “The People’s Republic of Mexico”, “The People’s Republic of France” etc etc etc. The problem occurred because there was so much interference with business by the governments that it was nigh impossible for the industrialists to get anything accomplished. The governments were too worried about competition, about alms for the poor, about making sure that everyone got a piece of everything. And then they were surprised when it all fell apart. They couldn’t understand why a person would not be motivated to produce more and better items when the actions and policies of the government amounted to what was essentially a “success tax” or punishment for achievements.
The EU is heading down that road, and it seems in a hurry. A smallish web-browser company named Opera is suing Microsoft in the EU, under EU anti-trust provisions, because Microsoft has its Internet Explorer browser integrated with its Operating System. Opera doesn’t think this is fair, and believes that the EU should force Microsoft to sell versions of its OS without an integrated browser. This comes on the recent heels of the EU determining that Microsoft, by integrating and bundling its Windows Media Player, with its Windows OS, was giving itself an unfair advantage, and required that Microsoft make available a version of the Windows OS without the media player to residents of the EU.
Microsoft complied and, shockingly, very, very few people are purchasing the version of Windows that does not include the media player. The anti-trust folks in the EU have gone even farther in their recommendations of late. As far as to say that no company should enjoy more than 50% of the market share. As far as to recommend that any computer – desktop or laptop – sold in the EU be completely free of any and all operating systems. Yes, that’s correct, no company would be allowed to sell a computer with an OS pre-installed. I am assuming this includes Apple. Which, if they want to talk unfair choices, the only OS you can get from any manufacturer on an Apple brand computer is the Apple OS. At least with the normal PCs, HP and Dell are now offering a flavor of Linux pre-installed. And when I bought the kinder a new PC several years ago from MicroCenter, it came with Lindows pre-installed. Of course, that was wiped pretty fast as none of their games will run under Linux.
Oddly enough, the EU commission putting forth this recommendation claims that by giving the consumers no operating system on their new computers, they are giving the consumers more choice. The amount of newspeak the EU commission uses, in order to exact some control over how much one company can hold onto, is an anathema to the capitalist way of thinking. “No Options are More Option” ranks right up there with “War is Peace”, “Freedom is Slavery” and “Ignorance is Strength”.
Back in the late 90’s, when Microsoft was being dragged over the coals here in the US, I touched on Rand’s concept of a strike, but didn’t even know it at the time. I hadn’t yet read the book. My thought was; ‘If I were Bill Gates, I’d just say to hell with it all. Buy and island and lock the doors. Then let everyone try to get along with out Microsoft as there whipping boy.’ This is, exactly, what the industrialists did in “Atlas Shrugged”. She wrote from experience having migrated from fled Communist Russia in 1926. She was there as it happened. Watched the country mediocre itself into chaos and abject poverty. The EU, it seems, is hell-bent on doing the same thing to Europe.
I’m back to that same idea I arrived at in the ’90s. If I were Bill Gates, or Michael Dell, or the chairman of HP, I would have the inkling to thumb my nose at the Europeans, and simply not do business with them. I would have to wonder if it was worth being so severely crippled to do business with those type of people.
This video is somewhat disturbing. It comes to me by way of Lane Hudson over at the Huffington Pos. In it we see a student at the University of Florida asking John Kerry a question about whether or not he was part of the (notorious?) Skull & Bones society while at Yale. Before Kerry could answer, the university police begin to remove the petitioner. When the student complains, they tazer him and forcibly remove him from the building.
While the video itself is terribly disturbing, what really caught my attention (aside from the fact that someone on HuffPost actually posted a video that put a democrat in less than stellar light) was that Hudson tried to spin this incident into somehow being President Bush’s doing. That somehow, because a student who asked a question unfavorable to Senator Kerry was tazered and forcibly removed from the forum, is the responsibility of President Bush, and it happened because he is “edging towards ANOTHER ill-conceived war”.
Please, don’t take my word for it, go and read it yourself. It seems that the far left are grasping at anything and everything these days.
*** CONTENT WARNING THE CONTENTS OF THIS RANT CONTAIN WORDS THAT ARE VULGAR AND OFFENSIVE. WHILE I USUALLY KEEP MY POSTS CLEAN, AND RATHER ‘PG’ RATED, I FELT I COULD NOT RANT ABOUT THIS SUBJECT, AND MAINTAIN THAT COMPOSURE, SO I AM GIVING WARNING NOW. IF THE READER IS OFFENDED BY WORDS, PLEASE DO NOT READ FURTHER – YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED ***
This is disturbing to me. Back in March the Guardian Unlimited reported the New York City council voted unanimously to ban the word ‘nigger’ from New York City. Yes, I know, it was a symbolic ban. And there is not teeth in the ban, and even if there were, there is no way to enforce the ban. And frankly, banning the word nigger is not really a problem. But what is coming out of that ban is a problem.
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.” – Billy Shakespeare
Using this timeless quote as a starting point, I paraphrase it a bit;
“What’s in a name? that which we call censorship By any other name would smell as foul.” – Bigsibling (by way of Billy Shakespeare)
Preachers, Reverends, and other ‘men of the cloth’ are getting nervous. And they have good reason to be nervous. Before the Senate, right now, is a new hate crimes bill. The bill would give stiffer penalties for anyone who injures or kills a person based on their gender, homosexuality or disability.
The men of God are nervous because, what if they preach that homosexuality is a sin? The Bible says it is a sin. The Torah says it is a sin, the Koran says it is a sin. In fact, I don’t know of any religion that condones homosexuality. Granted, I’m not any type of religious scholar, and I’m certain there is some fringe (i.e. non- mainstream) religion out there that promotes homosexuality. But the “Big 3″ so to speak, all condemn it.
What Mr. Preacher man is nervous about is that if he gets up on his pulpit, and preaches the evils of homosexuality (as related in the Bible), and one of his flock goes out later and kills some fag, will he be held liable for that? Can he be punished as inciting this action because he gave a sermon condemning homosexuality?
Many are believing that this will happen – in spite of the assurances by those fag loving dems like Kennedy. Personally? I think it will happen as well. Also, I don’t think the federal government should be getting into this business in the first place. This is a local issue. This is an issue for city, county and state lawmakers to deal with. I believe that the vast majority of states already have hate crimes laws on the books (I still can’t see why, if this beaner knifes a gringo, it is more hateful than if he knifes another beaner – go figure).
I fear there is something more insidious in this hate crimes bill that just making it more criminal to kill a fag than a straight, a person in a wheel chair than one walking around, or a woman than a man. I fear that this bill – like many that have been passed before it – is just another way for the federal government to rip away the rights of the states. This is the federal government making more and more laws that it should not, and really, has no right to make. Currently, if i kill another beaner, no problems with the feds. I am tried and incarcerated by the state. But, if I kill a gringo, suddenly it is a federal offense, and not only do I get state time for the crime I get federal time too. Granted, I do live the by adage “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime”. But it seems to me, that soon enough almost all crime will be federal crime. Then we would not need the state courts any longer, and the states would not need their lawmakers and everything will be run from a strong federal government. Kinda like…oh…China, or the USSR.
Last year the state of Kansas did something I consider to be amazing. They enacted a piece of very pro-business legislation. And it is good the state did it, because everyone who lives in the city of Topeka knows that if one doesn’t have the deep-deep pockets of a giant, coast to coast major chain, one can’t really get through the legal hurdles and red tape to actually open, let alone run and make profitable, a business in this burg. But, I digress…
Last year our illustrious representatives in the Kansas Statehouse enacted a law which in effect repealed the collection of property tax on business equipment. That is, if one uses a combine in their business, they no longer have to pay property taxes on that combine. The caveat is, that this repeal was only for new businesses and/or newly purchased equipment (even if they bought used equipment).
According to an article by Mike Hall in the Topeka Capital Urinal Journal, this is not so much of a good thing. He starts the article with the dire news that this little venture into the world of pro-business is already starting to cause problems. Well, okay Mike Hall is just reporting the news, but he does slant the story a little in opposition to the tax relief legislation. Actually it is Mark Hixon who is running around like Chicken Little screaming about the sky falling. Hixon is the Shawnee County appraiser. He says that local governments, but the year 2013, will have to cover 100% of the ‘lost tax revenue’ from the pro-business tax relief law.
He goes on to talk about how it all works so that the local governments are going to go broke, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah. I don’t understand much of all that stuff, but I do understand the last few paragraphs of the article. However, city finance director Jim Langford estimates the city
actually will receive $523,000 more in property tax in 2008 than in
2007. That’s because the loss in tax on business equipment will be
offset by a 3.75 percent increase in real estate values.
And
when the state rebate money, now estimated at $326,000, is added, the
result is $849,000, or an increase of 2.7 percent over the amount of
property tax revenue received for this year’s budget. This is the bad part right? The city is actually getting more tax money after the pro-business tax relief legislation, than they were before the legislation. Now, I’m not mathematician, heck I don’t understand 7/8 of what that guy on Numb3rs is talking about (but he girlfriend is hot!), but I think, unless someone is using a focation algorithm while trying to divide a floating point integer by zero while a Klingon is breaking the antennae off an Andorian, that having MORE money is better than, and in direct opposition to having LESS money.
The city of Topeka, KS is under poor management. Several years ago the good citizens, tired of the corruption of it’s government, voted to change the form of city government from a strong Mayor – Council form, to a City Manager – Council form. It was believed that this would be good for the city. That it would improve the way city funds are allocated and spent. That the city would be run more like a business and less like…well…like the way it was being run.
Little did the good people of Topeka envision what was to come. The city first hired local Topekan Neil Dobler as acting City Manager while it searched for the one they would hire. Dobler did a good job as the City Manager, exceptional really. Proposing mill levy tax decreases, getting things shaped up and running smoothly for the most part. But the City Council, in all their corrupted ways, refused to hire a local Topekan as the City Manager. “Surely” I am certain they were saying, “nobody in Topeka is smart enough or good enough to be the City Manager. We must find someone from outside the community. Someone the dolts…er…people of the city don’t know. Then we can show them what fools they were for changing the way the city is run.” – all this, of course, followed by loud evil laughter.
They ended up hiring this Norton Bonaparte joker from I don’t know where. But this guy is a joke. The city, in the year that he had been in office, has not moved forward one iota. In fact, jobs have been lost in this city. Industry is moving from this city. And earlier this year he asked for a raise. A RAISE. For doing a crappy job. The city council, in their infinite stupidity, decided to give him a bonus instead. Luckily the Mayor (yes, there is still a mayor, but his power is very limited) vetoed (thankfully) vetoed the bonus.
The council recently asked Bonaparte to submit two budgets to the city, one that he would like to see, and one that did not raise any taxes. Well, his answer to not raising taxes was not to attempt to trim any fat in the budget. It was not to maybe get rid of one of his two assistants. WTF does the manager of a city of about 130K people need with two assistants anyway? No one seems to know, but the council okayed it. After all, Bonaparte is from somewhere else, so he must know what he is doing.
Okay, back to the budgets. Bonaparte submits his budget for not raising taxes, and his solution is to cut police and fire department personnel. It is almost as if he is saying “He he ho ho, the folks in this little backwater town are sooooo stupid they’ll buy this. I’ll get my tax increase” – again, followed by that evil Wicked Witch of the West laughter. The other budget, of course, raises taxes. Because we all know the way to encourage the growth of business and industry is to tax the hell out of the people.
The thing that makes me hope there is light at the end of the tunnel is that in the last elections, most of the old council members running for re-election were defeated. Now, if we can do the same in the next couple of elections, we can get a whole new city council. I think people of Topeka are sick and tired of the crap the council does, and they are finally stepping up.
More on government trying to run private businesses. kowtowing to special interests to the detriment of industry – and all of us. The senate has recently passed a bill mandating a 40% increase in mileage for all cars, SUVs and trucks by 2020, and requiring huge increases in the production of ethanol.
What I am seeing here is, “it doesn’t matter what the consequences are to industry or the individual, we are going to make theses requirements.” Other than using diesel, I don’t see how a 1 ton dually is going to get the mandated 35 MPG and still have enough power and torque to do what it needs to do.
The other part is what bothers me the most; that is the requirement for increases in ethanol production. Who are they requiring to produce it? And does it matter whether the companies forced into this production can profit from it? I don’t think the Dems care whether anyone can profit from it. As long as it satisfies the special interests and kowtows to faithful follower of the Church of AlGoreism and their global warming brouhaha.
By what right? By what right to people who have not financial stake in whether a company lives or dies, make decisions on how that company should be run or what it should produce? Is that some innate right that people have? To be able to force industry to bend to their will, not by supporting or rejecting what that industry produces, but by sheer force of want or need?
When did this happen in America? When is it that the needs of someone outweighed reason and common sense? Just because one needs ethanol, why is it that a company is obligated to make it for them? Why can’t they make their own ethanol? Why is it that they must force another to supply their needs? Whatever happened to fulfilling one’s own needs? Where did that go? If I need a glass of water, I get up and get myself a glass of water. I don’t call the police or the fire department to come over and get me a glass of water. They are there to fulfill needs, why can’t they fulfill this need of mine? It is utterly ridiculous what is happening.
Thanks for visiting, I really do appreciate it. And I apologize for being gone the last 10 days or so. But you know…
I am still uncertain of what this means. After reading countless articles, blog posts and opinions, I don’t know if I am for net neutrality, or against it. If someone can help me define what side of this fence I fall on, please do so because I really, really want to know.
Here is my stance on the Internet, and its future.
The Internet has become a commercial event. I know, originally it was the land of geeks and nerds. I know it was developed by the US Government using tax payer dollars. I know that it was enhanced and expanded by the universities using (in many cases) US tax payer dollars.
But all of this was (in Internet terms) eons ago. Since the Interenet was released to the general public, and more specifically, to commericial interests, it has grown and blossomed. Sure, in some cases it shows off the worst humanity has to offer, but in most cases, it shows off the best. The innovations and leaps forward in technology of the last 15 years or so can be – at least indirectly – attributed to the Internet.
As I understand this issue there are two sides. One side wants the government to create and enforce laws that will gaurantee equal access to everyone on the Internet, at equal speeds. The other side is in favor of creating a sort of SuperNet, or Internet 2. Something akin to an Uber-Information Superhighway. This is more of a “pay to play” model whereby companies, organizations and individuals can pay money to the service providers (i.e. your cable or phone company, or AOL, NetZero and countless others) to have their content delivered with a higher priority. Kind of like priority mail.
Now, what I have garnered through my readings is that the biggest complaint people make against this type of tier delivery is that the ISPs are making money on both ends. They are charging the individual for access to the Internet, and they want to charge content providers for access to their networks. I don’t see anything wrong with this if the market will support it.
Now, let’s say CBS wants to stream a television show…like Jericho. CBS puts the show out there for everyone’s pleasure. Now AT&T comes along and tells CBS “hey, you have this TV show available, and for just $$$ a day, we will give that show preferred priority on our backbone.” CBS has the option to pay AT&T to get the priority access, or it can not pay AT&T and let the TV show stream along much as it does today. It will be up to CBS to make that decision. What does it cost you and me? Nothing.
There are those that cry “They’ll put the little guy on a slow pipe if they don’t pay.” But this is erroneous I believe. I have a deal with AT&T. For X amount of dollars per month that I pay them, they will devliver internet content at X amount of speed. If that speed were to change, I would find a new provider.
The thing is, if the market will allow the ISPs to make as much money as they can, and the government shouldn’t be involved. If the market will allow for a 2nd bandwidth tier that will deliver content faster, and the content provider is willing and able to pay for it, why not? What will it hurt me, or you, the end consumer? It won’t. We have choices on who are providers are. If we do not like the service we are getting from AT&T, then we can go with Earthlink, or cable, or any number of other service providers.
In the end, my position is one in favor of industry, in favor of capitalism, in favor of – doggon it – just keep the blasted government off everyone’s backs. Let the ISPs make a buck or two without regulating everything into nothing. If the ISPs require more money to run their backbone, and they are not allowed to charge content providers, then who do you think is going to pay for that?
So, taking all of this into mind, can someone please tell me which side of “Net Neutrality” I fall on? I just can’t figure out if I’m ‘fer it or agin it’.
Crescent of Betrayal Blogroll
Kansas Bloggers
Stumble it!
About
