Monthly Archives: March 2010

If You Object to Drug Legalization


Not gonna try to sell you on the notion that drugs are a net social good. I am going to try to persuade you that having the state dictate what otherwise free citizens may buy and sell, own, or use, or put in their bodies is an outrage against human liberty.

All of the posited objections to the legal use of drugs arise from two sources: 1) the criminal behavior that is an earmark of any black market and 2) the behavioral problems of abusers — a tinier percentage of the user population than drunk drivers are of the drinking population. Legalization will serve to limit the former and proper attention to the real crimes involved with serve to limit the latter. Otherwise, drug prohibition fits my Laws of Liberalism — it is 1) founded in ignorance, 2) focused on irrelevance, and 3) engaged in wishful thinking.

Against this, balance the absolute evil that the rationalizations visit on the population — more so on the innocent than the guilty. Such as Policing for Profit.

Now That’s What You

CALL consensus.

Well, actually, consensus is when everyone agrees, which is like ninety-nine-point-nine-nines percent impossible, but then again: who gives a shit.

Picky, picky.

Quote of the Day

When the government tells you something, more often than not, it’s wrong.

Alan at Snarky Bytes

I Think I Get Why

SARAH PALIN IS campaigning for John McCain in the Arizona Senate race. She gets points for loyalty, if not for perspicacity on this one. And she’s stuck in a cleft stick not entirely of her own making. But the bottom line is: this kind of calculation is the very thing we’re supposed to be fighting against. Supporting the guy with the most time-in-grade, regardless of whether his conservative/libertarian/anti-statist street cred is all that… credible … is just not on. Not any more. We got rid of Arlen Spector. We need to get rid of John McCain (thank you for your service to our country). Military service is praiseworthy, yes. But it’s not an innoculation against all crimes great and small. The man missed the “Make No Law” part of his oath of office. For that alone, he deserves a heaping helping of opprobrium.

Doctor Zero Urges U.S. Back

TO GREATNESS while simultaneously gutting both the source of our greatness — our unparalleled wealth and ability to create wealth — and the two primary arenas in which we have been great in the past — medicine and space.

Prince of Flies.

Prince of Lies?

No, Dolly: of Flies. Mephistopheles.

Aren’t flies drawn to shit?

Well, to decay.

Just a part of the great circle of life, eh?

Uh… Yeah. Heh. Just that.

OK, This is Just Ridiculous

I’M ONE WHO BELIEVES that copyright and other IP ought to be treated the same as physical property. Sure, there are problems with it, but there seems to be far too much state and social intermeddling between IP owners and their property.

But, at the same time, I have strong reservations about corporations’ being permitted to own intellectual property. I believe IP ough to belong to the actual intellects which created it. This perspective has a long and troubled tradition. But, essentially, I believe the poet or the bard should have the right to do with his or her work as he or she sees fit.

Quote of the Week

Congress just passed a law threatening to send thugs to peoples’ homes to do violence if they fail to buy health insurance, yet many of them are now complaining about being threatened for doing so. And all with zero sense of irony.

Not at all sure who said it originally, though it looks from the note at SSI that the quotee is James Ostrowski.

Sort of encapsulates what a lot of people have been trying to say all week.

Can’t Find Anything

TO ARGUE WITH in Og’s Fable of the Sheepdog. And that’s nowhere near as faint praise as it might sound.
Wisdom there. Absorb.

They Say That Like It’s

SOMETHING TO BE proud of, instead of a scarlet letter.

We don’t have that same political culture here in (Canada)… We don’t have a 1st Amendment, we don’t have a religion of free speech… Students sign off on all kinds of agreements as to how they’ll behave on campus, in order to respect diversity, equity, all of the values that Canadians really care about. Those are the things that drive our political culture. Not freedoms, not rugged individualism, not free speech.

–“Radical [Canadian] lesbian activist” Susan G. Cole

(Spotted at News Real Blog)

Quote of the Day

What does it say about your cause that nearly every policy idea you cook up is based in some form or another on coercing the American people?

David Harsanyi

What indeed?

(Hat tip: The News Junkie)

Heh! of the Day


A Climate Cheat Sheet

NEATLY ENCAPSULATES in talking-points form the layman’s case against the CAGW hoax.

Quote of the Day

…[R]eal Americans mostly just want to be left alone by the State, just as they would be pleased if criminals would refrain from breaking into their cars and houses.

But just as we must take precautions against criminals and sociopaths, our well intended liberal fascists force us to take steps against them. Who would want to spend a moment thinking about the likes of Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid unless they were in your face, trying to purloin your slack? What did I ever do to them? Nothing. Indeed, I pay their salary and for their travel, retirement, and healthcare (hair plugs and botox injections included). All I ask in return is that they leave me alone.

Gagdad Bob


Indeed, a most basic freedom is the freedom to be left alone. But it might be definitional of a nanny-statist that he/she/it cannot leave well enough alone.

That there exists this impulse to bother people who are otherwise minding their own business is one reason I believe that the default and dispositive answer to any intrusion by the state is and ought to be “Hell NO!” — enforceable at the point of any handy sporting arm. And that any action taken under such provocation should be seen — as a matter of statute law — to be entirely justified, if not praiseworthy.

SIpsey Street

IS ABUZZ OVER what Mike calls the Window War. (Multiple posts: keep scrolling.) I seem to recall a science fiction novel by Eric Frank Russell called Wasp, which detailed a program of what we in The Movement used to call monkey warfare. (Not big enough to be a full-blown guerilla, you see. Hardee-har-har.)

Meanwhile, Bobbi X has a more restrained take.

Me, I’d urge care be taken in target selection. And also point out that Glenn Beck is probably right when he diagnoses the point of failure of much of the New Left’s program as being the fact that Americans won’t stand with people who advocate or use violence.

That unwillingness to resort to violence kind of leaves you vulnerable to usurpatious state action… well…

Love This

SO SHOULD YOU. Go there. Do that. Buy the t-shirt.

Spotted at Nathan’s.

Poo’ Bubbeh

BART STUPAK claims to have received death threats for his change of position on HCR. Poor baby. I might point out that he has, in collusion with the rest of those Democrats who voted for this abortion, issued a death threat to the American people.

Oh, come on, Alger! (She says, wondering if she is not, once again, on shaky ground — all unawares.) Surely that’s over the top!

Is it? (And don’t call me Leslie.) What is the matter at issue?

I dunno…

I’ll simplify it — that all Americans must buy health insurance — will ye or nill ye.

Ur… OK?

And if you refuse…?

They’ll fine you?

And if you continue to resist?

They’ll come and arrest you, to throw you in jail…?

And if you will not acknowledge their authority to do so and resist the arrest?

(She begins to feel the ground go out from under her feet.) They’ll point guns at you to force your compliance?

And if you continue to resist? If the officers who come to arrest you feel threatened — or bored?

::sigh:: They’ll kill you.

Correct! And was that end not implied at the start? Is that not the ultimate enforcement protocol for any law? If you refuse to comply and resist attempts to force you, the officers of the law have the legal authority to kill you. And it does not matter that they are in the wrong, that you are perfectly correct to resist them, as they are acting contrary to not only the Constitution, but also to civil rights statute law.

So, no. It’s not over-the-top to cast this bill as a death threat to the American people — and that’s without regard to the actual provisions of the bill, which will almost certainly result in a rising death rate from the failure of the medical system the bill implies to deliver effective care in a timely fashion.

Ah Beg T’ Differ

Old people will be angry because if there is one group of people who hold on to their entitlements with boney, clingy fingers, it’s old people. So with the new health care bill, they get more free drugs but they have to pay for so much else. They won’t be happy.

MELISSA CLOUTHIER at P-Jays opines that REPEAL ain’t on. She has a lot of reasons, but I want to riff on the one pull-q’d above.

It’s true. Old people have learned, through bitter experience, that if you don’t speak up, some asshole will screw you. Every. Time.

And they watch their pennies because, well… Check it out: fixed income. Although… That’s not all of it. Old people have also learned that old chestnut, a penny saved is a penny earned. And those little suckers add up fast.

And — guess what? Old people are soon to be the largest demographic group. Well, to some extent, already are. And getting more “are” every birthday.

You whippersnappers may soon come to change your tunes and stop cursing the Boomers and start singing hosannahs to their grabby ways — which can end in Boomers’ voting in droves for REPEAL.

You can hope.

Gotta Wonder Why

WHEN RADIO TALKERS such as Hannity engage with leftists trying to smarm their way to a W in a debate on a grab such as “health care,” they don’t just go off on the guy.

Where in the HELL do you get off demanding I work my ass off to pay for your medical care? Why should I pay ANY credence to a freeloading LEECH like you? Go ahead! If you want to throw your liberty away, BE MY GUEST! But if you think I’m going to give MINE up so you can sit on your ass and suck my livelihood away, guess again.

Taking the Next Step

PERSPICATIOUS and observant regular readers of BTB will notice that the graphic of Gandalf (We the Little People) facing down the Balrog (Obamacare) has been replaced by one of the arrogant criminal himself.

Oh, come on now, Alger! “Criminal”? Isn’t that a bit over-the-top?

Is it, Dolly?

Why wouldn’t it be?

Well, let’s run the numbers. Is not the Constitution the supreme law of the land?

Er… yeah?

And is not Obamacare patently unconstitutional?

Of course.

And has not Obama promised to sign the bill when Congress presents it to him?


And what overt acts are required to meet the legal definition of conspiracy?

But… Oh. Yup. He’s a criminal, alright.

ANY way …a picture of the criminal himself, with a link to the Senate Conservatives’ Web site. Click and go. (The link will open a new window/tab, so you won’t lose your place here.) Sign the pledge. Urge your legislators and candidates to do the same. Follow through.

That is all.

Quote of the Day

Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine ‘that violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedom.

–Robert A. Heinlein
Starship Troopers

OK, Now. THAT’s Just Stupid

NEWS REPORT ON FOX radio news quotes Kathleen Sibelius as asserting that the just-past — scorn quotes — “Health Care” atrocity will “jump-start the economy.”

::snort:: Yeah. Right.

Four years of taxes, but benefits don’t kick in until 2014?

Yeah. That’s just the shot in the arm the economy needs.

Punch-dummy: RED ONE!

Quelle Cynicism

GE, (WHOSE CEO is Jeff “Greening NBC” Imelt), is a “proud sponsor” of the Ronald Reagan centennial?

Do I need to draw a picture?


Picture a stylized peacock, its spread tail feathers formerly colored in a spectrum to illustrate its symbolized entity’s slogan, now colored entirely in a monotone green. Not reforestation. Not wetlands conservation. Not humane treatment of animals, the husbanding of natural resources. No. The anthropogenic global warming hoax. Rent-seeking for support of wind power and compact fluorescent light bulbs.

Yes. THAT General Electric.

To quote another currently-running commercial: “GUYS! I just GAGGED!”

Quote of the Day

Sure today is the first day of the rest of your life. But so was yesterday and look how that turned out.


Alrighty Then

SO NOW IT’S REPEAL I don’t guess many of us are terribly surprised. All winter, there’s been a cloud of despond over America as we fought against this atrocity.

But it was expected. After all, all disclaimers of comity aside, you’ve got to know that anyone who embraces collectivism is either a megalomaniac or just plain stupid. Sort of like Heinlein’s Mrs. Keithly. So of course they would ignore the expressed wishes of the people in order to advance their odious agenda. Really, they could do no other. Hyenas just don’t change their stripes or their spots.

The debate will continue in DC, but I think We the (Little) People know what our next step is — we have to vote out the miscreants who rammed this poisonous wrack down our throats. We must isolate those whom we probably cannot take out directly — such as San Fran Nan, whose constituents appear to be invincibly ignorant of the damage they do the rest of the nation by sending that termagent to Congress. And, most importantly, we must vote in more such as Paul Ryan and Michelle Bachman, who understand what’s at stake and what needs to be done.

And we must be explicit and crystal clear — the deal demands REPEAL. Nothing less is acceptable. Save your receipts, folks. We’re going to get our money back one way or another. And we’re going to tear this monstrosity down so not one stone stands atop another, and then we’ll salt the earth. Our lives and fortunes demand it.

On to November, then. Be of good cheer.

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

–Winston Churchill, November 1942
Referring to the British victory over
the German Afrika Korps at
the Second Battle of El Alamein
in Egypt

We will prevail.

Cross-posted at Eternity Road

It Says A Lot About

THE CALIBER OF people we have in Congress that the leadership even thinks that negotiating on votes is a viable option.

I mean, if a legislator were principled, his vote would be known in advance to a great degree of certainty. Nor would he budge off it, though he might play it close to seek advantage for his constituents. So the idea that a congresscritter can be moved off a position in exchange for promises of goods and money received (or provided for said critter to be seen to disburse) is — or looks to me, at any rate — like prima facie evidence of intent to defraud. Not terribly strong, unless the vote actually does change, but strong enough to call for extra scrutiny come election time.

And a critter who hems and haws and dances along between the pointy ends of the pickets shows extreme bad faith. Saying in effect, “I can be bought for the right price.”

And it looks as though nobody in Washington considers this criminal activity.

You Know The More I Read

ABOUT “DEEM AND PASS”, the harder it is for me to fathom the stated motivations. Lemme get this straight:

Democrat reps from conservative-leaning districts are worried that, if they vote outright for passage of the Senate version of the bill, they’ll face an angry mob at the polls come November. That is to say that the voters are deemed to be aware enough to understand the implications of the vote, and that they would be rightfully angered by them.

And yet…

The Dem leadership cooks up this scheme whereby the skittish Members’ fingerprints won’t be on the final law, thus (they think) insulating said skits against the voters’ anger.

…but SOMEbody will have had to vote in support.

And ObamaCare being a fait accompli, the public is capable of enough magical thinking to believe that — ::poof!:: — the law just appeared, born out of Zeus’s forehead, like gray-eyed Athena?

I am left to believe that either the Dem leadership thinks the public is too stupid to see the same agency operating at one remove that would so anger it if in direct control, or that the Dem leadership is so stupid themselves that they would buy this ruse, and simply expect the voters would do the same.

Anybody have thoughts one way or the other?

It’s A Commonplace

AMONG THOSE OF US IN THE RIGHT to thank veterans and current servicemen and women for their service to our country, for standing on the ramparts in the place of those of us who cannot.

We need to add to the honor rolls. There have been literally millions of Americans standing in front of the palaces of government, in the rain and in the snow, the heat and the cold, enduring the scorn of our would-be lords-and-masters, to express the outrage all of us feel at the arrogant and high-handed acts of the statists in Washington and other capitals.

The next time you see a TEA Partier, a 9/12-er — hell, a wookie-suiter — thank them for their service in the cause of liberty.

Starter Home of Statism

SO IN ESSENCE the Left is promising the Nightmare on Elm Street, that Obama Care, like Freddie, will keep coming back to haunt us. That we’re not only going to have to take the ball downfield to repeal, starting in January 2011, but we’re going to have to amend the Constitution to make it crystal clear that nothing of this sort will ever be tolerated again.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. As Willow said once in an episode of Buffy, a vague disclaimer is nobody’s friend. So let us be crystal clear. After all, the Democrats have demonstrated that without a doubt they are capable of appropriating neither the “N” nor the “O” in the word “NO!” So making an appositive statement on the subject can’t hurt and might even help.

THERE’s Your PROBlem

MAN OF LETTERS is a successful blogger. Speech, Freedom of… Q.V. His blog is carried by an online magazine. Press, Freedom of the… See which.

He takes it into his head to run for an opening Senate seat. No comments from the peanut gallery as to the viability of his candidacy.

To avoid a hassle with admittedly unconstitutional campaign finance laws*, he decides to remove his blog from the magazine’s site, effectively giving up that source of income.

Why? He acknowledges he could win a constitutional challenge in court. But the cost would be too high.

And this is how tyranny encroaches — by these legal deaths-of-a-thousand-cuts. The mere existence of an unconsitutional law diminishes all of our liberty, but unless those the courts will grant standing (let that word “grant” drip with venomous sarcasm, please) will take up the cudgel — most especially those seeking elective office, the statists win.

The only proper response to the statist impulse is to bloody its nose — hit it, hit it hard, keep hitting it until it withdraws.

In my not-so-very-humble opinion, by this action, Ser Kaus renders himself unfit for office.

*(IMNSVHO, the entire concept of campaign finance laws is unconstitutional — the Federal Congress does not have the lawful authority to legislate on the subject and is therefor forbidden it.)

I Have Long Wished

THAT THE TERM and concept of statism should be freighted with the same — or greater — opprobrium as the term and concept of racism. After all, on body count alone in the 20th Century, the former is patently the greater evil. And when statism and racism combine…

Our Curmudgeon posts a valuable exposition of the contrapoised concepts of constitutionalism vs statism — which also may be put as liberty vs tyranny. Read. Absorb. Internalize. Teach.

Speaking of which…

The proximate cause of this current contretemps is the passage Friday in Congress of the so-called Slaughter Rule. Democrats have cited as partial justification of this odious act that Republicans have done the like before.

Setting aside for a moment the unavoidable fact that bad precedent is no excuse, I have to ask: what did I miss?

All of a sudden, Democrats are asserting: Republicans did this when they were in power. Oh, really? When? No case is put forth in example. The bald assertion is made without support, and suddenly everyone is taking it for granted that Democrats speak the truth.

Silly rabbits! Democrats are incapable of telling the truth.

I like to think I pay attention to most of this most of the time and cannot recall the occasion. When have Republicans, in majority power, attempt to foist off some legislation as a passed bill without first submitting it to a vote of the House?

And, no, I will not accept as explanation or example some situation in which Democrats whined, bitched, and moaned about how the vote needed to be extended, or changed, because they were caught left-footed.

As Insty Puts It


Obama Should Be Careful

POSING AS INSIDIOUS the dichotomy of citizens forced to choose between paying the rent or groceries and paying for health care coverage. Even if it were true, it might come back to bite him on the ass, in that most of us have to chose between paying for health care coverage and paying our taxes.

The Greedy Hand and all that.

Everybody, don’t forget: tomorrow only, the President’s name is O’Bama. Pass it on.

Very cute, Dolly.

The Slaughter Rule

AND THE DISCUSSION of it at theVolokh Conspiracy persuade me ever more thoroughly of my hypothesis that the Dems do not intend to pass “Health Care,” but that they are convinced they must be seen to have tried. As the solutions to the deadlock and the statements made about it become ever more risible, one is forced to conclude that they don’t really want this one. They’re just faking it.

If You Are Not Already a Skeptic

OR A SCOFFER on the topic of so-called Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, you need to go and read this article.

I have expounded on these topics in the past, using somewhat different referents and examples. The author here comes at it from a different background and choses an other, perhaps more-telling example.

To give the reader an idea of how big the box has become, consider that Robert T. Merrill puts the median radius of an Atlantic hurricane at 2.4 degrees of latitude. The new grid box is now so big that it could nearly swallow the median size Atlantic hurricane whole, all the way to the outermost radius of closed isobar. This would reduce an Atlantic hurricane to just one average temperature, pressure and humidity value in the model. That would be absurd on its face.

Now, that one example alone should illustrate for you the vacuity of the warming-panic-merchants’ case. But Thompson doesn’t stop there.


I Keep Wondering When

SOMEONE WITH THE THROW-WEIGHT to — you know — actually do something about it will look at the BATFE and realize <v8bop> Here’s an agency whose entire reason for living is to infringe upon supposedly inalienable rights.
Why are we still funding it, again? </v8bop>

Memo to Pat Kennedy

THE MEDIA HAS BEEN CARRYING your family’s water for over fifty years. It might be considered intemperate to attack them at this precise juncture.

You self-important, spoilt-brat, petty, little parvenu prat.

John Adams?

JOHN ADAMS!!!? Are you out. Of your. Fucking. Mind? I’ve got two words for you, asshole: Lynn Stewart.

Get the fuck out of my country.

Quote of the Day

So remember: Question 9 — “Some other race” — “American.” Pass it on.

Scott Johnson

Ladies and Gentlemen, I Give You


Been There

DONE THAT Bought the T-shirt. I mean, what else can you think on getting this in your email?

On the other hand, there are peoples who, if you don’t like them, there’s something wrong with you. KInd of human litmus tests. Israelis are one.

Listening to Karl Rove

TUESDAY ON THE Rush Limbaugh show, I was struck by how wrong even the so-called heroes of the movement can be. On bipartisanship, he kept stressing the need to find common ground with the enemy the Democrats. And I kept being reminded of our masthead aphorism from Jesse Helms. If you’re right, then compromising with evil is wrong. Instead of looking for things that all of the politicians can agree on to do, the government should be asking on any subject, “Is this a subject on which we are authorized to govern?” Unless a positive action is taken via repeal of unconstitutional measures, “doing something that is good for the country” is sophistry. Congress’s job is not to “do the work of the American people” but to stay the fuck out of the way.

Fall Guy for What?

I’VE BEEN WONDERING for awhile if the whole healt care debacle wasn’t some form of political kabuki — designed to placate the base, generate significant sound and fury, but accomplish the approximate sum product of nothing.

In which case, perhaps the recent immolation of Rahm Emmanuel isn’t not according to plan.

Karl Rove the other day retailed a story of how a White House aide in the Bush Administration calculated how long he could stand the pay cut and left the day it started to bite. Maybe Rahm has asked for a similar out.

I Wonder If It Ever Occurred

TO THE REVEREND Fred Phelps that maybe God hates the Westboro Baptist Church?

The Oscars and the Diminishing


Show biz used to have this saying — a real home truth — if you want to send a message, call Western Union.

Hollywood seems to have forgotten this in the rush to play with their bright, shiny message-sending toy. Now they’ve been supplanted in the American mind-space by people who get that it’s about amusement, not incitement.

I thought the classiest act over Oscar weekend was Sandra Bullock’s showing up to accept the Razzie. Class and a sense of humor the Razzie voters may not have expected.

What In The Wide, Wide World of Sports

IF YOU WORK AS CLERGY in the “private sector,” you earn, on average, $39,000.00 per year. But if you work as a cleric (NOTE: a religious minister to a church congregation) you earn $70-some-thousand per year.

While the comparison itself is odious — what extra value does being a government worker provide that’s worth the extra emollient? — my question is: how is this comparison even possible!? Do we not — as the statists never tire of reminding us — have “separation of church and state”? What is the state doing employing churchmen?

Um… military chaplins?

Dunno. Mebbe so. Can somebody speak to the pay grades in the chaplain corps?

Reminds me of a chorus from Firesign Theater — Government preachers/government cheese. Government preachers/government cheese.

She said, going off on a tendentious tangent.

Oh, Yeah

MEANT TO JOIN the chorus yestiddy. Marko Kloos has a very, very good story up, called Lucky Thirteen. I hope I’m not jinxing it to predict a Campbell Award in this young man’s future. He’s that good. If it’s a true sample of the quality of his work overall, the Campbell will be… well, not a cakewalk, because the competition is always stiff, but… yeah. Not unreasonable to expect it. Watch for the novel.

Oh! You Mean

NATURAL GAS? Shocka! How long has this been goin’ on?

MILLyuns of years, bay-bee. MILLyuns of years. And yet… global warming? Man-made?


For the clueless: In the Gulf of Mexico, there are places where natural gas escapes from the earth’s crust in volumes exceeding the hydrocarbon (so-called “fossil” fuels) use by humanity for all time — IN A SINGLE YEAR. Natural gas, again for the clueless, is mostly methane. And yet…?

What? Are you so innumerate you can’t DO the math?

(Hat tip: Vanderleun)

Quote of the Day

“There exists no alternative energy source, no combination of alternative energy sources, and no system of combinations of alternative energy sources that can fully replace a single, coal fired electric plant built with 1930s era technology,” she writes. “Yet many want to make this group of functionally useless technologies the primary energy sources for our entire civilization.”

Shannon Love

Another point which frequently gets missed. The network effect fairly dictates that you get energy prices that are unconscionably high UNLESS everybody uses the same fuel. There are two fuel types available to us*: 1) hydrocarbons and 2) nuclear. The cheapest, most abundant hydrocarbons are petroleum, coal, and natural gas. That’s why everybody uses them. And they’re cheapest because everybody uses them — the two conditions go hand-in-glove.

So whatever — scorn quotes — “alternative” you care to try to replace 1) and 2) above with must scale up to provide a significant portion (i.e., greater than two-thirds, I’d say) of the existing demand as well as projected increases. If it can’t, it’s a non-starter.

And one of the most frequently-mentioned so-called “alternatives” is biofuels. And no matter how your brain fart pipedreams imagine they might be provided, eventually, you are going to have to produce them in a large-scale, systematized manner. Which, in biofuels, leads almost inevitably to cropping them.

I did the math once, just to satisfy my own curiosity. There is not enough arable land on the planet to cover the INCREASE year-to-year in gasoline demand in the United States. So-called “alternative” fuels are a losing proposition going in. It’s not even close.

And the guys you call idiots in Washington know it.

Think about that next time you contemplate the so-called energy crisis.

(* Don’t even try. Fuel means something you get energy out of. All those others you’re about to mention in comments are energy STORAGE mechanisms. So don’t bother.)

Kevin Baker Has a New

COMMENT THING Maybe not all that new, but this was the first time I’d encountered it. I’m sure he thought he had to do it. Probably to get a bit more control over the trolls and spammers. Pretty much any blogger has had to deal with those at some length. But me I don’t deal well with change, and I was comfortable with Kevin’s old system. And, after about five minutes of trying to log on, I gave up and brought this over here.

The Quote of the Day is from a guy commenting somewhere else (you can follow the links at Kev’s place if you’re interested). The guy appears to be engaged in a conflation fallacy and uses straw man arguments to make the point that — apparently, yes — you can impose democracy on someone.

I could be wrong, but that’s how it looks to me.

Quote of the Day

It seems to me that large segments of the world’s political class are getting too big for their britches.

Glenn Reynolds

Whatchoo mean, “GETTING”? Seems t’ meeee the political class is by daffynition too big for it’s britches. It’s made of of windyviduals who’re too big for their britches. They’re constitutionally unable to close their zippers.

Nature of the beast, eh?

Something like that.