Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent post at NRO entitled: "The Kerry Yacht as a Teachable Moment." A fair argument can be made that rich liberals want us to pay more taxes so they don't have to pay theirs. Or perhaps they just don't care how high tax rates get, because they don't intend to pay them anyway.
Either way, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Some constructive suggestions regarding illegal immigration
The big news regarding illegal immigration, of course, is Arizona's law and the federal challenge to it. I have not read the District Court's decision enjoining enforcement of significant provisions of the law. But the Court apparently did not enjoin the provisions of the law prohibiting sanctuary cities in Arizona. The Court also reportedly affirmed that Arizona law enforcement personnel may inquire into a person's immigration status irrespective of the statute. (Indeed, the federal government maintains a call center in Vermont to answer such inquiries from state and local law enforcement officials throughout the country.) In any event, no one can predict the outcome of the appeals that are already under way.
The purpose of this post is to make a couple of suggestions-- one practical, one political -- for improving the enforcement of the laws against illegal immigration. First, Arizona should consider establishing a new website or modifying an existing one to collect and report the facts regarding the immigration status of people arrested in Arizona.
For example, if an arrestee is determined to be in the country illegally, the site could report the date on which ICE was informed that the illegal alien was in custody and whether ICE took that person into federal custody. If ICE declined to take custody, the site could report the date the person was released from state custody. Then, if that person was subsequently arrested for another state crime, the site could reflect the fact that the illegal alien was still here because federal government declined to enforce federal immigration law.
This site could serve as an information resource for the public, for law enforcement officials, and for reporters. If the federal government fails to enforce its immigration laws, the public has the right to know both the extent and the consequences of that failure. I doubt that shame will move the government where duty has failed to do so, but it is worth a shot. And at least it will shed light on what is actually going on.
Second, Arizona and other border states may want to place remotely-triggered dye packs similar to those already used by banks in areas used by illegals to enter the country. A brightly-colored illegal alien would find it difficult to hide or get work on this side of the border. These devices might catch only a small percentage of the illegal aliens crossing the border, but anyone sneaking into the country would have to worry about suddenly glowing a bright color without warning.
More criminal laws will probably have little impact on illegal immigration, even if they survive court challenges. But existing technology may provide inexpensive ways to improve enforcement of the laws already on the books.
The purpose of this post is to make a couple of suggestions-- one practical, one political -- for improving the enforcement of the laws against illegal immigration. First, Arizona should consider establishing a new website or modifying an existing one to collect and report the facts regarding the immigration status of people arrested in Arizona.
For example, if an arrestee is determined to be in the country illegally, the site could report the date on which ICE was informed that the illegal alien was in custody and whether ICE took that person into federal custody. If ICE declined to take custody, the site could report the date the person was released from state custody. Then, if that person was subsequently arrested for another state crime, the site could reflect the fact that the illegal alien was still here because federal government declined to enforce federal immigration law.
This site could serve as an information resource for the public, for law enforcement officials, and for reporters. If the federal government fails to enforce its immigration laws, the public has the right to know both the extent and the consequences of that failure. I doubt that shame will move the government where duty has failed to do so, but it is worth a shot. And at least it will shed light on what is actually going on.
Second, Arizona and other border states may want to place remotely-triggered dye packs similar to those already used by banks in areas used by illegals to enter the country. A brightly-colored illegal alien would find it difficult to hide or get work on this side of the border. These devices might catch only a small percentage of the illegal aliens crossing the border, but anyone sneaking into the country would have to worry about suddenly glowing a bright color without warning.
More criminal laws will probably have little impact on illegal immigration, even if they survive court challenges. But existing technology may provide inexpensive ways to improve enforcement of the laws already on the books.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Obama's foreign policy in pictures
President Obama promised his foreign policy would be less "arrogant" than George W. Bush's. Several recent pictures illustrate that he has kept part of his promise: he is only arrogant to our allies.
This picture shows President Obama shaking his finger at Stephen Harper, Canada's Prime Minister. I don't know what President Obama was bloviating about, but Secretary Clinton recently criticized the Prime Minister for not inviting Inuits to a conference regarding Arctic resources and for not including sufficient funding for abortions in its foreign aid. The Obama administration has also sternly lectured Israel about construction projects in Jerusalem and threatened the Honduran government for thwarting Manuel Zelaya's attempt to install himself as President for life.
On the other hand, if you are a foreign monarch or dictator, Obama will reflexively bow to you -- groveling is optional.
The late historian Bernard Lewis warned against a foreign policy that made us “harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.” Unfortunately, President Obama seems oblivious to that danger.
This picture shows President Obama shaking his finger at Stephen Harper, Canada's Prime Minister. I don't know what President Obama was bloviating about, but Secretary Clinton recently criticized the Prime Minister for not inviting Inuits to a conference regarding Arctic resources and for not including sufficient funding for abortions in its foreign aid. The Obama administration has also sternly lectured Israel about construction projects in Jerusalem and threatened the Honduran government for thwarting Manuel Zelaya's attempt to install himself as President for life.
On the other hand, if you are a foreign monarch or dictator, Obama will reflexively bow to you -- groveling is optional.
The late historian Bernard Lewis warned against a foreign policy that made us “harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.” Unfortunately, President Obama seems oblivious to that danger.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
An interesting solar power project
The New York Times recently had an article about a solar power project underway in Florida. Planetgore at National Review has a link to the article.
Florida Power and Light currently operates a natural gas-powered electrical plant in Indiantown, Florida. It occupies 15 acres of land and generates 3800 kWh of electricity. It is building a solar-powered addition that will occupy 500 acres of former swampland and will generate 75 kWh electricity at its peak-- which is only one third of the time and, of course, not at night. According to the Times, the swampland formerly teemed with a otters and wild hogs (and, I strongly suspect, birds).
The cost of this addition is $476 million. When completed, it will be the second-largest solar plant in the world. The solar powered-project uses concave mirrors to focus sunlight to heat oil contained in tubes, which in turn is used to generate steam to power a turbine that generates electricity.
A simple mathematical calculation reveals that over 25,000 acres (approximately 12.5 square miles) of solar collectors would be required to generate the same 3800 kWh of electricity the existing natural gas plant generates using only 15 acres of land. And the solar plant would still require a conventionally-powered plant to provide electricity at night and on cloudy days.
And Obama and his Secretary of Energy think this is our energy future?
Note to environmentalists: another term for swampland is "wetlands."
Florida Power and Light currently operates a natural gas-powered electrical plant in Indiantown, Florida. It occupies 15 acres of land and generates 3800 kWh of electricity. It is building a solar-powered addition that will occupy 500 acres of former swampland and will generate 75 kWh electricity at its peak-- which is only one third of the time and, of course, not at night. According to the Times, the swampland formerly teemed with a otters and wild hogs (and, I strongly suspect, birds).
The cost of this addition is $476 million. When completed, it will be the second-largest solar plant in the world. The solar powered-project uses concave mirrors to focus sunlight to heat oil contained in tubes, which in turn is used to generate steam to power a turbine that generates electricity.
A simple mathematical calculation reveals that over 25,000 acres (approximately 12.5 square miles) of solar collectors would be required to generate the same 3800 kWh of electricity the existing natural gas plant generates using only 15 acres of land. And the solar plant would still require a conventionally-powered plant to provide electricity at night and on cloudy days.
And Obama and his Secretary of Energy think this is our energy future?
Note to environmentalists: another term for swampland is "wetlands."
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
The unraveling of the case for anthropogenic global warming
I have long been a skeptic regarding claims that man's activities are causing the planet to significantly heat up. The proponents of this theory first tell us that the planet's climate is incredibly complex. Then, seemingly in the next breath, they claim that all this complexity boils down to a simple (simplistic?) equation: higher levels of carbon dioxide equal higher temperatures. Really?
Maybe not. It seems that every week brings new revelations undermining the case for AGW. The tipping point was probably the release of the East Anglia documents -- which include, in addition to the damning e-mails, working files that cast doubt on the data that purportedly support the warm-mongers' dire predictions.
The warm-mongers also stridently insist that the decade-long cooling period we have just witnessed is a temporary aberation. But their computer models didn't predict it and can't explain it, so how do they know?
Now we learn that the Himalayan glaciers will not disappear by 2035 as the UN's IPCC predicted, and that some of the IPCC's supposedly-peer-reviewed claims were based on an article published in a mountain climbing magazine and on an unpublished student dissertation that in turn relied on "anecdotal" evidence. Curiouser and curiouser.
Even mainstream politicians are calling for the resignation of the head of the IPCC -- he is a railway engineer, not a climatologist. And Al Gore steadfastly refuses to debate the merits of his claims with real scientists.
If the case for AGW collapses, so does the entire rationale for the President's cap-and-trade scheme, which he himself admits would "necessarily" cause electricity prices to skyrocket and would bankrupt anyone who built a coal-powered electricity plant (we get over half of our electricity from coal-fired plants).
It is definitely time to hit the reset button on this entire issue.
Maybe not. It seems that every week brings new revelations undermining the case for AGW. The tipping point was probably the release of the East Anglia documents -- which include, in addition to the damning e-mails, working files that cast doubt on the data that purportedly support the warm-mongers' dire predictions.
The warm-mongers also stridently insist that the decade-long cooling period we have just witnessed is a temporary aberation. But their computer models didn't predict it and can't explain it, so how do they know?
Now we learn that the Himalayan glaciers will not disappear by 2035 as the UN's IPCC predicted, and that some of the IPCC's supposedly-peer-reviewed claims were based on an article published in a mountain climbing magazine and on an unpublished student dissertation that in turn relied on "anecdotal" evidence. Curiouser and curiouser.
Even mainstream politicians are calling for the resignation of the head of the IPCC -- he is a railway engineer, not a climatologist. And Al Gore steadfastly refuses to debate the merits of his claims with real scientists.
If the case for AGW collapses, so does the entire rationale for the President's cap-and-trade scheme, which he himself admits would "necessarily" cause electricity prices to skyrocket and would bankrupt anyone who built a coal-powered electricity plant (we get over half of our electricity from coal-fired plants).
It is definitely time to hit the reset button on this entire issue.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
"Racism" in america.
I have blogged about race baiting in the past. Now Rich Lowry and Mona Charen have excellent articles at NRO discussing the subject in light of the latest Harry Reid flap.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
The White House threatens Congress with the EPA
Fox news reported today that a top White House official "warned" Congress that, if it doesn't enact legislation to regulate "greenhouse" gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will assume a "command-and-control" role that could (read will) hurt business (i.e. the economy). This is bizarre.
The last I heard, the federal government only had three branches. The EPA clearly is not part of the judicial branch, so it must either be part of the executive branch or legislative branch (many federal agencies are actually arms of Congress). Yet the President's spokesman portrays the EPA as a rogue elephant threatening to trample the economy -- this may be accurate, but how did it come to pass?
The EPA is, in fact, part of the executive branch. Consequently, the President cannot credibly deny responsibility for its actions and their consequences. And he will have a hard time blaming regulations that haven't been enacted yet on his predecessor (although I wouldn't be surprised if he tried).
Ronald Reagan once famously declared that we are people who have a government and not the other way around. I am beginning to have my doubts.
The last I heard, the federal government only had three branches. The EPA clearly is not part of the judicial branch, so it must either be part of the executive branch or legislative branch (many federal agencies are actually arms of Congress). Yet the President's spokesman portrays the EPA as a rogue elephant threatening to trample the economy -- this may be accurate, but how did it come to pass?
The EPA is, in fact, part of the executive branch. Consequently, the President cannot credibly deny responsibility for its actions and their consequences. And he will have a hard time blaming regulations that haven't been enacted yet on his predecessor (although I wouldn't be surprised if he tried).
Ronald Reagan once famously declared that we are people who have a government and not the other way around. I am beginning to have my doubts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)