Elder and lack-of Sensenbrenner...

Larry and Jim...it's like Tucker Carlson has friends...

Writing for the Jewish World Review, Larry Elder goes on to yammer about the topic of global warming, supposely in answer to fan mail of some sort.

Beginning first by pointing out, correctly, that the scientific community as a whole is still not completely sold on global warming, he then goes on to provide every possible excuse not to do anything about it anyway.

Starting with the general expense, based off of the reader's thought that "if the scientists are wrong, the worst case comes down to a few lost bucks," Elder points out that we would be courting economic collapse: "lots of lost bucks, retarded economic growth, lost jobs and weakened worker pensions, all while making nations, especially Third World countries, less prosperous."

This goes further to include a widening of the gap between rich and poor, countries becoming less financially stable, all leading to a breakdown in political stability. This assertion, of course, ties directly to a bump in Islamofacists, one of Elder's favorite phrases. I'm now starting to see that this whole global warming thing is tied to an increase in terrorist activities.

Additionally, according to Elder, the Kyoto Accords are worthless. Since India and China, with their advanced population and addition to CO2 production, are not on board, any benefits gained by the efforts of the signees are lost. So, why bother to make an effort ourselves?

In another piece, Global Warming Makes People Gay (which is tongue-in-cheek, thankfully), he follows the same tack: there's not enough proof, it costs too much, China and India aren't doing it, so ignore it and move on.

Sadly, it's even questioned in our own neighborhood by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner on The Hill, taken from the AP:

"I will have many questions about why global warming has suddenly become an issue of national defense," Sensenbrenner said. Later in the hearing he complained that alarmism over climate change is unnecessarily frightening America's children.

Alarmism... Unnecessary panic... Would this be like showing a heat index next to the terror alert level?

Admittedly, here in Wisconsin, where we have the possibility of snowfall on 9 months of the year, global waming could be a novel concept. Imagine what it'd be like at a Packers game in late December where it's only 40 degrees... Or a January with negligible snowfall, a record number of days above 30 degrees, and never hitting a lower temp than 19 degrees... (Thanks to NOAA)

Too bad that happened this past winter. Not to say that it's evidence of global warming, but it's an idea of what a global warming trend will bring. Expound that around the globe, run it along for several years, and you can end up with a hell of a mess. Elder's idea of a breakdown in financial stability degrading into chaos would be a reality. We're looking at a worse-case scenario, but it's one that can potentialy be avoided.

Inaction? That's a threat to national security if there ever was one...

A little shout-out to John Hawkins...

...over at townhall.com. I read his piece on the 10 differences between conservatives and liberals. I'd like to avoid saying that it was biased and more than a little hypocritical, so I won't.

It definitely makes for an interesting primer on why some people, like the Hannity's and O'Reilly's of the world, can irritate people so well. Self-serving fodder would be one description. Conservative propaganda would be another. Pompous rhetoric has a nice feel though.

First to last?

-Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they're pragmatic and because they work.
-Such as the Patriot Act? Or No Child Left Behind? Maybe you were referring to any semblance of a foreign policy?

-Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square. We also believe, most of us anyway, that this country has been successful in large part because it is a good, Christian nation and if our country ever turns away from the Lord, it will cease to prosper.
-Why do they always play the Christian card? Insisting upon equal representation of religion is a Constitutionally given right. If you want to pray in school, then everyone should be allowed to pray in their own way. And the concept of separation of church and state is important. Keep that in mind should we elect a non-Christian president, because you'll be hounding that point later.

-Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country.
-We question the greatness of our nation, and the policies of our nation because we are patriotic. We question the response of the world to our actions because we are interested in maintaining the goodwill and respect of other nations. Having our troops home and safe, protecting our borders, will do more for the good of our country than spending years fighting an unwinnable war against a constantly growing terrorist threat that we are further nurturing with each day we occupy Iraq.

-Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry.
-Having seen the last six years of the Bush Administration, I fully agree. Time for change...

-Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it's vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt.
-I'm not sure how much of the government was reduced with the Bush Admin, but my taxes aren't exactly low, I'm pretty sure I remember reading that Clinton had us working on a surplus, and we were heading out of debt. At least until 2000, anyway.

-Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens.
-I'm fairly sure Liberals feel the same, but I think we ultimately prefer to not have our troops dying overseas in a futile attempt to confront enemies that stay hidden the majority of the time. Talking of arresting them in the act is just foolish. The abject failure of the Patriot Act proved that.

-Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion.
-Sanctity of life is a great argument. Defend the embryo, kill the Arab, force a rape victim to bear an unwanted child, and send another soldier to die overseas for this Administration's vanity. How very Christian of you...
And before you say that the soldiers are dying there so that we may live here, what's wrong with stem cell research?

-Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn't be punished for being successful.
-Socialists? Really? Because we think someone with ridiculous excess should pay a fair and proportionate amount? We don't respect high achievers? If they got as far as they did by working hard and being protected by the rights established by our nation, there's no reason for them to be excepted from the system simply for having more money. Saying we look at them as "piggy banks for (our) programs" is like saying you don't look at them as donors and special interests for your elections. Besides, it's not hard work making a profit when you're charging well over $3 at the pump.

-Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions. On the other hand, liberals believe that it's ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups.
-Right. Conservatives are color blind, accepting of all white people. As far as character and merits of ones actions... Ted Haggard was pretty well thought of...is his character back out of the closet yet?

-Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose. Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren't going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes.
-Sure, give the handguns to law enforcement. Everyone else can make due with long-barrel weapons. Hawkins already commented that the Va Tech shootings are an argument against gun control, "a perfect example of how gun control puts decent people at the mercy of criminals," which is a fair take on the situation, especially after hearing some VA Tech kid talk on CNN about how it might have been different if other kids had guns to defend themselves.

-Conservatives believe that judges should act like umpires instead of legislating from the bench. That means that judges should determine whether laws are permissible under the Constitution and settle debates about the meaning of laws, not impose their will based on their ideological leanings.
-There is no way that you can tell me that any of Bush's Supreme Court choices were in no way motivated by his or their ideological leanings. If Conservatives do not wish to impose their will from the bench and not legislate, then Roe v. Wade stays on the books. And Texas v. Johnson.
And W. Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett.

For someone with such a resume who puts together one article a week for townhall, it’s sad that he has to resort to regurgitating Ann Coulter and the rest of the posse to keep the checks coming in. A little originality? Too much to ask?

Hiding Something Annette?

State Supreme Court Elect Annette Ziegler is looking to bury some more skeletons...

Wispolitics.com posted a copy of a petition by Ziegler's legal representation that asks her potential peers to bar the State Ethics Board from looking into her somewhat shady dealings in cases involving West Bend Savings Bank, a company for which her husband is a member of the Board of Directors.

The petition tries to point out that the actual sums involved in each instance are minor, as well as the compensation that her husband is given for serving on the Board. Beyond that, there is also the claim that neither Ziegler nor any other member of her family benefitted financially from the decisions. Understandable as that may be, the Ethics Board rules on moral substance, and Ziegler's decision not to recuse herself from these cases reeks of flawed judgement.

"Questionable" would be a soft description of this action, as she seems to have the need to hide herself from moral scrutiny while the Judicial Commission investigates the techinical and tangible aspects of her actions.

Whether or not she will be allowed to actually assume the seat that she won (by outbidding her opponent an estimated $5.25 mil to $750k thanks to WMC and other 3rd parties) remains to be seen.

As Ziegler still cannot seem to grasp the idea that she should be just as vulnerable as anyone else to investigation of wrong-doing, there is a definite flaw inherent in the Justice-Elect. How on Earth could anyone have any faith or trust in a lawmaker who would work so hard so keep the laws from applying to herself?

Darwinism in Wisconsin?

Reading through our daily supplement of blogs and news articles, Cory Liebmann at onewisconsinnow.org caught my eye. At a forum hosted by the Institute for One Wisconsin, a health care plan, Smart Medicine, was presented by Jon Rauser. This plan is co-sponsored by Senators Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) and Carol Roessler (R-Oshkosh), with Darling present at the forum.

After Rauser spent some time railing against other plans, he brought up the time-honored stand-by, Health Savings Accounts. From his perspective, which is also that of his employer, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, HSA's "are a rising star in healthcare reform. Over 3 million Americans are currently enrolled in HSAs, which represents a tripling of enrollees since March 2005, and 40% of those enrollees were previously uninsured." I'm still looking for the numbers, but I don't believe that all 3 million ran out to sign up for the HSA's, mostly due to the fact that these tend to be offered by companies as an alternative to a comprehensive healthcare plan that they do not want to foot the bill for.

By alternative, I mean that given a choice between trying to set money aside on your own, or paying perhaps 50% of the monthly premium on what Walmart may be paying you, the sound decision is having enough money for groceries and heat, with money for the HSA when it might be possible.

The Americans for Prosperity Foundation claims to be "advancing every individuals right to economic freedom and opportunity," and they may be billing their HSA drive as "providing more choice for less cost," but who is getting the benefit of less cost, and who, exactly, gets economic freedom when they run into something more than the flu?

And this all brings it down to the best point that Rauser made: "The only way to control health care costs is to withhold care. Think about that."

Ah, we withhold care. That saves money...usually for those in the CEO set who make the decision to embrace HSA's rather than HMO's for less cost. And that would tackle the economic freedom question as well. If you can't afford to set money aside on a high enough plateau, you're free to not receive treatment that you cannot afford. Survival of the fittest...

And, just as a little icing on the cake, at no point in the forum, even when the podium was hers, did Alberta Darling once try to correct or alter the statements made by Jon Rauser.

the "A"

the A stands for Atticus. there will be no more discussion.