I had to drive from Philly to Harrisburg on Sunday, into an oncoming snowstorm. The weather was fine when I left Philly, but the weather services knew exactly where the storm was and where it was going.
Sure enough, about 30 miles outside of Harrisburg, the flakes started dropping.
But about 50 miles our we passed something you would never, ever see in Oregon. Every few miles on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, there were snow plow trucks, loaded with salt, idling alongside the road waiting for the snow to fall heavy enough to get started!
This was a SUNDAY!
Back east, it seems, the prevailing attitude is that people do important things and therefore it is important not to allow a little snowstorm to stop everything.
In Oregon, it seems, the attitude is that there's nothing going on here so important that would require going out of our way to keep snow from preventing it. We have become such a small time place, and it took a trip back east to remind me once again.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Priorities revealed
I got in late last night from the east coast. All day yesterday in the airports I watched the news of the world financial markets falling apart. A 400 point drop in the Dow? All but three companies of the S&P 500 went down? Pretty big news.
Not big enough, however, to knock the sustainability agenda off as the top story in the Oregonian's business section!
Right there above the fold, across the whole page is the humongous news that "Local homes database turns green." Yessir, the news that the RLS database has added a feature that identifies "green" homes is far more important than some little chest cold in the world's financial markets.
What's a 3.5% drop in the Dow and an 8% plunge in China compared to this earth shattering story?
Not big enough, however, to knock the sustainability agenda off as the top story in the Oregonian's business section!
Right there above the fold, across the whole page is the humongous news that "Local homes database turns green." Yessir, the news that the RLS database has added a feature that identifies "green" homes is far more important than some little chest cold in the world's financial markets.
What's a 3.5% drop in the Dow and an 8% plunge in China compared to this earth shattering story?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Oregonian unhinged over Measure 37
I'm travelling, and logged onto Oregonlive.com to see what was news. I was treated to Monday's hysterical editorial on Measure 37.
The Oregonian editors see that time is running out. All the claims filed before the deadline are moving forward and will be processed on the six-month timeline set in the measure unless the legislature does something to stop them.
So, the Oregonian urges them to "postpone the deadlines."
It's actually kind of fun to watch them ramp up the hysteria as the six month clock ticks down. They know that the bulk of all Measure 37 claims were filed before the deadline last fall, and so the law must be "fixed" (read: gutted) before these claims mature, otherwise there almost is no point.
So expect more of these editorials, which will really serve only to further distance the Oregonian from Oregonians. Honestly, don't they think it's a bit risky to be telling us every day what dopes we are for passing Measure 37? Just look at the rhetoric in that one editorial:
"terrible problems Measure 37 has inflicted on Oregon"
"jeopardizes the future of the state's agricultural industry"
" threaten at least 132,346 acres of Willamette Valley's richest farmland"
"...how much damage these claims could do"
"interrupt the ruin of Measure 37.."
Twice Oregon has passed this measure, both times overwhelmingly, and both times in the face of a prolonged and strident campaign by the Oregonian against them.
Why is it they think voters will listen to them this time? Fact is, the Oregonian is increasingly irrelevant on issues such as this. The are way out of the mainstream, and the more hysterical they get, the further out they put themselves and the more they alienate their readers.
The question really is: can the Republicans in the legislature hold off the McPherson-led effort to "fix" Measure 37?
I'm just glad Larry George is there in the Senate.
The Oregonian editors see that time is running out. All the claims filed before the deadline are moving forward and will be processed on the six-month timeline set in the measure unless the legislature does something to stop them.
So, the Oregonian urges them to "postpone the deadlines."
It's actually kind of fun to watch them ramp up the hysteria as the six month clock ticks down. They know that the bulk of all Measure 37 claims were filed before the deadline last fall, and so the law must be "fixed" (read: gutted) before these claims mature, otherwise there almost is no point.
So expect more of these editorials, which will really serve only to further distance the Oregonian from Oregonians. Honestly, don't they think it's a bit risky to be telling us every day what dopes we are for passing Measure 37? Just look at the rhetoric in that one editorial:
"terrible problems Measure 37 has inflicted on Oregon"
"jeopardizes the future of the state's agricultural industry"
" threaten at least 132,346 acres of Willamette Valley's richest farmland"
"...how much damage these claims could do"
"interrupt the ruin of Measure 37.."
Twice Oregon has passed this measure, both times overwhelmingly, and both times in the face of a prolonged and strident campaign by the Oregonian against them.
Why is it they think voters will listen to them this time? Fact is, the Oregonian is increasingly irrelevant on issues such as this. The are way out of the mainstream, and the more hysterical they get, the further out they put themselves and the more they alienate their readers.
The question really is: can the Republicans in the legislature hold off the McPherson-led effort to "fix" Measure 37?
I'm just glad Larry George is there in the Senate.
Friday, February 16, 2007
More Metro lies
A gaggle of Metro Councillors wrote an op-ed piece in the Tribune today that tells some real doozies. It would actually be funny if it weren't so insulting that our elected officials think we are so stupid to not be able to see through their B.S.
The issue is the draft transportation plan that the feds kicked back to Metro, saying they maybe ought include a little transportation planning in it.
Rex et al defended the plan by lying about it. They say the problem is that there is no new revenue source to pay for new transportation projects. What about the billions spent on light rail? Maybe if that money wasn't squandered, we could have added to road capacity a little.
But the best part is when they answer the charge that Metro's plan doesn't balance different transportation modes. They say: "Achieving that balance — well-maintained roads and highways, efficient mass transit, as well as safe walking and biking routes — should be a primary goal for the regional transportation system. This is exactly what we’re doing."
Oh really!
So spending half the tranportation funds on light rail lines that are used for 3% of trips is balance?
The issue is the draft transportation plan that the feds kicked back to Metro, saying they maybe ought include a little transportation planning in it.
Rex et al defended the plan by lying about it. They say the problem is that there is no new revenue source to pay for new transportation projects. What about the billions spent on light rail? Maybe if that money wasn't squandered, we could have added to road capacity a little.
But the best part is when they answer the charge that Metro's plan doesn't balance different transportation modes. They say: "Achieving that balance — well-maintained roads and highways, efficient mass transit, as well as safe walking and biking routes — should be a primary goal for the regional transportation system. This is exactly what we’re doing."
Oh really!
So spending half the tranportation funds on light rail lines that are used for 3% of trips is balance?
I guarantee you won't see this in the Oregonian
A new report from Ohio State University that says temperature patterns in the Antarctic in the latter part of the 20th century did not conform to the predictions made by the global climate models.
We've known for years that the models do a very poor job of "backward predictions," which is to say plugging all the known variables the models say determine temperature, and seeing if the models can accurately reproduce the temperatures that actually happened.
They can't, and this Antarctic study is a similar thing. What the models predicted the Antarctic temp would be was not even close to the actual temp record.
Certainly this will be breathlessly reported by the Oregonian and every other mainstream media outlet for unbiased information, right?
We've known for years that the models do a very poor job of "backward predictions," which is to say plugging all the known variables the models say determine temperature, and seeing if the models can accurately reproduce the temperatures that actually happened.
They can't, and this Antarctic study is a similar thing. What the models predicted the Antarctic temp would be was not even close to the actual temp record.
Certainly this will be breathlessly reported by the Oregonian and every other mainstream media outlet for unbiased information, right?
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
The real agenda behind global warming
This is not conspiracy theory. A conspiracy is done in secret. This agenda has been ignored in plain sight for fifteen years.
Why is the left so hysterical about global warming? It's because the "solution" is a perfect vehicle for what they believed all along - that western society's affluence, created by capitalism, is bad, and must be ended.
Every five years or so the UN has been holding their "Earth Summits." It's at these gatherings that they talk amongst themselves about how to reign in capitalism and save the planet. (Truly, they care not at all about saving the planet, they just want power.)
The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero was chaired by a UN official named Maurice Strong. This was kind of the kickoff for the whole UN-led global warming issue. Until very recently, Strong was Executive Officer for Reform in the U.N. Secretary General’s office.
Here's what he said at the 1992 Summit, on the record:
Why is the left so hysterical about global warming? It's because the "solution" is a perfect vehicle for what they believed all along - that western society's affluence, created by capitalism, is bad, and must be ended.
Every five years or so the UN has been holding their "Earth Summits." It's at these gatherings that they talk amongst themselves about how to reign in capitalism and save the planet. (Truly, they care not at all about saving the planet, they just want power.)
The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero was chaired by a UN official named Maurice Strong. This was kind of the kickoff for the whole UN-led global warming issue. Until very recently, Strong was Executive Officer for Reform in the U.N. Secretary General’s office.
Here's what he said at the 1992 Summit, on the record:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
There you have it.
The REAL agenda behind global warming alarmism.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Rex Burkholder strikes again
I went to lunch today, sat down and started reading the Portland Tribune. One of the lead stories is about Rex Burkholder's Regional Transportation Plan.
I read the very first paragraph, and literally laughed out loud. I can't beleive the writer, Jim Redden, could write something so patently ridiculous. It read:
When exactly did Rex Burkholder ever think that adding road capacity was the solution? Did he have a change of heart? Did he advocate building new roads all these years and then realize that it wasn't working?
What a crock. This region has been squandering transportation revenues on everything but roads for the last 30 years, ever since the Mt. Hood Freeway was killed to pay for the first MAX line. For decades the mantra has been that we "can't build our way out of congestion."
Now, in 2007, after Rex's idiotic transportation dogma has caused congestion to grow more quickly than any other urban area, the newspaper reports that building roads is NO LONGER the solution?
Are we supposed to consider the Trib as a serious newspaper?
I read the very first paragraph, and literally laughed out loud. I can't beleive the writer, Jim Redden, could write something so patently ridiculous. It read:
NO LONGER THE SOLUTION???!!!"Led by Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder, officials at the regional planning agency repeatedly have said that building new highways is no longer the solution for the area’s growing congestion problems."
When exactly did Rex Burkholder ever think that adding road capacity was the solution? Did he have a change of heart? Did he advocate building new roads all these years and then realize that it wasn't working?
What a crock. This region has been squandering transportation revenues on everything but roads for the last 30 years, ever since the Mt. Hood Freeway was killed to pay for the first MAX line. For decades the mantra has been that we "can't build our way out of congestion."
Now, in 2007, after Rex's idiotic transportation dogma has caused congestion to grow more quickly than any other urban area, the newspaper reports that building roads is NO LONGER the solution?
Are we supposed to consider the Trib as a serious newspaper?
Sunday, February 11, 2007
They really ARE communists!
I had to read it several times just to make sure I wasn't misreading it.
Editorial section of today's Sunday Oregonian. Front page above-the-fold column is a screed against Measure 37. Nothing unexpected about that.
But the pull quote, prominently displayed on the front page:
"Oregon belongs to all of us. Not just to those people with Measure 37 claims."
They really don't believe in private property, do they?
Editorial section of today's Sunday Oregonian. Front page above-the-fold column is a screed against Measure 37. Nothing unexpected about that.
But the pull quote, prominently displayed on the front page:
"Oregon belongs to all of us. Not just to those people with Measure 37 claims."
They really don't believe in private property, do they?
George Taylor, Oregon State Climatologist
So Governor Kulongoski doesn't want a guy running around calling himself Oregon's State Climatologist and arguing that humans aren't causing global warming.
After all, Kulongoski has finally found his issue. He's going to make Oregon the Mecca for sustainability, alternative fuels and all things low carbon. This is going to be his legacy. So he can't really have George Taylor being so off message.
Taylor used to be the State Climatologist, but that official state position was eliminated some time ago. Oregon State University, where he works, gave him the title and funds his position. Kulongoski wants the legislature to establish the position again, and take the title away from Taylor.
I have the solution. Kulongoski can have his State Climatlogist. I'm sure he or she will be completely bought in to the global warming alarmism. And George Taylor, he works at Oregon State. He's their climatologist.
So he will be the "Oregon State Climatologist!"
After all, Kulongoski has finally found his issue. He's going to make Oregon the Mecca for sustainability, alternative fuels and all things low carbon. This is going to be his legacy. So he can't really have George Taylor being so off message.
Taylor used to be the State Climatologist, but that official state position was eliminated some time ago. Oregon State University, where he works, gave him the title and funds his position. Kulongoski wants the legislature to establish the position again, and take the title away from Taylor.
I have the solution. Kulongoski can have his State Climatlogist. I'm sure he or she will be completely bought in to the global warming alarmism. And George Taylor, he works at Oregon State. He's their climatologist.
So he will be the "Oregon State Climatologist!"
The ODE announces it plans to close down Connection Academy in 2010
It's been a few days; I've been fighting some battles.
Remember the Connections Academy, Oregon's only virtual charter school? There's a bill in the legislature, HB 2037, which would remove the provision passed late last session in a teacher union power play that required virtual charter schools to get 50% of their students from inside their sponsoring district boundaries.
When the bill passed in 2005, the Oregon Connections Academy had already been created. The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) told Republican legislators that Connections Academy would be grandfathered from this provision.
So, t.The school started that next fall with 700 students, and is now in year two with 1500 students. Things seemed fine.
But in testimony over HB 2037, Randy Harnisch from the ODE said that the grandfather status will only last until the Connection Academy's initial charter contract expires and is renewed. At that point, according to Harnisch, Connection Academy would have to comply with the 50% provision.
Of course they know it is impossible. Connections would simply close, and the millions invested would be gone. And thousands of families would have their school taken from them.
Harnisch was testifying to the House Education Innovations Subcommittee when he delivered this news. I was in back of the room, waiting to testify. My jaw dropped when he said this, because just a few short months ago I sat in Harnisch's office and asked him directly what the ODE's position on Connection's grandfather status, and specifically asked him if expiration and renewal would have any effect on it.
Harnisch said he didn't know and that they were going to ask the attorney general's office (which is what they do every time they are looking for legal cover for a position they want to take.) That answer made me nervous.
So imagine my surprise when Harnisch told the legislature that not only would the grandfather status expire when the first contract expired (2010) but that this was the ODE's position from the start!
What a stinking liar! On the record! In a legislative committee hearing!
When it was my turn to testify I called Harnsich out. I told the committee about my direct question to him just last August. And I pointed out that if that was indeed the ODE's position, they might have bothered to tell Connections Academy that their school had a five year life, because they might have an interest in knowing that all the time and money they were planning on investing was going to go bye bye.
You may remember last August when the ODE tried to shut down Connections Academy by freezing their funds unless they made a technical change to their enrollment policy, the legislature was so angered by the way the ODE treated the school that the E-Board unanimously voted to send a stern letter of rebuke to Susan Castillo, telling her, among other things, to do a better job of communicating with the school.
Five months later, the ODE says they are going to shut down the Connections Academy in 2010, and they never bothered to communicate this little detail to the school??!!
Guess the people in charge of the state's schools don't learn all that quickly.
Remember the Connections Academy, Oregon's only virtual charter school? There's a bill in the legislature, HB 2037, which would remove the provision passed late last session in a teacher union power play that required virtual charter schools to get 50% of their students from inside their sponsoring district boundaries.
When the bill passed in 2005, the Oregon Connections Academy had already been created. The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) told Republican legislators that Connections Academy would be grandfathered from this provision.
So, t.The school started that next fall with 700 students, and is now in year two with 1500 students. Things seemed fine.
But in testimony over HB 2037, Randy Harnisch from the ODE said that the grandfather status will only last until the Connection Academy's initial charter contract expires and is renewed. At that point, according to Harnisch, Connection Academy would have to comply with the 50% provision.
Of course they know it is impossible. Connections would simply close, and the millions invested would be gone. And thousands of families would have their school taken from them.
Harnisch was testifying to the House Education Innovations Subcommittee when he delivered this news. I was in back of the room, waiting to testify. My jaw dropped when he said this, because just a few short months ago I sat in Harnisch's office and asked him directly what the ODE's position on Connection's grandfather status, and specifically asked him if expiration and renewal would have any effect on it.
Harnisch said he didn't know and that they were going to ask the attorney general's office (which is what they do every time they are looking for legal cover for a position they want to take.) That answer made me nervous.
So imagine my surprise when Harnisch told the legislature that not only would the grandfather status expire when the first contract expired (2010) but that this was the ODE's position from the start!
What a stinking liar! On the record! In a legislative committee hearing!
When it was my turn to testify I called Harnsich out. I told the committee about my direct question to him just last August. And I pointed out that if that was indeed the ODE's position, they might have bothered to tell Connections Academy that their school had a five year life, because they might have an interest in knowing that all the time and money they were planning on investing was going to go bye bye.
You may remember last August when the ODE tried to shut down Connections Academy by freezing their funds unless they made a technical change to their enrollment policy, the legislature was so angered by the way the ODE treated the school that the E-Board unanimously voted to send a stern letter of rebuke to Susan Castillo, telling her, among other things, to do a better job of communicating with the school.
Five months later, the ODE says they are going to shut down the Connections Academy in 2010, and they never bothered to communicate this little detail to the school??!!
Guess the people in charge of the state's schools don't learn all that quickly.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Here comes the OEA, trying to kill charter schools, right on schedule
We knew it wouldn't be long into the session before the OEA tried to drop a nuclear bomb on the charter school movement.
The bill hasn't been introduced yet, but it's on its way. All it would do is make a few modest changes to Oregon's charter law by requiring:
1. That all (100%) of charter school teachers AND administrators must hold TSPC licenses.
2. That all charter school employees be considered employees of the sponsoring district for the purposes of collective bargaining.
3. That 80% of the students in each charter school must reside within the sponsoring district's boundaries; 20% could reside in other districts.
4. That no more than 10% of the students in any district could attend charter schools.
This is basically a full frontal attack on charters. If it passed, it would kill the movement in Oregon, and the union knows it.
So, we will see just how much the OEA has the governor and the legislature in its pocket. Will they really vote to kill the charter school movement in Oregon?
.
Stay tuned
The bill hasn't been introduced yet, but it's on its way. All it would do is make a few modest changes to Oregon's charter law by requiring:
1. That all (100%) of charter school teachers AND administrators must hold TSPC licenses.
2. That all charter school employees be considered employees of the sponsoring district for the purposes of collective bargaining.
3. That 80% of the students in each charter school must reside within the sponsoring district's boundaries; 20% could reside in other districts.
4. That no more than 10% of the students in any district could attend charter schools.
This is basically a full frontal attack on charters. If it passed, it would kill the movement in Oregon, and the union knows it.
So, we will see just how much the OEA has the governor and the legislature in its pocket. Will they really vote to kill the charter school movement in Oregon?
.
Stay tuned
Let's make a deal
I've got a proposal for global warming alarmists:
I will agree to reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide. The question of whether CO2 causes global warming is far from settled - in fact, there are good reasons to believe that it doesn't.
But for the sake of argument, and to get all you alarmists to stop nagging us about making dramatic changes to our lifestyle to save the planet, I'll stipulate that we will reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, and you stop trying to change the way we all live. Deal?
How far down do you want it? Say, to Kyoto levels?
OK, here's the plan: Embark on a national tree planting program sufficient to remove enough CO2 from the air to meet the targeted level of atmospheric CO2.
Trees are wonderful storage places for CO2. A big tree weighs a lot, and a lot of that weight is carbon. So instead of parking our cars, or taxing oil, or doing all the other things that you've all been telling us to do, let's just plant trees.
Everyone likes trees, right? Plus they are very useful.
So, how about it? Assume for the sake of argument that planting trees would absorb enough CO2 to meet the targets - will you take this deal?
I will agree to reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide. The question of whether CO2 causes global warming is far from settled - in fact, there are good reasons to believe that it doesn't.
But for the sake of argument, and to get all you alarmists to stop nagging us about making dramatic changes to our lifestyle to save the planet, I'll stipulate that we will reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, and you stop trying to change the way we all live. Deal?
How far down do you want it? Say, to Kyoto levels?
OK, here's the plan: Embark on a national tree planting program sufficient to remove enough CO2 from the air to meet the targeted level of atmospheric CO2.
Trees are wonderful storage places for CO2. A big tree weighs a lot, and a lot of that weight is carbon. So instead of parking our cars, or taxing oil, or doing all the other things that you've all been telling us to do, let's just plant trees.
Everyone likes trees, right? Plus they are very useful.
So, how about it? Assume for the sake of argument that planting trees would absorb enough CO2 to meet the targets - will you take this deal?
Thursday, February 01, 2007
IPCC Policymaker's Summary Released Tomorrow
By the time I get up in the morning it will probably already have happened - the IPCC report summary on global warming will have been released.
In France, to commemorate the event, they are turning the Eiffel Tower lights off for five minutes to coincide with the time of the release. If you understand this, perhaps you can explain it to me.
There is a lot of hullaboo around this release, because supposedly it will be even more definite on the question of whether the earth is warming.
But this isn't even the actual report - the release tomorrow is the "policymaker's summary," that is written by the government bureaucrats who sit on the UN's IPCC committee. There are hundreds of scientists who work on and submit materials and writing for various chapters of the report, and that full report won't be released for months.
So the governments on the IPCC panel sit down and decide how to summarize what the report says, and in doing so, the policymakers summary reflects mostly the official position of the various governments, not the science.
So the summary is a political document, sold as a scientific document.
In 1995, the policymaker's summary said of the report: "The balance of the evidence suggests there is a discernable human impact on global temperature."
But Chapter 8, which was the chapter that dealt with global mean temperature, basically contradicted that statement. Embarrassed, the IPCC board actually deleted the offending language from chapter 8 that contradicted their summary!
This is documented and factual. They actually doctored the report so that it would not contradict their summary of the report! Yet the IPCC is still today considered to be a credible, science-based body.
And tomorrow we get another IPCC summary. I wonder if any news organization will question the veracity of their statements, and point out what happened in 1998? Yeah right. No, this will be above the fold all weekend, accepted with unquestioned credulity by a mainstream press that long ago decided not to do its job on this issue.
Just wait for the campaign to adorn Al Gore's mantle with the Nobel right next to his Oscar!
In France, to commemorate the event, they are turning the Eiffel Tower lights off for five minutes to coincide with the time of the release. If you understand this, perhaps you can explain it to me.
There is a lot of hullaboo around this release, because supposedly it will be even more definite on the question of whether the earth is warming.
But this isn't even the actual report - the release tomorrow is the "policymaker's summary," that is written by the government bureaucrats who sit on the UN's IPCC committee. There are hundreds of scientists who work on and submit materials and writing for various chapters of the report, and that full report won't be released for months.
So the governments on the IPCC panel sit down and decide how to summarize what the report says, and in doing so, the policymakers summary reflects mostly the official position of the various governments, not the science.
So the summary is a political document, sold as a scientific document.
In 1995, the policymaker's summary said of the report: "The balance of the evidence suggests there is a discernable human impact on global temperature."
But Chapter 8, which was the chapter that dealt with global mean temperature, basically contradicted that statement. Embarrassed, the IPCC board actually deleted the offending language from chapter 8 that contradicted their summary!
This is documented and factual. They actually doctored the report so that it would not contradict their summary of the report! Yet the IPCC is still today considered to be a credible, science-based body.
And tomorrow we get another IPCC summary. I wonder if any news organization will question the veracity of their statements, and point out what happened in 1998? Yeah right. No, this will be above the fold all weekend, accepted with unquestioned credulity by a mainstream press that long ago decided not to do its job on this issue.
Just wait for the campaign to adorn Al Gore's mantle with the Nobel right next to his Oscar!
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Stu Inman, RIP
Stu Inman died yesterday.
He was the Blazers' first director of player personnel, and was the architect of the Blazers team that won the 1977 NBA title. I was really sad to hear he had passed away, because just a couple weeks ago I learned he was helping coach Lake Oswego High's basketball team (where my kids go to school) and I was going to swerve by and say hi to him.
I haven't spoken to him in more than 30 years. But I will always remember the grace of the man.
Back in 1970 when the Blazers started and Stu Inman moved here, I was a little leaguer, and my dad coached my team. He drafted for our team a kid named David Inman. After a few practices, we realized that the man who came to every practice and watched, cuffing his cigarettes, was Stu Inman. He didn't say a lot, didn't ever intervene in the coaching, he just watched.
His boy was a decent player, nothing special. Over the season, we got to know Stu a little bit. Very nice family. Very down to earth. But I started to realize, as a star-struck pre-teen, that this man went to work every day with NBA basketball players!
Throughout my youth I spent my summers caddying and working at Tualatin Country Club, and in about 1969 they started an annual "Celebrity Golf Tournament." I relished that tournament, because all the local celebs came. All the Blazers, and everybody else I idolized as a kid.
I remember Tom McCall's limo pulling into the club for one year's tournament. The license plate was a simple "1." One year, when I was 14, Bill Schonely drove up with Keith Jackson in the passenger seat, and handed me the keys to his car to park after we took the clubs out of the trunk. I parked it with no incident.
When I saw Stu Inman's name on the list of local celebs who were slated to play, I thought: "Wouldn't it be cool if I could caddy for him?" In those days golf carts were rapidly replacing caddies. Most players in this type of event didn't need any caddy - they just took a cart.
How could I make sure if Stu Inman requested a caddy that I was the one chosen?
My solution was to take chance out of the equation. I was about 14, and had caddied for 5 years. I knew the ropes. I knew that celebs like Stu Inman were used to a certain amount of special treatment. My solution was to lay in wait for when he arrived, then walk straight up to him and announce that I was his caddy. As if the club, wanting to treat their celebs right, had assigned caddies for all of them.
So I hung back as all the other caddies got their assignments, waiting for Stu Inman to arrive. Finally, he walked up, carrying his clubs. I jumped in front of him.
"Hi Mr. Inman! I'm your caddy today!"
He chuckled, and said "Great!"
And so we spent the day together on the golf course. I was in heaven. He bent over backwards asking me to read his putts, choose his clubs, steer him around the course, etc. Now, I was a pretty good golfer myself at that time, regularly breaking 80, which was about the score I think he would shoot. So I could actually add some value as his caddy. But it wouldn't have mattered if I was completely cueless.
Stu Inman new that I was a starstruck teen, and he indulged me. Because he was a class act.
Because I assigned myself to be his caddy, I knew there was some chance that he would assume that caddies were already paid by the club. So there was a chance that I would work the whole day and not get paid.
When I took Stu's clubs out to his car, put them in his trunk, he handed me a tightly folded up bill. I unfolded a $20 bill - which was about four times the regular caddy fee.
Stu Inman was a class act. He died at the age of 80. Not young, but many people live longer. I do regret that he died before I had a chance to reconnect with him.
He was the Blazers' first director of player personnel, and was the architect of the Blazers team that won the 1977 NBA title. I was really sad to hear he had passed away, because just a couple weeks ago I learned he was helping coach Lake Oswego High's basketball team (where my kids go to school) and I was going to swerve by and say hi to him.
I haven't spoken to him in more than 30 years. But I will always remember the grace of the man.
Back in 1970 when the Blazers started and Stu Inman moved here, I was a little leaguer, and my dad coached my team. He drafted for our team a kid named David Inman. After a few practices, we realized that the man who came to every practice and watched, cuffing his cigarettes, was Stu Inman. He didn't say a lot, didn't ever intervene in the coaching, he just watched.
His boy was a decent player, nothing special. Over the season, we got to know Stu a little bit. Very nice family. Very down to earth. But I started to realize, as a star-struck pre-teen, that this man went to work every day with NBA basketball players!
Throughout my youth I spent my summers caddying and working at Tualatin Country Club, and in about 1969 they started an annual "Celebrity Golf Tournament." I relished that tournament, because all the local celebs came. All the Blazers, and everybody else I idolized as a kid.
I remember Tom McCall's limo pulling into the club for one year's tournament. The license plate was a simple "1." One year, when I was 14, Bill Schonely drove up with Keith Jackson in the passenger seat, and handed me the keys to his car to park after we took the clubs out of the trunk. I parked it with no incident.
When I saw Stu Inman's name on the list of local celebs who were slated to play, I thought: "Wouldn't it be cool if I could caddy for him?" In those days golf carts were rapidly replacing caddies. Most players in this type of event didn't need any caddy - they just took a cart.
How could I make sure if Stu Inman requested a caddy that I was the one chosen?
My solution was to take chance out of the equation. I was about 14, and had caddied for 5 years. I knew the ropes. I knew that celebs like Stu Inman were used to a certain amount of special treatment. My solution was to lay in wait for when he arrived, then walk straight up to him and announce that I was his caddy. As if the club, wanting to treat their celebs right, had assigned caddies for all of them.
So I hung back as all the other caddies got their assignments, waiting for Stu Inman to arrive. Finally, he walked up, carrying his clubs. I jumped in front of him.
"Hi Mr. Inman! I'm your caddy today!"
He chuckled, and said "Great!"
And so we spent the day together on the golf course. I was in heaven. He bent over backwards asking me to read his putts, choose his clubs, steer him around the course, etc. Now, I was a pretty good golfer myself at that time, regularly breaking 80, which was about the score I think he would shoot. So I could actually add some value as his caddy. But it wouldn't have mattered if I was completely cueless.
Stu Inman new that I was a starstruck teen, and he indulged me. Because he was a class act.
Because I assigned myself to be his caddy, I knew there was some chance that he would assume that caddies were already paid by the club. So there was a chance that I would work the whole day and not get paid.
When I took Stu's clubs out to his car, put them in his trunk, he handed me a tightly folded up bill. I unfolded a $20 bill - which was about four times the regular caddy fee.
Stu Inman was a class act. He died at the age of 80. Not young, but many people live longer. I do regret that he died before I had a chance to reconnect with him.
I'll bet Rex is a card carrying member
Get a load of this list at NewUrbanism.org - a web site that pushes for sustainability.
The funny thing is that people can propose these things and not be immediately discredited. In fact, Rex Burkholder has proposing similarly extreme things for years and he's still considered a mainstream guy.
Remember - I am not making this stuff up - it is on the front page of the web site!
10 SOLUTIONS that are feasible, sustainable, safe, and healthy:
1. An immediate and permanent moratorium on all new major road construction and expansions. (Every additional dollar spent building and widening roads digs us deeper into our dangerous oil / auto addiction, and increases global warming)
2. An immediate and permanent moratorium on all new airport construction and expansions, as well as an end to all aviation subsidies. In addition, an end to oil industry subsidies.
3. A huge increase in funding for Amtrak, and the rapid construction of a new nationwide train network. This should connect every city, town, and neighborhood with an efficient, state-of-the-art electric train network comparable to what is currently operating all across Europe and Japan. This should be built to transport both passengers and all the cargo now moved by very inefficient trucks. Trains are by far the most energy efficient form of transportation that greatly reduces global warming, saves lives, and encourages compact, walkable communities.
4. The rapid tripling of minimum vehicle miles per gallon standards for all vehicles produced in America - accomplished by a quick and complete conversion of all automobile manufacturing facilities to the building of only hybrid, solar, and fully electric vehicles. Government car purchases made each year should be switched to buying only hybrids and fully electric cars. It is estimated that the entire U.S. government purchases well over one million new vehicles each year - the sum total of Federal, State, & Local Government agencies, municipalities, counties, highway patrol, sheriff, police and fire departments, etc. The real solution is to eventually stop making cars altogether by a phased retooling of the auto industry into manufacturing trains (much like during the second world war when they switched to building military equipment).
5. An immediate moratorium on the building of any additional sprawl. Sprawl is probably the single largest contributor to oil addiction and global warming due to it's very design (or lack of). Sprawl forces everyone to drive many miles daily for everything, which in turn requires constant road expansions, encouraging more cars and driving, and more sprawl. Its a vicious cycle consuming ever more oil, and spewing out more pollution, making global warming continually worse.
6. A major focus of federal, state, and local governments on New Urbanism and Transit Oriented Development - the revitalization and densification of all existing cities and towns across America into walkable, mixed-use communities, with pedestrians and bicycles given top priority over automobiles, and a serious focus on bicycles and trains as the major forms of transportation. Included would be millions of affordable housing units and high quality neighborhood schools located so all children can walk or bike to them.
7. An immediate moratorium on the construction of any new coal fired or nuclear power generating plants. Contrary to what some are saying - that nuclear is a "clean energy" solution to global warming - nuclear power is far from clean. The waste it produces is the most toxic substance known to humankind, remaining deadly radioactive for many thousands of years, and no safe way to store or dispose of it.
8. The rapid construction of massive new solar and wind power generating capacity all across America, from large-scale installations to smaller neighborhood and roof-top units. Also, the immediate installation of new hydropower generating capacity in the form of coastal wave and tidal energy capture.
9. The rapid installation of full roof solar panels on every building in America.
10. The rapid installation of major organic farms at the edge of every city and town across America. In addition to this, the rapid planting of millions of trees across America.
The funny thing is that people can propose these things and not be immediately discredited. In fact, Rex Burkholder has proposing similarly extreme things for years and he's still considered a mainstream guy.
Remember - I am not making this stuff up - it is on the front page of the web site!
10 SOLUTIONS that are feasible, sustainable, safe, and healthy:
1. An immediate and permanent moratorium on all new major road construction and expansions. (Every additional dollar spent building and widening roads digs us deeper into our dangerous oil / auto addiction, and increases global warming)
2. An immediate and permanent moratorium on all new airport construction and expansions, as well as an end to all aviation subsidies. In addition, an end to oil industry subsidies.
3. A huge increase in funding for Amtrak, and the rapid construction of a new nationwide train network. This should connect every city, town, and neighborhood with an efficient, state-of-the-art electric train network comparable to what is currently operating all across Europe and Japan. This should be built to transport both passengers and all the cargo now moved by very inefficient trucks. Trains are by far the most energy efficient form of transportation that greatly reduces global warming, saves lives, and encourages compact, walkable communities.
4. The rapid tripling of minimum vehicle miles per gallon standards for all vehicles produced in America - accomplished by a quick and complete conversion of all automobile manufacturing facilities to the building of only hybrid, solar, and fully electric vehicles. Government car purchases made each year should be switched to buying only hybrids and fully electric cars. It is estimated that the entire U.S. government purchases well over one million new vehicles each year - the sum total of Federal, State, & Local Government agencies, municipalities, counties, highway patrol, sheriff, police and fire departments, etc. The real solution is to eventually stop making cars altogether by a phased retooling of the auto industry into manufacturing trains (much like during the second world war when they switched to building military equipment).
5. An immediate moratorium on the building of any additional sprawl. Sprawl is probably the single largest contributor to oil addiction and global warming due to it's very design (or lack of). Sprawl forces everyone to drive many miles daily for everything, which in turn requires constant road expansions, encouraging more cars and driving, and more sprawl. Its a vicious cycle consuming ever more oil, and spewing out more pollution, making global warming continually worse.
6. A major focus of federal, state, and local governments on New Urbanism and Transit Oriented Development - the revitalization and densification of all existing cities and towns across America into walkable, mixed-use communities, with pedestrians and bicycles given top priority over automobiles, and a serious focus on bicycles and trains as the major forms of transportation. Included would be millions of affordable housing units and high quality neighborhood schools located so all children can walk or bike to them.
7. An immediate moratorium on the construction of any new coal fired or nuclear power generating plants. Contrary to what some are saying - that nuclear is a "clean energy" solution to global warming - nuclear power is far from clean. The waste it produces is the most toxic substance known to humankind, remaining deadly radioactive for many thousands of years, and no safe way to store or dispose of it.
8. The rapid construction of massive new solar and wind power generating capacity all across America, from large-scale installations to smaller neighborhood and roof-top units. Also, the immediate installation of new hydropower generating capacity in the form of coastal wave and tidal energy capture.
9. The rapid installation of full roof solar panels on every building in America.
10. The rapid installation of major organic farms at the edge of every city and town across America. In addition to this, the rapid planting of millions of trees across America.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Feds to Rex: Transportation means ROADS!
The Federal Highway Administration is my new hero.
Rex Burkholder sent them Metro's draft update of the long range transportation plan. The feds rejected it, and sent back some juicy comments.
Basically they said: "Rex, we think that a regional transportation plan should actually try to plan for transportation."
Rex says: "Screw you."
OK, I am reading between the lines just a little. What the feds actually said was:
Rex Burkholder sent them Metro's draft update of the long range transportation plan. The feds rejected it, and sent back some juicy comments.
Basically they said: "Rex, we think that a regional transportation plan should actually try to plan for transportation."
Rex says: "Screw you."
OK, I am reading between the lines just a little. What the feds actually said was:
"It is difficult for us to find the transportation focus in this opening chapter of the Regional Transportation Plan. The plan should acknowledge that automobiles are the preferred mode of transport by the citizens of Porltand. They vote with their cars every day."
Rex's response? He said that the feds' comments should be "taken with a grain of salt."
Meaning, of course, that we should ignore them. Rex went on to say that the feds raise the same kind of questions that Metro will face as it moves forward with the plan.
Translation: Metro will have to railroad this through even though citizens want roads, not more traffic calming, one-way streets, light rail, and street cars.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Climate Change Debate Tuesday
The Oregonian reports that there will be a debate between Washington's state climatologist and Oregon's state climatologist tomorrow night at OMSI.
The Washington guy is on the alarmist side, and George Taylor, from OSU, believes that the human impact on the climate is not significant.
The Oregonian article goes to great lengths to explain that George Taylor is not credible. After setting up the issue, and playing it straight for the first third of the article, the smears begin.
It says that Taylor is "far" from the "great majority of scientists." And that the "distance from the scientific mainstream and the public has widened as evidence of global warming has mounted in the form of rising temperatures, shrinking glaciers and accelerating snowmelt."
Except one problem: Taylor doesn't say that this evidence of warming are not happening, he says that human beings are not the cause.
The Oregonian quotes Mark Abbott, the dean of the College of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at Oregon State University saying "The public is just moving past him. The science certainly has."
And they go on to point out that Taylor is an advisor for a group that gets money from Exxon, and then the governor joins the fray, saying : "He's not the state climatologist. I never appointed him. I think I would know. He's not my weatherman."
This is how you'll be treated if you question the official government position that we have to accept draconian limits in our lifestyle in order to forestall this cataclysm. There is no room for dissent - they have politicized science so completely that they actually think science works on concensus.
How about the other guy - Washington's climatologist? Does he have a dog in the fight? Well, he's one of the lead authors on the soon-to-be-released IPCC Climate Change report. Presumably, he was paid to do this work.
The official position of the IPCC has been for years that man is causing global warming. They want this to be true so badly that in 1998 they actually doctored chapter 8 of the report to delete paragraphs that contradicted this position.
So Mota, Washington's climatologist, should have his credibility scrutinized too, right?
Yeahhh, right.
The Washington guy is on the alarmist side, and George Taylor, from OSU, believes that the human impact on the climate is not significant.
The Oregonian article goes to great lengths to explain that George Taylor is not credible. After setting up the issue, and playing it straight for the first third of the article, the smears begin.
It says that Taylor is "far" from the "great majority of scientists." And that the "distance from the scientific mainstream and the public has widened as evidence of global warming has mounted in the form of rising temperatures, shrinking glaciers and accelerating snowmelt."
Except one problem: Taylor doesn't say that this evidence of warming are not happening, he says that human beings are not the cause.
The Oregonian quotes Mark Abbott, the dean of the College of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at Oregon State University saying "The public is just moving past him. The science certainly has."
And they go on to point out that Taylor is an advisor for a group that gets money from Exxon, and then the governor joins the fray, saying : "He's not the state climatologist. I never appointed him. I think I would know. He's not my weatherman."
This is how you'll be treated if you question the official government position that we have to accept draconian limits in our lifestyle in order to forestall this cataclysm. There is no room for dissent - they have politicized science so completely that they actually think science works on concensus.
How about the other guy - Washington's climatologist? Does he have a dog in the fight? Well, he's one of the lead authors on the soon-to-be-released IPCC Climate Change report. Presumably, he was paid to do this work.
The official position of the IPCC has been for years that man is causing global warming. They want this to be true so badly that in 1998 they actually doctored chapter 8 of the report to delete paragraphs that contradicted this position.
So Mota, Washington's climatologist, should have his credibility scrutinized too, right?
Yeahhh, right.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Today's global warming news .....
Who'd have thought that global warming, which is such a slow developing story that the concern is an increase in average mean temperature of .6 degrees over an entire century, requires daily updates in the Oregonian.
Ever had the feeling that someone was trying just a little too hard to convince of you of something? That it was just a little too important to them that you believe it, and you suspected that maybe they weren't giving you the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but that the information they presented to convince you was perhaps just a little shaded in favor of what they wanted you to believe?
I get that feeling when I read the Oregonian's global warming drumbeat. It is almost getting laughable.
I have never seen a single article in the Oregonian that discussed research or scientists views on the single most important question in the global warming debate: is there a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global mean temperature. If not, this entire issue disappears.
If CO2 is not the culprit, then it doesn't matter how much or how little the glaciers are receding, the ocean levels rising, etc etc. It means that man isn't causing it to happen, and the whole edifice of the alarmist crowd comes crashing down upon them.
Is that perhaps why the Oregonian and all their pew-mates in the church of global warming seem to want to keep you eye off the ball of whether CO2 actually causes warming?
The "evidence" they have that says CO2 does cause warming is the global climate models. Which is to say, actually, that they think CO2 causes warming because the models they created assume that CO2 causes warming.
Today's entry in the Oregonian's global warming hysteria series is actually pretty funny. Remember how biotech was going to be the next big thing to bring Oregon jobs? The Oregonian cheerleaded that scam all the way to the Tram. Number of new biotech jobs? Zippo. [Oh, wait, we did get a Genentech packaging plant out of the deal.]
Now, the Oregonian tells us, the next big thing is sustainability and alternative energy. Oregon is going to lead the nation in demonstrating how to develop low carbon impact stuff, and it will be a boon to Oregon's economy and save the world in the process.
The lead editorial has a great headline, hinting at the hype we are all in for:
Ever had the feeling that someone was trying just a little too hard to convince of you of something? That it was just a little too important to them that you believe it, and you suspected that maybe they weren't giving you the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but that the information they presented to convince you was perhaps just a little shaded in favor of what they wanted you to believe?
I get that feeling when I read the Oregonian's global warming drumbeat. It is almost getting laughable.
I have never seen a single article in the Oregonian that discussed research or scientists views on the single most important question in the global warming debate: is there a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global mean temperature. If not, this entire issue disappears.
If CO2 is not the culprit, then it doesn't matter how much or how little the glaciers are receding, the ocean levels rising, etc etc. It means that man isn't causing it to happen, and the whole edifice of the alarmist crowd comes crashing down upon them.
Is that perhaps why the Oregonian and all their pew-mates in the church of global warming seem to want to keep you eye off the ball of whether CO2 actually causes warming?
The "evidence" they have that says CO2 does cause warming is the global climate models. Which is to say, actually, that they think CO2 causes warming because the models they created assume that CO2 causes warming.
Today's entry in the Oregonian's global warming hysteria series is actually pretty funny. Remember how biotech was going to be the next big thing to bring Oregon jobs? The Oregonian cheerleaded that scam all the way to the Tram. Number of new biotech jobs? Zippo. [Oh, wait, we did get a Genentech packaging plant out of the deal.]
Now, the Oregonian tells us, the next big thing is sustainability and alternative energy. Oregon is going to lead the nation in demonstrating how to develop low carbon impact stuff, and it will be a boon to Oregon's economy and save the world in the process.
The lead editorial has a great headline, hinting at the hype we are all in for:
The Little State That Could
Oregon "has all the ingredients," including leadership
to help pull the nation ahead on energy and climate issues
Examples given in the editorial:
1. "Several bills aimed at enlarging the production of alternative fuels." In other words - subsidies to get farmers to produce things that don't make economic sense.
2. "Bills to expand renewable sources of energy." In other words, subsidies for windmills and other energy production facilities that don't make economic sense.
3. Bills to "ecourage manufacturers to meet clean energy standards." In other words, regulations on business.
4. Bills to "spur more homeowners to install solar systems and energy efficient appliances." In other words, subsidies so people do things that don't make economic sense.
The Oregonian goes on to talk about the Governor's "cap and trade" proposal, and to say it would be far better if it was a national thing, but if not, we are right to "go it alone."
We have "too much to lose," they explain - coastline, glaciers and forest. What they don't touch is whether an Oregon only system of cap and trade would actually make any difference. Not a whisper of whether the reduction in CO2 from such a program would be enough to have any effect. Why not?
Easy question - they don't discuss results of an Oregon only cap and trade because for liberals, results don't matter. And because discussing results might risk swerving into a discussion of CO2 and whether it is causing warming in the first place.
No, better to gloss over dangerous issues like this and keep the hype going. Lather praise on anybody who goes along, and don't discuss any doubts. And definitely don't give credence to any skeptics - that only gives them credibility. Make sure everyone knows that global warming skeptics are flat earthers - not to be taken seriously.
After all, those are the same people who said that biotech would never be a big deal in Oregon, and CIM/CAM was going to fail.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
The Drumbeat
I looked in the Oregonian yesterday and thought: "Hey! No global warming article!"
Then I found it - an entire page devoted to the "extreme weather events" of 2006. A month by month chronicle of the rain, the cold, the wind, the storms. They didn't explicitly blame carbon dioxide, of course, but on the heels of the relentless propagandizing they've been doing on global warming, this was obviously the implication.
In today's news on Global Warming, the Governor has called for CO2 emission caps, and will be lobbying other western state governors to do it too. He wants to establish a system of tradeable credits to enforce the caps.
He's all excited about the supposed boon for Oregon's economy to be found by controlling CO2, since we are such leaders in renewable energy and conservation technology. He says that the New York investment bankers have told him that there's a lot of money to be made.
The Governor has a global warming task force that has made a bunch of recommendations to him. [Note: I'll bet there were a buch of global warming skeptics on that panel, right?] The task force told him that if Oregon established CO2 limits, that electricity prices would go up, but people would end up spending less on electricity because all the new energy saving devices would result in them consuming less.
I'm not sure where to start with this completely illogical and bassackward assertion. But if it represents the quality of economic advice our good Gov is listening to, then we are in for a long four years.
First, I've seen nothing but claims that Oregon is somehow a leader in so-called "sustainability," whatever that is. They act as if as soon as we put Draconian limits on CO2, the world will beat a path to our door so we can show them how we make energy without a lot of carbon dioxide emissions. I guess we will give them a tour of Bonneville!
Second, if our big competitive advantage requires that we regulate competitors out of business, then we are in trouble. Remember when the use of freon was prohibited because of the supposed effects on the ozone? Guess who lobbied for that? The producer of the replacement chemical, who had a patent on it.
Well, that is about the same thing as Oregon demanding CO2 limits and then hoping to make money off sources and uses of energy that produce less CO2.
Carbon dioxide is NOT A POLLUTANT! It is necessary for life on Earth. We can't let them regulate CO2 because that will give them control over the blood supply for the world's economy, which is what they are really after.
A system of tradeable carbon dioxide credits as a way to limit emissions is simply a strategy. They think that free-market types will buy in, since tradeable credits is indeed the most efficient way to actually limit emissions of harmful chemicals.
But CO2 is not a harmful chemical.
As Peter Drucker once said: "Nothing is less worth doing than to do more efficiently that which should not be done at all."
Then I found it - an entire page devoted to the "extreme weather events" of 2006. A month by month chronicle of the rain, the cold, the wind, the storms. They didn't explicitly blame carbon dioxide, of course, but on the heels of the relentless propagandizing they've been doing on global warming, this was obviously the implication.
In today's news on Global Warming, the Governor has called for CO2 emission caps, and will be lobbying other western state governors to do it too. He wants to establish a system of tradeable credits to enforce the caps.
He's all excited about the supposed boon for Oregon's economy to be found by controlling CO2, since we are such leaders in renewable energy and conservation technology. He says that the New York investment bankers have told him that there's a lot of money to be made.
The Governor has a global warming task force that has made a bunch of recommendations to him. [Note: I'll bet there were a buch of global warming skeptics on that panel, right?] The task force told him that if Oregon established CO2 limits, that electricity prices would go up, but people would end up spending less on electricity because all the new energy saving devices would result in them consuming less.
I'm not sure where to start with this completely illogical and bassackward assertion. But if it represents the quality of economic advice our good Gov is listening to, then we are in for a long four years.
First, I've seen nothing but claims that Oregon is somehow a leader in so-called "sustainability," whatever that is. They act as if as soon as we put Draconian limits on CO2, the world will beat a path to our door so we can show them how we make energy without a lot of carbon dioxide emissions. I guess we will give them a tour of Bonneville!
Second, if our big competitive advantage requires that we regulate competitors out of business, then we are in trouble. Remember when the use of freon was prohibited because of the supposed effects on the ozone? Guess who lobbied for that? The producer of the replacement chemical, who had a patent on it.
Well, that is about the same thing as Oregon demanding CO2 limits and then hoping to make money off sources and uses of energy that produce less CO2.
Carbon dioxide is NOT A POLLUTANT! It is necessary for life on Earth. We can't let them regulate CO2 because that will give them control over the blood supply for the world's economy, which is what they are really after.
A system of tradeable carbon dioxide credits as a way to limit emissions is simply a strategy. They think that free-market types will buy in, since tradeable credits is indeed the most efficient way to actually limit emissions of harmful chemicals.
But CO2 is not a harmful chemical.
As Peter Drucker once said: "Nothing is less worth doing than to do more efficiently that which should not be done at all."
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Global Warming Alert
I've decided to chronicle, on this blog, the extent of the hype surrounding global warming by monitoring the number and nature of the Oregonian's articles on the issue.
Today we were rewarded with a major article and an editorial - a global warming two-fer!
The gist of the article was the big news that ten major corporations (some of them energy companies!) along with some environmental organizations, have sent an entreaty to the President to enact some mandatory CO2 limits.
The editorial scolded the President for being a follower rather than a leader on CO2 limits.
Big news, though, that big corporations are now saying we need mandatory CO2 limits, right? Especially if they are energy companies. I mean heck, enrgy companies are the biggest culprits in the CO2 problem, and so if they now recognize that things must change, how can the "oil-man" President continue to deny reality?
Not so fast.
What do you want to bet that the energy companies who signed onto the memo are those that already use natural gas and hydroelectric sources for the energy they produce? And so mandatory limits would increase their competitive position in their market?
Among the signers was: Duke Energy - natural gas. PGE - hydroelectric. Hmm.... wouldn't caps on CO2 emissions make these guys more profitable?
What we really have here is big companies begging the government to regulate their competitors. Nothing new, but when it uses the global warming issue as the basis for their demand, they can be certain to get all the mainstream media going along with the ruse.
Sickening.
Today we were rewarded with a major article and an editorial - a global warming two-fer!
The gist of the article was the big news that ten major corporations (some of them energy companies!) along with some environmental organizations, have sent an entreaty to the President to enact some mandatory CO2 limits.
The editorial scolded the President for being a follower rather than a leader on CO2 limits.
Big news, though, that big corporations are now saying we need mandatory CO2 limits, right? Especially if they are energy companies. I mean heck, enrgy companies are the biggest culprits in the CO2 problem, and so if they now recognize that things must change, how can the "oil-man" President continue to deny reality?
Not so fast.
What do you want to bet that the energy companies who signed onto the memo are those that already use natural gas and hydroelectric sources for the energy they produce? And so mandatory limits would increase their competitive position in their market?
Among the signers was: Duke Energy - natural gas. PGE - hydroelectric. Hmm.... wouldn't caps on CO2 emissions make these guys more profitable?
What we really have here is big companies begging the government to regulate their competitors. Nothing new, but when it uses the global warming issue as the basis for their demand, they can be certain to get all the mainstream media going along with the ruse.
Sickening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)