And so Barack Obama has declared himself the democratic nominee for the president of the US. Personally, I wouldn't count out Hillary Clinton until they're throwing the dirt on her grave, but this is the story the media is going to run with until the convention. So let's start with this one.
Barack Obama, the audacity of hope for transparent change. A new kind of politician, kind of like the "anti-politician." Or so the story goes. He will bring the country together with his soaring rhetoric and glorious smile. We will unite, and the world's problems will all suddenly become solvable, because of him. Is any one there buying this load? I'm certainly not.
For starters, there is no way any politician can unite Americans together. By definition the most he can do is unite one political party against the other. There's no way his warmed over socialist/Marxist, cavalier attitude toward economics and constitutional rights are going to unite anyone on the right.
Which is why I predict it won't be very long until we see all this talk of unity, new kind of politics, etc. will simply fade away, much like the "Dennis Kucinich for President" bumper stickers have. The only question for me is when, where, why and how. Will the new kind of campaign head straight for the swamp? Or will they dance around the edge for a while first? Or will the McCain or the GOP or some right-wing whacko land a solid punch right to the jaw of audacious change so resoundingly that Obama attacks full-bore out of reflex?
Perhaps his wife will finally blow her cork and that starts the mud. (Personally I'm rooting for this one. I can't stand rich people making several figures, ensconced in the lap of luxury lecturing me on how tough they have it.) Or perhaps, when the starstruck and biased media realizes that if they don't start asking real questions of him they will lose their last shred of dignity (along with their cushy jobs), they will begin to zero in on his numerous gaffes, stumbles and outright lies. Of course he and his campaign will accuse the media of being in McCain's pocket, racist or just plain not up to the level of the "new" political landscape.
Either way, the gloves will come off, we will see what kind of politician Obama really is. And then we'll find out if Hillary Clinton was right, and the Democrats should have chosen her. I think she was. But I don't think she would do much better against Senator McCain in November.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
Broken as designed
If I hear one more politician promise us citizens that they will unite the country to solve America's problems, I'm going to have to go out and buy a kitten just so I can kick it. Unite America? That's the most absurd thought I've ever heard. A united America is practically a
myth. I say practically a myth because a good argument can be made that the Japanese invitation to join WWII by bombing Pearl Harbor did in fact unite America. My response to that statement would be, great, so the vast majority of Americans united and thought it was a good idea to round up Japanese-Americans and stuff them into concentration camps. That's just the kind of uniting we need these days.
No. Americans are not united. Never really have been, probably never will, and it's probably a good thing. A united people can rally around a dumb idea as easily as they can around a good idea. If it ever happens, experience tells me we're much more likely to get stuck with
the former rather than the latter.
Even looking back to America's founding, the colonials weren't anymore united than we are today. As a matter of fact, more citizens were for remaining part of England than were for the revolution. America's first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was a failure from get-go for the very reason the people weren't united. That's because weak central government naturally devolves into regionalism. That was James Madison's argument for the Constitutional
Convention that gave us our current constitution. He started his speech at the convention with a dreadfully long report of the fate of every nation in the history of the world that had a weak confederacy. Guess what that was? Here's a hint, you don't see the Greek City States on the map these days, now do you?
I've read several accounts of the Constitutional Convention and one thing for sure, they couldn't unite together around anything other than the Articles had to go. But what to replace it with? Throughout the Convention another thing became obvious to the founding fathers - they
couldn't agree on anything, no matter what. They discovered the debates never ended. They just went on and on and on. Madison finally got the right idea when he figured out, a democratic-republican form of government provides for a government that can't settle issues. Why not? Ask any individual how they would solve national issues, and most have their firmly held opinions ready to whip out like a preprogrammed cell phone. But what happens when you ask two people? They may agree on some things, but not on others. That's politics.
Suppose, just suppose, the moon is in the seventh house, and Mars and Jupiter are aligned. And every issue on the table is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. What about the next issue that comes up? See? It never ends. That's what Madison figured out. So the issue was resolved in an entirely different idea. Instead of a government that solves everyone's problems, they created a framework where the important issues of the day, whatever they may be, have a place to be
aired in public. That's what Congress is. Its the institution where the public's issues are endlessly debated. Proposed laws are presented, bashed around, written, rewritten, rewritten again, amended, voted up or down. And after all that work is done, to no one's satisfaction, the
process starts all over again in the Senate. And by the time the tortured document gets over to the White House, its own mother wouldn't recognize it. And that's a good thing too. Whenever all of Congress and the White House agree on something, it usually means it benefits the
ruling class at the expense of We The People. See the fine print in the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform. They get to hide more money in 501(c)'s, they get to campaign for as long as they want, but if we pay $5 for an ad for a candidate in the local Penny Saver, we've committed a federal offense.
It only makes sense in America that we wouldn't unite. What seems like a good idea in Florida, might be thought of as not too smart in Texas, downright dangerous in Ohio, while New Yorkers might want to pass a law against it. (New York likes to pass laws against all kinds of things. Better living through legislation.)
So when you come right down to it, when politicians are screaming at each other, making all kinds of scurrilous charges, and generally attacking each other like badgers high on crystal meth locked in a garbage can together, that doesn't mean the government is broken and
needs to be fixed. Perish the thought. That means everything is working just the way the founding fathers intended. So excuse me if some sappy politician comes along and says they're the ones to put an end to disunity and fix the government. I know, not only are they wrong, in my opinion they're dangerous.
myth. I say practically a myth because a good argument can be made that the Japanese invitation to join WWII by bombing Pearl Harbor did in fact unite America. My response to that statement would be, great, so the vast majority of Americans united and thought it was a good idea to round up Japanese-Americans and stuff them into concentration camps. That's just the kind of uniting we need these days.
No. Americans are not united. Never really have been, probably never will, and it's probably a good thing. A united people can rally around a dumb idea as easily as they can around a good idea. If it ever happens, experience tells me we're much more likely to get stuck with
the former rather than the latter.
Even looking back to America's founding, the colonials weren't anymore united than we are today. As a matter of fact, more citizens were for remaining part of England than were for the revolution. America's first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was a failure from get-go for the very reason the people weren't united. That's because weak central government naturally devolves into regionalism. That was James Madison's argument for the Constitutional
Convention that gave us our current constitution. He started his speech at the convention with a dreadfully long report of the fate of every nation in the history of the world that had a weak confederacy. Guess what that was? Here's a hint, you don't see the Greek City States on the map these days, now do you?
I've read several accounts of the Constitutional Convention and one thing for sure, they couldn't unite together around anything other than the Articles had to go. But what to replace it with? Throughout the Convention another thing became obvious to the founding fathers - they
couldn't agree on anything, no matter what. They discovered the debates never ended. They just went on and on and on. Madison finally got the right idea when he figured out, a democratic-republican form of government provides for a government that can't settle issues. Why not? Ask any individual how they would solve national issues, and most have their firmly held opinions ready to whip out like a preprogrammed cell phone. But what happens when you ask two people? They may agree on some things, but not on others. That's politics.
Suppose, just suppose, the moon is in the seventh house, and Mars and Jupiter are aligned. And every issue on the table is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. What about the next issue that comes up? See? It never ends. That's what Madison figured out. So the issue was resolved in an entirely different idea. Instead of a government that solves everyone's problems, they created a framework where the important issues of the day, whatever they may be, have a place to be
aired in public. That's what Congress is. Its the institution where the public's issues are endlessly debated. Proposed laws are presented, bashed around, written, rewritten, rewritten again, amended, voted up or down. And after all that work is done, to no one's satisfaction, the
process starts all over again in the Senate. And by the time the tortured document gets over to the White House, its own mother wouldn't recognize it. And that's a good thing too. Whenever all of Congress and the White House agree on something, it usually means it benefits the
ruling class at the expense of We The People. See the fine print in the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform. They get to hide more money in 501(c)'s, they get to campaign for as long as they want, but if we pay $5 for an ad for a candidate in the local Penny Saver, we've committed a federal offense.
It only makes sense in America that we wouldn't unite. What seems like a good idea in Florida, might be thought of as not too smart in Texas, downright dangerous in Ohio, while New Yorkers might want to pass a law against it. (New York likes to pass laws against all kinds of things. Better living through legislation.)
So when you come right down to it, when politicians are screaming at each other, making all kinds of scurrilous charges, and generally attacking each other like badgers high on crystal meth locked in a garbage can together, that doesn't mean the government is broken and
needs to be fixed. Perish the thought. That means everything is working just the way the founding fathers intended. So excuse me if some sappy politician comes along and says they're the ones to put an end to disunity and fix the government. I know, not only are they wrong, in my opinion they're dangerous.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Letter to the Editor (with a note from the Editor)
[Editor's note: The author of this blog decided last year to just give up on this site. Like those effeminate liberals who want to run away from the glorious future victory that is Iraq, the blog author turned his back on a difficult - but rewarding - mission. In any case, yesterday out of the blue he sends this on and says it would make a good blog post. With little expectation that he's going to make this a regular thing - and certainly no expectation that anyone has stuck around to read this comatose blog - I dutifully present this to you, dear reader.]
Click here for news story.
How nice of Binghamton's "progressive" politicians to provide us with a wonderful example of how to destroy housing units!
First the progressives got elected. Then they decided to quadruple the number of the mayor's personal assistants. When the City Council wouldn't pay them as much as the mayor wanted, he just waited a year than snuck in 40% pay raises for them. (It ain't cheap being progressive!)
And now we get a front row seat to watch them gut the Binghamton housing stock.
The old economics axiom, when honest people can no longer make an honest living doing honest work, they get out of that business and find another honest way to make a living. How ever, dishonest people have no problem continuing it.
This is step one. The politicians find someone who they think they can squeeze a few more bucks out of. Then they declare that its not really a tax increase, because these people have been cheating every one else all along, so the politicians are just "making things right."
"Teri Rennia, D-4th District, said the change would provide tax relief for homeowners and would ensure everyone was 'paying their fair share.'"
Step 2 is to see how much money politicians think they can squeeze out of these officially classified "dead beats."
"Some landlords are facing an 80 percent increase in property taxes"
Now, does anyone know what happens when an honest business person is going to do when their tax bill goes up 80% in one year? Those that can afford to pay it, might, for a while, or they may decided to chuck the business altogether. Those that can't afford it will have to sell. And what type of person is likely to buy these rental units that come with this huge tax bill? Enter the slum lords. And if the tax bill is so high that even slum lords won't pay it, the houses will stand vacant, crumble and decay, and then be abandoned altogether and turned over to the city/county, and be taken off the tax rolls, so every other tax payer in Binghamton will have to pony up to cover the difference.
On the upside we get to watch a crystal clear example of the simple, repeatable, 100% guaranteed laws of economics in action. On the down side we also watch Binghamton taxpayers, landlords and renters get royally fucked. On the up side, I don't live in Binghamton. On the down side, every one in Broom County is going to feel the pain to some extent. On the upside, unless this gets derailed somehow, what the progressives are doing to Binghamton will ensure they are run out off office for years to come.
I wonder what the progressives will fix next?
Click here for news story.
How nice of Binghamton's "progressive" politicians to provide us with a wonderful example of how to destroy housing units!
First the progressives got elected. Then they decided to quadruple the number of the mayor's personal assistants. When the City Council wouldn't pay them as much as the mayor wanted, he just waited a year than snuck in 40% pay raises for them. (It ain't cheap being progressive!)
And now we get a front row seat to watch them gut the Binghamton housing stock.
The old economics axiom, when honest people can no longer make an honest living doing honest work, they get out of that business and find another honest way to make a living. How ever, dishonest people have no problem continuing it.
This is step one. The politicians find someone who they think they can squeeze a few more bucks out of. Then they declare that its not really a tax increase, because these people have been cheating every one else all along, so the politicians are just "making things right."
"Teri Rennia, D-4th District, said the change would provide tax relief for homeowners and would ensure everyone was 'paying their fair share.'"
Step 2 is to see how much money politicians think they can squeeze out of these officially classified "dead beats."
"Some landlords are facing an 80 percent increase in property taxes"
Now, does anyone know what happens when an honest business person is going to do when their tax bill goes up 80% in one year? Those that can afford to pay it, might, for a while, or they may decided to chuck the business altogether. Those that can't afford it will have to sell. And what type of person is likely to buy these rental units that come with this huge tax bill? Enter the slum lords. And if the tax bill is so high that even slum lords won't pay it, the houses will stand vacant, crumble and decay, and then be abandoned altogether and turned over to the city/county, and be taken off the tax rolls, so every other tax payer in Binghamton will have to pony up to cover the difference.
On the upside we get to watch a crystal clear example of the simple, repeatable, 100% guaranteed laws of economics in action. On the down side we also watch Binghamton taxpayers, landlords and renters get royally fucked. On the up side, I don't live in Binghamton. On the down side, every one in Broom County is going to feel the pain to some extent. On the upside, unless this gets derailed somehow, what the progressives are doing to Binghamton will ensure they are run out off office for years to come.
I wonder what the progressives will fix next?
Sunday, March 18, 2007
A new take on global warming - really!
When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars
This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius
Age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!
Will Rogers is credited with saying something along the line that he doesn't belong to any organized political party, he's a democrat.
Rush Limbaugh opined for years that the Democratic party does not represent a cohesive organization held together by a shared, common, ideology, but rather a loose collection of movements who are willing to hold their noses and band together long enough to obtain political power at the voting booth. Having grown up in a solidly liberal, democratic family, I can attest they are both correct.
If you think about it, just how can groups that support abortion rights so easily coexist in a party that also abhors capital punishment? It's illogical. Yet they do. Big Labor wants to open the Alaskan oil fields to increased drilling for the union jobs it will create, yet this is considered a mortal sin by the environmental wing of the same party. There are an almost limitless number of other examples. I suppose it's a good thing that all these various groups must compete with each other within the party, which keeps democrats - despite their numerical superiority - from gaining too much power in government at all levels. In other words, they'll band together long enough to defeat their opponents, but when left to their own desires, they will start to squabble and fight amongst themselves. Watch the House debate on the next step for ending the war in Iraq. One third think the proposals on the table go too far, another third thinks it doesn't go far enough, while the other third thinks it's just about right.
Which brings me to my topic - Global Warming!
What on earth does all my babbling about the Democratic party have to do with global warming? I myself wasn't sure how to approach this topic, because there's so many people, with so many view points, from all aspects of society who believe human effects on the planet have caused the Earth to begin warming at an accelerated rate, putting us on a collision course with annihilation. Where to start? With the Democrats? With the scientists? With the UN? With the media? There's just way too many voices out there, stating far too many positions for any person to address each and all in an attempt to refute them all. Trying to debate with global warming fanatics is like trying to debate with a brick wall. Nothing gets past their firmly held beliefs. And that's what I found so strange. What an anomaly, all these various and varied organizations, speaking on many different topics, yet all with a sort of cosmic cohesion. Something is just not right. And that's when it hit me. All the different warring factions of the democratic coalition, have, for lack of a better phrase, entered the Age of Aquarius.
Something that I didn't believe could ever happen, seems to be happening right before my very eyes. The democrats and liberals have found the one common hook to hang all their agendas on: global warming. Modern liberalism's cornerstone has been victimhood for as long as I can remember. They divide the population up into groups, they choose one side and proudly proclaim them as the "victims" of something or other, then pledge to use the power of government to right whatever wrong they've decided to use as a wedge.
Take reparations for slavery for example. Many African-Americans alive today are the descendants of slaves, which means they have been harmed by the majority of Americans (always root for the underdog!), and therefore it's the liberal's duty to "fight" for reparations. I'm not debating the topic of reparations here, only using it as an example. Here's where democrats usually fall apart: while most African-Americans are democratic liberals, not all democratic liberals are African-American, so democrats can't get enough of a coalition to push for anything practical or substantial. Liberals may believe African-Americans have suffered because of the legacy of slavery and therefore are entitled to something, but it smacks enough of a government income redistribution that widespread support for reparations has never materialized.
When it comes to global warming, the liberal democrats have created the ultimate class of victims: everyone! If the world is coming to an end, then we all have a dog in this fight. But if we're all the victims here, then what is the evil, vile group that turned us all into victims? And that is my point exactly!
The evil ideology that's inflicting all this harm on us, is whatever any individual democratic and/or liberal movement is against.
Big Labor? Evil corporate interests are behind it. Trial Lawyers? It's evil corporations and government that needs to be brought to justice using the courts. Environmentalists? Its everything and every one who doesn't heed their philosophy. Big Academics? They're still working on figuring out who's behind it, so keep the government grants rolling in so they can keep working on it. Anti-capitalist, anti-free traders, anti-US, anti-whatever, it doesn't really matter, just point out they all contribute to global warming, and that is all the moral justification necessary to demand whatever action deemed appropriate to combat this atrocity.
Too many cars on the road are causing it, push for more public transportation and force Big Auto to keep redesigning products into forms that don't sell. Too many coal burning power generation plants belching sulfur into the air, push to shut them down, and prevent new ones from being built. Too many incandescent light bulbs? Force the government to outlaw them and force every one to use compact florescent light bulbs. Whatever any individual group believe ails society, blame it on global warming, and push for government regulation and laws to correct the outrage while simultaneously furthering their own political agenda.
School districts need more money to update their bus fleets, heating and lighting systems, and to incorporate global warming studies into their curriculum. Local and state governments need more tax money to upgrade their facilities and fleets in order to save the world from global warming. And on and on and on. I could list thousands of other examples, but I'll leave it to readers to simply turn on the evening news or pick up the daily paper to see all the examples they wish. Its everywhere. And each one has exactly three (maybe more, but at least three) things in common. First: there is a need to receive more money to accomplish something. Second: there is a need to more stringently regulate (voluntarily or legislatively) people's lives. And third: global warming. Always follow the money.
Former Vice President Al Gore is currently being hailed as the Prince of Environmentalism. He's the Grand Duke of Clean Living. He's a Hollywood top-shelf ticket. Not really. See, I don't believe Al Gore or anyone else has the brains and the organization and the contacts to pull off something this huge. Remember, we're talking about Democrats here. No, Al Gore is smart, but he's not nearly that smart, I don't believe anyone is. But Al Gore is smart enough to notice this trend, and to capitalize on it. He's not leading or guiding the global warming movement. What he is leading is the method for politicians of all stripes to take advantage of it. And its not just politicians that recognize this trend, the evil corporations of the world are jumping in with both feet. Just sign on to Al Gore's ready-made environmental platform, and by greasing his palm enough, he will personally bless your transition from the group of inflicter's to the group of victims who care. Any corporate marketing team that doesn't see the beauty of this plan should be sued for malpractice.
A perfect example of this is Hollywood itself. All the fabulous wealthy and beautiful people love their millionaire lifestyles. But, that puts them in the inflicter group, so how do they get back to the afflicted group while saving face? Enter the "Carbon Credit." Simply donate a few cents to plant some trees, and then jet off to Monte Carlo, guilt free, because they care and they made a difference. Nothing really changed, and I fail to see how planting a few trees could counter the effects of a one-way, cross Atlantic jet flight. But that's not the point. The point is, they are now certifiably in the group of victims that care.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long term. An axiom of the free market is that government should regulate as little as possible, because by the time government acts, the dynamics of the situation have probably morphed several times over, which is one main reason government interference is usually so ineffective. It doesn't matter if their plan solves the problem, because the problem has already changed. So, seeing government starting to stand up on its rear haunches indicates to me the situation has already changed beyond the scope that government is attempting to solve.
What comes next is anyone's guess. One thing is for sure. If the moon enters the seventh house, that means it must also posses the power to exit it.
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars
This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius
Age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!
Will Rogers is credited with saying something along the line that he doesn't belong to any organized political party, he's a democrat.
Rush Limbaugh opined for years that the Democratic party does not represent a cohesive organization held together by a shared, common, ideology, but rather a loose collection of movements who are willing to hold their noses and band together long enough to obtain political power at the voting booth. Having grown up in a solidly liberal, democratic family, I can attest they are both correct.
If you think about it, just how can groups that support abortion rights so easily coexist in a party that also abhors capital punishment? It's illogical. Yet they do. Big Labor wants to open the Alaskan oil fields to increased drilling for the union jobs it will create, yet this is considered a mortal sin by the environmental wing of the same party. There are an almost limitless number of other examples. I suppose it's a good thing that all these various groups must compete with each other within the party, which keeps democrats - despite their numerical superiority - from gaining too much power in government at all levels. In other words, they'll band together long enough to defeat their opponents, but when left to their own desires, they will start to squabble and fight amongst themselves. Watch the House debate on the next step for ending the war in Iraq. One third think the proposals on the table go too far, another third thinks it doesn't go far enough, while the other third thinks it's just about right.
Which brings me to my topic - Global Warming!
What on earth does all my babbling about the Democratic party have to do with global warming? I myself wasn't sure how to approach this topic, because there's so many people, with so many view points, from all aspects of society who believe human effects on the planet have caused the Earth to begin warming at an accelerated rate, putting us on a collision course with annihilation. Where to start? With the Democrats? With the scientists? With the UN? With the media? There's just way too many voices out there, stating far too many positions for any person to address each and all in an attempt to refute them all. Trying to debate with global warming fanatics is like trying to debate with a brick wall. Nothing gets past their firmly held beliefs. And that's what I found so strange. What an anomaly, all these various and varied organizations, speaking on many different topics, yet all with a sort of cosmic cohesion. Something is just not right. And that's when it hit me. All the different warring factions of the democratic coalition, have, for lack of a better phrase, entered the Age of Aquarius.
Something that I didn't believe could ever happen, seems to be happening right before my very eyes. The democrats and liberals have found the one common hook to hang all their agendas on: global warming. Modern liberalism's cornerstone has been victimhood for as long as I can remember. They divide the population up into groups, they choose one side and proudly proclaim them as the "victims" of something or other, then pledge to use the power of government to right whatever wrong they've decided to use as a wedge.
Take reparations for slavery for example. Many African-Americans alive today are the descendants of slaves, which means they have been harmed by the majority of Americans (always root for the underdog!), and therefore it's the liberal's duty to "fight" for reparations. I'm not debating the topic of reparations here, only using it as an example. Here's where democrats usually fall apart: while most African-Americans are democratic liberals, not all democratic liberals are African-American, so democrats can't get enough of a coalition to push for anything practical or substantial. Liberals may believe African-Americans have suffered because of the legacy of slavery and therefore are entitled to something, but it smacks enough of a government income redistribution that widespread support for reparations has never materialized.
When it comes to global warming, the liberal democrats have created the ultimate class of victims: everyone! If the world is coming to an end, then we all have a dog in this fight. But if we're all the victims here, then what is the evil, vile group that turned us all into victims? And that is my point exactly!
The evil ideology that's inflicting all this harm on us, is whatever any individual democratic and/or liberal movement is against.
Big Labor? Evil corporate interests are behind it. Trial Lawyers? It's evil corporations and government that needs to be brought to justice using the courts. Environmentalists? Its everything and every one who doesn't heed their philosophy. Big Academics? They're still working on figuring out who's behind it, so keep the government grants rolling in so they can keep working on it. Anti-capitalist, anti-free traders, anti-US, anti-whatever, it doesn't really matter, just point out they all contribute to global warming, and that is all the moral justification necessary to demand whatever action deemed appropriate to combat this atrocity.
Too many cars on the road are causing it, push for more public transportation and force Big Auto to keep redesigning products into forms that don't sell. Too many coal burning power generation plants belching sulfur into the air, push to shut them down, and prevent new ones from being built. Too many incandescent light bulbs? Force the government to outlaw them and force every one to use compact florescent light bulbs. Whatever any individual group believe ails society, blame it on global warming, and push for government regulation and laws to correct the outrage while simultaneously furthering their own political agenda.
School districts need more money to update their bus fleets, heating and lighting systems, and to incorporate global warming studies into their curriculum. Local and state governments need more tax money to upgrade their facilities and fleets in order to save the world from global warming. And on and on and on. I could list thousands of other examples, but I'll leave it to readers to simply turn on the evening news or pick up the daily paper to see all the examples they wish. Its everywhere. And each one has exactly three (maybe more, but at least three) things in common. First: there is a need to receive more money to accomplish something. Second: there is a need to more stringently regulate (voluntarily or legislatively) people's lives. And third: global warming. Always follow the money.
Former Vice President Al Gore is currently being hailed as the Prince of Environmentalism. He's the Grand Duke of Clean Living. He's a Hollywood top-shelf ticket. Not really. See, I don't believe Al Gore or anyone else has the brains and the organization and the contacts to pull off something this huge. Remember, we're talking about Democrats here. No, Al Gore is smart, but he's not nearly that smart, I don't believe anyone is. But Al Gore is smart enough to notice this trend, and to capitalize on it. He's not leading or guiding the global warming movement. What he is leading is the method for politicians of all stripes to take advantage of it. And its not just politicians that recognize this trend, the evil corporations of the world are jumping in with both feet. Just sign on to Al Gore's ready-made environmental platform, and by greasing his palm enough, he will personally bless your transition from the group of inflicter's to the group of victims who care. Any corporate marketing team that doesn't see the beauty of this plan should be sued for malpractice.
A perfect example of this is Hollywood itself. All the fabulous wealthy and beautiful people love their millionaire lifestyles. But, that puts them in the inflicter group, so how do they get back to the afflicted group while saving face? Enter the "Carbon Credit." Simply donate a few cents to plant some trees, and then jet off to Monte Carlo, guilt free, because they care and they made a difference. Nothing really changed, and I fail to see how planting a few trees could counter the effects of a one-way, cross Atlantic jet flight. But that's not the point. The point is, they are now certifiably in the group of victims that care.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long term. An axiom of the free market is that government should regulate as little as possible, because by the time government acts, the dynamics of the situation have probably morphed several times over, which is one main reason government interference is usually so ineffective. It doesn't matter if their plan solves the problem, because the problem has already changed. So, seeing government starting to stand up on its rear haunches indicates to me the situation has already changed beyond the scope that government is attempting to solve.
What comes next is anyone's guess. One thing is for sure. If the moon enters the seventh house, that means it must also posses the power to exit it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)