No joke on this one (wish it was). If this article is correct, it looks like the Obama administration, for the first time in U.S. history, will attempt to game the census data coming up in 2010, which has implications on redrawing congressional districts, federal spending, etc. This does NOT look good. It seems to me that, had this happened anytime in the past 8 years, the outcry in the MSM would have been deafening. Instead, their silence is. From the article:
The United States Census is a decennial census mandated by the United StatesConstitution.[1] The population is enumerated every 10 years and the results are used to allocate Congressional seats (congressional apportionment), electoral votes, and government program funding.[2] Some states or local jurisdictions also conduct local censuses.
In the President’s dictionary of political terms, “bipartisan” means this: If I, the President, listen to your ideas, then you must accept mine. It’s unilateral bipartisanism. Barack Obama’s fundamental mindset of Orwellian doublethink continues to reveal itself as he, again, espouses two contradictory beliefs at the same time, seemingly accepting both.
Ouch. Unilateral bipartisanism. That's a good one (although I like 'unilateral bipartisanship' better). As a college professor, I have coined another, equally oxymoronic but equally valid saying about a small group of students in most intro courses: passionate disinterest. Can't describe it any better way than that. In any case, here's the video of Obama's diatribe:
Early in this speech, he sais (after talking about listening to everyone's ideas) "don't come to table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped create this crisis.”
What ideas are those? Did tax cuts get us into this crisis? I thought the reason we have deficits is too much spending. But this crisis is not a direct result of defecits, it is a direct result of social engineering. As I wrote before (link here):
How did this happen? How did we get here? Let's start with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two democrat inventions (FDR the former, LBJ the latter) known as GSEs (government sponsored enterprises). In a nutshell, a GSE is "capitalist profits, socialist losses; " that is, when profits are made, the executives make huge bonuses. When bad, the taxpayer is on the hook for the losses (and the executives still make huge bonuses!). When Fannie and Freddie went down, the entire housing market went down with it. These two inventions got absolutely ginormous in the last decade, mostly on subprime loans. But let's back up just a bit.
Before Freddie and Fannie became ridiculously large, there was the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 (Jimmy Carter). It was designed to make sure low-income residents of downtrodden neighborhoods received bank loans. Now the CRA by itself is not to blame for the current meltdown (although it was the beginning of government encouraging 'risky loans'). It had no teeth. It was a bunch of arm-twisting of financial institutions. And back in 1977 and so forth, there were no subprime loans advertised in papers (my parents bought a house then, and it was definitely not subprime). So how did the subprime loan business get so big?
Fast forward to 1995. Bill Clinton gave the CRA teeth (basically made affirmative action a banking requirement). The Glass-Stengal Act of the 1930s, designed to keep banks out of the speculation business following the bank failures during the Great Depression, was repealed. Banks no longer mitigated risky loans with savings deposits (so more risk, and less to back it up - read here). ACORN (yes, THAT ACORN) then launched campaign after campaign of intimidation coupled with protest to force banks to lower credit standards, which they subsequently did (a little). At the same time, Fannie and Freddie lowered credit standards (A LOT. They were pushed to do so by democrats in Congress at the urging of ACORN. Yes, THAT ACORN again). Fannie and Freddie began to buy subprime mortgages on the secondary mortgage market while holding just 3% (or less) capital to back up the loans. This encouraged banks to offer more subprime loans, which they did. These loans were subsequently bought up by Freddie and Fannie. More were offered (greed begets greed). You can see where this goes. By 2006, subprime loans made up a full 30% of total loans (they were 2% back in 2002). By 2007, Fannie and Freddie guaranteed half the U.S. mortgage market (12+ Trillion (!) dollars). During this time, Fannie and Freddie were also cooking their books. Once caught, the entire deck of cards came tumbling down (see a good roundup here). These dots are not hard to connect (Ace Ventura would lay out the exact same case and say this).
The worn ideas, it seems to me, are the ones that Obama is espousing now. More spending. The kind that extended the Great Depression for 8 years. The same kind of spending that extended Japan's recession to a full 10 years. And here we are again, this time trying to spend more money that had ever been spent before. Since the current dems glorify FDR and his spending, it's appropriate here to look back to 1939, when Roosevelt's own Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, had realized that the New Deal economic policies had failed. Said Morgenthau,
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . After eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!"
You know what they say about those that don't learn from history...
Back to Obama's diatribe. At the 7:30 mark Obama also says "I found this deficit when I showed up... ...wrapped in a a big bow waiting for me..." Do your remember W blaming Clinton for the recession stemming from the dot-com bust in the late 90's? Me neither. The worst deficit in any year under W was nowhere near where we are about to go. 2009 is projected to have a deficit of $1.2 trillion. And that DOES NOT COUNT the non-stimulus stimulus bill before congress now. Should the $1.2 trillion dollar package pass (including interest), we could be looking at a $2.5 trillion dollar deficit for this year alone! It will put the 8 years of overspending under W (one of two things I disagreed with W on. The other was immigration) to shame in a short period of time.
Our current national deficit stands at $11 trillion. And that doesn't count the Medicare and Social Security tsunami that''s going to hit us in the next generation (all $53 trillion worth). This is what overspending has wrought. Ironically, individuals have figured this out and have started to save (ironic, because more savings = lower economy since consumer spending accounts for most of economic growth) rather than spend. It's too bad our elected officials in Washington haven't figured this out yet. They are literally going the wrong way! People are screaming "you're going the wrong way!" but the Washingtonians won't listen. Kinda like this:
Since we're on the topic of redefinition, I want to make a final comment about earmarks. Weren't there supposed to be no earmarks in this bill? Betsy Newmark has this:
Remember how Obama and Biden vowed that there would absolutely no earmarks in the so-called stimulus bill. Well, of course, any bill that has that much money at stake is going to include earmarks and ProPublica, part of the Sunlight Foundation, is listing the earmarks that they're finding in this bill. My favorite is the $198,000,000 for Filipino World War II veterans that Hawaii's Senator Inouye placed in the bill. That might be a perfectly fine thing to do, but it doesn't have a thing to do with stimulating our economy. Most of those veterans don't even live in the United States. Why put it in an emergency stimulus bill instead of debating them under normal budgetary procedures?
Ouch. This, however, gives me an idea. I will solve the homeless problem. Right here. Right now. I, from now on, redefine 'homeless' as anyone who doesn't even have a cardboard box to sleep in. If you have at least a cardboard box, you are no longer 'homeless.' Viola! There! Problem solved. Next!
UPDATE: On second thought, not only is our President doubletalk-challenged, he's also metephorically-challenged. I had to look it up, but I remember this a while back from The One himself:
The American people understand that we've got a big hole that we've got to dig ourselves out of...
Note to President Obama: when finding yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING. CLIMB OUT! Digging will only deepen the hole, which seems to be exactly what we're about to do. Speaking of holes, there's this:
Economists tend to divide into two camps on the question of Japan’s infrastructure spending: those, many of them Americans like Mr. Geithner, who think it did not go far enough; and those, many of them Japanese, who think it was a colossal waste.
After 2006 and 2008, I completely agree with this move. Heads had to roll! Hopefully conservatism can move back into the RNC now. How did it go down, exactly? Maybe something like this:
Maybe it's just me, but I would have thought that she would make a move like this BEFORE spilling the beans on her plan to replace 45% of our coal power generation with wind in her State of the State address. The freep reports:
Granholm wants the 13-member panel to deliver a report by September on which areas in the Great Lakes may be feasible for offshore wind energy development.
(emphasis mine) Offshore? Did someone read my article the other day? If so, woohoo! Then again, I'll just chalk it up to coincidence. Below is a wind map of Michigan at an elevation of 100m. You'll notice that all of the best areas (the darker the better) are offshore, especially the entire west coast of the LP.
I can tell you right now most of what this 'advisory panel' will find (I should note that other than the 3 politicians and policy "experts" mentioned, I don't know what non-biased scientific minds exist on the 13-member panel):
Offshore wind power is the best possible potential for wind power generation in the state
It's expensive to install wind turbines offshore because:
1 - you have to build a substantially large foundation under water (about 100m deep if you go far enough offshore to get to the best wind areas)
2 - you have to build the power transmission infrastructure to get the power landside
There's one final item that they'll find, but it's unclear how it will turn out (although I have a gut feeling) - economic feasibility. Building offshore will substantially increase the capital investment because of the above reasons (1 and 2). But it may be offset (partly or entirely) because of the much greater wind potential offshore. So the question is which gets increased more - the greater capital cost, or increased monetary generation due to the greater rate of power generation (for wind turbines, the power generation is proportional to the cube of the velocity. So if you double the wind speed, the power output increase by a factor of 8!)?
My guess is that it will not be feasible should the installation include an array of 1.5 MW or smaller turbines. But an array of behemoth 8 MW+ turbines (or bigger), with blades most of the length of a football field, might just do the trick (the bigger the turbine, the more economical). It will be interesting to see results such as these.
Now you might be thinking - should this study pan out, we can reach Granholm's goal of displacing 45% of our coal-generated electricity with wind (I intentionally left solar out because it it so far away from economic feasibility that I will not waste my time arguing the point). Even if this does pan out, we will be nowhere near that goal.
Two things work against building huge offshore arrays. For one, wind turbines cannot be used to balance the grid. Coal and nuclear power plant energy generation can be increased or decreased with the press of a button. Wind cannot. My guess is that no more than 15% (possibly 20%) of electrical generation can be wind. Any more, and grid destabilization is a possibility should the wind patterns change. You simply cannot depend upon it.
Second, and this is just as big as the first, most of Michigan's energy needs follow the population trends, and the bulk of Michigan's population in in the southeastern corner of the LP (Detroit metro area). Power simply cannot be transmitted all the way across the state without significant power losses in the wires. In this light, communities along the west coast are the ones that will benefit from offshore wind power (Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Traverse City, etc.).
One final note. From the freep article:
Environmentalists generally support wind power but worry about how turbines might affect fish and birds.
I can answer both concerns. The fish will be affected by the offshore wind turbines the same way they are with any underwater obstruction (mountains, terrain changes, etc.) - they won't. They swim around it. Now for the birds. Let me just say this - any bird dumb enough to fly into a wind turbine will meet the same fate as their brethren that crash into buildings, cars, or other obstructions. The figure below should put an end to any thoughts of aerial carnage around wind farms:
Remember that these turbines are so large that the turn speed is quite small. Rotating three blades the length of a football field will not occur at 100 RPMs. Nor even 10. The longer the turbine blades, the slower the turn rate.
A behemoth turbine of the size needed for this application would be a sight to behold indeed. Such thoughts of size always remind me of the scene in the movie Contactwhen Jodie Foster walks the platform above "the machine." If you haven't seen the movie, go to the 6:55 mark in this clip (doesn't quite do it justice without a big screen and a 600W subwoofer):
That's about the scale we're talking about here. I don't know about you, but I'd be the first one up at the top!
In any case, I hope a lot of cohesive thought goes into the "goal" that Granholm set (should have been done before letting it out in dramatic fashion but anyway). I believe we can displace 45% of coal-generated electricity (if we really want to for one reason or another), possibly economically, but not with wind power alone. Hopefully, someone can convince this governor, and the next, that the only viable option going ahead is in big part the nuclear option.
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
She never uttered the N word on power. In an hour-long State of the State address, much of it devoted to energy use in Michigan, Gov. Jennifer Granholm never said "nuclear."
And this by Frank Beckmann, whom I sometimes listen to in the morning on WJR 76AM Detroit. For the record, I heard the entire interview that Frank refers to yesterday. I had only a few complaints about what Joe Welch, president and CEO of ITC Holdings, which runs the power line grid in Michigan, had to say (you can hear the entire interview here).
Amongst other things, Joe said:
"We use more energy per capita than anyone else in the world." Joe's implication was that this was bad. I think otherwise. Since we use more energy per capita than anyone else, our standard of living is the highest in the history of history. Remember that heat wave a few years ago that killed more than 5000 people in France? Had they had AC, most would not have died. the heat wave had temperatures just past 100F, which Phoenix calls a "cool day" during the summer. Cheap energy that we enjoy here in the U.S. is a good thing, not a bad. My feeling is, our per capita energy consumption doesn't need to go down, everyone else's needs to go up!
"We don't need additional power generation here in MI." (referring to the new coal power plants going through the permitting process right now - a process which Granholm threw some water on in her State of the State address) I disagree with Joe on this also. One reason to build new plants is to replace old plants. Plants of today are bigger and more efficient than plants of yesteryear, and it makes sense to do this for future considerations. You simply can't run these old plants forever.
That being said, I agree with Joe (and Frank) about nuclear - it must be a big part of our energy future (I covered this in more detail yesterday). I'm not saying that because I'm one of these "CO2 = the devil" guys. Quite the opposite. It's a simple reason of logic - nuclear is cheaper and more sustainable than any other sources (it's also the cleanest). Wind and solar will always be supplemental sources, not main sources, of electricity.
...for the new president really to make a difference on power and green issues, the recovery and reinvestment plan that will land on his desk this month must also reflect the importance of transit systems and intercity rail.
So this the freep's solution to transportation? To expand the people mover??? Hasn't the people mover been just an expensive failure for 20 years now? Why yes. Yes it has! Here's a story from the Macinac Center: The Detroit People Mover Still Serves as “a Rich Folks’ Roller Coaster” (subline: A poor city subsidizes 20 years of failure) From that article:
More than a year before People Mover opened in 1987, Time magazine printed an unflattering preview of the coming attraction titled "Horizontal Elevator to Nowhere." Estimating the project to be a year late and 50 percent over budget, Time detailed numerous defects and problems, with the most notable mistake being the decision to build it at all. One Detroit resident was quoted as saying that it was "a rich folks’ roller coaster," and a Reagan administration transit chief predicted that it could become "the least cost-effective transit project in the last 20 years." The People Mover has repeatedly revisited these themes as if they were stations on its tiny circuit.
Read the whole thing (hint: it goes downhill from there). So what say we scrap the whole People Mover concept and go with simple rail at or below ground level. Like Amtrak. Since, you know, Amtrak has such a great track (pun intended!) record (no profit whatsoever in 2 generations!). This is exactly what happens when government runs anything (social security, medicare, medicaid, Post Office, etc. ad infinitum!)
So if there is no God that condones the taking of innocent life, it looks like the ball is in your court, Mr. President. Maybe you'd like to rethink your stance on abortion?
Barack Obama may not think any God condones the taking of an innocent human life, but in his actions, he clearly does.
His record shows that he considers "innocent human life" to be limited to those who survive birth
The Senate's Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee abruptly canceled its scheduled hearing on the nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor after USA Today reported that Solis' husband paid--yesterday!--$6,400 to settle tax liens that had been outstanding against his business for as long as 16 years.
To give the proposed economic stimulus plan some perspective, "if you started the day Jesus Christ was born and spent $1 million every day since then, you still wouldn’t have spent $1 trillion."
Japan, after a dramatic market crash and a drop in real estate prices responded with government spending not unlike what the US Congress is considering today. In fact, they had 10 stimulus bills between 1992 and 2000, spending billions on infrastructure construction, building bridges, roads, and airports as well as pouring money into biotech and telecommunications. While many countries enjoyed booming economies and falling unemployment during this time, Japan had a lost decade, seeing its unemployment more than double. They spent double the US level of GDP on infrastructure, and now have a lousy economy and have one of the highest national debts in the world.
After 10 stimulus packages, Japan has gone from having the second biggest economy in the world by a long shot, to being well behind the new number two, China, and is close to falling behind India. We do not want to follow their lead.
No. We do not. Read the whole thing. All 10 are reasoned well and logical. (HT:Darrin Moore)
Yup, according to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. That's right, the same Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who opposed the Cape Wind project because it interfered with his view. Why are charlatans like this even talked to? What's HE doing at a congressional hearing? Because he's a Kennedy? Is that all you need these days? Instead of a degree and some qualifications you just need to be political royalty? In any case, here's the video of Jr's diatribe (looks like an unhinged maroon in this):
By law, companies competing with the utilities can now obtain no more than 10% of the energy market. Certainly, GM would appreciate it if the State would limit the number of cars that Toyota sells to 10% of the market, or Meijer would appreciate it if we limited WalMart's sales to 10% of the market.
Indeed. Read the whole thing, but Sen. Brown sure does make a lot of sense. Of course, other than the good senator and a few of his colleagues, many of us in the blogosphere noticed it for what it was (more here and here).
The resulting higher utility rates will always be a consequence of choosing monopolies over markets. Always.
That's the headline in the Detroit News today which peaked my interest. Of course, this is from the Associated Press, who now live in a bubble, completely removed from reality. In any case, there's this in the article:
Melting ice from global warming may raise sea levels even more than had been expected, an analysis suggests.
Long-term melting of ice in Antarctica and other areas could raise sea levels by 16 feet to 17 feet, previous studies have indicated. But a report in Friday's edition of the journal Science warns that factors not previously considered could boost that increase to up to 21 feet in some areas.
Are they kidding me with an article like this? Didn't the heralded IPCC predict a worst-case scenario of 21"? Why yes. Yes they did. I sure hope that none of this is based on the research of James Hansen. Or the hockey stick graph. Doesn't the arctic have the most ice cover now since 1979? Why yes. Yes it has! So what's up with this?
Me neither, although it's hard to buy a bunch of feel-good platitudes as a plan. Combining departments does nothing, as I discussed earlier. That's akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Yet, a voice of reason comes forth in this article in the Okland Press:
“We all want a state that’s cleaner and energy independent,” he (Mike Bishop, MI Senate Majority Leader) said. “All of us agree that we’d like to find a way to turn that around but she still hasn’t come up with a proposal that’s cost efficient and creates a reliable and sustainable source of energy.
“You can’t do it just with wind and solar. To put the halt on clean coal will impact our ability to create energy and drive up cost,” Bishop said. “One of the things missing from her discussion was nuclear energy. That’s the most reliable and sustainable.”
Now there's some old fashioned common sense for ya. in fact, the argument sounds so familiar. Hmmm....
A commission overwhelmingly rejected a proposal Wednesday to make English the official language of Macomb County, a plan that would have banned county providers from offering services in multiple languages.
Aren't these additional services the kind that Macomb can no longer afford? Wouldn't this be a reasonable cut? Anybody out there listening??? (or do I have to say it in Spanish?)
I would be counted amongst those. This story from the freep came with this nice visual: I'll just shamelessly plug the fact that Oakland University is amongst the best deals in the state. Go OU!!!
This is quite serious. I can't recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton's initial slips). Obama immediately must lower the hope-and-change rhetoric, ignore Reid/Pelosi, drop the therapy, and accept the tragic view that the world abroad is not misunderstood but quite dangerous. And he must listen on foreign policy to his National Security Advisor, Billary, and the Secretary of Defense. If he doesn't quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame.
Read the whole thing, as it is a good read. (HT:CG)
colossal snake about the length of a school bus slithered about South America's rainforests some 60 million years ago, according to an analysis of the skeletal remains of what is now considered the largest snake ever identified.
How big was it? Take a look at this picture of the fossilized snake's vertebrae compared with that of today's Anaconda. Yeah, it was THAT big.What's this got to do with global warming? From the article:
The snake's enormous dimensions are a sign that temperatures along the equator where the remains were found were once much balmier. ...It was a rainforest, like today, but it was even hotter and the cold-blooded reptiles were all substantially larger. The result was, among other things, the largest snakes the world has ever seen ... and hopefully ever will.
SO it used to be a LOT warmer a long time ago, eh? Without SUVs. Without coal-fired power generation. Without us humans "polluting" the planet. I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that the atmospheric CO2 concentration was also a lot higher than today. Go figure...
Maybe we ought to listen to history a little and see that the Earth's temperature has always varied. It used to be a lot hotter. It used to be a lot cooler. We know these facts, but we don't know why. Instead, here we sit in 2009, a year when politicians are getting hysterical over non-existent catastrophes. It's like kids hiding in a dark closet trying to see who can scare the other the most. Too many people have bought into this hype, and have become hysterical. In fact, ecopsychology is a growing field (I kid you not). People running around thinking the end is near because of them. "We didn't listen!!!"
Gov. Jennifer Granholm offered today a glimpse at how she'd like to see state government reorganized under a reform effort she launched in her State of the State address Tuesday night.
Granholm said in her message to the Legislature she wants Lt. Gov. John Cherry to lead an effort to reduce the number of state departments from 18 to eight during the next couple years. In a meeting with The Detroit News editorial board, she identified those eight areas she sees as central to state government's mission.
What are the 8 areas you might ask? Job creation was one. Haven't we all found out that government does NOT create jobs? (unless, of course, you mean government jobs!) The best thing government can do is to foster an environment where jobs can be created by companies and entrepreneurs (low taxes, low regulation, in essence - the government gets out of the way!).
There was lots of talk (you heard it in her State of the State address) about combining departments. Here's my problem with that whole theme. Let's say we have two departments, Dept. A and Dept. B. Each has 1000 employees. If we go ahead and combine them, still calling it Dept. A, but add to Dept. A all of the responsibilities that Dept. B. had, and in addition move all of Dept. B employees to Dept. A, you now have fewer departments, but the exact same number of employees doing exactly the same thing! The politically astute call this "smoke and mirrors" in that you did absolutely nothing, but it sounds like you did something.
So here in MI, instead of 18 departments, we'll have 8 bigger departments with the same number of people doing exactly the same things. So I ask "how is this a value added to Michigan in these economic time?"
Well, this is good news. From HotAir: Rasmussen: Stimulus bill support drops to 37%. And sinking by the day. Hopefully, the new numbers can stiffen up some of the squishy spines in the senate to oppose this bill. Should the numbers continue to drop, dems will start to peel off and this monstrosity can die a brutal death, kicking and screaming.
Didn't the dems just blow a gasket over Wall Street bonuses? Why yes, yes they did! Today, we have news that $500K spent on Dem caucus retreats. How's that for hypocrisy? Pot, meet kettle. Kettle - pot...
That headline from drudge. Being that we only have about 310,000,000 people here, I guess we've all been laid off already this month. We'll be laid off again later this month too. Here's the video:
Here's my question: just how did W get the label of the "village idiot" with this dim bulb running around?
Well, that's not 'exactly' what she said. Was more like "Greener energy means jobs." The only problem is, it won't. From the freep this morning:
Gov. Jennifer Granholm, proclaiming Tuesday that Michigan's economic salvation lies in large part with renewable energy industries, issued a tall order.
By 2020, the state should reduce its reliance on coal-burning power plants by 45%.
Here's one problem: even if (you can't, but let's just say) you were to replace our energy needs with "renewable" sources at a clip of 45% by 2020, any new jobs would simply offset those that were lost in the coal power generation industry (direct and indirect). In fact, none of this would even come close to replacing the 460,000+ jobs lost in the last 6 years.
Now for the technical portion. You simply cannot replace 45% of coal power here in Michigan with niche applications such as solar and wind. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a great proponent of solar and wind (moreso wind than solar, especially here in MI), but forcing these technologies onto paying consumers will only have one result: the consumer will simply have to pay more for their power. And therein lies the one thing our governor didn't mention yesterday - higher utility rates. It is tantamount to an additional tax on each and every citizen in Michigan.
Michigan utilized about 11,000 kW-hr of electricity per capita per year (data here). For a population of roughly 10,000,000, we're talking an energy need of 110 Billion kW-hr per year. That's a LOT of power. Even for a state with a stagnant population because of economic exodus, the per capita energy consumption will rise (cheaper, bigger LCD televisions and other modern conveniences, etc. that seem to still be selling well during "the greatest economic challenge since the Great Depression," but I digress). Now, this energy consumption is in addition to the consumption of natural gas (mostly for forced-air heating of homes and businesses and some electrical generation) and of course gasoline and diesel.
The natural gas and transportation fuel energy per capita is roughly quintuple our electrical usage. Since plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles are coming down the road (the governor talked about battery production in her State of the State address), our electrical needs could dramatically increase in a short time span (transportation alone would be add about 35,000 kW-hr per capita annually(!) already quadrupling or electric power needs). I'll spare the talk of all these other energy sectors and focus on electricity by itself. For the record, here is a pie-chart that illustrates where we get our electricity from:
Almost 60% of our electricity is coal-generated. Coal because it's CHEAP, which tends to be THE problem if you desire to replace it with something else. The other thing to notice is that renewables (other than hydroelectric) account for only 2%. My guess is that, if we wanted or really needed to, we can bump that up to 10%. Maybe 15%. And even that will be seen in everyone's electric bill (as an increase) simply because you are mandating it. 20% is pushing it since you can't balance the electric grid with wind or solar. Solar generates when the sun is out. Wind generates when the wind blows. You can't increase solar power output if you lack solar energy. Same with wind. Coal, on the other hand, can be increased or decreased very simply, which allows for grid balancing.
The only realistic possibility for displacing 45% of coal power production is nuclear energy. There simply is no other alternative for THAT much energy. Of course, the current administration here in MI doesn't appear to have any desire whatsoever for nuclear. Such is the political problem that we have in this state. My guess is that the 45% goal will simply go down the memory hole in a few years.
Let me just take wind for example (I won't argue at all for solar as it is well out of economic feasibility for some time yet). Wind turbines (and turbine arrays or 'farms') tend to be installed where there is direct evidence of good wind potential. Let's look at a satellite image of Michigan wind at an altitude of 100m, which would be the height of a modern industrial-sized wind turbine (you can see high-re images at various elevations here):
Note that the bulk of the wind power potential is offshore. This poses a problem as there are no utilities offshore to tap into, so an infrastructure to transmit the power to the land grid would have to be constructed at significant expense. The biggest problem with offshore power, however, is NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard). If you want to know what NIMBYs are like, see here .
Note also in the above figure that wind potential onshore is less than it is offshore. Even so, there are a few good areas. The thumb area of the LP is already being utilized by Noble Power, which installed 32 industrial-sized turbines two years ago. Western Michigan can also see some benefits of onshore production (as well as some areas of the UP).
.
Unfortunately, since transmission of electrical power is limited, Grand Rapids, Traverse City, Bay City and Saginaw will benefit. But the metro Detroit area mostly will not, since it is simply not a good region for wind power. In the tri-county metro area, there are only a few places that might be economically feasible, areas that some entrepreneurs might want to explore in the near future. But a full-scale farm to power southeast Michigan, which houses the bulk of the population, is not going to happen. So there's that impediment also. It's a geographic, rather than a technical, limitation.
.
Unless the Granholm administration, along with the Michigan House and Senate, repeal a few inconvenient laws of physics (and somehow convince God to let it be so), 45% displacement of coal will be unattainable without the nuclear option. Maybe the governor's science advisor(s) need a refresher in these laws.
The details of the non-stimulus stimulus bill just keep getting worse by the day. Almost by the hour. This latest news from RedState:
the Department of Commerce gave access to the DTV education money to only two groups exclusively: the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (N4A) and the LCCR’s Education Fund.: the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging(N4A) and the LCCR’s Education Fund.
The group (LCCR) opposed conservative judges. The group agitates for card check. The group is in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. It is chiefly an agitator for affirmative action programs and tries to pressure banks into giving high risk loans like those that caused the housing crisis. If you oppose them, they label you a racist.
Here’s where it gets funny. Each group is now only getting about $2 million.
"What do budget cuts and human shields have to do with one another?," you might ask. Bear with me for one moment. First, the cuts. From the pages of the freep this morning (emphasis mine):
Macomb County commissioners said Monday they have no choice but to begin laying off hundreds of employees and cut services to senior citizens, lower-income families and other residents after a key union rejected a proposed labor contract.
The United Auto Workers, which represents 500 county employees, voted down a 3-year contract on Friday that called for wage freezes, six days off without pay, more out-of-pocket health care costs and stiffer requirements to gain full pension benefits.
Why is it, by the way, that whenever cuts are threatened, they use children and the elderly as human shields? The good 'ol human shield negotiating tactic is tried and true, being used by about every federal agency when threatened with budget cuts. Cut the CDC budget? "But... we won't be able to find a cancer cure now!" Blah, blah, blah...
Has the MSM no shame in not calling these people out for such tactics? Macomb County has a bloated budget so we're going to have to throw grandma down the stairs? We're going to kick lower-income families to the curb? Excuse me, but can't these nitwits look at the true waste in their budgets (gold-plated health benefits, huge pension obligations, etc)???
Classic example of the human shield strategy can best be seen in California in recent months (see here and here amongst many others). In California, the people appear to now serve the government, turning the "We The People" mantra on its head. Now here it is in Michigan. Look for this in tonight's "State of the State" address by Granholm. If I hear one more "essential services" remark by her, I might just lose my dinner!
Nancy Killefer, who failed for a year and a half to pay employment taxes on household help, has withdrawn her candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government
I have to confess I missed this last week on the freep. (HT:moonbattery) Apparently, they had an online article with instructions of how you - puny little citizen - can merge with his onenness, Barack Obama. Let's set aside the fact that this has to be one of the creepier things I have seen on the freepin some time. Here's what your merged image would look like: Hope and change, no? Why this would be the greatest merging since Decker merged with V'Ger in ST: The Motion Picture! And we know how that turned out:
It's sad to keep seeing story after story of the decline into totalitarianism of society in Britain, once a beacon and the best economy in the world. How the mighty have fallen.
The radio station, Obama 1260, was dumped in the D.C. market. It was an all-liberal station. Meanwhile, it's conservative rival, WTNT, had ratings double after the inauguration. Can't wait for more "fairness doctrine" talk. Read the full story here. Here's an excerpt:
Program Director Greg Tantum says he thought the station could work because of enthusiasm over Obama, but that ratings collapsed to a level that could not be measured after the election. But ratings nearly doubled, he says, at...conservative station, WTNT, which features Laura Ingraham and Bill Bennett.
Almost half of the $820 billion would end up in the pockets of Democratic-controlled unions, such as the Service Employees International Union, and federal, state, and municipal employee unions.
Says Stein: "There has been pork-barrel politics since there has been politics, but the scale of this pork is beyond what had ever been imagined before -- and no one can be sure it will actually do much stimulation. ... This has been a punch in the solar plexus to the kind of responsible, far-seeing, mature government processes that are needed to protect America."
The SEIU? Why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, from here. HT:(CG)
Coming to a United State near you! Here we go - moral busy bodies telling kids how much they should weigh. Via FoxNews:
Children could be taken away from their parents if they become too fat under a controversial proposal by an Australian doctor.
With 1-in-4 children in Australia overweight or obese, Dr. Shirley Alexander, of the Children's Hospital at Westmead, wants parents to be disciplined in "extreme cases" when their child becomes too overweight.
Under the proposal, child protection agencies would be called in to seize a child when parents repeatedly failed to address diet problems.
"We argue that in a sufficiently extreme case, notification of child protection services may be an appropriate professional response," Alexander said.
In one case welfare authorities were forced to intervene when a 4-year-old girl stood 3-and-a-half-feet tall and weighed about 88 pounds. The girl watched TV for six hours a day and had tantrums when denied food.
Alexander said despite the efforts of health workers, a "family-focused" program failed to stop or reverse the child's weight gain.
She said child protection authorities were notified, and the child was put on a diet and physical activity program that had her losing weight.
Just how, might I ask, do they define obese? It's not clear from the article, but I would bet dollar-to-doughnuts that it's some form of BMI, which incidentally doesn't take body fat into account, which to me is just a bad idea. Big boned? Have more muscle mass? Too bad! Your BMI is too high! Go on a diet! And if you don't, we'll take you out of the hands of your parents and starve you for a while!
The article isn't clear just how the weight loss was achieved, but I guarantee you it was what they call a "healthy diet" that likely has insufficient protein and other nutrients resulting in a weight loss to be sure, but not a healthy weight loss.
They also have the qualifier in the above article: "in a sufficiently extreme case." Who determines it? Are the neighbors now going to be a watchdog, required by law to call CPS when the kid next door looks a bit puffy? Will they have scales in school so they can flag the overweight? What's next? Blood tests for cholesterol? Forced blood glucose before the start of school to diagnose diabetes? Where does this end?
This kind of silliness always reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
I can think of no better example of media bias than the recent failure of FEMA (headed now by Obama disciples) after the ice storms in Kentucky. Here's some thoughts :
Jammie Wearing Fool reported that Obama and FEMA left Americans to die in Kentucky:
I guess what with Kentucky being a red state the heartless Barack Obama andFEMAcan't be bothered helping the suffering Americans trying to cope with a massive ice storm that has left them powerless.
In some parts of rural Kentucky, they're getting water the old-fashioned way — with pails from a creek. There's not room for one more sleeping bag on the shelter floor. The creative are flushing their toilets with melted snow.
At least 42 people have died, including 11 in Kentucky, and conditions are worsening in many places days after an ice storm knocked out power to 1.3 million customers from the Plains to the East Coast. About a million people were still without electric Friday, and with no hope that the lights will come back on soon, small communities are frantically struggling to help their residents.
One county put it bluntly: It can't.
Remember the Katrina tragedy that was blamed totally on Bush and his people at FEMA? What has changed? Only one thing - the president. Before it was Bush, so it was OK to point fingers. Now it's Obama. Same sort of natural disaster scenario. Same federal response. MSMsais "..." (cricket's chirping) (HT: GP)
With nearly 1.5 million people in the mid-west without power during a cold snap, what other possible reason is there that this new "competent" administration and FEMA would be failing so spectacularly in helping in this natural disaster?
Of course, I am just aping what lefty blogs were saying about Bush less than 24 hours after Katrina's hurricane winds stopped blowing. But AP is reporting that Midwest disaster relief people are none too pleased with our new president's FEMA.
Here we are 5 days after the storm ended and still no FEMA? I demand a Congressional investigation. And let's get all the anchors and media people down here pronto. People's lives are at stake. For all we know, there are babies being eaten and people jumping off their roofs committing suicide because FEMA is nowhere to be found.
Ouch! But there's more:
Isn't it interesting that now that we have a Democrat as president that all of a sudden, disaster relief is a state and local matter and the federal government should stand aside and allow them to do their jobs?
Yep, that about sums up my thoughts quite eloquently.
Barack Obama said he would be a president of all Americans- Republican and Democrat, white and black...It was a lie.
We all knew Obama had issues with white people... From his audio-book dreams of my father, Barack Obama was moved to tears when he heard his racist anti-American pastor blame whitey for all of the world's pain and ills.In fact, he was so moved by this filth that he included the story in his book Dreams of My Father.
Here Barack Obama lashes out at the white man's greed:(34 seconds)
Audio was taken from a Hugh Hewitt Show. In Obama's own words: "It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere... That's the world! On which hope sits!"
The CBO has scored the HOUSE plan and has found that of the House plan's $819 bln of spending and tax cuts only 21% will have impact in 2009 and by the end of 2010 only 64% of the plan will have had its impact on the deficit. Almost by definition then, we can say that 36% of the House plan is 'Agenda' since it is going to have its impact beyond the year 2010 and can't be categorized in any reasonable way as a recession buster.
Ouch! But there's more (and it's NOT good):
There are all sorts of clear Democrat agenda items in the spending portion of this bill. Much of it is on social welfare type plans. But the monies being spent in pursuit of Green also look much more agenda-like that stimulus-like. I say that because the markets, left alone, don't do Green. They don't because Green is not economic. So spending in which you spur that which is not economic surely is 'agenda' driven. ... It is no wonder Republicans are angry about how this is being done. You can disagree with my numbers but clearly there is a lot of Democrat policy that is whizzing past us in the sheep's clothing of stimulus.
Let's not forget that the $819 billion number doesn't include interest over the next 10 years, pushing the number well past $1 trillion, and dropping the 21% number down below 20%.
During his pre-Super Bowl interview with Matt Lauer Barack Obama joked about Jessica Simpson's weight.MSNBC reported:
LAUER: And here’s a great picture — OBAMA: Oh, it’s beautiful. LAUER: — of — of you and — and Michelle and — and your daughters. Now, the — the reason I bring this up I think is funny. It’s a great picture. OBAMA: Yeah. LAUER: But I wanna show you the cover. Look what they did. They — they took you off the cover. OBAMA: Yeah. LAUER: They took you out of it. OBAMA: It — it’s — it’s a little hurtful.
LAUER: You got replaced by Jessica Simpson. OBAMA: Yeah, who’s losing a weight battle apparently. (LAUGHTER) Yeah. Oh, well. LAUER: What would you like to say to the tens of millions of people who are watching this game today?
...and did anyone catch this line from Obama: "People think I'm cool."
I caught that last part. It occurs earlier in the clip. "Cool?" Please... Can this guy be any more full of himself?
Walmart has been bashed by politicians (especially the left) and journalists for as long as I remember (Walmart Derangement Syndrome). Remember the Walmart episode of South Park? Here's just a clip (warning: it's a bit vile at the end):
You can, by the way, see any South Park episode in full over at southparkstudios. And yes, it's legal and legit! Anyway, the Walmart episode ended up with the town burning down the Walmart. Then the town determined to only shop at the local department store. Which subsequently grew, and grew, and grew. In the end, it was burned down as well by the town mob for the same reason Walmart was.
.
Anyway, to the topic at hand. A senior writer got himself hired at Walmart to see what it was like to work there (yes, he admits to being a mole, but did his job as expected too), and has written about his experiences in a piece titles Life at Wal-Mart. Some excerpts:
Everyone agreed that Wal-Mart was preferable to the local Target, where the hourly pay was lower and workers were said to be treated with less respect (an opinion which I was unable to verify). Most of all, my coworkers wanted to avoid those “mom-and-pop” stores beloved by social commentators where, I was told, employees had to deal with quixotic management policies, while lacking the opportunities for promotion that exist in a large corporation.
And this one lifted an eyebrow:
As for all those Wal-Mart horror stories—when I went home and checked the web sites that attack the company, I found that many of them are subsidized with union money. walmartwatch.com, for instance, is partnered with the Service Employees International Union; wakeupwalmart.com is copyright by United Foodand Commercial Workers International Union. Why are unions so obsessed with Wal-Mart? I'm guessing that if the more-than-a-million Wal-Mart employees could be unionized, they would be compelled to contribute at least half a billion dollars per year in union dues.
That paragraph sure tells you something, no? Note the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)? Why do they sound familiar, you may ask? Aren't they the same SEIU involved in the Blagojavich scandal? Why yes, yes they are! From WaPo: Union Official Allegedly Liaison Between Governor, Obama Team. Why the involvement with the removed, disgraced, corrupt former governor of Illinois? The subline to the WaPo article: "Blagojevich Apparently Hoped for Job Leading Labor Group." The decree has since come down, and has since filtered completely through the MSM, that SEIU shall never be mentioned in the same paper with any Blago story. In fact, don't mention Obama either. In fact, just expel "Blagojevich" from the democrat party! But, of course, there is NO MEDIA BIAS! Got it???
.
The reality with the SEIU, and other union monstrosities, is that they have become so big, so powerful, so full of union dues, that the little guy (Joe sixpack union member) no longer has a say. Union leadership frees itself to support its own causes (virtually all liberal) that interfere with the wishes of much of its memberships. In effect, and quite ironically, they have become the union equivalent of what they accuse Walmart of all the time - a big, uncaring monstrosity that must be opposed and punished with all speed and at all cost.
.
I believe unions are necessary, but there comes a tipping point where union leadership becomes untracked to pursue its own agenda. I myself actively participate in the AAUP (American Association of University Professors), but have seen myself how the leadership of the union (not my local AAUP but the state org) has gone after topics such as gay benefits (which Michigan has rejected by public referendum) over issues more important to the majority of the membership - wages. The unions purview should be limited to collective bargaining, rather than liberal political advocacy where many unions find themselves (advocacy that is antithetical to my values that is being funded by my dollars!). That, and the entanglement between unions and the democrat party, just does not sit well with me whatsoever.
.
For my part, I do the bulk of my shopping at Costco and Sam's Club (I didn't initially intend the pun - bulk - but it fits). Sam's club has better meat (I eat chicken and lean beef by the pound), while most other things, including gas, I get at Costco. Since I don't have a Walmart near me, I tend to get small odds and ends over at the local Kroger. I have nothing against Walmart as they offer great value to consumers. Should one be built nearer to where I live, I'm sure I would be there often.
I am a Christian, a husband, a father of seven and a competitive natural bodybuilder.
All opinions in this personal blog are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer, companies that I consult for, family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances or my pets.
Email me at theblogprof "at" gmail "dot" com
I can tell you right now most of what this '
Remember that these turbines are so large that the turn speed is quite small. Rotating three blades the length of a football field will not occur at 100 
Original source of this picture unknown (it seems to be all over the web today). HT: Emily 
I'll just shamelessly plug the fact that Oakland University is amongst the best deals in the state. Go 
What's this got to do with global warming? From the article:
Hope and change, no? Why this would be the greatest merging since Decker merged with 
