Everyone benefits with the FairTax !

I just bought and read The FairTax Book. My thanks go to the authors for such a logical presentation of the subject of taxation. I never realized how the lowest income folks will make out twice (don't read into my statement anything I didn't say, which many tend to do with language). Basically, most folks don't realize that we are already paying 22% on top of everything we buy in hidden taxation. So we do away with income tax, and replace that hidden tax with a national sales tax on new items and services, and the economy blossoms; what could be simpler and easier, and -- more logical? The book itself is extremely entertaining and easy to read. Anyone who doesn't support the fairtax (over the current IRS withholding system) is totally illogical. To them I assert: Non-sequitur, Norman Coordinate.

Press 'this' for common sense

Never dilute your convictions, and compromise little

Tom Delay departed congress with a great speech.
I've been told that Tom Delay is not a great orator. We really need to consider the substance of the words, and excuse the style of speaking when debating issues. Symbolism over substance is the kind of bunk that the leftist politicians proliferate (Clinton was famous for that), and the media disseminate -- starting their articles with opinion, and if they have time or space, eventually inter-sparse a few facts here and there.

I especially like Delay's indication that those who have true character are those who do not wish to dilute their convictions, both liberals and conservatives, and that the so-called moderates of the middle who want to compromise are what is ruining our representative republic.

Electric Cars Pollute

"Who Killed the Electric Car?"
Truth be told: you and I. Until recently the cost of gasoline has been low, and we just didn't want that kind of car. But what about the future?

Did you know that electric cars, when recharged using electricity from coal-fired power plants, actually pollute the atmosphere more than gasoline. That is a fact, and a fact that most people do not understand. Now alternately, electric cars, when recharged using electricity from nuclear energy do pollute less than gasoline cars. By pollution I mean ground level particulates and SO2. But if you consider, it is also true for non- pollutants like CO2 because nuclear power plants generate negligible CO2 compared with coal.

There are other problems too: What about the disposal of the batteries.

I don't doubt that the car industry killed these (they only respond to demand), but taken with some of these other facts, it is not a complete solution. Does this film show these other factors as well. If not then I claim that the program is less than completely objective. Did they show the fact about pollution from coal plants which is the primary source of the energy for electric cars? I doubt it.

But I am not against electric cars.. I am for them, but only if they are powered by nuclear energy. It's the perfect way to reduce pollution in the environment. And the government is complicit because they do not provide R&D funds for both the electric cars and mechanisms to provide for safe disposal or reuse of the waste taken from nuclear power plants.

What we need now is an enterprising young team to come along and do this in the private sector. Most good new technologies are born via capitalism. The demand is now rising, and so shall the supply of future generations of electric cars, and if the government will help, they will be powered by nuclear, or other forms of non-polluting energy.

If Senator Kennedy would stop objecting to wind farms off of Cape-Cod, there is one alternate safe form right there.

"But it was not to be. A little over 1,000 EV1s were produced by G.M. before the company pulled the plug on the project in 2002 due to insufficient demand."

So you see it was demand that killed the cars back then, and pbs admits that. Today we perhaps have more demand due to the cost of gasoline. That makes a perfect climate for the entrepreneurs to roll up their sleeves and start producing.

Bold moves needed: Nuclear instead of Coal

Look out -- run for your lives -- The bozos in congress have passed another bill:

In a 381-37 vote, the House endorsed a bill that would require mine operators to put more oxygen supplies underground and move rescue teams closer to mines.

I guess we are all saved. Hail to congress.

Yet what we really need are bold moves. Congress needs to endorse Nuclear Power. Not only is it safer than coal (no miners are killed) it is also cleaner for the environment! Take that to the bank. No more ground level particulates or sulfur dioxide to clog lungs and kill trees. And Nuclear Energy generates no CO2, well, I'm for it anyway. The benefit of less pollution trumps the benefits of global warming.

Poison Ivy

One of my favorite plants is poison ivy. It is a native plant that is not invasive. And now a new study has shown that rising levels of carbon dioxide, a so-called greenhouse gas, can fuel booming poison ivy growth. That's great news.

Well first, the study indicated CO2, not global warming, as the source of the more prevalent and potent poison ivy. So causation is from CO2 to poison ivy. And causation is also 'supposed' to be from CO2 to global warming. Logically there is insufficient evidence to suggest a link between the two conclusions, based simply upon any truth there may be with the pre-conditions. These are two separate and non-related hypothesis. Nor is this a chain-link causation. The new study did not show a causation from global warming to poison ivy. And most relevant: The study shows no link between mankind and CO2; that was not part of the study. So why are so many claims being made beyond what was actually part of this study?

For instance, I am told that more local people who never got the rash from poison ivy are getting it now (never mind that perhaps these folks are also spending more time in the woods). So are we to believe that a few new cases of poison ivy is supposed to constitute proof of global warming?

So let's add my data to the unsound science: I haven't gotten poison ivy in years, and I'm mucking around in the woods all the time, and I am severely allergic. Even so, poison ivy is one of my favorite plants.

As long as we are being unscientific, I'm going to have to change my position: I'm now an advocate of global warming from here on out: Whatever I can do to convince people we need more global warming, and thus more poison ivy, and other flora, which will also benefit birds, because they eat the berries, I will do.

There are benefits to global warming: just think how much salt we spew into the environment via the roads each winter; global warming would reduce that. I could go on listing all the benefits...

I'll depart by quoting Professor Walter E. Williams
"For the past 800,000 years, there have been periods of approximately 100,000 years called Ice Ages, followed by a period of 10,000 years, a period called Interglacial, followed by another Ice Age. We're about 10,500 years into the present Interglacial period, namely, we're 500 years overdue for another Ice Age. If indeed mankind's activity contributes to the planet's warming, we might postpone the coming Ice Age."

The Media Who Cried Wolf

The boy who cried wolf .... That's the media with Global Warming -- The result is that the world turns off to all the cries. Now real menaces like this one will garner little attention. It's a crying shame. They listen to Al Gore with his inconvenient hypothesis, when real species are being affected by real live present day threats that could be dealt with if the media would get their blinders off with this Wacky Global Warming Hypothesis!