Sunday, June 28, 2009


That 'cap and trade' bill passed by the House is one of the worst peices of legislation passed by Congress. I want to put this subtly but if you believe, as our elites apparently do, that it is possible to reduce our greenhouse emmisions to 20% of the 2005 output, then you are an idiot.

Obama's justification for the bill is that otherworldly Kensian B.S. of government spending boosting the economy, neverminding the fact that the money being used had to be stolen from the private sector economy to begin with. His excuses carry about the same intellectual reasoning as paying vandals to go around the city and break all the windows, since doing so will provide a boon in glassworker jobs.

On a related note, for anyone who hasn't caught that Planet Green channel, it's Aljazeera for rich white people.


Anonymous said...

Sandmich said...

That 'cap and trade' bill passed by the House is one of the worst pieces of legislation passed by Congress.

Are you really so sure about this being the worst piece of legislation Congress has ever put out? There is a lot of competition for the title of worst act of Congress. Congress has been in business now for about 225 years, which is a long time to produce bad legislation.

This is just one of their once in a generation mega-fuckups. I can think of two things that equal this move:

1. In the late seventies Congress, under the leadership of Ted Kennedy, killed all funding for ballistic missile defense killing the program. Although Reagan brought the program back to life we are just now reaching the level of competency reached in the late 1970's and this time with foreign help from Israel. Back then we even had a small anti-missile system installed near our missile fields in North Dakota, which has since been dismantled.

2. The cutoff of military aid to South Vietnam, also in the late 1970's, also by a Congress under the leadership of Ted Kennedy.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I forgot to add, I hate how your commenting is layed out. I had to right click to open this post in a new tab, and then right click again to open the comment box, since I hate popups.

You should consider a format like latteisland uses - link.

Evil Sandmich said...

I'll admit that I dodged by saying 'one of'. The two you cite are persuasive. I generally agree on the Vietnam point, but it must be pointed out that hardly anyone in our nation had any interest in anything 'Vietnam' at that point.

Even for as loathsome as Ted Kennedy is, there were a lot of smart people who doubted how effective ballistic missile defense would be and figured the program for a money pit. Again, I generally disagree with that assessment, but the argument can be made.

Other contenders include prohibition, Social Security, Great Society claptrap, immigration ‘reform’ and allowing women to vote (oops, strike that!); but all those bad laws had at least some basis for improving the country as their argument.

It's a tougher argument to say that it's good idea that Congress should pass a law mandating that we have a lower standard of living than Mexico (at least according to this chart:

Evil Sandmich said...

BTW, thanks for the comment on the comments. I didn't like it either, but I was too lazy to change it until someone nagged me about it!

Anonymous said...

That wiki article you posted shocked me by revealing that the Department of Energy has a Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center - link.

Anonymous said...

Which means the friggin DoE is indirectly lobbying for the existence of Global Warming - and therefor Carbon Taxes.


Anonymous said...

Hey... I am a little annoyed at being compared to a terrorist simply because I believe in saving natural resources. Planet Green has some good shows about reusing what you have and a number of suggestions to conserve energy...i.e. saving $$$$$ on energy bills.

Evil Sandmich said...

Phew, I figured you'd have a bigger issue with my 'women voting' comment, anyway....

My issue with that network is it's single minded obsession with planet worship. A lot of 'green' ideas are of the variety of 'spend $40,000 to save $20,000' and they make no economic sense. How to make up for the gap? Scare the living hell out of people so that they'll be so terrified and guilt ridden that they'll blow money on stuff that makes them poorer.

I'm into conservation of natural resources and I don't think that we should needlessly waste. Unfortunately money is also a resource (of sorts) and I've none free to give to their 'church'.