Capitol Notes reports that Citizens to Save Californians has begun submitting signatures to the Secretary of State that relate to CSC's budget process initiative known as 'Live Within Our Means.' I think the lefty groups will line up behind this big time. Restricting the amount government largesse is virtually the same thing as restricting their income (i.e., unions, social service groups, etc.)
In one of the most bizarre and naive editorials I have read in a while, the Sacramento Bee appears to go out of its way to justify Iran's contention that it shouldn't have to forego development of its nuclear capabilities until the U.S. reduces its nuclear arsenal.
The editorial discussed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Instead of calling Iran's argument pretext for the real reasons it wants to keep nuclear capabilities, the Bee states: "Unless the major nuclear powers, led by the United States and Russia, take steps to further shrink their arsenals, persuading nuclear wannabes to forgo such weapons, and to comply with stricter controls on the use of nuclear fuels, could be virtually impossible."
What a joke. The International Atomic Energy Agency recently heard evidence of Iran's violations of the NPT, which included: (1) refusing inspections of certain military sites suspected of conducting nuclear research, (2) constructing tunnels under a nuclear research site, and (3) various other violations. Remember, it was just late last year where Iran seemed to be on the verge of freezing its enriched uranium program. I don't seem to recall it making a deal out of US's purported feet dragging on reducing its own arsenal.
Instead of critical thinking or throwing criticism where it is most warranted, the Bee just regurgitates leftist illogic.
Predictably, however, it boils the concepts down so much in its editorial that they omit crucial information. But hey, there is only so much room to write the editorial.
In short, the Bee states that America's future energy policy will come through increasing taxes. That is, increasing taxes on SUV's, gasoline, and probably many more things.
But there is something funny about the editorial. The editorial has no clear point and the arguments are scattered. The Bee concludes that the US needs a new energy policy, one based on higher taxes, instead of a policy of trying to deliver inexpensive fuel to US consumers. The Bee never explains why we need this new policy. It merely makes the ominous statement, "Ahead are some challenging choices, and the longer we put them off, the more painful the day of reckoning will become." What day of reckoning? When fuel becomes really, really, really expensive? When there is no more oil to be found?
First, if fossil fuels continue to climb in cost, then it becomes economical to go after oil reserves we know exist, but which are not otherwise economically feasible to extract, as explained here by Peter Huber. The higher oil prices also means that it is economically feasible to explore in areas that were previously uneconomical to explore, namely, the bottom of the oceans (rumor is, oceans comprise a large percentage of the earth's surface). And hey, what is the effect of new oil coming into the market. That's right kiddies, reduced prices.
Second, although the Bee would like to see higher taxes on fuel because it would cause people to utilize (presumably) less fuel-intensive means of going about their lives. The Bee does not explain, or perhaps it does not realize, that people use fuel-intensive means of going about their lives (e.g., using cars) because it is economically feasible and convenient. The money and time people save by using cars and the cheap gasoline they pump into them means they can use that saved money and time on other things they find useful, e.g., healthcare, time with family, food.
If the Bee's policy of higher taxes went into effect, fewer people would drive and more people would change the way they go about their lives. Except, the people no longer driving still have to get their kids home from school, do the shopping, etc. So what is the cost to people in terms of money and convenience of changing their lifestyle? The monetary cost may go up or down, but the convenience will definitely decrease immensely. Why? Before and after the tax people are going to make decisions based on those factors. You have to assume that their choice to use (and pay for) the car maximized the convenience and minimized the cost to do so.
Third, the Bee states that if we reduced demand for fossil fuels, the energy companies would reduce prices. The Bee doesn’t explain that as the price goes down, it becomes more attractive to buy. In other words, if there are other people, say, the emerging markets of India, China, and Russia, who are ready to purchase the fossil fuels, the net effect on the price of fossil fuels by the US’s reduction in demand may be nothing.
Fourth, how exactly does raising taxes solve the economic plight Americans now face with high energy costs? Again, what the hell is the point of their editorial. Taxes for taxes sake?
I lied above when I said the Bee didn't have a clear reason for advocating higher taxes as a way to reduce demand. The Bee states quite clearly that it would hit BIG OIL where it hurts. The Bee states:
The world's four largest oil companies made nearly $24 billion in profits - in the first three months of this year alone.
Want to hit the oil companies where it really hurts by lowering demand? That's possible, but it means investing in a new energy future with much higher energy taxes and, perhaps, slowing down a bit on the highway.
There's good policy. Higher taxes for everyone to screw over BIG OIL. Talk about liberal bias.
Don't bet on it. But Ryan Sager at Tech Central Station notes that Tom Daschle may be edging towards a free speech argument in restraining the government's ability to regulate campaign contributions. If they do, it is only because they raised much more money than Republicans using the 527's last election (if memory serves, about $100 million more).
Annika posts a short funny at the expense of the Germans. You'll still feel good about yourself after you giggle.
Suburban Blight discusses her short tale of boob oppression. I must say, I was getting visuals.
The day I learn how to post images in Movable Type I will do so. Until then I must refer you to those images, this one being a damn funny cartoon by Cox & Forkum.
Think the left has a stranglehold on teaching (I use the term loosely) positions at universities? Well, Michael Williams seems to think that the moonbat illuminati will set their sites on private elementary and high schools. Yikes.
Moonbat: "Billy, what did the Pilgrims establish in 1620 in what is now known as Massachusetts?"
Billy: "The Plymouth Colony."
Moonbat: "No. They established hate, Billy. They institutionalized a phallus-centric societal model based on European rape culture and imposed this hate on the peace and environment-loving peoples of the New World, who were probably vegans irrespective of what the historians say. Hate, Billy.
Most people don't know that back in 1912, Hellmann's mayonnaise was manufactured in England. In fact, the Titanic was carrying 12,000 jars of the condiment scheduled for delivery in Vera Cruz, Mexico, which was to be the next port of call for the great ship after its stop in New York.
This would have been the largest single shipment of mayonnaise ever delivered to Mexico. But as we know, the great ship did not make it to New York. The ship hit an iceberg and sank, and the cargo was forever lost.
The people of Mexico, who were crazy about mayonnaise, and were eagerly awaiting its delivery, were disconsolate at the loss. Their anguish was so great, that they declared a National Day of Mourning, which they still observe to this day.
The National Day of Mourning occurs each year on May 5th and is known, of course, as Sinko de Mayo.
. . . . . . settle down people, hold the applause. OK, this 'history' lesson wasn't my creation. I thought I'd pass it on.
Ladies, don't miss out. This site even has a redline sale on one of these guys.
Assembly Member Ray Haynes is working on an initiative called the 'California Border Patrol Initiative.' You can read about it on Eric Hogue's blog. As Eric points out, this initiative will have the democrats in a tough spot. On the one hand they are inclined to pander to illegal immigrants and their lefty allies. On the other, they can't anger the unions who are opposed to illegal immigrants keeping downward pressure on the cost of labor. Perhaps union opposition would change if those same boobs who sponsor the bill authorizing driving licenses for illegal immigrants come up with legislation that forces businesses to hire unionized illegal immigrants.
The additional downside to Ward Churchill's relatively recent 'popularity' is that he appears to be increasingly on the lecture circuit. Nary a month goes by without him speaking at several institutions of questionable learning. Most recent was his speech at California State University at Monterey Bay, which is just south of UC Santa Cruz (a real hotbed of educational dysfunction).
But man, Churchill loves his new role, which he himself is trying to erect. According to the Monterey Herald, he said: "I became the poster boy for academic freedom." Academic freedom apparently covers the freedom to be intellectual dishonest. (read this and this and this) If you don't understand the logic, don't worry. There is none to be found.
Convicted terrorist sympathizer Lynne Stewart will speak at San Francisco State University. “Why can’t we get anyone but criminals to come here to SFSU and speak?” Maybe non-criminals don't have the 'street cred' to tell it like it is, man.
Insane Troll Logic describes how professors are going ape over the possibility of Alberto Gonzales giving the commencement speech at Houston Community College.
The Bee engaged, yet again, in mischaracterizing Governor Schwarzenegger's position on illegal immigration as "kicking around immigrants." First, notice that the Bee labels the governor's purported angst at "immigrants," not "illegal immigrants."
What has Arnold done that equates to beating up on immigrants? Well, as much as can be discerned from the Bee's editorial, he gave an interview with the "John and Ken Show" on KFI Radio in Los Angeles, which apparently has "xenophobes" who listen to the show. There is an attenuated connection if there ever was one.
Oh, and Arnold approved of the Minuteman project. According to the Bee, Arnold "went out of his way to endorse the Minutemen brigades that are now patrolling the Mexican border." Can't you just smell the radical, immigrant-hating persona Arnold gives off?
Lastly, the Bee states the "governor endorsed a campaign to take down billboards in Los Angeles that promote a Spanish-language radio station." This is the same billboard that the radio station had crossed out the word "California" and written in "Mexico." Of course the Bee didn't explain why the governor endorsed the change in the billboard ad. Perhaps the governor's explanation was entirely too balanced and reasonable sounding to fit into the Bee's pre-packaged labeling of Arnold as bigot/anti-immigrant. The Bee is not alone in lying about Schwarzenegger's statements, as Chris Kelly at The Immigration Blog points out.
The Bee makes one comment that is outright silly:"it is fantasy to think that tougher federal patrols (and fewer billboards in Los Angeles) will have much impact on [illegal immigration]." By that logic, perhaps reducing the number of border patrol agents will not have much impact either, or have we reached that magic number of border patrol agents where we have maximized their value. The Minuteman Project has inspired local private groups to form similar projects and illegal crossings along the stretch patrolled by the volunteers has virtually stopped. The Bee editorial writers are clearly predetermined to a view in spite of the empirical data. I suppose increasing police presence on city streets has little discernable impact on crime.
The Bee ends the editorial the frequently used business blaming fashion. The better solution to controlling immigration is to crack down on . . . yup, businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The Bee implies Arnold will not do that because he would anger the construction industry and "corporate farms" that have contributed to his campaigns. According to the Bee, Arnold is simply engaged in politics and is not serious about illegal immigration.
To summarize, Schwarzenegger "kicks around" illegal immigrants by approving of citizen patrols along the border. This also means, by definition, that he is not serious about curbing illegal immigration because, as the Bee notes, that will do nothing to curb illegal immigration. The Bee continues to wallow in intellectual dishonesty.
Patterico noted that the LA Times edited out exculpatory evidence in the shooting death of the Italian in that road bloack incident involving Giuliana Sgrena. I checked the Sacramento Bee online edition and it merely has a story from the AP on the newly released report. Noticeably absent is any mention of the satellite evidence iestablishing that the car was going about 60 mph. This reveals that Sgrena was lying when she stated that the car was going no more than 30 mph. She was also lying when she said that the car was showered with "300-400 bullets." The report indicates that the soldiers fired 2-3 short bursts of gunfire. I don't expect the Bee to give the soldiers much credit in their editoial pages either.
UPDATE: Doubts about whether the speed of a vehicle can be measured accurately at Wizbang.
UPDATE: AFP reports that there is in fact satellite evidence.