Biodiversity: The Next Frontier For Radical Environmentalists

At one time, if you were an environmentalist evangelizing the impending doom caused by global warming, you were (at least in your own mind) kind of cool and cutting edge. However, it’s really tough to be cool and cutting edge when Corporate America and heavy industry has picked up on the whole ‘global warming’ movement in an effort to improve their public image.

Now, it’s not so cool or edgy. Plus, the Global Warming movement has been exposed as the fraud and hoax that it is.

If you are a radical environmentalist, and you want to get out front to regain your cool and edgy status, you can join the renewed push for “biodiversity.”

And, right on cue, the U.N. is ready to pitch in.

Even where scientific uncertainty remains, for example regarding the likelihood of certain thresholds or tipping points being reached, knowledge of the pressures, consequences and available solutions are sufficient to justify such action. Nevertheless, greatly improved systems of monitoring and information-sharing, as well as stronger links between science and policymakers, are essential if this challenge is to be overcome in the future. The creation of a new Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) may help to improve the science-policy interface at the global scale, in parallel with better mechanisms for collecting and sharing information at regional, national and local levels.

Sounds familiar.

To meet the goal of implementing the objectives of the CBD, major efforts are also needed to improve the capacity in many developing countries to carry out effective action in support of biodiversity. Programmes that share expertise and resources from wealthier countries will be essential and can be complimented by programmes which share experiences among developing countries.

Sounds really familiar.

Continue reading

Wednesday Night Quick Hits: The Inflation Edition

Via BoingBoing:

Back when Sears, Roebuck & Co. and Montgomery Ward were battling it out over who would be the analog version of Amazon, Sears offered increasingly ambitious and specialized catalogs. One of their most ambitious projects was mail-order homes, inspired by success of The Aladdin Company. Last year, Cory blogged about Thomas Edison’s similar prefab concrete home venture. But Sears Modern Homes had huge success with their wood-framed homes from 1908 through the Great Depression. Their cheapest model was $107 in 1908 (about $2,000 today). Unlike a lot of modern prefab, these were made to last; you can still find these homes here and there around the country.

click for larger versionJust when you thought he couldn’t get any worse

And why does Joy Behar still have her job?

Behar could have awkwardly chuckled after getting flowers, been somewhat gracious and adult about it, and let it go at that.

But NOOOOO.

theCL asks the rhetorical question: Inflation? What inflation?

click for larger image

2010 Voter Fraud?

The Spellchek Mid-term elections voting guide

Free Radicals

If your are curious, take a look at silver and oil prices since… 1971.

I wonder what happened in 1971?

Neutrality And Editorial Appearance

Berkeley Leftist Academics Try to “Understand” Tea Party, and Fail Miserably

Obama’s Way Forward November 3rd Could Lead Through Iran

This is not very comforting.

According to George Friedman at STRATFOR, after the Mid Term elections Obama could very well turn to a foreign policy agenda to improve his political fortunes:

Obama now has two options in terms of domestic strategy. The first is to continue to press his agenda, knowing that it will be voted down. If the domestic situation improves, he takes credit for it. If it doesn’t, he runs against Republican partisanship. The second option is to abandon his agenda, cooperate with the Republicans and re-establish his image as a centrist. Both have political advantages and disadvantages and present an important strategic decision for Obama to make.

The Foreign Policy Option

Obama also has a third option, which is to shift his focus from domestic policy to foreign policy. The founders created a system in which the president is inherently weak in domestic policy and able to take action only when his position in Congress is extremely strong. This was how the founders sought to avoid the tyranny of narrow majorities. At the same time, they made the president quite powerful in foreign policy regardless of Congress, and the evolution of the presidency over the centuries has further strengthened this power. Historically, when the president has been weak domestically, one option he has had is to appear powerful by focusing on foreign policy.

Mr. Friedman finish up his lengthy essay with this discussion of a military strike against Iran:

I am arguing the following. First, Obama will be paralyzed on domestic policies by this election. He can craft a re-election campaign blaming the Republicans for gridlock. This has its advantages and disadvantages; the Republicans, charging that he refused to adjust to the electorate’s wishes, can blame him for the gridlock. It can go either way. The other option for Obama is to look for triumph in foreign policy where he has a weak hand. The only obvious way to achieve success that would have a positive effect on the U.S. strategic position is to attack Iran. Such an attack would have substantial advantages and very real dangers. It could change the dynamics of the Middle East and it could be a military failure.

I am not claiming that Obama will decide to do this based on politics, although no U.S. president has ever engaged in foreign involvement without political considerations, nor should he. I am saying that, at this moment in history, given the domestic gridlock that appears to be in the offing, a shift to a foreign policy emphasis makes sense, Obama needs to be seen as an effective commander in chief and Iran is the logical target.

This is not a prediction. Obama does not share his thoughts with me. It is merely speculation on the options Obama will have after the midterm elections, not what he will choose to do.

2011 will be an interesting year.

According To Chris Cillizza Obama’s Poll Numbers Are Just Right

The WaPo’s Chris Cillizza is trying to spin a Goldilocks story regarding Obama’s latest Pew poll numbers:

Asked whether they would like to see Obama run for a second term, 47 percent said they would while 42 percent said they would prefer he not. (While the question is somewhat irrelevant — Obama is running for reelection — it does serve as a basic gauge of enthusiasm both for and against him.)

Those numbers may not look like much but when compared to the showing of past presidents on the question, Obama looks relatively strong.

Bill Clinton, for example, at this time in 1994 had 44 percent of people saying they would like him to run again and 47 percent saying they would prefer he not. Ronald Reagan’s number were far more dismal; 36 percent wanted him to run for a second term while 51 percent didn’t in August 1982.

The two ex-presidents who rated the highest on that question in the Pew poll — Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — both went on to lose reelection. In the fall of 1990, 53 percent of people wanted Bush the elder to seek a second term. He did, and lost to Clinton. Ditto Jimmy Carter who, in the fall of 1978, had a solid 50 percent saying he should run for reelection. Reagan bested him two years later.

I never liked porridge.

Over 317,000 Waiters and Waitresses Have College Degrees

Remember how Obama said “folks need a degree?

It turns out that many people have degrees and they end up under employed.

click for larger versionSome of this is due to the poor economic climate, but it seems either the United States has a glut of college graduates, or the degrees really don’t mean much:

Over 317,000 waiters and waitresses have college degrees (over 8,000 of them have doctoral or professional degrees), along with over 80,000 bartenders, and over 18,000 parking lot attendants. All told, some 17,000,000 Americans with college degrees are doing jobs that the BLS says require less than the skill levels associated with a bachelor’s degree.

Education is important. However, a college degree will not determine if you are a success or a failure. Hard work, perseverance, risk taking and creativity are keys the keys to success.

“We don’t want to be the first one to drop benefits, but we would be the fast second.”

There are more rumblings from employers, that they are weighing the possibility of dropping Employer funded health benefits. Via the Huron Daily Tribune:

Yet at least one major employer has shifted a greater share of plan costs to workers, and others are weighing the pros and cons of eventually forcing employees to strike out on their own.

“I don’t think you are going to hear anybody publicly say ‘We’ve made a decision to drop insurance,’ ” said Paul Keckley, executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. “What we are hearing in our meetings is, ‘We don’t want to be the first one to drop benefits, but we would be the fast second.’ We are hearing that a lot.” Deloitte is a major accounting and consulting firm.

And by the way, the ‘government run plans’ will not be so great either:

Another wrinkle: the health insurance tax credits available through the law are keyed to relatively Spartan insurance plans, not as generous as most big employers provide. Send your workers into the insurance exchange, and valuable employees might jump to a competitor that still offers health care.

There is a hidden “benefit” when we are all covered by ObamaCare. We the people will get the bi-annual privilege of listening to politicians drone on endlessly about how they are “fighting for us” to improve our health coverage while their opponent wants you to suffer and die.

Who’s Failed Policies Got Us Into This Mess?

To quote Obama:

“This election is a choice between the policies that got us into this mess and the policies that are leading us out of it,”

Really? You are leading us out of the ‘mess?’

click for larger view

Liberal Democrats took control of the House and Senate at the end 2006 and unemployment spiked.

So, to answer the question, yes I would love to go back to the pre-2006 economy.

Saturday Afternoon Quick Hits: The Modern Architecture Edition

Obama is heading to India after the election in an effort to’change the subject.’ Via the Economic Times:

US President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle will be extremely busy in Mumbai, upon landing on November 6 for a two day India visit. As the world’s most powerful man and his wife zip around the city visiting the 26/11 memorial on Marine Drive, the National Centre for Performing Arts (NCPA), Mani Bhawan and other locations in south Mumbai, the security obviously will be water-tight .

Adding to the Obamas’ busy schedule is Michelle’s likely visit to Kamathipura, where she will meet commercial sex workers on the invitation of an NGO. The highprofile visit is likely to inconvenience the citizens, as there could be a complete clampdown on traffic on some main roads of south Mumbai and sanitisation of buildings flanking them.

The Obamas will stay at the Taj Mahal Hotel, and his itinerary practically means Marine Drive will be shut for vehicular traffic on the day of the President’s visit, while buildings flanking it will be sanitised with security personnel manning them until Obama has left the place. Same would be the case with Obama’s visit to Mani Bhawan and Michelle going to Kamathipura.

Republicans Suck 2

FCBZ: Forrest Gump quote… “Stupid is as stupid does.”

A Friday Jam on a Saturday Afternoon

It’s all new consumption:

The trouble with print media (newspapers in particular) is it has never forced itself to look into the future, even though its employees were amongst the chroniclers of the future. Newspaper executives never really focused on the reality that as the Internet became pervasive, the idea of a daily newspaper was going to become the subset of an information business –- part of an amorphous goo we call MEDIA. From Facebook to Google to Twitter to blogs, we are all part of a bigger “information” business.

The European & American Left: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Science is better off without the government:

In the same way that people are always less careful spending other people’s money, the government is less careful spending money on scientific research than the companies that are set to rise or fall on the backs of their decisions.

Added to this, the OECD report concluded that money spent by the government is crowding out private sector investments.

In other words, inefficient government funding is displacing more efficient private funding.

By collectively taxing all companies for scientific research, the centralised planning of the government has usurped the dispersed and local knowledge of the private sector.

In the real world, free markets, trade and competition drive economic growth, not the government pulling money out of the productive private sector and distributing it amongst universities.

If the government wants to encourage increased spending on science, the least inefficient tactic would be to offer increased tax breaks to companies investing in research through universities, but even this is not essential given how integral research is to many companies’ profitability.

More Voting Shenanigans: SEIU Group Caught Twice

Is the Fed Too Big To Fail? by Gary North