Monthly Archives: July 2011

Monday Night Links: The Cartographic Land Octopus Edition

Posted on by
10

Humorous War Map

Via Big Think- Strange Maps Blog:

Real octopi are sea creatures, of course. But the Cartographic Land Octopus – CLO for short – need not worry about being in the right ecosphere. Being fictional, it is not restricted to the sea. It can (and need) do only one thing: instill map-readers with fear and revulsion. But the CLO’s pedigree does stretch back to the ocean. It is clearly descended from an older monstrosity, equally fictional but wholly sea-bound: the Kraken, a giant squid whose enormous tentacles dragged whole ships down to their watery graves.

I suspect it’s those tentacles that explain why the octopus became cartography’s favourite land monster. They turn the CLO into a perfect emblem of evil spreading across a map: its ugly head is the centre of a malevolent intelligence, which is manipulating its obscene appendages to bring death and destruction to its surroundings. This is perfect for demonstrating the geographic reach of an enemy state’s destructive potential. It can even be used on a more abstract level, showing dangerous ideologies insipidly infiltrating and/or strangling the world.

Gator: Why does the truth upset Liberals so much?

Hold the peas: Michelle O’s meal at the Shake Shack

Moonbat Tech: The Uglymobile

Fleece: Iran’s nuclear threat is escalating

theCL: Why Be Libertarian?

The Bitter Americans: Weekend Update

How Communism Works

Fleeing the Final Frontier

CH2.0: “I’m a Democrat” Parody…or is it?

Robot: Valour IT… Have You Made Your Donation Yet?

The Eye: Welcome to the first in an irregular feature of favorite commercials from the past.

WCW: Washington and Madison on Power 

United Nations: Going Green to Cost $76 Trillion – No Thanks

ChrisWy: Abandon all hope ye who enter Newark, NJ 

1942 Propaganda poster by the pro-German Vichy government in France

Hey, how about we actually discuss the DEBT?

MTTM: One Man With Courage Is A Majority

CoF: The Focus Should Be On The Debt and Not The Deficits 

Bunkerville: Indiana law will track users of some cold medicines in real time. 

Jen Kuznicki: Rangel Uses God For Political Gain 

TWN: Google Plus vs. Facebook Video Chat

WWTFT: America Is Exceptional, Not Objectionable

Limousine Liberals: What is good for the goose is not good for the gander

Posted on by
7

What is good for the goose? Number of government-owned limos has soared under Obama.

Limousines, the very symbol of wealth and excess, are usually the domain of corporate executives and the rich. But the number of limos owned by Uncle Sam increased by 73 percent during the first two years of the Obama administration, according to an analysis of records by iWatch News.

Most of the increase was recorded in Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

Obama administration officials said most of the increase reflects an enhanced effort to protect diplomats and other government officials in a dangerous world.

Many of those new limos will are armored, adding to the costs. Remember this story and the thousands like it the next time you hear an elected official suggest we need to increase taxes.

Moving on to us ganders…

While our government is on a limousine buying binge, Obama and his minions at the EPA have pushed an edict for a new CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standard on automakers. Of course to meet these new CAFE requirements, automakers (both domestic and foreign) will incur significant costs that must be passed on to consumers.

The government claims that these costs will be offset by fuel savings offered by the new CAFE requirements. However, the nonprofit Center for Automotive Research (CAR) points out in an exhaustive study that this is not the case:

Table 12 summarizes both total consumer savings from the adoption of higher levels of fuel economy technology and incremental savings gained by the consumer from moving to higher scenarios. As can be seen in the final two columns of Table 12, consumers maximize their net savings at 37.6 mpg at $2,107. Moving from 37.6 mpg to 40.8 mpg actually reduces consumer net savings by $976 which is shown in the final column. Moving higher to 44.8 mpg reduces total consumer net savings by an additional $873. Moving to the highest level of fuel economy of 49.6 mpg from 44.8 mpg reduces total savings by an impressive $3,309. It is true that total net savings are positive through 44.8 mpg (supposedly paying for the technology) but no rational consumer would pick a level higher than 37.6 mpg where total net savings are maximized. In fact, it is likely that total net savings are maximized below 37.6 mpg but the NAS/NRC study does not provide finer technology cost levels for mpg levels below this target. It should be repeated that it does not matter whether net savings are sufficient to pay for a level of technology cost. What finally and ultimately matters is what is maximal for the consumer.

As Table 12 illustrates, there is no five-year payback to support the increased vehicle costs required to archive a 62 mpg CAFE target.

And if gas doesn’t reach $6.00 / gal, these technologies will become even more expensive for consumers.

So, what will vehicles that conform to 62 mpg CAFE standard be like?

Look no further than Europe for answers because this is where all the bad eco-ideas start:

At an event held at the RAC, Pall Mall, London Gordon Murray Design has today unveiled their latest ultra compact city vehicle, T.27, the world’s most efficient electric car.

The design and development programme for T.27 is a £9 million project, made possible through a £4.5 million investment from the government-backed Technology Strategy Board. From a clean sheet of paper to a running prototype the programme has taken just 17 months including the design and build of a completely new electric powertrain by Zytek Automotive Ltd, one of the Consortium partners.

T.27 specifically targets the urban city environment via a unique, holistic, manufacturing process (‘iStream®’) developed by Consortium lead partner Gordon Murray Design, it aims to significantly reduce lifecycle impacts and enable low cost, efficient manufacture within the UK. The electric car sets new standards in weight, footprint, small car dynamics, safety, packaging and efficiency whilst addressing full lifecycle CO2 emissions, congestion, parking and low cost motoring.

While government ‘officials’ are literally chauffeured around in armored limousines on our dime, we are being relegated to eco-boxes like this.

Isn’t this great?

* An extra big tip O’ the hat to my friend on StumbleUpon, Leopardess, for sending me the Limousine Liberal article.

Would you trust your economy to Debbie Stabenow (Democrat-MI)?

Posted on by
11

Debbie Stabenow, Michigan’s other Democrat Senator, is taking it upon herself to direct the future of America’s auto industry, and to a large extent Michigan’s economy, all by herself.

Her plan? The Battery Innovation Act:

The Battery Innovation Act is the first coordinated plan that incorporates all aspects of advanced battery production, from research and development, to the availability of raw materials, to the manufacturing of these high-tech products. The Act will build off of initiatives authored by Senator Stabenow in 2009, which helped A123 Systems ramp up advanced batteries manufacturing and create jobs in Michigan.

The idea that Stabenow thinks that she can put together a “coordinated plan that incorporates all aspects of advanced battery production, from research and development, to the availability of raw materials” would be right at home in the Russian Politburo of the 1950′s.

Debbie continues:

The Battery Innovation Act will boost the research and development of advanced batteries and components. This will not only spur the development of more fuel-efficient passenger vehicles but for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles for our military as well. Stabenow’s bill also creates a competition that will provide incentives for researchers to help develop an advanced vehicle battery that can go 500 miles on a single charge.

It is no coincidence that Stabenow is pushing this idea about Michigan becoming the economic hub for Li-Ion battery production (just as politicians from Indiana, Kentucky and just about every other state in the union are doing as well). The reason for the push? Obama is mandating electric vehicles through regulation.

As pointed out by Henry Payne @ the MI View, Obama and his EPA minions are out to kill the internal combustion engine through their ridiculous CAFE requirements. And through pure coincidence, Debbie has a solution to the Obama problem. A solution, and gobs of tax payer & borrowed Chinese cash:

In their regulatory plot to make the gas engine go the way of the incandescent light bulb, Obama’s EPA is not just mandating 56 mpg by 2025 – effectively creating a standard only hybrid electrics can meet – but putting in place harsh fines for companies that make engines they don’t like.

Not only does Debbie Stabenow’s plan to create an industry using government central planning reek of old school (and failed) Politburo economics. Stabenow’s Battery Innovation Act (and the whole green energy idea in general) defies the very fundamentals of economics.

To illustrate the how flawed her plan is, read Economist Frédéric Bastiat’s essay titled What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen (published July, 1850). In his essay, Bastiat includes a short parable about a young boy who breaks a window. It is uncanny how this parable from 1850 describes the fatal flaw in Stabenow’s economic central planning today.

Suppose that it will cost six francs to repair the damage. If you mean that the accident gives six francs’ worth of encouragement to the aforesaid industry, I agree. I do not contest it in any way; your reasoning is correct. The glazier will come, do his job, receive six francs, congratulate himself, and bless in his heart the careless child. That is what is seen.

But if, by way of deduction, you conclude, as happens only too often, that it is good to break windows, that it helps to circulate money, that it results in encouraging industry in general, I am obliged to cry out: That will never do! Your theory stops at what is seen. It does not take account of what is not seen.

It is not seen that, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It is not seen that if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them.

Let us next consider industry in general. The window having been broken, the glass industry gets six francs’ worth of encouragement; that is what is seen.

If the window had not been broken, the shoe industry (or some other) would have received six francs’ worth of encouragement; that is what is not seen.

And if we were to take into consideration what is not seen, because it is a negative factor, as well as what is seen, because it is a positive factor, we should understand that there is no benefit to industry in general or to national employment as a whole, whether windows are broken or not broken.

Stabenow’s plan, if implemented, will divert hundreds of billions of dollars (through taxation, regulation and inflationary monetary practices) from endeavors that will add value and grow the economy to the flawed and absurd idea of duplicating and replacing existing automotive infrastructure- including simple and effective things like gas stations.

Much like replacing a broken window.

Finally, there is one last huge flaw in Stabenow’s central plan. It doesn’t doesn’t violate the fundamentals of  economics. It violates the fundamentals geology:

Finally Stabenow’s plan will spur the domestic supply of lithium, the basic raw material used in advanced battery production,

Apparently, someone forgot to look at the USGS report on Lithium:

click for larger version

The United States has almost no Lithium reserves to speak of. How, exactly, is she planning to increase Lithium production in the United States?

With thinking like this, do we really want to trust Debbie Stabenow (Democrat-MI) with our economy?

Liberal Sports Writer Doesn’t Understand What Pro Sports Really Is About

Posted on by
6

It’s no secret that most sports writers are hard-core liberals. It is also no secret that liberals really don’t understand economics.

Mix the two together, a liberal sports writer discussing an economic concept and it can be a train wreck.

For a shining example of the concept, look no further than this article by Detroit Free Press (Detroit’s more liberal news paper) sports writer Drew Sharp:

Salary caps are nothing more than a publicly endorsed corporate bailout. It’s billionaire welfare, a free pass for owners who amassed the financial riches necessary to buy a NFL or NBA franchise through high-risk, high-reward business decisions to wantonly mismanage their sports properties because there’s little risk of consequence. It doesn’t matter if an owner spends recklessly because legislated cost controls will limit the extent his competitors can exploit those mistakes.

I’m really surprised Drew doesn’t get it. He is a sports writer after all.

The various franchises within a given league (i.e. The Detroit Lions and Green Bay Packers) work together following mutually agreed upon rules (salary cap) to produce a product the league markets. The game day spectacle. The more people who watch the product or attend the games, the more money the league makes and is distributed among the various franchises per predetermined agreements within the league.

Drew continues:

If artificially propping up the economically fragile is blatantly un-American, then how is the redistribution of wealth acceptable when it’s subsidizing a dying Sacramento Kings franchise staying in a market that already has proven it cannot support a competitive NBA product through the necessary corporate support?

I wonder if Drew missed the futility and blatant mismanagement of the Detroit Lions? If pro sports was truly about winning, losing and competition, the NFL would’ve yanked the Lions franchise from William Clay Ford long ago. In reality, pro sports is about making money for the league. If the NBA thinks it’s a good idea to put a team in Sacramento and someone is willing to pony up the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to set up an NBA team there, that person owns the franchise. As long as the team is making money for the league, I’m sure the owners could care less if the team stinks.

When you boil it down, professional sports is not about competition between teams. The real economic competitions is between the various sports leagues (NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NASCAR) fighting for consumers entertainment dollar.

Going Green Without Thinking: Back Up Generation Capacity For Wind Power Is Very Expensive

Posted on by
2

Remind me again what is so great about those stupid windmills that Obama and the left are so obsessed with?

Via The Telegraph (UK):

Centrica and other energy companies last week told DECC that, if Britain is to spend £100 billion on building thousands of wind turbines, it will require the building of 17 new gas-fired power stations simply to provide back-up for all those times when the wind drops and the windmills produce even less power than usual.

We will thus be landed in the ludicrous position of having to spend an additional £10 billion on those 17 dedicated power stations, which will be kept running on “spinning reserve”, 24 hours a day, just to make up for the fundamental problem of wind turbines. This is that their power continually fluctuates anywhere between full capacity to zero (where it often stood last winter, when national electricity demand was at a peak). So unless back-up power is instantly available to match any shortfall, the lights will go out.

It gets better…

While the gas turbines in “spinning reserve” mode, waiting to compensate for wind fluctuations, the turbines will consume natural gas and emit CO2 while not generating any electricity. And, in an ironic twist that will send environmentalists over the edge, it turns out that while the gas standby units are in “spinning reserve” mode they are less efficient and emit MORE CO2 than when they running at normal capacity.

Isn’t the supposed “global warming” caused by CO2 emission the reason for the windmills in the first place?

H/T Ace

Government Spending Drains Life From The Economy

Posted on by
1

Obama, in March of 2009 called on governments of the G-20 to increase their stimulus spending. He even had one of his speech writers pen an Op-Ed, that ran in newspapers around the globe. Here is an excerpt:

Our leadership is grounded in a simple premise: We will act boldly to lift the American economy out of crisis and reform our regulatory structure, and these actions will be strengthened by complementary action abroad. Through our example, the United States can promote a global recovery and build confidence around the world; and if the London Summit helps galvanize collective action, we can forge a secure recovery, and future crises can be averted.

Our efforts must begin with swift action to stimulate growth. Already, the United States has passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — the most dramatic effort to jump-start job creation and lay a foundation for growth in a generation.

Other members of the G-20 have pursued fiscal stimulus as well, and these efforts should be robust and sustained until demand is restored.

And the response? Germany’s Chancellor Merkel did not buy it:

During the hourlong interview, Mrs. Merkel made clear that she was not wavering in her response to the economic crisis, by loosening the German checkbook or encouraging the European Central Bank to follow the Federal Reserve in pumping money into the system.

“On an international level, we must all recognize that after the crisis we need to return again to solid financial policies,” Mrs. Merkel said. “Otherwise, we run the risk of already preparing the next crisis.”

Where long lines of unemployed people are the indelible image from the Great Depression in the United States, it is the wheelbarrows of worthless currency during the hyperinflation of the 1920s that preoccupies Germans. Mrs. Merkel has exerted discreet but stubborn leadership in Europe to prevent the kind of overspending that could lead to inflationary pressure on the euro.

It is not, she pointed out, simply a philosophical difference. Borrow and spend today, repay down the road, is a particularly difficult proposition for a country with a shrinking population, she said.

Czech premier Mirek Topolanek was a bit less diplomatic and called Obama’s plan a “road to hell” and didn’t back down:

Outgoing Czech premier Mirek Topolanek on Monday defended his description of US plans to use vast capital injections to boost growth as a “road to hell”, saying such measures would not work for Europe.

Writing in The Times, Topolanek said his comments to the European Parliament were a “legitimate warning” against the dangers that huge increases in public borrowing or the subsidising of banks and industries could become permanent.

Obama made his call for increased spending by G-20 governments in March of 2009. The G-20 did not follow Obama’s ‘leadership.’ And the results?

click for larger view

Germany, 6% unemployment. Former Soviet Union satellite, the Czech Republic, has an unemployment rate of around 7%. The poster children for government spending, Greece and Ireland have unemployment rates above 14%.

The United States has an ‘official’ unemployment rate of 9.1% and has been hovering there since 2009.

click for a larger view

Remember, the Democrats seized control over both houses of Congress in 2007 and government spending accelerated.

If The Data Doesn’t Fit The Hypothesis, Create Data That Does Fit

Posted on by
Reply

This is becoming more and more of trend with the global warming crowd. Via World Climate Report:

To make a long story short, Czymzik et al. examined sediment deposits in a well-situated lake in southern Germany, and they found the sediments beautifully preserved flood events from the past. Consistent with what others had found, this team concluded that flood “frequency distribution over the entire 450 year time series is not stationary but reveals maxima for colder periods of the Little Ice Age when solar activity was reduced.” That is something we see over and over – extreme events occurring in cold periods, not warm ones.

In light of the above, and from the plethora of other studies which fail to find a human influence of extreme weather, we’ll leave you with this incredible one sentence summary of an article by Laurens Bouwer in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society – a statement that still has us shaking our heads:

“Lacking significant impact from anthropogenic warming so far, the best way to assess the potential influence of climate change on disaster losses may be to analyze future projections rather than historical data.”

So we should disregard the lessons from past data on hail in China, extreme precipitation events in Hawaii, floods in southern Germany, or the historical occurences of other extreme weather, and instead turn to climate model projections for guidance? We can only hope that he is kidding.

H/T Climate Depot