The ends always justify the means. If it's a choice between saving five hundred trillion dollars and between saving the planet for our children, I know which choice I'd take.

As long as I didn't have to pay a dime.

And as long as I can keep my private jet, too.

When the MSM see's fit to NOT report From Congress what is going down, when the MSM does NOT report from IRAQ the pending Victory, When the MSM has a BIG story on the "Fist Punch" between ObamaRama and Michelle from hell, I've got a HUGE Problem with the MSM and Company.

Here, Let me FIX it, the ONLY way I know how....

CLICK (OFF the TV)

CLICK (on the Miltary Blogs, the Polictical Blogs, Free Republic, Town Hall, RUSH, etc..etc...etc..etcetera)

Enter Truth, Exit B.S.

Congress must think they are the Messiah...pass a bill, change the Climate. Right.

If there a Cannibus Problem in DC ?

Is Ted Kennedy Giving Parties ? Did they Take out too much of his Brain ?

Wait a minute....A serveral Trillion Dollar COngressional Bill ? ? ...means enough Pork for All...Now I understand...

An Arm and a Leg

Peter Foster

National Post, June 6, 2008

Let’s say that a bunch of tribal
chiefs, having realized that they are in danger of being exposed as useless
parasites, consult with their witch doctors and announce that the Gods are
angry. These vengeful Gods are demanding that every tribesman (except chiefs and
witch doctors) must have either an arm or a leg amputated. Being eager to be
seen as good chiefs, they agree to consult with the tribesmen. Not about the
anger of the Gods, of course. That’s settled. Instead, debate is to be allowed
on the relative merits and defects of being one-armed vs. one-legged. Should
individuals be allowed to choose which limb to lose? How much of a limb should
be sufficient for divine appeasement? Below the knee? Above the elbow? Some
bright spin/witch doctor might even suggest that this mass amputation would
represent a marvellous opportunity to stimulate economic growth via the
development of a prosthetic limb industry. Once the benefits of this new
industry were taken into account, the Gods’ anger might prove a net benefit, a
golden opportunity.

But then suppose some
emperor’s-new-clothes kind of individual comes along and says, “Hang on, what
proof do we have the Gods are angry? And where are these Gods anyway?” You might
be sure that if they couldn’t rip his heart out straight away, the powers that
be would engage in much agitated jumping and hooting. “Infidel,” they would
scream. There would be dark whispers that this person must be in league with, or
in the pay of, the Devil, X’on. How dare he doubt the shamans, among whom there
is consensus.

Just substitute “catastrophic
climate change” for “angry gods,” carbon taxes vs. cap-and-trade for amputating
arms vs. amputating legs, and “Denier” for “Infidel,” and you pretty much have
the substance of the present climate change policy debate.

We are being asked to countenance
destructive but pointless alternatives in the name of quasi-mystical beliefs
pushed by authorities seeking primarily to bolster their own flagging power and
status.

The radical
environmentalists/shamans who are pushing this policy debacle positively welcome
such announcements as this week’s closure of GM’s Oshawa truck plant. David
Suzuki, as part of the Post’s series on carbon taxes, suggested that the GM
closure was the price of failing to adopt suitable climate change policies. But
people are abandoning truck purchases because of expensive gas, which has
nothing to do with climate change. Meanwhile, politicians — indicating the Alice
in Wonderland nature of the debate — are suggesting that they might use carbon
taxes to reduce fuel prices. Let me cut your arm off and immediately sew it back
on. There you are: good as new.

The overarching nonsense is the
twin claim that the science of climate change is settled, and that it represents
the greatest crisis facing the planet. As last week’s Copenhagen Consensus, the
wonkish exercise convened by leading skeptic Bjorn Lomborg, noted, draconian
action on man-made climate change, even if it is a reality, comes well down the
list of sensible priorities for achieving a “better world” (dangerous notion
though that may be).

Even more nonsensical is the
assertion that economic selfmutilation might be good for us. Yet another canard
is that a carbon tax is preferable because it’s “more stable.” As my colleague
Terence Corcoran has suggested in this space, a carbon tax provides no certainty
for the simple reason that nobody knows, or can know, what the “right” level of
taxation should be. In fact, there are only wrong levels of carbon taxes, since
they are taxes on industrial activity, and thus inevitable destroyers of growth,
jobs and trade. Most important, they cannot be set at any level that would
actually achieve a drastic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions without
decimating economies.

We are meant, however, to be
distracted from this fact by claims that such taxes could be “revenue neutral,”
that is, governments would reduce taxes elsewhere by a similar amount. This is
analogous to chopping off a leg and offering the victim a prosthetic arm. Limb
neutral! In fact, anybody who imagines that the tax would not stick to
governments’ hands, or be hosed away subsidizing dead-end,
drunk-under-the-lamppost technologies, is no student either of human nature,
politics or history. Or else he or she is a power-deluded
politician.

Again, when it comes to
certainty, a carbon tax at any level, or any fixed level of escalation, creates
anything but certainty since it carries us into a world of escalating
anti-economic warfare. Amputating our own economic limbs means that we must be
certain that others amputate their limbs, too. Otherwise we must punish them
with “excess limb tariffs” to level the playing field. This could soon
deteriorate into all-out trade war, and/or sink beneath the deadweight of
bureaucratic edict. Then we would be facing a potential “carbon depression,”
which wouldn’t leave investment looking so certain at all.

Cap-and-trade is equally
ridiculous, a parody of a market that would merely ensure an enormous expansion
in corrupt and/or incompetent bureaucracy. It would also cause similar economic
devastation if caps were set at levels that were to achieve the allegedly
required drastic greenhouse gas reductions.

Mr. Suzuki suggested that a
massive “Green Wave” is headed our way. His analogy is perhaps more revealing
than he intends. We are indeed facing a tsunami of needless policy destruction.
Fortunately, people are finally beginning to appreciate what this charade will
cost them: an arm and a leg.

Let's see, what was the last thing the media claimed would save the planet from burning up into a crisp and reduce energy costs? Ethanol wasn't it? I seem to recall these clowns in the media regretting that position recently due to the "unforseen consequences" of turning a food supply into fuel (something that even a 4 year old child could forsee). Now these airheads seem to think that cap & trade will save us all despite the already stated consequences that it would do nothing to change the climate in a positive or negative direction but it would help ruin the economy rather quickly. Anyone in support of this ludicrous legislation is a shame to the human race for their outright stupidity for not looking into an issue with their head but solely based on their emotions they found that they had after watching Al Gore's slide show.

http://motls.blogspo...

http://www.friendsof...