Thursday, June 17, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, June 17, 2010


A bit of mellow folk rock...

Dig the hair!

(*GRIN*)
Posted by at

8 comments:

William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://article.nationalreview.com/436399/oil-the-real-green-fuel/jonah-goldberg

A rolling “dead zone” off the Gulf of Mexico is killing sea life and destroying livelihoods. Recent estimates put the blob at nearly the size of New Jersey.

* KEEP READING, FOLKS; IT'S NOT WHAT YOU THINK...

Alas, I’m not talking about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

As terrible as that catastrophe is, such accidents have occurred in U.S. waters only about once every 40 years (and globally about once every 20 years). I’m talking about the dead zone largely caused by fertilizer runoff from American farms along the Mississippi and Atchafalaya river basins.

Because the dead zone is an annual occurrence, there’s no media feeding frenzy over it, even though the average annual size of these hypoxic zones has been about 6,600 square miles over the last five years, and they are driven by bipartisan federal agriculture, trade, and energy policies.

* HMM... COME TO THINK OF IT... YOU DON'T HEAR MUCH COMPLAINT ABOUT THIS - DO YOU...???

* IN FACT, WHILE I KNOW I'VE BEEN EXPOSED TO THIS INFO IN THE PAST, READING ABOUT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CURRENT "CRISIS IN THE GULF" DOES KINDA MAKE YOU WONDER ABOUT THE POLITICIANS' (AND THE MEDIA'S) SINCERITY... (*SHRUG*)

Indeed, as Steven Hayward notes in the current Weekly Standard, if policymakers continue to pursue biofuels in response to the current anti-fossil-fuel craze, these dead zones will get a lot bigger every year. A 2008 study by the National Academy of Sciences found that adhering to corn-based ethanol targets will increase the size of the dead zone by as much as 34%.

* COM'ON... BE HONEST... IS THIS THE FIRST YOU'RE HEARING OF THIS...???

Of course, that’s just one of the headaches “independence” from oil and coal would bring. If we stop drilling offshore, we could lose up to $1 trillion in economic benefits, according to economist Peter Passell. And, absent the utopian dream of oil-free living, every barrel we don’t produce at home, we buy overseas. That sends dollars to bad regimes (though more to Canada and Mexico). It may also increase the chances of disaster, because tanker accidents are more common than rig accidents.

* THAT YOU KNEW - RIGHT...??? (PLEASE, GOD... TELL ME YOU KNEW THAT... TELL ME YOU'VE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION...)

* To be continued...

June 17, 2010 at 8:38 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)

Ethanol production steals precious land to produce inefficient fuel inefficiently (making food more scarce and expensive for the poor).

If all of our transport fuel came from biofuel, we would need 30% more land than all of the existing food-growing farmland we have today.

In Brazil and Malaysia, biofuels are more economically viable (thanks in part to really cheap labor), but at the insane price of losing rainforest while failing to reduce the CO2 emissions that allegedly justify ethanol in the first place.

(*SNORT*)

* SORRY! TRULY IT'S NOT FUNNY... BUT THE IRONY... (*ROLLING MY EYES*)

As for wind and solar, even if such technologies were wildly more successful than they have been, so what? You could quintuple and then quintuple again the output of wind and solar and it wouldn’t reduce our dependence on oil. Why? Because we use oil for transportation, not for electricity.

* AGAIN... HARD TO ARGUE WITH THE FACTS... (*SHRUG*)

We would offset coal, but again at an enormous price. If we tried to meet the average amount of energy typically used in America, we would need wind farms the size of Kazakhstan or solar panels the size of Spain.

Fossil fuels have been one of the great boons both to humanity and the environment, allowing forests to regrow (now that we don’t use wood for heating fuel or grow fuel for horses anymore) and liberating billions from backbreaking toil.

The great and permanent shortage is usable surface land and fresh water. The more land we use to produce energy, the less we have for vulnerable species, watersheds, agriculture, recreation, etc.

The calamity in the Gulf is heartrending and tragic. A thorough review of government oversight and industry safety procedures is more than warranted. But as counter-intuitive as it may be to say so, oil is a green fuel, while “green” fuels aren’t. And this spill doesn’t change that fact.

June 17, 2010 at 8:39 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704198004575311033371466938.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Before the Obama Administration [and MSM] sweeps under the carpet the controversy over the drilling experts it falsely used to justify its moratorium, the incident bears another look. Not least because it underlines the purely political nature of a drilling ban that now threatens the Gulf Coast economy and drilling safety.

* PAY... FRIGG'N... ATTENTION...!!! PLEASE...!!!

When President Obama last month announced his six-month deepwater moratorium, he pointed to an Interior Department report of new "safety" recommendations.

That report prominently noted that the recommendations it contained - including the six-month drilling ban - had been "peer-reviewed" by "experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering." It also boasted that Interior "consulted with a wide range" of other experts.

The clear implication was that the nation's drilling brain trust agreed a moratorium was necessary.

* WE'VE COVERED THIS; OBAMA DELIBERATELY LIED. (EITHER THAT OR HIS OWN PEOPLE WERE LYING TO HIM...)

[The problem for Obama is that the] draft [recommendations that these experts had] reviewed had not included a six-month drilling moratorium.

The Administration added that provision only after it had secured sign-off.

(*SMIRK*)

In a scathing document, eight of the "experts" the Administration listed in its report said their names had been "used" to "justify" a "political decision." In their document, the eight forcefully rejected a moratorium, which they argued could prove more economically devastating than the oil spill itself and "counterproductive" to "safety."

[Beyond the credibility - or rather lack thereof - of Obama administration claims, here's the bottom line concerning the administration's slight of hand:]

The ban requires oil companies to abandon uncompleted wells. The process of discontinuing a well, and then later re-entering it, introduces unnecessary risk.

The ban is going to push drilling rigs to take jobs in other countries. "The ones that go first will be the newest, biggest, safest rigs, because they are most in demand. The ones that go last and come back first are the ones that aren't as modern," says [Ken] Arnold [,an engineer and consultant].

The indeterminate nature of this ban will encourage experienced crew members to seek other lines of work - perhaps permanently. Restarting after a ban will bring with it a "greater mix of new people who will need to be trained." The BP event is already pointing, in part, to human error, and the risk of that will increase with a less experienced crew base.

Finally, [as previously noted,] a ban will result in more oil being imported on tankers, which are "more likely" to spill oil than local production.

* PRESIDENT OBAMA IS INCOMPETENT, UNTRUSTWORTHY, AND A DOGMATIC IDEOLOGUE. NOT GOOD, FOLKS... NOT GOOD.

June 17, 2010 at 10:10 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703280004575309051437427896.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEForthNews

The Senate is moving closer to passing legislation that would require states to grant public-safety employees, including police, firefighters and emergency medical workers, the right to collectively bargain over hours and wages.

* NO! NO! NO! NO! NO...!!!

* DO THESE FOOLS WANT TO TURN AMERICA INTO GREECE...?!?!

* BOTTOM LINE: WE NEED LESS PUBLIC UNIONIZATION, NOT MORE; INDEED, I'D DO AWAY WITH EXISTING PUBLIC UNIONS.

The bill, known as the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, would mainly affect about 20 states that don't grant collective-bargaining rights statewide for public-safety workers or that prohibit such bargaining. State and municipal associations, as well as business groups, oppose it, saying it will lead to higher labor costs and taxes, at a time of budget deficits.

The bill, backed by at least six Republicans in the Senate...

* MORONS!

...prohibits strikes and leaves to states' discretion whether to engage in collective bargaining in several areas, including health benefits and pensions.

* THEN... THEN... WHAT'S THE POINT...??? (*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)

If the legislation passes and states choose not to grant the minimum collective-bargaining rights outlined in the bill, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, which oversees labor-management relations for federal employees, would step in and implement collective-bargaining rights for these workers.

* AHH...! THERE'S THE POINT! MORE POWER ACCRUES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

Republican Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska called the bill "reasonable." "For several years now, we've seen the benefit of a similar policy in Nebraska which prevents public employees from going on strike while helping to establish reasonable compensation ranges."

* BUT... BUT... BUT... IF THE EMPLOYER IS THE GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT IS THE ULTIMATE ARBITER OF "FAIRNESS" (GOING BACK TO THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY) WHY WOULD GOVERNMENT WORKERS NEED A UNION IN THE FIRST PLACE...??? THE ASSUMPTION OF THE LEGISLATION IS THAT GOVERNMENT ITSELF IS THE ULTIMATE BACKSTOP!

(*MASSIVE FRIGG'N HEADACHE*)

The other Republican co-sponsors in the Senate are Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

June 17, 2010 at 5:05 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379

Eight days ago, [Republican] Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal ordered barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state's oil-soaked waters.

Today, against the governor's wishes, those barges sat idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore.

* WELL...??? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT ANYONE CAN POSSIBLY COME UP WITH THAT WOULD LESSEN THE IMPACT OF WHAT YOU'VE JUST READ?

Sixteen barges sat stationary today, although they were sucking up thousands of gallons of BP's oil as recently as Tuesday. Workers in hazmat suits and gas masks pumped the oil out of the Louisiana waters and into steel tanks. It was a homegrown idea that seemed to be effective at collecting the thick gunk.

"These barges work. You've seen them work. You've seen them suck oil out of the water," said Jindal.

"The Coast Guard came and shut them down," Jindal said. "You got men on the barges in the oil, and they have been told by the Coast Guard, 'Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil.'"

[T]he Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

* INSANITY. SHEER INSANITY.

The governor said he didn't have the authority to overrule the Coast Guard's decision, though he said he tried to reach the White House to raise his concerns.

"They promised us they were going to get it done as quickly as possible," he said. But "every time you talk to someone different at the Coast Guard, you get a different answer."

After Jindal strenuously made his case, the barges finally got the go-ahead today to return to the Gulf and get back to work, after more than 24 hours of sitting idle.

* OBAMA. NOT BUSH. OBAMA!

In Alabama today, Gov. Bob Riley said that he's had problems with the Coast Guard, too. Riley, R-Ala., asked the Coast Guard to find ocean boom tall enough to handle strong waves and protect his shoreline. The Coast Guard went all the way to Bahrain to find it, but when it came time to deploy it... "It was picked up and moved to Louisiana," Riley said today.

The governor said the problem is there's still no single person giving a "yes" or "no." While the Gulf Coast governors have developed plans with the Coast Guard's command center in the Gulf, things begin to shift when other agencies start weighing in, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"It's like this huge committee down there," Riley said, "and every decision that we try to implement, any one person on that committee has absolute veto power."

* I'VE GOTTA BE HONEST... ALL PARTISANSHIP ASIDE... ALL IDEOLOGY ASIDE... JUST AS A MATTER OF HAVING TRUST IN THIS ADMINISTRATION - TRUST NOT THAT THEY'RE HONEST OR SHARE THE SAME GOALS I DO, BUT SIMPLY TRUST THAT THEY'RE COMPETENT - I JUST CAN'T DO IT. THIS MAN SEEMS TOTALLY OUT OF HIS DEPTH. I'D BE FAR MORE COMFORTABLE WITH JOE BIDEN IN CHARGE.

June 17, 2010 at 8:29 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Broadcast/arizona-spends-125-million-endangered-squirrels/story?id=10934895

Arizona is spending $1.25 million to build bridges for endangered squirrels over a mountain road so they don't become roadkill...

(*HEADACHE*)

The Federal Highway Administration grant...

* MADE WITH MONEY BORROWED FROM CHINA AT INTEREST...

...will be used to build rope bridges over the lone road through the squirrels' habitat...

The DOT plans to install 41 of the "canopy tunnel crossings" at a cost of $400,000.

(*BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL*)

Another $160,000 will be spent on cameras to monitor the bridges, and the rest of the money will fund a project to monitor the rodents.

June 17, 2010 at 8:29 PM
William R. Barker said...

* SEE...! WHAT DID I TELL YA...?!?!

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Tanker-Crash-Creates-Fiery-River-of-Flames-96558024.html

* LET'S JUST HOPE OBAMA DOESN'T ORDER A 6 MONTH MORATORIUM ON TANKER TRUCK DELIVERIES!

(*SNORT*) (*SNICKER*) (*SMIRK*)

June 17, 2010 at 8:29 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-claims-for-jobless-apf-1639241920.html?x=0&.v=3

The number of people filing new claims for jobless benefits jumped last week after three straight declines...

* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... HOW MUCH OF THE "DECLINES" WERE TEMPORARY PART-TIME CENSUS WORKERS - MANY OF THESE WORKERS "FIRED" AND "REHIRED" TIME AFTER TIME AND EACH "REHIRE" COUNTING AS A "NEW" INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYED?

(*SMIRK*)

...another sign that the pace of layoffs has not slowed.

* YA THINK...?!?!

The rise in jobless claims highlighted concerns about the economic rebound...

(*SNORT*)

* ONE MORE TIME: THERE... IS... NO.. ECONOMIC... REBOUND.

Kevin Logan, an economist with HSBC Securities, said many economists have been expecting claims to fall below 450,000 for several weeks now. "The wait is getting longer and longer," said Logan. "As each week goes by, doubts about the underlying strength of the economic expansion grow."

* YA THINK...?!?! (FRIGG'N MORON...) (*GRITTING MY TEETH*)

The number of people continuing to claim benefits rose by 88,000 to 4.57 million. That doesn't include about 5.2 million people who receive extended benefits paid for by the federal government.

* OH, YEAH... THE OBAMA "RECOVERY" IS GOING GANGBUSTERS! (*SNICKER*)

Congress has added 73 weeks of extra benefits on top of the 26 weeks typically provided by states.

* WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT..!!! (*SPITTING ON THE GROUND IN DISGUST*)

* THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS WON'T EVEN PASS A BUDGET THIS YEAR...!!! (*NECK VEINS BULGING; TURNING RED IN THE FACE*)

Adding to worries about the job market, the Labor Department said earlier this month that the economy generated only 41,000 private-sector jobs in May. ... Temporary hiring by the Census Bureau added...411,000 jobs.

June 17, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)