Biofuels: A Cure Worse than the Disease.

According to a new study done by the University of Minnesota and the Nature Conservancy, turning native eco-systems into cropland to produce biofuels worsens global warming.

The carbon lost by converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands outweighs the carbon savings from biofuels. Such conversions for corn or sugarcane (ethanol), or palms or soybeans (biodiesel) release 17 to 420 times more carbon than the annual savings from replacing fossil fuels, the researchers said.

The carbon, which is stored in the original plants and soil, is released as carbon dioxide, a process that may take decades. This "carbon debt" must be paid before the biofuels produced on the land can begin to lower greenhouse gas levels and ameliorate global warming.

The conversion of peatlands for palm oil plantations in Indonesia ran up the greatest carbon debt, one that would require 423 years to pay off. The next worst case was the production of soybeans in the Amazon, which would not "pay for itself" in renewable soy biodiesel for 319 years.

Fantastic.

So now that we've established that, not only does ethanol have a lower natural energy capacity than regular gasoline and that the use of something that would otherwise be used as a food product as a fuel source drives up the cost of food significantly, it also causes more environmental harm than good, can we please go drill ANWR ... ?!

The Sun Also Sets

Those of you interested in the climate change debate might want to note that Canadian scientists are currently asking for funding to research the sun’s recent activity because, according to Popular Mechanics, they’re concerned that its current ‘quiet’ will lead to global cooling ...

From an article on the subject in Investors Business Daily:

"Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

"Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

"This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

And, just in case you'd like the same kind of annecdotal, alarmist evidence that those on the warming side of the argument use (you know, like polar bears on icebergs?), this winter has seen things like:

• The lowest temperatures in 30 years and snow in Saudi Arabia,
• The lowest temperatures in 40 years in India,
• Snow falling in Baghdad for the first time in 100 years,
• Snow and freezing rain in Maui (yes, that Maui),
• The second coldest January in 15 years,
• The return of ice in Greenland (to pre-2007 levels),
• An average global temperature drop of .63°C over the past 12 months, and
• That I had to shovel 7+ inches of cold, wet 'global warming' off my driveway this week.

One might make the argument, you know, ‘for the sake of our children and our children’s children’ that we should try to make the world a warmer place ‘just in case’ these Canadian scientists are right ...

Ronald Reagan's response to 'Mavericks' in the Republican Party.

The following is an excerpted version of Ronald Reagan's 1975 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Ironically, while John McCain attempts to take up the Reagan mantle and, apparently, intends to invoke Reagan at his own speech to CPAC, these words from more than 30 years ago still echo down to us today ...

Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.

Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed.

But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.

The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians” ... Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority.

If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked.

For more than two decades governments — federal, state, local — have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.

Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.

In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.

What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?

Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.”

This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society.

Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?

Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.

Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.

We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, “Deal falsely with our God,” we shall be made “a story and byword throughout the world.”

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party” when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain ... that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.” We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

I'm half-tempted to stand up and read that at the Kansas Caucus this Saturday ...

Super Tuesday fallout: The 'true conversative' vs. the 'flip-flopper'

Okay, I would like to quote for you several portions from a news article (it's in the New York Post, outside of the OpEd section, so it must be 'news', right?) and I would like someone to tell me how, exactly, it is that the majority of Americans can't seem to smell McCain's bullsh(tuff) ...

The first paragraph:

RUNNING as a conservative, John McCain rolled up huge victories last night in New York, New Jersey and beyond.

... so, since when is New York and New Jersey full of 'conservatives' ?! WHEN has New York or New Jersey EVER given 'conservatives' ANY support? And, how is this claim supported by the exit-friggin'-polls that stated that actual conservatives voted AGAINST McCain more than 2-to-1 ?!

The next several paragraphs:

But if history is any guide, the McCain we've seen of late on the campaign trail is the most conservative McCain we'll ever see.

He has taken a commanding lead in the GOP primary by packaging himself as the "true conservative" committed to limited government, to slashed federal spending and to an avowedly conservative Supreme Court.

He claims the mantle of Ronald Reagan. He even claims the mantle of Barry Goldwater, conservatism's crack version of Reagan. But as McCain clinches the GOP nomination, he will begin his usual leftward lurch.

...

Okay, I think I've recovered enough to type. Hearing that McCain is claiming the mantle of Reagan and Goldwater caused my vision to go all blurry there for a minute.

This McCain, the McCain who suppoosedly is committed to limited government -- you know, except for spending trillions of dollars a year to fight global warming and raising the cost of gasoline by adding an extra $.50 tax on each gallon and ... nah, I give up -- is the most conservative one we're likely to see.

This McCain, the McCain who is now supposedly claiming the mantle of the two stauchest right-wing Conservatives out there (heck, the two fathers of modern Conservatism) is about to begin his usual leftward lurch ...

The next paragraph:

He will return to his lifelong positions as soft on illegal immigration, skeptical of tax cuts and favoring strong federal control over things like campaign financing.

Oh, hey! He's just going to go back to his LIFELONG POSITIONS!

He has ALWAYS -- his WHOLE LIFE -- been soft on illegal immigration. He's written a bill that would give amnesty, worker visas, and social security benefits -- you know, with a 'fine' -- to the 12 million illegal immigrants that have broken the law to enter the country, failed to pay taxes on the money they've made here, stolen social security numbers to get driver's licenses, nearly bankrupted our public school systems, and clogged up our emergency rooms. He's said, during the debates, that he would still sign that bill if it ever came across his desk as President ...

But, he's against illegal immigration ... you know, right now.

He has ALWAYS -- his WHOLE LIFE -- been skeptical of tax cuts. He was against Bush's tax cuts. He didn't like cutting the marriage penalty tax. He's FOR further increasing taxes by $.50 on gasoline (while realizing that most of the cost of a gallon of gas is already taxes).

But, he's for slashing taxes, cutting spending, and limiting government ... you know, right now.

He has ALWAYS -- his WHOLE LIFE -- been FOR limiting your ability to express your political opinions by giving money to the candidates of your choice, or running campaign ads against candidates you don't like. 'Freedom of Speech'? What's that?

But, he's for limiting government intervention and giving you all of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution ... you know, right now.

Oh, yeah. Clearly, McCain was the 'true conservative' in the race. I can see how people would come to that conclusion, especially based on his RECORD.

I'm going to skip the next few paragraphs because they're just rehashing Rush's opposition to McCain's candidacy. So, now, here's another paragraph:

To understand just how McCain has managed to limp to the front of the GOP field, look no further than the outcome of yesterday's West Virginia Republican Convention.

At the outset, victory was in the air for Mitt Romney, the flip-flopping former Massachusetts governor.

Hold on a second, I'm still wiping away the blood that just started shooting out of my eyes.

After all of that other stuff he just wrote about McCain, this guy -- the N.Y. Post's D.C. Bureau Chief -- just called Romney a flip-flopper.

I give up. If Republicans really are this stupid -- if they're really going to nominate McCain after all of the eye-gouging, bird-flipping, and name-calling he's done over the years, knowing all about his LIFELONG POSITIONS but still buying into his 'I'm the true conservative' bullsh(tuff) -- then, I give up. I'm done ...

Super Tuesday: WV says "Huckabee and McCain? Six of one, a half-dozen of the other."

In what might amount to the best evidence yet that Huckabee remains in the Republican race only to prevent Mitt Romney from gaining the nomination, the Huckster won the West Virginia Caucus in the second round.

In the first round, Mitt Romney lead both Huckabee and McCain with also-ran Ron Paul being eliminated. In the second round, McCain's delegates switched to Huckabee, giving Huck the majority needed to win all of West Virginia's electoral delegates.

According to the Associated Press:

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee won 18 delegates here Tuesday as backers of rival John McCain threw him their support to prevent Mitt Romney from capturing the winner-take-all GOP state convention vote.

In first contest decided on Super Tuesday, Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, bested Romney on the second ballot with 51.5 percent of the 1,133 delegates attending the state GOP's first-ever presidential nominating convention. Romney was backed by 47.4 percent.

Romney, a former Massachusetts governor who poses the biggest threat nationally to front-runner McCain, had entered the event with the largest pledged bloc and attracted the largest vote—41 percent—on the first ballot.

Huckabee captured 33 percent on the first tally; McCain, 15 percent and Texas congressman Ron Paul, 10 percent.

Because no candidate had a majority, Paul, the last-place finisher, was eliminated for the second vote. The defection by McCain's delegates to Huckabee allowed him to prevail over Romney.

I will go on the record right now and say that, in the event that Romney pulls off enough upsets today to stay in the race or force a brokered convention, expect Huckabee to release his delegates to McCain -- if for no other reason than to secure his spot as McCain's VP choice.

So, uh, Mike ... ?

Despite apparently only hanging around the Republican presidential campaign to split the social conservative vote and ensure Sen. Juan McCain receives the Republican nomination, Mike Huckabee is still running campaign (and book) ads here in my home state of Kansas.

His most recent commercial trumpets his 'stunning [Presidential] campaign victories,' while pushing his book. I'm wondering why he pluralized that. As far as I'm aware, he only won in Iowa -- which, as I pointed out at the time, meant absolutely nothing.

Beyond my general dislike for his populist policies and dirty campaign tactics, even his book title rubs me the wrong way: "From Hope to Higher Ground: 12 STOPS for Restoring America's Greatness"

"Restoring America's Greatness." One might ask the Governor just when, precisely, he thinks America ceased being 'great'.

As different as Left and Right.

Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton made the pronouncement that, if she is elected, she will take your money to force you -- whether you want to or not -- to buy health insurance. Yesterday morning, on ABC's "This Week", when asked about her health insurance proposals, Clinton said:

"I think there are a number of mechanisms. I think you can automatically enroll people. You can then say, 'You've got to be part of this.'"

She also included, in her list of 'mechanisms', "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

According to Yahoo! News and the Associated Press,

Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. With her proposals for subsidies, she said, "it will be affordable for everyone."

In other words, Hillary knows better how to spend your money than you do.

Barely scraping by to make your car payments or your mortgage payments? Can't figure out how you're going to cover your childcare expenses this month? Got some other unforeseen emergency that you've got to spend money on ... ? Tough. Hillary spent your money on some health insurance you didn't need.

And, aren't we all required to pay Medicare and Medicaid taxes anyway? Wasn't that the government's answer to 'affordable' healthcare coverage for the folks who aren't otherwise covered by health insurance for whatever reason?

Compare that with:

“I’m sure everyone feels sorry for the individual who has fallen by the wayside or who can’t keep up in our competitive society, but my own compassion goes beyond that to the millions of unsung men and women who get up every morning, send the kids to school, go to work, try and keep up the payments on their house, pay exorbitant taxes to make possible compassion for the less fortunate, and as a result have to sacrifice many of their own desires and dreams and hopes. Government owes them something better than always finding a new way to make them share the fruit of their toils with others.”—Ronald Reagan