Saturday, March 31, 2012

Screw the Earth

Yeah. I said it. Screw the Earth.

Today at 8:30pm is "Earth Hour." Turn off all of your electricity. Light a candle. Why? Climate change, or global warming awareness, or some horse hockey like that. Show how freaking sensitive you are by turning off your lights. Gimme a break.

What has the Earth done for us? Earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, fires, tornadoes, droughts, and volcanoes. Check out this list of death tolls by natural disaster. And you feel like man is a threat to the Earth?

Screw the Earth.

Do you want to make the Earth a better place? Use electricity! It improves YOUR quality of life and produces CO2. Do you know what likes CO2? Plants! Without it, they die! Without plants, we die! Plants are food. I like food. Bring on the CO2.

Screw "save" the Earth mantras. My selfishness is helping it.

Save the Earth. Really? You cannot save the Earth. Some day the Sun is going to burn out, explode, or cease to exist at any beneficial level. Then where will the Earth be? Dead. That's where. Before then, the Earth might get hit by a global killing asteroid. In fact, tomorrow an asteroid will be passing by relatively close.

We need to get off of this rock. To do this we need to invent. We need to produce and use energy. But what is happening?  Bass-ackward morons are trying to limit use. People tout wind and solar. What good is wind technology going to do for you in space? What good is solar when you leave the solar system? These people are dooming us to stay earth bound and die with the Earth.

You cannot save the Earth. You can only save yourself.

Do you want to know what I am going to do at 8:30? I'm going to go outside, dig a modestly sized hole, and then guess what I am going to do.

That's right.

Screw the Earth.


Thursday, March 29, 2012

Audacity of POTUS

Were you born anywhere from 1973 through 1988? Do you think you are Generation X or Generation Y? Well you are not. You are GEN44.

So I slated those years to reflect those aged 24 to 39 years old. Why? Because Obama just named you after himself.

From Obama's website:

Gen44

Welcome to Gen44, the official under-40 fundraising program of Obama for America—created to cultivate and empower a rising generation of leaders for the Democratic Party. Are you Gen44?

If you were really the under-40 generation, wouldn't you be GEN39, or GEN<40? Why does slating you GEN44 mean you are named after Obama?

Because he is the 44th POTUS.
Arrogance. That is something a king would do. But since a no free speech zone can be declared around the vicinity of a politician, he believes Congress moves too slow so an executive order is in order, and he has never had a real job, is it a surprise he acts like he is king?

Where have all the George Washingtons gone?

Wake Up GEN44!


This video was a special treat. Many videos from PJTV do not make it to YouTube, but this one did. But don't cross your fingers that PJTV videos make their way to YouTube. Go sign up for a PJTV subscription now!

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Newspeak for the Kiddies

The Bad News Is ... And The Bad News Is ...

The bad news is we are running out of money, that is the government is running out of money. This example goes through showing how if we get rid of what we think government is, we still do not have enough money. The problem is entitlements.
The bad news is Bill Whittle also talks about this problem. He shows how Paul Ryan is presenting a budget to get us out of this mess. Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, admits we are in trouble but doesn't like Ryan's plan. The Republican controlled House passed Ryan's plan and the Democratically controlled Senate voted it down.
The real bad bad news is we may not get responsible officials the next election cycle to fix the spending problem. Why? If you did not make the connection from the first video, Bill Whittle explains in this video who's votes are really being bought, and it is not lobbyists or corporations doing the buying.
So what is the real bad bad bad news? Even though Whittle says we need Ryan's budget, Nick Gillespie disagrees. Gillespie says that it still won't be enough to save us. Regardless of how much of a political compromise Ryan's plan seems to be, political compromise is still a losing choice.
1 2 3 4

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

17 Million Children

That's right! Now $17 million children will be denied health care due to the system going bankrupt. Or the children might pass because of a waiting period for treatment. Or there may be no care available because it will not be profitable to become a doctor or the government does not approve enough doctors for the specialty. Maybe a panel of 15 bureaucrats might deny the care for administrative reasons.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Everyone will be paying for it. And if everyone pays for it, every one will try to get some. What will be left over for the children?

EPA Loses at Roshambo

Over a year ago, January 13th, 2011, the New York Times reported on the EPA revoking a permit for a coal mining project in West Virginia. It was a project over 10 years in the making. The Times does a fair job of expressing the views of both sides. The EPA claims that the project would pollute too much and that Arch Coal, the mining company, owner Mingo Logan, did not work with the EPA to design a mining plan that would meet federal law. Arch Coal claims the EPA is overextending its authority by revoking a permit that was approved by the government.

The Times also cannot resist stating that the project was given the permit in 2007, under the Bush administration. Blame Bush.

On Friday, March 23rd, 2012, the New York Times reported that the EPA's decision to revoke the permit was overturned. The story should have been about how the EPA construed the Clean Water Act to give themselves authority it did not have. This was stated, but the Times could not resist restating all of the bad environmental effects that the EPA claimed would happen. Does this mean that would justify the EPA breaking the law?

Also, once again, the Times could not resist stating that the project was given the permit in 2007, under the Bush administration. Blame Bush, again.

The real issue is that the EPA took what seems to be an ambiguously worded statement in the Clean Water Act, section 404(c), and used it as justification to revoke a permit that is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers. You can read this section on the EPA's website.

The court told the EPA that the ambiguous wording of a sentence can be cleared up if read in context of the whole section of 404. The court goes on to explain how the EPA's interpretation would be at odds with 404(p) and 404(q). 404(c) allows the EPA to work with the Corps and reject sites during the approval process, not after.

Upon reading the decision of the U.S. District Court to overturn the EPA, you will find some fun little facts. Remember how Arch Coal did not work with the EPA? Here are a few tidbits from the section "A. Factual Background" :
In the letter commenting on the draft EIS, EPA concluded that it “remains committed to working with the Corps, the state, and the applicant to identify and develop an environmentally acceptable project” and “would encourage additional discussions in an effort to clarify and resolve the issues raised in this letter.”
In December 2005, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection granted state certification for the individual permit based on its determination that the project would not violate state water quality standards or anti-degradation regulations.3 AR 20924–28.
However, the letter also noted in several places that the agency was encouraged by the progress that Mingo Logan had made to date, and it voiced optimism that EPA could work with the Corps, federal and state agencies, and Mingo Logan to address its concerns and develop appropriate mitigation plans, as well as a Little Coal River cumulative impact assessment and restoration plan.
The Corps released the final EIS in September 2006, and EPA again submitted comments by letter. AR 8330–34, 34962–35342. The comment letter again included concerns about potential adverse impacts to the Little Coal watershed and gaps in the mitigation plan, but also acknowledged Mingo Logan’s progress in reducing impacts and EPA’s willingness to work with the responsible agencies to resolve its concerns prior to a section 404 permit decision. AR 8331– 32.
That sounds a bit different from the idea that Arch Coal was not working with the EPA.

There is also some amusing courtroom banter in the document:
COUNSEL FOR EPA: EPA 404(c) authority authorizes it to withdraw specifications whenever it makes its determination. . . . I grant you that the effect of that, the practical effect of that, would be that the company would no longer be able to operate under the permit. . . .

THE COURT: They have a permit that says this permit is final until it’s suspended or revoked. There’s a missing step here. Why can’t they walk out tomorrow and dump fill in those sites? You say, we’ve withdrawn the specification, but the permit exists.

Is the Corps required now to revoke or modify the permit in light of your determination?

COUNSEL FOR EPA: I don’t think they need to take that extra step. EPA’s withdrawal of that specified site has been final. It has been made. . . .

THE COURT: So everybody with a permit has to on a daily basis compare their permit to your list of specified sites? They can’t do what they’ve been permitted to do by the United States? . . . Where does it say in the statute that they can’t dump tomorrow?
COUNSEL FOR EPA: I don’t see any ambiguity in the statute with respect to the authority of the EPA to withdraw the specification after the permit is issued. . . .

THE COURT: . . . But . . . what are they supposed to do tomorrow? And if your exercise of that power essentially undermined the finality of the Corps’ exercise of their power in 404(a), wouldn’t it have been essential for Congress to say that?

***

There’s this huge gap. I mean, you looked at me very blankly when I said what is Mingo Logan supposed to do tomorrow.
Sometimes it is best not to just read a newspaper or a blogger to truly understand a decision. There is probably a slanted view. The decision is available online and you should read page 31.

1 2

Monday, March 26, 2012

Taxing the Virtual World

Every so often we hear rumors that the government wants to tax our emails. My inbox gets flooded with chain emails about this when it happens. So far, our emails are not taxed. Whew!

But what about virtual currency? What about those online games with in-game currency? Some gamers pay cash for virtual currency. Sex has been used to gain virtual currency. Could the government tax it?

No.

But expect to eventually get some emails stating that your virtual currency will be taxed in reality. There have been some irresponsibly written articles based off of the paper "Virtual Currency in Virtual Economies: Income Characterization Issues for Social Media Companies" in the November 21, 2011 edition of "tax notes international." The most egregious article is at AllGov.com. That is such a disappointment since it is usually a decent site as a source for information.

Just as I titled the post "Taxing the Virtual World" as an attention getter, others also gave attention grabbing titles. But the first paragraph will lead you to think that virtual currency will be taxed. If you do not read the whole article then you were just lied to.

You will see China being cited as taxing virtual currency. This too is a LIE!

What has happened is that one of the issues bought up in the original paper, "Virtual Currency in Virtual Economies," is that the law is unclear if the money made from selling your virtual currency for real money is taxable. The government is looking into that issue. China considers this money taxable. This is what is being mischaracterized. The articles are portraying the taxation of real money as the taxation of virtual currency.

The original paper also focuses on many other issues. Is virtual currency property, a deposit, a real currency, or other another type of intellectual property. In general the paper describes how in general it is not and would not be taxable. Again, the paper's arguments define that virtual currency is not taxable. It does go on to warn that the "user agreements" that online games have need to be written properly so that there is no case for taxation.

1 2

Friday, March 23, 2012

OBEY


You shall buy Health Care.
You shall provide birth control.
You shall put away your moral values.
You shall not say anything negative in my presence.
You shall pay fare more share.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

$100 Terrorism

Do you want to pass through the TSA quickly?

$100, done. [[1][2][3][4]] What does that mean?

Poor TSA. Darned if they do and darned if they don't. Not really. We need security for our airlines. How do you secure it? Profiling. But that screams racism in todays PC world. Does an infant in a cast pose a threat? Probably not. A 30 something olive skinned man with a rag on his head? Maybe. Shake him down and leave the infant alone.