Time Bomb to go off soon!

Why is it that the story at this link cannot be found on the front page of the Los Angeles Times? The post describes the crisis facing the City of Los Angeles regarding unfunded pension funds of $2 BILLION a year by 2015 … that’s just six years away.

This is tiny in compairson to what the State of California faces and miniscuial to what the US Federal government will have to cover. Just remember … governments have no money.

We taxpayers will be on the hook for TRILLIONS of dollars over the next couple of decades to pay for these Cadillac Lexus pension plans, created by our elected officials as payoff to those that funded their election.

Principles

In the past few days I’ve been very critical of the Republican Party, both national and California. Joel Fox over at Fox and Hounds wrote a post today about the effect of Arlen Specter’s move from the Republicans to the Democrats. Joel says:

Arlen Specter’s move from the Republican to the Democratic Party seems to be about his personal political ambition. He calculated his Senatorial career would end if he tried to be re-elected as a Republican. But, the discussion it conjures up about whether the Republican Party is narrowing its acceptance of individuals with differing views reflects the debate that is sizzling in California Republican circles.

Specter noted in his announcement that 200,000 registered Republicans had recently abandoned the Pennsylvania Republican Party. As their leader, he decided to follow. In California, the Republican Party numbers are also shrinking. Only 31-percent of registered voters now consider themselves Republican.

On this site, Allan Hoffenblum noted the precipitous drop in Republican registration and that Republicans no longer claim a pure majority in registration in any legislative district. Tony Quinn went so far as to declare the Republican Party dead in California, although GOP Republican chairman Ron Nehring vehemently disagreed.

Many Republicans gleefully say good riddance to those who leave the state party. They expect unity on certain issues and those Republicans who don’t agree are quickly labeled RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). Recall efforts against Republican legislators for supporting tax increases or even for simply not advancing the ouster of a Republican legislative leader are making headlines.

Pundits generally agree that Arnold Schwarzenegger would not have captured the Republican nomination for governor had he not had the advantage of the recall.

But Schwarzenegger’s positioning raises the point that the great middle of the electorate often chooses the winning candidate. If a splintered Republican Party cannot appeal to the middle can they field winning candidates?

Holding on to principle over winning is important to many party loyalists. Indeed, they argue that embracing principle is the only way to win.

To be fair, the Democratic Party has been roiled by internal dissension from time to time. But this is the Republicans’ moment, and in California the concern is can the Republicans ever move out from minority status or will California go the way of Massachusetts, which has 19 Republican members out of 140 in the House of Representatives and five Republican Senators out of 40 in the Senate. No trouble getting a two-thirds vote for the Democrats there.

California Democrats are drooling over the possibility of capturing two-thirds of the legislative seats in the next election so they can control the votes over the budget and taxes. If Republicans continue to split into factions, they best hope California will turn to a parliamentary system if they ever expect to capture power again.

On the national level, the Republicans were in disarray until a resurgence lead by Ronald Reagan led them back. At the time, Reagan’s philosophy of offering a big tent and not speaking ill of other Republicans carried the day. Reagan remembered well when he ran for governor how some fellow Republicans belittled his candidacy.

Politics is cyclical and the Republicans should look for an upturn in their fortunes. They can turn the tide here, but it will not come without some fence mending and cooperation within the Republican ranks.

One of the traits that is to be human is to want to be with the team that is winning. Ronald Reagan won the Presidency in 1986 with the largest majority in US history (his opponent, Walter Mondale, carrier his home state, Minnesota … by 3,600 votes … and Washington DC). In the national popular vote, Reagan received 58.8% to Mondale’s 40.6%. Why such a landslide? In 1984 Reagan was perceived by the majority of the US electorate as a winner.

There are however, those folks that retain their belief in the things that matter to them regardless of what happens to be in vogue on any given day. I call those things principle.

I don’t want to confuse principle with slavish adherence. In fact, let’s define principle:

prin-ci-ple

–noun

1.	an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.

2.	a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.

3.	a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.

4.	principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one’s principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.

5.	guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.

6.	an adopted rule or method for application in action: a working principle for general use.

7.	a rule or law exemplified in natural phenomena, the construction or operation of a machine, the working of a system, or the like: the principle of capillary attraction.

8.	the method of formation, operation, or procedure exhibited in a given case: a community organized on the patriarchal principle.

9.	a determining characteristic of something; essential quality.

10.	an originating or actuating agency or force: growth is the principle of life.

11.	an actuating agency in the mind or character, as an instinct, faculty, or natural tendency: the principles of human behavior.

12.	Chemistry. a constituent of a substance, esp. one giving to it some distinctive quality or effect.

13.       Obsolete. beginning or commencement.

There are always going to be those who run with you for the sole reason that you, or they, are winning. You can be assured that when the going gets rough, they will be the first to jump ship (pardon the multiple, partial puns!). Specter perceived he would not be able to beat Toomey in the 2010 Republican primary. California Republicans have been beaten down by the majority liberals that can’t see beyond the next movie premier or photo op.

I do not have any intention to become a member of the Liberatitation Party or Independent Party or any other third party affilation that happens to come along that looks good today. Our politics are based on a two-party system. To move away from that foundation takes far more energy than I and most of my conservetative brethern want to expend.

If we conserative Republicans maintain our principles, we need not concern ourselves with the “moderate wing’ of the party. Principle trumps moderation.

The Spector that was Specter

Arlen Specter announced he was changing party loyalty today and would become a Democrat. What was unfortunate was he actually changed loyalty about eight years ago … he only decided to make the announcement today. His desertion leaves the Dems one vote shy of a filibuster proof majority and I expect the ruling in Minnesota to go to, some say “former comedian” but I say still a joke, Al Franken, which completes the last needed Dem vote.

Specter has been a thorn in the side of conservatives for years, along with his fellow thorns Linclon Chaffe, Olimpia Snowe and Susan Collins. The New England Dems finally turned out Chaffe. Now we only have two thorns left, not forgetting our beloved “maverick” John McCain and his faithful sidekick Lindsey Graham.

What we really need is more people with the backbone of Jim DeMint, Jim Inhofe, Jeff Sessions, Jon Kyl and Thad Cochran.

Why is it the Republican Party continually puts so much energy into a candidate like Specter? The Democrats are now in total control of the government. Michael Steele …. ARE YOU LISTENING????

God help us.

For want of a Republician … (Party)

In a recent post I mentioned my disdain for the California Republican Party. Last month it was unofficially acquired by the California Democratic Party through a merger of principles.

In most state political parties, the recognized party leader is the the Governor when that particular party holds the governorship. When Arnold Schwarzenegger took over from Gray Davis following Davis’ recall, he became the defacto head of CAGOP. Most all California Republicans, myself included, held out high hopes of ‘Ahnald’ reversing Davis’ liberal policies. While he started off with a bang, he has become a big disappointment for every conservative in the state.

Ahnald’s turn to the dark side really began following the last special election in Nov 2005. Schwarzenegger called the election to allow voters to decide on propositions regarding teacher tenure requirements (Proposition 74), the use of union dues for political campaign contributions (Proposition 75), state budgetary spending limits (Proposition 76), and redistricting (Proposition 77). Schwarzenegger originally proposed a fifth proposition on the issue of public pension, but dropped that proposition amid criticism that the proposition would eliminate death benefits to widows of police and firefighters who died in the line of duty. The four propositions that made it to the ballot eventually came to be known as Governor Schwarzenegger’s Reform Agenda. The Governator claimed his agenda would clear the way for correction of the problems he was elected to solve.

Four other propositions appeared on the ballot because they qualified for the next statewide elections. The four other propositions were:

• Proposition 73: Parental notification for abortions by minors
• Proposition 78: A proposition on prescription drugs put by the pharmaceutical industry
• Proposition 79: A proposition on prescription drugs put by consumer groups in response to Proposition 78
• Proposition 80: Electric industry regulation

Voters rejected all of Ahnald’s propositions and he then started repositioning himself into whatever he thought would maintain his popularity; if you can’t bet’em, join’em. His Achilles heel … he just loves to be loved! But to be fair, I think that most politicians today fall within that mind-set.

The biggest majority of the rest of the Republican politicians have begun to follow him over the cliff, though they have not enjoyed majority popularity for decades. But we conservatives aren’t looking for individuals who are popular … we want those who are principled. An example od such a man is former CA Senator, now US Congressman Tom McClintock. There are still a couple of principled Republicans in Sacramento; Senator …. and Assemblyman …..

Under the direction of the Democrats and their now wholly-owned subsidiary (CAGOP), the state’s spending has increased 92% in the last 10 years. Did your income increase anywhere near that over the last decade? Mine certainly didn’t!

The bulk of the so-called Republican legislators have driven the party to it’s lowest approval rates since the Watergate scandle and if they don’t start representing their constituants, may be on track to set new records in how low they can go. Having voted Republican since I became aware of politics, I will have to do some real sole searching before automaticaly equating conservativism and Republicans in the future.

Politics … California Style

In less than four weeks we Californian’s are going to have the opportunity to go to the polls and vote on six initiatives. Nobody running for office. Just six initiatives … Propositions 1A through 1F. These propositions are in one way or another related to our recent budget circus and subsequent passage of the largest tax increase of any state in Untied States’ history.

The purported purpose of Proposition 1A is to impose a spending cap on those dastardly Sacramento politicians who’ve driven the cost of “doing the people’s business” beyond the people’s ability to afford. It will further create a rainy day fund that will cause taxes collected above spending to be “saved for a rainy day” … can I hear a rousing chorus of ‘Hallelujah?’

Said politicians have had a virtual free hand to indulge themselves in any and every liberal, progressive, socialist, kook idea any good Democrat could dream up. I’m sure I don’t need to list all of the laws California has foisted on the rest of the US. There is however, one minor detail that isn’t reported on by our estimable fourth estate (read drive-by media) … Proposition 1A was written by said same politicians.

That’s right … those that were so intimately involved in creating the state government spending orgy have suddenly seen the light and are now the solution! Albert Einstein once said “No problem can be solved at the same level of consciousness that created it.” Are we to believe that those that put us, or I should say continue to put us, in the most tedious economic position any state has faced in our nation’s history suddenly found Jesus? Color me skeptical.

The very idea that those who created the problem are presenting the solution is ludicrous. Beyond that, they have successfully buried the one element of the proposition that is proven to be its downfall … passage of Proposition 1A extends the previously mentioned tax increases for an additional two years. Focus groups have shown that if you only mention spending caps and rainy-day funds, the proposition passes easily. Interject the extension of the tax increase and the proposition fails … decisively.

One unique twist on California’s laws on the initiative process is that the summary of propositions initiated by the legislators is written by … the legislators! Any proposition written by a regular citizen … you or me … has the summary written be the Secretary of State. How cozy is that?

Back to Proposition 1A … The summary of Prop 1A contained in the voter pamphlet has no mention of the extension of the tax increase.  The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association sued California’s Secretary of State to include mention of the tax extension in the summary. One of our staunch defenders of liberal rights (read California Judge) found that to be unnecessary.

I am really p*ssed off with the California Republican party in general, as it was their limp spine that allowed enough votes to send the tax increase to the Govanator. I’ll discuss more on this particular subject later. Nonetheless, Keith Carlson has a very detailed post on why this whole Prop 1A-1F crap is just that. Read Keith’s letter here.

Proposition 1A is a sham, as are the other five propositions! VOTE NO … six times! But PLEASE … do VOTE!

So … what’s with the Sunspots?

I remember a Christmas … it must have been about 1952 or 1953 … my Dad had to work the graveyard shift and my brother and I had to wait until he got home before we were allowed to go out to the living room where the Christmas tree was and see what Santa had brought us. If you were anything like me, Christmas morning was the only morning you were awake long before the sun came up and the first thing you did was make a bee-line for the tree.

That Christmas I was hoping Santa would bring me a Buck Rogers Space Port, complete with action figures and everything else a seven year old that was completely captivated by the thought of outer space could dream of. My interest in things not of our planet and outside of our atmosphere has only deepened as I’ve gotten older. I was absolutely glued to the TV watching Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit Jupiter again and again. Fascinating stuff!

That interest has not abated. I first subscribed to Scientific American in the mid-1980s (I have since dropped my subscription after SA’s abhorrent treatment of Bjorn Lomborg in a smear campaign that was pure political … reminiscent of the Catholic Church’s treatment of Galileo), even though I had no formal education in the sciences. I devoured everything I found on astronomy, astro-physics, radio astronomy, aeronautical engineering (at least related to space travel), anything space-related.

With that background, it wasn’t difficult for me to exercise my curiosity in the global warming debate. I’ve always been suspicious of the claim that humans are powerful enough to cause any global effect. For us to be at fault for causing a change in the temperature of the entire planet is giving us way to much credit … a rather narcissistic viewpoint. However, the one claim that the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) crowd made that confirmed my suspicion was that the Sun had no impact on the warming! The thing that warmed the earth and made it a habitable place for us to thrive … couldn’t have any influence on the temperature on earth rising or falling? What instrument did they use to confirm that fact?

Back to my interest in things space …

One interesting aspect of the sun is the sunspot cycle it goes through about every eleven years. Periodically, darker cooler blotches called sunspots temporarily appear on the Sun’s surface. Sunspots are areas where very strong local magnetic fields interfere with the normal convection activity that brings heat to the surface. The spots usually appear in pairs or groups of pairs.Each spot typically has a dark, circular center, called the umbra, surrounded by a lighter area, the penumbra. The umbras are about 2,000K (3,100°F) cooler than the photosphere around them (which means that they are still very hot). Sunspots vary greatly in size but are always small compared to the size of the Sun. When they appear in groups, they may extend over tens of thousands of miles. They last from tens of minutes to a few days or even months. All of this subject is much more complex than I’m portraying here, so if any of this peaks your interest there are many sites with much more detail than I discuss here.

The rise and fall of sunspot numbers are only one manifestation of the solar cycle. Solar astronomers traditionally label solar cycles from one minimum to the next, and assign them numbers, starting with the 1755-1766 cycle. We are just (hopefully soon) entering cycle 24. The graph below shows the cycles back to 1610.

During 2008, there were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year’s 366 days (73%). To find a year with fewer spotless suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days. At these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008.

Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31 2009, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year’s 90 days (87%), which adds up to one inescapable conclusion: “We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum,” says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

UPDATE: I got pulled away to a meeting and didn’t get to where I was taking this post, so let me continue.

The scientists most adamant that we are in a period of warming, specifically caused by humans’ burning of fossil fuel and the resultant CO2, are as adamant that the sun has nothing to do with any observed climate warming. Again, I’m not a trained scientist, but I have yet to hear any evidence, convincing or otherwise, that the sun couldn’t be involved in any supposed warming. The sun is the driver for 99% of the heat on the earth.

The last two winters were the coldest we’ve experienced in the last couple of decades and last summer was exceptionally mild as well. If Cycle 24 continues to be as low as its beginnings, we may well be able to determine how much influence the sun has on the earth’s climate. But then I forgot … it isn’t so until a computer model makes it so!

/sarc

BTW … I got the complete Buck Rogers Space Port … with extra fighters and a troop transport! Best Christmas ever!

Does any of this sound familiar?

Read this list and let me know if any of it is beginning to sound familiar:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

• Karl Marx (1818- 1883) Father of Communism, Author of the ‘Communist Manifesto’

Source: Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848, Marx/Engels

While there are not present day examples covering all ten of Marx’s tenets, there are enough to cause consternation for those of us who still believe in the constitution. We lose a little bit more of our liberty every time the Democrats put one more piece of their agenda in place.

I pray more Americans will wake up to the dangers to our way of life we face.

Be Careful of Pre-Conceived Opinions

One of the traits we humans have developed to become so successful as a species is our use of shortcuts. These shortcuts take many forms. For instance, a quick glance at an animal generally is enough for us to decide if we are going to be bitten or not. It doesn’t take but a moment to decide that a log we want to use to cross the stream will support us. We make these judgments many times a day and generally without conscious thought.

We use the same skills when dealing with someone we don’t know. All of us are guilty at one time or another of meeting someone and quickly forming a preconceived idea of who they are. For those who are used to meeting many people over the course of a day or week, this ‘skill’ can become quite honed. However, it is never 100% certain.

The YouTube video at this link shows how badly we can misjudge someone. The gal may be a bit difficult for Americans to understand in the beginning (quite a Cockney accent), but be sure and watch the whole thing; you won’t be disappointed.

Radicals Kidnap EPA, Declare Ransom Demands

Yesterday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) bowed to environmentalist and Democratic politicians and declared CO2 a “dangerous pollutant.” For those of you that can recall your fifth grade science class, CO2 is part of the natural cycle of life … remember? … animals take in oxygen (O2), exhale carbon dioxide (CO2), then plants take in CO2 and turn it into O2.

I follow a great science blog called Watts Up With That, edited by Anthony Watts. He posted on this very important development last night here. Anthony begins by providing the background on where this disastrous ruling came from:

On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making these decisions, the Administrator is required to follow the language of section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court decision resulted from a petition for rulemaking under section 202(a) filed by more than a dozen environmental, renewable energy, and other organizations.

While the initial focus is supposed to be on automobiles, when do you remember a government agency limiting their reach to their initial charge? Not that limiting regulations on automobile emissions of CO2 won’t be harmful enough … the auto industry is just getting back up on to its knees from the finance market crash and is not likely to recover for the next two or three years if then. I predict the EPA will immediately start developing regulations for stationary sources of CO2 emissions … like electric generating plants. Recall Obama’s campaign promise to destroy the coal industry?

While we don’t all own or drive a car, I don’t know anyone that doesn’t use electricity. The majority of electrical generation in the US is based on fossil fuel; coal and natural gas (very little oil is used today to generate electricity). Burning fossil fuel produces CO2. The most viable alternative to fossil fuel generation is nuclear powered generation. The tree huggers want us to generate all our power needs using solar and wind power sources. I’ll write a seperate post on these “alternative” energy sources in the near future.

In the meanwhile, I strongly recommend you click on the link to Anthony’s post and read what to do to send comments to the EPA, asking (respectfully!) that they not take their planned steps to implement regulations to try to control CO2 (more on the insanity of the US trying to control CO2 later).

Numbers are important, even to the EPA (we are still a democratic republic and the EPA is still required to follow procedures and read every comment), so the greater the number of opponents the more likely the chance of derailing this madness. The public comment period is open for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register. Please note that official comments on the proposed finding cannot be submitted until the Federal Register publication. I’ll track this and let you know when they are published.

If you are already familiar with submitting comments to a regulatory body, you can download a .pdf file with instructions here. When providing comments, please submit them with reference to Docket ID No.  EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171.

Please … submit your comments!