I had a good laugh, perhaps out of ignorance, when I read this story today about an Australian scientist saying cremation contributes to global warming, "Short said the cremation of the average male in Australia, during which the body is heated to 850 degrees Celsius (1,562 degrees Fahrenheit) for 90 minutes, produced more than 50 kilograms (110 pounds) of carbon dioxide."
Now when I was in school I learned that the human body is ~90% water which would make me, at 180 lbs, about 162 lbs of water or 18 lbs of solids. How does one get 110 lbs of CO2 from 18 lbs of solids? Just for clarification the article goes on to say, "And that doesn't include the carbon cost of fuel, or the cost of the emissions released during the production and burning of the wooden casket." So the 110 of CO2 is strictly from the cremated body.
I'm sure I produce much more than 110 lbs of CO2 per year just from breathing so perhaps we should do the planet a favor and all just die.
This lunacy has to stop!
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Monday, April 9, 2007
Defeating Defeat
Perhaps I'm an alarmist but I genuinely believe that the end of the West is a distinct possibility within the next 100 years and that it is primarily caused by dearly held Western values taken to the extreme. Values such as tolerance, open mindedness, acceptance, accomodation, free speech, et al.
We in the West have become so politically correct in our response to everything that we are literally afraid to defend ourselves and are far too eager to jettison our own values and culture for fear of offense. Our values and culture that have made Western culture the greatest success story in the world and we not only are afraid to defend them but in some cases are only too eager to assist in their degradation. Witness the UK schools afraid to teach the truth about the Holocaust because Muslim students might be offended, may have learned something else in the mosque, or who may be incited to anti-semitism. It's an outrageous capitulation and a staggering admission of our weakness. What will our enemies make of our fear to communicate the truth in spite of the consequences? WHY is Liberalism so weak?
I'm always searching for root causes and in this case I believe the root cause of this weakness is public education. Where else are children taught the valuless nonsense of multiculturalism, diversity, moral and cultural relativism, and atheism?
We are on a path to destruction and seem helpless to stop it. we may have a strong external appearance and make much ado about our democratic freedoms to debate but this is merely masking the truth of our decay. Witness the Democrats weakness in the face of our enemies. They won't even call our war with Islamic terrorists by its accurate name instead choosing ideologially detached names such as "the war in X-region".
I just don't understand Liberalism. It seems to defy human nature and all rational thought. When your enemies are seeking to kill you and end your way of life, why not meet them with force? Why do Leftists instead join our enemies against us? Why?
I'm not particularly religious but I believe the only thing that will save the West is a vigorous Christianity coupled with renewed and extensive education about Western culture and a rebirth in patriotism and love of country.
Liberalism is truly a sickness that must be met head on and defeated with truth.
We in the West have become so politically correct in our response to everything that we are literally afraid to defend ourselves and are far too eager to jettison our own values and culture for fear of offense. Our values and culture that have made Western culture the greatest success story in the world and we not only are afraid to defend them but in some cases are only too eager to assist in their degradation. Witness the UK schools afraid to teach the truth about the Holocaust because Muslim students might be offended, may have learned something else in the mosque, or who may be incited to anti-semitism. It's an outrageous capitulation and a staggering admission of our weakness. What will our enemies make of our fear to communicate the truth in spite of the consequences? WHY is Liberalism so weak?
I'm always searching for root causes and in this case I believe the root cause of this weakness is public education. Where else are children taught the valuless nonsense of multiculturalism, diversity, moral and cultural relativism, and atheism?
We are on a path to destruction and seem helpless to stop it. we may have a strong external appearance and make much ado about our democratic freedoms to debate but this is merely masking the truth of our decay. Witness the Democrats weakness in the face of our enemies. They won't even call our war with Islamic terrorists by its accurate name instead choosing ideologially detached names such as "the war in X-region".
I just don't understand Liberalism. It seems to defy human nature and all rational thought. When your enemies are seeking to kill you and end your way of life, why not meet them with force? Why do Leftists instead join our enemies against us? Why?
I'm not particularly religious but I believe the only thing that will save the West is a vigorous Christianity coupled with renewed and extensive education about Western culture and a rebirth in patriotism and love of country.
Liberalism is truly a sickness that must be met head on and defeated with truth.
Friday, April 6, 2007
The Case for a Higher Gas Tax
I'm usually not one to advocate for higher tax rates but at this moment in history it seems like the right time to raise taxes on gasoline and imported oil. Tax policy is often used as both carrot and stick to cause certain behavior by both businesses and consumers and can take the form of higher or lower rates of taxation or tax credits.
Nearly everyone agrees, publicly anyway, that the US needs to lower its consumption of oil, especially imported oil, for any number of reasons; reduce CO2 emissions, reduce dependence on 3rd world despots, promote energy independence, etc. What better way to achieve these multiple goals than to increase the price of the commodity at the root of these problems?
Given the run up in the price of fuel these last few years with virtually no negative effect on the economy it's obvious that Americans are capable of paying the higher rates. Even the sale of gas guzzling trucks and SUV's weren't too negatively impacted.
A higher gas tax should be something all politicians should be able to agree on. The Democrats will get us to reduce our consumption and accompanying emissions of CO2 as well as a new revenue stream. Republicans can get a revenue source for subsidizing the search for alternative fuels and both parties will benefit by reducing our reliance on foreign sources, especially those from unfriendly regimes. The most severe blow we can deal to our oil revenue fed enemies is cut off the flow of petrodollars.
What will this compromise require from Dems? Allowing the US to develop domestic supplies while we transition to alternative fuels. That means getting enough backbone to fend off the environmentalist whackos that would have us all living in caves. What will this mean for Republicans? Agreeing to higher taxes. Not all taxation is bad and in this all American should agree that the goals are worthy of the cost.
If we had a real leader in the White House he would issue a Kennedyesque challenge to America that calls for shared sacrifice and a common goal of energy independence. Unfortunately most politicians are too cowardly and lack principles, reelection being their only motivation.
For example, instead of raising fuel taxes and letting the market cause automakers to raise fuel standards and produce more fuel efficient cars Congress takes the heavy handed approach of raising CAFE standards. And we Americans still drive gas guzzlers. Why? Because we can afford to.
The major downside to this plan is that we can't trust government with our tax dollars. Instead of funneling the tax revenue to energy research and transportation infrastructure they will likely blow it on pet projects and other pork.
The recent troubles in the ME ought to be a wake up call that we can't expose so much of our economy to the happenings in the most unstable part of the world and spend precious dollars preserving the stability there to ensure the flow of oil.
Nearly everyone agrees, publicly anyway, that the US needs to lower its consumption of oil, especially imported oil, for any number of reasons; reduce CO2 emissions, reduce dependence on 3rd world despots, promote energy independence, etc. What better way to achieve these multiple goals than to increase the price of the commodity at the root of these problems?
Given the run up in the price of fuel these last few years with virtually no negative effect on the economy it's obvious that Americans are capable of paying the higher rates. Even the sale of gas guzzling trucks and SUV's weren't too negatively impacted.
A higher gas tax should be something all politicians should be able to agree on. The Democrats will get us to reduce our consumption and accompanying emissions of CO2 as well as a new revenue stream. Republicans can get a revenue source for subsidizing the search for alternative fuels and both parties will benefit by reducing our reliance on foreign sources, especially those from unfriendly regimes. The most severe blow we can deal to our oil revenue fed enemies is cut off the flow of petrodollars.
What will this compromise require from Dems? Allowing the US to develop domestic supplies while we transition to alternative fuels. That means getting enough backbone to fend off the environmentalist whackos that would have us all living in caves. What will this mean for Republicans? Agreeing to higher taxes. Not all taxation is bad and in this all American should agree that the goals are worthy of the cost.
If we had a real leader in the White House he would issue a Kennedyesque challenge to America that calls for shared sacrifice and a common goal of energy independence. Unfortunately most politicians are too cowardly and lack principles, reelection being their only motivation.
For example, instead of raising fuel taxes and letting the market cause automakers to raise fuel standards and produce more fuel efficient cars Congress takes the heavy handed approach of raising CAFE standards. And we Americans still drive gas guzzlers. Why? Because we can afford to.
The major downside to this plan is that we can't trust government with our tax dollars. Instead of funneling the tax revenue to energy research and transportation infrastructure they will likely blow it on pet projects and other pork.
The recent troubles in the ME ought to be a wake up call that we can't expose so much of our economy to the happenings in the most unstable part of the world and spend precious dollars preserving the stability there to ensure the flow of oil.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
The Flying Imams and US Immigration Policy
While reading about the Target fiasco where the Muslim immigrant refused to scan a package of bacon I read that there were "tens of thousands" of Somali Muslims in Minnesota. I had never known that little fact until recently. I was however aware of similar Somali resettlements in Maine from a friend living there.
These resettlements raise several interesting questions such as why settle nomadic, desert Africans in northern US states and not in the South? Were MN and ME deemed too white by social engineers in the Clinton Admin and in need of a little "diversity"? Why are they being resettled in the US in the first place? I don't recall voters being asked about the issue of "humanitarian" resettlement. How many millions or billions would qualify for such generous treatment? Did the Feds consider what impact settling tens of thousands of black, African, Muslims might have on MN and US culture, schools, social services, etc?
In any case the current problems ongoing in MN from the Flying Imams to the Target cashier can be laid squarely at the feet of the US government and the Clinton Administration in particular since the MN resettlements were started in 1995. Was any thought given to how disruptive the clash of cultures would be? What demands these newcomers would make on US culture to adapt to them instead of their adapting to us?
As the sensible among us demand accountability and responsibility in our immigration system the demands need to be expanded to include these poorly thought out resettlement policies.
These resettlements raise several interesting questions such as why settle nomadic, desert Africans in northern US states and not in the South? Were MN and ME deemed too white by social engineers in the Clinton Admin and in need of a little "diversity"? Why are they being resettled in the US in the first place? I don't recall voters being asked about the issue of "humanitarian" resettlement. How many millions or billions would qualify for such generous treatment? Did the Feds consider what impact settling tens of thousands of black, African, Muslims might have on MN and US culture, schools, social services, etc?
In any case the current problems ongoing in MN from the Flying Imams to the Target cashier can be laid squarely at the feet of the US government and the Clinton Administration in particular since the MN resettlements were started in 1995. Was any thought given to how disruptive the clash of cultures would be? What demands these newcomers would make on US culture to adapt to them instead of their adapting to us?
As the sensible among us demand accountability and responsibility in our immigration system the demands need to be expanded to include these poorly thought out resettlement policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
