Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Planned Prevarication

Watching the CSPAN video of Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Cynthia Lummis, (R) Wyoming, elicits the following from Richards (Start at 00:54:33):

  • Mammograms provided - None. 
  • Abortions - three percent of procedures, eighty six percent of non-government revenue. (A question I asked in early August)
  • Taxpayers fund over forty percent of PP. 
  • $5.1 million in annual travel expenses. 
The fungibility issue is raised, but Richards dissembles.
Lummus: "If taxpayer dollars are being used to free up services that you provide...
Richards: "We don’t get a federal subsidy..."
Lummus: "Could you function on non-federal dollars?”
Richards: "We don’t make any profit off of federal money."
They just pay expenses with your money. We all know that has nothing to do with profit.

Keep watching Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, (R) Utah, after Lummis five minutes are over. He asks if Richards will provide the information, "How many of your affiliates receive the majority of their revenue from abortion?” requested by Lummis.

Richards at 01:01:11 “I don’t want to commit to anything that I don’t want you to have."

Did she really just say that?

Nuking Consumers Energy

I offered my support to Consumers Energy if they would get on with building nuclear plants and get rid of windmills.

This is the most obvious way to rapidly reduce CO2 emissions. Those afraid of "climate change" should be all in. Warm mongers who oppose nuclear power simply aren't serious about CO2 reduction.

But don't take my word for it, take the word of a leftwing "science is settled" magazine...
In just two decades Sweden went from burning oil for generating electricity to fissioning uranium. And if the world as a whole were to follow that example, all fossil fuel–fired power plants could be replaced with nuclear facilities in a little over 30 years...

Such a switch would drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nearly achieving much-ballyhooed global goals to combat climate change. Even swelling electricity demands, concentrated in developing nations, could be met. All that's missing is the wealth, will and wherewithal...

"As long as people, nations put fear of nuclear accidents above fear of climate change, those trends are unlikely to change," Brook adds. But "no renewable energy technology or energy efficiency approach has ever been implemented on a scale or pace required."
Also consider the opinions of Dr. Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of Greenpeace, and Stewart Brand, publisher Of The Whole Earth Catalog.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

#PinkOut

                                             #BlackOut                                        

Monday, September 28, 2015

Open letter to Consumers Energy

I recently received from you a mailing asking me to contribute $1.50 per month to something called the Green Generation program. According to that letter, my contribution would support “projects like the Michigan Wind Farm in Ubly, which generates enough enough electricity to power every home in a city the size of Battle Creek for one year.

You neglected to mention how much standby generation by conventional means is still required. At least a third of us know that, “Wind is so undependable that fossil fuels have to be available to supplement it over 50 percent of the time.” Maybe I'm part of a less green, as in naive, generation - because your appeal did not inspire me.

I suppose it is in your interest to avoid mentioning wind power reliability when asking me directly to support your latest attempt to suck up dwindling Federal subsidies for windmills. Especially since Consumers Energy is statutorily allowed profit margins of 10 to 12 percent annually, and is guaranteed a 90-percent share of the market by the State of Michigan, while you spend money on misleading advertising about electricity choice: To make sure we don't have it.

If Solyndra had your deal, they'd still be in business.

Would supporting projects like the one in Ubly include contributing to monopoly maintenance advertising? It's a reasonable question. Any reasonable answer would include reference to the word "fungible."

Your letter reminded me that a good part of your past profitability is related to money you've already received from me via taxes and surcharges. This realization did not produce the effect I think you desired, since it prompted me to check on how bad that damage has been and continues to be.

In 2011, you bragged about $29 million in property tax revenue a wind farm project,
“...is expected to provide to Mason County over the first 20 years of operation. The Mason County Planning Commission approved a special land use permit application for the $232 million Lake Winds Energy Park project last week.

What was left out of the press release was that “the project is expected to receive $72 million in federal tax credits from the federal stimulus program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Consumers Energy spokesman Dennis Marvin said the $72 million in federal tax credits is expected to come over a 10-year period.”
That's net $43 million for Consumers Energy from Federal taxpayers, after $29 million in redistribution pass-throughs. And how's that lawsuit about this wind farm working out for you?

From 2009 through 2011 you charged me $2.50 per month as a Renewable Energy Surcharge. I already paid for constructing the damn windmills, but, as we'll see, maybe not for the maintenance.

Now you're asking me to give you just $1.50 of my own volition. Why didn't you ask the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to put that back on my invoice? You're running sort of a poll, I guess, anyone dumb enough to contribute probably voted for the guy who said he'd make electricity rates involving coal “skyrocket,” and the results might be able to be used to pressure the MI legislature.

In November 2014the MPSC approved a settlement agreement authorizing Consumers Energy to recover $9,752,187, with interest, in deferred major maintenance expense.” That's one way to ensure your profit margins stay in double digits. What interest rate was used?

In December 2014, Consumers Energy requested of the MPSC “an electric rate increase of $163 million in its electric rates. On June 4, 2015 Consumers self-implemented a portion of the requested increase, $110 million, subject to refund, as authorized by the MPSC. The rate increase reflects major company investments to maintain and improve service.” Maintenance again, how much of it is for windmills?

In September of this year you charged me $1.41 for the income taxes you pay on your “securitization charge” - charges for which you billed me an additional $2.49. So, I'm paying $3.90 a month, over a third of which is your taxes, so you canreplace traditional financing with low-interest bonds, lowering overall costs for customers.” Thanks.

In September I paid $4.14 for “Energy Efficiency” “that helps recover costs associated with the company’s Energy Efficiency Programs required by the 2008 energy law.” Maybe not your fault, but I can't recall any lobbying against it. Certainly nothing reaching the level of your fight to maintain your 90 percent monopoly.

From June through September you charged me extra for usage over 600 kWh becauseThe tiered pricing structure reflects the higher price to buy and produce electricity during the summer. This is primarily because of the increase in customer demand (load on the system) associated with air conditioning... Consumers Energy does not make a profit on the cost of fuel or purchased power.

OK. I guess you are more likely to purchase power (Ontario?) when the wind isn't blowing. And, of course, you're using fuel to keep your standby generators turning anyway. That's like me paying twice.

I realize this green idiocy is not all your fault. We have more than enough fools in the State and National legislatures. However, they didn't force you to waste money on that mailing insulting my intelligence, and you're more than happy to take 'their' money. Unfortunately, the money isn't sufficiently laundered. I know a bunch of it came out of my pocket.

So, while I appreciate the opportunity to further the green propagenda, I think I'll wait until you're begging me for funds to dismantle windmills instead of building more. Then I'll laugh. Until the legislature lets you bill me for it.

If you'd really like some help, I could get behind a big effort to build some nuclear plants. I'll bet there's enough concrete in those windmill pads to have built a couple already.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Ben Carson and Muslim Presidents

The Muslim Islamophobes Who Agree With Ben Carson

One of these religions is not like the others.
Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.
-Omar Ahmad, founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

It's ironic that Progressives who reference Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" to bolster their case supporting abortion should consider Ben Carson's rejection of sharia discriminatory.

The Constitution's Article Six prohibits a religious test as a qualification for any public office, but that same document contains a First Amendment forbidding the federal government from establishing a national religion. An Islamic president would, by definition, either be an apostate (i.e., a lapsed Muslim according to main-stream Islamic theologians) or refuse to enforce the entire Bill of Rights.

Appealing to the Constitution when you deny its primacy in American law is not merely hypocritical, it's taqiyya for the dhimmi.

Monday, September 21, 2015

Just following orders

The MSM and DNC wagons are circled to protect Planned Parenthood.

In last week’s debate Carly Fiorina spoke of “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.”

PP and the Democrat Operatives with Bylines are denying this video exists and excoriating Carly. Put aside the fact that what she said was only inaccurate as an understatement when describing the videos taken as a whole, it’s precisely accurate regarding this video in particular. Who ya gonna believe, George Stephanopoulos, Melissa Harris-Perry and Hillary Clinton - or your lying eyes?

Start at about 5:45. Best watched on an empty stomach.

Of course, any Progressive exposed to this will yell “Selectively edited!” ignoring the fact that over 10 hours of the unedited video were released at the same time. They’ll just be following orders in the #WarOnBabies.

As Carly pointed out, it does speak to the character of this nation, and I cannot think of a better reason to “shut the government down" so it stops financing this horror with taxpayer dollars.

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Rapist credits

The real-world judicial system impinges upon the Jared Polis plan.

Representative Polis (D-CO) says that because we can reasonably assume that of 10 accused campus rapists 2 are actually guilty, we should force-transfer all 10 to other universities. One obvious consequence is that the receiving institutions would be enrolling 2 real rapists whose crimes go unpunished. Another is that no one could be sure if they got a real rapist, so they’d have to act as if all 10 had actually committed rape. I’m not sure what that would mean, but I wonder about the legal liability for any university which accepts someone who is subsequently accused of committing a(nother) rape. Surveillance 24/7?

Another result of Mr. Polis’ plan is that 8 accused rapists would be in a position to sue the originating institution. In fact, to preserve what little of their reputation they would have left, all 10 would be incentivized to file suit. Nobody knows which 2 are guilty, so the odds are good for all of them.

Polis does not explain why any university would want to enroll accused rapists. Perhaps we would need to supply an incentive: Maybe something analogous to carbon credits. Think of accused rapists as coal-fired power plants and complainants as newly planted trees. Why not establish a credit system for the transfer of complainants?

Math is hard, but if 1 in 5 campus men accused of rape is guilty, then 4 of 5 of accusations are false. For every 5 complainants transferred into your institution you could avoid accepting 1 accused rapist. That increases your tuition base. Further, transferring all complainants would address a larger proportion of the problem (4 liars become somebody else’s problem), while simultaneously endangering fewer women on the new campus than the transfer of a single rapist.

It does put a whole new group of men at higher risk of false accusations, but who cares?

It also doesn’t put the real rapists behind bars. But that isn’t the point, is it?

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'

With Representative Jared Polis (D - Boulder, CO) and soon to be former Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton (D - Carpetbag, AR) channeling Iracebeth of Crims, I am reminded not just of Lewis Carroll, but also Joseph Heller and Franz Kafka.

The trial of the Knave in Alice in Wonderland, Clevinger's Court Martial in Catch-22 and Joeseph K.'s year imprisoned in The Trial have much in common with the kangaroo court system Jared and Hillary want to establish.

Carroll:
"If there's no meaning in it," said the King, "that saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn't try to find any."
Heller:
Clevinger was guilty, of course, or he would not have been accused, and since the only way to prove it was to find him guilty, it was their patriotic duty to do so.
Kafka:
"[I]t is an essential part of the justice dispensed here that you should be condemned not only in innocence but also in ignorance.”
Polis:
I mean, if there's 10 people that have been accused and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, [it] seems better to get rid of all 10 people. We're not talking about depriving them of life or liberty, we're talking about their transfer to another university.
Yep. They're at liberty to apply to the University of Accused Rapists.

Hillary:
To every survivor of sexual assault… You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We’re with you.
The 'right' of the accuser to be believed eliminates the rights of the guilty and innocent alike. Who has the "right to be believed?" Well, in Hillary's case, we know who doesn't: Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick and Monica Lewinsky.

Monday, September 14, 2015

Always good intent they have

Actually, that's not true, as Representative Jared Polis, D-CO and the people who applaud him are demonstrating.

Here's what TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972 states:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
That is called the "intent," which for our Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should be sufficient to uphold the law even as it is transformed into Representative Polis' desired result:

“Every male person enrolled in any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance in the United States shall be subject to summary expulsion from that program or activity if anyone, no matter how wildly specious their complaint, makes an accusation of “untoward” behavior as defined by unelected, judicially untrained administrators acting outside the Justice system and without reference to Constitutional protections. The parameters shall apply retroactively and be recodified contemporaneously with each and any accusation to reflect the suggestions of the three (3) most junior female-identifying clerks at the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights who possess a minimum Body Mass Index of 35.”

Friday, September 11, 2015

Gulag Academipelago

I described Title IX thinking just on Wednesday as, "It’s better that all innocent people be convicted than that one guilty person should go free." Apparently, Representative Jared Polis, D-CO, took it as instruction, not criticism:
At a congressional hearing on campus sexual assault, Colorado Rep. Jared Polis suggested that expelling students based solely on the idea that they might have committed a crime is an acceptable standard. And the hearing audience applauded him.

Polis, a Democrat, was discussing due process and standards of evidence as they apply to colleges and universities adjudicating sexual assault. Currently, colleges must be only 50.01 percent sure that an accusation is valid before punishing an accused student (more on that later). Polis began advocating for allowing colleges to use a lower standard than that.

"I mean, if there's 10 people that have been accused and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, seems better to get rid of all 10 people," Polis said. "We're not talking about depriving them of life or liberty, we're talking about their transfer to another university."
The ignorant little fascist neglected to ad, "Pour encourager les autres."

Fourteen years ago

Wednesday, September 09, 2015

Title IX as our conscience

Education Department rewards lying by twisting Title IX
[I]n a recent investigation finding Michigan State University in violation of Title IX, OCR [the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights] required college administrators to offer “remedies” to “Student A,” who both OCR and the university found had made a false allegation of unwelcome sexual misconduct against two fellow students. OCR’s reasoning was that the university did not begin proceedings against the accused students fast enough (even though it immediately kicked them out of their dorm and ordered them to stay away from the accuser).

But the lack of an immediate investigation was not because the university was in any way unsympathetic to victims. Rather, it was due to the fact that the complainant decided not to file formal college charges against the accused (the criminal justice system found her complaint so unbelievable that the accused were never charged, and she declined to pursue formal charges at the college level). It is absurd to demand swift college prosecution of innocent people when the accuser herself does not demand it.

The accused students, whose lives were turned upside down by the charges, were innocent.
Whatever you may think of Title IX's 'intent,' it has been perverted beyond recognition by SJW bureaucrats and University administrators whose livelihood depends on extending it reductio ad absurdum: 'It’s better that all innocent people be convicted than that one guilty person should go free,' as we’ve seen at Duke, UVA, Columbia, etc..

A concomitant problem is the Newspeak redefinition of the word “victim.” We are "experiencing the emergence of a victimhood culture that is distinct from the honor cultures and dignity cultures of the past." At one time we would have seen the falsely accused as the victims, based on the facts. Now, we see liars as victims, based on their genitalia. Training in this thinking starts early:

Boys with sticks
It doesn’t make violence go away when we always tell boys, “Put that stick down.” Instead, it’s making a world where people, boys and girls alike, have no idea what to do about unjust violence...

When your daughter is the one who’s lying barely conscious on the front yard of some frat house, my sons will be the ones who will know enough to charge in, swinging sticks to chase the brutes away. They’ll know because we let them have sticks, we let them find out what sticks can do, and we told them what sticks are for.

Violence doesn’t take over when boys are allowed to have sticks. Violence takes over when no one tells boys what sticks are for.
This speaks to what Christina Hoff Sommers has called “the war against boys,” and it suggests why we might well expect some change, for the worse, in the behavior of some males. They have not been taught the bases of respect for others. In fact, some boys have been actively prevented from learning it. I'm sure this guy is an example.

Grafting an external conscience onto PajamaBoy is easy, and it comes pre-loaded with unearned guilt. He certainly believes the lie that 1 in 5 college women are raped. He recognizes the State definition of moral behavior as superior to his own. He has secret sympathy, because of his original sin of being male, for radical feminists who propose putting all men in concentration camps.

Among other things boys will learn from playing with sticks, under the guidance of caring adults, are the concepts of fair play, honor and mercy. To wit, chivalry. Chivalry is not a one-sided contract, there used to be very different expectations of both male and female behavior. The contract may have needed modification, and that was in progress, but what happened is that the concept of chivalry has been summarily purged from public discourse. The government, piecemeal and arbitrarily, filled the resulting cultural vacuum.

Just as charitable giving is much smaller among Progressives - it’s the government’s job - we’ve farmed out our consciences to federal regulators.

When you remove the caring adults and enforceable contracts you get Lord of the Flies. When you substitute Big Brother for the guidance of caring adults and make the contract up as you go along you get 1984. We've done both.

Wednesday, September 02, 2015

Depends on who the definer of "marked" is

According to The Washington Post, Hillary Clinton sent emails from her private server that the State Department redacted for reasons of national security before they (StateDept) released them to the public.
Although government officials deemed the e-mails classified after Clinton left office…

The classified e-mails, contained in thousands of pages of electronic correspondence that the State Department has released, stood out because of the heavy markings blocking out sentences and, in some cases, entire messages.

The State Department officials who redacted the material cited national security as the reason for blocking it from public view.
Lest we blame the Department of State for tardiness in this matter, the first time they knew about these emails was 2 years after she left office and turned over 55,000 printed pages.
"I have said repeatedly that I did not send nor receive classified material and I'm very confident that when this entire process plays out that will be understood by everyone," she said. "It will prove what I have been saying and it's not possible for people to look back now some years in the past and draw different conclusions than the ones that were at work at the time. You can make different decisions because things have changed, circumstances have changed, but it doesn't change the fact that I did not send or receive material marked classified."
It's certain that by the time this ends it will be understood by everyone that she kept saying what she says.

Her defense has evolved from "no classified emails were sent or received" to "they weren’t classified at the time" she wrote them. But, it appears failing to do so was a mistake.
In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters..

Although it appears to be true for Clinton to say none of her emails included classification markings, a point she and her staff have emphasized, the government's standard nondisclosure agreement warns people authorized to handle classified information that it may not be marked that way and that it may come in oral form..

Clinton and her senior staff routinely sent foreign government information among themselves on unsecured networks several times a month, if the State Department's markings are correct. Within the 30 email threads reviewed by Reuters, Clinton herself sent at least 17 emails that contained this sort of information. In at least one case it was to a friend, Sidney Blumenthal, not in government.

The information appears to include privately shared comments by a prime minister, several foreign ministers and a foreign spy chief, unredacted bits of the emails show. Typically, Clinton and her staff first learned the information in private meetings, telephone calls or, less often, in email exchanges with the foreign officials.
That she has said repeatedly she “did not send or receive classified information” (the “marked classified” bit showed up later, as demonstrated in the next paragraph) contains probably the only true thing she’s said about the whole sordid mess: She's said it repeatedly. One example from her March, 2015 UN press conference:
“I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. I'm certainly well aware of the classified requirements and did not send classified material."
As noted here in March, the emails Secretary of State Clinton wrote weren’t marked “classified,” because Secretary of State Clinton didn’t mark them classified when she sent them.

Why not? She’s sloppy with National Security information? She actually does not know the classified requirements? She forgot she was using her own private server?

This is not, as she has portrayed it, some internecine struggle with the intelligence community over the definition of “classified.” The emails she wrote are classified according to the State Department and were classified when she sent them. It's a security breach whether she recognized that or not. The meaning of "is" in "There is no classified information," doesn't change that.

National security information doesn’t become more sensitive over time, it becomes less sensitive. Otherwise, we’d wait forever for release of all the Nixon tapes, military details about the attack on Pearl Harbor and the identity of Benedict Arnold.

Can anyone come up with any explanation excusing Hillary Clinton from the allegation she sent classified email not involving incompetence? Any explanation not leading inexorably to the conclusion that she cannot be trusted with Presidential level information? Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?