From
The Land of Fruits and Nuts comes yet another hare-brained piece of “take-from-the-rich-give-to-the-misguided” legislation:
Proposition 87 is intended to reduce California’s petroleum diet by 25% over the next ten years by making it more financially painful for consumers and producers through higher taxes. Those funds would be re-distributed for the development of alternative fuels and technology.
Who do you think the pro-
Prop 87 crowd wooed to pitch this misguided piece of garbage: None other than the inventor of the Internet and global warm-monger
Al Gore, who is the pitchman in his first TV commercial since his ill-fated run for the Presidency.
Proposition 87 would tax big oil companies, which opponents say would result in passing through the higher costs to consumers, dampening productivity and inflating the cost of living.
Opponents of
Prop-87 correctly predict oil companies would pass the costs along to consumers, which could instead hamper economic growth in the state, and actually increase the imports of less expensive foreign fuels.
Gore’s crowd promises
Prop-87 would cut California’s reliance on foreign oil, and—here’s the pitch---be good for the environment.
Uh huh.
Psst, Al—it all comes from the same planet.
Domestic or foreign, there’s no difference to the environment.
Wouldn’t it be amazing if someone would come along with a plan to
reward development of newer, cleaner technologies instead of punish users of current modes of energy generation?
Wouldn’t it be a breath of fresh air (pun intended) if these environmentalist ya ya groups and legislators could figure out a more constructive way to
encourage the outcomes they desire, instead of trying to impose their social re-engineering schemes with regressive and economically harmful assessments?
And here’s another notion to consider—why
not use foreign oil,
before we use ours? Why is it such a bad idea to consume the supplies of countries who hate us (but not enough to stop selling us their oil)? If we use theirs first, who has the most oil when theirs runs out?
We do.
The people in power in
Saudi Arabia,
Iran,
Nigeria and
Venezuela are really just stealing the resources of their people. They are selling their oil, whether they can get $70 or $10 per barrel, and hiding the money for themselves in U.S. and European Treasuries and Swiss bank accounts. They're not going to stop selling us oil, even though they hate us, because they love stealing their countries' resources more than they hate our country.
This is like a big board game—only the stakes are more serious—in which the winner will be the one with the largest supply of petroleum in an age in which availability of the commodity will equate to survival at the most basic level.
Yes, America
should develop alternative sources of energy.
Yes, America
should wean itself from the need for foreign oil (but not stop sucking on the teat just yet).
Here’s why:
If terrorism is nearly 100% supported by oil revenues, what’s the
best way to thwart such activities? When these third-world thugs are out of oil, they’ll have no resources with which to attack us.
When they run out of non-renewable energy sources, and we still have ours, who will best control the flow of renewable paper money (which we can print at will)?
Under the principal of supply and demand, why
not buy their relatively cheap oil now, and save ours for when the price is even higher than it is today?
Why use our more expensive oil to burn
then, instead of using it as an actual lubricant for the machines of industry? There are plenty of other ways to make heat and generate energy, but only oil can ease the friction of metal against metal. When we’re burning alternative fuels later on, we’ll still have plenty to grease the skids…and the bearings and the axles and the cranks to keep our society productive. So why
not use their oil now and keep ours for when it’s more rare and expensive?
Like the king of the hill, I would like to be the last man/country standing when the rest of the world runs out of petroleum. Eventually, oil will be synonymous with the ability to wage war (and enforce the peace).
By the way, movie star actors of make-believe stories,
James Caan and
Jamie Lee Curtis, were on hand to introduce the
Al Gore pro-Prop-87 commercial media event in Beverly Hills. Wonder if anyone was taking notes of the vehicle types these people were driving? I wasn’t there; I don’t know.
But it’s highly improbable that Gore, Caan and Curtis showed up in
Prius or
Honda hybrid automobiles.
What is the deal with all the books be dredged up in the ancient histories of some political candidates?
Vice-presidential wife Lynne Cheney’s torrid passages in a book she wrote 25-years ago have resurfaced over the weekend. She says the book is not her best work, and would not allow the publisher to issue the novel a few years back…
Two complaints about such tactics: they don’t tell me a thing about the candidate that is pushing the piece. Do these political strategists actually believe voters are going to make their choices next Tuesday by winnowing out who’ll they’ll not vote for?
We watched “Man of the Year” over the weekend. That’s the movie in which Robin Williams plays a TV comedian who finds himself on the campaign trail for the U.S. Presidency…and really shakes up the race by simply pointing out the truth in all the issues, and that the establishment politicians have been doing nothing more than working only to be re-elected.
