Absurdistan Weekend Update #10: Liberals Likely Looking to Lose
by Bob Stapler | View comments |
Print This Post
More Bob Stapler.
The New York Times is finding new ground for defeat in Afghanistan and helping stoke the fires of a panic. Dissatisfied with the failure to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory in Iraq, they are trying afresh in Afghanistan. According to the article, a major prison break represents “one of the worst security lapses in Afghanistan in the six years since the United States intervention here . . . so serious that if the Taliban had wanted to, they could have seized control of the city of Kandahar . . ..” While certainly serious, it is hardly irreparable damage. Somehow, in the NYT’s estimation, these little brushfires are beyond the capacity of the world’s only superpower to fix. You’d think after all the false-alarm irreversible disasters the Times reported in Iraq, they’d wise up.
In a complementary (and similarly negative) article, Thomas Friedman (overawed by the Chinese powerhouse from his ringside seat in the Olympic bleachers) muses that we are falling too far behind due to the pesky distraction of Iraq; and it is time for us to get out so we can return to business as usual. While Friedman is certainly observant and probably correct that China is overtaking us in some respects, I dispute his priorities. War is not generally good for business, and a prolonged war (particularly one in which half the country beats a negative drum) is especially damaging. But neither is leaving your enemies in a position to hit you in the butt should you turn your back. I have a different formula. Let’s all get solidly behind the war, fund and man it properly, and finish the business. That way we can return ‘safely and comfortably’ to business as usual. It is half-hearted measures and the too-many-cooks priorities that are killing our trade. While we’re at it, let’s say we drill for oil to address that balance of trade problem, bring down fuel prices, and create a few new domestic jobs. And, if that still doesn’t make us sufficiently competitive, let’s cut taxes (especially corporate taxes) to spur growth and start flooding their markets with our cheap goods. Doing it that way, we can probably pay for the war out of the tax surplus. Dang the subtle implications too complicated for mere conservatives to follow and denunciations of imperialist-dog capitalism, full speed ahead!
In another article the NYT is stumped that wind-power has met with grid-resistance. Not too surprising given the inadequacy of the regional grid to take all the power offered. The New York grid is part of a larger, 100+-year-old patchwork of multi-state grids with massive yet-to-be-addressed infrastructure problems taking years to fix. In the rush to become green and clean, New York has spent millions on a system it cannot begin to utilize until these grid problems are resolved; diverting funds that would have been better spent upgrading transmission. Adding power does not solve the problem of worn out transmission equipment that was the prime cause of the 2005/6 blackouts. Moreover, a 2006 report on the state of electrical generation and transmission in a nine state region (including New York) concluded that generation was not the immediate concern. Investment in transmission would not only solve most of the problem of acceptance, the net savings in lost energy to inefficient transmission more than offset what the wind farms provide, dollar for dollar. Nonetheless, political-correctness dictates green shall come before all, even if we must enjoy its benefits in darkness.
Maureen Dowd believes Obama was in danger of having both his convention and his campaign hijacked and, for once, I am inclined to agree with her. She reports many delegates voicing high-anxiety at the DNC convention, including one observer who regarded the packaged love-fest more like “submerged hate” riddled with divisions. David Brooks, in a separate article, goes even farther, characterizing the Obe-messiah as an “elusive Rorschach test candidate” who has been pulled apart, reassembled by powerful forces, repackaged and reissued as so many clichés. What gives when not one, but two NYT regulars are this worried this guy is floundering?
SF Gate reports that David Duchovny, star of Californication and the X-Files, has checked into rehab as a sex-addict. Beyond the irony of Hollywood actors playing roles for which they are ideally suited, what is here newsworthy is we now have a thriving psychobabble industry dedicated to preserving the self-esteem of the sexually weak and perverse. Where, before, the philandering party could expect just retribution from a jilted spouse, the spouse and family are now expected to endure the wayward partner as a ‘victim of addiction’ for however long that takes to cure. How convenient. Similarly, are society and victims now expected to endure and accept ‘rehabilitated’ rapists, child-molesters, and assorted deviants? Sex-addict rehab centers cater to both criminal and non-criminal sex-addicts (making me wonder how many rapists and molesters Duchovny may have to ‘share’ deep feelings with in his encounter groups).
One respondent to the article claims, “Sex Addiction is a real condition that affects the lives of many people and, instead of being about someone who wants to have sex all the time, usually involves a compulsive fear of intimacy. Maybe you could show a little compassion before you pass such severe judgements on people you don't have any way of knowing anything about . . ..” Spoken like a true practitioner. This remark is typical of the justification-mentality turning misconduct into victimless-crime. Sorry, but if Duchovny, a man with a wife and kids, hopped into bed with someone not his wife, it was a decision he [semi-]consciously made for which he must now be prepared to pay; else we are all free from marital fidelity. Yes, being weak is a human trait, but the respondent is mistaken in thinking most of us are so weak we can’t resist and, so, draw on our empathy as equally pathetic sinners to not only forgive the sin but pretend it is okay.
I don’t need to know the specifics of a bad-faith miscreant’s mental state so long as he/she is not a total moron. Duchovny may be Hollywood idol and loony-liberal given to the usual self-indulgent rationalizations, but he’s not a moron and knew, when he did it, it was wrong. You know that guilty sinking feeling you get even in the throes of an illicit pleasure? That’s your conscience knocking; and the honorable person knows to answer. I am glad Duchovny now realizes the mess he made and he’s getting help, but, please, let’s not feel sorry for the louse!
* * *
NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating Xcel Energy on behalf of investors (with an eye toward lawsuits on behalf of investors?). XE is a Minnesota-based holding company with absolutely no utility operations in New York State. The only connection to New York is the NY Stock Exchange, through which investors anywhere (domestic and foreign) may invest in the company. Cuomo’s contention is “investors have the right to know all the associated risks . . . [and companies need to] disclose risks to investors from its stake in coal-burning power plants and any related liability from global-warming, lawsuits and new regulations or laws.” Why? When did it become the government of New York’s concern what a private business does in Colorado? How did we get to the point where rules of investment in one state dictate the social rules of operation in another state? The “ground breaking precedent” Cuomo is making has New York (through its investors) dictating global-warming policy for Wyoming. Cuomo may be abusing a power created to prevent specific kinds of fraud to meet an unattainable and unrealistic goal; which is itself a form of fraud – this time with government as perpetrator.
* * *
A Baltimore City official, Deputy Director of Operations Anthony P. Wallnofer, Jr., is accused of breaking a rule he wrote prohibiting city workers from participating in city auctions. Apparently, he saw a confiscated boat too nice to pass up. But, it gets better. Wallnofer did not buy the boat himself. A city towing contractor petitioning Wallnofer to allow an increase in towing fees bought the boat. It is as yet undisclosed how it then came into Wallnofer’s possession. Apparently, the boat showing up in Wallnofer’s backyard did not quite go unnoticed. Or was he bragging at the office?
* * *
A Baltimore Sun article by Tricia Bishop opines, "you don't have to spend a lot of green to go green. In fact, changing a few habits, and maybe a few light bulbs, can save you money," cites Alice McKeown (World Watch Institute) to give her article an air of authenticity, and links you to the BS Green Page for additional tips on how you to can both save the planet and a few bucks. Of course, there is nothing especially ‘green’ about these suggestions unless you buy into a couple of unproved assumptions (i.e., CO2 is a pollutant and the new technologies' net contribution to pollution and global warming are less than what they replace). Nowhere does the article or Green Page show us how we are to save money; in fact, most of the suggestions are costly with long pay-back periods. The remaining tips are recycled from 1940s ‘Hints from Heloise,’ and are no more than how to get one more use out of that coffee can before adding it to the trash heap.
As to Bishop’s supposed ‘expert,’ a closer look reveals a devoted environmentalist. World Watch gives McKeown’s title as ‘Research Associate and Vital Signs Online Director’ and reveals her academic background is in anthropology (master’s degree) and preaching to Congress on the environment. Further research turns up McKeown is a long-time Sierra Club operative who variously touts herself as their ‘expert’ on coal, coal-liquification, air quality, and mercury despite a total lack of technical credentials that would support such expertise. I know a good deal more than Ms. McKeown about energy, how it is produced, and practical matters of waste. So if I drink enough of the Kool-Aid, lobby a couple of years, get some Congressmen to buy my BS, and do all this while drawing a paycheck from the Sierra Club, does that make me an expert on energy or just one more opinionated blowhard with an agenda. Besides providing Sierra Club with ‘expertise,’ she has been a sponsor/publicist for SC’s ‘Clean Air & Coal Campaigns’ and writes frequent anti-coal articles condemning coal-liquification as an unacceptable alternative to oil. As far as I can tell, she is still an active partner in and advocate for SC. This makes McKeown a radical, and a romp through her many articles, position statements, and Congressional citations should be enough to convince most people she is hardly an objective player. Her ‘expertise’ is insubstantial and tainted, consisting mainly in the collected ‘wisdom’ of anti-technology activists in conflict with real technical and economic experts. Not surprisingly, the sponsors of her several bills include a number of prominent liberals, including Jim Jeffords, Henry Waxman, and Barack Obama (but also some Republicans). Not too surprisingly the Sierra Club enthusiastically endorsed Obama as the candidate most likely to commit us to the full global warming agenda and prevent domestic drilling.
That’s the news from Absurdistan. I hope the news, where you are, is all good.
rstapler@aceweb.com
Read more articles by Bob Stapler
Bob:
“A Baltimore Sun article by Tricia Bishop opines, ‘you don't have to spend a lot of green to go green.’…”
This is bullcrap. Whatever Alice McKeown’s expertise is, it’s certainly not engineering.
My parents had a refrigerator that never broke. I bought my first fridge in the mid-70s, just when all these energy-saving laws were coming on the books. It lasted about 15 years. I bought a new one to replace it, and it lasted less than 10 years. The one I have now, bought new, lasted about 9 months before the compressor went. It is now less than 5 years old, and the ice-maker and condenser blower just went – $408 worth. Searching for a replacement, I read actual buyer reviews on various websites, including Consumer Reports, and the consensus seems to be universal: people either love their refrigerator or hate it. Those who have owned it for the shortest time love it; those who have had theirs for a few years hate it, and there seems to be about a 50-50 chance of getting a lemon right out of the box. I suspect that some sort of law of cost conservation is at work here because you cannot get something for nothing. There are no solutions in life, only trade-offs, and engineering is the prime example. Saving all that energy has to come at a cost, and that cost appears to be reliability. The bottom line is nothing new: it costs a lot of money to save energy, and those replacement parts didn’t require zero energy to manufacture.
Comment by sedonaman | August 30, 2008
Sedonaman,
All you say is true, but look again at McKeown quote in the Sun article. There is no real connection between the article's premise and McKeown nor her quotation. It is pure non-sequitor, put in the article merely to give it authority where none exists. Yet, looking beyond the disconnect within the article, there is also the disconnect of McKeown herself who parades herself as energy/pollution expert. Mz Bishop may as well have cited Paris Hilton as energy expert for all the difference it would make. Not that McKeown has not learned a little about energy and pollution along the way, simply whatever she 'knows' depends on someone else to fill in those technical aspects she is unlikely to comprehend without an engineering background. I am an engineer and can tell you there are no shortcuts to learning the stuff she says she's expert at; and having just read her stuff find no reason to think otherwise.
Unfortunately, 'getting what you pay for' when it comes to refrigerators is a little more complex in today's feature-rich environment. That was more likely to have been true when refrigerators were simple insulated boxes with a compressor, evaporator coil, condenser coil sticking out the back, a fan and a couple of on-off controls (my background is mainly refrigeration and HVAC). Today's top-end refrigerators have digital brains, ice dispensers, automatic defrost controls, phones, data-links, digital TV screens, different bin & compartment arrangements, storage capacity, and construction (i.e., painted aluminum v. stainless). I've even seen one with a built-in microwave oven. So price may connote quality, but more likely accounts for differences in features. You are right that a change has taken place in the robustness of equipment (especially at the low price end) as box stores and outsourcing have expanded the number of players and choices. We have traded off consummer protectionism for choice. If we have sacrificed something in quality, it is not without economic benefits. For example, although that 15-year, 16 cubic-foot refrigerator cost about $300 in 1985 dollars, inflate that to 2008 dollars and it cost more like $1,050. Today, you'd replace it with an 18.2CF refrigerator with hidden condenser coil and quieter, hidden fans for around $530. That's a greater than 55% savings (allowing for increased capacity) and most of us will last around 8 years without a major repair (sorry you got the odd lemon). Correcting for differences in equipment life, however, the savings is more like 40-45%. Still that's not too shabby. If my estimated repair cost on a 5-year old refrigerator is more than 1/3 the cost of replacement, I'd have just bought a new one (I'm surprised your repairman didn't suggest that, and always get an estimate). So the trade-off is capacity and price for average equipment life. Whereas before you'd have bought one unit every 15 years, now you'd buy two at about half the cost but with a little better utilization. Looks like a wash to me.
Comment by Bob Stapler | August 30, 2008
"If my estimated repair cost on a 5-year old refrigerator is more than 1/3 the cost of replacement, I'd have just bought a new one…"
I wanted to do just that, but my wife didn't want to spend $2,000 on a new one. The repair really didn't give me the warm feeling that all is well because the compressor is still running so hot you can't hardly touch it. Seems like it could go at any time. Now she gets to spend $2,000 in addition to the $408.
Comment by sedonaman | August 30, 2008
Sedonaman,
We're in danger of turning this into the handyman's corner, but you are right about the compressor (my apologies to your lovely bride). Compressors run hot but not so hot they cook to death and not uniformly hot top to bottom. Typically, the top should be uncomfortably hot (approx. 125-140F) but not so hot it burns you at the slightest touch. The bottom should be comfortably cool to slightly warm (<90-deg F). If the top of your compressor is hot enough to boil water, it is definitely cooking itself to death. If so, call the repair guy back and tell him you have a hot compressor.
If you are not real sure of the temperature, get one of those kitchen bimetal thermometers with a range between 40 and 212F, hold it against the top of the compressor where you think it hottest. Press in place with a pot-holder or cloth rag to protect yourself. This won't be highly accurate, but should get you within 10-degrees of actual. Better yet, if you know someone with an infrared (non-contact) thermometer, borrow that.
Comment by Bob Stapler | August 30, 2008
Bob:
Thanks. The best I could do is use a pocket meat thermometer which I think is accurate because it agrees with other thermometers. I set it on top of the compressor and laid an oven mit over it to hold it in place — crude at best due to the dome shape of the compressor. It reads 160F after about 5 minutes. Did not want to risk a false reading by letting the mit cause heat build-up. Could not check the bottom because it is inaccessible. I have also been letting it run with the back panel off to let air circulate.
In any event, we have a new fridge on order, and when it comes in, this one is headed for the garage to live or die there.
Thanks again for the info.
Comment by sedonaman | August 30, 2008
At the DNC convention Al Gore said "Before he entered the White House, Abraham Lincoln’s experience in elective office consisted of eight years in his state legislature in Springfield, Illinois, and one term in Congress, during which he showed courage and wisdom to oppose the invasion of another country in a war that was popular when it started but later condemned by history."
OK, so it’s clear that he is comparing Abe to B. Hussein. First of all, Abe was a Republican! Then he is talking about Lincoln’s opposition to the Mexican-American War so he takes advantage of a double reference to Iraq and Latinos. I suppose then that Mr. Global Warming is telling us the BHO will get us out of Iraq, let any Mexican in, and start a civil war. Maybe Al is a part of the Clinton machine after all? I just don’t get it.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | September 1, 2008
Ivan,
I am not sure what you are responding to here. Did you post your comment to the wrong article perhaps?
Comment by Bob Stapler | September 1, 2008
Bob
I appoligize. I wasn't so much a responce as it was something I felt was in keeping with your looney liberal theme.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | September 1, 2008
Ivan,
In that case, by all means pile it on! Afterall, isn't imitation the highest compliment? Thanks.
Comment by Bob Stapler | September 2, 2008