High School Never Ends

This has happened to all of us, in some way, shape, manner or form:

Your older sibling has a group of friends and they either form a club (like a tree house, when people used to build tree houses…BTW, what’s the carbon footprint of building a tree house? It’s in a tree, so does that increase or decrease the footprint?) or the older sibling never lets you go out with his/her group of friends.

So what do you do? You throw eggs at the tree house, or vandalize their room while he/she is out with the friends. Or you do other, more mean-spirited stuff. But the point is you get mad at their snobiness and show them that they’re a real jerk.

This is how politics works. The imprint for our 21st century political process is a direct descendent of how we responded to unjust exclusivity during our growing-up years.

So today's by-invitation-only “Regional Energy Forum” held by Obama cabinet folks and Democratic politicians from Colorado, and the subsequent protest of the “forum” is even more ironic because it took place at a high school – the contemporary birthplace of all cliques, clubs, arrogant and ineffective class presidents, and viral social retaliation!

Sometimes things just come together. And it was truly an all-American scene at Fossil Ridge High School today.

By nearly 1:15 p.m., somewhere in the vicinity of 100 protestors lined the entrance to the high school. A man dressed in 18th century drum core regalia played a tune on his fife while chants of “Drill here, drill now!” were struck up by the throng.

American flags large and small rippled in the warm afternoon wind. An occasional car exiting the school would honk as it passed the line of the non-invited. A single-prop airplane even circled overhead, with “No Bama” written on the underside of the wings. When it passed overhead, the crowd found a common cadence of “No Bama, No Bama!”

Picket signs of various size and slogan bobbed up and down. One read, “Shame on you, Ritter and Salazar, for shutting down Colorado’s energy!” Another: “Cap & Trade Is Voodoo Economical Farce.”

In a crowd such as this, opinions were freely given and accepted. One gentlemen in the line scoffed, “How come Ritter showed up in a Yukon SUV? Hypocrite.”

A Loveland man, Carl Langner, accused the Obama administration of using the “excuse” of global warming to wean the U.S. off fossil/nuclear fuels and onto the exponentially more expensive “clean” energy sources.

When asked what he thought about the by-invitation-only forum, Langner said it “sucks.” And about those who were invited? “I call them cronies, but I guess they’re business people.”

Ric Hicks, a representative from Americans for Limited Government, was signing protestors up for a postcard campaign that is to be delivered to Rep. Betsy Markey asking her to vote “no” on a series of Democrat-proposed legislation. Markey was one of the forum’s hosts, along with U.S. Interior Secretary Salazar, Gov. Ritter and White House Council on Environmental Quality Chairwoman Nancy Sutley.

“Maybe there will only be 80 or 100 of these postcards on her desk,” conceded Hicks. “But it lets her know that these 80 or 100 people used their lunch break to voice their concern over where America is heading.”

In a press release issued by Gov. Ritter’s office about the forum, “hundreds of energy and climate stakeholders and business and civic leaders” were in attendance.

“Colorado isn't just a mile high state – we're miles ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to creating a New Energy Economy,” Ritter said during the forum.

Colorado is unfortunately near the end of the pack when it comes to opening up meetings of such magnitude to the general public. Wind energy won’t power Ritter’s Yukon, but it will put more money in the pockets of the “energy and climate stakeholders.”

We're Not Invited

It’s their party and they’ll invite who (whom?) they want to.

According to the Fort Collins Coloradoan:

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley will host a forum at Fossil Ridge High School [in Fort Collins, CO] on the economic impacts of clean energy development. The invitation-only meeting also is hosted by Gov. Bill Ritter and Rep. Betsy Markey and will include business and community leaders focused on the issue.

“Invitation-only,” huh? I for one am SO glad we elected a president that believes in a transparent government. Also, do you see anybody that would have an “R” in front of their names that got an invitation or are going to present? Didn’t think so.

The Coloradoan op-ed notes that Salazar and Sutley will put forward Obama’s plan for “jump-starting the American clean-energy sector to create jobs while reducing pollution . . .”

Awesome! If only the general public were “allowed” to come to the meeting so they could also see how awesome this plan will be. Too bad. Why couldn’t the Obama administration create some economic stimuli and, you know, actually open this event to the public by creating 100,000 invitations that could be printed at various Fort Collins print houses?

In an e-mail from a Colorado citizen action group, the Obama Administration and Colorado officials will answer questions from stakeholders about the local/regional energy issues. The e-mail also said that U.S. Senators Udall and Bennett also got an invitation and will each address the attendees. A protest of the invite-only shindig is planned to go down at 1 p.m. at the Fossil Ridge High School in Fort Collins, where the event is being held.

Gov. Ritter was quoted by the Coloradoan as saying, “Just as the industrial revolution created jobs in the 20th century, we now usher in a new century of innovation, creativity and entrepreneurial vigor.”

I wonder if the pontificators at this private pow-wow will mention the Spain study that found that for every renewable/green job created, two jobs in some other industry got axed. My gut is telling me no.

I don’t know what bugs me more, though: the fact that our politicians are having policy meetings in a “boys only” tree-house club kind of way, or that the Coloradoan spent half the article talking about how green the venue is. FRHS is, apparently, one of a hand full of high schools in the U.S. to get a “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building” certification.

Woot woot! The Coloradoan continued its drooling: “They couldn’t have picked a better location for a forum on this issue.”

Well ladi-frickin-dah. Too bad they couldn’t have let the energy consumers – all of us who don’t hold a political office and aren’t multi-million dollar stakeholders – get in on the forum action. Hurray for hope and change.

". . . the future belongs to those who show up for it."

Many stories, articles and happenings to post about today, but this one seemed to jump out at me more than the others. This also augments my "Dying to Be Green" post from a few days ago. From SteynOnline (where else?), I give you "Brewing and Breeding". Truly a great, yet harrowing, read.

Teaser:

Britain has a below-replacement fertility rate; its population increase depends entirely on immigrants and their children. If Scots and Ulstermen and the like are despoiling the planet, you can tie their tubes. But their place in the maternity ward will be taken by Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, and even some virtuous Ethiopians: As Europe already knows, no matter how fast you self-extinguish, First World infrastructure does not stay empty. Ethiopia comes to you: Abyssinia in all the old familiar places.

A Link a Day Keeps the Socialism Away

Just think what four will do for you!

Hope and Change Has Become Predictable Liberalism - by Troy Senik.

It would be safe to say Troy is a "senik" (ha, ha, ha) of the Obama administration's ability to lead. Highlight from the column:

"But as the first act of [Obama's] presidency has played out, he has shown himself to be anything but transcendent. Instead, he is an utterly predictable creature - a conventional liberal who mixes the weakness of Jimmy Carter with the ideological rigidity of George McGovern. And he is thus engaged in a conversation that the rest of the country concluded decades ago."


The Left’s Double Standard on Dissent - by Ken Connor.

The days of "dissent is patriotic" are long gone. As Connor notes: "The Democrats’ handling of public criticism over proposed health care reform, however, reveals a sinister side of the Left that is about as intolerant, undemocratic, and illiberal as it gets."


Canadians visit U.S. to get health care - by Patricia Anstett at the Detroit Free Press.

All right, I have an idea: let's revamp our health care system so that it looks like Canada's/Great Britain's! No? Fine. But think of all the foreign countries you'd get to visit because you'd have to travel abroad to get the care you need!


Tourists warned as Asian hornets terrorise French - by Telegraph.co.uk staff report.

Oh, come on! Are we gonna have to save the French again? Seriously.

Dying to Be Green

I came across this article a few weeks ago and haven’t had time to comment on it until now.

Titled “Save the Planet: Have Fewer Kids”, the article begins with this statement: “For people who are looking for ways to reduce their ‘carbon footprint,’ here’s one radical idea that could have long-term impact, some scientists say: Have fewer kids.”

“Radical” is one way to put it. Morbid might be another term. Apparently, statisticians at Oregon State University determined that the greenhouse gas impact – or “carbon legacy” – of an extra child is “almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices,” including driving Priuses, recycling, or buying mercury-filled light bulbs.

One member of the study team, Paul Murtaugh, is quoted as saying, “. . . we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime. . . . But an added challenge facing us is continuing population growth and the increasing global consumption of resources.”

The article states that in the United States, “each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent – about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.”

Translation: If you really want to do your part to stop climate change, plan on really small family reunions in the coming years.

Of course, these statisticians aren’t pushing for some kind of child-limit law, but “they simply want to make people aware of the environmental consequences of their reproductive choices.”

Hmm. Makes you wonder if these same statisticians will now push for abstinence-only sex education in public schools. Somehow I doubt it. Having sex should have no relation (pun intended) on procreating.

This article reminded me of another green/population growth article that appeared in the Times Online back in March. From the other side of the pond:

Jonathon Porritt, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.

Porritt’s call will come at this week’s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.

The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the
country wants to feed itself sustainably.

Take a guess at what Britain’s total population was in 2008. Go ahead. If you said slightly more than double (61,270,000) the 30 million Porritt wants to annihilate then you get a smiley face sticker. Porritt’s proposed reduction would bring the population back to Victorian-era numbers.

But should all countries send half of their populations to the death camps?

Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries.

How…noble of us?

You might be asking the question, “How do they propose cutting entire population’s in half?” Answer: Britain's Tory leader, David Cameron, suggested that the UK needs a “coherent strategy” on population growth.

Oh, I know: How about we limit the number of babies a couple can have! It’s working for China, right? The good of the planet is at stake.

The irony is that most of Europe has already subconsciously enacted a birth-limit policy. By 2002, all of the member states of the European Union had a birth rate below the sustainability level (2.1 children born per woman). Spain’s birth rate in 2000 was 1.07 per woman, and rests precipitously today at 1.31; Italy’s birthrate is also at 1.31; Portugal’s is 1.48; Poland’s is a disastrous 1.28. Demographers believe that it is virtually impossible for a nation to recover once its birth rate dips to 1.3. In the United States, the latest numbers put our birth rate hovering somewhere around the sustainability level.

There’s more to this story than just declining birthrates. In 2000, 15% of Europe’s population was 65 or older. By 2060, there will only be two workers for every person 65 years or older. A Business Week article from October of 2007 noted that European Union residents 65 years or older outnumbered those 14 and under. Yikes.

(By the way, the European Muslim birth rate is three times higher than Europe’s non-Muslim population. The Muslim population in Europe will double by 2015, while the rest will shrink by 3.5%. Do you think Allah cares about carbon legacies?)

So what do you get when you cross a self-sterilizing culture with a rapidly-aging population? The Oregon State statisticians would probably say a positive, earth-friendly carbon legacy. So would Jonathon Porritt and other British greenmongers. My answer would be the end of democracy and Liberalism in Western Civilization.

Here’s the larger point, though. God’s command in Genesis 1 to “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it,” doesn’t exactly line up with the worldview/climate-change-combating measures of the Jonathon Porritts of the world. Nor do the Scriptures that praise children as a blessing from the Lord. It's one thing to be a steward of God's earth. But that stewardship needs to be anthropocentric. Calling for a nation's population to be slashed in half to save us from global warming is the furthest thing from a Biblical mandate on how to care for God's world.

Obviously, Europe’s declining birth rate can’t all be chalked up to a desire to live greenly. The anesthesia of socialism that has lulled Europe from its personal responsibility is largely to blame for the lack of kids that aren’t there now.

But it would be a mistake not to believe that a sizeable portion of the European population is making family decisions with an earth-first mindset – demographics and the survival of their culture be damned.

A 2007 story from the UK DailyMail tells how three individuals in Britain have had abortions and have been sterilized – all because they thought they were saving the planet. A certain Mark Hudson proclaimed, “That’s why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth.” His fiancé, Sarah Irving, quipped, “When I see a mother with a large family, I don’t resent her, but I do hope she’s thought through the implications.”

This kind of green fanaticism is setting the standard for what it means to live a truly environmentally-friendly, climate-change-combatting life.

Sure, you can drive a Prius, use public transportation or buy locally-grown food. But if you really want to save the world, don’t procreate. That’s as green as green can be.

Well, I'm Back

Lindsey and I returned from our 10-day journey through New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Colorado Sunday night.

This was one of the greatest trips of my life and rates right up there with the honeymoon, to be honest. We were both exhausted yet happy when we arrived home Sunday night, with frames and fragments from the last 10 days spinning in our minds. We dubbed it the “Marriage Building Traveling Seminar.” Hooray for euphemisms.

Many pictures were taken, and for a mini-blog of all that went down, visit www.facebook.com/tsides. I will hopefully be posting pics and maybe even a Bill Simmons-ish retro diary of the trip sometime on here in the near future.

In the meantime, I am back to the blogging. Stay tuned and keep your stick on the ice.

The Road Goes Ever On And On

Tomorrow at 5:30 a.m. my wife and I are taking a 2nd anniversary/both of us finally finished with school (she just finished her BSN)/going to visit her father trip to Jerome, Ariz.; hike around Moab for a couple days, then chill in Vail on the return trip. Don't expect many posts until the Aug. 17. Until then, make the most of the time you've been given, and enjoy the journey. As the Bagginses might say:

The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can,
Pursuing it with eager feet,
Until it joins some larger way
Where many paths and errands meet.
And whither then? I cannot say.

Healthy Criticism

Nevada must be bursting. From the AP:

The Senate’s most powerful Democrat on Thursday scolded health care protesters dogging his party’s lawmakers at local meetings, arguing that some critics on the political right have run out of ideas – and ditched their civic manners. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada accused the protesters of trying to “sabotage” the democratic process.

So, pushing for a House bill that is too large to read and bad-mouthing “the people” isn’t sabotaging the democratic process? And is House Leader Nancy Pelosi claiming that health care protestors are “carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town hall meeting on healthcare” a positive example of civic manners?

The problem with expanding government is that once it hits a certain waist-size, it thinks of itself as a kind of god appointed to tell the people how they should live their lives. After all, we’ve given government that power, we’ve forfeited individual and community responsibilities to them, so why shouldn’t it act as if they know better?

For all intents and purposes in several aspects of our American lives, we’ve given the Federal government the green light to run our lives. Europe is suffering the consequences of this good-willed totalitarianism that has been suffocating their culture and individual freedoms for most of this decade.

When the “common people” protest and criticize, the Reids and Pelosis take it personally. It’s an affront to their reality that they are a morally-enlightened group of people who know how to run our lives better than we do. That’s why they call protestors Nazis and saboteurs. Even if the government did know how to run our lives better, it would still be wrong of them to do so.

As Mark Steyn puts it, “I’d rather be free to choose, even if I make the wrong choices.”

Opening Up LaHood

I love David Harsanyi. Really. I think I have a man-crush on him (and he lives in Denver!). Why? Because he writes about the "Cash for Clunkers" program with lines like this:

Then again, in Washington, a place where elected officials are astonished -- astonished! -- when a program doling out free cash is popular, success often translates into higher costs and fewer results.

Satirical and beautiful! Harsanyi opens up the hood to see what "Cash for Clunkers" is really all about:

A survey of car dealerships found a relatively small differential in fuel efficiency between cars traded in and those replacing them. A Reuters analysis concluded -- even with the extended program in place -- "cash for clunkers" would trim U.S. oil consumption by only a quarter of 1
percent.

As an economic stimulus, the plan is equally impotent. As James Pethokoukis, a columnist at Reuters, succinctly explained, "The program gets much of its juice via stealing car sales from the near future rather than generating additional demand." . . .

This week, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood claimed that "cash for clunkers" had benefited domestic car companies, particularly Ford. When The Associated Press requested data to verify this contention, the most transparent administration ever to grace God's soon-to-be-unblemished Earth refused to release the data.

Hmm. So you're telling me that destroying perfectly-functioning automobiles for government-preferred "green" cars won't boost the economy or "save" the planet? And it also hurts the poor and charities?

Sounds like hope and change to me.

Blamestorm Season

Timothy Geithner let off some steam about stimulus and financial regulation troubles.

From the New York Times:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner blasted top regulators in an expletive-laden tirade amid frustration over President Barack Obama’s faltering plan to overhaul financial regulation, Reuters reported, citing a Monday story in The Wall Street Journal.

And these people want to run our healthcare? I don't think so, Tim.

*cheesey line about how my blog is new and improved*

Welcome. I have revamped my blog and will actually make posts more than once every couple years.

You'll find everything here: current events, political commentary, religious dialogue, and probably even some sports and culture stuff. We're in postmodernity, baby, so everything is connected and nothing off limits.

I will be adding gadgets and features to the blog as I go along, so please be patient as I get things up and running. For now, enjoy the posts, leave a comment or two and feel free to join.

Peace out.