Such A Deal

Written by Yappy.

Now, let me see I understand this deal correctly.  Iran gets immediate relief from the sanctions that were supposed to be holding back their nuclear weapons program.  They get to keep, rather than destroy, several tons of weapons-grade material they have already created, useless for "peaceful purposes,” and they get to keep and even enhance their ability to make more.  They get a "signing bonus" of something like $150 billion to use any way they want, including purchase of conventional weapons, purchase or development of [nuclear] missile capability, and continued or expanded support for international terrorism, with not even a promise to do otherwise.  Of course they DO have to submit to "inspections" of their nuclear sites, but they get to decide which sites are off-limits, to delay inspections up to 24 days, and then they get to name their own inspectors!  They do not even have to disclose what progress they have made towards a nuclear bomb, when the whole idea here was to keep them "one year away."  And after 10 years even that restriction goes away, which means Iran certainly gets a nuclear bomb 11 years from now, unless they cheat during that time, or unless they have enough material to build one already.  Heckuva deal.

Oh, and we get?  Ah, yes, a handful of wonderful magic beans.

The Wrong Argument

Written by Yappy.

Apparently, not even our elite universities teach math and logic anymore, at least not in the curricula that our politicians pass through.  The candidates are quoted as favoring or opposing Obama’s radical 32% cut in CO2 emissions, imposed from ON HIGH, but all seemingly based on whether electricity bills and employment will go up or down.  Republicans (and Obama ’09) insist that electricity bills will skyrocket, while Obama NOW tells us that costs will go DOWN and jobs will go UP—sort of an “if you like your power plant, you can keep your power plant” statement. 

But the truth is readily discernible.  It needs no weasel words, emotional appeals, tarot card readings nor the defense of outright lies.  The laws of chemistry say you cannot cut the emission of CO2 from coal burning—the combination of C and O2—by 32% unless you reduce the amount of coal burned by 32% and the amount of energy produced by 32%.  That skyrockets electric bills and costs jobs because less coal will be mined and transported, and more costly electricity will reduce profit margins in business leading to layoffs.  Simple and straightforward effects.  But think of the outstanding benefits that will accrue from reducing this deadly, global-warming-causing pollutant, they say?  By the EPA’s own analysis, even in the highly unlikely case they are correct, this rule fully implemented will reduce global temperatures by a whopping 0.018 degrees.   That’s 18/1000 of a degree!  I don’t care whether you’re Fahrenheit or Celsius, that’s nothing!  The cost/benefit ratio of this edict is therefore astronomically and indefensibly large and denying that—Obama’s greatest ability is denying truth— ought to get you laughed off the news and condemn this stupid rule to the joke book of history, not the regulatory rulebook. 

Settled law

Written by Yappy.

Well, the Supreme Court has definitively settled one matter of law last week (though not two, as you might think).  That matter is that these nine justices should never again be allowed to make rulings in the middle of a 3-day drunk. 

How else to explain an Obamacare ruling that ignores the clear language, clear intent, and clear initial implementation of the law in favor of the overall supposed intent, clearly belied by its disastrous failure to fulfill that intent?   And if gay marriage must be legal because a woman can marry a man and a man cannot, then have we overturned Roe v. Wade because a woman can have an abortion but a man cannot?  How drunk do you have to be???

Whose Hobgoblin is Gored?

Written by Yappy.

Ralph Waldo Emerson famously said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…”  When it comes to the homosexual or “LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM” agenda, the radical, anti-normal Left has no problem.  The great hive-mind of liberal “thought” has no such problems of logical consistency.  In fact, as one commentator put it:

“And isn't it ironic that the homosexual side of the ledger doesn't acknowledge their arguments simultaneously contend sexual orientation, which is invisible, is immutable from birth, but your sex, formerly identified by plumbing, is as changeable as the weather?”

This bunch has been slavering over this Jenner person for celebrating his psychiatric dysfunction –“gender dysphoria”— with actual physical mutilation, while their big issue in the legislature this year was an attempt to BAN psychiatric help -- “conversion therapy”-- for those voluntarily seeking treatment of “unwanted same-sex attraction.”   I suppose there is some sort of perverse consistency here, in that if it is perverse enough to offend common sense and sensibility, it is OK.  Beyond that, though, you have to admit we “little  minds” just do not understand liberal “thought.” 


Written by Yappy.

The climate alarmists keep trying to convince us that the Theory of Manmade Catastrophic Climate Change is settled science.  Sorry, but it is not science at all.  In scientific terms, it is not even a theory, but an unproven “hypothesis” that predicts manmade CO2 will drive temperatures “catastrophically” higher by the year 2100.  It does not become a “theory” until actual data matches those predictions, 85 years from now!  So far, though, the first 18 years of “testing” have seen EVERY ONE of the 48 computerized climate models FAIL to predict actual global temperatures (they predict too high) by significant margins.  Predictions of more frequent and severe storms have likewise simply failed to appear.  Calling it “Climate Change” to claim recent cold years as proof when the “theory” predicts only WARMING is comedy, not science. 

For real science, we must defer to Al Gore, who discovers that the historical record—400,000 years of temperature and CO2 levels trapped in ice— shows that “they go up and down together.”  The problem for the alarmists is that CO2 goes up about 400 years AFTER temperature rises, not before!  CO2 does not cause global warming; global warming causes CO2!    Finally, even if these alarmists and their computer models were 100% correct, and we drastically curbed our CO2 emissions by 50% (give up half of your driving, heating and electricity), global temperatures would be a negligible 0.07 degrees lower in 2100!   And the costs of avoiding this phony-baloney "catastrophe" far, far exceed any possible benefit, by the alarmists' own reckoning.  The only reason we’re still talking about this subject is likely the $22 Billion the US government spent in 2013 “promoting” the idea.   


Written by Yappy.

I have to say it is great seeing Republicans finally and fearlessly criticizing a Democrat.  Oh, I know that Hillary Clinton offers up a target-rich environment for such criticism, to the point that it is almost easy, but…  STOP IT!  I keep getting all of these fundraising appeals to “stop Hillary,” and I do not want to do any such thing!  Please, please, hold back all criticism of Hillary until AFTER she gets the Democrat nomination, and THEN criticize as much as you will!  If you keep up this level of criticism now, Democrats may go out and find somebody with more charisma and less baggage (and no qualifications) that would have a chance to win and we do not need to suffer through THAT again!

Today's Riddle

Written by Yappy.

Today’s Riddle:  What do an idiot, an Ideologue, and an idolater have in common?

  • An idiot makes a terrible deal with Iran and says, “I didn’t know.”
  • An ideologue makes a terrible deal with Iran and says, “I didn’t care.”
  • An idolater makes a terrible deal with Iran and says, “I am the greatest President ever.”  His idol is himself. 

The answer:  The One is all three. 

The Merry-Go-Boom

Written by Yappy.

Here is the “learned” quote: "It is in fact reality that median household incomes are stagnating and labor's share of GDP is historically low while corporate profits and cash reserves as a share of GDP are historically high."

What matters is what conclusions one can draw from those facts.  In my mind, they are clearly linked, but not in the way liberals believe.  Think about it (for non-liberals only).  Government has made capital investment risky, and punished successful entrepreneurship.  This reduces capital investment that might otherwise produce productivity gains that would justify higher worker wages.  Without that productivity, the supply of goods and services relative to the population is reduced below what it could be, causing prices to increase, along with profits.  Those profits are then retained by the corporation because of the above risks to capital investment. Meanwhile government deficit spending sucks huge amounts of capital out of the marketplace and builds up inflationary pressure that will be released down the line, when the economy recovers, creating the same circumstances—reduced capital investment and rising prices—all over again. 

Having government boost the minimum wage by fiat is just one more in a long, long string of government interventions in the economy, each designed to correct some problem caused by previous government intervention in the economy.  Somebody, please, stop the merry-go-boom. 

Too Late Now

Written by Yappy.

Last fall I was going to propose an experiment to answer the question of “how stupid are we?”   The experiment would work by comparing the vote totals of those people who (apparently) accepted the liberal-money-fueled DFL lie/smear machine as truthful, and those who readily recognized the lies when they saw them over and over and over again.  Now certainly there is a “margin of error” created by the huge DFL money advantage and the fact that over 90% of that spending goes to negative advertising against the Republican.  But Al Franken?  Really?  Mark Dayton?  Really?  I think we’ve answered the question.  On average, we’re about as bright as they are.  :-(


For The Environment

Written by Yappy.

Ah, these environmentalists, how wonderfully their minds spin, like a windmill in the breeze.  They don’t want the Keystone pipeline because there might be a spill, though the trains that replace it are much MORE likely to spill their contents.  They also oppose the pipeline because the oil might “bypass” the US even though it goes right down the middle of the country, to Louisiana refineries who sell most of their product to the US market.  THEN they are concerned that all of that oil will be burned and create CO2 that will cause global warming, but somebody will burn that Canadian oil, and the added CO2 created to ship it to them makes the whole proposition worse than if it were burned here in the US. 

Moreover, speaking of CO2, don’t even try telling them that nuclear power is the safest and most effective, CO2-free alternative available to us.  They hate nuclear power and are committed to “renewables” like wind and solar, even requiring them by law.  But there are a few problems.  First, the geniuses who study this stuff, even though they believe in the global warming scam, believe it is not possible to produce the energy we need with ANY renewable energy source.  

Then of course we have the problem that these energy sources are TERRIBLE for the environment, beyond even their detractions from wilderness beauty or their requirement for fossil fuel backup plants for the half the time when the sun or wind isn’t available.  They are actually killing protected wildlife, and these environmentalists are granting exceptions to the law to both wind and solar energy companies to do it!   Wouldn’t it be great if these folks had a lick of common sense?