This has been a hell of a year for the UN. I have expressed outrage over this useless, bloated bureaucracy numerous times over the course of the year, as they have done nothing but embarrass themselves and flaunt their ridiculous budget while calling for global collectivism and advocating for a punishment of those evil industrialized nations for their rampant consumerism. There is very little about the United Nations that doesn’t piss me off to no end.

Yet, they continue to outdo themselves, and I fear that this time they have gone too far. I just hope that I’m not the only one, because they’re treading in really disturbing territory now: your children.

As if the omnipresent liberal influence and indoctrination of the children in public schools isn’t bad enough, the United nations now wants a piece of that action. The UN is joining up with Marvel Comics to put out a comic line that features familiar Marvel superheroes working with the UN. From the Financial Times:

“The comic, initially to be distributed free to 1m US schoolchildren, will be set in a war-torn fictional country and feature superheroes such as Spider-Man working with UN agencies such as Unicef and the “blue hats”, the UN peacekeepers.”

Uh huh. While the asinine premise bothers me to no end, the aspect of the story that really got my attention was this line:

“…initially to be distributed free to 1m US schoolchildren…”

No eff’n way! They are going to be spreading the gospel of the UN, in Marvel superhero fashion, to one million US schoolchildren? Personally, I see this as a bad thing. We should not be allowing for an increased level of liberal “globalist” indoctrination of schoolchildren. If anybody can explain to me how this is in the least bit objective in nature, I would be very surprised. This is second only to showing Al Gore’s work of fiction in schools and passing it off as fact.

To further add to the audacity of this, the premise is being compared to the original “politicization” of Marvel superheroes back in World War II. While the goal of the WW2 comics was to help inspire people and build morale during the darker days of the war in Europe, the UN’s goal is different. Much different. And certainly more ominous:

“The UN’s goals are somewhat different: according to its website, it hopes the comics will teach children the value of international co- operation and sensitise them to the problems faced in other parts of the world. “

No. Absolutely unacceptable. Schoolchildren do not need to be “sensitized” to problems faced in other parts of the world (global warming?). They should be taught about the problems facing us here at home. They should not learn the “value of international cooperation.” They should learn the value of sovereignty and national pride.

Is this the sort of thing that we want invading our schools? I don’t know the details yet, but I would believe that there is little likelihood of parents having any say in this matter. The schools, the government and now the UN are running the show. How long will this be allowed to continue?

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

We made the mistake of trying to impose a national prohibition against alcoholic beverage once already in our history. However, we seem to be doomed to continually repeat our mistakes over and over since our lawmakers seem to be cursed with a curious inability to learn from history, so maybe it’s time to try this failed policy again. Who knows, maybe it could work this time around. Heck, spread enough disinformation and I bet we could push for a prohibition on drinking tap water too.

So why on earth would I propose such a silly thing as banning alcohol? Well, to be honest it’s not any more silly than smoking bans. In fact, if you want to look at the facts, banning alcohol would actually make more sense than smoking… But since when do facts mean anything these days? Popular opinion is clearly much more powerful than reality.

I have been looking through all of the various rationales for smoking bans and have recently started a one-man campaign against Wisconsin challenging them on their premise for trying to push a smoking ban on us. Why? Because the facts just don’t add up. It would seem that the prevailing underlying argument is simply dislike of smokers; however those personal feelings are masked behind all sorts of “public health” and economic claims. Along with challenging these claims, I decided to do some research of my own - not on smoke, but instead on alcohol.

And truth be told… By applying the same “public health” threat and economic arguments against alcohol, I can’t quite figure out why people would push so diligently for smoking bans while allowing the public menace of alcohol to plague our society.

I decided that objectivity was better than actually looking at data from possibly skewed sources, so I looked at the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (MMWR’s) as they provide some very useful insight that advocacy groups tend to ignore.

So, according to the CDC’s report on smoking-related deaths, there were 438,000 annual deaths attributable to smoking. What is much more interesting, however, is the years of potential life lost (YPLL) which came out to be 5.5 million years. That comes out to roughly 12.6 years lost per death.

Looking over to the report on alcohol-related deaths, there were 75,766 annual deaths attributed to alcohol. There were also 2.3 million YPLL, which comes out to 30.4 years lost per death.

So what does that tell us? It tells us that, on average, alcohol kills more young people. Even more interesting was the fact that the number of deaths resulting from - let’s call it passive drinking - is at least equal to, if not greater than - the deaths attributed to passive smoking. So, in other words, there were more “innocent” people killed in accidents and violent acts related to alcohol than people who supposedly died as a result of secondhand smoke.

But wait! It’s doesn’t stop there. This just covers alcohol-related deaths. What if we factor in other crimes?

According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, of the roughly 1 million violent crimes (murder, rape and sexual assault, robbery, and assault) committed in 2002, 30% (300,000) involved an offender who had been drinking. If we take out of that the 5,963 homicides as reported by the CDC, that still leaves 294,037 violent crimes that didn’t result in a death. This isn’t even taking into account property crimes.

According to the California ADP, nationally there were over 300,000 injuries from alcohol-related collisions and there were more than 1.5 million DUI arrests.

And cost? According to an outstanding comprehensive report from “Streetdrugs University” (a group of educators specializing in drug and alcohol training):

• Lost earnings: $69.2 billion, of which 30%-35% ($20.76-$24.22 billion) is passed along to the government.
• Social Welfare: $693 million, or 3%-4% of total government welfare administration.
• Motor Vehicle Crashes: $13.6 billion including:
  • $3.8 billion in roadway damage shouldered by state a local government
  • $3.1 billion in insurance administration
  • $3.8 billion in automobile damages
  • $2.9 billion in legal and court costs, of which $580 million was shouldered by state and local government
• Crime Losses: $1 billion including $427 million in property crime
• Incarceration Costs: $2.8 billion (140,000 incarcerations * $20,000/year incarceration cost) plus an assumed loss of $1.68 billion in lost tax revenue (140,000 incarcerations * estimated  potential $12,000 tax loss)

And according to the Marin Institute, annual health care expenditures for alcohol-related problems total $22.5 billion. According to Wikipedia, 27% of the population is on public health care and 15.8% is uninsured. By those numbers, we can estimate that the public absorbs approximately $9.63 billion of alcohol-related health costs.

To bring this all into perspective, going back to the Marin Institute and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the estimated aggregate annual cost of alcohol is $175.9 billion compared to $137 billion for smokers. I’ll spare you the math and tell you that it’s a difference of $38.9 billion.

So with all of this information in mind, why not ban alcohol? The economic cost is significant, the non-drinking deaths associated with alcohol is significant, the amount of crime associated with alcohol is massive…

If we were to take the same standards applied to smoking and apply them to alcohol, we should have banned alcohol without a second thought. Not only is the public burden significant, but the burden of evidence is much stronger when it comes to alcohol as opposed to smoking.

As a public menace, alcohol far and away outweighs smoking - yet smoking is under siege while alcohol is still acceptable. Why is this? What is it about smoking that drives people into such a fury and drives them to force excessive government control upon us (prohibition come to mind?) without giving it a second thought? After all, the same people pushing for the abolition of tobacco are more likely to be killed in an alcohol-related incident than by secondhand smoke.

Just some food for thought. And I hope people think about this.

Full disclosure: I do not advocate for a ban on alcohol nor a ban on smoking. I am also a non-smoker who believes in rights and freedom. I understand that smoking and drinking are not healthy activities, but I honor a person’s right to choice and a private business owner’s right to allow drinking or smoking on their property.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

While I don’t condone the actions in Pakistan in recent days, and I am saddened any time there is a loss of life at the hands of radical Islam, there has been an interesting bonus to have come from this incident. It has given us a chance to see how the Presidential hopefuls react to international events and their views on real-world foreign policy. While talk is cheap and “hypothetical” situations as presented in debates and media setups can give little hints of insight, nothing beats a real life crisis to bring out the candidates’ true colors.

And let me tell you, while there are many fine candidates out there, many of them don’t know their ass from a hole in the wall when it comes to foreign policy. For instance…

Clinton is demanding a probe over Bhutto’s death and viciously slams Musharraf. It would be nice to see something from a dem that isn’t terrifically stereotypical. What’s the knee-jerk reaction to anything if you are a dem? launch a probe and investigate it until you can find some way to blame the Republicans. If you can’t blame the Republicans, then keep the probe going until people forget about it. Either way, mimicking the ever-inept UN seems to be the textbook dem answer to foreign policy.

I couldn’t find any stories regarding Obama’s stance on Pakistan on the election sites, and the only thing I could find was on his campaign site was a single paragraph that was nothing more than a cookie cutter press release about how “we are saddened by this tragedy.” It is painfully apparent that Obama is woefully inept when it comes to foreign policy and covers it up by not saying anything at all.

In a really bizarre twist, Huckabee took the opportunity to claim that we need to build a border fence to keep illegal Pakistanis out of the country. This, of course, followed his statements on the incident where he incorrectly referenced Pakistan’s relation to Afghanistan and talked about the continuation of martial law even though it had been lifted on December 15th.

Giuliani fell back on his 9/11 rhetoric and took the opportunity to reaffirm his “experience” in dealing with the war on terror and decided that the best response to the incident in Pakistan was an increased military buildup. I’m sorry, but foreign policy includes more than war, terrorism and military strength.

While this is just a sampling, the responses were fairly inept across the candidates. There were certainly better responses than others, and aside from Biden (who has more foreign policy experience than the other democrat candidates combined) the dems showed their true colors when it came to international affairs.

On the Republican side, the best and most concise response came from Fred Thompson, who left every other candidate well behind in the wake of this “crisis” yet has received almost no media coverage or promotion on the topic.

Interestingly the best choices for Presidential nominees would be Joe Biden and Fred Thompson - and this recent incident in Pakistan reaffirms that with concrete certainty - yet neither of the two are the anointed media choices. It makes you wonder why the media is going out of its way to glorify and promote the candidates who who show more pop culture appeal while feverishly working to bury the candidates who are actually worth a damn when it comes to actual policy and ability.

As far as the dems are concerned, they should wake up and realize that Joe Biden is a better candidate despite the fact that he’s not black or a woman.

As for the GOP, once again the only clear choice for President of the United States is Fred Thompson. He continues to show time and again that he has what it takes to properly lead this country. Watch Fred on Hannity and Colmes speak on the issue. No other candidate can top it.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Now airing in Iowa, “Substance” was made possible by Fred supporters who believe that he is the best hope for a solid, conservative President in this election cycle. It’s time for America’s Conservative base to turn away from the modern day Republican status quo and embrace those things which are the roots of Conservatism and the Republican party of Ronald Reagan. It’s time to return the GOP to the glory of small and unobtrusive government that lies at the heart of all true Conservatives out there.

The mainstream media has refused to anoint Fred because they fear what he represents. They fear the fact that he isn’t part of the corrupt political class. They fear the fact that he doesn’t play their childish games or bow to their ridiculous agendas. They fear him because he is in this race for the American people rather than the popularity or media causes; and that is something they cannot fight against.

An endorsement of Fred is a break from the devastating direction that the Republican party has taken in recent years. A vote for Fred is a vote to return America to federalism and and limited government - that which America was intended to be.

It’s time to change our course. It’s time to vote for America.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Did I miss something? I mean, seriously, did I miss a memo or a new “standard norm” out there that states:

“Credentials come at least second next to other motivating factors when speaking authoritatively on asinine topics that impact all of our lives.”

I don’t get it. Al Gore’s lack of any substantial credentials on climate change science aside,  let’s look locally at this bizarre new trend…

Next Friday (1/4/0 there will be a forum on climate change in Ely, Minnesota. And who, you may ask, will be putting on this forum? Well, I’m glad you ask.

• Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty: Obviously an authoritative source on climate change and global warming. After all, he has signed away Minnesota’s future to the Sierra Club and Al Gore in the name of those “issues.” Of course, he is not a scientist. He is a lawyer and a politician.
• Will Steger: An adventurer, explorer and “expert” on the arctic. Of course, he’s not a scientist either, but since he’s an “expert” he might as well be since his opinion carries just as much - if not more - weight than scientific evidence. The closest he ever came to science was a high school science teacher.
• Mining and paper industry representatives: Uh huh. I’m not sure how these people have anything to do with climate change and global warming, but they will be there.
• Union advocates: Always a source of objective and useful data - especially when it comes to climate change.
• Unidentified “academic experts”: This always translates into people who can talk big and use scary words in rambling sentences to cover up for the fact that they are talking out of their asses.

So where are the climate scientists? Where are the atmospheric scientists? Where are the paleoclimatologists, or physicists or even the statisticians?

You have a governor who is more concerned with his reputation within the Sierra Club than with actual science and the well being of his state, you have a completely biased and unobjective arctic adventurer with an ego problem, you have “experts” that aren’t even identified and you have labor and industry representatives which, well, still confounds me as to their role in this whole thing.

And supposedly we (as in, we the skeptics) are the ones being lead astay when it comes to climate change and global warming? The only people I listen to on this hot issue are people with certifiable and relevant credentials. Environmental and earth scientists. Physicists. Mathematicians and statisticians. People who have spent their lifetime studying the earth, the climate and the environment. People with years of education and stacks of diplomas and research papers to their name.

Ya know… Credentials.

Tonight I initiated stage one of my assault on the anti-smoking movement here in Wisconsin. I have decided that politics, policy, rights and common decency don’t work, so it is time to fight fallacy with fact and fall back on that wonderfully objective argument called hard science. Below is a copy of the letter that I sent off to involved WI government and advocacy groups in the hopes of forcing a response from them that I can use in future arguments.

I will be posting their responses as I receive them.

Open Letter to Smoke Free Wisconsin Requesting Documentation for Smoke Free Wisconsin Health Claims

Dear Smoke Free Wisconsin et al.;

cc: American Lung Association of Wisconsin, American Cancer Society (Wisconsin), Wisconsin State Senator Harsdorf, Wisconsin Assembly Representative Hraychuck, Governor Jim Doyle, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services

The Breathe Free Wisconsin Act (SB150) has been based upon health claims from Smoke Free Wisconsin (SFW). On behalf of people of Wisconsin, the one million, two hundred and twenty eight thousand smokers and the thousands of small businesses who will be affected, I am requesting clarification and validation for those health claims. To institute this invasive and extreme smoking ban, the public needs to learn if any concrete evidence can be provided to validate these claims. A law of this magnitude, with wide-spread social impact and based upon SFW’s unsubstantiated sensationalist claims, needs to be documented for public review and shared in understandable format. Reports containing computer generated statistics of mortalities and illness are not sufficient.

Also insufficient are the previous Surgeon General Carmona’s 2006 Press Release, Executive Summary, or quotes which did not reflect the contents of his 700-plus page smoking report. Dr. Carmona’s report simply rehashed previous Surgeon General claims, made alarmist statements such as referencing Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) as being more toxic than plutonium which is hardly a relevant comparison as Plutonium-239 is far more ominous sounding than it is toxic, and republished previous Tobacco Control studies which had never been able to document any conclusions more definite than finding a “causal relationship” between ETS and health threats.

One particular abuse example for this fully justifiable request to require accurate documentation for Wisconsin tobacco-smoke-health-threats, claimed by SFW, is the distorted claim that ETS kills 53,000 nonsmoking Americans every year. Why the need to be deceptive? SFW’s claim of 53,000 deaths doesn’t coincide with EPA or OSHA reports and seem to be based on a sole American Cancer Society (ACS) claim. In comparison, the EPA estimates between 10,960 to 19,720 cancer and heart disease-related deaths could be tied to ETS. How is this gross exaggeration justifiable?

The American Cancer Society has implied through incomplete references that breathing in an environment containing (or that has contained) second hand smoke, is the same thing as actively smoking and that any exposure to ETS is harmful to one’s health. While the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society and anti-tobacco advocacy groups (Smoke Free Wisconsin et al.) are motivated by the elimination of smoking, a much more objective approach would be to look at OSHA regulations which are governed by the objective of ensuring overall health and safety. As such, OSHA does not have any regulations regarding ETS and has found that the main chemical compounds found in ETS that are covered by OSHA regulations do not exceed permissible exposure limits under normal situations (per 29 CFR 1910.1000 Standard Interpretation dated 24 February, 2003).

Similarly, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) performed a study of non-smoking employee’s exposure to respirable suspended particulate matter (RSP) via ETS during a normal shift work at taverns and restaurants that allow smoking. The study found that maximum chemical levels attained during sampling only reached 15.4% of OSHA’s exposure limit and included solanesol, 3-ethenyl pyridine, and nicotine and RSP levels were only 30%-50% of American Medical Association estimates. Another similar study from the Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology looked at 1564 tavern and restaurant workers nation wide over a 24-hour period and found their exposure to be far lower than numbers assumed by the EPA or OSHA. These studies are in stark contrast to the sensationalist opinions rendered by SFW and used as justification for a statewide smoking ban.

Until a public statement or press release making visible and crystal clear the distortions of

these (and other) sensationalist claims to laymen, elected officials and the news media, the intentionally deceptive damage cannot even begin to be reversed. The public is being terrorized by phony health claims, and needs clarification that many ETS chemical compounds such as n-Nitrosodimethylamine (as the referenced element for the “16 cigarette” media blitz perpetuated by the ACS), are common carcinogens and threaten us most seriously in our drinking water and food supply .

Solid proof is required for Wisconsin (or any other US governing body) to justify bending our US Constitutional Republic’s governmental framework and dismissing the protected liberties in several of its Amendments. The Breathe Free Wisconsin Act basically ignores our First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Constitutional Amendments. Considering the serious state-wide repercussions from this law, justification is required, not vague interpretations of “causal association” health threats.

In addition, financial ties such as ACS’ relationship with nicotine replacement products manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry, who hope to increase sales because of this ban, should also be published to avoid misrepresentation of charitable interests and to supply full and honest disclosure to interested parties.

Therefore, Wisconsin residents, Wisconsin Legislature and the Wisconsin news media need to be supplied with actual documented identities of those injured or killed for the Breathe Free Wisconsin Act to be legitimately recognized.

Sincerely,

/Signed/

Ryan Evans

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

I know a media smear tactic when I see one, but sometimes you don’t need to look very hard to see just how transparent the media’s intentions are when it comes to screwing somebody over who’s doesn’t fit their predetermined agenda.

Fred Thompson is quoted as saying:

“there is no woman on the horizon that ought to be president next year.”

Makes perfect sense to me. He was taking a shot at Senator Clinton, since she is obviously then only major female candidate in the Presidential race and the only one who has a shot at being president next year.

However, let’s look at some of the headlines this morning:

• Thompson says no woman ought to be president next year (WVLT-TV Knoxville)
• Thompson: ‘No Woman Ought To Be President Next Year’ (KCCI 8 Des Moines)
• Thompson says no woman ought to be president next year (WMCTV Memphis)

Sounds a little slanted, doesn’t it? They even misquoted him in the headlines, since he did not in fact say that “no woman ought to be…”  even though the headlines project to the readers that those were his words.

Lies.

It’s sickening to say the least. To the average reader who didn’t dig far enough in to find Thompson’s exact quote and context, he is portrayed as a sexist pig. Has all objectivity and fairness  been drummed out of the mainstream media these days?

I guess if you’re not anointed as a media favorite, you’re doomed to this sort of media slander. I’m appalled and disgusted.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

So I finally had a day to relax and reflect on the past four days that made up the Christmas weekend (i.e. I went back to work today) and mused over the fact that going back to work was the first bit of “relaxation” that I had since Friday. And it really hit me… This sucks.

What has happened to Christmas in America? The Christmas of Ralphie and Christmas turkey… Christmas eve around the tree with a glass of brandy and good company… Twinkling lights and carolers… The American Christmas tradition that we have grown to know and love is quickly dwindling to a thing that we know only in stories and classic Christmas movies.

How sad is that?

There are some things I can handle. The hair-raising drive through the snow and ice to visit the family in the city. The annoying and peculiar relatives. The last minute shopping thanks to my forgetful and sometimes lethargic nature… I can even handle the round-the-clock Christmas music to a point. There are some things that you just come to expect with the Christmas season. But then there are things that we should never have to contend with and should not have ever become the modern-day cornerstones of Christmas that they are today.

For instance, at what point did it ever become OK to rush around like crazed maniacs until the very last minute on Christmas eve? Gone are the days of family time around the tree; that time has now been replaced with frantic last-minute shopping, wrapping, cooking, and stressing out about all of the things that still need to be done to make sure that everything is “perfect.”

As if. Perfect? Perfect is dumping this idea that the only way to throw a successful Christmas is to overextend yourself to the point of exhaustion in the hopes that somebody will recognize and appreciate what you have done.

Following that up, despite my love of all things capitalism, I can’t help but to take issue with today’s prevailing attitude of gift giving ones self into bankruptcy under the premise of love is directly proportional to the amount of money you spend on the person. But wait! It doesn’t end there since everybody knows that love µ gifts you have to carefully weigh each person’s gifts (especially if they are to be opened in the presence of others who will also be receiving gifts from you) and ensure that nobody feels that they are getting shafted by you. After all, you wouldn’t want somebody thinking that you don’t love them as much as somebody else now, do you?

But the joys of modern day Christmas don’t end there. What about the road rage you get to deal with from all of those fine people who feel that if they don’t get to the store three minutes ahead of you that you might get something over on them? And the people in the stores who spread the Christmas cheer with their phenomenally bad attitudes and bizarre inability to acknowledge anybody but their own selves despite being surrounded by many other people? It would seem that the massive over-commercialization of Christmas has bred a whole new breed of raging drones intent on out shopping each other and won’t stop until they feel content that nobody has gotten better deals than they have.

Flip on the TV during today’s Christmas season and what do you get? In between the channels showing “A Christmas Story” and “A Christmas Carol” you get inundated with talk of lawsuits over Christmas decorations thanks to the ACLU and a bunch of whining babies who prefer media publicity over American tradition and common decency.

And this year added something new to the fray… Global warming. If I would have heard one more complaint about Christmas decorations using up too much energy and destroying the earth, buying “green” Christmas presents or not using wrapping paper because it contributes to global warming I would have blown an artery. A major one. To me, there is nothing that ties the Christmas season to radical environmentalism… But to them - and ironically the mainstream media - nothing screams “Christmas Spirit” quite like criticizing the energy consumption of somebody’s Christmas decorations. Is it too much to ask for to expect people to put aside this asinine global warming bullcrap long enough to allow the rest of us to enjoy the hard work of others when it comes to expressing some Holiday cheer? Give me a break.

This is not what Christmas is all about.

Christmas is not about global warming or silly lawsuits. It is not about road raging shoppers suffering from the “gottafindthatbargain” psychosis trying to one-up everybody else. It isn’t about money or gifts or taking out second mortgages against your home to make sure that nobody on your gift giving list feels like they aren’t as loved as somebody else… Yet every year it get worse. I exempted myself from this ruckus while I was in the Navy, but each year since I have been back in the “real world” I have seen things get worse and worse, and despite the fact that I firmly plant my heels and fight it, I can’t help but to get sucked into the mess one way or another.

And I hate it.

We should all hate it. Sparky Griswald’s Christmas may be funny to watch, but take a step back and take a look. We’re living it! What should be a joke reserved for cynical comedies has become true-to-life yearly ritual here… And that sucks.

Merry Christmas to all of you out there. Enjoy the season, spend time with your families and loved ones and remember that this is a time to enjoy those things that you hold dear. Remember, things could always be worse… So smile, damnit, or Santa’s going to leave you a lump of coal.

And for those who don’t want to celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday or an American cultural tradition, then you can celebrate the Christmas Beetle (Anoplognathus pallidicollis) if you would like… I’m sure they would appreciate the gesture, as the Christmas holiday gets far more attention then they do… And after all, even beetles need love over the holidays.

I was browsing the various Christmas messages in my inbox this afternoon and realized that I was missing one. I didn’t get one from congress. It really made me question how much my congress cares. After all, even my cigar company sent me Christmas greetings… So did Congress just not have any Christmas message for us this year?

And then I saw a headline that said it all. Congress sent out a Christmas message, and it was epitomized in one simple headline:

“GM: Emission Law May Hamper Muscle Cars”

Then it all made sense. Congress sent a Christmas message to the people of America loud and clear: We don’t like you, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Ouch.

The energy bill that made it through congress and was signed by President Bush was a message to the American people that the fallacy of being “green” means more than the well being of this nation and its people. And just in time for Christmas, how quaint.

So the mighty energy bill is chalk full of lies and promises based on a dubious and questionable premise and supported by Al Gore’s alarmism more so than actual science. This is to be expected. After all, congress has turned into a popularity game recently, as members work feverishly to out-pander one another to special interest groups and pop-culture media. But when they threaten the Corvette - that beautiful icon of all things America - they have taken that one step too far.

Pay no mind that they have now told us that we will no longer be able to use traditional incandescent light bulbs. Ignore the fact that they are forcing the biofuel golden calf down our throats which benefits farmers more than the environment or the consumer. We can even blow off the fact that they claim that this will help us achieve energy independence and reduce our energy prices when in actuality it actually increases our foreign dependence and will drive our energy prices through the roof. The fact that their new CAFE standards will result in a drastic increase in highway deaths is still minor compared to the ultimate sin that they are committing here.

They are threatening an end to the Corvette. They are ushering in the end of an era and quite possible the end of the American auto industry. Congress has, in no uncertain terms, told the American people that they are incapable of making the “right” decisions; so in turn they are going to do it for us. The free market means nothing once a bunch of power-hungry lawmakers decide that they don’t really like us all that much.

You see, if the American people wanted high-mileage death traps, they wouldn’t buy American cars. The free market works. It’s supply and demand. Thanks to ferocious legacy costs, American car companies cannot compete with foreign econo-boxes. Instead, Detroit found its niché in building SUV’s, muscle cars and luxury cruisers. Sure, they might not get the best gas mileage, but it’s what people want to buy. If people didn’t buy Detroit’s cars, Detroit would either adapt or disappear.

Congress, however, has just taken that option away from us. They have rocketed their environmental pandering above the American economy, American jobs, American lives and American tradition. At what point do these people work for us and have the American people’s best interests in mind? Could the message be any clearer? They just don’t like us. If there was any amount of civility towards us in their selfish little hearts at all, they would acknowledge our ability to do the “right” thing instead of assuming we are all a bunch of idiot children who will only survive if they hold our hands and make all of the “important” decisions for us. If they had any real concern for our well being, they would listen to the 400 scientists (including IPCC scientists) who are disputing climate change instead of Al Gore (who is now claiming the scientists are being bought off by big oil). But they don’t.

So I have to say that Congress’ Christmas message this year has left a sour taste in my mouth. I guess I know where we stand where government is concerned. All I can say is that I intend to enjoy my Christmas anyway, and if I happen to win the lottery I will be buying myself a Corvette or three as well as a stockpile of incandescent light bulbs since I like gas guzzling American cars and warm light. Cheers!

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance