Obama: The Dartboard Approach to Energy

President Obama had this to say in a speech in Miami the other day:

[i]f we're going to avoid being at the mercy of these world events, we've got to have a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy.  Yes, oil and gas, but also wind and solar and nuclear and biofuels, and more.

All of the above, ahem, 'strategy' you say? I have a mental picture of Obama's energy team in the basement of the white house. On the wall is a dart board and on the other the energy team are drinking heavily and throwing darts. "Woo Hoo!," shouts energy secretary Chu, "Solar power again!"

To understand why I have this mental picture just take a look at the nonsense these people have put out as 'policy' over the past three years:

Exhibit A: Tire pressure as an energy policy -

"There are things that you can do individually though to save energy," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said. "Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much."

And these clowns wonder why no one will take them seriously when it comes to energy.


Exhibit B: Under my plan (the disastrous cap and trade nonsense) electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket:

"When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, you know, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers." (Sen. Barack Obama, Interview With The San Francisco Chronicle's Editorial Board, San Francisco Chronicle, 1/17/08)

Mind the (money) Gap

Margaret Thatcher once warned: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. "

Well looks like Britain is finally there. I saw this headline from The Telegraph: George Osborne: UK has run out of money

And why has the UK run out of money? One guess:

Mr Browne writes that reform of pensions, welfare and defence is essential to stop the departments "collapsing under the weight of their own debt". "Just because the spending was sometimes on worthy causes does not in itself mean it was affordable," he says.

That from Liberal Democrat Jeremy Browne, the foreign minister. And this is not a surprise either, the first attempt to balance the books was a surtax on the top earners (sound familiar?) but it kind of backfired:

Amid warnings that Britain urgently needed to adopt a more pro-business outlook, senior Conservatives have urged the Government to get rid of the 50 pence top rate of tax.

Figures from the Treasury last week suggested the policy was not raising the expected amount of revenue and was threatening to drive leading business people and entrepreneurs away from Britain.

Golly, you raise taxes and people change behavior, who would have thunk it? But never fear my liberal friends, there is at least one champion carrying the socialist torch into the abyss:

Simon Hughes, Liberal Democrat deputy leader, said yesterday that keeping the current 50p rate was "the right thing to do" [even though it has actually lowered tax receipts?]. He told the BBC: "I represent people in a pretty solid working-class community. What they're concerned about is what happens to ordinary people out of work and where they get jobs."

Talk about a non-Sequitur. This genius is saying - keep a tax policy that does not work (presumably to punish the evil wealthy) so that what? The unemployed can stay unemployed? Brilliant.

And not to be left out of the, ahem, argument, the Keynesians (i.e. Labour party) made their views clear:

Last night, Labour argued Mr. Osborne needed to take a more proactive stance on boosting growth by increasing public spending.

Wait, I thought they were broke. How can they increase spending (over here across the pond we call it 'investing')? Oh yeah, borrow from the Chinese. Again, Brilliant.

Anyway, the Treasury minister, like all good bureaucrats points out that business alone cannot create growth:

Chris Leslie MP, the shadow Treasury minister, said it was wrong of the Chancellor to argue that Britain was broke (even though they are) and to rely on business alone to create economic growth (As opposed to who,the government?).

Honestly, I don't think the Brits will ever get it together again. The problem they have is too many factions. Between Labour, Liberal Dems , a weak Conservative party and the generations of rioters voters on the dole I just can't see where there is common ground to build on. 

So whoever is in power will be forced to come up with half measures that will only prolong the country's slide into irrelevance.

7 American Heroes Die in Arizona

USA Today is reporting on the tragic death of 7 Marines who died last night in a helicopter training exorcise.

The Marines, from the 3rd Marine Airwing based at Miramar in Southern California, were conducting a training exercise when their Cobra and Huey helicopters collided in the air. There were no survivors, NBC says

My thoughts and prayers go out to their families. When I hear of tragedies like this it reminds me just how thankful I am to live in this country defended by American Heroes like these.

Thank you, Godspeed and Semper Fi!

General Electric’s New Early Retirement Program

I saw this today at Gas 2:

A memo leaked to Green Car Reports lays out GE's plans for their new fleet of Volts… [T]he memo, sent to employees of GE Healthcare Americas team explains that all sedan, crossover, and minivan purchases in 2012 will be replaced by the Chevy Volt.

GE will offer estimates for installation Level 2 Charging Stations, through all-gas use will be allowed when there is not electric option. Any employees who opt out of the Volt program will not be compensated for their expenses.

Given the propensity for this rolling bomb vehicle to explode looks like GE is trying to trim their work force!

Germany's $130B Solar Experiment Delays Global Warming by 23 hours!

Alternate Headline: Knock me over with a feather.

Ok, followers of this site know that I am not a big fan of government mandated subsidized green jobs initiatives. My point as always is that I am not opposed to alternative energy sources; my only stipulation is that they make sense in the market place and is driven by honest market demand. However, when government starts pushing technology that they know nothing about bad things almost always happen like crony capitalism, artificial incentives in the market and taxpayer dollars flushed down the toilet. Oh yeah, and products that have no viable relevance in the market place.

However, once a government has drunk from the preverbal green jobs Kool-aid, it is often fun to watch as the initiative falls apart. As exhibit A, I give you the solar panel initiative the German government shoveled $130 Billion into that is now going the way of the condor. This from Slate:

Germany once prided itself on being the "photovoltaic world champion", doling out generous subsidies—totaling more than $130 billion, according to research from Germany's Ruhr University—to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned and to phase out support over the next five years What went wrong?

I think a better question is did anything go right?

It is estimated that this increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer's annual power bill.

Ouch! But wait, It gets better:

Indeed, despite the massive investment, solar power accounts for only about 0.3 percent of Germany's total energy (that's one third of one percent folks!). This is one of the key reasons why Germans now pay the second-highest price for electricity in the developed world (exceeded only by Denmark, which aims to be the "world wind-energy champion"). Germans pay three times more than their American counterparts.

Moreover, this sizeable investment does remarkably little to counter global warming. Even with unrealistically generous assumptions, the unimpressive net effect is that solar power reduces Germany's CO₂ emissions by roughly 8 million metric tons—or about 1 percent – for the next 20 years. To put it another way: By the end of the century, Germany's $130 billion solar panel subsidies will have postponed temperature increases by 23 hours.

Double Ouch! And here's the real kicker:

It gets worse: Because Germany is part of the European Union Emissions Trading System, the actual effect of extra solar panels in Germany leads to no CO₂ reductions, because total emissions are already capped. Instead, the Germans simply allow other parts of the EU to emit more CO₂. Germany's solar panels have only made it cheaper for Portugal or Greece to use coal.

Triple Ouch!

In the meantime, Germans have paid about $130 billion for a climate-change policy that has no impact on global warming. They have subsidized Chinese jobs and other European countries' reliance on dirty energy sources. And they have needlessly burdened their economy. As even many German officials would probably attest, governments elsewhere cannot afford to repeat the same mistake.

So, this initiative cost $130 Billion, actually increases CO₂, sent jobs to china. raised energy costs for taxpayers and accounts for less than 1/3 of 1% of total energy consumption in Germany. Have I forgotten anything? Oh yeah, their national security is further at risk because they have to import energy! Well done!

Good thing the Obama administration is paying attention, oh, wait a minute. Doh!

Gollum.. er I mean Carville Predicts Obama Victory!

James Carville had this to say on Don Imus' radio show this week:

Right now, things are starting to perk up a little bit," he said. "Who knows? This is the — no Republican can beat Obama. Events can beat Obama. He's not going to get beat by a Republican.

Far be it for little old me to disagree with Gollum James but isn't this the same guy who predicted another 40 years of Democrat dominated government right before the GOP sheeelacked Nancy and her cronies to take over the hours? OK just checking.

Military Poll on Politics

Where does the average hero in the military stand on this year's election? I would like to take the political pulse of those affiliated with the U.S. Military. If you are in the military or affiliated with it in some way please take the following quick anonymous survey. I am not not sure where this will lead until I get the data in but I  will let you know in due course. If you are a military type and follow military blogs please direct some traffic to this poll (link at the bottom of the post) so we can get a robust data set. In the meantime thank you for your time in filling out the poll

Death of the American Dream?

President Obama had this to say recently in a speech he gave in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (emphasis mine):

"If you're willing to put in the work, the idea is that you should be able to raise a family and own a home; not go bankrupt because you got sick, because you've got some health insurance that helps you deal with those difficult times; that you can send your kids to college; that you can put some money away for retirement,"

"That's all most people want," he said. "Folks don't have unrealistic ambitions. They do believe that if they work hard they should be able to achieve that small measure of an American Dream."

Did I just read a passage out of the Communist Manifesto? Small measure of the American Dream? What about all the American Dream? What happened? Is Obama now downsizing the American Dream? What's this nonsense about unrealistic ambitions? Who the hell is he to decide what realistic ambitions are?

Just as a reminder here is how Historian James Truslow Adams popularized the phrase "American Dream" in his 1931 book Epic of America:

The American dream, that has lured tens of millions of all nations to our shores in the past century has not been a dream of merely material plenty, though that has doubtlessly counted heavily. It has been much more than that. It has been a dream of being able to grow to fullest development as man and woman, unhampered by the barriers which had slowly been erected in the older civilizations, unrepressed by social orders which had developed for the benefit of classes rather than for the simple human being of any and every class.

Obama's comments above, oddly enough, reminds me of another speech given by another Democratic president talking down the American Dream - for your reading displeasure here is an excerpt from Jimmy Carter's Malaise speech:

There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others.

In other words, anyone who succeeds in this country has done so at the expense of others. Sound familiar? Collectivist hogwash! This country was built by people of unlimited ambitions, shooting for the moon and having the right to succeed or fail based on their abilities. Our current leaders see this another way, in their view you can succeed, just not too much.

 

 

Good and Bad Red Ink

I found this article over on Project Syndicate where Robert Skidelsky draws a distinction between when governments should borrow and when activity should be funded by taxes (emphasis mine):

Government deficits incurred on current spending for services or transfers are bad, because they produce no revenue and add to the national debt. Deficits resulting from capital spending, by contrast, are – or can be – good. If wisely administered, such spending produces a revenue stream that services and eventually extinguishes the debt; more importantly, it raises productivity, and thus improves a country's long-run growth potential.

Now by and large I think we can all agree with this fiscal philosophy. That being said it's the practice that I have a problem with. The crux of the issue here is on what governmental programs the electorate should be willing to go into debt for and which should be funded by taxation. Skikelsky rightly points out that there are two fundamental programs that the state should fund: Transfers (read: social programs) and Capital investments (read: transportation, education and the military). Now you could argue education is a social program given the level of influence the ERA has in the country but let's leave that aside for now.

Let's take Capital investments first:

Chief among these public works, for Smith, are those that "facilitate the commerce of any country, such as good roads, bridges, navigable canals, harbors, etc." Another piece of forgotten knowledge that Smith also mentions is the importance of education. He is right to do so, however much today's deficit hawks seem, by their behavior, to prove the opposite.

The liberals in this county argue that the government is not spending enough on these worthy public work projects. But it is my contention that it is not the amount of dollars allocated to these capital investments, rather, it is how they are allocated and who they are allocated too. For example Solyndra would fall under this category of capital investment (although some could argue it is a transfer program to Obama's cronies). This allocation of funds occurred with little or no oversight and effectively flushed a half a billion tax payer dollars down the drain. But the administration will argue that this is only one example out of hundreds and you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet. But the real question is whether or not this project falls under the government's responsibility of capital investment in the first place.

My point here is that conservatives are not necessarily opposed to state sponsored capital investment but rather the level at which the state should be involved in the first place. Road - yes, navigable harbors - yes, bridges that actually connect two economic centers - again yes. To subsidize a company like Solyndra that NEVER had a chance to succeed in the market place?A resounding NO.

Right now, under the guise of capital investment, Jerry Brown is still advocating a $100 billion bullet train connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco that will never ever ever pay the taxpayers back.

So, is it ok for the state to go into debt on capital investments? The answer is of course yes if the project makes any sense. The problem we conservatives have is the lack of judicious judgment our collective elected officials have in dolling out those dollars.

Now to the transfer side of the state's responsibilities. These are of course the entitlement programs that are at their base wealth transfers. Now again, liberals will howl that those mean spirited conservatives would throw granny off the cliff if they had their way. So any attempt to overhaul Medicare and Social Security, both of which are increasingly becoming bankrupt, is met with political hyperbole forcing conservatives on the defensive. And now we increasingly have to borrow money to fund these transfers which should only be funded by taxes.

Each dollar we borrow to fund these non-capital expenditures exacerbate the problem further and every minute we postpone addressing the problem the worse the it will get for our children. So its not just that we currently do not draw enough tax dollars to support these non-capital programs, but we are borrowing to do it. And that, by the way, is how Greece got into its mess.

Again it's not the program that conservatives have a problem with it is the administration of the program and what its limits should be. This becomes harder and harder when you have less and less folks paying taxes.

Krugman Belly Ups to the Bar for Some More Keynesian Kool-Aid

There is a chance that Paul Krugman actually believes the Keynesian non-sense he spouts. I hope not, I hope that he is just carrying the Liberals' water once again because if he does believe this non-sense he could be the first retarded Nobel Prize winner ever. In his column today he is blaming the lack of growth in Greece, Ireland and Spain on - wait for it - the austerity reforms demanded by the Germans and others in the European Union.

Last week the European Commission confirmed what everyone suspected: the economies it surveys are shrinking, not growing. It's not an official recession yet, but the only real question is how deep the downturn will be.

Greece and Ireland have had double-digit declines in output, Spain has 23 percent unemployment, Britain's slump has now gone on longer than its slump in the 1930s.

Gee I wonder why? Could it be that for decades these countries have spent more than their tax receipts? Lavished unsustainable perks on public sector employees (guaranteed six months vacations, retirement when you are, what, 25 or so)? Or draconian taxes and regulations on businesses where it is virtually impossible to fire someone who is underperforming?

No, according to Krugman the problem is NOT the decades of public sector extravagance practiced by these countries, but rather, the stingy German workers who no longer want to pay for it.

Hang on there's more:

The doctrine [austerity measures] asserted that the direct negative effects of spending cuts on employment would be offset by changes in "confidence," that savage spending cuts would lead to a surge in consumer and business spending, while nations failing to make such cuts would see capital flight and soaring interest rates.

See what he's doing there. He is blaming the continued shrinkage on the (savage) austerity measures. How 'bout this one Paul, how about the 'expansion' you refer to was largely an illusion. The reason these countries enjoyed their previous bond ratings were due to artificial expansion from government spending NOT private sector investment. It's like the Avon lady buying from herself. The more she buys from herself the higher her commission right?

What is incredible to me is that once again the answer is government spending. Krugman and his ilk maintain the ludicrous idea that we can spend our way out of a recession. I don't know about you guys but this certainly does not work in my household.

The point is that we could actually do a lot to help our economies simply by reversing the destructive austerity of the last two years. That's true even in America, which has avoided full-fledged austerity at the federal level but has seen big spending and employment cuts at the state and local level…

Well, never mind: all the federal government needs to do to give the economy a big boost is provide aid to lower-level governments, allowing these governments to rehire the hundreds of thousands of schoolteachers they have laid off and restart the building and maintenance projects they have canceled.

I.. just.. really.. that's the (fill in the bad word of your choice here) answer? Public spending, spending and more (bad word again) public spending???? Where the hell is all this money coming from? Oh yeah, the private sector and China. It's Avon lady all over again. What kills me here is that he doesn't even give Scott Walker a shout out here. Oh, that's right, what Walker did in Wisconsin runs counter to Krugman's, ahem, argument.

It took a long time for the socialists bubble to pop in Europe and it will take time for the market to readjust - that is if the elites will get out of the way and let the market reach equilibrium again.

Happy Presidents Day

(Editors Note: The above painting is by the talented artist Jon McNaughton)

Regardless of what you may think about our current president I do firmly believe that President's day is extremely important. It is the day that I hope that all of us reflect upon the hardest job in the world and some of the remarkable men who have held the position. This person is responsible for the care and well being of the most formidable form of self-governance ever devised by man.

Thus, whoever is in the White House deserves our respect, at least for the office. That being said, the current occupant should give us pause and if nothing else a learning moment. I submit that all of us, this President's Day, should reflect on not only the incredible responsibility that office holds but what our responsibilities are to that office. It is incumbent on us to hold this person responsible for his deeds while in office. Like everyone else, we, the electorate, can make mistakes (read 2008 election). But it is important, not only for America, but for the rest of the world as well that we learn from our mistakes.

President Obama was elected on a wave of platitudes and anti-Bush sentiment (aided by a complicit media). The coming election is our chance to correct the mistake of 2008. Winston Churchill once said: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter".

I both agree and disagree with this statement. Yes the electorate can make mistakes but we can also correct our mistakes as we did in 1980 by rejecting Carter in favor of Reagan. I believe in this country we are still right of center, however, with more folks on the dole this position has become more tenuous. This next election could very well be the defining point in this experiment we call America. Will we continue down the path of the European Union or will we re-discover what it means to be American?

My hope is that next President's Day we will be celebrating the current occupant's retirement.

Headline of the day!

The White House: Laser-Focused on Making Condoms Easier to get than Jobs

 

This just in: Dennis ‘The Menace’ Kucinich is Laughably Stupid

That is he would be if this weren't so serious. This nugget of news from The Hill last month:

Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a "Reasonable Profits Board" to control gas profits.

Here is a direct quote from His Menaceness (emphasis and snarky ad lib mine):

"Gas prices continue to rise, creating a hardship for the American people, (effect)" he [Kucinich] said. "At the same time, oil companies are making record profits (cause) gouging their customers. This bill would tax only the excess profits and create forward-thinking transportation alternatives."

Wow.. I mean just.. WOW! Where to start with this? Ok let's start with the star of this show Comrade Dennis 'The Menace' Kucinich. First, what are the man's qualifications to determine "reasonable profits" in a market as complex as the global oil industry, or anything more complex than spreading manure? Surely he has had some intimate dealings with energy production somewhere in his life. Well a quick peek at his Wikipedia profile shows that the closest he has ever been to the oil industry is when his driver pumped gas into his limousine. OK, that's probably not fair, I actually saw Kucinich in the Cleveland airport once and he was flying coach. But the question still remains what are his qualifications? Again from Wikipedia he has been a politician or wannabe politician since he was 23!

Like all liberals Comrade Denise does not understand the reason pump prices go up and down. It is just far easier to simply blame the EEEEVVVVILLLL Oil companies and their behind the scene clouding to gouge consumers. It never occurs to him that gas prices vary depending upon that little known economic theory called supply and demand (see your first ever econ 101 text book for this complex theory). Let's all say it together now - prices vary in relation to the amount of a product available (supply) and the market demand of said product.

But wait there's more. Here are some, ahem, specifics from the bill (emphasis mine): 

According to the bill, a windfall tax of 50 percent would be applied when the sale of oil or gas leads to a profit of between 100 percent and 102 percent of a reasonable profit. The windfall tax would jump to 75 percent when the profit is between 102 and 105 percent of a reasonable profit, and above that, the windfall tax would be 100 percent. The bill also specifies that the oil-and-gas companies, as the seller, would have to pay this tax.

See that? The words reasonable profits is that vague enough for you? Gee, I wonder how reasonable profits are determined and more importantly by whom?:

[The bill] would set up a Reasonable Profits Board (hell and yes! Another freaking board) made up of three presidential nominees (Wooo Hooo that won't be political at all - see the great works of the NLRB) that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress…. The bill would also seem to exclude industry representatives from the board.

Brilliant just brilliant, the bill specifically excludes from its membership anyone who understands the industry. So in essence you will have a panel of unqualified political appointees making decisions that could effectively send the entire industry not to mention the global economy in a tailspin by one decision they make on reasonable profits.
But golly, how could seizing reasonable profits have any effect on the world? Simple economics and history. Oh yes this nonsense has been tried before and I'll give you one guess as to which ex-president tried it. Hint: think peanut farmer.

In 1979 President Carter proposed and got congress to approve a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. However, Carter's windfall profits tax fell far short of its projected revenues, partly because it discouraged domestic production. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Carter-era windfall profits tax:

• Reduced domestic oil production by 3-6%; and
  
• Increased foreign oil imports by 8-16%.
  

If foreign producers have the capacity to offset all the lost domestic production, then the windfall profits tax will simply shift domestic consumption from domestic to foreign oil with no effect on pump prices at all. On the other hand, if foreign producers can't turn up the taps to offset reduced U.S. production—Saudi Arabia in particular may not be able to meet its ambitious production targets—then not only will we be more dependent on foreign oil, but pump prices will rise to bring demand in line with newly-reduced supply causing inflation. Yeah, you remember 17% inflation don't you? Oddly enough that was in the late 70's when carter tried this nonsense before.

I could go into what Denise the Menace would do with any tax receipts he could get from this scheme but  empirical evidence would suggest there won't be any.

However, if Kucinich wants to make himself useful why not set up a Congressional Un-Reasonable Spending board made up of regular tax payers? Now that is a bill I could get behind.

Windmills, Solar Panels and Flying Horses

As I try to understand the wisdom of the absolute fanatical attempt by liberals to make America solely a renewable energy country, it has occurred to me that I am approaching the problem from the wrong point of view. You see, I foolishly thought that these people had a coherent argument and were capable of an earnest debate. Turns out I was wrong; they just suffer from arrested development.

So to understand their ardent wish for Condor killing wind turbines dotting the landscape and costly magic solar panels that would run everything in your house for a year with just one sunny day, I had to go way back to my own childhood to fully appreciate their affliction. When I was 4, I wanted a flying horse. I didn't just want a flying horse, I wanted one so badly that every night I would lay there in the dark just wishing as hard as I could, eyes clenched, fists balled repeating over and over, "Please God, give me a flying horse and I'll never ever ever ask for anything ever again." Of course I never got a flying horse and at the time I blamed god. But as I got older, say around six weeks later, I realized that the reason I didn't get a flying horse was BECAUSE THEY DON'T FREAKING EXIST. So from that point on I set my sights a little lower and just wished for a flying car (Soon baby soon!).

Now that I've relived my childhood fantasies I am now equipped to understand the mind of the renewable energy nutcase's movement. You see these folks have never matured beyond the age of 4. So have pity on them and give them a and a lollypop and a toy windmill.

Electric Vehicles Done the Right Way

It is my belief that there is a misconception out there that conservatives do not like alternative fueled vehicles. Liberals have with some degree of success turned the argument around on conservatives. Specifically, when conservatives oppose flushing hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer's money down the pixie dust hole on Solydra and the Chevy Volt the liberals claim that the conservatives are just in the pocket of BIG OIL. When conservatives point out that the so called innovations the taxpayer's are forced to support are nothing more than pipe dreams the liberals take the high ground and scream at the top of their lungs "Innovation comes from Government intervention!" I will not go into the fact that other than the Manhattan Project rarely does actual breakthrough come from government intervention. Once again, the elite underestimate the ingenuity of the common man. As exhibit A I give you the Boxx Electric Bike.

I know what you are saying: Hey the Chevy Volt can carry 4 passengers and man is that thing ugly. All true, I say, but this little beauty has more going for it than you might think. It can go 35 MPH, runs for 85 miles on a single charge and it has the added bonus of not blowing up! Further, it costs less than $4,000 and is not subsidized by the taxpayers. This engineering marvel comes in 10 colors and here are just a few other features:

• Aerodynamic Design. 3X lower drag coefficient than average
  
• Lighting = Oversized all LED dot lighting system with hazards
  
• Onboard Storage = Two cargo bays. Room for two bags. Secured
  
• Mechanical footpeg emergency brake
  
• Fluids Free Vehicle
  
• 58 front / 42 rear vehicle weight distribution
  
• Performance: 2 to 1 power to weight ratio
  

Wait that's not all!

• Integrated kickstand
  
• Front and rear carry handles
  
• Oversized handle bar grips
  
• Indoor / outdoor storage
  
• External multicolor vehicle status indicator
  
• Glove, pocket item bin
  
• Front / Rear coiled suspension
  
• All aluminum construction
  
• 40 degree surface grade capable
  
• Road capable performance
  
• Superior comfort ergonomics
  
• Audio Alerts
  
• 90 days labor, 1 year parts warranty
  
• Upgradable 3 year full coverage warranty
  
• Optional Heated Seat (Cold Weather Package)
  

And not one single dollar of taxpayer money!!!!

Man all I need now is a black leather jacket that says "Heck's Angels" on the back and I'm done baby!

Exciting news! I will be in my backyard this weekend where I will be signing any Kindle reader I find with  my new book Death at the Downs on it. You can 't miss me. I'll be right next to my daughter's lemonade stand ($0.25 US. What a steal!). Anyway, if I'm not around when you get there, just wait a bit. I'll be right back after I shoveling snow off the driveway. So just sit back and enjoy a glass of store bought lemonade while you wait! If you can't make it to Louisville, or you don't want me defacing your Kindle, you can always go to Amazon and buy it there.

Shameless! Shameless! Shameless! BAD Derek BAD, BAD BAD. Anybody got a wet newspaper?

Happy Valentine’s Day

The following is an excerpt from fellow (and much smarter) blogger associate of mine Sippican Cottage:

I remember when I was lying on the bed like a dead thing, and you came into the room and thought I was asleep. I wasn't asleep; I was gone from sight, and sound, and lost in a fever. I lay there in a puddle of sweat and more; my very life coming out of every pore, leaving nothing but a husk where a man used to be. And you kissed me. I remember.

Read it all here and take a look at his book of flash fiction. The guy is a genius.

Happy Valentine’s Day Heather!

Let’s Create Jobs: The Liberal Way!

It never ceases to amaze me just how arrogant liberals can be. For example, in their world it is the all-powerful Government that creates jobs in America. We see this thinking in the President's latest, ahem, budget proposal. We hear this nonsense from the President on down the line that we must "invest" in America to create jobs. What these brilliantly, smart, brainy, intelligent nitwits fail to realize is that it is DEMAND that creates jobs NOT subsidizing inefficient nonsense like wind power and pixie dust. It is DEMAND that creates markets, giving entrepreneurs the opportunity to profit (and thus motivation) by satisfying that demand. Rather than learning from the many mistakes in trying to manipulate the market, liberals keep banging their heads against the same old solar panels in their quest to control our lives. In their mind it is possible to engineer markets to some utopian result that will make the world a better place.

Put simply, liberals think that they are smarter than the markets. It is their belief (as we see through their inexhaustible attempts) that they are soooo smart that they can actually create markets that don't exist and nobody wants and make it viable in the marketplace. How can they do this you ask? Well, they are clever enough to know that a battery powered bomb car that only goes about 15 miles on a charge would not fare to well in the market. So they rig the market in their favor. They artificially create demand through regulatory intervention and subsidies, thus effectively satisfying demand that they inefficiently created. While at the same time, they suppress innovation that doesn't comply with their world view (Big Oil for example). This in effect lets them pick the winners and losers as they see fit (or who gives them the highest campaign contributions). The end result of course is job creating capital stripped from the markets (the most efficient force in the universe) and "invested" in some hare-brained scheme like Solyndra or the rolling toxic bomb know as the Chevy Volt.

So, on one side you have the ivory tower elite who have never signed the front of a paycheck - and on the other you have hundreds of millions of people making rational decisions for themselves and theirs. I think you can do the math as to who is better equipped to make the right choice.