Follow-Up To My Last Post (and, I'm BACK!)

Yes, it has been a while since my last post at this blog. But I have now updated my blog theme and may try to have some more activity here.

My last post was about the information given to us at the Recovery.gov website and how it was somewhat misleading. Well, if that wasn't enough, we now have to deal with them giving us inaccurate data which leads one to think that at the very least there is some poor oversight with regards to where our money is going!

Exhibit A: ABC News Article - Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist:

• 30 jobs created in Arizona's 15th congressional district - Arizona only has 8 districts
• 25 jobs created in Connecticut's 42nd district (nonexistent) with zero dollars spent!
• The real kicker is that we've boosted the economy of the US Virgin Islands by around 5% by giving over 75 million dollars for them to create 112 jobs!

Exhibit B: South Carolina - There are currently only 6 congressional districts in SC, yet the Obama Administration and the Recovery Act, under the keen oversight of VP Joe Biden, has managed to create 50 jobs in 7 districts that don't even exist for a total of $40,729,993 - just over $814,000 per job!

So, what can you do to help? I'm going to use the Recovery.gov website's tool to Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse and notify the site that their own spending tracking is either malfunctioning or money is being reported improperly.

Kid you not - when I'm submitting this, I see that the captcha on the form submission reads "George condemn" - why, yes, I do believe that George Washington would condemn the actions being taken by our government!

Bailing Out Local Governments?

So there are now many big cities seeking bailouts from the federal government. Atlanta is one of these cities - right down the road from me. Yesterday, in his Nuze, Neal Boortz outlined a plan for how Atlanta should make some changes that would prevent them from having to worry about some of the economic problems. Many of those things can be generalized and implemented by other local governments instead of them asking for federal assistance or raising taxes.

Here is a summary:
- Sell off some land for development
- Privatize some things like garbage collection and the servicing of fleet vehicles
- Trim spending in other areas
- Specifically for Atlanta, the airport should be privatized - good details on this above

This is very important that we start with reduction in local government spending and try to get that to "trickle up". We have way too many unsustainable entitlement programs already in our Federal government, and I'm shocked that doesn't bother some people.

Georgians: Remember to VOTE on December 2!

There are many pundits on both sides of the aisle watching Georgia's Senate runoff between Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss and Democrat challenger Jim Martin very closely. If you live in Georgia, like I do, then you need to make sure that you vote on or by December 2. Advance Voting will start on November 24. This site should hopefully have information soon on where you can vote early. If you need an absentee ballot, you can follow instructions here.

As we currently stand, the Democrats may have 59 seats in the US Senate. This is because the Alaskan and Minnesotan are extremely close and are in recount phases. Some of you may be thinking that 60 Democrat Senators is exactly what this country needs. Senator Clinton believes that this is needed to bring about a certain change and I've seen a quote from President-Elect Obama from several years back stating that the only way to bring about the sweeping change that he feels is needed is with a Democrat President and a supermajority in the Congress.

But I know I'm not the only one who doesn't think this is a great idea - whether it's a Republican or Democrat supermajority. I also know others who have said they don't think it's the best idea to have a single party running both branches - much less a blank check. I know that the House is still not a "supermajority" but it doesn't matter since they don't have filibuster privileges. Dick Morris also has a good column on this.

But really, no matter how you vote, make sure that you make your voice known again on December 2. Perhaps by then we will know if this is truly a case for preventing a supermajority, but you should still vote.

As a side note, I'm really tired of the misleading ads that Jim Martin is running regarding Saxby Chambliss' support of the FairTax. I've written about the FairTax plan here in the past. If you are not familiar with it, I urge you to look into it and give it some thought.

A Courageous Story

One of the few podcasts I listen to is Albert Mohler's, and he has a great blog too. Way back on May 6, 2008, he posted a blog titled Welcome to the World, Trig Paxson Van Palin about Governor Sarah Palin's pregnancy and the birth of her son with Down's Syndrome. I urge you to go read it and the AP article to which it links.

She loves her baby boy and is proud of him. "I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection," Palin told the Associated Press. "Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?"

Trig Paxson Van Palin has an extra chromosome, two proud and loving parents, four very happy siblings, and he will bring his own joy to untold numbers of lives.

He will face some unique challenges, but he has a loving family who will face those with him. They will learn together the wonder and beauty of a Down syndrome child and will learn to see the glory of God in his trusting face.

Mothers Day 2008 is certain to be a special day in the Alaska Governor's Mansion. What an unspeakable tragedy that so many other homes will have aborted that joy.

Anti-Obamanomics

Just reading a good article at Mises.org titled: Anti-Obamanomics: Why Everyone Should Be in Favor of Reducing Taxes on the "Rich" Generally, the economists at the site don't post about particular candidates. But with so much focus on the election now, I urge you to go read some from it. It's actually a response to an article in the New York Times Magazine:

Are the American people being primed to elect as President of the United States a home-grown version of Hugo Chavez, in the person of Barack Obama? This is a question one can come away with after reading "Obamanomics," the featured article in this last Sunday's (August 24, 2008) New York Times Magazine. Written by Times' columnist David Leonhardt, the article provides insight into Obama's thinking on economics and the economic policies he would be likely to pursue if he were elected President.

Some of the highlights are as follows:

Two major impediments make it difficult for people to recognize the fact that everyone would benefit from reductions, or, better still, the total abolition of all of these taxes on the so-called rich — made possible, of course, by equivalent reductions in government spending. The first is simply massive ignorance of economics, especially of the general benefit from private ownership of the means of production. People have not grasped the profound insight of Mises that, in a market economy, in order benefit from privately owned means of production, one does not have to be an owner of the means of production. This is because one benefits from other people's means of production — every time one buys the products of those means of production.

I think I know a lot of extremely smart people who say they just don't "get" economics. I don't "get" a lot of things (like chemistry or physics), so that's understandable. But when we're talking about massive redistribution of wealth, this affects us all, so people should try to comprehend economics. And to pre-empt the comment that the Republicans are the ones who have allowed spending to get out of hand - I cede that point. I don't agree with that, but I'm a Conservative and not a Republican. There is a difference! Further, and with more pre-emption in mind, take a look at Senator Obama's acceptance speech. I was going to go through and count the new programs he's wanting to instate that "the government" will pay for, but could not stomach reading past the first few paragraphs of partisan politics and pandering. But you can go here or here for more information on how he's misleading us and how he will increase spending as well. Until Congress decides to buckle down, we'll have to keep raising taxes to pay for the pork.

The redistribution of wealth is allegedly necessary to enable an individual who does not own the wealth presently owned by others to benefit from that wealth. Only as and when their property passes to him can he benefit from it, the redistributors believe. This is the kind of "largesse" Obama intends to practice. It is taking funds from those most prodigious at accumulating capital, capital that would benefit all, and then giving the funds to others to consume. Meeting the needs of the poor with the consumption of capital is Obama's formula for prosperity.

Small business owners will have a hard time growing their businesses when their capital is further taxed. Less growth also means less new jobs. And further, increased taxes on businesses will likely lead to increased cost of goods - which leads to increased prices at the counter. So while the personal income taxes may be less for a person, how much will that be offset by the increased costs incurred because the manufacturers of goods and services now have higher costs?

Starting with tax cuts for the so-called rich — based on equivalent reductions in government spending — is the only hope for the resumption of significant economic progress, indeed, for the avoidance of economic retrogression and growing impoverishment. Because of this, it is actually the quickest and surest road to any major reduction in the tax burden of the average wage earner. It holds out the prospect of the average wage earner being able to double his standard of living in a generation or less. The average standard of living would double in a single generation if economic progress at a rate of just 3 percent a year could be achieved. Such economic progress would also mean a halving of the average wage earner's tax burden in the same period of time — if government spending per capita in real terms were held fixed, for then he would have double the real income out of which to pay his present level of taxes. And then, of course, once all the taxes that most stood in the way of capital accumulation and economic progress were eliminated, further reductions in government spending and taxation could and should take place that would be of corresponding direct benefit to wage earners, that is, show up in the reduction of the taxes paid by them.

This analysis makes clear that an essential flaw of so-called supply-side economics — the policy both of the Reagan administration and of the present Bush administration — was the failure to face up to the need to reduce government spending. While the policy of reducing taxes by both administrations was perfectly correct, most of the potential benefit of the tax cuts was lost through the corresponding enlargement of federal budget deficits. Regrettably, both administrations and their supporters lacked the courage required to abolish government spending programs to make those tax cuts possible without deficits.

Their failure to have done so explains why the great mass of the American people have not benefitted from the tax cuts as they should have. The explanation is that, absent equivalent reductions in government spending, the tax cuts did not translate into increases in capital formation, but the opposite. Instead of there being more demand by business for labor and capital goods, there was less; instead of more rapid economic progress and rising real wages, there has been economic stagnation or outright decline, along with stagnant or falling real wages.

Of course, in a further display of their ignorance and blindness, members of the Left will undoubtedly characterize the line of argument I've presented in this article as the "trickle-down theory." There is nothing trickle-down about it. There is only the fact that capital accumulation and economic progress depend on saving and innovation and that these in turn depend on the freedom to make high profits and accumulate great wealth. The only alternative to improvement for all, through economic progress achieved in this way, is the futile attempt of some men to gain at the expense of others by means of looting and plundering. This, the loot-and-plunder theory, is the alternative advocated by the redistributionist critics of the misnamed trickle-down theory. The loot-and-plunder theory is the theory of Obama, of the Democratic Party, and of much of the Republican Party. It is time to supplant it with the sound economic theory developed by generations of intellectual giants ranging from Smith and Ricardo to Böhm-Bawerk and Mises.

Great points from Dick Morris

I find it rather humorous that the DNC is still thinking they have to run against George W. Bush. A little reality check - he's not in the race! Here's a great article from Dick Morris:

A STRATEGIC OPENING FOR MCCAIN

The truth is, of course, that McCain is the most unlike Bush of any of the Republican senator. (When Obama’s people claim that Bush and McCain voted the same 94 percent of the time, they forget that most of the votes in the Senate are unanimous.) The fact that McCain backs commending a basketball team on its victory doesn’t mean that he is in lockstep ideologically with the president.

The issues on which McCain and Bush differ are legion:

* McCain fought for campaign finance reform — McCain-Feingold — that Bush resisted and ultimately signed because he had no choice.

* McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.

* McCain went with Joe Lieberman on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.

* McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.

* McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.

* McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican senators oppose.

* McCain’s energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.

* After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain’s changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.

* McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress).

Remember that McCain ran against Bush in 2000.

McCain’s Republican advisers need to realize that they won the primary and that they do not need to cotton to the delegates at their convention or to appease the Bush White House. The more they respond to Obama’s and Biden’s attacks on Bush by saying, “It ain’t me, babe,” the more he will moot the entire purpose of the Democratic convention.

It is a rare opportunity to nullify the entire Democratic line of attack, and McCain should seize on it.

Senator Obama Makes Paris Hilton Look Like a Recluse

Sounds like something that the vast right-wing conspiracy would be accused of saying through a new John McCain ad. And to make the point that there is a wild media frenzy surrounding Obama, the McCain camp did release an ad touting that Obama is "the biggest celebrity in the world" complete with a passing picture of Paris Hilton.

However, the title of this blog post isn't something that McCain is saying to undermine Obama. Here's the full quote:

"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," ... "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."

Yes, you read that correctly, that was something that Barack Obama said about himself!! Even he had to admit (back in 2005 - even before the hype surrounding him has escalated to where it is today!!) that he was getting so much "fame" (a synonym of which is "celebrity") that it appeared to be more coverage than one of the "top" celebrities at that time.

I love irony... ;)

Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.

great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones

at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared

Quotes from Sunday's NY Times?

Negative. The blog post's title is the headline and the above quotes are direct from a November 2, 1922 Washington Post article!

Great Ronald Reagan Quotes

'Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.'

'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'

'Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. Was too strong.'

'I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.'

'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.'

'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.'

'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.'

'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.'

'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.'

'Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.'

'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'

Taken from: http://boortz.com/more/reagan_quotes.html

Whew...

Senate Blocks "Windfall Profits" Tax

This morning, a cloture vote on the Democrats' scheme to impose a "windfall profits tax" on America's oil companies failed on a 50-44 vote. The bill would have imposed a 25% surtax on any "unreasonable" profits being earned by the oil companies, among other provisions. The roll call is here. Several of the usual suspects--Corker, Smith and Snowe--voted with the Democrats. Every Democrat who was present voted in favor of the measure, but four Democrats, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, didn't show up; John McCain was absent as well.

I've posted about this in the past here and Greg has a good post on it here.

$4 Gas

First of all, it's not good for me to actually have time to post on this blog, and now I've been challenged to post some things... ;)

While we're talking politics here, someone asked in a previous thread why I focused on something so minor. First of all, lately I haven't focused on much of anything here! But let's talk about "$4+/gallon gas" here for now.

For my part in this, I recently traded a gas-guzzling, supercharged, 93 octane drinking car that I really liked for a much more economical compact car (30mpg city now versus 18). So, I guess you could say I'm doing my part in reducing how much gas I'm using. (As an aside, Daimler-Chrysler should focus on fuel economy and not $2.99/gallon gas guarantees...)

But the blame on $4/gallon gas can't be laid squarely on the shoulders of those in the Executive Branch. We now have a problem with an ineffective Legislative Branch with empty promises. My pal Greg just posted a timely post regarding this yesterday. Let's look at what Greg wrote there:

April 24, 2006, [Nancy Pelosi] released another [statement about a gas plan]:

“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

Let me get this straight, according to Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats had a plan in April of 2006 to lower gas prices if they became the majority. Well, in November of 2006, the Democrat party came into the majority position.

As of this writing, it has been 779 days since Nancy Pelosi pledged to lower prices at the pump.

Greg, you're right. The Democrats ran on this platform back then and they're running with this as part of the platform again. And to address the comment ahead of time, it will be pointed out that if they did introduce legislation that President Bush would just veto it. Well they should have at least tried it. I'm really open to comments on some of the bills that were introduced. The Democrats control both Houses, so they obviously could have forced some legislation through. If any of you are aware of them, please let me know. But you can also feel free to see the list of vetoes that President Bush has made. There's even a veto that the Senate overrode back in 2007 after the Democrats had control, so that argument really doesn't hold water.

While there are a lot of people who place the blame for high prices on the War in Iraq or just poor policies by the President, what if a lot of what we're seeing is just Capitalism (gone awry)? What if those who pump the crude oil have decided that it would be a great time to hike the prices and have the perfect scapegoat in the Bush Administration? It's just a theory of mine. Some people have conspiracy theories about the Administration, and I have mine... ;)

By the way, here are a couple of good articles by economists regarding recent pricing.

"What Are Just Prices?"

We all have strange and contradictory wishes concerning what prices should be. We are outraged at what is happening to the price of gas and food. We don't think they should go up. In real terms, we want them to fall, and they have fallen in the last decade and a half. That's a good thing, right? That's how the world should work.

But housing? Now, that's a different matter. When the prices fall, people freak out. It's like the end of the world. How is it possible that my own home would fall in price?! That's not the way the world should work. Everyone knows that house prices are suppose to go up up up, all the time, without fail, until the end of time.

"The Oil-Price Bubble"

We suggest that there is a high likelihood that the massive increase in the price of oil is the manifestation of a severe misallocation of resources. The loose monetary policy of the Fed from January 2001 to June 2004 is the likely key factor behind this misallocation. (The federal funds rate was lowered from 6% to 1%.) The tighter Fed stance from June 2004 to September 2007 should undermine the existence of various nonproductive activities and in turn reduce upward pressures on the price of oil.

Regrettably, the loose monetary stance that the Fed has adopted since September of last year, coupled with still very buoyant Chinese economic activity, is likely to counter any downward pressure on the price of oil. The Fed's current policy of fighting an emerging economic slump is, in fact, a policy of deepening the misallocation of resources, thereby promoting higher prices for oil. If our thesis regarding the oil market bubble is valid, then it is the Fed's policies that must be blamed for the erosion in consumers' living standards and not the rising price of oil.

UPDATE This is the best Democrats can do?

This is the plaque commemorating fallen police officers in Portland, Oregon

This is the entire memorial site

This is a disgrace!!!
When (less than one term) Senator Obama had his huge 75,000 person rally in Oregon, this is where someone decided to place the port-a-potties?!? What in the world were they thinking? This is truly sad.

Update: Apparently Senator Obama hasapologized for this incident and his campaign claims that they had nothing to do with it. However, everyone should be offended that someone thought it was a good idea to do this. The first I heard about this incident was yesterday, so thanks for the update Brian...

By the way, here is some good commentary on Obama's "acceptance speech" recently.

Maybe he should wrap up his tour of the States. I guess he has visited 58 of them so far...

Let me know if you still think it was a hoax

This one's for all of the conspiracy theorists out there. At the link, you can watch videos of this test performed in 1988, but here are the results.



And just to make sure I'm clear - there are many who still believe that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 wasn't a plane at all. This is because they cite that there wasn't any debris left. Well, these videos and tests from 1988 prove that if a plane crashes into a concrete object that no debris will be left. So if for some reason you still don't believe it was a plane, then there's nothing else I can say to you...

Here's some info from the Sandia National Labs site:

The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines — onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines. The test was performed by Sandia National Laboratories under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo.

Congress - the real April Fool's joke

I saw this story that Congress is up in arms again over how much those evil oil companies are raking in. I'm pretty tired of hearing it - especially when the government makes more money off of the oil companies than the companies themselves. Yep, they take more from Big Oil in taxes than what those scoundrels are left with.

Anyway, the story linked to above had a funny line from an Exxon exec:

Alluding to the fact that Congress often doesn't rate very high in opinion polls, Cleaver told the executives: "Your approval rating is lower than ours, and that means you're down low."

The following is a repost from November of 2005.

One thing that is becoming popular of late is wanting to force an earnings cap on private companies. It's under the guise of helping Americans because the "official" target is "Big Oil." Yesterday, I heard Rush Limbaugh give a statistic that "Big Oil" earns 10 cents on every gallon of gas sold and that "Big Government" earns 45 cents. I thought this was really strange and that Big Oil had to make more than this, but I didn't feel like researching it. Well, this morning I noticed The real windfall in my Bloglines from the Mises Institute (an economics website).

Last week, after Exxon Mobil (XOM) published record quarterly profits of $9.9 billion, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist called for hearings to see whether a windfall profits tax should be imposed. Checking the SEC 10-Q filing reveals the following:



Now, let's break this down.

Exxon Mobil paid $25.8 BILLION in taxes the 3rd Quarter. They were in a 41.8% tax bracket. This means that they took in about $61.7 Billion and were left with around $35.9 Billion. After their expenditures, they profited less than 17% of their total earnings.

Finally, the citizens and government officials seem to be really upset that Exxon Mobil made nearly $10 Billion in the quarter. Putting this chart to practical use, please note that the Government profited $4 Billion more in 3Q 2005 than in 3Q 2004. We have to have some accountability here. The government took in nearly three times more money ($25 Billion) than Exxon's net profits ($9.9 Billion) and they are wanting more.

Do guitarists really play Guitar Hero?

So I was walking around BestBuy tonight and decided to test drive one of the guitar hero games. I just don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm a guitarist? I played Black Hole Sun (on Rock Band) on medium and got boo'd off the stage rather quickly. I guess if I have spare time to play an instrument I'll just pick up one of my guitars... ;)

Randomness...

While I was in BestBuy, I picked up a Dynex headphone adapter for my iPhone and a somewhat decent set of earbud headphones. I figure I can have some decent phones for the bus ride to Lotusphere and walking around (if needed...) :)

LOL - Edwards is on CNN compaining about the 99.5%+ of Americans who haven't voted yet (and assuming that they should vote for him...) and then talking about a woman who couldn't get a liver transplant in time. Could that be because slick ambulance chasers like Edwards have completely drove up insurance prices because of his antics and huge lawsuits?

Well... Ummm... Happy New Year!

So, I figure that a week into the year I should at least post something! As you've probably seen from Nathan, Tim, and Mike's blogs, things are pretty fun at Lotus 911 now preparing for Lotusphere 2008... But you'll hear more about that later.

Some random thoughts? Interesting watching the SEC dominating the bowls! If LSU hangs on, then I think the SEC will be 6-1 in bowls this year.

NH primary should be interesting. Will we see another Obama/Huckabee showing? Guess we'll know in 24 hours...

This is what I feared would happen...

It's been a long time since I've had a political post. But this one really caught my attention and it's something I've thought about for a while actually: Christian Conservatives Consider Third-Party Effort

It's pretty self-explanatory - if Rudy Giuliani gets the nod for the Republican ticket, then there are some pretty high-profile names among Christian Conservatives that apparently will try to run a 3rd-party candidate. And just like in 1992, the entrance of a popular 3rd-party candidate on the conservative side will all but ensure another Clinton Presidency (remember, they're a team...). Actually, the first comment at the Times blog sums it up:

These people are the exact reason Rudy Giulaini must win the Republican nomination. This country was founded on separation of chuch and state. GET OUT OF GOVERNMENT AND LAW MAKING. Will you “bless” us with Hillary to prove how badly you just don’t get it?

Actually, the whole "wall of separation" has been severely abused by those who don't really get its original intention, but that's for another time. I would, personally, much rather have Giuliani than Hillary Clinton. She's the inevitable nominee for the Democrats and she has a long history of Socialistic policies. It's proven.

Anyway, regarding this effort by certain Christian Conservatives. I hate that they are hinging everything on his stance on a single issue. One that it doesn't appear that Giuliani will try to extend or restrict. I think we really need to pick our battles more carefully. We can't focus on one issue when there is so much more at stake...

Some Things Never Change: Bring Back The Bronco...

So 13 years later he gets busted for robbing some sports memorabilia - the irony. Five words:

If the glove don't fit...

Nickname Too Funny To Pass By...

LOL, I just saw that Rush is referring to my (soon-to-be-ex)* Senator from SC as "Lindsey Grahamnesty"... Too funny! He should continue with his former nickname and call him "Veep Lindsey Grahamnesty"!

* By this, I not only mean that he will no longer be my Senator because I'm a GA resident but that I doubt he will be re-elected in SC.

Now Playing: "Secret Ambition" by David Crowder Band: Cover of Michael W. Smith song

Have You Offset Your Carbon?

It seems that the latest rage is "carbon offsetting". This is where you can buy a credit (around $50 per year per vehicle) and something environmentally friendly will be done with that money (like planting a tree or preserving current forestation). Al Gore does offsets, so I guess anyone who wants to "live green" should be OK doing it too, right? :)

According to the Save the Planet website, six 25-year old pine trees can absorb 1 ton of CO2.

About 20 years ago, we planted about 1,000 pine trees on my parents' property:



This means that (when they are 25) they will absorb 166 tons of CO2 annually. My sedan accounts for about 4.6 tons and our SUV accounts for about 6.6 tons. So at 6 tons average per vehicle (depending on mileage, of course), the 1,000 trees we planted are more than covering the carbon footprint for all vehicles in my family. Actually, this covers about 27 vehicles per year until the trees are gone!

I just feel really good about myself knowing that I'm "green" as far as my vehicles go.... Hopefully you can see the humor in this - if not, then go out and find 6 pine trees to call your own so that you can live green too. That's a whole lot cheaper than buying a "green" car and it's officially sanctioned by our former VP!

Speaking of "green", I saw a car the other week with one of the "Live Green" banners on the bumper. Was it a Prius? Nope. It was a 1995 Mustang GT - the little V8 must be green, eh? ;) Maybe the lady found some pine trees!