Half Slave and Half Free – The True Value of Energy

Hat tip: Jay Nordlinger as cited by Edward John Craig writing in NRO's Planet Gore

Thought for Today

"When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President. Now I'm beginning to believe it."

~~~~~ Clarence Darrow

Good Advice for Patients – and Their Doctors

Dr. Alex Lickerman, the proprietor of Happiness in this World, just put up a thoughtful, masterfully written post, When Doctors Don’t Know What’s Wrong. While it's primarily directed toward patients, I'd encourage all physicians and veterinarians to read it, too. Here's the beginning:

The first patient I ever saw as a first year resident came in with a litany of complaints, not one of which I remember today except for one: he had headaches. The reason I remember he had headaches isn’t because I spent so much time discussing them but rather the exact opposite: at the time I knew next to nothing about headaches and somehow managed to end the visit without ever addressing his at all, even though they were the primary reason he’d come to see me.

Then I rotated on a neurology service and actually learned quite a lot about headaches. Then when my patient came back to see me a few months later, I distinctly remember at that point not only being interested in his headaches but actually being excited to discuss them.

I often find myself thinking back to that experience when I’m confronted with a patient who has a complaint I can’t figure out, and I thought it would be useful to describe the various reactions doctors have in general to patients when they can’t figure out what’s wrong, why they have them, and what you can do as a patient to improve your chances in such situations of getting good care.

Not only should you read all of it, you should share it with as many people as you can – especially your doctor and your veterinarian.

A Proposed Goal for the Tea Party Movement

Because of its genuinely spontaneous origins, the Tea Party movement (of which I count myself a proud member) can be legitimately criticized as inchoate and unfocused. Its adherents, while primarily of conservative or libertarian persuasion, agree on little else. They may be Republicans, Democrats, independents, or members of a third party. They may be members of any religion or of none. They come in all ages, sexes, occupations, colors, and national origins.

Despite their many differences, though, Tea Partiers pretty well agree on this much: they want the Federal government to be smaller and less intrusive than it has already become. Therefore, they are unalterably opposed to the unprecedented power grabs, massive tax increases, and inconceivably huge deficits which the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate, aided by the spineless "me, too, but less" Republicans, is attempting to impose upon us.

Randy Barnett, a highly respected professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, has been thinking, lecturing, and writing about these very issues for many years. When the Tea Party movement arose, he was ready with a constructive suggestion. He spelled it out in an op-ed in the Thursday, April 23, 2009 Wall Street Journal, The Case for a Federalism Amendment, then explained it further in a video he made for PJTV, Randy Barnett & New Federalism: How Tea Partiers Can Make Washington Pay Attention. Here is the heart of Professor Barnett's idea:

What sort of language would restore a healthy balance between federal and state power while protecting the liberties of the people?

One simple proposal would be to repeal the 16th Amendment enacted in 1913 that authorized a federal income tax. This single change would strike at the heart of unlimited federal power and end the costly and intrusive tax code. Congress could then replace the income tax with a "uniform" national sales or "excise" tax (as stated in Article I, section 8) that would be paid by everyone residing in the country as they consumed, and would automatically render savings and capital appreciation free of tax. There is precedent for repealing an amendment. In 1933, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment that had empowered Congress to prohibit the sale of alcohol.

Alternatively, to restore balance between federal and state power and better protect individual liberty, the repeal of the income tax amendment could be folded into a new "Federalism Amendment" like this:

Section 1: Congress shall have power to regulate or prohibit any activity between one state and another, or with foreign nations, provided that no regulation or prohibition shall infringe any enumerated or unenumerated right, privilege or immunity recognized by this Constitution.

Section 2: Nothing in this article, or the eighth section of article I, shall be construed to authorize Congress to regulate or prohibit any activity that takes place wholly within a single state, regardless of its effects outside the state or whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom; but Congress may define and punish offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

Section 3: The power of Congress to appropriate any funds shall be limited to carrying into execution the powers enumerated by this Constitution and vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; or to satisfy any current obligation of the United States to any person living at the time of the ratification of this article.

Section 4: The 16th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, effective five years from the date of the ratification of this article.

Section 5: The judicial power of the United States to enforce this article includes but is not limited to the power to nullify any prohibition or unreasonable regulation of a rightful exercise of liberty. The words of this article, and any other provision of this Constitution, shall be interpreted according to their public meaning at the time of their enactment.

This is important. By all means read the whole thing, watch the video, be sure that you understand it – then, if you agree that this is a worthwhile suggestion, contact your state legislators and demand that they act upon it. You can also share Professor Barnett's idea with as many people as possible. If they don't understand it fully, try your best to explain it to them calmly and patiently.

If enough of us get behind this idea and demand that our politicians implement it, they won't be able to ignore us no matter how hard they try. It's quite possible that besides providing a vehicle for us to vent our frustrations, this Tea Party movement may yet catalyze a return to the form of government envisioned by our Founding Fathers. No wonder the Left is so rabidly opposed to us!

A Prophetic Cartoonist

Eleven months ago, I posted this Gary Varvel editorial cartoon:


In view of recent events, it seems eerily prescient, doesn't it?

Know What This Is?

It's Obama all dressed up in his Earth Day suit getting ready to help the planet by burning about 9,116 gallons of jet fuel.

Wind and Solar: Some Cold, Hard Facts

James Schlesinger and Robert L. Hirsch, both of whom know what they're talking about when the subject is energy, contributed an important op-ed to the Friday, 4/24/09 Washington Post, Getting Real on Wind and Solar. Here's how it begins:

Why are we ignoring things we know? We know that the sun doesn't always shine and that the wind doesn't always blow. That means that solar cells and wind energy systems don't always provide electric power. Nevertheless, solar and wind energy seem to have captured the public's support as potentially being the primary or total answer to our electric power needs.

Solar cells and wind turbines are appealing because they are "renewables" with promising implications and because they emit no carbon dioxide during operation, which is certainly a plus. But because both are intermittent electric power generators, they cannot produce electricity "on demand," something that the public requires. We expect the lights to go on when we flip a switch, and we do not expect our computers to shut down as nature dictates.

Solar and wind electricity are available only part of the time that consumers demand power. Solar cells produce no electric power at night, and clouds greatly reduce their output. The wind doesn't blow at a constant rate, and sometimes it does not blow at all.

If large-scale electric energy storage were viable, solar and wind intermittency would be less of a problem. However, large-scale electric energy storage is possible only in the few locations where there are hydroelectric dams. But when we use hydroelectric dams for electric energy storage, we reduce their electric power output, which would otherwise have been used by consumers. In other words, we suffer a loss to gain power on demand from wind and solar.

Read all of it – it's vitally important that more people understand that wind and solar can NEVER furnish the bulk of our electricity. Even a royal decree from His Majesty King Obama I cannot make it so.

Hat tip: Greg Pollowitz writing in NRO's Planet Gore

Hybrid NASCAR

Hat tip: Henry Payne and NRO's Planet Gore

Trouble is – it's not entirely a joke! More here: NASCAR Going Hybrid

Buying Iranian Votes With – Israeli Oranges?

Yes, it really happened. Over at NRO's The Corner, Michael Ledeen writes about the Iranian mullahcracy's incredible incompetence in Maybe There's Hope:

If Iran really had advanced weapons, the mullahs wouldn't have to photoshop them all the time, as they do. Most claims by the Islamic Republic have to be heavily discounted to peel off the layers of braggadocio and fantasy, before you get close to the truth. They are true idealists, in the Hegelian sense: They think the idea is more important than the thing itself. So it's no surprise that they make a mess of things. Most everything. Because, you see, they say that everything is great, so don't bother them with real pictures.

The most recent example of the seemingly limitless capacity of Iranian leaders to mess things up comes from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He held a campaign rally and offered attendees free oranges. Food being in somewhat short supply these days, lots of folks showed up. And they really did get oranges. Zionist oranges. Jaffa oranges from the land of the little satan. Yes, Ahmadinejad bought Israeli oranges and handed them out to the faithful.

You really cannot invent these people. Not that you'd want to. Ahem.

Ledeen links to this excellent blog with an uncommonly long name, For a democratic secular Iran. For peace and prosperity in the Middle East. Its author is an Iranian expatriate, Azarmehr, who lives in the United Kingdom while working to free his country from the grip pf the grim, humorless ayatollahs.

Priorities

Hat tip: Lisa Benson and Jewish World Review


Hat tip: Bruce Tinsley and Jewish World Review