If you are a scientist that asserts global warming is an undisputed fact and then another scientist disagrees with you, what do you do?
You pick up your marbles and go home. You certainly don’t debate this issue in House testimony.
Article here.
Hat Tip: From the Heartland.
This is too depressing to even comment on.
Washington state health officials will soon start asking detailed questions about the health of some state residents — and even give them brief physical exams.
The door-to-door survey of 1,100 randomly selected households across the state will try to learn more about our health, and especially about our risk for cardiovascular disease and diabetes, to better target preventive educational programs.
. . .
The survey is being financed by an $800,000 grant from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Kansas and Arkansas also were awarded survey grants.
Whole article here.
A recent law passed in Maryland that would have required Wal-Mart to have additional health-care benefits than smaller companies.
The state law would have required large employers to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or pay the difference in taxes. Only Wal-Mart would have been affected by the law.
This law was over-turned by a federal judge.
Singling out a specific company for legal sanctions appears to be illegal, as it should be.
Whole article here.
This article is important for at least three points. First it shows how over time public transit becomes increasingly unaffordable and require ever larger subsidies. Second how the system of diverting resources from intended purposes to “pork barrel” bring home the bacon works in Washington. And third, how public transit is really regressive, spending tax money for affluent citizens rather than the other way around as it is touted.
Representative Tom Davis (R-VA) is requesting the House of Representatives to consider an amendment (H.R. 3496, as revised) to the Deep Water Energy Resources Act (H.R. 4761) that would divert $1.5 billion of federal revenues earned through offshore drilling to subsidize the deeply troubled Metro transit system serving the nation’s capital and his congressional district. If enacted, this earmark would be one of the largest ever passed—seven times larger than Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” and twice as large as Mississippi’s “Train to Nowhere.”
Full story here.
This at Tech Central Station:
It turns out that, despite all the claims that ethanol is good for the environment, ethanol may be a net polluter in many ways. Ethanol does reduce carbon monoxide emissions because it is an “oxygenate,” which means it adds oxygen to the fuel, converting the CO into CO2, carbon dioxide. (Seeing how CO is not greenhouse gas, our ethanol policies result in making more CO2; what would Al Gore say?) But on the question of hydrocarbons, ethanol appears to make things worse.
Alcohol’s hydrogen bonds are weaker than those of water or even gasoline, making alcohol more likely to evaporate, both under high heat, and under normal temperatures. In scientific terms, this means ethanol and other alcohols have greater “volatility” than gasoline.
More volatile fuels send more hydrocarbons into the air, because less of the hydrocarbons will be burnt up in combustion, and more will simply evaporate and float into the air. Adding 10 percent of ethanol to a fuel mixture increases the volatility, sending more smog-causing hydrocarbons into the air.
The balance of the article goes on to detail how various Administrations (Clinton & Bush) eased rules on volatile organic chemicals or ethanol or it would have violated the Clean Air Act.
And it is also a comedy. The damage from farming is probably worse on the environment that the pollution from oil itself.
“The use of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline proved to be neither a sustainable nor an environmentally friendly option,” scientist Marcelo Dias de Oliveira wrote “considering ecological footprint values, and both net energy and CO2 offset considerations seemed relatively unimportant compared to the ecological footprint.”
So here in Hawaii we are mandating a fuel that is driving gasoline prices higher and, in the long run, will damage the environment. Isn’t government wonderful?
Hey, we made the big-time! Neal Boortz featured Honolulu’s disfunctional handling of the Natatorium on his Neal’s Nuze this morning, comparing it to Boston’s Big Dig disaster. He notes that nothing has been done about the problem the last two years. I guess he just doesn’t understand “Hawaii time.”
Two years .. and they hadn’t done a damn thing. Any worth-his-salt husband in this country could have taken control of this problem and fixed it with one visit to the Home Depot and two hours work … but it’s two years later and they’re still trying to figure this thing out.
The truth about rapid transit from a columnist who chose to experience it:
I went to work each day on the bus. If I needed groceries, I’d take the bus or harass a friend for a ride. When my sister came to town, I made her ride the subway to Hollywood, rather than shuttling her around sightseeing. When I had to go downtown for a fancy press awards dinner, I rode the bus in a spaghetti-strap dress.
For the month of June, I experienced life in Los Angeles as many other people do without a car and hating it. (Emphasis mine, dn)
Quite revealing, isn’t it? Then there is this gem:
For instance, I learned the only white-collar workers who take the bus are people who have recent DUI convictions, people with medical conditions, such as grand mal seizures, or people who are crazy. I often caught people looking at me as if they were wondering which I one I was.
This is an interesting article for those who want to learn the truth about public transit. Someone needs to do the same thing for rail transit. I’m sure there is a comparable experience to be had.
Article link.
Hat Tip: From the Heartland
So why not here? And drives people away. Is that what we want here? The problem it is harder to leave an island. Not so on the Mainland.
Strangely, the core of the metropolitan area continues to receive praise for its claimed revitalization. Yet, the core county, Multnomah, lost nearly 28,000 domestic residents between 2000 and 2005. The domestic migration gains in suburban Clackamas and Washington counties offset the Multnomah County loss. Outside the urban growth boundary, the largest gains have been in Clark County, Washington, which is not subject to Oregon’s draconian growth limits. Clark County gained 36,000 domestic migrants over the period, nearly 10 times as many as moved to the three urban growth boundary counties.
We keep repeating the mistakes of cities like Portland, OR., rail included.
Elected officials are focused on “doing something” not on the consequences of their actions, of “doing something.” And then when the damage is done, like Jeremy Harris, they are long gone and we have to live with the consequences.
Article here.