January 2012

Green is the color of death

by Michelle Minton on April 22, 2009 · 4 comments

in Culture, Environment, Zeitgeist

Okay, so the title of this blog post might be a little provocative, but allow me to explain.

The term “green” as used by environmentalists refers to the pristine beauty of nature free from the corrupting influence of humanity, but humanity where ever it exists, by our nature must use our environment for our survival.  When it is broken down, the philosophy of environmentalism is the philosophy of life on earth without humanity at all. Green becomes the color of a forest that grows over unmarked graves.

Everything on this earth has its survival skill. Some animals run fast, some have claws, some have millions of offspring with the hope that a few will survive. Human beings only have one survival trait—our minds. Our ability to look around our world and use our wits has created shelter, clothing,  weapons, food, and medicine,  has increased life spans, reduced infant mortality and most importantly the human mind now allows us to spend less time on just staying alive and more time living and enjoying this world. Human survival and enjoyment are not concerns of environmentalists.

When environmentalists see a beautiful beach, a forest, or a desert, they don’t see environments for humans to live in, they see a world that has value and rights regardless of how humans can use it. When they see a tiger in the jungle or  a deer in a forest they don’t see a life threatening danger or a potential source of food, they see citizens of the world who should be left alone;  they see a world that has value regardless of whether or not people exist.

Really,  what environmentalists usually think of when they look on the world is  how humanity has sullied its pristine beauty. And they invented earth day to remind us all of what a blight we are on the planet. Don’t be fooled by their use of words like “balance” and “living in harmony”. In nature balance is the constant struggle between life and death, creation and destruction. Animals eat and kill, fires burn, waters flood; that is the nature of things. What environmentalists want humanity to do is give up the struggle, to die, and to leave the earth in peace. They won’t even extend the same courtesy they give to animals like wolves that eat other animals or beavers that cut down trees to build dams.

In his article Celebrate Exploit the Earth Day, Craig Biddle demonstrates in stark terms how environmentalists necessarily oppose capitalism as a way to achieve their goal of a world without humanity. Because capitalism is the only system that allows men to use their mind freely to pursue life and happiness as they see it, which means transforming nature for his own ends.

“if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature into the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live,” says Biddle.

Last month CEI celebrated Human Achievement Hour which was a direct response to the environmentalist holiday “Earth Hour” which asked people to turn off their lights for one hour to petition the government to take action for energy reduction.  In our assessment what Earth Hour organizers wanted was for humanity to stop progressing and “sustain”. With Earth Day, organizers want people to admit that they are evil, the earth is good and therefore we should feel guilty about our very existence and imposition on nature. While earth hour organizers wanted humanity to stop progressing, Earth Day proponents want humanity to regress to a standard of living (if it can be called that) that is even lower than animals.

I for one refuse to accept the environmentalist morality. Today I plan to celebrate human achievement and the necessity of exploiting the earth. For some inspiration about just a few of the amazing things human beings have done on this planet check out this cool video by Drew Tidwell

Humans Make Earth Day Better

Mortgage Executive Kills Himself, After Obama Makes Mortgage Giant Freddie Mac Lose Money to Bail Out Irresponsible Borrowers

by Hans Bader on April 22, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Stimulus to Nowhere

The chief financial officer of mortgage giant Freddie Mac committed suicide today in his basement. The Obama Administration forced Freddie Mac to run up billions of dollars in losses to bail out mortgage borrowers, including irresponsible high-income households with modest mortgages.

Until last year, Freddie Mac was a GSE — a Government Sponsored Enterprise, an entity chartered and subsidized by the federal government, but owned by private shareholders. But the federal government seized direct control of Freddie Mac last year after it ran up big losses.

Ironically, although the government took over Freddie Mac in the name of reducing its risky mortgage practices, it ended up doing just the opposite. The government made Freddie run up even bigger losses buying risky loans in an effort to artificially stimulate lending. In conduct reminiscent of Enron, federal regulators tried to prevent Freddie from disclosing to the public and the SEC how Obama’s mortgage bailout was forcing it to lose even more money.

The Government’s politically-motivated mismanagement of Freddie Mac shows why recent proposals to effectively nationalize the banks are a bad idea. Why should we trust the Administration to turn around failing companies, when the Congressional Budget Office says that the Administration’s $800 billion stimulus package will actually shrink the economy in the long run?

People Make Earth Day Better

by Richard Morrison on April 21, 2009

in Agriculture, Culture, Energy, Environment, Features, Global Warming, Mobility, Nano & Biotech, Natural Resources, Precaution & Risk, Private Conservation, Regulation, Zeitgeist

This year, we at the Competitive Enterprise Institute are suggesting that those who will be celebrating Earth Day remember the challenges presented by living in the natural world, and the inspiring ways that human beings have worked to overcome them. This new perspective is celebrated in a short video titled “Humans Make Earth Day Better.”

While Earth Day has previously focused on traditional concerns like pollution and recycling, we think it’s also a perfect time to think about the challenges human beings themselves face around the world – like hunger, disease and poverty – and the many ways human ingenuity has helped drive them back.

Many thanks to CEI Studio Producer Drew Tidwell for his excellent work on the video.

Enviro-Scare Artists

by Angela Logomasini on April 21, 2009

in Environment

According to a new report released by enviro-scare artists at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, most food packaging still contains the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA). That is supposed to scare you, but I say, who cares? It’s there because it’s useful. BPA is one substance has proven very helpful in maintaining the integrity of the products it packages and there is scant evidence of anyone ever having a problem. The idea that food companies want to slowly poison their customers and that the Food and Drug Administration supports that strategy by issuing reports on BPA safety should be quickly dismissed as silly. But the green groups continue to make this case.

They note that the substance is found in human urine, which they say is evidence of exposure. Yes, indeed and it is also evidence to the fact that BPA quickly metabolizes and leaves the human body, like many harmless substances do. The simple fact is, the human body is exposed to trace-level chemicals on a daily bases, man-made and otherwise. This mere exposure to trace levels tells us nothing about risk. When the is risk is negligible, as FDA and others have found, there is no reason panic. Yet Greens focus on exposure and then target the chemicals they think make industry must vulnerable to attacks—because apparently for some reason, they don’t like business.

My colleague Jonathan Tolman and I have both written on the topic, highlighting the facts about the science and the risks. But these groups don’t seem to care much about the science. Apparently, the hype gets them more media attention and more power.

Kids Know a Bucket of S**t When They See One

by Iain Murray on April 21, 2009 · 3 comments

in Culture, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Nanny State, Natural Resources, Personal Liberty, Private Conservation, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

I’ve always been a fan of Lewis Black’s take on things, even when it’s obvious we disagree politically, but this take on the way TV networks are marketing Earth Day to kids is great whether you’re deep green or a free-market environmentalist. Enjoy.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM – Th 11p / 10c
Back in Black – Kids’ Earth Day
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes		Economic CrisisPolitical Humor

More Green Tape

by Angela Logomasini on April 21, 2009

in Environment

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson states in a press release today: “People have a right to information that might affect their health and the health of their children–and EPA has a responsibility to provide it.” How does she plan to do that? EPA is imposing more paperwork and red tape–or in this case what might better be called “green tape”–on America’s small businesses by reversing a Bush Administration rule that attempted to reduce meaningless paper work mandates. Supposedly, if companies report more about inconsequential use and “release” of chemicals from their manufacturing processes we can all sleep better at night–or maybe not.

At issue is the Toxics Release Inventory a government reporting program on legally “released” chemicals in the environment. The trace level chemicals at issue have no measurable impact on public health. As a result, what EPA publishes is not really information since it does not tell us anything about risk levels. It’s merely confusing data that makes tiny risks look scary. In fact, EPA already regulates chemical use and releases under myriad laws to ensure levels are safe. And these laws are very stringent, usually far more than necessary.

TRI reports are much more akin to a political device that consumers, by and large, never read. They are tools of environmental activists, who want to hype risks, scare the public, and push for more and more regulations. TRI hits small companies the hardest, imposing often nonsensical requirements. For example, ceramics makers report trace levels of lead that is intact in the paint used on vases and the like. Public health impact? None. Bureaucratic headache and financial cost? Real. For more info on the Toxics Release Inventory, see our brief on the topic.

Americas Summit: Two Views

by Silvia Santacruz on April 21, 2009 · 1 comment

in International, Politics as Usual, Trade

Abajo! (“Down!”) was the response given by the friendly, bronzed-skinned middle-aged Cuban man who chatted with my husband and me over Cuban coffee on Calle Ocho, downtown Miami, when asked about Fidel Castro.  This discussion and our interaction with many other proud Cuban Americans occurred during a recent visit to Miami, just prior to the Fifth Summit of the Americas.

His sentiment against the 50-year-old communist dictatorship is the tenor among many Cubans living in Florida who disapprove of the Castro brothers’ administration.  It is but one example of how the American media choose to focus on President Obama’s conciliatory approach to the region [especially Cuba].  Meanwhile, Latin American newspapers are praising Obama and hoping for a hemispheric alliance.

“If the United States wants, it has the chance to write a new chapter in history, not of interference, but of cooperation, building things with the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean,” asserted Brazilian President Lula da Silva, as reported in the Bogota, Colombia-based El Tiempo newspaper.

On the other hand, WSJ Mary Anastasia O’Grady authored a column yesterday titled Summit of Americas: A Missed Opportunity.

“Mr. Obama had to know that the meeting [the Summit] is used by the region’s politicians to rally the base back home by showing that they can put Uncle Sam in his place.  Realizing this, the American president might have arrived at the Port of Spain prepared to return their volley.  They have, after all, tolerated and even encouraged for decades one of the most repressive regimes of the 20th century.  In recent years, that repression has spread from Cuba to Venezuela, and today millions of Latin Americans live under tyranny.  As the leader of the free world, Mr. Obama had the duty to speak out for these voiceless souls. In this he failed.”

Thus, there are two views of the fifth Americas Summit.  The one reported in the region describes a successful Summit with an open door to do business, while the American view, when not praising the president’s efforts to be liked, questions Obama for not defending his nation’s main principle: freedom.

One positive outcome from this Summit is that the region got Obama’s attention early on and his administration is currently reviewing the Colombia trade agreement, a huge leap from his prior campaign statements to his organized labor supporters.  Finalizing this agreement would bolster a strong U.S. ally in a region where anti-Americanism is on the rise.  Read WSJ’s New Movement on Colombia Trade Pact

Does Anyone Understand The Internet?

by Nick Brown on April 21, 2009

in Regulation, Tech & Telecom

I’m beginning to think “no” is the definitive answer.  While most tend to understand the basic concepts of Internet connectivity and its associated parts, it seems that it is becoming abundantly clear that terminology has been misused by media and public organizations such that no one really understands what they are even talking about anymore.

It’s understandable that people who don’t work in the telecommunications sector are unfamiliar with networking.  But a group of writers that should understand these concepts are the individuals that are paid to write for PCWorld.

Today, David Coursey discussed the recent decision of Time Warner Cable to back off its plans to test metered broadband service in an essay strangely entitled, “Why Metered Broadband Would Work”.  It’s odd, because he describes why TWC is up to no good and why metered broadband is greedy.

The column states that metering broadband service violates net neutrality and concludes that, “anything that hinders Internet neutrality hinders the development of new technologies and new business models.”

Where do I begin? First of all, net neutrality has nothing to do with metered broadband service.  Nothing.

Metered broadband has nothing to do with how fast your connection is.

Metered broadband is a cap on the total amount of data you transfer during a given billing cycle.  That’s it. There is nothing more to it than that.  It has nothing to do with giving certain packets priority.  It has nothing to do with preventing the use of certain applications or equipment (like a VoIP handset) on your computer.  It has nothing to do with blocking access to sites that have competing content.  And it has nothing to do with Quality of Service.

Let’s look at this in different terminology.  The speed at which you travel in your car has nothing to do with the number of miles you choose to travel in a given month.  If you were to rent a car, and your rental agreement dictated that you could not travel more than 100 miles in 30 days, (assuming speed limits and the police were not a factor) you could travel at whatever speed you desired until you traversed 100 miles.  In this case, whatever connection speed you have from TWC would not change.  If you had a 10 meg connection, you would still get a 10 meg connection.  The difference is the number of miles you could travel on the Internet in a given billing cycle, not the speed at which you could get there.

Interestingly enough, metered broadband is a new business model that Coursey claims Internet neutrality would hinder.  Since metered broadband has nothing to do with Internet neutrality, and the column claims that in a recession the last thing we need to do is hinder new models, then this was the perfect opportunity to allow the free market to test a new model.

Metered broadband does cap the total amount of data that an individual can transfer in a given month.  That is not a negative thing, though.  Transfer speeds and data transferred are two different things.  The first is the speed at which data could potentially be transferred to or from your computer.  These are commonly referred to as “downstream” and “upstream”.  Over a given billing cycle — generally a month — an individual receives data and sends data by surfing the Internet, receiving email, using instant messaging, etc.  The benefit of a bandwidth cap is that it creates tiers that allow for more affordable service, and open up the doors of barred entry to individuals that could not previously afford Internet service.

TWC reports that their users in the Austin, TX area averaged 5-6 gig a month.  A benefit of metered service is that if a user falls into this category, there is no reason for them to be spending $50-$75 a month for unlimited access.  This is similar to a cell phone plan, in that if you don’t talk 3,000 minutes a month, purchasing the 3,000 minute or unlimited plan would be a major waste of money when you could get a lower plan for far cheaper.  TWC was proposing lower-priced tiers combined with higher fees for heavy users. A relatively basic plan would have offered 5 GB a month for $29, and a more robust tier would have offered 15 GB a month for $40, all the way up to unlimited plans for $150.

Metered service could be a major benefit for most average or below average users.  The only people that it hurts are Bittorrent fiends.  Additionally, those that use larger amounts of data on movie streaming services would have probably fallen into a data tier that was similarly priced to what they were paying before a switch to metered service.

Something that Coursey hints at, but never comes right out to explain, is the concern that caps are in response to television and movie distribution on the Internet.  The implication is that monthly caps would deter individuals from watching TV online, causing them to return to the couch where profits are higher. It is a certainty that cable providers do not want to simply become sellers of bits.  But the individuals that are concerned of this notion that caps force individuals into higher caps, or that they are somehow being cut off from certain services is really just silly.

Consumers are not forced to use the Internet.  They have the right to determine how much data they will transfer in a month and purchase an appropriate tier.  This occurs every day when consumers purchase cell phones.  They purchase the tier that is suitable for their needs.  This approach by TWC opened the door to allow low volume users to have very affordable rates.  Yes, the higher cap tiers were arguably pricey.  But that isn’t a reason for the media to create such a false state of fear over the issue that the entire trial is pulled.  The free market would have caused those tiers to adjust and match companies offerings like Comcast’s 250 gig cap.

Coursey is right about one thing.  In these dreadful economic times, we don’t need to be hindering new business models.  It’s too bad the noise heavily outweighed the signal on this issue and caused TWC to back off on something that most likely would have saved the majority of their customers a great deal of cash.

The “Small Business” Exemption Distortion

by Fred Smith on April 21, 2009

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Odds & Ends

Many of the federal regulatory and tax laws include a “small business exemption” – politicians displaying an aversion to crippling a politically powerful constituency.  Often this is done by a cap – “This law will not apply to businesses having net annual sales less than some amount.”  Years ago, I saw one consequence of this law in the organization of the US scrap industry.  A prospering scrap firm would approach the cap ceiling and re-organize into two smaller businesses — sometimes one brother would head one firm, another the other.  Nothing wrong with this, save the transaction costs of creating two organizations rather than one.  But these costs may indeed be large – duplicate job slots in the firms, separate marketing and production departments and so forth.

The value of small businesses is that some do not stay small.  Those that grow – for example, the Microsofts of tomorrow – are not benefited by laws that artificially penalize growth.  Like caps on welfare and other redistribution programs, they can encourage firms to avoid the risks — and the benefits — of growth.

Washington Logic

by Ryan Young on April 21, 2009

in Economy, Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere

The thinking behind the Bush-Obama stimulus runs like this: if people aren’t spending enough money to keep the economy afloat, then government should increase its spending to make up the difference. It’s conventional Keynesian theory.

Surprising, then, that President Obama asked federal departments to find $100 million dollars in cuts.

Does that mean that a $787 billion stimulus package is too much, but $786.9 billion is just right?

And that the projected $1.75 trillion budget deficit is too much, but $1.7499 trillion is ok?

Washington logic sure is strange.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →