January 2012

PETA vs. CEI: A Surprisingly Amiable Exchange of Ideas

by Michelle Minton on October 22, 2010 · 1 comment

in Agriculture, Bureaucrash, Culture, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Sanctimony

Yesterday, the DCist reported that PETA planned a protest outside of the Capital Grille, a meat-centric restaurant here in the nation’s capital.

The point, according to the organization’s press release, is to convince folks that “meat is not green” by showing that the meat and dairy industries contribute to global warming because cows release methane gas into the atmosphere thereby compounding greenhouse gases.

Despite recently released reports that suggest cow-methane production is much less than previously estimated, and that not only cows, but also other animals, marshlands, and anything decomposing produces methane gases, the PETA folks decide to target meat-eaters. Why?

The reason PETA chose meat-eaters as their target is because they are an animal protection group-not a world protection group. The mission of their organization is to prevent animal killing, abuse, and exploitation. They simply latched onto the global warming angle as way to promote their agenda.

CEI staged a counter rally nearby and we were prepared for a shouting match, but to PETA’s credit, they were pretty accepting of our presence. Of course, they may have been a little shy to get in any altercation considering they only had three people and we had about seven folks. We had signs expressing the deliciousness of meat while they had a person dressed as a cow and pamphlets appealing to individuals to consider giving up meat.

While their arguments made it pretty clear that PETA is more concerned with animals than the welfare of humanity, their appeals to the individual to voluntarily change their behavior on an individual level are acceptable and fine way to try and “change the world” and as far as we could tell they weren’t petitioning governments to get involved and prevent the production of meat or consumption of energy as other environmentalists groups do.

Our counter rally, which was more of a pro-meat/pro-humanity rally, seemed to receive a much more enthusiastic reception from passers-by as we handed out Enjoy Capitalism stickers and free sticks of beef jerky.

In the end people love meat and the industrialized production and shipping of meat has substantially improved the quality of life and nutrition for people around the world. Sorry cows.

Union Infringes on Freedom of Speech and Disses Military

by Vincent Vernuccio on October 22, 2010

in Labor

While setting up for an Obama rally in California, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) Local 33 fired, Duane Hammet, a stagehand union member for wearing a Bush sweatshirt and hat. The Hammet says the union showed him the door because his clothing had Bush on it.

The “Bush” in reference was not either president but The George H.W. Bush, the aircraft carrier. Hammet was wearing the sweatshirt as a tribute to his son, who is serving on board.  In the video Hammet claims he tried to explain the situation to his bosses but they would not listen.

If the allegation are true, Hammet deserves an apology from the union as do the men and women serving on  The George H.W. Bush.

Here’s a video report:

The Chevy Volt: Just Another Hybrid

by Brian McGraw on October 22, 2010 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Mobility

It turns out GM wasn’t being completely honest when they touted the Chevy Volt as an all electric vehicle. From Edmunds:

GM Lied: Chevy Volt is Not a True EV.

Um, well, no. Even conceding that all engineering projects involve compromise and chalking that phrase up to marketing hyperbole, the Chevy Volt isn’t as electric as GM pretends it is. And it isn’t as electric as GM has been saying for the past three years.

…

In fact the Chevy Volt is a plug-in hybrid and it has more in common with conventional “series-parallel” hybrids like the Toyota Prius than the marketing hype led us to believe. There are circumstances in which the Volt operates with the internal combustion engine directly driving the front wheels. That’s right, like a Prius.

This is something that GM has known from the start, though it wasn’t revealed until very recently. Reports also signal that the Volt’s MPG ratings were vastly over-estimated, and sit at about 30-40 for realistic driving conditions.

Why should anyone care? You’re helping pay for it. The sticker price for a 2011 Chevy Volt is $41,000, but a $7,500 federal tax credit brings the potential price down to $33,500. And the whole issue with GM being indebted to the government.

Starbucks Slowdown

by Kathryn Ciano on October 22, 2010

in Economy, Labor

Proof that inefficiency is not only for government: Starbucks ordered baristas to slow down this month, capping coffee production at 2 drinks at a time.

The coffee giant seems wary of losing its “Italian cafe” vibe to the all-American fast-food mentality. Customers complain that Starbucks’s coffee is “average” tasting and “inconsistent” across stores.

“While I’m blending a frappuccino, it doesn’t make sense to stand there and wait for the blender to finish running, because I could be making an iced tea at the same time,” Tyler Swain, a barista in Omaha, Neb., told The Wall Street Journal.

Though earnings are up 37 percent in the quarter ending June 27, Starbucks has implemented a number of earnings-boosting measures throughout the recession like loyalty card perks and added varieties of instant coffee.

The WSJ reports:

Starbucks insists the new procedures will eventually hasten the way drinks are made and lead to fresher, hotter drinks. Steaming milk for individual drinks, for example, “ensures the quality of the beverage in taste, temperature and appearance,” the company documents state, while focusing on just two drinks at a time “reduces possibility for errors.”

Quality tends to trump quantity, especially for a corporation built on the concept of indulging in small daily luxury. Yet longer lines will deter the very customers — willing to drink “average,” “inconsistent” coffee — responsible for Starbucks’s profitable last quarter.

Corporations are driven by profit longevity alone — godspeed to Starbucks for tweaking a winning model. We’ll look forward to longer lines and hopefully more delicious coffee to follow!

Afternoon Links: October 22, 2010

by Nicole Ciandella on October 22, 2010

in Zeitgeist

1. A giant leap for social networking: An astronaut just checked in to a space station on Foursquare.

2. Boone from Lost thinks Obama lifted the drilling moratorium too soon. If he says it, it must be true…

3. Researchers at the Iowa State University have calculated how much society pays for crimes. Apparently, each murder committed in the United States costs the country $17,252,656.

4. How are “killer election apps” changing the face of politics?

5. The War on Potatoes begins.

Obamacare: More Broken Promises, More Premium Hikes, More Lost Health Insurance

by Hans Bader on October 22, 2010

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Healthcare, Legal, Regulation

In The Washington Times, Dr. Milton R. Wolf debunks six “unkeepable Obamacare promises” that have already been shown to be false.  For example, President Obama promised that his health care overhaul would not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year: “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

But as Wolf notes, Obamacare’s “new excise taxes on pharmaceuticals and medical products will, of course, by necessity be passed on to the patients who depend on these lifesaving medicines, pacemakers, MRI machines or even tongue depressors.”  And Nancy Pelosi promised that Obamacare would create 4 million new jobs, 400,000 almost immediately, none of which ever materialized.

A political commentator notes that her family’s insurance premiums just went up by 45 percent, while the coverage became worse. One of her readers lost her insurance, after her family’s policy was canceled by the insurer due to Obamacare’s legal prohibitions.

We earlier discussed how Obamacare will create pointless red tape and busywork for doctors, and how it has already led to big premium increases, and the elimination of some popular health plans.  It also includes a $60 billion insurance excise tax that will be passed on to patients, and tax increases on some investors and homeowners starting in 2013.

“The Cluster of Errors” — The Austrian Theory of Boom and Bust (Part III of III)

by Lee Doren on October 22, 2010

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Stimulus to Nowhere

“Econ Stories” is back at it again with a new video. This time they explain the Austrian theory of the business cycle. What I like most about this discussion is that they don’t claim that 100% of the disruptions in the market are caused by the Federal Reserve. Instead, they give a very honest outline of the theory and how it is utilized to explain the current recession.

The video is below, and it is very educational.

Over-indulging Alcohol Regulators

by Angela Logomasini on October 22, 2010

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty

A new study on alcohol consumption raises questions about government attempts to protect adults from “over-drinking.” It is particularly relevant as citizens debate privatization of state liquor stores in places like Washington State (ballot initiative #1100 addresses both privatization and break the three-tier system) and Virginia. Advocates of regulation say that these laws are not only necessary to protect kids, we need them to promote “temperance” among adults. Supposedly, temperance is served only when alcohol is sold by government bureaucrats or government-designated middlemen (wholesalers).

But are regulators really equipped to know how much alcohol consumption is too much? Most certainly not; public-health researchers don’t even have clear answers. Indeed, a study in the November 2010 issue of Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research underscores the fact that no one knows what level is best. Headlines for this study suggest that “heavy” drinkers live longest! If that is true, government bureaucrats might contributing to your early demise by causing you to drink too little!

Despite the headlines, the findings are much more modest, indicating that there is a point between abstaining from alcohol and overindulging that it optimal for most people. In an overview of the research, this report notes that most studies report a U-shaped curve. Risks are highest on each of two ends of the curve, with absence on one highpoint and abuse on the other. This study attempts to remove a number of confounding factors, such as the reality that many abstainers are former abusers. It still comes up with a U-shaped curve.

Thus far, the research suggests that “moderate alcohol” consumption is most healthy for most people. But what is moderate? According to some measures, I am a heavy drinker because I may have more than 10 ounces of wine a day (more than two five-ounce glasses). Some days, I throw caution to the wind and enjoy three whole glasses! “Moderate consumption” of alcohol is often defined as two to three daily servings for a man and one to two for a woman. A serving is a 1.5 ounces of spirits, five ounces of wine, or 12 ounces of beer. Fortunately, other studies report health benefits from drinking up to 72 grams of alcohol a day (a typical serving of has about 12-14 grams of alcohol) — 6 drinks a day!

To make things more complicated, the “right” amount probably varies from one person to the next. In addition one’s weight, individual genetic factors may play a role in how much liquor we should each consume. Obviously, how quickly we consume alcohol as well as the amount of food we eat with our drinks impacts how alcohol affects us.

Accordingly, it is pure folly to believe that government can “protect” us by banning spirit sales in private shops, keeping hard liquor or wine out of supermarkets, levying high taxes, or by mandating that all liquor be sold through wholesalers.

Let’s face reality: The real aim of government in this business is to collect money, serve special interests (who provide campaign contributions), and keep lots of government workers on the government dole. There is no good reason to believe otherwise.

Bureaucrats Disenfranchise Overseas Troops

by Hans Bader on October 22, 2010

in International, Legal, Personal Liberty

Illinois officials missed the deadline to mail ballots to U.S. troops overseas, but they hand-delivered ballots to inmates, without even waiting for inmates to apply.

Perhaps this discrimination can be explained by the fact that inmates vote mostly for liberal candidates, while soldiers vote predominantly for conservative candidates.

There are federal laws requiring states to send ballots in a timely fashion to troops overseas, but the Obama administration is not enforcing them, as part of its ongoing politicization of the Justice Department (such as rubberstamping unconstitutional legislative proposals, and downplaying of voter intimidation by liberal activists, while investigating Tea Party pollwatchers who uncovered rampant voter registration fraud in Houston).

Meanwhile, Virginia Congressman Jim Moran (D) has dismissed his opponent, a retired colonel who served in the military for 24 years, saying that he has not “served or performed in any kind of public service,” and had simply “taken a government check.”  (Moran himself has collected a government paycheck for many decades, first as a state official, and then, for the last 28 years, as a congressman.)

Bailout of Fannie and Freddie Will Cost Double Earlier Estimates

by Hans Bader on October 22, 2010 · 5 comments

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy

The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will cost double earlier estimates, and could cost $363 billion over the next three years, report NBC and the Associated Press.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the corrupt government-sponsored mortgage giants that contributed to the mortgage crisis by engaging in fraud and misrepresenting subprime mortgages as prime.  Earlier, the Obama administration showered their executives with $42 million in pay, even as Obama’s pay czar was ordering productive private-sector banks to chop the pay of their executives and traders (leading one bank to dump a profitable trading operation), and imposing new taxes and burdens on private banks (but not Fannie and Freddie).

As Professor Roy C. Smith noted, because of the Obama administration’s attempt to restrict bank employee pay, “Citigroup agreed to sell its profitable Phibro unit at an extremely low price of only one or two times earnings in order to avoid having to pay a talented trader a $100 million contractual share of the profits he had earned. The most successful of the remaining employees of Citigroup, AIG and Bank of America have been given an incentive to leave their posts, and the firms will be constrained in hiring replacements.” Meanwhile, Bank of America’s stock has fallen over the last six months from over $19 to less than $12,  shrinking many Americans’ 401(k)s, as it has been injured by new rules and red tape such as the Dodd-Frank Act (which also is wiping out most free checking accounts).

While the taxpayers have lost a huge amount of money on the government-sponsored mortgage giants, they have actually made money on many private banks that accepted government bailout funds and then returned the money with interest.  (Healthy banks that never wanted a bailout and repaid their “bailout“ in full with interest, like BB&T, were pressured by the Treasury Department into accepting bailout money along with their unhealthy competitors, so that the public would not know which banks really needed a bailout; the Treasury Department feared that such knowledge would result in a run on those banks.)

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →