Access To Birth Control Is A Fundamental Component Of Climate Survival

Any morally acceptable pathway to prevent catastrophic global warming includes broad access to affordable birth control for the world’s women. The conservative war on birth control is a war on women’s rights, and thus on the rights of us all. Manmade global warming is one of the most troubling symptoms of economic and social injustice around the planet, and the ”countries in the developing world least responsible for the growing emissions are likely to experience the heaviest impact of climate change, with women bearing the greatest toll.” Researchers have found that empowering women to reduce unplanned pregnancies is one of the most cost-effective ways to combat greenhouse pollution, as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson discussed at the Durban climate conference last December:

In addressing climate resilience, Robinson stressed the importance of focusing on health and burden impacts of climate change. One of the keys is access to reproductive health for women.

Good grief. Is there a class Lefties attend to learn to write like that, like Marxist Magniloquence 101? Anyhow, this goes back to one of the Warmist’s biggest issues: reducing the global population. And, interestingly, this ties into what Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted, namely, reducing the number of minorities, which is what happens when birth control is spread around to much of the developing world, particularly places like the African continent. You want racism? That’s racism! Planning based on the doctrine of eugenics.

The more world leaders focus on giving women and girls the tools of empowerment — access to family planning, education, and the political and economic system — the better future all of us will have.

A world where women and girls have more power is a healthier world.

That’s interesting, since Liberals get the vapors when Conservatives talk about liberating women from being 2nd class citizens as they are in much of the Islamic world. But, really, this is all about spreading abortion on demand around the world. Cheaply. Which is where the asterisk in the headline comes in: liberals think contraceptives, sterilization (Sanger loved the thought of sterilizing Blacks and defectives a hoot), and abortions should be free, and, by free, I mean “someone else pays.” Liberals never seem to want to pay for anything themselves. That’s why they loved Obama’s insurance mandate, as Someone Else would pay for their condoms and birth control pills, and screw what the constitution says about religious freedom.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

In a speech that is likely to set the theme of his 2012 re-election bid, Obama said “the basic American promise” that hard work can help you accomplish your dreams of owning a home and supporting a family are at risk if the government doesn’t do more to balance the scale between the nation’s rich and poor.

In other words…redistribute wealth. Steal from one to give to another. In Obama’s world this is the government’s job.

“The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important,” Obama declared. “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.”

Class warfare! Divide Americans up into the 99 % and the 1%. Try to ride the coat tails of the Occupy movement. I hope one of these Republicans can contrast against this guy and get us reversing course fast before we are completely under socialist rule.

(CBS News) Solar panel maker Solyndra received a $528 million Energy Department loan in 2009 – and went bankrupt last year. The government’s risky investment strategy didn’t stop there, as a CBS News investigation has uncovered a pattern of cases of the government pouring your tax dollars into clean energy.

Take Beacon Power — a green energy storage company. We were surprised to learn exactly what the Energy Department knew before committing $43 million of your tax dollars.

Documents obtained by CBS News show Standard and Poor’s had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of “CCC-plus.”

Asked whether he’d put his personal money into Beacon, economist Peter Morici replied, “Not on purpose.”

“It’s, it is a junk bond,” Morici said. “But it’s not even a good junk bond. It’s well below investment grade.”

Was the Energy Department investing tax dollars in something that’s not even a good junk bond? Morici says yes.

“This level of bond has about a 70 percent chance of failing in the long term,” he said.

Here’s where it gets even better

CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.

In terms of the Central Government budget, $6.5 billion is chump change. For the 53% who do pay federal taxes, this is an obscene use of our hard earned money to prop up companies that are bound to fail in the name of making Obama’s politically motivated “green” energy initiative look good, at least in the short term, as well as hook up Democrat campaign donors and backers.

The long term shame here is that this type of malfeasance damages the future of clean energy. I believe that most of us can agree that these “alternative” energy sources are part of the future. They aren’t ready for prime time. Not yet. Not even close. Wasting taxpayer money on doomed and mostly worthless ventures will certainly erode any near term future investments in these types of companies, even ones that are probably going to be winners.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Fox News) Once again, going green has taxpayers seeing red. This time however, billions in federal subsidies for electric vehicles are going those who need them the least: the 1 percent.

According to the CEO of General Motors, the average annual income of buyers of the Chevy Volt is $170,000. Those who buy the luxury electric Fisker Karma or Tesla roadster earn more than $250,000 a year. Yet every wealthy buyer receives a hefty handout from Uncle Sam, adding more than $7,500 to the federal debt for every car sold.

When all the federal and state subsidies to General Motors and its Volt suppliers are totaled, Hohman estimates each Volt sold costs taxpayers as much as $250,000.

“If you’re wealthy enough to afford one of these electric automobiles more power to you,” but Hohman says the handouts and tax breaks simply transfer wealth from the poor and middle class to corporations and the rich who can afford cars that cost as much as a small home.

Doesn’t that make you feel great? Obama can play the class warfare card all he wants, but his policies have tended to help the 1%, of which Obama is part of. And his policies especially help the 1%ers who are campaign donors. And, while I support newer technologies that will provide us (eventually) with cleaner, cheaper, and more abundant power and vehicles, using money earned by hard working taxpayers to provide silly vehicles like the Chevy Sloth to people who want a status car is idiotic and deplorable.

Fortunately, there are plenty of plans to continue to provide the 1%ers with more free taxpayer money. In Raleigh, the city has built 29 electric vehicle charging stations, provided at taxpayer expense. The electricity is also free for the EV owners, paid for by the taxpayers. Supposedly, they will eventually charge for the usage.

In California, they will charge $2-$3 per charge, at a taxpayer cost of $1.3 million from a grant to build the stations.

In Detroit, electric cars and hybrids are flooding the Detroit auto show, meaning taxpayers will further fund the lifestyles of the rich. Remember, the Prius was a status vehicle early on, and has morphed into a usable vehicle. There are many usable hybrids out there, including some SUVs, like the Escape and the Highlander. But, then, hybrids can travel more than 50 miles at a clip, and they can use the air conditioning and heat. Until EVs can be purchased by regular people and take people on long trips, regular people will continue to buy gas vehicles that get great mileage.

(Photo from Political Clown Parade)

Wall Street is disdained in the court of public opinion — detested by the tea party on the right and the Occupy movement on the left. The public blames financial plutocrats for America’s economic plight more than either President Barack Obama or former President George W. Bush. Less than a quarter of all Americans, according to Gallup, have confidence in the banks, which vie for the lowest spot with Big Business and Congress.

But these angry voters are unlikely to get satisfaction in next year’s presidential election. In fact, things are looking up for the financial elite — which donated more to Washington politicians than almost any other sector of the economy over the past two decades. Wall Street can look forward to a bank-friendly administration if Obama is reelected — and perhaps even better conditions if either of the two leading GOP contenders, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, wins the White House.

Despite his occasional remarks that decry “fat cat”’ bankers, Obama has effectively serviced the financial bigwigs. Bank prosecutions have declined markedly under Obama — to levels not seen for more than 25 years. Obama has even tried to derail aggressive bank prosecutions pursued by state attorneys general, most of them liberal Democrats.

Got that, Occupiers? Obama hearts Wall Street. He voted for TARP as a Senator, then gave a ton of money and bailouts to these same “fat cats” while mostly ignoring Main Street when he became (NM)President. His Stimulus packages were political payback for the big wigs who supported his campaign.

Even while trying to exploit the Occupy Wall Street movement for political purposes, Obama still leads in financial sector donations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. He has secured more cash from the financial elite, at this point, than all the GOP candidates combined. He has even raised twice as much as they have from Bain Capital, the venture firm co-founded by Romney. Why not give up on the white working class when you can sew up the Harvard and Wharton business school constituency?

When are you going to move your protest to a park near the White House, as well as near the individual Obama 2012 campaign headquarters in States?

We know the Occupiers won’t. They are simply an organ of the Left, out there with the same old gripes, with some sexual assault thrown in. 99% of them will be out in the streets advocating for the re-election of Obama. 99% of them will vote the straight Democrat ticket in November 2012, and cheer if Obama is re-elected. And, if a Republican wins, 99% of them will suddenly appear in front of the White House to protest, something they won’t do to Obama.

If none of the big banks and other financial institutions had been bailed out and gone broke instead, most of those big incomes would have vanished too. Capitalism was not allowed to do its work of creative destruction. It is a turning back to real capitalism that is needed — JR

A review of Capitalism at Risk: Rethinking the Role of Business

Three professors from the world’s pre-eminent business school have co-written a study that at first blush seems to fall more in the genre of horror tale than business text.

Professor Bower and his colleagues note in their study the broad concerns of the 46 business thinkers that they brought together in forums on three continents, but by far the most widely held was “the tendency of capitalism, as it currently functions, to produce extreme disparities of income and wealth”.

It took little to conclude that the vast accumulation of wealth by individuals compared with the stagnating fortunes of low- and middle-income workers is fuelling the backlash worldwide.

“Some leaders pointed to what they regard as excessive compensation earned by CEOs [that] strike many people as intrinsically unjustified,” the authors write. The reality of growing disparities – one that is the crux of political debate within Western democracies – poses questions about capitalism’s very raison d’etre.

One unidentified Asian business leader told the authors: “Herein lies a major challenge, because the world has become very much more prosperous as a result of market capitalism.

“The rich have become richer. The poor in most cases have become richer. But the gap between the rich and the poor has also grown wider … There is the growing sense of being left out, even as people are getting better off.”

A European executive said: “What was the good of capitalism? Was it the fact that we were building a very large, very well-off … middle class? We are not doing this any more.”

And in the US, a chief executive told the authors: “It’s undeniable that in a country like ours, unfettered capitalist impulse on a global basis does seem to exacerbate the problem.”

Joining the discussions were executives such as Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric, John Elkann of Fiat and Bertrand Collomb of the French group Lafarge. They included bankers and financiers, as well as the heads of conglomerates and the former US labour secretary, Elaine Chao.

That capitalism has delivered for billions is not at issue: in the last decades of the 20th century, 97per cent of countries enjoyed increased wealth, according to the World Bank. More than 450 million people were lifted out of extreme poverty.

But the executives also cited as potential threats the powerful forces within financial markets, environmental degradation, political populism, terrorism and war, fundamentalism, mass migration and pandemics.

They are quoted anonymously throughout the work.

“History tells us that when an awful lot of people are disenfranchised, they have no incentive to play by the rules, and given today’s communications availability, weaponry … that’s an issue we have to really think about, probably over a very long period of time,” one executive said.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given that many were the beneficiaries of fabulous remuneration, the business leaders do not appear to offer easy solutions to bridging inequalities. But they back business, not government, largely to ameliorate strains on the system.

More HERE

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Government Motors has finally found its hottest car and the Chevy Volt is it. Unfortunately for Chevy, it isn’t because it is popular. It’s because the car seems to catch on fire a lot. Industry watchers are preparing for the Volt to undergo a recall to fix whatever problem the car’s lithium-ion battery pack has that seems to be causing the vehicles to spontaneously burst into flames.

Of course, this little catching on fire problem seems emblematic with everything about Government Motors. After President Barack “Lee IaJokka” Obama pumped $53 billion of our tax dollars into bailing out GM all we’ve gotten out of the deal so far is a stock tumble from $53 a share to under $25 (a $15 billion loss) and a badly selling “green” car that catches on fire every time you turn around. Such a deal.

As to the burning issue of the day, the Associated Press notes that an “investigation” has begun by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to determine why the cars are catching fire.

One Volt battery pack that was being closely monitored following a government crash test caught fire Thursday, the safety administration said in a statement. Another recently crash-tested battery emitted smoke and sparks, the statement said.

For its part, GM claims the cars are perfectly “safe.” Well, except for that whole catching on fire business, I suppose.

It shouldn’t be a big deal, though. It seems that only half a dozen people or so bought the thing anyway! The sales for the Volt have been dismal with only just over 5,000 units being sold during the first 11 months of the year. So the good news is that if there is a recall, GM can go to the individual home of every owner rather easily to inform them of the recall!

Friend Don Surber has the idea of the Chevy Volt just right, though. Calling the model the “electric Edsel,” Surber notes that the car nobody wants is a bad idea all the way around.

The Volt seems to be a farce of the highest order, Surber notes.

• Even Thomas Edison couldn’t figure out how to make a useful electric car.
• The problem the Volt is aimed at “fixing” is problematic because global warming is a farce.
• Even if global warming did exist, this “fix” is bad because it uses electricity that is generated by fossil fuels anyway.
• Worse, it takes tax money from us all to give it to the rich in a $7,500 tax credit. Apparently Most buyers of the Volt make $175,000 a year.

Spot on points, for sure. I’ll add one more to the list. It turns out the Chevy Volt gets the same number of hours on a charge that an electric car created in 1896 used to get! Now THAT is progress.

If you are interested in how much the bailout of GM is costing you, check out www.Bailoutcost.com.

(See also: All American Blogger)

General Motors was too big to fail. This is why President Obama had to ride in on his white steed with billions of taxpayers dollars in hand to bailout GM rechristening it Government Motors. Besides, we were told it would be a great deal, a money maker, right? Well, not so much. The Administration has reported a dramatic increase in the money We The People have lost on the GM bailout.

This week the Treasury Dept. has announced that the estimates of our loss has gone from $14.33 billion tax dollars to $26.6 billion.

To put it in terms easier to understand, for the American people to just break even on the bailout deal the more than 500 million shares owned by the U.S. Treasury must sell at $53 a share. Unfortunately for all of us, GM stock has tumbled to just $22.99 (as of closing on Nov.14). We are waaay off from the break even point, folks!

So, what is Obama going to do about this failed bailout program? How is he going to rectify it all? He intends to make it worse by changing fuel standards to the point where new cars will cost another $2,000 per car.

Obama has decreed through his powers to regulate that the auto industry must raise fuel efficiency standards by five percent by 2025. There is only one little problem with these demands. Current technological development and science cannot yet reach those goals. Obama has set standards just because he feels like it, not standards based on realistic goals.

These requirements will make cars harder to afford for folks in the middle class and lower middle class not to mention the additional burdens it will place on small businesses trying to purchase cars for their businesses.

Worse, with the costs of new cars skyrocketing, the costs of used cars will go up commensurately. And none of this will help GM’s stock prices go up high enough for the American people to break even on the billions our president gave away to the auto giant.

Sadly, Obama’s polices don’t appear to be too big to fail.

(NY Post) It wasn’t life or death — but it sure felt that way for the thousands of impatient New Yorkers whose daily routines were thrown into chaos.

“I’m just trying to get [home] to take the dog out!” screamed Downtown Brooklyn resident Sara Halstead, who balked at walking across the Brooklyn Bridge while it was clogged with protesters.

“I don’t want to get locked up if I try to cross!” she yelled.

“This is so freaking annoying!” she fumed. “So many people are in the way and so many fences up.”

She and 99 percent of other commuters struggled to navigate street-clogging protests, at least nine rerouted buses, several closed subway entrances and whole blocks barricaded by the Police Department.

If the protesters’ plan was to agitate everyone other than the deep-pocketed denizens of Wall Street, they succeeded.

While they were at it, they managed to scare the crayons out of school kids, chanting “Follow those kids!” and forcing them and their parents to run a gauntlet of unwashed, lice infested Occupiers in order to get to school. This is what democracy looks like? I don’t think so. This is what entitlement and narcissism look like

That’s Stacey Hessler, the runaway Florida mom who abandoned her husband and kids to join the scuzzy folks in Zuccotti Park, now dreadlocked, and arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. A perfect example for everything that is wrong with the American Left.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.

Apparently some of the folks slaving away to cook politically correct meals for the participants of Occupy Wall Street are sick and tired of working themselves to the bone for homeless people, criminals, and other freeloaders who are eating their food. This is called being mugged by reality.

It is also pretty darn funny.

The New York Post reported that volunteer kitchen staff at Occupy Wall Street are angry about working 18-hour days to feed the protesters but are being taken advantage of by the local homeless people and criminals. And they are going on a work slow down to protest at their protest.

For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.

The menu as reported by the Post sounds… um… tasty, sort of. I’d rather have a pizza from Godfathers.

“We need to limit the amount of food we’re putting out” to curb the influx of derelicts, the Post reports from one Rafael Moreno, a kitchen volunteer.

So, these Occupiers are tired of cooking for freeloaders, eh? And they want to ration the food?

It’s all rather amusing. One wonders if these people see the irony or catch even a whiff of a “lesson,” here?

“Free” invites abuse. Abuse causes rationing.

Can I ask them why they think Obamacare will be any different? Can I ask why they think offering everything else by government for free will result in anything less than obscene abuse and ultimate rationing and ineffectiveness?

Are these Occupy people so unable to think critically that this lesson is lost upon them?