BADLY WOUNDED

About two weeks ago, on July 9, I posted the Obama Approval Index showing President Obama's approval ratings since his inauguration. Here's today's index from Rasmussen Reports.



On July 9, Obama's approval index had just gone negative; today it crossed the double-digit mark. Moreover, his popularity with likely voters has gone below 50%. (49% approve; 51% disapprove).



The shift toward disapproval appears to continue with those voters strongly approving President Obama's performance becoming less approving; those who are somewhat approving becoming somewhat disapproving; and so on.

The middle, those likely voters not holding a strong opinion, remains about a third of the survey population, but is showing evidence of a slight decline as attitudes harden. Since the inauguration, strong approvals have declined from 44% to 29%, a 15 point drop, while strong disapprovals have risen from 16% to 40%, a 24 point gain.

The Obama administration is in trouble.

DUH!

As a decision-making aid, PowerPoint is a poor tool.

And the sun rises in the east ....

FIX MEDICARE FIRST

"Since 1970, spending on Medicare and Medicaid has risen eightfold versus defense spending and has tripled versus federal spending as a whole. It’s clear what’s driving the deficit bus."

"President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers issued a report earlier this month estimating that as much as 30 percent of Medicare spending is unnecessary for improving health outcomes. Given such opportunities for easy savings within government, and Medicare's weighty influence in the broader system (many private insurers set payments by adding a percentage to Medicare's rates), it would make sense to reform Medicare first, see what works and what doesn't, and then apply the lessons of that process later to any system-wide fix."

Unfortunately, my mother and I become the “experimentees.” Given my current experience with Medicare, that’s not an experience to which I look forward. Especially in a political environment unwilling to consider options beyond a "one-size-fits-all" single-payer system.

ON DIVERSITY

In an editorial (Firefighters and Race), the New York Times argued that the Supreme Court decision in favor of the New Haven firemen has "dealt a blow to diversity in the American workplace." But the Times purity on diversity is in question.

It seems the "American workplace" (to use the Times description) that is the New Haven fire department has a higher percentage of minorities than the American workplace that is ... yes indeed ... the New York Times editorial board its very self. To be quite specific:

• The New Haven fire department, according to press accounts, is 43% black and Latino. Or, if you prefer the term of art, 43% of the fire department is "minority."

• The New York Times editorial board, according to the information provided by The New York Times, is -- wait for it -- 12% black and Latino. Or, again, 12 % "minority" if you prefer the term.

• The New York Times Op-Ed page team of columnists, an elite group of which Ms. Dowd is a star, is 19% black and, again according to the Times listing of its Op-Ed page columnists, 0% Latino.

That's right. At the core of the beating intellectual heart of the left-wing establishment where such things are studied with the detail of Talmudic scholars, the New Haven fire department is doing more than three times better on race than the very liberal elites who have set themselves up as its sniffy critics.

If you like verbal evisceration, read the whole thing.

Maureen Dowd is a bonus.

WHY GREEN ENERGY FLOPS

In the comments to an earlier post, William asks "Is there a way to encourage consumption of green energy without subsidies?" To which I will add "or carbon taxes?"

It's an excellent question, and one worth an extended response. Here goes.

First, let's toss out the term "green energy." It's an emotionally laden, nonsensical, worthless piece of political correctness. Generally speaking, "green" is used for "renewable energy" sources (wind, solar, tides) and the term itself is emotionally loaded. Look, coal and oil are also renewable - go to any landfill and smell the methane emitted by rotting waste. It's just that the renewal time is, shall we say, a bit too long.

Now on to alternative energy sources. Can we encourage the consumption of energy from alternative sources without taxes (e.g., cap & trade) or subsidies? The short answer is (a) no, and (b) it's foolish (read as stupid) to try. The reason is that tax or subsidy - either one - removes the incentive to further develop the technology.

Why would I, as a solar cell manufacturer, try to improve my product if I'm making a healthy (subsidized) profit and my competitors - coal and oil - are taxed (by cap & trade) away from competing with me?

No, the only possible outcome, in either event, is to further delay development - and that's the one thing we don't need.

Now, let's move on to the three other topics that really needs discussion if one is to fully understand the "green energy" dilemma: density, storage and distribution.

Density. Of the three major alternative energy sources - solar, wind, and tides, all are diffuse, meaning that the collector must be quite large for each unit of energy collected. Coal and oil are quite dense by comparison. Take solar power for an example - I don't consider it likely that west Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada will take kindly to being covered with solar collectors for the convenience of the other 43 connected states. Wind power? The same is true; wind turbines can't even be installed offshore in Massachusetts for fear of interrupting the view from Hyannisport. (I'll put a wind turbine in my back yard for personal use. Ed: Good luck at the zoning office.)

Storage. Coal, oil, and natural gas can easily be stored until needed. Solar, wind, and tides are intermittent, and storage isn't easy. Which is why the electric automobile is unlikely to ever be more than a niche machine. Battery technology today simply can't give a 300 mile range (20 mpg on a 15 gallon tank) and refueling takes a bit longer than 5 minutes at the pump. Scaling storage to megajoule and higher capacities is an engineering challenge, to say the least.

Distribution. Without a doubt, energy distribution is the most significant problem facing alternative energies. Any alternative, to be economical, will have to either have to have the source sited near the consumers (e.g., in or near the cities), or will have to take advantage of existing distribution systems; that is, transmission lines and oil/gas pipelines. Austin's GreenChoice program (referred to in the earlier post) is in trouble partly because of its distribution problems, and as I noted above, I don't think it too likely that west Texans are going to be very happy with high-voltage power lines running through their back yards to keep Austin liberals' air conditioners running on summer evenings.

All that said, none of the problems noted above are insoluble. They can - and will - be solved, just not easily or quickly, and subsidies/taxes won't speed the solution.

As a final point, let me say that in my view, there are two promising alternative energies.

The first is nuclear; put pebble-bed nuclear reactors in the center of every major city (What? Surely you're kidding. Ed: I'd suggest every college campus, starting with Harvard) and solve the electrical distribution problem. (But it's in my back yard! Ed: Yep; that's the point - if you want the energy, pay the price yourself.)

The second alternative is biomass for transportation fuel. The distribution system is already in place; as is flex-fuel technology for incorporation into new vehicles (and for that matter, retrofitting isn't hard). The only unsolved problem is that of avoiding use of existing farm land and food plants (like corn) for the biomass - and that's already being worked.

INTIMIDATION WORKS

Just ask Obama (GM and the auto industry, AIG and the financial sector, Fairness Doctrine and the media, California and the remaining 49 (56?) states).

The question is, will it work for cap-and-trade and healthcare?

TRANQUILITY BASE HERE

The Eagle has landed.


Tranquility Base shortly after the landing.

HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH
FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON
JULY 1969 A.D.
WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND

On July 20, 1969, my wife and I were newly married, living in Hawaii. We watched the landing in our darkened living room, sitting on the floor next to a tiny (5-1/2 inch screen), transistorized black-and-white television. To see the landing as we saw it, go here.

[Note: QuickTime required; link here.]

GREEN ENERGY FLOPS

From the Austin [TX] American-Statesman, "For the past decade, Austin's ambition to become the world's clean-energy capital has been best exemplified by one effort: GreenChoice, a program that sells electricity generated entirely from renewable sources such as wind.

Now the nationally renowned program is struggling to find buyers — the latest allotment is 99 percent unsold after seven months on the market — and Austin Energy is looking for ways to bring down the rising costs."

Instapundit comments: "See, environmentalism is mostly about posturing — it’s not actually about sacrificing."

How many members of the city council who voted for the GreenChoice program actually participate?

AFTERTHOUGHT:

I am astounded that liberals fail to understand that subsidizing green energy - wind and solar - is entirely self-defeating. While it's true that subsidies increase consumption, they do not - repeat, not - cut costs. Moreover, with a subsidy, there is absolutely no incentive for a manufacturer to reduce cost or improve efficiency in order to remain competitive.

All the city of Austin is achieving with its GreenChoice program is to delaying the time before solar and wind power become competitive.

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN

Seen on US 15-501 near Durham, NC.

OBAMA, THE BUST

"President Barack Obama's concrete head rested peacefully on an open-bed trailer outside [a] wine bar on Guadalupe Street on Sunday evening."


"The sculpture began a 30-city tour Friday in Pearland [TX], near Houston, and will end up in Presidents Park near Deadwood, S.D., joining the 42 other giant presidential busts [82-year-old artist David] Adickes has already made. "

At least the artist used the right material for the bust - concrete.

FLAG DAY 2009

This caught my attention while I was on leave in Texas last month:

A small, neighborhood Flag Day gathering in Hyde Park on Sunday also featured the flag of another, lesser known country: Switzida.

Monika Zabcik, 9, and Paul Gold, 7, designed the flag of Switzida, an island nation the two are building on the computer.

"The stars represent the spirit of freedom, (and) the triangles represent how no matter if you're bizarre, like very different, or if you're just an average person, you're allowed to come," Monika said. "The square with the crosses, also known as the strikes in bowling, shows that even if you're not a winner, you can still be there."

Photo caption: "Fans of many flags gather for a Flag Day parade Sunday outside the Hyde Park Market Deli & Organic Grocery"

Flag Day is held every June 14 to commemorate the day that the Second Continental Congress adopted the American flag in 1777. Note the flag in the foreground and the location of the US flag at the far left.

Hyde Park is the Austin (TX) equivalent of the smugly left Takoma Park suburb outside Washington DC.

THE ILLUSION OF GOVERNMENT COMPETENCE

Here's a delightfully circular pair of posts to feed on. Start with this post from Instapundit. Follow the link to Shannon Love's post at Chicago Boyz, click back to the three Instapundit links (here, here, and here). Finish reading Love's post, and then skip to the comments for this:

I think what’s involved here is a difference in viewpoint between collectivists and individualists analagous to the former’s belief in positive rights and the latter’s emphasis on negative rights.

The US has over the years been lauded for, and criticized for, its belief in “American exceptionalsim”. I find that people dedicated to individual liberties find this exceptionalism to be derived from a systemic difference, i.e., the freedoms and progress of the American experiment are built on the foundation of the Constitution, and its accompanying intellectual and moral context. These individualists do not believe the US is immune from the mistakes of other societies, but that the structure of the state helps to prevent some of the more egregious abuses.

While collectivists are the loudest among those deriding the idea of exceptionalism, their fervent belief in the state as miracle worker is, in fact, a variation of that very concept. But, instead of an exceptional structure, the collectivist relies on a belief in exceptional people, right-thinking members of their own mythological group, who are free from the “false consciousness” that afflicts so many of those unworthy of inclusion in the mystical vanguard.

Collectivists can thus ignore everything that has happened in the past, or is happening presently right before their eyes, that might cast any doubt on their proposals to always increase the state and restrict the private, because those flawed examples are obviously the work of confused pretenders, or actual sabateurs, and would not be repeated by “the right people”.

Coupled with this view are the corollaries of self-description and intentions=achievement.

If someone describes themselves as a “peace activist” or “advocate for the poor”, and has the correct collectivist pedigree, why, then, that is what they are. It doesn’t matter, then, that they support Hamas, or volunteer to be human shields for gruesome dictators, or anything else. All that matters is that they claim to be activists for peace, then they are cleansed, as International Answer, or that British creep that used to be an MP, or crazy Cindy.

The same process cleanses anyone who claims the mantle of poverty advocate or social justice activist. The fact that they can swoon over Castro or Chavez, and defend any number of policies which empirical studies have shown to stifle economic progress and increase poverty is unimportant—they are advocating for the poor.

And that, of course, is the defining characteristic of those for whom intentions, not actual results, are all that matters. Pass a big new program to eliminate poverty, or raise school achievements, or save failing industries. Years later, when the program is analyzed and found to be worthless, at best, or actually harmful, as many have been, where is the fault? Is it with the idea behind the program? Oh no , never that. The failure is always due to—wait for it— not doing enough. Not enough funding, not enough power, not enough caseworkers, not enough, never enough.

The only possible answer, when everybody who matters knows that this is just, absolutely, positively, the right way to go: bigger programs with more money and more staff and more everything. After all, it just has to be good. It’s to help the poor, or feed the hungry, or (fill in the blank).

We have to do something. And you know those selfish, indifferent schmucks in the suburbs would never do anything voluntarily. The right thinking, truly enlightened, have to do it, by force if necessary.

When one has wrapped one’s mind in the warm, comforting cacoon of collectivist mythology, and therefore knows that all the open-minded, tolerant, clear thinking, truly concerned and compassionate people think just like you, and anyone who doesn’t is mean and greedy and lacks compassion and a true desire for peace and other really, really good things, the rest is easy.

As long as the right people are running things, it will be different this time. You just have to believe, and believe, and believe.

I couldn't have said it better.

ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Cap and Trade? Or Crap and Tax?

The new federal report on climate change gets a withering critique from Roger Pielke Jr., who says that it misrepresents his own research and that it wrongly concludes that climate change is already responsible for an increase in damages from natural disasters. Dr. Pielke is a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado.

Here’s his overall conclusion about the dangers of hyping the link between natural disasters and climate change: “Until the climate science community cleans up its act on this subject it will continue to give legitimate opportunities for opponents to action to criticize the climate science community.”

But ... but the science is settled. Isn't it?

HISTORY LESSON

There are two kinds of voters … those who remember what it was like when Jimmy Carter was president … and those who are starting to learn.

I remember those days - Jimmy Carter was better.

From the comment thread of a Pajamas Media post.

OH, MY! PAYOLA

Now it's the Federal Trade Commission:

Savvy consumers often go online for independent consumer reviews of products and services, scouring through comments from everyday Joes and Janes to help them find a gem or shun a lemon.

What some fail to realize, though, is that such reviews can be tainted: Many bloggers have accepted perks such as free laptops, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post. Bloggers vary in how they disclose such freebies, if they do so at all.

Heaven forbid! Advertisements may be misleading? And the average American may be too dumb to recognize it? Oh, my. What is this world coming to?

Need more proof that the government is too damned big?

Via Hot Air.

PRESCRIPTION CHEERIOS?

In a letter to manufacturer General Mills, the Food and Drug Administration wrote "Based on claims made on your product's label, we have determined (Cheerios) is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug because the product is intended for use in the prevention, mitigation and treatment of disease."

Do we need more proof the federal government is too big?

A FARMER'S TALE

Victor Davis Hanson has some words of wisdom for Barack Obama: "A sojourn at an elite university, you see, can sometimes become a very dangerous thing indeed."

CARS MAY BE BETTER THAN YOU THINK

Um, let's see. Today's conventional (liberal) wisdom seems to be that living in a walkable (e.g., dense) urban environment complete with mass transit and a minimal number of tiny, underpowered urban vehicles is environmental utopia: cheaper; cleaner, and healthier.

- no more car payments, gasoline bills, insurance payments;
- no more noxious fumes, less greenhouse gas;
- more room to walk, run, bike, and play.

Well and good ... except:

It costs more money to live without a car.

[A] car-free existence is more expensive. I live in Manhattan, so I can tell you how expensive it is to live here. It costs a lot less money to live in some non-walkable place in the midwest and own a car or two.

For whatever the reason, packing in people so close together that car-free life is feasible also has the effect of raising the price of everything else, and thus we can only conclude that densely populated areas are economically inefficient.

And taking public transportation may not be as environmentally-friendly as you think:

Two University of California environmental engineers, Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath, say seat occupancy and the underlying carbon costs can skew our understanding of emissions.

They maintain that in some circumstances, it is better to drive into a city in an SUV rather than take a train. That's because a car that is fully occupied may be responsible for less greenhouse gas per-mile traveled per-person, than a train that is only a quarter full.

I rather suspect that free enterprise is a much better mechanism for allocating resources than is conventional wisdom.

Which may be why liberals hate it.

JOURNALISTS DESERVE LOW PAY

From the Christian Science Monitor:

Journalists like to think of their work in moral or even sacred terms. With each new layoff or paper closing, they tell themselves that no business model could adequately compensate the holy work of enriching democratic society, speaking truth to power, and comforting the afflicted.

Actually, journalists deserve low pay.

Wages are compensation for value creation. And journalists simply aren't creating much value these days.

While I agree with the premise, the CSM argument that follows in the link above is baloney (or bologna, if you prefer). Journalists are deserving of low pay exactly because they are "enriching democratic society, speaking truth to power, and comforting the afflicted."

They'd deserve high(er) pay if they'd simply report the facts. [Ed. Hmm ... didn't "journalists" used to be called reporters?]

IS THERE A ROLE FOR EMPATHY IN THE LAW?

Before selecting Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee for the Supreme Court, President Obama said "We need somebody who's got the heart to recognize -- the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Liberals often make their case for empathy based on the perceived unfairness of outcomes such as differences in income, education and wealth. If the outcome isn't fair, then the rules should be 'bent' to assure a just outcome. Doubt about the fairness of a rule is sufficient to justify disregarding it. Walter Williams argues that fairness is a matter of process, not outcome: "Fairness ... must be settled by process questions such as: Were the rules unbiased and evenly applied? If so, [the] outcome is just and actions based on empathy would make it unjust."

Chief Justice John G. Roberts appeared to agree. In the opening remarks of his own confirmation hearings in 2005: ”Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role.”

When Senator Jon Kyl asked Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor about the role of empathy in judging, she also appeared to agree: "I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is [that] judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law. And so it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law. The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge."

I wish I believed her.