Posted on 07/13/2009 8:34:34 PM PDT by redk
There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs. Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented.
Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:
I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I’m sorry Lancey but I can’t dumb it down any further so you can undertand. I’d bring my neighbor’s seeing eye dog, but fido’s busy boffing the neighborhood poodle....that tramp!!!
Exactly wrong.
Enron was built on the idea that you can commoditize- put a price- on anything. People who have a stake in a given commodity will take positions based on how they think that commodity will do in terms of supply and demand.
This has long been the case in tangible markets like hogs, corn, soybeans, wheat and metals. It allows suppliers to know in advance the price they'll get at market at some point in the future.
Enron applied this principle to things like energy: suppose you could buy next winter's gas or next summer's electricity at a fixed price today? Buyers and sellers would both leverage their advantage, and producers and consumers would enter and leave the market according the risk/reward it offered. Simply said, if I can buy next summer's electricity at a low price today, I'll do it. If the price is too high, a producer will step in and offer their electricity to the market. Prices will fall as supply increases.
California tried to be 'too big to fail' a few years ago and found out what an efficient (and agnostic) market will do: it will ignore you. And your lights will go out.
Al Gore and his disciples realized the genius of this approach, but also the danger: a free market does not favor the hand of government.
So the liberals ginned up every sin, real and imagined, and sent Enron down in flames. The people who worked there are not to be pitied for losing everything-- they should be scorned like the mortgage speculators of today. Their greed superseded their common sense.
If (when) the liberals get their hands on your energy, they will be able to control what you do, where and how you do it and with whom.
Cap and trade is the linchpin of socialistic slavery.
Aww, c'mon... I thought you didn't have any limit on how far you could dumb something down.
FRegards,
LH
Any child who has learned the basics of dinosaurs knows without knowing it that global warming is a hoax. Minds compute the numbers -- dinosaurs dominated the planet for about 150 million years, and the last extinction of them happened about 65 million years ago. There is NO WAY JOSE that we humans, in our paltry little existence on this planet (we don't even know much at all about what we were doing a measly, puny 10,000 years ago) and our smidgen of knowledge about climate change except as seen in increments of tens of thousands of years, could ever identify, let alone prove, significant climate change over a period of several hundred centuries, let alone a few hundred years. It is ludicrous on its face. Every one of us who has ever been near any coastline has seen, if not recognized, the clear and obvious signs of ancient sea levels, and simple regional geology books can even tell you how long ago they were "current."
One of thousands of examples: drive from Orlando to Tampa and you can clearly see the old Pamlico Terrace coastline from about 125,000 years ago, when sea levels were 25 feet higher than they are now. What were humans doing 125,000 years ago? WHO KNOWS! But 125,00 years, as any 9-year-old boy who knows his dinosaur history, is the equivalent of about half a second in relative time. This is why, I believe, that intelligent American children, the "cool" kids in class, instintively reject Gore and snicker at him and call him "Sponge Bob." They don't know how they know he's full of sh*t, but they know for sure that he IS full of sh*t. God bless them.
A bit of basic knowledge of earth geology and common sense is all it takes, really, to understand what an enormous hoax it is. People buy into the hoax not because they believe it, but because they want to believe it for whatever self-gratifying reasons they may have, so it is a waste of time to even give lip service to "global warming."
Sarah Palin deserves an A-plus-plus on this piece. Atta girl, Sarah!!!
Sarah Palin, charisma with SUBSTANCE!
The other kind of editor, much more common, makes changes for the same reason a dog lifts his leg on a bush or a fire hydrant: to make his mark. This kind of editor is prone to adding words to "clarify" things, making the piece more ponderous and confusing. This kind of editor typically mistakes typos for grammatical ignorance on the part of the writer. This type of editor is prone to subjective changes of words -- changing "myraid colors," for example, to "myriad of colors." Both are correct; one is more elegant.
Sarah's piece was succinct and successful in communicating the message. Any editing it "needs" is less for Palin or her readers, and more for the presuming editor's vanity.
“Spelling is the least important part of writing” -—
Self serving but true.
I suck at spelling!
Sarah did well, but I do notice style.
Message is most important, but message is not a bunch of facts, a good message is one that compels us to do something, or think a certain way, based on relevant facts.
Style is next. Does anyone want to READ your message? Is it boring? Is it pedantic? Is it haughty? Is it sophomoric? -— Does it challenge us to remember that which we already should know? Does it bring out emotions and feelings and speak the words that we already believe, but had not crafted yet, in our own minds?
Does it have cadence, rhythm, is it fun, does it compel us to read every word, to the very end? Does it feel like poetry, even though the words do not rhyme and the sentences are different lengths? Palin did just fine.
I can find a mistake on any page of any newspaper, any day of the week.
"Proving something" is how you interpret her fitness, and it tells volumes about you but nothing about Sarah. If that's what YOUR motivation would be, that's fine. It doesn't meant that it's her motivation. It wasn't my mom's after she had five kids, or her mother's after two, or her grandmother's after five -- it was just the nature of all those women to stay fit in order to be comfy in their own skins. Other people may have looked at it and sneered, "she needs to prove something [to me/us]!" as if they somehow had a role, what egos! If Sarah is like the women in my family, it's more about a personality or heritage of someone who simply likes the youthful, healthy, nice feeling of being fit. Other folks "prove" interesting things in how they interpret that desire to be fit.
She is who she is. She's not you, dear.
AMEN, Brother FReeper! Well said! And it was probably the thing I admired most about her Op-Ed!
... are you sitting down?
"momento."
Seeing as how I usually spend as much time crafting the first sentence as I do writing the rest of the story, and that particular lead (I reject the pretentious and arcane use of the word "lede," which is used by guys like Hugh Hewitt, 'nuff said) was pretty good and would have made for a GREAT clipping to send with a query, had it been usable ..... well, you can guess what I wanted to do to that editor. Death was too good for him.
Cap and trade is the linchpin of socialistic slavery.
We agree above. I contend though that the trade part of cap and trade is a paper nothing, and thus worth what people are willing to pay, but in the end has nothing to back it up.
I have no problem with a commodity market, if there is a commodity, and in the case of enron, it was natural gas, but Enron was a private market, dealing in humongous debt, and very bad management, with an ego the size of Obama.
The run of the mill worker at Enron, the stock purchasers, the people buying the commodity, were unaware the company was being run poorly, and that billions of dollars of business losses were being hidden by accounting malpractice. One might scream due diligence and be partially right, but Enron spent itself into oblivion and the stock price did a good job of hiding the fact until the collapse.
According to a number of sources I’ve seen, greed in the dictionary sense of the word, was not an issue as most of the bad managers were already filthy rich.
Some men and some women don't like seeing a woman "disappear"--some men, so invested in a woman's appearance, do. There are photos of Sarah from all times of her life. The camera loves her. And in all of those pictures she is both trim and substantial. This is the thinnest she has ever been in public, and it is at a time of great stress in her life.
You assume some personal jealously? You want to get personal about me...well, maybe YOU:RE one of those men who drive their women into anorexia over a panic that they might gain some weight and humiliate you.
A friend of mine became a widow a couple of years back. While their marriage looked pretty good on the outside, she did confess with a few tears that it wasn't all bad. At least he wouldn't be ragging on her about her weight. This woman was not remotely overweight.
How's that for a way to be remembered, eh, menfolks?
That is so typical. My concern is more like a mother who see's her daughter suddenly drop almost 10% of her weigh.
Some men and some women don't like seeing a woman "disappear"--some men, so invested in a woman's appearance, do. There are photos of Sarah from all times of her life. The camera loves her. And in all of those pictures she is both trim and substantial. This is the thinnest she has ever been in public, and it is at a time of great stress in her life.
You assume some personal jealously? You want to get personal about me...well, maybe YOU:RE one of those men who drive their women into anorexia over a panic that they might gain some weight and humiliate you.
A friend of mine became a widow a couple of years back. While their marriage looked pretty good on the outside, she did confess with a few tears that it wasn't all bad. At least he wouldn't be ragging on her about her weight. This woman was not remotely overweight.
How's that for a way to be remembered, eh, menfolks?
That is so typical. My concern is more like a mother who see's her daughter suddenly drop almost 10% of her weigh.
Some of us who have been supporting Sarah since the election and prior to the election may be a bit protective of her at times, I'm afraid.
I interpreted your remarks as concern, which I see as a good thing.
There’s an envitonmental angle she should be exloiting:
A bridge too far in the 20 second sounfd bite world?
soundbite
Sorry
You must be kidding.
They sought her out. They hired her to write it. They paid her for it. Just like they do with Charles Krauthammer and George Will.
Or that it’s necessarily a bad thing.
I always like to talk about the ice age. About how first there were no glaciers anywhere near Long Island, NY, then there were glaciers on Long Island, then no glaciers.
Then I ask them how the humans changed the environment to result in glaciers on long island and how they changed the environment to get rid of the glaciers.
Then I say, the environment changes all the time and humans have nothing to do with it.
Not a Geologist are you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.