Sometimes I like to go to Kay's Blue Racine to stir things up. She has a rant going that I didn't bother to read but I was struck by one of her comments thereafter when she wrote "Its the idea that abortion is still in the mix that kills me." I responded with "Kills you?" just to see what kind of firestorm would ensue. There were a few standard liberal responses followed by this gem from Kay: "Denis, if you don't have a house full of unwanted children you really do need to shut up."
Hmmm. Since Kay has children and since Kay is eligible to weigh in on abortion, we can conclude that Kay has a house full of unwanted children.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Monday, November 09, 2009
Green Idea #1
Racine has a couple of meter maids/parking enforcement personnel that drive around all day in a van. Now perhaps there is some reason to have a van but it is not apparent to me. What is apparent is that they really do not need a performance vehicle of any sort so perhaps it could save money, and perhaps the world, if they switched over to a smaller car or one of those modified golf carts that are starting to crop up around the country. But only if it saves taxpayer money, of course.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Navratil Volunteers for Environmental Advisory Board
Recently appointed Racine alderman Kelli Stein has suggested the creation of a new Environmental Advisory Board. The Racine Post has the story, read it here.
From the Post: "Stein's idea, modeled on several other cities around the country, is to create a strictly advisory board that would develop ideas to protect and promote the environment in Racine. Interestingly, Stein didn't recommend the board because she's a staunch environmentalist trying to save the world one solar panel at a time. She's doing it because it's an opportunity to lure new businesses to the city."
And, "Stein already had two people express interest in serve on the board, and she hopes others will apply. She even encouraged people who are skeptical of the board to get involved and bring" NOTE, the incomplete sentence is quoted directly from the Racine Post and as such is not my fault.
So they want a skeptic, do they? I am in. I think I have established myself as a leading local enviroskeptic, isn't that right Walden students? I am also a businessman so I know a thing or two about what does and doesn't attract businesses. The only potential problem is that I don't live in Racine. However, since the board has yet to be created, it can be created to include interested parties from outside Racine. Certainly people from outside Racine have ideas about the environment/business development, so it would serve Racine's interests to broaden the potential pool of candidates willing to help. I will call the mayor's office this morning to volunteer to serve the board as the non-resident skeptic.
My concern is that they may not really want a skeptic on the board. But then, as a skeptic, of course I would think that. Perhaps I am overqualified.
From the Post: "Stein's idea, modeled on several other cities around the country, is to create a strictly advisory board that would develop ideas to protect and promote the environment in Racine. Interestingly, Stein didn't recommend the board because she's a staunch environmentalist trying to save the world one solar panel at a time. She's doing it because it's an opportunity to lure new businesses to the city."
And, "Stein already had two people express interest in serve on the board, and she hopes others will apply. She even encouraged people who are skeptical of the board to get involved and bring" NOTE, the incomplete sentence is quoted directly from the Racine Post and as such is not my fault.
So they want a skeptic, do they? I am in. I think I have established myself as a leading local enviroskeptic, isn't that right Walden students? I am also a businessman so I know a thing or two about what does and doesn't attract businesses. The only potential problem is that I don't live in Racine. However, since the board has yet to be created, it can be created to include interested parties from outside Racine. Certainly people from outside Racine have ideas about the environment/business development, so it would serve Racine's interests to broaden the potential pool of candidates willing to help. I will call the mayor's office this morning to volunteer to serve the board as the non-resident skeptic.
My concern is that they may not really want a skeptic on the board. But then, as a skeptic, of course I would think that. Perhaps I am overqualified.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Walden Students Trying to Destroy World's Forests
There is a great commentary in the Wall Street Journal today that should be of interest to Walden students but probably won't ever be brought to their attention by their teachers. It is entitled Sins of Emission and I will paraphrase the commentary.
A new peer reviewed study published in Science takes a look at the way that "carbon emmissions from biofuels are measured in climate-change programs world-wide" and has found a "critical accounting error."
"The cap-and-trade programs run by the United Nations and European Union - and maybe soon the U.S. - treat biofuels as carbon neutral" ... because, "Since plants absorb and store carbon that is already in the atmosphere, burning them would create no new emissions, whereas fossil fuels release CO2 that has been buried for millions of years."
The "critical accounting error" occurs because these programs do not account for changes in land use. So, for example, if mature forests are cleared to make way for biofuel farms, the carbon that otherwise would have accumulated in the forests ought to be counted on the balance sheet. It isn't. So if Malaysia burns down a rainforest to produce biodiesel to be used in Germany, "Malaysia doesn't count the land use emissions and Germany doesn't count the tail-pipe emissions."
The politically created accounting errors create incentives that might, according to the study, "displace 59% of the world's natural forest cover" by the year 2050. "The reason: When bioenergy from any biomass is counted as carbon neutral, economics favor large-scale land conversion for bioenergy regardless of the actual net emissions." ... "In other words, not only is cap and trade self-defeating on its own terms but it also risks creating a genuine ecological disaster."
Be careful what you wish for kids!
You can read the Wall Street Journal commentary here.
A new peer reviewed study published in Science takes a look at the way that "carbon emmissions from biofuels are measured in climate-change programs world-wide" and has found a "critical accounting error."
"The cap-and-trade programs run by the United Nations and European Union - and maybe soon the U.S. - treat biofuels as carbon neutral" ... because, "Since plants absorb and store carbon that is already in the atmosphere, burning them would create no new emissions, whereas fossil fuels release CO2 that has been buried for millions of years."
The "critical accounting error" occurs because these programs do not account for changes in land use. So, for example, if mature forests are cleared to make way for biofuel farms, the carbon that otherwise would have accumulated in the forests ought to be counted on the balance sheet. It isn't. So if Malaysia burns down a rainforest to produce biodiesel to be used in Germany, "Malaysia doesn't count the land use emissions and Germany doesn't count the tail-pipe emissions."
The politically created accounting errors create incentives that might, according to the study, "displace 59% of the world's natural forest cover" by the year 2050. "The reason: When bioenergy from any biomass is counted as carbon neutral, economics favor large-scale land conversion for bioenergy regardless of the actual net emissions." ... "In other words, not only is cap and trade self-defeating on its own terms but it also risks creating a genuine ecological disaster."
Be careful what you wish for kids!
You can read the Wall Street Journal commentary here.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
On Drug Addiction and Causes
I kind of like the response I gave to Randy, former Journal Times editor, over at the Racine Post. I thought I would share.
Denis Navratil said...
Randolph writes:
"So, why do people do drugs?
That’s easy. They’re self-medicating because their lives are crap.
When depression’s so great, you’ll reach out to anything to make it better – a gun, a needle …
The answer? Make people’s lives better. Give them hope instead of despair, relief instead of pain, opportunity instead of uselessness, a job instead of a dead-end."
And my response to Randy:
Or, perhaps people become drug addicts because they have become impatient waiting for other people to make their lives better, and that they are entitled to this help from others, and that they can and should wallow in self pity because nobody has come forward to make their lives better. The common denominator here is helplessness, entitlement, and irresponsibility for their own lives.
And when you keep feeding them that destructive world view filled with excuses, you contribute to their problems. You might as well insert the needle yourself into their collapsing veins.
Read the whole thing and any future responses here.
Denis Navratil said...
Randolph writes:
"So, why do people do drugs?
That’s easy. They’re self-medicating because their lives are crap.
When depression’s so great, you’ll reach out to anything to make it better – a gun, a needle …
The answer? Make people’s lives better. Give them hope instead of despair, relief instead of pain, opportunity instead of uselessness, a job instead of a dead-end."
And my response to Randy:
Or, perhaps people become drug addicts because they have become impatient waiting for other people to make their lives better, and that they are entitled to this help from others, and that they can and should wallow in self pity because nobody has come forward to make their lives better. The common denominator here is helplessness, entitlement, and irresponsibility for their own lives.
And when you keep feeding them that destructive world view filled with excuses, you contribute to their problems. You might as well insert the needle yourself into their collapsing veins.
Read the whole thing and any future responses here.
Indoctrination 101
On Saturday at Monument Square, some local high school kids rallied in support of United Nations climate change legislation. The Racine Post wrote an article which then generated over 100 comments, many of them critical of the kids.
Several commenters defended the kids by suggesting that we should applaud the kids for fighting for what they believe in instead of committing crimes, using drugs, having sex, playing video games etc...
The notion that kids should be applauded for political activism without considering the merits of their cause is just plain silly. And the "at least they aren't robbing liquor stores" argument shows just how far some have lowered standards for todays youth.
Of course we should consider and if necessary criticize the political objectives being pushed by children.
My biggest concern though is that children are being led to leftist political activism by the people we entrust to educate them. The children will all insist that their teachers always carefully present both sides of the issue, yet somehow all the children seem to decide "independently" to rally for far left causes. How can this be? Why are there never school sponsored clubs and protests to protect babies from abortion?
Every time you see school kids advocating for liberal causes, and never conservative causes, it is fair to suspect that thay are being manipulated and indoctrinated in school.
And to me, that is a far more dangerous problem than miniscule global temperature fluctuations.
Several commenters defended the kids by suggesting that we should applaud the kids for fighting for what they believe in instead of committing crimes, using drugs, having sex, playing video games etc...
The notion that kids should be applauded for political activism without considering the merits of their cause is just plain silly. And the "at least they aren't robbing liquor stores" argument shows just how far some have lowered standards for todays youth.
Of course we should consider and if necessary criticize the political objectives being pushed by children.
My biggest concern though is that children are being led to leftist political activism by the people we entrust to educate them. The children will all insist that their teachers always carefully present both sides of the issue, yet somehow all the children seem to decide "independently" to rally for far left causes. How can this be? Why are there never school sponsored clubs and protests to protect babies from abortion?
Every time you see school kids advocating for liberal causes, and never conservative causes, it is fair to suspect that thay are being manipulated and indoctrinated in school.
And to me, that is a far more dangerous problem than miniscule global temperature fluctuations.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Flu Politics
I heard on the radio today that the Obama children got a flu shot today but that the president and the first lady will wait and take the shot in accordance with prioritizing guidelines concerning risk etc... Of course this news, if true, would have originated from the White House. Correct me if I am wrong please, but is the president saying the presidents health is not a high priority?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Parental Involvement
Lately there has been lots of talk about parental involvement as the solution to our local public education problems. But does Racine Unified really want parental involvement or do they just want a ready excuse for their collective failings?
One of the most important decisions an involved parent can make is to decide which school, if any, will be entrusted to educate their child. This decision ought to say something about what a parent values. Is it high test scores and graduation rates and college acceptance success? Is it the importance of religious instruction along with the the three R's? Is safety an overwhelming consideration?
I don't think this is what Unified means by parental involvement. Unified wants your children educated at Unified regardless of the other educational options that exist outside of Unified, and regardless of what you as a parent value.
So Unified wants a parent to be completely uninvolved in the most important education decision - who should educate the child - but to then become hyperinvolved in education once the child is enrolled in a Unified school. I am not buying it.
Presently Unified employees and their national counterparts are the only obstacles to meaningful parental involvement in education decisions. If tommorrow the National Education Association issued a statement declaring that parents should be empowered with education vouchers to choose the school, whether public or private, for their child, it would be only a matter of days before such legislation would pass nearly unanimously.
This will not happen as this type of parental involvement would seriously erode the power of public school employees.
So when you hear public school apologists lament the lack of parental involvement in schools, know that they don't mean it. What they really mean is that the lack of parental involvement, that they alone perpetuate, provides a handy excuse for the ongoing demise of our public education system.
One of the most important decisions an involved parent can make is to decide which school, if any, will be entrusted to educate their child. This decision ought to say something about what a parent values. Is it high test scores and graduation rates and college acceptance success? Is it the importance of religious instruction along with the the three R's? Is safety an overwhelming consideration?
I don't think this is what Unified means by parental involvement. Unified wants your children educated at Unified regardless of the other educational options that exist outside of Unified, and regardless of what you as a parent value.
So Unified wants a parent to be completely uninvolved in the most important education decision - who should educate the child - but to then become hyperinvolved in education once the child is enrolled in a Unified school. I am not buying it.
Presently Unified employees and their national counterparts are the only obstacles to meaningful parental involvement in education decisions. If tommorrow the National Education Association issued a statement declaring that parents should be empowered with education vouchers to choose the school, whether public or private, for their child, it would be only a matter of days before such legislation would pass nearly unanimously.
This will not happen as this type of parental involvement would seriously erode the power of public school employees.
So when you hear public school apologists lament the lack of parental involvement in schools, know that they don't mean it. What they really mean is that the lack of parental involvement, that they alone perpetuate, provides a handy excuse for the ongoing demise of our public education system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
