Saving the best for the last: a song from the upcoming Jayhawks album “Mockingbird Time”:
Karl will like that one.
You can buy that one here. It will benefit my sister’s site and mine. (California has done away with the Amazon Associates program, but my sister lives in Texas. So feel free to keep using the Amazon search box on the right.)
Palin got lots of attention for a speech that turned out to be extremely bullet-point and frankly trivial.
I don’t consider this an achievement. I just consider it manipulative, and I don’t just laugh it off as playing a prank on the stupid media.
A lot of people traveled a very long way and sat out in the rain for something that was suggested just might be The Big Announcement. A lot of people watched on TV.
And what they saw was a no-brainer stump speech.
Who’s being pranked here?
Something about this topic tends to make people get personal, so make a special effort to address other commenters’ words. Personal insults may be deleted without warning or comment.
Pres. Obama abandoned a controversial new proposed EPA rule regarding so-called ground-level ozone on Friday, angering lefties in general and environmentalists in particular. Nobel Prize-winning economist and former Enron adviser Paul Krugman is among those in despair, arguing the decision is “definitely a mistake” as a matter of economics:
[T]ighter ozone regulation would actually have created jobs: it would have forced firms to spend on upgrading or replacing equipment, helping to boost demand. Yes, it would have cost money — but that’s the point! And with corporations sitting on lots of idle cash, the money spent would not, to any significant extent, come at the expense of other investment.
The proposed EPA rule did contemplate that a lot of money be spent. Indeed, House Speaker John Boehner singled out this proposal in a recent letter to Obama precisely because the estimated cost ran as high as $90 billi0n per year. But Krugman’s argument has at least one itsy-bitsy little flaw: the technology required to meet the standard EPA proposed does not exist. Yes, really. Here’s what the EPA had to say about it (.pdf):
o The supplement to the [Regulatory Impact Analysis] assumes that the proposed standards can be achieved throughout the U.S. using a mixture of known air pollution control technologies and unknown, future technologies.
o The annual control technology costs of implementing known controls as part of a strategy to attain a standard in the proposed range of 0.060 ppm or 0.070 ppm in 2020 would be approximately $3.3 billion to $4.5 billion. EPA used several statistical methods to provide a range of likely compliance costs for other, currently unknown technologies that would be needed to attain the proposed primary standards.
whembly on Washington Post: Stenographer to Terrorists
SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Make the comments of annoying commenters disappear, with a simple comment script! Instructions here:
https://is.gd/CommentScript
Join the Constitutional Vanguard! We're a group devoted to promoting the principles of the Constitution, liberty, and the free market. Sign up here!
Check out Liberty Classroom, a site that teaches economics and history from a liberty perspective. I am a lifetime member. You should be a member too.
Help keep the site alive!
PayPal only (no credit cards):
Credit Card donations (PayPal takes a bite):
Subscribe for $9 per month:
About Patterico
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.