Patterico's Pontifications


Saturday Night Music

Filed under: General,Music — Patterico @ 10:01 pm

The Tories, “Gladys Kravitz”:

The Tories, “All the World’s for Sale”:

Cross Canadian Ragweed: “Dimebag”

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.)

Ace on Palin’s Big Speech

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:52 pm

He does not sound happy:

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.

Paul Krugman and the Ozone Fairy

Filed under: General — Karl @ 10:25 am

[Posted by Karl]

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.

Of course, if Krugman can wish for the economic stimulus of an alien invasion, I suppose he can also wish for the economic stimulus from the Ozone Fairy.  Because unless the Ozone Fairy showed up, 565 counties would have suffered economically.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0556 secs.