Bjørn Lomborg writes about Earth Hour in an article that’s worth your time.
Earth Hour Is a Colossal Waste of Time—and Energy
Plus, it ignores how electricity has been a boon for humanity.
On the evening of March 23, 1.3 billion people will go without light at 8:30—and at 9:30, and at 10:30, and for the rest of the night—just like every other night of the year. With no access to electricity, darkness after sunset is a constant reality for these people.
At the same time, another 1 billion people will participate in “Earth Hour” by turning off their lights from 8:30-9:30.
The organizers say that they are providing a way to demonstrate one’s desire to “do something” about global warming. But the reality is that Earth Hour teaches all the wrong lessens, and it actually increases CO2 emissions. Its vain symbolism reveals exactly what is wrong with today’s feel-good environmentalism.
And here’s an interesting video in a similar vein.
On Tuesday this week, I was reading an article in the Post-Dispatch: Missouri motorcyclists could go helmet-free in August under proposal. State Rep. Delus Johnson (R-St. Joseph) was proposing a "helmet holiday" during the month of August, primarily to avoid discouraging motorcycle tourists from visiting Missouri.
Like 19 other states in the U.S., Missouri requires all motorcycle riders to wear a helmet. The only two states that don’t require any riders to wear helmets are our neighbors, Illinois and Iowa. (The other 29 states require helmets based on the rider’s age.) I remember riding my first motorcycle in Illinois without a helmet. It was fun.
The article piqued my interest since I still ride a bike. It would be nice to ride without a helmet occasionally even though I appreciate the increased risk. There’s always the hope the "helmet holiday" might become year-long.
But what caught my eye in this article was a comment by another state representative. Mike Colona (D-St. Louis) countered: “There is no constitutionally guaranteed right not to wear a helmet.”
There’s the problem in a nutshell. Mr. Colona seems to believe that the Constitution is intended to govern the behavior of citizens. Worse, he seems to think that if it’s not called out in the Constitution, then it can’t be allowed. A sort of "Everything that isn’t forbidden is compulsory" type of system.
Here’s a news flash, Representative: the Constitution is intended to govern the behavior of the government. Back to Civics class, dude.
It was a really lame argument. He’d might as well have said, “There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to jaywalk” for all the sense that makes. There are no constitutional questions regarding the vast majority of state laws.
This is Missouri, Rep. Colona, and you need to show me why the state should be able to regulate its citizens in some way. It won’t do to say that we "have no right" to avoid some regulation.
The White House is fear-mongering.
Everyone has been wondering how the public will react when the sequester kicks in. The American people are in the position of hostages who’ll have to decide who the hostage-taker is. People will get mad at either the president or the Republicans in Congress. That anger will force one side to rethink or back down. Or maybe the public will get mad at both.
The White House is, as always, confident of its strategy: Scare people as much as possible and let the media take care of the rest. Maybe there will be a lot to report, maybe not, but either way the sobbing child wanting to go to Head Start and the anxious FAA bureaucrat worried about airplane maintenance will be found.
Why we’re doomed.
If we can’t even cut federal spending by 2.4 percent without much of the country throwing an absolute hissy fit, then what hope does America have? All of this whining and crying about the sequester is absolutely disgraceful. The truth is that even if the sequester goes into effect, the U.S. government will still take in more money than ever before in 2013 and it will still spend more money than ever before in 2013. So it is a bit disingenuous to call what is about to happen “a spending cut”, but for the sake of argument let’s concede that point. Even if the budget really was being “cut” by 85 billion dollars, that only would only amount to a “cut” of 2.4 percent to federal spending. It would barely make a dent in the federal budget deficit for 2013.
At a bar tonight in the Keys I heard a bartender ask a middle aged Hispanic-looking gentleman if he wanted to run a tab. He replied yes.
“What name should I put it under?” she asked.
“Barack Obama.” Then he added, “That way somebody else will pay for it.”
He got high fives from several patrons who overheard the exchange. I will now use that tactic any time someone asks my name.