Lorraine Watkins! Dang that woman makes sense

From the Gainesville Times

Joan King’s Dec. 15 keyboard or memory slip certainly brought out the war apologists. No matter their own rewriting of the facts, they jumped on her like ducks on a June bug.

Partisan fun and games aside, the thrust of Ms. King’s column was spot on as she suggested questioning the wisdom of escalating the Afghanistan adventure. She is on firm ground with the history of Afghanistan as unconquerable.

It is disturbing how often our young men and, now women, have been thrown into harm’s way in causes known by their leaders to be futile. This was the case with Presidents Johnson and Nixon (and likely Kennedy) regarding Vietnam. And the distortions of information that opened these current Mideastern wars are there for any to see. Our country should be better than that.

We expect the military to declare that, with enough treasure at their beck and call, they can win any war. That is their job. The proclivity to dissembling by civilian leaders conducting and going to war is well established.

No one among the public can know what President Barack Obama or his administration actually knows or believes. It is however, a patriotic public that questions.

W. Lorraine Watkins
Dawsonville

Busting the Liberal Bias in the Media

The story is a little complex and vulgar. But it comes out of Chicago.

The Tribune Company which owns several newspapers is under bankruptcy reorganization and protection. The current bailout expert is leaving the mess to Benjamin Homel aka Randy Michaels.

Homel or Michaels used to be one of those shock jocks at Clear Channel. At Clear Channel, Randy allegedly walked around with a "rubber penis" tied around his neck.

Kind of an odd business tie for anyone, but very odd for a gay bashing talk show host.

Here are two links to the stories and a blog.

Now it's hard to know which way this Michaels dude swings. Liberal? Can't be since he hates gays? Right? Conservative with his phallic symbols and need for masculine identity?

Maybe he's just a nut.

Nice Thoughts for the Day

Charlie Schulz Philosophy The following is the philosophy of Charles Schulz, the creator of the 'Peanuts' comic strip. You don't have to actually answer the questions. Just ponder on them. Just read the e-mail straight through, and you'll get the point. 1. Name the five wealthiest people in the world. 2. Name the last five Heisman trophy winners. 3. Name the last five winners of the Miss America pageant. 4. Name ten people who have won the Nobel or Pulitzer Prize. 5. Name the last half dozen Academy Award winners for best actor and actress. 6. Name the last decade's worth of World Series Winners. How did you do?

The point is, none of us remember the headliners of yesterday.
These are no second-rate achievers.
They are the best in their fields.
But the applause dies..
Awards tarnish.
Achievements are forgotten.
Accolades and certificates are buried with their owners.



Here's another quiz.. See how you do on this one:

1. List a few teachers who aided your journey through school.
2. Name three friends who have helped you through a difficult time.
3. Name five people who have taught you something worthwhile.
4. Think of a few people who have made you feel appreciated and special!!
5. Think of five people you enjoy spending time with.




Easier?

The lesson:
The people who make a difference in your life are not the ones with the most credentials..
The most money..or the most awards.
They simply are the ones who care the most

Pass this on to those people who have either made a difference in your life, or whom you keep close in your heart, like I did.

'Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia !'

''Be Yourself. Everyone Else Is Taken!”

Jackson EMC is lying to you

I'm not going to say something cute like "I'm searching for their credibility."

They are lying. It's being documented here and at Left on Lanier.

I have been emailing and asking for factual documentation.

Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Here's what is on at Left on Lanier.

I’ve questioned the figures given to the public at the Eggs and Issues breakfast by Mr. David Lee of Jackson EMC. Mr. Lee was saying EMC customers would pay $1,600 more under the current cap and trade proposals. I wrote, called, and emailed asking for a source on these numbers.

Kindly, Jackson EMC has answered my email request for a source. [This link goes to Jackson EMC's official statement]

I’ve checked the alleged source of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). And I’ve checked with the Environmental Protection Agency. Both of these fine sources have public reports on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) an an energy bill in the 111th United States Congress (H.R.2454).

The email response referred to this specific bill. The CBO study can be found here. It estimates, in Table 1, a cost per household of $175.

I could not find a figure near enough to let Mr. Lee off the hook for “spin.” Nor does the extra information from Jackson EMC support his use of the word “bill.” That would be as in “any of my bills.”

Jackson EMC and Mr. Lee have some explaining to do and they are on notice.

Cap and Trade

Just an outline today on Cap and Trade systems.


1. The usual comparison of moderating human climate change is a Cap and Trade system vs. a Carbon Tax. Both have the exact same expenses and effects on the economy. But such analysis's are assuming a solitary goal of reducing carbon emissions.

Both systems have advantages and disadvantages depending on uncertainty. For politicians, a tax has negative connotations among voters if it can be quantified. But Cap and trade systems are regulatory methods. Most elected officials will opt for the hidden costs of cap and trade.

Despite the political preference, simple supply and demand models show similar changes in Government revenue, Consumer costs and Cuts in emissions

However there are profits in Cap and Trade systems. Stockholders in successful and innovative companies would get 60% or more of such profits. Government taxes would capture 40% or less based on the top marginal corporate tax rates.

Under any taxation plan, there are no profits to be shared with stockholders in private industry. All taxes are collected by the Federal government. However taxes can be redistributed, used to pay debt, and used to fund new programs.

Economists assume supply and demand will create winners and losers. Government revenues and regulations can also create winners and losers. In the supply and demand models, the cap and trade winners would be private innovators and private stockholders. In carbon taxes, the government will pick the winners, if there are any.

In conclusion a carbon tax would not create any profit incentive to conserve energy or reduce emissions as all taxes would be passed on to end users or consumers by pricing policy.

Cap and trade gives a profit incentive to reduce emissions and energy consumption.