A Few Quick Thoughts

cap and trade, [please correct me if I'm wrong] is that there will be a cap on the amount of CO2 that any business/industry can emit. If they want or need to go over that allotment, then they need to pay a tax to offset their overage. This insures that every business is going to have to pay for emitting the nonpolluting gas which then will be passed on to the people as increased costs. I've heard it's estimated between $1300-$3300/family.

...Toyz R Us for government leaches... uh, that is tax collectors.

MD/MG got it about right, the government is going to make you promise not to emit more than X amount of CO2, which I'm sure will be on some sliding scale you can never reach, and then they are going to tax you out of business for not abiding by the agreement they forced you into.

If you are Al Gore you can start a company that lets you trade your carbon credits to people who need them and you make a fortune. Don't ask, I'm not sure. Think it has something to do with how much he would be polluting if he owned a coal fired open hearth lead ore smelting company, but since he doesn't he can sell the amount he isn't polluting to people like Ambers Whole Food Vegan Resturant and Organic Candle Factory to offset their pollution.

You see if you pay for it, it ceases to be a problem, if you can pay for it with taxes it is even less a problem. Only none funded CO2 is harmful, once money is thrown at it, it becomes dormant.

The government sets a cap on the carbon footprint you're allowed to produce. If you don't hit that limit, you may sell your unused portion (the "trade") to another company that can then exceed THEIR limit by the amount they bought from you.

On the bail for Peterson, the court could have simply remanded him without bail, which is allowable for capital crimes.

As to Notre Dame: as it's a private school, First Amendment doesn't apply, and Obambi does NOT, in fact, have a "right" to speak there if the school itself doesn't want him to.

I do think your interpretation of the protestors' goals was correct; that they were pisssed at the U itself for inviting him due to the nature of the conflict of his ideology with that professed by the school.

wanted to make sure Peterson didn't get out any time soon. With one wife dead, one presumed dead, and a new sweet young thing WITH kids moved in, they wanted to assure him steady room and board.

I appreciate the responses, and the idea is as dumb as I thought it was to begin with. I had it about right, but it is one of those things where even when you have it exactly right, you still struggle with it because it CAN'T be right, you know what I mean? This 'plan' is just so ridiculous that understanding it takes an amount of imagination that I just can't seem to muster.

On Drew Peterson, I would have had no problem with a remand without bail as it would have been justified for the charge he faces. It just seems that the huge bail figure is doiing the same thing, but abuses the Constitution to get there; if the crime is that bad, just remand them. And it seems that judges that do this type of thing are playing to the press and trying to establish their reputations as 'tough on crime'...since most of them have to stand for reelection.

On the bail thing, you probably forgot to factor in the idea that the judge was probably mindful of the coming impact on the value of the dollar caused by the new economic policies originating in DC. You know, like that Cap and Trade thingie?

Five million in bail? Pshaw! In a couple of weeks that'll hardly be more than the price of a new Hyundai!

Looks to me like he was kinda lenient!



BTW, on cap-n-trade... I agree with you. It DOES seem like one of those Alice in Wonderland ideas you can't quite believe you're really understanding correctly.

The really surreal part is that government has the authority to just pick a number out of the air and assign it to a company as its "limit".

Where do they get that authority? What part of the Constitution gives them that power?

This is pure fascism, without the Holocaust.

If and when this stuff ever comes out of DC as law, I hope there's some company or industry association or something that challenges it in court.

It's IL. and he's in Will County, not far from Chicago, breeding ground for corruption and Mr. POTOTUShead. Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution! We have connections and friends.

Brian, I suppose you're right about the bail, b/c I didn't consider how quickly the administration is devaluing our currency. In a few years, at this rate, it may cost $20 million for a couple of loaves of Wonder Bread and some Oscar Mayer bologna! And the cap&trade thing is crazy...just letting the G pick whatever number is crazy. It will probably bear no resemblance to the realities of the business it affects, just so long as it is low enough to raise the amount of revenue the G can squeeze from them. But if the regs do come out of DC soon, it would be years before anyone could really challenge them in court. And with the way businesses are being demonized in the media by the administration, and the way the coposition of the courts may change (remember, there are a lot of judicial vacancies just waiting for Obama to fill them) I don't know how successful a legal challenge could actually be.

MD/MD, the system in that part of the country is well known for its corruption, so i guess I shouldn't be surprised about anything that goes on there. But the thing isn't so much about Peterson, but the whole system of allowing these judicial demigods to ignore the provisions for reasonable bail, just to make themselves lookm good for their political ends.

Obambi, through imperial fiat, imposed the new CAFE standards on car manufacturers. New fleet standards have to meet 35mpg by 2016, up 50% from current levels.

Of course, he's now the new car czar, as the Gov is now the majority owner. As boss, I guess he can do that.

Some problems I see: why didn't he just mandate 100mpg? If 35's good, 100's better, right? How about 1000mpg? How about Warp Drives? Why not?

Experts say the only way to even come close to meeting that mandate is to make cars much smaller and lighter, and development and implementation will still add somewhere between $600 - $1300 to the price of each car.

Obambi counters that three years of driving such a car will offset the higher price through fuel cost savings. But since we're not drilling here and now, and not building new refineries, and I'm sure he'll want to add new gas taxes... that doesn't compute at all.

Which brings us to the real problem: who's going to want to buy a cupholder-sized car made out of tinfoil that costs as much as a Porsche?

Seems to me the automakers are gonna be in bankruptcy all over again.

The thing on the CAFE standards is crazy, and it doesn't factor in ideas about the safety of the cars. The only way to make cars that meet the standards is to make them smaller and of lighter material such as fiberglass and aluminium. Now I am NOT buying a car that is going to splinter if I hit a dog while driving 50mph! I have seen the footage of some of these microcars that are popping up like mushrooms everywhere, and besides the fact that I physically can't fit in one of those sardine cans, I wouldn't trust my safety to them.

And dude, what is going on out there? The Governator is ringing the alarm bell like the only way to balance the budget is to cut funding for essential public services like fire, police, and schools...and whines like hell that he will have to lay off some of the grossly overpaid (from what I hear) public workers on the state payroll. I have a sneaking suspicion that there is another way to save money elsewhere, and he has utterly failed at scaring the citizens into voting to tax themselves into oblivion. I hope you guys can get some people in place that are willing to make the tough choices and correct decisions that can get the state on the right track.

Your question has been answered. This Peterson clown has been tried,and sentenced by the media,this judge,in setting this ridiculous bail,is playing into that,looking like he is tough.Best bet would have simply held him without bail.If you want to see what happens with these micro-cars,I think the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety website still has some clips of their crash-tests up. That Smart-car was hit in a simulated head-on at 30mph by a mid size sedan,it flew up into the air like a leaf blowing in the wind.After watching a LOT of crash tests at Ford and GM over the years,big is DEFINITELY better in my humble opinion.

I saw some footage of that on Fox last night, and it was a total confirmation of my fears about those little micromachines. If you build a car THAT small and that LIGHT, it cannot be safe. Besides which, you would have to be pygmies to fit anyone in the cars! What would be gained by making those little cars if you had to put three of them on the road to transport a family of five to where they needed to go? Wouldn't the increase in cars on the roads raise the levels of greenhouse gasses, and thus defeat the original purpose of the freaking mandates?

I gotta tell you guys, a few years from now when people are driving those little sardine cans and I'm still barreling down the road in my honkin' big SUV, they BETTER watch out, and get the hell outta the fast lane if they see me coming! I'll squash 'em likes bugs on a windshield.


As to Schitzenheader: his usual scare tactic BS. What a slimy toad is he.

I want to see money aiding illegal aliens cut first. Along with cutting benefits to the Godlike teachers' unions. The spending-cut dialogue has finally begun in earnest out here, and people are fed up with being held hostage to threats of cutting cops and firemen and letting prisoners go free.

Watch the fatality per million-miles traveled rate shoot up with these "hot wheels".The next headline will read"Obama Administration Puzzled As To The Skyrocketing Death Rate In Auto Crashes".Good point about hauling a family around.Maybe Obama Motors LLC will invent a Smart-for-8??The four-seater Smart car is crowded for my wife and I,she's 5'even,I'm 5'4".We ALMOST bought one,until we got IN one.Or tried to. I told her if this is what she wants,fine,she can drive it,I'll follow in another vehicle.My 10 year-old F 250 is still running,no troubles,I'll keep it as long as I can.

smart cars when Mr.POTOTUShead, the shrieker of the house, and the rest of the elites use these as chauffered limos. If it's not good enough for them, than I'll just follow their lead.

NHTSA released studies clearly stating that for every pound a car is lightened by decreasing its size and/or using thinner metal, 7.9 additional people per year are killed in traffic accidents, those deaths being directly attributable to the decreased physical protection afforded the occupants by the vehicle's body.

Lighten cars by 100 lbs, and 800 more people/year die; lighten them enough to influence CAFE standards -- let's say 1000 lbs -- and 8,000 people/year die for the sake of "climate change".

That's PER YEAR, folks.


A couple years ago, my daughter was driving her Chevy Tahoe (an absolute TANK of an SUV that even made my Pathfinder look small) and was stopped at a light when some yo-yo in a Prius plowed into her rear end.

Damage to the Tahoe: about $300 to replace the rear bumper.

Damage to the Prius: totaled; written off as salvage.

I am 6'5, my wife is about 5'7, my 13 year old son is about 6', and I have a 5 year old that is about 3-4 feet tall...how in the blue hell would any two of us really fit in the cracker box? And my little one still has to have a booster seat, so there goes even more room! But I can guaran-damn-tee you that neither Sasha or Melia, or the Big egO will EVER drive one of those POS cars...and neither will I! I wanna stay alive, and those little POS sardinde cans ain't gonna help that cause!

At least onece a month I drive to San Diego to visit my folks for a day, which means round-trip driving of between 5 - 7 hours depending on traffic.

I'm not a midget, either, at 6'2" and 200#, with a bad back (I'm disabled because of it).

I can't even IMAGINE trying to make that drive doubled over with my knees under my chin and my nose smooshed against the windshield.

Throw my daughter (5'11") and son-in-law (6'1") in the car, and after October their baby, and there's just no way. The proverbial squeezing of 10 lbs of doodoo in a 5 pound bag.

So then what? We have to caravan in multiple cars?

Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose?

It does defeat the entire purpose, by forcing more cars on the roads. Regular sized people cannot fit into the car so there are necessarily going to be more cars on the street, putting out more exhaust...no matter how small or fuel efficient the car. Just another plan, like GITMO, that the Prez didn't take time to think through.

Speaking of GITMO, I wrote a series of three papers in my public policy class this past semester about the issue, and I would love to see my professor's face right about now. I called it almost to a tee regarding what Obama would have to do...and I made the same arguments that many in Congress are making. You cannot have a date certain for closure...and THEN start planning for closure. And then there is nowhere for the people being held to go, and a place like GTMO...with the same type of rules...is going to have to be in place. I wonder what she thinks of the class Republican now?

Well, I guess you'll find out once the grades are issued!


Libs just hate it when the world refuses to accommodate their head-in-the-clouds schemes.

The harsh hand of reality smacks them in the face.

I got the A...the work was too good to be denied! I just wish we had a chance to have a discussion about it so I could give her the old "See, I told you so!" And I would definitely give it out if I had the chance!

As for liberals of all stripes, they find out what the average preschool kid finds out at about 4-5 years old...sweet dreams and happy thoughts don't always become reality. Kids learn this lesson and understand it...so why can't adult liberals?