I may not be endowed with auditory enablers the size of a certain liberal presidential candidate from Illinois, but I know “hooey” when I hear it.

I remember hearing the over-the-top prognosticators of doom and gloom dating back to my High School days and before. I remember hearing the environmentalists predict a global drop in temperature was going to occur and create a new ice age. We are still waiting for Newsweek’s 1975 article about the impending ice age entitled “The Cooling World” by Peter Gwynne, to become a reality – the article predicted the world could expect same to happen within 10 years of its date of writing.

There was the acid rain scare, predictions of forest death in Central Europe, and other apocalyptic predictions, not the least of which were those outlined in William and Paul Paddock’s book entitled “Famine-1975.” They argued that, “by 1975, a disaster of unprecedented magnitude [would] face the world and famines greater than any in history [would] ravage the undeveloped nations.”

The Arizona Republic, on June 2, 1968, wrote “professor R. Heilbroner of New York predicted that in the early 1970s, ‘the greatest catastrophe the world has ever known’ [would] occur when the population far outstrips the available food supply.”

From the beginning, radical prognosticators of environmental apocalypse have been miserably wrong. Now, armed with new fictional threats and apocalyptic warnings, they seek to legislate the environment and thus further erode the rights of individuals.

I’m not suggesting that certain common sense considerations aren’t necessary. Dumping raw waste and pollutants into our water and attention to certain factory emissions are no-brainers. However, Dave Stirling, vice president of the Pacific Legal Foundation, was correct when he said, “[It is a] myth that heavy regulation promotes environmental health. In their zeal to promote their eco-political agenda, many environmentalists ignore evidence that overbearing regulation is counter-productive. A balanced approach – one that takes into account the human factor, the effect on jobs, the economy, and people’s ability to provide shelter and support their families – is actually the most promising and humane way to protect the environment.” (PLF Announces 2006’s Top Five Earth Day Lies; 4/20/06)

Al Gore basks in his new found celebrity as the environmental equivalent of Oskar Schindler, but “an inconvenient truth” is the murderous policy he defends while preaching save the planet. He claims “the planet has a fever” and that “if your baby [had] a fever you [would] go to the doctor.” An interesting analogy, considering the number of children who will never have the chance to visit a doctor who is concerned about their well-being, before they are murdered by the abortion industry Gore bows before – a holocaustic juggernaut that murders an unborn child approximately every 21.6 seconds in the United States.

“The period from 30 January 1933 to 8 May 1945 consists of 4,481 days. This means that the number of Jews murdered by Nazis during the Holocaust averaged 1,339 victims per day, or 56 victims per hour, or about one victim every 50 seconds or so. In the United States there are 4,000 abortions performed every day.” (Abortion: The American Holocaust; Center for Bio-Ethical Reform; 1/24/07)

Nearly 1,500 of these daily abortions are performed on black women. Planned Parenthood, one of Gore’s chief benefactors, specifically targets low income black neighborhoods, with 76 percent of their abortion clinics being located in same.

“Planetary emergency” in my vernacular is one where unborn black children are being murdered at a rate of 40 percent in the U.S. I call 46 million plus unborn children murdered worldwide yearly and the uncontrolled influx of illegal aliens along with Gore’s support for same, a planetary emergency of epic proportions.

Gore is right on one point: “There is a sense of hope in this country that [one day the] United States Congress will rise to the occasion and present meaningful solutions to this crisis.” And the best way to begin is by ending abortion, and introducing an immigration reform bill that calls for the immediate arrest and deportation of all illegals – one that sanctions any business or individual that employs, aids, or assists illegals, and one that calls for signs to be posted along the border facing Mexico with pictures of handcuffs and prison bars. It might also include language whereby we could charge Mexico with the cost of deportation.

Of course, we probably shouldn’t hold our breath because “morality and non-partisan politicisms,” in Gore’s vernacular, is that which enslaves and inconveniences all but himself and his kind.

Two versions of a bill in Congress would enshrine a journalist’s right to keep his or her sources confidential, effectively banning the government from forcing journalists to reveal whistleblowers. One version though—the House version—gives an incredibly stupid definition of journalist that excludes not only bloggers, but freelancers, independents, and nonprofit journalists as well.

For the most part, the Senate and House agree on what a journalist’s duties are and what journalism entails:

the regular gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.

But only the House version, which has more cosponsors than brains apparently, adds to that definition:

The term “covered person” means a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person’s livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.

So, in effect, if journalism is a hobby or passion you do as a public service, or if you are a freelancer without a boss—both of which easily describe a blogger—then the government reserves the right to force you to tell them who told you something, much like the government tried to do with New York Times journalist Judy Miller under the Bush Administration.

Apparently our “representatives” have a real problem with citizen journalism done for the sake of journalism and for the good of democracy, and believe protecting the “free flow of information” is only reserved for officially approved press. No bloggers, no patriotic radicals, no underground agitator pamphleteers like the ones who actually founded and fought for this country to begin with.

Hate to (once again) school our freaking government about the freaking Constitution they freaking pledge to uphold, but this is Congress making a law abridging the freedom of the press, a violation of the First Amendment. I might be more sympathetic if they missed one further down the list, BUT IT’S THE FIRST FREAKING ONE.

By defining who is and who is not considered press, and therefore deciding who is entitled to special protection—in this case, especially, where they base it on who does it for money and who does it for passion (hint: the latter one is more likely to dig up something that matters)—the House of Representatives are doing us all a huge disservice if they don’t change that language.

In moving forward from the loss of Siry, Tesla considered how they wanted to market their car around the world, and how they wanted their vehicles to gather an enthusiastic following, and there are few vehicles more well known of respected around the world than Harley Davidson.  Considering van der Sande’s experience in the European market and the expected push by Tesla to get their roadster moving into those markets, he seemed like the perfect choice.

Tesla hopes that as they begin moving more units, that they will begin to acquire a reputation among their faithful buyers similar to those who own and ride Harleys.  The attitude of “I wont ride anything buy a Harley” is an idea that most manufacturers could only dream of, but it is a reality to HD owners, and Tesla hopes that having a piece of Harley Davidson management could help provide a similar attitude for the future of Tesla.  Even though van der Sande did a great job in growing the Harley presence in Europe, realistically, can Tesla expect that hiring an overseas division manager will help mimic the appeal of over 100 years of motorcycle excellence?

 Can one man help someone reach the HD level of owner passion?

Carbon Fart Offsets

“No Johnny we can’t get a dog, we can’t afford the fart tax.“Consider this, the tax is not going to save the ozone or stop global warming. You pay the tax, but cows still fart! Kind of like paying extra to offset your carbon footprint. It doesn’t make a difference but I guess it feels good. What’s next! Do birds fart? How about cats and dogs ? Consider lions, and tigers and bears, oh my! What about you? Explain this to your children, “No Johnny we can’t get a dog, we can’t afford the fart tax.”

With all the absurdity going on, don’t be surprised in the future if you have a new IRS form to fill out. The 1040 F.A.R.T. Form, the government is so good with their abbreviated acronyms.

Flatulence Accounting Record Table

The new 1040 F.A.R.T. form, Flatulence Accounting Record Table, will I’m sure be based on a billion dollar study, that will derive a formula from weight and size of all animals and pets, which will result in another liberal tax increase to stop putting holes in the ozone and assist in the global warming fallacy. Will the tax help? No, because everyone and every animal is still going to pass gas!

Hey maybe Cape Codders will get a reduced rate with the wind farm blowing all the methane north!

Now that Obama is our new fearless leader, everything is going to be just fine. There will be no more war, we’ll have Government Health Care, all our mortgages will be forgiven. It will all be just Rainbows and Butterflies. And now we can finally address Global Warming, we aren’t going to need anymore coal fired power plants and we will totally be off gasoline by 2015. How are we going to do this you ask? Well we’re all going to run our cars on happy butterfly pee, that’s how.

In Tehran last week, representatives of the Russian natural-gas monopoly Gazprom met with counterparts from Iran and Qatar and agreed to create “a big gas troika.” The group will meet quarterly to discuss pricing and supplies. Between them, these three countries hold an estimated 55 percent of known global gas reserves. The possibility of a cartel has long been opposed in Washington and European capitals. 

The new cartel plan may be finalized Nov. 18, when Russia hosts a forum of gas-exporting countries in Moscow, including possible additions to the group such as Algeria, Indonesia, Libya, and Venezuela.

For Russia, which blames the US for causing the current global financial crisis and the attendant collapse of oil and other commodity prices, forging new energy-based international relationships holds political promise. “There is a clear desire in Moscow to work toward breaking what it perceives as US dominance of the world economy, but it’s way too soon to predict where this global crisis is leading,” says Masha Lipman, an expert with the Carnegie Center in Moscow. “If the US should really go into decline, I suppose we shall see new groups of states, and new contenders, come forward.”

As global energy prices plunge, cooperating with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to stabilize markets has gained fresh traction in the Kremlin while the long-discussed idea of creating a “gas OPEC” of leading producers is suddenly getting a big push from Moscow.

Russia has earned huge profits in recent years amid soaring prices for its key exports, mainly oil and gas, which have enabled the government to accumulate significant currency reserves, now at $530 billion. Russia is one of the world’s largest oil exporters, accounting for about 12 percent of the global supply. But even before prices began tumbling, Russian oil production was stagnating at under 10 million barrels per day, raising doubts about Kremlin claims that Russia was to become an “energy superpower.”

“This is a crisis, one that’s concentrating minds in Moscow,” says Mikhail Krutikhin, a partner with RusEnergy, an independent consultancy in Moscow. “All Russian state budget projections are based on the assumption that crude prices will remain above $70 per barrel for the next two years, but they’re already below that. It means that we’ll have to tax those foreign currency reserves, and perhaps cut social spending. It’s being viewed as a very serious challenge.”

Perhaps that’s also why Russia, which has long been cool to OPEC, now says it wants to cooperate with the 13-nation oil cartel.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev hosted OPEC’s Secretary-General Abdalla Salem el-Badri last week and announced that Russia will henceforth interact with the global oil cartel as a “key area of Russia’s energy policy aimed at maintaining stable and predictable prices,” in the petroleum market.

Of course, energy industry experts point out that OPEC has never been very good at controlling oil prices – except when it was used as a political weapon against the West during the 1970s – and that Moscow’s newfound interest in the group may reflect the Kremlin‘s shifting global political strategies. “You cannot separate economics from politics. After all, this is energy, and it obviously has a national security dimension,” says Artyem Konchin, an oil and gas analyst with Unicredit-Aton, a Moscow investment bank. “Russia is unlikely to join OPEC, but its interest in the organization at this moment is not coincidental. It wants to cooperate at some level.”

Many experts also say that even if Moscow does succeed in creating a gas cartel, the gas market is different than the oil market. Most supplier-customer relationships are locked in by expensive pipeline infrastructure and long-term contracts. Russia now provides about 20 percent of Europe’s natural gas and is making huge investments in two new pipelines: Nordstream, which will connect Russia with Germany via the Baltic Sea, and South Stream, which will run from Russia’s Black Sea coast to Bulgaria and southern Europe.

But Russia and other gas producers may see a way to change the dynamic. Emerging liquefied natural gas (LNG) technology, of which Qatar is a pioneer, makes the gas a more easily traded commodity, like oil. Currently about 8 percent of natural-gas supplies are delivered in LNG form, Mr. Krutikhin says, but that will grow in the future. Russia is close to completing a big LNG facility at Gazprom’s Sakhalin-2 project on Russia’s Pacific coast, and Gazprom is reportedly mulling construction of another near St. Petersburg.

Still, some analysts are skeptical that a natural-gas cartel will yield the political benefits that the Kremlin anticipates. “It’s understandable that the idea of a gas OPEC sets up tremors in the West, where the idea of Russia controlling gas supplies has long been a source of disquiet,” says Ms. Lipman. “But these players are very diverse. Moves to consolidate Russia’s position as a leading gas producer are not identical to mustering anti-American forces around it.”

But that isn’t preventing the Kremlin from reconsidering many of its energy positions.

Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin, Russia’s top energy official, startled many industry observers last week by saying that the Kremlin may create a vast storage facility for oil, which would be modeled on the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which has a capacity of almost three-quarters of a billion barrels of oil.

The idea behind the Russian reserve would be to stabilize oil prices by holding back or releasing stocks as necessary, Mr. Sechin said. Some experts scoff that the idea is impractical for an oil- exporting country, and a possible sign of Kremlin desperation. “It would be much safer to just keep that oil in the ground. Why invest millions into a storage facility?” says Krutikhin. “It’s really hard to understand what they’re thinking in the Kremlin sometimes.”