POLITICAL ARGUMENT:

The sun is responsible for all our pollution problems. After all, people couldn’t live without the sun and because we’re here, this planet is going to the dogs. In fact, if it weren’t for these twelve hour reprieves at night, it’d probably be all over by now. Therefore we must tax the sunlight.

POLITICAL REALITY:

It takes as much concentrated effort to be stupid as it does to be logical.

(…with thanks to James Childress)

On late Friday afternoon, the House narrowly passed HR 2454, otherwise known as the “Climate Bill.” So, what does this mean to the average taxpayer? According to the WSJ :

“The 1,200 page bill — formally known as the “American Clean Energy and Security Act” — will reach into almost every corner of the U.S. economy. By putting a price on emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, the bill would affect the way electricity is generated, how homes and offices are designed, how foreign trade is conducted and how much Americans pay to drive cars or to heat their homes.”

The government will accomplish this by “cap and trade”…

Basically, the “CAP” is an enforceable limit imposed on companies on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution in can emit. Companies that generates pollution above the allowable emission standard will have to purchase permits from the government to cover the excess. Over time, the limits become stricter, allowing less and less pollution, until the ultimate reduction goal is met. The “TRADE” occurs as companies that have an easier time reducing their emissions, sell their extra permits to companies that can’t make reductions as easily.

Supposedly, this provides a large and dependable revenue stream as the government auctions emissions permits to the companies required to reduce their emissions. To the delight of our growing government, I’m sure it will! However, more money for the government will mean less money for the average taxpayer, as companies pass the cost of the emission permits onto consumers. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the energy cost for the average American household will rise $175 per year!

Cap and Trade is a covert energy tax and amounts to nothing more than environmental extortion.

MORE: Michelle Malkin: “The 8 cap-and-tax Republicans…and the 44 Democrats who voted no”; Hot Air: “Video: Boehner slaps down Waxman, filibusters cap and trade”; The Patriot’s Mind: “Cap & Trade Bill Passed in the House – Cap & Poverty Here We Come!”; Veer Right: “Cap and Trade Debacle”; Wintery Knight Blog: “Counting the cost of the Waxma-Markey Energy Tax”; Webloggin: “Returning To The Dark Ages”

Michael Jackson I was very surprised, and shocked, to hear of Michael Jackson’s heart attack, and subsequent death. A child of the 70’s, I grew up listening to Michael Jackson and earlier, The Jackson 5, on the radio airwaves. He was an incredible singer, and as an entertainer, no one even came close to “The King of Pop.”

Now, the media is picking apart his life, and serving it cold to a ravenous, voyeuristic nation. They’ll rehash his eccentricities, and speculate on the circumstances surrounding his untimely death, hoping beyond hope for some swarmy reason that will perpetuate the storyline. They’ll interview his family and friends (and friends of friends, and acquaintances of friends, and acquaintances of those acquaintances, etc., so on…), under the guise of providing the public a thorough profile of the artist, and reducing his life to a tagline.

And we’ll eat it up…

Just like we did when we learned of Elvis’ death.

MORE: Writer Chick Talks: Michael Jackson – Farewell; Yodel Anecdotal: Losing Michael Jackson; Hot Air: Video: House holds moment of silence for Michael Jackson; CNN.com/technology: Jackson dies, almost takes Internet with him.

Farrah Fawcett Farrah Fawcett has lost her three-year battle with anal cancer. She died earlier today at a Santa Monica hospital; she was 62. An icon of my awkward youth, I will always remember Farrah by the swimsuit poster that adorned by teenage bedroom wall. Of course, she was Farrah Fawcett-Majors then, the wife of Lee Majors (the “Six Million Dollar Man”). She was to the 1970s, what Betty Grable was to the 1940s!

It was 1976, the country’s Bicentennial celebration was underway, and Farrah burst onto the scene as Jill Monroe on the television series “Charlie’s Angels.” I remember arguing with my friends over which “Angel” was the “better lookin’”, although I must admit that Cheryl Ladd, who replaced Farrah in the series second season, gave her a real run for her money. Anyway, I was glued to the T.V. every Wednesday night, watching Farrah and “the Angels” foil…well, who really cared! It was Farrah!

She was, and always will be, my pin-up girl!

RIP.

ObamaIn a noonish press conference today, President Obama had some pointed words for the government of Iran:

“The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.”

He even went so far as to say that the “demonstrators would in the end be seen to be ‘on the right side of history’.”

So, why did Obama wait a week to take a stand on Iran? Well, it seems obvious that he has determined this was the “popular” stance on the issue. And we all know how important popularity is to our YouTube President. Of course, his delaying this condemnation comes at the expense of American integrity. A value that requires we stand up and do the right thing, no matter what the consequence. In this case, our president would be expected to condemn the Iranian government for it’s totalitarian response to the demonstrations. We would defend the demonstrators’ right to free speech, peaceful assembly and fair elections! These are American ideals, and we should expect our president to espouse them! Senator Lindsey Graham hit the nail on the head when he said,

“The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it, … He’s been timid and passive more than I would like.”

Ditto!

MORE: Hot Air: Obama press conference: live blog; Michelle Malkin:
Obama-come-lately on Iran; O’s obligatory press conference; Writer Chick Talks: Bama in a Box; Flopping Aces: Obama “gets tough”… firmly defending his wuss response to Iran

Steve Apple CEO, Steve Jobs, who has been on medical leave since January to “treat an undisclosed medical condition,” underwent a liver transplant two months ago in Tennessee. Jobs is said to be recovering well and is expected to return to the helm of Apple, at least part-time, sometime later this month. The liver transplant is likely the result of a natural progression of the islet cell neuroendocrine tumor, a rare form of pancreatic cancer, he was treated for in the Summer of 2004. This cancer has a 75% likelihood of metastasizing in another organ during a patient’s lifetime, with the likely organ being the liver.

Now comes the question of disclosure.

Publicly owned companies are subject to detailed disclosure laws pertaining to any relevant information that may influence an investment decision. So, the question is did Apple have a material responsibility to disclose Jobs’ surgery? Unlike the conditions and circumstances prompting Jobs medical leave of absence earlier this year, in which I believe disclosure was not only required, but was in the company’s best interest, this situation is different because Jobs was on medical leave, and not actively fulfilling the role of Apple’s chief executive. Furthermore, Apple stock has fared extremely well during the economic downturn despite Jobs’ absence, performing at 90% above the industry average during Jobs absence. So, it appears Jobs medical condition didn’t have a negative effect on stockholders, and disclosure unnecessary.

Still, Steve Jobs remains the face of Apple. His medical leave of absence was just that–a temporary departure from his stewardship duties to focus on treating his medical condition. Stockholders believed in Jobs eventual return, and in the meantime felt he was still involved in company decision-making. So, in determining the need for disclosure, we must ask would the announcement of Jobs permanent absence as chief executive effect stock price? I believe it would, and therefore, necessitates disclosure, even though Jobs was on medical leave.

MORE: Sox First: Does Apple Need Steve Jobs?

Built on a Mac
© Jake Olden Shy