The Daily Plunge » Cap and Trade

the fonzie solution

club soda — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:27:47 +0000

I received an email from one of my esteemed U.S. Senators the other day, Mark Udall. Mr. Udall’s email urged me to sign a petition telling credit card companies to “stop taking advantage of their customers.” In other words, to stop jacking up their rates in response to a credit card “reform” bill President Obama signed, which Udall co-sponsored.
I’m not a big fan of credit card companies, the bait-and-switch tactics they employ and the usurious rates they often charge, but I’m also a firm believer in caveat emptor. Apparently, our left-wing politicians are not very familiar with this versatile Latin phrase.
The progressive politician’s answer to everything is more government. Then, when government causes the inevitable litany of unintended consequences (rising credit card rates in this case), the government is “forced” to come back in and fix what it broke in the first place. Then, the “fix” is worse than the first one and I get to pay for it. Thanks a lot!
I sure wish this logic worked for me, like the time I hit a patch of ice and spun into the back of another car. I had a beauty of a dent in the passenger-side door. In progressive la-la land I could have magically fixed that dent by backing up and hitting that car again instead of taking it to a repair shop (I foolishly took it to a repair shop). Unfortunately, I’ve tried this approach before, usually with golf clubs, and it actually doesn’t work.
Progressives approach public policy as if they were Fonzie; you know, the lovable character from Happy Days who could make anything work just by slamming his fist on it, usually the juke box at Mel’s Diner. Unfortunately, Arthur Fonzarelli was a fictional character on a sitcom made in the ’70s and set in the ’50s. Fonzie’s magic touch does not translate to the real world, especially to government.
When progressives take the Fonzie approach, the hapless citizen gets saddled with a second-rate spin-off, like Joanie Loves Chachi.

the boxer rebellion

club soda — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:54:20 +0000

Yours truly, Club Soda, happens to be one of those whom the White House and its fascist phalanx of Democratic Party machine drones have characterized as part of “the mob”. In reality, the vast majority of those showing up at town hall meetings to confront their “representatives” are average Americans expressing their Constitutional right to assemble peaceably and disagree with the direction those representatives are taking them.
So what if they’re encouraged by right-wing blogs and talk radio to take to the streets? How else do citizens mobilize en masse? When progressives do it, it’s called “community organizing,” but when conservatives do it they’re referred to as a “mob”. In reality, progressive community organizing means recruiting professional thugs, goons and bullies from unions and Soros-funded shadow groups with benign nom de plumes like Americans Coming Together (ACT).
As these community groups are brought together to help quell the popular uprising of ordinary Americans, you can almost hear Hedley Lamarr from Blazing Saddles: “I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists.”
What concerns many Americans is the surrender of political power from the local and state level to the Federal level. The more responsibility the Federal government takes for the individual, the less free that individual becomes.
The powers delegated to the Federal government are quite clear, and they basically boil down to national defense, infrastructure and interstate commerce. The 10th Amendment clearly states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The entire concept of the Constitution was to provide the necessary cohesion to the Union not provided by the Articles of Confederation while maintaining the autonomy of the individual to pursue life, liberty and happiness with minimal Federal restraint. This is why we do not see an enumeration of “positive rights” in the Constitution, such as a “right” to health care or other creature comforts. Rather, the Constitution enumerates “negative rights,” or the freedom of the people from governmental encroachment on their individual lives and decisions.
Perhaps no one personifies the corruption, cronyism and condescension currently permeating the nation’s capitol than Barbara Boxer. Through Boxer, we are provided a window into the soul of an arrogant aristocracy that will happily trample on our freedoms to expand their power and influence. It is this arrogant exercise of power at the expense of the individual that is driving much of the dissent in America today.

Progressives complain bitterly about evil giant corporate conglomerates, and to some extent I agree with them. I simply hate having to deal with large corporations because I can never get anything done quickly and easily. I am not an individual to this corporation; I am simply a number in a vast sea of ones and zeroes. “Press One for English. Prense dos para Espanol. Press Three for this. Press Four for that. And so on and so forth until you hang up in disgust. Have a nice day!”
The point is that the larger and more remote any organization gets from its constituency, the less likely it is to have any care for the individual. And that’s the problem with yielding more power from the local and state level to the Federal level.
Do we seriously believe that a gigantic, centralized bureaucracy will be efficient, caring and, ultimately, just? If we do, we deserve what we get, which will ultimately be a huge corruptacracy that serves a mish-mash of powerful special interests and grievance-mongering groups living 30 years in the past, a.k.a., community organizers.
This is not “progressive”; it is positively regressive and de-evolutionary. Was the Soviet Union a success; a model to be emulated by future U.S. administrations? What did we learn from past collectivist/socialist/fascist/Marxist forms of government? We learned that concentrating power and wealth in a centralized government led to vast societal misery and poverty. The “people’s republics” were about people alright… the people in power.

call someone else’s congressman

club soda — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:09:17 +0000

Following the horrendous vote in the House of Representatives favoring the Cap and Trade bill, eight Republicans who voted for it have been identified (HT to Michelle Malkin). For those of you who see in this bill the erosion of our freedoms and the stifling of our economy in favor of a suffocating federal government, I suggest you call the following members of Congress who voted for it and let them know how you feel:
Mack, CA, 202-225-5330
Castle, DE, 202-225-4165
Kirk, IL, 202-225-4385
Lance, NJ, 202-225-5361
LoBiondo, NJ, 202-225-6572
McHugh, NY, 202-225-4611
Reichert, WA, 877-920-9208
Smith, NJ, 202-225-3765
Why pick on these particular eight representatives? As mentioned, they’re all Republicans, and the only Republicans who voted in favor of the Cap and Trade legislation. So-called “moderate” Republicans who vote on the side of bigger and more intrusive centralized government need to be put on notice that this is not acceptable.
Cap and Trade is an indicator of which side someone stands on. Either you stand with the Constitution and the decentralization of power to the states and the people, or you stand with those who believe in the power and supremacy of the state, and particularly the centralized federal state. The latter are typically called Democrats, and if you’re a Republican who votes for more federal control, please switch parties.
Cap and Trade is a watershed event in our nation’s history that defines the ever widening divide between conservative and progressive. The progressive believes there is nothing government can’t do (control the climate and save the planet!), whilst the conservative generally believes the government should be restricted to the duties enumerated in the Constitution.
Progressives are fascist, according to the classical definition of the term, and are unconcerned about personal freedom, unless the “freedom” in question has something to do with moral depravity, but that’s another topic for another time.
The point is that the Cap and Trade legislation that passed the House and is on its way to the Senate reveals the fascist agenda of the progressive movement in America. It is an agenda which seeks to control each individual’s behavior and restrict their consumption and mobility, all in the name of what is increasingly being proved as a myth of epic proportions.
The myth – climate change, global warming, global cooling, or whatever the hell is the most convenient term based on the current weather – is simply the mechanism or excuse whereby the fascist is able to exert control over his fellow citizens.
As mentioned in a previous post, the progressive fascist is typically insulated from the consequences of his pet policies. They’re either very wealthy, dependent on the government, work for the government or a union subsidized by government, or hipster dufuses (dufusi?) who follow the latest “cool” trend and blindly follow the pack (more on this voting bloc later).
So I understand why a Democrat would vote for the Cap and Trade bill. They have a defined constituency: the very wealthy, hipster dufusi (dufuses?), government dependents, government employees and union employees.
Republicans, on the other hand, are charged with representing the individual, and to put the individual’s freedom and liberty above the demands of the state and its special-interest constituents. Therefore, I have called all eight of those House Republicans who voted for Cap and Trade and left the following message:
Hi…
Just wanted to let you know that though I am a Republican and live in Colorado, I am going to do everything I can to ensure your defeat in the next election, including financial contributions to your opponents.
Your vote in favor of Cap and Trade displays scientific ignorance and a complete disregard for the liberty and freedom of average American citizens who will suffer under the further expansion of the federal government’s power.
I suggest you do two things before you vote on any more so-called climate change bills: re-read the Constitution and look up in the sky at the big burning orb that constitutes about 99 percent of the total mass of the solar system.
Thank you,
Club Soda