Sometimes you just have to admit he might be a good president.

An excellent opinion piece details the lobbying efforts of General Electric to get policy passed that subsidize many of their ‘green’ technologies.

I think much of the outrage towards lobbyists is centered on large corporations influencing legislators to protect their interest. Along these lines one might argue that lobbyists are used to secure more pro-business positions and for this reason raise the ire of liberals. With this in mind one can not help but think how those that lean left would respond to GE lobbying efforts to get more earth friendly legislation passed. In other words, is lobbying only an issue when the lobbyists are effective at defeating the left’s political interests. When those same lobbying firms are brought in support of left leaning political interests are they more inclined to permit their influence on legislators?

As a side note I find it deplorable that GE lobby’s hard for goverment hand outs in the name of ‘protecting’ the environment. Those that read my blog and take a more pro environment stance must find themselves in a more problematic situation. Demanding regulation and subsidizes to develop ‘green’ technology will inevitably be lead to large corporate handouts to companies that will develop that technology. Your support of such legislation encourages corporate lobbying. One more reason to be against the states monopoly on coercion to force people to live according to your values.

Steve Chapman argues cogently against gun control laws.

As Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck notes, most criminals arm themselves by stealing guns or buying guns stolen by someone else. So new restrictions don’t make much difference to them. The federal ban was a classic illustration of how gun control works. Law-abiding people who rarely misuse their guns were deprived of options. Ex-cons went on as before.

As he notes, the numbers really don’t come out for gun control reducing gun violence. This prompts him to ask the obvious question:

Gun control hasn’t worked as a remedy for crime. So what makes anyone think the answer is more gun control?

Looks like we need to worry about global cooling.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth’s temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

Average earth temperature must not of heard. There is a scientific consensus. Average earth temperature is increasing. If science agrees then it has to be true. Did average earth temperature get the memo? It’s so frustrating trying to get large complex systems to cooperate when you are trying to make a political statement. How are we supposed to punish capitalism if the average earth temperature doesn’t cooperate?

Come on average earth temperature. Get your shit together.

The State does have a monopoly on coercion.

However, I am increasingly disturbed by the way the state of Texas is handling this matter. The wholesale rounding up and de facto incarceration of hundreds of women and children - none of whom have been individually accused of any crime - is very troublesome.

And the matter moves to a whole new level of disturbing in my mind with word that the state now plans to impose across-the-board DNA testing on these women and children, without parental consent (meaning, the mothers have no choice in the matter), after which ALL THE CHILDREN, including nursing babies and toddlers, will immediately be separated from their mothers.

And in response to criticism over this despicable plan, the judge who is allowing it had only this to say: “But every day in this country, we have mothers who go back to work after six weeks of maternity leave.”

Look, precipitously separating a young child - particularly a nursing baby - from her mother is in itself abusive. So the justification for doing it by the state better be that that particular child is at risk of imminent, provable harm from that particular parent. The standard should be very, very high when making such a radical decision.

This is truly beginning to smack of religious persecution, especially when you compare the treatment of these families with the way children are routinely left in abusive and severely neglectful home environments all over this country by child protective services workers - all in the name of family preservation.

Unlike working with a corporation, these people have no choice. They must abide by the states demands.

All over the front pages of the MSM today:

Nouri al-Maliki has fulfilled another demand of the US Congress and the Sunnis in Iraq towards national reconciliation. The Baghdad government began releasing thousands of detainees accused of all but the worst of crimes during the 2003-2008 time period, most of them Sunnis. The release further strengthens the bonds forged with the Sunnis over the past several months and enhanced by Maliki’s crackdown on Shi’ite militias:

Apparently, owning guns makes you happy.

Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.

Nor are they “bitter.” In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were “very happy,” while 9% were “not too happy.” Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.

We should pass legislation mandating that every man, woman and child own a gun in this fine country. That would make everyone happier.

This, admittedly biased site, details the top ten stories by the media that slandered various businesses. While viewing this one can’t help but think that the news organization’s profits from these stories should be returned to the company they slander. Its the same principle as forcing companies that externalize the cost of pollution to pay for that cost. I’m pretty sure these companies have legal redress, however, much like the Environmental Protection Agency, shouldn’t there be a federal agency that protects business from unscrupulous news organizations attempting to maximize profit while minimizing cost by publishing outrageous but false stories about large companies. If we are going to federally regulate externalizing cost of pollution, then shouldn’t we also federally regulate externalizing cost of slander?

Or is the right to free speech more important than the right to private property?