Clint Didier, “If they want a fight, we’re ready to fight.”
Recent attempts were made to obtain Virginia transportation funds outside of the regular and more popular means of raising taxes. VA Senate Bills SB6005 and SB6011 were combined and aimed to set aside a majority of revenues received from offshore drilling for transportation dollars. Today, this bill was voted down (predictably straight down party lines) in committee. Congratulations to those Virginia Senators who are thinking outside the box with regard to funding VA Transportation. Those who opposed the bill sighted potential environmental effects of offshore drilling.
The outcome of this vote only solidifies my belief of Democrat’s wish to raise funds by repeated taxation of their constituents. Tax hikes, I dread, is Democrat’s modus operandi…tax hikes disguised as “fairness” but socialist in application. I digress
When I think of offshore drilling, I cannot help but think of Louisiana and the lack of significant oil spills even in the face of numerous 100+ mph hurricanes. Following are links to research of the environmental affects of Offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico:
Drilling pipes and associated canals cause salt water to encroach fresh-water ecosystems. Be that as it may, I am not convinced that this is the only contributor to decline of LA’s freshwater ecosystems. In our arrogance to control nature, we’ve built numerous levees that prohibit the natural flow of rivers and as such destroy fresh water flood ways and ecosystems (One for certain–Achafalaya Basin). Levee systems have systematically destroyed LA’s wetlands and coastal fishing industry while platforms have increased fishing sources.
TRANSPORTATION UPDATE: The VA Democrats followed with their own bill to raise the VA gas and sales tax to raise transportation funds. This bill promptly got voted down by the Republican House. The state legislature will have another special session with the hopes of coming to a consensus for generating transportation funds.
DRILLING UPDATE: Forbes just published a list of highest paid blue-collar jobs. These jobs included oil extraction and gas refinery jobs. The vote this past week was just another way to say, “Screw you, Virginia blue-collar worker!”
I just can’t resist this. In what world does it make sense to save the planet and refuse to burn too much carbon dioxide, by cutting down trees, which–last time I checked–breathe in carbon dioxide.
My favorite quote from a man who spent $70,000 on solar panel equipment and THEN went next door to demand his neighbor cut down his redwoods (Apparently he never thought about it or talked about it with his neighbor BEFORE investing $70,000):
“I think it’s unfair that a neighbor can take away this source of energy from another neighbor,” he said.
Wow…take away? The real trick here is that when I was younger I thought I remember redwood trees being absolutely sacred in California. Turns out this law that says it’s illegal to block solar panels with your trees was written in the 70s.
The tree-owner’s defense?
Treanor and Bissett, who drive a hybrid Toyota Prius, argue that trees absorb carbon dioxide, cool the surrounding air and provide a habitat for wildlife.
But the solar panel investor counters:
Vargas, who recently bought a plug-in electric car, counters it would take two or three acres of trees to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as much as the solar panels that cover his roof and backyard trellis.
Only in California would you have a “I’m greener than you” pissing contest in a court of law. And, I have to say, this is the problem I have with the religion of global warming: That is that it completely sacrifices common sense conservationism on the altar of “reducing our carbon footprint” and completely dismisses the whole “act local” part of the equation.
The REALLY neat thing is that it makes the “classical” environmentalist concept downright reasonable and logical. So maybe after all of this trend of global warming becoming “mainstream” and scientific fact by scientific consensus, might drive yours truly to be a real rebel and become a tree hugger.
Well, I finally had to make the call to the school today. My daughter came home and said that she watched the first 10 minutes of An Inconvenient Truth today in honors science class, and that she would be watching the rest of the movie tomorrow, and writing a paper on the movie. I called the school and spoke to her science teacher, who had a “f*** you” attitude and said that the movie was educational and taught kids how to save the wetlands…and then she admitted that she had never actually seen the movie.
I then told her that I didn’t want my daughter watching the movie and that she was not going to write the required (indoctrination) paper about the movie. Nella and I will be enrolling her in a good private school at the end of this year. Below is the letter that she is carrying to school tomorrow to give to her teacher (not into having her name all over the Internet, so the name has been changed in the letter):
February 20, 2008
Dear Ms. Nick
Please excuse “A” from watching Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and from writing a paper about this movie. This movie is overtly political, and it has been proven inaccurate and purposefully misleading by many climatologists and weather experts. In fact, this movie amounts to little more than liberal propaganda designed to scare people, and I expected more from a Meisler education. Outside of a political science class, this movie is entirely inappropriate for a twelve year old student. In the future, please contact me if you plan on requiring “A” to watch any film that is remotely political. Should you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me at (504) 555-5555.
Michael W. Gahagan, Esq.
This is great! Global warming is here…run for your lives!