Abound Solar, Federal Loan Recipient, To Lay Off 280

By William Teach March 1, 2012 – 11:12 am

Here we go again. ABC News reported that the initial layoffs were 180 of its 400 workers. That’s now jumped

(Wall Street Journal) U.S. solar-power firm Abound Solar said Wednesday it will stop making solar panels while it retools a Colorado factory as part of a project backed by $400 million in federal loan guarantees.

The company has laid off 280 employees and delayed plans to open a new factory in Indiana that was also part of the government-backed deal.

The announcement was the latest sign of trouble for a manufacturing company backed by the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program, which has already lost more than $500 million on loans to failed California solar panel maker Solyndra LLC.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday he felt the department would have more than enough reserves to cover future losses on the loan program. So far, Abound has drawn down about $70 million of taxpayer-guaranteed funds.

Well, yeah, Chu has plenty of money to piss on: it’s not his own money.

Abound’s Chief Financial Officer Steve Abley said the company decided to shut down its two manufacturing lines in Colorado and upgrade the equipment to make a new solar panel that converts more sunlight into electricity–a project that could take about six to nine months. The company had previously planned to upgrade the lines one at a time to allow continued production.

The company decided that it made more economic sense to cut production while it upgrades the factory, rather than sell its panels below the cost of production, as other solar firms are doing, Abley said

OK, it’s a business decision. The question is, will it be a good one? Will Abound restart its lines within a year, or, will we hear about the rest of the employees being laid off and Abound being sold to China?

PS: I was wondering if the 280 figure was correct, as many news articles are still reporting 180. The WSJ article had been updated, though. The Denver Post, via Doug Powers, also has the 280 figure. Doug also has Obama’s over-inflated employment quote from 2010.

Read: Abound Solar, Federal Loan Recipient, To Lay Off 280 »

Posted in Barry Obama, Energy, Good Move Slick | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Uh Oh: Politico Discusses The Carter/Obama Comparison

By William Teach March 1, 2012 – 8:32 am

It’s never a good thing when a Democrat leaning news source compares Obama to Carter, even if the two writers, Bob King and Darren Goode, work hard to say ” hey, no, he’s really not the same as Carter. No No No!” Just the very fact that the comparison is brought up seals the comparison. They even have a handy dandy cartoon with the two presidents

(The Politico) Not since the era of roller disco, Ford Pintos and “Welcome Back, Kotter” has a Democratic president faced the political fallout of soaring gasoline prices.

On the surface, at least, President Barack Obama seems to be doing all he can to avoid following the cardigan-clad example of Jimmy Carter.

Obama hasn’t gone on television with a Mr. Rogers sweater, telling everyone to turn down their thermostats in winter. But he has gone on the populist attack — denouncing oil industry tax breaks and lampooning Republicans’ “bumper sticker” solutions while raising their ire by borrowing their “all of the above” energy mantra.

On substance, though, the two presidents’ approaches bear many similarities: Both embrace conservation — including, in Obama’s case, a drive for energy-efficient buildings and higher vehicle fuel efficiency standards. Both talk up wind and solar power. And both lean heavily on the Energy Department — an agency Carter created and on which Obama has relied to promote the green technologies that he says will bring future jobs and prosperity.

The article points out that the comparison might be rather unfair, because Carter at least promoted coal and nuclear power. The Obama administration is killing coal plants, and keeping the process for new nuclear plants as slow as possible. 160 coal plants have closed since 2010. Supposedly, the power loss is magically going to appear. Which might make sense if energy costs weren’t going up again and again.

Like Carter, though, Obama hasn’t greenlighted the exploration of domestic oil. Granted, in all honesty, neither Nixon nor Ford did, either. They didn’t see the coming problem, and, in double honesty, Carter was, to some degree, a victim of circumstances. So was Bush 43, and Obama. Sh*t happens. But, when the fan gets fouled, it’s how an administration responds that matters. Carter’s response was his malaise and sweater speech. Obama’s is to talk about algae and other energy helping sometime in the future. And talking. And talking. But, taking no significant steps that matter.

When Reagan took office, he said “we’re going to drill.” We did, and that helped for decades. Things happened along the way, things mostly out of the hands of Clinton, who saw prices spike up at the end of his 2nd term, and Bush. And Obama. Bush said “let’s drill!” and instituted as many policies he could, even as the Democrat congress tied his hands. Obama says “no drilling.”

Carter ended up owning high gas prices in many voters’ eyes — a fate Obama no doubt wants to avoid.

“When the guy who’s at the top of the food chain here can’t fix the problem, you got a lot of people that are irritated,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee who criticized Obama for not doing enough to eliminate roadblocks to energy production. “This is one where if the public doesn’t feel like he’s responded on this issue, I think he wears it.”

For once, Murkowski seems to have it right. Sadly, Obama could actually do something while pushing the future of energy. He could greenlight new oil fields and refineries, as well as nuclear plants, fast-track them, while getting concessions from Republicans for more investment in alternatives and biofuels. That’s the nature of politics, instead of the “my way or the highway…er, well, you can’t actually afford to drive on the highway, so, let’s say, nature trail” method. For both, there could be set methods to make sure drilling, refineries, and nuclear would be safe as they can be, and so there is no politically motivated waste, such as with Solyndra. Invest in projects that have a good chance of working.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Uh Oh: Politico Discusses The Carter/Obama Comparison »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

About That “2/3rds Believe In Climate Change” Poll…

By William Teach March 1, 2012 – 7:59 am

Yesterday, said poll was a HUGE, MONSTER, WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!111!!!! poll about climate change. Even Tina Korbe fell for it, to some degree. Now, if you’ve noticed in previous posts, I typically put “climate change” either in quotation marks or follow it up with “hoax.” But, not this time. I’ll get to why in a few, but, let’s first start with the big news link, which kinda forgets to actually link to the survey

Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that climate change is real — the highest level in two years — as the public trusted its own observations of rising temperatures, a poll said Tuesday.

The growing acceptance of global warming comes despite fierce political division over the issue in the world’s largest economy, with proposals to mandate cuts on carbon emissions failing in Congress.

But, is that what the poll (that link is to the actual poll data) from the University of Michigan’s Gerald Ford School of Public Policy and the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion really says? Not really. The primary question asked is

“Is there solid evidence that the average temperature on Earth has been getting warmer over the past 4 decades?

62% say yes, 26% say no, 12% are not sure. Nowhere in that question is there any differentiation or discussion of why it got warmer (in fact, the temps have been stagnant and/or declining since the last El Nino in 1998). But, I myself might answer yes, because there certainly was a warming period from the late 1970’s through the late 1990’s.

And, again, there is nothing in the poll that positions this as a debate over whether it is natural, anthropogenic, or a combination. Nothing. Of course, that is the assumption that is being made as people read into the poll, including far Left Warmists like Stephen Lacey at the far, far Left site Climate Progress. Most understand that the world warms and cools. This happens.

Then we have the sample size: 887. Rather low when we are talking about representing well over 300 million Americans. Even if we boil it down to the “adult” population (15-65), that’s still 206.8 million people.

One day, I would love to see a national poll ask actual, relevant questions which boil the issue down. We could start with

  1. On a scale of 0-10, zero being none, 10 being 100%, how much influence do you think Mankind has on the global climate, particularly the warming that has occurred since the end of the last cool period ending in the mid-1850’s?

I’d answer “2”. I’ve gone over my reasoning many times, and most of it revolves around the urban heat island effect and methane from agriculture and landfills..

Lots of other questions we could ask, but, really, that one says it all. Anything else, such as “do you think most perceived warming is global or local”, are just filler. Well, there are some follow ups we could ask

  1. If you answered 5 or higher, would you be willing to change your entire lifestyle to help reduce the amount of greenhouse gases you put into the atmosphere?
  2. Would you be willing to give up your fossil fueled vehicle, your iPhone/smartphone, your iPad/tablet, your computer, your gaming system, your TiVo/DVR, unplug every appliance when not in use, turn off your ice maker, turn your thermostat to 80 in the summer and 60 in the winter, hand wash your dishes and clothes, take 2 minute showers, and take all vacations at home in order to limit your own greenhouse gas output, among other “carbon friendly” solutions?
  3. If not, on a scale of 1-10, how much of a climahypocrite are you?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: About That “2/3rds Believe In Climate Change” Poll… »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Kids And Dogs Won’t Know What Fire Hydrants Look Like

By William Teach February 29, 2012 – 3:44 pm

Won’t someone please think of the children? And dogs?

The lack of snow so far this winter has made it easy for fire crews to access hydrants when they respond to fires. That could change if anywhere from six inches to more than a foot of snow falls, which would hinder access to hydrants, especially when they become buried by snow plows.

St. Paul, Minn. residents are being asked to adopt a hydrant at home and work to keep them snow free.

Read: Kids And Dogs Won’t Know What Fire Hydrants Look Like »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 29, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is a snow that is created by hot conditions, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the Day is The First Street Journal.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Admin. Not Looking To Lower Gas Prices

By William Teach February 29, 2012 – 11:35 am

As DrewM points out, this should be in every GOP commercial from now till Election Day

(Politico) The Energy Department isn’t working to lower gasoline prices directly, Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday after a Republican lawmaker scolded him for his now-infamous 2008 comment that gas prices in the U.S. should be as high as in Europe.

Instead, DOE is working to promote alternatives such as biofuels and electric vehicles, Chu told House appropriators during a hearing on DOE’s budget.

Algae to the rescue! In 40 years or so. Maybe.

Chu expressed sympathy but said his department is working to lower energy prices in the long term.

“We agree there is great suffering when the price of gasoline increases in the United States, and so we are very concerned about this,” said Chu, speaking to the House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee. “As I have repeatedly said, in the Department of Energy, what we’re trying to do is diversify our energy supply for transportation so that we have cost-effective means.”

Cool, they feel our suffering. As they drive and fly around on the taxpayer dime.

“But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.

“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” Chu replied. “We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and we’ll help the American economy and the American consumers.”

Well, sure, when our economy melts down again, dependence on oil will drop. For now, though, hey, suck it up, folks.

Read: Obama Admin. Not Looking To Lower Gas Prices »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Energy | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Does The Individual Mandate Violate Contract Law?

By William Teach February 29, 2012 – 8:08 am

An interesting point from the Institute For Justice (via Hot Air)

If government-mandated health insurance is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) case is argued in March 2012, the Institute for Justice warns in its amicus brief that there will be dire and predictable threats to individual liberty and voluntary relations that have been the foundation of American contract law for centuries.

Constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley, who is the executive director of the Institute’s Florida Chapter and who co-authored IJ’s brief, said, “The individual mandate violates a cardinal rule of contract law—to be enforceable, all agreements must be voluntary. The Framers understood this, and would never have given the federal government the power to force individuals into lifelong contracts of insurance. The Court should not allow the government to exercise this unprecedented and dangerous power.”

As IJ’s brief shows, the principle of mutual assent, under which both parties must consent for a contract to be valid, is a fundamental principle of contract law that was well understood during the Founding era and is still a cornerstone of contract law today. Indeed, contracts entered under duress have long been held to be invalid. Yet the mandate forces individuals to enter into contracts of insurance that would never be valid under this longstanding principle. (For a copy of IJ’s brief, visit: www.ij.org/PPACAbrief.)

If the U.S. Supreme Court fails to strike down the individual mandate, there will be nothing to stop Congress from forcing people into other contracts against their will—employment contracts or union membership, for example. If we still have a constitutional republic in which the federal government’s powers are limited, then the Court should strike down this law.

The Institute for Justice’s brief is the only amicus brief filed with the Court that examines this case in the context of the history of contract law. The brief illustrates how the Supreme Court has recognized the principle of consent in commercial relations in its Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment cases, and it explains why the U.S. Supreme Court has a key role in acting as a check against this unconstitutional power grab by the federal government.

So, if you’re forced to sign a contract under duress, said contract has been deemed voided the vast majority of time, including in court. As Ed Morrissey at the Hot Air link points out

If the individual mandate passes muster because duress does not apply when the federal government applies it, then the courts will have given carte blanche to tyranny.  Where does that power end?  Buying cars certainly implicates interstate commerce; will the government have the power to force us to sign purchase contracts for Chevy Volts?  What would be the difference between that and health insurance?  Thanks to the bailouts, the government has an enduring stake in GM, and at some point in time every person needs transportation, even if they are perfectly satisfied with riding a bike or hailing a cab now.

What would there be to stop the Central Government? When you purchase health insurance, you are signing a legal contract to purchase an item, with a legal obligation to pay. Signed under duress, knowing you could be fined/taxed otherwise, how valid is that contract? And, as Ed highlights, the insurance companies would also be under no obligation to fulfill the terms of the contract, since it was not a legally binding one.

And, does the Mandate violate the Constitution vis a vis contract law? Article I, section 10, clause 1.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Contract law has primarily been the domain of the States, though the 14th Amendment did tend to normalize them throughout the nation (you can read a bit more here). The Framers were concerned that States could pass laws that relieved certain favored citizens of their debt obligations, as well as favoring colonial interest over foreign interests (they understood the country would need international capital flowing in to the new country). And, certainly, they never envisioned the federal government becoming as powerful as it has. Hell, they wrote a document, with a follow up, to stop that.

That said, while there is no Constitution provision that prohibits the Federal government passing laws that impair the obligation of contracts (there are laws) the States are clearly being forced to enter into a law impairing the obligation of contracts.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Does The Individual Mandate Violate Contract Law? »

Posted in Constitution, Healthcare | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Seven Takeaways From Arizona And Michigan

By William Teach February 29, 2012 – 7:37 am

OK, so we had the primaries in those two states yesterday. Mitt won big in Arizona over Santorum, 47.3 to 26.6, and squeaked one out in Michigan, 41.1 to 37.9. The Politico provides 5 takeaways

1) A win is a win: It’s the cliche of the cycle, and we’ve found ourselves saying it to defend a Mitt Romney victory more frequently than we’d have ever imagined.

It was a brutal campaign for these two states, particularly between Mitt and Rick, but, hey, now it’s done, and we move into Super Tuesday!

2) Santorum blew a huge opportunity: Rick Santorum lost his last Senate race in Pennsylvania by 18 points, and the week leading up to the Michigan vote was a reminder why.

The question is, did Santorum’s foray into the abortifacient issue hurt him? It sure coincided with a drop in numbers. Certainly, the fact that he more often tended to speak about it in terms of the problem of Big Central Government and being unconstitutional was rarely discussed in the media, which typically showed Santorum in the light of a Social Warrior.

3) On to Ohio: This race could end up being over much more quickly than people who have settled in for a long slog think — or it could drag on for months.

Much will depend on how Romney does on Super Tuesday, when a slew of Southern states that are not quite favorable to him will go to the polls. For Romney and Santorum, the big battle that day is Ohio, a Rust Belt locale that both need to win.

Can Santorum catch fire going in to Super Tuesday?

4) Whither Newt?

Who?

5) Ron Paul is now seen as a Romney surrogate

This is a bit of a problem for a movement candidate: Paul, whose strategy has been to amass delegates through a caucus-focused strategy, has become essentially an afterthought because of the way he is now viewed.

Whether or not that is true, this could both help and hurt Mitt. If Paul eventually decides to give it up and back Mitt, that could give Mitt a bunch of crazed voters pulling for him. On the other hand, does Mitt really want many of them who are Truthers, racists, neo-Nazi white supremacists, etc, backing him?

And two more from me:

  1. People need to relax about this being a brutal primary: it happens. It wasn’t particularly nice between the Obama and Clinton camps (remember, it was Team Clinton that started the Birther and Muslim movements.) It was brutal for the Dems in 2004. It was brutal for both parties in 2000. The GOP in 1996. And so on. What’s happening now is the Internet, as it has grown more and more.
  2. Santorum is not out of it. If you heard his post-election speech last night, you would have heard a big focus on economics and liberty. If he wants to perform on Super Tuesday, he really has to focus on those, and not let the media turn him into an all social issues all the time guy.

What are your thoughts?

Read: Seven Takeaways From Arizona And Michigan »

Posted in Elections, GOP | Comments Off on Seven Takeaways From Arizona And Michigan | Trackback URL

Dharun Ravi Could Face At Least 10 Years For Thought Crimes

By William Teach February 28, 2012 – 7:20 pm

You’ve probably heard about the issue with Dharun Ravi: he was the Rutgers U. student who used a webcam to spy on his roommate, Tyler Clementi, having homosexual sex. Clementi later disappeared, then was found to have committed suicide. Ravi’s trial has started

(Seattle PI) Early witnesses testified that Ravi expressed discomfort about having a gay roommate, but they didn’t know him to have a problem with gay people generally.

His attitude matters in the trial because the 15 charges Ravi faces include bias intimidation, which can carry a 10-year prison sentence. To get a conviction on that charge, prosecutors must persuade jurors that Ravi acted out of bias against gays.

Ravi also is charged with invasion of privacy. And he is accused of trying to cover his tracks by taking measures including deleting a Twitter message and instructing a witness what to tell police. He is not charged with Clementi’s death.

Now, make no mistake about it, what Ravi did was pretty darned mean. But, essentially, he is being charged with a thought crime (bias intimidation), which could land him in jail for 10 years on that charge alone. You can peruse Google News for hate crimes, and see much the same thing: people being charged for having improper thoughts. People can receive long prison sentences for essentially be a**holes.

Why do I bring this up? I’ve actually been thinking about this most of the day, as KC and Carmen were discussing it on the Morning Rush (106.1 Raleigh), as was Jason Lewis. 10 years for thought crimes. And, this makes me wonder: Ravi is no threat to society, he was simply a young man who did something seriously a**holish, yet, could be put in a dangerous jail with hardcore criminals. Meanwhile, there are people in government who allowed guns to walk across the border into Mexico without alerting the Mexican authorities, and did not track those guns.

Those guns were put in the hands of hardcore criminals and criminal enterprises, and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans, possibly people from other countries, and at least two US citizens, Border Agent Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata, with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Yet, the people responsible for Operation Fast and Furious are facing no criminal charges (at this time). Were it you or me, we’d be facing, at a minimum, illegal gun trafficking/gun running and accessory to murder charges. The government of Mexico would want you or me extradited. We’d be looking at spending the rest of our lives in jail.

Alas, the people responsible for F&F will more than likely not even be charged. And will get a nice little pension and high paying lobbyist jobs when they leave office. Yet, Ravi is looking at a minimum of 10 years in prison for bad thoughts. What kind of bad thoughts put untracked guns in the hands of violent and murderous criminals? How’s that justice system working?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Dharun Ravi Could Face At Least 10 Years For Thought Crimes »

Posted in Current Affairs, Musings | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Why Is James Delingpole So Rude To Warmists?

By William Teach February 28, 2012 – 3:21 pm

He has a good reason

It was prompted when I very vocally expressed my disgust at one of the standard phrases trotted out by Warmists and other eco-loons in these debates (as, of course, inevitably, they did again on Sunday): the one about “preserving the planet for future generations”.

The reason this cant phrase makes me want to throw up every time I hear it is that it’s such a grotesque inversion of reality. It’s not people on my side of the debate who want to ravage the countryside with wind farms (with no provision for decommissioning them), rein in economic growth, introduce wartime-style rationing, raise taxes, destroy farmland and rainforests to create biofuels, and base heinously expensive public policy on hysteria and junk science. It’s not people on my side of the debate who are condemning those “future generations” to a lower standard of living and an uglier environment in order to deal with a problem that doesn’t exist. So how dare they have the gall to try to take the moral high ground?

Good points. I’d also point out that the leaders in the Warmist movement also tend to be some of the worst environmentalists by there own standards. Make sure to read the whole thing, which also includes a excerpt from Autonomous Mind

Thus says AM, no matter what the “science” reveals and how much it is debunked, there will always be another line of attack from the sustainability playbook to further the political –and economic corporatist –agenda. On that front is where the battle needs to be fought, not in the theatre of carbon dioxide emissions, raw and adjusted data or fractions of a degree of temperature change. Exactly the same sentiment is reflected in a report by Dennis Ambler.

That is one of the reasons I attack AGW from a political point of view, why I deride it, and don’t bother with the “science” all that much: it’s not about science, and the hard left will simply transform the debate. They’ve already tried with notions such as “sustainability” and “biodiversity”. It’s all about power, control, and doing things with Other People’s money, not about science and the environment.

Read: Why Is James Delingpole So Rude To Warmists? »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, Liberal World | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove