Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Mark Steyn is spot on
So what would it take to alarm you?
Sharia in Britain? Taxpayer-subsidized polygamy in T.O.? Yawn. Nothing to see here.
MARK STEYN February 14, 2008 MARK STEYN-->
Since Maclean's got into a spot of bother with Canada's "human rights" pseudo-courts, I've been pleasantly surprised by the number of our media confreres who don't think it should be a "crime" for magazines to publish excerpts from books by yours truly. Nevertheless, in defending free speech in general, they usually feel obliged to deplore my exercise of it in particular:
"Maclean's published an alarmist screed by Mr. Steyn . . ." (The Economist)
"While the book may be alarmist . . ." (CFRB)
"Steyn's argument is indeed alarmist . . ." (The Guardian)
And, oh dear, even:
"The fear of 'a Muslim tide' was alarmist . . ." (Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan in Maclean's)
Okay, enough already. I get the picture: alarmist, alarmist, alarmist. My book's thesis — that most of the Western world is on course to become at least semi-Islamic in its political and cultural disposition within a very short time — is "alarmist."
The question then arises: fair enough, guys, what would it take to alarm you? The other day, in a characteristically clotted speech followed by a rather more careless BBC interview, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that it was dangerous to have one law for everyone and that the introduction of sharia — Islamic law — to the United Kingdom was "inevitable." No alarm bells going off yet? Can't say I blame you. After all, de facto creeping sharia is well established in the Western world. Last week, the British and Ontario governments confirmed within days of each other that thousands of polygamous men in their jurisdictions receive welfare payments for each of their wives. Still no alarm bells? I see female Muslim medical students in British hospitals are refusing to comply with hygiene procedures on the grounds that scrubbing requires them to bare their arms, which is un-Islamic. Would it be alarmist to bring that up — say, the day before your operation?
Sharia in Britain? Taxpayer-subsidized polygamy in Toronto? Yawn. Nothing to see here. True, if you'd suggested such things on Sept. 10, 2001, most Britons and Canadians would have said you were nuts. But a few years on and it doesn't seem such a big deal, and nor will the next concession, and the one after that. It's hard to deliver a wake-up call for a civilization so determined to smother the alarm clock in the soft fluffy pillow of multiculturalism and sleep in for another 10 years. The folks who call my book "alarmist" accept that the Western world is growing more Muslim (Canada's Muslim population has doubled in the last 10 years), but they deny that this population trend has any significant societal consequences. Sharia mortgages? Sure. Polygamy? Whatever. Honour killings? Well, okay, but only a few. The assumption that you can hop on the Sharia Express and just ride a couple of stops is one almighty leap of faith. More to the point, who are you relying on to "hold the line"? Influential figures like the Archbishop of Canterbury? The bureaucrats at Ontario Social Services? The Western world is not run by fellows noted for their line-holding: look at what they're conceding now and then try to figure out what they'll be conceding in five years' time.
The other night at dinner, I found myself sitting next to a Middle Eastern Muslim lady of a certain age. And the conversation went as it often does when you're with Muslim women who were at college in the sixties, seventies or eighties. In this case, my dining companion had just been at a conference on "women's issues," of which there are many in the Muslim world, and she was struck by the phrase used by the "moderate Muslim" chair of the meeting: "authentic women" — by which she meant women wearing hijabs. And my friend pointed out that when she and her unveiled pals had been in their 20s they were the "authentic women": the covering routine was for old village biddies, the Islamic equivalent of gnarled Russian babushkas. It would never have occurred to her that the assumptions of her generation would prove to be off by 180 degrees — that in middle age she would see young Muslim women wearing a garb largely alien to their tradition not just in the Middle East but in Brussels and London and Montreal. If you had said to her in 1968 that Westernized Muslim women working in British hospitals in the early 21st century would reject modern hygiene because it required them to bare their arms, she would have scoffed with the certainty of one who assumes that history moves in only one direction.
In another of those non-alarmist nothing-to-see-here stories, a British government minister tentatively raised the matter of severe birth defects among the children of Pakistani Muslims. Some 57 per cent of Pakistani Britons are married to their first cousins, and this places their progeny at increased risk of certain health problems. This is the only way a culturally relativist West can even raise some of these topics: nothing against cousin marriage, old boy, but it places a bit of a strain on the old health care budget. It's not the polygamy, it's the four welfare cheques you're collecting for it.
But this is being penny-wise and pound-blasé. What does it mean when 57 per cent of Pakistani Britons are married to first cousins and 70 per cent are married to relatives? At the very least, it tells you that this community is strongly resistant to traditional immigrant assimilation patterns. Of course, in any society, certain groups are self-segregating: the Amish, the Mennonites and whatnot. But when that group is not merely a curiosity on the fringe of the map but the principal source of population growth in all your major cities, the challenge posed by that self-segregation is of a different order. There are now towns in northern England where cousin marriage is the norm: Pakistanis aren't assimilating with "the host community"; the host community has assimilated with Pakistan. Again, if you had told a Yorkshireman in 1970 that by the early 21st century it would be entirely normal for half the kindergarten class to be the children of first cousins, he would have found it preposterous.
But it happened. By "alarmist," The Economist and Co. really mean "raising the subject." Last year, the British novelist Martin Amis raised the subject of my book with Tony Blair and asked him if, when he got together with his fellow prime ministers, the Continental demographic picture was part of the "European conversation." Mr. Blair replied, with disarming honesty, "It's a subterranean conversation." "We know what that means," wrote Amis. "The ethos of relativism finds the demographic question so saturated in revulsions that it is rendered undiscussable." The "multiculturist ideologue," he added, "cannot engage with the fact that a) the indigenous populations of Spain and Italy are due to halve every 35 years, and b) this entails certain consequences."
Whether or not it's "alarmist" to ponder what those consequences might be, under Canada's "human rights" kangaroo courts it might soon be illegal. All Section 13 cases brought to the federal Human Rights Commission end in defeat for the defendant, so, if Maclean's fails to buck the 100 per cent conviction rate, it would be enjoined from publishing anything that might relate to the "hate speech" in question — in other words, we would be legally prevented from writing about Islam and the West, demographic trends in Canada, and many other topics.
What would we be permitted by the state to write about? How about Nazis? It's been years since I've run into one, but apparently they're everywhere. A British blogger, pooh-poohing my book, said there are more Nazis than Muslims in England. Really? In Canada, meanwhile, defenders of Section 13 of the Human Rights Code — the one that makes "criminals" of Maclean's — warn that if the private member's motion of Keith Martin, MP, proposing its repeal were to succeed, Nazis would be free to peddle their dangerous Nazi ideas to simple-minded Canadians who might lack the fortitude to resist. As evidence of the Nazi tide waiting to engulf the Dominion once Section 13 is repealed, Liberal spin doctor Warren Kinsella posted on his website a photograph he'd taken in a men's room stall showing the words "WHITE POWER" and a swastika scrawled on the wall at knee height. Why Mr. Kinsella is photographing public toilets on his knees I don't know, but every guy needs a hobby. At any rate, Warren sees this loser's graffiti as critical evidence of the imminent Nazi threat to the peaceable kingdom.
I'm something of a phobiaphobe. I don't subscribe to the concepts of "homophobia" and "Islamophobia." They're a lame rhetorical sleight to end the argument by denying it's an argument at all: you don't have a political disagreement with me over gay marriage or sharia, you have a mental illness. But don't worry, we can give you counselling and medication and your "phobia" will eventually go away. Yet "Naziphobia" is the real thing — an irrational fear of non-existent Nazis. And so Canada's leading "human rights" hero is Richard Warman, a man whose Naziphobia is so advanced he hauled the "Canadian Nazi Party" before the "Human Rights" Tribunal even though, as the tribunal was eventually forced to rule, no such party exists.
Our heroes pursue phantoms as the world transforms. Is sharia, polygamy, routine first-cousin marriage in the interests of Canada or Britain or Europe? Oh, dear, even to raise the subject is to tiptoe into all kinds of uncomfortable terrain for the multicultural mindset. It's easier just to look the other way, or go Nazi-hunting in the men's room. Nobody wants to be unpleasant, or judgmental, do they? What was it they said in the Cold War? Better dead than red. We're not like that anymore. Better screwed than rude.
Sharia in Britain? Taxpayer-subsidized polygamy in T.O.? Yawn. Nothing to see here.
MARK STEYN February 14, 2008 MARK STEYN-->
Since Maclean's got into a spot of bother with Canada's "human rights" pseudo-courts, I've been pleasantly surprised by the number of our media confreres who don't think it should be a "crime" for magazines to publish excerpts from books by yours truly. Nevertheless, in defending free speech in general, they usually feel obliged to deplore my exercise of it in particular:
"Maclean's published an alarmist screed by Mr. Steyn . . ." (The Economist)
"While the book may be alarmist . . ." (CFRB)
"Steyn's argument is indeed alarmist . . ." (The Guardian)
And, oh dear, even:
"The fear of 'a Muslim tide' was alarmist . . ." (Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan in Maclean's)
Okay, enough already. I get the picture: alarmist, alarmist, alarmist. My book's thesis — that most of the Western world is on course to become at least semi-Islamic in its political and cultural disposition within a very short time — is "alarmist."
The question then arises: fair enough, guys, what would it take to alarm you? The other day, in a characteristically clotted speech followed by a rather more careless BBC interview, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that it was dangerous to have one law for everyone and that the introduction of sharia — Islamic law — to the United Kingdom was "inevitable." No alarm bells going off yet? Can't say I blame you. After all, de facto creeping sharia is well established in the Western world. Last week, the British and Ontario governments confirmed within days of each other that thousands of polygamous men in their jurisdictions receive welfare payments for each of their wives. Still no alarm bells? I see female Muslim medical students in British hospitals are refusing to comply with hygiene procedures on the grounds that scrubbing requires them to bare their arms, which is un-Islamic. Would it be alarmist to bring that up — say, the day before your operation?
Sharia in Britain? Taxpayer-subsidized polygamy in Toronto? Yawn. Nothing to see here. True, if you'd suggested such things on Sept. 10, 2001, most Britons and Canadians would have said you were nuts. But a few years on and it doesn't seem such a big deal, and nor will the next concession, and the one after that. It's hard to deliver a wake-up call for a civilization so determined to smother the alarm clock in the soft fluffy pillow of multiculturalism and sleep in for another 10 years. The folks who call my book "alarmist" accept that the Western world is growing more Muslim (Canada's Muslim population has doubled in the last 10 years), but they deny that this population trend has any significant societal consequences. Sharia mortgages? Sure. Polygamy? Whatever. Honour killings? Well, okay, but only a few. The assumption that you can hop on the Sharia Express and just ride a couple of stops is one almighty leap of faith. More to the point, who are you relying on to "hold the line"? Influential figures like the Archbishop of Canterbury? The bureaucrats at Ontario Social Services? The Western world is not run by fellows noted for their line-holding: look at what they're conceding now and then try to figure out what they'll be conceding in five years' time.
The other night at dinner, I found myself sitting next to a Middle Eastern Muslim lady of a certain age. And the conversation went as it often does when you're with Muslim women who were at college in the sixties, seventies or eighties. In this case, my dining companion had just been at a conference on "women's issues," of which there are many in the Muslim world, and she was struck by the phrase used by the "moderate Muslim" chair of the meeting: "authentic women" — by which she meant women wearing hijabs. And my friend pointed out that when she and her unveiled pals had been in their 20s they were the "authentic women": the covering routine was for old village biddies, the Islamic equivalent of gnarled Russian babushkas. It would never have occurred to her that the assumptions of her generation would prove to be off by 180 degrees — that in middle age she would see young Muslim women wearing a garb largely alien to their tradition not just in the Middle East but in Brussels and London and Montreal. If you had said to her in 1968 that Westernized Muslim women working in British hospitals in the early 21st century would reject modern hygiene because it required them to bare their arms, she would have scoffed with the certainty of one who assumes that history moves in only one direction.
In another of those non-alarmist nothing-to-see-here stories, a British government minister tentatively raised the matter of severe birth defects among the children of Pakistani Muslims. Some 57 per cent of Pakistani Britons are married to their first cousins, and this places their progeny at increased risk of certain health problems. This is the only way a culturally relativist West can even raise some of these topics: nothing against cousin marriage, old boy, but it places a bit of a strain on the old health care budget. It's not the polygamy, it's the four welfare cheques you're collecting for it.
But this is being penny-wise and pound-blasé. What does it mean when 57 per cent of Pakistani Britons are married to first cousins and 70 per cent are married to relatives? At the very least, it tells you that this community is strongly resistant to traditional immigrant assimilation patterns. Of course, in any society, certain groups are self-segregating: the Amish, the Mennonites and whatnot. But when that group is not merely a curiosity on the fringe of the map but the principal source of population growth in all your major cities, the challenge posed by that self-segregation is of a different order. There are now towns in northern England where cousin marriage is the norm: Pakistanis aren't assimilating with "the host community"; the host community has assimilated with Pakistan. Again, if you had told a Yorkshireman in 1970 that by the early 21st century it would be entirely normal for half the kindergarten class to be the children of first cousins, he would have found it preposterous.
But it happened. By "alarmist," The Economist and Co. really mean "raising the subject." Last year, the British novelist Martin Amis raised the subject of my book with Tony Blair and asked him if, when he got together with his fellow prime ministers, the Continental demographic picture was part of the "European conversation." Mr. Blair replied, with disarming honesty, "It's a subterranean conversation." "We know what that means," wrote Amis. "The ethos of relativism finds the demographic question so saturated in revulsions that it is rendered undiscussable." The "multiculturist ideologue," he added, "cannot engage with the fact that a) the indigenous populations of Spain and Italy are due to halve every 35 years, and b) this entails certain consequences."
Whether or not it's "alarmist" to ponder what those consequences might be, under Canada's "human rights" kangaroo courts it might soon be illegal. All Section 13 cases brought to the federal Human Rights Commission end in defeat for the defendant, so, if Maclean's fails to buck the 100 per cent conviction rate, it would be enjoined from publishing anything that might relate to the "hate speech" in question — in other words, we would be legally prevented from writing about Islam and the West, demographic trends in Canada, and many other topics.
What would we be permitted by the state to write about? How about Nazis? It's been years since I've run into one, but apparently they're everywhere. A British blogger, pooh-poohing my book, said there are more Nazis than Muslims in England. Really? In Canada, meanwhile, defenders of Section 13 of the Human Rights Code — the one that makes "criminals" of Maclean's — warn that if the private member's motion of Keith Martin, MP, proposing its repeal were to succeed, Nazis would be free to peddle their dangerous Nazi ideas to simple-minded Canadians who might lack the fortitude to resist. As evidence of the Nazi tide waiting to engulf the Dominion once Section 13 is repealed, Liberal spin doctor Warren Kinsella posted on his website a photograph he'd taken in a men's room stall showing the words "WHITE POWER" and a swastika scrawled on the wall at knee height. Why Mr. Kinsella is photographing public toilets on his knees I don't know, but every guy needs a hobby. At any rate, Warren sees this loser's graffiti as critical evidence of the imminent Nazi threat to the peaceable kingdom.
I'm something of a phobiaphobe. I don't subscribe to the concepts of "homophobia" and "Islamophobia." They're a lame rhetorical sleight to end the argument by denying it's an argument at all: you don't have a political disagreement with me over gay marriage or sharia, you have a mental illness. But don't worry, we can give you counselling and medication and your "phobia" will eventually go away. Yet "Naziphobia" is the real thing — an irrational fear of non-existent Nazis. And so Canada's leading "human rights" hero is Richard Warman, a man whose Naziphobia is so advanced he hauled the "Canadian Nazi Party" before the "Human Rights" Tribunal even though, as the tribunal was eventually forced to rule, no such party exists.
Our heroes pursue phantoms as the world transforms. Is sharia, polygamy, routine first-cousin marriage in the interests of Canada or Britain or Europe? Oh, dear, even to raise the subject is to tiptoe into all kinds of uncomfortable terrain for the multicultural mindset. It's easier just to look the other way, or go Nazi-hunting in the men's room. Nobody wants to be unpleasant, or judgmental, do they? What was it they said in the Cold War? Better dead than red. We're not like that anymore. Better screwed than rude.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Silencer Temps
Here are the temperatures in degrees F of various materials at the point in which they have about 10,000 PSI of yield strength remaining:
Inconel 718.......... 1600F+ (Surefire?)
316L .......... 1600F (AAC)
304 .......... 1500F+ (AWC, Ops Inc)
4130 .......... 1100F+ (YHM, SoundTech)
6-4 Ti .......... 850F (AAC bolt action rated 338 Lapua Magnum can)
Ti-Grade-2 ..........650F (Gemtech G5?, Jet?, STW M4 can)
Inconel 718.......... 1600F+ (Surefire?)
316L .......... 1600F (AAC)
304 .......... 1500F+ (AWC, Ops Inc)
4130 .......... 1100F+ (YHM, SoundTech)
6-4 Ti .......... 850F (AAC bolt action rated 338 Lapua Magnum can)
Ti-Grade-2 ..........650F (Gemtech G5?, Jet?, STW M4 can)
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
civilization factories
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTk1MmZiOTJkNmFlZjFhNjBmZGZjNjdmZjJhMDg3ZTg=
But here I get back to my daughter. She is a barbarian, or at least she was when she was born. And I mean this fairly literally. Political theorist Hannah Arendt once said that, every generation, Western civilization is invaded by barbarians — we call them “children.” Today’s babies aren’t meaningfully different from those born 1,000 or 5,000 years ago. A Viking baby magically transported to 21st-century America might grow up to be an accountant or a bus driver. A baby born today and sent back in time might become a Hun, Visigoth or Aztec warrior, whatever his parents expected of him.
Families are civilization factories. They take children and install the necessary software, from what to expect from life to how to treat others. One hears a lot of platitudes about how children are “taught to hate.” This is nonsense. Hating comes naturally to humans, and children are perfectly capable of learning to hate on their own. Indeed, everyone hates. The differences between good people and bad resides in what they hate, and why. And although schools and society can teach that, parents imprint it on their kids.
As a conservative, I’m a big believer in the importance of tradition, which writer G.K. Chesterton dubbed “democracy of the dead.” But tradition can only be as strong as it is in the people who pass it on. And so, when I read that 23 percent of British teens think Winston Churchill is no more real than Spider-Man, it makes me shudder at the voluntary amnesia of society, the wholesale abdication of parental responsibility that represents.
Civilization, at any given moment, can be boiled down to what its living members know and believe. This makes civilization an amazingly fragile thing, and it makes parents the primary guardians of its posterity. Indeed, someone once told me that those who cannot learn from history are condemned to hear George Santayana quoted to them for the rest of their lives. Of course, that joke’s only funny if you’ve heard of Santayana in the first place.
But here I get back to my daughter. She is a barbarian, or at least she was when she was born. And I mean this fairly literally. Political theorist Hannah Arendt once said that, every generation, Western civilization is invaded by barbarians — we call them “children.” Today’s babies aren’t meaningfully different from those born 1,000 or 5,000 years ago. A Viking baby magically transported to 21st-century America might grow up to be an accountant or a bus driver. A baby born today and sent back in time might become a Hun, Visigoth or Aztec warrior, whatever his parents expected of him.
Families are civilization factories. They take children and install the necessary software, from what to expect from life to how to treat others. One hears a lot of platitudes about how children are “taught to hate.” This is nonsense. Hating comes naturally to humans, and children are perfectly capable of learning to hate on their own. Indeed, everyone hates. The differences between good people and bad resides in what they hate, and why. And although schools and society can teach that, parents imprint it on their kids.
As a conservative, I’m a big believer in the importance of tradition, which writer G.K. Chesterton dubbed “democracy of the dead.” But tradition can only be as strong as it is in the people who pass it on. And so, when I read that 23 percent of British teens think Winston Churchill is no more real than Spider-Man, it makes me shudder at the voluntary amnesia of society, the wholesale abdication of parental responsibility that represents.
Civilization, at any given moment, can be boiled down to what its living members know and believe. This makes civilization an amazingly fragile thing, and it makes parents the primary guardians of its posterity. Indeed, someone once told me that those who cannot learn from history are condemned to hear George Santayana quoted to them for the rest of their lives. Of course, that joke’s only funny if you’ve heard of Santayana in the first place.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
silencers
We'll put this in the good to know category.
Basically HTG designs are among the more quiet silencers. They don't weld their rifle silencers, and I would never buy an unwelded rifle silencer as it is too easy to blow up. As for their pistol silencers -- again -- they can sound good. However, he has not figured out how to make a booster properly and it might break your pistol. It is one of those things were a more experienced silencer company could make a good silencer using some of his technology if they combined it with better construction methods and booster design.
A welded can simply can have a higher strength to weight ratio. So for any given strength, a welded can will be lighter. Case in point -- SRT cans are generally quiet but they are not light and they are not welded. However, as you say -- they should be durable enough for most uses.
Basically HTG designs are among the more quiet silencers. They don't weld their rifle silencers, and I would never buy an unwelded rifle silencer as it is too easy to blow up. As for their pistol silencers -- again -- they can sound good. However, he has not figured out how to make a booster properly and it might break your pistol. It is one of those things were a more experienced silencer company could make a good silencer using some of his technology if they combined it with better construction methods and booster design.
A welded can simply can have a higher strength to weight ratio. So for any given strength, a welded can will be lighter. Case in point -- SRT cans are generally quiet but they are not light and they are not welded. However, as you say -- they should be durable enough for most uses.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
islam incompatability
Just a quick post
Since the mosques in The West are way more militant than ones in the land of islam, perhaps it is islam that cannot handle the freedom of The West.
And islam gets corrupted while it's adherents are in western lands, so in order to keep those who disrespect islam from disrespecting islam, it is time to send them pacting.
Since the mosques in The West are way more militant than ones in the land of islam, perhaps it is islam that cannot handle the freedom of The West.
And islam gets corrupted while it's adherents are in western lands, so in order to keep those who disrespect islam from disrespecting islam, it is time to send them pacting.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Hey taxing the rich hurts the poor??
Heard this on Rush today.
Derr, taxing the rich really only makes things worse, economicallly.
Tax every one the same % and the rich will always pay more and the poor always pay less. It goes back to those fractions problems we had in elementary school or basic math along the way. Unfortunately some folks thing taxing the rich makes them or the poor feel better.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=AP&Date=20080128&ID=8100079&Symbol=TIF
Luxury shoppers' cuts could harm economy
NEW YORK (AP) - It's hard to feel sorry for well-heeled shoppers whose idea of tough economic times is passing on $1,000 Burberry raincoats or that $300 limo ride while the working poor skimp on vegetables and take the bus.
But economists say that recent signs of cutting back by the affluent could hurt the economy and deliver even more pain to lower-income workers, who are dependent on their business and fat tips.
Nathan Warren, a limo driver, knows this first hand: He has seen his monthly wages drop by 40 percent to about $1,800 since late last year. His work week at Newport Beach, Calif.-based Classy Ride Limousine Service was reduced to three days from five amid slow business.
"I have to struggle to get by. I am pinching pennies," said Warren, 30, a Costa Mesa, Calif. resident. "I am eating more cereal and am not buying clothing."
Cutbacks by the wealthy have a ripple effect across all consumer spending, said Michael P. Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers. That's because American households in the top 20 percent by income -- those making at least $150,000 a year -- account for about 40 percent of overall consumer spending, which makes up two-thirds of economic activity.
Niemira expects the retail sector, whose growth was fueled in part by strong gains at luxury chains, will struggle to eke out a 1 percentage sales increase in stores opened at least a year during the next few months. That's below the 2.1 percent average for 2007 and 3.7 percent for 2006.
Just look at the cutbacks by Dali Wiederhoft, a 52-year-old marketing executive from Reno, Nev., made skittish by a volatile stock market, a 20 percent decline in her home value and recession fears.
Over the past three months Wiederhoft pared her spending on clothes to $500 per month from about $3,000; that means no more Jimmy Choo shoes and David Yurman jewelry. Her cutbacks also included canceling the services of a cleaning woman and a lawn care company. She also plans to trade in her BMW for a Ford when her lease expires in about a month.
"This is a time to have cash, not to spend. So, I'm cutting wherever I can," she said.
Such reined-in spending seems to be the end of a winning streak for luxury retailers that once appeared immune to the economic slowdown. Tiffany & Co. and Williams-Sonoma Inc. both reduced their earnings outlooks and Burberry PLC said it may miss its 2008 profit forecast. Coach Inc. reported a 1.1 percent decline in same-store sales at its North American stores for the second quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007 and Compagnie Financiere Richemont SA, the Swiss parent of Cartier and Baume & Mercier, reported a slowdown in holiday sales growth.
Soaring home values had made upper-middle class shoppers feel wealthy in recent years, causing them to trade up to $500 Coach handbags and $1,000 espresso makers, but a housing slump has wiped away their paper wealth. The woes are creeping into even the high-end luxury sector, as affluent shoppers are rattled by the turbulence in the financial markets.
American Express Co., whose customers are generally affluent, said it expects slower spending and more missed payments on credit cards throughout 2008.
The economy needs affluent shoppers to spend with enthusiasm. According to the government's latest survey of consumer expenditures, the top 20 percent of households spend about $94,000 annually, almost five times the bottom 20 percent and more per year than the bottom sixty percent combined.
Then there's also the multiplier effect. When shoppers splurge on $1,000 dinners and $300 limousine rides, that means fatter tips for the waiter and the driver. Sales clerks at upscale stores, who typically earn sales commissions, also depend on spending sprees of mink coats and jewelry. But the trickling down is starting to dry up, threatening to hurt a broad base of low-paid workers like Warren, the limo driver.
Classy Ride Limousine Service, which caters to clients with an average household income of $200,000, has suffered a 10 percent dip in business last year, according to general manager Jason Lattier.
"We've been really slow," said Lattier, noting that 12 out of his 20 drivers are now working three days per week. With the average driver earnings $150 a day in tips and wages, that means a weekly shortfall of $300.
In Chicago, Montopoli Custom Clothiers, a tailor to consumers willing to spend $3,000 to $30,000 for a custom-made suit, has also seen business suffer. Sales dropped 10 percent in October and November from the year-ago period, according to president Jeff Landis. He noted that 20 percent of his clients, who include commodity traders and CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, delayed buying suits for fall.
"I consider them a leading economic indicator," said Landis. He's taken more aggressive measures like increasing calls to clients to get them in the store, but hasn't laid off anyone.
"I'm not at the point of panic," he said.
Overall, the super wealthy -- consumers with a net worth of more than $10 million -- are still splurging on $1 million boats, $10 million diamond jewelry and other luxuries, according to Milton Pedraza, chief executive of the Luxury Institute, a research institute based in New York.
But this crowd could stop splurging, simply because they're not in the mood. That happened right after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, though luxury spending rebounded soon after.
Jim Taylor, vice chairman of marketing consultancy The Harrison Group, said he's seeing a marked shift in the way people look upon spending.
"There's a real decline in enthusiasm for self-indulgent purchasing," said Taylor.
Orrin Feingold, a New York entrepreneur, decided to get out of his lease on a Volvo XC90 sport utility vehicle because he realized he didn't need to spend $650 a month and another $500 on parking. Feingold, 39, a former chief financial officer of a health care company, said the uncertain financial climate is making him think twice about spending.
"I want to be more practical," he said.
Luxury stores, which have a big presence in New York, are closely monitoring Wall Street. The financial industry accounts for about 20 percent of wages in New York City, according to the state comptroller's office.
Alan Johnson, managing director of Johnson Associates, a leading executive compensation consultancy, expects bonuses to fall as much as 30 percent this year. But more importantly, massive layoffs on Wall Street could cause the affluent to pull back even more.
Meanwhile, Warren, the California limo driver is focusing on day-to-day survival. Faced with a monthly rent of $1,300, he has no choice but look for a full-time job.
He's had training as a machinist before, but now things are too unsettled.
"There is so much uncertainty in the economy from what I see, so I am not sure where I am going to look," he said.
© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012908/content/01125104.guest.html
RUSH: Get this. It's unbelievable, especially from the Associated Press. The slug line on this story is: "Luxury Squeeze -- It's hard to feel sorry for well-heeled shoppers whose idea of tough economic times is passing on $1,000 Burberry raincoats or that $300 limo ride while the working poor skimp on vegetables and take the bus. But economists say that recent signs of cutting back by the affluent could hurt the US economy and deliver even more pain to lower-income workers, who are dependent on their business and fat tips. Nathan Warren, a limo driver, knows this firsthand: He has seen his monthly wages drop by 40 percent to about $1,800 since late last year. His work week at Classy Ride Limousine Service was reduced to three days from five amid slow business. 'I have to struggle to get by. I am pinching pennies,' said Warren, 30, a Costa Mesa, Calif. resident. 'I am eating more cereal and am not buying clothing.' Cutbacks by the wealthy have a ripple effect across all consumer spending, said Michael Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers. That's because American households in the top 20 percent by income -- those making at least $150,000 a year -- account for about 40 percent of overall consumer spending, which makes up two-thirds of economic activity." Why? Why? Wait, wait, wait! Ripple effect? You mean when the affluent and wealthy stop buying, it hurts people lower down the scale? Uh, so you got... Follow me on this here, folks. You got the wealthy and you got the affluent up here, and they spend, and when they spend, that spending sort of "trickles down" to others below them. Uh, so there is a trickle-down effect? A trickle-down effect! So when you give tax relief, tax cuts to upper income workers, they spend more, and there's a trickle-down effect? Does this woman who wrote this, Anne Dinnocenzio, want to keep her job? She has just done a story under the guise of feeling sorry for the poor and the middle class that they're having to eat cereal and go without new clothes -- and she just validated Reaganomics, the trickle-down aspect. So, the rich can't win. If they make too much money, it's not fair. If they don't spend what they make, everybody suffers (Women and Minorities Hardest Hit). This needs to be framed and put in the Smithsonian in the Newseum. They got this Newseum. This is incredible. "Recent signs of cutting back by the affluent could hurt the economy and deliver even more pain to lower income workers who are dependent on their business. The limo driver is just but one example."
Derr, taxing the rich really only makes things worse, economicallly.
Tax every one the same % and the rich will always pay more and the poor always pay less. It goes back to those fractions problems we had in elementary school or basic math along the way. Unfortunately some folks thing taxing the rich makes them or the poor feel better.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=AP&Date=20080128&ID=8100079&Symbol=TIF
Luxury shoppers' cuts could harm economy
NEW YORK (AP) - It's hard to feel sorry for well-heeled shoppers whose idea of tough economic times is passing on $1,000 Burberry raincoats or that $300 limo ride while the working poor skimp on vegetables and take the bus.
But economists say that recent signs of cutting back by the affluent could hurt the economy and deliver even more pain to lower-income workers, who are dependent on their business and fat tips.
Nathan Warren, a limo driver, knows this first hand: He has seen his monthly wages drop by 40 percent to about $1,800 since late last year. His work week at Newport Beach, Calif.-based Classy Ride Limousine Service was reduced to three days from five amid slow business.
"I have to struggle to get by. I am pinching pennies," said Warren, 30, a Costa Mesa, Calif. resident. "I am eating more cereal and am not buying clothing."
Cutbacks by the wealthy have a ripple effect across all consumer spending, said Michael P. Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers. That's because American households in the top 20 percent by income -- those making at least $150,000 a year -- account for about 40 percent of overall consumer spending, which makes up two-thirds of economic activity.
Niemira expects the retail sector, whose growth was fueled in part by strong gains at luxury chains, will struggle to eke out a 1 percentage sales increase in stores opened at least a year during the next few months. That's below the 2.1 percent average for 2007 and 3.7 percent for 2006.
Just look at the cutbacks by Dali Wiederhoft, a 52-year-old marketing executive from Reno, Nev., made skittish by a volatile stock market, a 20 percent decline in her home value and recession fears.
Over the past three months Wiederhoft pared her spending on clothes to $500 per month from about $3,000; that means no more Jimmy Choo shoes and David Yurman jewelry. Her cutbacks also included canceling the services of a cleaning woman and a lawn care company. She also plans to trade in her BMW for a Ford when her lease expires in about a month.
"This is a time to have cash, not to spend. So, I'm cutting wherever I can," she said.
Such reined-in spending seems to be the end of a winning streak for luxury retailers that once appeared immune to the economic slowdown. Tiffany & Co. and Williams-Sonoma Inc. both reduced their earnings outlooks and Burberry PLC said it may miss its 2008 profit forecast. Coach Inc. reported a 1.1 percent decline in same-store sales at its North American stores for the second quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007 and Compagnie Financiere Richemont SA, the Swiss parent of Cartier and Baume & Mercier, reported a slowdown in holiday sales growth.
Soaring home values had made upper-middle class shoppers feel wealthy in recent years, causing them to trade up to $500 Coach handbags and $1,000 espresso makers, but a housing slump has wiped away their paper wealth. The woes are creeping into even the high-end luxury sector, as affluent shoppers are rattled by the turbulence in the financial markets.
American Express Co., whose customers are generally affluent, said it expects slower spending and more missed payments on credit cards throughout 2008.
The economy needs affluent shoppers to spend with enthusiasm. According to the government's latest survey of consumer expenditures, the top 20 percent of households spend about $94,000 annually, almost five times the bottom 20 percent and more per year than the bottom sixty percent combined.
Then there's also the multiplier effect. When shoppers splurge on $1,000 dinners and $300 limousine rides, that means fatter tips for the waiter and the driver. Sales clerks at upscale stores, who typically earn sales commissions, also depend on spending sprees of mink coats and jewelry. But the trickling down is starting to dry up, threatening to hurt a broad base of low-paid workers like Warren, the limo driver.
Classy Ride Limousine Service, which caters to clients with an average household income of $200,000, has suffered a 10 percent dip in business last year, according to general manager Jason Lattier.
"We've been really slow," said Lattier, noting that 12 out of his 20 drivers are now working three days per week. With the average driver earnings $150 a day in tips and wages, that means a weekly shortfall of $300.
In Chicago, Montopoli Custom Clothiers, a tailor to consumers willing to spend $3,000 to $30,000 for a custom-made suit, has also seen business suffer. Sales dropped 10 percent in October and November from the year-ago period, according to president Jeff Landis. He noted that 20 percent of his clients, who include commodity traders and CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, delayed buying suits for fall.
"I consider them a leading economic indicator," said Landis. He's taken more aggressive measures like increasing calls to clients to get them in the store, but hasn't laid off anyone.
"I'm not at the point of panic," he said.
Overall, the super wealthy -- consumers with a net worth of more than $10 million -- are still splurging on $1 million boats, $10 million diamond jewelry and other luxuries, according to Milton Pedraza, chief executive of the Luxury Institute, a research institute based in New York.
But this crowd could stop splurging, simply because they're not in the mood. That happened right after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, though luxury spending rebounded soon after.
Jim Taylor, vice chairman of marketing consultancy The Harrison Group, said he's seeing a marked shift in the way people look upon spending.
"There's a real decline in enthusiasm for self-indulgent purchasing," said Taylor.
Orrin Feingold, a New York entrepreneur, decided to get out of his lease on a Volvo XC90 sport utility vehicle because he realized he didn't need to spend $650 a month and another $500 on parking. Feingold, 39, a former chief financial officer of a health care company, said the uncertain financial climate is making him think twice about spending.
"I want to be more practical," he said.
Luxury stores, which have a big presence in New York, are closely monitoring Wall Street. The financial industry accounts for about 20 percent of wages in New York City, according to the state comptroller's office.
Alan Johnson, managing director of Johnson Associates, a leading executive compensation consultancy, expects bonuses to fall as much as 30 percent this year. But more importantly, massive layoffs on Wall Street could cause the affluent to pull back even more.
Meanwhile, Warren, the California limo driver is focusing on day-to-day survival. Faced with a monthly rent of $1,300, he has no choice but look for a full-time job.
He's had training as a machinist before, but now things are too unsettled.
"There is so much uncertainty in the economy from what I see, so I am not sure where I am going to look," he said.
© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012908/content/01125104.guest.html
RUSH: Get this. It's unbelievable, especially from the Associated Press. The slug line on this story is: "Luxury Squeeze -- It's hard to feel sorry for well-heeled shoppers whose idea of tough economic times is passing on $1,000 Burberry raincoats or that $300 limo ride while the working poor skimp on vegetables and take the bus. But economists say that recent signs of cutting back by the affluent could hurt the US economy and deliver even more pain to lower-income workers, who are dependent on their business and fat tips. Nathan Warren, a limo driver, knows this firsthand: He has seen his monthly wages drop by 40 percent to about $1,800 since late last year. His work week at Classy Ride Limousine Service was reduced to three days from five amid slow business. 'I have to struggle to get by. I am pinching pennies,' said Warren, 30, a Costa Mesa, Calif. resident. 'I am eating more cereal and am not buying clothing.' Cutbacks by the wealthy have a ripple effect across all consumer spending, said Michael Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers. That's because American households in the top 20 percent by income -- those making at least $150,000 a year -- account for about 40 percent of overall consumer spending, which makes up two-thirds of economic activity." Why? Why? Wait, wait, wait! Ripple effect? You mean when the affluent and wealthy stop buying, it hurts people lower down the scale? Uh, so you got... Follow me on this here, folks. You got the wealthy and you got the affluent up here, and they spend, and when they spend, that spending sort of "trickles down" to others below them. Uh, so there is a trickle-down effect? A trickle-down effect! So when you give tax relief, tax cuts to upper income workers, they spend more, and there's a trickle-down effect? Does this woman who wrote this, Anne Dinnocenzio, want to keep her job? She has just done a story under the guise of feeling sorry for the poor and the middle class that they're having to eat cereal and go without new clothes -- and she just validated Reaganomics, the trickle-down aspect. So, the rich can't win. If they make too much money, it's not fair. If they don't spend what they make, everybody suffers (Women and Minorities Hardest Hit). This needs to be framed and put in the Smithsonian in the Newseum. They got this Newseum. This is incredible. "Recent signs of cutting back by the affluent could hurt the economy and deliver even more pain to lower income workers who are dependent on their business. The limo driver is just but one example."
Saturday, January 19, 2008
State of the USA
Check this, what a bunch of ass-hats, they banned lightbulbs.
Great, what next? I know lits ban kitchen sinks.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/519kutui.asp
A Nation of Dim Bulbs The nasty little surprise hidden in the new energy bill. by Andrew Ferguson 12/31/2007, Volume 013, Issue 16
On December 19, President Bush signed an energy bill that will, among many, many other things, force you to buy a new kind of light bulb. He did this because environmental enthusiasts don't like the light bulbs you're using now. He and they reason, therefore, that you shouldn't be allowed to have them. So now you can't.
Ordinary consumers may be surprised, once they understand what's happened. They probably haven't known that the traditional incandescent light bulb, that happy little globe shining so innocently from the lamp in the corner, has been a scourge of environmentalists for many years. With their stern and unrelenting moralism, the warriors of Greenpeace have even branded lightbulb manufacturers "climate criminals" for making incandescents, which are, they say, a "silent killer." In Europe and in a few individual states in the U.S., professional environmentalists have managed to persuade their colleagues in government to ban the bulbs altogether, on the grounds that incandescents use energy inefficiently.
Ninety percent of the energy a traditional light bulb uses, for example, is thrown off as heat rather than light. This waste contributes to the overproduction of energy from coal-fired power plants, which contributes to the emission of carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming. Professional environmentalists prefer a different kind of bulb, the compact fluorescent light (CFL), which is much more expensive to make and to buy but also much more efficient in its use of energy.
American environmental groups have long called for an outright national ban on the old-fashioned bulbs. But then they came to the realization, as a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council told the New York Times this spring, that such a ban might "anger consumers." "We've given up a sound bite, 'ban the incandescent,'" the spokesman said.
Instead the groups joined with the Bush administration this year in advocating a steady increase in federally mandated efficiency standards for light bulbs. The effect of the tightened standards is to make it illegal to manufacture or sell the inefficient incandescent bulb by 2014. So it's not a ban, see. It's just higher standards. Which have the same effect as a ban--a slow-motion ban that's not really a ban. Not surprisingly, in long, self-congratulatory remarks at the bill signing last week, Bush neglected to mention that he and Congress have just done away with the incandescent light bulb. Maybe most of us won't notice until he's back in Crawford.
Some people really like the new bulbs, of course. Not all of them are professional environmentalists, though all of them are cheapskates. CFLs produce the same amount of light (lumens) as an incandescent bulb while using only about a quarter of the watts. With proper care and moderate use, they can last as much as six times longer than a typical incandescent. Even if you consider their higher purchase price--six or seven times the price of a traditional bulb--CFLs can lower your monthly lighting bill by as much as 20 percent. And because they're deemed environmentally sensitive, switching them on can give you the same hard-to-define feeling of exaltation you get shopping for organic vegetables at Whole Foods. Then you can donate the money you've saved on your electric bill to the Natural Resources Defense Council or the George W. Bush Presidential Library.
Other people, however, perhaps a very large number, will prefer the old, pre-Bush bulbs. Their reasons have less to do with the wonderfulness of the incandescent and their disdain for environmentalists than with the inconveniences of the CFL. The new bulbs are particularly vulnerable to extremes of temperature, for example; you won't want to use them in your garage in winter. CFLs are also 25 percent longer in size than the average incandescent. This makes them unsuitable for all kinds of lighting fixtures--particularly chandeliers and other ceiling lights--which will have to be either discarded or reconfigured, at considerable expense, after the Bush ban goes into effect. You can't use most CFLs with dimmer switches, either; ditto timers. Newer models that can be dimmed and are adaptable to timers will require you to buy new CFL-compatible dimmers and timers.
The quality of the light given off by CFLs is quite different from what we're used to from incandescents. The old bulb concentrates its light through a small surface area. CFLs don't shine in beams; they glow all the way around, diffusing their illumination. They're terrible reading lights. Many people find fluorescent light itself to be harsh and unpleasant. Moreover--in a variation of the old joke about the restaurant that serves awful food and, even worse, serves it in such small portions--a CFL bulb can take two to three minutes to reach its full illumination after being turned on. And once it's fully aglow, according to Department of Energy guidelines, you need to leave it on for at least 15 minutes. In a typically chipper, pro-ban article last week, U.S. News and World Report explained why: "Turning a CFL on and off frequently shortens its life."
Odd, isn't it--an energy-saving device that you're not supposed to turn off? Such complications undermine the extravagant claims made for the CFLs' energy savings. Let's say you're a CFL aficionado and you want to fetch your car keys from your darkened bedroom: You switch on the light, wait a couple minutes, finally find the wallet as the room slowly brightens, and then leave the light on, because you don't want to shorten the life of your expensive CFL. Will you remember to go back and turn it off 15 minutes later? Or will you get in your Prius, drive to Whole Foods, and leave the light burning for several more hours while you absent-mindedly fondle the organics? If you're not a CFL aficionado, by contrast, you turn on the incandescent light, get your car keys, and then switch it off. Who's wasting more energy? I'm sure some green-eye-shade in the depths of the Department of Energy could calculate an answer, and maybe already has. But we're unlikely to hear about it.
Sam Kazman, of the antiregulation Competitive Enterprise Institute, likes to cite the now legendary Great Light Bulb Exchange sponsored by a local power company in the tiny town of Traer, Iowa. Half the town's residents turned in their incandescents for free CFLs--and electricity consumption rose by 8 percent. The cost of burning electricity went down, and demand increased. Funny how that happens.
There are other complications that might give environmentalists pause, if they were the kind of people who paused. When a CFL bulb finally dies--after years and years and years!--it cannot be dropped in the trash like an incandescent; it must be recycled by specially equipped recycling facilities. CFLs contain mercury. If one breaks in your home, Kazman says, EPA guidelines suggest you open windows and leave the room for at least a quarter of an hour before trying to clean up the mess. And for God's sakes don't use a vacuum, which could disperse the poison into the air. Even when they're intact, U.S. News happily tells us, "the bulbs must be handled with caution. Using a drop cloth might be a good new routine to develop when screwing in a light bulb."
The mind reels at the joke-like possibilities: How many Bush administration officials does it take to screw in a CFL? As many as it takes to screw American consumers! But the Bushies aren't the half of it. In creating the ban, Bush and his environmentalist allies were joined by Philips Lighting, which is--you should probably sit down--the world's foremost manufacturer of CFLs. The phased-in ban will position Philips to crowd from the market any troublesome competitors. It's a perfect confluence of interests: the Big Environmental Lobby, Big Business, and Big Government Conservatives.
But back to the screwees--those American consumers, also known, not so long ago, as the citizens of the United States, a free people, rulers of the world's proudest self-governing nation. Will there be protests of some kind, expressions of disgust at least? And what if there aren't? What if, as the ban slowly tightens, we hear nothing, not a howl, not a peep, just a long mellow moo? Then maybe it really will be time to turn out the lights.
Andrew Ferguson is a senior editor at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
© Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
Great, what next? I know lits ban kitchen sinks.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/519kutui.asp
A Nation of Dim Bulbs The nasty little surprise hidden in the new energy bill. by Andrew Ferguson 12/31/2007, Volume 013, Issue 16
On December 19, President Bush signed an energy bill that will, among many, many other things, force you to buy a new kind of light bulb. He did this because environmental enthusiasts don't like the light bulbs you're using now. He and they reason, therefore, that you shouldn't be allowed to have them. So now you can't.
Ordinary consumers may be surprised, once they understand what's happened. They probably haven't known that the traditional incandescent light bulb, that happy little globe shining so innocently from the lamp in the corner, has been a scourge of environmentalists for many years. With their stern and unrelenting moralism, the warriors of Greenpeace have even branded lightbulb manufacturers "climate criminals" for making incandescents, which are, they say, a "silent killer." In Europe and in a few individual states in the U.S., professional environmentalists have managed to persuade their colleagues in government to ban the bulbs altogether, on the grounds that incandescents use energy inefficiently.
Ninety percent of the energy a traditional light bulb uses, for example, is thrown off as heat rather than light. This waste contributes to the overproduction of energy from coal-fired power plants, which contributes to the emission of carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming. Professional environmentalists prefer a different kind of bulb, the compact fluorescent light (CFL), which is much more expensive to make and to buy but also much more efficient in its use of energy.
American environmental groups have long called for an outright national ban on the old-fashioned bulbs. But then they came to the realization, as a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council told the New York Times this spring, that such a ban might "anger consumers." "We've given up a sound bite, 'ban the incandescent,'" the spokesman said.
Instead the groups joined with the Bush administration this year in advocating a steady increase in federally mandated efficiency standards for light bulbs. The effect of the tightened standards is to make it illegal to manufacture or sell the inefficient incandescent bulb by 2014. So it's not a ban, see. It's just higher standards. Which have the same effect as a ban--a slow-motion ban that's not really a ban. Not surprisingly, in long, self-congratulatory remarks at the bill signing last week, Bush neglected to mention that he and Congress have just done away with the incandescent light bulb. Maybe most of us won't notice until he's back in Crawford.
Some people really like the new bulbs, of course. Not all of them are professional environmentalists, though all of them are cheapskates. CFLs produce the same amount of light (lumens) as an incandescent bulb while using only about a quarter of the watts. With proper care and moderate use, they can last as much as six times longer than a typical incandescent. Even if you consider their higher purchase price--six or seven times the price of a traditional bulb--CFLs can lower your monthly lighting bill by as much as 20 percent. And because they're deemed environmentally sensitive, switching them on can give you the same hard-to-define feeling of exaltation you get shopping for organic vegetables at Whole Foods. Then you can donate the money you've saved on your electric bill to the Natural Resources Defense Council or the George W. Bush Presidential Library.
Other people, however, perhaps a very large number, will prefer the old, pre-Bush bulbs. Their reasons have less to do with the wonderfulness of the incandescent and their disdain for environmentalists than with the inconveniences of the CFL. The new bulbs are particularly vulnerable to extremes of temperature, for example; you won't want to use them in your garage in winter. CFLs are also 25 percent longer in size than the average incandescent. This makes them unsuitable for all kinds of lighting fixtures--particularly chandeliers and other ceiling lights--which will have to be either discarded or reconfigured, at considerable expense, after the Bush ban goes into effect. You can't use most CFLs with dimmer switches, either; ditto timers. Newer models that can be dimmed and are adaptable to timers will require you to buy new CFL-compatible dimmers and timers.
The quality of the light given off by CFLs is quite different from what we're used to from incandescents. The old bulb concentrates its light through a small surface area. CFLs don't shine in beams; they glow all the way around, diffusing their illumination. They're terrible reading lights. Many people find fluorescent light itself to be harsh and unpleasant. Moreover--in a variation of the old joke about the restaurant that serves awful food and, even worse, serves it in such small portions--a CFL bulb can take two to three minutes to reach its full illumination after being turned on. And once it's fully aglow, according to Department of Energy guidelines, you need to leave it on for at least 15 minutes. In a typically chipper, pro-ban article last week, U.S. News and World Report explained why: "Turning a CFL on and off frequently shortens its life."
Odd, isn't it--an energy-saving device that you're not supposed to turn off? Such complications undermine the extravagant claims made for the CFLs' energy savings. Let's say you're a CFL aficionado and you want to fetch your car keys from your darkened bedroom: You switch on the light, wait a couple minutes, finally find the wallet as the room slowly brightens, and then leave the light on, because you don't want to shorten the life of your expensive CFL. Will you remember to go back and turn it off 15 minutes later? Or will you get in your Prius, drive to Whole Foods, and leave the light burning for several more hours while you absent-mindedly fondle the organics? If you're not a CFL aficionado, by contrast, you turn on the incandescent light, get your car keys, and then switch it off. Who's wasting more energy? I'm sure some green-eye-shade in the depths of the Department of Energy could calculate an answer, and maybe already has. But we're unlikely to hear about it.
Sam Kazman, of the antiregulation Competitive Enterprise Institute, likes to cite the now legendary Great Light Bulb Exchange sponsored by a local power company in the tiny town of Traer, Iowa. Half the town's residents turned in their incandescents for free CFLs--and electricity consumption rose by 8 percent. The cost of burning electricity went down, and demand increased. Funny how that happens.
There are other complications that might give environmentalists pause, if they were the kind of people who paused. When a CFL bulb finally dies--after years and years and years!--it cannot be dropped in the trash like an incandescent; it must be recycled by specially equipped recycling facilities. CFLs contain mercury. If one breaks in your home, Kazman says, EPA guidelines suggest you open windows and leave the room for at least a quarter of an hour before trying to clean up the mess. And for God's sakes don't use a vacuum, which could disperse the poison into the air. Even when they're intact, U.S. News happily tells us, "the bulbs must be handled with caution. Using a drop cloth might be a good new routine to develop when screwing in a light bulb."
The mind reels at the joke-like possibilities: How many Bush administration officials does it take to screw in a CFL? As many as it takes to screw American consumers! But the Bushies aren't the half of it. In creating the ban, Bush and his environmentalist allies were joined by Philips Lighting, which is--you should probably sit down--the world's foremost manufacturer of CFLs. The phased-in ban will position Philips to crowd from the market any troublesome competitors. It's a perfect confluence of interests: the Big Environmental Lobby, Big Business, and Big Government Conservatives.
But back to the screwees--those American consumers, also known, not so long ago, as the citizens of the United States, a free people, rulers of the world's proudest self-governing nation. Will there be protests of some kind, expressions of disgust at least? And what if there aren't? What if, as the ban slowly tightens, we hear nothing, not a howl, not a peep, just a long mellow moo? Then maybe it really will be time to turn out the lights.
Andrew Ferguson is a senior editor at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
© Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
honor killings
so pathetic those a-rabs and their honor.
the sad fact is they have none(honor that is), they kill their women for no reason at all.
can we as westerners start reciprocating on our honor?
I mean never turn your back on a muslim but face to face, westerners win most of the time.....
,
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/01/islam-killing-o.html
the sad fact is they have none(honor that is), they kill their women for no reason at all.
can we as westerners start reciprocating on our honor?
I mean never turn your back on a muslim but face to face, westerners win most of the time.....
,
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/01/islam-killing-o.html
2008 Pres cliff notes
On the Conservative side from most Conservative to least
1. Thompson or Hunter ( tough call for me)
2. Nobody comes close, next the damaged Republicans.....
3. Rudy, I don't think he will try to cross the NRA, but...
4. Romney, flip flopper, previous anti gun, MACare.....
5. toss up between ick factor on McCain and the Huckster(one is a lib and the other is a lib, can't tell, Huck would be better on guns but McC is better on National defense, both suck on illegal immigration.
Ron Paul finally has some crossover libertarian but his foreign policy/national defense bites.
On the Liberal side from conservative to NON
1. Richardson, only on his 2Amendment stuff
2. Hill/Bill, Obamma, and the Breck girl are all the same, pick a color or gender.
Kuchnnich, etc. whatever.
1. Thompson or Hunter ( tough call for me)
2. Nobody comes close, next the damaged Republicans.....
3. Rudy, I don't think he will try to cross the NRA, but...
4. Romney, flip flopper, previous anti gun, MACare.....
5. toss up between ick factor on McCain and the Huckster(one is a lib and the other is a lib, can't tell, Huck would be better on guns but McC is better on National defense, both suck on illegal immigration.
Ron Paul finally has some crossover libertarian but his foreign policy/national defense bites.
On the Liberal side from conservative to NON
1. Richardson, only on his 2Amendment stuff
2. Hill/Bill, Obamma, and the Breck girl are all the same, pick a color or gender.
Kuchnnich, etc. whatever.
USA Primaries and Cauci
My question is did more dead people vote for Hillary or Obama in New Hampshire on today's primary??
We all know Democrats have the edge on vote fraud, see the lawsuits to prevent ovter ID all accross the USA)
We all know Democrats have the edge on vote fraud, see the lawsuits to prevent ovter ID all accross the USA)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)