My Beauty Best Teacher

Happy Lenin’s Birthday
Is it a coincidence that I'm wishing you this today? I don’t think so. Earth Day arrives on the exact same day as Lenin’s Birthday. One of the very first Earth day celebrations took place exactly on the 100 year anniversary of Comrade Lenin’s birthday. Many former communists saw Earth Day, with its goals and interests, as being very similar to the goals and interests of the great communist Lenin. Does this coincidence convince you that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

Friends of the Earth
The group that founded “Earth Day” was a group called Friends of the Earth. This group also promotes socialism- just as strongly as it does environmentalism. It advocates economic redistribution, government regulation of nearly all aspects of people’s lives, communal land ownership, control of production in the hands of the masses, etc. Its main bogeymen are: “evil” corporations (especially the Fortune 500 companies,) Big Oil, Wall Street, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and (naturally) George Bush. Oh yeah- it also founded Earth Day too. It is not far-fetched to think that by promoting and celebrating Earth Day, perhaps some of the other aims of Friends of the Earth will be advanced. Still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

Symbol of Earth Day
The symbol of the first Earth Day is a circle with a broken cross, with the bars pointing downward. It is a New Age symbol meaning the rejection of Christianity. The goal was to replace the worship of the Christian religion with the worship of Mother Earth. Communist ideology demand you worship the state and not a Christian god, and so communists frequently also attack the church. Earth Day then fits very nicely with the goals of communists. Still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

Motives of Earth Day activists
According to wikipedia, the goal of Earth Day is to push for: Total state control of society, especially businesses and industry (to help the environment, I guess). Recognition of the sacred nature of Mother Earth, including an almost reverent worship of anything ‘green’ (to help the environment, I guess). Using force to change people’s behavior (to help the environment, I guess). Stopping or slowing ‘development’ or ‘progress’, to return to a Utopian world of equality (to help the environment, I guess). These goals are the goals of communists, are they not? Still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

More Evidence: Earthday.net
Here are some of the goals, issues, and beliefs on www.earthday.net, one of the official websites promoting Earth Day: “Join the Revolution”! Pass laws that give more power to the government, in order to ‘stop global warming’. Stop building any new energy producing plants. “Protect the poor and middle class from unfairly bearing the cost of climate crisis” by increasing taxes on the rich and redistributing that money to the poor and middle class. Unite all religions in the name of global warming. Teach children in schools less about rights and more about the environment, and their responsibility to fight poverty. Still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

More Evidence: The Wilderness Society
For teachers, The Wilderness Society (an environmental group) has resources on how to teach about Earth Day. Here are some of them: A coloring book for 3rd graders with the theme of “Stop drilling in ANWR”. A timeline that 7th graders can construct of all the laws that government passed, to see the “progress” of government. Stories to read about ‘environmental heroes’- also (coincidentally) all good revolutionary communists

Bush’s Version of Earth Day
Under Republican President George Bush, the official government version of Earth Day was a bit different. According to the EPA website then, as declared by President Bush, Earth Day was more about: Celebrating the gains we have made in protecting the environment. Achieving meaningful results in protecting the environment. Encouraging volunteer efforts to save energy, reduce or recycle, and educate yourself to be more friendly to the environment. Taking pride in America by maintaining our public lands

Obama’s Version of Earth Day
Under Democrat President Barack Obama, the official government version of Earth Day though looks very much like Lenin’s birthday. According to the EPA website now, according to President Obama, Earth Day is about: Learning about environmental justice, which is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Earth Day is about lobbying your local school to spend less time teaching reading and math and more time teaching environmental protection. Most importantly, Earth Day is about engaging in celebrations and festivals of worship on this most holy of days.

Earth Day: A Communist Plot
So, today when the news runs story after story about Earth Day, when teachers encourage you to ‘celebrate’ Earth Day, when google and yahoo ‘go green’, you can now respond back by saying-

“Happy Earth Day too, comrade”.

Happy Lenin’s Birthday! Oh, is it just a coincidence that Earth Day is the same day as former Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin's birthday? I don’t think so. Earth Day arrives on the exact same day as Lenin’s Birthday. In fact, the very first Earth day celebrations took place exactly on the 100 year anniversary of Comrade Lenin’s birthday. Many former communists saw Earth Day, with its goals and interests, as being very similar to the goals and interests of the great communist Lenin. So, are you convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot, or do you need more evidence?

The group that founded Earth Day was a group called Friends of the Earth. This group also promotes socialism- just as strongly as it does environmentalism. Some of its stated goals are economic redistribution of wealth, government regulation of nearly all aspects of peoples' lives, communal land ownership, and control of production in the hands of the masses. According to its website, its main bogeymen are: “evil” corporations (especially the Fortune 500 companies,) Big Oil, Wall Street, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and (naturally) George Bush. It is not far-fetched to think that by promoting and celebrating Earth Day, perhaps some of the other aims of Friends of the Earth will be advanced. Still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

The symbol of the first Earth Day is a circle with a broken cross, with the bars pointing downward. It is a New Age symbol meaning the rejection of Christianity. The goal was to replace the worship of the Christian religion with the worship of Mother Earth. Communist ideology demand you worship the state and not a Christian god, and so communists frequently also attack the church. Still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

According to some, the goal of Earth Day is to push for: Total state control of society, especially businesses and industry (to help the environment, I guess), recognition of the sacred nature of Mother Earth, including an almost reverent worship of anything ‘green’ (to help the environment, I guess), the use of force to change people’s behavior (to help the environment, I guess), and stopping or slowing ‘development’ or ‘progress’, to return to a utopian world of equality (to help the environment, I guess). Sounds pretty communist to me- and not the version of communism that naive college students practice- no, this stuff is right out of the Soviet Union. But you say you are still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

Here are some of the goals, issues, and beliefs on http://www.earthday.net/- the official Earth Day website. Those who most support Earth Day want you to “Join the Revolution” and pass laws that give more power to the government in order to ‘stop global warming’, stop building any new energy producing plants of any kind, and “Protect the poor and middle class from unfairly bearing the cost of climate crisis” by increasing taxes on the rich and redistributing that money to the poor and middle class. Also you are encouraged to unite all religions in the name of global warming and teach children in schools less about rights and more about the environment. Somehow fighting poverty is also central to Earth Day. You're still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? You're kidding me! You need more evidence?

As a teacher, I looked for resources out there for teachers to teach about Earth Day. One of the first searches turned up a group called The Wilderness Society. Here are some of the resources that they provide to teachers and that teachers use in the classroom to teach about Earth Day- they provide a coloring book for 3rd graders with the theme of “Stop drilling in ANWR”, a timeline that 7th graders can construct of all the laws controlling society and business that government passed to see the “progress” of government in 'fighting' global warming, and they publish stories to read about ‘environmental heroes’- also (coincidentally) all good revolutionary communists- that 10th grade English classes can read. Sounds pretty communist to me!

Of course, the official government version of Earth Day is a bit different. According to the EPA website (under President Bush), Earth Day was more about celebrating the gains we have made in protecting the environment, achieving meaningful results in protecting the environment, encouraging volunteer efforts to save energy, reduce or recycle, and educate yourself to be more friendly to the environment, and taking pride in America by maintaining our public lands. This is the official version, and what most people think they are observing. But that's like saying that Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus and is all about Santa- you can't separate Earth Day from its founding and biggest promoters, and all of those clearly are communicating that Earth Day is a big communist plot, and don't kid yourself otherwise.

Oh, I just took a peak over at the new EPA website, where there is a video from a speech by Obama's choice for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, in which she promises to have the government seize control over production and private business in our nation in order to build a more fair and equal centrally planned green economy. Apparently she wants to make Earth Day into Earth Month, and then Earth Year, and then you can spend every waking moment worshipping the state and giving all of the political and economic power to the state in order to 'protect the Earth.' What a watermelon- green on the outside, but red in the middle! Looks like Obama is unaware that Earth Day is a communist plot- or is he?

Happy Lenin's Birthday everyone!

Comrades- Happy Lenin’s Birthday and a Happy Earth Day too!

Today is April 22nd, and not only is it Earth Day, it is also Vladimir Lenin's birthday. Is it just a coincidence? I don’t think so- Earth Day is supposed to be celebrated on the exact same day as Lenin’s Birthday because the holiday is just one big stinking communist plot! Oh, I know what you're thinking- it's just a pure coincidence and you're just some sort of paranoid right-wing nut- but you see comrade, I've done a little additional research over the years, and the fact that Lenin's birthday and Earth Day are the same day isn't my only piece of evidence that it is just a communist plot.

One of the very first Earth day celebrations took place in 1970- which also happens to be the 100 year anniversary of Comrade Lenin’s birthday (born in 1870). Many former communists saw Earth Day, with its goals and interests, as being very similar to the goals and interests of the great communist Lenin.

The group that founded “Earth Day” was a group called Friends of the Earth. When I last checked their website, I noticed something interesting- in addition to promoting Earth day, this group also promotes communism! Of course there are the usual environmental stuff on the website, but mixed in are calls for redistribution of wealth, government regulation of nearly all aspects of people’s lives, communal land ownership, and control of production in the hands of the masses, etc. The Friends of the Earth don't like people who hurt Mother Earth, but they also don't like “evil” corporations, Big Oil, Wall Street, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and resisting 'corporate domination of the masses'. Oh yeah- and Earth Day too- the communism almost overwhelmed the message of 'Earth Day'. Convinced yet that Earth Day is a communist plot? I've got more evidence!

The symbol of the very first Earth Day was a circle with a broken cross, with the bars pointing downward. It is a New Age symbol meaning the rejection of Christianity. The goal was to replace the worship of the Christian religion with the worship of Mother Earth- and the protector of Mother Earth is an all powerful government the controls industry and the means of production for the good of the workers. First you reject the Christian god and then you worship the state, much like communism demands.

According to the wikipedia entry on Earth Day from last year, the goal of Earth Day is to push for: Total state control of society (especially businesses and industry), the recognition of the sacred nature of Mother Earth (including the worship of ‘green’), supporting the use of force to change people’s behaviors (to help the environment, I guess), and stopping or slowing ‘development’ or ‘progress’ to return to a Utopian world of equality. I know what you're thinking now- wikipedia isn't a reliable source- if only there was a more authentic earth day website... well there is!

Over at www.earthday.net, we can read about the goals, issues, and beliefs of Earth Day- and it should not be a shock that they are all communist! When you go to the website, it encourages you to “Join the Revolution” and work to pass laws that give more power to the government (in order to ‘stop global warming’). My favorite line is when the website encourages you on this Earth Day to work towards “protecting the poor and middle class from unfairly bearing the cost of climate crisis” by increasing taxes on the rich and redistributing that money to the poor and middle class. Schools are encouraged on Earth Day to develop lesson plans that teach children about their responsibility to fight poverty.

Speaking of teachers, many of them may want to prepare lesson plans for Earth Day, and a search of the internet points you to the biggest resource for lessons on Earth Day- a site sponsored by The Wilderness Society. They have all sorts of resources. Although a coloring book for 3rd graders with the theme of “Stop drilling in ANWR” is pretty environmental, they also have a pretty communist timeline activity on there where 7th graders can construct a timeline of all the laws that government has passed in the US to control choices and freedom and crush liberty. My favorite resources though are for Reading classes- they have a number of fun stories to read about ‘environmental heroes’- who all also (coincidentally) are all good revolutionary communists. My case should be pretty solid by now, and I can't imagine that anyone still thinks Earth Day is anything other than a communist plot, but if you still doubt, I've got even more to convince you!

The high priest of Earth Day is likely to be Democratic-nominee for President in 2000 Al Gore. In his book "Earth in the Balance" he called for "a wrenching transformation of society" to achieve his goal of total centralized government control over society. He says that "adopting a central organizing principle... means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action... to use, in short, every means to halt... the destruction of the environment." I'm pretty sure Lenin would have agreed with him and then patted him on the back for finding a way to bring communism to the masses in the guise of fighting for 'the environment.'

We all know how much communists hated George W Bush and his policies, so whatever his version of Earth Day was is clearly not what Earth Day is really about. Under Republican President George Bush, the official government version of Earth Day (according to the EPA website then) was more about celebrating the gains we have made in protecting the environment, achieving meaningful results in protecting the environment, encouraging volunteer efforts to save energy or reduce/recycle, and taking pride in America by maintaining our public lands. Communists and their progressive and liberal friends though hated Bush and his policies though, because they knew that this isn't what Earth Day is about- Earth Day is one big communist plot and Bush should have promoted communism more so than helping the environment.

Under Democrat President Barack Obama though, America returns to the true message of Earth Day by bringing it back into line with the communist vision. According to the EPA website, Earth Day is mainly about learning about environmental justice, which is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies- and if you don't know what the means, it is all just code for 'government control of the means of production'. Obama's Earth Day is about lobbying your local school to spend less time teaching reading and math and more time teaching about how the government should control more industries in the name of environmental protection. And most importantly, Earth Day is about engaging in celebrations and festivals designed to do nothing to help the environment but instead designed to teach you to how to worship the state and its statist holidays.

Some of you may be convinced by now that Earth Day might have been a communist plot and might have a lot of communists supporting it for their communist reasons, but you are different and are celebrating it in a different way for your own reasons. You are what they call a dupe, a tool, a useful idiot, because although you may think you are advancing the cause of green on this day, in reality you are advancing the cause of red. So don't be a watermelon- wise up and reject Earth Day, or when the news runs story after story about Earth Day, when teachers encourage you to ‘celebrate’ Earth Day, when google and yahoo ‘go green’, accept the reality of the situation by responding-

“Happy Earth Day too, comrade”.

Over and over liberals and progressives argue that the recovery of the US economy is being held back by the lack of investment by those in society with money- and they are right. There is a lot of money being sat on in our nation right now- record amounts which are just being held rather than invested, and this is a large reason why the US economy has not recovered.

Liberals and progressives believe that the reason why businesses and individuals are sitting on massive amounts of money range from racism to a desire for Obama to fail to greed to selfishness to a desire to just swim in their loot and not use it. When they talk about these rich people and profitable businesses sitting on their money they are angry, because they want to use the power and force of the government to make them invest the money. They don't understand what motivates these people and businesses, and it frustrates them, so they attribute their behaviors to irrational or evil motives.

But the truth of the matter is that the reason why individuals and businesses are sitting on cash rather than investing it is because of the policies, positions, rhetoric, beliefs, and desires of liberals and progressives. Progressives and liberals have created an environment of fear and uncertainty, and few are willing to invest in an environment such as that.

Under Obama and the modern-day Democratic Party, regulations and rules and barriers to profitability are being forced on businesses, costs of engaging in business is increasing with new mandates such as Obamacare, taxes are continually talked about increasing (even if they haven't really yet in reality) and every speech by every major politician in the Democratic Party promises to go after the very people who have money, profits are attacked and those who make profits are increasingly viewed as people to exploit and whose wealth the government should take, free trade is hurt by lack of free trade agreements and union kickbacks and increased tariffs and an overall hostile environment to free trade, and individuals are reluctant to engage in investing when the government is picking and choosing the leaders and has demonstrated contempt for well-established bankruptcy laws designed to protect investors (GM bailout).

It will not be until President Obama and the liberals and progressives who have achieved influence and positions of power in his administration are gone that the US economy will recover and businesses will begin to invest again. Even if the moderates and liberals who once were in control of the Democratic Party were in office, perhaps under a President Clinton, then our nation would be growing again and people would have jobs- but there is no moderate or Clinton on the ballot for the Democrats, only a progressive Obama at the top of the ticket who intends to double-down on his policies, especially when he will be a lame duck if he wins re-election and no longer have to worry about putting in place policies that get America back to work.

Do not forget either that Democrats in Congress supported President Obama's policies and put them into legislation and passed them, usually with no bipartisan support and a great many of which were strongly opposed by large numbers of Americans. They had an option to oppose the President, to moderate his policies, and to attempt to reach out for bipartisan consensus to create an environment more friendly to businesses and more encouraging to investors. But they didn't- in many cases, radicals like Pelosi and Reid led the charge to create more fear and uncertainty in doing business and investing in America, and for that they need to go.

Republicans should be the ones to benefit from the suicidal march of the Democratic Party in recent years, not because they necessarily are putting for brilliant ideas and are the best party in the world, but because under a Perry or Romney with a GOP House and Senate at least businesses will not be afraid any more, will feel like they can once again invest and make profits and provide jobs, and not be considered evil or wrong because of this success.

For more information, check out the post on Carpe Diem called We've Got a Sub-Par Recovery Because of Weak Investment Spending, Consumption Has Recovered.

The good thing about having a record is being able to run on it, and I have a track record of posts on my blog that make Obama pretty jealous. In November of 2008 I pointed to an interview that Obama gave where he said that as part of his 'green energy' policies he intended to use the power of the federal government to bankrupt all coal producers in the United States. As I quite accurately wrote:

Obama is telling anyone that uses any energy at all that he intends to drive up the price of it. Combine this with his anti-drilling stances for oil, and get used to an economy that is starved for energy- high inflation, low growth, unemployment, and bad times.

This recession is not 'Bush's fault'- it is the result of government policies that Obama put in place that have led to a rise in prices for energy, and when it becomes more expensive to produce energy, the result is as predicted. As I wrote in Democrats Energy Policies Continue their Assault on Wealth and Jobs:

Our economy is struggling for a reason- Democrats and their policies are crushing human liberty and freedom, attacking wealth and wealth creation, freezing in social and economic structures, limiting mobility and change, and disincentivizing economic growth. Their policies are quite clear- these energy policies are a great example of how Democrats are increasing 'safety' or 'environmental' regulations that will drive US companies under, kill jobs, and drive business to other nations which have lower standards (thereby causing more harm to people or the environment), resulting in a net loss for society and America. Similar policies are found in healthcare, defense, education, etc.

This is not just fun and games people- these are real policies being put in place by real people that are having real job-killing and wealth-destroying effects. Democrats might want to run next election by churning out negative attacks and finding the one bad thing that their opponent did in the past, but that's just a side-show to distract you from the real results of their policies.

And the energy policies of the Democrats in the House, Senate, and Presidency are bad policies. They are not resulting in any sort of 'safer' environment. The man-made caused global warming that was going to destroy the world in the near future has been proven to be an utter myth promoted by corrupt scientists and 'green energy' producers who both live on kick-backs from the government. And it appears that under Obama and the Democrats administration, oil spills and mining disasters are getting more common and having worse effects. This isn't a shock- being safe is more about kicking back money to the right people now and much less about everyone following the law. And there attempts to kill coal production and mining in the United States just means that an unsupervised and unregulated communist China will produce and mine for more coal, doing far more damage to the environment than if it was done in the United States.

And the negatives of the energy policies of the Democrats in the House, Senate, and Presidency are becoming more obvious. The latest example of their bad policies is the latest rules that the EPA has put out on 'pollution' and energy production. These rules are draconian in nature and by design are supposed to be as unfriendly to energy and business as possible- the exact opposite of flexible and smart policies that allow businesses to thrive in a creative and business-friendly environment.

These new EPA rules are designed to choke job creation, especially in rural areas and states that produce coal, but these states don't vote Democrat and don't give the Democrats lots of wealth, so they think it is okay to hammer those states and punish them for their sense of liberty and freedom and equality.

These new EPA policies are also designed to ensure that consumers are stricken with higher utility bills. Oh, your Al Gores and John Kerry's and John Edwards and Barack Obama's will be able to pay those higher utility bills, but the middle class will be hard hit by these policies and driven into poverty and become a serf to the government system.

Coal plants will soon be forced to install new scrubber equipment that provides marginal improvement in air quality at tremendous expense. Producers of this new scrubber equipment will benefit and thousands of unionized bureaucrats who will be hired to ensure that these new standards are met will benefit, but the quality of air will see little improvement and the costs associated with installing and running these new energy-eating scrubbers will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher costs, or the company will absorb the costs by delaying investments in improvements in technology or safety, or the company will be forced to become more efficient by laying off many workers and employing more automation (they'll also save money by laying off workers because they won't have to pay the ever increasing costs of employing people that Obama and the Democrats are piling on). Or the company will go out of business.

The Washington Post reports that electric bills will jump 12 percent nationally by 2016 to comply with these new policies that the Democrats are putting in place, with residents in areas such as Kentucky and Tennessee seeing a 24 percent increase in their utility bills. These policies are project to eliminate 1.4 million jobs, and those people will no longer be paying taxes any more and will now be sucking down government benefits, all thanks to these policies pushed by Democratic bureaucrats employed by a Democratic President supervised by Democrats in the House and the Senate and supported by Democratic unions and a Democratic media. They are responsible for these bad policies- these aren't Republican or conservative or Bush or tea-party policies that are killing jobs and destroying the middle-class- they are Democratic policies.

When a party pushes for policies that achieve little good at the cost of a great number of negatives, it doesn't matter how much spinning they do and it really doesn't matter how good or bad the individual candidates are who they are running against- that party needs to be thrown out of power until they learn just how much damage their policies do to the life, liberty, and property of the great people of the United States of America.

A friend of mine does some work for the Michigan Department of Education, and he let me know what some of the questions on the Michigan Merit Exam (MME) are about. Now, I'm not going to tell you what the questions actually ask or what standard or information is being tested, but I think it's okay to tell you the general liberal thrust of the questions that your taxpayer money is paid to write.

There are several questions about why Wal-Mart is bad written in the guise of economics questions. The questions pretend to ask questions about economic principles that students are supposed to learn, but the correct answer to every question is 'Wal-Mart is evil.' Since students are usually taught this instead of economics principles, I guess it's okay for them, but I think that these types of questions are wrong to put on this state-mandated test. Besides, Wal-Mart isn't as bad as it is made out- see my earlier post Undercover at Wal-Mart.

It's surprising how economic questions rarely ask about supply and demand, and yet there are several questions on saving gas and helping the environment disguised as 'supply and demand' questions. Seriously, the correct answer to several questions on the MME test is 'save the environment, drive green cars, save gas, and vote Democrat' (okay, I added that last part). Although saving gas might be good for the environment, are these concepts really fundamental to education in Michigan? Never mind, they probably are- my students can repeat the liturgy of global warming to me, but know few economic concepts.

Oh, and for those of you who believe in a religion other than global warming- according to the state-mandated, taxpayer funded MME test, you are a barrier to progress. Yes, several questions on world history can be answered with the correct answer of 'church is barrier to progress.' I guess that's not exactly wrong- conservative values have been standing in the way of Progressivism for many years, fighting to make sure that the values of men are protected and respected and we don't progress to a tyrannical inhuman society. Still, I hope students aren't being taught that the church is bad- I know schools have interpreted the 1st amendment to mean they can't talk about religion, but I hope they haven't interpreted the 1st amendment to mean that they can't talk about religion in a good way.

Just thought some of you would be interested in what the state is producing. Imagine all the great things it will produce now that it has forcibly appropriated massive amounts of your property in the form of a 'stimulus bill.'

Until 1980, the United States was the world's leading producer of uranium, but today there are only three operating uranium mines left. This may have been due to the fall in uranium prices, which hit a low of $7.92 per pound in 2001. But with the price climbing to over $50 today, there is renewed interest in mining uranium, which is essential to powering nuclear power plants and important for national security- and it gets even better, because there are still considerable deposits of uranium in the United States, including fairly large deposits that were discovered in northern Arizona over recent years.

Uranium mining leads to cheaper nuclear power which leads to cleaner domestic energy production and a better environment- its just the sort of win-win-win scenario that only someone like Barack Obama could reject.

Via RadioViceOnline:

Last week, without much media attention, President Obama, this time via Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, put the nix on certain uranium mining on federal lands in northern Arizona. Sadly, this too, is political pandering, as, apparently nuclear power is as toxic to the left as is coal and oil power. And, per this fiat, the land in question is off limits to uranium mining for the next 20 years.

Let’s look at the process. The Bureau of Land Management is in charge of analyzing whether uranium mining is good or bad for the environment in this area. It found that the

mining would have ‘no direct impacts’ on protected wilderness areas. The impact on drinking-water supply in the Colorado River was also found to be ‘negligible’... The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the northern Arizona parcels [withdrawn from mining] contain uranium that, mined to capacity, would generate enough electricity to power Los Angeles for 154 years.... [t]he land bureau’s impact statement estimates that [the administration's decision] will cost the region $160 million in average annual economic output…

Northern Arizona currently has an unemployment rate of 17%. But, then again, Arizona in general, and northern Arizona in particular, is “red”. Let me suggest an ugly Presidential thought- "I’m not going to win Arizona anyway, so, it makes more sense to appease the left and perhaps pick up some votes."

One of the earlier actions undertaken by the Obama administration was to put in place bans on mining for a range of precious resources. It was bans such as these that have delayed the recovery in our nation and led to tens of thousands of Americans losing their homes and jobs- and even if the economy revives over the next couple months that does not take away from the fact that policy actions such as bans on mining hurt Americans lives, liberty, and property.

One such ban was a ban on mining for uranium in northern Arizona, which was originally put in place for 2 years so that officials could study the situation further. Obama officials were hoping that their meme that energy mining was destructive and bad and wrong would be proved true and so they could stop mining permanently, but then when the report came back that the mining wasn't in any way bad, they just shrugged their shoulders and banned it anyways.

And the cherry on to- President Obama then has the audacity to argue that they did this to SAVE JOBS and ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC GROWTH, and that now he is going to campaign on this theme- that by stopping the extracting of valuable resources he actually made our nation more wealthy; that by stopping thousands from being employed to extract these minerals he created more jobs; and that he has protected the environment even though the environmental impact from the mining was declared to be 'negligible' by liberal bureaucratic agencies which were likely pressured by Obama administration officials.

This double-speak, hypocrisy, and lying is characteristic of this administration, and the quicker it is gone, the quicker its actions can be reversed, we can begin to safely and responsibly mine valuable minerals, produce cheaper domestic energy, lower the costs of electricity for poor people, and help the working man to get ahead.

As theblogprof points out, at the end of pretty much every single episode of Scooby Doo, the bad ghost/ghoul/monster that was trying to scare everyone away from the truth is unmasked as a fraud for all to see, only to say "I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those darned kids." From the beginning, this was my theory on the whole global warming issue, and it looks like those darned bloggers and Freedom of Information acts have unmasked the ghost of global warming and revealed it for the fraud that it is.

The 'Global Warming Issue' was built on several bad premises. First is that the globe is warming. Contrary to Al Gore telling me it is, the data is not conclusive that the Earth is warming at all- we had a warm 1990's, but the data is not clear that this decade was all that warm. In order to persuade people that the Earth indeed is warming, data has been doctored, cherry-picked, and massaged to produce some sort of result that does show that the Earth is warming. But since Earth is emerging from a recent Little Ice Age, I would not be terribly shocked if eventually trends would indeed show that we are warming up.

The next part of the Issue is that this warming trend will continue in one direction, and will also accelerate and we'll get warmer and warmer and then turn into Venus. It is a nice theory, and to back it up, they've relied on computer modeling that can't even predict tomorrows weather accurately, and the computer models themselves have used doctored data and illogical calculations to produce this run-away-global-warming model. It is at this point that I become an unbeliever, since I don't see any possibility of run-away global warming, rather I see a billions of year trend of warming and cooling and the Earth being mightier than us puny humans.

The next part of the Issue is that this global warming is man-made. As evidence of this, 'scientists' break out their theories and show some stuff working in some labs. But just because I have a theory that I can pull a coin out of your ear and do it once doesn't mean that everyone everywhere has coins falling out of their ears. In reality, humans impact on the environment, especially the global temperatures, is very limited. A volcano going off does more to impact the globe than you driving your SUV, and thus the ultimate cause of any warming is natural, not man-made. That's not to say that you shouldn't be mindful of your environment, but the proper approach is the exact opposite of what Global Warming Believers want, and the proper approach is increased private property rights and less tragedies of the commons.

There are people out there though who Believe- they hate God and attack anyone who believes in him, but they worship at the alter of the Green God and believe in man-made run-away global warming in spite of the lack of evidence, the faulty data, and the bad premises. They then advance to the next stage, which is that this man-made global warming is very very bad and a bigger threat to everyone's life than war, poverty, hunger, or any other really bad issue. If the globe warms than bad stuff will occur- you name it, global warming believers believe that it will happen. In reality what might happen is a better growing environment for many crops and expanding food supply, warmer weather demanding less energy to heat homes and businesses, and a generally spring-like feel to the world. Global warming actually might be good for everyone, if you can get over the fact that polar bears might have to migrate farther north (oh, the horror!).

Yes, the global warming myth is increasingly being proved to be just that- a myth. And those who fight the most to keep this myth in place are in reality those who are benefiting from the myth- Al Gore has made millions on peddling this myth, makers of wind turbines and solar panels have made millions more, and most government bureaucrats and corruption agents are out there peddling the myth while making money off of it. So be one of those darned kids, and expose the myth, and laugh at anyone who tries to sell it to you, because in the end, like at the end of most Scooby Doo cartoons, the whole thing is only worth one big laugh.

“When I was a kid, green to me was the color of one of my crayons." So says Debbie Dunn, who now runs a project to make kids see green not as a favorite color, but as a religion to worship. Look, I like the environment- I was a Boy Scout, I don't litter, I support efficient use of materials and little waste, and I go hiking and fishing and stuff. But as a teacher, who has an aggressive curriculum to teach, I get very pissed off at hearing how my tax money is being used to bribe teachers to instead preach the green religion at innocent students.

The Oakland Press has a glowing story about this called Oakland County schools reap awards for green activities in today's paper. The story is about schools in Oakland County that have adopted a 'green' curriculum and now have their students work on various 'green' projects and compete in a competition, where high priests judge the merits and worth of the sacrifices of young brainwashed students.

Students at Clarkston’s Sashabaw Middle School raised salmon in a tank of water as part of their ‘green’ activities geared to save the planet. They didn't eat the salmon- they just raised them in a sterile environment, tapped on the glass a lot, used up water and food and time and energy on it, and then tossed the fish out when it died and patted themselves on their backs over how 'green' they were.

Youngsters at Harlan Elementary in Birmingham wrote letters to government officials to protest excessive and wasteful packaging of toys, and this made them second-place winner in the competition. They were told what to write by their teachers and provided with one-sided information lacking in critical thinking, and then the teachers dictated letters to the impressionable youths who dutifully wrote them out, signed their name to them, and now can feel good about being 'green.'

One activity that Oakland Schools Superintendent Vicki Markavitch was particularly proud of was the organizing of power police teams. “There is nothing more passionate than a team of 10-year-old power police,” said Markavitch, who was excited about young kids being taught how to organize themselves in groups and then demand that other people turn off lights or turn off equipment, even though they don't own that equipment or run those facilities. Nothing like breeding 'green' thugs at a nice young age.

Maybe it's just me, but looking at the pictures from the event, I'm a little uneasy about all the crazy eyes the adults have. I mean, it's cool to be passionate about the environment and saving trees and clean water and all that, but it's almost like they are preaching a religion or something.

In response to the WaPo Saturday story "DC Schools Chief Makes Times Magazine Cover" it is interesting to note that most readers do not favor Rhee's education reform strategies and recent appearance on the cover of Time. Twelve on line posters gave Rhee a thumbs down. This seems to be dramatic shift in public opinion against Rhee as evidenced by not only these posts but other on line comments as well. I have posted a number of the noteworthy ones.(Posted by The Washington Teacher).

One of the cornerstones of modern-day conservatism is the belief that America's energy resources can and should be responsibly exploited. This means that the United States should allow private companies to drill for oil, mine coal, build nuclear power plants, tap into natural gas reserves, get shale oil, and utilize whatever other energy resources that these companies wish to use, provided that they respect the property rights of others.

Oh, I know what liberals and left-wingers will say- the horror of pollution! But the faults of energy development do not lie with the companies themselves, but rather with the government for not establishing clear and defined property rights- for example, rather than having the government act as police to safeguard public water, the water rights should be more clearly defined and if companies destroy or harm the property (the water) of others, they should be forced to pay in a court, much as if they destroyed other private property. The faults with 'pollution' then lie not in the companies for breaking ever expanding government rules and regulations over ever expanding public lands, but for the government for not putting in place limited and clear rules regarding private property rights and then divesting itself of public lands by selling these lands off to private entities that can then do a better job of protecting. Like most problems in our society, the solution is less government, not more.

With the main liberal concern out of the way, our nation would be free to exploit and use its vast resources- enough oil for 30 years, enough natural gas for 575 years, enough coal for 500 years, etc. With oil, gas, and coal be utilized to its fullest extent, our nation will have cheap and plentiful energy, enabling it to develop some of the most amazingly energy intensive industries there are- 'renewable resources'. The horse needs to go before the cart here- we  need to have cheap and plentiful energy in order to build the energy intensive operations and industries like building solar panels, developing batteries, building geothermal plants, etc. A wealthy, productive society thriving on cheap energy can afford to become environmentally friendly, as opposed to a cheap, declining society that the liberals and Democrats appear to be pushing us towards with their anti-energy policies.

In a free market, one in which the government is not subsidizing any of the industries (and this includes cutting subsidies for oil and gas and coal), the most efficient energy resources will be developed in an environment that encourages private property ownership and protection. American can be great again, if it moves away from the liberal model of public ownership of lands and public protection of the environment with restrictive regulations and rules and taxes on energy production combined with subsidies for 'favored' industries and campaign donors. It can be great again if it moves towards a more conservative model of private ownership of lands and private protection through impartial courts of the environment, with few restrictions and regulations and subsidies on energy production, encouraging the most efficient producers and users of energy in a free market.

Via Powerlineblog's post AMERICA’S VAST ENERGY RESOURCES I read this quote from the Institute for Energy Research. IER describes the problem (and the opportunity) bluntly:

Access to affordable, abundant energy is, fundamentally, a means of freedom. But for those seeking to create a crisis that provides an opportunity to direct the way we live, work and act, affordable, reliable, abundant, domestic energy is a threat. In a very real sense, the more energy we have, the less power they will have. Energy abundance ends the justification for central energy decision-making.

As it turns out, many of the problems of energy scarcity and rising costs in the United States have been caused by the government itself. In 2004, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a report that outlined many of the policy and regulatory constraints that impact domestic energy production. While the report focused on natural gas specifically, many of the laws and procedures also represent roadblocks to any form of safe and responsible energy production. The list of energy barriers included the following policies, all of which can limit access to U.S. resources, increase delays related to exploration and production, and/or increase costs of development:

(John from Powerlineblog)The list of statutes and other legal impediments that follows is three pages long. Only liberal politicians stand between the American people and development of our vast energy resources.

Liberals, including those who have seized control of the modern-day Democratic Party, often talk fondly about China and its economic model. But what they fail to recognize about the economic model employed by China is  that it is inherently unsustainable because of its current methods of energy generation. Oh, I know many watermelons (people who pretend to care about the environment just to advance their statist communist desires) like to talk about China's wind power, nuclear power, solar power, or hydro-electric power, but in reality, the majority of China's energy production comes from coal.

Energy production from coal production does not have to be environmentally damaging or harmful to those who work in the industry. In nations like the United States, where there are clear property rights and freedom of labor, workers are treated better, the environment is better protected, and businesses are free to produce as much coal safely as possible in order to maximize profits. For example, there are only about 30 people killed per year in coal mining in the United States, and the United States has embraced clean coal technology which does a much better job of controlling emissions. The United States has made the difficult transition from energy generation to sustainable energy generation, and only needs to continue and expand its efforts in oil drilling, coal mining, and nuclear technology in order to become the cleanest and safest energy producer in the world.

Sadly, environmentalists in America have a different agenda. In their noble desire to make the world a better place, they are putting in place policies in America which force it and other nations to obtain energy from nations around the world that are producing energy in destructive, deadly ways. Rather than encouraging the expansion of safe, natural, and efficient methods of energy generation such as oil, coal, and nuclear, they are forcing America and nations that could be buying energy from America to turn to nations like China for energy generation and resources. And the end result of these environmentalists policies is a world that is less safe, less secure, and were more people die.

China currently generates around two thirds of its electricity from coal-fired power stations, and is the process of dramatically expanding its coal-fired capacity in recent years with the introduction of 562 new coal-fired plants- in fact, an average of two new plants were being opened every week. China uses this coal-production to satisfy its own energy needs and also export energy to other nations.

To sustain it economic growth and growing energy needs through coal power, China is paying a heavy price. Thousands of people die every year in coal pits, premature deaths due to indoor air pollution is at 420,000 per year, deaths due to outdoor air pollution is estimated at around 300,000 deaths per year, and rural populations in particular are suffering from a range of diseases related to coal production, including arsenic poisoning, skeletal fluorosis (over 10 million people afflicted in China), esophageal and lung cancers, and selenium poisoning. A report by the World Bank in cooperation with the Chinese government found that about 750,000 people die prematurely in China each year from air pollution.

China's economic model, which people like the head of the SEIU say should be the future of the United States, is unsustainable and killing its own people. It's model emphasizes state control of people and businesses and the de-humanizing of both. It is a model which stands in marked contrast to the economic model of the historical United States, a model which emphasizes little state control, more liberty given to people to make free economic choices, and strong individual and business property rights, and is a model that embraces the humanity of life. We can see the difference in the two models when we look at China's coal mining industry and electric power generation, and see the difference in the contrasting visions.

Elections have consequences- in the coming elections for US President, Senator, Representative, or even at the local level, ask yourself whether the candidate you support has a vision of the future that pushes for more state control over people's lives or less state control. Those who push for more state control will boast of the economic growth in nations like China- while ignoring the enormous cost in terms of human life and damage to the environment. Those who push for less state control over people's lives will point to the United States, which in contrast to those with state control have much better records on life, liberty, and wealth creation- although not perfect, because man is not perfect.

And for readers of my blog around the world, this applies to you as well- although China's economy is growing, there is a real cost to humanity for their growth, and in the end its statist economy will collapse like the Soviet Union's did. Only economic models that give more power to people and more freedom to individuals and more rights to businesses and corporations and individuals are successful in creating wealth in a sustainable manner while protecting life and liberty. You have a real choice to make in your nation too- state control for short term unequally distributed wealth, or less state control for longer term more equal distribution of life, liberty, and property.

For those who are interested in reading more about China and its coal production methods and coal-powered economy, I suggest you check out an article called China’s Dark Power.

According to the AP story, Michigan's Upper Peninsula is 'dying.' The reason for its death is not competition from international companies that are driving businesses out of the region; the reason for its demise is not greedy industrialists who are seeking too many profits; the reason that the UP is on the decline in recent decades is not heartless executives who are married to capitalism- rather, the reason for the death of Michigan's Upper Peninsula communities and economy is liberalism.

Buried in the story there are two lines that jump out to me:

Some hope for a revival of the mining industry that created prosperity a century and more ago. A nickel mine is under construction in Marquette County but has drawn protests and lawsuits from environmentalists.

Logging remains a key employer but has suffered from mill closures and soaring business costs.

Democrats and liberals attack choice and freedom and property rights, instead putting 'government' and 'the environment' ahead of them, and when you put faceless empty entities ahead of people, people lose.

Environmentalists are attacking the building of a legitimate business- a nickel mine- and they are given power and authority and leverage by their friends and allies in government, Democrats. In addition, the 'soaring business costs' that is driving the logging business under is also environmentalists, who are filing lawsuits and protesting such that costs are skyrocketing in this industry as well.

Although these environmentalists think they are doing good- they believe they are protecting innocent trees and preserving wild areas and stopping pollution- the reality is that they are doing more harm than that, driving businesses under, depriving the good people of the UP of quality jobs or a quality standard of living, while driving businesses to seek out the lumber and nickel that they need in other nations that utilize far far far more environmentally harmful methods than we use. The result is a damaged society, a damaged economy, and a damaged environment, all thanks to these liberals who empower institutions so to damage individuals.

UPDATE: Readers Early Light hit one out of the ballpark with this comment:

Loggers have a vested interest in protecting and managing forests. Forests are their livelihood. The libs argue that drugs should be legalized, then taxed and regulated, because all we are now doing is driving the industry underground, where it goes unregulated and does more damage. Why don't they apply that logic to firearms, mining, logging?

It is because they don't think for themselves. They take their cue from leaders in their movement who are not about logic, or the environment, or anything other than destroying America. This hatred of Western culture has a history.

For years, the United States has been a leader in the world in economic freedom. Economic freedom is defined as having property rights protected by impartial rule of law, free trade, a sound currency, and a small limited government relative to the size of the economy. My blog supports economic freedom, and the political party that I support also pushes for policies that make economic freedom a reality- no bailouts, no government take-overs, bond holder rights that are respected, low and fair taxes, consistent regulations and rules, a restrained bureaucracy, free trade agreements with Columbia or other nations, no inflating the currency through QE or other Fed schemes, a return to the gold standard, and a limited and small government that does take valuable resources away from the private sector.

Many people oppose these policies- they seek to make the United States less free. The problem with this is that those countries that are less free also are less prosperous. By pushing for stimulus bills, czars, subsidies for green energy, deficit spending, higher taxes, inflating of the currency, or other liberal Democrat policies, our nation becomes less economically free, and the result is higher unemployment, lower income, less happiness, lower life expectancy, less clean environment, and more corruption.

I know, I know- you care about the poor people, you see Bush as a bogeyman, you hate the war in Iraq, you are passionate about the environment- it does not matter why you vote Democrat and why you are a liberal, the result is that you support policies that make our nation less economically free, and thus a lesser nation in so many ways.

This video will help illustrate it for you and you'll see what nations are economically free and which ones aren't- and hopefully this will help you to understand what sort of policies to support in our society and which political party to vote for and which ones not to.

H/T to Orlin for passing this video on to me. Thanks!

What is the purpose of art? I'm not an art history or philosophy major, so I don't really know the answer to that, if there is truly one answer, but I can tell you this- I don't think the purpose of art is to promote the state's interests.

At one time, this was believed to be the purpose of art. Many regimes around the world felt that literature should serve the national interest or it had no inherent right to exist (source). These regimes felt that art should be used by a regime to promote their beliefs. In particular, these regimes felt that posters especially could be used as a way to blatantly present the beliefs of their political party party. These people felt that art should be used to convince the people of the beliefs of the state. The posters this regime wanted created were usually simple and got to the point, and it was intended to target the emotions of the people that looked at it (source).

Enough history. Today, Barack Obama is attempting to promote art that does the same thing. Recently a blogger writing at Big Hollywood was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to take part in a conference call that invited a group of rising artist and art community luminaries “to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda - health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal.”

The call was hosted by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve. The call would include “a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, influencers, marketers, taste-makers, leaders or just plain cool people to join together and work together to promote a more civically engaged America and celebrate how the arts can be used for a positive change!” There were approximately 75 people participating, including many well respected street-artists, filmmakers, art galleries, music venues, musicians and music producers, writers, poets, actors, independent media outlets, marketers, and various other professionals from the creative community.

Backed by the full weight of President Barack Obama’s call to service and the institutional weight of the NEA, the conference call was billed as an opportunity for those in the art community to inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were “health care” and “energy and environment.” The service was to be attached to the President’s United We Serve campaign, a nationwide federal initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans.

We were encouraged to bring the same sense of enthusiasm to these “focus areas” as we had brought to Obama’s presidential campaign, and we were encouraged to create art and art initiatives that brought awareness to these issues. Throughout the conversation, we were reminded of our ability as artists and art professionals to “shape the lives” of those around us. The now famous Obama “Hope” poster, created by artist Shepard Fairey and promoted by many of those on the phone call, and will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” song and music video were presented as shining examples of our group’s clear role in the election.

Obama has a strong arts agenda, we were told, and has been very supportive of both using and supporting the arts in creative ways to talk about the issues facing the country. We were “selected for a reason,” they told us. We had played a key role in the election and now Obama was putting out the call of service to help create change.

The machine that the NEA helped to create could potentially be wielded by the state to push policy. Through providing guidelines to the art community on what topics to discuss and providing them a step-by-step instruction to apply their art form to these issues, the “nation’s largest annual funder of the arts” is attempting to direct imagery, songs, films, and literature that could create the illusion of a national consensus. This is what Noam Chomsky calls “manufacturing consent.”

So, to summarize, our President, through a group called United We Stand, is organizing artists and giving them guidelines on what sort of art to produce. The art will promote the interests of the Democrats and try to persuade voters to support their views. This is propaganda, and as the group was informed, Obama regarded propaganda as very important, perhaps even calling it "a weapon of the first order".

This website has some good ideas on the sort of posters that Obama would like created. Check it out to get a taste of what is to come under an Obama administration. Oh, and if you haven't guessed it yet, you'll have to click on the links to find out what sort of regimes of the past saw art the same way that Obama does.

According to the Detroit News, priests of Mother Earth are pressing Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm to halt the construction of coal-fired power plants, hopefully for good. Even though eight coal-fired plants around the state are in various stages of development, almost the only development in liberal-run Michigan, they wish to use the power of the executive office to make laws that would halt the development.

What is the end goal of these so-called environmentalists? According to Jean Veselenak, a retired Rogers City teacher, coal plants are "a very big risk for our area," and carbon dioxide emissions pose serious health threats. Many environmentalists are critical that Michigan does not regulate carbon dioxide emissions. They want the state to use its power to stop anything that emits carbon dioxide. Right now, these people advocating increased state control say it is just to stop coal plants... but someday in the future, they'll realize that you emit carbon dioxide. And then they'll want to eliminate you.

Yes, this story about coal plants is less about health dangers and making the world a better place. It is more about controlling property. But it won't stop there. Once someone realizes that they have power over your property rights, the next step is to take away your liberty- your freedom to choose. After that, it isn't a big step to take away your life. All in the name of 'protecting the environment.'

But what will be the result on society for the actions of these silly people, and those like Granholm and Obama who indulge their anti-social behavior? Higher electricity prices, which will make it harder for the poor and elderly to heat their homes. Higher prices will cause inflation to erode the savings of the retired and those on fixed incomes. Higher prices will drive businesses out of our state.

Whatever your opinion is on coal plants, and the environment, you have to recognize that the best way to make the world a better place for humans is to allow them to be developed, and not to block them. This is a fiery issue- it speaks to the basic rights of man- life, liberty, and property.

In a recent speech pulitzer prize winner Dele Olojede stated "...Many Nigerians today continue to deny the obvious—that a potentially wide-ranging transformation is under way, needing only their buy-in for the process to gain momentum. It is undeniable that the Obasanjo government is toying with the idea of a radical transformation. Without a doubt this is the best macro-economic environment we’ve ever had, in which the process has begun to disentangle the government from the economy and, perhaps in time, return it to its best role as a regulatory agency. We can all plainly see the value of deregulation in the telecom sector. And now for the first time in a long time banks will return to being banks. An attempt is being made, unevenly and often unpredictably, to fight corruption. The deal to wipe off Nigeria’s debilitating debt, and spare our children from the pain of our profligacy, is perhaps this government’s most important achievement. But even that, in our poisonous environment, is dismissed by some as insignificant. On account of our long disappointment with politics and government, could it be that we no longer have the capacity to recognize the possibility of progress?..."

The prospective artist may purchase an oil painting kit that contains smelly solvents that could cause irritation to the nostrils or skin. This may put off artists who suffer allergic conditions. However, there is a way of practicing oil paint that is friendly to the environment as well as the skin.

Odourless Oil Painting Mediums
 

Oil Painting with Water Soluble Oils Rachel Shirley

Several options are available to the artist who is loath to powerful odours. Although oil painters are known to use Turpentine or white spirits to produce oil washes or to clean the brushes, such industrial cleaners should be dispensed with, as they strip the natural oils from the art brushes and make the room an unpleasant place. Low odour art mediums that are kinder to the environment as well as the skin are more suitable, such as:

• Low odour artist’s white spirits.
• Turpenoid.
• Sansador.

Lathering oil painting brushes in neat washing up liquid or soap after cleaning in artist’s spirits will prolong the life of the brushes.

Water Soluble Oil Paints

Another option is to use watermixable oil paints. Winsor and Newton’s Artisan or Royal Talens’ Van Gough H2Oil are two examples of oil paint that is soluble in water. The properties of watersoluble oils are the same as traditional oil paint, the difference being that the oil medium has been modified so that it breaks down in water. This may make some oil painting purist shudder at the thought of oil and water mixing, but watermixable oils are widely used and are effective.

Water Mixable Oil Thinners

Artisan has a range of forty colors and its own versions of oil mediums to suit. Of course water can be used with Artisan to produce washes, but should be added gradually or the paint might bubble. But because water evaporates quite quickly, the watermixable oil paint is prone to thickening rather too quickly on application, making manipulation a little tricky. To overcome this problem, Artisan’s water mixable oil thinner provides a more oily consistency to the oil paint, making oil painting more like its traditional counterpart.

Water Mixable Oil Mediums



Water Soluble Oils click to buy from Amazon

 It is wise not to use traditional oil and watermixable oils in the same painting, as the differing drying rates could cause stresses in the painting. For this reason, Artisan has developed watermixable equivalents to the traditional oil mediums. For modifying the oil paint, water mixable linseed oil, water mixable safflower oil, water mixable stand oil and water mixable impasto medium have been developed. Some of these mediums will retard the drying time of the oil and add a glossy finish, others will accelerate the drying time.

Varnishes for Water Mixable Oils

Specialised varnishes have been developed for water soluble oils. Again, Artisan varnishes contain no irritants and are odour free, as the varnish is watersoluble. Gloss, matt and satin finishes are available. The varnishing brushes can be cleaned in warm soapy water afterwards.

Odour Free Oil Colors

The artist who suffers allergies or who dislike the high odours of oil mediums may try traditional oils with low odour artists’ spirits, but water mixable oils are a popular choice for artists who wishes to avoid traditional oils altogether.

• Oil Painting Mediums
• Alkyd oils and Liquin
• Books on oil painting
• Oil painting materials

Jeevan Vasagar writes "...What exactly are the NGOs trying to achieve? If the purpose of aid work is to diminish poverty, the past decade looks like a dramatic failure...Reliance on aid can be dangerous. Ultimately, it threatens to sever the political contract between the government and those it governs...Ending poverty appears to have little to do with overseas aid or the activities of NGOs. It has to do with pragmatic governments that create a business-friendly environment and place a heavy emphasis on education.By contrast, Africa has suffered from rulers who are parasites on their people, where the elites loot resources to line their own pockets and create an environment where investors fear to tread.Dependence on aid will only prolong the lives of these parasite states..."
photo courtesy of the Guardian Unlimited

States are laboratories of democracy. That phrase is not just a pretty sounding phrase- it actually has meaning, because states around our nation employ all sorts of different policies and we as a society can see the results of those policies by looking at the results in different states. For example, some states adopt policies that you might call more conservative- lower taxes, less regulation of businesses (whether the regulation is for safety, consumers, or the environment), stronger private property rights, a push for self-employment, an emphasis on family values, more freedoms in the workplace, etc. Other states adopt policies that you could call more liberal- higher taxes (to provide more revenue to the state), more regulation of businesses (for safety, consumer protection, environment, etc), more powers for the state to confiscate or control private property, more generous welfare policies, emphasis on the freedom to choose abortions and drugs, union protections, etc. Through the beauties of federalism, different states can adopt different policies.

And over time, we can measure the results of those policies. You can measure them many ways- domestic GDP growth, happiness, health, crime, etc- all of which have demonstrated that states that are run by conservative Republicans tend to do better than liberal Democrats. But one measure that should also be considered is population changes. You see, if people don't like where they live, if they can't find a job where they live, if they are unhappy where they live, if they don't see a future for their families where they live- then they move. And the evidence points towards people moving from liberal states to conservative states.

The Next Right analyzes the data and pulls out a couple of interesting trends:

• Avg tax top marginal income rate in states gaining a Congressional seat: 2.8%.
• Avg tax top marginal income rate  in states losing a Congressional seat: 6.05%
• Michigan's prevailing wage union economy has wreaked more devastation than Hurricane Katrina did to Louisiana. Michigan was alone among the states to lose population, losing 0.6% of it. Louisiana (which had to deal with the destruction and relocation of major portions of its biggest city in this decade) gained 1.4%.
• The Midwest is also hurting, but good policy saves the day. The Midwest fared only slightly better than the Northeast at 3.9% vs. 3.2% growth, but here one begins to see the difference policy makes. The damage here was done by both Democrats and weak sister Republicans. Michigan, which stubbornly refused to change under eight years of Jennifer Granholm, has the nation's worst economy and population growth. (Let us hope, for the sake of the survival of that state, that Governor Rick Snyder and his Republican majorities in the House and Senate can deliver a Right-to-Work law.) Ohio has the second worst, under the consecutive administrations of the corrupt, tax-raising Bob Taft (a Republican) and Ted Strickland (a Democrat). Like Snyder, John Kasich has the opportunity to emerge as a hero of the recovery. But aside from tiny South Dakota, the state in the region with the best population growth at 7.8% -- 4 points higher than neighboring Iowa and 2 points higher than neighboring Wisconsin, was Minnesota, where Tim Pawlenty held the line on taxes and spending for two solid terms. (Disclaimer: I help with Gov. Pawlenty's Freedom First PAC.) Likewise, there is no real reason that industrial Indiana should have performed any better than neighboring Illinois or Ohio other than its distinctively Republican orientation and the budget-cutting leadership of Gov. Mitch Daniels. Illinois, the state whose political leadership this decade consisted of Rod Blagojevich and Barack Obama, turned in a mediocre growth rate of 3.3%, lower than all of its neighbors.
• The Rise of Texas and the Decline of California. The blaring headline from the 2010 Census is, of course, Texas picking up 4 Congressional seats, landing at 38 total electoral votes. The last time a non-California state had this many was New York in the 1980s. At the same time, California leveled out at 55 electoral votes, the first time since the 1920 census that they haven't gained seats. Joel Kotkin has an excellent read on the California-Texas dynamic, stoked by Rick Perry who boasts of "hunting" for jobs every time he visits the Golden State. Texas's 20.6% growth off an already strong base shows its continued promise. California's 10% growth was the weakest in the West save for Montana (9.7%), showing again that even with its favorable geographic positioning, government for the public employee unions, by the public employee unions bleeds jobs and natives. Both states are bouyed by high immigration, much of it illegal (with Texas seemingly avoiding the social friction that characterizes the trend in California and Arizona).
• New York Nearly Fades to 4th Place. If there's a cautionary tale California should heed, it's New York. 2010 was the year California topped out its power and influence on the national stage, and may face an actual decline in Congressional representation in years to come. New York has been in population free fall for some time now. Once the Empire State in both name and fact, Florida is now within 500,000 residents of overtaking it. New York's decline from 1st to 4th seems inevitable.

Liberals I am sure are going to do their usual sputtering and spinning, and I am sure that they will say how this data is the result of a lot of conspiracy theories or something, but the truth of the matter is that when people are allowed to live free, they are allowed to make free choices absent of government regulations (whether they be for safety, 'consumer protection', or environmental protection), when their private property and earnings are protected, and when their family values are embraced and supported, they go about creating a better world to live in than what liberal policies in liberal states are creating. The ball doesn't lie.