JayStream

According to a front page story in the London Sunday Telegraph, Britain’s Prince Charles is set to announce that the world has “100 days to act” to reverse climate change. “The clock is ticking,” according to the prince, who will reportedly make a speech on Thursday insisting that catastrophe looms within eight years unless something is done about global warming.

The prince’s plea is nothing new. The London Guardian newspaper said “governments must act swiftly” to address global warming – in an article in 2006.

It is always interesting when people ask governments to act swiftly. It is against the nature of government to do anything swiftly even when they do act. Frankly, the faster governments act, the more mistakes they make. Yet people constantly claim we are in crisis mode, demanding that governments “do something.” In recent years, we have been told “Governments must act swiftly…

…to prevent an outbreak of bird flu.” (World Health Organization, 2005)
…to free up credit markets.” (Arab World’s Business Information Service, 2009)
…to stabilize markets.” (Harvard, 2009)
…to incentivize antibiotics R&D.” (Nature, 2006)
…to enact policies that protect river health.” (International Rivers, 2003)
…to make major infrastructure investments.” (FCM Canada, 2008)
…to send a message to those who perpetrate and support terrorists.” (OJC, 1996)
…to get stimulus money.” (Miami Today, 2009)
…to ensure Canadians get mental health treatment.” (National Union Research, 2008)

No wonder governments never get anything done. They’re too busy dealing with stuff upon which they are supposed to act swiftly.

Jay News climate change, government

Shortly after the conclusion of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s speech to the US Congress, the afternoon newspapers hit the stands in his home country. The front page of the London Evening Standard screamed, “Brown tells US: Save our Planet.” As if merely rescuing the world’s economy isn’t a tough enough task.

It seems curious that as the American people believe the president is focused like a laser beam on financial issues, other nations are seizing on President Obama’s climate change initiatives. They see what the American media has largely ignored – the president’s stimulus and spending bills include easter eggs in the form of climate change legislation.

For example, President Obama claims, despite the current “throw money at everything” approach, that he will simultaneously reduce a suddenly enormous federal deficit to $600 billion by 2012. Part of the way he plans to do it is by charging a huge new tax on people and industries that produce anything. It is called “cap and trade,” and will force everyone who emits any carbon dioxide into the air to purchase – at auction – the right to do so. Obama says this tax will bring $79 billion into government coffers in its first year, and $646 Billion by 2019. The same companies that are supposed to find money to pay workers must also find money to pay this confiscatory new environmental tax.

President Obama’s pronouncements have emboldened Green movements in other countries. The idea of a carbon tax has been bouncing around Europe for some time. But the newspaper, Les Echos, recently reported that, “L’idee de taxe carbone fait son chemin”, or “The idea of a carbon tax is gaining” in France. The article starts out by saying the concept is welcomed by Greens, and is a “reflection of Barack Obama.”

Twelve years after the US Senate passed a resolution opposing the Kyoto Treaty 95-0, there is now international expection that President Obama will not only concede to the wishes of other nations, but actually lead efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. An article in the South China Morning Post expects that a global climate change treaty will be settled in Copenhagen by the end of the year. Even China, which was largely exempt from Kyoto because it was considered an underdeveloped nation, seems willing sign a treaty to reduce its carbon emissions. But according to the Morning Post article, “the US, in Beijing’s view, has a moral obligation to make much deeper cuts, much sooner, than China.”

Right now, you would have to say President Obama appears inclined to do just that.

UPDATE 3/6/09: The following was printed in an analysis piece by a reporter based in England and printed in the The Standard and several other newspapers throughout Canada on 3/6/09:

A U.S.-China deal must include … much stronger emission curbs in the U.S. than in China in the early stages, technological help and largescale American investment in clean Chinese energy sources, and probably a carbon-trading deal as well. But if it can be done, it will provide the template on which other industrialized and industrializing countries can join up to a global deal for steep emissions cuts in Copenhagen.

Jay News, Weather China, global warming

It is three months to the day after Thanksgiving – but I think we need to re-visit that holiday. It seems to me it came and went without a lot of appreciation.

On Thanksgiving Day 2008, we had just elected a new president who campaigned on, “the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.” Remember how abysmal it was when we went to the polls? Unemployment was at 4.7%, the Dow at 9,625.

Back in those days, workplace grumblers and complainers were grumbling and complaining. They bemoaned their jobs, their salaries, their lives. Thanksgiving was observed in the usual manner – the network newscasts treated us to an onslaught of expectations for the Christmas shopping season.

Fast forward one-quarter of a year. People are losing their jobs, businesses are losing their customers, Dow is losing its points. But people aren’t grumbling and complaining about work as much. I think it is because our definition of thankfulness has changed.

Last night on television, a story aired about a man and his wife. They both have jobs, but recently found out that their salaries would be involuntarily reduced due to the economic slowdown. They must lower their household budget to cope with the shortfall. And the reaction of the man who was asked about having his salary cut?

“To be honest my first reaction was, I’m just thankful and blessed I have a job.”

I expect more people will have similar sentiments nine months from now, when we observe our next Thanksgiving Day.

Jay News, Television industry economy, layoffs, recession, Thanksgiving

In speeches, world leaders usually employ what’s called the “royal we” (latin: pluralis majestatis) to emphasize that he or she is speaking for a government or their people. The use of the first person plural is also common in newspapers, where editorialists express their opinions after the word we to indicate that they speak for a group, such as an editorial board.

American presidents have traditionally used it as well. Not only is it an acknowledgement of a team effort in government, but also implies a certain humility; or like we say in the Midwest, it indicates that a speaker hasn’t gotten too big for his britches.

Contrast that with our new president. Barack Obama never uses the royal we; he only uses the word “I”. President Obama told the nation’s mayors that, “I will not tolerate any compromise or shortcuts” in the way he intends stimulus money to be used. Since the president rarely speaks without a teleprompter, we can assume it was a deliberate use of the word “I”. Behind closed doors, he reportedly shot down Republicans seeking input on the stimulus with the admonition, “I won.” It ended any notion of compromise and drove home the point that there’s a new sheriff in town.

When President Obama appointed his inaugural cabinet, news pundits asked how he would be able to control a room full of large egos. We now have the answer: By having the biggest ego of them all.

Jay News rhetoric, stimulus

In his signature masterpiece Faust, German novelist Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote about a man who sold his soul to the devil. All is well – until the devil demands repayment. The CEO’s of several American financial institutions can identify with Faust.

Their devilish transaction took place a few months ago. Banks were in trouble; bad mortgage loans set the ball rolling toward shrinking credit availability. Faced with the potential of widespread collapse, bankers accepted bailout money from the federal government. Minimal strings were attached – they thought.

Thursday those same bankers sat before an indignant US Senate committee. Arrogant senators vented righteous outrage, demanding to know why – why the bankers hadn’t sold their corporate jets, why they hadn’t lowered the interest rates on credit cards, and why they hadn’t given part of their personal paychecks back to the companies they worked for. It was typical political theater, with senators alternating in the role of Goethe’s Mephisto. The bankers came to realize they sold their souls for federal money, and it is time to give the devil his due.

After the hearing, one of the bankers who refused the offer he couldn’t refuse breathed a sigh of relief. In an interview, Steve Buster said 60 million dollars in federal TARP funds had been dangled in front of his Mechanics Bank. In exchange, the bank would have been told how and to whom to lend, would have had to accept oversight in the board room, and would have been prohibited from giving employee bonuses for five years. In Buster’s words, “A lifeline turned into a noose,” and Mechanics Bank turned down the federal money.

While it is outrageous to think that any Senator has the ability or right to tell a banker how to do business, the fact of the matter is that the banks took money from the federal Mephisto. The banking CEO’s violated one of the first rules of business: know who you are doing business with.

Jay News bailout, bank, Senate

I was unable to watch President Obama’s highly anticipated, first prime time press conference. I did see clips on the 10 pm news, and expected that the president probably handled a number of questions about very serious issues.

Then as I was driving home, listening to baseball news on ESPN radio, I heard that “even President Obama was asked about Alex Rodriguez” and his admission of steriod use. The president was asked about A-Rod? The night before a vote on a 900 page spending plan nobody has completely read, and crucial international situations in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Mexico – a professional journalist actually wasted national TV time asking about A-Rod? According to the transcript, Michael Fletcher of the Washington Post did.

During the hour-long press conference, the President gave long answers to each inquiry, so only 14 questions were able to be asked and answered. Time ran out before another journalist could ask if Kobe Bryant passed the ball enough.

I don’t remember any White House reporter ever tossing President Bush a softball question about baseball. Which is ironic, since Bush used to own a major league team and could have handled such a question with some authority; unlike President Obama, who has never owned anything.

Jay News news conference, Washington Post, white house

The economic numbers just came out, and they were somewhat surprising – surprisingly good. The city of Sioux Falls, South Dakota ended 2008 with a balanced budget for the third straight year. Not only that, but the city of 125 thousand people finished the year during “the worst economy since the Great Depression” with a five million dollar surplus. Isn’t that a unique concept for a government body, ending the year with money in the bank?

Sioux Falls is the largest city in South Dakota, a state which adheres to a constitutional requirement of a balanced budget. The governor has presented two budgets to the state legislature in the past two months. Based upon lower income projections, the second contained serious cuts – including closure of a state school for the deaf, repeal of a teacher pay-boost program, and elimination of 76 state jobs.

While legislators from the opposing party balked at some of governor’s proposed cuts, they counter-proposed budgetary fixes of their own. Make no mistake – when the legislative session ends, South Dakota will have balanced its books. It is the way things are done.

Compare that to the dysfunctional state of California, which faces a forty billion (B) dollar shortfall with no stomach, backbone, or brain power to fix it. Teachers balk at larger class sizes, government employee unions refuse to give back any of their nation-high 14 paid holidays, and environmentalists scream about any suggestion that might delay reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

California is considering issuing IOU’s for tax refunds; the state controller says he may withhold payments to social service providers and loan installments to college students. (Watch out for those college students Governor Schwartzenegger. In Iceland, they rioted when the cost of their education increased.)

So how will California cope with its economic irresponsibility? On the backs of the rest of America, of course. Estimates are that one-quarter of its budget shortfall will be covered by California’s share of the Obama administration’s “economic stimulus” package. Is it not ironic that some of the federal taxes paid by financially-prudent South Dakotans will be used to bail out uncontrolled, unjustifiable government spending by the state of California?

Jay News budget cuts, California, Sioux Falls, South Dakota

The coronation of Barack Hussein Obama came off exactly as scripted by his media machine – the new president surrounded by friends and relatives, cheered on by adoring fans, and worshipped by embarrassingly-fawning journalists.

Young people across the nation watched the unprecedented spectacle on television, and at least some said it would be a memory they would carry with them the rest of their lives. It just might be. If you think about the current generation, what shared national experiences does it have? Baby boomers remember crowding around TV sets to watch a space shot or that first walk on the moon. Younger adults may remember seeing the Berlin Wall come down. But what shared historical events do today’s teenagers have? About the only significant spot news events they have watched en masse on television were 9/11, shuttle disasters, and the acquittal of O.J. Not much to be proud of as Americans.

It seems odd to already describe a simple inauguration of a rookie president as a life-impacting moment. But for a generation starved for something big to feel a part of, this might be as good as it gets.

Clearly, after seeing the ceremony, pageantry, parade, and late night parties – it appears the best part about becoming president is becoming president. The tough part is actually doing the job, and that is what President Obama must now do. If he doesn’t deliver, the inaugural festivities fade from those teenage memories, the historical event remembered as just another reality TV show.

Jay News inauguration, television