WASHINGTON – Today’s uncovering of secret multi-agency program for shipping illegal Gibson guitars to Mexican drug cartels left red-faced officials of the U.S. Department of Justice scrambling for an explanation amid angry calls for a Congressional investigation.

“I have ordered all agency personnel to fully cooperate in any Congressional inquiries, including all reasonable document request, as soon as we can redact them with Sharpie pens and lighter fluid,” said U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

The secret program came to light early this morning in the border town of Nogales, Arizona, after what was described as a wild battle of the bands between members of the Sinaloa cartel and Los Zetas, two of Mexico’s most notorious violent drug gangs.

“Usually these guys are armed with Mexican Strats and Squires, Epiphones, small caliber stuff like that,” said Pedro Ochoa, 36, an eye witness to the sonic melee. “This time they were packing the heavy firepower.”

The steady barrage of power chords and piercing solo attacks attracted the attention of nearby U.S. Border Patrol agents, who arrived at the scene just as Los Zetas broke into Led Zeppelin’s ‘Immigrant Song.’ By the time the dust had cleared, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Oscar Jimenez was found in a catatonic state of headbanging. He was later flown to University of Arizona Hospitals, where his condition is listed as seriously rawked.

The spandex-clad suspects were able to flee back into Mexico, but not before abandoning their arsenal of axes – the quality of which shocked Border Patrol agents.

“I’ve been working the border for over 25 years and have never seen a weapons cachet like this,” said Patrol Supervisor Mike Foreman. “A ‘53 Goldtop, a ‘59 Black Beauty, Flying V’s, a whole armory of SGs. Enough for an entire guitarmy. It’s a wonder there weren’t any total shreddings.”

Suspicions that the U.S. Department of Justice was involved in the case first arose after agents noticed “Property of the U.S. Department of Justice” embossed on the back of each guitar. A trace of the serial numbers confirmed that they were confiscated only days earlier by DoJ agents from the Gibson Guitar Company in Memphis.

Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, Justice Department officials admitted that the guitars were part of a complicated sting program know as “Operation Fast and Fretless,” ostensibly designed to stem traffic of illegal guitars and amplifiers between the U.S. and Mexico. The multi-agency program – involving Justice, ICE, TSA, EPA, IRS, FDA, Fish & Wildlife, USDA, and the Bureau of Whiskey, Groupies & Hotel Rooms – reportedly encourage border area pawn shops to sell the guitars to known drug kingpins.

Justice spokesman Gary Evans said the Nogales incident yesterday showed the program was a success. “By putting American guitars in the hands of Mexican gangs, I think we’ve proven what we’ve warned all along – that Mexican gangs have access to American guitars. Hopefully this will lead to sane and sensible guitar controls.”

Despite the defense of the program, Darrel Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Heavy Metal Affairs is expected to call hearings soon.

“We need to get to the bottom of this thing before it gets out of hand,” said Issa. “We have reports that Justice is also providing Colombian cocaine gangs with AutoTune.”

Qualcomm’s combined leftist ideology and male bashing in its two ads featuring a guy who is “spineless” and a heavy political video montage by Obama idolater Will.i.am. I guess his stage name is supposed to be clever but it makes me think he was just raised on a little too much Dr. Seuss. Can you imagine the flack a company would get if it let Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck produce a video montage for its Super Bowl commercial? Watch the above clip for visuals of everything from Castro to Al Gore “winning” Florida.

—–

When Audi’s “Green Police” ad showing government environmental cops arresting people for violating the planet first came on I thought it was a PSA for the Obama administration EPA policies. It wasn’t. Seems as long as you are driving an Audi diesel you are on the right side of the environmental fascists, for now!

—–

Bud Light’s corporate image of the American male is almost as low as the tech world’s view of women. Guys are beer swilling lay-abouts who will do just about anything to down a few Buds. If their ads were close to being funny I could let it go for the joke, but they were not. Thanks for that uplifting picture of male behavior.

—–

Once again this year the people who run “Go Daddy” got their pole dancing girl friends a gig on national TV.  I am beginning to think that GoDaddy.com’s ad agency is run by Larry Flynt. Their banned “Lola” ad about an NFL player who comes out of the closet to design ladies lingerie was on the level of a bad SNL skit (like there’s any other kind). They weren’t the only advertiser to get in on the sophomoric heavy sexual overtones bandwagon.

—–

Monster.com’s ad entitled “Beavers” was perhaps the most shockingly bad outing of the evening. It ends with some inferred bestiality. Hey, it’s a “beaver,” get it. Ha-ha he said, “Beaver!” Cut to people who are unemployed and using Monster to search for a job rolling on the ground laughing hysterically. Maybe that’s why they’re unemployed. Why do these two web firms continue to run this type of advertising? Maybe they have research that shows only mouth-breathing troglodytes use their websites. Maybe all tech firms are run by really nerdy guys who have never lost their virginity. I am at a loss to explain this trend. 

—–

E Trade has been running its campaign of computer enhanced talking baby ads for a few years now and they had a couple of cute ads especially one where a boy baby was talking on a video link to his girl baby-friend. The whole concept is getting a little predictable although it still has a high “cute” factor. Still, I don’t know how many multimillion dollar investors move their accounts to E Trade because of the funny “milk-a-holic” line.

—– 

The best single ad was a promo for “The Late Show with David Letterman.” Building on another ad Dave had done with Oprah Winfrey. The ad opens with Dave complaining that he is at the worst Super Bowl party ever. The camera pulls back to reveal Oprah sitting next to him trying to sooth his feelings and then pans to show Jay Leno sitting next to Oprah. Jay says’ “He’s just saying that ‘cause I’m here.”  Then Dave mocks Jay’s reply and an exasperated Oprah throws her hands in the air! Hilarious! It also shows that above all Jay and Dave are comics who put the funny about personal differences and even their own shows.

—– 

I loved the Abe Vigoda/Betty White spot for Snickers but my award for the best corporate spots goes to Doritos. For the past several years the folks at Doritos have not hired a big dollar ad firm but have run a national video competition which has produced a steady stream of funny innovative commercials. By unleashing the unfettered creative power of 300 million Americans to get their Super Bowl ads, the Frito-Lay Corporation has been one of the top rated Super Bowl advertisers and has richly rewarded those willing to do the work. Perhaps the Obama Administration should take notice.

Events lead Kowalski to resist a local takeover by a Hmong youth gang. The Hmong are an ethnic Southeast Asian people, primarily from Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. In real life Michigan, they are among the fastest growing immigrants. Many Hmong people emigrated from South Vietnam after Democrats shamelessly withdrew monetary support from South Vietnam in 1974. The Paris Peace Agreements thus became toothless and North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. “Boat people” fled Vietnam and the insane, murderous Pol Pot created the Cambodian Killing Fields.

Gran Torino can be viewed as metaphorical microcosm of the Vietnamese conflict with an alternate ending. Eastwood, the quintessential symbol of American independence and strength, helps defend a group of Asian Americans against a gangster group of other Asian Americans. Kowalski’s courage and independence led to his death and the defeat of the gang members. The image of protagonist Thao Vang Lor (Bee Vang) driving in Kowalski’s Gran Torino, left to Thao in his will, cements the “good Hmongs” victory, and ultimate commitment to America. The juxtaposition of this scene, versus Kowalski’s children trying to unload him in an old age home is striking.

Another morality play is occurring today in the real Michigan. Michigan has a 15% unemployment rate. Detroit’s auto industry, which made the 1972 Ford Gran Torino, has been decimated in large part by federal regulations. In classic “anti-comparative advantage” style, a sclerotic EPA required individual auto companies to meet mandated “CAFE” standards. Even if one wanted the nation’s entire car fleet to meet CAFE requirements on average, the EPA implemented it in the most inefficient way possible.

US automakers’ comparative advantage was in SUVs and small trucks. To keep their fleet within mandated averages, they were forced to build unprofitable, uncompetitive small cars. If the Feds just let comparative advantage work, the US auto fleet would have likely met federal CAFE standards without each company being compelled to build every type of car. But Government does not know economics. They simply know better.

Obama’s “new environmental energy plan,” the Waxman-Markey “Cap and Trade” bill, is a ruse. It is not an energy bill, but a regressive consumption tax in disguise. It is favored by Wall Street, George Soros, Al Gore, GE and other corporatists looking for subsidies paid for by the tax payer. Cap and Trade is the ultimate economic destruction machine. The bill passed the House of Representatives this summer by six votes, 219-213. Forty-four Democrats voted against it. The Senate has not yet voted.

Michigan Congressman Thaddeus McCotter, a real life political “Kowalski” and GOP Policy Committee Chair, opposed this monstrosity. He is among a group of opponents being targeted for attack in the next few weeks. Others include House Minority Whip Eric Cantor and Missouri’s Roy Blount. The campaigns are funded by Soros’ groups MoveOn.Org and Americans United for Change. The attack is preposterous, as this video shows (Groups target GOP on cap-and-trade). What is the goal of the bill?

The goal of the bill is to replace cheap energy with expensive energy. This is called “saving the environment.” This is accomplished by requiring consumers to purchase more expensive electricity, biomass power for example, while also paying taxes to subsidize these enterprises. As we consume more expensive energy, the same amount of labor and capital creates less output. Even if one believed the ridiculous 1.7 million “green job” increase advertised, it doesn’t factor the lost jobs from lower productivity and higher energy costs. The manufacturing heavy states and big users of energy, like Michigan, are clearly poised to be the big losers in such legislation. They are already seeking “exemptions” from regulations because of the bill’s potential economic devastation (Michigan Economic Impact on the State from the Waxman-Markey Bill).

Meanwhile, Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, and self important financial traders like George Soros, strongly support this legislation because they get to buy and sell “CO2 credits.” The rationale is this legislation will combat “global warming.” Climatologist Chip Knappenberger estimates the best case impact of the bill would be to lower global temperature by “0.1″ degree centigrade in the year 2100. This bill does not address global warming. The bill’s costs exceed its “benefits” by a factor of at least ten, using the UN’s officially approved climate models. This means lost jobs and/or lost real income. This is also why Greenpeace joined with pro-growth conservatives and opposed it. The whole thing is a sham.

So why do Democrats want this bill? They want to raise your taxes under the cover of “climate change” reform. It also gives Government the power to decide which industries get benefited more heavily than others. It is part of the transformation from a free society to a government controlled society. This is yet another highway toward the ultimate c goal of centralized government planning.

McCotter understands, like Walter Kowalski, what it means to be an American. A great American can be a first generation “Hmong” from Vietnam, like Gran Torino’s Thao Vang Lor. Conversely, a treasonous American can be born in Chicago to great advantage, like Weatherman terrorist and Obama supporter Bill Ayers. This speech by Congressman McCotter provides a very clear vision of what America is and should be about. Let’s not permit anti-American fakes, like George Soros, sacrifice McCotter’s (or Cantor’s or Blount’s) “political life” by trying to pull the wool over our eyes. “Green jobs” are a wolf’s tax in sheep’s clothing.

The idea was simple, offer an incentive to get people out of gas guzzlers and help boost lagging car sales. I don’t know why the auto industry was chosen for a big corporate welfare handout instead of the furniture or big screen TV folks. It may have something to do with the government owning a big hunk of the auto industry and therefore being on the hook for future pension and health care costs. Which, if I may offer a quick civics lesson review, means that you and I are now the proud owners of the Old GM obligations.

To get back to my point, if there’s anything hated by lawyers and government bureaucrats alike, it is simplicity. I could write the rules for the program in several paragraphs but then the average consumer and auto dealer would be able to understand them and several thousand government hacks would have nothing to do. The regulations covering the program run over 140 pages! Over one hundred and forty pages on what cars are eligible for trade and purchase.

There were warning signs that this was going to be a typical government balls up. At the end of the first week of July I went to several dealerships to check out what the deal was with cashing in on welfare for the United Auto Worker. No one had a clue and the program was scheduled to start in less than two weeks. Once the program got underway the EPA started “reevaluating” the gas mileage of a number of vehicles, making some cars that had been turned in no longer eligible!

Since then the government has been rejecting hundreds of application which seem to be valid. The government has no idea how many cars have been purchased under this program. The backlog of rebates after only five days is so enormous that no one knows how much has been spent, how many cars have been purchased or if there’s any money left.

Lack of money has never been a problem that the Federal Government couldn’t overcome. The House voted to triple the amount of money for the CARS program. Why triple? Why not, that seems like a good number. There is, of course, no logic or mathematics behind the increase. Like many government numbers it was pulled from the air like a bunch of flowers in a magician’s trick.

You don’t want to look at the logic behind the whole program too deeply either. If this idea is a way to jump-start the auto business, why didn’t we just take the 150 plus billion we have already poured into GM and Chrysler and have a mega CARS program where we offered 10 grand to the first 1.5 million folks who wanted to buy a new car?  If the idea was to reduce carbon emissions and gas usage, please don’t do the math as to how little be saved by getting 250,000 people to get 5 or 6 MPG more while driving.

So think about the President saying his health care plan will be cost neutral while you are down at the DMV registering your CARS car and hoping your voucher processes properly so you aren’t on the hook for the $4500 you were promised.

Mama’s in the factory, she ain’t got no shoes. Daddy’s in the alley, he’s lookin’ for food; I’m in the kitchen with the tombstone blues. “Tombstone Blues” – Bob Dylan

Perhaps the sudden death of pop icon Michael Jackson had many Hollywood stars contemplating their own future obituaries. But the industry, which has been strongly committed to promoting the dangers of man-made global warming, was strangely silent on the Waxman-Markey bill which squeaked though the House last week. The United States economy, i.e., actual real human beings who live in America, continues to suffer from the enormous Obama-lead government’s allocation of resources by massive deficit spending and taxes. The axis of deception changes with each specific fiscal proposal.

The latest comedy of abominations, named–with its usual Orwellian precision–The American Clean Energy and Security Act, was passed Friday by the House of Representatives. The Pelosi/Waxman/Markey trio lead this charge. The winners, in this latest travesty, are that new breed of Obama entrepreneur, the mega wealthy looking for Government handouts. But the Country “has no need to be nervous.” After all, they are simply fixing the “failed policies of the Bush Administration.” But as legislation goes, this Energy Act really takes the cake. As Arnold Kling so succinctly put it, “The cap and trade legislation maximizes rent-seeking (favoritism toward particular businesses) and minimizes carbon reduction.”

This bill was resisted both by Greenpeace and those growing numbers who realize the whole premise of this Act of Congress, “man-made global warming,” is a farce. I have written about global warming before: James Hansen: Man of Science » , Al Gore’s Animal Farm and “Red Flags,” and Short Update on Squealer Al and a Compliant Brokaw. The Global Warming Petition Project has 31,000 signatories from scientists in the US who oppose the so-called climate crisis “consensus.” Their work is summarized in this this paper. The EPA’s own suppressed report skeptical of global warming can be read here CEI Releases Global Warming Study Censored by EPA . And the Senate Minority Report, with 650 signatories, can be read here US Senate Minority Report on Global Warming.

There is no consensus on “man-made” global warming. There are no demonstrated falsifiable theories that support this concept. It started out as an ideological movement and has gradually morphed into a game of crony-capitalism. Much of the world has already moved on. The two fastest growing economies, India and China, don’t even pretend they will participate. This bill will only add further costs to our already over burdened economy. I clearly don’t expect any reasoned argument to persuade those who have chosen to believe in “man-made” global warming. That would be too much to wish for. But what one should expect proponents of that view to be true to their principles. Greenpeace Opposes Waxman-Markey because, in their view, it “sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets. The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions. To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called for at this pivotal moment in history.  We simply no longer have the time for legislation this weak.” While I obviously disagree, at least they know a pig when they see one. They know this bill does little to eliminate greenhouse gasses.

Where do those Hollywood promoters of the catastrophic dangers of global warming stand on this bill? Are they on the same side as Greenpeace? Not from what I can tell. The Hollywood eco-establishment are those guys who made hundreds of millions trying to terrify the public into action. Given this bill will reduce global warming by “seven percent in 40 years,” according to those who believe in this “science,” one would think these highly visible committed Hollywood activists would be in a state of outrage. But then one would be wrong. Let’s start with “An Inconvenient Truth” Academy Award winning Director Davis Guggenheim and his star Nobel Prize winning docu-hero, Al Gore.

Guggenheim, who said upon first meeting with Al Gore, “I left after an hour and a half thinking that global warming is the most important issue, and if I do one thing in my life it’s to help more people see Al Gore do this. I had no idea how you’d make a film out of it, but I wanted to try.” Al Gore gave a speech in DC on July 17, 2008 and called on Americans to completely abandon electricity generated by fossil fuels within 10 years, and replace them with carbon-free renewables like solar, wind and geothermal. He said “the survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk….{and} the future of human civilization is at stake.”

What does this bill propose? That in ten years, 15%, not the 100% Gore says is needed, of the United States energy (not global energy) needs must come from “renewable” sources. By 2020, “greenhouse gas emissions” must be reduced by 17%.  However, “offsets” can be purchased that permits no reduction at all in CO2 emissions. These offsets include “activities such as protecting rain forests in Brazil — that are deemed climate-friendly.” Who will decide when an “offset” is appropriate? How much do you think those offset decisions will be worth? These are mere details that no one knows the answer to–but we can easily guess. This bill will also tax imports from countries that do not have the same standards as the US, which is a direct sales tax on the US consumer. This is absurd beyond belief. It is no wonder people who care strongly about this issue oppose it, regardless of which side they are on.

The entire premise of “An Inconvenient Truth” is the need for radical action now. So Al Gore must oppose this bill, correct? No. Instead Al Gore is the leading “rent seeker,” heavily lobbying Congress to pass this bill calling it “as important to our time as the Civil Rights legislation was to the minorities of the 1960’s and the Marshall Plan of was to America during the 1940’s.” Coincidentally, his venture capital firm is heavily invested in…….Global warming money making schemes. Guggenheim is onto other projects and has been silent on this bill. Davis Guggenheim documents Jimmy Page. But Guggenheim and Gore do not stand alone.

Leonardo DiCaprio has also been a very visible proponent of the dangers of global warming.  He was honored by Mikhael Gorbachev earlier this year when he received the International Green Film Award in Berlin. His website is dedicated to various “green” causes and has even written columns in Time Magazine in support of Van Jones, Obama’s advisor on “green jobs.” Congress is debating the most important pieces of legislation on global warming to date, yet he is silent on his website about its passage. Keanu Reeves and Alanis Morrisette narrated The Great Warming, an absurd ideological screed based on the book by Lydia Dotto. Where do they stand and Waxman-Markey? They, too, are silent. How about Oprah Winfrey, Laurie David , and Bill Maher? The list is endless. If they have spoken out, I have not seen it. These people are always at the forefront of appearing morally superior. So why aren’t they publicly involved in arguably the most important political Energy debate this country has had? Why aren’t they on their megaphones urging true reform?

But this is not really surprising. Being green in Hollywood has usually been about moral preening and self-aggrandizement, not actual legislative change. They are no different than Al Gore. This is a promotional device designed to advance their careers by being both visible on these causes yet indifferent to actual legislation. In fact, they may even have a direct interest in no serious legislation passing. This way, they can keep themselves relevant. Eventually, I hope and believe, this issue will die a deserving death.

Like modern day Leni Riefenstahls, Hollywood has been at the ideological forefront in support of the dangers of man-made global warming. But few change their lifestyles. Oprah bragged openly about her private jet at a graduation speech at Duke University. Like Al Gore, they give every indication of being in on the con. It does not really affect them. Paying a few thousand more a year in fuel costs is irrelevant. So what if we have another tax on the rest of the country?

The good news, if one can possibly call it that, is this bill has smoked out the fakes, who many of us have known were there all along. Plus the Senate may finally put the final stake in this vampire’s heart. If so, perhaps the Obama honeymoon can be declared officially over.

Because the American news media has not properly and openly questioned Susan Rice about her deliberations with the IPCC, nor the U.S. intentions concerning proposed international “monies” related to CO2, you are obliged to read the referenced CEI and EPA documents yourself;  pay close attention to the copies of the emails contained in the CEI disclosure.  Here are the essential elements and findings of the Carlin/Davidson report dated March 9, 2009: PDO-Pacific decadal Oscillation / AMO-Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation/GCM-General Circulation Models/ IPCC- UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/CCSP- Climate Change Science Program/ TSD- Technical Support Document [click to enlarge]:

Although the suppression of this document prior to the recent vote in the house borders on criminal deception, there is a larger issue: the fraudulent determination that CO2, your exhalation, is a pollutant. Although ostensibly pertaining only to industrial exhaust, the court’s determination will inevitably be used against the individual. The Federal Government will be called upon to determine how much of a pollutant an American citizen is, not just as a consequence of possessions, but rather as a consequence of existence. This is a legal inevitability unless legislation is challenged and changed. The President is not stupid. He knows the truth and is determined to press his ideological experiment, through the IPCC, upon the American people no matter what  damage is inflicted upon the people, because he ultimately deems U.S. citizens as expendable for the larger global good.

You are a pollutant, and Obama is paving the way for the international carbon tax, an excuse regulated by the global EPA, also called the UN, to remand American wealth back to the world, from which Obama believes it was unfairly taken. “Global warming” conveniently became “global climate change” and so in short order Obama’s “hope and change” will become “change without hope.”

The scam–ur uhm–I mean the idea works like this: government will set a limit on the amount of CO2 companies may produce. Companies will then be forced to purchase emissions permits for every ton of CO2 produced. Companies that exceed their limits will be able to purchase or trade for additional permits with companies that emit less than their allotted cap. Waxman-Markey seeks an “80 percent reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050”?  And a “100 percent auction to ensure every ton of carbon is paid for.”

While supporters of Cap and Trade attempt to direct our attention to large-scale carbon emitters in the coal and oil industries make no mistake; the repercussions from this tax will be felt in every American household.

The Congressional Budget Office noted that cutting carbon emissions just 15% would result in customers facing “persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would.” This conclusion is echoed by the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, which further determined that Waxman-Markey will reduce GDP by $9.6 trillion, increase the federal debt by 26%, kill 1.1 million jobs, increase peak year unemployment to 2.5 million workers and raise the energy bill paid by a typical family by about $1,500 annually.

Of course what is a little economic hardship if it means saving the sky from falling?

Every day new scientific discoveries emerge calling into question the computer models on which this carbon hysteria is based.

Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Langley Research Center realized the models rely on mathematical equations derived more than 80 years ago. These differential equations ignore proper boundary conditions and assume an atmosphere that is infinitely thick. Miskolczi derived a new solution using the proper boundary conditions (the atmosphere is 65 miles thick) and viola no more global warming.

There is also a new study conducted by the university of Wisconsin and the US National oceanic and atmospheric administration, which concludes that 70% of the sharp temperature rise in the North Atlantic over the last 30 years is due to dust blowing out to sea from the deserts of North Africa – A small detail the computer models failed to account for.

What is more remarkable is that, even assuming some human component, if Waxman-Markey meets all its goals of reducing carbon emissions, the EPA calculates that the impact on world temperature would be no more than two-tenths of a degree Celsius at the end of the century. Found here

That is a lot of pain for very little gain.

But Global warming is not about science it is about politics and this administrations choice to ignore facts is about a political means to social control. The President’s own lawyers admit as much.

Three weeks ago Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) produced a white house memo to the EPA that, in his words, repeatedly suggests “a lack of scientific support for this proposed finding” [that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health]. Barrasso then quoted directly from the document, “making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the US economy, including small businesses and small communities.” If that’s not change you can believe in I don’t know what is.

There is an old joke that if the government could it would tax the very air that we breathe. As social commentary Waxman-Markey’s assumption that we can save the planet by taxing CO2 – a substance every human being emits with every breath taken–is absurd indeed. It’s also an old joke that is not very funny.

So, an EPA memo has just surfaced, and apparently it tells the White House that any effort to regulate the output of C02 will screw an already screwed up economy. Basically, if the economy was an old lady, instead of helping her across the street, we’d be pushing her in front of a train.

Now, I apologize – this has to be the 50th Gregalogue I’ve done on global warming -it’s basically the little black dress of Red Eye – and I’m just as sick of the topic as you are. But it gripes me that despite the lack of evidence showing that curbing these gases will do anything to help the environment – it doesn’t matter. I give up.

See, arguing about global warming is like arguing about religion. You will never change the mind of a true believer, and if you’re a skeptic, you’re seen as a soulless heathen. But in a way, the global warming religion is worse – because at least the Pope isn’t demanding we damage our economy to sustain his belief in a higher power.

So, despite this memo, we’re still going ahead with the American Clean Energy and Security Act –a crazy bill that would place a limit on these heat-trapping gases for the first time. To me, this is the equivalent of putting limits on fairy dust because we think it harms unicorns. When, really, everyone knows unicorns need fairy dust to maintain the luster of their gorgeous horns (you can read more about this fact in this month’s Annals of Unicorn Science – I’m actually on the cover, in a thong, petting one of my many figurines).

Way back in October, (you remember October, it was when the Worlds Series was going on), the President was saying unless we slapped down seven or eight hundred billion dollars to get rid of bad mortgages and other “toxic assets” we were going to slide down into the abyss of economic ugliness from which there was no return. We needed to do it, right then! Now! Today! Wait, is this a four day weekend? Ok, we’ll do it Monday. Do you remember?  So we ponied up the dough and that solved the problem, right?

Then change came to Washington and there was change! The new President said that unless we plunked down another nine billion to one trillion were going to slide down into an economic abyss from which there was no return. We needed to do it today, now…I think you get the picture. Do you see the change? It’s subtle, but it’s there, the amount went up by about two hundred billion! That’s change I can believe in.

Now the Wizard of Odd, Tim Geithner says that he wants the private sector to put up another trillion or so to get rid of “toxic assets.” He’s saying that private money is needed to get credit flowing again.

Don’t forget somewhere in there was a budget for everything else that came in around 1.2 trillion and another four or five hundred billion for walking around money.

So here is how I see it from a seventh grade math perspective. To get rid of toxic assets we have put out about to two trillion seven hundred million dollars. To make the math easy, let’s say the average mortgage is 200,000.  So, 200,000 divided into 2,700,000,000,000 equals 13.5 million. Do I have that right?

There are roughly two hundred and seventy million Americans, so at an average of four to a household that equals roughly sixty-seven million households. Let’s say that, and I know this is a high estimate, 75% own a house, and so there would be just over 50 million mortgages in America meaning the government has bought up over one quarter of all of the houses in the country for that amount of money? I ain’t buying it! Where is the money going? Here’s the kicker, I don’t think anybody knows where all the money is going.

Maybe the way to handle the toxic assets is to say that any toxic waste is a problem for the EPA to handle and they could put some guys in bio sits and bury the lot of them somewhere in the Nevada desert. We could get Al Gore to issue a carbon credit and hope the 2010 elections get here before the bill comes due.