I’ve never been a great fan of the comedian George Carlin. His politics were dubious and his take on religion was an unmitigated attack on anyone of faith. That combined with more than his share of expletives made listening to an uncensored routine by him in his later years unbearable. Those objections aside, he did provide his share of laughs over the years.

Many from my generation will recall his role as the Hippy-Dippy Weatherman from routines on The Tonight Show. One of my favorite lines from that role was his weather forecast, “Tonight's forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning.”

Always the master of new insights to the obvious, he brilliantly captured the illogic of human theory regarding some of the most elementary truths of life. One that he nailed precisely was the radical environmental movement, and he revealed the illogic of the movement in a fashion only he could.

Quoting from his routine, Carlin said, “Let me tell you about endangered species, all right? Saving endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control nature. It's arrogant meddling. It's what got us in trouble in the first place. Doesn't anybody understand that? Interfering with nature. Over 90% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet, ever lived, are gone. They're extinct. We didn't kill them all. They just disappeared. That's what nature does. We're so self-important. Everybody is going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails. And the greatest arrogance of all, save the planet. What?

“I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths, people trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. There is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are (bleep). The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. It's been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little more than 200 years.

“Two hundred years versus four and a half billion, and we have the conceit to think that somehow we’re a threat, that somehow we’re going to put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin’ around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than us, been through all kinds of things worse than us, been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages, and we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn't going anywhere. We are! We’re going away.”

That’s the inimitable George Carlin putting into perspective the arrogance of man, while at the same time, trying to maintain that we’re all simply products of nature.

When you think about it, the ideologies are all wrong here. Those who are most adamant from a secular perspective that we all evolved from the primordial slime with a few proteins adapting to form our world and humankind are the ones who think we can control nature. While those of us who believe that we were created by God seem to be the ones mostly cognizant of the fact that we are part of nature and we’re not omniscient and omnipotent and can’t control it. What a perplexing dichotomy! You would think the ideologies would be swapped.

Now let’s apply the radical lunacy Carlin identified to a real-life scenario, and voila, we have the 2008 Democratic National Convention! Vowing to make the convention the “greenest” in history, they’ve struggled to find the necessary accoutrements to make the convention environmentally friendly and politically correct. To pull this off, the DNC hired an official “Director of Greening,” longtime environmental activist Andrea Robinson.

They need the balloons to be biodegradable, as well as everything else used in the convention. Ms. Robinson hired an Official Carbon Adviser, who will measure the greenhouse-gas emissions of every placard, every plane trip, every appetizer prepared and every discarded coffee cup.

They’ve ruled out fried food, and every meal must include “at least three of the following colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and while.” They’ve also stipulated that 70% of the ingredients should be organic, or grown locally to cut down on shipping emissions.

I have a sneaky, uneasy feeling that this is what we can expect if these clowns ever completely run the country.

It’s really too bad Carlin graduated from mortality when he did: he could have had a lifetime of new comedy routines from just this one event!

Mark Twain provided many invaluable insights into American life. Time has only validated the veracity of many of his truisms. In his inimitable way, Twain once declared, “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress…But then I repeat myself.”

Many statements coming from the Democratic leadership in Congress this past week proved once again how correct Twain was. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barak Obama all parroted this week, “We can’t drill ourselves out of this problem,” referring to $135 per barrel oil prices. This was in response to President Bush and John McCain calling for expanded drilling on the outer continental shelf. Since when has increased supply not eased demand and pricing issues? We absolutely can drill ourselves out of this mess! Increased supply and reduced consumption are always solutions to market scarcities.

Crude oil production in the United States has declined 40 percent over the past 25 years even though demand has soared. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 75 billion barrels of oil have been precluded from drilling due to Congressional action over that period. That oil would be enough to replace all of our imported oil, excluding Canada and Mexico, for over 22 years. World oil demand is projected to increase by 40% over the next 22 years, and U.S. demand projected to increase by 28%, and yet Congress’ solution is to claim “we can’t drill our way out” and tax the oil companies more!

I find it unbelievable that Venezuela and China can drill 60 miles off the Florida coast but the U.S. cannot because of the power of the environmental lobby. Why is it that the Democratic Congress will not allow U.S. oil companies, empirically the most environmentally sensitive oil companies in the world, access to these areas but will allow Venezuela and China access, when they have the most abysmal records of environmental sensitivity? The argument against expanded drilling is obviously not based on environmental concerns.

Further evidence of the imbecility of Congressional Democrats on the oil issue was provided courtesy of Sen. Charles Schumer a few weeks ago. He said that even if we drilled in Anwar it would only affect the pump price of gas by a penny. Yet when the President went to visit Saudi Arabia Schumer said if the President could convince them to increase output of 1 million barrels a day it should drop the price of gas by $.50. That is the same output potential from Anwar, and yet he, and other obstructionists on Capital Hill continue to get away with such duplicity and idiocy. If we had started drilling there in the ‘90s when it first passed Congress, we would now have more control over our own oil production while working on viable alternative sources of energy.

Instead, what is their solution? Impose a “windfall profit tax” on the oil companies. What is that likely to do? Is that going to decrease oil and gas prices? Of course not! If they’re going to be taxed at a higher level, they have to pass on the cost of those increased taxes to their customers. Do none of these people understand economics?

If Congress authorized increased domestic drilling, even the short-term price of gasoline would likely improve because the futures prices are affected in large part by perceptions of supply and demand. With the anticipated increased domestic production, prices would start to drop.

It would appear that the Democrats in Congress are in a full-court press to make the country as miserable as possible to ensure a victory in November. And even if they win they will not change their position on domestic oil production since they’re so firmly in the back pocket of the environmental lobby. The no drill, no refining, no nuclear energy Democrats obviously want us to pay more for energy, more for government, more in taxes of all types. If they take control, our modest .6% growth rate for the first quarter of 08 will look like a roaring economy!

One of the side affects of a horrendously out-of-control county budget is the fact that the Assessor’s office has to generate the tax revenue to pay for it. With apparent questionable operations and the lack of ethical guidelines and competence previously characteristic of the Assessor’s office, the County has been able to generate the necessary property valuations to meet the budgetary demands of a 30% increase in the County budget this year.

This past week I’ve visited with dozens of individuals who have had dealings with the Assessor’s office, and the emerging picture is downright ugly. Having been run with competence and fairness for years under the leadership of Diane Bilyeu, it is now a veritable cesspool of cronyism, incompetent leadership, retribution against taxpayers, and unethical operations.

Since Jo Lynn Anderson took the helm at the Assessor’s office, the department has steadily declined in professionalism and competence. According to the State Tax Commission, the office is out of compliance with state guidelines, and it appears it will be so again this year. After two years of being out of compliance, the state can intervene to remedy the situation and the County can lose State revenue. That appears likely to occur.

Our current Assessor and her assistants, “the management,” have refused repeated offers to receive management training to improve operations. She came into the office with no management or assessment experience other than drawing maps for 35 years for the department. Consequently, the de facto managers of the office are her assistants. Jo Lynn also no longer attends Idaho Association of County Assessor’s meetings since they sometimes go into Executive Session where only Assessors can attend, and since Jo Lynn has no functioning knowledge of the appraisal business, she won’t attend those without her assistants.

Much of the problem seems to be the hostile work environment that the management has created. The professional appraisers who are or have been there have been coerced to perform unethical adjustments to assessments contrary to standards of the industry. The appraisers’ reluctance to make such adjustments created significant tension between them and management, and has resulted in the loss of all but two certified real property appraisers and one manufactured home appraiser, where there should be at least seven altogether. The Assessor has hired unqualified friends and political supporters who draw pay at the high end of their scale. The Assessor brags that the reason they receive such high compensation is because she brought in so much revenue for the County last year.

The Assessors office is required to abide by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) developed by the Appraisal Standards Board (ASB). These standards mandate equitable and ethical appraisal of property values. Yet my research consistently turned up examples of excessive valuations next to properties virtually unaffected by reassessment, in spite of more improvements made to the neighboring properties. Also contrary to USPAP standards, if the Assessor’s office can’t gain access to a residential property, management has instructed department appraisers to value the property with a half-finished basement. When the reluctant appraisers were told to engage in these unethical practices, the issue was forced by telling them they have to do it “because I’m management.”

Commercial assessments are now being done by an appraiser not trained or experienced in commercial appraisal. This has created profound inequity in assessments in similar properties throughout the county, and significantly higher than similar properties in neighboring cities.

When the rare successful appeal of an assessment rescinds the Assessor’s valuation, an attitude of retribution is assumed. Within earshot of many witnesses, a member of the management team told one taxpayer who was successful in his appeal, “We’ll get you next time you son-of-a-b****.” And to another, “You got me this time, but we’ll get even.” One of them, after a successful appeal by a residential taxpayer, inquired “How quickly can I go after (taxpayers’ name) again?” Management demanded a $20,000 higher assessment on a residential property declaring, “He’s a tax crybaby and he needs to learn a lesson.”

We all saw the headlines earlier this week of how the Assessor’s office is attempting to “tax-rape” ON Semiconductor. This is unacceptable, and all too characteristic of how the Assessor’s office now operates. If something isn’t done immediately to remedy the situation, Bannock County will be decimated. Retirees will be forced out of their homes, residents forced to relocate outside of the county, and businesses forced to close their doors because of the exorbitant tax rates. It would be disastrous if ON closed shop here because of property taxes. And we’re dreaming if we think new businesses will be willing to locate here when they get a whiff of what’s happening with property taxes.

I don’t think we can wait for two more years when the Assessor’s term ends. It’s time for a recall and time to clean up the Assessor’s Office!

Here we are on the verge of a possible recession (we haven’t had two quarters or even one quarter of negative GDP growth), and in the midst of an energy crisis with $135 oil, and what was Congress debating this week? A tax that will hit the economy from $1.7 to $4.8 trillion, and cost the average American family up to $3,726 per year! Such legislation will, if eventually passed, virtually ensure an ongoing recession by adversely affecting national GDP by 2 to 3% per year according to Time magazine, which inexplicably thinks it’s a good idea.

The Warner-Lieberman bill, the so-called cap and trade bill would have done that, and probably more. After all, when was the last time a government program cost projection was accurate? This bill, defeated by the Senate, was heralded by mainstream media, and certain politicians, as “bold national policy” designed to reduce carbon emissions and “contain climate change.” Yet even in the best-case scenario, the potential climatic impact would be a change in global average temperatures by about 1/100 of a degree between now and 2030. Who in their right mind would think that’s a cost-effective use of tax-payer money? Apparently a bunch of Federal legislators and many in the mainstream media fall into that inane category. It really makes me wonder what has happened to common sense in politics. It obviously is a rare commodity on Capital Hill and is declining as precipitously as Congressional approval numbers.

Cap and trade legislation forcibly lowers carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by placing limits, or caps, on companies that emit CO2, and affords a mechanism for them to trade or buy credits from companies that are under those limits. By creating such a mechanism, utilities and companies emitting less than the limit could sell credits to companies over the limit, which would have to buy the right to emit more CO2. The net affect on the environment is negligible, but the potential to drive energy related costs higher and higher is significant, according to the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

MIT published a study earlier this year that estimated the cost of implementing such a system would cost $3,500 to the average American family of four by creating a massive tax on energy that is then passed on to consumers including a 44% increase in the cost of electricity. The NAM estimates the impact on the cost of gasoline would be as much as an additional $5.00 per gallon by 2030. That means if this bill was in effect now, gas would cost $9.00 per gallon.

Even if the CO2 emissions are reduced as predicted, based on the “science” of the proponents, the impact on the global environment is a decrease of 0.013 degrees of “prevented warming,” according to the National Center for Public Policy Research. Look at it this way, if you were buying a car, and the salesman said it may or may not run, and even if it did, it may not function the way it was designed to, would you dish out $3,500 for that car?

What makes much more sense is to do the same thing we did last year. Global temperatures dropped by 0.7 degree Celsius last year. That decline actually eradicates the increase of the past 100 years, according to all three monitoring agencies. So what did we do to achieve such a drop in global temperatures? Aside from individual conservation, we did nothing. Could it be that climate temperatures actually fluctuate regardless of mankind’s CO2 emissions?

The fundamental premise of this kind of legislation must be rejected. That premise seems to be that we can “save the planet” by reducing our carbon footprint. There is no underlying science that proves we can do so. Secondly, we must learn from the mistakes of Europe which has implemented cap and trade policies. The three years of Europe’s experiment has been a disaster both from an environmental perspective and economically, according to the UK Times.

Let’s consider a few facts. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas in the atmosphere that is measured in parts per million, or ppm. The vast majority of CO2 emissions, about 97 percent, comes from Mother Nature, including what we humans exhale.

CO2 is nowhere near the most important greenhouse gas; water vapor holds that distinction. An astounding 99.9 percent of Earth's greenhouse gas effect has nothing to do with manmade CO2 emissions. If measured on a football field, manmade CO2 would amount to less than a centimeter.

The Warner-Lieberman bill has been defeated but it was a dress rehearsal for another version next year, especially if Congress moves more to the left in the November elections. These efforts amount to draconian command-and-control attacks against our quality of life under the auspices of environmentalism. The underlying premises are flawed, and the recommended measures can virtually destroy the American economy. Unilateral disarmament was wrong militarily; and cap-and-trade legislation amounts to unilateral economic disarmament.

The administration of JFK has been largely whitewashed as a “Camelot” presidency due in large part to its tragic premature termination. Some of that revisionist history is justified in light of subsequent events, but some is not.

The continuing flap over Senator Barak Obama’s assertion that he would be willing to meet unconditionally, yet with preparation, with any world leader, including those who seek to harm the United States, prompted one such opportunity for historical revisionism. The Senator defended his position, “If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev.” He went on to state, “When Kennedy met with Khrushchev, we were on the brink of nuclear war.”

Historically, this is incorrect. The tendency is to envision a handsome, youthful President Kennedy facing the enemy of freedom, the Premier of the Soviet Union. However, the historical reality is far different. Kennedy’s faceoff with Nikita Khrushchev in June of 1961 was disastrous and actually led to an escalation of the Cold War, the construction of the Berlin Wall, led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as an escalation of the Vietnam War.

Just months into his administration, President Kennedy wanted desperately to visit face to face with the Soviet Premier. In his inaugural address in January, 1961, he declared, “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” With that as his foreign affairs theme, he was convinced that he could approach the totalitarian leader in a way not done before, and that he could have success in bridging some of the ideological chasms separating the two because of his intellect and eloquence.

Most of Kennedy’s senior advisors counseled the President not to meet with Khrushchev. Dean Rusk, then Secretary of State, queried, “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?” George Kennan, Truman’s Ambassador to the Soviet Union, counseled Kennedy to not rush so quickly without qualifications into such a meeting. He argued that Khrushchev had ramped up his rhetoric against the U.S., appeared to be more aggressively confrontational, and that the current pressing issues between the two countries should be handled by diplomats through the State Department.

As Nathan Thrall and Jesse Wilkins recently wrote, “Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, and cautioned America against supporting ‘old, moribund, reactionary regimes.’ Khrushchev used the opportunity to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was ‘very unwise’ for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.”

The face-to-face with the Soviet Premier was an unmitigated disaster. Diplomats on both sides of the table offered the same assessment. One of Khrushchev’s aides recorded that Kennedy seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev himself said of the two-day meeting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak,” and returned to Moscow elated at his newfound elevated position of advantage, and extremely unimpressed at the naïveté and seeming impotence of the new President.

Kennedy’s self-appraisal was no less severe. He said of Khrushchev, “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts.”

The consequences of this humiliating diplomatic effort could not have been foreseen. Just a few months later, Khrushchev ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall, and a few more months after that, authorized the shipping of nuclear missiles to Cuba to, as he phrased it, “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants.”

There can be no doubt that Kennedy’s weakness contributed significantly to Khrushchev’s perception that he could build the wall and install nuclear missiles off our Southern coast. As a result, Berlin was divided by a wall for nearly half a century and we were brought to the brink of a nuclear Armageddon in spite of Kennedy’s intelligence and articulation. It could therefore be argued that these events were precipitated because of Kennedy’s hubris and his self-perceived ability to persuade. To counter this weakness, Kennedy resolved that he wouldn’t get pushed around by the Soviets any more, and determined to make his stand in Southeast Asia. The rest is regrettable history.

A profound reminder to those who seek political office: “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”