One Reason Deniers Deny

Eli,

Why do deniers deny? Well one reason is if you insult me by comparing me to a Nazi Holocaust denier I'm unlikely to agree with you. But another reason is the source is tainted.

The UNIPCC seems like a front group for wealth re-distribution and wants to make me feel guilty for being born a middle-aged white guy with a house in the suburbs. Plus they are depressing. Cold, hot, wet, dry. Doesn't matter, all evidence we are on the eve of destruction. We're all doomed. If we're all doomed, leave me alone so I can enjoy the time I have left.

The UN part of the UNIPCC is troubling. Consider the UN Human Rights Council. Council member Cuba (Wait. Cuba is on the UN Human Rights Council? What?) is upset there is criticism of Venezuela's desire to join the council (Excuse me?) and its human rights record. I didn't think there was any dispute about the human rights records of Venezuela, and Cuba. Sotto voce-their records are not good. 

The same organization the brings us Cuba, Russia, China and Saudi Arabia on the Human Rights Council brings us cataclysmic man-made climate change. It's a wonder anyone believes in climate change. Except the Cubans.

Bill

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tempers-flare-un-human-rights-council-speaker-criticizes-cuba-and-aspiring-member

Tempers Flare at U.N. Human Rights Council As Speaker Criticizes Cuba and Aspiring Member Venezuela

Former Venezuelan political prisoner Eligio Cedeno, left, U.N. Watch director Hillel Neuer and Human Rights Foundation president Thor Halvorssen in Geneva. (Photo: U.N. Watch)

(CNSNews.com) – Authoritarian members of the U.N. Human Rights Council bristled Thursday when a speaker questioned their right to be members of the United Nation's top human rights body, interrupting to demand that the presiding officer take the critic to task.

A visibly angry Cuban delegate reacted after the speaker – a Venezuelan-born human rights activist – questioned the appropriateness of President Hugo Chavez' regime seeking a seat on the Geneva-based HRC in elections due later this year.

Venezuela and Pakistan are among countries preparing to contest seats on the council, when term limits will see some of its most controversial current members, including Cuba, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia, step down.

Speaking during a segment of the meeting dedicated to input from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Human Rights Foundation head Thor Halvorssen told the council that his mother had been shot by Venezuelan security forces in 2004.

"Through the Human Rights Foundation, which I founded and direct, I have carefully monitored the Venezuelan state and have established that its current government is among Latin America's worst human rights violators," he said.

Halvorssen went on to allege abuses faced by political opponents and media critics of the government, charging that more than 150,000 people had been killed since Chavez became president in 1999.

"Despite all of this, Venezuela is now seeking election to this council," he said, recalling that the U.N. resolution establishing the HRC in 2006 called for members to be those countries that "uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights."

"To elect Venezuela would shame and embarrass this council, and would allow Venezuela to shield its horrendous record of abuse."

Venezuela's presence would also, he said, "validate other authoritarian governments such as Syria, Iran, and one that disgracefully sits on this council – Cuba." As he said this, Halvorssen pointed in the direction of the Cuban delegation.

Cuban envoy Juan Antonio Quintanilla Roman jumped up, gesticulating and knocking his chair over in the process, as he demanded that the session's chairman, Gulnara Iskakova of Kyrgyzstan, interrupt the proceedings. When she did several moments later, Roman upbraided her for not having done so immediately.

Roman then turned on Halvorssen.

"The speaker is out of line," he said. "It is possible to refer to human rights situations in this council, but one cannot question under any context the aspirations or hopes of states to become members of the Human Rights Council.

"If you wish to refer to what you allege or believe to be a human rights violation you may do so but you cannot say that my country hasn't the right to be a member of this Human Rights Council."

He demanded that Halvorssen's statement be struck from the record.

A United States representative took the floor next, saying the U.S. "firmly believes that accredited NGOs must be permitted to speak in this council."

"Though member states, including ourselves, may occasionally disagree with the content of their statements, it is essential that civil society voices be heard here in an atmosphere of open expression," he said, urging Iskakova to ensure that Halvorssen's statement was reflected on the record of the meeting.

China's envoy said that NGO representatives "are not entitled to challenge the right of a country to become a member of the council."

Gulnara Iskakova of Kyrkyzstan presided over Thursday's HRC session (UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferre)

Iskakova then cautioned Halvorssen and said he could continue.

Halvorssen resumed his statement: "In December, four authoritarian governments – China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Russia – will step down. You have a golden opportunity –

"Time is up," Iskakova interrupted, preventing him from finishing the last two sentences of his text. (According to the prepared version, he had intended to say, "You have a golden opportunity to prevent more human rights violators from soiling this council. Please block Venezuela's bid and uphold your own standards.")

Cuba's Roman again called for the floor, and demanded that the NGO "abstain from using disrespectful terms such as 'authoritarian regimes.' We do not recognize this NGO but we will not permit them to use this kind of language in this forum."

China's envoy agreed, asking how Halvorssen "has the right to point a finger at any country which is a member of the council, or which wishes to become a member."

The Russian and Pakistani delegates also supported Cuba's position.

Later during the session, former Venezuelan political prisoner Eligio Cedeno addressed the chamber, speaking on behalf of the Geneva-based NGO, U.N. Watch.

Cedeno told the HRC he had spent almost three years detained with trial for providing financial support to the Venezuelan political opposition.

"Following a recommendation of this organization, the United Nations, I was freed by Venezuelan Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni," he said. "That same day she was arrested."

Cedeno said Chavez had gone on television to call the judge a "bandit" and had demanded of judicial authorities that she face the maximum penalty, 30 years' imprisonment.

"Since then, Judge Afiuni has for two years and six months been in prison and under house arrest."

Cedeno said it would be immoral to allow Venezuela to become a member of the HRC if its government did not change its behavior.

Venezuela's envoy later accused the U.S. and "its lackeys" of trying to smear the country.

"Who can give credence to what is stated by the American government or its lackeys – the words of those who are undeniably the worst culprits when it comes to violation of human rights?" he asked.

"Today was a rare moment at the U.N.," UN Watch director Hillel Neuer said afterwards. "We succeeded in putting Chavez – who throws independent judges in jail and persecutes student activists – on the defensive."

Why do the Chinese subsidize solar?

Eli,

Why does China subsidize solar production? I really don't know. (China's investment in coal, oil and gas dwarfs its investment in solar and wind, by the way). Maybe it's the same reason Japan and South Korea and other countries got a bee in their bonnet to dominate something, taxed their populace to make it happen, and in essence transferred wealth to consumers of other countries. As a consumer, I'm all for it. If the Chinese want to give a couple hundred bucks per year to me by keeping the value of their currency low or subsidizing unprofitable manufacturers, I won't complain. 

But maybe there's another reason. Maybe the Chinese recognize they have a comparative advantage in low-value-added, high-labor-content, marginal intellectual property assembly work, and North America has a comparative advantage in fossil fuels. See below

Bill.

Original Page: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/07/08/the-energy-revolution-part-one-the-biggest-losers/

The Energy Revolution Part One: The Biggest Losers

Over the past year, we've been watching a geopolitical revolution get underway. It's much bigger and more consequential than the Arab Spring, though the legacy media are giving it much less play. It will rearrange the global chessboard, improving the position of some powers, weakening others. It is a powerful boost to American power, reducing America's strategic and economic liabilities while adding considerably to its assets. And it dramatically changes the long term outlook for, among other things, the US dollar. In line with Via Meadia's policy of trying to focus attention on the most consequential events of the time, we will be following this story as it unfolds, looking at the implications of the shifts now underway for world politics, the US economy, our domestic politics, and the green movement.

While the chattering classes yammered on about American decline and peak oil, a quite different future is taking shape. A world energy revolution is underway and it will be shaping the realities of the 21st century when the Crash of 2008 and the Great Stagnation that followed only interest historians.  A new age of abundance for fossil fuels is upon us.  And the center of gravity of the global energy picture is shifting from the Middle East to… North America.

The two biggest winners look to be Canada and the United States. Canada, with something like two trillion barrels worth of conventional oil in its tar sands, and the United States with about a trillion barrels of shale oil, are the planet's new super giant energy powers. Throw in natural gas and coal, and the United States is better supplied with fossil fuels than any other country on earth. Canada and the United States are each richer in oil than Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia combined.

Further bolstering America's new geopolitical edge, the rest of the western hemisphere is also rich in oil. Venezuela is now believed to have more oil that Saudi Arabia, and Brazil's offshore discoveries make it a significant factor in world oil markets as well.

China is another winner, though on a smaller scale. China has the second largest shale oil reserves in the world, estimated at about half the size of America's. This puts China in the Saudi class as well, but given the anticipated growth in China's economy, its shale oil wealth will reduce but not end its need for energy imports.

The other important change in the new world energy picture is one I wrote about earlier this week: Israel's potential emergence as a major oil and gas producer. With trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, and potentially as much as 250 billion barrels of recoverable shale oil, Israel may be on the verge of joining the wealthiest Arab states as a world class energy producer.

These changes won't take place overnight, but they are coming faster than many understand. US domestic oil production is up almost half a million barrels a day thanks to North Dakota, and the surge in US natural gas production is already changing international trade patterns. More change will come.

The Biggest Losers

If the US, Canada and Israel are the likeliest big winners, the biggest losers in the coming shift will be the Gulf petro-states and Russia. Their Gulf losses aren't going to be economic; the Gulf  will still have the world's cheapest oil to produce and so its oilfields will be the most profitable at any given price point.

Russia, on the other hand, is going to have a harder time. Its oil and gas are more expensive to produce and so Russia's profit margins are likely to fall.

But regardless of the simple economic impact, in different ways and different degrees the Gulf countries and Russia are going to lose a lot of the political advantages that their energy wealth now gives them. They will have less ability to restrict supply and to manipulate prices than they have had in the past. Oil and gas are going to be less special when supplies are more abundant and more broadly distributed.

The unexpected success of the economic sanctions on Iran show how this process works. Rising production in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the United States enabled the world to do something most people would have thought impossible in the golden age of OPEC. Iran's oil sales have been cut by something like 40 percent even as world crude prices fell. Iran's Supreme Leader believed that the world needed his oil so much that the US could never get the Europeans and others to agree to serious sanctions. He was like Jefferson Davis in 1860, who believed that Britain and France needed Confederate cotton so badly that they would force the North to recognize Confederate independence.

The Supreme Leader, like Davis, was wrong. The world survived without Confederate cotton, and the world is surviving with less oil from Iran. In fact, even as Iranian production declined, world oil prices fell.

What Iran is discovering today, others will feel tomorrow. Since the 1970s, the states on both sides of the Gulf have been central to all kinds of global issues, and the great powers have focused enormous amounts of time and attention on their wants and needs. As the energy revolution proceeds, they won't completely sink into insignificance (and the US concern to protect the independence of countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the rest won't disappear), but the days when the world hung on every word that fell from the lips of OPEC are gone.

More, the political importance of the Gulf derives in part from the intersection of energy politics and national policy in many European countries. In places like Italy, France and Greece, national oil companies have much greater power in national politics than they do in the US. (The US has more oil companies, and there are more corporate and regional interests competing against what the oil companies want.) The ability of the Gulf countries to make or mar the fortunes of foreign oil companies has been an important source of political power for them. This power won't go away, but it won't be the same. There are lots of new places to look for oil these days, and with more countries interested in attracting international investment, the balance of power will shift from resource rich countries to firms with the capital and skill to turn those resources into revenue.

Coming back to Russia, the biggest threat to Moscow's hopes for rebuilding its power based on energy resources comes from the discovery of huge natural gas reserves under the eastern Mediterranean seabed. Russia can and will do what it can to join in the exploitation of these resources; Greece, Cyprus and Israel are all willing to cooperate with the Russians when it comes to exploitation and processing.

So Gazprom won't starve — but it could lose its ability to stop the flow of natural gas into western Europe. New pipelines will be built from Greece north and east and while a friendly Greek government and a strong capital position for Russian companies in the Greek gas business could give Moscow an edge, the Greeks are unlikely to allow Russia to turn Europe's gas taps on and off at will. Additionally, new terminals on the Atlantic coast will be built to take LNG shipments from the US. As the world gains experience with fracking technology, and the carbon benefits of natural gas as opposed to coal grow more obvious, look for Europe to do more to explore its own considerable potential to develop gas fields. Russia will continue making money selling gas and oil to Europe, but the political consequences of this trade will likely disappoint.

Another group numbered among the losers: energy states who finance unorthodox economic policies and anti-US foreign policies on the basis of their oil wealth. It will still be easier for the president of Venezuela to thumb his nose at the US and spend money on programs that build up his political strength at home than, say, for the president of Guatemala to do that, but as world energy supplies continue to flow, both the financial and the political benefits of having a lot of oil are going to diminish. Hugo Chavez' successors are likely going to have to watch their wallets and watch their words a little more closely than the Great Bolivarean has done.

These changes won't materialize overnight. We are so far seeing only the first stages of new energy geopolitics. But one way to begin getting your head around the new geopolitics is to think about a world in which Kuwait matters less, and Alberta more.

Over the next couple of weeks I'll be coming back to this subject, looking at some other aspects of this big, complicated set of changes coming down the pike: how the change will affect the winners and world politics as a whole, what the environmental and economic consequences are likely to be, and how politics in the US may change.  And going forward, Via Meadia will do its best to follow the energy revolution in the news of the day — keeping an eye both on the progress or the lack of it at bringing the new potential sources online and on the ways world politics shift in response.

---

What's the Trigger?

Eli,

After Friday's disappointing jobs report one of the commentators I listen to remarked there's nothing to make the job's outlook any better, "What's the trigger?" he asked. In his opinion, both monetary policy (interest rates near zero) and fiscal policy (a permanent $1 trillion stimulus since 2009) have both proven ineffective. Using his metaphor, both of those triggers have been pulled and the bullets missed.

A trigger we haven't pulled is liberalization, or radical liberalization, to modify John Cochrane's prescription for Greece, "shock liberalization."

Despite the claims of most on the Left that since 2000 there has been a roll-back of countless regulations resulting in lawless financial markets, dirty skies and water, unsafe working conditions and shoddy products endangering our children, we have to go no further than our lunch room to recognize this is untrue.

One wall in the kitchen in our office is devoted to posters from the state, OSHA, Department of Labor with a mind-numbing cacophony of regulations on minimum wages, fair wages, equal wages, workplace safety etc. There's probably a poster that tells us we have to display these posters since about zero of them apply to our business. When I first started working a couple of decades ago there was maybe one of these posters; now, a wall 8 feet by 5 feet. These regulations must copulate since the number of regulations increase every year.

Or look at the number of pages in the federal register, which codifies federal regulations. This has grown from 2,620 pages in 1936 to 82,419 pages in 2011. The only real respite from this growth occurred in the Reagan years.

You may say, "But these are necessary rules, these rules keep us safe." Maybe. What about the rules that force utility companies to purchase a certain percentage of their generating capacity from sources like solar and wind? I can see how that makes electricity more expensive and how it makes it more unreliable, but making my life safer? That extra utility bill means I have less to spend on what I want. But who cares about me. It really hurts the poor who spend much more of their income on electricity than I do. It pushes out industries that have need for greater amounts of electricity to produce their goods. The millions hurt by these policies are rarely heard. But we do hear of the minuscule amount helped.


But it's fair you say. Without these rules the rich would get richer and the poor poorer. Maybe. But how then do you explain 50% unemployment for Blacks in New York City? I blame much of this on minimum wage laws that crowd workers out of the labor force and government schooling that is a complete failure in the inner city.

In 1992 the Department of Agriculture introduced the Food Pyramid, a guide to healthy eating. Since then we have seen an "epidemic" (I'm positive that is an improper description) of obesity. When I go on a diet, do you know what I cut back on? Bread, then dairy. High calorie, low density food. You have to eat a lot to make you sated so you end up consuming a lot of calories. If you follow the food pyramid guidelines I think you'll gain weight.

Are the regulations on my office's kitchen and the pages in our federal register the economic equivalent of the food pyramid? After all, the three weakest recoveries in employment, since WWII are Obama's, Bush's and Clinton's. Is this a coincidence? Or is it the result of the policies we have pursued for the past few decades? Is it the result of more and more regulations and obstacles to competition, that primarily benefit the rich, powerful and connected? Is it the result of more and more regulations and obstacles to competition the primarily hurt the poor?

Bill

Science and Sensibility

Bill

I'd been curious about your assessment of the Colorado wildfires, and I certainly agree that part of the pathogenesis of this increasingly frequent event in the West is the hazardous intersection between home owning homo sapiens and the unpredictable vagaries of nature. Whether or not the Waldo canyon fire exemplify the sort of extreme weather events that climate models predict will only be determined in retrospect. Even as I accept the soundness of the evidence that man made release of carbon dioxide is a prime agent behind climate change, I cannot imagine the world waking up tomorrow to a new era of goodness and light in which we all sing kumbaya and display an ironclad determination to limit carbon emissions. Beyond buying green electricity, I haven't exactly been a model citizen in terms of my own carbon footprint.

At its essence, science aligns itself against a lot of human tendencies, superstition, deceit assumption, tribalism. Good science is obsessive, skeptical, careful, and humble. Scientific consensus builds from unceasing observation, welcomes challenge, and constantly revises itself. 
Scientists, however, are not immune from the frailties that plague the rest of us, and the annals science are full of individuals persecuted for the simple sin of challenging orthodoxy. Advocates of efforts to limit climate change do not advance their cause when they leave the careful language of science behind and descend into hyperbole. Eventually though, the truth,at least as we scientists understand it, will win out. Its possible, I suppose that the international scientific consensus regarding climate change is simply wrong. But if that's the case, it is surely scientists who will destroy that consensus, and not those imbeciles advancing the idiotic argument that the whole business is a massive global conspiracy to perpetuate a hoax in order to attract grant money. 


The science of climate change does not lend itself to the precision of an experiment under  controlled conditions. But carbon dioxide in minute amounts is a very efficient heat trapping agent, and carbon dioxide as a measurable component of the atmosphere continues to increase. You and I of course, won't be around long enough to see what kind of difference that makes.


So let me ask you. If the whole business is a bunch of nonsense, why are the Chinese scrambling to dominate the world in green technology?

Meanwhile, I hope you'll think twice before you buy that dream house in Pagosa Springs.

Eli


   

The Sky is Falling

Eli,

It's July, and it's hot, so there is only only possible explanation: Global Warming. According to Eugene Robinson, if you don't believe in climate change you are "either deep in denial or delirious from the heat." The wildfires in the Colorado and Utah? Global warming. Duh. I grew up on the front range and I offer another reason why houses are burning in a semi-arid part of the country: more home development in areas prone to wildfires.

In my part of the world, however, the temperature seems just fine. As a matter of fact I've been keeping a record of my electric bills over the past six years which includes the average monthly temperature for the billing period. The graph below shows the average monthly temperature as reported to me by my electric utility. I don't know about you, but I can't see anything extraordinary about temperatures in my part of the world.

I know what you are thinking, "The temperature at your house over the past six years doesn't prove anything." I agree. Nor does a storm in the mid-Atlantic and wildfires in Colorado.

I do believe man impacts climate. How can man not impact climate? The only way we can eliminate man's impact on climate is eliminate man. I'm not willing to accept that step.

What would I do? Nothing. Not a thing. Well actually, no, I would do one thing. I would hydro frack every shale formation in the world. That would result in a faster, cheaper and broader reduction in greenhouse gas than anything else proposed.

Over man's history we have moved from inefficient, carbon intensive sources of energy to more efficient less intensive sources of energy. That is, wood to coal to oil to natural gas. Natural gas fired electric power is now equal to coal fired electric power in the US. Natural gas produces half the amount of carbon that coal does. Imagine that. The Free Market has done quietly and effectively what all of Al Gore's bloviating has failed to do: structurally reduce the nation's carbon emissions.

If the greens were really serious about reducing carbon emissions they wouldn't be fawning over electric cars and tilting at windmills. They would be encouraging China and India to hydro frack in order to replace coal with natural gas. This all can be done with price. Let the market do it. It's worked in the US. It will work there also.

Frack baby frack.

Bill

A Modest Proposal To Prevent Voter Fraud

Bill,

Given the relentless series of adverse decisions Republican state legislators have suffered in their noble efforts to prevent the wave of voter fraud sweeping the country, I thought I'd give them a few suggestions on how to toughen up their efforts to insure that only those among us who really appreciate the nobility of democracy get to participate in the sacred ritual of voting. So in spirit of the Bill of Rights here are ten  proposed requirements for eligibility to vote that will weed out the undeserving within the electorate.

1) Since those among us who pay taxes for the benefit of the moocher class  shoulder an equal burden, we taxpayers ought to have the votes, and the system should be changed from man one vote to one vote for every tax dollar paid, just like the corporations do. After, "corporations are people are people too my friend". That way we one percenters, who after all pay 27% of the the federal income tax, will know we are getting our moneys' worth. If a  non-taxpayer wants to vote then they can damn well pay us for it.

2) Since voting is right that should be defended to the death, any legal voter (see above) is free to challenge an unapproved voter to a duel with the weapons of their choosing. Former registrars of voters will preside. It will give them something to do now that open access registration is a thing of the past.

3) What made the country great is innovation. New voters will need to get a  patent approved before their application to vote is accepted.

4) Since watching too much television makes you stupid, anyone who watches more than 10 hours of TV will be banned from voting. Unless they are watching commercials produced by Restore Our Future.

5) A thoroughly informed electorate is vital in a democracy. New voters will be required to answer at least 7 of the 10 questions from the previous week's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me news quiz.

6) Freedom of speech remains a cornerstone of of our great country. But how can a citizen really understand speech if they haven't given one? All new voters therefore will prepare a 20 minute oration on the Smoot Hawley Tarrif Act or other suitable topic.

7) Jobs are the vital issue in the current election. Each new voter must either have a job or produce a job creation plan to will cut taxes at the same time.

8)  The country is too fat. Any potential voter with a  body surface area more than 10% above normal will need to lose at least 10 per cent of their body weight and maintain that weight loss for 6 months after the election.

9) Self reliance is a hallowed American value. Proven ability to a) grill your own hot dogs  b) make your own beer  c) build your own campfire or d) hire someone to do all these things for you will necessary for those seeking voting rights 

10) An unyielding belief in American exceptionalism is a hallmark of our national greatness. Those seeking to vote should be prepared to defend this belief regardless of any evidence to the contrary. 

Eli

The Halfway Mark

Bill,

The baseball season reaches the halfway mark this week with the usual mixture of predictability (Yanks and Rangers in 1st place) and surprise (Nationals also in 1st!), emergence of new stars (Strasburg) and the fading away of the old  (Posada). The Red Sox are in transformation like a ruthlessly efficient unregulated marketplace. More than of half of last years discontented and underp6erforming roster has been honorably retired (Wakefield, Varitek), signed elsewhere (Paplebon), unceremoniously traded (Scutaro,Youkilis) or banished to the minors (Bard) or the disabled list (Crawford, Ellsbury, and a tidal wave of others). Meanwhile a stream of new, young hungry replacements has appeared, some fulfilling expectations (Middlebrooks), some redeeming unfulfilled promise (Morales) and some shocking us, and probably themselves, with unexpected displays of excellence (Nava, Ross). From the 6th place the Old Town Team has now claimed into 3rd, a rounding number away from the 2nd wild card spot.

The presidential race has entered a sort of halfway point too as we enter the summer doldrums and the candidates and their handlers position themselves for display like mannequins in a shop window. Here we see the opposite of innovation, creativity, recognition of the essential nature of change, and courage. Against all evidence to the contrary, the President hopes that he can capture the zeitgeist of the the previous campaign. The challenger and his handlers just as clearly think they have enough time and resources to convince the imbeciles among us, also known as persuadable voters, that he and he alone is the man to right things and send us off into a new paroxysm of prosperity, all the while saying less than nothing about just how he plans to do it. Every little bit of silliness is magnified into an earth shattering moment as the chattering class yammers away in effort to entertain us and hold onto their jobs. The rest of us are left to nurse our sour uncertainty about where the hell we are going and how we are going to get there.

The parallel between sports and politics, and the reason that we watch them, is that they remain among the few arenas of contemporary life where the outcome is unknown. But these days the political arena could earn a few lessons from the diamond. In baseball the consequence of every decision is plain to see, failure cannot be hidden or disguised, decisions cannot be delayed, cowardice is punished, and luck, good and bad, is accepted as part of the process.

Maybe the ballplayers and the politicians should trade places for a week. My guess is that the country would not be the worse for it, and it sure would be a hoot to see John Boehner trying to throw one past Nancy Pelosi.

Eli