If Robert Zubrin's program to convert us to an alcohol economy is in fact adopted, it raises a serious question for the rapid development of domestic oil resources. Given the huge cost and long time frame to develop the domestic resources the advantage of alcohol could render oil development a very risky venture.
Perhaps the time is soon coming to short the oil companies.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Plan to Kill OPEC
I just finished reading 'Energy Victory' by Robert Zubrin. I was most impressed by his presentation at AIPAC and was equally impressed with his book. While I recommend you buy and read the whole book (270 pages) here is the quick summary.
We need to convert to an alcohol economy over an oil economy. The primary reason is for national security; it is just suicidal to transfer the amount of wealth that we do to regimes that are bent on our destruction. Radical Islamic forces that terrorize the world are funded by the oil revenues, primarily to Saudi Arabi.
The secondary reason is the benefit to our economy by drastically reducing our trade deficit. It would also benefit the poor in the third world by giving them an incentive to produce organic commodities to convert to fuel. Instead of funding people who hate us we could help the poor become more self sufficient and less dependent on foreign aid.
The third reason is environmental. While he acknowledges that global warming is real, it is not the urgent crisis that many of its advocates propose. Weaning us of oil would reduce the man made impact.
Zubrin is an engineer and he gives a lot of technical data to support his points. He disposes of the hydrogen based fuel cell technology as technically inneficient. He also describes in detail why alcohol is superior to wind and photovoltaic production as a broad solution. Alcohol fuels do not require a dramatic increase in the production cost of cars or require a new electric infrastructure as battery hybrids require.
He proposes more nuclear energy for the electric grid and his hope for fusion nuclear development would be a huge advancement of epic proportions that would dwarf the benefits of all other fuel sources.
He devotes a chapter to Brazil and how their emphasis on alcohol technology has made them independent of imported oil. In fact they export both oil and the alcohol they produce to replace it. Brazil supported alcohol production even after OPEC lowered prices, making it uncompetitive. The IMF even pressured them to cease the subsidy to help with their debt repayments. Brazil resisted and benefited handsomely.
While admiring Brazil's long term solution, Zubrin's critical idea is not to subsidize the production and distribution as they did, but to mandate that all cars SOLD in the US be flex fuel compatible. Flex fuel mean the cars are built to use both methanol and ethanol blends as well as gasoline. It requires very little extra cost and would create such a demand incentive that the private fuel distribution network would create the supply to satisfy demand.
By demanding that all cars sold, not just produced in the U.S., be flex fuel compatible we would in effect force this standard on the world, and deal OPEC a fatal blow.
Killing OPEC for good is Zubrin's ultimate goal. I'm OK with that.
We need to convert to an alcohol economy over an oil economy. The primary reason is for national security; it is just suicidal to transfer the amount of wealth that we do to regimes that are bent on our destruction. Radical Islamic forces that terrorize the world are funded by the oil revenues, primarily to Saudi Arabi.
The secondary reason is the benefit to our economy by drastically reducing our trade deficit. It would also benefit the poor in the third world by giving them an incentive to produce organic commodities to convert to fuel. Instead of funding people who hate us we could help the poor become more self sufficient and less dependent on foreign aid.
The third reason is environmental. While he acknowledges that global warming is real, it is not the urgent crisis that many of its advocates propose. Weaning us of oil would reduce the man made impact.
Zubrin is an engineer and he gives a lot of technical data to support his points. He disposes of the hydrogen based fuel cell technology as technically inneficient. He also describes in detail why alcohol is superior to wind and photovoltaic production as a broad solution. Alcohol fuels do not require a dramatic increase in the production cost of cars or require a new electric infrastructure as battery hybrids require.
He proposes more nuclear energy for the electric grid and his hope for fusion nuclear development would be a huge advancement of epic proportions that would dwarf the benefits of all other fuel sources.
He devotes a chapter to Brazil and how their emphasis on alcohol technology has made them independent of imported oil. In fact they export both oil and the alcohol they produce to replace it. Brazil supported alcohol production even after OPEC lowered prices, making it uncompetitive. The IMF even pressured them to cease the subsidy to help with their debt repayments. Brazil resisted and benefited handsomely.
While admiring Brazil's long term solution, Zubrin's critical idea is not to subsidize the production and distribution as they did, but to mandate that all cars SOLD in the US be flex fuel compatible. Flex fuel mean the cars are built to use both methanol and ethanol blends as well as gasoline. It requires very little extra cost and would create such a demand incentive that the private fuel distribution network would create the supply to satisfy demand.
By demanding that all cars sold, not just produced in the U.S., be flex fuel compatible we would in effect force this standard on the world, and deal OPEC a fatal blow.
Killing OPEC for good is Zubrin's ultimate goal. I'm OK with that.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Why Perpetuate Lies When the Truth Will Work Just Fine
I keep getting some preposterous e-mails about Obama. I recently got one that was a supposed article by Maureen Dowd about Obama getting millions of dollars through the internet from Saudi sources. Dowd never wrote the article, but the e-mail cut and pasted her picture and made it look as if it was copied from the New York Times.
I have received a supposed e-mail from a US soldier in Afghanstan about how Obama 'blew off' the soldiers when he visited. It was made to look like a forwarded e-mail from a regular grunt.
It is also false.
I realize that a lot of conservatives don't like Obama so strongly that they will believe anything negative about him. Both of these stories and many others can be easily discredited at http://www.snopes.com/. Just type in the article heading. Be a little responsible.
I do not support Obama, but there are plenty of reasons in his stated policies, his 180 degree shifts on about 80% of his positions, and his utter lack of leadership experience on anything other than getting elected.
I have received a supposed e-mail from a US soldier in Afghanstan about how Obama 'blew off' the soldiers when he visited. It was made to look like a forwarded e-mail from a regular grunt.
It is also false.
I realize that a lot of conservatives don't like Obama so strongly that they will believe anything negative about him. Both of these stories and many others can be easily discredited at http://www.snopes.com/. Just type in the article heading. Be a little responsible.
I do not support Obama, but there are plenty of reasons in his stated policies, his 180 degree shifts on about 80% of his positions, and his utter lack of leadership experience on anything other than getting elected.
Being Right by Being Wrong
7/22/08
I was up early and watched an interview with Obama after his tour of Iraq. Obama was asked if he regretted his opposition to the surge since it apparently has worked quite well.
He stood by his original vote, and credited the success not to the surge but to the change in the Sunni participation in the government and the surrender of the Shiite militia, which he admittedly did not foresee.
Does he seriously believe that the change in both the Sunni and Shiite postures was not directly related to the military commitment of the surge? Did they just miraculously change their minds and fight the insurgents and support the government process, just coincidentally at the time of the surge?
Furthermore does Obama believe that Malaki would be so quick to agree in some fashion to a withdrawal of US forces if the surge had not been executed and been successful? Would Obama have even visited Iraq without the surge he opposed?
The ultimate irony is that Obama is able to score political points because he was wrong. The success of the surge which he opposed has paved the way for the withdrawal that has been a center piece of his campaign.
I was up early and watched an interview with Obama after his tour of Iraq. Obama was asked if he regretted his opposition to the surge since it apparently has worked quite well.
He stood by his original vote, and credited the success not to the surge but to the change in the Sunni participation in the government and the surrender of the Shiite militia, which he admittedly did not foresee.
Does he seriously believe that the change in both the Sunni and Shiite postures was not directly related to the military commitment of the surge? Did they just miraculously change their minds and fight the insurgents and support the government process, just coincidentally at the time of the surge?
Furthermore does Obama believe that Malaki would be so quick to agree in some fashion to a withdrawal of US forces if the surge had not been executed and been successful? Would Obama have even visited Iraq without the surge he opposed?
The ultimate irony is that Obama is able to score political points because he was wrong. The success of the surge which he opposed has paved the way for the withdrawal that has been a center piece of his campaign.
Monday, July 28, 2008
The Fuel Use Act of Jimmy Carter
Just to show you how open minded I am, Jimmy Carter deserves credit for one successful energy policy.
In 1974 about 17% of U.S. electricity was produced by by burning oil and 18% came from natural gas. Carter's Fuel Use Act discouraged this and by 1985 oil generators supplied only 4.1% of our electricity. Today oil is down to 3%. Nuclear power went from 4% in 1973 to 20% today.
The success was because the policy focused on substituting a better fuel rather than conservation. During that period energy consumption increased substantially.
While the Fuel Use Act was a success, most of the rest of Carter's energy policies were substantial failures.
from Energy Victory by Robert Zubrin
In 1974 about 17% of U.S. electricity was produced by by burning oil and 18% came from natural gas. Carter's Fuel Use Act discouraged this and by 1985 oil generators supplied only 4.1% of our electricity. Today oil is down to 3%. Nuclear power went from 4% in 1973 to 20% today.
The success was because the policy focused on substituting a better fuel rather than conservation. During that period energy consumption increased substantially.
While the Fuel Use Act was a success, most of the rest of Carter's energy policies were substantial failures.
from Energy Victory by Robert Zubrin
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Equal Opportunity Sleaze
The blogosphere is chattering with the news of John Edward's love child that he is accused of fathering and sneaking into see at an LA hotel while being pursued by a reporter for the National Enquirer. The rumor is as seedy as it gets and there may be an explanation. I will assume there is.
But as Erick Erickson comments in his excellent blog, Confessions of a Political Junkie, the large or legitimate media should be called to task for ignoring this story while going to press with a much less legitimate rumor of John McCain's alleged encouter with a lobbyist, which has in fact been discredited.
While sources such as the Enquirer or Drudge are often criticized for sleaze they have in fact broken major stories that the 'legitimate media' had to play catchup with.
But as Erick Erickson comments in his excellent blog, Confessions of a Political Junkie, the large or legitimate media should be called to task for ignoring this story while going to press with a much less legitimate rumor of John McCain's alleged encouter with a lobbyist, which has in fact been discredited.
While sources such as the Enquirer or Drudge are often criticized for sleaze they have in fact broken major stories that the 'legitimate media' had to play catchup with.
The Yellow Pages, Pit Toilets and Network News
The AOL opening screen has a list of 25 things in American Life that are disappearing.
The Yellow Pages is one- I haven't used one in years- usually I just google it. Seems like a waste of print. But there are still a lot of the elderly who aren't online and they would surely miss it. Along with the Yellow Pages will also go the classified ad section.
Cameras that use film are getting to be a dinosaur, how long can they keep making them?
Personal checks- I still prefer them, especially for tax purposes. I do not have an ATM and I only use the debit card for my HSA (Health Savings Account).
I do not understand why someone would use a debit card rather than a credit card. With the credit card I pay later, and since I pay the bill in full I pay no fees or interest. Plus I get tons of frequent flyer miles and points. I just bought a Canon G9 Camera ($499) with Best Buy gift cards redeemed from my Quicken credit card. I bought memory cards and a $100 Altec speaker system for my iPod from Amazon with credits from my Amazon credit card. I flew to Vegas First Class for free with frequent flyer points from my American Express.
The handwritten note is disappearing. This is most unfortunate. Blackberries, text messaging and the instant cell phone call is replacing the handwritten note. I contend that for the small business a clear well written personal letter is the most effective marketing tool available.
Other things that are disappearing:
honey bees- Colony Collapse Disorder or CCD is sharply reducing their numbers and I do not think the scientists know what is causing it. ( I bet Al Gore knows.)
pit toilets- Thank God! But we still have the construction site toilets. I was stuck in Atlanta traffic for 90 minutes this afternoon, and I saw a passenger jump out of the car and run into a construction toilet left in the median near 14 Street, come out of the toilet and run 40 feet and jump back into the passenger seat, getting a high 5 from the passengers in the back seat.
Network News- not a bad thing, but viewers for the top three are 1/2 what they were in 1984. CNN, Fox and the internet has stolen their audience, and in my opinion liberated control of the news. I think it was pivotal when Internet hacks brought the crappy journalism of Dan Rather to light. The same goes for Matt Drudge and some of the critical stories he broke. The same demise is imminent for news magazines and news papers.
The Yellow Pages is one- I haven't used one in years- usually I just google it. Seems like a waste of print. But there are still a lot of the elderly who aren't online and they would surely miss it. Along with the Yellow Pages will also go the classified ad section.
Cameras that use film are getting to be a dinosaur, how long can they keep making them?
Personal checks- I still prefer them, especially for tax purposes. I do not have an ATM and I only use the debit card for my HSA (Health Savings Account).
I do not understand why someone would use a debit card rather than a credit card. With the credit card I pay later, and since I pay the bill in full I pay no fees or interest. Plus I get tons of frequent flyer miles and points. I just bought a Canon G9 Camera ($499) with Best Buy gift cards redeemed from my Quicken credit card. I bought memory cards and a $100 Altec speaker system for my iPod from Amazon with credits from my Amazon credit card. I flew to Vegas First Class for free with frequent flyer points from my American Express.
The handwritten note is disappearing. This is most unfortunate. Blackberries, text messaging and the instant cell phone call is replacing the handwritten note. I contend that for the small business a clear well written personal letter is the most effective marketing tool available.
Other things that are disappearing:
honey bees- Colony Collapse Disorder or CCD is sharply reducing their numbers and I do not think the scientists know what is causing it. ( I bet Al Gore knows.)
pit toilets- Thank God! But we still have the construction site toilets. I was stuck in Atlanta traffic for 90 minutes this afternoon, and I saw a passenger jump out of the car and run into a construction toilet left in the median near 14 Street, come out of the toilet and run 40 feet and jump back into the passenger seat, getting a high 5 from the passengers in the back seat.
Network News- not a bad thing, but viewers for the top three are 1/2 what they were in 1984. CNN, Fox and the internet has stolen their audience, and in my opinion liberated control of the news. I think it was pivotal when Internet hacks brought the crappy journalism of Dan Rather to light. The same goes for Matt Drudge and some of the critical stories he broke. The same demise is imminent for news magazines and news papers.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Trade Offs and Solutions
A lady said, "What's your solution?"
I said, "There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs."
She said, "The people demand solutions!"
- Thomas Sowell
I said, "There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs."
She said, "The people demand solutions!"
- Thomas Sowell
Friday, July 25, 2008
Another Crisis Averted
from Newsweek
Here’s a Nutty Idea
By Caitlin McDevitt NEWSWEEK
Published Jul 12, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Jul 21, 2008
Each year, Americans buy 700 million pounds of peanut butter. But about 3.5 million pounds of it ends up unused, stuck at the bottom of the jar, according to Sherwood Forlee, a former Princeton University engineering student. So he's come up with a simple (and Kramer-esque) solution: his Easy PB&J jar has straight interior walls and twist-off lids at both ends. He spent eight years perfecting his invention and hopes to begin production later this year. "It's a really novel concept," says Lee Zalben, founder of Peanut Butter & Co., a Manhattan sandwich store. The peanut-butter industry, however, is hurting from an uncertain supply of peanuts and soaring fuel costs, and may be slow to embrace a packaging change. "It would seem much more expensive to manufacture," says Leslie Wagner of the Peanut Advisory Board. In that case, we'll just have to keep using our fingers.
Here’s a Nutty Idea
By Caitlin McDevitt NEWSWEEK
Published Jul 12, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Jul 21, 2008
Each year, Americans buy 700 million pounds of peanut butter. But about 3.5 million pounds of it ends up unused, stuck at the bottom of the jar, according to Sherwood Forlee, a former Princeton University engineering student. So he's come up with a simple (and Kramer-esque) solution: his Easy PB&J jar has straight interior walls and twist-off lids at both ends. He spent eight years perfecting his invention and hopes to begin production later this year. "It's a really novel concept," says Lee Zalben, founder of Peanut Butter & Co., a Manhattan sandwich store. The peanut-butter industry, however, is hurting from an uncertain supply of peanuts and soaring fuel costs, and may be slow to embrace a packaging change. "It would seem much more expensive to manufacture," says Leslie Wagner of the Peanut Advisory Board. In that case, we'll just have to keep using our fingers.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Today's Misery
from Jeff Jacoby
Cheer up - these are the good old days
7/23/08
Voices of reason keep trying to point out that conditions are not nearly as bad as they were the last time consumers were this despondent. That was in May 1980, during the final year of the Carter administration, when the "misery index" - the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates - hit an excruciating 21.9. Inflation was then at 14.4 percent; unemployment was 7.5 percent. The numbers today are 5 and 5.5 respectively.
Cheer up - these are the good old days
7/23/08
Voices of reason keep trying to point out that conditions are not nearly as bad as they were the last time consumers were this despondent. That was in May 1980, during the final year of the Carter administration, when the "misery index" - the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates - hit an excruciating 21.9. Inflation was then at 14.4 percent; unemployment was 7.5 percent. The numbers today are 5 and 5.5 respectively.
Georgia Is Prominent in the Elections
The state with the most presidential candidates this cycle is........
Georgia
Cynthia McKinney is the candidate for the Green Party, and Bob Barr is the candidate for the Libertarians. These two are about as polar opposite as two politicos can be.
Bob Barr is far most credible than the psycho nut job McKinney.
McKinney is nuttier than Mr. Peanut and completely destroys the minimal credibility the Green party ever could claim.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Betting That the Worst is Over
This is the Intrade betting chart as of 7:00 PM EST of the economy going into a recession.
My eyes keep telling me this economy is not as bad as the news would have us believe. Phil Graham was chastised for saying so, and it appears that the people who put their money where their mouth is also agrees.
How will this affect the election?
Goldwasser and Regev Returned at What Cost
I am a Zionist and a supporter of Israel's right to exist. I am proud of the country as a Jew for its incredible growth and civilized development and its high moral standard while surrounded by animals dedicated to its destruction. Nowhere is this moral contrast more clear than in the recent prisoner exchange.
In 1979 Samir Kantar and three other Hezbollah terrorists left Lebanon and took a small boat to the Israeli town of Nahariya. They killed a policeman who discoverd them and then burst into the home of Danny Haran, took him and his 4 year old daughter to the beach, shot Danny in the head in front his daughter and then bashed in the 4 year old's head, killing her.
Haran's wife fled into a crawl space with their 2 year old daughter, and ended up smothering her to keep her quiet.
Two members of the squad were killed, a third was exchanged for an Israeli prisoner in 1985. Kantar was swapped yesterday for the remains of two Israeli soldiers kidnapped in 2006; Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.
Kantar was given a hero's welcome by Hezbollah in Lebanon.
It is enormously frustrating to see such a perversion of justice, while much of the world still condemns Israel in its attempts to defend itself.
I hope we remember this exchange when Israel is again inevitably attacked by Hezbollah. Israel should ignore the claims of disproportionate response and rain hell on their enemy.
In 1979 Samir Kantar and three other Hezbollah terrorists left Lebanon and took a small boat to the Israeli town of Nahariya. They killed a policeman who discoverd them and then burst into the home of Danny Haran, took him and his 4 year old daughter to the beach, shot Danny in the head in front his daughter and then bashed in the 4 year old's head, killing her.
Haran's wife fled into a crawl space with their 2 year old daughter, and ended up smothering her to keep her quiet.
Two members of the squad were killed, a third was exchanged for an Israeli prisoner in 1985. Kantar was swapped yesterday for the remains of two Israeli soldiers kidnapped in 2006; Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.
Kantar was given a hero's welcome by Hezbollah in Lebanon.
It is enormously frustrating to see such a perversion of justice, while much of the world still condemns Israel in its attempts to defend itself.
I hope we remember this exchange when Israel is again inevitably attacked by Hezbollah. Israel should ignore the claims of disproportionate response and rain hell on their enemy.
Eat Meat - Save the Animals
Wesley Smith poses an ethical dilemma for those who shun meat for moral purposes. He points out that more animals are killed harvesting the food supply for vegetarians than are killed providing the food supply for carnivores.
I love such ironies. But then irony is one of those things listed in Stuff That White People Like.
from National Review Online
Veganism Is Murder
If God didn't want us to eat cows, he wouldn’t have made them out of steak.
By Wesley J. Smith
excerpts
But life is never that simple: Plant agriculture results each year in the mass slaughter of countless animals, including rabbits, gophers, mice, birds, snakes, and other field creatures. These animals are killed during harvesting, and in the various mechanized farming processes that produce wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, and other staples of vegan diets. And that doesn’t include the countless rats and mice poisoned in grain elevators, or the animals that die from loss of habitat cleared for agricultural use.
Moreover, even if the relative number of animals killed were the morally decisive issue, veganism might not be the most ethical solution. In 2001, S. L. Davis of the Department of Animal Sciences at Oregon State University, Corvallis, wrote a paper claiming that the diet most likely to result in the deaths of the fewest animals would be beef, lamb, and dairy — not vegan. Davis found a study that measured mouse population density per hectare in grain fields both before and after harvest and estimated a harvest casualty rate of ten mice per hectare. Then, he multiplied that figure by 120 million hectares of farmland in the U.S.; meaning that 1.2 billion mice would die each year in food production if America became a wholly vegan country. Next, he estimated the number of animals that would be killed if half of our fields were dedicated to raising grass eating forage animals (cows, calves, sheep, lambs, etc.) from which to obtain meat. He found that there would Be 300,000 fewer animal deaths (.9 billion) annually from such an omnivorous diet than the number of deaths (1.2 billion mice) that would be caused from a universal vegan diet.
hko comments- I have always noticed that consuming meat assures their existence, particularly if the meat source is raised for consumption. There is no cow or chicken on the endangered species list.
I love such ironies. But then irony is one of those things listed in Stuff That White People Like.
from National Review Online
Veganism Is Murder
If God didn't want us to eat cows, he wouldn’t have made them out of steak.
By Wesley J. Smith
excerpts
But life is never that simple: Plant agriculture results each year in the mass slaughter of countless animals, including rabbits, gophers, mice, birds, snakes, and other field creatures. These animals are killed during harvesting, and in the various mechanized farming processes that produce wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, and other staples of vegan diets. And that doesn’t include the countless rats and mice poisoned in grain elevators, or the animals that die from loss of habitat cleared for agricultural use.
Moreover, even if the relative number of animals killed were the morally decisive issue, veganism might not be the most ethical solution. In 2001, S. L. Davis of the Department of Animal Sciences at Oregon State University, Corvallis, wrote a paper claiming that the diet most likely to result in the deaths of the fewest animals would be beef, lamb, and dairy — not vegan. Davis found a study that measured mouse population density per hectare in grain fields both before and after harvest and estimated a harvest casualty rate of ten mice per hectare. Then, he multiplied that figure by 120 million hectares of farmland in the U.S.; meaning that 1.2 billion mice would die each year in food production if America became a wholly vegan country. Next, he estimated the number of animals that would be killed if half of our fields were dedicated to raising grass eating forage animals (cows, calves, sheep, lambs, etc.) from which to obtain meat. He found that there would Be 300,000 fewer animal deaths (.9 billion) annually from such an omnivorous diet than the number of deaths (1.2 billion mice) that would be caused from a universal vegan diet.
hko comments- I have always noticed that consuming meat assures their existence, particularly if the meat source is raised for consumption. There is no cow or chicken on the endangered species list.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Whole Foods
I just got back from Atlanta and stopped at the Whole Foods on West Paces Ferry near Peachtree. This has to be one of my favorite stops. At what other grocery story can you find a table and eat an incredible assortment of high quality and fresh food. The cheese shop alone is worth the trip and the prepared but not cooked assortment allows incredible home cooked meals without all the preparation.
I can accept the this makes me the yuppie of yuppies and it is a little pricey but well worth it. If I lived nearby I would be in there every other day.
Whole Foods also makes the list of Stuff White People Like. See the link on the recommended sights.
I can accept the this makes me the yuppie of yuppies and it is a little pricey but well worth it. If I lived nearby I would be in there every other day.
Whole Foods also makes the list of Stuff White People Like. See the link on the recommended sights.
Tough, Smart and Principled....... Not!
from the Weekly Standard
by Joe Lieberman
Senator Obama this morning said that he wants a foreign policy that is “tough, smart, and principled.” This afternoon, I ask: was it tough when Senator Obama voted to order U.S. forces to retreat from Iraq on a fixed timeline—regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, regardless of conditions on the ground? Was it smart when Senator Obama opposed the surge and predicted that it would fail to improve security? Was it principled when Senator Obama said that he would order U.S. troops to retreat from Iraq, regardless of the humanitarian consequences for millions of innocent Iraqis—even genocide? Was it tough and principled when Senator Obama said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus—only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like Moveon.org? I say respectfully, the answer to all of those questions is no.
Senator Obama also said this morning that he wants a foreign policy that recognizes that we have interests “not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.” But what Senator Obama does not seem to recognize is that—in an interdependent world—what happens in Baghdad affects our interests in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London. What Senator Obama does not seem to understand is that—had we taken the course he had counseled and retreated from Iraq—the United States would have suffered a catastrophic defeat that would have left America and our allies less safe not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.
by Joe Lieberman
Senator Obama this morning said that he wants a foreign policy that is “tough, smart, and principled.” This afternoon, I ask: was it tough when Senator Obama voted to order U.S. forces to retreat from Iraq on a fixed timeline—regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, regardless of conditions on the ground? Was it smart when Senator Obama opposed the surge and predicted that it would fail to improve security? Was it principled when Senator Obama said that he would order U.S. troops to retreat from Iraq, regardless of the humanitarian consequences for millions of innocent Iraqis—even genocide? Was it tough and principled when Senator Obama said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus—only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like Moveon.org? I say respectfully, the answer to all of those questions is no.
Senator Obama also said this morning that he wants a foreign policy that recognizes that we have interests “not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.” But what Senator Obama does not seem to recognize is that—in an interdependent world—what happens in Baghdad affects our interests in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London. What Senator Obama does not seem to understand is that—had we taken the course he had counseled and retreated from Iraq—the United States would have suffered a catastrophic defeat that would have left America and our allies less safe not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Winners and Losers
An optimist sees an opportunity in every crisis.
A pessimist sees a crisis in every opportunity.
Housing prices are plummeting and many homeowners will lose their houses. Yet apartment occupancy is quite high, and the lower housing prices will attact first time home owners who can now afford to own a home. Everybody has to live somewhere.
Overpriced homes will sell to some one who will get a bargain. Yes somebody loses, but somebody gains.
High steel prices have raised construction costs, but it has also stimulated recycling as a whole new breed of low income entrepreneurs take advantage of the financial benefits of hauling scrap.
High fuel prices have caused a reduction in oil consumption, and forced individuals and businesses into better efficiency that will remain regardless of what happens to prices.
I don't know where the bottom is, but my eyes are telling me the adjustments we face will be less traumatic that we may expect.
A pessimist sees a crisis in every opportunity.
Housing prices are plummeting and many homeowners will lose their houses. Yet apartment occupancy is quite high, and the lower housing prices will attact first time home owners who can now afford to own a home. Everybody has to live somewhere.
Overpriced homes will sell to some one who will get a bargain. Yes somebody loses, but somebody gains.
High steel prices have raised construction costs, but it has also stimulated recycling as a whole new breed of low income entrepreneurs take advantage of the financial benefits of hauling scrap.
High fuel prices have caused a reduction in oil consumption, and forced individuals and businesses into better efficiency that will remain regardless of what happens to prices.
I don't know where the bottom is, but my eyes are telling me the adjustments we face will be less traumatic that we may expect.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
History Meets Technology on the Battlefield
I finally got around to reading history professor Michael Neiberg's (my nephew) book on WWI, 'Fighting the Great War' and became fascinated by the incredible carnage compared to previous and subsequent wars. I have now finished Jeff Shaara's WWI novel 'To The Last Man' which places the literary human element againt the historical background.
WWI was where classic military strategy met modern technology. WWI saw the first use of the tank, the grenade, poison gas, the flamethrower, the airplane, and major advances in light machine guns and large artillery. Yet the commanders threw troops into combat just as every major military leader from Alexander the Great to Ulysses Grant had done.
The result was incredible human carnage. Ten million died on the battlefield, more the 5,000 every day the war was fought. 50,000 Americans died, but we came into the war very late. Most of the Americans died between May and November of 1918. That is about the number we lost in Viet Nam in 14 years. One third of all our pilots died in action. 57 countries participated at some level.
Yet the British and French were also exhausted and defeated and were unable to enforce the harsh peace forced on the Germans. President Wilson was unable to get the American public and leaders to buy into the League of Nations as isolationist sentiment gripped the country.
The result of the peace that no one was either willing or able to enforce was the amazing resurgence of Germany only 20 years later and WWII. The war to end all wars achieved nothing more than an extended truce.
It is a harsh lesson that is still pertinent.
WWI was where classic military strategy met modern technology. WWI saw the first use of the tank, the grenade, poison gas, the flamethrower, the airplane, and major advances in light machine guns and large artillery. Yet the commanders threw troops into combat just as every major military leader from Alexander the Great to Ulysses Grant had done.
The result was incredible human carnage. Ten million died on the battlefield, more the 5,000 every day the war was fought. 50,000 Americans died, but we came into the war very late. Most of the Americans died between May and November of 1918. That is about the number we lost in Viet Nam in 14 years. One third of all our pilots died in action. 57 countries participated at some level.
Yet the British and French were also exhausted and defeated and were unable to enforce the harsh peace forced on the Germans. President Wilson was unable to get the American public and leaders to buy into the League of Nations as isolationist sentiment gripped the country.
The result of the peace that no one was either willing or able to enforce was the amazing resurgence of Germany only 20 years later and WWII. The war to end all wars achieved nothing more than an extended truce.
It is a harsh lesson that is still pertinent.
The 9 Percenters
Rick Moran highlights the lunacy of the do nothing speaker calling Bush the worst president ever, almost as if Jimmy Carter never existed.
from American Thinker
July 18, 2008
Leader of the 9 Percenters calls Bush 'A total failure'
excerpts
The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, has called George Bush "a total failure" as president.It is at moments like this that I truly wish I had a better grasp of the English language. Then again, I don't think there is any ironic juxtaposition of words that could possibly do justice to the utter and complete comedy exhibited by Madame Speaker who heads up a body that received a 9% approval rating from the American people.
It is simply not possible that Pelosi is such an idiot that she was not aware of the supreme irony of her words. Maybe she was trying to be funny. Wolf Blitzer, known more for partisan hackery than for a sense of humor no doubt didn't bat an eye when the old crone made her observation about the president.
George Bush has not been the best president. But he is far from being the worst. That fact alone should have caused the Speaker to bite her tongue when talking about "failure" in a public official. One might be tempted to list Pelosi's accomplishments as Speaker except there haven't been any. She heads up the biggest do nothing Congress of the past 50 years and for her to point to performances less than exceptional on the part of anyone - president or garbage man - only shows her to be oblivious to her own stupidity.
from American Thinker
July 18, 2008
Leader of the 9 Percenters calls Bush 'A total failure'
excerpts
The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, has called George Bush "a total failure" as president.It is at moments like this that I truly wish I had a better grasp of the English language. Then again, I don't think there is any ironic juxtaposition of words that could possibly do justice to the utter and complete comedy exhibited by Madame Speaker who heads up a body that received a 9% approval rating from the American people.
It is simply not possible that Pelosi is such an idiot that she was not aware of the supreme irony of her words. Maybe she was trying to be funny. Wolf Blitzer, known more for partisan hackery than for a sense of humor no doubt didn't bat an eye when the old crone made her observation about the president.
George Bush has not been the best president. But he is far from being the worst. That fact alone should have caused the Speaker to bite her tongue when talking about "failure" in a public official. One might be tempted to list Pelosi's accomplishments as Speaker except there haven't been any. She heads up the biggest do nothing Congress of the past 50 years and for her to point to performances less than exceptional on the part of anyone - president or garbage man - only shows her to be oblivious to her own stupidity.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Confusing Public and Private Interest
"So let's call a spade a bloody shovel: nationalize Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. They should never have been privatized in the first place. . . . Stop lying about the financial viability of institutions designed to hand out subsidies to favored constituencies. These [government sponsored enterprises] were designed to make losses. They are expected to make losses. If they don't make losses they are not serving their political purpose. So I call on Secretary Paulson, Chairman Bernanke and Director Lockhart to drop the market-friendly fig-leaf. Be a socialist and proud of it. Come out of the red closet. The Soviet Union may have collapsed, but the cause of socialism is alive and well in the USA" -- London School of Economics Professor Willem Buiter, writing in his blog at FT.com.
from the 7/15/08 WSJ Political Diary
HKO Comments:
I think he hits it dead on. The idea of using free market institutions to enforce government policies and programs is fraught with conflicts. As one libertarian scholar once said, "whenever anyone gets in bed with the government, someone gets screwed."
I have always been skeptical of the often promoted public/private partnerships.
from the 7/15/08 WSJ Political Diary
HKO Comments:
I think he hits it dead on. The idea of using free market institutions to enforce government policies and programs is fraught with conflicts. As one libertarian scholar once said, "whenever anyone gets in bed with the government, someone gets screwed."
I have always been skeptical of the often promoted public/private partnerships.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Covering the Rest of the Story
Why are such significant stories covered so poorly. When our troops are accused the story is trumpeted on the front page; when they are acquitted, hardly a peep. The same is true for the incredible story of the mass of yellow cake; why is hardly anyone aware of this?
from American Thinker
Memory and the Left
by J.R. Dunn
excerpts
For one example, we can look to Haditha. A Marine unit was ambushed, responding as trained against their attackers, who were hiding behind helpless civilians, among them women and children, as many as two dozen of whom were killed. Insurgent war at its most ugly, tragic and unavoidable. The blame, to any rational observer, clearly lay with the Al Queda thugs who insisted on using innocents as a shield.
But rationality is sometimes too much to ask. Haditha was trumpeted as an American war crime, the moment that encapsulated the entire war as an atrocity. The media played it as the My Lai of Iraq, while political opportunists, chief among them John Murtha (whose domain begins only a half mile from where I sit), attacked the Marines as "cold-blooded killers". The "Haditha massacre" was given front-page play for weeks, the name effectively becoming shorthand for American efforts in Iraq.
But today, after the prosecution has fallen apart, after seven of the eight men accused have been held blameless and no real case remains against the eighth, the name of Haditha is difficult to find in mass media. Even after ranking USMC officers were found to have interfered in the case (imagine if this had occurred in any other legal proceeding!), and after several of the cleared Marines announced a lawsuit against Murtha, a sitting congressman, Haditha remains, at best, a back-page story. It has been fed into the grinder, and has become one of those things we're not supposed to think about any more.
The same is true of Iraqi yellowcake, which Joe Wilson, ambassador extraordinaire, and his valiant spy bride demonstrated to the world did not, and could not exist. Yet last weekend 550 tons of the stuff -- a pile large enough that even a diplomat couldn't miss it -- was transferred from Iraq to the U.S. with less coverage than this year's soybean harvest. Saddam Hussein's bomb program, one of the greatest threats to world peace of our time, ended without so much as an echo.
The same weekend saw final victory in Iraq draw nearer with the almost complete pacification of the city of Mosul. Mosul was the last urban redoubt of Al-Queda in Iraq. Their ejection from the city has deprived them of a base of operations and turned them into a force of scattered guerilla bands. Stamping out these final remnants may be a drawn-out process, but the Jihadis are no longer a threat to Iraq as a nation. What a change from 2006! Yet what have we heard about it?
from American Thinker
Memory and the Left
by J.R. Dunn
excerpts
For one example, we can look to Haditha. A Marine unit was ambushed, responding as trained against their attackers, who were hiding behind helpless civilians, among them women and children, as many as two dozen of whom were killed. Insurgent war at its most ugly, tragic and unavoidable. The blame, to any rational observer, clearly lay with the Al Queda thugs who insisted on using innocents as a shield.
But rationality is sometimes too much to ask. Haditha was trumpeted as an American war crime, the moment that encapsulated the entire war as an atrocity. The media played it as the My Lai of Iraq, while political opportunists, chief among them John Murtha (whose domain begins only a half mile from where I sit), attacked the Marines as "cold-blooded killers". The "Haditha massacre" was given front-page play for weeks, the name effectively becoming shorthand for American efforts in Iraq.
But today, after the prosecution has fallen apart, after seven of the eight men accused have been held blameless and no real case remains against the eighth, the name of Haditha is difficult to find in mass media. Even after ranking USMC officers were found to have interfered in the case (imagine if this had occurred in any other legal proceeding!), and after several of the cleared Marines announced a lawsuit against Murtha, a sitting congressman, Haditha remains, at best, a back-page story. It has been fed into the grinder, and has become one of those things we're not supposed to think about any more.
The same is true of Iraqi yellowcake, which Joe Wilson, ambassador extraordinaire, and his valiant spy bride demonstrated to the world did not, and could not exist. Yet last weekend 550 tons of the stuff -- a pile large enough that even a diplomat couldn't miss it -- was transferred from Iraq to the U.S. with less coverage than this year's soybean harvest. Saddam Hussein's bomb program, one of the greatest threats to world peace of our time, ended without so much as an echo.
The same weekend saw final victory in Iraq draw nearer with the almost complete pacification of the city of Mosul. Mosul was the last urban redoubt of Al-Queda in Iraq. Their ejection from the city has deprived them of a base of operations and turned them into a force of scattered guerilla bands. Stamping out these final remnants may be a drawn-out process, but the Jihadis are no longer a threat to Iraq as a nation. What a change from 2006! Yet what have we heard about it?
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Life Imitates Art
My first wife, Renee, died in 1995. In the 1980's she played a very small part in the Neil Simon movie, The Slugger's Wife, starring Michael O'Keefe and Rebecca de Mornay. Renee was one of the baseball player's wives and sat in the box next to de Mornay; she maybe got 15 seconds of screen time.
In the movie Michael O'Keefe plays a baseball star who marries a singer named Debbie-which happens to describe my second wife.
Just a little coincidence.
You can hear wife number 2 sing at the Shamrock during Bragg Jam on July 25 at 10:00 AM with the Back Spasms featuring her eternally juvenile husband on guitar. Joey Stuckey, Jimmy Gaudet and the rest of the band will be there and we have added a great saxophone player.
In the movie Michael O'Keefe plays a baseball star who marries a singer named Debbie-which happens to describe my second wife.
Just a little coincidence.
You can hear wife number 2 sing at the Shamrock during Bragg Jam on July 25 at 10:00 AM with the Back Spasms featuring her eternally juvenile husband on guitar. Joey Stuckey, Jimmy Gaudet and the rest of the band will be there and we have added a great saxophone player.
Never a Dull Moment in the Holy Land.
3 days before September 5, 1999, Israel made a premature switch from Daylight Savings Time to Standard Time in order to accommodate a week of Slihot, Jewish prayers for forgiveness recited before Yom Kippur.
Palestinians refused to “live on Zionist time” and kept their clocks on Daylight Savings. Two car bombs were armed in the Palestinian-controlled area and set on Daylight Savings Time. The confused drivers, however, switched to Standard Time. As a result the explosives detonated en route, killing the three terrorists who were transporting them.
From AP Jerusalem Post as noted in the Darwin Awards.
Palestinians refused to “live on Zionist time” and kept their clocks on Daylight Savings. Two car bombs were armed in the Palestinian-controlled area and set on Daylight Savings Time. The confused drivers, however, switched to Standard Time. As a result the explosives detonated en route, killing the three terrorists who were transporting them.
From AP Jerusalem Post as noted in the Darwin Awards.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
How Bad is the Economy?
I hear the economy is bad. Stocks are down. The financial sectors are in a depression, and housing is as bad as its been in decades. High gas and food prices are causing problems.
Outside of that my eyes are telling me a different story.
Scrap prices, which are often a good economic indicator of our overall industrial health, is at an all time high. Steel price are also at a high and demand is strong. Our steel fabricating customers seem to stay busy. It is still somewhat difficult to find quality employees.
I tried to book a room at a hotel in Atlanta and they were all booked; and I mean the relatively expensive Buckhead hotels.
The last two flights I took were full. The Atlanta airport was crowded.
Debbie and I went out to Bonefish for dinner on a Thursday night and we had a 30 minute wait, and that was for a $60 casual dinner. And not a very good one at that. Last night there was a line waiting to be seated at Carrabba's.
I am on the upper income scale and can absorb these cost increases better than most, but I also have nearly 200 employees including single mothers with several children in modest income positions, and divorced fathers paying for a second home and child support. These are the people who are already struggling to get by and get hit the hardest with the higher gas and food prices.
They are all cutting back on their $4 lattes at Starbucks, vacationing at home, and reducing their personal milage driven. I haven't seen any of the smokers give up their $3 packs of cigarettes.
Carpooling with just one other person cuts your fuel bill in half. Many are vacationing at home, and the conversations show that they now think before they drive; they realize the trip to get a $5 gallon of milk will cost $3 in gas.
Things are tough, but most adjust where they can because they have no choice. Higher fuel bills hurt frivolous expenses. The auto industry will adjust to different cars and workers adjust by making different choices.
But I do not sense the depth of a slowdown that the news reports.
Outside of that my eyes are telling me a different story.
Scrap prices, which are often a good economic indicator of our overall industrial health, is at an all time high. Steel price are also at a high and demand is strong. Our steel fabricating customers seem to stay busy. It is still somewhat difficult to find quality employees.
I tried to book a room at a hotel in Atlanta and they were all booked; and I mean the relatively expensive Buckhead hotels.
The last two flights I took were full. The Atlanta airport was crowded.
Debbie and I went out to Bonefish for dinner on a Thursday night and we had a 30 minute wait, and that was for a $60 casual dinner. And not a very good one at that. Last night there was a line waiting to be seated at Carrabba's.
I am on the upper income scale and can absorb these cost increases better than most, but I also have nearly 200 employees including single mothers with several children in modest income positions, and divorced fathers paying for a second home and child support. These are the people who are already struggling to get by and get hit the hardest with the higher gas and food prices.
They are all cutting back on their $4 lattes at Starbucks, vacationing at home, and reducing their personal milage driven. I haven't seen any of the smokers give up their $3 packs of cigarettes.
Carpooling with just one other person cuts your fuel bill in half. Many are vacationing at home, and the conversations show that they now think before they drive; they realize the trip to get a $5 gallon of milk will cost $3 in gas.
Things are tough, but most adjust where they can because they have no choice. Higher fuel bills hurt frivolous expenses. The auto industry will adjust to different cars and workers adjust by making different choices.
But I do not sense the depth of a slowdown that the news reports.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Hands off the Strategic Reserves
by Henry Oliner
Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich want the president to draw down the strategic reserve of oil to help lower oil prices. When these two agree on anything it may be time to be suspect.
Newt argues it would drive the speculators out and further decrease prices. I am concerned that if it fails to accomplish that goal that prices would rise even further when the reserve is depleted. It would seem to me that the mere existence of the reserve should be enough to hold prices down.
According to Oil Voice we import a little over 20 million barrels a day, down about 475,000 barrels or about 2.4% since last year.
The US Department of Energy Website maintains current data on our reserves. It says we have a strategic reserve of 706 million barrels with an average cost of only $28.42 per barrel. It contends that is equivalent to 58 days of imports, although that only calculates to only 12 million barrels a day. So I would conclude the 58 days is on the high side. We are capable of only drawing down 4.4 million barrels a day.
Using the reserve to punish speculators is a gamble I would not take. With Iran rattling sabers and much of the world's production in the hands of unstable regimes that hate us, the reserve is just too valuable to squander. If the effort to crush speculators fails, and I think it would, the results could be economically catastrophic with even higher prices and a supply shortage.
On the other hand, if we annouced that we would quickly and aggressively pursue coastal reserves and shale oil reserves as well as require all of our cars to become flex fuel compatible, then the price would drop and stay down.
But it seems that Congress is opposed to every good long term solution, and desperate to take short term very risky solutions. Or they could do the really ridiculous and just sue OPEC to do on their land exactly what they refuse to do on our land- produce more oil.
Could they possibly propose a more ridiculous policy?
Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich want the president to draw down the strategic reserve of oil to help lower oil prices. When these two agree on anything it may be time to be suspect.
Newt argues it would drive the speculators out and further decrease prices. I am concerned that if it fails to accomplish that goal that prices would rise even further when the reserve is depleted. It would seem to me that the mere existence of the reserve should be enough to hold prices down.
According to Oil Voice we import a little over 20 million barrels a day, down about 475,000 barrels or about 2.4% since last year.
The US Department of Energy Website maintains current data on our reserves. It says we have a strategic reserve of 706 million barrels with an average cost of only $28.42 per barrel. It contends that is equivalent to 58 days of imports, although that only calculates to only 12 million barrels a day. So I would conclude the 58 days is on the high side. We are capable of only drawing down 4.4 million barrels a day.
Using the reserve to punish speculators is a gamble I would not take. With Iran rattling sabers and much of the world's production in the hands of unstable regimes that hate us, the reserve is just too valuable to squander. If the effort to crush speculators fails, and I think it would, the results could be economically catastrophic with even higher prices and a supply shortage.
On the other hand, if we annouced that we would quickly and aggressively pursue coastal reserves and shale oil reserves as well as require all of our cars to become flex fuel compatible, then the price would drop and stay down.
But it seems that Congress is opposed to every good long term solution, and desperate to take short term very risky solutions. Or they could do the really ridiculous and just sue OPEC to do on their land exactly what they refuse to do on our land- produce more oil.
Could they possibly propose a more ridiculous policy?
Ready for Public Life
And Obama is offended by a satire on the cover of the New Yorker?
Is he ready for public life?
credit American Thinker article by Rick Moran
Monday, July 14, 2008
Oil Scapegoats
by Henry Oliner
Three people in the last 24 hours have forwarded me an e-mail from the leading CEO’s of the major airlines asking for public support to curb the speculation which is driving up the cost of fuel and causing such harm to their industry. I will assume these are legitimate e-mails.
My thoughts:
The price of steel is up over 50% in the last 6 months. There is no widely used speculative vehicle for most steel products, so it is hard to blame speculators for the increase. In fact I have sought such a vehicle to help stabilize my prices; that is the origin of commodity contracts.
Speculation may increase volatility for a short time and that is likely happening now, but they do not set the direction. Oil is higher because we consume more than we produce. The sources are unstable, hostile and largely government owned outside the US. The minute production surpasses demand, inventory will build up and the price will drop to eliminate it.
I am no expert on commodity exchanges but this seems to me to be econ 101.
The answer, short term is to increase production, which amazingly we are still reluctant to do. Alternatives will also develop, but much more slowly.
Speculation can also lower prices. If a fast easy alternative appeared tomorrow, these same speculators would take short positions and drive the market down.
Speculators are a scapegoat. The futures market should be regulated, but its serves often to promote stability and consistency. Also remember that while prices of oil are high, we are not waiting in lines to buy gas like we did under Carter. High prices are not nearly as dreadful as supply allocation which would have horrible economic consequences.
Prices serve to allocate resources efficiently. I am more than a little surprised that the Airline CEOs don’t push for longer term better solutions.
Walter Williams probably explains it a little better in his syndicated column, Scapegoating Speculators.
Three people in the last 24 hours have forwarded me an e-mail from the leading CEO’s of the major airlines asking for public support to curb the speculation which is driving up the cost of fuel and causing such harm to their industry. I will assume these are legitimate e-mails.
My thoughts:
The price of steel is up over 50% in the last 6 months. There is no widely used speculative vehicle for most steel products, so it is hard to blame speculators for the increase. In fact I have sought such a vehicle to help stabilize my prices; that is the origin of commodity contracts.
Speculation may increase volatility for a short time and that is likely happening now, but they do not set the direction. Oil is higher because we consume more than we produce. The sources are unstable, hostile and largely government owned outside the US. The minute production surpasses demand, inventory will build up and the price will drop to eliminate it.
I am no expert on commodity exchanges but this seems to me to be econ 101.
The answer, short term is to increase production, which amazingly we are still reluctant to do. Alternatives will also develop, but much more slowly.
Speculation can also lower prices. If a fast easy alternative appeared tomorrow, these same speculators would take short positions and drive the market down.
Speculators are a scapegoat. The futures market should be regulated, but its serves often to promote stability and consistency. Also remember that while prices of oil are high, we are not waiting in lines to buy gas like we did under Carter. High prices are not nearly as dreadful as supply allocation which would have horrible economic consequences.
Prices serve to allocate resources efficiently. I am more than a little surprised that the Airline CEOs don’t push for longer term better solutions.
Walter Williams probably explains it a little better in his syndicated column, Scapegoating Speculators.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Obama's Class Warfare
From the July 8th WSJ Political Diary -
Has Obama Learned Anything from Tax History?
New data from the IRS will be out in a few weeks on who pays how much in taxes. My contacts at the Treasury Department tell me that for the first time in decades, and perhaps ever, the richest 1% of tax filers will have paid more than 40% of the income tax burden. The top 50% will account for 97% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% will have paid just 3%.
But Barack Obama has decided the rich still don't pay enough. He would redistribute the tax burden even more heavily on small business owners and the entrepreneurial class (two-thirds of the tax filers in the highest income tax bracket are small business owners.) The nonpartisan Tax Foundation's Scott Hodge has just crunched the numbers on the Obama plan and concludes that "more than $131 billion would be redistributed from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers."
Sounds fair, no? Only 1.13 million taxpayers, out of some 128 million, would end up paying higher taxes, according to the Obama camp.
But in the real world, who ends up paying a tax is not just the person on whose tax return it falls. History has demonstrated time and again that raising tax rates on the wealthy in the name of "redistribution" leads to so much income shifting, reduced work and investment, and redeployment of money into tax shelters, that the rich usually pay less, not more taxes, at higher rates. The burden of paying for government shifts to others, including some who may not file an income tax return at all -- because they no longer have jobs or no longer earn enough to pay income tax.
Economist Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University has shown that in 1970, when the highest tax rate was 70%, the top 1% shouldered 16.7% of the income tax burden. Today the top tax rate is 35% and the same class of taxpayers pays a whopping 39% of the burden. The worst way to "soak the rich," Mr. Hubbard finds, is to raise tax rates.
Somebody needs to give the Obama campaign a refresher on all this. The Tax Foundation's Mr. Hodge wonders: "Can a tax system so focused on redistribution be compatible with economic growth?" Probably not but the Obama brain trust wants to give it a try anyway.
HKO comments- Obama's tax plan is in my opinion the biggest, but certainly not the only reason to vote against him. It is a disaster and would make a teetering economy much worse. It punishes everyone to push a blind ideology of class warfare. Many people who do not consider themselves rich will be surprised if his plan ever gets a chance.
Has Obama Learned Anything from Tax History?
New data from the IRS will be out in a few weeks on who pays how much in taxes. My contacts at the Treasury Department tell me that for the first time in decades, and perhaps ever, the richest 1% of tax filers will have paid more than 40% of the income tax burden. The top 50% will account for 97% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% will have paid just 3%.
But Barack Obama has decided the rich still don't pay enough. He would redistribute the tax burden even more heavily on small business owners and the entrepreneurial class (two-thirds of the tax filers in the highest income tax bracket are small business owners.) The nonpartisan Tax Foundation's Scott Hodge has just crunched the numbers on the Obama plan and concludes that "more than $131 billion would be redistributed from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers."
Sounds fair, no? Only 1.13 million taxpayers, out of some 128 million, would end up paying higher taxes, according to the Obama camp.
But in the real world, who ends up paying a tax is not just the person on whose tax return it falls. History has demonstrated time and again that raising tax rates on the wealthy in the name of "redistribution" leads to so much income shifting, reduced work and investment, and redeployment of money into tax shelters, that the rich usually pay less, not more taxes, at higher rates. The burden of paying for government shifts to others, including some who may not file an income tax return at all -- because they no longer have jobs or no longer earn enough to pay income tax.
Economist Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University has shown that in 1970, when the highest tax rate was 70%, the top 1% shouldered 16.7% of the income tax burden. Today the top tax rate is 35% and the same class of taxpayers pays a whopping 39% of the burden. The worst way to "soak the rich," Mr. Hubbard finds, is to raise tax rates.
Somebody needs to give the Obama campaign a refresher on all this. The Tax Foundation's Mr. Hodge wonders: "Can a tax system so focused on redistribution be compatible with economic growth?" Probably not but the Obama brain trust wants to give it a try anyway.
HKO comments- Obama's tax plan is in my opinion the biggest, but certainly not the only reason to vote against him. It is a disaster and would make a teetering economy much worse. It punishes everyone to push a blind ideology of class warfare. Many people who do not consider themselves rich will be surprised if his plan ever gets a chance.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Bush's Big Mistakes
by Henry Oliner
While Doug Feith in his excellent, "War and Decision" analyizes what went wrong ( and what went right) in the war on terror, he does not spare his own boss Rumsfeld or Bush. While Rumseld was brilliant at strategy and in depth thinking his personal manner antagonized a lot of people he needed to work with.
The decision to go to war was a thougthful one, with general agreement from both political parties and the advising agencies. Some errors that Feith attributes to Bush:
1. Over reliance on intelligence
Most of the case against Saddam Hussein was in the UN records, the newspapers and the history books. He was clearly circumventing the UN sanctions and weapons inspections and stood ready to continue and restart his WMD productions when the sanctions were lifted. The liklihood of Saddam soon becoming a direct threat was high.
2. Emphasis on WMD stockpiles.
By focusing on the threat of stockpiles during our presentation at the UN, the relative importance of that one factor became the sole measurement and causus belli. Other more important factors were quickly forgotten.
3. Failure to build a cohesive team
Tolerating debate during the planning phase is good. Once the decision for war is made dissenters should leave the group. Toleration of leaks and divisiveness while our troops are under fire and the Iraqis are struggling is intolerable.
Doug retells the Johnson axiom, "It is OK to be on the inside of the tent pissing out, or the outside pissing in; but do not be on the inside of the tent pissing in."
Bush allowed way too much piss in his tent.
4. Mission creep
The purpose of the mission was to protect the United States from another attack. It was an issue of National Security. When the WMD stockpiles did not materialize, Bush's speeches shifted to the future of Iraq and building a democracy. He should have re-emphasized the original purpose of protecting America's security and that it involved much more than the WMD stockpiles.
His shift made it seem we were fighting for Iraqi interests and not American interests and that was the beginning of the end for public support of the war. This was his biggest mistake.
The threat was not diminished by Bush's communication gaffes, but continuous support to finish the job was jeapordized.
While Doug Feith in his excellent, "War and Decision" analyizes what went wrong ( and what went right) in the war on terror, he does not spare his own boss Rumsfeld or Bush. While Rumseld was brilliant at strategy and in depth thinking his personal manner antagonized a lot of people he needed to work with.
The decision to go to war was a thougthful one, with general agreement from both political parties and the advising agencies. Some errors that Feith attributes to Bush:
1. Over reliance on intelligence
Most of the case against Saddam Hussein was in the UN records, the newspapers and the history books. He was clearly circumventing the UN sanctions and weapons inspections and stood ready to continue and restart his WMD productions when the sanctions were lifted. The liklihood of Saddam soon becoming a direct threat was high.
2. Emphasis on WMD stockpiles.
By focusing on the threat of stockpiles during our presentation at the UN, the relative importance of that one factor became the sole measurement and causus belli. Other more important factors were quickly forgotten.
3. Failure to build a cohesive team
Tolerating debate during the planning phase is good. Once the decision for war is made dissenters should leave the group. Toleration of leaks and divisiveness while our troops are under fire and the Iraqis are struggling is intolerable.
Doug retells the Johnson axiom, "It is OK to be on the inside of the tent pissing out, or the outside pissing in; but do not be on the inside of the tent pissing in."
Bush allowed way too much piss in his tent.
4. Mission creep
The purpose of the mission was to protect the United States from another attack. It was an issue of National Security. When the WMD stockpiles did not materialize, Bush's speeches shifted to the future of Iraq and building a democracy. He should have re-emphasized the original purpose of protecting America's security and that it involved much more than the WMD stockpiles.
His shift made it seem we were fighting for Iraqi interests and not American interests and that was the beginning of the end for public support of the war. This was his biggest mistake.
The threat was not diminished by Bush's communication gaffes, but continuous support to finish the job was jeapordized.
What Is Fair and Balanced?
by Henry Oliner
Do all ideas deserve equal coverage? Should we spend as much time studying creationism as we do evolution? Should polygamy be granted as much public discourse as monogamy?
Does the theory of a flat earth require equal coverage of the heliocentric theory? Should we be forced to learn as much about communism and socialism as we do about capitalism? Do they require equal time?
Just because an idea is proposed does not mean that it deserves equal consideration. News coverage should consider the verifiability of news and opinions as well as its existence. Quality counts.
Yet when we do have a legitimate debate on such a topic as global warming, why is one side presumed right and one side is not? Why is such a putz as Al Gore able to declare, “The debate is over” when it is anything but over, without the media derision that encounters global warming skeptics. Why is the other side so hard to find in the main stream media?
Why is every administration critic who puts “Bush” and “lie” together able to get a media venue when first hand and detailed coverage of the decisions leading up to our decision to invade Iraq is rarely covered?
Why is so little attention brought to the 550 metric tons of yellow cake found in Iraq that was recently sold and shipped to Canada? Yellow cake is a fundamental ingredient used to make nuclear weapons.
With 24/7 news coverage it is not like there is not room to fit stories in that would paint a more accurate picture. Sometime there are just more negative stories that push harder than the truth does. But ultimately some one makes a decision what stories to cover, and far too often they decide what they expect to hear rather than what is actually said, and the public suffers.
Do all ideas deserve equal coverage? Should we spend as much time studying creationism as we do evolution? Should polygamy be granted as much public discourse as monogamy?
Does the theory of a flat earth require equal coverage of the heliocentric theory? Should we be forced to learn as much about communism and socialism as we do about capitalism? Do they require equal time?
Just because an idea is proposed does not mean that it deserves equal consideration. News coverage should consider the verifiability of news and opinions as well as its existence. Quality counts.
Yet when we do have a legitimate debate on such a topic as global warming, why is one side presumed right and one side is not? Why is such a putz as Al Gore able to declare, “The debate is over” when it is anything but over, without the media derision that encounters global warming skeptics. Why is the other side so hard to find in the main stream media?
Why is every administration critic who puts “Bush” and “lie” together able to get a media venue when first hand and detailed coverage of the decisions leading up to our decision to invade Iraq is rarely covered?
Why is so little attention brought to the 550 metric tons of yellow cake found in Iraq that was recently sold and shipped to Canada? Yellow cake is a fundamental ingredient used to make nuclear weapons.
With 24/7 news coverage it is not like there is not room to fit stories in that would paint a more accurate picture. Sometime there are just more negative stories that push harder than the truth does. But ultimately some one makes a decision what stories to cover, and far too often they decide what they expect to hear rather than what is actually said, and the public suffers.
Friday, July 11, 2008
The Wrong Flag
During the fall of Bagdad Doug Feith was watching the famous scene of the toppling statue of Saddam, live on television.
He noticed the US soldier draping an American flag on the head of the fallen statue. He recoiled seeing this as sending the wrong message of the purpose of the American forces. He called General Myers to see if he could reach the soldier and remove it before it permeated the media. Within seconds Feith saw on TV the soldier remove the American flag and replace it with an Iraqi flag.
The General did not reach the soldier that quickly; a fellow soldier realized the gaffe and corrected it before they were ever reached. The soldiers understood why we were there.
The symbolism of such small gestures can have large impacts.
from "War and Decision" by Douglas Feith
He noticed the US soldier draping an American flag on the head of the fallen statue. He recoiled seeing this as sending the wrong message of the purpose of the American forces. He called General Myers to see if he could reach the soldier and remove it before it permeated the media. Within seconds Feith saw on TV the soldier remove the American flag and replace it with an Iraqi flag.
The General did not reach the soldier that quickly; a fellow soldier realized the gaffe and corrected it before they were ever reached. The soldiers understood why we were there.
The symbolism of such small gestures can have large impacts.
from "War and Decision" by Douglas Feith
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Mental Recession and Whiners
(CNN) -- Phil Gramm, a top adviser to Sen. John McCain, on Thursday stood by his comment that the country is in a "mental recession," and said he was trying to say the nation's leaders, not its people, were "whiners."
HKO Comments - he is taking a lot of heat for this. In my opinion he is dead on. Our leaders spend more time bitching and blaming than leading and solving.
While gas and food prices are hurting low income consumers, the economy is not doing nearly as bad as the reporting insinuates. Unemployment, while up, is still low. Anybody who is hiring today knows this.
HKO Comments - he is taking a lot of heat for this. In my opinion he is dead on. Our leaders spend more time bitching and blaming than leading and solving.
While gas and food prices are hurting low income consumers, the economy is not doing nearly as bad as the reporting insinuates. Unemployment, while up, is still low. Anybody who is hiring today knows this.
I Still Wonder When They Were Conceived
Nicole Kidman just had a daughter named Sunday, who was born on a Monday.
Actress Tuesday Weld was born on a Friday.
I looked it up just so you could sleep better.
HKO
Actress Tuesday Weld was born on a Friday.
I looked it up just so you could sleep better.
HKO
Improvise- Adapt- Overcome
Doug Feith's "War and Decision" tries to set the record straight as he saw it up close about the decision to send troops into Iraq and what went wrong.
There was general agreement between the agencies that Saddam had to go. He was just too much of a potential threat. The decision to invade Iraq was well discussed and the risks associated with the venture were simply outweighed by the risks of leaving him in power. Rarely, however, is credit given for preventing problems as it is bestowed for solving them after the fact.
Then what went wrong?
The breakdown started with conflicts between the agencies involved; State, Defense and the CIA. When would the authority shift from defense to politics? Defense was having problems with the quality of the intelligence from the CIA and it failed on many points besides WMD stockpiles.
The biggest breakdown was the interim government planning. Defense felt it was necessary to get Iraqis in control of their own government as soon as possible; otherwise we would be seen as an occupying force rather than a liberating force. The CIA and State was more afraid of placing control in the hands of the wrong people, and allowing another tyrant to simply replace Saddam. Both sides had merit.
State and the CIA believed it was wrong to let the externals, Iraqi leaders currently living outside the country, take control because they would not seem legitimate to the Iraqis. Yet they felt the internals were not up to the task of governing. Rumsfeld thought that their legitimacy would be determined by their actions in governing and that was for the Iraqis to decide.
A plan for an Iraqi Interim Authority (IIA) was developed by Feith, with the desire and intent to govern until a constitution and and a full election was executed. There were severe squabbles on who would participate; the content of externals and internals, Sunnis and Shias, Christians, women, etc.
While Defense expected the CPA, the Controlling Provisional Authority, the US military rulers, to only be in place for a few months before the IIA took over; State felt that it was necessary for them to control the government for up to two years. This differed greatly from the model that was successful in Afghanistan. To be fair, Iraq had different issues to consider than Afghanistan.
With the decision to keep the CPA active for years the US forces went from being a liberating force to an occupying force.
Paul Bremer, the senior U.S. civilian official acquired a very different perception of the urgency of the IIA than Defense had. Bremer also seriously questioned the readiness and capability of the Iraqis to form and run their own government to a point that it seemed contemptuous.
While they questioned the preceived legitimacy of the externals as a ruling group. it would have been more legitimate than an occupying American controlled government. When the interim government was formed it consisted largely of externals and there were no problems of legitimacy.
At this point many Iraqis were hesitant to step forward. Saddam was still at large and the US commitment was questionable in their experience. This is why the Baathist party was kept from the ruling coalition and why the Army was disbanded, a move criticized by many as a contributing factor to the insurgency. The Iraqi army, however, was too top heavy, corrupt and discriminatory; if it had been allowed to remain in power even in a deflated form, many factions like the Kurds and the Shias would never have trusted the interim or new government.
It is easy to see after the fact that the extended term of the CPA may have been a problem.
For those who accuse the adminstration of not having a post Saddam plan, that is untrue. While the provisional government transition proved problematical, many problems such as refugees, financial stability and environmental were effectively avoided. The problem was the execution of the plan amidst quarelling agencies. Reconciling this conflict should have been given more attention by the President. Any plan would have likely faced challenges of some sort. The military solution to the unknown should apply: improvise- adapt- overcome.
HKO
There was general agreement between the agencies that Saddam had to go. He was just too much of a potential threat. The decision to invade Iraq was well discussed and the risks associated with the venture were simply outweighed by the risks of leaving him in power. Rarely, however, is credit given for preventing problems as it is bestowed for solving them after the fact.
Then what went wrong?
The breakdown started with conflicts between the agencies involved; State, Defense and the CIA. When would the authority shift from defense to politics? Defense was having problems with the quality of the intelligence from the CIA and it failed on many points besides WMD stockpiles.
The biggest breakdown was the interim government planning. Defense felt it was necessary to get Iraqis in control of their own government as soon as possible; otherwise we would be seen as an occupying force rather than a liberating force. The CIA and State was more afraid of placing control in the hands of the wrong people, and allowing another tyrant to simply replace Saddam. Both sides had merit.
State and the CIA believed it was wrong to let the externals, Iraqi leaders currently living outside the country, take control because they would not seem legitimate to the Iraqis. Yet they felt the internals were not up to the task of governing. Rumsfeld thought that their legitimacy would be determined by their actions in governing and that was for the Iraqis to decide.
A plan for an Iraqi Interim Authority (IIA) was developed by Feith, with the desire and intent to govern until a constitution and and a full election was executed. There were severe squabbles on who would participate; the content of externals and internals, Sunnis and Shias, Christians, women, etc.
While Defense expected the CPA, the Controlling Provisional Authority, the US military rulers, to only be in place for a few months before the IIA took over; State felt that it was necessary for them to control the government for up to two years. This differed greatly from the model that was successful in Afghanistan. To be fair, Iraq had different issues to consider than Afghanistan.
With the decision to keep the CPA active for years the US forces went from being a liberating force to an occupying force.
Paul Bremer, the senior U.S. civilian official acquired a very different perception of the urgency of the IIA than Defense had. Bremer also seriously questioned the readiness and capability of the Iraqis to form and run their own government to a point that it seemed contemptuous.
While they questioned the preceived legitimacy of the externals as a ruling group. it would have been more legitimate than an occupying American controlled government. When the interim government was formed it consisted largely of externals and there were no problems of legitimacy.
At this point many Iraqis were hesitant to step forward. Saddam was still at large and the US commitment was questionable in their experience. This is why the Baathist party was kept from the ruling coalition and why the Army was disbanded, a move criticized by many as a contributing factor to the insurgency. The Iraqi army, however, was too top heavy, corrupt and discriminatory; if it had been allowed to remain in power even in a deflated form, many factions like the Kurds and the Shias would never have trusted the interim or new government.
It is easy to see after the fact that the extended term of the CPA may have been a problem.
For those who accuse the adminstration of not having a post Saddam plan, that is untrue. While the provisional government transition proved problematical, many problems such as refugees, financial stability and environmental were effectively avoided. The problem was the execution of the plan amidst quarelling agencies. Reconciling this conflict should have been given more attention by the President. Any plan would have likely faced challenges of some sort. The military solution to the unknown should apply: improvise- adapt- overcome.
HKO
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Yellow Cake
With little fanfare compared to the tired old “Bush lied; troops died" refrain, we now know that Saddam had stockpiled 550 tons of yellow cake. It has recently been in the news as sold and shipped to a Canadian company. See the story here.
Clearly our invasion stopped this material from being developed into nuclear fuels and weapons. And the leaks about yellow cake from Niger that was the basis for the Valerie Plame case also indicated that Bush wasn’t lying.
I assume the apologies from his opposition will be soon forthcoming. Obama will now announce that he was wrong for opposing the war and that Hussein (the other one) was clearly retaining his ability to produce nuclear weapons.
From American Thinker
July 06, 2008
President Bush exonerated of 'misleading statements' leading to Iraq war
Vincent Gioia
Today we know that Iraq did possess 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" -- the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment. The effort to topple Hussein and cause regime change was indeed necessary to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. We know this because it has been revealed, albeit without the fanfare of the earlier "scandal", that this huge stockpile of concentrated uranium, a remnant of Hussein' nuclear program, was removed from Iraq and shipped to a buyer in Canada. It should be a great relief to the world to know that Hussein was not given enough time to further develop his nuclear program because President Bush defied his critics and took action to abort this threat.
To those unfamiliar with "yellowcake", it is a concentrated form of uranium resulting from early stages of uranium ore processing. Although yellowcake is not considered potent enough for a nuclear bomb or for a so-called "dirty bomb" - "a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material" - it is a very dangerous material in the wrong hands. Yellowcake can be enriched for use in nuclear reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons.
Of course, as was the case with Caesar, "The evil that men do (in the eyes of their critics) live after them but the good is ("oft") interred with their souls". Bush continues to be maligned by his liberal and appeasement minded critics and too many Americans as well, for taking preemptive action to cancel this threat. We can only wonder what critics and opponents would say if Saddam Hussein had been allowed to continue and developed a nuclear weapon of mass destruction and made it available to world terrorists; at least those of them who would still be alive following a nuclear terrorist attack in the United States?
Clearly our invasion stopped this material from being developed into nuclear fuels and weapons. And the leaks about yellow cake from Niger that was the basis for the Valerie Plame case also indicated that Bush wasn’t lying.
I assume the apologies from his opposition will be soon forthcoming. Obama will now announce that he was wrong for opposing the war and that Hussein (the other one) was clearly retaining his ability to produce nuclear weapons.
From American Thinker
July 06, 2008
President Bush exonerated of 'misleading statements' leading to Iraq war
Vincent Gioia
Today we know that Iraq did possess 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" -- the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment. The effort to topple Hussein and cause regime change was indeed necessary to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. We know this because it has been revealed, albeit without the fanfare of the earlier "scandal", that this huge stockpile of concentrated uranium, a remnant of Hussein' nuclear program, was removed from Iraq and shipped to a buyer in Canada. It should be a great relief to the world to know that Hussein was not given enough time to further develop his nuclear program because President Bush defied his critics and took action to abort this threat.
To those unfamiliar with "yellowcake", it is a concentrated form of uranium resulting from early stages of uranium ore processing. Although yellowcake is not considered potent enough for a nuclear bomb or for a so-called "dirty bomb" - "a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material" - it is a very dangerous material in the wrong hands. Yellowcake can be enriched for use in nuclear reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons.
Of course, as was the case with Caesar, "The evil that men do (in the eyes of their critics) live after them but the good is ("oft") interred with their souls". Bush continues to be maligned by his liberal and appeasement minded critics and too many Americans as well, for taking preemptive action to cancel this threat. We can only wonder what critics and opponents would say if Saddam Hussein had been allowed to continue and developed a nuclear weapon of mass destruction and made it available to world terrorists; at least those of them who would still be alive following a nuclear terrorist attack in the United States?
Are Promises Enough?
If Obama is elected I predict he will have the lowest Jewish voter response since Jimmy Carter's second run.
In sheer numbers the Jewish vote pales in comparison to the Evangelical Christians. If Obama wins, the Jewish and the Evangelicals will have little voice and influence inthe White House.
While Obama assures the voters of his commitment to Israel and he sounds convincing, it leaves me wondering why he has so many advisors who blame Israel and the American Jewish Lobby more than the beligerents who have laid seige to the Jewish nation for 60 years: advisors such as Zbigniew Brzenski, Tony McPeak, Samantha Powers, Wesley Clark- not to mention Jeremiah Wright.
Many Jews who typically vote Democrat are asking themselves if Obama will respect Jewish and Israeli interests. His associations do not mesh with his promises. Are his promises enough?
In sheer numbers the Jewish vote pales in comparison to the Evangelical Christians. If Obama wins, the Jewish and the Evangelicals will have little voice and influence inthe White House.
While Obama assures the voters of his commitment to Israel and he sounds convincing, it leaves me wondering why he has so many advisors who blame Israel and the American Jewish Lobby more than the beligerents who have laid seige to the Jewish nation for 60 years: advisors such as Zbigniew Brzenski, Tony McPeak, Samantha Powers, Wesley Clark- not to mention Jeremiah Wright.
Many Jews who typically vote Democrat are asking themselves if Obama will respect Jewish and Israeli interests. His associations do not mesh with his promises. Are his promises enough?
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Why Are We Embarrased?
I realize that it is absolute heresy not to jump on the bandwagon of all the people who are embarrassed that George W. Bush is our president, but just to compare:
Are the French at all embarrassed about selling Saddam Hussein nuclear reactors?
Are the Russians at all embarrassed about selling nuclear material to Iran while they promise to destroy Israel?
Are the Germans at all embarrassed about circumventing the Iraqi Oil for Food program, and supporting Saddam while he thumbed his nose at the UN?
Are the Saudis at all embarrassed about how much money they make on oil and how little they spend to help their fellow Arabs in need? Meanwhile in Dubai they are building in door ski slopes in the middle of the desert.
Is the UN at all embarrassed at how utterly ineffective they have been to stop genocides in Rwanda and Darfur, nuclear armament in North Korea, Iran or Iraq, state sponsored anti Semitism throughout the Middle East or absolute holocaust incitement in Iran? Are they at all embarrassed about their grossly disproportionate rate of condemnations against Israel, turning a blind eye to every thing from murder and misogyny to slavery in the rest of the world?
Why are we embarrassed before countries that have repeatedly proven themselves racist, anti-Semitic and morally bankrupt in their foreign affairs?
Terrorist activity is down significantly worldwide while Americans under 'W' have dealt terrorist networks their worst setback in decades.
Why are we embarrassed by that?
Henry Oliner
Are the French at all embarrassed about selling Saddam Hussein nuclear reactors?
Are the Russians at all embarrassed about selling nuclear material to Iran while they promise to destroy Israel?
Are the Germans at all embarrassed about circumventing the Iraqi Oil for Food program, and supporting Saddam while he thumbed his nose at the UN?
Are the Saudis at all embarrassed about how much money they make on oil and how little they spend to help their fellow Arabs in need? Meanwhile in Dubai they are building in door ski slopes in the middle of the desert.
Is the UN at all embarrassed at how utterly ineffective they have been to stop genocides in Rwanda and Darfur, nuclear armament in North Korea, Iran or Iraq, state sponsored anti Semitism throughout the Middle East or absolute holocaust incitement in Iran? Are they at all embarrassed about their grossly disproportionate rate of condemnations against Israel, turning a blind eye to every thing from murder and misogyny to slavery in the rest of the world?
Why are we embarrassed before countries that have repeatedly proven themselves racist, anti-Semitic and morally bankrupt in their foreign affairs?
Terrorist activity is down significantly worldwide while Americans under 'W' have dealt terrorist networks their worst setback in decades.
Why are we embarrassed by that?
Henry Oliner
Undermining Charities
Reverend Robert Sirico, a Catholic Priest, is the founder of the Lord Acton Institute; an organization dedicated to teaching free market principles to clergy. The clergy he had encountered most of his life were largely socialist and ignorant of capitalism.
I had the good fortune to meet Reverend Sirico years ago at a YPO (Young President's Organization) meeting in San Diego, sat with him and Walter Williams at a scotch tasting. It was a memorable evening, at least for me. He did a great impression of Charles Rangel.
Reverend Sirico has opposed government funding of faith based organizations under Bush and remains consistent in his opposition responding to Obama's faith based proposal with this article in the National Review.
an excerpt:
Note the implied assumption that if government is not funding something, it is not being done — that if politicians and bureaucrats are not involved, all hands are not on deck. Contrary to what both Bush and Obama seem to believe, it is possible to have hands on deck using primarily private money. Just because taxpayers aren’t paying the bill doesn’t mean it is not happening and it is not making a difference. Why do politicians turn to religious charities in the first place? Because they know we have a secret in caring for the poor — our faith. And only dilution and compromise comes to the faith when it gets entangled with politics.
More blame, then, goes to the Republicans who should have known better — which is precisely what I have said to this administration from its inception. They tend to have more economic understanding and a broader knowledge of the dangers associated with making institutions dependent on government financing. Had Bush not worked so hard for this program, it wouldn’t already be established in a way that permits any future Democrat administration to take it over and use it for its own purposes.Surely there is a lesson here both for charities and politics. Charities need to stay away from politics if they want to maintain their institutional integrity and do their job in a way that is consistent with their ideals. The long-term interests of a charitable institution are best served by an independent and private source of financial support, even if it takes longer to develop than one that comes from the taxpayers.
I had the good fortune to meet Reverend Sirico years ago at a YPO (Young President's Organization) meeting in San Diego, sat with him and Walter Williams at a scotch tasting. It was a memorable evening, at least for me. He did a great impression of Charles Rangel.
Reverend Sirico has opposed government funding of faith based organizations under Bush and remains consistent in his opposition responding to Obama's faith based proposal with this article in the National Review.
an excerpt:
Note the implied assumption that if government is not funding something, it is not being done — that if politicians and bureaucrats are not involved, all hands are not on deck. Contrary to what both Bush and Obama seem to believe, it is possible to have hands on deck using primarily private money. Just because taxpayers aren’t paying the bill doesn’t mean it is not happening and it is not making a difference. Why do politicians turn to religious charities in the first place? Because they know we have a secret in caring for the poor — our faith. And only dilution and compromise comes to the faith when it gets entangled with politics.
More blame, then, goes to the Republicans who should have known better — which is precisely what I have said to this administration from its inception. They tend to have more economic understanding and a broader knowledge of the dangers associated with making institutions dependent on government financing. Had Bush not worked so hard for this program, it wouldn’t already be established in a way that permits any future Democrat administration to take it over and use it for its own purposes.Surely there is a lesson here both for charities and politics. Charities need to stay away from politics if they want to maintain their institutional integrity and do their job in a way that is consistent with their ideals. The long-term interests of a charitable institution are best served by an independent and private source of financial support, even if it takes longer to develop than one that comes from the taxpayers.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Unnecessary Lies About Obama
I get a lot of e-mails about Obama and his wife that are very suspect, and upon minimal checking on Snopes fact checker are either blatantly not true, or at least taken enough out of context to totally distort their true meaning.
The people who believe these e-mails without questioning or verifying them want to believe them and thus are not going to vote for him anyway. Those "hope and change" junkies who blindly support Obama wouldn't believe them if they were true, and they will have no effect of their choice.
When Obama loses, his supporters will blame the barrage of lying e-mails, and of course the 'racism' of America. (Somebody show me a less racist society on earth.)
As any reader of this blog already knows I do not support Obama, but there is enough reason given his horrible tax proposals, energy policy, voting record, and foreign policy proposals, not to mention a long list of associates and advisors that should worry any centrist voter.
We do not need the lies and distortions to oppose him. His policies and proposals will do just fine.
The people who believe these e-mails without questioning or verifying them want to believe them and thus are not going to vote for him anyway. Those "hope and change" junkies who blindly support Obama wouldn't believe them if they were true, and they will have no effect of their choice.
When Obama loses, his supporters will blame the barrage of lying e-mails, and of course the 'racism' of America. (Somebody show me a less racist society on earth.)
As any reader of this blog already knows I do not support Obama, but there is enough reason given his horrible tax proposals, energy policy, voting record, and foreign policy proposals, not to mention a long list of associates and advisors that should worry any centrist voter.
We do not need the lies and distortions to oppose him. His policies and proposals will do just fine.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Commander in Chief
Does McCain's military experience qualify him for president?
Not according to Obama's advisor, Wesley Clark.
By itself it certainly does not. But when we are in a war I want the Commader in Chief to know first hand the agony of the soldier before he commits thousands of them to combat. I want him carefully consider the gravity of the cause that requires us to commit troops.
McCain certainly knows it first hand from his youth and since he has two sons in Iraq he understands the families of those with children in combat.
This alone is not reason to elect a president, but it certainly belongs in his plus column.
Not according to Obama's advisor, Wesley Clark.
By itself it certainly does not. But when we are in a war I want the Commader in Chief to know first hand the agony of the soldier before he commits thousands of them to combat. I want him carefully consider the gravity of the cause that requires us to commit troops.
McCain certainly knows it first hand from his youth and since he has two sons in Iraq he understands the families of those with children in combat.
This alone is not reason to elect a president, but it certainly belongs in his plus column.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Stuff White People Like
Like 'The Truth About Chuck Norris', 'Stuff White People Like' started out as a whimsical to nonsensical collection that became so popular on line that publishers sought to bring the content to the printed page and pursued the creators to bring out a book.
A sample entry:
Comparing People to Hitler
By: Isaac “Absent” Amirian
Being a truly advanced white person means being able to speak with authority about pretty much any field of conversation- especially politics. In order for white people to streamline the process of knowing everything, all human beings can be neatly filed into one of two categories: People I Agree With, and People Who are Just Like Adolf Hitler.
Comparing people to Hitler is an easy way for white people to get a strong point across to the less enlightened, or the insufficiently white. Everyone knows who Adolf Hitler was. And everyone knows that Hitler was very, very bad. Therefore, if a white person really, REALLY, doesn’t like something or someone, he or she may angrily say something to the effect of, “This is exactly the same kind of thing that Hitler used to do!” accompanied by varying levels of profanity based on blood-alcohol content. No matter what your gut reaction may be at that point, do not disagree with that white person. Otherwise, well, you love Hitler.
A sample entry:
Comparing People to Hitler
By: Isaac “Absent” Amirian
Being a truly advanced white person means being able to speak with authority about pretty much any field of conversation- especially politics. In order for white people to streamline the process of knowing everything, all human beings can be neatly filed into one of two categories: People I Agree With, and People Who are Just Like Adolf Hitler.
Comparing people to Hitler is an easy way for white people to get a strong point across to the less enlightened, or the insufficiently white. Everyone knows who Adolf Hitler was. And everyone knows that Hitler was very, very bad. Therefore, if a white person really, REALLY, doesn’t like something or someone, he or she may angrily say something to the effect of, “This is exactly the same kind of thing that Hitler used to do!” accompanied by varying levels of profanity based on blood-alcohol content. No matter what your gut reaction may be at that point, do not disagree with that white person. Otherwise, well, you love Hitler.
Eight Things that Piss Me Off.. and what can be done about it.
Random ideas to decrease life's annoyances.
1. At the doctor- do not make me fill out the same data I filled out the last time I was there. Print a copy of my file and ask me to correct it. There are computers out there that can do this. or give me the option of completing this information on line.
2. Vending machines that sell movie tickets are a good idea, but have enough of them and make sure they work. Even better let me buy them on line at home and print them for admittance.
3. If your customer service line says that "my call is important" be sure a real human being is saying it and not a computer recording. Otherwise you are a ****ing liar.
4. If you pay so crappy that you can not hire a real human being then at least give me the option of leaving a message instead of making me wait on a phone for 12 minutes. Always give me the option of getting a real human being if the auto attendant gets confusing.
5. Kill the cell phone signals at the movies.
6. If you are a waitress do not make me wait for the bill. Why is it that the same waitress that refills my drink after every sip is no where to be found when I need to leave and I am ready to pay?
7. Make seats available on the plane based on the height and weight of the passenger. Have special seats for anyone over 250 lbs or over 6'4" tall. Do not charge extra. For the price of a ticket a comfortable seat is not too much to ask.
8. Stop inserting ads at the bottom over the TV show I am watching. You get to run your freaking ads every ten minutes; do you have to wreck my viewing experience by overlaying them on the main show as well?
Do you have any other suggestions?
1. At the doctor- do not make me fill out the same data I filled out the last time I was there. Print a copy of my file and ask me to correct it. There are computers out there that can do this. or give me the option of completing this information on line.
2. Vending machines that sell movie tickets are a good idea, but have enough of them and make sure they work. Even better let me buy them on line at home and print them for admittance.
3. If your customer service line says that "my call is important" be sure a real human being is saying it and not a computer recording. Otherwise you are a ****ing liar.
4. If you pay so crappy that you can not hire a real human being then at least give me the option of leaving a message instead of making me wait on a phone for 12 minutes. Always give me the option of getting a real human being if the auto attendant gets confusing.
5. Kill the cell phone signals at the movies.
6. If you are a waitress do not make me wait for the bill. Why is it that the same waitress that refills my drink after every sip is no where to be found when I need to leave and I am ready to pay?
7. Make seats available on the plane based on the height and weight of the passenger. Have special seats for anyone over 250 lbs or over 6'4" tall. Do not charge extra. For the price of a ticket a comfortable seat is not too much to ask.
8. Stop inserting ads at the bottom over the TV show I am watching. You get to run your freaking ads every ten minutes; do you have to wreck my viewing experience by overlaying them on the main show as well?
Do you have any other suggestions?
Friday, July 4, 2008
Iraq Myths
The public has accepted several myths about our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq that have been perpetrated by biased and incomplete reporting; often repeating distortions until they are accepted as facts. This problem was magnified by quarelling departments, security leaks, and the administration's poor job of explaining their policies.
Myth # 1- Our main objective was to capture Osama Bin Laden.
Our main objective was to protect the US from further attacks. This is a critical distinction often lost by those critical of the fact that Bin Laden is still at large even if his organization is largely crushed.
Bush made a major policy change when he treated 9/11 as an act of war rather than a crime, as it had been treated before. The administration clearly understood that even if Bin Laden had been captured or killed within weeks that this success would have been short lived and we would have still been vulnerable to another attack from similarly hostile groups.
It became their policy to remove the supporting infrastructure that allowed these terrorists to train and flourish. This is why it was decided to not just attack Al Qaeda, but to also remove the Taliban that gave them safe haven. This was also why Iraq became a target.
Myth # 2- Stockpiles of WMD's was the main reason we invaded Iraq.
WMD stockpiles was only one of several cases for removing Saddam. His past history of development and deployment of chemical weapons, his prior attempt at developing nuclear weaponry, his belingerency against Iran, Kuwait, and the Kurds, and his willingness to supply terrorists with these agents all made him the most likely threat. His violation of 16 UN resolutions, his expelling of weapons inspectors, lack of documentation on his weapons, and attacks against U.S. and British planes in the no fly zone all illustrated the threat he posed.
While the CIA did believe he possessed stockpiles of WMD's, Bush's greater concern was his retention of capabilities to restart these programs. Saddam had successfully kept the UN and its inspectors at bay, and with dual purpose factories remained able to start chemical and biological weapons production within weeks.
Rumsfeld even listed a contingency before attacking Iraq that WMDs may not be found. Both State and Defense believed that even if that was the case that Iraq posed a large enough threat to merit action.
Powell's emphasis on stockpiles at his address to the UN instead of capability and willingness to use these weapons proved unfortunate since the absence of the stockpiles quickly tagged the venture a failure.
Myth #3- Bush was warned about the problems of an invasion and ignored advice not to invade.
The agencies had long lists of potential problems; that was part of the planning process. Yet many of the leaders who warned of problems were not suggesting that Saddam be left in power, and the vast majority of them supported his removal.
Myth #4- Bush had plans to get Sadaam even before 9/11.
Simply not true. Given Saddam's belligerent history Defense had disussed his removal before Bush was ever elected. Leading Democrats had called for his removal in the 1990's after Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors. Bush even stalled the creation of a post Sadaam transition plan less it be perceived that he had already predetermined his removal and was not seriously giving the inspectors a chance to avoid war.
Myth #5- Rumsfeld filtered the intelligence to fit his preconceived notion and plans.
Not true. Rumsfeld vigorously questioned the intelligence. He was accused of trying to prop up Chalabi who the CIA disliked, but he had only insisted that Chalabi be included among 4 other Iraqi externals as potential leaders and that the Iraqis make the decision who ran their country. When the military had captured Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, it took the CIA forever to question the captives.
Doug Feith and Rumsfeld felt that the CIA should provide intelligence and not policy, yet it appeared that the CIA was filtering intelligence to fit their notions rather than deliver objective intelligence as they should.
Myth # 6- There was no relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
This was the opinion of the CIA early on; believeing that the secular Saddam would not ally with religious jihadists. Rumsfeld questioned this assumption. Did not the secular Arafat ally with Islamic jihadists? History has seen alliances between the ideologoically incompatable to face a common enemy. What about Germany and Russia, and then the U.S. and Russia?
There was much evidence of Al Qaeda and other terrorist training in Iraq, including captured Al Qaeda operatives. The notion that they were not there until we invaded was not true.
The Iraq Study Group (ISG) reported that there was no "operational relationship", but this only means that Iraq was not in on the actual plans on 9/11 and that claim was never made by the adminsitration. News coverage of the ISG of course dropped the "operational" adjective, leaving the public believing that there was no ties with Al Qaeda. By the same measure The Taliban did not have an "operational realtionship" with Al Qaeda. Iraq did train and support terrorists, including Al Qaeda; and this combined with their WMD capabilities made them a serious threat.
Myth #7- Bush's policy was to establish democracy in Iraq
While Bush spoke often about the desirablity of establishing democracies to fight terrorism, his staff fought against the objective of establishing democracy in Iraq. Our objective was to remain to protect the US against further attacks. Rumsfeld in particular argued against the "democracy" objective because it would be too hard to achieve in a short time. They decided to include the establishment of democratic institutions such as courts and the rule of law. Rumsfeld felt that ultimately the people of Iraq should decide what kind of government they wanted.
Myth #8- We needed more troops on the ground but Rumsfeld forced his vision of the military on the commanders and did not listen to their advice otherwise.
Rumsfeld noted that in Operation Desert Storm, removing Iraq from Kuwait, that we sent 500,000 troops and needed far less. In that campaign 90% of the ammo was sent back to the US unopened. He questioned whether such an overwhelming force would be needed in Iraq.
Both Rumsfeld and General Franks felt that an element of surprise was critical. The Iraqis did not expect ground troops so quickly. Franks felt that waiting for a large buildup would have destroyed the critical element of surprise. He succeeded in unseating Saddam even faster than their great success in Afghanistan.
Rumsfeld deffered to his Commanders to determine troop strength.
HKO summary-
While it is certainly unpopular to praise our efforts and although this fight is far from over, once must surmise that the administration did achieve the objective of preventing further attacks. Perhaps the cost was much higher in blood and treasure than expected, but such a change in policy is not easily reversable and the best laid plans morph quickly in combat. Terrorist activity worldwide is down sharply. See previous post.
But then everybody knows that, don't they?
most information from Doug Feith's "War and Decision." Read Doug's own summary of the decision to invade Iraq in the Wall Street Journal on line, Why We Went to War in Iraq.
Myth # 1- Our main objective was to capture Osama Bin Laden.
Our main objective was to protect the US from further attacks. This is a critical distinction often lost by those critical of the fact that Bin Laden is still at large even if his organization is largely crushed.
Bush made a major policy change when he treated 9/11 as an act of war rather than a crime, as it had been treated before. The administration clearly understood that even if Bin Laden had been captured or killed within weeks that this success would have been short lived and we would have still been vulnerable to another attack from similarly hostile groups.
It became their policy to remove the supporting infrastructure that allowed these terrorists to train and flourish. This is why it was decided to not just attack Al Qaeda, but to also remove the Taliban that gave them safe haven. This was also why Iraq became a target.
Myth # 2- Stockpiles of WMD's was the main reason we invaded Iraq.
WMD stockpiles was only one of several cases for removing Saddam. His past history of development and deployment of chemical weapons, his prior attempt at developing nuclear weaponry, his belingerency against Iran, Kuwait, and the Kurds, and his willingness to supply terrorists with these agents all made him the most likely threat. His violation of 16 UN resolutions, his expelling of weapons inspectors, lack of documentation on his weapons, and attacks against U.S. and British planes in the no fly zone all illustrated the threat he posed.
While the CIA did believe he possessed stockpiles of WMD's, Bush's greater concern was his retention of capabilities to restart these programs. Saddam had successfully kept the UN and its inspectors at bay, and with dual purpose factories remained able to start chemical and biological weapons production within weeks.
Rumsfeld even listed a contingency before attacking Iraq that WMDs may not be found. Both State and Defense believed that even if that was the case that Iraq posed a large enough threat to merit action.
Powell's emphasis on stockpiles at his address to the UN instead of capability and willingness to use these weapons proved unfortunate since the absence of the stockpiles quickly tagged the venture a failure.
Myth #3- Bush was warned about the problems of an invasion and ignored advice not to invade.
The agencies had long lists of potential problems; that was part of the planning process. Yet many of the leaders who warned of problems were not suggesting that Saddam be left in power, and the vast majority of them supported his removal.
Myth #4- Bush had plans to get Sadaam even before 9/11.
Simply not true. Given Saddam's belligerent history Defense had disussed his removal before Bush was ever elected. Leading Democrats had called for his removal in the 1990's after Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors. Bush even stalled the creation of a post Sadaam transition plan less it be perceived that he had already predetermined his removal and was not seriously giving the inspectors a chance to avoid war.
Myth #5- Rumsfeld filtered the intelligence to fit his preconceived notion and plans.
Not true. Rumsfeld vigorously questioned the intelligence. He was accused of trying to prop up Chalabi who the CIA disliked, but he had only insisted that Chalabi be included among 4 other Iraqi externals as potential leaders and that the Iraqis make the decision who ran their country. When the military had captured Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, it took the CIA forever to question the captives.
Doug Feith and Rumsfeld felt that the CIA should provide intelligence and not policy, yet it appeared that the CIA was filtering intelligence to fit their notions rather than deliver objective intelligence as they should.
Myth # 6- There was no relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
This was the opinion of the CIA early on; believeing that the secular Saddam would not ally with religious jihadists. Rumsfeld questioned this assumption. Did not the secular Arafat ally with Islamic jihadists? History has seen alliances between the ideologoically incompatable to face a common enemy. What about Germany and Russia, and then the U.S. and Russia?
There was much evidence of Al Qaeda and other terrorist training in Iraq, including captured Al Qaeda operatives. The notion that they were not there until we invaded was not true.
The Iraq Study Group (ISG) reported that there was no "operational relationship", but this only means that Iraq was not in on the actual plans on 9/11 and that claim was never made by the adminsitration. News coverage of the ISG of course dropped the "operational" adjective, leaving the public believing that there was no ties with Al Qaeda. By the same measure The Taliban did not have an "operational realtionship" with Al Qaeda. Iraq did train and support terrorists, including Al Qaeda; and this combined with their WMD capabilities made them a serious threat.
Myth #7- Bush's policy was to establish democracy in Iraq
While Bush spoke often about the desirablity of establishing democracies to fight terrorism, his staff fought against the objective of establishing democracy in Iraq. Our objective was to remain to protect the US against further attacks. Rumsfeld in particular argued against the "democracy" objective because it would be too hard to achieve in a short time. They decided to include the establishment of democratic institutions such as courts and the rule of law. Rumsfeld felt that ultimately the people of Iraq should decide what kind of government they wanted.
Myth #8- We needed more troops on the ground but Rumsfeld forced his vision of the military on the commanders and did not listen to their advice otherwise.
Rumsfeld noted that in Operation Desert Storm, removing Iraq from Kuwait, that we sent 500,000 troops and needed far less. In that campaign 90% of the ammo was sent back to the US unopened. He questioned whether such an overwhelming force would be needed in Iraq.
Both Rumsfeld and General Franks felt that an element of surprise was critical. The Iraqis did not expect ground troops so quickly. Franks felt that waiting for a large buildup would have destroyed the critical element of surprise. He succeeded in unseating Saddam even faster than their great success in Afghanistan.
Rumsfeld deffered to his Commanders to determine troop strength.
HKO summary-
While it is certainly unpopular to praise our efforts and although this fight is far from over, once must surmise that the administration did achieve the objective of preventing further attacks. Perhaps the cost was much higher in blood and treasure than expected, but such a change in policy is not easily reversable and the best laid plans morph quickly in combat. Terrorist activity worldwide is down sharply. See previous post.
But then everybody knows that, don't they?
most information from Doug Feith's "War and Decision." Read Doug's own summary of the decision to invade Iraq in the Wall Street Journal on line, Why We Went to War in Iraq.
Have Gun, Will Travel
The Georgia legislature has passed a law allowing guns to be carried into public parks, public transportation and resturants that serve liquor. Guns will still be banned at the airport.
This is not good enough, though for Representative Tim Bearden who is challenging the restrictions agains carrying guns at the airport.
I am a second ammendment fan and the proud owner of a few weapons, but why is it that some of the pro gun advocates can never seem to let well enough alone. A restaurant owner or the owner of any private property has the right to restrict gun ownership on his or her property, and the airports who deal with major security issues have the right and the obligation to restict guns at the airports.
Every right has some basic restrictions. A free press does not allow me to libel others or scream obscenities. Freedom of religion does not allow me to commit human sacrifice, and the right to own guns does not mean I can own mortars, machine guns and flame throwers.
Such activists hurt common sense gun ownership rules.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Nice Melons Indeed
Scientists: Watermelon yields Viagra-like effects
By BETSY BLANEY
entire article
excerpts
Watermelons contain an ingredient called citrulline that can trigger production of a compound that helps relax the body's blood vessels, similar to what happens when a man takes Viagra, said scientists in Texas, one of the nation's top producers of the seedless variety.
Found in the flesh and rind of watermelons, citrulline reacts with the body's enzymes when consumed in large quantities and is changed into arginine, an amino acid that benefits the heart and the circulatory and immune systems.
"Arginine boosts nitric oxide, which relaxes blood vessels, the same basic effect that Viagra has, to treat erectile dysfunction and maybe even prevent it," said Bhimu Patil, a researcher and director of Texas A&M's Fruit and Vegetable Improvement Center. "Watermelon may not be as organ-specific as Viagra, but it's a great way to relax blood vessels without any drug side effects"
HKO- Apparently the only antidote is a bucket of KFC Original Recipe.
Man's Best Friend
IS it just me or is the July 4th news just getting too weird.
Dogs Used in Pornography Films to Be Spared Death
from Fox News
Excerpt
"The undersheriff has rethought his position on the dogs involved in the pornography," said sheriff's Capt. John Bowman. "Because of their status as being victims in this whole thing, he decided they will not be euthanized.
"His intent is to maintain them until they can be rehabilitated and then to get them adopted by people or organizations who are aware of their background and get a good home for all of them."
The sheriff's office received evidence the dogs had been filmed dozens of times performing sex acts with a woman."
Dogs Used in Pornography Films to Be Spared Death
from Fox News
Excerpt
"The undersheriff has rethought his position on the dogs involved in the pornography," said sheriff's Capt. John Bowman. "Because of their status as being victims in this whole thing, he decided they will not be euthanized.
"His intent is to maintain them until they can be rehabilitated and then to get them adopted by people or organizations who are aware of their background and get a good home for all of them."
The sheriff's office received evidence the dogs had been filmed dozens of times performing sex acts with a woman."
Never Too Old
Grandma, 70, Gives Birth to Twins
from Foxnews
Excerpt
Panwar, who has two adult daughters and five grandchildren, underwent in-vitro fertility treatment so she could produce a male heir.
Her husband, Charan Singh Panwar, 77, mortgaged his land, sold his buffalos, spent his life savings and took out a credit card loan to finance the treatment.
“At last we have a son and heir,” he said. “We prayed to God, went to saints and visited religious places to pray for an heir."
HKO comments:
Besides having a son younger than her granddaughter, this may have made sense if the first of the twins was a obstetrician who could have helped with the delivery of his sibling. This could be fodder for Jay Leno for the rest of his career.
It is also noteworthy that he had to sell his buffalo AND use his credit cards. These are two transactions that do not usually go together. It would have been cheaper to just put her in a nursing home.
from Foxnews
Excerpt
Panwar, who has two adult daughters and five grandchildren, underwent in-vitro fertility treatment so she could produce a male heir.
Her husband, Charan Singh Panwar, 77, mortgaged his land, sold his buffalos, spent his life savings and took out a credit card loan to finance the treatment.
“At last we have a son and heir,” he said. “We prayed to God, went to saints and visited religious places to pray for an heir."
HKO comments:
Besides having a son younger than her granddaughter, this may have made sense if the first of the twins was a obstetrician who could have helped with the delivery of his sibling. This could be fodder for Jay Leno for the rest of his career.
It is also noteworthy that he had to sell his buffalo AND use his credit cards. These are two transactions that do not usually go together. It would have been cheaper to just put her in a nursing home.
The Key to Immortality
Compound in Red Wine Fights Ravages of Age
By Alan Mozes
HealthDay Reporter
Thursday, July 3, 2008; 12:00 AM
the entire article
Excerpt
"But red wine is a good source of resveratrol," he added. "And, in this mouse study, we have shown that this particular compound has very strong positive effects on preventing cardiovascular disease, reducing heart inflammation, keeping bone health in terms of structure and function, and maintaining loco-motor and balance activity. So, if these effects translate into humans, it will have a very good impact on the standard of human health."
HKO Comments- I hope they also do research into the hopeful benefits of scotch and a couple of cigars. If they also have a similar benefit, then I may become immortal.
Unfolding History
I am reading Douglas Feith's "War and Decision"; his detailed account of the meetings and policy decisions after 9/11. Feith was Under Secretary of Defense reporting directly to Donald Rumsfeld. While his personal perspective is tilted toward the Department of Defense, it includes many documents that supports the story.
While there are many lessons to be learned from this period in history, one is the irresponsible reporting that perpetuated numerous distortions and lies about the adminsitration's actions and decisions. Opinion mongers in the media may have been seeking partisan justice, but there needs to be some objectivity in reporting facts. Yet even opinion columnists do not have the right to create facts, and incriminating statements should at least motivate a reporter to get both sides before they rush to press with a "gotcha" story.
Yet once a distortion or lie gets traction in the media, it quickly gets repeated and becomes the accepted truth. The damage to our foreign policy and military is enormous. Many policy meetings spend enomous time on wording and statements often trying to second guess how the media will play their words.
Doug reports more than accuses, but it is hard to miss his dissappointment with the quality of the intelligence from the CIA, not just about WMD stockpiles, but about numerous other intelligence details in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also seems dissapointed in the performance of Colin Powell, and his insistence on focusing his address to the UN on the WMD stockpiles, when the real concern with Sadaam was much more extensive.
It is not surprising that Feith is generally complimentary of Rumsfeld, but he understands that he was an intense intellect and extremely demanding of those around him. His relationship with military leaders was strained, but he did not micromange as much as he simply demanded clarity in thinking.
But there are lessons here on the interplay of the main agencies. Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, Tenent as Director of the CIA, and Powell as Secretary of State had many disagreements and some turf disputes. This is good to the extent it created a lot of questions and thoughts on the precarious course of action; but it is bad when confidential and classified discussions were leaked and aired in the media without the whole story.
Before a course of action there is plenty of room for debate, but once the decision to proceed is made there needs to be a unified leadership. According to Feith, Bush tolerated press leaks from critical confidential meetings when the perpetrators should have been immediately terminated. In an effort to have a unified controlled message, Bush failed to explain the foreign policy to the public, and allowed numerous distortions to become fact in the public's collective mind.
Feith clearly buries the perception held by too many that the Iraq War was recklessly pursued without broad discussion and planning, while the idiot lying Texan simply ignored all of the information and intelligence that contradicted his preordained plan to get Sadaam. Regardless of the errors that were made and in spite of the many successes that also transpired, this course was carefully considered and discussed by the CIA, Defense, State, and both houses of Congress.
The history on Iraq is just starting to unfold and Feith has made an excellent early contribution.
While there are many lessons to be learned from this period in history, one is the irresponsible reporting that perpetuated numerous distortions and lies about the adminsitration's actions and decisions. Opinion mongers in the media may have been seeking partisan justice, but there needs to be some objectivity in reporting facts. Yet even opinion columnists do not have the right to create facts, and incriminating statements should at least motivate a reporter to get both sides before they rush to press with a "gotcha" story.
Yet once a distortion or lie gets traction in the media, it quickly gets repeated and becomes the accepted truth. The damage to our foreign policy and military is enormous. Many policy meetings spend enomous time on wording and statements often trying to second guess how the media will play their words.
Doug reports more than accuses, but it is hard to miss his dissappointment with the quality of the intelligence from the CIA, not just about WMD stockpiles, but about numerous other intelligence details in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also seems dissapointed in the performance of Colin Powell, and his insistence on focusing his address to the UN on the WMD stockpiles, when the real concern with Sadaam was much more extensive.
It is not surprising that Feith is generally complimentary of Rumsfeld, but he understands that he was an intense intellect and extremely demanding of those around him. His relationship with military leaders was strained, but he did not micromange as much as he simply demanded clarity in thinking.
But there are lessons here on the interplay of the main agencies. Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, Tenent as Director of the CIA, and Powell as Secretary of State had many disagreements and some turf disputes. This is good to the extent it created a lot of questions and thoughts on the precarious course of action; but it is bad when confidential and classified discussions were leaked and aired in the media without the whole story.
Before a course of action there is plenty of room for debate, but once the decision to proceed is made there needs to be a unified leadership. According to Feith, Bush tolerated press leaks from critical confidential meetings when the perpetrators should have been immediately terminated. In an effort to have a unified controlled message, Bush failed to explain the foreign policy to the public, and allowed numerous distortions to become fact in the public's collective mind.
Feith clearly buries the perception held by too many that the Iraq War was recklessly pursued without broad discussion and planning, while the idiot lying Texan simply ignored all of the information and intelligence that contradicted his preordained plan to get Sadaam. Regardless of the errors that were made and in spite of the many successes that also transpired, this course was carefully considered and discussed by the CIA, Defense, State, and both houses of Congress.
The history on Iraq is just starting to unfold and Feith has made an excellent early contribution.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
What About the Advisors?
While experience is being tossed about in this campaign like a midget at a drunken frat party (apologies to Dennis Miller), we should at least be able to judge a candidate by the people 'selected' as advisors. We now get to add Wesley Clark to a horde of Obama advisors.
From American Thinker
July 01, 2008
Clark Finds a Home Among Obama Advisors (updated)
Ed Lasky
excerpt
But this is far from the first time Clark has insulted people in a very crude way. Last year, for example, he engaged in conspiracy mongering by alluding to "New York money people" pushing America into a war against Iran . In case anyone missed the import of his meaning , he clarified his remarks by absolving a part of the Jewish community. He said that the Jewish community was divided on Iran but then said there is so "much pressure being channeled from New York money people to the office seekers" that politicians may feel compelled to support war against Iran.
He will fit right in with the likes of probable future foreign policy guru Samantha Power who inferred that criticism of Barack Obama comes down to "what is good for the Jews" and who warned about "domestic interest groups with vast financial power influencing foreign policy). Also, Meriill "Tony" McPeak, the vice chair of Senator Obama's campaign and his chief military adviser who blamed problems in the Middle East on the influence of people who live in New York City and Miami whom no "politician wants to run against" and who exercise undue influence on foreign affairs in America. Then there's George Soros-an early fundraiser who can tap an empire of 527 groups to help Barack Obama and who has negative views of American lobbying groups that support the American-Israel relationship. And Zbigniew Brzezinski (a supporter of the Stephen Walt/ John Mearsheimer view of American Jews exercising undue influence in America - a view called "anti-Semitic" in the Washington Post and a host of others close to Barack Obama who have expressed anti-Israel opinions (Pastor Jeremiah Wright, among them).
Also lest we forget, Wes Clark, like so many closely associated with Barack Obama, has been a beneficiary of money from George Soros. Right after receiving large chunk of change from Soros, Wes Clark again let loose a broadside against American support for Israel in its battle with Hezbollah, calling it "a serious mistake".
He will find a comfortable home among Barack Obama's team of advisers.
From American Thinker
July 01, 2008
Clark Finds a Home Among Obama Advisors (updated)
Ed Lasky
excerpt
But this is far from the first time Clark has insulted people in a very crude way. Last year, for example, he engaged in conspiracy mongering by alluding to "New York money people" pushing America into a war against Iran . In case anyone missed the import of his meaning , he clarified his remarks by absolving a part of the Jewish community. He said that the Jewish community was divided on Iran but then said there is so "much pressure being channeled from New York money people to the office seekers" that politicians may feel compelled to support war against Iran.
He will fit right in with the likes of probable future foreign policy guru Samantha Power who inferred that criticism of Barack Obama comes down to "what is good for the Jews" and who warned about "domestic interest groups with vast financial power influencing foreign policy). Also, Meriill "Tony" McPeak, the vice chair of Senator Obama's campaign and his chief military adviser who blamed problems in the Middle East on the influence of people who live in New York City and Miami whom no "politician wants to run against" and who exercise undue influence on foreign affairs in America. Then there's George Soros-an early fundraiser who can tap an empire of 527 groups to help Barack Obama and who has negative views of American lobbying groups that support the American-Israel relationship. And Zbigniew Brzezinski (a supporter of the Stephen Walt/ John Mearsheimer view of American Jews exercising undue influence in America - a view called "anti-Semitic" in the Washington Post and a host of others close to Barack Obama who have expressed anti-Israel opinions (Pastor Jeremiah Wright, among them).
Also lest we forget, Wes Clark, like so many closely associated with Barack Obama, has been a beneficiary of money from George Soros. Right after receiving large chunk of change from Soros, Wes Clark again let loose a broadside against American support for Israel in its battle with Hezbollah, calling it "a serious mistake".
He will find a comfortable home among Barack Obama's team of advisers.
Faith Based Fallacy
I think that the faith based initiative is a bad idea. It was a bad idea when Bush proposed it and it is no better when Obama proposes it. Is it just a giant suck up to the Christain Right? Does he think it will work?
The problem with the faith based initiative is the loose ACLU type definition of what qualifies. Will a terrorist inspiring Jihadi Muslim Priest qualify? Will Louis Farakhan? Would you like Reverend Wright to get your tax dollars to spend on social programs of his choosing?
The effectiveness of many faith based organizations is precisely because they are free of government control and can thus spend as they see fit. Those who want government money may have a hard time getting private donations; there may be a reason for that.
HKO
The problem with the faith based initiative is the loose ACLU type definition of what qualifies. Will a terrorist inspiring Jihadi Muslim Priest qualify? Will Louis Farakhan? Would you like Reverend Wright to get your tax dollars to spend on social programs of his choosing?
The effectiveness of many faith based organizations is precisely because they are free of government control and can thus spend as they see fit. Those who want government money may have a hard time getting private donations; there may be a reason for that.
HKO
Informatics
One can now major in Informatics, the newest program at Indiana University. It is in repsonse to the need to understand, organize and utilize the vast information at our fingertips. Yes, I feel as outdated as when I view a current map of Eastern Europe.
from Wikipedia:
Informatics is the science of information, the practice of information processing, and the engineering of information systems. Informatics studies the structure, algorithms, behavior, and interactions of natural and artificial systems that store, process, access and communicate information. It also develops its own conceptual and theoretical foundations and utilizes foundations developed in other fields. Since the advent of computers, individuals and organizations increasingly process information digitally. This has led to the study of informatics that has computational, cognitive and social aspects, including study of the social impact of information technologies.
Used as a compound, in conjunction with the name of a discipline, as in medical informatics, bioinformatics, etc., it denotes the specialization of informatics to the management and processing of data, information and knowledge in the named discipline, and the incorporation of informatic concepts and theories to enrich the other discipline; it has a similar relationship to library science.
from Wikipedia:
Informatics is the science of information, the practice of information processing, and the engineering of information systems. Informatics studies the structure, algorithms, behavior, and interactions of natural and artificial systems that store, process, access and communicate information. It also develops its own conceptual and theoretical foundations and utilizes foundations developed in other fields. Since the advent of computers, individuals and organizations increasingly process information digitally. This has led to the study of informatics that has computational, cognitive and social aspects, including study of the social impact of information technologies.
Used as a compound, in conjunction with the name of a discipline, as in medical informatics, bioinformatics, etc., it denotes the specialization of informatics to the management and processing of data, information and knowledge in the named discipline, and the incorporation of informatic concepts and theories to enrich the other discipline; it has a similar relationship to library science.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Surrounded By Information
I was at Indiana University touring the campus with a group of parents while my daughter Natalie was registering for fall classes. As I was looking up at the tower rising above the student union building I recalled the tragedy of the sniper at a Texas university in the 1960's. I tried to remember his name, but could not. I called a well read friend and trivia bank, Deborah Adler and she could not recall either.
As I was walking away, a fellow university parent tapped me on the shoulder and said "Charles Whitman." He had over heard my conversation and being a bit of a trivia buff as well, looked it up on his Blackberry.
We are surrounded by so much connectivity to so much information that unlimited data pours at us by just raising the question out loud. We have the equivalent of an entire university library available on an inexpensive pocket device. It is amazing and it has to herald a new age of man.
I still do not have a Blackberry and I do not even travel with a laptop often. I still carry books (at least two) and articles to read, and generally keep my cell phone on silent or vibrate. I am a dinosaur at age 55. I value quiet more than connectivity.
from Wikipedia:
Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) was a student at the University of Texas at Austin who killed 14 people and wounded 31 others as part of a shooting rampage from the observation deck of the University's 32-story administrative building on August 1, 1966. He did this shortly after murdering his wife and mother. He was eventually shot and killed by Austin police.
An autopsy requested in Whitman's suicide note revealed that he had a Glioblastoma brain tumor. This has led to speculation that the tumor was responsible for his rampage.[1]
As I was walking away, a fellow university parent tapped me on the shoulder and said "Charles Whitman." He had over heard my conversation and being a bit of a trivia buff as well, looked it up on his Blackberry.
We are surrounded by so much connectivity to so much information that unlimited data pours at us by just raising the question out loud. We have the equivalent of an entire university library available on an inexpensive pocket device. It is amazing and it has to herald a new age of man.
I still do not have a Blackberry and I do not even travel with a laptop often. I still carry books (at least two) and articles to read, and generally keep my cell phone on silent or vibrate. I am a dinosaur at age 55. I value quiet more than connectivity.
from Wikipedia:
Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) was a student at the University of Texas at Austin who killed 14 people and wounded 31 others as part of a shooting rampage from the observation deck of the University's 32-story administrative building on August 1, 1966. He did this shortly after murdering his wife and mother. He was eventually shot and killed by Austin police.
An autopsy requested in Whitman's suicide note revealed that he had a Glioblastoma brain tumor. This has led to speculation that the tumor was responsible for his rampage.[1]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)