With the scope of Congressional intervention in our lives growing on a daily basis, even I (a life-long Democrat) can't but cringe. Since Katrina, and even more so now that I am unemployed again, I have an ever-growing appreciation for how much the Federal tangle of red-tape and "hurry-up-and-wait" mentallity are symptomatic of the evils of governmental intervention and not of the need for MORE intervention.
However, I'm not going to shed any tears if Barney Frank and the rest of the Dems do get some legislation passed making it illegal for banks to re-arrange the actual order that transactions take place in order to be able to attach over-draft fees to debit card accounts. Sure, I know the argument that, if I am unhappy with my bank and its policies... find another bank. All well and good, until one realizes that this is stardard policy in the private banking industry, meaning that finding a local bank that doesn't do it is next to impossible.
I have often complained (loudly, too) that any bank I happen to do business with can and DOES process withdrawls from my accounts instantaneously, but deposits to my accounts can be delayed up to 36 hours as a matter of course (presumably to keep the money on THEIR books for as long as possible, rather than on mine).
Has anyone here NOT had a situation similar to one we encountered ourselves not that long ago...
You're enjoying a few pints with friends at the pub, knowing the night would end after midnight. You had planned it this way, because your direct deposit from your payroll processes right at the stroke of midnight, thus ensuring that your accounts have the adequate funds needed to pay for the porter and tip the barkeep... only to find that the bank (perhaps even your local branch) failed to process the transaction (automatically, I might add) and has now charged you an additional $35 per swipe (adding a tip adds a swipe, in case you didn't know) to your evening's fun.
This is considered standard practice as a "service" to the customer of the bank... meaning that you never have to have your card rejected due to insufficient funds. However, if I would rather find another way to pay the bill than be forced to give up an additional $70 for a night at the bar... shouldn't I have that option? Most credit cards reject if you reach or exceed your limit... but debit cards can be over-used to no end, apparently. If I really wanted to follow this sort of path, let me write the actual CHECKS and prosecute me according to established Federal and State laws for bad checks... but don't fleece the 98% of the country that DOESN'T habitually abuse or neglect their personal finances to the point of criminal fraud.
Government regulation should be to ensure fair and objective standards are followed by any two (or more) parties conducting transactions, not to force one party to a disadvantage over another. Bail-outs, incentives, subsidies... all giving an advantage to one over another, rather than allowing consumer choices or the free market in general to decide the viability of company.
According to the Wall Street Journal, many banks (mine included... Wachovia) show that as much as 44% of their adjusted gross corporate incomes come not from interest charged on loans and funds... but instead on fees charged in association with the interest charged on loans and funds. This is especially true in the case of large, national brand-name banks (BoA, Citi, Wachovia, Chase... a long list), while the smaller, more regional banks and credit unions (my personal favorite... Keesler Federal Credit Union pops to mind) show less than a 10% margin of income stemming from such fees.
I'm no fan of the 111th Congress, by any stretch of the imagination... but if Barney and the rest of the Pelosi-Reid Circus can get this passed, I'd actually thank them for it.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
This is priceless ...
... of course that's a relative term.
We all know "cash for clunkers" was part of a "green" agenda. Yes it was billed as boost for a flat lined auto industry, but the guidelines on how you were to receive this "boost' were clearly green in orientation.
Well Edmunds.com, which is the #1 consumer car price/comparison/guide site as rated by Forbes Magazine, did an interesting study. They came up with a formula that projected what the US care sales would have been without the program and compared that to what they were with it, and came up with two numbers. First, 125,000 cars were sold that otherwise wouldn't have been. Second, that number means tax payers spent $24,000 PER CAR on this program.
Government efficiency at its finest. Man I can't WAIT until they take over health care ...
We all know "cash for clunkers" was part of a "green" agenda. Yes it was billed as boost for a flat lined auto industry, but the guidelines on how you were to receive this "boost' were clearly green in orientation.
Well Edmunds.com, which is the #1 consumer car price/comparison/guide site as rated by Forbes Magazine, did an interesting study. They came up with a formula that projected what the US care sales would have been without the program and compared that to what they were with it, and came up with two numbers. First, 125,000 cars were sold that otherwise wouldn't have been. Second, that number means tax payers spent $24,000 PER CAR on this program.
Government efficiency at its finest. Man I can't WAIT until they take over health care ...
Sorry to hear that ...
... feel free to report/vent here.
I'm sure by the time you've completed Liz's list you'll be dying to get back to work in order to catch a break!
This news is personally distressing for me, for you now have the time to "opposition research" any and all of my posts in a manner I'm not accustomed to low these past few years (hehe). I would suggest a new show I'm quite fond of that I'm sure you previously weren't able to catch, if I may - Beck's 5p (Eastern) program on FOX News. Jambo & I are fans.
Well, I'll avoid the traditional cliche's - chin up & all, and just say I have no doubt you'll land on your feet. Hell, you beat Katrina and that's Old Testament wrath of God type stuff - you can do this standing on your head!!!
I'm sure by the time you've completed Liz's list you'll be dying to get back to work in order to catch a break!
This news is personally distressing for me, for you now have the time to "opposition research" any and all of my posts in a manner I'm not accustomed to low these past few years (hehe). I would suggest a new show I'm quite fond of that I'm sure you previously weren't able to catch, if I may - Beck's 5p (Eastern) program on FOX News. Jambo & I are fans.
Well, I'll avoid the traditional cliche's - chin up & all, and just say I have no doubt you'll land on your feet. Hell, you beat Katrina and that's Old Testament wrath of God type stuff - you can do this standing on your head!!!
Afghanistan
"My question to all of you is, does the call by General McChrystal to invest trillions of dollars and (probably) thousands of more American lives over the next decade to "build" a new, more secure and democratic Afghanistan not contradict the most basic of "conservative" principles as I understand them to be? The notion of "nation building" is historically seen as "New Deal" in nature (anyone recall the Marshall Plan?) and has questions all its own in regards to furthering the interests and security of the USA."
It's an interesting question that's been growing for some time now. It's absolutely true that traditional conservative dogma dictates a noninterventionist policy. I don't know how many times I've heard Pat Buchanan quote George Washington's farewell address warning of "becoming entangled in foreign wars." But that's what is interesting - because the converse is true: the traditional interventionists, i.e. those left of center, have now taken on an isolationist stance - "get out of everywhere, right now." Buchanan & Ron Paul are on the same side of the Iraq argument as Dennic Kucinich (by the way, I couldn't remember Kucinich's name so I googled "congressman claims to have seen UFO" and his name popped right up - how great is that?).
At any rate I believe this is where we enter the "neo conservative", as Buchanan phrased it, whom in a post 9/11 world Bush & the military intellegencia turned to. The traditional arguments that were posited to "leave" Vietnam or communist Latin America were "we don't need to be there, it doesn't affect us at home." Others would argue we must stop the spread of communism to our allies for our own security, but the "lets just focus on domestic issues" arguments were always potent because no one believed that communists were going to take over the US (at least not until the 2008 elections ... hehehe). However 9/11 has shown us (I'm not lecturing here, just proposing the argument in general terms) that this new enemy WILL follow us home. Muhammad Ali once quipped in his (in)famous refusal to adhere to the draft, "Them Vietnamese never did nothing to me." Well, "them" terrorists did. In fact the exact same terrorists whom perpetrated 9/11 and the infrastructure which harbored and supported them is who we are fighting in Afghanistan now.
The choice is clear to me - stay and slug this out, as painful and unsettling as that might sound, or hand Al Qeda and the Taliban a victory of monumental proportions. For not just they will be the victors, but Hezbollah, Hamas, and Jihad movements the world over. Their ranks will swell to unimaginable numbers. They will again have a state sponsored base of operations from which to attack us - basically we do this whole thing from September 11th, 2001 through to today all over again. Only this time perhaps 30,000 Americans, or 300,000 will perish.
Is this a "conservative" mantra? No. Not a traditional one. However, the Founding Fathers were considered wildly "liberal" for their day, and the current incarnation of that label doesn't resemble them at all. In my opinion so has the label "conservative" changed. It is isolationist no more. Pat Buchanan can call us "neo" all he wants, and it's factually accurate; however, if he can recount for me just how many presidential elections he and Ron Paul are winning, I'd be glad to listen. Our voting public (the majority any way) inherently understands that there is a threat looming and we must proactively extinguish it. And for better or worse THAT philosophy is for the foreseeable future indelibly part of the conservative ideology, and rightly so in my opinion, for with the ideologies of Obama, Pelosi and Reid governing Washington [neo] conservatives are the only adults left at the table.
It's an interesting question that's been growing for some time now. It's absolutely true that traditional conservative dogma dictates a noninterventionist policy. I don't know how many times I've heard Pat Buchanan quote George Washington's farewell address warning of "becoming entangled in foreign wars." But that's what is interesting - because the converse is true: the traditional interventionists, i.e. those left of center, have now taken on an isolationist stance - "get out of everywhere, right now." Buchanan & Ron Paul are on the same side of the Iraq argument as Dennic Kucinich (by the way, I couldn't remember Kucinich's name so I googled "congressman claims to have seen UFO" and his name popped right up - how great is that?).
At any rate I believe this is where we enter the "neo conservative", as Buchanan phrased it, whom in a post 9/11 world Bush & the military intellegencia turned to. The traditional arguments that were posited to "leave" Vietnam or communist Latin America were "we don't need to be there, it doesn't affect us at home." Others would argue we must stop the spread of communism to our allies for our own security, but the "lets just focus on domestic issues" arguments were always potent because no one believed that communists were going to take over the US (at least not until the 2008 elections ... hehehe). However 9/11 has shown us (I'm not lecturing here, just proposing the argument in general terms) that this new enemy WILL follow us home. Muhammad Ali once quipped in his (in)famous refusal to adhere to the draft, "Them Vietnamese never did nothing to me." Well, "them" terrorists did. In fact the exact same terrorists whom perpetrated 9/11 and the infrastructure which harbored and supported them is who we are fighting in Afghanistan now.
The choice is clear to me - stay and slug this out, as painful and unsettling as that might sound, or hand Al Qeda and the Taliban a victory of monumental proportions. For not just they will be the victors, but Hezbollah, Hamas, and Jihad movements the world over. Their ranks will swell to unimaginable numbers. They will again have a state sponsored base of operations from which to attack us - basically we do this whole thing from September 11th, 2001 through to today all over again. Only this time perhaps 30,000 Americans, or 300,000 will perish.
Is this a "conservative" mantra? No. Not a traditional one. However, the Founding Fathers were considered wildly "liberal" for their day, and the current incarnation of that label doesn't resemble them at all. In my opinion so has the label "conservative" changed. It is isolationist no more. Pat Buchanan can call us "neo" all he wants, and it's factually accurate; however, if he can recount for me just how many presidential elections he and Ron Paul are winning, I'd be glad to listen. Our voting public (the majority any way) inherently understands that there is a threat looming and we must proactively extinguish it. And for better or worse THAT philosophy is for the foreseeable future indelibly part of the conservative ideology, and rightly so in my opinion, for with the ideologies of Obama, Pelosi and Reid governing Washington [neo] conservatives are the only adults left at the table.
My it's toasty in here ...
... the temp dropped to 45 in the desert today and I actually had to kick on the heat!
On your opinion describing my and conservative pundits arguments concerning "global warming."
I am convinced that the science does, in every measurable way, lead to the inescapable conclusion that man can NOT effect climate. 1:1 ratios of pollution to be sure, but the global climate? Not in the least. You are immeasurably mistaken to think that this is unsupportable or that these pundits are making claims "as" unsupportable as global climate change alarmists.
Let me put it this way. Why is there "no consensus" as you suggested? Is it merely because there are scientists, paleoclimatologists, meteorologists and the like that are not "convinced" of the alarmists data? Do you actually believe THAT is the source of the scientific community's failure to reach a "consensus?" It is not ...
Thousands of scientists from across the spectrum are refuting the entire premise. In one scenario 31,000 (of which I have hundreds of names from M. Allard to Z Ci-Zong) have come together describing the idea that man's activity can surmount the cyclical events of earth's climate and make an impact as utter nonsense. The inventor on Hurricane forecasting and its vaunted "cat" system described it as "The greatest hoax perpetrated on man kind in history."
No sir,nNo Titus, I'm afraid you are behind the curve on this one. It is not "settled" that man has "some" effect and we're merely debating the levels. The debate has shifted as more empirical data emerges - and scores upon scores of reputable experts have decried our ability to affect the global climate in ANY measurable way.
So let me be clear, the idea that man can effect the earth's climate has to my satisfaction been proven illegitimate. It can not be. On the face of it the very idea that mankind, whose existence is infinitesimal when compared to the length of earth's existence is erroneous. A 4 billion year old planet, 200,000 year old existence of "man", and just under 200 years of notable industrialization and suddenly we are going to surmount that planet's natural climate cycles to the point of making a measurable impact? It's the silliness of a child's mind to believe so.
Now, you my say, "see that last line is exactly what I am talking about, use data, not insults." Well, I get that position, I truly do. It's just whether its within our forum or say in Beck's audience, the issue has been so discussed & debunked (I listened to Glenn Beck bring on one expert after another for a solid WEEK last year) that yet another recitation might literally bore the regular listeners. For me, I have spoken so strongly against it that only our New Deal debate would cause my eyes to roll quicker were I pressed to YET AGAIN present my case & evidence. And believe me, there's another reason for the sarcasm you hear employed. It is oft a reaction to those whom "believe" in global warming, or climate change (or whatever they've changed the name to now). What I mean is peoples whom have done no research of their own, simply watch a fake documentary or attend a "green" rally because Leonardo DiCaprio is appearing; or wives of famous stars whom hop on a multi ton diesel bus to go around the country advocating we each use only one square in the toilet in order to save the earth (as Seinfeld co creator Larry David's wife did). It is THESE people that these sarcastic comments are oft directed at - the patently absurd climate change advocates whom buy into this because it fits their preconceived notions about the evils of capitalism and/or because "recycling" is an easy religion to belong to. No more going to Mass or taking Sacrament, Al Gore says that I AM MY OWN JESUS, for I so loved the earth that I use only one square. So be careful not to confuse sarcasm or parody as our "argument" against the actual research of man induced climate change advocates, for more times then not (if not always) that bit of comedy is directed at the more absurd comments of their "true believers", and meant to entertain a commentator's audience or bring a chuckle to a Bund member's day, rather then serve as our serious discussions (which have been had) both on these shows and within our forum.
I submit that you are drastically behind on the evolution of this argument when stating the following: "Too many conservative thinkers (including you, but not ONLY you) use the argument that no amount of human activity can effect global climate change, to any degree. This is a patently false statement... so why make it? Why wouldn't it be easier to say that there is no consensus... in fact, no agreement at all... on the degree of human impact on the global environment? Rather than make unsupportable arguments FOR your point, why not show the unsupportable nature of THEIR arguments?"
First, I am not sure how you arrived at that notion being "patently false." Perhaps we should first define "effect"first, learning from our failure to define "success" at the onset of our New Deal debate. But that aside, apparently you were under the impression that we skeptics were merely that - skeptical of alarmist data. We are not, and let me speak for myself, I am not. I am convinced that in fact NO amount of human activity can surmount our planets own cyclical climate patterns. Quite frankly - we aren't powerful enough. Not in our wildest imagination. We couldn't do it if we actively sought out to. I am convinced that there is a cyclical nature to our climate based on the earths relation to the sun and sun spot activity and that no amount of human intervention can affect or intervene in that relationship in any discernible way as to change the climate. I am convinced that the climate models in the advocacy crowd used to date are flawed. That it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, via empirical evidence, that the nature of our climate is independent of any and all activity of mankind. Yes the climate changes, that's irrefutable, but man is by no means the force pushing such change.
Now, if you would like I will present my evidence in total supporting this claim, but it will take some time if I am to do it right. If for no other reason then I must dig some books out of storage.
But let me start here: NASA has admitted that it accidentally inflated its official record of surface temperatures in the US beginning with the year 2000. The revised data now show 1934 as the warmest year, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999 and 1953. Four of the top 10 records are now from the 1930's, before modern human induced emissions could have been responsible, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the past 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). In other words there has been no stable warming trend in the US since the 1930's.
Similarly according Dr. S. Fred Singer (& about 100 of his peers in "Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1,500 Years") posit that we have had similar warming trends in Medieval Times, 950-1300 AD. , and the great "Roman Warming" of 200 BC to 600 AD. Ice cores dug up from Greenland and Antarctica show there have been over 600 such cycles in the past 1 million years - all of them moderate and none of them caused by man's industry.
This severely undermines the idea that we are now in some sort of near irreversible warming mode induced by man. Now, the Al Gore crowd knows this data exists, thus the evolution of the phrase "climate change." No longer was it "global warming", now it's climate change. Decades of claims on a hot-house like effect, screaming that our emissions were hurling our planet towards an irreversible scortching desert landscape were tossed out the window in order to maintain the template that man is screwing things up. Now we are capable of causing blizzards, snow storms, and ice ... "oh my."
The cyclical nature of warming and cooling that predates man by billions of years is so provable and so irrefutable that yes, it is hard to take the Gore's of the world seriously. They change their catch phrase, they rely on faulty models, and they attempt to predict the future rather than relying on the imperial evidence of the past. They are snake oil salesmen in $2000 suits tooting on their pide pipe as 18-25 year old's are led to believe they can save a planet, their planet, at the last minute like some comic book hero or Captain Kirk who hits warp speed at just the right moment. This movement fills their need to "belong" to something bigger then themselves, and since religion or the military or even traditional patriotism doesn't fit the bill, they glom on to this false religion based on faulty science. For any rationale human being they should serve as a constant punch line. However, when it comes to data and reports issued by the UN or NASA or "peer reviewed" position papers, yes, I agree they should be challenged on the facts, and ARE routinely done so on the programs I listen to ... not every day, but when the subject is broached in a serious manner, it is responded to in kind by conservatives such as myself or the commentators I frequent on the radio dial. Of that I am also convinced.
On your opinion describing my and conservative pundits arguments concerning "global warming."
I am convinced that the science does, in every measurable way, lead to the inescapable conclusion that man can NOT effect climate. 1:1 ratios of pollution to be sure, but the global climate? Not in the least. You are immeasurably mistaken to think that this is unsupportable or that these pundits are making claims "as" unsupportable as global climate change alarmists.
Let me put it this way. Why is there "no consensus" as you suggested? Is it merely because there are scientists, paleoclimatologists, meteorologists and the like that are not "convinced" of the alarmists data? Do you actually believe THAT is the source of the scientific community's failure to reach a "consensus?" It is not ...
Thousands of scientists from across the spectrum are refuting the entire premise. In one scenario 31,000 (of which I have hundreds of names from M. Allard to Z Ci-Zong) have come together describing the idea that man's activity can surmount the cyclical events of earth's climate and make an impact as utter nonsense. The inventor on Hurricane forecasting and its vaunted "cat" system described it as "The greatest hoax perpetrated on man kind in history."
No sir,nNo Titus, I'm afraid you are behind the curve on this one. It is not "settled" that man has "some" effect and we're merely debating the levels. The debate has shifted as more empirical data emerges - and scores upon scores of reputable experts have decried our ability to affect the global climate in ANY measurable way.
So let me be clear, the idea that man can effect the earth's climate has to my satisfaction been proven illegitimate. It can not be. On the face of it the very idea that mankind, whose existence is infinitesimal when compared to the length of earth's existence is erroneous. A 4 billion year old planet, 200,000 year old existence of "man", and just under 200 years of notable industrialization and suddenly we are going to surmount that planet's natural climate cycles to the point of making a measurable impact? It's the silliness of a child's mind to believe so.
Now, you my say, "see that last line is exactly what I am talking about, use data, not insults." Well, I get that position, I truly do. It's just whether its within our forum or say in Beck's audience, the issue has been so discussed & debunked (I listened to Glenn Beck bring on one expert after another for a solid WEEK last year) that yet another recitation might literally bore the regular listeners. For me, I have spoken so strongly against it that only our New Deal debate would cause my eyes to roll quicker were I pressed to YET AGAIN present my case & evidence. And believe me, there's another reason for the sarcasm you hear employed. It is oft a reaction to those whom "believe" in global warming, or climate change (or whatever they've changed the name to now). What I mean is peoples whom have done no research of their own, simply watch a fake documentary or attend a "green" rally because Leonardo DiCaprio is appearing; or wives of famous stars whom hop on a multi ton diesel bus to go around the country advocating we each use only one square in the toilet in order to save the earth (as Seinfeld co creator Larry David's wife did). It is THESE people that these sarcastic comments are oft directed at - the patently absurd climate change advocates whom buy into this because it fits their preconceived notions about the evils of capitalism and/or because "recycling" is an easy religion to belong to. No more going to Mass or taking Sacrament, Al Gore says that I AM MY OWN JESUS, for I so loved the earth that I use only one square. So be careful not to confuse sarcasm or parody as our "argument" against the actual research of man induced climate change advocates, for more times then not (if not always) that bit of comedy is directed at the more absurd comments of their "true believers", and meant to entertain a commentator's audience or bring a chuckle to a Bund member's day, rather then serve as our serious discussions (which have been had) both on these shows and within our forum.
I submit that you are drastically behind on the evolution of this argument when stating the following: "Too many conservative thinkers (including you, but not ONLY you) use the argument that no amount of human activity can effect global climate change, to any degree. This is a patently false statement... so why make it? Why wouldn't it be easier to say that there is no consensus... in fact, no agreement at all... on the degree of human impact on the global environment? Rather than make unsupportable arguments FOR your point, why not show the unsupportable nature of THEIR arguments?"
First, I am not sure how you arrived at that notion being "patently false." Perhaps we should first define "effect"first, learning from our failure to define "success" at the onset of our New Deal debate. But that aside, apparently you were under the impression that we skeptics were merely that - skeptical of alarmist data. We are not, and let me speak for myself, I am not. I am convinced that in fact NO amount of human activity can surmount our planets own cyclical climate patterns. Quite frankly - we aren't powerful enough. Not in our wildest imagination. We couldn't do it if we actively sought out to. I am convinced that there is a cyclical nature to our climate based on the earths relation to the sun and sun spot activity and that no amount of human intervention can affect or intervene in that relationship in any discernible way as to change the climate. I am convinced that the climate models in the advocacy crowd used to date are flawed. That it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, via empirical evidence, that the nature of our climate is independent of any and all activity of mankind. Yes the climate changes, that's irrefutable, but man is by no means the force pushing such change.
Now, if you would like I will present my evidence in total supporting this claim, but it will take some time if I am to do it right. If for no other reason then I must dig some books out of storage.
But let me start here: NASA has admitted that it accidentally inflated its official record of surface temperatures in the US beginning with the year 2000. The revised data now show 1934 as the warmest year, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999 and 1953. Four of the top 10 records are now from the 1930's, before modern human induced emissions could have been responsible, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the past 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). In other words there has been no stable warming trend in the US since the 1930's.
Similarly according Dr. S. Fred Singer (& about 100 of his peers in "Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1,500 Years") posit that we have had similar warming trends in Medieval Times, 950-1300 AD. , and the great "Roman Warming" of 200 BC to 600 AD. Ice cores dug up from Greenland and Antarctica show there have been over 600 such cycles in the past 1 million years - all of them moderate and none of them caused by man's industry.
This severely undermines the idea that we are now in some sort of near irreversible warming mode induced by man. Now, the Al Gore crowd knows this data exists, thus the evolution of the phrase "climate change." No longer was it "global warming", now it's climate change. Decades of claims on a hot-house like effect, screaming that our emissions were hurling our planet towards an irreversible scortching desert landscape were tossed out the window in order to maintain the template that man is screwing things up. Now we are capable of causing blizzards, snow storms, and ice ... "oh my."
The cyclical nature of warming and cooling that predates man by billions of years is so provable and so irrefutable that yes, it is hard to take the Gore's of the world seriously. They change their catch phrase, they rely on faulty models, and they attempt to predict the future rather than relying on the imperial evidence of the past. They are snake oil salesmen in $2000 suits tooting on their pide pipe as 18-25 year old's are led to believe they can save a planet, their planet, at the last minute like some comic book hero or Captain Kirk who hits warp speed at just the right moment. This movement fills their need to "belong" to something bigger then themselves, and since religion or the military or even traditional patriotism doesn't fit the bill, they glom on to this false religion based on faulty science. For any rationale human being they should serve as a constant punch line. However, when it comes to data and reports issued by the UN or NASA or "peer reviewed" position papers, yes, I agree they should be challenged on the facts, and ARE routinely done so on the programs I listen to ... not every day, but when the subject is broached in a serious manner, it is responded to in kind by conservatives such as myself or the commentators I frequent on the radio dial. Of that I am also convinced.
What to expect?
No real excuse for me NOT to spend hours and hours posting on the Bund... I'm officially unemployed as of this morning.
Yes, friends, I am now part of the "vast millions" of unemployed and uninsured in this great nation. I'll be able to report first-hand the experiences and effects that not working has on a family of five in this economy.
We are also going to experience first-hand the means and requirements for getting our "share" of the "welfare state" and its entitlements. Yes sir... if Obama says I can have them, I'm going to take them. I've never received (and only asked for after Katrina) any welfare, unemployment, or assistance in my 27 years of work history... but I'm going to now.
In fact, we've already started. Liz has already processed applications for assistance for school lunch and state health care funds for the kids... and those apps took only TWO FULL DAYS to fill out and submit. I plan on sharing any and all complaints about the hurdles, hoops and heights one has to jump through/over to get these benefits... a lot.
Seriously, though... for those that actually care... I'm not without prospects, and even if nothing else happens job-wise in the next couple of months, I hold a gaming license in a State that is only days away from passing Level 3 gaming, and I am a certified table games instructor with nearly 20 years of dealing/management experience. My prospects (long term, at least) are probably pretty good.
So, let me log off for now and start tightening the belt at the Titus/Liz house... the wife is writing a long (and getting longer) list of "man-chores" that she will demand to be completed as long as I am unemployed.
Yes, friends, I am now part of the "vast millions" of unemployed and uninsured in this great nation. I'll be able to report first-hand the experiences and effects that not working has on a family of five in this economy.
We are also going to experience first-hand the means and requirements for getting our "share" of the "welfare state" and its entitlements. Yes sir... if Obama says I can have them, I'm going to take them. I've never received (and only asked for after Katrina) any welfare, unemployment, or assistance in my 27 years of work history... but I'm going to now.
In fact, we've already started. Liz has already processed applications for assistance for school lunch and state health care funds for the kids... and those apps took only TWO FULL DAYS to fill out and submit. I plan on sharing any and all complaints about the hurdles, hoops and heights one has to jump through/over to get these benefits... a lot.
Seriously, though... for those that actually care... I'm not without prospects, and even if nothing else happens job-wise in the next couple of months, I hold a gaming license in a State that is only days away from passing Level 3 gaming, and I am a certified table games instructor with nearly 20 years of dealing/management experience. My prospects (long term, at least) are probably pretty good.
So, let me log off for now and start tightening the belt at the Titus/Liz house... the wife is writing a long (and getting longer) list of "man-chores" that she will demand to be completed as long as I am unemployed.
On Afghanistan...
I like the article you quoted. It presents a clear and unambiguous argument based solely on measurable and specific historical facts, and makes no wild and immeasurable conjectures based on political wishful-thinking.
My position on the US's responsibility in Afghanistan is well known here, and I won't restate it again. My question to all of you is, does the call by General McChrystal to invest trillions of dollars and (probably) thousands of more American lives over the next decade to "build" a new, more secure and democratic Afghanistan not contradict the most basic of "conservative" principles as I understand them to be? The notion of "nation building" is historically seen as "New Deal" in nature (anyone recall the Marshall Plan?) and has questions all its own in regards to furthering the interests and security of the USA. Germany and Japan have risen to competitive status with the US economically, and have not always had the best interests of the US at the heart of their policies and agendas... even though they have remained "allies" of the US since the end of 1946.
Personally, I feel that history is very clear about what happens when we DON'T work to effect measurable democratic principles in areas where we have spent "blood and treasure"... South Vietnam, the Balkans, Iran, Iraq (three times now), Lebanon, Central America and Afghanistan (post-1989)... but opinions vary widely, I know. Knowing that Obama ran on a basically "conservative" plank called non-interventionism (not a principled position, mind you... just more "Bush = Bad" crap), and that there are many far-Right GOP and Libertarian voters who question the Constitutional nature of our interventionist policies, the chances of seeing McChrystal's plan implemented seems pretty slim.
McChrystal isn't calling for a "surge" in Afghanistan. He is proposing an Afghani "Marshall Plan" that will require as many as 500,000 US troops and (literally) trillions of US tax-payer dollars over ten long and painful years... and that is no small spoonful to swallow for many in this country. Add to that the absolute requirement of the active and willing participation of such "allies" as Pakistan, India and NATO, and the possible "butcher's bill" for Gen. McChrystal's request gets longer and longer with each reading.
Is this what "conservatives" are going to get behind in 2010 and beyond?
My position on the US's responsibility in Afghanistan is well known here, and I won't restate it again. My question to all of you is, does the call by General McChrystal to invest trillions of dollars and (probably) thousands of more American lives over the next decade to "build" a new, more secure and democratic Afghanistan not contradict the most basic of "conservative" principles as I understand them to be? The notion of "nation building" is historically seen as "New Deal" in nature (anyone recall the Marshall Plan?) and has questions all its own in regards to furthering the interests and security of the USA. Germany and Japan have risen to competitive status with the US economically, and have not always had the best interests of the US at the heart of their policies and agendas... even though they have remained "allies" of the US since the end of 1946.
Personally, I feel that history is very clear about what happens when we DON'T work to effect measurable democratic principles in areas where we have spent "blood and treasure"... South Vietnam, the Balkans, Iran, Iraq (three times now), Lebanon, Central America and Afghanistan (post-1989)... but opinions vary widely, I know. Knowing that Obama ran on a basically "conservative" plank called non-interventionism (not a principled position, mind you... just more "Bush = Bad" crap), and that there are many far-Right GOP and Libertarian voters who question the Constitutional nature of our interventionist policies, the chances of seeing McChrystal's plan implemented seems pretty slim.
McChrystal isn't calling for a "surge" in Afghanistan. He is proposing an Afghani "Marshall Plan" that will require as many as 500,000 US troops and (literally) trillions of US tax-payer dollars over ten long and painful years... and that is no small spoonful to swallow for many in this country. Add to that the absolute requirement of the active and willing participation of such "allies" as Pakistan, India and NATO, and the possible "butcher's bill" for Gen. McChrystal's request gets longer and longer with each reading.
Is this what "conservatives" are going to get behind in 2010 and beyond?
My God, you are sensitive...
First and foremost, I wasn't beating you up. I admitted that "dismissive" comments and such are probably perfectly acceptable here at the Bund... we know what you mean. My comments were general in nature, and it was my intention that the remarks reflect the failings of the GOP and conservative leadership... not F. Ryan. You have presented evidence in the past... copious amounts of it, I'm sure... but if you are going to tell me that when I have heard you (with my own ears) defend your position at work or in a "neutral" setting, you have had pie charts and graphs ready-at-hand to make your point, I'm going to argue with you.
Too many conservative thinkers (including you, but not ONLY you) use the argument that no amount of human activity can effect global climate change, to any degree. This is a patently false statement... so why make it? Why wouldn't it be easier to say that there is no consensus... in fact, no agreement at all... on the degree of human impact on the global environment? Rather than make unsupportable arguments FOR your point, why not show the unsupportable nature of THEIR arguments? That's why I used Tambora as an example, rather than Pinatubo... Pinatubo reduced global temperatures by nearly one-half of a degree because of the vast amounts of particulate ejected into the atmosphere. Tambora had less ejecta, but far more gaseous injection... possibility as much as 100x the amount of SO2, CO and CO2 as Pinatubo... but did not measurably INCREASE the hemispheric or global temps due to greenhouse effects, and to the best of our knowledge, the ozone layer recovered quite nicely. The numbers associated with Tambora totally REFUTE the conjecture that man-made CO2 can be expected to dramatically effect global climate, where Pinatubo shows little more than the vast amounts of variables in projecting global climate shifts.
One side note, though... just as a quick aside: Pinatubo dumped millions of tons of heavy metals onto the Philippine Islands. Zinc, Arsenic, Lead, Mercury, Copper, Cadmium and Chromium, each measured in hundreds of thousands of tons, fell from the sky with the choking, toxic ash over an area of more than 60,000 sq miles... millions of times greater than what the EPA here in the US says is hazardous... and both the environment and the people have suffered minimal heavy metal toxicity problems and the effects were far shorter lived than ever projected, too. So, don't think I'm not saying Pinatubo is a good tool to refute liberal claims for the need of militant environmentalism. It certainly is!
So, when I refer to your past arguments against man-made global warming, I'm referring to your employment of the argument that it was the "height of human pretension" to presume that we can do anything, as a species, to effect the global climate. You have stopped making that claim (to the best of my knowledge) but not every pundit has, and those pundits do the conservative cause no good by arguing against unsupportable claims with unsupportable claims of their own.
Too many conservative thinkers (including you, but not ONLY you) use the argument that no amount of human activity can effect global climate change, to any degree. This is a patently false statement... so why make it? Why wouldn't it be easier to say that there is no consensus... in fact, no agreement at all... on the degree of human impact on the global environment? Rather than make unsupportable arguments FOR your point, why not show the unsupportable nature of THEIR arguments? That's why I used Tambora as an example, rather than Pinatubo... Pinatubo reduced global temperatures by nearly one-half of a degree because of the vast amounts of particulate ejected into the atmosphere. Tambora had less ejecta, but far more gaseous injection... possibility as much as 100x the amount of SO2, CO and CO2 as Pinatubo... but did not measurably INCREASE the hemispheric or global temps due to greenhouse effects, and to the best of our knowledge, the ozone layer recovered quite nicely. The numbers associated with Tambora totally REFUTE the conjecture that man-made CO2 can be expected to dramatically effect global climate, where Pinatubo shows little more than the vast amounts of variables in projecting global climate shifts.
One side note, though... just as a quick aside: Pinatubo dumped millions of tons of heavy metals onto the Philippine Islands. Zinc, Arsenic, Lead, Mercury, Copper, Cadmium and Chromium, each measured in hundreds of thousands of tons, fell from the sky with the choking, toxic ash over an area of more than 60,000 sq miles... millions of times greater than what the EPA here in the US says is hazardous... and both the environment and the people have suffered minimal heavy metal toxicity problems and the effects were far shorter lived than ever projected, too. So, don't think I'm not saying Pinatubo is a good tool to refute liberal claims for the need of militant environmentalism. It certainly is!
So, when I refer to your past arguments against man-made global warming, I'm referring to your employment of the argument that it was the "height of human pretension" to presume that we can do anything, as a species, to effect the global climate. You have stopped making that claim (to the best of my knowledge) but not every pundit has, and those pundits do the conservative cause no good by arguing against unsupportable claims with unsupportable claims of their own.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
"The Corrupt Bargain" version 2.0
A rouse is afoot. As I understand it, here is the "deal" on the health care reorganization ... err ... I mean "reform" act:
The "public option" is causing a verbal defection by blue dog Dems in the House, and the closer to center Independent Joe Lieberman/ "moderate" Republicans in the Senate, such as Snowe and Graham. So a bargain was struck. Reid will introduce the bill INCLUDING its' public option. Then at the last minute Olympia Snowe (R) MN will offer an amendment ot the floor replacing the public option with the much vaunted "trigger." This will allow the afore mentioned "moderates" to vote in the affirmative while technically being able to claim they did not cast a vote for government funded health insurance and all will claim a great bargain was struck, a bipartisan compromise has been arrived at.
However, the dirty little secret is the "trigger" is set up in such a way that it is impossible not to ... well ... trigger it. It is set up to activate. It's the quintessential back door political deal, with maneuvering that looks like a chess game, only we are the pawns and we get no say in the matter.
It's political theater. So, we should hold a memorial, say good bye, run down the train station platform for one last fair well for two things by 2013 ... health care as we know it in the US, and the Democrat majorities in the congress.
The "public option" is causing a verbal defection by blue dog Dems in the House, and the closer to center Independent Joe Lieberman/ "moderate" Republicans in the Senate, such as Snowe and Graham. So a bargain was struck. Reid will introduce the bill INCLUDING its' public option. Then at the last minute Olympia Snowe (R) MN will offer an amendment ot the floor replacing the public option with the much vaunted "trigger." This will allow the afore mentioned "moderates" to vote in the affirmative while technically being able to claim they did not cast a vote for government funded health insurance and all will claim a great bargain was struck, a bipartisan compromise has been arrived at.
However, the dirty little secret is the "trigger" is set up in such a way that it is impossible not to ... well ... trigger it. It is set up to activate. It's the quintessential back door political deal, with maneuvering that looks like a chess game, only we are the pawns and we get no say in the matter.
It's political theater. So, we should hold a memorial, say good bye, run down the train station platform for one last fair well for two things by 2013 ... health care as we know it in the US, and the Democrat majorities in the congress.
Now, to what I originally signed on to post about this morning ...
This is a portion of a 10/26 Peter Bergen (a respected war correspondent for the last decade, he left CNN & formed his own group) article I read:
" ... in the context of Afghan history, the Taliban bringing security was decisively important, since what had immediately preceded their iron rule was a nightmarish civil war during which you could be robbed or killed at will by gangs of roving ethnic and tribal militias.
It is has been a staple of Western political theory since the mid-17th century, when Hobbes wrote "Leviathan," that if the state does not provide security to its people, life will be "nasty, brutish and short." Hobbes wrote "Leviathan" in the shadow of the English Civil War, deriving from that bloody conflict the idea that the most important political good the state can deliver is security.
The United States relearned this lesson in Iraq with some success starting in 2007. But the U.S. seems to have developed instant amnesia about this issue in Afghanistan, where around 40 percent of the country was controlled by the Taliban or was at high risk for attacks by insurgents, according to a private assessment prepared by the Afghan military in April, which was obtained by CNN.
A glaring symbol of the collapse of security in the country is the 300-mile Kabul-to-Kandahar highway, economically and politically the most important road in the country, which is now too dangerous to drive on.
Who will then provide security? The Afghan army is relatively small and generally ineffective. The police are worse. The plans to ramp up the size and efficacy of those forces are, of course, a key part of the American exit strategy from the country. But that training mission is going to take years. Nor are NATO allies going to add significantly more troops. Indeed, a number of NATO countries are already heading to the exits.
That means that it now falls to the United States to do the heavy lifting in Afghanistan, and if Obama is serious about securing the country and rolling back the Taliban, he really doesn't have much choice but to put significant numbers of more troops on the ground. That way, he can start winning the war: win back the American public, roll back the Taliban -- who have melded ideologically and tactically with al Qaeda -- and provide real security to the Afghan people.
Such a ramp-up will have an additional benefit. In the larger war on al Qaeda and its allies, the center of gravity is the Pakistani public, military and government because it is in Pakistan where al Qaeda and its Taliban allies are headquartered. And in one of the most important strategic shifts since 9/11, the Pakistani military and government are now getting serious about wiping out large elements of the Taliban and allied groups on their territory and, most importantly, are doing it with the support of their population.
No longer are Pakistani military operations against militants in Swat and Waziristan seen by Pakistanis as "America's war": they are now seen as being in the vital interests of the Pakistani state because the Pakistani Taliban and other jihadist groups have made major strategic errors since early 2009, including marching close to Islamabad, attacking Pakistan's equivalent of the Pentagon and killing hundreds of Pakistani soldiers and policemen.
This new development is vitally important. Over the years, U.S. military commanders have often talked about hammer and anvil operations in eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan that would bring an American hammer down on the militants based along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, who would then in turn be caught on a Pakistani anvil.
In reality, the American hammer was never large and the Pakistani anvil was never strong.
But the ongoing Pakistani military incursion into Waziristan, which was preceded by months of "softening up" operations with air strikes and artillery as well as a ramped-up American drone program aimed at al Qaeda and Taliban leaders there, is today setting the conditions for a real anvil.
The hammer must now be applied.
Armed groups don't sue for peace when they believe they might have the upper hand, and right now, the Taliban feel that they are winning the war -- or at least not losing it, which for most insurgencies amounts to the same thing. If there is to be some kind of political reconciliation with elements of the Taliban, that will only come once they truly believe they have no prospect of military success.
At the same time, key roads, cities and towns in Afghanistan must also be secured. Without providing that security, as Hobbes wrote three and half centuries ago, governments of any kind will fail at their most basic task."
" ... in the context of Afghan history, the Taliban bringing security was decisively important, since what had immediately preceded their iron rule was a nightmarish civil war during which you could be robbed or killed at will by gangs of roving ethnic and tribal militias.
It is has been a staple of Western political theory since the mid-17th century, when Hobbes wrote "Leviathan," that if the state does not provide security to its people, life will be "nasty, brutish and short." Hobbes wrote "Leviathan" in the shadow of the English Civil War, deriving from that bloody conflict the idea that the most important political good the state can deliver is security.
The United States relearned this lesson in Iraq with some success starting in 2007. But the U.S. seems to have developed instant amnesia about this issue in Afghanistan, where around 40 percent of the country was controlled by the Taliban or was at high risk for attacks by insurgents, according to a private assessment prepared by the Afghan military in April, which was obtained by CNN.
A glaring symbol of the collapse of security in the country is the 300-mile Kabul-to-Kandahar highway, economically and politically the most important road in the country, which is now too dangerous to drive on.
Who will then provide security? The Afghan army is relatively small and generally ineffective. The police are worse. The plans to ramp up the size and efficacy of those forces are, of course, a key part of the American exit strategy from the country. But that training mission is going to take years. Nor are NATO allies going to add significantly more troops. Indeed, a number of NATO countries are already heading to the exits.
That means that it now falls to the United States to do the heavy lifting in Afghanistan, and if Obama is serious about securing the country and rolling back the Taliban, he really doesn't have much choice but to put significant numbers of more troops on the ground. That way, he can start winning the war: win back the American public, roll back the Taliban -- who have melded ideologically and tactically with al Qaeda -- and provide real security to the Afghan people.
Such a ramp-up will have an additional benefit. In the larger war on al Qaeda and its allies, the center of gravity is the Pakistani public, military and government because it is in Pakistan where al Qaeda and its Taliban allies are headquartered. And in one of the most important strategic shifts since 9/11, the Pakistani military and government are now getting serious about wiping out large elements of the Taliban and allied groups on their territory and, most importantly, are doing it with the support of their population.
No longer are Pakistani military operations against militants in Swat and Waziristan seen by Pakistanis as "America's war": they are now seen as being in the vital interests of the Pakistani state because the Pakistani Taliban and other jihadist groups have made major strategic errors since early 2009, including marching close to Islamabad, attacking Pakistan's equivalent of the Pentagon and killing hundreds of Pakistani soldiers and policemen.
This new development is vitally important. Over the years, U.S. military commanders have often talked about hammer and anvil operations in eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan that would bring an American hammer down on the militants based along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, who would then in turn be caught on a Pakistani anvil.
In reality, the American hammer was never large and the Pakistani anvil was never strong.
But the ongoing Pakistani military incursion into Waziristan, which was preceded by months of "softening up" operations with air strikes and artillery as well as a ramped-up American drone program aimed at al Qaeda and Taliban leaders there, is today setting the conditions for a real anvil.
The hammer must now be applied.
Armed groups don't sue for peace when they believe they might have the upper hand, and right now, the Taliban feel that they are winning the war -- or at least not losing it, which for most insurgencies amounts to the same thing. If there is to be some kind of political reconciliation with elements of the Taliban, that will only come once they truly believe they have no prospect of military success.
At the same time, key roads, cities and towns in Afghanistan must also be secured. Without providing that security, as Hobbes wrote three and half centuries ago, governments of any kind will fail at their most basic task."
A dichotomy in the president's recent arguments occurred to me. The President of the United States has noted repeatedly that he is "carefully deliberating" (a redundant statement) over the deploying of 60,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Now it is my contention (I have a crystal ball of my own) that the PoTUS is simply brainstorming on how to sell his refusal to the American public. Either way he is insisting that because this affects thousands of US troops and millions of Afghans that he must slow down ... pause ... deliberate ... make sure they've got this right. Yet health care, which will affect 300,000,000 Americans, not to mention 1/6th of our economy, oh we've got to get that done RIGHT NOW! "Folks need to just get out the way", he says. We don't even have time to post it online for 72 hours before the vote (a broken campaign promise) because it's gotta get done NOW!
It's absurd. We have an ideological man-child in the oval office ... and it's showing.
Now you're just pissing me off ...
I have for years given sound scientific refutations of global warming zealots. Having done that repeatedly within our little triumvirate (admittedly some time ago) I at some point in recent history "assumed" that within our group we all "got it." And much like we make sarcastic comments about each other's religion, I don't feel and don't expect a recitation of the "good" done by of our respective Church's on the heels of every crack - that's assumed and mutually respected, because we all "get that" too. Must every time I make a crack about "tree huggers" there be yet another of these factual recitations? Is that the rules now? My argument for years HAS NOT BEEN SOLEY SUCH A DISCOURSE, not in the least! Have I made "cracks?" Certainly. And apparently that's all you remember. What I find fascinating is that from the 2nd Amendment to man-induced global warming now that you've had this great "conservative awakening" or a natural progression of intellectual pursuit - call it whatever you want - you are suddenly taking every opportunity to slam either Rush or myself over not arguing the subject "properly." Well hell, whether its' Rush or me or whoever, we made the factual arguments back when you were refuting them, over, and over and over. Now that I know you embrace them I feel no need to repeat them, thus the simple joke or reference here and there. And while you're peering into my dealer break room through your magnificent crystal ball amidst all the dry ice and smoke, know this - I DO make sound, fact based arguments when talking with people I don't really know. The idea that I must do that here in order to balance every "crack", especially now that we are all 3 "basically" of a like mind on the major issues of the day is somewhat absurd - ESPECIALLY when those arguments have been made embasta in the past to people with apparently long term memory problems.
And dammit I wrote an ENTIRE multi page email (pre blog) that quoted, explained and sourced tons of data in an argument I sent to you & Jambo years ago, much of which was based on the research of the man whom invented Hurricane forecasting (slightly more credible then say Al Gore - oops, there I go again, being a wisenheimer); but my last computer didn't survive the storm/move. That email was complete with pie charts, graphs, data, the works. If you have that email by any chance, either of you, please forward it to me. I have only post storm stuff. One of the most glaring examples was the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. 98% of which occurs due to water evaporation. Another 1.2% is naturally occurring i.e. cow flatulation and human exhalation. The last 0.8 is unnatural. The idea that this amount is unsustainable by our atmosphere is clearly nonsensical. Damn I wish I had that email. Perhaps I will write an updated version for the Bund.
And by the way, it was Mount Pinatubo, in the Philippines that released more fluorocarbons in one eruption then all man was capable of since the first smoke stack went up at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution - the point being this was one volcano eruption in 4 billion years worth of eruptions & it was equal to all of man's contributions, meaning we couldn't destroy our ozone if we actively tried.
Oh, and "the leadership of Rush Limbaugh" comment - you should know. I was turned on to the above fact, then subsequently researched it to confirm it was correct, in Rush Limbaugh's best selling book: "The Way Things Ought To Be", pgs 154-155. I know listing fact filled, common sense arguments based on the science doesn't fit your template that we're all just out here making wise cracks, but I thought I should stop you before you made anymore of an ass of yourself by critiquing my or Rush's argument as "dismissive" rather then engaging on the facts.
And dammit I wrote an ENTIRE multi page email (pre blog) that quoted, explained and sourced tons of data in an argument I sent to you & Jambo years ago, much of which was based on the research of the man whom invented Hurricane forecasting (slightly more credible then say Al Gore - oops, there I go again, being a wisenheimer); but my last computer didn't survive the storm/move. That email was complete with pie charts, graphs, data, the works. If you have that email by any chance, either of you, please forward it to me. I have only post storm stuff. One of the most glaring examples was the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. 98% of which occurs due to water evaporation. Another 1.2% is naturally occurring i.e. cow flatulation and human exhalation. The last 0.8 is unnatural. The idea that this amount is unsustainable by our atmosphere is clearly nonsensical. Damn I wish I had that email. Perhaps I will write an updated version for the Bund.
And by the way, it was Mount Pinatubo, in the Philippines that released more fluorocarbons in one eruption then all man was capable of since the first smoke stack went up at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution - the point being this was one volcano eruption in 4 billion years worth of eruptions & it was equal to all of man's contributions, meaning we couldn't destroy our ozone if we actively tried.
Oh, and "the leadership of Rush Limbaugh" comment - you should know. I was turned on to the above fact, then subsequently researched it to confirm it was correct, in Rush Limbaugh's best selling book: "The Way Things Ought To Be", pgs 154-155. I know listing fact filled, common sense arguments based on the science doesn't fit your template that we're all just out here making wise cracks, but I thought I should stop you before you made anymore of an ass of yourself by critiquing my or Rush's argument as "dismissive" rather then engaging on the facts.
You are right about one thing...
You have been making the same argument for years... and I'm telling you, you are doing it wrong.
Far, far too many conservatives utterly dismiss the premise of industry-caused global warming because they choose not to take the time or make the effort to refute it with scientifically supported facts. Instead, they make snide, sarcastic remarks (similar to Ryan's most recent "Jedidiah" crack...) that deride the entire concept as ignorant, superstitious nonsense. I'm not accusing Ryan of this now, but he certainly has done this in the past and he is still prone to dismiss these arguments as "tripe" rather than debate them with sound arguments.
Perhaps dismissing them here is fine. Our little group here is like-minded enough to understand, but when he is sitting in a breakroom in Las Vegas, surrounded by liberal "West Coast"-style offensive political views (a snide and rather poor play on Ryan's football coaching efforts), he needs to be able to clearly and calmly refute these claims and "Chicken Little" prophecies with plain facts and no emotion or hyperbole.
My point has always been this... What is the more powerful argument? To ignore or dismiss claims of man-made global warming as a waste of breath, or to show a clearer, more reasonable understanding of the SAME facts with an alternative interpretation of the data? The Earth has been far warmer than it is now, and still supported abundant and varied forms of life, and some of the most expansive periods in Earth's life-history have been when CO2 levels were FAR higher than they are now (the Cambrian era, for example). Couple this with the growing number of facts that the Earth is COOLING (due to solar cycles and axial variations), some are saying that an increase in greenhouse gases might be a long-term benefit rather than a tragedy, and now we have a reasonable and irrefutable (at least as irrefutable as any global warming argument) to counter the "Algore-ites" and their doom-and-gloom promises.
Honestly, this whole topic spills back into the problem I have seen in the "conservative" movement ever since the leadership role of this ideology moved from the hands of elected officials like Reagan and Gingrich to the microphones of radio talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity... a lack of leadership in the classic sense of the word. Where is the "leader" in the GOP leadership? Who is blazing the trails for conservatives? Who is articulating the arguments for the conservative agenda? Why are we able to make these points and counter-arguments against the liberal agenda... but no one from the GOP can?
My last point is just one more example of why I think ANY conservative needs to be careful formulating our debate habits around dismissive labels and ignorant stereotypes. Ryan's "hick" reference for the uneducated, technically-challenged 19th Century "average Joe" was to call him Jedidiah. Does anyone know who the Biblical Jedidiah was?
It was the name given to Solomon by Nathan... and we all know the fabled "wisdom" of Solomon, don't we?
Far, far too many conservatives utterly dismiss the premise of industry-caused global warming because they choose not to take the time or make the effort to refute it with scientifically supported facts. Instead, they make snide, sarcastic remarks (similar to Ryan's most recent "Jedidiah" crack...) that deride the entire concept as ignorant, superstitious nonsense. I'm not accusing Ryan of this now, but he certainly has done this in the past and he is still prone to dismiss these arguments as "tripe" rather than debate them with sound arguments.
Perhaps dismissing them here is fine. Our little group here is like-minded enough to understand, but when he is sitting in a breakroom in Las Vegas, surrounded by liberal "West Coast"-style offensive political views (a snide and rather poor play on Ryan's football coaching efforts), he needs to be able to clearly and calmly refute these claims and "Chicken Little" prophecies with plain facts and no emotion or hyperbole.
My point has always been this... What is the more powerful argument? To ignore or dismiss claims of man-made global warming as a waste of breath, or to show a clearer, more reasonable understanding of the SAME facts with an alternative interpretation of the data? The Earth has been far warmer than it is now, and still supported abundant and varied forms of life, and some of the most expansive periods in Earth's life-history have been when CO2 levels were FAR higher than they are now (the Cambrian era, for example). Couple this with the growing number of facts that the Earth is COOLING (due to solar cycles and axial variations), some are saying that an increase in greenhouse gases might be a long-term benefit rather than a tragedy, and now we have a reasonable and irrefutable (at least as irrefutable as any global warming argument) to counter the "Algore-ites" and their doom-and-gloom promises.
Honestly, this whole topic spills back into the problem I have seen in the "conservative" movement ever since the leadership role of this ideology moved from the hands of elected officials like Reagan and Gingrich to the microphones of radio talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity... a lack of leadership in the classic sense of the word. Where is the "leader" in the GOP leadership? Who is blazing the trails for conservatives? Who is articulating the arguments for the conservative agenda? Why are we able to make these points and counter-arguments against the liberal agenda... but no one from the GOP can?
My last point is just one more example of why I think ANY conservative needs to be careful formulating our debate habits around dismissive labels and ignorant stereotypes. Ryan's "hick" reference for the uneducated, technically-challenged 19th Century "average Joe" was to call him Jedidiah. Does anyone know who the Biblical Jedidiah was?
It was the name given to Solomon by Nathan... and we all know the fabled "wisdom" of Solomon, don't we?
Monday, October 26, 2009
"You're killing me smalls."
First, yes, I was joking with the "Jedidiah" reference.
But more to the point here is that I have been SCREAMING about just how dangerous the "global climate disaster" (as you referred to them) crowd is for almost as many years as we've known each other. In specific my argument was that this movement must be challenged on the interpretation of the facts at EVERY turn less they emerge one day with the ability to dramatically affect our economy in destructive ways. And although I posted various fact filled arguments refuting these man-made climate change zealots I was STILL treated, while sitting around Titus's prenuptial fire in NEPA, to his skepticism as I was making the very argument he just did. I warned then that the Algorian movement was "dangerous", in specific it was dangerous to allow their interpretation of paleoclimatology to stand as legitimate. To which Titus repeatedly answered, "nonsense", "hyperbole", "faulderale", etc. His basic contention then (as I took it) was that they may be misguided, but were nonetheless harmless - so what if they want you to use different light bulbs, etc. And now this movement is EVERYWHERE, infested in EVERYTHING, and people watch "An Inconvenient Truth" as if it's gospel. I might add, I'm not blaming Titus personally for this spread of a "green ideology" (hehe), I'm simply pointing out that I have been going hoarse over various posts and fire lit backyards not with just facts that challenge the very foundation of the religion of climate change, but warnings of what destructive policies they would surely yield if ever they gained the powers to wield them ... as is the situation now.
Yet here comes Titus now warning us all that we dismiss them & refuse to take them serious at our own peril!
That's rich ...
But more to the point here is that I have been SCREAMING about just how dangerous the "global climate disaster" (as you referred to them) crowd is for almost as many years as we've known each other. In specific my argument was that this movement must be challenged on the interpretation of the facts at EVERY turn less they emerge one day with the ability to dramatically affect our economy in destructive ways. And although I posted various fact filled arguments refuting these man-made climate change zealots I was STILL treated, while sitting around Titus's prenuptial fire in NEPA, to his skepticism as I was making the very argument he just did. I warned then that the Algorian movement was "dangerous", in specific it was dangerous to allow their interpretation of paleoclimatology to stand as legitimate. To which Titus repeatedly answered, "nonsense", "hyperbole", "faulderale", etc. His basic contention then (as I took it) was that they may be misguided, but were nonetheless harmless - so what if they want you to use different light bulbs, etc. And now this movement is EVERYWHERE, infested in EVERYTHING, and people watch "An Inconvenient Truth" as if it's gospel. I might add, I'm not blaming Titus personally for this spread of a "green ideology" (hehe), I'm simply pointing out that I have been going hoarse over various posts and fire lit backyards not with just facts that challenge the very foundation of the religion of climate change, but warnings of what destructive policies they would surely yield if ever they gained the powers to wield them ... as is the situation now.
Yet here comes Titus now warning us all that we dismiss them & refuse to take them serious at our own peril!
That's rich ...
A Titus "caveat", if you please...
I know we have discussed this at length, again and again over the last 4 or 5 years, but I want to say that while Ryan may be incorporating some of his patented sarcasm in his last, I do believe the numbers and the ability of the scientific community to determine such measurements as CO2 levels over the last 500 years... perhaps even longer.
This aspect of scientific study isn't as complicated as we might imagine. Testing samples of ice (coming from glaciers that we know to have existed at least as long as we want to go back) is pretty straight-forward stuff. Take enough samples from varied areas of the world, and you get a fairly good representation of levels of any gases within the atmosphere.
My problem with the climate disaster crowd doesn't stem from the "data", but instead on the interpretation of the data and how it effects climate today and into the future. The classic example (and one that Ryan himself has used) is when Mount Tambora erupted in 1815, killing 75,000 people and pumping enough ash and debris into the atmosphere to cause "the year without a summer" and ushering in the worst series of famines and plagues in the 19th Century. That single eruption was the equivalent contributor of "greenhouse gases" as all of industrialized Europe for the last 75 years... and (according to Ryan's figures) was a HUGE contributor of CO2 for the measurements of "pre-industrial" levels. These facts alone seem to make any attempts to mark a point of "pre-industrial" levels as questionable, at best.
Go back as far as 20,000 years (from deep-core samples of polar ice) and we find CO2 at levels as high as 25% greater than those we find today, yet we know it wasn't MAN that could have effected those levels, and that those "very high" levels didn't usher in a period of global warming, but instead heralded a 10 to 15 thousand year period of global ice ages... the last of which didn't end until the turn of the 19th Century.
Like I said, though... I'm not picking fights with Ryan (or anyone else here). The issue is no clearer now than it was 5, 10, or 25 years ago... but it has now reached a point that its proponents can effect global politics in ways they never could have even 10 years ago, so it is a serious issue. I stand firm in my position that ignoring or dismissing the problem is the WORST thing to do. Counter the arguments with rational, well-researched FACTS that either prove the point or the conclussions WRONG... but don't think they'll just go away.
This aspect of scientific study isn't as complicated as we might imagine. Testing samples of ice (coming from glaciers that we know to have existed at least as long as we want to go back) is pretty straight-forward stuff. Take enough samples from varied areas of the world, and you get a fairly good representation of levels of any gases within the atmosphere.
My problem with the climate disaster crowd doesn't stem from the "data", but instead on the interpretation of the data and how it effects climate today and into the future. The classic example (and one that Ryan himself has used) is when Mount Tambora erupted in 1815, killing 75,000 people and pumping enough ash and debris into the atmosphere to cause "the year without a summer" and ushering in the worst series of famines and plagues in the 19th Century. That single eruption was the equivalent contributor of "greenhouse gases" as all of industrialized Europe for the last 75 years... and (according to Ryan's figures) was a HUGE contributor of CO2 for the measurements of "pre-industrial" levels. These facts alone seem to make any attempts to mark a point of "pre-industrial" levels as questionable, at best.
Go back as far as 20,000 years (from deep-core samples of polar ice) and we find CO2 at levels as high as 25% greater than those we find today, yet we know it wasn't MAN that could have effected those levels, and that those "very high" levels didn't usher in a period of global warming, but instead heralded a 10 to 15 thousand year period of global ice ages... the last of which didn't end until the turn of the 19th Century.
Like I said, though... I'm not picking fights with Ryan (or anyone else here). The issue is no clearer now than it was 5, 10, or 25 years ago... but it has now reached a point that its proponents can effect global politics in ways they never could have even 10 years ago, so it is a serious issue. I stand firm in my position that ignoring or dismissing the problem is the WORST thing to do. Counter the arguments with rational, well-researched FACTS that either prove the point or the conclussions WRONG... but don't think they'll just go away.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
This is getting quite cheery ...
I'm very glad that you followed up on this. I had heard something on my periphery about the Copenhagen Treaty, but it got away from me. "This equates (in my opinion) to the US joining a new "climate-oriented" global union of states ..." An acute observation.
I have long viewed cap & trade as simply a redistribution of wealth from 1st world Western nations to the 3rd world, with the UN as the swap broker - a prospect they have long been drooling over. This treaty would have cap & trade as merely one aspect, it's C&T on steroids. This agreement also, if I remember correctly, is focused on parts per million of C02 in the atmosphere. They would have us believe that pre Industrial Revolution we were at 280 parts per million, and that we are now at 370 (although I scarcely trust numbers from 1810 - "Hey Jebodiah, after you're done with your leechin', run down and get those Co2 atmospeheric measurements, would ya?"). They project 450 by 2020, and this treaty would endeavour to restrain it at that number with others advocating rolling it back to a 350 max - all of which is utter MADNESS.
Perhaps it IS worse then even I thought ... this administration has the uncanny ability to defy me every time I utter the phrase ... "well, they won't do THAT."
I have long viewed cap & trade as simply a redistribution of wealth from 1st world Western nations to the 3rd world, with the UN as the swap broker - a prospect they have long been drooling over. This treaty would have cap & trade as merely one aspect, it's C&T on steroids. This agreement also, if I remember correctly, is focused on parts per million of C02 in the atmosphere. They would have us believe that pre Industrial Revolution we were at 280 parts per million, and that we are now at 370 (although I scarcely trust numbers from 1810 - "Hey Jebodiah, after you're done with your leechin', run down and get those Co2 atmospeheric measurements, would ya?"). They project 450 by 2020, and this treaty would endeavour to restrain it at that number with others advocating rolling it back to a 350 max - all of which is utter MADNESS.
Perhaps it IS worse then even I thought ... this administration has the uncanny ability to defy me every time I utter the phrase ... "well, they won't do THAT."
I'm beginning to think its worse than even you imagine...
While trolling another site, I found a link to a video from the Minnesota Free Trade Association. The speaker in the video was decrying the Copenhagen Treaty that Obama is under so much pressure to sign, and he details very clearly why the treaty is so dangerous.
I found the text of the treaty HERE, and let me tell you, this isn't some vague conspiracy notion reminiscent of the grand old days of sweating the "New World Order"... this is pretty scary stuff.
The treaty calls for the mandatory reduction of all industrial "greenhouse" emissions by 80% by 2050, with peak emissions reached by no later than 2017. The cost for the global program is projected to be a minimum of $160 billion per year from 2013 to 2017, with the cost spread out over the signatory nations based, not on their projected carbon footprints but on their projected GNP. That means that the US would owe $544 BILLION dollars in four years, or 68% of the bill... while China (projected to out-pace the US in carbon production by more than a factor of 4x by 2017) would owe less than 9% of the bill. Mexico, at 1/3 of the size of the US and with half the carbon production, would owe less than 1/20th of the bill (5%). Shockingly, neither China nor Mexico would be bound by the Treaty to PAY THE BILL, though, because they do not qualify as fully-developed nations capable of leading the charge against global warming the way the US is. We would pay a greater portion of THEIR carbon debt in lieu of carbon credits... which would add (roughly... I'm no math expert) as much as 18% to the cost of production in any industry that is fossil fuel dependant on manufacturing and distribution of material and/or services.
The final say in what regulations and requirements would be in effect here in the US would lay entirely with the Copenhagen Climate Facility, and the Treaty would bind us to the edicts and regulations laid down by them. Once signed and ratified, the only means of backing out of the Treaty would be to cut off trade and ties with the entire EU and the bulk of the Eastern Pacific Rim nations (including Japan and Australia) until such time as we could get our emissions to required levels without participating in the Protocols.
This kind of surrender of sovereignty is unlike any that we have faced in the past, and I am including the UN in that assessment as well. This equates (in my opinion) to the US joining a new "climate-oriented" global union of states, capable of regulating economies across continents and instituting a degree of control that is, literally, unprecedented.
Now, having given the "doom and gloom" portion of my post, let me tell you what I think is going to happen.
Nothing.
Even if the bulk of the US were willing to surrender that kind of sovereignty and control (which I am sure they are not), or even if the US Congress and the President could "buffalo" the ratification process past an oblivious US public (a distinct possibility), there isn't a 3rd world nation on the face of this Earth that would be willing to use the funds offered by the treaty ONLY for the means of production of safe, green energy. We would see the call for nuclear power stations across the African continent, or across southeast Asia, and the resulting inability of even a bureaucratic jaugernaut like the UN to monitor and regulate the amounts of refined and (very possibly weapons-grade) material flowing out of these plants would be enough to bring even Al Gore to his senses.
However, given the chance that the President might push this through ratification, once the bill came due and the American public saw that every single facet of their materialistic, consumer-driven world was effected heavily by the cost associated with the Treaty obligations, compliance would simply END. Suddenly, the study of facts and figures refuting global warming would get substantial private funds and the message would be shouted from the mountain tops that the entire premise of this "protocol" is false. It seems painfully obvious to me that, looking at the published need for 68% OR MORE of all funding needing to come from the US tax payer, without the US the protocols fall apart like a cheap suit in a rainstorm.
This is a serious matter, in my eyes, because of the time, energy and money that will need to be expended to fix the problem once it is enacted... but it is an effort doomed to an early, painful and graphic death that will cost those involved untold billions in measurable economic prosperity.
I found the text of the treaty HERE, and let me tell you, this isn't some vague conspiracy notion reminiscent of the grand old days of sweating the "New World Order"... this is pretty scary stuff.
The treaty calls for the mandatory reduction of all industrial "greenhouse" emissions by 80% by 2050, with peak emissions reached by no later than 2017. The cost for the global program is projected to be a minimum of $160 billion per year from 2013 to 2017, with the cost spread out over the signatory nations based, not on their projected carbon footprints but on their projected GNP. That means that the US would owe $544 BILLION dollars in four years, or 68% of the bill... while China (projected to out-pace the US in carbon production by more than a factor of 4x by 2017) would owe less than 9% of the bill. Mexico, at 1/3 of the size of the US and with half the carbon production, would owe less than 1/20th of the bill (5%). Shockingly, neither China nor Mexico would be bound by the Treaty to PAY THE BILL, though, because they do not qualify as fully-developed nations capable of leading the charge against global warming the way the US is. We would pay a greater portion of THEIR carbon debt in lieu of carbon credits... which would add (roughly... I'm no math expert) as much as 18% to the cost of production in any industry that is fossil fuel dependant on manufacturing and distribution of material and/or services.
The final say in what regulations and requirements would be in effect here in the US would lay entirely with the Copenhagen Climate Facility, and the Treaty would bind us to the edicts and regulations laid down by them. Once signed and ratified, the only means of backing out of the Treaty would be to cut off trade and ties with the entire EU and the bulk of the Eastern Pacific Rim nations (including Japan and Australia) until such time as we could get our emissions to required levels without participating in the Protocols.
This kind of surrender of sovereignty is unlike any that we have faced in the past, and I am including the UN in that assessment as well. This equates (in my opinion) to the US joining a new "climate-oriented" global union of states, capable of regulating economies across continents and instituting a degree of control that is, literally, unprecedented.
Now, having given the "doom and gloom" portion of my post, let me tell you what I think is going to happen.
Nothing.
Even if the bulk of the US were willing to surrender that kind of sovereignty and control (which I am sure they are not), or even if the US Congress and the President could "buffalo" the ratification process past an oblivious US public (a distinct possibility), there isn't a 3rd world nation on the face of this Earth that would be willing to use the funds offered by the treaty ONLY for the means of production of safe, green energy. We would see the call for nuclear power stations across the African continent, or across southeast Asia, and the resulting inability of even a bureaucratic jaugernaut like the UN to monitor and regulate the amounts of refined and (very possibly weapons-grade) material flowing out of these plants would be enough to bring even Al Gore to his senses.
However, given the chance that the President might push this through ratification, once the bill came due and the American public saw that every single facet of their materialistic, consumer-driven world was effected heavily by the cost associated with the Treaty obligations, compliance would simply END. Suddenly, the study of facts and figures refuting global warming would get substantial private funds and the message would be shouted from the mountain tops that the entire premise of this "protocol" is false. It seems painfully obvious to me that, looking at the published need for 68% OR MORE of all funding needing to come from the US tax payer, without the US the protocols fall apart like a cheap suit in a rainstorm.
This is a serious matter, in my eyes, because of the time, energy and money that will need to be expended to fix the problem once it is enacted... but it is an effort doomed to an early, painful and graphic death that will cost those involved untold billions in measurable economic prosperity.
religion vs. religion
Once referred to as "Golden", the state of California has been reduced to a Bronze Age level of production. Their stifling taxes and anti business legislation has the Chamber of Commerce members fleeing like thousands of Japanese in a late night Godzilla movie.
Perhaps the biggest monkey on the backs of these undesirable capitalists is the religion of man made global warming - the "environmental movement." [Just a brief aside here - there is a "war" on global warming I read now. Joining a "war" on poverty, war on homelessness, war on hunger - the left seems to have a war room for everything but war! Sorry, I'm back now ...] At any rate this religion, complete with a grand high wizard - Al Gore - has zealots, true believers, workshops for conversion, a congregation, the whole works. And if any state in the Union is their "Mecca", then surely it is California, or as Arnold would say: "Cali-forn-eee-u."
And as such, a typical sermon would go as follows: "the world is at a tipping point, there's too many parts per billion Co2 in the air, the ice caps are melting, the polar bears are dying, our children are spontaneously combusting at baseball practice, my dog's melting, the SUV's are killing us, we must act, we must do .... W-A-I-T .... football you say? They want to play football? If we deregulate it they will come? Hmmmm" ... fingers gratuitously stroking the chin like Smithers from the Simpsons.
You see, so eager are the law makers of Los Angeles to reclaim an NFL team they have passed a measure exempting any new pro football stadium from ALL environmental impact regulations ... OF ANY KIND.
Hehe.
It would seem that "Madden Orthodoxy" is converting the "Algorian AntiScien[ce]tologists" at a pretty fair clip. Apparently the Hail Mary's are working . . .
Perhaps the biggest monkey on the backs of these undesirable capitalists is the religion of man made global warming - the "environmental movement." [Just a brief aside here - there is a "war" on global warming I read now. Joining a "war" on poverty, war on homelessness, war on hunger - the left seems to have a war room for everything but war! Sorry, I'm back now ...] At any rate this religion, complete with a grand high wizard - Al Gore - has zealots, true believers, workshops for conversion, a congregation, the whole works. And if any state in the Union is their "Mecca", then surely it is California, or as Arnold would say: "Cali-forn-eee-u."
And as such, a typical sermon would go as follows: "the world is at a tipping point, there's too many parts per billion Co2 in the air, the ice caps are melting, the polar bears are dying, our children are spontaneously combusting at baseball practice, my dog's melting, the SUV's are killing us, we must act, we must do .... W-A-I-T .... football you say? They want to play football? If we deregulate it they will come? Hmmmm" ... fingers gratuitously stroking the chin like Smithers from the Simpsons.
You see, so eager are the law makers of Los Angeles to reclaim an NFL team they have passed a measure exempting any new pro football stadium from ALL environmental impact regulations ... OF ANY KIND.
Hehe.
It would seem that "Madden Orthodoxy" is converting the "Algorian AntiScien[ce]tologists" at a pretty fair clip. Apparently the Hail Mary's are working . . .
Friday, October 23, 2009
Revelations 3:17
"Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing' - and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked."
I've spent 3 days listening to the information, mulling it over, in the link I am about to provide you. It is the economic crisis version of "Bush's War."
Given the New Orleans Saints are undefeated and I am advocating a PBS Frontline peice, I think it is safe to assume that Hell has officially frozen over.
At this site: Fools Gold (my personal title for the collective video there) you will find a timeline which includes a total of 6 investigatory documentaries. The Warning; From Dot Con; The Madoff Affair; Inside The Meltdown; Ten Trillion and Counting; and Breaking The Bank. Frontline put together various minutes from each of these 6 to create a "financial crisis time line", which is initiated and concluded with "The Warning" - it is the largest and most important of these video pieces (w/Madoff being the least important to the overall crisis), and the one which I watched premier on PBS a couple of nights ago. Within each timeline segment there are additional boxes to the right that look like they are simply quoting an expert or an official, but these too are video segments necessary to understanding the whole, so click on them at the conclusion of each main video's viewing.
Let me say this about what I believe happened to our financial sector ... there were numerous factors contributing to the 2006 collapse, but the 2 primary drivers, in my opinion, are quite clear. We here, do to various posts and self educating research, have come to the basic conclusion that the housing market was at the heart of the September 2006 collapse, and it was, but it was the proverbial "first shoe" to drop. Jambo, and even Titus because I think we posted on the subject, may remember our discussions on what you had in a Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac - a political tool which under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was used to promote a social agenda. In other words here you have these quasi-private/public mortgage giants in Freddi and Fannie (a majority of the board members either come directly from or are appointed by the government) and this piece of legislation from 1977 ( adopted to ensure that low income and minority communities are to more easily access home mortgages by prohibiting discrimination in lending, etc), coupled in a way that the market would have never allowed for on its' own. These mortgage giant's purse strings are directly tied to Congress - a false market is created by people like Chriss Dodd (D) CT and Barney Frank (D) MA through one committee hearing after another. Urged on by the Clinton White House (whose campaign promise was to extend the "American dream" of home ownership to more people in lower income and minority communities unlike that bad old Reagan who "favored the rich" of course ... gag me), directed Fannie and Freddie to urge other lenders to make MORE loans to people whom would otherwise not qualify (no money down, insufficient income, etc). So Fannie and Freddie do as they're told - they go to lenders like Country Wide et al and say "hey, we don't care how you do it, just make the loans because WE are going to buy them from you anyway, and WE are backed by the feds so there's no risk to you." So the private lenders figure, "what the hell." The private market then comes up with ways to "get around" traditional borrowing requirements. Enter sub prime loans; interest only; zero down; using Welfare payments to demonstrate income, etc. This spurs a housing boom because not only do the lower income communities take advantage of these new requirements. Everyone from dentists to to real estate moguls decide they can use one of these techniques to put forth very little money up front, buy a house, and then because the equity was building so fast during this boom, sell it 3 months later and pocket say 20-30k on a $300k home all with very little skin in the game.
So successful was this that various firms from various sectors of the banking/investment community wanted in, money was being made hand over fist on housing from the mid 90's to 2006. So Fannie and Freddie began selling mortgages to groups like Lehman Bothers; Citi Bank; Meryll Lynch; AIG ... sound familiar? So these new, riskier mortgages were systemically embedded like a dormant virus throughout our entire banking and investment house system.
Ok, now ... here comes the other shoe: in the decade prior to the 2006 collapse a new "shadow market" had come into being. Over the Counter Derivatives are what they came to be called. Basically they were selling off "risk" (later to be known as "toxic assets"). These OTC derivatives are hyper inside baseball, but basically anytime as a financial institution you make a loan you are exposed to a certain amount of risk until the loan has come to term - paid in full. However, if you can sell that "risk" of not being paid back to someone else, lay it off basically, then as a lender your portfolio still shows payments being made to you, yet NOT the risk associated with the loan itself. Your portfolio is enhanced, your market earnings, your over all "rating" as a lender goes up. Now you have even more investors because they want to put their money into a lending house that looks "so healthy" - and of course you do because you've laid off all this risk in the form of derivatives. NOW, with this new investment capital coming in, as a lender, you can make even MORE loans, lay off even more risk with additional OTC derivative sales and the OTC Derivative market gets bigger and bigger and bigger. It was artificially inflating company worth, causing more derivatives to be sold - one derivative based on another, based on another, based on another, all casing an artificial swell of a companies portfolio. A self sustaining cycle which got so big that pretty soon most of the recognizable financial institutions, that now reads like a who's who of the bailout line up, each owned a peace of the other's risk. Here you have an interconnected dormant virus in the form of the OTC derivatives market, and all it would take is for an outside financial calamity to knock over these dominoes, activating this second virus throughout the entire system.
Well ... the housing bubble burst.
The "riskier" loans congress urged Fannie and Freddie to encourage and buy "oddly enough" fell through. The first of the 2 sleeping viruses within the entire banking and investment community became active. Stock fell, people began to lose money ... and they began calling in their markers on these derivatives, only as one derivative marker is called by "company A" on "company B" who bought A's, only it causes a huge debt burden to "company B', so the marker is called on "company C", whom bought B's . . . welcome to September 2006, the second virus now active, and the "need", nay the entire premise, of government bailouts.
Now keep in mind, PBS is still PBS, so they go very light on the angle of Congress artificially creating a housing boom due to a social agenda. But there is one line meant to be a throw away disclaimer that is very important to note. Not even THEY could get away with omitting its' reference entirely. Throughout the entire segments of "The Warning" they never once name in specific the investments of the firms that needed the bailout money except to say, "... they had invested heavily in real estate." But given no other mention is given to what the "bad investments" were, it speaks volumes. But the OTC Derivatives are explained in great detail, as well as the strong arming of banks whom didn't even want to participate in the bailouts.
Take the time to watch. As we all agreed that "Bush's war" was the first draft of the Iraq/Afghanistan War history, so is this for our economic crisis.
And by the way, next time Obama gives a speech exclaiming that he is "trying to clean up the mess other folks created", and those "other folks" should just, "get out of the way", consider whom his current top 2 economic advisers are, and the fact that neither the OTC Derivatives market nor Fannie and Freddie have been reigned in.
I've spent 3 days listening to the information, mulling it over, in the link I am about to provide you. It is the economic crisis version of "Bush's War."
Given the New Orleans Saints are undefeated and I am advocating a PBS Frontline peice, I think it is safe to assume that Hell has officially frozen over.
At this site: Fools Gold (my personal title for the collective video there) you will find a timeline which includes a total of 6 investigatory documentaries. The Warning; From Dot Con; The Madoff Affair; Inside The Meltdown; Ten Trillion and Counting; and Breaking The Bank. Frontline put together various minutes from each of these 6 to create a "financial crisis time line", which is initiated and concluded with "The Warning" - it is the largest and most important of these video pieces (w/Madoff being the least important to the overall crisis), and the one which I watched premier on PBS a couple of nights ago. Within each timeline segment there are additional boxes to the right that look like they are simply quoting an expert or an official, but these too are video segments necessary to understanding the whole, so click on them at the conclusion of each main video's viewing.
Let me say this about what I believe happened to our financial sector ... there were numerous factors contributing to the 2006 collapse, but the 2 primary drivers, in my opinion, are quite clear. We here, do to various posts and self educating research, have come to the basic conclusion that the housing market was at the heart of the September 2006 collapse, and it was, but it was the proverbial "first shoe" to drop. Jambo, and even Titus because I think we posted on the subject, may remember our discussions on what you had in a Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac - a political tool which under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was used to promote a social agenda. In other words here you have these quasi-private/public mortgage giants in Freddi and Fannie (a majority of the board members either come directly from or are appointed by the government) and this piece of legislation from 1977 ( adopted to ensure that low income and minority communities are to more easily access home mortgages by prohibiting discrimination in lending, etc), coupled in a way that the market would have never allowed for on its' own. These mortgage giant's purse strings are directly tied to Congress - a false market is created by people like Chriss Dodd (D) CT and Barney Frank (D) MA through one committee hearing after another. Urged on by the Clinton White House (whose campaign promise was to extend the "American dream" of home ownership to more people in lower income and minority communities unlike that bad old Reagan who "favored the rich" of course ... gag me), directed Fannie and Freddie to urge other lenders to make MORE loans to people whom would otherwise not qualify (no money down, insufficient income, etc). So Fannie and Freddie do as they're told - they go to lenders like Country Wide et al and say "hey, we don't care how you do it, just make the loans because WE are going to buy them from you anyway, and WE are backed by the feds so there's no risk to you." So the private lenders figure, "what the hell." The private market then comes up with ways to "get around" traditional borrowing requirements. Enter sub prime loans; interest only; zero down; using Welfare payments to demonstrate income, etc. This spurs a housing boom because not only do the lower income communities take advantage of these new requirements. Everyone from dentists to to real estate moguls decide they can use one of these techniques to put forth very little money up front, buy a house, and then because the equity was building so fast during this boom, sell it 3 months later and pocket say 20-30k on a $300k home all with very little skin in the game.
So successful was this that various firms from various sectors of the banking/investment community wanted in, money was being made hand over fist on housing from the mid 90's to 2006. So Fannie and Freddie began selling mortgages to groups like Lehman Bothers; Citi Bank; Meryll Lynch; AIG ... sound familiar? So these new, riskier mortgages were systemically embedded like a dormant virus throughout our entire banking and investment house system.
Ok, now ... here comes the other shoe: in the decade prior to the 2006 collapse a new "shadow market" had come into being. Over the Counter Derivatives are what they came to be called. Basically they were selling off "risk" (later to be known as "toxic assets"). These OTC derivatives are hyper inside baseball, but basically anytime as a financial institution you make a loan you are exposed to a certain amount of risk until the loan has come to term - paid in full. However, if you can sell that "risk" of not being paid back to someone else, lay it off basically, then as a lender your portfolio still shows payments being made to you, yet NOT the risk associated with the loan itself. Your portfolio is enhanced, your market earnings, your over all "rating" as a lender goes up. Now you have even more investors because they want to put their money into a lending house that looks "so healthy" - and of course you do because you've laid off all this risk in the form of derivatives. NOW, with this new investment capital coming in, as a lender, you can make even MORE loans, lay off even more risk with additional OTC derivative sales and the OTC Derivative market gets bigger and bigger and bigger. It was artificially inflating company worth, causing more derivatives to be sold - one derivative based on another, based on another, based on another, all casing an artificial swell of a companies portfolio. A self sustaining cycle which got so big that pretty soon most of the recognizable financial institutions, that now reads like a who's who of the bailout line up, each owned a peace of the other's risk. Here you have an interconnected dormant virus in the form of the OTC derivatives market, and all it would take is for an outside financial calamity to knock over these dominoes, activating this second virus throughout the entire system.
Well ... the housing bubble burst.
The "riskier" loans congress urged Fannie and Freddie to encourage and buy "oddly enough" fell through. The first of the 2 sleeping viruses within the entire banking and investment community became active. Stock fell, people began to lose money ... and they began calling in their markers on these derivatives, only as one derivative marker is called by "company A" on "company B" who bought A's, only it causes a huge debt burden to "company B', so the marker is called on "company C", whom bought B's . . . welcome to September 2006, the second virus now active, and the "need", nay the entire premise, of government bailouts.
Now keep in mind, PBS is still PBS, so they go very light on the angle of Congress artificially creating a housing boom due to a social agenda. But there is one line meant to be a throw away disclaimer that is very important to note. Not even THEY could get away with omitting its' reference entirely. Throughout the entire segments of "The Warning" they never once name in specific the investments of the firms that needed the bailout money except to say, "... they had invested heavily in real estate." But given no other mention is given to what the "bad investments" were, it speaks volumes. But the OTC Derivatives are explained in great detail, as well as the strong arming of banks whom didn't even want to participate in the bailouts.
Take the time to watch. As we all agreed that "Bush's war" was the first draft of the Iraq/Afghanistan War history, so is this for our economic crisis.
And by the way, next time Obama gives a speech exclaiming that he is "trying to clean up the mess other folks created", and those "other folks" should just, "get out of the way", consider whom his current top 2 economic advisers are, and the fact that neither the OTC Derivatives market nor Fannie and Freddie have been reigned in.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
They didn't mention the States' ability to amend?
What the mother bleeping, son of a biscuit eating, horse fecal matter? ... (employ a British accent here for the rest of this line, it just works better) ... curse my heated dice dealer's tongue, steady ol' boy ... s-t-e-a-d-y ...! It's a family friendly site you know (sort of).
Well, what can I expect coming from a state that keeps reelecting Arlan Spectre (this coming from the home of Harry Reid - oy).
Outside of Jambo's work we don't "plug" many a book here, primary source material is prized (although there are noteworthy exceptions). But I would strongly urge any beginner, or "ol' pro" whom wants a fantastic refresher to read the book: The 5,000 Year Leap. It is worth your while - footnoted & is by no means just a dry recitation of original intent (meaning it won't turn off intellectually curious teenagers); but rather lists the arduous and eventful process of the the Constitutional Convention, the way they drew upon Plato et al, their fears and the joy of their success, as well as a crystal clear break down of the founders intent and the necessity to adhere to it less we face either anarchy on the one hand, or oppression on the other as well as their struggle to strike that perfect balance of government and liberty. It's been in print for 30 years, written by a lively Constitutional scholar (although now deceased), and is quite inexpensive in paper back.
At any rate, that's my humble suggestion ... and it would appear the adolescents in NEPA (and in all 50 states I would wager) are in dire need of this supplemental education. I will insist my sons read it upon hitting their teenage years - it will serve as insulation from annoying high school instructors and ideological college professors.
Let me know if you get it ...
Well, what can I expect coming from a state that keeps reelecting Arlan Spectre (this coming from the home of Harry Reid - oy).
Outside of Jambo's work we don't "plug" many a book here, primary source material is prized (although there are noteworthy exceptions). But I would strongly urge any beginner, or "ol' pro" whom wants a fantastic refresher to read the book: The 5,000 Year Leap. It is worth your while - footnoted & is by no means just a dry recitation of original intent (meaning it won't turn off intellectually curious teenagers); but rather lists the arduous and eventful process of the the Constitutional Convention, the way they drew upon Plato et al, their fears and the joy of their success, as well as a crystal clear break down of the founders intent and the necessity to adhere to it less we face either anarchy on the one hand, or oppression on the other as well as their struggle to strike that perfect balance of government and liberty. It's been in print for 30 years, written by a lively Constitutional scholar (although now deceased), and is quite inexpensive in paper back.
At any rate, that's my humble suggestion ... and it would appear the adolescents in NEPA (and in all 50 states I would wager) are in dire need of this supplemental education. I will insist my sons read it upon hitting their teenage years - it will serve as insulation from annoying high school instructors and ideological college professors.
Let me know if you get it ...
Funny, how this works...
Last night Katey, our soon-to-be-17-year-old, came to me and asked that I help her with her homework. She is studying the Constitution and the means by which it came to be, and she had done very well in her note-taking and had more than 90% of her answers correct.
The few questions she needed help with prompted me to show her where, in my modest home library, she could find reference material that would help her now and in the future. In doing so, I took a few minutes to re-read the first five Articles of the Constitution and the bulk of the Bill of Rights. We discussed how laws came to be, and what the enumerated powers of the separate branches of government are, and while she "knew" those powers... until we had our short discussion, I don't know think that she "understood" what knowing them means in her life today.
For example, we discussed the manner in which the Constitution can be "changed"... amended is the technical term... and her notes described the means by which 2/3 of both Houses can call for an amendment. I mentioned that the States also have the means to change the Constitution through a 2/3 majority application process, but she said nothing had been said of that. So, looking a bit deeper into the home library, we found that, up to 1989 (the date of that particular reference) more than 700 amendment applications had been made by ALL 50 STATES, but no Article V convention had been held.
Now, I could rant on about the failings of the public school systems in this regard, but that isn't my point. My point is that this is a clear and specific example of how the actual government of this country has failed (from 1791 to the present day) to adhere to the Constitutional principals outlined in our primary Instrument of Government (i.e. the Constitution).
It is exactly the kind of "getting back to the source" investigation that Ryan describes that causes me to enjoy listening to Mike Church on my Satellite Radio. He is a New Orleans talk show host that has the firmest and most basic understanding of our nation's history (political or otherwise) that I am aware of, and while I can't say that I don't get frustrated with his posturing and hyperbole... he certainly makes you think long and hard about the course our nation has taken since September 12, 1787.
The few questions she needed help with prompted me to show her where, in my modest home library, she could find reference material that would help her now and in the future. In doing so, I took a few minutes to re-read the first five Articles of the Constitution and the bulk of the Bill of Rights. We discussed how laws came to be, and what the enumerated powers of the separate branches of government are, and while she "knew" those powers... until we had our short discussion, I don't know think that she "understood" what knowing them means in her life today.
For example, we discussed the manner in which the Constitution can be "changed"... amended is the technical term... and her notes described the means by which 2/3 of both Houses can call for an amendment. I mentioned that the States also have the means to change the Constitution through a 2/3 majority application process, but she said nothing had been said of that. So, looking a bit deeper into the home library, we found that, up to 1989 (the date of that particular reference) more than 700 amendment applications had been made by ALL 50 STATES, but no Article V convention had been held.
Now, I could rant on about the failings of the public school systems in this regard, but that isn't my point. My point is that this is a clear and specific example of how the actual government of this country has failed (from 1791 to the present day) to adhere to the Constitutional principals outlined in our primary Instrument of Government (i.e. the Constitution).
It is exactly the kind of "getting back to the source" investigation that Ryan describes that causes me to enjoy listening to Mike Church on my Satellite Radio. He is a New Orleans talk show host that has the firmest and most basic understanding of our nation's history (political or otherwise) that I am aware of, and while I can't say that I don't get frustrated with his posturing and hyperbole... he certainly makes you think long and hard about the course our nation has taken since September 12, 1787.
Monday, October 19, 2009
With a ready sword ...
Titus found it "disappointing" that I didn't nail the administration's hide to the wall over Russia ... and I have a ready explanation.
As of late I've been endeavouring to more familiarize myself with the Founding Fathers, their principles, what drove the forging of this nation, as well as more basic Constitutional arguments, preambles versus operational text etc, as within the 2nd Amendment for example. In other words in the midst of this administration I found it necessary to get some bearings on just who we are. What is America? What has separated us as a nation from all others so as to create in just 233 years the lone super power, rising more rapidly in wealth, influence, charity, military prowess and world influence then any other nation that came before us? And even though my studies are not complete (& I hope they never are) there is but one inescapable conclusion - what occurred in the founding of our Republic was so special, so unique, so fantastical that it hardly seems reasonable that we arrived at it by any other means then divine providence. And I would urge any intellectually curious contemporary to do this same thing. To take this same journey from time to time - use the founders to get one's bearings. To do otherwise is to condemn yourself to the inevitability of aimless wandering through the political landscape. In my estimation the lack of this routine action is the cancer within the Grand Ol' Party. See, once you've begun to argue what aspects of the health bill are unreasonable, or whether or not you'll (as a Senator) vote for it based on its' inclusion or exclusion of a "public option", you have already lost ... and more then just the argument.
Let me put it another way. Just the other day my floorman on CR 407 explained to me, "I truly believe he (Obama) is just trying to put more food on the table for Americans." Now as I retrieved my eye balls from the back of my head and rolled them to the forward position I lambasted the various policies the president has proposed, be it economic or health care, and the crushing of the middle class that will surely ensue. And all that's useful, but what I should have simply asked was, "Is that his job?" And allow the conversation to end with those policies, rather then begin with them. And that's what the GOP is missing. If one starts the argument that way, with the ingenious simplicity of our original intent, by the time you get to the specifics of Obama's proposals the illegitimacy of them will be so sufficiently self evident that your argument will be unimpeachable. I intend to introduce into my "adversary 's" mind a new line of reasoning that rather then discouraging a specific law, will cause him to question the entire ideology that ends in that law, and perhaps on Russia I didn't feel it necessary to engage that form with you.
Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy picking through the minutia of political debate, be it Russia or health care and intend to do that here in the future; however if we don't from time to time do a basic national gut check of exactly who we are, what was intended at our founding, then we end up debating degrees of socialism and you wake up one day listening to the Communications Director for the President of the United States of America unabashedly praising Mao Tse Tong (sp?) in public with little to no consequence. In other words the entire ideology of the current administration is at odds with our original intent. It is illegitimate. And as of late I find it more useful to tie the symptoms of this illegitimacy - hyper specific arguments of public options and Russia policy - back to the disease, which is the ideology of a cradle to grave state. Call it socialism, communism, statism, & I guess now Mao-ism, but what they all add up to is the deprivation of liberty. And once one reaches the conclusion that the spark, the prime ingredient, the profound incident that occurred 233 years ago was the greatest unleashing of the human spirit through personal liberty that the world has ever witnessed, and it was THAT which has propelled us forward, well then you realize we are losing it ... and this administration is doing so at such a high rate of speed that more then the hyper informed are noticing. And while "they" are noticing, while our fellow citizens are paying attention, I intend to make the original intent argument so as to treat and guard against future forms of the disease rather than block a specific symptom, so as to illegitimize all of their legislation, not just one policy or piece.
Our friends and neighbors are looking up. They are paying attention. They are showing up in Town Halls, online and tuning in to news programming in record numbers - they are awake. And it is now that we must make illegitimate the entire ideology of the left with the most basic of traditional American principles. I'm tired of arguing degrees of socialism be it under Bush or Obama. It is possible for the course correction to be made because all are engaged now, Obama has seen to that. All we need do is boldly make the basic arguments and elect those that will do so on our behalf ... no more ideological half measures, it's time to treat the disease of statism (state-ism) not its' symptoms, by making original intent and principles once again mainstream, rather then the sole purview of "rabid right wingers."
Forgive me if I sound as if I'm lecturing you, that is neither my intent nor would I presume to do so. I am just explaining where I am at with all of this.
As of late I've been endeavouring to more familiarize myself with the Founding Fathers, their principles, what drove the forging of this nation, as well as more basic Constitutional arguments, preambles versus operational text etc, as within the 2nd Amendment for example. In other words in the midst of this administration I found it necessary to get some bearings on just who we are. What is America? What has separated us as a nation from all others so as to create in just 233 years the lone super power, rising more rapidly in wealth, influence, charity, military prowess and world influence then any other nation that came before us? And even though my studies are not complete (& I hope they never are) there is but one inescapable conclusion - what occurred in the founding of our Republic was so special, so unique, so fantastical that it hardly seems reasonable that we arrived at it by any other means then divine providence. And I would urge any intellectually curious contemporary to do this same thing. To take this same journey from time to time - use the founders to get one's bearings. To do otherwise is to condemn yourself to the inevitability of aimless wandering through the political landscape. In my estimation the lack of this routine action is the cancer within the Grand Ol' Party. See, once you've begun to argue what aspects of the health bill are unreasonable, or whether or not you'll (as a Senator) vote for it based on its' inclusion or exclusion of a "public option", you have already lost ... and more then just the argument.
Let me put it another way. Just the other day my floorman on CR 407 explained to me, "I truly believe he (Obama) is just trying to put more food on the table for Americans." Now as I retrieved my eye balls from the back of my head and rolled them to the forward position I lambasted the various policies the president has proposed, be it economic or health care, and the crushing of the middle class that will surely ensue. And all that's useful, but what I should have simply asked was, "Is that his job?" And allow the conversation to end with those policies, rather then begin with them. And that's what the GOP is missing. If one starts the argument that way, with the ingenious simplicity of our original intent, by the time you get to the specifics of Obama's proposals the illegitimacy of them will be so sufficiently self evident that your argument will be unimpeachable. I intend to introduce into my "adversary 's" mind a new line of reasoning that rather then discouraging a specific law, will cause him to question the entire ideology that ends in that law, and perhaps on Russia I didn't feel it necessary to engage that form with you.
Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy picking through the minutia of political debate, be it Russia or health care and intend to do that here in the future; however if we don't from time to time do a basic national gut check of exactly who we are, what was intended at our founding, then we end up debating degrees of socialism and you wake up one day listening to the Communications Director for the President of the United States of America unabashedly praising Mao Tse Tong (sp?) in public with little to no consequence. In other words the entire ideology of the current administration is at odds with our original intent. It is illegitimate. And as of late I find it more useful to tie the symptoms of this illegitimacy - hyper specific arguments of public options and Russia policy - back to the disease, which is the ideology of a cradle to grave state. Call it socialism, communism, statism, & I guess now Mao-ism, but what they all add up to is the deprivation of liberty. And once one reaches the conclusion that the spark, the prime ingredient, the profound incident that occurred 233 years ago was the greatest unleashing of the human spirit through personal liberty that the world has ever witnessed, and it was THAT which has propelled us forward, well then you realize we are losing it ... and this administration is doing so at such a high rate of speed that more then the hyper informed are noticing. And while "they" are noticing, while our fellow citizens are paying attention, I intend to make the original intent argument so as to treat and guard against future forms of the disease rather than block a specific symptom, so as to illegitimize all of their legislation, not just one policy or piece.
Our friends and neighbors are looking up. They are paying attention. They are showing up in Town Halls, online and tuning in to news programming in record numbers - they are awake. And it is now that we must make illegitimate the entire ideology of the left with the most basic of traditional American principles. I'm tired of arguing degrees of socialism be it under Bush or Obama. It is possible for the course correction to be made because all are engaged now, Obama has seen to that. All we need do is boldly make the basic arguments and elect those that will do so on our behalf ... no more ideological half measures, it's time to treat the disease of statism (state-ism) not its' symptoms, by making original intent and principles once again mainstream, rather then the sole purview of "rabid right wingers."
Forgive me if I sound as if I'm lecturing you, that is neither my intent nor would I presume to do so. I am just explaining where I am at with all of this.
Friday, October 16, 2009
That was a tad dismissive...
I wasn't being critical, you know... I just thought a rather important point had been over-looked or passed up in your "succinct" synopsis of the Treaty. The US does not go to war to gain territory or resources... and hasn't since the end of the Spanish-American War. I think this bears repeating because there are an awful lot of Obama supporters that still seem to think that we are fighting a war of conquest and gain RIGHT NOW... even though we haven't seen a penny's worth of relief in our gas and oil prices since the start of the War in Iraq.
I'm also disappointed that you aren't jumping all over the Hilary/Obama FAIL in regards to US-Russian sanctions against Iran. Obama shows the most minute signs of actually growing a backbone when it comes to Iran's continued resistance to international concerns about their nuclear program by instituting sanctions (albeit... only with the blessings of EurAsian states with a vested interest in stopping a "nuclear" Iran)... and what happens?
Russia says "No way."
We withdrew our promise to support and cooperate with a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic because it was "counter productive" to improved relations with Russia (Obama's words, not mine), which not only left Poland and the Czechs standing there with their pants around their ankles and out at least 4% of their GNP in installation preparation and construction, but also practically forced them to sign the Lisbon Treaty to assure themselves a piece of the "stimulus" that the new-and-improved EU Central Bank keeps promising to recoup the costs WE helped them incur.
Then, the Russian Foreign Minister uses the EXACT SAME TERMINOLOGY to describe why Russia wasn't going to support sanctions against Iran... "counter productive". He might as well have slapped Hilary in the face and spit at Obama... because that is exactly what I think Tehran sees as having happened. Our ability to protect and preserve our interests, both globally and in the region, have been reduced to such an extent that we are damn-near mocked by the current Russian administration and completely ignored by the Iranians.
These are the fruits of "hope" and "change".
I'm also disappointed that you aren't jumping all over the Hilary/Obama FAIL in regards to US-Russian sanctions against Iran. Obama shows the most minute signs of actually growing a backbone when it comes to Iran's continued resistance to international concerns about their nuclear program by instituting sanctions (albeit... only with the blessings of EurAsian states with a vested interest in stopping a "nuclear" Iran)... and what happens?
Russia says "No way."
We withdrew our promise to support and cooperate with a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic because it was "counter productive" to improved relations with Russia (Obama's words, not mine), which not only left Poland and the Czechs standing there with their pants around their ankles and out at least 4% of their GNP in installation preparation and construction, but also practically forced them to sign the Lisbon Treaty to assure themselves a piece of the "stimulus" that the new-and-improved EU Central Bank keeps promising to recoup the costs WE helped them incur.
Then, the Russian Foreign Minister uses the EXACT SAME TERMINOLOGY to describe why Russia wasn't going to support sanctions against Iran... "counter productive". He might as well have slapped Hilary in the face and spit at Obama... because that is exactly what I think Tehran sees as having happened. Our ability to protect and preserve our interests, both globally and in the region, have been reduced to such an extent that we are damn-near mocked by the current Russian administration and completely ignored by the Iranians.
These are the fruits of "hope" and "change".
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Yes, yes, yes ...
... we all know our long standing policy of not acquiring any more land than needed to bury our dead throughout our various wars. The question was posed as to the details of the turn over, at least that's how I took it - what exactly "effected" the turn over, the circiumstances, etc.
By the way: Succinct - characterized by clear, precise expression in few words; concise and terse. Given the length of that Treaty, I find this aptly describes my few paragraphs explaining it (& yes I ended that sentence on a preposition).
Russia? I saw the Hillary failure. We could of told her those would be the results of her trip before she folded her pant suits into the suitcase that morning ... no shock at all, we've been in the era of appeasement since January 20th, 2009.
By the way: Succinct - characterized by clear, precise expression in few words; concise and terse. Given the length of that Treaty, I find this aptly describes my few paragraphs explaining it (& yes I ended that sentence on a preposition).
Russia? I saw the Hillary failure. We could of told her those would be the results of her trip before she folded her pant suits into the suitcase that morning ... no shock at all, we've been in the era of appeasement since January 20th, 2009.
Wow...
Guys... I'm shocked!
Yes, Ryan, your info is correct... but not very succinct. And Jambo, I'm disappointed in you!
All territories occupied by Allied forces after the surrender of Germany and Japan were required to be either returned to the control of their original nation-states or to determine their own democratically established national identity by multiple treaties and agreements made by (initially) the US-UK-USSR. This has been established US policy since the end of the Spanish American War and the US allowing the Philippines to become an independent state. In other words, we do not fight wars to acquire territories abroad... ever.
This is the sort of established foreign policy that I feel benefits the US by giving us a position of strength when going to the table (figuratively speaking) with another belligerent state (Saddam's Iraq, for example... or Noriega's Panama). No one can accuse us of conquests or acquisitions of territory through military means since Cuba was Spanish-owned.
This leads me to point out what I expected one of you to mention over the last three days...
Surely you have all heard the news that our Secretary of State Clinton flew all the way to Moscow to negotiate a series of sanctions that both Russia and the US could implement-support to pressure Iran to abandone its nuclear develpoment agenda. By now, you have surely heard that, upon Clinton's return to the US, Russia announced that NO sanctions would be supported by the Kremlin because they would be "counter productive".
Counter productive to whom? The Iranians? The US? No, my friends... counter productive to the Russians, who profit every single time the Iranian problem sends ripples through the global oil market as the second largest producer and exporter of crude oil and natural gas on the planet. They are bargaining from a position of strength... exactly as we have predicted they wanted to for more then four years now.
Why have the Russians been able to bargain from a position of strength with the US in a compromised position? Because our new White House Administration has determined that our promise to support a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic was "counter productive" to its stated goals of frank and open diplomacy.
Our "frank and open diplomacy" really got us some fine results with the Kremlin, didn't it?
Welcome to the Age of Appeasement...
Yes, Ryan, your info is correct... but not very succinct. And Jambo, I'm disappointed in you!
All territories occupied by Allied forces after the surrender of Germany and Japan were required to be either returned to the control of their original nation-states or to determine their own democratically established national identity by multiple treaties and agreements made by (initially) the US-UK-USSR. This has been established US policy since the end of the Spanish American War and the US allowing the Philippines to become an independent state. In other words, we do not fight wars to acquire territories abroad... ever.
This is the sort of established foreign policy that I feel benefits the US by giving us a position of strength when going to the table (figuratively speaking) with another belligerent state (Saddam's Iraq, for example... or Noriega's Panama). No one can accuse us of conquests or acquisitions of territory through military means since Cuba was Spanish-owned.
This leads me to point out what I expected one of you to mention over the last three days...
Surely you have all heard the news that our Secretary of State Clinton flew all the way to Moscow to negotiate a series of sanctions that both Russia and the US could implement-support to pressure Iran to abandone its nuclear develpoment agenda. By now, you have surely heard that, upon Clinton's return to the US, Russia announced that NO sanctions would be supported by the Kremlin because they would be "counter productive".
Counter productive to whom? The Iranians? The US? No, my friends... counter productive to the Russians, who profit every single time the Iranian problem sends ripples through the global oil market as the second largest producer and exporter of crude oil and natural gas on the planet. They are bargaining from a position of strength... exactly as we have predicted they wanted to for more then four years now.
Why have the Russians been able to bargain from a position of strength with the US in a compromised position? Because our new White House Administration has determined that our promise to support a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic was "counter productive" to its stated goals of frank and open diplomacy.
Our "frank and open diplomacy" really got us some fine results with the Kremlin, didn't it?
Welcome to the Age of Appeasement...
Electronic Samurai
Well at one distressing moment in the last hour I, in a final act of desperation, put out an all points bulletin on the rocker responsible for the 80's hit, "I think we're all turning Japanese now", hoping that perhaps HE, if no other, would act as our Oracle of Delphi and spew forth the knowledge and reason as to why the US handed back Iwo Jima to the Japanese in 1968. But because a sharp child's observation and subsequent question IMMEDIATELY stumped at least 2 of the 3 members Bund (albeit Titus was at the "Bund bar shot" location and thus was excused), I felt honor bound to research and read the "legalese" permeating the answer to her question. And yes, I actually READ most of the 1959 Treaty, and Article 3, twice. Here is a succinct synopsis:
In the years after World War II, Japan's relations with the United States were placed on an equal footing for the first time at the end of the occupation by the Allied forces in April 1952. This equality, the legal basis of which was laid down in the peace treaty signed by forty-eight Allied nations and Japan, was initially largely nominal, because in the early postoccupation period Japan required direct United States economic assistance. A favorable Japanese balance of payments with the United States was achieved in 1954, mainly as a result of United States military and aid spending in Japan.
The Japanese people's feeling of dependence lessened gradually as the disastrous results of World War II subsided into the background and trade with the United States expanded. Self-confidence grew as the country applied its resources and organizational skill to regaining economic health. This situation gave rise to a general desire for greater independence from United States influence. During the 1950s and 1960s, this feeling was especially evident in the Japanese attitude toward United States military bases on the four main islands of Japan and in Okinawa Prefecture, occupying the southern two-thirds of the Ryukyu Islands.
The government had to balance left-wing pressure advocating dissociation from the United States against the realities of the need for military protection. Recognizing the popular desire for the return of the Ryukyu Islands and the Bonin Islands (also known as the Ogasawara Islands), the United States as early as 1953 voluntarily relinquished its control of the Amami group of islands at the northern end of the Ryukyu Islands. But the United States made no commitment to return Okinawa, which was then under United States military administration for an indefinite period as provided in Article 3 of the peace treaty. Popular agitation culminated in a unanimous resolution adopted by the Diet in June 1956, calling for a return of Okinawa to Japan.
Bilateral talks on revising the 1952 security pact began in 1959, and the new Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security was signed in Washington on January 19, 1960. When the pact was submitted to the Diet for ratification on February 5, it became the subject of bitter debate over the Japan-United States relationship and the occasion for violence in an all-out effort by the leftist opposition to prevent its passage. It was finally approved by the House of Representatives on May 20. Japan Socialist Party deputies boycotted the lower house session and tried to prevent the LDP deputies from entering the chamber; they were forcibly removed by the police. Massive demonstrations and rioting by students and trade unions followed. These outbursts prevented a scheduled visit to Japan by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and precipitated the resignation of Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke, but not before the treaty was passed by default on June 19, when the House of Councillors failed to vote on the issue within the required thirty days after lower house approval.
Under the treaty, both parties assumed an obligation to assist each other in case of armed attack on territories under Japanese administration. (It was understood, however, that Japan could not come to the defense of the United States because it was constitutionally forbidden to send armed forces overseas. In particular, the constitution forbids the maintenance of "land, sea, and air forces." It also expresses the Japanese people's renunciation of "the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes". Accordingly, the Japanese find it difficult to send their "self-defense" forces overseas, even for peace-keeping purposes.) The scope of the new treaty did not extend to the Ryukyu Islands, but an appended minute made clear that in case of an armed attack on the islands, both governments would consult and take appropriate action. Notes accompanying the treaty provided for prior consultation between the two governments before any major change occurred in the deployment of United States troops or equipment in Japan. Unlike the 1952 security pact, the new treaty provided for a ten-year term, after which it could be revoked upon one year's notice by either party. The treaty included general provisions on the further development of international cooperation and on improved future economic cooperation.
Both countries worked closely to fulfill the United States promise, under Article 3 of the peace treaty, to return all Japanese territories acquired by the United States in war. In June 1968 the United States returned the Bonin Islands (including Iwo Jima) to Japanese administration control. In 1969 the Okinawa reversion issue and Japan's security ties with the United States became the focal points of partisan political campaigns. The situation calmed considerably when Prime Minister Sato Eisaku visited Washington in November 1969, and in a joint communiqué signed by him and President Richard M. Nixon, announced the United States agreement to return Okinawa to Japan in 1972. In June 1971, after eighteen months of negotiations, the two countries signed an agreement providing for the return of Okinawa to Japan in 1972.
The Japanese government's firm and voluntary endorsement of the security treaty and the settlement of the Okinawa reversion question meant that, two major political issues in Japan-United States relations were eliminated.
In the years after World War II, Japan's relations with the United States were placed on an equal footing for the first time at the end of the occupation by the Allied forces in April 1952. This equality, the legal basis of which was laid down in the peace treaty signed by forty-eight Allied nations and Japan, was initially largely nominal, because in the early postoccupation period Japan required direct United States economic assistance. A favorable Japanese balance of payments with the United States was achieved in 1954, mainly as a result of United States military and aid spending in Japan.
The Japanese people's feeling of dependence lessened gradually as the disastrous results of World War II subsided into the background and trade with the United States expanded. Self-confidence grew as the country applied its resources and organizational skill to regaining economic health. This situation gave rise to a general desire for greater independence from United States influence. During the 1950s and 1960s, this feeling was especially evident in the Japanese attitude toward United States military bases on the four main islands of Japan and in Okinawa Prefecture, occupying the southern two-thirds of the Ryukyu Islands.
The government had to balance left-wing pressure advocating dissociation from the United States against the realities of the need for military protection. Recognizing the popular desire for the return of the Ryukyu Islands and the Bonin Islands (also known as the Ogasawara Islands), the United States as early as 1953 voluntarily relinquished its control of the Amami group of islands at the northern end of the Ryukyu Islands. But the United States made no commitment to return Okinawa, which was then under United States military administration for an indefinite period as provided in Article 3 of the peace treaty. Popular agitation culminated in a unanimous resolution adopted by the Diet in June 1956, calling for a return of Okinawa to Japan.
Bilateral talks on revising the 1952 security pact began in 1959, and the new Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security was signed in Washington on January 19, 1960. When the pact was submitted to the Diet for ratification on February 5, it became the subject of bitter debate over the Japan-United States relationship and the occasion for violence in an all-out effort by the leftist opposition to prevent its passage. It was finally approved by the House of Representatives on May 20. Japan Socialist Party deputies boycotted the lower house session and tried to prevent the LDP deputies from entering the chamber; they were forcibly removed by the police. Massive demonstrations and rioting by students and trade unions followed. These outbursts prevented a scheduled visit to Japan by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and precipitated the resignation of Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke, but not before the treaty was passed by default on June 19, when the House of Councillors failed to vote on the issue within the required thirty days after lower house approval.
Under the treaty, both parties assumed an obligation to assist each other in case of armed attack on territories under Japanese administration. (It was understood, however, that Japan could not come to the defense of the United States because it was constitutionally forbidden to send armed forces overseas. In particular, the constitution forbids the maintenance of "land, sea, and air forces." It also expresses the Japanese people's renunciation of "the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes". Accordingly, the Japanese find it difficult to send their "self-defense" forces overseas, even for peace-keeping purposes.) The scope of the new treaty did not extend to the Ryukyu Islands, but an appended minute made clear that in case of an armed attack on the islands, both governments would consult and take appropriate action. Notes accompanying the treaty provided for prior consultation between the two governments before any major change occurred in the deployment of United States troops or equipment in Japan. Unlike the 1952 security pact, the new treaty provided for a ten-year term, after which it could be revoked upon one year's notice by either party. The treaty included general provisions on the further development of international cooperation and on improved future economic cooperation.
Both countries worked closely to fulfill the United States promise, under Article 3 of the peace treaty, to return all Japanese territories acquired by the United States in war. In June 1968 the United States returned the Bonin Islands (including Iwo Jima) to Japanese administration control. In 1969 the Okinawa reversion issue and Japan's security ties with the United States became the focal points of partisan political campaigns. The situation calmed considerably when Prime Minister Sato Eisaku visited Washington in November 1969, and in a joint communiqué signed by him and President Richard M. Nixon, announced the United States agreement to return Okinawa to Japan in 1972. In June 1971, after eighteen months of negotiations, the two countries signed an agreement providing for the return of Okinawa to Japan in 1972.
The Japanese government's firm and voluntary endorsement of the security treaty and the settlement of the Okinawa reversion question meant that, two major political issues in Japan-United States relations were eliminated.
If you'll allow my translation ... in the 1952 Treaty (when MacArthur's boys turned over the government to the Japanese) we promised to "address" the issue of returning the captured WWII lands "at some point" in the future. Between 1952 and 1959 the political situation within Japan arose whereas the Japanese began clamoring for "all lands" to be returned. On the one hand political parties within Japan were calling for complete autonomy where more practical parties knew complete separation from the US was not possible for a myriad of reasons both economic and national security (after all, China & the USSR were quite cozy). Well, in 1959 the US decided the internal Japanese request of land return had hit critical mass - the calls for a return of "certain islands" could no longer be ignored given Japan was too important strategically in light of the Cold War, as well as its' growing importance economically. So in 1960 we signed "The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security." And even THEN there wasn't specific language as to a date that Iwo Jima would be returned, but under Article 3 it was noted that such returns should be "addressed and effected." Combined with the fact that there was a clause noting that the new Treaty was only good for 10 years at which point either party could pull out with 1 year notice, a clear window for various island returns had been set. Yet, with that pull out clause another "out" was given the US if they felt it detrimental to hand over Iwo Jima (part of the strategically important chain of Bonin Islands) - a clearly smart move on our part.
Well, by 1968 those Japanese voices crying for Japan's autonomy back in 59' became white hot. Washington decided the time had come. They needed Japan as a willing ally during the Cold War and as an economic partner. We would give back the Bonin Chain, but not before air bases (this is where the conspiracies are inserted) and the storage of nuclear weapons under US control were agreed to by the Japanese.
So, we gave it back. We subsequently gave back control of Okinawa in 1972. And I must say it was a logical progression. We got the best of both worlds - we kept complete control of strategic Pacific Islands as Japan developed both as a democratic/free market AND our staunch ally, then when we finally gave it back it was seen as PR "friendly" to the Japanese citizen, all while we maintained a permanent military presence in each site as part of the deal. It was the text book US economic-foreign policy of the time ... of course that was back when adults ran the show.
I hope that proved enlightening. It was for me ... and as often is the case, I have a child to thank.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
I've got a question.
My oldest is watching her favorite TV show after school, (NCIS) and it's a re-run, of course. But this one is about a WWII Marine Medal of Honor winner who confesses to a murder he really didn't commit, anyway the plot is unimportant. A point of fact that comes out is during the investigation the main character needs to exhume the body of a Marine killed and buried on Iwo Jima in '45. As another point of fact, the main character reveals that the body no longer rests on Iwo Jima but was brought home after the island was returned to Japan in 1968.
"Dad, why did we give Iwo Jima back?" she asks me.
I have no clue. Why did we?
"Dad, why did we give Iwo Jima back?" she asks me.
I have no clue. Why did we?
Oh my Dear Lord ...
... please, no.
Rory Reid, the Clark County Commissioner, has announced he's running for governor of Nevada. And he'll probably cinch the Democrat nomination. If the name sounds familiar, let me just confirm every clear thinking American's (especially Nevadans) fear - it IS Harry Reid's son.
Could he have possibly picked a worse time to further his political career? His father is making that name synonymous with out of touch, bloated government inefficiency and just flat out ineptitude, yet he picks NOW to run? Well, here's why - Governor Gibbons (R) is toast. The "affair texting" scandal (texting his mistress during state business meetings) and a general dissatisfaction with the "in Party" means ANY challenger will beat him. Hopefully Gibbons (and its a real possibility) will be beat in the GOP primary and we can focus on the name "Reid" rather than "Gibbons."
Now, here's the wild card out here. Any aficionado of mob lore and Scorsesi films will undoubtedly recognize the mug of the Mayor of Las Vegas - Oscar Goodman. Yes he was an actual mafia lawyer. And yes he had a couple scenes with DeNeiro (playing a mob lawyer) in the movie Casino. But more than that this guy is a solid Scoop Jackson Democrat - tough on crime, lower taxes, and he arranged to air all town hall proceedings live on local TV so you can see what's going on as people petition zoning grievances etc, and all city business. Surprisingly the Mayor most known for being flanked by show girls on any given New Years Eve has a real knack for managing the minutia that is any large city's daily business. Now I mentioned he was a Democrat, but in a governor's race he has intimated he would run as an Independent. Given the description I just laid out of low taxes etc, he joins the ever growing list of of conservative Dems not welcome in their own Party.
As for me, I'd vote for Goodman. He'd be the second Democrat (at least till he announces as an Independent) I will have voted for, the other being Gene Taylor - which means I will have voted for 2 conservatives.
Let me put it this way. If my choices are between a "Reid" and a mob lawyer, I'll take the latter. It is true that Goodman proposed a city ordinance requiring all convicted graffiti artists to have their thumbs removed so they may never grip a spray can again. And it is also true that he answered "a bottle of gin" when a class of 5th graders asked him "If you could take only one thing to a deserted island, what would it be?", in a meet the mayor day at their school. But ALL OF THAT is preferable to yet another Reid in Nevada.
Rory Reid, the Clark County Commissioner, has announced he's running for governor of Nevada. And he'll probably cinch the Democrat nomination. If the name sounds familiar, let me just confirm every clear thinking American's (especially Nevadans) fear - it IS Harry Reid's son.
Could he have possibly picked a worse time to further his political career? His father is making that name synonymous with out of touch, bloated government inefficiency and just flat out ineptitude, yet he picks NOW to run? Well, here's why - Governor Gibbons (R) is toast. The "affair texting" scandal (texting his mistress during state business meetings) and a general dissatisfaction with the "in Party" means ANY challenger will beat him. Hopefully Gibbons (and its a real possibility) will be beat in the GOP primary and we can focus on the name "Reid" rather than "Gibbons."
Now, here's the wild card out here. Any aficionado of mob lore and Scorsesi films will undoubtedly recognize the mug of the Mayor of Las Vegas - Oscar Goodman. Yes he was an actual mafia lawyer. And yes he had a couple scenes with DeNeiro (playing a mob lawyer) in the movie Casino. But more than that this guy is a solid Scoop Jackson Democrat - tough on crime, lower taxes, and he arranged to air all town hall proceedings live on local TV so you can see what's going on as people petition zoning grievances etc, and all city business. Surprisingly the Mayor most known for being flanked by show girls on any given New Years Eve has a real knack for managing the minutia that is any large city's daily business. Now I mentioned he was a Democrat, but in a governor's race he has intimated he would run as an Independent. Given the description I just laid out of low taxes etc, he joins the ever growing list of of conservative Dems not welcome in their own Party.
As for me, I'd vote for Goodman. He'd be the second Democrat (at least till he announces as an Independent) I will have voted for, the other being Gene Taylor - which means I will have voted for 2 conservatives.
Let me put it this way. If my choices are between a "Reid" and a mob lawyer, I'll take the latter. It is true that Goodman proposed a city ordinance requiring all convicted graffiti artists to have their thumbs removed so they may never grip a spray can again. And it is also true that he answered "a bottle of gin" when a class of 5th graders asked him "If you could take only one thing to a deserted island, what would it be?", in a meet the mayor day at their school. But ALL OF THAT is preferable to yet another Reid in Nevada.
Bring a LARGE mug of beer ...
... to both numb the pain, and cry in.
Go to this site, and watch the magic: BAJILLION-GAGILLION-BAMILLION
Future? What future?
Go to this site, and watch the magic: BAJILLION-GAGILLION-BAMILLION
Future? What future?
Monday, October 12, 2009
"All the king's horses and all the king's men ..."
Is this where the cookie begins to crumble?
This from the George Stephonopolous (boy the spell check will have fun with that name) Sunday morning show on ABC, "This Week", dateline 10/11/09:
“I don’t know how you put somebody in, who is as 'cracker jack' as General McChrystal who gives the president very solid recommendations and not take those recommendations if you are not going to pull out. If you do not want to take the recommendations then you put your people in such jeopardy.”
-Diane Feinstein (D) CA
George later asked four-star retired General Jack Keane if he were in a similar position to McChrystal and the President rejected his recommendation for more troops, would he resign? Keane said, “Probably, yes. Under those circumstances, yes.”
I explained to Jambo just the other day that in my estimation all of these "war councils" Obama has been convening were nothing more than brainstorming sessions to figure out just how they will sell Obama's refusal to "surge" in Afghanistan, that the decision he purports to be mulling has already been made, and it's "no." If my hunch is right Feinstein et al may be sending a very public "wait a minute bub, we (Democrats) own the outcome now" message to the president. And even more disturbing this means that whatever the case Obama is to the Left of Diane Feinstein on National Security matters ... and how small a sliver of space to occupy is that?!
This from the George Stephonopolous (boy the spell check will have fun with that name) Sunday morning show on ABC, "This Week", dateline 10/11/09:
“I don’t know how you put somebody in, who is as 'cracker jack' as General McChrystal who gives the president very solid recommendations and not take those recommendations if you are not going to pull out. If you do not want to take the recommendations then you put your people in such jeopardy.”
-Diane Feinstein (D) CA
George later asked four-star retired General Jack Keane if he were in a similar position to McChrystal and the President rejected his recommendation for more troops, would he resign? Keane said, “Probably, yes. Under those circumstances, yes.”
I explained to Jambo just the other day that in my estimation all of these "war councils" Obama has been convening were nothing more than brainstorming sessions to figure out just how they will sell Obama's refusal to "surge" in Afghanistan, that the decision he purports to be mulling has already been made, and it's "no." If my hunch is right Feinstein et al may be sending a very public "wait a minute bub, we (Democrats) own the outcome now" message to the president. And even more disturbing this means that whatever the case Obama is to the Left of Diane Feinstein on National Security matters ... and how small a sliver of space to occupy is that?!
Why is it ...
... that people so thoroughly enjoy my errors? In my defense I will only state that the blog's spell check SUCKS, THAT is a matter of record; and my kids did have Spongebob on in the room, so ...
Also a good suggestion (since Titus is handing them out): one should probably avoid committing grammatical errors while critiquing them. Perhaps someone can explain to me the meaning in how the second of these sentences ends?
"This is what happens when elitists delve into the world of the esoteric... if they can't show that they have earned what they get, their esteem and prestige diminish. So, let's all take a lesson from Obama and the Left and not let ourselves fall into the trap of making ourselves out to be more than we really."
Maybe I'm wrong, but unless you were quoting Yoda, that needs a little work before being rushed to press.
This is what happens when elitist NEPA bloggers whom take sinful pride in a colleague's mistake trip over themselves in a mad dash to post hollow critiques in order to fill the void lovers past named Trevor once occupied.
But fret not ... he may yet return. And your "void" may yet again be "filled."
Also a good suggestion (since Titus is handing them out): one should probably avoid committing grammatical errors while critiquing them. Perhaps someone can explain to me the meaning in how the second of these sentences ends?
"This is what happens when elitists delve into the world of the esoteric... if they can't show that they have earned what they get, their esteem and prestige diminish. So, let's all take a lesson from Obama and the Left and not let ourselves fall into the trap of making ourselves out to be more than we really."
Maybe I'm wrong, but unless you were quoting Yoda, that needs a little work before being rushed to press.
This is what happens when elitist NEPA bloggers whom take sinful pride in a colleague's mistake trip over themselves in a mad dash to post hollow critiques in order to fill the void lovers past named Trevor once occupied.
But fret not ... he may yet return. And your "void" may yet again be "filled."
Saturday, October 10, 2009
The high price of esotericism...
While I am the first to admit that the Left in this country revel in their esoteric ways, and that many are undoubtedly celebrating Obama's new title of Nobel Peace Laureate, I don't hold the prize against Obama. He had no hand in winning it, he had no say in his nomination, and he certainly hasn't made a big deal of it since finding out he won.
This is a HUGE distraction for him, however, and his opponents will get a lot of mileage out of the award and the manner and timing that it was given. He had, in the first two weeks of his Presidency (which was the deadline for his consideration for the award), done nothing to warrant the award... in my opinion... and the conservative right in this country will hold that over his head for the rest of his term.
This is what happens when elitists delve into the world of the esoteric... if they can't show that they have earned what they get, their esteem and prestige diminish. So, let's all take a lesson from Obama and the Left and not let ourselves fall into the trap of making ourselves out to be more than we really.
That is why I can't pass up the chance to point out that the term I think Ryan was going for in his last post is "exorbitant" and not "absorbent".
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a HUGE distraction for him, however, and his opponents will get a lot of mileage out of the award and the manner and timing that it was given. He had, in the first two weeks of his Presidency (which was the deadline for his consideration for the award), done nothing to warrant the award... in my opinion... and the conservative right in this country will hold that over his head for the rest of his term.
This is what happens when elitists delve into the world of the esoteric... if they can't show that they have earned what they get, their esteem and prestige diminish. So, let's all take a lesson from Obama and the Left and not let ourselves fall into the trap of making ourselves out to be more than we really.
That is why I can't pass up the chance to point out that the term I think Ryan was going for in his last post is "exorbitant" and not "absorbent".
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
An addendum ...
I just wanted to make clear ... some people may think it's rather erroneous for a father to entice his son into playing a game of chess with an absorbent amount of money (as $100 is for a child). However, once the challenge is laid down, if he loses, he must deliver to me by the end of the following day a 3 paragraph summary of a US president from my The US Presidents biography book. And after 3 such reports I have found him practicing on his brother before again challenging me.
It's a win/win.
It's a win/win.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Disturbing ...
Afghanistan.
Do you know how many quotes, speeches, critiques (of Bush), interviews, sound bites and statements that one can pull up within minutes of minimal searching online of the president waxing on about Afghanistan being a "war of necessity", that he fully supports that war, that with Iraq Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan, that it was the "true" front in the war on terror? That we can not let the architects of 9/11 to reclaim a nation state and on and on and on.
You know its getting bad for the administration when NBC is asking, "If President Obama believes this is a war of necessity, then why would he not fully source his commander's requests?", as David Gregory asked an administration official (the US ambassador to the UN) on Meet the Press, after playing that clip of Obama speaking those words to the VFW as a candidate.
And every time a trooper dies, as 8 did yesterday, it will highlight his indecision and resistance to McChrystal's request of 40,000 additional troops. Get ready to hear the phrase, "he dithers while our troops die." I've heard it no less than 3xs on talk radio in the last hour, on 2 different programs.
Of course to grant this "surge" is to indirectly endorse the Iraq surge, as if the success there isn't enough for any rationale person, which of course precludes the likes of Pelosi, Reid & Obama. But we all know what this is ... it's much more insidious then simple "indecision", or dithering.
What we 3, and scores of informed people across the nation know, is that liberal politicians have for 4+ years now used Afghanistan as a cover from which to hit Bush over the head from with Iraq. Afghanistan was mildly contained when Iraq was at its' worse and partisan, hard left Democrats (which encompasses all of the congressional leadership & "candidate" Obama) continually made the claim, "see, see we aren't weak, we want to fight our enemies, we support the Afghanistan mission, we just think Iraq is wrong." By supporting the then less controversial of the 2 theaters they played the game of criticizing Bush at nauseam over Iraq while clinging to some sliver of national security credibility as a Party by "supporting" Afghanistan. WELL, they walked out on that plank to the extent that the entire Party, especially the president, is lock stock and barrel on record supporting the Afghanistan effort. And I'm editorializing here, but I honestly believe that people as FAR, far left out of the mainstream as the president is, supported the war for only that political posturing, and never truly supported our invasion of any nation post 9/11, or an American military response of ANY KIND. They thought it was "safe" to support Afghanistan thinking they'd never have to actively be in command of redoubling our efforts there, or in other words Obama never thought he'd be have to actually FIGHT that war. I have always been of that opinion and I think his vacillating now on McChrystal's request bears that opinion out - he flat does not believe in projecting US force in the world. He played politics with war making to promote the facade that he could be trusted as the CiC, that he could be tough on our enemies, and now our enemies have called his bluff.
He was bent on drawing down as his administration progressed, not "surging" and with every fiber of his being he does not want to prosecute this war. Not just for Party politics, but rather his entire orientation towards America and more directly "Americanism" is one that believes our history unjust, unworthy and our future in need of "fundamental change." We are no better than any other land in this warped ideology, it is historical revisionism to the point of dislike of their own nation, bathed in the economics of Marx. He does not want the US to project force by any means. He is there, in his mind, to "set America straight." To apologize and attempt to "correct" our course, making up for our failed history. Knowing he does not want to fight this battle I grow very concerned when I hear administration officials describing Al Qeada as "disrupted", and "fundamentally dismantled" and "perhaps our troops mission there should change." I see a "we beat Al Qeada, we can leave now" talking strategy emerging from the administration, and that is a woefully sophomoric analysis and fundamentally dishonest.
I truly think that he believes America has no right to the title of "world's lone superpower", and moreover that we arrived at that status unjustly. But what this misguided, ill informed novice fundamentally does not grasp is the utter chaos and tragedy that will follow if we relinquish it.
Tragically a US defeat will embolden Al Qeada and the Taliban for generations to come. Think about it - in under 30 years the radicalized, militant Islamic incarnation of the Mujaheddin will have routed the USSR and the United States - the 2 loan superpowers of the last 60+ years. For generations they will believe themselves unbeatable. And if we retreat in defeat ... they will be right.
Do you know how many quotes, speeches, critiques (of Bush), interviews, sound bites and statements that one can pull up within minutes of minimal searching online of the president waxing on about Afghanistan being a "war of necessity", that he fully supports that war, that with Iraq Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan, that it was the "true" front in the war on terror? That we can not let the architects of 9/11 to reclaim a nation state and on and on and on.
You know its getting bad for the administration when NBC is asking, "If President Obama believes this is a war of necessity, then why would he not fully source his commander's requests?", as David Gregory asked an administration official (the US ambassador to the UN) on Meet the Press, after playing that clip of Obama speaking those words to the VFW as a candidate.
And every time a trooper dies, as 8 did yesterday, it will highlight his indecision and resistance to McChrystal's request of 40,000 additional troops. Get ready to hear the phrase, "he dithers while our troops die." I've heard it no less than 3xs on talk radio in the last hour, on 2 different programs.
Of course to grant this "surge" is to indirectly endorse the Iraq surge, as if the success there isn't enough for any rationale person, which of course precludes the likes of Pelosi, Reid & Obama. But we all know what this is ... it's much more insidious then simple "indecision", or dithering.
What we 3, and scores of informed people across the nation know, is that liberal politicians have for 4+ years now used Afghanistan as a cover from which to hit Bush over the head from with Iraq. Afghanistan was mildly contained when Iraq was at its' worse and partisan, hard left Democrats (which encompasses all of the congressional leadership & "candidate" Obama) continually made the claim, "see, see we aren't weak, we want to fight our enemies, we support the Afghanistan mission, we just think Iraq is wrong." By supporting the then less controversial of the 2 theaters they played the game of criticizing Bush at nauseam over Iraq while clinging to some sliver of national security credibility as a Party by "supporting" Afghanistan. WELL, they walked out on that plank to the extent that the entire Party, especially the president, is lock stock and barrel on record supporting the Afghanistan effort. And I'm editorializing here, but I honestly believe that people as FAR, far left out of the mainstream as the president is, supported the war for only that political posturing, and never truly supported our invasion of any nation post 9/11, or an American military response of ANY KIND. They thought it was "safe" to support Afghanistan thinking they'd never have to actively be in command of redoubling our efforts there, or in other words Obama never thought he'd be have to actually FIGHT that war. I have always been of that opinion and I think his vacillating now on McChrystal's request bears that opinion out - he flat does not believe in projecting US force in the world. He played politics with war making to promote the facade that he could be trusted as the CiC, that he could be tough on our enemies, and now our enemies have called his bluff.
He was bent on drawing down as his administration progressed, not "surging" and with every fiber of his being he does not want to prosecute this war. Not just for Party politics, but rather his entire orientation towards America and more directly "Americanism" is one that believes our history unjust, unworthy and our future in need of "fundamental change." We are no better than any other land in this warped ideology, it is historical revisionism to the point of dislike of their own nation, bathed in the economics of Marx. He does not want the US to project force by any means. He is there, in his mind, to "set America straight." To apologize and attempt to "correct" our course, making up for our failed history. Knowing he does not want to fight this battle I grow very concerned when I hear administration officials describing Al Qeada as "disrupted", and "fundamentally dismantled" and "perhaps our troops mission there should change." I see a "we beat Al Qeada, we can leave now" talking strategy emerging from the administration, and that is a woefully sophomoric analysis and fundamentally dishonest.
I truly think that he believes America has no right to the title of "world's lone superpower", and moreover that we arrived at that status unjustly. But what this misguided, ill informed novice fundamentally does not grasp is the utter chaos and tragedy that will follow if we relinquish it.
Tragically a US defeat will embolden Al Qeada and the Taliban for generations to come. Think about it - in under 30 years the radicalized, militant Islamic incarnation of the Mujaheddin will have routed the USSR and the United States - the 2 loan superpowers of the last 60+ years. For generations they will believe themselves unbeatable. And if we retreat in defeat ... they will be right.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
I have no bishops left?
I feel like my 10 year old playing me in chess (by the way, there's a $100 bounty on my head whenever he can muster the defeat of his old man ... I'm challenged nearly weekly as of that declaration).
I must offer a correction. For some reason, perhaps never to be known by mankind, I misinterpreted "His Most Catholic Majesty Juan Carlos of Spain" to be a Catholic Bishop rather than the heir to the royal Spanish line. Titus text me itching to pounce, and given his refrain I thought it only honorable to thrust myself upon the entrails aimed short sword.
In my defense (Titus asked, "Why would a Bishop advocate an Olympic city?") I am of the Mormon faith, and my Church certainly was enthusiastic about receiving the Salt Lake games ... but at any rate, mistake acknowledged.
Oy ...
I must offer a correction. For some reason, perhaps never to be known by mankind, I misinterpreted "His Most Catholic Majesty Juan Carlos of Spain" to be a Catholic Bishop rather than the heir to the royal Spanish line. Titus text me itching to pounce, and given his refrain I thought it only honorable to thrust myself upon the entrails aimed short sword.
In my defense (Titus asked, "Why would a Bishop advocate an Olympic city?") I am of the Mormon faith, and my Church certainly was enthusiastic about receiving the Salt Lake games ... but at any rate, mistake acknowledged.
Oy ...
Friday, October 2, 2009
That's mostly right, however ...
No you're right, he's not at all "in the pocket" (I would say "indebted" - they know where his bodies are buried) to the Chicago political machine. I mean with names like Daley & Blagovich how could corruption be possible in Illinois?
Look, first Rummy & Cheney weren't THE president. And if Bush went to bat for Dallas (where he now resides) as president with a infamous political machine / mayor nmae like "Daley", believe me, people would be talking. But that aside here is why I think this is relevant: He could of sent Michelle & Oprah (both of whom who went with him), whom are perhaps the 2 highest profile native Chicagoans after Obama himself, but he didn't. So you say "big deal", there are more important things he's dropping the ball on ... well I agree. But I think it is worth pointing out that it has been traditionally seen as "beneath" the president of the United States to do what at most (in government) Hillary's assistant should of done. You can mention those other heads of state, the Bishop, all you want - but they simply aren't on the level of a sitting US President (we're not talking morally in terms of the Bishop, I think you know what I mean here). But he doesn't care about "tradition", in particular traditions unique to the US, and I think it's worthy to make note of that.
My point is between that and the fact that the Chicago presentation lasted 45 minutes and he met with General McCrystal only 25 minutes on Air Force One while still in Copenhagen, is relevant because it tells us volumes about the Commander-in-chief. And while you or I have all the info we need on him to form an educated opinion, it is THESE sort of incidents that "everyone" gets - you have time to fly to Denmark for the Olympics but you've only spoken to McCrystal twice in 70 days, once for 90 minutes, the other for 25, forcing the general to take his case to 60 Minutes? I think the average Joe gets that on a gut level and thus it is worth illuminating ... that's all.
Look, first Rummy & Cheney weren't THE president. And if Bush went to bat for Dallas (where he now resides) as president with a infamous political machine / mayor nmae like "Daley", believe me, people would be talking. But that aside here is why I think this is relevant: He could of sent Michelle & Oprah (both of whom who went with him), whom are perhaps the 2 highest profile native Chicagoans after Obama himself, but he didn't. So you say "big deal", there are more important things he's dropping the ball on ... well I agree. But I think it is worth pointing out that it has been traditionally seen as "beneath" the president of the United States to do what at most (in government) Hillary's assistant should of done. You can mention those other heads of state, the Bishop, all you want - but they simply aren't on the level of a sitting US President (we're not talking morally in terms of the Bishop, I think you know what I mean here). But he doesn't care about "tradition", in particular traditions unique to the US, and I think it's worthy to make note of that.
My point is between that and the fact that the Chicago presentation lasted 45 minutes and he met with General McCrystal only 25 minutes on Air Force One while still in Copenhagen, is relevant because it tells us volumes about the Commander-in-chief. And while you or I have all the info we need on him to form an educated opinion, it is THESE sort of incidents that "everyone" gets - you have time to fly to Denmark for the Olympics but you've only spoken to McCrystal twice in 70 days, once for 90 minutes, the other for 25, forcing the general to take his case to 60 Minutes? I think the average Joe gets that on a gut level and thus it is worth illuminating ... that's all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
