... on Multi-Peril Insurance.
As mentioned before, with Ryan in constant contact via the text messaging machine he is, we got onto another discussion concerning the stimulus package. (Shocker.) While discussing Gene Taylor's no vote here in So. Miss, I brought up the multi-peril insurance example of government stimulus that works. So Ryan, being reluctant to accept ANY aspect of government intervention into the private sector as a good thing, agreed to hear me out. I've posted at length, won't repeat it here, but he got the picture. To which point he agreed, this kind of government stimulus was necessary because the private sector both could not AND would not step up. Another thing Ryan liked was the fact that the insurance wasn't GIVEN away, homeowners had to PAY for it just like flood insurance or any kind.
Which led to a slippery slope I never got to talk to Ryan about because he ducked out. If insurance was a great example of government laying the spurs to the private sector concerning necessary development, can't the SAME ARGUMENT be made for government to do the same for our energy crisis?
This is what I outlined.
As long as we're pitching hundreds of billions of dollars around like confetti, what if we began construction of a hydrogen distribution system based on, let's say ten regions within the lower 48 states. Each region has two hydrogrn generating plants that pipe the product to stations within their region. Nothing cold fusion or star wars about it. Existing technology, not unbelievably expensive, completely doable and creates a bunch of jobs.
In the same sense, (remember, it's raining hundreds of billions of dollars) turn around and offer incentives to purchase hydrogen cars from the Gasping Three in Detroit. There's a stimulus, American companies building cars fueled by domestically produced energy. More jobs saved and created. Oh my God, Obama's a genius!
And along the same lines, in a very hush hush not so public move, slap a healthy tariff on imported hydrogen vehicles. ONLY hydrogen ones. Anyone can import any kind of gas/diesel car truck SUV they want, but the hydrogen ones are coming out of Michigan. Coming out cheaply and with a locked market.
Here's a stimulus action that works, a NECESSARY government move that could drop our imported oil needs to next to nothing within the framework of the stimulus package, (which I believe hemorrhages past 2012).
Man I should be on the payroll. I'll put in for Treasury Secretary.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
I guess no one has time to Bund...
Except me.
And while Ryan's absence is understandable, the move certainly hasn't stopped him from texting me 15 times a day. One little text thread we had stuck in my head.
I asked him if he thought the more moderate Arab and Middle Eastern states paid off various extremist groups to keep peace. He responded by describing the agreement the Saudi Royal Family has with "radical" Muslim groups in that 1) the extremist schools would be allowed and unhindered and 2) Members of the Royal Family who contributed wouldn't be prosecuted. (Ryan called it "oil guilt", giving to those who have nothing by those who have everything.)
It's this tacit acceptance of the radical element of Islam within their society that made me rethink some of my position on the main strategy against said group. If the money will always be there, (and let's face it. The Saudis have LOTS of money. They don't sell another barrel, ever, they'll still be okay for at least a generation and a half) and if there are aspects of societal makeup that means the radical element will have a niche, a home if you will, then the only difference between radical Islam in places like Saudi Arabia and extremists here in the USA (McVey, you get the idea) is law enforcement and the judicial system in America.
I know what you guys are saying. "Duh. Tell us something new."
But that's just it. There is nothing new. If the groups can pull from disenfranchised Muslims at will from moderate, stable states within the region, then this is a no win situation period. The same could be said if we as Americans allowed KKK schools, radical LDS sects (the kind with 18 wives and sixty-three kids) and the like to just set up shop anywhere.
The political success of Hamas during the last round of elections in Gaza proves that Hamas, as an entity, has no interest in the safety, prosperity or liberty of its citizens. It is only interested in furthering its own radical agenda against Israel and spreading its radical revolution abroad.
The whole point of this is this: If there is no "grand strategy" capable of dealing with radical or extremist Islam, then the best course of action is to defend ourselves against it. And to defend ourselves against it we need to be impervious to the threats they may bring, first and foremost the nation's demand for energy. I've felt in the past that eliminating our need for foreign oil would strike at these people in the wallet and in distance, i.e. our reduced need to be in the region. But since the money isn't nearly the factor I'd hoped, eliminating our need to be in the region becomes all the more attractive.
Isolationist? Not really. There are plenty of people, nations, that NEED the oil every bit as much as we do and THEY will have interests there, and THEY will become the targets. Is that falling down on our job as a super power? I think not. I'm sure you guys have opinions.
And while Ryan's absence is understandable, the move certainly hasn't stopped him from texting me 15 times a day. One little text thread we had stuck in my head.
I asked him if he thought the more moderate Arab and Middle Eastern states paid off various extremist groups to keep peace. He responded by describing the agreement the Saudi Royal Family has with "radical" Muslim groups in that 1) the extremist schools would be allowed and unhindered and 2) Members of the Royal Family who contributed wouldn't be prosecuted. (Ryan called it "oil guilt", giving to those who have nothing by those who have everything.)
It's this tacit acceptance of the radical element of Islam within their society that made me rethink some of my position on the main strategy against said group. If the money will always be there, (and let's face it. The Saudis have LOTS of money. They don't sell another barrel, ever, they'll still be okay for at least a generation and a half) and if there are aspects of societal makeup that means the radical element will have a niche, a home if you will, then the only difference between radical Islam in places like Saudi Arabia and extremists here in the USA (McVey, you get the idea) is law enforcement and the judicial system in America.
I know what you guys are saying. "Duh. Tell us something new."
But that's just it. There is nothing new. If the groups can pull from disenfranchised Muslims at will from moderate, stable states within the region, then this is a no win situation period. The same could be said if we as Americans allowed KKK schools, radical LDS sects (the kind with 18 wives and sixty-three kids) and the like to just set up shop anywhere.
The political success of Hamas during the last round of elections in Gaza proves that Hamas, as an entity, has no interest in the safety, prosperity or liberty of its citizens. It is only interested in furthering its own radical agenda against Israel and spreading its radical revolution abroad.
The whole point of this is this: If there is no "grand strategy" capable of dealing with radical or extremist Islam, then the best course of action is to defend ourselves against it. And to defend ourselves against it we need to be impervious to the threats they may bring, first and foremost the nation's demand for energy. I've felt in the past that eliminating our need for foreign oil would strike at these people in the wallet and in distance, i.e. our reduced need to be in the region. But since the money isn't nearly the factor I'd hoped, eliminating our need to be in the region becomes all the more attractive.
Isolationist? Not really. There are plenty of people, nations, that NEED the oil every bit as much as we do and THEY will have interests there, and THEY will become the targets. Is that falling down on our job as a super power? I think not. I'm sure you guys have opinions.
Friday, February 6, 2009
HR 1 and the CBO report...
So, HR 1 is going to pass with the help of two GOP Senators who managed to shave (literally) $88 billion off the $884 billion that was the House's proposal.
You can read the text of HR 1 HERE (all 647 pages of it!). The CBO then did a report on the total cost of the Bill (as it emerged from both branches) and they can be read HERE and HERE.
The CBO reports are far easier to follow, and have a break-down (of sorts) of where the money is going... and it is staggering in its scope. I can't bring myself to write all the money that is being thrown around here... it boggles the mind.
A case has been made that the corner has been turned, and the still-rising unemployment is the last vestige of the recession economy... as it was in the 30's, by the way... with NO stimulus in effect yet, so why continue with the stimulus plan?
Because Obama promised it, and to do nothing and watch the problem fix itself would be to vindicate the GOP and conservative pundits. No Dem can sit back while that happens...
You can read the text of HR 1 HERE (all 647 pages of it!). The CBO then did a report on the total cost of the Bill (as it emerged from both branches) and they can be read HERE and HERE.
The CBO reports are far easier to follow, and have a break-down (of sorts) of where the money is going... and it is staggering in its scope. I can't bring myself to write all the money that is being thrown around here... it boggles the mind.
A case has been made that the corner has been turned, and the still-rising unemployment is the last vestige of the recession economy... as it was in the 30's, by the way... with NO stimulus in effect yet, so why continue with the stimulus plan?
Because Obama promised it, and to do nothing and watch the problem fix itself would be to vindicate the GOP and conservative pundits. No Dem can sit back while that happens...
Monday, February 2, 2009
"On the road again"
We are moving to a home just about 2 miles from where we currently reside, so I'll be offline for perhaps the remainder of this week - just a heads up.
On Titus's last ... the "shock" or at least clear surprise you had at Jambo's perception that "it [a UK style ban] could never happen here" was precisely my reaction when he called. Following the text message we had about a 2o minute live discussion. To dovetail with Titus I was in full belief that with each year the anti-second amendment (and that's what they are) crowd gets more and more bold; and the creeping nature of their incrementalism is found throughout the various bans Titus cited.
Consider that only 100 years ago the reach of the firearm laws NOW in place would have been thought "unimaginable", yet the same wording in the 2nd amendment exists now as it did then does it not? So no one can tell me "that's not possible here", when they (the left) have already accomplished bans and stifling requirements that were thought "not possible" only 100 or 50 years ago.
In short, without the due diligence of her protectors the 2nd Amendment can be rendered ineffective without EVER amending our Constitution. Just look at what they've been able to do thus far.
On Titus's last ... the "shock" or at least clear surprise you had at Jambo's perception that "it [a UK style ban] could never happen here" was precisely my reaction when he called. Following the text message we had about a 2o minute live discussion. To dovetail with Titus I was in full belief that with each year the anti-second amendment (and that's what they are) crowd gets more and more bold; and the creeping nature of their incrementalism is found throughout the various bans Titus cited.
Consider that only 100 years ago the reach of the firearm laws NOW in place would have been thought "unimaginable", yet the same wording in the 2nd amendment exists now as it did then does it not? So no one can tell me "that's not possible here", when they (the left) have already accomplished bans and stifling requirements that were thought "not possible" only 100 or 50 years ago.
In short, without the due diligence of her protectors the 2nd Amendment can be rendered ineffective without EVER amending our Constitution. Just look at what they've been able to do thus far.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
You can't be serious...
My God, man... are you kidding me?
I have outlined my position on this matter in some detail (my "conversion post" is found HERE), but this warrants some re-touching...
In our recent past (that being defined by what we can recall as having effected us as individuals), we have seen the Federal Automatic Weapons Ban (HR 3355, signed into law in 1994) and the re-introduction of an even more aggressive ban proposed in SR 1431 in 2003, just months before the FAWB expired. These were the laws that made the purchase of a "folding" stock for our 10-22 Ruger ILLEGAL. The purchase or possession of a clip of ammunition that held more than 6 rounds was ILLEGAL under this law (thus, even our factory-made 10-round clips for the Ruger made the rifle ILLEGAL under certain conditions). Shotguns manufactured to hold more than 3 shells were ILLEGAL... semi-auto or otherwise. Handguns with a removable clip of more than 6 rounds (which constitutes 78% of all automatics made) were deemed ILLEGAL unless registered with FOUR Federal Agencies and State and local authorities.
The argument made in DC vs Heller was that the municipality had the right to regulate the sale and ownership of certain kinds of firearms, to better serve the safety of the general public. Crime did NOTHING but go UP after the ban, and gun-related violent crime rose by more than 60% in the greater DC area. As Ryan posted, the UK has had a handgun ban for more than 6 years now... and gun-related crimes have INCREASED by 40% across the board there.
As I have stated here in the past, the CRIME of this situation is that the Federal government here in the US has determined no less than 16 times that "... a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 1981 (the latest judicial example). If the individual safety of yourself or your family is NOT the responsibility of the government, at any level (meaning Fed, State or local)... then whose responsibility is it? Who is ultimately responsible for the safety and protection of YOUR children from acts of violent crime (which occur 18 times a minute in these United States of America RIGHT NOW)? Not the Federal authorities. Not the State Police. Not the local sheriff's department or police force.
So, it must be up to US, as individual citizens. It is simple and juvenile to assume that if it is ILLEGAL to own a handgun in a certain area (say Washington, DC), then criminals WON'T use them either. So, if someone is going to break into MY home with loaded weapons... I want to be able to exercise my Constitutional RIGHT to defend myself, my family and my property with whatever force is necessary to do so. If that means beating an intruder into a state of incapacity with a Louisville Slugger, then so be it... but I'd prefer to know that I don't have to be 36" from a violent criminal before I can defend myself. I want to be able to project the force needed to defend my home and family from a safe distance, and that means I want to be able to OWN A FIREARM that provides that force projection.
The premise of this post isn't to convince you guys of this fundamental flaw in the liberal agenda... I'm confident that all in this forum agree with me on this topic. I'm simply amazed that Jambo could think our RIGHT to keep and bear arms is unassailable in this modern world. It is NOT, and we must do all in our power to PROTECT that Right, even if we choose not to exercise it. The fact that I may be "anti-gun" or a "pacifist" shouldn't limit YOUR right to own the means to protect yourself and your family when needed.
I have outlined my position on this matter in some detail (my "conversion post" is found HERE), but this warrants some re-touching...
In our recent past (that being defined by what we can recall as having effected us as individuals), we have seen the Federal Automatic Weapons Ban (HR 3355, signed into law in 1994) and the re-introduction of an even more aggressive ban proposed in SR 1431 in 2003, just months before the FAWB expired. These were the laws that made the purchase of a "folding" stock for our 10-22 Ruger ILLEGAL. The purchase or possession of a clip of ammunition that held more than 6 rounds was ILLEGAL under this law (thus, even our factory-made 10-round clips for the Ruger made the rifle ILLEGAL under certain conditions). Shotguns manufactured to hold more than 3 shells were ILLEGAL... semi-auto or otherwise. Handguns with a removable clip of more than 6 rounds (which constitutes 78% of all automatics made) were deemed ILLEGAL unless registered with FOUR Federal Agencies and State and local authorities.
The argument made in DC vs Heller was that the municipality had the right to regulate the sale and ownership of certain kinds of firearms, to better serve the safety of the general public. Crime did NOTHING but go UP after the ban, and gun-related violent crime rose by more than 60% in the greater DC area. As Ryan posted, the UK has had a handgun ban for more than 6 years now... and gun-related crimes have INCREASED by 40% across the board there.
As I have stated here in the past, the CRIME of this situation is that the Federal government here in the US has determined no less than 16 times that "... a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 1981 (the latest judicial example). If the individual safety of yourself or your family is NOT the responsibility of the government, at any level (meaning Fed, State or local)... then whose responsibility is it? Who is ultimately responsible for the safety and protection of YOUR children from acts of violent crime (which occur 18 times a minute in these United States of America RIGHT NOW)? Not the Federal authorities. Not the State Police. Not the local sheriff's department or police force.
So, it must be up to US, as individual citizens. It is simple and juvenile to assume that if it is ILLEGAL to own a handgun in a certain area (say Washington, DC), then criminals WON'T use them either. So, if someone is going to break into MY home with loaded weapons... I want to be able to exercise my Constitutional RIGHT to defend myself, my family and my property with whatever force is necessary to do so. If that means beating an intruder into a state of incapacity with a Louisville Slugger, then so be it... but I'd prefer to know that I don't have to be 36" from a violent criminal before I can defend myself. I want to be able to project the force needed to defend my home and family from a safe distance, and that means I want to be able to OWN A FIREARM that provides that force projection.
The premise of this post isn't to convince you guys of this fundamental flaw in the liberal agenda... I'm confident that all in this forum agree with me on this topic. I'm simply amazed that Jambo could think our RIGHT to keep and bear arms is unassailable in this modern world. It is NOT, and we must do all in our power to PROTECT that Right, even if we choose not to exercise it. The fact that I may be "anti-gun" or a "pacifist" shouldn't limit YOUR right to own the means to protect yourself and your family when needed.
Could it happen?
Okay, I read the post, check out the video, read Ryan's texts about the sun setting on the Empire and all that and fire off a quick text saying all this is well and good but it could never happen here. Let's face it. If the pro-life lobby had the voice of the NRA, abortion would have been outlawed years ago. Right?
Then I got to thinking for a moment and didn't feel so certain.
This really couldn't happen here, could it? The primary difference between Great Britain and the US in terms of gun control is the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Congress can't simply pass legislation stating all handguns are illegal, or only certain types of guns are legal, or such and such. An Amendment has to be made to the Constitution and that's no small thing. Could such legislation pass 3/4 of the States? Could Congress pass a call for such an amendment by 2/3 in each house, even with the houses dominated as they are now with Dems?
Talk to me.
Then I got to thinking for a moment and didn't feel so certain.
This really couldn't happen here, could it? The primary difference between Great Britain and the US in terms of gun control is the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Congress can't simply pass legislation stating all handguns are illegal, or only certain types of guns are legal, or such and such. An Amendment has to be made to the Constitution and that's no small thing. Could such legislation pass 3/4 of the States? Could Congress pass a call for such an amendment by 2/3 in each house, even with the houses dominated as they are now with Dems?
Talk to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
