Outgoing U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan traveled to the Harry Truman Library yesterday to deliver his valedictory. It was yet another sanctimonious broadside against the Bush administration.
Ho hum.
As Truman himself once said, in a different context: "That's plain hokum. If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em: It's an old political trick."
What Truman would say today about Annan himself, and the organization he has headed for the past 10 years, can only be imagined.
But it would be, in a word, colorful.
Annan, who leaves office in 19 days, said he chose the Truman Library in order to pay tribute to his "far-sighted American leadership in a great global endeavor" - and to draw a distinction with the current president.
He noted that Truman "insisted, when faced with aggression by North Korea against the South in 1950, on bringing the issue to the United Nations" - in contrast to the Bush administration on Iraq.
This turns history on its head a bit: Truman could do so only because the Soviet Union was then boycotting the Security Council - and thus couldn't veto the authorization of military force against North Korea.
Nowadays, the United Nations can't, or won't, move swiftly no matter what the emergency - witness the continued genocide in Darfur.
Annan also appeared never to have heard of the Truman Doctrine, as defined by the then-president: "It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."
Wise and courageous words - uttered in the same spirit that animated President Bush to act in Iraq, when Kofi Annan's United Nations refused to do so.
Just as Annan & Co. even now refuse to act on the nuclear ambitions of such rogue regimes as Iran and North Korea.
Frankly, it's no secret why Annan prefers to bash President Bush rather than focus on his own sorry tenure in office.
As secretary-general, Annan presided over Oil-for-Food, perhaps the biggest financial scandal in history - and in which his own son was involved.
He presided over yet another financial scandal, involving the U.N.'s procurement office. There was even a drug-smuggling ring operating out of his mailroom. His efforts at reforming the world body's basic infrastructure - particularly when it comes to human rights - were exposed as ludicrous, at best.
On an equally bizarre note, Annan yesterday proclaimed that all of the U.N.'s member nations "solemnly accepted" the "shared responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." Guess Darfur didn't count because that was only a "ethnicity-driven conflict" (his words not mine.)
Clearly, Annan hopes to confuse his listeners by ignoring the real problems facing the United Nations - and to evade his proper share of the blame for its descent into a cesspool of corruption and incompetence.
Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) yesterday said it best: Under Annan, the United Nations has become notorious for the "near-absence of standards of decency for the thuggish regimes that are too often empowered by its antiquated rules and procedures."
That Annan chose instead to bash the United States, added Hyde, was "completely predictable."
Harry Truman, certainly, understood the noble principles on which the United Nations was founded six decades ago.
Kofi Annan, during his tenure, betrayed them time and time again.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Monday, December 10, 2007
You can't find this in the New York Times
From the Cato Institute:
Opponents of trade liberalization have sought to indict free trade and trade agreements by painting a grim picture of the economic state of American workers and households. They claim that real wages have been stagnant or declining as millions of higher-paying middle-class jobs are lost to imports. But the reality for a broad swath of American workers and households is far different and more benign.
Contrary to public perceptions:
Trade has had no discernible, negative effect on the number of jobs in the U.S. economy. Our economy today is at full employment, with 16.5 million more people working than a decade ago.
Trade accounts for only about 3 percent of dislocated workers.Technology and other domestic factors displace far more workers than does trade.
Average real compensation per hour paid to American workers, which includes benefits as well as wages, has increased by 22 percent in the past decade.
Median household income in the United States is 6 percent higher in real dollars than it was a decade ago at a comparable point in the previous business cycle. Middle-class households have been moving up the income ladder, not down.
The net loss of 3.3 million manufacturing jobs in the past decade has been overwhelmed by a net gain of 11.6 million jobs in sectors where the average wage is higher than in manufacturing. Two-thirds of the net new jobs created since 1997 are in sectors where workers earn more than in manufacturing.
The median net worth of U.S. households jumped by almost one-third between 1995 and 2004, from $70,800 to $93,100.
The large majority of Americans, including the typical middle-class family, is measurably better off today after a decade of healthy trade expansion.
Contrary to public perceptions:
Trade has had no discernible, negative effect on the number of jobs in the U.S. economy. Our economy today is at full employment, with 16.5 million more people working than a decade ago.
Trade accounts for only about 3 percent of dislocated workers.Technology and other domestic factors displace far more workers than does trade.
Average real compensation per hour paid to American workers, which includes benefits as well as wages, has increased by 22 percent in the past decade.
Median household income in the United States is 6 percent higher in real dollars than it was a decade ago at a comparable point in the previous business cycle. Middle-class households have been moving up the income ladder, not down.
The net loss of 3.3 million manufacturing jobs in the past decade has been overwhelmed by a net gain of 11.6 million jobs in sectors where the average wage is higher than in manufacturing. Two-thirds of the net new jobs created since 1997 are in sectors where workers earn more than in manufacturing.
The median net worth of U.S. households jumped by almost one-third between 1995 and 2004, from $70,800 to $93,100.
The large majority of Americans, including the typical middle-class family, is measurably better off today after a decade of healthy trade expansion.
Sadly, you won't read this real news in the New York Times, they prefer to focus on impeaching Bush and delivering Democrat propaganda.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
It's Never Really Correct.
With the release of the new intelligence estimate debunking the claim that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, the CIA is earning laurels from lefty loons everywhere (Nancy Pelosi I'm looking at you) for puncturing the Bush Administration’s alarms about Tehran’s intentions. But is its new report really any more reliable than its original 2005 estimate, which declared that Iran was marching briskly towards attaining nuclear status? A look at the history of CIA estimates suggests that caution is in order. While estimates are only that—not, as is sometimes assumed, ironclad statements—and the difficulties of assessing clandestine programs are obvious, in no area has American intelligence gotten it wrong more often than when it comes to assessing foreign powers’ nuclear prowess.
The CIA’s first blunder established the pattern. In 1946, the CIA’s Office of Reports and Estimates confidently predicted that Stalin’s Soviet Union was years away from producing a bomb: “It is probable that the capability of the USSR to develop weapons based on atomic energy will be limited to the possible development of an atomic bomb to the stage of production at some time between 1950 and 1953. On this assumption, a quantity of such bombs could be produced and stockpiled by 1956.” On August 24, 1949, the office again declared that Stalin would most likely not be able to field an atomic bomb until mid-1953. Five days later, the Soviet Union conducted its first atomic test.
The Office of Reports and Estimates was supposed to prevent a repetition of the blunders and failure to organize intelligence that occurred before Pearl Harbor. Instead, its egregious mistakes, including failing to predict the beginning of the Korean War, meant that it was abolished in 1950. According to CIA historian Donald P. Steury, “it had been the object of repeated investigations, all of which condemned its failures without reservation.”
In the 1950s, the CIA also failed to anticipate how quickly the Soviet Union would detonate a hydrogen bomb. It began to reverse course, perhaps partly as a result of these embarrassments. Where it had previously downplayed Soviet progress, the agency now exaggerated it. Aware that the Soviets were tapping into the expertise of captured German scientists, the CIA concluded that a missile gap existed between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Soviet premier Nikita Khruschev had claimed, in the wake of the 1957 Sputnik success, that the USSR was producing missiles “like sausages.” The CIA took him at his word. According to Sidney Graybeal, who was a CIA analyst at the time, “the estimates were based on capabilities rather than hard facts.” They were also wrong. After John F. Kennedy became president, satellite photography revealed not only that there wasn’t a missile gap, but that the U.S. was far ahead in the arms race, one reason that the Soviets backed down during the October 1962 Cuban missile crisis.
A new round of contention erupted in the mid-1970s. Neoconservatives, led by Albert Wohlstetter, Richard Pipes and other members of the Committee on the Present Danger, charged that the CIA was tailoring its estimates on behalf of détente and soft-pedaling the size of the Soviet missile force. The famous Team B that challenged the CIA’s Team A charged, in what critics later claimed was an anticipation of the bogus claims made in the run-up to the Gulf War, that the USSR was on the march and that the CIA was all wet. Who got it right? In retrospect, the hawks wildly exaggerated the power and coherence of the Soviet Union, but it does seem clear that the Soviet Union was pouring vastly more resources into the military than the CIA had realized. (In addition, the CIA had rather amusingly concluded in the 1970s that East Germany was one of the top ten economies in the world. It remains an economic basket-case today.)
If the CIA had difficulties judging the Soviet Union, it also badly bungled its assessment of another country’s capabilities. In the 1950s, Israel’s Shimon Peres began dickering with France to obtain nuclear technology. In order to weaken Egypt, then supporting an anti-French insurgency in Algeria, Paris began helping Israel develop nuclear technology. It took the CIA until 1960 to realize that Israel was building a bomb in Dimona. John F. Kennedy successfully pressured Ben-Gurion into allowing a team of Americans to inspect the facility there, but they saw what they wanted to see, being unable to find any evidence that it was something other than a peaceful project. The CIA report on the failure to identify the Dimona project earlier has a familiar ring. It stated: "The general feeling that Israel could not achieve this capability without outside aid from the U.S. or its allies . . . led to the tendency to discount rumors of Israeli reactor construction and French collaboration in the nuclear weapons area."
Then there was India. In 1998 New Delhi conducted three nuclear tests. Once again, the CIA was caught napping. According to the May 18, 1998 Washington Post, “six hours before the tests, no CIA warning was issued because the U.S. analysts responsible for tracking the Indian nuclear program had not expected the tests and were not on alert.” Congress was apoplectic. “Our failure to detect this shows that India did a good job of concealing their intentions, while we did a dreadfully inadequate job of detecting those intentions", said Senator Richard Shelby, then chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence. In response, the CIA could only state the obvious: "It is apparent that the Indians went to some lengths to conceal their activities and intentions.”
Is it that surprising, then, that the intelligence community has found Iraq and Iran to be so vexing? When it came to Iraq, American intelligence agencies radically underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein had made before the first Gulf War toward a nuclear bomb. This was one of the reasons that it then reversed course before the second Gulf War, furnishing the Bush Administration with what it wanted in the National Intelligence Estimate released in 2003. That document infamously declared, “We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.”
Now, in the midst of President Bush’s mutterings about a possible World War III with Tehran, the CIA has performed a somersault on Iran. Opponents of bombing Iran have seized on the latest estimate to discredit Bush, while neoconservatives like Norman Podhoretz splutter that it represents a dastardly CIA plot to undermine Bush. Neoconservative distaste for the CIA is longstanding. It has been voiced by Laurie Mylroie, who believes that Saddam Hussein was behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center; David Frum and Richard Perle, in their book “An End to Evil”, present the CIA as a subversive institution intent on sabotaging the fight against terrorism. In a sense, such inanities signal that neoconservatism, which started out as a Trotskyist movement vociferously opposed to American government institutions, has now come full circle.
Neither the boosters of the new report nor its detractors really have it right. The rapidity with which the CIA has reversed course on Iran should itself induce circumspection. Dealing with Iran diplomatically may well be the best option, but the latest intelligence report shouldn’t serve as the final verdict on its nuclear intentions. Deciding how best to deal with Iran cannot rest on a single estimate that likely represents guesswork and inferences more than verifiable information.
The CIA’s first blunder established the pattern. In 1946, the CIA’s Office of Reports and Estimates confidently predicted that Stalin’s Soviet Union was years away from producing a bomb: “It is probable that the capability of the USSR to develop weapons based on atomic energy will be limited to the possible development of an atomic bomb to the stage of production at some time between 1950 and 1953. On this assumption, a quantity of such bombs could be produced and stockpiled by 1956.” On August 24, 1949, the office again declared that Stalin would most likely not be able to field an atomic bomb until mid-1953. Five days later, the Soviet Union conducted its first atomic test.
The Office of Reports and Estimates was supposed to prevent a repetition of the blunders and failure to organize intelligence that occurred before Pearl Harbor. Instead, its egregious mistakes, including failing to predict the beginning of the Korean War, meant that it was abolished in 1950. According to CIA historian Donald P. Steury, “it had been the object of repeated investigations, all of which condemned its failures without reservation.”
In the 1950s, the CIA also failed to anticipate how quickly the Soviet Union would detonate a hydrogen bomb. It began to reverse course, perhaps partly as a result of these embarrassments. Where it had previously downplayed Soviet progress, the agency now exaggerated it. Aware that the Soviets were tapping into the expertise of captured German scientists, the CIA concluded that a missile gap existed between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Soviet premier Nikita Khruschev had claimed, in the wake of the 1957 Sputnik success, that the USSR was producing missiles “like sausages.” The CIA took him at his word. According to Sidney Graybeal, who was a CIA analyst at the time, “the estimates were based on capabilities rather than hard facts.” They were also wrong. After John F. Kennedy became president, satellite photography revealed not only that there wasn’t a missile gap, but that the U.S. was far ahead in the arms race, one reason that the Soviets backed down during the October 1962 Cuban missile crisis.
A new round of contention erupted in the mid-1970s. Neoconservatives, led by Albert Wohlstetter, Richard Pipes and other members of the Committee on the Present Danger, charged that the CIA was tailoring its estimates on behalf of détente and soft-pedaling the size of the Soviet missile force. The famous Team B that challenged the CIA’s Team A charged, in what critics later claimed was an anticipation of the bogus claims made in the run-up to the Gulf War, that the USSR was on the march and that the CIA was all wet. Who got it right? In retrospect, the hawks wildly exaggerated the power and coherence of the Soviet Union, but it does seem clear that the Soviet Union was pouring vastly more resources into the military than the CIA had realized. (In addition, the CIA had rather amusingly concluded in the 1970s that East Germany was one of the top ten economies in the world. It remains an economic basket-case today.)
If the CIA had difficulties judging the Soviet Union, it also badly bungled its assessment of another country’s capabilities. In the 1950s, Israel’s Shimon Peres began dickering with France to obtain nuclear technology. In order to weaken Egypt, then supporting an anti-French insurgency in Algeria, Paris began helping Israel develop nuclear technology. It took the CIA until 1960 to realize that Israel was building a bomb in Dimona. John F. Kennedy successfully pressured Ben-Gurion into allowing a team of Americans to inspect the facility there, but they saw what they wanted to see, being unable to find any evidence that it was something other than a peaceful project. The CIA report on the failure to identify the Dimona project earlier has a familiar ring. It stated: "The general feeling that Israel could not achieve this capability without outside aid from the U.S. or its allies . . . led to the tendency to discount rumors of Israeli reactor construction and French collaboration in the nuclear weapons area."
Then there was India. In 1998 New Delhi conducted three nuclear tests. Once again, the CIA was caught napping. According to the May 18, 1998 Washington Post, “six hours before the tests, no CIA warning was issued because the U.S. analysts responsible for tracking the Indian nuclear program had not expected the tests and were not on alert.” Congress was apoplectic. “Our failure to detect this shows that India did a good job of concealing their intentions, while we did a dreadfully inadequate job of detecting those intentions", said Senator Richard Shelby, then chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence. In response, the CIA could only state the obvious: "It is apparent that the Indians went to some lengths to conceal their activities and intentions.”
Is it that surprising, then, that the intelligence community has found Iraq and Iran to be so vexing? When it came to Iraq, American intelligence agencies radically underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein had made before the first Gulf War toward a nuclear bomb. This was one of the reasons that it then reversed course before the second Gulf War, furnishing the Bush Administration with what it wanted in the National Intelligence Estimate released in 2003. That document infamously declared, “We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.”
Now, in the midst of President Bush’s mutterings about a possible World War III with Tehran, the CIA has performed a somersault on Iran. Opponents of bombing Iran have seized on the latest estimate to discredit Bush, while neoconservatives like Norman Podhoretz splutter that it represents a dastardly CIA plot to undermine Bush. Neoconservative distaste for the CIA is longstanding. It has been voiced by Laurie Mylroie, who believes that Saddam Hussein was behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center; David Frum and Richard Perle, in their book “An End to Evil”, present the CIA as a subversive institution intent on sabotaging the fight against terrorism. In a sense, such inanities signal that neoconservatism, which started out as a Trotskyist movement vociferously opposed to American government institutions, has now come full circle.
Neither the boosters of the new report nor its detractors really have it right. The rapidity with which the CIA has reversed course on Iran should itself induce circumspection. Dealing with Iran diplomatically may well be the best option, but the latest intelligence report shouldn’t serve as the final verdict on its nuclear intentions. Deciding how best to deal with Iran cannot rest on a single estimate that likely represents guesswork and inferences more than verifiable information.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Elections, Russian Style
Yesterday's elections ended in a landslide victory for Vladimir "Shorter Stalin" Putin. This is no shock, but it does allow an observer to take away a few key points about how to win an election.
1. Arrest your opponents.
If the people running against you are in jail, they can't win. Putin knows this and ordered the Russian army to arrest one time chess champion and opposition leader, Gary Kasparov.
2. Convince other parties not to run.
When the only serious opponant to you is a commie, and the other serious political parties are endorsing you for fear of being labeled "terrorists," you have an increased chance of winning.
3. Just plain lie.
I'm not talking lie like the way Bill "Ladies Man" Clinton tells people he's always been against the Iraq War when in fact he told a magazine he was for the war. I'm talking lying in the tradition of bizzare UFO conspiracy people, Putin told people that he has recieved visions from God telling him to run, and that the United States is a "devil country... that seeks to destory our great nation."
4. Kill Opponants.
This is the big one. Hitler knew this, Saddam knew this, Nero knew this, and now Putin knows it because he ordered the G.R.U. to poison a key opposition candidate.
1. Arrest your opponents.
If the people running against you are in jail, they can't win. Putin knows this and ordered the Russian army to arrest one time chess champion and opposition leader, Gary Kasparov.
2. Convince other parties not to run.
When the only serious opponant to you is a commie, and the other serious political parties are endorsing you for fear of being labeled "terrorists," you have an increased chance of winning.
3. Just plain lie.
I'm not talking lie like the way Bill "Ladies Man" Clinton tells people he's always been against the Iraq War when in fact he told a magazine he was for the war. I'm talking lying in the tradition of bizzare UFO conspiracy people, Putin told people that he has recieved visions from God telling him to run, and that the United States is a "devil country... that seeks to destory our great nation."
4. Kill Opponants.
This is the big one. Hitler knew this, Saddam knew this, Nero knew this, and now Putin knows it because he ordered the G.R.U. to poison a key opposition candidate.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
So Close, But Yet So Far
Al Gore finally got to visit a place where, but for the intelligence of a couple hundred Floridians, he would be living. That place is the White House, where he talked about global warming with President Bush. The two men refused to talk about details of their conversation, so they could have just been talking about if Bret Farve is going to set anymore records this season. But Bush is preparing for a global conference next week in Bali, Indonesia, and I'dlike to think he isn't still swallowing Gore's lies about Global Warming and Greenhouse Gas Emmisions.
"It was a private conversation," Gore said after the meeting. "Of course we talked about global warming . . . the whole time."
As liberal wackos everywhere fawn over, Gore was instrumental as vice president in negotiating the 1997 Kyoto Accord. But President Clinton never submitted the treaty to Congress, and Bush has steadfastly opposed costly green mandates in favor of voluntary caps on CO2 emissions.
So was Bush just being polite to his one-time political rival? Again, we hope so. But who can be sure in an atmosphere where the nonstop propaganda on global warming has become almost intolerable.
Just listen to the United Nations, which released a granola-fest Human Development Report just one week before the Bali meeting. "Unless the international community agrees to cut carbon emissions by half over the next generation," the report says (according to Reuters), "climate change is likely to cause large-scale human and economic setbacks and irreversible catastrophes."
If that sounds terrifying, it's meant to. But there isn't a shred of science to back it up — only spurious "models" based on an incomplete picture of how nature and the climate work.
If you don't believe us, just ask any of the politically hand-picked U.N. scientists who concocted these models if they can tell you, within one degree, what the temperature in your town will be one week from today — or one month. The answer will be no.
Yet we're expected to believe they can predict a rise in temperature of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit — or higher — over the next century, unless we take immediate and dramatic action to halt it. By the way, over the last century, the world's climate warmed just 1.3 degrees.
Undeterred by the crumbling of the much-touted "scientific consensus," the U.N. is charging ahead, claiming the world has just 10 years to "fix" the climate — or face doomsday.
The claims are getting extreme, and bizarrely specific. The headline on one story about the report — "Poor In Need of Help From Global Warming" — because anything bad needs to hurt the poor, that way the mibos in Hollywood like Leonardo DiCaprio can try and save the poor from the evil of Global Warming.
But it's no joke. And why would the U.N. say all this, if it isn't true?
In a word, money. The U.N. has bungled virtually every job it's been given — from peacekeeping in Africa to monitoring sanctions on Iraq. As an organization, it's rife with corruption and overpaid bureaucratic time-servers. They need a new mission, which always means American taxpayers will have to reach for their wallets.
Which explains why the "Development Report" can claim that floods, droughts and other climate-related disasters "could stall and then reverse human development," robbing millions of food, schools and even shelter — unless, that is, rich nations pony up $86 billion by 2015 to help the poor adapt to global warming.
Oh, and by the way, the U.N. says $40 billion of that will have to come from the U.S. Of course, the U.N. will oversee that money.
The U.N.'s shrill warnings have reached a hysteric pitch — the equivalent of shrieking "fire" in a packed theater on the theory there might be one in the future.
But what's really taking place is a massive shakedown in which our sympathies for the poor are being played while our pockets are being picked. The United Nations should be ashamed of itself.
"It was a private conversation," Gore said after the meeting. "Of course we talked about global warming . . . the whole time."
As liberal wackos everywhere fawn over, Gore was instrumental as vice president in negotiating the 1997 Kyoto Accord. But President Clinton never submitted the treaty to Congress, and Bush has steadfastly opposed costly green mandates in favor of voluntary caps on CO2 emissions.
So was Bush just being polite to his one-time political rival? Again, we hope so. But who can be sure in an atmosphere where the nonstop propaganda on global warming has become almost intolerable.
Just listen to the United Nations, which released a granola-fest Human Development Report just one week before the Bali meeting. "Unless the international community agrees to cut carbon emissions by half over the next generation," the report says (according to Reuters), "climate change is likely to cause large-scale human and economic setbacks and irreversible catastrophes."
If that sounds terrifying, it's meant to. But there isn't a shred of science to back it up — only spurious "models" based on an incomplete picture of how nature and the climate work.
If you don't believe us, just ask any of the politically hand-picked U.N. scientists who concocted these models if they can tell you, within one degree, what the temperature in your town will be one week from today — or one month. The answer will be no.
Yet we're expected to believe they can predict a rise in temperature of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit — or higher — over the next century, unless we take immediate and dramatic action to halt it. By the way, over the last century, the world's climate warmed just 1.3 degrees.
Undeterred by the crumbling of the much-touted "scientific consensus," the U.N. is charging ahead, claiming the world has just 10 years to "fix" the climate — or face doomsday.
The claims are getting extreme, and bizarrely specific. The headline on one story about the report — "Poor In Need of Help From Global Warming" — because anything bad needs to hurt the poor, that way the mibos in Hollywood like Leonardo DiCaprio can try and save the poor from the evil of Global Warming.
But it's no joke. And why would the U.N. say all this, if it isn't true?
In a word, money. The U.N. has bungled virtually every job it's been given — from peacekeeping in Africa to monitoring sanctions on Iraq. As an organization, it's rife with corruption and overpaid bureaucratic time-servers. They need a new mission, which always means American taxpayers will have to reach for their wallets.
Which explains why the "Development Report" can claim that floods, droughts and other climate-related disasters "could stall and then reverse human development," robbing millions of food, schools and even shelter — unless, that is, rich nations pony up $86 billion by 2015 to help the poor adapt to global warming.
Oh, and by the way, the U.N. says $40 billion of that will have to come from the U.S. Of course, the U.N. will oversee that money.
The U.N.'s shrill warnings have reached a hysteric pitch — the equivalent of shrieking "fire" in a packed theater on the theory there might be one in the future.
But what's really taking place is a massive shakedown in which our sympathies for the poor are being played while our pockets are being picked. The United Nations should be ashamed of itself.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Good Ol' Fasion Mud-Slinging
As the hopeless but energetic presidential campaign of Ron "Just Say No to Everything" Paul builds momentum in name recognition, fundraising and cross-ideology appeal, some conservatives are beginning to attack him in earnest.
A GOP consultant condemns Paul's "increasingly leftish" positions. Syndicated columnist Mona Charen calls Paul "too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists." Film critic and talk-radio host Michael Medved looks over Paul's supporters and finds "an imposing collection of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 'truthers' and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists."
For the most part, these allegations strike me as overblown and unfair. But, for argument's sake, let's say they're not. Let's even say that Paul has the passionate support of the Legion of Doom, that his campaign lunchroom looks like the "Star Wars" cantina, and that his top advisors have hooves instead of feet.
Well, I'd still find him less scary than Mike "The Preacher" Huckabee.
While many are marveling at Paul's success at breaking out of the tinfoil-hat ghetto, Huckabee's story is even more remarkable. The former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister is polling in second place in Iowa and could conceivably win there. He's still a long shot to take the nomination and a pipe dream to take the presidency, but Huckabee matters in a way that Paul still doesn't.
One small indicator of Huckabee's relevance: His presidential opponents are attacking Huckabee while ignoring Paul like he's an eccentric sitting too close to you on the bus.
What's so scary about Huckabee? Personally, nothing. He seems a charming, decent, friendly, pious man.
What's troubling about The Man From Hope 2.0 is what he represents. Huckabee represents compassionate conservatism on steroids.
A devout social conservative on issues such as abortion, school prayer, homosexuality and evolution, Huckabee's a populist on economics, a fad-follower on the environment and an all-around do-gooder who believes that the biblical obligation to do "good works" extends to using government - and your tax dollars - to bring us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
For example, Huckabee would support a nationwide ban on public smoking. Why? Because he's on a health kick, thinks smoking is bad and believes the government should do the right thing.
And therein lies the chief difference between Paul and Huckabee: One is a culturally conservative libertarian; the other is a right-wing progressive. Whatever shortcomings Paul and his friends might have, his dogma generally renders those shortcomings irrelevant. He is a true ideologue in that his personal preferences are secondary to his philosophical principles. When asked what his position is, he generally responds that his position can be deduced from the text of the Constitution. Of course, that's not as dispositive as he thinks it is. But you get the point.
As for Huckabee - as with most politicians, alas - his personal preferences matter enormously because, ultimately, they're the only things that can be relied on to constrain him.
In this respect, Huckabee's philosophy is conventionally liberal, or progressive. What he wants government to do certainly differs in important respects from what Hillary Clinton wants, but the limits he would place on governmental do-goodery are primarily tactical or practical, not philosophical or constitutional.
This isn't to say he - unlike Hillary - is a would-be tyrant, but simply to note that the progressive notion of the state as a loving, caring parent is becoming a bipartisan affair.
Indeed, Huckabee represents the latest attempt to make conservatism more popular. Contrary to the conventional belief that Republicans need to drop their opposition to abortion, gay marriage and the like in order to be popular, Huckabee understands that the unpopular stuff is the economic libertarianism: free trade and smaller government. That's why we're seeing a rise in economic populism on the right married to a culturally conservative populism. Huckabee is the bastard child of Lou Dobbs and Pat Robertson.
Historically, the conservative movement benefited from the tension between libertarianism and cultural traditionalism. This tension - and the effort to reconcile it under the name "fusionism" - has been mischaracterized as a battle between right-wing factions when it's really a conflict that runs through the heart of every conservative. We all have little Mike Huckabees and Ron Pauls sitting on our shoulders. Neither is always right, but both should be listened to.
I would not vote for Paul mostly because I think his foreign policy would be disastrous (Also, he'd lose in a rout not seen since Bambi versus Godzilla) but other than that Paul knows what he's talking about. There's something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the wonderful and amazing Republican Party, while Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog.
It's even weirder because it's probably true: Huckabee is much closer to the mainstream. And that's what scares me about Huckabee and the mainstream alike.
A GOP consultant condemns Paul's "increasingly leftish" positions. Syndicated columnist Mona Charen calls Paul "too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists." Film critic and talk-radio host Michael Medved looks over Paul's supporters and finds "an imposing collection of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 'truthers' and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists."
For the most part, these allegations strike me as overblown and unfair. But, for argument's sake, let's say they're not. Let's even say that Paul has the passionate support of the Legion of Doom, that his campaign lunchroom looks like the "Star Wars" cantina, and that his top advisors have hooves instead of feet.
Well, I'd still find him less scary than Mike "The Preacher" Huckabee.
While many are marveling at Paul's success at breaking out of the tinfoil-hat ghetto, Huckabee's story is even more remarkable. The former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister is polling in second place in Iowa and could conceivably win there. He's still a long shot to take the nomination and a pipe dream to take the presidency, but Huckabee matters in a way that Paul still doesn't.
One small indicator of Huckabee's relevance: His presidential opponents are attacking Huckabee while ignoring Paul like he's an eccentric sitting too close to you on the bus.
What's so scary about Huckabee? Personally, nothing. He seems a charming, decent, friendly, pious man.
What's troubling about The Man From Hope 2.0 is what he represents. Huckabee represents compassionate conservatism on steroids.
A devout social conservative on issues such as abortion, school prayer, homosexuality and evolution, Huckabee's a populist on economics, a fad-follower on the environment and an all-around do-gooder who believes that the biblical obligation to do "good works" extends to using government - and your tax dollars - to bring us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
For example, Huckabee would support a nationwide ban on public smoking. Why? Because he's on a health kick, thinks smoking is bad and believes the government should do the right thing.
And therein lies the chief difference between Paul and Huckabee: One is a culturally conservative libertarian; the other is a right-wing progressive. Whatever shortcomings Paul and his friends might have, his dogma generally renders those shortcomings irrelevant. He is a true ideologue in that his personal preferences are secondary to his philosophical principles. When asked what his position is, he generally responds that his position can be deduced from the text of the Constitution. Of course, that's not as dispositive as he thinks it is. But you get the point.
As for Huckabee - as with most politicians, alas - his personal preferences matter enormously because, ultimately, they're the only things that can be relied on to constrain him.
In this respect, Huckabee's philosophy is conventionally liberal, or progressive. What he wants government to do certainly differs in important respects from what Hillary Clinton wants, but the limits he would place on governmental do-goodery are primarily tactical or practical, not philosophical or constitutional.
This isn't to say he - unlike Hillary - is a would-be tyrant, but simply to note that the progressive notion of the state as a loving, caring parent is becoming a bipartisan affair.
Indeed, Huckabee represents the latest attempt to make conservatism more popular. Contrary to the conventional belief that Republicans need to drop their opposition to abortion, gay marriage and the like in order to be popular, Huckabee understands that the unpopular stuff is the economic libertarianism: free trade and smaller government. That's why we're seeing a rise in economic populism on the right married to a culturally conservative populism. Huckabee is the bastard child of Lou Dobbs and Pat Robertson.
Historically, the conservative movement benefited from the tension between libertarianism and cultural traditionalism. This tension - and the effort to reconcile it under the name "fusionism" - has been mischaracterized as a battle between right-wing factions when it's really a conflict that runs through the heart of every conservative. We all have little Mike Huckabees and Ron Pauls sitting on our shoulders. Neither is always right, but both should be listened to.
I would not vote for Paul mostly because I think his foreign policy would be disastrous (Also, he'd lose in a rout not seen since Bambi versus Godzilla) but other than that Paul knows what he's talking about. There's something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the wonderful and amazing Republican Party, while Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog.
It's even weirder because it's probably true: Huckabee is much closer to the mainstream. And that's what scares me about Huckabee and the mainstream alike.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Keep it in Your Pants Al
What isn't it being blamed for, from increased amounts of cockroaches, to poison ivy, to autism, global warming is now being blamed for the forest fires in California.
The CBS news show "60 Minutes" — which has a history of promoting climate alarmism — kicked off the blame-global-warming campaign last Sunday with a segment entitled "The Age of Mega-Fires."
Reporter and scaremonger-extraordinaire Scott Pelley prompted chief federal firefighter Tom Boatner with the statement, "You know, there are a lot of people who don't believe in climate change."
Boatner responded: "You won't find them on the fire line in the American West anymore, because we've had climate change beat into us over the last 10 or 15 years. We know what we're seeing, and we're dealing with a period of climate, in terms of temperature and humidity and drought, that's different than anything people have seen in our lifetimes."
CNN's Anderson "Too Cool to Wear a Tie" Cooper incorporated the fires into his plug for the left-wing cable channel's alarmist program "Planet in Peril."
"At the top of the next hour, as I said, the big picture," said Cooper. "These fires are really a piece of it. Fire, drought, global warming, climate change, deforestation, it is all connected. Tonight, 9:00 p.m. Eastern — 'Planet in Peril' starts in just 30 minutes."
It came as no surprise, then, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters this week, "One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming."
Even a fifteen-year old can see the flaws in this reasoning.
The alarmists' line of reasoning appears to be that: one, man-made carbon-dioxide emissions increase global temperature; two, increased global temperature alters atmospheric conditions to prevent rainfall; and three, ensuing drought conditions are exacerbated by warmer temperatures that increase drying on the ground.
This line of thinking falls apart at the very beginning, of course, since it's not at all clear that global temperatures are driven by atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.
But for the sake of argument, we will continue down the path of the alarmists' thinking.
So does rising global temperature cause drought?
In the context of what appears to have been a one-degree Fahrenheit rise in mean global temperature since 1900, the observed relationship between temperature and precipitation in North America does not favor the hypothesis.
During the period 1900-2005, precipitation seems to have actually increased in areas above 30 degrees north latitude — including California and the rest of the U.S. — according to the most recent assessment from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This does not mean, of course, that droughts haven't occurred in North America over the last 100 years, but it doesn't support a link between rising global temperature and increased drought.
Examining the occurrence of drought in southern California since 1900 is also illuminating.
According to data maintained by the federal National Climatic Data Center, drought conditions are no stranger to southern California.
During the period 1900 to 2005, moderate-to-severe drought conditions occurred in Southern California during 34 of those 106 years — that is, about one-third of the time.
Comparing the southern California drought record against the global temperature record reveals the following:
— During the period 1900-1940, when most of the 20th century's one-degree Fahrenheit temperature increase occurred, there were 7 years of moderate-to-severe drought.
— During the period 1941-1975, when global temperatures cooled, giving rise to concerns of a looming ice age, there were 11 years of moderate-to-severe drought.
— During the period 1976 to 1990, when global temperatures rose back to the 1940 level, there were 8 years of moderate-to-severe drought.
— Since 1991, when global temperatures rose slightly past the 1940 levels, there have been 7 years of drought.
It's a record that would seems to largely prevent any simple conclusions from being drawn — that is, rising temperatures with few drought years, followed by falling temperatures and increasing drought frequency, followed by temperatures rising back to the original levels with increased drought frequency, followed by a leveling off of drought occurrence despite higher temperatures.
Though there is no obvious relationship between global temperature and drought in southern California, the alarmists nevertheless advocate the quixotic task of preventing drought and wildfires by controlling greenhouse-gas emissions.
Global warming, it seems, also makes a good excuse for federal and state bureaucrats and politicians who have failed to properly manage high-risk areas, at least in part because of pressure from anti-logging and anti-development environmental groups.
We can be better prepared for drought and wildfires by improving forest management — asthe Competive Enterprise Institute previously suggested in the aftermath of the deadly California wildfires of 2003.
Drought and forest fires happen. We have no reason to think that we can do anything to prevent the former, but we know that can do a lot about preventing and controlling the latter — if only the environmentalists will let us.
The CBS news show "60 Minutes" — which has a history of promoting climate alarmism — kicked off the blame-global-warming campaign last Sunday with a segment entitled "The Age of Mega-Fires."
Reporter and scaremonger-extraordinaire Scott Pelley prompted chief federal firefighter Tom Boatner with the statement, "You know, there are a lot of people who don't believe in climate change."
Boatner responded: "You won't find them on the fire line in the American West anymore, because we've had climate change beat into us over the last 10 or 15 years. We know what we're seeing, and we're dealing with a period of climate, in terms of temperature and humidity and drought, that's different than anything people have seen in our lifetimes."
CNN's Anderson "Too Cool to Wear a Tie" Cooper incorporated the fires into his plug for the left-wing cable channel's alarmist program "Planet in Peril."
"At the top of the next hour, as I said, the big picture," said Cooper. "These fires are really a piece of it. Fire, drought, global warming, climate change, deforestation, it is all connected. Tonight, 9:00 p.m. Eastern — 'Planet in Peril' starts in just 30 minutes."
It came as no surprise, then, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters this week, "One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming."
Even a fifteen-year old can see the flaws in this reasoning.
The alarmists' line of reasoning appears to be that: one, man-made carbon-dioxide emissions increase global temperature; two, increased global temperature alters atmospheric conditions to prevent rainfall; and three, ensuing drought conditions are exacerbated by warmer temperatures that increase drying on the ground.
This line of thinking falls apart at the very beginning, of course, since it's not at all clear that global temperatures are driven by atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.
But for the sake of argument, we will continue down the path of the alarmists' thinking.
So does rising global temperature cause drought?
In the context of what appears to have been a one-degree Fahrenheit rise in mean global temperature since 1900, the observed relationship between temperature and precipitation in North America does not favor the hypothesis.
During the period 1900-2005, precipitation seems to have actually increased in areas above 30 degrees north latitude — including California and the rest of the U.S. — according to the most recent assessment from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This does not mean, of course, that droughts haven't occurred in North America over the last 100 years, but it doesn't support a link between rising global temperature and increased drought.
Examining the occurrence of drought in southern California since 1900 is also illuminating.
According to data maintained by the federal National Climatic Data Center, drought conditions are no stranger to southern California.
During the period 1900 to 2005, moderate-to-severe drought conditions occurred in Southern California during 34 of those 106 years — that is, about one-third of the time.
Comparing the southern California drought record against the global temperature record reveals the following:
— During the period 1900-1940, when most of the 20th century's one-degree Fahrenheit temperature increase occurred, there were 7 years of moderate-to-severe drought.
— During the period 1941-1975, when global temperatures cooled, giving rise to concerns of a looming ice age, there were 11 years of moderate-to-severe drought.
— During the period 1976 to 1990, when global temperatures rose back to the 1940 level, there were 8 years of moderate-to-severe drought.
— Since 1991, when global temperatures rose slightly past the 1940 levels, there have been 7 years of drought.
It's a record that would seems to largely prevent any simple conclusions from being drawn — that is, rising temperatures with few drought years, followed by falling temperatures and increasing drought frequency, followed by temperatures rising back to the original levels with increased drought frequency, followed by a leveling off of drought occurrence despite higher temperatures.
Though there is no obvious relationship between global temperature and drought in southern California, the alarmists nevertheless advocate the quixotic task of preventing drought and wildfires by controlling greenhouse-gas emissions.
Global warming, it seems, also makes a good excuse for federal and state bureaucrats and politicians who have failed to properly manage high-risk areas, at least in part because of pressure from anti-logging and anti-development environmental groups.
We can be better prepared for drought and wildfires by improving forest management — asthe Competive Enterprise Institute previously suggested in the aftermath of the deadly California wildfires of 2003.
Drought and forest fires happen. We have no reason to think that we can do anything to prevent the former, but we know that can do a lot about preventing and controlling the latter — if only the environmentalists will let us.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Battle of the Titans
I just finished simulating the Patriots/Colts matchup on Madded '08, it was a CPU on CPU simulation that had the Colts winning 21 to 7, needless to say this left me very depressed, as did the USA Today, in which five out of six experts picked the Colts to win. ESPN.com brought my spirits up, with an even split between Patriots and Colts and one expert who predicted a tie. Personally, I think the Patriots will win and not just because I love the Patriots, but because it makes sense. Last year, Tom Brady almost defeated the Colts with a receiving corps consisting of Jabbar Gaffney, Reche Caldwell and four-week wonders such as Zuriel Smith, Erik Davis, and Rich Musinski. Now that the receiving corps has been rebuilt with Randy Moss, who is playing his A-Game after languishing in the black hole that was the Raiders Offense, and Wes "Hands" Welker, and Dante "Mr. YAC" Stallworth, Tom Brady has enough weapons to play to his full potential and will defeat the Colts with a score of 35-25.
I Love the Small of Rosted Socialist in the Morning
Finally, Hillary "Praying mantis in a pant suit" Clinton is getting some questions that don't sound like her campaign wrote them. More important: People are finally noticing that in answering questions, she follows the advice of Yogi Berra: "If you come to a fork in the road, take it."
At Tuesday's Democratic debate in Philadelphia, Clinton was asked whether she supports Gov. Spitzer's plan to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses. Her response can be summarized as: Yes, no, maybe, sorta, kinda; Hey, look over there!
Before the press corps relapses into its coma and Clinton's competitors go back to hiding from her shadow, let's see if she can answer a few more questions:
* After the Philadelphia debate, your campaign tried to explain away your lackluster performance by implying your male competitors were unfairly "piling on" because you're a woman. Do you really think sexism is an issue here? Which of your Democratic opponents are the most sexist? Will you play this card with foreign leaders if you run into trouble as commander in chief?
* You keep saying that Social Security has lost 14 years of solvency on President Bush's watch. In 2000, your husband's last year in office, the program's trustees said it would be solvent until 2037. Now they say it'll be solvent until 2041.
As the most serious female candidate for president we've ever had, aren't you setting a bad example by not being able to do math?
* In the '90s, the Clinton administration furiously denied the suggestion you were a "co-president." Now you routinely suggest your tenure as first lady was presidential experience. So which was it?
And why should your tenure in the Clinton administration count when the one thing you ran - health-care reform - failed miserably without a vote in Congress?
* You've said this administration's secrecy "on matters large and small is very disturbing." In particular, you and other Democrats have criticized Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to be more open about his energy task force. Were you disturbed by your health-care task force's similar secrecy? And why do you tacitly support your husband's refusal to release your White House correspondence from the National Archives? You've said the documents are being released on the archives' timetable, but your husband appointed his longtime henchman, Bruce Lindsey, to manage the release of such records. Why isn't that disturbing?
* In 1993, staffers on your secretive health-care task force penned a memo in which they schemed to use state-run children's health insurance - "Kids First" - as a first step toward the nationalization of health care. "Kids First is really a precursor to the new system," they wrote. Do you still share that ambition? Is that why you support the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP?
* In 1996, you said, "As adults we have to start thinking and believing that there isn't really any such thing as someone else's child." Given that many people think their children do belong to them and not the government, does it surprise you they that they cherish their gun rights?
* You've repeatedly denounced Halliburton's "no-bid contracts." Did you object when the Clinton administration awarded a similar non-competitive contract to Halliburton for reconstruction work in the former Yugoslavia? If not, why not? If so, why didn't your husband listen?
* Can you explain - without accusing anyone of anti-Asian bigotry - why so many Chinese criminals keep giving you and your husband piles of cash?
* When promoting your autobiography, you gave interviews expanding on your personal feelings while insisting you'd rather talk about substance. Yet you told The Washington Post that you wouldn't discuss the political substance in your book. Why? Because playing the victim helps?
* You've claimed that you're the Democrat best able to "deal" with the Republicans' natural advantage if there is another terrorist attack. Why is it wrong for Republicans to say they're tougher on terrorism than Democrats, but OK for you to say so?
* Does your bizzare and foolish decision as first lady to sit silently next to Suha Arafat as she viciously and deceitfully propagandized against Israel weigh against your tough-on-terror credentials? How about the $50,000 you took in 2000 from the anti-Semitic and pro-terror American Muslim Alliance, which you returned only after being criticized for it?
* Do you think Republicans won't ask these questions? Why? Because you're a woman?
At Tuesday's Democratic debate in Philadelphia, Clinton was asked whether she supports Gov. Spitzer's plan to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses. Her response can be summarized as: Yes, no, maybe, sorta, kinda; Hey, look over there!
Before the press corps relapses into its coma and Clinton's competitors go back to hiding from her shadow, let's see if she can answer a few more questions:
* After the Philadelphia debate, your campaign tried to explain away your lackluster performance by implying your male competitors were unfairly "piling on" because you're a woman. Do you really think sexism is an issue here? Which of your Democratic opponents are the most sexist? Will you play this card with foreign leaders if you run into trouble as commander in chief?
* You keep saying that Social Security has lost 14 years of solvency on President Bush's watch. In 2000, your husband's last year in office, the program's trustees said it would be solvent until 2037. Now they say it'll be solvent until 2041.
As the most serious female candidate for president we've ever had, aren't you setting a bad example by not being able to do math?
* In the '90s, the Clinton administration furiously denied the suggestion you were a "co-president." Now you routinely suggest your tenure as first lady was presidential experience. So which was it?
And why should your tenure in the Clinton administration count when the one thing you ran - health-care reform - failed miserably without a vote in Congress?
* You've said this administration's secrecy "on matters large and small is very disturbing." In particular, you and other Democrats have criticized Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to be more open about his energy task force. Were you disturbed by your health-care task force's similar secrecy? And why do you tacitly support your husband's refusal to release your White House correspondence from the National Archives? You've said the documents are being released on the archives' timetable, but your husband appointed his longtime henchman, Bruce Lindsey, to manage the release of such records. Why isn't that disturbing?
* In 1993, staffers on your secretive health-care task force penned a memo in which they schemed to use state-run children's health insurance - "Kids First" - as a first step toward the nationalization of health care. "Kids First is really a precursor to the new system," they wrote. Do you still share that ambition? Is that why you support the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP?
* In 1996, you said, "As adults we have to start thinking and believing that there isn't really any such thing as someone else's child." Given that many people think their children do belong to them and not the government, does it surprise you they that they cherish their gun rights?
* You've repeatedly denounced Halliburton's "no-bid contracts." Did you object when the Clinton administration awarded a similar non-competitive contract to Halliburton for reconstruction work in the former Yugoslavia? If not, why not? If so, why didn't your husband listen?
* Can you explain - without accusing anyone of anti-Asian bigotry - why so many Chinese criminals keep giving you and your husband piles of cash?
* When promoting your autobiography, you gave interviews expanding on your personal feelings while insisting you'd rather talk about substance. Yet you told The Washington Post that you wouldn't discuss the political substance in your book. Why? Because playing the victim helps?
* You've claimed that you're the Democrat best able to "deal" with the Republicans' natural advantage if there is another terrorist attack. Why is it wrong for Republicans to say they're tougher on terrorism than Democrats, but OK for you to say so?
* Does your bizzare and foolish decision as first lady to sit silently next to Suha Arafat as she viciously and deceitfully propagandized against Israel weigh against your tough-on-terror credentials? How about the $50,000 you took in 2000 from the anti-Semitic and pro-terror American Muslim Alliance, which you returned only after being criticized for it?
* Do you think Republicans won't ask these questions? Why? Because you're a woman?
Monday, October 29, 2007
We Are The Champions!
The Boston Red Sox finished their sweep of the Colorado Rockies yesterday, and it was glorious. Although never in doubt because the National League is awful and could be beaten by the Pawtucket Red Sox, or maybe even the Brockton Rox. Despite all that, I still watched every game through a combination of adreniline and wonderful caffine. It's a great year to be a sports fan in Boston. Red Sox, Patriots, hell even the Celtics are looking good and BC's ranked #2 (although they shouldn't be.)
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Maine, home of rednecks, houses without running water, and now middle schools giving out condoms!
Up in hicksville, eleven year olds at the King Middle School can get condoms and birth control pills simply by going into the nurse's office and asking. First of all, I'm surprised Maine knows what a condom is, but that aside this is ridiculous. I am personally against abstinance-only sex education but giving condoms out like candy is like telling sixth graders "If you want to commit statutory rape, do it safely." Why don't you just hand out silencers to gangbangers in Compton?
Friday, October 19, 2007
It's Just Plain Dumb
It’s a depressing ritual. As children of the corn prepare to cast the first votes in the presidential-primary season, candidates descend on corn-covered Iowa and discover the miraculous properties of ethanol. The latest convert is Fred “The Actor” Thompson, who voted against ethanol subsidies when he was a U.S. senator but now says that ethanol is “a matter of national security.” What he means is that he supports increasing federal assistance for ethanol production, on the grounds that this will reduce American dependence on oil from the Middle East. But, like most arguments for ethanol subsidies, this one is just plain dumb. First, even the biggest of proposed ethanol supports — an increase in mandated ethanol consumption from 7.5 billion gallons a year to 15 billion gallons a year, as called for in the energy bill Congress is currently debating — would barely dent America’s oil consumption, which is approximately 150 billion gallons annually. We could plant corn from New York to California and still not produce an equivalent amount of ethanol.Second, only around 5 million automobiles in America are “flexible-fuel vehicles” — cars that are equipped to run on a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline (known as E85). That’s out of 135 million registered passenger cars in the United States. Moreover, as the Dallas Morning News reported last year, the owners of almost all of these flex-fuel vehicles tend to fill them up with regular gas, owing to a scarcity of gas stations that sell E85. Simply mandating greater ethanol consumption won’t change that. A more drastic intervention — for example, requiring gas stations to sell E85 — would also be necessary. Some liberal groups have called for just that. Does Thompson agree with them? GOP voters should hope not.Thompson has cited high oil prices to defend his about-face on ethanol: “When I was in the Senate, I think oil was at $23 a barrel,” he told the Associated Press. But this is another red herring. Petroleum is a major input in the manufacture of ethanol — it is required not just to make ethanol, but to transport it to points of sale. In fact, there’s good evidence that making ethanol requires more petroleum than making gasoline does. So if high oil prices should make us want to use less oil, that’s an argument for diminishing our ethanol consumption right now, not boosting it. None of this is to deny that there’s a legitimate market for ethanol. All gasoline is required to contain additives known as “oxygenates,” and ethanol is one of them. Gasoline blenders have turned increasingly to it since MBTE — another additive — was found to contaminate groundwater. But the momentum behind federal support for ethanol militates toward production of far more than the market can absorb. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which enacted the initial ethanol mandate of 7.5 billion gallons a year, encouraged the ethanol industry to increase production dramatically. Now, reports of an ethanol glut suggest that the industry has overproduced — something that tends to happen when companies make production decisions based on government mandates rather than market signals.The ethanol glut is inefficient, but it’s bad in other ways too. The diversion of corn from use as food to ethanol production has led to higher food prices — a side-effect that has finally gotten Congress’s attention. As farmers grow more corn in hopes of selling it to ethanol makers, they also threaten to disrupt the water supply in some regions. That’s because farmers are both planting new corn on formerly uncultivated soil, and converting acres already under cultivation toward corn and away from other, less water-intensive food crops. To put the current expansion of corn production into perspective, consider that we have more corn growing on American soil right now than at any time since World War II, when the farms of Europe had been devastated by war and America was feeding two continents. There is no excuse for Congress to bail out the ethanol industry again by doubling a mandate that should not exist in the first place. If any major 2008 presidential candidate aside from John McCain opposes this heavy-handed dirigisme, he or she has yet to say so. McCain, for his part, deserves credit for taking a clear-eyed view of ethanol subsidies — even as he jokes that he drinks “a glass of ethanol every morning.” That position on ethanol is quite possibly the most sober in Washington.
Note: For the computer stupid, the underlined links can be clicked on to uncover sources for the information mentioned in this post.
Note: For the computer stupid, the underlined links can be clicked on to uncover sources for the information mentioned in this post.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Smackdown: British Court Bitch-slaps Al Gore.
The British government decided that it would be a good idea to send copies of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to all schools, with then Environment Secretary (now Foreign Secretary) David Miliband declaring that “the debate over science is over.” Well, it may be, but not in the way Gore portrays it. A truck driver and school governor, Stuart Dimmock, took the government to court, alleging that the film portrays “partisan political views,” the promotion of which is illegal in schools under the Education Act 1996.
The judge has decided that Mr. Dimmock was correct and that the Government’s guidance notes that accompanied the film exacerbated the problem. For the film to be shown in schools, therefore, several facts would have to be drawn to students’ attention:
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that
1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
The inaccuracies are:
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
This is a far better result than refusing to allow the film to be shown at all. It requires that students be told by teachers that Al Gore is factually inaccurate, misleading and - in one case - making things up. These inconvenient truths for the former Vice President have been covered up or obscured by the hype surrounding his film. Students will now realize that there are significant shortcomings and inaccuracies in the way the global warming scare has been presented to them. This is a victory for honest debate, a victory for science and a victory for education.
The comprehensive guide to Gore's innacuracies is, of course, Marlo Lewis' "Al Gore's Science Fiction."
Sourcing: Taken in part from the National Review website.
The judge has decided that Mr. Dimmock was correct and that the Government’s guidance notes that accompanied the film exacerbated the problem. For the film to be shown in schools, therefore, several facts would have to be drawn to students’ attention:
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that
1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
The inaccuracies are:
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
This is a far better result than refusing to allow the film to be shown at all. It requires that students be told by teachers that Al Gore is factually inaccurate, misleading and - in one case - making things up. These inconvenient truths for the former Vice President have been covered up or obscured by the hype surrounding his film. Students will now realize that there are significant shortcomings and inaccuracies in the way the global warming scare has been presented to them. This is a victory for honest debate, a victory for science and a victory for education.
The comprehensive guide to Gore's innacuracies is, of course, Marlo Lewis' "Al Gore's Science Fiction."
Sourcing: Taken in part from the National Review website.
Monday, October 8, 2007
He Should Be Ashamed
Rush Limbaugh has joined the ranks of MoveOn.org and other wacko groups who attack American servicemen in Iraq, people who are risking there life everyday. On his radio show Limbaugh called servicemen who are opposed to the war in Iraq “the phony soldiers.” This is worse then the attacks on General Petraeus, at least Petraeus is a public figure in a leadership position, the soldiers Limbaugh attacks are ordinary men and women fighting for freedom in a country halfway around the world.
This is nothing new for Rush Limbaugh, someone who I will never listen to, even though we agree on many things. He said that said Democratic congressional candidate, marine Major Paul Hackett had gone to Iraq to “pad his resume.” When I pad my resume I don’t do it by getting shot at by nutjobs who think killing an American is a way to have sex with 40 virgins in heaven and I doubt Paul Hackett put his life on the line to get elected.
Hopefully, Limbaugh’s slander will get the same amount of press and outrage as MoveOn.org’s.
This is nothing new for Rush Limbaugh, someone who I will never listen to, even though we agree on many things. He said that said Democratic congressional candidate, marine Major Paul Hackett had gone to Iraq to “pad his resume.” When I pad my resume I don’t do it by getting shot at by nutjobs who think killing an American is a way to have sex with 40 virgins in heaven and I doubt Paul Hackett put his life on the line to get elected.
Hopefully, Limbaugh’s slander will get the same amount of press and outrage as MoveOn.org’s.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Wacka-Patraeus: This Time from the Right
Moveon.org has been joined in calling Gen. David Petraeus a traitor by none other than conservative columnist Pat Buchanan's magazine, The American Conservative. The difference is that Buchanan's mag does the dirty deed more skillfully.
The cover story of The American Conservative's Oct. 8 issue, by Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich, is titled "Sycophant Savior." Bacevich, a West Point grad and Vietnam veteran, has been vocally opposed to the Iraq War from the start. This summer he lost his son, a soldier serving in Iraq, to a suicide bomb attack there. He has long used his clout as a military historian to grind his anti-war ax. This time, though, he has shown that when he cannot convince people by force of argument he is perfectly prepared to stoop to the treason charge.
Bacevich questions the strategy Petraeus outlined in his recent testimony to Congress. But instead of just questioning the general's military judgment, Bacevich asserts that Petraeus has implemented a losing strategy that will kill countless American soldiers solely so he can keep his job.
"There is only one plausible explanation for Petraeus's terminating a surge that has (he says) enabled coalition forces, however tentatively, to gain the upper hand. That explanation is politics -- of the wrong kind."
Petraeus' plan for Iraq "serves to placate each of the various Washington constituencies that Petraeus has a political interest in pleasing," he writes.
Bacevich concludes that Petraeus "has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life."
This is a cleverer way of calling Petraeus a traitor than Moveon.org devised, but it is no less despicable. Pat Buchanan and American Conservative editor Scott McConnell have shamed themselves and their magazine by trumpeting this outrageous smear. A maganize that I read every week has joined the ranks of Moveon.org, congressional Democrats and other anti-war zealots who are so invested in the anti-war cause that they almost hope for an American failure in Iraq just so they'll be proven correct. Americans should denounce this hatchet-job as strongly as they denounced Moveon.org's; it is no less reprehensible.
The cover story of The American Conservative's Oct. 8 issue, by Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich, is titled "Sycophant Savior." Bacevich, a West Point grad and Vietnam veteran, has been vocally opposed to the Iraq War from the start. This summer he lost his son, a soldier serving in Iraq, to a suicide bomb attack there. He has long used his clout as a military historian to grind his anti-war ax. This time, though, he has shown that when he cannot convince people by force of argument he is perfectly prepared to stoop to the treason charge.
Bacevich questions the strategy Petraeus outlined in his recent testimony to Congress. But instead of just questioning the general's military judgment, Bacevich asserts that Petraeus has implemented a losing strategy that will kill countless American soldiers solely so he can keep his job.
"There is only one plausible explanation for Petraeus's terminating a surge that has (he says) enabled coalition forces, however tentatively, to gain the upper hand. That explanation is politics -- of the wrong kind."
Petraeus' plan for Iraq "serves to placate each of the various Washington constituencies that Petraeus has a political interest in pleasing," he writes.
Bacevich concludes that Petraeus "has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life."
This is a cleverer way of calling Petraeus a traitor than Moveon.org devised, but it is no less despicable. Pat Buchanan and American Conservative editor Scott McConnell have shamed themselves and their magazine by trumpeting this outrageous smear. A maganize that I read every week has joined the ranks of Moveon.org, congressional Democrats and other anti-war zealots who are so invested in the anti-war cause that they almost hope for an American failure in Iraq just so they'll be proven correct. Americans should denounce this hatchet-job as strongly as they denounced Moveon.org's; it is no less reprehensible.
Friday, October 5, 2007
SCHIP of Fools
Bush's veto yesterday of a Democratic health-insurance bill is variously being described as "heartless," "irresponsible" and a bid to deny "health care to millions of low-income kids in America."
"With the stroke of a pen, President Bush has robbed nearly 4 million uninsured children of the chance for a healthy start in life," hyperventilated presidential candidate Hilliary Clinton.
That's nonsense, in spades.
If anything, the veto will help poor, sick kids and their struggling families.
The bill was a bid to expand the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which, for those readers who don't watch news that isn't ESPN, was created to provide health insurance to children too poor for private coverage yet, marginally too well-off for Medicaid.
But a drive is on to pervert SCHIP's original intent, making it a vehicle for expanding government-run health care for all. As Bush noted yesterday, "New Jersey, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Illinois and New Mexico spend more money on adults in the SCHIP program than they do on children."
Democrats would put this evolution into overdrive. Whereas Bush seeks to expand the program's funding by 20 percent, or $5 billion, Democrats want a $35-to-$50-billion expansion. If they succeed, the Congressional Budget Office estimates, 2 million kids now using private insurance will switch into government-run health care.
The bill would also scrap an administration rule that requires states to enroll most eligible poor children before signing up middle-class kids. Yet Democrats are lambasting Bush's veto as tantamount to kicking the crutches out from Tiny Tim's frail arms.
In reality, the Democratic bill would expand SCHIP eligibility to families earning as much as $83,000 a year.
An earlier version raised the eligibility threshold to 400 percent of the poverty level - indicating where Democrats are headed. Ironically, some 70,000 families of the families who'd then be eligible for SCHIP would also be subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax - which officially targets the "richest" taxpayers.
In other words, the same "poor" families Democrats are vying to cover through SCHIP are already viewed by the U.S. tax code as affluent.
Meanwhile, eight governors - New York's Eliot Spitzer included - are suing the feds for the right to expand their SCHIP programs further.
Far from robbing "uninsured children of the chance for a healthy start in life," as Clinton put it, Bush sensibly seeks to put a stop to efforts to transform SCHIP into an unaffordable middle-class entitlement and re-focus the program on its original intent: insuring poor kids.
What's so "heartless" about that?
"With the stroke of a pen, President Bush has robbed nearly 4 million uninsured children of the chance for a healthy start in life," hyperventilated presidential candidate Hilliary Clinton.
That's nonsense, in spades.
If anything, the veto will help poor, sick kids and their struggling families.
The bill was a bid to expand the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which, for those readers who don't watch news that isn't ESPN, was created to provide health insurance to children too poor for private coverage yet, marginally too well-off for Medicaid.
But a drive is on to pervert SCHIP's original intent, making it a vehicle for expanding government-run health care for all. As Bush noted yesterday, "New Jersey, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Illinois and New Mexico spend more money on adults in the SCHIP program than they do on children."
Democrats would put this evolution into overdrive. Whereas Bush seeks to expand the program's funding by 20 percent, or $5 billion, Democrats want a $35-to-$50-billion expansion. If they succeed, the Congressional Budget Office estimates, 2 million kids now using private insurance will switch into government-run health care.
The bill would also scrap an administration rule that requires states to enroll most eligible poor children before signing up middle-class kids. Yet Democrats are lambasting Bush's veto as tantamount to kicking the crutches out from Tiny Tim's frail arms.
In reality, the Democratic bill would expand SCHIP eligibility to families earning as much as $83,000 a year.
An earlier version raised the eligibility threshold to 400 percent of the poverty level - indicating where Democrats are headed. Ironically, some 70,000 families of the families who'd then be eligible for SCHIP would also be subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax - which officially targets the "richest" taxpayers.
In other words, the same "poor" families Democrats are vying to cover through SCHIP are already viewed by the U.S. tax code as affluent.
Meanwhile, eight governors - New York's Eliot Spitzer included - are suing the feds for the right to expand their SCHIP programs further.
Far from robbing "uninsured children of the chance for a healthy start in life," as Clinton put it, Bush sensibly seeks to put a stop to efforts to transform SCHIP into an unaffordable middle-class entitlement and re-focus the program on its original intent: insuring poor kids.
What's so "heartless" about that?
Friday Stock Picks: The Results Show
Last week I picked four stocks I thought would increase in value during the week, I also picked two I thought would decrease in value. I did pretty good.
ADR, which I recommended, increased from 86.22 to 95.97, for an increase of 9.75.
GG, which I recommended, increased from 30.56 to 30.86, while GG didn't do that well, it did go up 0.30 points.
WMT, which I recommended, decreased from 43.65 to 45.37, a decrease of 0.28.
BBT, which I recommended, increased from 40.39 to 42.13, an increase of 1.74.
UA, which I encouraged selling, decreased from 59.82 to 58.55, a decrease of 1.27.
XOMA, which I encouraged selling, increased from 3.41 to 3.97, an increase of 0.56.
Now, if someone bought one share of all the stocks I recommended to buy, and sold one share of the two stocks I recommended to sell, they would have made $12.22.
ADR, which I recommended, increased from 86.22 to 95.97, for an increase of 9.75.
GG, which I recommended, increased from 30.56 to 30.86, while GG didn't do that well, it did go up 0.30 points.
WMT, which I recommended, decreased from 43.65 to 45.37, a decrease of 0.28.
BBT, which I recommended, increased from 40.39 to 42.13, an increase of 1.74.
UA, which I encouraged selling, decreased from 59.82 to 58.55, a decrease of 1.27.
XOMA, which I encouraged selling, increased from 3.41 to 3.97, an increase of 0.56.
Now, if someone bought one share of all the stocks I recommended to buy, and sold one share of the two stocks I recommended to sell, they would have made $12.22.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Bush Gives In.
President Bush announced he will “not shirk his responsibilities in the fight against climate change.” and the United States will “serious consider any treaty to fight climate change.” This is a huge setback, if even the United States is giving in to scaremongers such as Al Gore and high-powered special interest groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists then we can kiss one trillion, one hundred billion dollars goodbye. (This is the estimated yearly cost of McCain-Feingold climate legislation, a far more sane bill then the one hyped by democrats and the U.N.)
Hopefully, the new treaty not have the flaws of Kyoto. Sadly, it probably will take the many problems with the Kyoto Protocol, and make more problems, and make the existing ones worse. The first problem is that Kyoto creates a bubble that lumps all of Europe together and allows them to all take credit for advances made by England. (These advances have nothing to do with Kyoto, but have everything to do with Margaret Thatcher’s attempts to not be dependant on coal miners, which frequently struck during her tenure.) Outside of England, Europe has increased its GHGs (greenhouse gas emissions) by 27% since they ratified the Kyoto Protocol. This is never reported, instead American news programs focus on the failure of president Bush to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
In fact, for all the agonizing over Bush’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, you would think it could actually do something to combat climate change, but even the environmental versions of chicken-little (Al Gore and his cronies,) agree that Kyoto cannot slow climate change by more than 0.015%. In a public statement, the Union of Concerned Scientists (think Al Gore with degrees) have said “the Kyoto Protocol is really about symbolism, it’s a first step to combat climate change. Perhaps once this succeeds, and the deniers are silenced, we can begin meaningful action.” Symbolism does nothing but drain economies, and give Europe and the Democrats another reason to bash Bush.
To get back to the “new treaty” that our president has vowed to “seriously consider.” I hope this is simply political maneuvering and that Bush hasn’t given in the scaremongers and alarmists. The last thing America needs to sign any treaty that will cripple our economy and force us to pay huge penalties if we cannot meet nigh-impossible standards.
(The full article can be found at this link http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKN3023796820070930)
Hopefully, the new treaty not have the flaws of Kyoto. Sadly, it probably will take the many problems with the Kyoto Protocol, and make more problems, and make the existing ones worse. The first problem is that Kyoto creates a bubble that lumps all of Europe together and allows them to all take credit for advances made by England. (These advances have nothing to do with Kyoto, but have everything to do with Margaret Thatcher’s attempts to not be dependant on coal miners, which frequently struck during her tenure.) Outside of England, Europe has increased its GHGs (greenhouse gas emissions) by 27% since they ratified the Kyoto Protocol. This is never reported, instead American news programs focus on the failure of president Bush to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
In fact, for all the agonizing over Bush’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, you would think it could actually do something to combat climate change, but even the environmental versions of chicken-little (Al Gore and his cronies,) agree that Kyoto cannot slow climate change by more than 0.015%. In a public statement, the Union of Concerned Scientists (think Al Gore with degrees) have said “the Kyoto Protocol is really about symbolism, it’s a first step to combat climate change. Perhaps once this succeeds, and the deniers are silenced, we can begin meaningful action.” Symbolism does nothing but drain economies, and give Europe and the Democrats another reason to bash Bush.
To get back to the “new treaty” that our president has vowed to “seriously consider.” I hope this is simply political maneuvering and that Bush hasn’t given in the scaremongers and alarmists. The last thing America needs to sign any treaty that will cripple our economy and force us to pay huge penalties if we cannot meet nigh-impossible standards.
(The full article can be found at this link http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKN3023796820070930)
Friday, September 28, 2007
Friday Stock Picks
For the eight people reading this blog, here are some stocks you might consider buying.
ADR-China Life Insurance Company- Trading at $86.22
Why ADR is a good stock: This is the biggest life insurance company in the world's most populated nation. It's buying out other Asian life insurance companies, and has had 60% growth since January and the end isn't in sight.
GG-Goldcorp Inc.- Trading at $30.56
Why GG is a good stock: With the housing market failing, many investors may be looking for a solid commondy. Gold is a solid commondy, these guys find gold and these guys will soon find more profits and a higher stock price.
WMT- Wal-Mart Stores Inc.- Trading at $43.65
Why WMT is a good stock: Two reasons, one is that you can't swing a stick without hitting a Wal-Mart bigger than most malls. The second is that Wal-Mart has launched a new PR campagin and expanded their pharmacidical department. Short-term growth will start soon.
BBT-BB and T Corporation- Trading at $40.39
Why BBT is a good stock: BBT has been going downhill. They've fallen 8% this year. However, they've bought Collateral Real Estate, Coastal Financial Services, and O. Smith Inc. These buyouts will work and the price will go up.
Now for stocks that should be sold.
UA- Under Armour Inc.- Trading at $59.82
Why UA is not a good stock: UBS downgraded their potential earnings for a reason, because Under Armour isn't doing well. CEO Kevin Blank is lying and sleazing his way around failure but is going to crash and burn, and when he does UA is going down ten or twelve points with him.
XOMA- XOMA Limited- Trading at $3.41
WHY XOMA is not a good stock (besides their stupid name): Professional (real) anyalists are all pumped up because XOMA's has been offered $30 million for something called a BCE. (I have no idea what this is.) Everyone may love XOMA, but I don't, they've flucuated like crazy and won't sustain any growth from this deal.
Legal Disclaimer: If you are buying stocks simply based on the recommendations of a blogger you don't know, you're an idiot and shouldn't be buying stocks. Buying any stock is a financial risk and you should consult with other members of your family, and a financial advisor before making any purchases. If you don't, you may lose money and get divorsed. I own many of the stocks I say are good, that's why I bought them. If you buy them I will make money because the price will rise, I think you'll make money too.
ADR-China Life Insurance Company- Trading at $86.22
Why ADR is a good stock: This is the biggest life insurance company in the world's most populated nation. It's buying out other Asian life insurance companies, and has had 60% growth since January and the end isn't in sight.
GG-Goldcorp Inc.- Trading at $30.56
Why GG is a good stock: With the housing market failing, many investors may be looking for a solid commondy. Gold is a solid commondy, these guys find gold and these guys will soon find more profits and a higher stock price.
WMT- Wal-Mart Stores Inc.- Trading at $43.65
Why WMT is a good stock: Two reasons, one is that you can't swing a stick without hitting a Wal-Mart bigger than most malls. The second is that Wal-Mart has launched a new PR campagin and expanded their pharmacidical department. Short-term growth will start soon.
BBT-BB and T Corporation- Trading at $40.39
Why BBT is a good stock: BBT has been going downhill. They've fallen 8% this year. However, they've bought Collateral Real Estate, Coastal Financial Services, and O. Smith Inc. These buyouts will work and the price will go up.
Now for stocks that should be sold.
UA- Under Armour Inc.- Trading at $59.82
Why UA is not a good stock: UBS downgraded their potential earnings for a reason, because Under Armour isn't doing well. CEO Kevin Blank is lying and sleazing his way around failure but is going to crash and burn, and when he does UA is going down ten or twelve points with him.
XOMA- XOMA Limited- Trading at $3.41
WHY XOMA is not a good stock (besides their stupid name): Professional (real) anyalists are all pumped up because XOMA's has been offered $30 million for something called a BCE. (I have no idea what this is.) Everyone may love XOMA, but I don't, they've flucuated like crazy and won't sustain any growth from this deal.
Legal Disclaimer: If you are buying stocks simply based on the recommendations of a blogger you don't know, you're an idiot and shouldn't be buying stocks. Buying any stock is a financial risk and you should consult with other members of your family, and a financial advisor before making any purchases. If you don't, you may lose money and get divorsed. I own many of the stocks I say are good, that's why I bought them. If you buy them I will make money because the price will rise, I think you'll make money too.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Nuke-a-manic Given Platform, Not Indictment.
The wacko whose name you can't pronounce just finished speaking at Columbia University. For the reader who is an idiot and doesn't know who I'm talking about, it's Mahmoud "Nuke-a-manic" Ahmadinejad, the man who says the Holocaust never happened.
This is very good. By allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, Columbia is preventing him from going on the Al-Queda propaganda channel (Al-Jazeera) and ranting about the evil America which wouldn't let him engage in free speech. If Columbia recinded Ahmandinejad's invitation to speak, they would create a marytr.
Hopefully, Ahmadinejad will be blasted by Columbia University students on issues such as Holocaust denial, his support of Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. and his dream to "wipe Israel off the map." Sadly, this grilling probably will not occur, instead Ahmadinejad will be allowed to rant about our President, who he (and MoveOn.org) has referred to as "the Devil." Columbia University will screen Ahmadinejad's questions to ensure he doesn't have to answer the really hard ones, and that is a real supression of free speech.
This is very good. By allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, Columbia is preventing him from going on the Al-Queda propaganda channel (Al-Jazeera) and ranting about the evil America which wouldn't let him engage in free speech. If Columbia recinded Ahmandinejad's invitation to speak, they would create a marytr.
Hopefully, Ahmadinejad will be blasted by Columbia University students on issues such as Holocaust denial, his support of Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. and his dream to "wipe Israel off the map." Sadly, this grilling probably will not occur, instead Ahmadinejad will be allowed to rant about our President, who he (and MoveOn.org) has referred to as "the Devil." Columbia University will screen Ahmadinejad's questions to ensure he doesn't have to answer the really hard ones, and that is a real supression of free speech.
Climate Change: 21st Century Eugenics
Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out. This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago. Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort. All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called Neanderthals, stupid, and immature.
That theory was eugenics. The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones --- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the "feeble minded." This idea was adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the “dangerous human pests” who represented “the rising tide of imbeciles” and who were polluting the best of the human race. The eugenicists needed to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded (Jews, foreigners, people with low IQ’s, and people with physical defects) and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.
Today we have such a theory and that theory is manmade climate change- do not let America repeat history’s mistakes.
I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago. Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort. All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called Neanderthals, stupid, and immature.
That theory was eugenics. The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones --- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the "feeble minded." This idea was adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the “dangerous human pests” who represented “the rising tide of imbeciles” and who were polluting the best of the human race. The eugenicists needed to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded (Jews, foreigners, people with low IQ’s, and people with physical defects) and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.
Today we have such a theory and that theory is manmade climate change- do not let America repeat history’s mistakes.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Farm Subsidies, the Excercise in Stupidty
As you read this, $171 billion is being spent on farm subsidies by the federal government. The logic behind farm subsidies goes like this "Agriculture is a vital part of America, it has been so since the founding of our nation, and must be protected." (This is a quote from Chuck Scheumer, a Democrat from New York.) Whenever farm subsidies are mentioned, politicians like Chuck Scheumer are quick to trot out the Americana image of the family farm, with its farmers at the mercy of unpredictable crop prices. However, most of the money from subsidies does not go to the family farm, instead it goes to gigantic agribusinesses and people who don't farm. That's right, farm subsidies are going to people who have never farmed a day in their life. People like Ken Lay, who has gotten $22,486 a year. The John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company gets $134,318 a year, I may be wrong but life insurance has nothing to do with farming.
The top ten percent of farms get 73 percent of the $171 billion handed out each year by Uncle Sam. What do agribusinesses do with their "welfare" checks? They buy the family farm the Chuck Scheumer and Co. drool over, these acquisitions give the agribusiness more subsides which they use to buy more family farms. This consolidation isn't harmful on its own, and may even be helpful, since agribusinesses can produce crops at a lower rate then smaller farms, but it should not be funded by the American government.
The top ten percent of farms get 73 percent of the $171 billion handed out each year by Uncle Sam. What do agribusinesses do with their "welfare" checks? They buy the family farm the Chuck Scheumer and Co. drool over, these acquisitions give the agribusiness more subsides which they use to buy more family farms. This consolidation isn't harmful on its own, and may even be helpful, since agribusinesses can produce crops at a lower rate then smaller farms, but it should not be funded by the American government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)