We’ve all heard the phrase “The Greatest Generation”, spoken in reference to the kids who came of age during the great depression, fought to victory in World War II, staved off communism for a few decades, and many finished their working lives by placing American astronauts on the moon. I’ll certainly agree that from a historical viewpoint they are indeed The Greatest Generation, and I for one am a bit envious. I’m one of the “Baby Boom” generation (actually I pre-date the baby boom by a few years), that didn’t manage to do anything quite as spectacular as winning WW II, or being the first men on the moon. But we did manage to survive the disruption of the Vietnam years, and the technological era we brought about is second to none. (So are the world wide problems we seem to be getting blamed for.)
Now we have yet another generation coming along, and searching for a definitive title. By this, I’m referring to the current crop of “Under Thirties” among us. Perhaps unfairly, they seem to be earning the title of ‘The Dumbest Generation’ as publicized by Mark Bauerlein in his recent book by that name. “Don’t trust anyone under thirty” he loudly proclaims, rightly or wrongly. We all know that finding examples of teens' and twenty-somethings' “ignorance” is pretty easy… Two thirds of high-school seniors in 2006 couldn't explain an old photo of a sign over a theater door reading COLORED ENTRANCE. In 2001, 52 percent identified Germany, Japan, and Italy as Americas’ WW II allies, but not the Soviet Union. One quarter of 18- to 24-year-olds in a recent survey didn’t know who Dick Cheney or William Rehnquist are. The world's most heavily defended border? Would you believe Mexico’s border with the United States, according to 30 percent of that same age group? College professors are shocked to find students who respond blank-eyed to mention of fireside chats or Antietam or even Pearl Harbor. Many parents are appalled that their little darlings don't know Chaucer from Chopin. Bauerlein sees such ignorance as an intellectual, economic and civic disaster in the making, claiming “the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future”, and that "no cohort in human history has opened such a fissure between its material conditions and its intellectual attainments." He is a little late with his complaint of course… the old folks have been complaining about their kid’s cultural collapse and ignorance of history since admirers of Sophocles moaned that the popularity of Aristophanes was leading to the end of Greek civilization! The Civil War generation was aghast at Ned Buntline’s 1870’s dime novels. Victorian scholars considered Dickens a lightweight compared with other authors of the time. In a Newsweek report, Bauerlein laments that "there is no memory of the past, just like when the Khmer Rouge said 'this is day zero.' Historical memory is essential to a free people. If you don't know which rights are protected in the First Amendment, how can you think critically about rights in the U.S.?" Fair enough I’d guess, but I’d also think that if our young people don't know the Bill of Rights it’s not stupidity but rather a failure of their parents, the school system, and of society (which you might be aware is run by grown-ups) to require them to know it. Drawing on history, it’s noted that philosopher George Santayana in 1905, despaired of a generation's historical ignorance, warning that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
The generation in question has been called “fatally flawed,” accused of lacking values, social awareness, or caring about anyone or anything. Author Jean Twenge dubs them “Generation Me”, saying that self esteem programs in schools combined with the Internet may be unleashing “a little army of narcissists” on society. Others argue that youth, consumed by their celebrity and internet obsessions, are superficial and lacking social skills. Busy e-mailing and text-messaging, uploading photographs onto MySpace and Facebook, and creating playlists for iPods, they have trouble identifying the three branches of the American government and where Iraq is on the map.
Bauerlein cites assorted evidence that young Americans have stopped reading books, and blames the "low knowledge levels" of adolescents mainly on the Internet. "The world delivers facts and events and art and ideas," he writes, "but the young American mind hasn't opened." Warning that "knowledge is never more than one generation away from oblivion," Bauerlein is only one of a long-line of Chicken Little critics of American culture that began shortly after the Revolutionary War, when British and French “gentry” visited our shores, and bemoaned the fact that we generally lived in log cabins, with nary a hereditary castle or opera house to be found.
Like many, I’m appalled when I see the reading, writing, and arithmetic skills of our younger citizens displayed first hand. I know high school graduates who read at what I consider a third grade level, and whom I very much doubt are able to count past ten with their tennis shoes on! I have on occasion been known to mutter something about “dumb #&%*^ teenagers” when some kid on a skateboard zips in front of me while jabbering away on his cell phone. (I really don’t know why a ‘tween-ager even needs a cellular telephone!) At the same time I’ve also been known to unfavorably mention the ancestry of adults using a cell phone, particularly when they cut me off in traffic, apparently having failed to realize that their little bitty car isn’t going to make very much of an impression on the front bumper of a forty thousand pound firetruck!
Perhaps the kids can’t quote Shakespeare line by line, and perhaps their version of American English isn’t the same thing I learned in school. Many times their penmanship is atrocious, but then my penmanship is atrocious as well. Strangely enough I’ve found that many of our kids can intelligently discuss orbital dynamics or quantum physics about as easily as they can the lifestyle of Brittany Spears. Given the deep-rooted tradition of anti-intellectualism in the United States, I rather doubt that digital technology is responsible for the dumbing down of Americans as Bauerlein suggests. Digital technology and the internet simply make it easier for us to find whatever data we might need, in what approximates a personal copy of the largest library in existence. Without I contend, having to memorize thousands of printed pages, often specialized data that you’ll probably never again have a use for. (Remember all those boring hours spent in history class, trying to remember names, dates, and places? Try doing an internet search for “Peloponnesian War” and see what turns up!) While we older “generation whatever” folks might have a full set of lumps with the digital age, we should remember that the secret is to know how to find whatever information you presently need, in a hurry, and the kids seem to have that down pat!
The next time you try to program your VCR, who are you going to call for help… the graybeard down the road… or perhaps that fourteen year old computer nerd you seem to have spawned?
Monday, July 28, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Congress
It would seem that our illustrious Democratic controlled congress has finally accomplished something never before done – they’ve achieved the lowest congressional approval rating in the history of political polls. Not surprisingly, President Bush, with his own voter approval rating sitting somewhere down in the basement, has a higher rating than congress. Only 9 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing according to the latest Rassmusen poll. And I rather suspect that those 9 percent are probably sitting in their padded private rooms, waiting for the man in the white jacket to bring them their nice medication. Once upon a time, when a certain nation’s leadership was similarly disliked by the common people, those in power famously suggested that the unwashed mob eat cake. What followed is a history lesson worth considering by our congress. No government really wants to find out what happens if they allow their approval rating to reach zero.
The logical question of course is why this particular congress is so disliked by the American people? Why is this congress such a failure? Is it because they just don’t care, are obsessed with petty partisan squabbles, and apparently are totally contemptuous of the American people? Looking at the various issues since the Democrats took control, Congress seems perfectly willing to sacrifice the health and safety of the American people for free trade relations with China and Mexico, only pay lip service to the public demand for secure borders, seem hell-bent on bailing the financial industry out of their self caused problems, and aren‘t at all bothered by the doubling of gas prices. There seems to be no shame on the Hill nor worry about the fact that the American voters consider them total failures. Instead, these self-obsessed, do-nothing politicians go about their daily business of fleecing the public, and laughing at the wishes of the masses that elected them to their high-and-mighty public offices. This might in part explain why, if we had a Bastille in this country, it would quite likely have been stormed long before now!
If Newt Gingrich's Republican majority had faced a 9 percent approval rating in the 1996 presidential election, the media certainly wouldn't have let us forget it. So given that the media's frequently reminding Americans of President Bush's low numbers (in the upper twenties), why is the mainstream media ignoring the almost nonexistent approval rating for Congress under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, even though they missed no opportunity to point out who was in control of Congress in 2006? (You might also note that Congress is controlled by "mainstream" Democrats, since the mainstream media reports there are no “liberal” Democrats in Congress.) When the result of the survey hit the wires, none of the evening news programs covered the story, not even as a brief mention. The talk news shows made no comment about the development either.
Rasmussen’s news release noted that the numbers are pretty bad even among the Democrats, who gave Congress a 17% positive rating last month, and are now down to 13%. Republicans give Congress a good or excellent rating of 8%, a one point improvement from last month, while the Independent voters giving Congress a 3% positive rating. One reason for the low numbers is that 72% of the electorate apparently believes that members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers than in taking care of the nations business. While it’s seemingly our national pastime to dislike politicians, there are scores of Washington lawmakers who make a difference in the lives of those who elected them. But divided government, full-time reelection campaigning, and a lobbyist stranglehold on the legislative process have joined forces to cause the current problems, with Republicans and Democrats both deserving a share of the blame. Blinded by partisanship, the lack of effective legislation at this time of record gas prices and economic collapse means that Congress is about as popular as a swarm of mosquitoes at a Sunday school picnic. Despite democratic assurances that things would be different this time around (where have I heard that one before?), as of July 4th Congress has passed 260 laws, the lowest number in the last thirty years. Of all the crucial issues facing the nation, 74 of those laws are for naming post offices and 148 could be called ‘substantive’ laws by someone, considering that this substantive legislation includes a law requiring the flag be flown on Father’s Day. Only 8 were “must pass” appropriations bills.
These numbers don’t include assorted resolutions that the Senate or the House took time to consider and then passed, such as: 1) Recognizing soil as an essential natural resource, and soils professionals as playing a critical role in managing our Nation's soil resources; 2) Designating July 2007 as "National Watermelon Month”; 3) Congratulating the men's volleyball team of the University of California, Irvine, for winning the 2007 NCAA Division I Men's Volleyball National Championship; 4) Recognizing the 70th anniversary of the Idaho Potato Commission and designating May 2007 as "Idaho Potato Month”; and 5) Expressing support for designation of June 30 as "National Corvette Day". Both presidential candidates had resolutions of their own to be concerned with, Sen. Obama worked to pass a resolution congratulating the Chicago White Sox on winning the 2005 World Series Championship, while Sen. McCain co-sponsored a resolution congratulating the University of Arizona Wildcats for winning the 2007 NCAA Division I Softball Championship. Congress wants to look like they are doing the peoples’ business rather than merely twiddling their thumbs and devouring the public treasury, so they resort to National Corvette Day!
With a popularity rating number so low, we might expect that Pelosi and Reid would resign in disgrace, shamed by the fact that the only thing they can claim to have accomplished is totally losing the confidence of nearly everyone in the country. If they don’t resign, out of simple respect for the American people, the leadership of both houses might well consider apologizing and resigning en masse.
Perhaps our elitist government officials might consider that sometimes the people get what they want, regardless of what the elitist media tell us we’re supposed to want. If the American voters can ever connect the economic downturn along with food and gas price increases, to continual congressional waffling, partisanship, and inaction, congress (and the White House) won’t know what hit them this November.
The logical question of course is why this particular congress is so disliked by the American people? Why is this congress such a failure? Is it because they just don’t care, are obsessed with petty partisan squabbles, and apparently are totally contemptuous of the American people? Looking at the various issues since the Democrats took control, Congress seems perfectly willing to sacrifice the health and safety of the American people for free trade relations with China and Mexico, only pay lip service to the public demand for secure borders, seem hell-bent on bailing the financial industry out of their self caused problems, and aren‘t at all bothered by the doubling of gas prices. There seems to be no shame on the Hill nor worry about the fact that the American voters consider them total failures. Instead, these self-obsessed, do-nothing politicians go about their daily business of fleecing the public, and laughing at the wishes of the masses that elected them to their high-and-mighty public offices. This might in part explain why, if we had a Bastille in this country, it would quite likely have been stormed long before now!
If Newt Gingrich's Republican majority had faced a 9 percent approval rating in the 1996 presidential election, the media certainly wouldn't have let us forget it. So given that the media's frequently reminding Americans of President Bush's low numbers (in the upper twenties), why is the mainstream media ignoring the almost nonexistent approval rating for Congress under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, even though they missed no opportunity to point out who was in control of Congress in 2006? (You might also note that Congress is controlled by "mainstream" Democrats, since the mainstream media reports there are no “liberal” Democrats in Congress.) When the result of the survey hit the wires, none of the evening news programs covered the story, not even as a brief mention. The talk news shows made no comment about the development either.
Rasmussen’s news release noted that the numbers are pretty bad even among the Democrats, who gave Congress a 17% positive rating last month, and are now down to 13%. Republicans give Congress a good or excellent rating of 8%, a one point improvement from last month, while the Independent voters giving Congress a 3% positive rating. One reason for the low numbers is that 72% of the electorate apparently believes that members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers than in taking care of the nations business. While it’s seemingly our national pastime to dislike politicians, there are scores of Washington lawmakers who make a difference in the lives of those who elected them. But divided government, full-time reelection campaigning, and a lobbyist stranglehold on the legislative process have joined forces to cause the current problems, with Republicans and Democrats both deserving a share of the blame. Blinded by partisanship, the lack of effective legislation at this time of record gas prices and economic collapse means that Congress is about as popular as a swarm of mosquitoes at a Sunday school picnic. Despite democratic assurances that things would be different this time around (where have I heard that one before?), as of July 4th Congress has passed 260 laws, the lowest number in the last thirty years. Of all the crucial issues facing the nation, 74 of those laws are for naming post offices and 148 could be called ‘substantive’ laws by someone, considering that this substantive legislation includes a law requiring the flag be flown on Father’s Day. Only 8 were “must pass” appropriations bills.
These numbers don’t include assorted resolutions that the Senate or the House took time to consider and then passed, such as: 1) Recognizing soil as an essential natural resource, and soils professionals as playing a critical role in managing our Nation's soil resources; 2) Designating July 2007 as "National Watermelon Month”; 3) Congratulating the men's volleyball team of the University of California, Irvine, for winning the 2007 NCAA Division I Men's Volleyball National Championship; 4) Recognizing the 70th anniversary of the Idaho Potato Commission and designating May 2007 as "Idaho Potato Month”; and 5) Expressing support for designation of June 30 as "National Corvette Day". Both presidential candidates had resolutions of their own to be concerned with, Sen. Obama worked to pass a resolution congratulating the Chicago White Sox on winning the 2005 World Series Championship, while Sen. McCain co-sponsored a resolution congratulating the University of Arizona Wildcats for winning the 2007 NCAA Division I Softball Championship. Congress wants to look like they are doing the peoples’ business rather than merely twiddling their thumbs and devouring the public treasury, so they resort to National Corvette Day!
With a popularity rating number so low, we might expect that Pelosi and Reid would resign in disgrace, shamed by the fact that the only thing they can claim to have accomplished is totally losing the confidence of nearly everyone in the country. If they don’t resign, out of simple respect for the American people, the leadership of both houses might well consider apologizing and resigning en masse.
Perhaps our elitist government officials might consider that sometimes the people get what they want, regardless of what the elitist media tell us we’re supposed to want. If the American voters can ever connect the economic downturn along with food and gas price increases, to continual congressional waffling, partisanship, and inaction, congress (and the White House) won’t know what hit them this November.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
2ed Amendment Decision
I sorta - kinda got busy over the 4th of July weekend, and forgot to post that issue's column. So... here it is, somewhat out of sequence.
- - - -
From my viewpoint, the cheers presently coming from the conservative right is a fitting counterpoint to the weeping, wailing, tearing of hair, and gnashing of teeth going on within the ranks of the liberal left. The reason behind all these histrionics of course is the Supreme Courts June 26th decision upholding the Second Amendment Right to keep and bear Arms. In their first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history, the court ruled that American citizens do after all, have the right to own guns, striking down the District of Columbia’s long standing ban on privately owned handguns, and not incidentally putting at risk nearly all the anti-gun laws on the books. It’s my understanding that the NRA has already filed suite hither and yon, contesting a number of those laws. For the first time in many years, I’ll hoist a glass to the honorable justices over this one, and yet another to the NRA!
The city of DC's argument was that by denying citizens the right to own handguns, there were less guns available to be stolen by criminals. The long-debated question is whether such a gun law has any effect on violent crime. Apparently not, as since the ban was passed, more than 8400 people have been murdered within the boundaries of Americas capitol city!
The second amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." To most of us, on the conservative right and the moderate middle ground at least, those twenty-seven words simply indicate that the government, any government in this country, may not restrict the ownership or possesion of “arms”. The defination of ‘Arms’ ranges from rocks and clubs through knives, spears, swords, and firearms, all the way up to ICBM’s and probably nuclear weapons as well, as the left wing spokesmen have been so quick to point out. However, with current prices, even buying a new hunting rifle would put a severe strain on my monthly budget, much less an ICBM! So, just for the sake of argument, lets strike the wide assortment of WMD’s from the list of legal arms. Looking somewhat further down the list of potential weapons, we might want to consider things like combat aircraft and battleships, or perhaps tanks and artillary pieces. Here again, the sheer price of these things puts them out of the reach of most people, so we have another weapons category that really isn’t part of the question. Besides, I’d rather doubt that the Fish & Game people would smile kindly on my going elk hunting with a forty millimeter grenade launcher mounted in the back of my pick-up! I’m reasonably sure that there are a few weapons of this sort floating around, but for the life of me I don’t know why anybody would feel they need something like that. Within the realm of more probable weapons, we’ll find a collection of full and semi-automatic weapons (“assault rifles”, sub-machine guns, and the like) that most people could probably afford, and often already own, both legally and illegally, despite all the gun laws on the books, the liberal left hysteronics, and all the best efforts of the Brady Bunch. But despite the movies from Hollywood, and the gory news headlines, these types of weapons are very rarely used in the commission of a crime.
The mainstream media tells us that the basic issue for the court was whether the second amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is in some arcane way tied to service in a state militia. In my view this is only partially true. When our constitution was written (and based on English Common Law), all male members of our society were considered to be members of the militia, were expected to possess arms and to be proficient in their use. Those armed citizens were also expected to take up their arms in defense of the Republic whenever necessary. Thus, the second amendment specifically denied the government any right to limit or restrict the citizens access to arms of any sort. I’ll agree that for the most part that the situation found in the late 1700’s does not exist today, but neither does it change the fact that our constitution guarentees American citizens the right to keep and bear arms if they so desire! The only way that can be changed is by means of a constitutional amendment, agreed to by Congress and two thirds of the states (an agreement that might be somewhat difficult to obtain), not by a back room decision among a few individuals.
The real question facing the court however is the sancity of our constitution. Is it a “living document” that can be changed whenever some weeping willie decides to save us from ourselves, or is it to be the Law of the Land, set forth for all to see as was the ancient Roman Law “… that should be written down in order to prevent magistrates from applying the law in an arbitrary fashion…”, and certainly not easily discarded by anyone who decides they don’t like things the way they are? In the early days of our nation’s history, Europeans generally looked down on us because we had the strange idea that common sense, along with individual and civic responsibility, was a suitable replacement for the orders of high born royalty. Our constitution was written by men who firmly believed in those precepts, and for nearly 200 years our freedom loving nation prospered. Now however we have citizens who believe we can easily discard whatever portion of our constitutional law that they consider inconvienient. The Supreme Court has just demonstrated that constitutional law is not so easily tossed in the trashcan.
We’ll often hear a plaintive cry that “… it’s for the cheeeldren…” from the far left whenever they’re in a “ban the guns” mode. OK, I have nothing against safety, public or individual, and yes, I’d like my kids and grandkids to be reasonably safe as well. But I’m also realist enough to know that nothing is completely safe in this world. Far to many children have their young lives cut short each year, for many reasons. Chief among those is the simple failure of the family to teach our children of lifes hazards. It seems we want “the law” to take the responsibility of caring of the kids, because we’re just to busy (or to lazy) to do it ourselves! Failing that, the utopians among us apparently feel that lifes hazards can be banned by the stroke of a pen despite what our law says. Hey, reality check here! Like any other tool in mankinds history, firearms have a definate place in our lives, and our kids had better learn about their function and use, along with learning the personal responsibility that accompanies bearing arms.
The world is not a safe place despite all the vapid utopian dreams that seem to come from the liberal members of society. Just because we’d like to be safe doesn’t mean that nature is going to change it’s ways anytime soon, and I for one would think that our kids would be far better served if they learn that “safety” and “responsibility” does not happen just because we’d wish it so, and that an iron bound constitution “writ in stone” is the only way to guarentee their freedom!
- - - -
From my viewpoint, the cheers presently coming from the conservative right is a fitting counterpoint to the weeping, wailing, tearing of hair, and gnashing of teeth going on within the ranks of the liberal left. The reason behind all these histrionics of course is the Supreme Courts June 26th decision upholding the Second Amendment Right to keep and bear Arms. In their first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history, the court ruled that American citizens do after all, have the right to own guns, striking down the District of Columbia’s long standing ban on privately owned handguns, and not incidentally putting at risk nearly all the anti-gun laws on the books. It’s my understanding that the NRA has already filed suite hither and yon, contesting a number of those laws. For the first time in many years, I’ll hoist a glass to the honorable justices over this one, and yet another to the NRA!
The city of DC's argument was that by denying citizens the right to own handguns, there were less guns available to be stolen by criminals. The long-debated question is whether such a gun law has any effect on violent crime. Apparently not, as since the ban was passed, more than 8400 people have been murdered within the boundaries of Americas capitol city!
The second amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." To most of us, on the conservative right and the moderate middle ground at least, those twenty-seven words simply indicate that the government, any government in this country, may not restrict the ownership or possesion of “arms”. The defination of ‘Arms’ ranges from rocks and clubs through knives, spears, swords, and firearms, all the way up to ICBM’s and probably nuclear weapons as well, as the left wing spokesmen have been so quick to point out. However, with current prices, even buying a new hunting rifle would put a severe strain on my monthly budget, much less an ICBM! So, just for the sake of argument, lets strike the wide assortment of WMD’s from the list of legal arms. Looking somewhat further down the list of potential weapons, we might want to consider things like combat aircraft and battleships, or perhaps tanks and artillary pieces. Here again, the sheer price of these things puts them out of the reach of most people, so we have another weapons category that really isn’t part of the question. Besides, I’d rather doubt that the Fish & Game people would smile kindly on my going elk hunting with a forty millimeter grenade launcher mounted in the back of my pick-up! I’m reasonably sure that there are a few weapons of this sort floating around, but for the life of me I don’t know why anybody would feel they need something like that. Within the realm of more probable weapons, we’ll find a collection of full and semi-automatic weapons (“assault rifles”, sub-machine guns, and the like) that most people could probably afford, and often already own, both legally and illegally, despite all the gun laws on the books, the liberal left hysteronics, and all the best efforts of the Brady Bunch. But despite the movies from Hollywood, and the gory news headlines, these types of weapons are very rarely used in the commission of a crime.
The mainstream media tells us that the basic issue for the court was whether the second amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is in some arcane way tied to service in a state militia. In my view this is only partially true. When our constitution was written (and based on English Common Law), all male members of our society were considered to be members of the militia, were expected to possess arms and to be proficient in their use. Those armed citizens were also expected to take up their arms in defense of the Republic whenever necessary. Thus, the second amendment specifically denied the government any right to limit or restrict the citizens access to arms of any sort. I’ll agree that for the most part that the situation found in the late 1700’s does not exist today, but neither does it change the fact that our constitution guarentees American citizens the right to keep and bear arms if they so desire! The only way that can be changed is by means of a constitutional amendment, agreed to by Congress and two thirds of the states (an agreement that might be somewhat difficult to obtain), not by a back room decision among a few individuals.
The real question facing the court however is the sancity of our constitution. Is it a “living document” that can be changed whenever some weeping willie decides to save us from ourselves, or is it to be the Law of the Land, set forth for all to see as was the ancient Roman Law “… that should be written down in order to prevent magistrates from applying the law in an arbitrary fashion…”, and certainly not easily discarded by anyone who decides they don’t like things the way they are? In the early days of our nation’s history, Europeans generally looked down on us because we had the strange idea that common sense, along with individual and civic responsibility, was a suitable replacement for the orders of high born royalty. Our constitution was written by men who firmly believed in those precepts, and for nearly 200 years our freedom loving nation prospered. Now however we have citizens who believe we can easily discard whatever portion of our constitutional law that they consider inconvienient. The Supreme Court has just demonstrated that constitutional law is not so easily tossed in the trashcan.
We’ll often hear a plaintive cry that “… it’s for the cheeeldren…” from the far left whenever they’re in a “ban the guns” mode. OK, I have nothing against safety, public or individual, and yes, I’d like my kids and grandkids to be reasonably safe as well. But I’m also realist enough to know that nothing is completely safe in this world. Far to many children have their young lives cut short each year, for many reasons. Chief among those is the simple failure of the family to teach our children of lifes hazards. It seems we want “the law” to take the responsibility of caring of the kids, because we’re just to busy (or to lazy) to do it ourselves! Failing that, the utopians among us apparently feel that lifes hazards can be banned by the stroke of a pen despite what our law says. Hey, reality check here! Like any other tool in mankinds history, firearms have a definate place in our lives, and our kids had better learn about their function and use, along with learning the personal responsibility that accompanies bearing arms.
The world is not a safe place despite all the vapid utopian dreams that seem to come from the liberal members of society. Just because we’d like to be safe doesn’t mean that nature is going to change it’s ways anytime soon, and I for one would think that our kids would be far better served if they learn that “safety” and “responsibility” does not happen just because we’d wish it so, and that an iron bound constitution “writ in stone” is the only way to guarentee their freedom!
Flip-Flop
What keeps politicians honest? A lot of people would answer that question with a heartfelt “not a cotton-picking thing!” Over the last few years a series of political scandals have given us the popular view that politicians are nothing more than a collection of liars and crooks. Sometimes I agree with that particular idea rather vocally… however, while there will always be plenty of dishonest people in politics, most American politicians don’t end their careers by being arrested and marched out of their offices in handcuffs. So, other than the threat of upset voters, what makes politicians keep their campaign promises? Once again the answer is “absolutely nothing”. The only thing going for the voters is that they can make an educated selection from the candidates being offered up by the various political parties, mostly by looking at the candidate’s history, his voting record on important issues, and listening to what he says in the here and now. There are warning signs that a politician may not believe in what he says publicly of course, but those are signs that observant voters can look for. One of those is “flip-flopping” on various issues. If a politician can change his “views” without a good explanation during a campaign, voters can be pretty sure that what he is telling them is nothing more than a momentary political expedient. If he doesn’t hold his views strongly, voters sure can’t trust the politician to keep his campaign promises, or to support the position of the people he hopes will vote for him.
In the last few days, charges of flip-flopping against both presidential candidates started flying thick and fast. For Senator McCain, the flip-flop is his proposal to resume offshore drilling. As the Washington Post pointed out, “McCain's announcement is a reversal of the position he took in his 2000 presidential campaign.” Well, OK, while his switch has the environmentalists weeping and wailing, he also states that a policy which made sense when gasoline was about a buck a gallon doesn’t make much sense with gas at four bucks a gallon.
The charges against Senator Obama have been more numerous and difficult to explain. An Obama primary campaign slogan was “Only Barack Obama Consistently Opposed NAFTA”, and that the threat to “opt-out” could be used as a “hammer” to force Canada and Mexico to "renegotiate" NAFTA. But, on the flip side, Obama said that he was “not a big believer in doing things unilaterally’ and that he wouldn’t force a renegotiation of NAFTA. His explanation for the change in position was that "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified." Still, Obama’s senior economics adviser, Austin Goolsbee, was caught telling Canadians that Obama didn’t really mean his promise to renegotiate the treaty. For Democrats the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was a position in which no compromise was allowed. In September, Obama’s campaign claimed he would "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." But recently Obama switched and supported the FISA compromise which granted telecom companies legal amnesty. Democrat party activists are calling Obama’s switch a “disaster.” Last year, Obama’s stance on Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns was loudly applauded for his dedication to saving public financing of presidential campaigns. Numerous editorials tore into Obama’s opponents for not making the same promise. The excuse for his now breaking this promise is that “The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who have become masters at gaming this broken system.” Still, he hasn’t explained why the system is any more broken now than it was last fall.
So John McCain is now against the federal ban on oil drilling in coastal waters, and Barack Obama is not going to accept public campaign funds… The jury is still out on whether McCain made the proper political move in changing his drilling views, but in Obama’s case it’s simple, he’ll now have more campaign money to spend than McCain, and right now money is extremely important to politicians.
One internet source of the candidate’s states positions is “Project Vote Smart” (located at http://www.votesmart.org/index.htm ). After spending hours wading through their statistics and questionnaires, I’ve found the following about the two leading candidates;
Obama’s claimed stance on abortion is that they should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade, and apparently he has little else to say on the subject. In the case of affirmative action he claims to support taking race and sex into account in college admission, public employment, and government contracting. On crime control he says he favors penalties other than incarceration for some non-violent offenders, increased funding for inmate rehab programs, and funding for juvenile offender “boot camps”. Under the heading of Economy and Employment he favors low interest loans for starting, expanding, or relocating businesses. (A few years ago I’d have loved to have seen that happen!) He’d also like to see an increase in job training programs. On the Environment & Energy chart he wants to require cleaner burning fuels, and supports industrial “self auditing” to clean up pollution.
Sen. Obama’s stance on government reform is interesting even if uncommitted. He’s undecided on term limits at the state level, undecided on requiring a balanced federal budget, supports campaign finance disclosure and partial funding for state level campaigns. On firearms issues he supports banning the sale or transfer of all semi-automatic weapons, increased restrictions on purchase and possession of firearms, and of course he would require child safety locks to be provided by the manufacturer. In the area of Health and social issues he wants to ensure basic health care through managed care, insurance reforms, and state funding. He also seems to think that the states should increase their funding for most federally mandated social programs.
Senator McCain would support abortion when pregnancy results from incest or rape, or when the woman’s life is endangered. He would prohibit “partial birth” abortions and public funding of abortion clinics. On budgetary, spending, and tax issues he would pretty much maintain the status quo, with a slight increase in defense spending. Apparently however, Mr. McCain supports the Presidents tax reduction issue. He hasn’t said much about campaign finance and government reform issues. He does support the death penalty, prosecution of minors as adults when charged with violent crimes, mandatory prison time for drug dealers, and vocational training programs for prison inmates. On education issues he supports national standards for students, school vouchers, charter schools, teacher testing and merit pay, and school infrastructure and technology improvements. For social security he would allow individuals to invest in and manage their own private retirement accounts. Responding to employment and affirmative action questions he would increase funding for national job-training programs that re-train displaced workers, and reduce government regulation of the private sector. Not much is said about affirmative action. On environmental issues he supports the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, along with healthy forests legislation. He would also require compensation for land owners when environmental regulations affect the use of their property. In firearms issues he would strengthen enforcement of existing gun laws, allow concealed carry, and protect licensed gun dealers from lawsuits by crime victims. He supports stem cell research with existing stem cell lines, supports a “Patient’s Bill of Rights”, and limiting punitive damages in medical malpractice suits.
With regard to International Aid, Policy, and Trade Issues, McCain’s said that “While implementing reforms, our nation should participate in U.N. peacekeeping operations when defense of our national interests and values calls for such action, provided the U.S. maintains operational control of our forces. Aid should be granted to countries when extraordinary circumstances cause disaster and threaten civilian lives.” And that “Aid should be granted to countries when it is in the security interests of the United States.” As expected he supports the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, and continuing sanctions against North Korea and Iran. He opposes allowing Law Enforcement agencies greater discretion in “spying” on American citizens, but in the same breath supports Homeland Security. Nor does he rule out pre-emptive strikes on other countries when evaluated on a case by case basis. Sen. McCain apparently supports NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO as well.
So, there are the stated positions on various issues. Now of course we’ll see if the candidates continue with those beliefs, or if they just “tell the crowd what they want to hear”. Character and honesty will show through I suspect, if it’s there at all.
In the last few days, charges of flip-flopping against both presidential candidates started flying thick and fast. For Senator McCain, the flip-flop is his proposal to resume offshore drilling. As the Washington Post pointed out, “McCain's announcement is a reversal of the position he took in his 2000 presidential campaign.” Well, OK, while his switch has the environmentalists weeping and wailing, he also states that a policy which made sense when gasoline was about a buck a gallon doesn’t make much sense with gas at four bucks a gallon.
The charges against Senator Obama have been more numerous and difficult to explain. An Obama primary campaign slogan was “Only Barack Obama Consistently Opposed NAFTA”, and that the threat to “opt-out” could be used as a “hammer” to force Canada and Mexico to "renegotiate" NAFTA. But, on the flip side, Obama said that he was “not a big believer in doing things unilaterally’ and that he wouldn’t force a renegotiation of NAFTA. His explanation for the change in position was that "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified." Still, Obama’s senior economics adviser, Austin Goolsbee, was caught telling Canadians that Obama didn’t really mean his promise to renegotiate the treaty. For Democrats the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was a position in which no compromise was allowed. In September, Obama’s campaign claimed he would "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." But recently Obama switched and supported the FISA compromise which granted telecom companies legal amnesty. Democrat party activists are calling Obama’s switch a “disaster.” Last year, Obama’s stance on Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns was loudly applauded for his dedication to saving public financing of presidential campaigns. Numerous editorials tore into Obama’s opponents for not making the same promise. The excuse for his now breaking this promise is that “The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who have become masters at gaming this broken system.” Still, he hasn’t explained why the system is any more broken now than it was last fall.
So John McCain is now against the federal ban on oil drilling in coastal waters, and Barack Obama is not going to accept public campaign funds… The jury is still out on whether McCain made the proper political move in changing his drilling views, but in Obama’s case it’s simple, he’ll now have more campaign money to spend than McCain, and right now money is extremely important to politicians.
One internet source of the candidate’s states positions is “Project Vote Smart” (located at http://www.votesmart.org/index.htm ). After spending hours wading through their statistics and questionnaires, I’ve found the following about the two leading candidates;
Obama’s claimed stance on abortion is that they should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade, and apparently he has little else to say on the subject. In the case of affirmative action he claims to support taking race and sex into account in college admission, public employment, and government contracting. On crime control he says he favors penalties other than incarceration for some non-violent offenders, increased funding for inmate rehab programs, and funding for juvenile offender “boot camps”. Under the heading of Economy and Employment he favors low interest loans for starting, expanding, or relocating businesses. (A few years ago I’d have loved to have seen that happen!) He’d also like to see an increase in job training programs. On the Environment & Energy chart he wants to require cleaner burning fuels, and supports industrial “self auditing” to clean up pollution.
Sen. Obama’s stance on government reform is interesting even if uncommitted. He’s undecided on term limits at the state level, undecided on requiring a balanced federal budget, supports campaign finance disclosure and partial funding for state level campaigns. On firearms issues he supports banning the sale or transfer of all semi-automatic weapons, increased restrictions on purchase and possession of firearms, and of course he would require child safety locks to be provided by the manufacturer. In the area of Health and social issues he wants to ensure basic health care through managed care, insurance reforms, and state funding. He also seems to think that the states should increase their funding for most federally mandated social programs.
Senator McCain would support abortion when pregnancy results from incest or rape, or when the woman’s life is endangered. He would prohibit “partial birth” abortions and public funding of abortion clinics. On budgetary, spending, and tax issues he would pretty much maintain the status quo, with a slight increase in defense spending. Apparently however, Mr. McCain supports the Presidents tax reduction issue. He hasn’t said much about campaign finance and government reform issues. He does support the death penalty, prosecution of minors as adults when charged with violent crimes, mandatory prison time for drug dealers, and vocational training programs for prison inmates. On education issues he supports national standards for students, school vouchers, charter schools, teacher testing and merit pay, and school infrastructure and technology improvements. For social security he would allow individuals to invest in and manage their own private retirement accounts. Responding to employment and affirmative action questions he would increase funding for national job-training programs that re-train displaced workers, and reduce government regulation of the private sector. Not much is said about affirmative action. On environmental issues he supports the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, along with healthy forests legislation. He would also require compensation for land owners when environmental regulations affect the use of their property. In firearms issues he would strengthen enforcement of existing gun laws, allow concealed carry, and protect licensed gun dealers from lawsuits by crime victims. He supports stem cell research with existing stem cell lines, supports a “Patient’s Bill of Rights”, and limiting punitive damages in medical malpractice suits.
With regard to International Aid, Policy, and Trade Issues, McCain’s said that “While implementing reforms, our nation should participate in U.N. peacekeeping operations when defense of our national interests and values calls for such action, provided the U.S. maintains operational control of our forces. Aid should be granted to countries when extraordinary circumstances cause disaster and threaten civilian lives.” And that “Aid should be granted to countries when it is in the security interests of the United States.” As expected he supports the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, and continuing sanctions against North Korea and Iran. He opposes allowing Law Enforcement agencies greater discretion in “spying” on American citizens, but in the same breath supports Homeland Security. Nor does he rule out pre-emptive strikes on other countries when evaluated on a case by case basis. Sen. McCain apparently supports NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO as well.
So, there are the stated positions on various issues. Now of course we’ll see if the candidates continue with those beliefs, or if they just “tell the crowd what they want to hear”. Character and honesty will show through I suspect, if it’s there at all.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Diversity
It’s become increasingly popular in recent years for liberals to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic virtue. From multicultural festivals to political speeches, the message is always the same, “our differences make us stronger”. (The definition of diversity being "a wide range of sub-cultures and value systems".) However, a recent study based on interviews with nearly 30,000 people across the country has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam has found that “the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings.” The study found that virtually all measures of civic involvement are lower in the more diverse settings, with more diverse communities tending to be larger, have greater income ranges, higher crime rates, and more mobility among their residents. Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to "distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television." "People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to 'hunker down' -- that is, to pull in like a turtle.”
The study comes when the American melting pot is the center of a hot political debate over immigration, and it challenges both sides of the argument. It’s also, and somewhat prematurely, being cited as proof that large-scale immigration severely harms the nation's society. But still, the immigration problem has bedeviled this nation for well over a century now, and we’ve managed to survive, mostly by letting time and established immigration limits solve the problem. Before those limits were established however, our larger cities bore the brunt of immigration, and severely suffered from the same ailments that Professor Putnam describes.
Since the 1830’s the United States has seen a steady stream of immigration almost totally from Europe. These immigrants proved troublesome for the cities, but with national expansion they were assimilated for the most part. Still, large slum areas developed in every city, and proved impossible to extinguish. Shortly after the Civil War, the United States was inundated with a flood of immigrants from all over the world, but still primarily from Europe. These immigrants, like their forerunners, having an alien culture and little or no knowledge of the English language, found themselves banding together along ethnic lines merely to survive. (At least you could ask the neighbors where the grocery store was with a good chance that they’d understand you.) With this, our major cities found themselves being divided into a wide assortment of “districts” (for lack of a better word), based on ethnicity, religion, and culture. Who hasn’t heard of the “Old Bowery”, “Little Italy” or “Chinatown”? With the skills they brought with them, most immigrants found jobs of one sort or another, and by learning the language they were able to spread across the country and become part of the American culture. Look around you and consider the national origin of your friends and neighbors last names… they are after all descended from immigrants, and probably their families arrived in this country less than two hundred years ago. My own great grandfather got off the boat with a shilling or two in his pocket, and speaking only Gaelic. The only job he could find was with the Union Army, and of necessity he learned to speak “American English”. After the Civil War he went to work with a good many other Irishmen building the Union Pacific Railroad, and found himself in the wild and woolly west, which was certainly a far cry from his native Tipperary! Within a few years and with a lot of hard work he owned a New Mexico cattle ranch. Not bad for an Irish immigrant lad in the 1870’s.
Following WW II the US again felt a surge of European immigrants and soon assimilated them with no major difficulties, because of cultural similarities. In the aftermath of the Korean and Vietnam wars we played host to a surge of immigration from the orient. This time around we had problems that continue today because of the vast difference between oriental cultures and our European based national culture. Still, that wave of immigration was limited for the most part, and with considerable effort our society was able to absorb most of our new citizens. Today however we’re being inundated by a virtual flood of illegal immigrants from third world countries, with an even greater variation of languages, religions, and cultural backgrounds… and who resist assimilation into main stream America. Making things even more difficult, a large portion of these immigrants have no saleable skills, and in many cases are relatively uneducated by our standards. Unfortunately for them, the market for unskilled day labor (or guerrilla fighters) is rapidly drying up in this country, they’re forced to depend on welfare or crime to survive, and of necessity continue to live in assorted “ghettos” in our cities, often completely ignoring our laws and social standards. The “promise of America” has certainly changed over the last seventy-five years, and apparently the “word” hasn’t gotten out to everyone yet!
Discounting the questions continuously being raised by special interests about the quota system, legal immigrants are supposed to meet certain standards. Among those are requirements that they’re not bringing various contagious or hard to treat disease with them. Another is that they must not have a criminal background. Face it, we’ve got more than enough home grown criminals without importing even more, and we certainly don’t need additional “gang members” in our cities! They are also required to have a sponsor who will be responsible for seeing that they do not become a burden on the public treasury. I see nothing ethically wrong with these requirements, after all, it is our country, and the legal citizens should have the right to determine who’s coming in, and who’s not! I have stated repeatedly that I do not oppose immigration… and I still don’t… as long as that immigration is legal and controlled. The term “legal immigration” is pretty well self-explanatory I’d think. On the other hand, congress seems to need a definition of “Controlled immigration”. That is, quite simply, we need to limit by whatever means necessary the number of immigrants each year to only those that our American culture is able to absorb!
After all, if they don’t want to be “American” as we understand it, perhaps they should stay home and solve their nations problems, rather than running away from them by coming here and adding to our problems.
The study comes when the American melting pot is the center of a hot political debate over immigration, and it challenges both sides of the argument. It’s also, and somewhat prematurely, being cited as proof that large-scale immigration severely harms the nation's society. But still, the immigration problem has bedeviled this nation for well over a century now, and we’ve managed to survive, mostly by letting time and established immigration limits solve the problem. Before those limits were established however, our larger cities bore the brunt of immigration, and severely suffered from the same ailments that Professor Putnam describes.
Since the 1830’s the United States has seen a steady stream of immigration almost totally from Europe. These immigrants proved troublesome for the cities, but with national expansion they were assimilated for the most part. Still, large slum areas developed in every city, and proved impossible to extinguish. Shortly after the Civil War, the United States was inundated with a flood of immigrants from all over the world, but still primarily from Europe. These immigrants, like their forerunners, having an alien culture and little or no knowledge of the English language, found themselves banding together along ethnic lines merely to survive. (At least you could ask the neighbors where the grocery store was with a good chance that they’d understand you.) With this, our major cities found themselves being divided into a wide assortment of “districts” (for lack of a better word), based on ethnicity, religion, and culture. Who hasn’t heard of the “Old Bowery”, “Little Italy” or “Chinatown”? With the skills they brought with them, most immigrants found jobs of one sort or another, and by learning the language they were able to spread across the country and become part of the American culture. Look around you and consider the national origin of your friends and neighbors last names… they are after all descended from immigrants, and probably their families arrived in this country less than two hundred years ago. My own great grandfather got off the boat with a shilling or two in his pocket, and speaking only Gaelic. The only job he could find was with the Union Army, and of necessity he learned to speak “American English”. After the Civil War he went to work with a good many other Irishmen building the Union Pacific Railroad, and found himself in the wild and woolly west, which was certainly a far cry from his native Tipperary! Within a few years and with a lot of hard work he owned a New Mexico cattle ranch. Not bad for an Irish immigrant lad in the 1870’s.
Following WW II the US again felt a surge of European immigrants and soon assimilated them with no major difficulties, because of cultural similarities. In the aftermath of the Korean and Vietnam wars we played host to a surge of immigration from the orient. This time around we had problems that continue today because of the vast difference between oriental cultures and our European based national culture. Still, that wave of immigration was limited for the most part, and with considerable effort our society was able to absorb most of our new citizens. Today however we’re being inundated by a virtual flood of illegal immigrants from third world countries, with an even greater variation of languages, religions, and cultural backgrounds… and who resist assimilation into main stream America. Making things even more difficult, a large portion of these immigrants have no saleable skills, and in many cases are relatively uneducated by our standards. Unfortunately for them, the market for unskilled day labor (or guerrilla fighters) is rapidly drying up in this country, they’re forced to depend on welfare or crime to survive, and of necessity continue to live in assorted “ghettos” in our cities, often completely ignoring our laws and social standards. The “promise of America” has certainly changed over the last seventy-five years, and apparently the “word” hasn’t gotten out to everyone yet!
Discounting the questions continuously being raised by special interests about the quota system, legal immigrants are supposed to meet certain standards. Among those are requirements that they’re not bringing various contagious or hard to treat disease with them. Another is that they must not have a criminal background. Face it, we’ve got more than enough home grown criminals without importing even more, and we certainly don’t need additional “gang members” in our cities! They are also required to have a sponsor who will be responsible for seeing that they do not become a burden on the public treasury. I see nothing ethically wrong with these requirements, after all, it is our country, and the legal citizens should have the right to determine who’s coming in, and who’s not! I have stated repeatedly that I do not oppose immigration… and I still don’t… as long as that immigration is legal and controlled. The term “legal immigration” is pretty well self-explanatory I’d think. On the other hand, congress seems to need a definition of “Controlled immigration”. That is, quite simply, we need to limit by whatever means necessary the number of immigrants each year to only those that our American culture is able to absorb!
After all, if they don’t want to be “American” as we understand it, perhaps they should stay home and solve their nations problems, rather than running away from them by coming here and adding to our problems.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Economy
Looking at the gloom and doom predictions in the financial pages generally gives me a headache from trying to understand all the acronyms and arcane theories so easily tossed about by economists. Of course my never having studied the world of high finance, and having just about zero interest in it, probably explains part of the problem. However, if I just pick out one sentence at a time and worry it to death I can usually come up with some vague idea of what they’re babbling about. From that, it appears that at present the faltering global economy is the major concern, closely followed by the worldwide cost and the (apparently artificial) shortage of oil. Here in the US, the Federal Reserve is constantly trying to “adjust” the supply of money, which only serves to further confuse the issue at home, and helps to preserve the rather jittery financial situation in the rest of the world. Congress on the other hand appears to be greatly concerned with keeping the mortgage market intact with federal bailouts, and of course increasing the taxes on oil yet again, neither of which are helping the average citizen any at all. Then of course we have other economic worries as well.
From a recent story on the MSN financial pages it would appear that the UN financial gurus are predicting that a global famine will strike within the next few years. Historically, famine was a regional problem brought about by crop failures, drought, war, or pests of one sort or another (usually either locusts or the tax collector I believe). In this case there are several causes for the threat. The first is the perennial bug-a-boo of over-population, and I can hardly find fault with the logic used. Consider that in the 63 years since the end of WW II, the United States population has doubled, and it’s predicted to double again by the year 2040, and the world population increase is not far behind. The second cause relates to the world population and the subsequent increased demand for improved nutrition world wide, combined with government subsidized demand for “green” biofuels that are produced from our limited supply of food crops. The fixed amount of arable land available worldwide not only has to provide our food but it also has to provide living space for the population. Then to, our unsettled climate isn’t helping the situation any at all. “Experts” state that the world’s arable land “could” feed a population of ten billion people, with some claims as high as thirty billion. (Ten maybe. But thirty!?)
Many parts of the third world are already experiencing food shortages and escalating prices, in some cases to the point of starvation for the “poorer classes”. That food crisis is not only promoting civil unrest hither and yon, but is being used as a weapon in “ethnic cleansing” campaigns. It’s also bringing on the very serious threat of previously stable governments failing, and also of war between the “have” and “have not” nations. That threat is serious enough that much of the UN is becoming quite concerned. The food crisis is not only being felt among the worlds poor, but is also cutting into the gains of the working and middle classes in the more affluent nations, sowing discontent and putting new pressures on various governments. In Cairo, the military is being put to work baking bread. In parts of sub-Saharan Africa, food riots are breaking out as never before. In Malaysia, the government was nearly ousted by voters who cite food and fuel price increases as their main concerns. The sudden rise of commodity prices pits the world’s poorer nations against the relatively wealthy, adding to demands for reform of rich nations' farm policies. But experts say there are few quick fixes to a crisis brought on by so many factors, from the strong demand for food in emerging economies like China and India, to rising oil prices that cause the diversion of food resources to make biofuels. There are no quick answers to handling the crisis either. Asian governments are organizing measures to limit hoarding of rice after shoppers panicked at price increases and bought up everything they could. In Thailand, which produces more rice than it consumes, supermarkets have limited the amount of rice shoppers are allowed to purchase. The Indonesian government recently revised its budget, increasing the amount it will spend on food subsidies by about $280 million. In Senegal, one of Africa's oldest and most stable democracies, police in riot gear used tear gas against people protesting high food prices.
In an MSNBS news report, Arif Husain, senior food security analyst at the World Food Program asked "Why are these riots happening? The human instinct is to survive, and people are going to do no matter what to survive. And if you're hungry you get angry quicker." The report further stated; “Food riots caused by rising food prices have erupted around the world. Five people died in uprisings in Haiti, perhaps the first of many casualties to come from the fad of being “green”. Food riots also broke out in Egypt, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Senegal and Ethiopia. The military is being deployed in Pakistan and Thailand to protect fields and warehouses. Higher energy costs and policies promoting the use of biofuels such as ethanol are being blamed.” "When millions of people are going hungry, it’s a crime against humanity that food should be diverted to biofuels," an Indian government official told the Wall Street Journal.
Biofuels have generally turned out to be a losing proposition. Claims by environmentalists and the industry as to reducing the demand for oil, and to lowering greenhouse gas emissions have proven false. Research shows that biofuels increase greenhouse gas emissions over the total production/usage cycle (raising the crops, harvesting, conversion, transportation, usage). Adding to the problem is the diversion of food crops and food crop acreage to producing fuels. That diversion has contributed to higher food prices and a reduced food supply. Nor is the situation going to improve in the near future, as cutting farm subsidies and tariffs on sugarcane based fuel imports is another political hot potato that congress can’t seem to get a grip on. Biofuel advocates tell us the reliance on food crops to produce biodiesel and ethanol is only temporary, as they plan a future where biomass (such as wood chips, corn stalks and straw) are the feedstock for cellulose ethanol. But the technology for producing that ethanol is nowhere near mature, and the greenhouse gasses produced over the entire lifecycle will probably be worse than what we’re already seeing. Nor will the cost per gallon of liquid fuels necessarily decrease either. Food riots are only the beginning, now we can expect to see energy riots as well. The world’s population is always growing remember, and those additional people will need food and energy. Yet the Sierra Club fights to shut down coal-fired power plants, the Natural Resources Defense Council fights to keep nuclear power from replacing coal, and Earth First is campaigning against power plants that use natural gas.
Just what the world needs today, overpopulation, a faltering economy, an energy crunch, approaching famine, and rabid environmentalism calling the shots on domestic oil production. I think the Cold War was probably easier to handle!
From a recent story on the MSN financial pages it would appear that the UN financial gurus are predicting that a global famine will strike within the next few years. Historically, famine was a regional problem brought about by crop failures, drought, war, or pests of one sort or another (usually either locusts or the tax collector I believe). In this case there are several causes for the threat. The first is the perennial bug-a-boo of over-population, and I can hardly find fault with the logic used. Consider that in the 63 years since the end of WW II, the United States population has doubled, and it’s predicted to double again by the year 2040, and the world population increase is not far behind. The second cause relates to the world population and the subsequent increased demand for improved nutrition world wide, combined with government subsidized demand for “green” biofuels that are produced from our limited supply of food crops. The fixed amount of arable land available worldwide not only has to provide our food but it also has to provide living space for the population. Then to, our unsettled climate isn’t helping the situation any at all. “Experts” state that the world’s arable land “could” feed a population of ten billion people, with some claims as high as thirty billion. (Ten maybe. But thirty!?)
Many parts of the third world are already experiencing food shortages and escalating prices, in some cases to the point of starvation for the “poorer classes”. That food crisis is not only promoting civil unrest hither and yon, but is being used as a weapon in “ethnic cleansing” campaigns. It’s also bringing on the very serious threat of previously stable governments failing, and also of war between the “have” and “have not” nations. That threat is serious enough that much of the UN is becoming quite concerned. The food crisis is not only being felt among the worlds poor, but is also cutting into the gains of the working and middle classes in the more affluent nations, sowing discontent and putting new pressures on various governments. In Cairo, the military is being put to work baking bread. In parts of sub-Saharan Africa, food riots are breaking out as never before. In Malaysia, the government was nearly ousted by voters who cite food and fuel price increases as their main concerns. The sudden rise of commodity prices pits the world’s poorer nations against the relatively wealthy, adding to demands for reform of rich nations' farm policies. But experts say there are few quick fixes to a crisis brought on by so many factors, from the strong demand for food in emerging economies like China and India, to rising oil prices that cause the diversion of food resources to make biofuels. There are no quick answers to handling the crisis either. Asian governments are organizing measures to limit hoarding of rice after shoppers panicked at price increases and bought up everything they could. In Thailand, which produces more rice than it consumes, supermarkets have limited the amount of rice shoppers are allowed to purchase. The Indonesian government recently revised its budget, increasing the amount it will spend on food subsidies by about $280 million. In Senegal, one of Africa's oldest and most stable democracies, police in riot gear used tear gas against people protesting high food prices.
In an MSNBS news report, Arif Husain, senior food security analyst at the World Food Program asked "Why are these riots happening? The human instinct is to survive, and people are going to do no matter what to survive. And if you're hungry you get angry quicker." The report further stated; “Food riots caused by rising food prices have erupted around the world. Five people died in uprisings in Haiti, perhaps the first of many casualties to come from the fad of being “green”. Food riots also broke out in Egypt, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Senegal and Ethiopia. The military is being deployed in Pakistan and Thailand to protect fields and warehouses. Higher energy costs and policies promoting the use of biofuels such as ethanol are being blamed.” "When millions of people are going hungry, it’s a crime against humanity that food should be diverted to biofuels," an Indian government official told the Wall Street Journal.
Biofuels have generally turned out to be a losing proposition. Claims by environmentalists and the industry as to reducing the demand for oil, and to lowering greenhouse gas emissions have proven false. Research shows that biofuels increase greenhouse gas emissions over the total production/usage cycle (raising the crops, harvesting, conversion, transportation, usage). Adding to the problem is the diversion of food crops and food crop acreage to producing fuels. That diversion has contributed to higher food prices and a reduced food supply. Nor is the situation going to improve in the near future, as cutting farm subsidies and tariffs on sugarcane based fuel imports is another political hot potato that congress can’t seem to get a grip on. Biofuel advocates tell us the reliance on food crops to produce biodiesel and ethanol is only temporary, as they plan a future where biomass (such as wood chips, corn stalks and straw) are the feedstock for cellulose ethanol. But the technology for producing that ethanol is nowhere near mature, and the greenhouse gasses produced over the entire lifecycle will probably be worse than what we’re already seeing. Nor will the cost per gallon of liquid fuels necessarily decrease either. Food riots are only the beginning, now we can expect to see energy riots as well. The world’s population is always growing remember, and those additional people will need food and energy. Yet the Sierra Club fights to shut down coal-fired power plants, the Natural Resources Defense Council fights to keep nuclear power from replacing coal, and Earth First is campaigning against power plants that use natural gas.
Just what the world needs today, overpopulation, a faltering economy, an energy crunch, approaching famine, and rabid environmentalism calling the shots on domestic oil production. I think the Cold War was probably easier to handle!
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
I'm Back
There was no IMO column last issue, mostly because I was an unexpected guest at the Boise VA hospital for a few days. On Friday I went down to the hospital for my annual check-up, which is somewhat akin to having a minor tune-up, oil change, and rotating the tires. It seems that I made a error in telling the good doctor that I hadn’t been feeling all that well for the last few weeks, and with that he decided to keep me around for a few days. The next thing I know I’ve been admitted to the ICU “Step Down Unit” which is rather like a half-way house for folks that have been really sick but are preparing to become one of those who make everybody around them ill by constantly talking about their “operation”. Temporarily, and purely in the interest of journalism you understand, I’ll join that irritating group of people who have nothing better to talk about but their seemingly endless medical problems.
I have been examined, measured, poked, prodded, monitored, swabbed, sampled, X-rayed, gamma rayed, ultrasounded, tested, stressed and strained, EKG’d, injected, IV’d, and oxygenated, along with being cussed and discussed no end by a small army of Doctors, Medical Specialists, Technicians, Nurses, Administrators, Medical Students, CNA’s, and probably the FBI, CIA, IRS, and Homeland Security as well, until there’s nothing left to learn! I’ve been starved on a low cholesterol / low sodium hospital diet (I think the powdered eggs were army rations left over from the War of 1812), and for the most part just plain bored to tears for the last few days. About the only indignity I was spared is an enema, and I wasn’t about to mention that little oversight to the doctor or nurses! Somebody would inevitably come along and wake me up every couple of hours all night long so that a happy, smiling, efficient, and disgustingly cheerful nurse could record my vital signs. (WARNING!! If you wake me up at 2 AM, I am NOT inclined to be happy and smiling!) About the time I’d get back to sleep, an equally cheerful vampire would come in and wake me up again so she could draw a few more gallons of blood with a dull needle that I think was manufactured by the village blacksmith from an old 10 gauge shotgun barrel. I’ve been hooked up to more wires and plumbing than a space shuttle undergoing pre-launch tests!
They’ve given me some new medications and taken away some of the old ones. I’ve got a pocket sized “heart monitor” thingy that I’m supposed to wear constantly for the next couple of weeks. I’ve also got a multi-page set of instructions and a mess of general orders (most of which I’ll probably ignore anyway). After all this, and likely a scadzillion dollar dent in the VA’s annual budget, the medico’s still don’t really know what’s wrong. So far their diagnosis pretty well matches my own as I understand things, which is that I’ve experienced a couple of heart attacks in the past, and as a result now have a very slow heart rate which causes a lot of other problems, and that there really isn’t a whole lot they can do about it. I’ll give them a big "E for effort" though.
Considering the horror stories we’ve all heard about the VA medical system over the last few years, most people would be somewhat concerned about being hospitalized there. However, I can honestly say that I have no problems with the VA hospital system, and I really do think that the Boise VA Medical Center staff are a great bunch of people who put a lot of effort into taking good care of us old “high mileage” vet’s. (Well… lem’me think about the vampires a bit…) The nurses in particular are a fantastic bunch, but they run to darn fast for us old codgers to catch! In all, I’m a pretty well satisfied customer of VA medical care.
We’ve also heard about all the people in this country who don’t have access to medical care due to the high cost of medical insurance. That sorry situation is a problem that we as a nation need to address, and socialized medicine isn’t going to be a workable answer either. The first question of course is why are those medical insurance costs so high? Insurance companies try to provide a service to the public for a (large) fee, essentially you send ‘em a big part of your paycheck every month, and in return if you get sick they pay the medical bills, or at least part of ‘em. As insurance companies are stockholder owned businesses, they have to show a profit lest the stockholders get upset and fire the highly paid CEO, which is a really bad day sort of thing for the CEO. Most hospitals are also privately owned, which means they have to show a profit as well, and for much the same reason. Then we have the Doctors, who spend a lot of their youth learning the trade, and generally have some horrendous student loans to repay. If they can’t make a very comfortable living after all that effort, they’re going to be out looking for another line of work, in which case we’d soon have complete amateurs doing brain surgery. The nurses and technicians have a similar problem on an only slightly smaller scale, and there are a lot of people in the various supporting positions that must be paid as well. While I don’t know the exact percentage, I’d bet that payroll is probably by far the largest part of a hospital’s budget.
During my hospital “visit”, I gave the nurses the slip on occasion, and wandered around searching for that secret room where they hide your britches so you can’t escape. I noticed that there are a lot of shiny “gadgets” called medical equipment, scattered around all over the place. Because of my EMT/Paramedic background, most of those fancy gadgets weren’t a complete mystery to me, but there were some items I had to think about for a moment, and more than a few puzzlers that I’d have to ask someone about. Essentially they do the same thing as the equipment I worked with more than thirty years ago. But today’s hospital equipment seems to be highly updated, a lot faster working, and mostly computerized, which I well know raises the purchase price considerably. All this fancy equipment is necessary of course, both to make a diagnosis more accurate, and treatment quicker, which saves lives. Unfortunately, like everything else hi-tech, they become obsolete fairly soon and must be replaced. Thus hospitals are caught up in a continuous arms race to have the newest and most modern equipment (a “keeping up with the Jones’s” sort of thing), so that they can attract more patients and thus show even greater profits. With the modern day “electronic office” available, I often wonder why a hospital, or any business for that matter, needs so many administrative personnel. After all, I once ran an entire rural fire department, without computers you might note, and in addition to being Fire Chief I was the entire administrative staff! ‘Course that was back in the dark ages, before so much federally mandated record keeping and useless reports came along…
Overall our medical services do a pretty good job of keeping us alive and kicking, while the insurance industry does pay the bills, most of the time. But still, medical care is by its nature a quite expensive proposition, and the consumer always gets to pay for everything in the end, including some rather large insurance company profit margins.
I have been examined, measured, poked, prodded, monitored, swabbed, sampled, X-rayed, gamma rayed, ultrasounded, tested, stressed and strained, EKG’d, injected, IV’d, and oxygenated, along with being cussed and discussed no end by a small army of Doctors, Medical Specialists, Technicians, Nurses, Administrators, Medical Students, CNA’s, and probably the FBI, CIA, IRS, and Homeland Security as well, until there’s nothing left to learn! I’ve been starved on a low cholesterol / low sodium hospital diet (I think the powdered eggs were army rations left over from the War of 1812), and for the most part just plain bored to tears for the last few days. About the only indignity I was spared is an enema, and I wasn’t about to mention that little oversight to the doctor or nurses! Somebody would inevitably come along and wake me up every couple of hours all night long so that a happy, smiling, efficient, and disgustingly cheerful nurse could record my vital signs. (WARNING!! If you wake me up at 2 AM, I am NOT inclined to be happy and smiling!) About the time I’d get back to sleep, an equally cheerful vampire would come in and wake me up again so she could draw a few more gallons of blood with a dull needle that I think was manufactured by the village blacksmith from an old 10 gauge shotgun barrel. I’ve been hooked up to more wires and plumbing than a space shuttle undergoing pre-launch tests!
They’ve given me some new medications and taken away some of the old ones. I’ve got a pocket sized “heart monitor” thingy that I’m supposed to wear constantly for the next couple of weeks. I’ve also got a multi-page set of instructions and a mess of general orders (most of which I’ll probably ignore anyway). After all this, and likely a scadzillion dollar dent in the VA’s annual budget, the medico’s still don’t really know what’s wrong. So far their diagnosis pretty well matches my own as I understand things, which is that I’ve experienced a couple of heart attacks in the past, and as a result now have a very slow heart rate which causes a lot of other problems, and that there really isn’t a whole lot they can do about it. I’ll give them a big "E for effort" though.
Considering the horror stories we’ve all heard about the VA medical system over the last few years, most people would be somewhat concerned about being hospitalized there. However, I can honestly say that I have no problems with the VA hospital system, and I really do think that the Boise VA Medical Center staff are a great bunch of people who put a lot of effort into taking good care of us old “high mileage” vet’s. (Well… lem’me think about the vampires a bit…) The nurses in particular are a fantastic bunch, but they run to darn fast for us old codgers to catch! In all, I’m a pretty well satisfied customer of VA medical care.
We’ve also heard about all the people in this country who don’t have access to medical care due to the high cost of medical insurance. That sorry situation is a problem that we as a nation need to address, and socialized medicine isn’t going to be a workable answer either. The first question of course is why are those medical insurance costs so high? Insurance companies try to provide a service to the public for a (large) fee, essentially you send ‘em a big part of your paycheck every month, and in return if you get sick they pay the medical bills, or at least part of ‘em. As insurance companies are stockholder owned businesses, they have to show a profit lest the stockholders get upset and fire the highly paid CEO, which is a really bad day sort of thing for the CEO. Most hospitals are also privately owned, which means they have to show a profit as well, and for much the same reason. Then we have the Doctors, who spend a lot of their youth learning the trade, and generally have some horrendous student loans to repay. If they can’t make a very comfortable living after all that effort, they’re going to be out looking for another line of work, in which case we’d soon have complete amateurs doing brain surgery. The nurses and technicians have a similar problem on an only slightly smaller scale, and there are a lot of people in the various supporting positions that must be paid as well. While I don’t know the exact percentage, I’d bet that payroll is probably by far the largest part of a hospital’s budget.
During my hospital “visit”, I gave the nurses the slip on occasion, and wandered around searching for that secret room where they hide your britches so you can’t escape. I noticed that there are a lot of shiny “gadgets” called medical equipment, scattered around all over the place. Because of my EMT/Paramedic background, most of those fancy gadgets weren’t a complete mystery to me, but there were some items I had to think about for a moment, and more than a few puzzlers that I’d have to ask someone about. Essentially they do the same thing as the equipment I worked with more than thirty years ago. But today’s hospital equipment seems to be highly updated, a lot faster working, and mostly computerized, which I well know raises the purchase price considerably. All this fancy equipment is necessary of course, both to make a diagnosis more accurate, and treatment quicker, which saves lives. Unfortunately, like everything else hi-tech, they become obsolete fairly soon and must be replaced. Thus hospitals are caught up in a continuous arms race to have the newest and most modern equipment (a “keeping up with the Jones’s” sort of thing), so that they can attract more patients and thus show even greater profits. With the modern day “electronic office” available, I often wonder why a hospital, or any business for that matter, needs so many administrative personnel. After all, I once ran an entire rural fire department, without computers you might note, and in addition to being Fire Chief I was the entire administrative staff! ‘Course that was back in the dark ages, before so much federally mandated record keeping and useless reports came along…
Overall our medical services do a pretty good job of keeping us alive and kicking, while the insurance industry does pay the bills, most of the time. But still, medical care is by its nature a quite expensive proposition, and the consumer always gets to pay for everything in the end, including some rather large insurance company profit margins.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Oil
Oil recently hit $130 per barrel, paused briefly, and now is continuing its seemingly irresistible rise. At the gas pumps we see the prices rapidly approaching $4 or more a gallon, with no sign of leveling off anytime soon. There seems to be a lot of weeping and wailing among the owners of the big gas guzzling vehicles when the cost of a fill-up can exceed a hundred dollars, while I whimper and whine a lot when it costs fifty dollars or more to fill my little (almost thirty mile-per-gallon) car. If you really want to see people suffer, hang around a truck stop and see what it costs to fill one of those big tractor-trailers! Or just try to fill your home heating oil tank. Common road oil costs well over $2 a gallon today, and road oil is just about a waste product at the very bottom of the oil refining chain. As I understand things, there are a good many communities in this country that are about ready to forget paving (or repairing already paved) streets, and are seriously considering a return to gravel roads! Here in Grangeville our streets desperately need resurfacing, but with the current price of oil, just where is the city council supposed to find the money to do that? If nothing else, graveled city streets ought to slow our local “speed demons” down quite a bit.
For short term relief (and "short term" will probably be considered the next few decades), we’re told that part of the solution for consumers is going to be a greatly increased supply of crude oil. Unfortunately a steady supply of Iraqi oil depends on al-Qaeda, the Saudis already said "no way" when President Bush asked them to increase production, and Iranian oil is out of the question due to international politics. If we were to ask Mr. Chavez to please boost Venezuelan production he’d likely laugh in our faces and jump the price even higher. Mexico is in a nasty shooting war with the narcotics cartels, so the fact that they’re pumping any oil at all is probably some sort of a miracle. The North Sea production has already peaked, and that supply is earmarked for the European market. I suppose we might ask China and India to cut back on their rapidly increasing petroleum demands, but somehow I don’t see much chance of that happening either.
But really, is the problem a lack of oil? After all, we’ve got hundreds or even thousands of producing wells in this country that are capped off. Our refineries are working at around 60% capacity, even after hurricane Katrina supposedly flattened so many refineries on the gulf coast. We’ve got super tankers anchored off our coasts that are loaded with oil, and are acting as temporary floating storage tanks! Ahh… OK, what’s wrong with this picture?
There are also the claims that the uncertainty of oil production, brought on by the war in Iraq, the Iranians, or the volatile political situation in Venezuela, or maybe the pirates off the Somalia coast, are to blame. After all, if the investors can’t get a fair return on their money, they aren’t going to buy even more stock in big oil companies. We’ve all heard tales about the price of gasoline in most oil producing nations being in the fifteen to forty cents per gallon range, and I really don’t have any reason to misbelieve such claims, considering that those wells are in close proximity to the refineries, so close in fact that the “investors” and “big oil” can’t weasel their way into the production chain. Another explanation for these high prices is that the oil companies must show a good profit, or they won’t be able to afford exploration and drilling new wells. Yet even when the president of Exxon Mobile announced a 43 billion profit for the yearm he also told his stockholders that Exxon has no intent of drilling for more oil, as they already have more product available than they can use!
Exxon Mobil Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson later told the Wall Street Journal this week that he found it "astonishing" for President Bush to ask Saudi Arabia to pump more oil, rather than working harder to clear the way for more oil production at home. After all, we do have more proven oil reserves in this country than we know what to do with. Certainly American crude isn’t quite as easy to reach as the oil of the mid east, but we’ve got it. In a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy in 2006, technical analysts at Advanced Research International said "undeveloped domestic oil resources still in the ground total of 1.1 trillion barrels" and "the U.S. still has 400 billion barrels of undeveloped technically recoverable oil." Environmentalists of course tell us that the U.S. has only 21 billion barrels of "proven oil reserves", and in the meantime Saudi Arabia says it has 260 billion barrels of proven reserves available. What this tells me is that the United States has about four times as much oil in the ground as the Saudi’s do… and we’re still buying Saudi oil??? Again, what’s wrong with this picture?
The federal government has cooperated with those states that want to ban offshore oil production, primarily California, Florida and New Jersey. The federal government has also happily cooperated with the environmentalists who demand that oil under the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge also remain off limits. Drilling opponents consistently argue that the environmental damage caused by more domestic oil recovery will not be worth the small amount of oil that will be gained. So why is it then that China can drill for oil off Florida and the US can’t? Why do Californians pay $5 per gallon for gas while millions of barrels of crude lie under the Pacific a short distance from shore? Why are folks in New Jersey paying through the nose for gas when a steady supply of oil is within sight of the New Jersey Turnpike? The public outrage over high fuel prices hides the extreme profits enjoyed by oil executives, in several cases people who admit they have no idea of just how much they get paid per year, other than it’s “in the millions”.
For years environmentalists have insisted that pristine views, uncluttered by dirty old oil wells, are ever so much more important than availability of the oil which could be easing our lives (and the strain on our wallets) today. The New York Times calls oil production in ANWR "Drilling in the Cathedral", thus raising miles of frozen tundra to the status of Yosemite National Park. They’ve decreed that drilling for oil would not be worth spoiling someone's kayaking trip, or disturbing their eco-tourism experience. And Congress, despite being elected to serve the public good, consistently goes along with the environmentalist’s wishes, while the rest of us suffer mightily.
Sure do wish I also made so much money per year that I couldn’t count it…
For short term relief (and "short term" will probably be considered the next few decades), we’re told that part of the solution for consumers is going to be a greatly increased supply of crude oil. Unfortunately a steady supply of Iraqi oil depends on al-Qaeda, the Saudis already said "no way" when President Bush asked them to increase production, and Iranian oil is out of the question due to international politics. If we were to ask Mr. Chavez to please boost Venezuelan production he’d likely laugh in our faces and jump the price even higher. Mexico is in a nasty shooting war with the narcotics cartels, so the fact that they’re pumping any oil at all is probably some sort of a miracle. The North Sea production has already peaked, and that supply is earmarked for the European market. I suppose we might ask China and India to cut back on their rapidly increasing petroleum demands, but somehow I don’t see much chance of that happening either.
But really, is the problem a lack of oil? After all, we’ve got hundreds or even thousands of producing wells in this country that are capped off. Our refineries are working at around 60% capacity, even after hurricane Katrina supposedly flattened so many refineries on the gulf coast. We’ve got super tankers anchored off our coasts that are loaded with oil, and are acting as temporary floating storage tanks! Ahh… OK, what’s wrong with this picture?
There are also the claims that the uncertainty of oil production, brought on by the war in Iraq, the Iranians, or the volatile political situation in Venezuela, or maybe the pirates off the Somalia coast, are to blame. After all, if the investors can’t get a fair return on their money, they aren’t going to buy even more stock in big oil companies. We’ve all heard tales about the price of gasoline in most oil producing nations being in the fifteen to forty cents per gallon range, and I really don’t have any reason to misbelieve such claims, considering that those wells are in close proximity to the refineries, so close in fact that the “investors” and “big oil” can’t weasel their way into the production chain. Another explanation for these high prices is that the oil companies must show a good profit, or they won’t be able to afford exploration and drilling new wells. Yet even when the president of Exxon Mobile announced a 43 billion profit for the yearm he also told his stockholders that Exxon has no intent of drilling for more oil, as they already have more product available than they can use!
Exxon Mobil Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson later told the Wall Street Journal this week that he found it "astonishing" for President Bush to ask Saudi Arabia to pump more oil, rather than working harder to clear the way for more oil production at home. After all, we do have more proven oil reserves in this country than we know what to do with. Certainly American crude isn’t quite as easy to reach as the oil of the mid east, but we’ve got it. In a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy in 2006, technical analysts at Advanced Research International said "undeveloped domestic oil resources still in the ground total of 1.1 trillion barrels" and "the U.S. still has 400 billion barrels of undeveloped technically recoverable oil." Environmentalists of course tell us that the U.S. has only 21 billion barrels of "proven oil reserves", and in the meantime Saudi Arabia says it has 260 billion barrels of proven reserves available. What this tells me is that the United States has about four times as much oil in the ground as the Saudi’s do… and we’re still buying Saudi oil??? Again, what’s wrong with this picture?
The federal government has cooperated with those states that want to ban offshore oil production, primarily California, Florida and New Jersey. The federal government has also happily cooperated with the environmentalists who demand that oil under the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge also remain off limits. Drilling opponents consistently argue that the environmental damage caused by more domestic oil recovery will not be worth the small amount of oil that will be gained. So why is it then that China can drill for oil off Florida and the US can’t? Why do Californians pay $5 per gallon for gas while millions of barrels of crude lie under the Pacific a short distance from shore? Why are folks in New Jersey paying through the nose for gas when a steady supply of oil is within sight of the New Jersey Turnpike? The public outrage over high fuel prices hides the extreme profits enjoyed by oil executives, in several cases people who admit they have no idea of just how much they get paid per year, other than it’s “in the millions”.
For years environmentalists have insisted that pristine views, uncluttered by dirty old oil wells, are ever so much more important than availability of the oil which could be easing our lives (and the strain on our wallets) today. The New York Times calls oil production in ANWR "Drilling in the Cathedral", thus raising miles of frozen tundra to the status of Yosemite National Park. They’ve decreed that drilling for oil would not be worth spoiling someone's kayaking trip, or disturbing their eco-tourism experience. And Congress, despite being elected to serve the public good, consistently goes along with the environmentalist’s wishes, while the rest of us suffer mightily.
Sure do wish I also made so much money per year that I couldn’t count it…
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Memorial Day
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate--we cannot consecrate--we cannot hallow--this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
President Abraham LincolnNovember 19, 1863
When Abraham Lincoln spoke those words at Gettysburg, nearly eight thousand young soldiers had recently given their lives on that battlefield to determine the fate of the Union. The President spoke of hallowed ground, consecrated with the blood of many brave men, men who gave “the last full measure of devotion” to their country, and to everything it stands for. He spoke of young soldiers sustaining a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since those words were first uttered many more tens of thousands of American soldiers have given their lives for that same purpose, that liberty should not vanish from this earth. As the President said, it is far beyond our poor ability to consecrate the hallowed ground where they rest, they have done that all too well with their suffering and their blood. We today can only remember those young soldiers and their sacrifice, and we can offer a silent prayer that the Lord will look after them. They have brought us as far as they could, and now, lest their sacrifice be in vain, we the living must shoulder their burden, and continue on the path they have set before us.
On Memorial Day, take a moment from your holiday festivities to remember that this Nation's great heritage, the strength of its ideals and the freedoms we enjoy today, came at a terrible price, the blood of so many patriots. In the course of our nations 233 year history, America’s soldiers have given their lives in 85 wars and military actions. Remember those young soldiers who died for our country, and yes, remember those who are dying today on other battlefields. Be proud of them, and be thankful for what they have done for us. And you might also offer a prayer of thanks that this nation can produce young people like these, brave and dedicated young people who will lay down their lives in the name of liberty and freedom, so that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not vanish into the night. It is only fitting that we should honor the sacrifice of our departed soldiers by dedicating our lives to the ideals for which they fought and died, that tyranny shall not prevail over this land.
I’ve always considered myself to be a pretty tough old buzzard, but somehow I choke up and shed a silent tear whenever I hear Taps being played. I’ll bow my head to hide that tear, and yes, to pay respect as well, to those who are no longer with us. Like most old soldiers, I remember far too many young soldiers who gave up their hopes, their dreams, their futures, that this nation should continue to be the land of the free. We should all keep in mind that while Memorial Day is a fine day for parades, speeches, and ceremonies honoring our departed warriors, everyday should be a day to remember them.
I’ll be at Grangeville’s Memorial Day ceremony at Prairie View Cemetery on Monday, May 26th. Please, join me there in paying tribute to that long and tattered line of American heroes.
President Abraham LincolnNovember 19, 1863
When Abraham Lincoln spoke those words at Gettysburg, nearly eight thousand young soldiers had recently given their lives on that battlefield to determine the fate of the Union. The President spoke of hallowed ground, consecrated with the blood of many brave men, men who gave “the last full measure of devotion” to their country, and to everything it stands for. He spoke of young soldiers sustaining a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since those words were first uttered many more tens of thousands of American soldiers have given their lives for that same purpose, that liberty should not vanish from this earth. As the President said, it is far beyond our poor ability to consecrate the hallowed ground where they rest, they have done that all too well with their suffering and their blood. We today can only remember those young soldiers and their sacrifice, and we can offer a silent prayer that the Lord will look after them. They have brought us as far as they could, and now, lest their sacrifice be in vain, we the living must shoulder their burden, and continue on the path they have set before us.
On Memorial Day, take a moment from your holiday festivities to remember that this Nation's great heritage, the strength of its ideals and the freedoms we enjoy today, came at a terrible price, the blood of so many patriots. In the course of our nations 233 year history, America’s soldiers have given their lives in 85 wars and military actions. Remember those young soldiers who died for our country, and yes, remember those who are dying today on other battlefields. Be proud of them, and be thankful for what they have done for us. And you might also offer a prayer of thanks that this nation can produce young people like these, brave and dedicated young people who will lay down their lives in the name of liberty and freedom, so that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not vanish into the night. It is only fitting that we should honor the sacrifice of our departed soldiers by dedicating our lives to the ideals for which they fought and died, that tyranny shall not prevail over this land.
I’ve always considered myself to be a pretty tough old buzzard, but somehow I choke up and shed a silent tear whenever I hear Taps being played. I’ll bow my head to hide that tear, and yes, to pay respect as well, to those who are no longer with us. Like most old soldiers, I remember far too many young soldiers who gave up their hopes, their dreams, their futures, that this nation should continue to be the land of the free. We should all keep in mind that while Memorial Day is a fine day for parades, speeches, and ceremonies honoring our departed warriors, everyday should be a day to remember them.
I’ll be at Grangeville’s Memorial Day ceremony at Prairie View Cemetery on Monday, May 26th. Please, join me there in paying tribute to that long and tattered line of American heroes.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Liberty Tree
The picture I included in the newspaper edition of this column is a drawing of the famed "Liberty Tree". Unfortunately I don't know how to get it posted here!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
The eagle-eyed reader will probably notice that there’s been a slight change in the heading of this column. In the course of my soapbox rants I’m generally heard to be decrying the demise of liberty in this nation, and in the course of mumbling to myself on the subject I suddenly got the bright idea of adding the “Tree of Liberty” to the heading. And once again I’ve included Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote about refreshing that tree.
Wikiapedia, the on-line encyclopedia, explains that “The Liberty Tree (1646–1775) was a famous elm tree that stood near the commons of Boston, Massachusetts Colony, in the days before the American Revolution. The tree was a rallying point for the growing resistance to the rule of England... On August 14, 1765, a group of men calling themselves the Sons of Liberty gathered in Boston under a large elm tree at the corner of Essex Street and Orange Street near Hanover Square to protest the hated Stamp Act. The Sons of Liberty concluded their protest by hanging two tax collectors in effigy from the tree. From that day forward, the tree became known as the "Liberty Tree." When the news of the Liberty Tree spread throughout the colonies, local patriots in each of the 13 colonies formed a Sons of Liberty group and identified a large tree to be used as a meeting place… flags bearing a representation of the Liberty Tree were flown to symbolize the unwavering spirit of liberty. ”
So… now you know the story of the Liberty Tree.
Another quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson that should be considered prophetic is; “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” While we remain the world’s freest nation today, our precious freedoms are disappearing one by one, and their rate of disappearance is rapidly accelerating. Our ever-expanding government has been collecting information about Americans as a group since our nation’s inception. They’ve been collecting information on us as individuals for nearly a hundred years now. And information is, believe it or not, the key to controlling any people. In the name of public welfare and “trust busting” the government effectively assumed overall control of our nations business, industry, and transportation, a hundred years ago. Our National Parks and National Forests supposedly gives our people multi-use lands for recreation, logging, mining, and ranching, public lands that the government retains control over, and we now find they can bar our use of those lands whenever they please.
Taxes, both the obvious ones and hidden taxes, give all levels of government seemingly unending access to our not so deep pockets, and a means of controlling our personal finances. Now the government is forcing a national identification card on us, which will soon become a legal necessity if we wish to do much of anything within our own country, and which the government can rescind at will. You might also have noticed that cash, the once well known “greenback dollar” is giving way to plastic cards and the electronic transfer of funds. Funding transfers that can be instantly halted at the stroke of a government controlled key. We’re being disarmed, in violation of the Second Amendment, in the name of crime control (which never seems to get controlled). Now we have Homeland Security who, in the name of public safety, is happily spying on us, searching us if we want to travel anywhere, spending huge amounts of our tax dollars, and generally limiting what’s left of our freedoms. To “improve” the education of our children, the federal government has assumed control of our schools, teaching our kids what “they” want, and not necessarily what we want. It’s no wonder that so many Americans see all this as a “vast government conspiracy”!
Returning to Wikipedia; “Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826) was the third President of the United States (1801–1809), the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776), and one of the most influential founding fathers for his promotion of the ideals of republicanism in the United States… He idealized the independent yeoman farmer as exemplar of republican virtues, distrusted cities and financiers, favored states' rights and a strictly limited federal government.”
Despite all the derogatory press and rewritten history in recent years, Tom Jefferson sounds like the kind of guy I could get to like! Reading the many quotes attributed to him gives one a good look into his political philosophy, and I think I can safely say he wouldn’t like what he’d see in this country today. On that line, a third Jefferson quote is; “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
Humm… Perhaps it’s time Americans reinstituted the Sons of Liberty, and found themselves another Liberty Tree?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
The eagle-eyed reader will probably notice that there’s been a slight change in the heading of this column. In the course of my soapbox rants I’m generally heard to be decrying the demise of liberty in this nation, and in the course of mumbling to myself on the subject I suddenly got the bright idea of adding the “Tree of Liberty” to the heading. And once again I’ve included Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote about refreshing that tree.
Wikiapedia, the on-line encyclopedia, explains that “The Liberty Tree (1646–1775) was a famous elm tree that stood near the commons of Boston, Massachusetts Colony, in the days before the American Revolution. The tree was a rallying point for the growing resistance to the rule of England... On August 14, 1765, a group of men calling themselves the Sons of Liberty gathered in Boston under a large elm tree at the corner of Essex Street and Orange Street near Hanover Square to protest the hated Stamp Act. The Sons of Liberty concluded their protest by hanging two tax collectors in effigy from the tree. From that day forward, the tree became known as the "Liberty Tree." When the news of the Liberty Tree spread throughout the colonies, local patriots in each of the 13 colonies formed a Sons of Liberty group and identified a large tree to be used as a meeting place… flags bearing a representation of the Liberty Tree were flown to symbolize the unwavering spirit of liberty. ”
So… now you know the story of the Liberty Tree.
Another quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson that should be considered prophetic is; “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” While we remain the world’s freest nation today, our precious freedoms are disappearing one by one, and their rate of disappearance is rapidly accelerating. Our ever-expanding government has been collecting information about Americans as a group since our nation’s inception. They’ve been collecting information on us as individuals for nearly a hundred years now. And information is, believe it or not, the key to controlling any people. In the name of public welfare and “trust busting” the government effectively assumed overall control of our nations business, industry, and transportation, a hundred years ago. Our National Parks and National Forests supposedly gives our people multi-use lands for recreation, logging, mining, and ranching, public lands that the government retains control over, and we now find they can bar our use of those lands whenever they please.
Taxes, both the obvious ones and hidden taxes, give all levels of government seemingly unending access to our not so deep pockets, and a means of controlling our personal finances. Now the government is forcing a national identification card on us, which will soon become a legal necessity if we wish to do much of anything within our own country, and which the government can rescind at will. You might also have noticed that cash, the once well known “greenback dollar” is giving way to plastic cards and the electronic transfer of funds. Funding transfers that can be instantly halted at the stroke of a government controlled key. We’re being disarmed, in violation of the Second Amendment, in the name of crime control (which never seems to get controlled). Now we have Homeland Security who, in the name of public safety, is happily spying on us, searching us if we want to travel anywhere, spending huge amounts of our tax dollars, and generally limiting what’s left of our freedoms. To “improve” the education of our children, the federal government has assumed control of our schools, teaching our kids what “they” want, and not necessarily what we want. It’s no wonder that so many Americans see all this as a “vast government conspiracy”!
Returning to Wikipedia; “Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826) was the third President of the United States (1801–1809), the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776), and one of the most influential founding fathers for his promotion of the ideals of republicanism in the United States… He idealized the independent yeoman farmer as exemplar of republican virtues, distrusted cities and financiers, favored states' rights and a strictly limited federal government.”
Despite all the derogatory press and rewritten history in recent years, Tom Jefferson sounds like the kind of guy I could get to like! Reading the many quotes attributed to him gives one a good look into his political philosophy, and I think I can safely say he wouldn’t like what he’d see in this country today. On that line, a third Jefferson quote is; “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
Humm… Perhaps it’s time Americans reinstituted the Sons of Liberty, and found themselves another Liberty Tree?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)