Mary Anastasia O'Grady writes in her Americas column at the Wall Street Journal about the economic crisis facing Argentina because of government controls. This is a lesson well worth studying because we have been headed down this road for a long time and if Obama is elected President he plans instituting some massive controls on the economy. Read O'Grady's column.
As the presidential campaign drones on, Barack Obama and the Democrats are fleshing out the promise of "change" with some specific, big-government policy proposals. Many are familiar, perhaps because they already have been tried – in Argentina.
That country has gone from South American breadbasket to world-class basket case. For the long version of how it happened and why Americans might not want to try it, hop on a flight to Buenos Aires. Here's a condensed version:
Although the winding down of Argentina to the status of international deadbeat began a century ago, the latest chapter is instructive. In March, President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner seized on rising soybean prices to slap "a windfall tax" on soy exports. Farmers refused to pay, the president wouldn't budge, and a deadlock ensued.
Much of the rest of the country joined sides with the growers. But the uprising is no longer a tax revolt. It has become a rebellion against unfettered executive reach – or, in the view of the opposition, Mrs. Kirchner's authoritarianism. A week ago thousands of Argentines poured into the streets of cities around the country, banging pots and pans to express their dissatisfaction with their president's heavy-handed ways. It was the largest public outcry since the economic crisis in 2001.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Where is Obama? I Can't See Him!
Peter Keating is the famous character in the novel, The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand who makes all his decisions based on the opinions of the person in front of him at the moment. He is incapable of holding on to a position or a principle for longer than it takes you to blink your eyes. He is all things to all people. Obama is the Peter Keating of this election. He sways and he waffles and he sidesteps and he gives "magnificent" speeches. But what he stands for? Nobody knows.
You can fool some people all of the time and you can fool all people some of the time but you can't fool everybody all of the time. Obama seems to think he can but he won't get away with even though he has a silver tongue (so they say). An American President has to stand for something. He has to have some kind of value system and the electorate will see that the emperor really does not have any clothes on.
He's like a zebra trying to camouflage, in this case, the fact that he has no principles to guide him. Do we want a man like this leading our beloved nation in these trying times?
Friday, June 27, 2008
Leave it to Science! The More Likely Explanation for the Polar Meltdown
The following article is from Eureka Alert. Please read the more realistic explanation for the melting Arctic ice caps. The man-made global warming may be incorrect or just a scam after all as I've suggested in my earlier blogging.
Fire under the ice
International expedition discovers gigantic volcanic eruption in the Arctic Ocean
An international team of researchers was able to provide evidence of explosive volcanism in the deeps of the ice-covered Arctic Ocean for the first time. Researchers from an expedition to the Gakkel Ridge, led by the American Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), report in the current issue of the journal Nature that they discovered, with a specially developed camera, extensive layers of volcanic ash on the seafloor, which indicates a gigantic volcanic eruption.
"Explosive volcanic eruptions on land are nothing unusual and pose a great threat for whole areas," explains Dr Vera Schlindwein of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association. She participated in the expedition as a geophysicist and has been, together with her team, examining the earthquake activity of the Arctic Ocean for many years. "The Vesuvius erupted in 79 AD and buried thriving Pompeii under a layer of ash and pumice. Far away in the Arctic Ocean, at 85° N 85° E, a similarly violent volcanic eruption happened almost undetected in 1999 – in this case, however, under a water layer of 4,000 m thickness." So far, researchers have assumed that explosive volcanism cannot happen in water depths exceeding 3 kilometres because of high ambient pressure. "These are the first pyroclastic deposits we've ever found in such deep water, at oppressive pressures that inhibit the formation of steam, and many people thought this was not possible," says Robert Reves-Sohn, staff member of the WHOI and lead scientist of the expedition carried out on the Swedish icebreaker Oden in 2007.
A major part of Earth's volcanism happens at the so-called mid-ocean ridges and, therefore, completely undetected on the seafloor. There, continental plates drift apart; liquid magma intrudes into the gap and constantly forms new seafloor through countless volcanic eruptions. Accompanied by smaller earthquakes, which go unregistered on land, lava flows onto the seafloor. These unspectacular eruptions usually last for only a few days or weeks.
The Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean spreads so slowly at 6-14 mm/year, that current theories considered volcanism unlikely - until a series of 300 strong earthquakes over a period of eight months indicated an eruption at 85° N 85° E in 4 kilometres water depth in 1999. Scientists of the Alfred Wegener Institute became aware of this earthquake swarm and reported about its unusual properties in the periodical EOS in the year 2000.
Vera Schlindwein and her junior research group are closely examining the earthquake activity of these ultraslow-spreading ridges since 2006. "The Gakkel Ridge is covered with sea-ice the whole year. To detect little earthquakes, which accompany geological processes, we have to deploy our seismometers on drifting ice floes." This unusual measuring method proved highly successful: in a first test in the summer 2001 – during the "Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge Expedition (AMORE)" on the research icebreaker Polarstern – the seismometers recorded explosive sounds by the minute, which originated from the seafloor of the volcanic region. "This was a rare and random recording of a submarine eruption in close proximity," says Schlindwein. "I postulated in 2001 that the volcano is still active. However, it seemed highly improbable to me that the recorded sounds originated from an explosive volcanic eruption, because of the water depth of 4 kilometres."
The scientist regards the matter differently after her participation in the Oden-Expedition 2007, during which systematic earthquake measurements were taken by Schlindwein's team in the active volcanic region: "Our endeavours now concentrate on reconstructing and understanding the explosive volcanic episodes from 1999 and 2001 by means of the accompanying earthquakes. We want to know, which geological features led to a gas pressure so high that it even enabled an explosive eruption in these water depths." Like Robert Reves-Sohn, she presumes that explosive eruptions are far more common in the scarcely explored ultraslow-spreading ridges than presumed so far. (READ)
Fire under the ice
International expedition discovers gigantic volcanic eruption in the Arctic Ocean
An international team of researchers was able to provide evidence of explosive volcanism in the deeps of the ice-covered Arctic Ocean for the first time. Researchers from an expedition to the Gakkel Ridge, led by the American Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), report in the current issue of the journal Nature that they discovered, with a specially developed camera, extensive layers of volcanic ash on the seafloor, which indicates a gigantic volcanic eruption.
"Explosive volcanic eruptions on land are nothing unusual and pose a great threat for whole areas," explains Dr Vera Schlindwein of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association. She participated in the expedition as a geophysicist and has been, together with her team, examining the earthquake activity of the Arctic Ocean for many years. "The Vesuvius erupted in 79 AD and buried thriving Pompeii under a layer of ash and pumice. Far away in the Arctic Ocean, at 85° N 85° E, a similarly violent volcanic eruption happened almost undetected in 1999 – in this case, however, under a water layer of 4,000 m thickness." So far, researchers have assumed that explosive volcanism cannot happen in water depths exceeding 3 kilometres because of high ambient pressure. "These are the first pyroclastic deposits we've ever found in such deep water, at oppressive pressures that inhibit the formation of steam, and many people thought this was not possible," says Robert Reves-Sohn, staff member of the WHOI and lead scientist of the expedition carried out on the Swedish icebreaker Oden in 2007.
A major part of Earth's volcanism happens at the so-called mid-ocean ridges and, therefore, completely undetected on the seafloor. There, continental plates drift apart; liquid magma intrudes into the gap and constantly forms new seafloor through countless volcanic eruptions. Accompanied by smaller earthquakes, which go unregistered on land, lava flows onto the seafloor. These unspectacular eruptions usually last for only a few days or weeks.
The Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean spreads so slowly at 6-14 mm/year, that current theories considered volcanism unlikely - until a series of 300 strong earthquakes over a period of eight months indicated an eruption at 85° N 85° E in 4 kilometres water depth in 1999. Scientists of the Alfred Wegener Institute became aware of this earthquake swarm and reported about its unusual properties in the periodical EOS in the year 2000.
Vera Schlindwein and her junior research group are closely examining the earthquake activity of these ultraslow-spreading ridges since 2006. "The Gakkel Ridge is covered with sea-ice the whole year. To detect little earthquakes, which accompany geological processes, we have to deploy our seismometers on drifting ice floes." This unusual measuring method proved highly successful: in a first test in the summer 2001 – during the "Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge Expedition (AMORE)" on the research icebreaker Polarstern – the seismometers recorded explosive sounds by the minute, which originated from the seafloor of the volcanic region. "This was a rare and random recording of a submarine eruption in close proximity," says Schlindwein. "I postulated in 2001 that the volcano is still active. However, it seemed highly improbable to me that the recorded sounds originated from an explosive volcanic eruption, because of the water depth of 4 kilometres."
The scientist regards the matter differently after her participation in the Oden-Expedition 2007, during which systematic earthquake measurements were taken by Schlindwein's team in the active volcanic region: "Our endeavours now concentrate on reconstructing and understanding the explosive volcanic episodes from 1999 and 2001 by means of the accompanying earthquakes. We want to know, which geological features led to a gas pressure so high that it even enabled an explosive eruption in these water depths." Like Robert Reves-Sohn, she presumes that explosive eruptions are far more common in the scarcely explored ultraslow-spreading ridges than presumed so far. (READ)
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Independence Day and Its Real Meaning
Michael Berliner talking about Independence Day. Listen to this very interesting video about this truly American Holiday and why we should take it seriously.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Newt Gingrich on How to Change Our Failed Education System
Mr. Gingrich's position is that our Public School System does not work and has not worked for decades. He says
"Our greatest strategic challenge we face is education and that education in that sense is a national security, national defense issue of the first order because if we don't fix education we will not be capable of competing with China and India.."
So if we are to compete in this global economy with China and India surging ahead with their highly educated young people then we must use a different formula for educating our own young. He has some very interesting and original ideas -
* reading skills of 17 year olds have declined in the past 25 years
*We are 25th among industrial cities in math skills among 29 other countries
*Detroit schools graduates 1 in 4 entering freshmen students on time
*We are 20th in graduating rates among industrial nations
"How can anyone look at this data and not say that we are in a crisis of the first order and unable to have a discussion about it? "
Listen to Mr. Gingrich and pay attention to his solutions. They are very thought provoking.
http://www.americansolutions.com/SolutionTV/
"Our greatest strategic challenge we face is education and that education in that sense is a national security, national defense issue of the first order because if we don't fix education we will not be capable of competing with China and India.."
So if we are to compete in this global economy with China and India surging ahead with their highly educated young people then we must use a different formula for educating our own young. He has some very interesting and original ideas -
* reading skills of 17 year olds have declined in the past 25 years
*We are 25th among industrial cities in math skills among 29 other countries
*Detroit schools graduates 1 in 4 entering freshmen students on time
*We are 20th in graduating rates among industrial nations
"How can anyone look at this data and not say that we are in a crisis of the first order and unable to have a discussion about it? "
Listen to Mr. Gingrich and pay attention to his solutions. They are very thought provoking.
http://www.americansolutions.com/SolutionTV/
Saturday, June 21, 2008
The Ever Shifting Sands in Obama's Brain
You know how the topography of an Arabian Desert constantly shifts so that no two hours let alone days are the same. You can easily get lost in a desert because there are no markers to guide you. That's the way Obama is presenting himself to us as an ever shifting landscape of ideas (or non-ideas). There is absolutely no way to discern what this man will do once in office; what he stands for; what he's willing to defend to the death. This should be of concern to all Americans, especially in these complicated, world changing and perilous times we live in. Investor's Business Daily has an important editorial of all the shifts so far in Obama's campaign rhetoric. Read it and you decide if this man is fit to be the leader of this country!
...Election '08: In just days, Obama has changed his mind on Iraq, reversed course on campaign finance, volte-faced on NAFTA and backtracked on Social Security. So what does the candidate of change really believe?...
...What to make of all these changes? There are three possibilities, none of which makes the candidate look good.
The sympathetic may dismiss them as Obama coming to his senses and aligning with the mainstream. His new positions are improvements, after all. But they also raise questions about judgment, maturity and consistency.
It's also worth remembering that the shifts came under political pressures to which Obama may be less inclined to submit once elected. Jimmy Carter used to ignore the public like that, too.
Then again, Obama could be an opportunist who'll say anything to carry a swing state, appease anti-war radicals, win over a special-interest group or propitiate wealthy donors. In which case, the political road ahead may get very cynical indeed.
It could also be possible that this is a candidate who'll deceive to get elected only to surprise us later. Unseen forces may be at work. For example, Richard Fernandez, blogger with Pajamas Media, noted that Obama's shifting positions on Iraq track the rise and fall of the business prospects in that country of his Chicago patron, Tony Rezko.
Meanwhile, given Obama's radical political roots, his mainstream talk may be a cover for a more leftist agenda that's otherwise unsalable to voters. Whatever the case, we'll grant that this is "change." Just don't call it change anyone can believe in. READ
...Election '08: In just days, Obama has changed his mind on Iraq, reversed course on campaign finance, volte-faced on NAFTA and backtracked on Social Security. So what does the candidate of change really believe?...
...What to make of all these changes? There are three possibilities, none of which makes the candidate look good.
The sympathetic may dismiss them as Obama coming to his senses and aligning with the mainstream. His new positions are improvements, after all. But they also raise questions about judgment, maturity and consistency.
It's also worth remembering that the shifts came under political pressures to which Obama may be less inclined to submit once elected. Jimmy Carter used to ignore the public like that, too.
Then again, Obama could be an opportunist who'll say anything to carry a swing state, appease anti-war radicals, win over a special-interest group or propitiate wealthy donors. In which case, the political road ahead may get very cynical indeed.
It could also be possible that this is a candidate who'll deceive to get elected only to surprise us later. Unseen forces may be at work. For example, Richard Fernandez, blogger with Pajamas Media, noted that Obama's shifting positions on Iraq track the rise and fall of the business prospects in that country of his Chicago patron, Tony Rezko.
Meanwhile, given Obama's radical political roots, his mainstream talk may be a cover for a more leftist agenda that's otherwise unsalable to voters. Whatever the case, we'll grant that this is "change." Just don't call it change anyone can believe in. READ
Betting on Brains or Oil
Thomas Friedman has an editorial in the NY Times "People vs Dinosaurs" where he brings to our attention the scenario of two opposing foes who bet on the future of Israel. Iran's Ahmadinejad bet that Israel “has reached its final phase and will soon be wiped out from the geographic scene.” But America's Buffet thinks the contrary and has invested lots of money in this tiny country of 7 million. What he has invested in is the brain power of Israel.
...So who would you put your money on? Buffett or Ahmadinejad? I’d short Ahmadinejad and go long Warren Buffett.
Why? From outside, Israel looks as if it’s in turmoil, largely because the entire political leadership seems to be under investigation. But Israel is a weak state with a strong civil society. The economy is exploding from the bottom up. Israel’s currency, the shekel, has appreciated nearly 30 percent against the dollar since the start of 2007.
The reason? Israel is a country that is hard-wired to compete in a flat world. It has a population drawn from 100 different countries, speaking 100 different languages, with a business culture that strongly encourages individual imagination and adaptation and where being a nonconformist is the norm. While you were sleeping, Israel has gone from oranges to software, or as they say around here, from Jaffa to Java.
...Iran has invented nothing of importance since the Islamic Revolution, which is a shame. Historically, Iranians have been a dynamic and inventive people — one only need look at the richness of Persian civilization to see that. But the Islamic regime there today does not trust its people and will not empower them as individuals.
...Iran’s economic and military clout today is largely dependent on extracting oil from the ground. Israel’s economic and military power today is entirely dependent on extracting intelligence from its people. Israel’s economic power is endlessly renewable. Iran’s is a dwindling resource based on fossil fuels made from dead dinosaurs.
So who will be here in 20 years? I’m with Buffett: I’ll bet on the people who bet on their people — not the people who bet on dead dinosaurs. READ
...So who would you put your money on? Buffett or Ahmadinejad? I’d short Ahmadinejad and go long Warren Buffett.
Why? From outside, Israel looks as if it’s in turmoil, largely because the entire political leadership seems to be under investigation. But Israel is a weak state with a strong civil society. The economy is exploding from the bottom up. Israel’s currency, the shekel, has appreciated nearly 30 percent against the dollar since the start of 2007.
The reason? Israel is a country that is hard-wired to compete in a flat world. It has a population drawn from 100 different countries, speaking 100 different languages, with a business culture that strongly encourages individual imagination and adaptation and where being a nonconformist is the norm. While you were sleeping, Israel has gone from oranges to software, or as they say around here, from Jaffa to Java.
...Iran has invented nothing of importance since the Islamic Revolution, which is a shame. Historically, Iranians have been a dynamic and inventive people — one only need look at the richness of Persian civilization to see that. But the Islamic regime there today does not trust its people and will not empower them as individuals.
...Iran’s economic and military clout today is largely dependent on extracting oil from the ground. Israel’s economic and military power today is entirely dependent on extracting intelligence from its people. Israel’s economic power is endlessly renewable. Iran’s is a dwindling resource based on fossil fuels made from dead dinosaurs.
So who will be here in 20 years? I’m with Buffett: I’ll bet on the people who bet on their people — not the people who bet on dead dinosaurs. READ
Friday, June 20, 2008
Our Blinkers Finally Come Off ---Thanks, Saudis
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have a decent piece at Newsmax.com regarding oil and McCain/Obama. I found the first sentence below particularly inspiring in the sense that maybe this is what we needed from the Saudis an imaginary kick in the pants to force us to the realization that we are dependant on a bunch of backward, religious fanatic nations and have been for decades. Now maybe we can take the blinkers off and realize that without energy we have only one direction to move in and that's backwards to join them.
...The Saudis have made a fatal mistake in not forcing down the price of oil.
We could have gone for decades as their hostage, letting their control over our oil supplies choke us while enriching them. But they got greedy and let the price skyrocket. The sudden shock which has sent America reeling is just the stimulus we need for a massive movement away from imported oil and toward new types of cars.
The political will for major change in our energy policy is now here and those, like Obama, who don't get it need to rethink their positions. To quote FDR, “this great nation calls for action and action now” on the energy issue.
What has been a back-burner problem now has moved onto center stage and McCain has put himself in the forefront.
The Democratic ambivalence stems from liberal concerns about climate change. The party basically doesn't believe in carbon-based energy and, therefore, opposes oil exploration.
That's why Obama pushes the windfall profits tax on oil companies — a step that tells them “you drill, you find oil, and we'll take away your profits.” But Americans have their priorities in order: more oil, more drilling and alternative energy sources, flex-fuel cars, plug-in vehicles and nuclear power. READ
...The Saudis have made a fatal mistake in not forcing down the price of oil.
We could have gone for decades as their hostage, letting their control over our oil supplies choke us while enriching them. But they got greedy and let the price skyrocket. The sudden shock which has sent America reeling is just the stimulus we need for a massive movement away from imported oil and toward new types of cars.
The political will for major change in our energy policy is now here and those, like Obama, who don't get it need to rethink their positions. To quote FDR, “this great nation calls for action and action now” on the energy issue.
What has been a back-burner problem now has moved onto center stage and McCain has put himself in the forefront.
The Democratic ambivalence stems from liberal concerns about climate change. The party basically doesn't believe in carbon-based energy and, therefore, opposes oil exploration.
That's why Obama pushes the windfall profits tax on oil companies — a step that tells them “you drill, you find oil, and we'll take away your profits.” But Americans have their priorities in order: more oil, more drilling and alternative energy sources, flex-fuel cars, plug-in vehicles and nuclear power. READ
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
"For too long we have been on bended knee to foreign potentates, while this country's vast energy sources go undeveloped."
Rep. Chris Cannon, Utah Republican
John E Peterson is a republican congressman from Pennsylvania and is one of a growing number of politicians who are standing up and fighting the Democrats on the all important issue of OIL. The New York Post of 16 June 2008 has a good piece by him which explains how we got into this mess - because of Washington! Surprised? I'm not. The point is things are starting to move on the energy crisis because Americans are finally realizing what Washington has done to the economy and energy and they are writing and calling their representatives and senators and demanding that we drill and build.
... AMERICA is in an energy crisis - not because of OPEC, but thanks to the policies of Congress and the last three presidents.
Since 1982, Congress has passed laws banning the production of oil and natural gas on our Outer Continental Shelf; the last three presidents went along. But the US Minerals Management Service estimates (conservatively) that the OCS holds 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - the equivalent of 35 years of imported oil from OPEC and an 18-year supply of natural gas.
The United States is the only country in the world that prohibits exploitation of such offshore resources.
A recent Gallup poll found that nearly 60 percent of Americans support increased production of offshore oil and natural gas - but Congress has yet to get that message.
Access to our own energy shouldn't be a partisan issue. Yet last week, when I tried in a House committee to start opening up our vast offshore reserves, I lost on a party-line vote. Nine Democrats on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee voted against the measure; six Republicans backed it. ...
Make no mistake, this mess is the result of Washington's foolish policy of restricting domestic energy production and discouraging investment in it. ...
For this country to remain a world leader in the global economy, Congress must develop a national energy policy that considers all means - including increased domestic production of oil and natural gas, on and offshore.
America depends on fossil fuels for 86 percent of our energy needs; wind, solar and geothermal power cover less than 1 percent. Renewable energy won't be available in sufficient quantity and at affordable prices for decades - so we have no other choice than to produce more of our own oil and natural gas - or further increase our dependence upon foreign sources.
And producing our own energy will create tens of thousands of jobs - and bring in hundreds of billions of dollars in royalties. That cash can be dedicated to renewable fuels R&D, carbon sequestration and environmental cleanup of our waters - as well as programs such as weatherization and energy assistance for those most in need. Billions more would go to the coastal states for their own use and to the US Treasury.
...The time for Congress to act is now.
Solving our energy crisis should be the No. 1 priority of Congress and the present and future occupant of the White House. As of today, it is not. READ
And this from President Bush today:
Bush, in a Rose Garden speech, joined a growing number of Republicans advocating for expanded production of oil shale - a sedimentary rock that when heated yields a fuel source that can be processed into a synthetic oil. The president stressed a much-used talking point that the oil shale deposits in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming hold the equivalent of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
"That's more than three times larger than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia," Bush said. "And it can be fully recovered - and if it can be fully recovered it would be equal to more than a century's worth of currently projected oil imports."
The cost of extracting the oil from the rock so far has been too high, but it's currently less than the market price of oil now, Bush said, and that makes it a "highly promising resource."
Bush mentioned oil shale as part of a four-prong strategy to wean the nation off foreign sources of oil, which has risen sharply in recent years to an all-time high. Bush also spoke in favor of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in coastal areas along American soil and also to expedite the building of more oil refineries. READ
John E Peterson is a republican congressman from Pennsylvania and is one of a growing number of politicians who are standing up and fighting the Democrats on the all important issue of OIL. The New York Post of 16 June 2008 has a good piece by him which explains how we got into this mess - because of Washington! Surprised? I'm not. The point is things are starting to move on the energy crisis because Americans are finally realizing what Washington has done to the economy and energy and they are writing and calling their representatives and senators and demanding that we drill and build.
... AMERICA is in an energy crisis - not because of OPEC, but thanks to the policies of Congress and the last three presidents.
Since 1982, Congress has passed laws banning the production of oil and natural gas on our Outer Continental Shelf; the last three presidents went along. But the US Minerals Management Service estimates (conservatively) that the OCS holds 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - the equivalent of 35 years of imported oil from OPEC and an 18-year supply of natural gas.
The United States is the only country in the world that prohibits exploitation of such offshore resources.
A recent Gallup poll found that nearly 60 percent of Americans support increased production of offshore oil and natural gas - but Congress has yet to get that message.
Access to our own energy shouldn't be a partisan issue. Yet last week, when I tried in a House committee to start opening up our vast offshore reserves, I lost on a party-line vote. Nine Democrats on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee voted against the measure; six Republicans backed it. ...
Make no mistake, this mess is the result of Washington's foolish policy of restricting domestic energy production and discouraging investment in it. ...
For this country to remain a world leader in the global economy, Congress must develop a national energy policy that considers all means - including increased domestic production of oil and natural gas, on and offshore.
America depends on fossil fuels for 86 percent of our energy needs; wind, solar and geothermal power cover less than 1 percent. Renewable energy won't be available in sufficient quantity and at affordable prices for decades - so we have no other choice than to produce more of our own oil and natural gas - or further increase our dependence upon foreign sources.
And producing our own energy will create tens of thousands of jobs - and bring in hundreds of billions of dollars in royalties. That cash can be dedicated to renewable fuels R&D, carbon sequestration and environmental cleanup of our waters - as well as programs such as weatherization and energy assistance for those most in need. Billions more would go to the coastal states for their own use and to the US Treasury.
...The time for Congress to act is now.
Solving our energy crisis should be the No. 1 priority of Congress and the present and future occupant of the White House. As of today, it is not. READ
And this from President Bush today:
Bush, in a Rose Garden speech, joined a growing number of Republicans advocating for expanded production of oil shale - a sedimentary rock that when heated yields a fuel source that can be processed into a synthetic oil. The president stressed a much-used talking point that the oil shale deposits in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming hold the equivalent of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
"That's more than three times larger than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia," Bush said. "And it can be fully recovered - and if it can be fully recovered it would be equal to more than a century's worth of currently projected oil imports."
The cost of extracting the oil from the rock so far has been too high, but it's currently less than the market price of oil now, Bush said, and that makes it a "highly promising resource."
Bush mentioned oil shale as part of a four-prong strategy to wean the nation off foreign sources of oil, which has risen sharply in recent years to an all-time high. Bush also spoke in favor of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in coastal areas along American soil and also to expedite the building of more oil refineries. READ
Saturday, June 14, 2008
ECONOMIC FREEDOM: A Little Understood Concept that Brings Prosperity
Patrick Toomey, President for the Club For Growth has written a wonderful piece in IMPRIMIS about the story of how prosperity has grown over the past few decades not just for the United States but world wide. Unfortunately it's a story the most Democrats especially Obama and even some Republicans do not understand and don't care to understand. If Obama is elected our next president he may very well roll back all our gains because he is a tax increase kind of a guy and most likely understands nothing about what bring prosperity to all - FREEDOM that is ECONOMIC FREEDOM which means low taxes for everybody. Please read Toomey's excellent article called “The Greatest Story Never Told”: Today’s Economy in Perspective.
THERE IS a debate going on today over whether our economy is in recession. Polls show sagging public confidence. But some perspective is sorely needed. The fact of the matter is that we in the United States, and to a lesser degree the entire world, have just lived through—and continue to live in—the greatest period of prosperity in human history. Over the last 25 years, more wealth has been created, more people have been lifted out of poverty, standards of living have been elevated more dramatically, and the quality and length of life have improved, more than ever before in recorded history. Unfortunately, as Larry Kudlow says, this is “the greatest story never told.” We need to start telling the story, and also to think about its causes.
First, let us focus on the United States (and I say this with full knowledge that the State of Michigan is a unique exception among the 50 states to America’s extraordinary recent prosperity; but the causes of Michigan’s peculiar problems are a topic for another day): Average economic growth in the U.S. has not only been positive for almost the entire last quarter century, but for much of this period the rate of growth has accelerated. Our nation’s total economic output in 1982 was $5.1 trillion; last year it was $11.3 trillion (in real 2000 dollars). Per capita economic output in 1982 was $22,400; last year it was $37,807 (in real 2000 dollars). The average unemployment rate in the 1970s was nearly seven percent; it has been declining, on average, every decade since, and has remained below five percent since 2003. The service sector of our economy has been on fire, growing from $1 trillion in 1982 to $5.5 trillion in 2006. And do you know how far back one has to go to find the year when America’s total manufacturing output peaked? All the way back to 2007! Yes, U.S. factories produced more last year than in any previous year in our history. That’s the “hollowing out”—as its critics like to say—of America’s economy.
This expanding economy has, of course, resulted in huge gains in wealth. The Dow Jones Industrial Average began the 1980s at 825; today, despite its recent declines, it remains above 12,000, a 1,400 percent increase. And with the democratization of the capital markets that has occurred through savings programs like IRAs and 401(k)s and investment vehicles like mutual funds, the average family’s wealth has grown dramatically, too. In 1983, 19 percent of American households owned stocks; in 2005, 50 percent were investors. In 1989, the median family net worth was $69,000; in 2004, it was $93,000.
These gains in income and wealth have resulted directly in a better standard of living for virtually every segment of American society—including the poor. Among families living below the official poverty line in the early 1970s, less than 40 percent had a car, almost none had color televisions, and air conditioning was virtually unheard of; in 2004, 46 percent owned their own homes, almost 75 percent owned a car (indeed, 30 percent owned two or more cars), 97 percent had color TVs, and 67 percent had air conditioning. The poor in the U.S. have an average of 721 square feet of living space per person, as compared with 430 in Sweden and 92 in Mexico....
...This “greatest story never told” is indeed a tremendous story. It’s the story of the fastest-growing period of prosperity—and the most dramatic mass elevation from poverty—in the history of the world. And it’s all been possible because—bit by bit, in fits and starts, with advances and retreats—the U.S. and other countries have been moving toward greater economic freedom.
In light of this story—which, to repeat, is ongoing, so that you don’t have to go back to medieval or classical times to find the evidence—it is utterly perplexing that so much of the election year rhetoric of late is aimed at reversing our economic course. For instance, it’s hard to find a domestic policy that can be proven to be as successful as the Bush tax cuts—even by presumably Democratic standards. It’s simply a matter of fact that these tax cuts shifted the tax burden substantially to higher income earners and took millions of lower income workers off the tax rolls altogether. The economy took off and ran for at least five years after implementation, and the federal deficit shrank dramatically after the tax cuts were enacted. Yet calls to reverse these tax cuts abound.
For the Democratic Party, of course, there are other reasons for rolling back economic freedom. One is the powerful special interest groups within its coalition—organized labor in particular—which rely on government for special treatment and benefits they could never obtain in free and fair market-based negotiations. Unfortunately, the resulting higher costs and inefficiencies can devastate industries and regions—Michigan being a prime example.
But if we can expect Democrats to resist economic freedom, how do we explain the timidity on the Republican side to defend the economic ideas that have fueled recent advances in prosperity? The answer is that most politicians are ultimately motivated by their perceptions of public opinion. And despite the evidence, the public doesn’t seem to realize the period of unprecedented progress we are in.
As a side note, the increasing lack of opposition among the American people to higher income taxes should not be surprising when an increasingly progressive tax code means ever fewer Americans are paying any taxes at all: In 2005, the top one percent of earners in the U.S. paid 39 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent of earners paid just three percent. Over time, if half of the population believes that it is entitled to have someone else pay for government, we should not be surprised if public support for economic freedom continues to erode.
As one who has done a lot of campaigning over the years, I’ll admit, it can be hard to explain to some audiences why they should have to buy their own health insurance when the other side is offering to have the government give it to them for free. But that doesn’t absolve politicians of the moral obligation to present the principled and true argument..
Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.
THERE IS a debate going on today over whether our economy is in recession. Polls show sagging public confidence. But some perspective is sorely needed. The fact of the matter is that we in the United States, and to a lesser degree the entire world, have just lived through—and continue to live in—the greatest period of prosperity in human history. Over the last 25 years, more wealth has been created, more people have been lifted out of poverty, standards of living have been elevated more dramatically, and the quality and length of life have improved, more than ever before in recorded history. Unfortunately, as Larry Kudlow says, this is “the greatest story never told.” We need to start telling the story, and also to think about its causes.
First, let us focus on the United States (and I say this with full knowledge that the State of Michigan is a unique exception among the 50 states to America’s extraordinary recent prosperity; but the causes of Michigan’s peculiar problems are a topic for another day): Average economic growth in the U.S. has not only been positive for almost the entire last quarter century, but for much of this period the rate of growth has accelerated. Our nation’s total economic output in 1982 was $5.1 trillion; last year it was $11.3 trillion (in real 2000 dollars). Per capita economic output in 1982 was $22,400; last year it was $37,807 (in real 2000 dollars). The average unemployment rate in the 1970s was nearly seven percent; it has been declining, on average, every decade since, and has remained below five percent since 2003. The service sector of our economy has been on fire, growing from $1 trillion in 1982 to $5.5 trillion in 2006. And do you know how far back one has to go to find the year when America’s total manufacturing output peaked? All the way back to 2007! Yes, U.S. factories produced more last year than in any previous year in our history. That’s the “hollowing out”—as its critics like to say—of America’s economy.
This expanding economy has, of course, resulted in huge gains in wealth. The Dow Jones Industrial Average began the 1980s at 825; today, despite its recent declines, it remains above 12,000, a 1,400 percent increase. And with the democratization of the capital markets that has occurred through savings programs like IRAs and 401(k)s and investment vehicles like mutual funds, the average family’s wealth has grown dramatically, too. In 1983, 19 percent of American households owned stocks; in 2005, 50 percent were investors. In 1989, the median family net worth was $69,000; in 2004, it was $93,000.
These gains in income and wealth have resulted directly in a better standard of living for virtually every segment of American society—including the poor. Among families living below the official poverty line in the early 1970s, less than 40 percent had a car, almost none had color televisions, and air conditioning was virtually unheard of; in 2004, 46 percent owned their own homes, almost 75 percent owned a car (indeed, 30 percent owned two or more cars), 97 percent had color TVs, and 67 percent had air conditioning. The poor in the U.S. have an average of 721 square feet of living space per person, as compared with 430 in Sweden and 92 in Mexico....
...This “greatest story never told” is indeed a tremendous story. It’s the story of the fastest-growing period of prosperity—and the most dramatic mass elevation from poverty—in the history of the world. And it’s all been possible because—bit by bit, in fits and starts, with advances and retreats—the U.S. and other countries have been moving toward greater economic freedom.
In light of this story—which, to repeat, is ongoing, so that you don’t have to go back to medieval or classical times to find the evidence—it is utterly perplexing that so much of the election year rhetoric of late is aimed at reversing our economic course. For instance, it’s hard to find a domestic policy that can be proven to be as successful as the Bush tax cuts—even by presumably Democratic standards. It’s simply a matter of fact that these tax cuts shifted the tax burden substantially to higher income earners and took millions of lower income workers off the tax rolls altogether. The economy took off and ran for at least five years after implementation, and the federal deficit shrank dramatically after the tax cuts were enacted. Yet calls to reverse these tax cuts abound.
For the Democratic Party, of course, there are other reasons for rolling back economic freedom. One is the powerful special interest groups within its coalition—organized labor in particular—which rely on government for special treatment and benefits they could never obtain in free and fair market-based negotiations. Unfortunately, the resulting higher costs and inefficiencies can devastate industries and regions—Michigan being a prime example.
But if we can expect Democrats to resist economic freedom, how do we explain the timidity on the Republican side to defend the economic ideas that have fueled recent advances in prosperity? The answer is that most politicians are ultimately motivated by their perceptions of public opinion. And despite the evidence, the public doesn’t seem to realize the period of unprecedented progress we are in.
As a side note, the increasing lack of opposition among the American people to higher income taxes should not be surprising when an increasingly progressive tax code means ever fewer Americans are paying any taxes at all: In 2005, the top one percent of earners in the U.S. paid 39 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent of earners paid just three percent. Over time, if half of the population believes that it is entitled to have someone else pay for government, we should not be surprised if public support for economic freedom continues to erode.
As one who has done a lot of campaigning over the years, I’ll admit, it can be hard to explain to some audiences why they should have to buy their own health insurance when the other side is offering to have the government give it to them for free. But that doesn’t absolve politicians of the moral obligation to present the principled and true argument..
Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.
Friday, June 13, 2008
The John Galt of Energy - Where Are You?
Rich Lowry has an interesting article in the New York Post today called "Gesture Politics". It's as if McCain's only claim to the White House is his personal honor and Obama's is this notion of Change. But here we are half way through 2008 and America is ailing. The fuel for the motor of our country - OIL- is going out of sight both in cost to the consumer and keeping us potential hostages to foreign interests. Is this the state we want to be in for the next who knows how many years?
The most important issue facing the United States bar none, is ENERGY. And what are these two candidates doing? Fiddling while Rome burns. One candidate refuses to allow drilling on an empty wasteland (that 99.99% of the world's population will never see or care to see) or off our coasts of California and Florida and the other candidate doesn't have an energy policy that I know of - but he wants "change".
We do need change, we need a different type of politician from those that kow-tow to special interest groups and sell our country down the river for a few votes...We need a John Galt in politics - a true maverick from the current philosophy of standing for nothing but sacrifice . Someone who will shout loud and clear that Americans will no longer sacrifice their lives for the environment or allow our lives to be diminished.
We don't need or want a 3 month summer holiday from a gas tax of 18 cents per gallon. We need a coherent energy policy that is based on our self-interest both as individuals and as a nation not the interests of some deer or mosquito or misguided environmentalists!
"...If this is all very admirable, it's not a good fit for the public mood when rising energy prices mean that the average worker's wages are falling. For many families, this is a crisis. Besides a summer holiday from the federal gas tax that would save the average family an estimated $30 this summer, McCain's signature energy initiative - cap-and-trade - would increase energy prices. "
"Live by the gesture, die by the gesture. From there, his position on energy only gets messier. He opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, another position undertaken largely for reasons of self-image - as the Teddy Roosevelt-style conservationist defending the country's big open spaces.
"At a town-hall meeting in Philadelphia, McCain said he could no sooner drill in ANWR than in the Grand Canyon. This is like comparing a roadside flea market to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Five million people a year visit the Grand Canyon, whereas 1,000 visit ANWR. Why would anyone want to go? It's a frozen wasteland during the winter and a mosquito-infested bog during the summer.
"McCain opposes drilling offshore Florida and California as well, saying that the states should be able to decide. But Alaska desperately wants to drill in ANWR. Its opinion apparently doesn't count. In an interview on the "Today" show, McCain ridiculously held out the prospect that advances in alternative energy might lower the price of gas by November. He's touting fanciful revolutionary breakthroughs within months without acknowledging the real technological advances that make it possible to drill with minimal environmental impact.
"McCain calls energy independence a national-security issue, but rules out obtaining here in the United States more of the most efficient form of energy readily available. By his own logic, the national-security candidate is putting aesthetic considerations - the sheer unsightliness of drilling, even though most people will never see it - over security." (READ)
The most important issue facing the United States bar none, is ENERGY. And what are these two candidates doing? Fiddling while Rome burns. One candidate refuses to allow drilling on an empty wasteland (that 99.99% of the world's population will never see or care to see) or off our coasts of California and Florida and the other candidate doesn't have an energy policy that I know of - but he wants "change".
We do need change, we need a different type of politician from those that kow-tow to special interest groups and sell our country down the river for a few votes...We need a John Galt in politics - a true maverick from the current philosophy of standing for nothing but sacrifice . Someone who will shout loud and clear that Americans will no longer sacrifice their lives for the environment or allow our lives to be diminished.
We don't need or want a 3 month summer holiday from a gas tax of 18 cents per gallon. We need a coherent energy policy that is based on our self-interest both as individuals and as a nation not the interests of some deer or mosquito or misguided environmentalists!
"...If this is all very admirable, it's not a good fit for the public mood when rising energy prices mean that the average worker's wages are falling. For many families, this is a crisis. Besides a summer holiday from the federal gas tax that would save the average family an estimated $30 this summer, McCain's signature energy initiative - cap-and-trade - would increase energy prices. "
"Live by the gesture, die by the gesture. From there, his position on energy only gets messier. He opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, another position undertaken largely for reasons of self-image - as the Teddy Roosevelt-style conservationist defending the country's big open spaces.
"At a town-hall meeting in Philadelphia, McCain said he could no sooner drill in ANWR than in the Grand Canyon. This is like comparing a roadside flea market to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Five million people a year visit the Grand Canyon, whereas 1,000 visit ANWR. Why would anyone want to go? It's a frozen wasteland during the winter and a mosquito-infested bog during the summer.
"McCain opposes drilling offshore Florida and California as well, saying that the states should be able to decide. But Alaska desperately wants to drill in ANWR. Its opinion apparently doesn't count. In an interview on the "Today" show, McCain ridiculously held out the prospect that advances in alternative energy might lower the price of gas by November. He's touting fanciful revolutionary breakthroughs within months without acknowledging the real technological advances that make it possible to drill with minimal environmental impact.
"McCain calls energy independence a national-security issue, but rules out obtaining here in the United States more of the most efficient form of energy readily available. By his own logic, the national-security candidate is putting aesthetic considerations - the sheer unsightliness of drilling, even though most people will never see it - over security." (READ)
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Groan....The Thought of Michelle Obama as First Lady..Ugh
The American Thinker had this to say about Michelle Obama:
"Be it her only recently found pride in her country or moans about the price of ballet lessons or complaints about what "it [criticism of the odious preacher, Rev. Wright] is doing to my kids," Michelle is already famous for a strain of affluent victimhood; I can only feel for the White House staff who would have to suffer four years of her employ.
"Add to this her leftist view of Barack Obama as Commander-in-Chief, not just of the military but of the whole nation; the nanny state with her as the chief nanny. Think of this famous prediction from Michelle:
" "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
"Hmm, where in the US Constitution does it give him the power to do that? Michelle is Hillary, Cherie and Oprah on steroids
"And yes, she will have the power.
"Hell hath no fury... Somewhere in all of this there will be a woman scorned; be it Hillary, Hill's supporters or Michelle. It won't be a pretty sight." READ
Indeed it won't and we may have to suffer through 4-8 years of Michelle? I think 8 years of Hillary was enough!
"Be it her only recently found pride in her country or moans about the price of ballet lessons or complaints about what "it [criticism of the odious preacher, Rev. Wright] is doing to my kids," Michelle is already famous for a strain of affluent victimhood; I can only feel for the White House staff who would have to suffer four years of her employ.
"Add to this her leftist view of Barack Obama as Commander-in-Chief, not just of the military but of the whole nation; the nanny state with her as the chief nanny. Think of this famous prediction from Michelle:
" "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
"Hmm, where in the US Constitution does it give him the power to do that? Michelle is Hillary, Cherie and Oprah on steroids
"And yes, she will have the power.
"Hell hath no fury... Somewhere in all of this there will be a woman scorned; be it Hillary, Hill's supporters or Michelle. It won't be a pretty sight." READ
Indeed it won't and we may have to suffer through 4-8 years of Michelle? I think 8 years of Hillary was enough!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)