The IDF Spokesperson's Unit is the Israel Defense Forces' professional body responsible for media and public relations in Israel and around the world. This is our new site that will help us do so.
We were saddened on Dec. 30, 2008 when YouTube took down some of our exclusive footage showing the IDF's operational success in operation Cast Lead against Hamas extremists in the Gaza Strip. Fortunately, due to blogger and viewer support, YouTube has returned the footage they removed.
http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk
I can't explain why, but this video had entertainment value.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7f0_1230584566
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Osama's Merry Christmas
That would be a great Christmas.
If only Santa were real and delivering bullets into the heads of the likes of Osama.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Santa's helpers disable naughty cameras in Tempe
Hip Hip Hooray!
These cameras have nothing to do with public safety, but everything to do with collecting more money from the hard working citizen.
I am not a big fan of civil disobedience, but what the hay.
In this case Santa(s) got it right!
Friday, December 5, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
same damn thing over and over
Who said something about not learning from history?
I've had my problems with that canard, but seems at least once there is some truth to it.
From my favorite columnist, George F. Will , another history lesson.
Early in what became the Great Depression, John Maynard Keynes was asked if anything similar had ever happened. "Yes," he replied, "it was called the Dark Ages, and it lasted 400 years." It did take 25 years, until November 1954, for the Dow to return to the peak it reached in September 1929. So caution is sensible concerning calls for a new New Deal.
John Maynard Keynes
I remember as a youngster being indoctrinated in the now discredited concept which was called "Keynesian economics."
people whose recipe for recovery today is another New Deal should remember that America's biggest industrial collapse occurred in 1937, eight years after the 1929 stock market crash and nearly five years into the New Deal
How can this be?
the Depression would have ended in 1936, rather than in 1943, were it not for policies that magnified the power of labor and encouraged the cartelization of industries.
These policies expressed the New Deal premise that the Depression was caused by excessive competition that first reduced prices and wages and then reduced employment and consumer demand. (italics and color mine)
It is unimaginable at this late date some would buy into such a destructive concept.
pressuring businesses to keep nominal wages fixed.
, , ,, Hoover's 1932 increase in the top income tax rate, from 25 percent to 63 percent, was unhelpful. And FDR's hyperkinetic New Deal created uncertainties that paralyzed private-sector decision making. Which sounds familiar
-----------------------------------------
"By acting without rhyme or reason, politicians have destroyed the rules of the game. There is no reason to invest, no reason to take risk, no reason to be prudent, no reason to look for buyers if your firm is failing. Everything is up in the air and as a result, the only prudent policy is to wait and see what the government will do next. The frenetic efforts of FDR had the same impact: Net investment was negative through much of the 1930s."
Those policies didn't work then so one should wonder why it would work now?
Same Old New Deal?
I've had my problems with that canard, but seems at least once there is some truth to it.
From my favorite columnist, George F. Will , another history lesson.
Early in what became the Great Depression, John Maynard Keynes was asked if anything similar had ever happened. "Yes," he replied, "it was called the Dark Ages, and it lasted 400 years." It did take 25 years, until November 1954, for the Dow to return to the peak it reached in September 1929. So caution is sensible concerning calls for a new New Deal.
John Maynard Keynes
I remember as a youngster being indoctrinated in the now discredited concept which was called "Keynesian economics."
people whose recipe for recovery today is another New Deal should remember that America's biggest industrial collapse occurred in 1937, eight years after the 1929 stock market crash and nearly five years into the New Deal
How can this be?
the Depression would have ended in 1936, rather than in 1943, were it not for policies that magnified the power of labor and encouraged the cartelization of industries.
These policies expressed the New Deal premise that the Depression was caused by excessive competition that first reduced prices and wages and then reduced employment and consumer demand. (italics and color mine)
It is unimaginable at this late date some would buy into such a destructive concept.
pressuring businesses to keep nominal wages fixed.
, , ,, Hoover's 1932 increase in the top income tax rate, from 25 percent to 63 percent, was unhelpful. And FDR's hyperkinetic New Deal created uncertainties that paralyzed private-sector decision making. Which sounds familiar
-----------------------------------------
"By acting without rhyme or reason, politicians have destroyed the rules of the game. There is no reason to invest, no reason to take risk, no reason to be prudent, no reason to look for buyers if your firm is failing. Everything is up in the air and as a result, the only prudent policy is to wait and see what the government will do next. The frenetic efforts of FDR had the same impact: Net investment was negative through much of the 1930s."
Those policies didn't work then so one should wonder why it would work now?
Same Old New Deal?
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Let Detroit Go Chapture 11
I shouldn't be, but I am amazed by how swiftly my federal government has put trillions of taxpayer dollars at stake covering up for their lack of oversight of reckless financial dealings.
Now on top of that, American auto makers are going hat in hand so to squander 25 billion dollars of my tax money.
This is just so wrong.
The 25 billion dollars would only prolong the agonizing death of the American auto industry.
A total restructure is needed.
Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
By MITT ROMNEY
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.
----------------------------------------------------
, , ,their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated.
That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.
That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car.
Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.
Ditch the Union Goons
Now on top of that, American auto makers are going hat in hand so to squander 25 billion dollars of my tax money.
This is just so wrong.
The 25 billion dollars would only prolong the agonizing death of the American auto industry.
A total restructure is needed.
Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
By MITT ROMNEY
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.
----------------------------------------------------
, , ,their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated.
That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.
That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car.
Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.
Ditch the Union Goons
UAW no Good for Detroit
Is it any wonder that Unions have out lived their usefulness?
With the threat of strike costing billions of dollars Unions have finally reached Nirvana.
But to what end if it causes finical ruin for their hosts?
Automakers' Jobs Bank Program Pays Laid-Off Workers to Do Nothing
Thousands of laid-off auto workers get paid $31 an hour to sit around and do nothing all year under a controversial program that could continue even if American taxpayers bail out the American auto industry.
The program, called "Jobs Banks," has been around for 24 years. Some of the employees at jobs banks choose to do community service, but others do crossword puzzles and watch TV all day -- or just stare at a wall. If you're a laid-off auto worker, it's what comes with your pink slip, thanks to a deal struck in 1984 between the United Auto Workers and the Big Three carmakers.
The program is likely to continue if Congress approves a $25 billion bailout of the industry. But if the automakers go bankrupt, some analysts say, they may be able to eliminate the program, which would abruptly eliminate benefits to the workers in it.
Killing The Goose that laid the Golden Egg
With the threat of strike costing billions of dollars Unions have finally reached Nirvana.
But to what end if it causes finical ruin for their hosts?
Automakers' Jobs Bank Program Pays Laid-Off Workers to Do Nothing
Thousands of laid-off auto workers get paid $31 an hour to sit around and do nothing all year under a controversial program that could continue even if American taxpayers bail out the American auto industry.
The program, called "Jobs Banks," has been around for 24 years. Some of the employees at jobs banks choose to do community service, but others do crossword puzzles and watch TV all day -- or just stare at a wall. If you're a laid-off auto worker, it's what comes with your pink slip, thanks to a deal struck in 1984 between the United Auto Workers and the Big Three carmakers.
The program is likely to continue if Congress approves a $25 billion bailout of the industry. But if the automakers go bankrupt, some analysts say, they may be able to eliminate the program, which would abruptly eliminate benefits to the workers in it.
Killing The Goose that laid the Golden Egg
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Entertainment vs. The Coming Election
I am so depressed, I lack the energy to take any serious news and make comment, so I offer a little entertainment.
Seems Sen. Obama by default will become the next President of the United States, but I really wonder how much better Sen. McCain would have been.
Woe to the Union if this is the best that we can come up with.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Russian live missile fire air exercise near Alaska
From our friends at Debka, we learn that:
Not since 1984, just before the fall of the Soviet Union, has Russia ventured to launch dozens of nuclear bombers for an exercise in which Tu-95 Bear bombers will fire live cruise missiles. Exercise Stability 2008 will take place Oct.-6-12 over sub-Arctic Russia, uncomfortably close to Alaska.
Isn't that just wonderful?
As part of the exercise, our sources reported exclusively on Oct. 1, that Russian ships armed with nuclear missiles will dock at Syrian ports Oct. 8, on the eve of Yom Kippur, before continuing to the Caribbean for joint maneuvers with Venezuela.
Yee Haw
Click Here for Full Article
Not since 1984, just before the fall of the Soviet Union, has Russia ventured to launch dozens of nuclear bombers for an exercise in which Tu-95 Bear bombers will fire live cruise missiles. Exercise Stability 2008 will take place Oct.-6-12 over sub-Arctic Russia, uncomfortably close to Alaska.
Isn't that just wonderful?
As part of the exercise, our sources reported exclusively on Oct. 1, that Russian ships armed with nuclear missiles will dock at Syrian ports Oct. 8, on the eve of Yom Kippur, before continuing to the Caribbean for joint maneuvers with Venezuela.
Yee Haw
Click Here for Full Article
Why I Can't Vote for President
Come November I will go to the polls and vote.
If the presidential race was the only issue, I would stay home.
There is no way I would ever vote for Senator Obama, and Senator McCain has proved to be a real disappointment.
Senator McCain not only has run a sorry campaign, but his choice of Gov. Palin for Vice President really floors me.
What the heck was he thinking?
Sara Palin Explains the Job of the Vice President
If the presidential race was the only issue, I would stay home.
There is no way I would ever vote for Senator Obama, and Senator McCain has proved to be a real disappointment.
Senator McCain not only has run a sorry campaign, but his choice of Gov. Palin for Vice President really floors me.
What the heck was he thinking?
Sara Palin Explains the Job of the Vice President
Sunday, October 19, 2008
King Bloomberg
I have never been a fan of term limits.
Really, if people want to re-elect a representative why should there be an artificial barrier to the citizens wishes?
Well, entrenched incumbents, gerrymandering has really put me in a foul mood.
In New York City, the office of mayor gerrymandering is not an issue. I suspect only the hubris of the current office holder Michael Bloomberg puts my patience to the test.
How fitting he is pictured next to King George.
Dispensable Arrogance
"A decade after communities around the country adopted term limits to force entrenched politicians from office, at least two dozen local governments are suffering from a case of buyer's remorse, with legislative bodies from New York City to Tacoma, Wash., trying to overturn or tweak the laws."
Good grief. These legislative bodies, including state legislatures, are largely filled with politicians eager to become entrenched. And these bodies never did "buy" term limits. Limits were imposed on them.
Full commentary by George F. Will
Monday, October 13, 2008
Obama's Tax Fraud
You know, Sen.Obama is a clever guy.
I would not trust this guy any better than a three card monte con on the corner of a big city street.
Obama's 95% Illusion
I would not trust this guy any better than a three card monte con on the corner of a big city street.
Obama's 95% Illusion
One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
Click Here for Full Article
Friday, October 10, 2008
Nothing to Fear, but Government Itself
We know we are in trouble when the populace screams for government control of our economy.
Don't get me wrong. Prudent government regulation in itself is not a bad thing.
But then, what is prudent?
From the Wall Street Journal:
Government Fear Itself
Potential bank investors don't want to be 'AIG-ed.'
Amid economic fear and uncertainty, many Americans naturally look to government for reassurance. But with its vast power and potential to harm, government can itself become a source of panic. This has happened too often in recent days as Americans and the world have finally awakened to the scale of the losses in the banking system.
--------------------------------------
One problem is reckless news leaks of potential policy actions, some of them far-reaching, without adequate thought or public explanation. Take Friday morning's reports, presumably leaked by Treasury, that the federal government might insure all bank deposits. This would be no small matter. Until recently the feds insured deposits only up to $100,000 per account, and last month it raised that to $250,000. Ensuring all deposits would add another $1.9 trillion in taxpayer guarantees.
It isn't clear, however, that insuring all deposits would do much more to reassure most retail savers, who have largely stayed calm. There have been runs on individual banks but so far not runs across the system. Yet leaking the possibility of such a policy change is the kind of thoughtless action that could well incite such a run.
Full Artice, Government Fear Itself
Don't get me wrong. Prudent government regulation in itself is not a bad thing.
But then, what is prudent?
From the Wall Street Journal:
Government Fear Itself
Potential bank investors don't want to be 'AIG-ed.'
Amid economic fear and uncertainty, many Americans naturally look to government for reassurance. But with its vast power and potential to harm, government can itself become a source of panic. This has happened too often in recent days as Americans and the world have finally awakened to the scale of the losses in the banking system.
--------------------------------------
One problem is reckless news leaks of potential policy actions, some of them far-reaching, without adequate thought or public explanation. Take Friday morning's reports, presumably leaked by Treasury, that the federal government might insure all bank deposits. This would be no small matter. Until recently the feds insured deposits only up to $100,000 per account, and last month it raised that to $250,000. Ensuring all deposits would add another $1.9 trillion in taxpayer guarantees.
It isn't clear, however, that insuring all deposits would do much more to reassure most retail savers, who have largely stayed calm. There have been runs on individual banks but so far not runs across the system. Yet leaking the possibility of such a policy change is the kind of thoughtless action that could well incite such a run.
Full Artice, Government Fear Itself
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Obama, Union Hack
You know what?
I hate liars, and I hate that tool of union goons Senator Barak Obama.
I will give him a break and not call him a liar of tool of union goons.
Is it anymore a complement to say his idea of progress is to expend effort to retard the progression of technology?
Obsolescent Planning
Obama decries the decline of the TV tube industry. What's next, buggy whips?
"A new television ad released Wednesday by Sen. Barack Obama's campaign highlights the closure of Corning Inc.'s plant in State College, Pa., and accuses Washington with Sen. John McCain's help of selling out the workers," the AP reports.
So what did Corning make at the plant? The ad, which you can see HERE does not say, but the AP story does: "glass tubes for television sets and computer monitors."
It's hard to remember now, but in the olden days TV sets and computer monitors used a technology called cathode ray tubes. A CRT consisted of an electron gun that projects an image onto a fluorescent screen. In most cases the gun had to be some distance from the screen, with the entire assembly enclosed in glass, which meant that TVs were bulky and boxy (hence the term "idiot box").
In modern times, the CRT has given way to superior technologies such as plasma and liquid crystal, which take up less space and provide superior picture quality. This is an enormous blessing to all Americans who watch TV or use computers.
It's hard to imagine a more backward-looking position than mourning the decline of the picture-tube industry. What'll Obama do next, promise to restore American supremacy in the manufacture of buggy whips, iron lungs and floppy disks?
Best Of the Web Today
I hate liars, and I hate that tool of union goons Senator Barak Obama.
I will give him a break and not call him a liar of tool of union goons.
Is it anymore a complement to say his idea of progress is to expend effort to retard the progression of technology?
Obsolescent Planning
Obama decries the decline of the TV tube industry. What's next, buggy whips?
"A new television ad released Wednesday by Sen. Barack Obama's campaign highlights the closure of Corning Inc.'s plant in State College, Pa., and accuses Washington with Sen. John McCain's help of selling out the workers," the AP reports.
So what did Corning make at the plant? The ad, which you can see HERE does not say, but the AP story does: "glass tubes for television sets and computer monitors."
It's hard to remember now, but in the olden days TV sets and computer monitors used a technology called cathode ray tubes. A CRT consisted of an electron gun that projects an image onto a fluorescent screen. In most cases the gun had to be some distance from the screen, with the entire assembly enclosed in glass, which meant that TVs were bulky and boxy (hence the term "idiot box").
In modern times, the CRT has given way to superior technologies such as plasma and liquid crystal, which take up less space and provide superior picture quality. This is an enormous blessing to all Americans who watch TV or use computers.
It's hard to imagine a more backward-looking position than mourning the decline of the picture-tube industry. What'll Obama do next, promise to restore American supremacy in the manufacture of buggy whips, iron lungs and floppy disks?
Best Of the Web Today
Friday, September 19, 2008
Here is the straight poop.
At the Republican Convention Gov. Palin makes a joke,
"What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?
Lipstick."
Guess you had to be there, but it got a laugh.
Forward to Sen. Obama using this metaphor to connect President Bush's policy to Sen. McCains ideas. He goes down the lipstick road and says something like McCain's proposals in comparison to Bush's is like putting lipstick on a pig.
Well all hell broke loose with some trying to say that Obama is calling Palin a pig.
Well, I wonder
At the Republican Convention Gov. Palin makes a joke,
"What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?
Lipstick."
Guess you had to be there, but it got a laugh.
Forward to Sen. Obama using this metaphor to connect President Bush's policy to Sen. McCains ideas. He goes down the lipstick road and says something like McCain's proposals in comparison to Bush's is like putting lipstick on a pig.
Well all hell broke loose with some trying to say that Obama is calling Palin a pig.
Well, I wonder
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Sara Palin vs Jay Leno - No Blinking Contest
When I first heard that Governor Palin was to be Sen. McCain's running mate for Vice-President I was confused.
I am still confused, but I really do like this video.
In the long run I think Gov. Palin, if nothing else has a lot of moxie.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Ireland to hold second Lisbon Treaty referendum?
Seems the European Union just won't take NO for an answer.
EU officals expect Ireland to hold second Lisbon Treaty referendum
European Union officials expect Ireland to cave in and hold a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Autumn 2009.
EU officals expect Ireland to hold second Lisbon Treaty referendum
European Union officials expect Ireland to cave in and hold a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Autumn 2009.
Why should this be?
Ireland has been under French and German pressure to hold a second vote and Autumn 2009 has emerged as the favoured date among officials and diplomats ahead of the European Union summit on the future of the Lisbon Treaty next month.
Ireland has refused to deny that a second referendum could occur, following the 'No' vote in June.
The document has been written by an influential group of French officials, called Le Amis du Traite de Lisbonne or Friends of the Lisbon Treaty.
Whatever, seems that the EU does not understand the concept of Democracy.
Unless it comes out with the correct results.
EU officals expect Ireland to hold second Lisbon Treaty referendum
Unless it comes out with the correct results.
EU officals expect Ireland to hold second Lisbon Treaty referendum
Sunday, September 14, 2008
California and New York Taxes
Does anybody in these two states have a grip?
I am not rich, but when the politicians attack the rich, they attack my employers, hence I left California.
How Not to Balance a Budget
Anyone who thinks the path to "fiscal discipline" is through higher taxes ought to look at the current budget spectacles in New York and California. The two liberal states have among the highest tax burdens in the country, yet both now find themselves with huge budget deficits and are debating still higher taxes to close the gap.
----
California has the highest state income tax rate in the country (10.3%), while New York State also has a high income tax rate (6.85%), with the combined state and city rate rising to 10.5% in New York City. Their overall government spending totals also happen to top the national charts. And, what do you know, California is $15 billion in the red this year while New York is trying to close a $6.4 billion 2009 budget hole, which budget expert E.J. McMahon of the Manhattan Institute expects to grow to $26 billion over three years.
----
The "progressives" who dominate politics in these states target the rich on grounds that they have the ability to pay. They also have the ability to leave. From 1997-2006, New York State lost 409,000 people (not counting foreign immigrants). For every two people who move into the state, three flee. Maybe the problem for New York is merely bad weather, not high taxes.
Except that sunny California is experiencing a similar exodus. Over the past decade 1.32 million more native-born Americans left the Golden State than moved in -- despite beaches, mountains and 70-degree weather. Mostly the people who have fled are the successful, the talented and the rich.
Click here for Full Article, it is short
I am not rich, but when the politicians attack the rich, they attack my employers, hence I left California.
How Not to Balance a Budget
Anyone who thinks the path to "fiscal discipline" is through higher taxes ought to look at the current budget spectacles in New York and California. The two liberal states have among the highest tax burdens in the country, yet both now find themselves with huge budget deficits and are debating still higher taxes to close the gap.
----
California has the highest state income tax rate in the country (10.3%), while New York State also has a high income tax rate (6.85%), with the combined state and city rate rising to 10.5% in New York City. Their overall government spending totals also happen to top the national charts. And, what do you know, California is $15 billion in the red this year while New York is trying to close a $6.4 billion 2009 budget hole, which budget expert E.J. McMahon of the Manhattan Institute expects to grow to $26 billion over three years.
----
The "progressives" who dominate politics in these states target the rich on grounds that they have the ability to pay. They also have the ability to leave. From 1997-2006, New York State lost 409,000 people (not counting foreign immigrants). For every two people who move into the state, three flee. Maybe the problem for New York is merely bad weather, not high taxes.
Except that sunny California is experiencing a similar exodus. Over the past decade 1.32 million more native-born Americans left the Golden State than moved in -- despite beaches, mountains and 70-degree weather. Mostly the people who have fled are the successful, the talented and the rich.
Click here for Full Article, it is short
Monday, September 1, 2008
Gay Muslims - UK - Part 1 of 6
This just to rich.
I suspect Iranians are most likely to be homosexual.
Must get real lonely out there on the desert with but a camel for companionship.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Nazi Raccoons
Well not all news has to be serious stuff of world importance.
Where I live raccoons are just a part of life and usually of no consequence.
I usually see them as road kill, not a pretty sight, none the less I find this story of Nazi Raccoons hilarious.
From Nazi Past, a Proliferating Pest
KASSEL, Germany -- In 1934, top Nazi party official Hermann Goering received a seemingly mundane request from the Reich Forestry Service. A fur farm near here was seeking permission to release a batch of exotic bushy-tailed critters into the wild to "enrich the local fauna" and give bored hunters something new to shoot at.
Goering approved the request and unwittingly uncorked an ecological disaster that is still spreading across Europe. The imported North American species, Procyon lotor, or the common raccoon, quickly took a liking to the forests of central Germany. Encountering no natural predators -- and with hunters increasingly called away by World War II -- the woodland creatures fruitfully multiplied and have stymied all attempts to prevent them from overtaking the Continent.
FULL STORY
Monday, August 18, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My gosh, a hero of mine passed away and just now I come of the news.
I do work a lot of hours, but that is no excuse as I do listen to radio news.
Whatever.
Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn (IPA: /soʊlʒəˈniːtsɨn/[1] Russian: Алекса́ндр Иса́евич Солжени́цын, Russian pronunciation: [ɐlʲɪˈksandr ɪˈsaɪvʲɪtɕ səlʐɨˈnʲitsɨn]) (December 11, 1918 – August 3, 2008
I do work a lot of hours, but that is no excuse as I do listen to radio news.
Whatever.
Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn (IPA: /soʊlʒəˈniːtsɨn/[1] Russian: Алекса́ндр Иса́евич Солжени́цын, Russian pronunciation: [ɐlʲɪˈksandr ɪˈsaɪvʲɪtɕ səlʐɨˈnʲitsɨn]) (December 11, 1918 – August 3, 2008
Saturday, August 9, 2008
President Mikheil Saakashvili have to pull the tiger's tail
Is this nuts or what?
I suppose it had to come to a head, Russia always wanting to dominate its neighbors.
But did Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili have to pull the tiger tail?
It would have been nice to include Georgia into NATO, but do we really want to go to war with Russia?
"War has started," Vladimir Putin said yesterday as Georgian and Russian forces fought over the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia. War is certainly what the two countries have seemed to want for some time, and the chances of avoiding a drawn-out conflict now are slim.
The biggest question now is whether Moscow will simply try to restore the previous status quo in South Ossetia -- with Russia and the rebels controlling most of the territory -- or go further and crush Georgia while deposing Mr. Saakashvili. Russian state TV yesterday reported that Georgian soldiers had killed at least 10 Russian troops and were "finishing off" wounded Russians, a worrisome sign that the Kremlin is trying to inflame public opinion ahead of a major operation.
I would say this is not good.
War in the Caucasus
I suppose it had to come to a head, Russia always wanting to dominate its neighbors.
But did Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili have to pull the tiger tail?
It would have been nice to include Georgia into NATO, but do we really want to go to war with Russia?
"War has started," Vladimir Putin said yesterday as Georgian and Russian forces fought over the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia. War is certainly what the two countries have seemed to want for some time, and the chances of avoiding a drawn-out conflict now are slim.
The biggest question now is whether Moscow will simply try to restore the previous status quo in South Ossetia -- with Russia and the rebels controlling most of the territory -- or go further and crush Georgia while deposing Mr. Saakashvili. Russian state TV yesterday reported that Georgian soldiers had killed at least 10 Russian troops and were "finishing off" wounded Russians, a worrisome sign that the Kremlin is trying to inflame public opinion ahead of a major operation.
I would say this is not good.
War in the Caucasus
Sunday, August 3, 2008
FOOD vs BioFuels
Seems to me that at least once before I posted here my complaint that use of food to for fuel is not such a grand idea.
Well anyway, enjoy this little ditty by Peter Nicholson.
FOOD
Well anyway, enjoy this little ditty by Peter Nicholson.
FOOD
Survival of the Sudsiest
I never had this problem before. Two articles that deserve equal attention.
The first by George F. Will
The first by George F. Will
Survival of the Sudsiest
Perhaps, like many sensible citizens, you read Investor's Business Daily for its sturdy common sense in defending free markets and other rational arrangements. If so, you too may have been startled recently by an astonishing statement on that newspaper's front page. It was in a report on the intention of the world's second-largest brewer, Belgium's InBev, to buy control of the third-largest, Anheuser-Busch, for $46.3 billion. The story asserted: "The [alcoholic beverage] industry's continued growth, however slight, has been a surprise to those who figured that when the economy turned south, consumers would cut back on nonessential items like beer."
"Non wh at"? Do not try to peddle that proposition in the bleachers or at the beaches in July. It is closer to the truth to say: No beer, no civilization.
Well Mr. Will goes on, it is a good read.
The development of civilization depended on urbanization, which depended on beer.
Just a little teaser.
But more seriously is an editorial from the Wall Street Journal.
This Bud's for Belgium
Politicians and Wall Streeters are starting to ask why the Belgian beer company InBev purchased Anheuser-Busch and not the other way around. Anheuser-Busch is an iconic American firm and some find it almost unpatriotic that Anheuser CEO August Busch IV allowed the "King of Beers" to relocate across the Atlantic -- though shareholders were the big winners here with a $50 billion-plus takeaway.
Things have gotten pretty bad when U.S. companies relocate to Europe to cut their tax payments. But a research analysis by Morgan Stanley finds the combined company's corporate tax bill will be lower than in the U.S. and that the tax differential indeed figured into the economics of the sale.
So while John McCain may have benefited from his wife's ownership of Anheuser stock (estimated at between 40,000 and 80,000 shares), the country will continue to see its competitive edge wither away without a corporate tax rate cut. Mr. McCain to his credit wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 25%, close to the global average. Senator Obama is more interested in raising tax rates than cutting them.
Perhaps, like many sensible citizens, you read Investor's Business Daily for its sturdy common sense in defending free markets and other rational arrangements. If so, you too may have been startled recently by an astonishing statement on that newspaper's front page. It was in a report on the intention of the world's second-largest brewer, Belgium's InBev, to buy control of the third-largest, Anheuser-Busch, for $46.3 billion. The story asserted: "The [alcoholic beverage] industry's continued growth, however slight, has been a surprise to those who figured that when the economy turned south, consumers would cut back on nonessential items like beer."
"Non wh at"? Do not try to peddle that proposition in the bleachers or at the beaches in July. It is closer to the truth to say: No beer, no civilization.
Well Mr. Will goes on, it is a good read.
The development of civilization depended on urbanization, which depended on beer.
Just a little teaser.
But more seriously is an editorial from the Wall Street Journal.
This Bud's for Belgium
Politicians and Wall Streeters are starting to ask why the Belgian beer company InBev purchased Anheuser-Busch and not the other way around. Anheuser-Busch is an iconic American firm and some find it almost unpatriotic that Anheuser CEO August Busch IV allowed the "King of Beers" to relocate across the Atlantic -- though shareholders were the big winners here with a $50 billion-plus takeaway.
Things have gotten pretty bad when U.S. companies relocate to Europe to cut their tax payments. But a research analysis by Morgan Stanley finds the combined company's corporate tax bill will be lower than in the U.S. and that the tax differential indeed figured into the economics of the sale.
So while John McCain may have benefited from his wife's ownership of Anheuser stock (estimated at between 40,000 and 80,000 shares), the country will continue to see its competitive edge wither away without a corporate tax rate cut. Mr. McCain to his credit wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 25%, close to the global average. Senator Obama is more interested in raising tax rates than cutting them.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
The Audacity of Vanity
You know what, I don't believe I ever posted a column by Charles Krauthammer here.
This particular essay is not only to the point, but a joyous read.
Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.
Aint't that the truth.
Dream on dude.
Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop?
Actually, nothing. Mr. Krauthammer explains that.
The Audacity of Vanity
This particular essay is not only to the point, but a joyous read.
Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.
Aint't that the truth.
Dream on dude.
Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop?
Actually, nothing. Mr. Krauthammer explains that.
The Audacity of Vanity
Saturday, July 19, 2008
New Yorker insulted Muslim Americans
Did the New Yorker Magazine insult Muslims, or just piss off Senator Obama?
CHICAGO -- Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday that the New Yorker magazine's satirical cover depicting him and his wife as flag-burning, fist-bumping radicals doesn't bother him but that it was an insult to Muslim Americans.
I think the latter.
If the guy wants to be President, he better get used to it.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
National Popular Vote : NPV
This is a new one on me folks. Maybe I should get out more often.
What really boggles my mind is to what end is it suppose to accomplish?
Our present system offers stability which has proven to work well.
Give me another reason to abandon our Constitution.
I don't know about you, but I want my vote to count!
Don't Mess With the Electoral College
By DAVID LEWIS SCHAEFER
Backers of the popular vote do not seek to amend the Constitution; they know this is a nonstarter. Instead, a growing "National Popular Vote" (NPV) movement wants state legislatures to instruct their electors to vote for the winner of the greatest number of popular votes in the national election -- regardless of the ballots cast by voters in their own states.
I have to wonder what brain-trust came up with that.
Click here, Full Commentary
What really boggles my mind is to what end is it suppose to accomplish?
Our present system offers stability which has proven to work well.
Give me another reason to abandon our Constitution.
I don't know about you, but I want my vote to count!
Don't Mess With the Electoral College
By DAVID LEWIS SCHAEFER
Backers of the popular vote do not seek to amend the Constitution; they know this is a nonstarter. Instead, a growing "National Popular Vote" (NPV) movement wants state legislatures to instruct their electors to vote for the winner of the greatest number of popular votes in the national election -- regardless of the ballots cast by voters in their own states.
I have to wonder what brain-trust came up with that.
Click here, Full Commentary
Revolutionary Guard
Who would have thought?
They are going to photoshop us to death?
Iran missile photo 'doctored'
A photograph of a recent Iranian missile test was apparently doctored to show a fourth missile firing from a desert testing range, analysts and photographic experts have said.
The image was posted on Wednesday on a website run by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and was quickly circulated by news agencies, appearing on front pages of hundreds of newspapers and websites – including this one –around the world.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/07/200871132934149484.html
Saturday, July 5, 2008
England Gun Ban Update
Prisoner in his own home. Can't control the criminal, control the law abiding? Citizens victims of the law.
That is great.
Tony Martin should be given a parade, not doing time ins some stinky prison with the local ner-do-wells.
The Knock on the Door
I don't believe it is any secret here that I am a big fan of George F. Will.
This column literally brought me to tears.
Army Pfc. Jesse Givens of Fountain, Colo.: "My angel, my wife, my love, my friend. If you're reading this, I won't be coming home. . . . Please find it in your heart to forgive me for leaving you alone."
Shakespere could not do better, but then far as I know the Bard never went to war for his country.
The Knock on the Door
This column literally brought me to tears.
Army Pfc. Jesse Givens of Fountain, Colo.: "My angel, my wife, my love, my friend. If you're reading this, I won't be coming home. . . . Please find it in your heart to forgive me for leaving you alone."
Shakespere could not do better, but then far as I know the Bard never went to war for his country.
The Knock on the Door
Friday, July 4, 2008
A Day at the Beach
It was long ago, it seems.
So it seems to us who were not alive then.
But for so many of us whose parents, grandparents who were around then, I suspect it was not all that long ago.
It was May 1944, and 22-year-old John Whitehead of Montclair, N.J., an ensign on the USS Thomas Jefferson, was placed in charge of five of the landing craft for the invasion of Europe. Each would ferry 25 soldiers from the TJ, as they called it, onto the shore of France. John's landing site was to be a 50-yard stretch of shoreline dubbed Dog Red Beach. It fell near the middle of the sector called Omaha Beach, which in turn fell in the middle of the entire assault.
This is a great story worth reading.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Barak Obama Explains Change
I will make it no secret that I am no fan of Senator Obama. From what I gather he is a left wing fruitcake.
But what the hey, who am I to just sit here and cast dispersions. Name calling is not really good form, so I will give the man his due.
Maybe there is something to this "CHANGE" thing.
CHANGE
But what the hey, who am I to just sit here and cast dispersions. Name calling is not really good form, so I will give the man his due.
Maybe there is something to this "CHANGE" thing.
CHANGE
So much for a man of principle, But that the principle is the end of the means.
Tell you the truth, I hate the idea of limiting free speech, which is exactly what this federal government policy does.
Far as I am concerned, it is not that there is to much money spent on presidential campaign's, but that there is not enough.
I find it incredible that there is not a billion dollars spent on a presidential campaign election.
With all that said, Senator Obama suckered his followers in this idea of change, and he just now did that, made a change.
He is the first presidential candidate in over thirty years or so to not accept campaign spending limits.
It is only obvious that his message, whatever it is needs the boost of a couple of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Tell you the truth, I hate the idea of limiting free speech, which is exactly what this federal government policy does.
Far as I am concerned, it is not that there is to much money spent on presidential campaign's, but that there is not enough.
I find it incredible that there is not a billion dollars spent on a presidential campaign election.
With all that said, Senator Obama suckered his followers in this idea of change, and he just now did that, made a change.
He is the first presidential candidate in over thirty years or so to not accept campaign spending limits.
It is only obvious that his message, whatever it is needs the boost of a couple of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
E.U - Multiculti empire
I sit here and wonder what the hell is going on?
Why are civilized people giving in the ignorant and uncultured?
Expense Allowance Abuse by MEPs
What, do they think they work for the United State House of Representatives?
One would think this is a good thing, that these crooks did not stick around to make more bad laws, but fact is they have no powers at all!
I should have such a job, but in the real world people have to work, do something of value to get a paycheck.
Seems it is universal, politicians are more about the money than serving their constituents.
I am not quite that cynical, but all too often those who really work are damned by the sick, lame and lazy.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Timeout on Biofuels
I think I wrote about this before, the cost of using corn for fuel.
Well now it is obvious the price of having a government directed economy.
Please save us from anymore government intrusion.
Sure, gasoline prices are high, so be it, but we must let the market sort out the answer.
Last thing we need is another government mandate.
A Texas Timeout on Biofuels
May 24, 2008
The state of Texas is now in official opposition to the federal ethanol mandate. Governor Rick Perry has petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency for a one-year reprieve, and the reason is simple and increasingly familiar: Washington's ethanol obsession is hurting the state.
We all know that corn farmers everywhere love ethanol. Don't tell that to Texas cattle ranchers. Because of the mandate to add this biofuel to gasoline, ranchers are being forced into bidding wars with ethanol plants for the grains they feed their cattle. They don't appreciate being hammered on price because of a subsidy to corn growers. Thus, Governor Perry's petition.
The Governor's goal is to win a ruling from the EPA that suspends half the federal requirement that nine billion gallons of this product be added this year to the nation's fuel supply. Last week the EPA opened a 30-day public comment period on the Texas waiver request, the first step in what could lead to granting his request.
The most interesting thing revealed by this effort is that EPA holds the power to stand down from the ethanol fiasco. Congress gave EPA the authority to grant such waivers in the event the ethanol mandate had unforeseen consequences. Governor Perry argues that the mess in Texas qualifies.
By his calculation, if the mandate helps to push the price of corn to $8 a bushel (it's at nearly $6 now, up from $2 in 2004), it will cost the Texas economy nearly $3.6 billion this year. He says the dramatic spike in food prices may be due to a complex set of reasons, but the ethanol mandate is something that public officials can alter. The EPA has until late July to make a decision on the Texas petition.
Meanwhile, Congress merely throws more corn onto the ethanol bonfire. Under its 2005 mandates, Americans would be required to use 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2012. But in December that was increased by 1.5 billion gallons and advanced to this year. Congress's target for 2022 is 36 billion gallons. They'll be growing corn on the Washington mall.
A countermovement has begun. Earlier this month, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson called for a freeze in ethanol mandates and quickly got the support of two dozen of her Republican Senate colleagues, among them John McCain. Also, a provision in this week's farm bill would shave a tax credit given refiners who blend ethanol into gasoline to 45 cents per gallon from 51 cents.
A predictable backlash has set in against the Perry petition. Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley and South Dakota Democrat Tim Johnson have written the EPA to defend ethanol as representing a small fraction of the rise in food prices. In line behind them are the Texas Corn Producers Association and the Texas Grain Sorghum Association.
At the moment, candidate John McCain, who has been losing lobbyist advisers, could use some help shoring up his credentials as an opponent of special interests. It looks as if Governor Perry has teed up a good one in the ethanol mandate. He might want to let voters know that EPA has the power to call a timeout on biofuels.
http://http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121158357510318781.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Well now it is obvious the price of having a government directed economy.
Please save us from anymore government intrusion.
Sure, gasoline prices are high, so be it, but we must let the market sort out the answer.
Last thing we need is another government mandate.
A Texas Timeout on Biofuels
May 24, 2008
The state of Texas is now in official opposition to the federal ethanol mandate. Governor Rick Perry has petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency for a one-year reprieve, and the reason is simple and increasingly familiar: Washington's ethanol obsession is hurting the state.
We all know that corn farmers everywhere love ethanol. Don't tell that to Texas cattle ranchers. Because of the mandate to add this biofuel to gasoline, ranchers are being forced into bidding wars with ethanol plants for the grains they feed their cattle. They don't appreciate being hammered on price because of a subsidy to corn growers. Thus, Governor Perry's petition.
The Governor's goal is to win a ruling from the EPA that suspends half the federal requirement that nine billion gallons of this product be added this year to the nation's fuel supply. Last week the EPA opened a 30-day public comment period on the Texas waiver request, the first step in what could lead to granting his request.
The most interesting thing revealed by this effort is that EPA holds the power to stand down from the ethanol fiasco. Congress gave EPA the authority to grant such waivers in the event the ethanol mandate had unforeseen consequences. Governor Perry argues that the mess in Texas qualifies.
By his calculation, if the mandate helps to push the price of corn to $8 a bushel (it's at nearly $6 now, up from $2 in 2004), it will cost the Texas economy nearly $3.6 billion this year. He says the dramatic spike in food prices may be due to a complex set of reasons, but the ethanol mandate is something that public officials can alter. The EPA has until late July to make a decision on the Texas petition.
Meanwhile, Congress merely throws more corn onto the ethanol bonfire. Under its 2005 mandates, Americans would be required to use 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2012. But in December that was increased by 1.5 billion gallons and advanced to this year. Congress's target for 2022 is 36 billion gallons. They'll be growing corn on the Washington mall.
A countermovement has begun. Earlier this month, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson called for a freeze in ethanol mandates and quickly got the support of two dozen of her Republican Senate colleagues, among them John McCain. Also, a provision in this week's farm bill would shave a tax credit given refiners who blend ethanol into gasoline to 45 cents per gallon from 51 cents.
A predictable backlash has set in against the Perry petition. Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley and South Dakota Democrat Tim Johnson have written the EPA to defend ethanol as representing a small fraction of the rise in food prices. In line behind them are the Texas Corn Producers Association and the Texas Grain Sorghum Association.
At the moment, candidate John McCain, who has been losing lobbyist advisers, could use some help shoring up his credentials as an opponent of special interests. It looks as if Governor Perry has teed up a good one in the ethanol mandate. He might want to let voters know that EPA has the power to call a timeout on biofuels.
http://http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121158357510318781.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
How to Enrage a Democrat
President Bush recently went to Israel and in front of the Knesset spoke about the concept of "appeasement".
Well golly if some Democrats didn't get their hackles up.
President Bush did not mention any names, but does anyone have any doubts of whom he was talking about?
It was improper to bring a to bring a domestic quarrel in front of the legisitive body of a foreign country, but the message was consistent with our policy, or it should be.
His message was clear and should not give any heartburn.
How to Enrage a Democrat
Well golly if some Democrats didn't get their hackles up.
President Bush did not mention any names, but does anyone have any doubts of whom he was talking about?
It was improper to bring a to bring a domestic quarrel in front of the legisitive body of a foreign country, but the message was consistent with our policy, or it should be.
His message was clear and should not give any heartburn.
How to Enrage a Democrat
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Kick Burma Out of the U.N.
Kick Burma out, yup,,
I agree.
Maybe while we are at it, kick out a few others.
Better yet, maybe we, the U.S.A., and other countries of any civility should just walk out.
Kick Burma Out of the U.N.
May 10, 2008; Page A10
The United Nations this week said the refusal of Burma's government to allow workers into the country's devastated agricultural region was unprecedented in the history of humanitarian relief. The human catastrophe produced by Burma's refusal to permit aid in the wake of Cyclone Nargis has stunned the senses of a world that has watched this spectacle for a week.
There are uncounted numbers of persons dead, homeless and orphaned. Bodies still float in water. The World Health Organization has warned there could be outbreaks of cholera and especially malaria. U.N. member-state India warned the junta the deadly cyclone was headed toward Burma on May 1, two days before it hit. Yesterday, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said food relief hasn't yet reached the region because "regrettably" the junta won't talk to him.
It's time to kick Burma out of the United Nations. If the U.N. does not put in motion a process to suspend Burma from its U.N. membership, then, clearly, nothing is forbidden.
Chapter II of the U.N. charter provides for the suspension or expulsion of member states by the Security Council, which can also restore membership. We leave it to the lawyers to find words suitable for such a motion. Maybe there's something somewhere in the U.N.'s Declaration of Human Rights, which celebrates its 60th tattered anniversary this year.
Some will say that China, the junta's friend, almost surely would veto any such motion. Then let it do so, on the eve of its torch-besieged Summer Olympics.
Some will say if Burma, then why not Sudan?
Good question.
The person to press this point is John McCain, who has suggested creating a league of genuine democratic states willing to act when the U.N.'s "universal" membership fails.
Booting Burma out of the U.N. would be symbolic. But a whole world watching Burma's generals let their people die of hunger and disease is symbolic of something worse.
If the U.N. can do nothing about Burma, it should at least do something about its own self-respect.
http://http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121037607010681985.html
I agree.
Maybe while we are at it, kick out a few others.
Better yet, maybe we, the U.S.A., and other countries of any civility should just walk out.
Kick Burma Out of the U.N.
May 10, 2008; Page A10
The United Nations this week said the refusal of Burma's government to allow workers into the country's devastated agricultural region was unprecedented in the history of humanitarian relief. The human catastrophe produced by Burma's refusal to permit aid in the wake of Cyclone Nargis has stunned the senses of a world that has watched this spectacle for a week.
There are uncounted numbers of persons dead, homeless and orphaned. Bodies still float in water. The World Health Organization has warned there could be outbreaks of cholera and especially malaria. U.N. member-state India warned the junta the deadly cyclone was headed toward Burma on May 1, two days before it hit. Yesterday, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said food relief hasn't yet reached the region because "regrettably" the junta won't talk to him.
It's time to kick Burma out of the United Nations. If the U.N. does not put in motion a process to suspend Burma from its U.N. membership, then, clearly, nothing is forbidden.
Chapter II of the U.N. charter provides for the suspension or expulsion of member states by the Security Council, which can also restore membership. We leave it to the lawyers to find words suitable for such a motion. Maybe there's something somewhere in the U.N.'s Declaration of Human Rights, which celebrates its 60th tattered anniversary this year.
Some will say that China, the junta's friend, almost surely would veto any such motion. Then let it do so, on the eve of its torch-besieged Summer Olympics.
Some will say if Burma, then why not Sudan?
Good question.
The person to press this point is John McCain, who has suggested creating a league of genuine democratic states willing to act when the U.N.'s "universal" membership fails.
Booting Burma out of the U.N. would be symbolic. But a whole world watching Burma's generals let their people die of hunger and disease is symbolic of something worse.
If the U.N. can do nothing about Burma, it should at least do something about its own self-respect.
http://http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121037607010681985.html
Radical Islam Over Runs London Streets
I will take 10 illegal Mexican immigrants to one legal Muslim any day.
At least the illegal Mexican immigrant is not about overthrowing the laws and country he comes to. The Mexican wants to work and better his future. The Muslim has no use for local laws and customs. Mexicans are accustomed to western concepts of civility. Western concepts are not foreign to Mexicans, but normal civility is not a part of Islamic peoples.
Presidential Powers
I don't believe it is any secret that I am a great fan of the columnist George F. Will.
So once again, if nobody else seen it, is a great commentary on Presidential Powers.
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, only one delegate (from ever-bellicose South Carolina, naturally) favored vesting presidents with an unfettered power to make war. Presidents, it was then thought, could respond on their own only to repel sudden attacks on the nation. "The Founders," says former representative David Skaggs, a Colorado Democrat, "counted on the competitive ambitions of the three branches to make checks and balances work." Instead, we have seen Congress's powers regarding war "migrate ignominiously to the executive."
And how far have we come?
A crucial event in the migration was Truman's decision to wage war in Korea, made without Congress and never formally ratified by Congress, other than post facto by enabling appropriations, which are not an adequate substitute for the collaborative decision the Constitution's Framers anticipated for war-making. Since Korea, America has engaged in four major wars (Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Operation Iraqi Freedom) and many other exercises of military force, but Congress's constitutional powers relevant to war-making have atrophied from disuse.
This is a column worth reading,,
The Truman Transformation
Oh, and I can say, if ever in or near Independence, Missouri, do drop by the Truman Presidential Library.
It is worth the stop.
So once again, if nobody else seen it, is a great commentary on Presidential Powers.
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, only one delegate (from ever-bellicose South Carolina, naturally) favored vesting presidents with an unfettered power to make war. Presidents, it was then thought, could respond on their own only to repel sudden attacks on the nation. "The Founders," says former representative David Skaggs, a Colorado Democrat, "counted on the competitive ambitions of the three branches to make checks and balances work." Instead, we have seen Congress's powers regarding war "migrate ignominiously to the executive."
And how far have we come?
A crucial event in the migration was Truman's decision to wage war in Korea, made without Congress and never formally ratified by Congress, other than post facto by enabling appropriations, which are not an adequate substitute for the collaborative decision the Constitution's Framers anticipated for war-making. Since Korea, America has engaged in four major wars (Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Operation Iraqi Freedom) and many other exercises of military force, but Congress's constitutional powers relevant to war-making have atrophied from disuse.
This is a column worth reading,,
The Truman Transformation
Oh, and I can say, if ever in or near Independence, Missouri, do drop by the Truman Presidential Library.
It is worth the stop.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Oil Silliness
This is beyond belief.
Today, two of the three presidential candidates — John McCain and Hillary Clinton — have proposed a “holiday” on gasoline taxes.
It sounds great, but it’s a terrible idea.
Eliminating the federal tax, about 18 cents a gallon, would encourage more driving, putting added pressure on supplies, and driving the underlying price of gasoline higher. Since gasoline taxes go to pay for rebuilding crumbling roads and bridges, this is probably not a good time to do away with them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24411755/
Has anyone picked up a copy of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations lately.
Sorry, buy I am an unrepentent capitalist.
Now check this clown out.
Windfall Profits for Dummies
Mr. Obama is right to oppose the gas-tax gimmick, but his idea is even worse. Neither proposal addresses the problem of energy supply, especially the lack of domestic oil and gas thanks to decades of Congressional restrictions on U.S. production.
Mr. Obama supports most of those "no drilling" rules, but that hasn't stopped him from denouncing high gas prices on the campaign trail. He is running TV ads in North Carolina that show him walking through a gas station and declaring that he'll slap a tax on the $40 billion in "excess profits" of Exxon Mobil.
This tiff over gas and oil taxes only highlights the intellectual policy confusion – or perhaps we should say cynicism – of our politicians. They want lower prices but don't want more production to increase supply.
They want oil "independence" but they've declared off limits most of the big sources of domestic oil that could replace foreign imports. They want Americans to use less oil to reduce greenhouse gases but they protest higher oil prices that reduce demand. They want more oil company investment but they want to confiscate the profits from that investment. And these folks want to be President?
Today, two of the three presidential candidates — John McCain and Hillary Clinton — have proposed a “holiday” on gasoline taxes.
It sounds great, but it’s a terrible idea.
Eliminating the federal tax, about 18 cents a gallon, would encourage more driving, putting added pressure on supplies, and driving the underlying price of gasoline higher. Since gasoline taxes go to pay for rebuilding crumbling roads and bridges, this is probably not a good time to do away with them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24411755/
Has anyone picked up a copy of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations lately.
Sorry, buy I am an unrepentent capitalist.
Now check this clown out.
Windfall Profits for Dummies
Mr. Obama is right to oppose the gas-tax gimmick, but his idea is even worse. Neither proposal addresses the problem of energy supply, especially the lack of domestic oil and gas thanks to decades of Congressional restrictions on U.S. production.
Mr. Obama supports most of those "no drilling" rules, but that hasn't stopped him from denouncing high gas prices on the campaign trail. He is running TV ads in North Carolina that show him walking through a gas station and declaring that he'll slap a tax on the $40 billion in "excess profits" of Exxon Mobil.
This tiff over gas and oil taxes only highlights the intellectual policy confusion – or perhaps we should say cynicism – of our politicians. They want lower prices but don't want more production to increase supply.
They want oil "independence" but they've declared off limits most of the big sources of domestic oil that could replace foreign imports. They want Americans to use less oil to reduce greenhouse gases but they protest higher oil prices that reduce demand. They want more oil company investment but they want to confiscate the profits from that investment. And these folks want to be President?
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Why I hate Senator Obama
This only one of my gripes about Senator Obama.
I could go into his plan to cut and run from Iraq, his plans to raise taxes etc.
But it is his attitude that frightens me.
He is of the holier than thou crowd, "I can lead you schleps out of the wilderness because the rest of you can't find your ass with both hands tied behind your back" attitude.
Barack Obama may be exactly what his supporters suppose him to be. Not, however, for reasons most Americans will celebrate.
Obama may be the fulfillment of modern liberalism. Explaining why many working-class voters are "bitter," he said they "cling" to guns, religion and "antipathy to people who aren't like them" because of "frustrations."
His implication was that their primitivism, superstition and bigotry are balm for resentments they feel because of America's grinding injustice.
By so speaking, Obama does fulfill liberalism's transformation since Franklin Roosevelt. What had been under FDR a celebration of America and the values of its working people has become a doctrine of condescension toward those people and the supposedly coarse and vulgar country that pleases them.
Obama's dismissal is: Americans, especially working-class conservatives, are unable, because of their false consciousness, to deconstruct their social context and embrace the liberal program. Today that program is to elect Obama, thereby making his wife at long last proud of America.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Michael Ramirez Wins Pulitzer Prize, Again!
I first came across Michael Ramirez when he started working for the Los Angeles Times.Mr. Ramirez has impressed me ever since I and always look forward to his cartoons.
So it is understandable that I feel great joy with Mr.Ramirez being awarded his second Pulitzer.
As Reported by Editor & Publisher
You can enjoy samples of his work at Daryl Cagle's Professional Cartoonist Index
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Spitzer, That Arrogant Bastard
Just a little info on former Governor Spitzer.
Can't hurt.
Spitzer's Rise and Fall
March 11, 2008; Page A20
One might call it Shakespearian if there were a shred of nobleness in the story of Eliot Spitzer's fall. There is none. Governor Spitzer, who made his career by specializing in not just the prosecution, but the ruin, of other men, is himself almost certainly ruined.
Mr. Spitzer's brief statement yesterday about a "private matter" surely involves what are widely reported to be his activities with an expensive prostitution ring discovered by the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York. Those who believe Eliot Spitzer is getting his just desserts may be entitled to that view, but it misses the greater lesson for our politics.
Mr. Spitzer coasted into the Governorship on the wings of a reputation as a "tough" public prosecutor. Mr. Spitzer, though, was no emperor. He had not merely arrogated to himself the powers he held and used with such aggression. He was elected.
In our system, citizens agree to invest one of their own with the power of public prosecution. We call this a public trust. The ability to bring the full weight of state power against private individuals or entities has been recognized since the Magna Carta as a power with limits.
At nearly every turn, Eliot Spitzer has refused to admit that he was subject to those limits.
The stupendously deluded belief that the sitting Governor of New York could purchase the services of prostitutes was merely the last act of a man unable to admit either the existence of, or need for, limits.
At the least, he put himself at risk of blackmail, and in turn the possible distortion of his public duties. Mr. Spitzer's recklessness with the state's highest elected office, though, is of a piece with his consistent excesses as Attorney General from 1999 to 2006.
He routinely used the extraordinary threat of indicting entire firms, a financial death sentence, to force the dismissal of executives, such as AIG's Maurice "Hank" Greenberg. He routinely leaked to the press emails obtained with subpoena power to build public animosity against companies and executives. In the case of Mr. Greenberg, he went on national television to accuse the AIG founder of "illegal" behavior. Within the confines of the law itself, though, he never indicted Mr. Greenberg. Nor did he apologize.
In perhaps the incident most suggestive of Mr. Spitzer's lack of self-restraint, the then-Attorney General personally threatened John Whitehead after the former Goldman Sachs chief published an article on this page defending Mr. Greenberg. "I will be coming after you," Mr. Spitzer said, according to Mr. Whitehead's account. "You will pay the price. This is only the beginning, and you will pay dearly for what you have done."
Jack Welch, the former head of GE, said he was told to tell Ken Langone -- embroiled in Mr. Spitzer's investigation of former NYSE chairman Dick Grasso -- that the AG would "put a spike through Langone's heart." New York Congresswoman Sue Kelly, who clashed with Mr. Spitzer in 2003, had her office put out a statement that "the attorney general acted like a thug."
These are not merely acts of routine political rough-and-tumble. They were threats -- some rhetorical, some acted upon -- by one man with virtually unchecked legal powers.
Eliot Spitzer's self-destructive inability to recognize any limit on his compulsions was never more evident than his staff's enlistment of the New York State Police in a campaign to discredit the state's Senate Majority Leader, Joseph Bruno. On any level, it was nuts. Somehow, Team Spitzer thought they could get by with it. In the wake of that abusive fiasco, his public approval rating plunged.
Mr. Spitzer's dramatic fall yesterday began in the early afternoon with a posting on the Web site of the New York Times about the alleged link to prostitutes. The details in the criminal complaint about "Client-9," who is reported to be Mr. Spitzer, will now be played for titters by the press corps. But one may ask: Where were the media before this? With a few exceptions, the media were happy to prosper from his leaks and even applaud, rather than temper, the manifestly abusive instincts of a public official.
There really is nothing very satisfying about the rough justice being meted out to Eliot Spitzer. He came to embody a system that revels in the entertainment value of roguish figures who rise to power by destroying the careers of others, many of them innocent. Better still, when the targets are as presumably unsympathetic as Wall Street bankers and brokers.
Acts of crime deserve prosecution by the state. The people, in turn, deserve prosecutors and officials who understand the difference between the needs of the public good and the needs of unrestrained personalities who are given the honor of high office.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120519359147125705.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Can't hurt.
Spitzer's Rise and Fall
March 11, 2008; Page A20
One might call it Shakespearian if there were a shred of nobleness in the story of Eliot Spitzer's fall. There is none. Governor Spitzer, who made his career by specializing in not just the prosecution, but the ruin, of other men, is himself almost certainly ruined.
Mr. Spitzer's brief statement yesterday about a "private matter" surely involves what are widely reported to be his activities with an expensive prostitution ring discovered by the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York. Those who believe Eliot Spitzer is getting his just desserts may be entitled to that view, but it misses the greater lesson for our politics.
Mr. Spitzer coasted into the Governorship on the wings of a reputation as a "tough" public prosecutor. Mr. Spitzer, though, was no emperor. He had not merely arrogated to himself the powers he held and used with such aggression. He was elected.
In our system, citizens agree to invest one of their own with the power of public prosecution. We call this a public trust. The ability to bring the full weight of state power against private individuals or entities has been recognized since the Magna Carta as a power with limits.
At nearly every turn, Eliot Spitzer has refused to admit that he was subject to those limits.
The stupendously deluded belief that the sitting Governor of New York could purchase the services of prostitutes was merely the last act of a man unable to admit either the existence of, or need for, limits.
At the least, he put himself at risk of blackmail, and in turn the possible distortion of his public duties. Mr. Spitzer's recklessness with the state's highest elected office, though, is of a piece with his consistent excesses as Attorney General from 1999 to 2006.
He routinely used the extraordinary threat of indicting entire firms, a financial death sentence, to force the dismissal of executives, such as AIG's Maurice "Hank" Greenberg. He routinely leaked to the press emails obtained with subpoena power to build public animosity against companies and executives. In the case of Mr. Greenberg, he went on national television to accuse the AIG founder of "illegal" behavior. Within the confines of the law itself, though, he never indicted Mr. Greenberg. Nor did he apologize.
In perhaps the incident most suggestive of Mr. Spitzer's lack of self-restraint, the then-Attorney General personally threatened John Whitehead after the former Goldman Sachs chief published an article on this page defending Mr. Greenberg. "I will be coming after you," Mr. Spitzer said, according to Mr. Whitehead's account. "You will pay the price. This is only the beginning, and you will pay dearly for what you have done."
Jack Welch, the former head of GE, said he was told to tell Ken Langone -- embroiled in Mr. Spitzer's investigation of former NYSE chairman Dick Grasso -- that the AG would "put a spike through Langone's heart." New York Congresswoman Sue Kelly, who clashed with Mr. Spitzer in 2003, had her office put out a statement that "the attorney general acted like a thug."
These are not merely acts of routine political rough-and-tumble. They were threats -- some rhetorical, some acted upon -- by one man with virtually unchecked legal powers.
Eliot Spitzer's self-destructive inability to recognize any limit on his compulsions was never more evident than his staff's enlistment of the New York State Police in a campaign to discredit the state's Senate Majority Leader, Joseph Bruno. On any level, it was nuts. Somehow, Team Spitzer thought they could get by with it. In the wake of that abusive fiasco, his public approval rating plunged.
Mr. Spitzer's dramatic fall yesterday began in the early afternoon with a posting on the Web site of the New York Times about the alleged link to prostitutes. The details in the criminal complaint about "Client-9," who is reported to be Mr. Spitzer, will now be played for titters by the press corps. But one may ask: Where were the media before this? With a few exceptions, the media were happy to prosper from his leaks and even applaud, rather than temper, the manifestly abusive instincts of a public official.
There really is nothing very satisfying about the rough justice being meted out to Eliot Spitzer. He came to embody a system that revels in the entertainment value of roguish figures who rise to power by destroying the careers of others, many of them innocent. Better still, when the targets are as presumably unsympathetic as Wall Street bankers and brokers.
Acts of crime deserve prosecution by the state. The people, in turn, deserve prosecutors and officials who understand the difference between the needs of the public good and the needs of unrestrained personalities who are given the honor of high office.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120519359147125705.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Sunday, March 2, 2008
William F. Buckley Jr
It was a long time ago, the late '60s when I got my first subscription to National Review
Back then as we all know there was no internet so the magazine deliverd to my door was a relief from the nonsense that permaniated the babble of the day.
Mr. Buckley brought conservatism a steady ideological intellect that challenged the left on every level.
He did it with suble humor and reason, qualities that I admire and fall short of emulating.
Not to mention his vast vocabulary that more than once sent me to the dictionary.
A good column, A Life Athwart History by George F. Will is a really good read.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Muslims Gone Wild in Denmark
What did it take.
3000 years for Europe to become a civil and reasonably prosperous place to live. Europe has a rich history of intellect, art and culture.
It was a diffcult road, not always enlightened, but I believe it is about time for Europe to enjoy the fruits of its labor to todays status, a tolerant and free democracy.
Well, that tolerance was not without a price, and seems there should be some rethinking on that subject.
We cannot have a civil society when we invite barbarians who do not understand Western Culture of free expression, exchange of ideas and free press.
Muslims Let Loose in Denma
rk
How many times will it take for us to get it?
Islamic society is just not agreeable with Western norms of mutual respect.
How does Iran or Gaza City
fit in to this mess?
3000 years for Europe to become a civil and reasonably prosperous place to live. Europe has a rich history of intellect, art and culture.
It was a diffcult road, not always enlightened, but I believe it is about time for Europe to enjoy the fruits of its labor to todays status, a tolerant and free democracy.
Well, that tolerance was not without a price, and seems there should be some rethinking on that subject.
We cannot have a civil society when we invite barbarians who do not understand Western Culture of free expression, exchange of ideas and free press.
Muslims Let Loose in Denma
rkHow many times will it take for us to get it?
Islamic society is just not agreeable with Western norms of mutual respect.
How does Iran or Gaza City
fit in to this mess?
Long story short, they don't fit into this, unless it is in the most damaging wayl
Maybe Iran's Amanutjob and Hamas should pay better attention to the problems in their own backyard.Sunday, February 3, 2008
جرائم ما يسمى دولة العراق الاسلامية
You may not want to watch this.
Really makes one wonder about the Islamic mindset.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Ballot Language
It really is amusing, racial spoils.
Honesty, common sense, rule of law. None of that matters.
The maintenance of a system which by its very definition is an insult to equality, is all that matters.
This is part of a column by George F. Will of the Washington Post on an upcoming ballot initiative in Missouri.
Missouri law requires the secretary of state to draft a summary of an initiative, which appears on the ballot "in the form of a question using language neither intentionally argumentative nor likely to create prejudice either for or against the proposed measure." The following, not the MoCRI language quoted above, is what the state's Democratic secretary of state and Democratic attorney general proposed to put on the ballot:
"Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: Ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?"
Got that?
They must think we are all stupid.
Honesty, common sense, rule of law. None of that matters.
The maintenance of a system which by its very definition is an insult to equality, is all that matters.
This is part of a column by George F. Will of the Washington Post on an upcoming ballot initiative in Missouri.
Missouri law requires the secretary of state to draft a summary of an initiative, which appears on the ballot "in the form of a question using language neither intentionally argumentative nor likely to create prejudice either for or against the proposed measure." The following, not the MoCRI language quoted above, is what the state's Democratic secretary of state and Democratic attorney general proposed to put on the ballot:
"Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: Ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?"
Got that?
They must think we are all stupid.
The Goofy 9th Circuit
Anti-trust logic is amazing.
Consumers paying more to protect inefficient businesses. The infamous 9th Circuit steps into it promoting its own socialist agenda.
Supreme Opportunity
January26, 2008; Page A10
Long ago, in a legal galaxy far, far away, American courts saw antitrust law as a way to protect competitors from, well, the competition. These days everyone outside the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concedes that if antitrust has any claim to legitimacy, it lies in its ambition to maximize consumer welfare, not competitor protection.
As for that Ninth Circuit, well, there's a reason it's the circuit most often reversed by the Supreme Court. And it has offered the High Court a chance to do it again in AT&T v. linkLine, if it will take the case. This week the Court asked the U.S. Solicitor General to provide his views on the case, with the goal of deciding whether to hear AT&T's appeal from the Ninth Circuit, which deployed a long-discredited antitrust theory to uphold a case against the phone giant.
LinkLine buys DSL capacity from AT&T, which it then resells to consumers. This puts linkLine in the sometimes-awkward, but not unheard-of, position of being AT&T's customer in the wholesale market but its competitor in the retail market. LinkLine's lawsuit, however, alleges that the margin between the wholesale price that linkLine pays AT&T and the retail price that AT&T charges its customers is too small for linkLine to make a profit -- which is known in antitrust jargon as a "price squeeze."
In recent years the courts have largely rejected the notion of a price squeeze as a legitimate antitrust claim -- except in special circumstances. The problem is that a price-squeeze complaint amounts to telling one company -- AT&T in this case -- that it is charging consumers too little. And forcing AT&T to raise its retail prices might help linkLine, but it would hurt consumers, who would be forced to pay more for Internet access in the name of preserving a "competitive" market. Our courts used to think that punishing consumers to keep competitors alive was normal, reasonable behavior. Antitrust regulators in Europe still think this way. And so, apparently, does the Ninth Circuit, which may explain why it ruled that linkLine's case should go forward.
But the Supreme Court has rejected this kind of argument before, most recently in the 2004 Trinko case. In addition to the dubiousness of raising prices to assist less-efficient competitors, the High Court deemed it misguided to complain about the wholesale price when the wholesaler was free not to sell to the competitor in the first place. The only way to justify this kind of competitor-protection is by arguing that the courts, not the markets, are the right place to determine how many players a particular industry "needs," and to order everyone in that industry to behave accordingly.
As we say, this sort of industrial planning is still popular in Europe, but in the U.S. it was consigned to history until the Ninth Circuit tried to resurrect it. We'd argue that this difference plays some part in the greater economic dynamism the U.S. enjoys over Europe. For the sake of its precedent in Trinko as well as the American economy, the Supreme Court should take the linkLine case and hand the Ninth Circuit one more well-deserved reversal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120130704772218215.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Consumers paying more to protect inefficient businesses. The infamous 9th Circuit steps into it promoting its own socialist agenda.
Supreme Opportunity
January26, 2008; Page A10
Long ago, in a legal galaxy far, far away, American courts saw antitrust law as a way to protect competitors from, well, the competition. These days everyone outside the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concedes that if antitrust has any claim to legitimacy, it lies in its ambition to maximize consumer welfare, not competitor protection.
As for that Ninth Circuit, well, there's a reason it's the circuit most often reversed by the Supreme Court. And it has offered the High Court a chance to do it again in AT&T v. linkLine, if it will take the case. This week the Court asked the U.S. Solicitor General to provide his views on the case, with the goal of deciding whether to hear AT&T's appeal from the Ninth Circuit, which deployed a long-discredited antitrust theory to uphold a case against the phone giant.
LinkLine buys DSL capacity from AT&T, which it then resells to consumers. This puts linkLine in the sometimes-awkward, but not unheard-of, position of being AT&T's customer in the wholesale market but its competitor in the retail market. LinkLine's lawsuit, however, alleges that the margin between the wholesale price that linkLine pays AT&T and the retail price that AT&T charges its customers is too small for linkLine to make a profit -- which is known in antitrust jargon as a "price squeeze."
In recent years the courts have largely rejected the notion of a price squeeze as a legitimate antitrust claim -- except in special circumstances. The problem is that a price-squeeze complaint amounts to telling one company -- AT&T in this case -- that it is charging consumers too little. And forcing AT&T to raise its retail prices might help linkLine, but it would hurt consumers, who would be forced to pay more for Internet access in the name of preserving a "competitive" market. Our courts used to think that punishing consumers to keep competitors alive was normal, reasonable behavior. Antitrust regulators in Europe still think this way. And so, apparently, does the Ninth Circuit, which may explain why it ruled that linkLine's case should go forward.
But the Supreme Court has rejected this kind of argument before, most recently in the 2004 Trinko case. In addition to the dubiousness of raising prices to assist less-efficient competitors, the High Court deemed it misguided to complain about the wholesale price when the wholesaler was free not to sell to the competitor in the first place. The only way to justify this kind of competitor-protection is by arguing that the courts, not the markets, are the right place to determine how many players a particular industry "needs," and to order everyone in that industry to behave accordingly.
As we say, this sort of industrial planning is still popular in Europe, but in the U.S. it was consigned to history until the Ninth Circuit tried to resurrect it. We'd argue that this difference plays some part in the greater economic dynamism the U.S. enjoys over Europe. For the sake of its precedent in Trinko as well as the American economy, the Supreme Court should take the linkLine case and hand the Ninth Circuit one more well-deserved reversal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120130704772218215.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Friday, January 25, 2008
Buying Votes
I am always happy to get some of my own money back, Stimulus Package , so why complain?
Maybe I am just tired of being treated like a fool.
Offer me something of substance rather than some pre-election meaningless snow job to be forgotten later.
Maybe I am just tired of being treated like a fool.
Offer me something of substance rather than some pre-election meaningless snow job to be forgotten later.
Re-Election Stimulus
January 25, 2008
Nothing concentrates a politician's mind quite like a 30% approval rating, and for proof look no further than the "stimulus" package agreed to yesterday by both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. We doubt it'll help the economy much, if at all, but then the real point of this exercise is to stimulate voters into absolving the political class of any blame for a recession.
The result is an almost perfect political stimulus: a one-year "middle-class tax cut" for Americans in the most populous demographic group, a few tax goodies to sweeten the cash flow of certain current businesses, and a boost to the business of those world-class lobbying firms and campaign contributors, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
For the sake of bipartisan accord, the White House dropped any demand to make its previous tax cuts permanent, while House Democrats gave up for now on some of their spending plans, such as increasing the incentive to stay out of work longer by extending unemployment benefits. Senate Democrats will try to add the latter.
The GOP also agreed to make the tax rebates of as much as $600 per individual filer and $1,200 a couple "refundable," which means they will go to 35 million voters who don't pay income taxes. Yes, many of those people do pay the Social Security payroll tax, though for most that is already offset by the also-refundable earned income tax credit. So this will be a bonus federal subsidy payment. And by the way, if you make more than $75,000 a year ($150,000 for a couple), your tax cut starts to vanish fast, apparently because you are already too productive to deserve "stimulation." Congratulations.
As for the economics, oh my. The most this temporary tax cut will do is goose consumer spending for a quarter or two this year. Since the IRS is saying it won't be able to cut the checks until midyear, any recession might well be over, if it even begins. The money to pay for these rebates has to come from somewhere, which means from other taxpayers or from bondholders who lend money to the Treasury. Either way, Congress and the White House are taking money from someone to pass out to someone else. The income effects are thus a wash, as the economists put it, while the substitution effects (higher taxes on the best income producers to finance consumption among the lowest) are negative.
More generous expensing and depreciation rules for 2008 will at least help the cash flows of many businesses. And this will help investment this year, though in part by borrowing that investment from next year. Then again, the election is this year.
The nearby chart shows what happened to the economy after the last tax rebate exercise in 2001. Modest growth resumed for a while, but that "stimulus" did little to lift the animal spirits of business or to spur more investment and job growth. The big turnaround didn't take place until after the 2003 tax cuts, which made immediate and long-term (multi-year) reductions on investment and marginal income tax rates.
As for Fannie and Freddie, the troubled mortgage giants will be allowed to raise the limit on loans they can buy to $625,000 from $417,000. The loan limit for the Federal Housing Administration will rise even higher, to $725,000 from $362,000. The feds are thus extending implicit and explicit federal loan subsidies to a far larger pool of mortgage borrowers. This means that Congress and the White House will be providing mortgage subsidies to some of the same people they consider too "rich" to receive tax relief. Go figure.
"I got run down by a bipartisan steamroller," said Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, in explaining the new housing limits. This means Fannie and Freddie now have a political blessing to expand their market share, despite their ferocious resistance to tighter regulation after their multi-billion-dollar accounting frauds.
Perhaps the best that can be said of these Beltway antics is that they won't do much harm -- the housing credit guarantees aside. Americans lucky enough to qualify should enjoy this little windfall while they can, because the politicians are already planning to take it all back next year. After they're re-elected.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120121971319015265.html?mod=opinion_journal_main_stories
January 25, 2008
Nothing concentrates a politician's mind quite like a 30% approval rating, and for proof look no further than the "stimulus" package agreed to yesterday by both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. We doubt it'll help the economy much, if at all, but then the real point of this exercise is to stimulate voters into absolving the political class of any blame for a recession.
The result is an almost perfect political stimulus: a one-year "middle-class tax cut" for Americans in the most populous demographic group, a few tax goodies to sweeten the cash flow of certain current businesses, and a boost to the business of those world-class lobbying firms and campaign contributors, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
For the sake of bipartisan accord, the White House dropped any demand to make its previous tax cuts permanent, while House Democrats gave up for now on some of their spending plans, such as increasing the incentive to stay out of work longer by extending unemployment benefits. Senate Democrats will try to add the latter.
The GOP also agreed to make the tax rebates of as much as $600 per individual filer and $1,200 a couple "refundable," which means they will go to 35 million voters who don't pay income taxes. Yes, many of those people do pay the Social Security payroll tax, though for most that is already offset by the also-refundable earned income tax credit. So this will be a bonus federal subsidy payment. And by the way, if you make more than $75,000 a year ($150,000 for a couple), your tax cut starts to vanish fast, apparently because you are already too productive to deserve "stimulation." Congratulations.
As for the economics, oh my. The most this temporary tax cut will do is goose consumer spending for a quarter or two this year. Since the IRS is saying it won't be able to cut the checks until midyear, any recession might well be over, if it even begins. The money to pay for these rebates has to come from somewhere, which means from other taxpayers or from bondholders who lend money to the Treasury. Either way, Congress and the White House are taking money from someone to pass out to someone else. The income effects are thus a wash, as the economists put it, while the substitution effects (higher taxes on the best income producers to finance consumption among the lowest) are negative.
More generous expensing and depreciation rules for 2008 will at least help the cash flows of many businesses. And this will help investment this year, though in part by borrowing that investment from next year. Then again, the election is this year.
The nearby chart shows what happened to the economy after the last tax rebate exercise in 2001. Modest growth resumed for a while, but that "stimulus" did little to lift the animal spirits of business or to spur more investment and job growth. The big turnaround didn't take place until after the 2003 tax cuts, which made immediate and long-term (multi-year) reductions on investment and marginal income tax rates.
As for Fannie and Freddie, the troubled mortgage giants will be allowed to raise the limit on loans they can buy to $625,000 from $417,000. The loan limit for the Federal Housing Administration will rise even higher, to $725,000 from $362,000. The feds are thus extending implicit and explicit federal loan subsidies to a far larger pool of mortgage borrowers. This means that Congress and the White House will be providing mortgage subsidies to some of the same people they consider too "rich" to receive tax relief. Go figure.
"I got run down by a bipartisan steamroller," said Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, in explaining the new housing limits. This means Fannie and Freddie now have a political blessing to expand their market share, despite their ferocious resistance to tighter regulation after their multi-billion-dollar accounting frauds.
Perhaps the best that can be said of these Beltway antics is that they won't do much harm -- the housing credit guarantees aside. Americans lucky enough to qualify should enjoy this little windfall while they can, because the politicians are already planning to take it all back next year. After they're re-elected.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120121971319015265.html?mod=opinion_journal_main_stories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
