Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
But more than that attitude thing, I am truly wondering if the mainstream media has given up all pretenses of impartiality. The choosing of Ifill for the moderator was questionable considering her worshipful attitude towards all things Obama. But the way the media has chosen to ignore some very worrisome and possibly disastrous economic attitudes on the part of Joe Biden, is frightening.
To quote "Average Guy at the Home Depot" Joe, "
Excuse me? Banks are businesses. They run on the money they make from LENDING MONEY. That's known as INTEREST. The interest is set by the government not to exceed certain rates, but there is a great deal of leeway and consumers are more than welcome to shop around for better rates. Herein lies the problems. Congress literally forced lenders to make loans available to what is termed "underserved populations." The reason Congress did this was , according to them, to get rid of the vestiges of redlining and racism in the system. Instead, what really happened is that borrowers who could not prove income, had horrible credit history or who didn't have the financial stability to afford the lower interest rates of a conventional 30 year fixed loan, were leveraged into loans that had balloons that would rise after a certain amount of time or loans that were interest only. The stated reason for these types of loans to even exist was to help subprime borrowers improve their credit and possible refinance at better rates. Instead many of these borrowers went for the maximum amount they could acquire and when the balloons went up, they couldn't pay the mortgage. Now while this is sad, it's not like this was foisted on them by jackbooted thugs in dark alleys. These were free American adults signing contracts where all of the details are laid out in copious minutae. Every payment, every escalation, every interest rate is spelled out in writing. Why is it that only the people that PAY THEIR LOANS ARE GETTING SCREWED?
In the end, it's popular now to picture CEO's with golden parachutes getting the largest portion of the bailout. And maybe to a certain extent that's true. But what's really happening is that this is keeping the lights on at the bank on the corner and making payroll for the tellers and loan officers who don't have those cushy jobs. It's easy to blame some guy who gets away with a cushy retirement, but why is it that the media doesn't want to place the blame where it really belongs, on borrowers that didn't pay for their loans.
And this is why Joe Biden and Barak Obama should scare you silly. They have no intention of shoring up the banks for longevity. They simply want them shored up for now. They intend to allow judicial fiat to rip profits from banks. That means that people who actually put money into banks could see their interest and deposits dwindle as more people discover that paying out a loan is foolish when the government will bail you out. And what about retirees who have stock in bank corporations? They will also see their stocks value erode. This isn't the first time this has happened. My parents lost $200K when the savings and loans went belly up thirty years ago. There are still a few people around who should remember that. Unfortunately, none of them are running for president this year. Watch your pockets-these guys are NOT your friends.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Mention Georgia a few days ago, and most of us would have thought of the state evoked so sweetly in "Georgia on My Mind," the classic tune sung by Ray Charles. Very few of us had heard of the South Ossetia province of Georgia, the nation with the misfortune to have Russia as its neighbor, until war broke out last week.
Like Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait and other unfamiliar places before, Ossetia reminds us that a small, remote corner of the globe can explode into an international crisis. One who was up to speed on Georgia and the menace it faced from Russia was veteran Sen. John McCain. He had visited the Caucasian nation three times in a dozen years. When fighting erupted, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate got on the phone to gather details and issued a statement Friday summarizing the situation, tagging Russia as the aggressor and demanding it withdraw its forces from the sovereign territory of Georgia.
It took first-term Sen. Barack Obama three tries to get it right. Headed for a vacation in Hawaii, the presumed Democratic candidate for commander in chief issued an even-handed statement, urging restraint by both sides. Later Friday, he again called for mutual restraint but blamed Russia for the fighting. The next day his language finally caught up with toughness of McCain's.
Making matters worse, Obama's staff focused on a McCain aide who had served as a lobbyist for Georgia, charging it showed McCain was "ensconced in a lobbyist culture." Obama's campaign came off as injecting petty partisan politics into an international crisis. This was not a serious response on behalf a man who aspires to be the leader of the Free World. After all, what's so bad about representing a small former Soviet republic struggling to remake itself as a Western-style democracy?
The comparison between the two candidates served to emphasize the strength McCain's experience would bring to the White House in a dangerous world.
Obama's favored approach to international issues, diplomatic talks, failed to stop Russia's invasion. Vladimir Putin, a KGB bull in the former Soviet Union, wants to restore Russia as the supreme power of Eurasia and, to that end, bully former vassal states like Georgia out of their democratic ways. The fear is that Ukraine will come in his cross hairs next.
However the world's newest war ends, America's leadership must recognize and respond to the underlying dynamic of Russia's resurgent aggressive instincts -- the power bestowed on Moscow by its oil and gas riches.
While we don't get fossil fuels from Russia, Western Europe does, and the Kremlin's energy might is fueled by the worldwide demand for oil. Developing U.S. domestic energy sources and alternatives to oil will only enhance our national security and, by reducing the world's petroleum demand, undermine the economic, political and military advantage vast oil and gas reserves give to unfriendly powers like Russia, Iran and Venezuela.
Obama calls for transforming America's economy in a decade. He's got the right idea -- long term. But short term, this nation must push for energy security on all fronts -- now. That includes new offshore drilling for oil, which Obama loathes, and new nuclear plants, which he views with aversion. We can't just wait for breakthrough technologies for wind, solar and biomass energy.
McCain has got it right in advocating new offshore drilling and a federal push to add 45 nuclear generators over the next two decades. Given the evidence of Russia's energy-fueled aggression, he should abandon his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and to extending subsidies he favors for nuclear energy to include renewables.
As Georgia burns, we need to light a fire under all the talk about energy security and start doing what it takes to make it happen.
Monday, August 11, 2008
"...DDT does things no other weapon, at any price, can do. Sprayed in tiny amounts just once or twice a year on the inside walls of homes, it keeps 90 percent of mosquitoes from even entering – and keeps those that do come in from biting. That’s why it has slashed malaria rates by 75 percent in South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and other countries where it has been used. Since DDT is no longer used in agriculture, mosquitoes are unlikely to become resistant to it. Studies show that even those that are immune to its killing properties are kept away by its repellant effects. The alleged dangers of DDT are ridiculously small or irrelevant compared to the dangers of diseases inflicted on Africa by tiny buzzing insects. Malaria alone infects over 400 million Africans annually, and kills the equivalent of ten jumbo jets full of passengers crashing every day. It enslaves the continent, kills babies and pregnant women, prevents people from working, perpetuates poverty, keeps tourists and investors from coming to Africa, and reduces the continent’s economic productivity by billions of dollars a year. In Kenya alone it costs 170 million lost working days annually..."
Full story here
Be a Concerned Scientist for $35 Full Story here
It’s astonishing that elected officials would use their taxpayer-funded offices to bully a company’s president into changing his corporation’s philanthropic giving practices. And it’s deplorable that in trying to discredit critics of catastrophic global warming, Rockefeller and Snowe would stoop to using smear rhetoric that alludes to “Holocaust denial”—and is inaccurate to boot. No one seriously denies that the Earth is warming. The debate is over the extent and consequences of such warming. Remarkable, too, is the senators’ cryptic reference to a “scientific group” that would soon issue its “findings,” words that bestow authority on what, as we expected, would turn out to be no more than a political attack.
It didn’t take us long to figure out what this “scientific group” might be and who is behind it: For almost four decades, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has manipulated the high reputation of “science” to serve the low ends of politics. It has done a good job of cherry-picking scientific facts to stir up public fears to advance its agenda. This time it is promoting alarmist claims about global warming by leveraging the prestige of the “concerned scientist.”
The credulous media usually fall all over themselves to defer to UCS every time the group takes a political position. For instance, when it issued a report in 2004 criticizing President George W. Bush’s handling of science policy, the union was described as “a scientific advocacy group” (New York Times), “a group of scientists” (Reuters), “an independent Cambridge-based organization” (Boston Globe), and a “nonprofit ... advocacy group in Cambridge, Mass.” (Newsday). After all, who but concerned scientists would pass judgment on President Bush and conclude that he was a scientific ignoramus manipulating science in order to advance a partisan agenda?
That UCS is a highly partisan operation—well funded by left-leaning foundations and
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
(Pickens plan is right in a migratory flyway. So how do you reconcile putting windmill generators there? Especially when the Kennedys managed to get just such a program scrapped near their own family home? I guess Texans and the welfare of their wildlife just isn't as important as a view of the ocean.....)
Monday, August 4, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
"Drill, Drill, Drill", they cry as the price of gas reaches uncomfortable levels. But Congress, with it's prevalent mode of governing being of the extremely liberal persuasion, instead decides to take a break rather than resolve the gas crisis in a fashion that would lower fuel prices because it flies in the face of the radical Green monsters of their party. You remember them, the same folks who are demanding environmental impact statements on everything from paper cups to napkins.
Currently Democrats are on the record as opposing:
Domestic oil drilling
Use of coal and maintenance of coal fired plants.
That leaves us floundering around with technology that is simply not sustainable or ready for use. Look at Pickens wind generators. Sure, it can be part of a solution, but wind is variable and we don't currently have transmission or storage capability. Plus it's a sure thing that being a major immigration flyway in the Texas panhandle, PETA will stop construction. What are we to do? We could drill and refine oil for the immediate future with the idea of using that until other methods are ready, but the Democrat Congress under the dubious leadership of Reid and Pelosi would rather run away than make any substantive decisions. They had better hope that this isn't a cold autumn up north, because if Republicans are smart, they will throw this issue right into the Democrats' laps.
Read this article here
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Last time elections rolled around, there was the overall feeling by the voters that they needed to cast off the Republican party. They didn't do it because things were bad, but instead because the media and the DNC told the American public they were bad. In the two years since the Democrats have taken the reins of Congress, precious little has been done in the way of creating progress. Pelosi is bottling up legislation that could make domestic drilling possible which in turn would eventually lower some of the cost of living. Instead, they are promoting only alternative sources for power. Never mind that the social elite, like the Kennedys, don't want their scenic horizons marred by wind generators. Instead they want them invisible, which of course means, out west. I am not sure how they are going to reconcile PETA's designation of wind turbines as detrimental to bird life. Likewise, we cannot use nuclear because of a move twenty years ago. We can't use hydroelectric power generation because of environmental PAC's that don't like it. Instead we are supposed to use the fluctuation nuances of wind power-which dies in the afternoon during peak usage, and solar, which isn't potent enough to generate power for more than an incremental amount of what we use. As for those electric cars, still limited by battery capacity and the hybrids still use gasoline. Here's what the Democrats have done for you. They have forced corn based ethanol, using bad science from Brazil's sugarcane based ethanol. They have bought votes from key farm states via subsidies. The results are that animal feed is higher, meaning all animal products from meat to dairy are also higher. Don't kid yourself, this isn't accidental. Part of the world wide green intiative is to cut meat consumption. I have even heard lectures on the news about how we are supposed to consider how much water it takes to produce food before we buy it.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT I AM PRETTY SICK OF RICH, SELF-CENTERED IDEOLOGUES
TRYING TO RUN MY LIFE!!!!!
"...The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.
Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008....:
Monday, July 7, 2008
"...Obama said he now eschews public financing because the devil (McCain and the GOP) made him do it; Obama supposedly is at a disadvantage because they are "fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special-interest PACs." To which FactCheck.org replied: "We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the [Republican National Committee's] receipts." Here's a final word from FactCheck: "[T]he Democratic National Committee has historically been far more reliant on PAC and lobbyist money than the RNC. In 2004, PACs provided about 10 percent of the DNC's total fundraising and only about 1 percent of the RNC's total. Obama, after he sewed up enough delegates to win the party's nomination, sent word to the DNC to stop accepting PAC and lobbyist donations...."
Thursday, July 3, 2008
For a long time it's been the norm to blame Big Oil for rising gas prices. But Congress has created much of the problem with their incessant pandering to special interest groups. The Democrats have the Environmental Lobby, that blocks nuclear use, coal use and off shoring or ANWR drilling for domestic crude. The Republicans aren't willing to set meaningful limits on fuel consumption or to subsidize individual access to alternative power. So here's why I think they all need to go!
"...The Democrats have an obvious motive for their denial of Econ 101 reality: They are so beholden to the environmental lobby that they can't advocate increased domestic oil and natural gas production.
To save the planet from global warming, the greens want to end mankind's use of fossil fuels, so they oppose drilling for natural gas offshore, for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and exploiting America's vast coal reserves. And Democrats obey, as do some Republicans, recently including Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).
The greens for years have also blocked new nuclear plants, although some have changed their tune because nuclear is carbon-free. Most Democrats remain opposed, while Obama is wishy-washy on the subject. McCain, to his credit, favors nuclear and always has...."
Monday, June 30, 2008
Anti-Obama Blogsites Shut Down
Sunday, June 22, 2008
When I posed this to an advisor, he asked, "So how long do you think it will take you to complete the degree"
I answered, "Five, maybe six years."
"And how old will you be then?" He asked. I stated my age in five years.
"And how old will you be in five years if you don't get the degree?" he replied.
I post this for a reason. I watched for several years as the Thunderhorse drilling platform was being constructed at Port Aransas. It's not a quick, nor an easy process. You are basically construction a building to float at sea. Daunting to say the least. So here we have two sides.
On one side, they say, "oh if we start now, we won't see results for five, ten, maybe fifteen years." So my question is-when will we see results if we DON'T START NOW?
The other side is demurring on the side of avoiding drilling oil where it exists. Any oil man will tell you that for every strike, there are ten to twenty dry holes. Oil is not a migratory beast you can hunt, it forms and exists where it is. Which means that you can have leases from here to Kingdom Come and that doesn't insure there is oil on ANY OF IT.
We need to drill. The polling of the American public concurs with that opinion. The only people that do not are the politicians and that is strictly due to their income sources for campaigns. If you believe that the sooner we start drilling, the better, then let you representatives know.
This is not to say we shouldn't develop alternative fuel sources. Nuclear power plants are safer and more efficient than the old Three Mile Island model. Gassification of coal, natural gas and biofuels are all something we need to develop. This isn't a one answer solution, our energy needs are multi-faceted. But for those tunnel visioned true believers that think wind farms and solar arrays are going to supply all of our energy needs, think again. Right now, the pure electric cars have a storage capacity of about 40 miles. That may work for commuting to school or going to work, but it's not going to haul goods or provide the services needed in our community. For now, and for the foreseeable future, we will still need oil. And the sooner we start the process, the further down that road to energy independence we will be.
The whole list is here.
I also highly recommend that you visit OpenSecrets.com. It's a very eye-opening website.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
If you don't want the war to continue, should you be supporting a war funding bill? Or is this just another sham political move to make Democrats appear less wimpy when November rolls around? This is the problem. Congress has been Democrat controlled for the last two years nearly. They had the bully pulpit, they had the ability to override, to control committees to write sweeping legislation. So why haven't they? There's no sense in waiting to enact their agenda
They are sorely afraid that revealing the depth of their contempt for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution will scuttle "someone's' carefully constructed campaign.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Quote from Real Clear Politics
"...Mr. Obama's voting record in the U.S. Senate supports the liberal label. Democratic Rep. David Boren of Oklahoma told the Associated Press this week that Obama was "the most liberal senator," and that his voting record in the Senate "does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion." A growing number of Americans see it that way, too. Only 47 percent viewed Mr. Obama as a liberal in December, according to the same Rasmussen surveys referenced above - meaning a 20-point climb in just five months. That reality is like fingers scratching a blackboard for the Illinois senator's partisans.
Obama supporters know he can't win if his real political views become widely known, and they are taking pre-emptive steps to bat down that perception. Blogger John Henke writing at TheNextRight.com noted earlier in the week that one tactic among liberal bloggers will be to pre-emptively deligitimize criticisms of Obama as "racist."
And Americans should care about his ideology. Teamed up with a Democratic Congress, an Obama administration could usher in the most liberal, special-interest dominated period in American history. Power will shift to Washington as labor lobbyists, trial lawyers and environmental activists will have a heyday pulling all the levers of power.
There is no evidence that Mr. Obama would move to the center on any of his policies. We certainly don't hear about it in his campaign rhetoric. We hear about "change" and vague references to bringing people together, but there's no substance to back up the talk. Presumably, Mr. Obama will bring people together, as long as they all end up agreeing with him. So he's really offering a kinder, gentler way of getting rolled..."
Saturday, June 14, 2008
"Don't put all of your eggs in one basket." meaning that you can't assume that because something is supposed to work out one way, that you can insure it will work out that way.
Now consider ethanol. Our Congress has virtually forced corn based ethanol down our throats. Never mind that it was based on erroneous assumptions that we had endless supplies of corn. Never mind that the model it was based upon used more efficient sugar based ethanol. Never mind the way it slows down the refining system with the way it has to be handled. Never mind that corn is a source of animal feed and as such has forced the prices on all animal based food items to rise precipitously. No let's just go on our merry way and assume that because we are nice people and think good "green" thoughts, everything will be hunky dory.
Well boys and girls, everything is NOT hunky dory. In fact, with the recent rain and flooding, corn crop projections are lower. Do you think the good farmers and farm corporations are going to say no to ethanol subsidies? Do you think Congress will back away from keeping the likes of Al Gore and George Soros happy? Of course not. So read the story below and start finding a way to grow, hoard or otherwise obtain your own food because unless something changes soon (and not in the political acceptable way) food is going to skyrocket.
YET CONGRESS RECENTLY VOTED TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO DEVELOP U.S. OIL SHALE RESOURCES
With oil prices at an all-time high, Americans are facing escalating gas, diesel, and aircraft fuel increases. Oil prices are projected to increase further.
Congress, however, has made it illegal to develop vast domestic oil resources in large parts of the United States.
The most startling Congressional prohibition on domestic oil production concerns the recently enacted ban on the development of oil shale resources in parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming in the Green River Formation. According to a Rand Study estimate, this reserve contains over one trillion barrels of oil, with 800 billion barrels fully recoverable, or three times the current oil reserves as Saudi Arabia:
The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable. For potentially recoverable oil shale resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower bound of about 500 billion barrels. For policy planning purposes, it is enough to know that any amount in this range is very high. For example, the midpoint in our estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, 800 billion barrels of recoverable resources would last for more than 400 years.”
(James T. Bartis, et. al., "Oil Shale Development in the United States: Prospects and Policy Issues" (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2005), p. ix. http://rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf)
Yet, if you will read here, there are people in Washington who are taking their signals from the failed economic engine of the European Union and trying to piece together a means of usurping and absorbing our nations oil companies. So then what is next? Con-Agra certainly makes a nice profit with the soaring prices of food. Nestle does the same. So will that be the next wave? And after that, when government control has brought efficiency and profitability to a halt, and food supplies drop, government can ration food to make sure we dont' get too fat. Come on folks, this is basic stuff. We are not a collectivist nation, but people who claim to represent us are headed in that very direction.
Vote them out. They have been there too long. They have held too much power and been far too well compensated. You want to talk about an industry that takes more than it gives? Just look to Washington-where tax dollars go and where the money goes to serve THEIR best interests, not ours.
Friday, June 13, 2008
As designed by our founders, the Constitution was intended to provide for checks and balances to prevent a royal presidency. What has happened is that all branches of government have begun to lobby and create legislation, even though that is the job of Congress. This is a vivid demonstration of why votes can count to create decisions. Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the president, upon approval of Congress. That in itself sets up some dicey political situations, since in order to win approval, the nominee must either be of the same party or must pander to the ideals of the other party. There's a pretty long list of experienced jurists denied positions based on the petty babbling of Congressional subcommittees. There's also a good deal of evidence that the more affluent a member of the Supreme Court becomes, the more liberal their rulings become. It's a sort of "let them eat cake" attitude since we know that with such power comes the ability to avoid having to be subjected to the results of legislation from the bench.
It is time to remove those Congressional representative that stand for their own padded pockets far more than the welfare of their constituents. It is time to hold them accountable for the actions that they take and the havoc that seems to ensue. They are cocky, they have power and they use it to bolster their own futures, not those of the voters.
For far too long, elected officials have ruled petty fiefdoms surrounded by yes-men and yes-women who insulate them from the real world. Indeed, many of these elected officials have never held jobs in the "real world". While I am not so naive as to think a dock worker has to be elected to represent dock workers, I do think that when one has different health care, different advantages and in turn is only told what they want to hear, they cannot give a true response in terms of votes on bills that have serious impact on the folks back home. It is time that they get a clue.
Case in point-this story
We are in the middle of an energy and economic crisis. Much of this is fueled by the stringent supply and bloated demand created by well meaning, but flawed programs that seem to believe oil is a migratory beast that can be tracked down. Oil has to be drilled where it exists. And right now, India, China and Cuba are drilling this same oil field that the Democrats on the subcommittee denied American oil companies. I get it about saving the beaches and the nastiness of tar,etc., but isn't it time that we get down to brass tacks? Corn based ethanol has been a wash. It's expensive creation and it's use of food products has only resulted in lowered fuel efficiency and higher food prices. Just another in a series of booboo's created by well-meaning idiots at Congressional levels. Instead of using the abundant resources on our own land, we are being held hostage by foreign countries who do not have our best interests at heart. This is just one of a series of expensive and draconian fixes perpetrated upon the American Public by this entrenched careerists. It's time to let them go.