By freezing federal salaries, President Obama has just solved one one hundredth of one percent of this nation's budget problem. That is the equivalent of you getting a raise of $0.01 per year on your paycheck.
Before taxes.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Well, On Second Thought
Fuller review of the Portland bomber arrest makes me think that my post about “doing it right” may have been premature.
The FBI affidavit for the arrest and charge of the guy involved is online, and I have read it in full. You can read it here if you like; it is very tedious reading. I’m not sure that I’m fully on board with Glenn Greenwald in describing it as “The FBI successfully thwarts its own terrorist plot,” but I am certainly less than thrilled with what I see in it. Greenwald’s article is easier reading than the affidavit and, while I don’t draw all of the same conclusions that he does, he says nothing in it that I would refute. I should point out that he is an attorney and I am not, so I’m not going to pick any kind of fight with him.
I am just disgusted with the charge of “Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction,” which is the sole charge against him. I would be tempted to charge the Attorney General who filed that silly charge with “Attempted Use of Office To Terrorize America.” The guy was not attempting to create a “mushroom cloud” for God’s sake.
I’m not sure that the FBI “created” the plot per se, but they were certainly more actively involved in moving it forward than I think is the proper role of law enforcement. They were making suggestions to the guy, finding locations for him, actually urging him on, and they even built the bomb itself for him. If that doesn’t amount to entrapment, it certainly comes close to it.
The whole thing sounds less like an agency whose purpose is to protect the public that it does a bunch of cowboys intent on making a name for themselves and/or creating a from of theatre to justify their bureau’s existence.
The FBI affidavit for the arrest and charge of the guy involved is online, and I have read it in full. You can read it here if you like; it is very tedious reading. I’m not sure that I’m fully on board with Glenn Greenwald in describing it as “The FBI successfully thwarts its own terrorist plot,” but I am certainly less than thrilled with what I see in it. Greenwald’s article is easier reading than the affidavit and, while I don’t draw all of the same conclusions that he does, he says nothing in it that I would refute. I should point out that he is an attorney and I am not, so I’m not going to pick any kind of fight with him.
I am just disgusted with the charge of “Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction,” which is the sole charge against him. I would be tempted to charge the Attorney General who filed that silly charge with “Attempted Use of Office To Terrorize America.” The guy was not attempting to create a “mushroom cloud” for God’s sake.
I’m not sure that the FBI “created” the plot per se, but they were certainly more actively involved in moving it forward than I think is the proper role of law enforcement. They were making suggestions to the guy, finding locations for him, actually urging him on, and they even built the bomb itself for him. If that doesn’t amount to entrapment, it certainly comes close to it.
The whole thing sounds less like an agency whose purpose is to protect the public that it does a bunch of cowboys intent on making a name for themselves and/or creating a from of theatre to justify their bureau’s existence.
Kicking It Around
Give me a break. Vincent Jackson, after declining a multi-million dollar contract as too small following his second drunk driving arrest and holding out for preseason and the first ten games of the regular season, returned to the field Sunday. He "played" (he was on the field) for about three minutes two plays, and then "suffered a calf injury" and was done for the day.
Eric Weddle has certainly mastered the fine art of the undetected pass interference maneuver. He also discovered that those things on the ends of his arms are hands, and can be used to catch the ball.
If the offense had scored as many touchdowns as the defense did, that game would have been a blowout. Ok, it would have been a bigger blowout.
Norv Turner is reported to have told Andrea Kramer that, "In order to convert field goals into touchdowns we have to do a better job on third down." The man is amazing. That is just sheer genius. How do we ever lose a game with that kind of football strategic mastery at the helm?
The other question is why Kramer bothered to cite the quote, of course.
The Atlanta Falcons' defense has got to be the slowest in the league. Once a ball was caught, the defense closed on the Green Bay receiver like they had cinder blocks strapped to their ankles. I suspect that more than 50% of the Packers' passing yardage was actually gained after the catch.
Eric Weddle has certainly mastered the fine art of the undetected pass interference maneuver. He also discovered that those things on the ends of his arms are hands, and can be used to catch the ball.
If the offense had scored as many touchdowns as the defense did, that game would have been a blowout. Ok, it would have been a bigger blowout.
Norv Turner is reported to have told Andrea Kramer that, "In order to convert field goals into touchdowns we have to do a better job on third down." The man is amazing. That is just sheer genius. How do we ever lose a game with that kind of football strategic mastery at the helm?
The other question is why Kramer bothered to cite the quote, of course.
The Atlanta Falcons' defense has got to be the slowest in the league. Once a ball was caught, the defense closed on the Green Bay receiver like they had cinder blocks strapped to their ankles. I suspect that more than 50% of the Packers' passing yardage was actually gained after the catch.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
They're Baaaack
The attack on employer-provided health insurance is not over yet. Its elimination was defeated as part of the “health care reform” bill, but proponents in Congress are now working on including its demise in the guise of “deficit reduction” legislation.
The employer-paid portion of health insurance represents income upon which you do not pay income tax, and Congress is again considering eliminating that “tax break” to raise revenue and reduce the deficit. Or, perhaps for other reasons; the AP article is as poorly written as that organization’s articles usually are, and the intent of the change is not totally clear. While deficit reduction seems primary, the article also says,
That seems to be an attempt to ressurect the “health care reform” argument that high health care costs are due to patients’ huge enjoyment of MRI’s, colonoscopies and invasive surgeries and their demand to receive such procedures too often and for no reason. The insanity of the argument is clear when you consider all of the countries in which patients pay absolutely nothing for health care, they contribute zero percent to the cost of their care, and those countries all spend less then half what we do on health care and get better results.
The reality is that the intention is cost shifting rather than cost reduction. If consumers have to pay, then insurance companies and employers won’t have to. It’s short sighted, as most legislative initiatives are, in that if consumers are forced to pay they will not be able to; health care providers will suffer a steep decline in business, and we will become an even less healthy nation than we are now.
But the insurance companies and employers outnumber the health care providers, and individuals don’t give big bribes make large campaign contributions.
The degree to which such a change would benefit the health insurance industry is simply staggering, for a couple of reasons.
First is that as employers drop provisions the employees would be driven, by law rather than by choice, to purchasing individual insurance plans, and those plans are vastly more profitable than are the group plans sold to large companies. The degree to which that remains true under “health care reform” is unclear, but I have no doubt that insurance companies will find a way. One business proinciple will always remain true, and that is that individuals purchasing separately will always pay a higher price than when they band together and buy as a large group.
The other reason is that many large companies do not even carry insurance at this point, but merely use insurance companies to administer “self insurance” pools of coprorate-provided cash. As those plans are dropped by employers because the tax code no longer makes them an economic advantage, those employees represent new customers to the individual policy rolls of the insurance companies.
Then there is this little treasure, in a pretense of populism, “Proponents of repeal usually call for a tax credit to offset part of the cost of individually purchasing coverage.” Sure, to further complicate an already ridiculous tax code and compete with the tax penalty for failing to purchase coverage. What would be the effect of claiming both the tax credit and the penalty?
And... This makes sense, right? We are going to tax you on the part of your income that is your employer paying for your insurance, but if you pay for your own insurance we will give you a tax credit. On what planet does that "raise revenue" or even make any kind of sense?
The employer-paid portion of health insurance represents income upon which you do not pay income tax, and Congress is again considering eliminating that “tax break” to raise revenue and reduce the deficit. Or, perhaps for other reasons; the AP article is as poorly written as that organization’s articles usually are, and the intent of the change is not totally clear. While deficit reduction seems primary, the article also says,
The idea isn't to just raise revenue, economists say, but finally to turn Americans into frugal health care consumers by having them face the full costs of their medical decisions.
That seems to be an attempt to ressurect the “health care reform” argument that high health care costs are due to patients’ huge enjoyment of MRI’s, colonoscopies and invasive surgeries and their demand to receive such procedures too often and for no reason. The insanity of the argument is clear when you consider all of the countries in which patients pay absolutely nothing for health care, they contribute zero percent to the cost of their care, and those countries all spend less then half what we do on health care and get better results.
The reality is that the intention is cost shifting rather than cost reduction. If consumers have to pay, then insurance companies and employers won’t have to. It’s short sighted, as most legislative initiatives are, in that if consumers are forced to pay they will not be able to; health care providers will suffer a steep decline in business, and we will become an even less healthy nation than we are now.
But the insurance companies and employers outnumber the health care providers, and individuals don’t give big bribes make large campaign contributions.
The degree to which such a change would benefit the health insurance industry is simply staggering, for a couple of reasons.
First is that as employers drop provisions the employees would be driven, by law rather than by choice, to purchasing individual insurance plans, and those plans are vastly more profitable than are the group plans sold to large companies. The degree to which that remains true under “health care reform” is unclear, but I have no doubt that insurance companies will find a way. One business proinciple will always remain true, and that is that individuals purchasing separately will always pay a higher price than when they band together and buy as a large group.
The other reason is that many large companies do not even carry insurance at this point, but merely use insurance companies to administer “self insurance” pools of coprorate-provided cash. As those plans are dropped by employers because the tax code no longer makes them an economic advantage, those employees represent new customers to the individual policy rolls of the insurance companies.
Then there is this little treasure, in a pretense of populism, “Proponents of repeal usually call for a tax credit to offset part of the cost of individually purchasing coverage.” Sure, to further complicate an already ridiculous tax code and compete with the tax penalty for failing to purchase coverage. What would be the effect of claiming both the tax credit and the penalty?
And... This makes sense, right? We are going to tax you on the part of your income that is your employer paying for your insurance, but if you pay for your own insurance we will give you a tax credit. On what planet does that "raise revenue" or even make any kind of sense?
Saturday, November 27, 2010
This Is How It's Done
A guy in Oregon is arrested in the act of setting off what he thinks is a car bomb. This is the way to fight terrorism. Law enforcement was on to him, they watched him all the way, and then arrested him for what he was actually doing, not for what he was thinking.
There are, however, a couple of aspects of this that I find faintly disturbing, indicated by emphasis I have added in the following quote from today's article in the New York Times,
That may merely be poor choice of wording by the reporter; I hope and rather suspect that such is the case, because "entrapment" is an ugly concept from a legal defense standpoint. I hope that our law enforcement agents are not going around actually encouraging people to engage in plots so that they can arrest them.
I also could do without the self-serving hyperbole from the agent in charge and the Attorney General, but the fact remains that when terror attacks have been caused to fail in this manner it proves again that we are not "at war against terrorism," but that law enforcement is an effective tool against criminal activity.
Update: Unfortunately, the man has been charged with "attempting to employ weapons of mass destruction." The Obama Administration is as much in love with that phrase as was the Bush one, and we are stuck with that fear mongering verbiage forever. From now until and if sanity returns, every stinking pipe bomb found will be verbally turned into a nuclear device.
There are, however, a couple of aspects of this that I find faintly disturbing, indicated by emphasis I have added in the following quote from today's article in the New York Times,
According to the affidavit, Mr. Mohamud was in e-mail contact with an unnamed associate in Pakistan in August 2009, who referred him to another an associate overseas. In June 2010, undercover agents F.B.I. first got into contact with Mr. Mohamud, guiding him toward the Friday night event, but asking him repeatedly if he was prepared to commit the act, which would include the murder of children. “I want whoever is attending that event to leave, either dead or injured,” Mr. Mohamud said to undercover agents, according to the affidavit.
That may merely be poor choice of wording by the reporter; I hope and rather suspect that such is the case, because "entrapment" is an ugly concept from a legal defense standpoint. I hope that our law enforcement agents are not going around actually encouraging people to engage in plots so that they can arrest them.
I also could do without the self-serving hyperbole from the agent in charge and the Attorney General, but the fact remains that when terror attacks have been caused to fail in this manner it proves again that we are not "at war against terrorism," but that law enforcement is an effective tool against criminal activity.
Update: Unfortunately, the man has been charged with "attempting to employ weapons of mass destruction." The Obama Administration is as much in love with that phrase as was the Bush one, and we are stuck with that fear mongering verbiage forever. From now until and if sanity returns, every stinking pipe bomb found will be verbally turned into a nuclear device.
Good and Evil
There was an online debate yesterday between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens, the topic of which was “Resolved, that religion is a force for good in the world.” I did not watch it but I do, for the most part, rather enjoy Hitchens. I don’t think I could have stood that much Tony Blair. I don’t doubt that it was a lively debate.
Consider rain. Rain is a “bad thing” if you are having a parade or a picnic, but it is a “good thing” if you are a farmer. It is, in actuality, neither good nor bad, and it is both. Rain is just rain. “Good” and “bad” are labels that we apply to it, and we apply those labels based on how it affects us. Those labels are, therefor, value judgements.
There is no question that much harm has been done in the name of religion, but one cannot deny that much good has also been done, much comfort has been offered. I would suggest that religion is much like rain; it is just religion. When it is used for good purpose, that good work is not done by religion, it is done by people and when it is used for bad purpose that bad work is done by bad people.
We in America like to think that democracy is a “force for good,” but is that still true when we invade a country and occupy it by military force in the name of “spreading democracy” abroad?
Consider rain. Rain is a “bad thing” if you are having a parade or a picnic, but it is a “good thing” if you are a farmer. It is, in actuality, neither good nor bad, and it is both. Rain is just rain. “Good” and “bad” are labels that we apply to it, and we apply those labels based on how it affects us. Those labels are, therefor, value judgements.
There is no question that much harm has been done in the name of religion, but one cannot deny that much good has also been done, much comfort has been offered. I would suggest that religion is much like rain; it is just religion. When it is used for good purpose, that good work is not done by religion, it is done by people and when it is used for bad purpose that bad work is done by bad people.
We in America like to think that democracy is a “force for good,” but is that still true when we invade a country and occupy it by military force in the name of “spreading democracy” abroad?
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Iron Bowl Today
I wonder how many people know why the "Iron Bowl," the annual game between Alabama and Auburn, is called that. The reason is that for many years it was played in Birmingham, and Birmingham is historically a major steel making center. It's also one of my favorite cities, by the way, full of absolutely delightful people, stunningly good food and set in the gorgeous foothills of the mountains of northern Alabama.
The game itself is one where I have seriously divided loyalty. My first loyalty is to LSU, which is not in the game of course. I am secondly a Crimson Tide fan, but I have a very close friend in Columbus, GA who is a third generation Auburn alumnus. When I lived in Georgia and watched the Iron Bowl with him I had to be careful to sit beyond arm's reach.
Things got really confusing when we watched Auburn play LSU, what with all the screaming of "Go Tigers" and "Geaux Tigers."
Post Game: Wow, that was some game. At least there will (should) be an SEC team playing for the championship. Q: What do you call an Alabama receiver who does not wear the number eight? A: Decoy.
The game itself is one where I have seriously divided loyalty. My first loyalty is to LSU, which is not in the game of course. I am secondly a Crimson Tide fan, but I have a very close friend in Columbus, GA who is a third generation Auburn alumnus. When I lived in Georgia and watched the Iron Bowl with him I had to be careful to sit beyond arm's reach.
Things got really confusing when we watched Auburn play LSU, what with all the screaming of "Go Tigers" and "Geaux Tigers."
Post Game: Wow, that was some game. At least there will (should) be an SEC team playing for the championship. Q: What do you call an Alabama receiver who does not wear the number eight? A: Decoy.
Who's Winning This War?
I actually suspect that the organizer of the underwear bomb plot knew that the explosive would not work, and never intended for it to. Same with the shoe bomber. If these things had gone off and brought the planes down, we would never have known precisely what happened, and we would not be taking our shoes off and searching people’s underwear at airports today. Those plot originators have less interest in blowing up an airplane than they do in making us spend $2.4 billion on X-ray machines.
I think those guys are sitting in nice homes in the Middle East laughing their asses off at us. I think they are happy as hell that we think we are “thwarting their plans,” when all the time we are doing exactly what they want us to do. We are wasting our money on frantic over-reactions to plots that did not work.
I had already started writing this when I read an op-ed column by Roger Cohen in The New York Times this morning, and he summed up his thoughts thusly,
I could not agree more. There is no need to defeat our military when you can change who we are.
Osama bin Laden makes no secret of his purpose; he wrote openly that
his purpose for attacking the U.S.S. Cole was to invoke an invasion of Afghanistan so that he could bleed us as he had bled the Soviets. Clinton was not that stupid, but guess who was. We have not been hit since 9/11 and the reason may very well be that it is because there is no need to; he accomplished his goal and is bleeding us both at home and abroad.
As of today we have been bleeding in Afghanistan for precisely as long as the Soviets did, and tomorrow will make our folly greater than theirs.
I think those guys are sitting in nice homes in the Middle East laughing their asses off at us. I think they are happy as hell that we think we are “thwarting their plans,” when all the time we are doing exactly what they want us to do. We are wasting our money on frantic over-reactions to plots that did not work.
I had already started writing this when I read an op-ed column by Roger Cohen in The New York Times this morning, and he summed up his thoughts thusly,
I don’t doubt the patriotism of the Americans involved in keeping the country safe, nor do I discount the threat, but I am sure of this: The unfettered growth of the Department of Homeland Security and the T.S.A. represent a greater long-term threat to the prosperity, character and wellbeing of the United States than a few madmen in the valleys of Waziristan or the voids of Yemen.
America is a nation of openness, boldness and risk-taking. Close this nation, cow it, constrict it and you unravel its magic.
I could not agree more. There is no need to defeat our military when you can change who we are.
Osama bin Laden makes no secret of his purpose; he wrote openly that
his purpose for attacking the U.S.S. Cole was to invoke an invasion of Afghanistan so that he could bleed us as he had bled the Soviets. Clinton was not that stupid, but guess who was. We have not been hit since 9/11 and the reason may very well be that it is because there is no need to; he accomplished his goal and is bleeding us both at home and abroad.
As of today we have been bleeding in Afghanistan for precisely as long as the Soviets did, and tomorrow will make our folly greater than theirs.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
San Diego "Opt Out" Day
Turned out to be a real fizzle. Channel 7 News could only find one guy at Lindbergh Field yesterday who was all pumped up to "opt out" and was seeking attention for it, and he was boarding a plane that was using the one terminal we have that does not have the scanner installed yet, so he was never offered the chance to "opt" anything.
I don't know who was more deflated, the guy or the reporter.
I don't know who was more deflated, the guy or the reporter.
Negotiating With The Taliban
So the story breaks that the Taliban honcho who we've been negotiating with and throwing money at is actually an imposter, and Saint General David Petreaus says, "Ha, ha, we already knew that."
He reminds me of my cat when she makes a leap for the railing and misses, then tries to look all sophisticated and poised and convince onlookers, "Yeah, I did that on purpose."
Except that Molly is a whole lot cuter when she does stuff like that.
Update: There is, of course, the possibility that she actually is all poised and sophisticated simply because she promptly forgot what she was attempting to do.
He reminds me of my cat when she makes a leap for the railing and misses, then tries to look all sophisticated and poised and convince onlookers, "Yeah, I did that on purpose."
Except that Molly is a whole lot cuter when she does stuff like that.
Update: There is, of course, the possibility that she actually is all poised and sophisticated simply because she promptly forgot what she was attempting to do.
Flying and Risk
I am still opposed to the scanners and "patdowns" as being intrusive and excessive, but from what I have read, one is exposed to vastly more radiation in the act of flying at 30,000 feet for lengthy periods of time than one is for a few seconds in a scanner. Many, many more times of radiation hits you while in flight, so if radiation exposure is your fear, you'd best take the train or drive.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Duty, honor, country. Thanks.
There was an article in The Guardian the other day about Germany moving to an all-volunteer military, and one phrase leaped out at me.
A close relationship between the military and civil society is an interesting subject, one seldom discussed so far as I can determine, and the idea of conscription, which we called “the draft,” as an instrument of maintaining that relationship is fascinating. The draft was in place when I was in the service, and it was not yet a lottery system, and even then those of us in uniform felt that there was a vast gulf between us and the civilians we had signed up to protect. We didn’t really care, this was before Vietnam, but it was there.
Today, that gulf is far wider. For all our talk of “supporting the troops,” we don’t. We put bumper stickers on our cars, but we don’t even know what actual “support” of the troops would be. Support would be sending our own sons and daughters to fight beside them, even if that is not what our sons and daughters want to do. Support would mean sending our sons and daughters to replace them, so that their first tour of combat is their last one. Support would mean that the sacrifice is shared by the nation who waits at home in the form of taxes to pay the cost of war and the material deprivation that sends the materials of war to the combat front. Support would be a war that is as unpopular with the home front as it is with the soldiers whose lives are being lost.
Close relationship with the military? We have no relationship with our military. We praise their sacrifice but we are unwilling to share it in any part or form. We thank them with such effusiveness and keep them at arm’s length because they are paying a price that we are unwilling to pay, and unwilling even to acknowledge.
And they “soldier on,” doing what they do. Duty, honor, country.
The military was founded in 1955, and conscription – introduced two years later – has been seen as a necessary means to ensure the defence forces maintain a close relationship to civil society in order to prevent a repeat of the way in which the Nazi party was able to manipulate professional soldiers in the 1930s.
A close relationship between the military and civil society is an interesting subject, one seldom discussed so far as I can determine, and the idea of conscription, which we called “the draft,” as an instrument of maintaining that relationship is fascinating. The draft was in place when I was in the service, and it was not yet a lottery system, and even then those of us in uniform felt that there was a vast gulf between us and the civilians we had signed up to protect. We didn’t really care, this was before Vietnam, but it was there.
Today, that gulf is far wider. For all our talk of “supporting the troops,” we don’t. We put bumper stickers on our cars, but we don’t even know what actual “support” of the troops would be. Support would be sending our own sons and daughters to fight beside them, even if that is not what our sons and daughters want to do. Support would mean sending our sons and daughters to replace them, so that their first tour of combat is their last one. Support would mean that the sacrifice is shared by the nation who waits at home in the form of taxes to pay the cost of war and the material deprivation that sends the materials of war to the combat front. Support would be a war that is as unpopular with the home front as it is with the soldiers whose lives are being lost.
Close relationship with the military? We have no relationship with our military. We praise their sacrifice but we are unwilling to share it in any part or form. We thank them with such effusiveness and keep them at arm’s length because they are paying a price that we are unwilling to pay, and unwilling even to acknowledge.
And they “soldier on,” doing what they do. Duty, honor, country.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
"Get Used To It"
Willie Geist had a man from the Department of Homeland Stupidity on The Last Word last night. No clips or transcript are available, so I don’t recall who it was, a honcho of some sort, and I can’t provide a precise quotation. The topic was, of course, the new search procedures at airports.
This guy said that people were complaining about the new procedure because it is new and they “aren’t used to it” yet. Given time, he said they will become accustomed to the procedure and will quit complaining. He used the example of when liquids were first banned and said that people complained bitterly at first about that, but after a while the complaints subsided, and that given time the complaints over this new procedure will also die out.
I found his remarks seriously objectionable on a couple of levels.
First is the immediate one that government can successfully ignore public complaint, and that the public will just calm down and accept whatever the government decides is necessary. I don’t think so. This is supposed to be government by the people, and the idea that government can simply ignore public opinion is repugnant.
Second is the implication of incrementalism; one cannot ignore the parable of the frog in the pot of boiling water. I do not for one minute believe that this government or anyone in it has the slightest desire to move this nation toward a police state, but it is by no means impossible for us to arrive there without intending to, following a series of small steps each of which is taken in the name of public safety.
His implication was profoundly clear. We took the step of banning liquids, and we got away with it. That outcry over reduction of personal freedom disappeared and so will this one. By extrapolation, so will the next one, and the one after that.
We increasingly limit what the public is allowed to carry with them when they travel, we constantly make the public more willing to stand in line and submit to ever more invasive search, we put more and more surveillance cameras on streets and in public buildings, and we spend ever increasing sums on “homeland security.” As we do these things we move closer and closer to a police state whether we intend that or not. Every move is taken in the name of safety, but whatever the intention every move is nibbling away at personal liberty and privacy, and every move is increasing the power of the state over the individual.
“Those who would surrender liberty in the name of safety will have neither.”
This guy said that people were complaining about the new procedure because it is new and they “aren’t used to it” yet. Given time, he said they will become accustomed to the procedure and will quit complaining. He used the example of when liquids were first banned and said that people complained bitterly at first about that, but after a while the complaints subsided, and that given time the complaints over this new procedure will also die out.
I found his remarks seriously objectionable on a couple of levels.
First is the immediate one that government can successfully ignore public complaint, and that the public will just calm down and accept whatever the government decides is necessary. I don’t think so. This is supposed to be government by the people, and the idea that government can simply ignore public opinion is repugnant.
Second is the implication of incrementalism; one cannot ignore the parable of the frog in the pot of boiling water. I do not for one minute believe that this government or anyone in it has the slightest desire to move this nation toward a police state, but it is by no means impossible for us to arrive there without intending to, following a series of small steps each of which is taken in the name of public safety.
His implication was profoundly clear. We took the step of banning liquids, and we got away with it. That outcry over reduction of personal freedom disappeared and so will this one. By extrapolation, so will the next one, and the one after that.
We increasingly limit what the public is allowed to carry with them when they travel, we constantly make the public more willing to stand in line and submit to ever more invasive search, we put more and more surveillance cameras on streets and in public buildings, and we spend ever increasing sums on “homeland security.” As we do these things we move closer and closer to a police state whether we intend that or not. Every move is taken in the name of safety, but whatever the intention every move is nibbling away at personal liberty and privacy, and every move is increasing the power of the state over the individual.
“Those who would surrender liberty in the name of safety will have neither.”
Peak Oil and Social Impact
One has to take studies by the University of California with a certain amount of salt; this is, after all, the University that supports Robert Reich, who is probably certifiable. Still, all schools harbor a few nuts, and UCSB is one of the better jewels in the crown of California’s institutes of higher education, so their publication on “Peak Energy, Climate Change, and the Collapse of Global Civilization: The Current Peak Oil Crisis” has to be taken seriously. It is available here as an ebook, and what it has to say is not pretty.
Some of its unpleasant facts, suggestions and forecasts,
Global conventional oil production likely peaked around 2005 – 2011.
Peak global production of coal, natural gas, and uranium resources will likely occur by 2020 – 2030, if not sooner.
Oil shortages will lead to a collapse of the global economy, and the decline of globalized industrial civilization.
This current transition of rapid economic decline was triggered by the oil price shock starting in 2007 and culminating in the summer of 2008. This transition will likely accelerate and become more volatile once oil prices exceed $80 – $90 per barrel for an extended time. Demand destruction for oil may be somewhere above $80 per barrel and below $141 per barrel. (It’s at $87 per barrel now.)
There are probably no solutions to peak oil that do not involve at the very least some major changes in lifestyles.
The global human population has increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to nearly 7 billion today, and is expected to reach 9.2 billion by 2050.
Based on best estimates, the global population may have nearly reached or already exceeded the planet's human carrying capacity in terms of food and energy production.
The economic collapse of 2008 is constantly blamed on Republican economic policy which allowed Wall Street greed to run wild, but carefully omitted from that discussion is that the price of oil reached $147 per barrel and remained there until the economy collapsed. Was that oil price a contributor to the economic collapse, the actual cause of the collapse, or irrelevant?
In any case, the larger issue is that while we are talking about climate change and energy cost, we are not talking about the structure of our civilization itself. To support a population which increases almost by a factor of four in a century, lifestyle changes have to be considered, and we are not engaged in that line of thinking.
We have eleven housewives each driving eleven miles to eleven different stores eleven times a month for groceries, and our “green thinking” consists of having those eleven housewives each driving eleven miles to eleven different stores eleven times a month in cars that get better gas mileage. We need to think better than that, we need to be thinking in terms of smaller numbers to replace larger numbers as many times as possible. We need to think structurally rather than incrementally.
Some of its unpleasant facts, suggestions and forecasts,
Global conventional oil production likely peaked around 2005 – 2011.Peak global production of coal, natural gas, and uranium resources will likely occur by 2020 – 2030, if not sooner. Oil shortages will lead to a collapse of the global economy, and the decline of globalized industrial civilization.This current transition of rapid economic decline was triggered by the oil price shock starting in 2007 and culminating in the summer of 2008. This transition will likely accelerate and become more volatile once oil prices exceed $80 – $90 per barrel for an extended time. Demand destruction for oil may be somewhere above $80 per barrel and below $141 per barrel. (It’s at $87 per barrel now.)There are probably no solutions to peak oil that do not involve at the very least some major changes in lifestyles.The global human population has increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to nearly 7 billion today, and is expected to reach 9.2 billion by 2050.Based on best estimates, the global population may have nearly reached or already exceeded the planet's human carrying capacity in terms of food and energy production.The economic collapse of 2008 is constantly blamed on Republican economic policy which allowed Wall Street greed to run wild, but carefully omitted from that discussion is that the price of oil reached $147 per barrel and remained there until the economy collapsed. Was that oil price a contributor to the economic collapse, the actual cause of the collapse, or irrelevant?
In any case, the larger issue is that while we are talking about climate change and energy cost, we are not talking about the structure of our civilization itself. To support a population which increases almost by a factor of four in a century, lifestyle changes have to be considered, and we are not engaged in that line of thinking.
We have eleven housewives each driving eleven miles to eleven different stores eleven times a month for groceries, and our “green thinking” consists of having those eleven housewives each driving eleven miles to eleven different stores eleven times a month in cars that get better gas mileage. We need to think better than that, we need to be thinking in terms of smaller numbers to replace larger numbers as many times as possible. We need to think structurally rather than incrementally.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Living Fearfully
Look, I don’t care about the TSA taking pictures of me and groping me at the airport. I’m in pretty good shape for a man my age, but I’m an old guy and none of that is going to harm me or excite anybody. If it does it’s their problem not mine. I only travel a couple times a year and a few minutes of delay at the airport is a matter of complete indifference to me.
What I do care about is being surrounded by a miasma of fear; of living in a society that will pay any price, will suffer any indignity and inconvenience because it is afraid. If you want to do that, fine, but I resent being made to go along with it, because I am not afraid. If Osama bin Laden wants to come along and drop a bomb on me, so be it; I’m going to die sooner or later anyway. We all do. Whatever life I have left I don’t want to live it looking over my shoulder being afraid that the bogey man is going to pop out and kill me. I want to live free, and living a life that is consumed by fear is not freedom.
Fifty years ago we, as a nation, were not afraid of a Soviet Union armed with thermonuclear weapons. Our attitude was that they could give us their best shot and we would go pound them into the ground like a tent peg. Our mesaage to the Soviet Union was, "We're ready for you." Today we are quaking in mortal terror of a handful of guys hiding in the Pakistani wilderness because of something they did nine years ago and have not been able to repeat. Our message to Al Queda is, "We're afraid of you."
You want to be a prisoner of your own fear, that is your privilege, but don’t try to lock me in your prison.
What I do care about is being surrounded by a miasma of fear; of living in a society that will pay any price, will suffer any indignity and inconvenience because it is afraid. If you want to do that, fine, but I resent being made to go along with it, because I am not afraid. If Osama bin Laden wants to come along and drop a bomb on me, so be it; I’m going to die sooner or later anyway. We all do. Whatever life I have left I don’t want to live it looking over my shoulder being afraid that the bogey man is going to pop out and kill me. I want to live free, and living a life that is consumed by fear is not freedom.
Fifty years ago we, as a nation, were not afraid of a Soviet Union armed with thermonuclear weapons. Our attitude was that they could give us their best shot and we would go pound them into the ground like a tent peg. Our mesaage to the Soviet Union was, "We're ready for you." Today we are quaking in mortal terror of a handful of guys hiding in the Pakistani wilderness because of something they did nine years ago and have not been able to repeat. Our message to Al Queda is, "We're afraid of you."
You want to be a prisoner of your own fear, that is your privilege, but don’t try to lock me in your prison.
Privacy Violations
For a real profile of how thoroughly everyone in authority "doesn't get it" read this piece at ABC News. People in high places who have never had to submit to the procedure, such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, say that they "understand how people feel" with respect to being groped in public. No, you don't. You are about as close to understanding how we feel about being groped in public as Saturn is to our Moon.
I particularly like the response of Pistole, head of the TSA, with respect to people's complaints that poorly trained, and sometimes actually abusive, TSA staff are going too far with these cutely named "pat downs,"
I think, Mr. Pistole, the point is not to provide provisions for complaint, but to prevent the complaint from becoming necessary.
I'm sure the traveler whose urostomy bag your people dislodged and who subsequently had to parade through the airport reeking of his own urine is going to feel just fine after he logs onto your website and fills out a complaint. Or does the supervisor he's going to "ask for at the airport" know how to reattach a urostomy bag, and have a shower and a clean set of clothes to offer in time to catch the flight?
It is reaching the point that we sometimes spend more time "clearing security" in the airport than we spend actually in transit to our destination.
I particularly like the response of Pistole, head of the TSA, with respect to people's complaints that poorly trained, and sometimes actually abusive, TSA staff are going too far with these cutely named "pat downs,"
Pistole said he is "very aware" of the concerns raised by passengers and said if anyone feels their privacy was violated, they can file a complaint on the TSA's website or ask for a supervisor at the airport.
I think, Mr. Pistole, the point is not to provide provisions for complaint, but to prevent the complaint from becoming necessary.
I'm sure the traveler whose urostomy bag your people dislodged and who subsequently had to parade through the airport reeking of his own urine is going to feel just fine after he logs onto your website and fills out a complaint. Or does the supervisor he's going to "ask for at the airport" know how to reattach a urostomy bag, and have a shower and a clean set of clothes to offer in time to catch the flight?
It is reaching the point that we sometimes spend more time "clearing security" in the airport than we spend actually in transit to our destination.
Eagles - Giants
How sweet it is; three Eli Manning interceptions and a non-contact fumble in a Giants loss. On top of three Payton Manning interceptions in a Colts loss. A Chargers win tonight would make it perfect.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Now We Know
Obama said yesterday that he understands the frustration that people are feeling over the new airport security procedures, and that he is sympathetic, but that he has been told by Homeland Security that they are necessary to protect against the most recent types of threat.
"He has been told." So now we know who is actually running the country.
Update: A more definitive leader might have come back at the Department of Homeland Stupidity with something on the order of, "Well, knock that shit off and find something better. We have to be more respectful toward the people who pay our salaries."
"He has been told." So now we know who is actually running the country.
Update: A more definitive leader might have come back at the Department of Homeland Stupidity with something on the order of, "Well, knock that shit off and find something better. We have to be more respectful toward the people who pay our salaries."
Kicking It Around
LSU pulled it out again. Critics are panning the SEC defenses based on high-scoring games, but I'd say it has more to do with high-powered offenses. Old Miss is far better than it's record would indicate.
Les Miles is still a winning idiot. He has this short yardage play where, after the initial set, the tight end and slot back switch to the other side. The entire universe knows that Ridley is going to carry off-tackle to that side, certainly the opponent does, and the play never gains a single yard. That's why LSU goes for it on 4th down so often; they keep running that silly-ass play on third and one.
The announcers were freaking out over Mississippi having two place kickers with the same number, which I'll admit is pretty silly, and were wondering what would happen if they were on the field at the same time. Really, why would a team have two place kickers on the field at the same time? A punter as a holder for the place kicker, yes, but... How much do they pay those guys?
The Chargers' game is sold out Monday night, which means I'll have to listen to the idiots on ESPN blathering nonsense for three hours. I know those particular morons are paid too much. It will be interesting, though, to see how many of the tickets were sold to Denver fans.
Update: What, me buy a ticket? And pay $200 to sit in the stands freezing my ass off through all of those television timeouts? I don't think so.
Update the second: Well, shit: I completely spaced out the SDSU-Utah game, which Utah won, apparently, with a combination of offensive power and SDSU ineptitude. Maybe I'm glad I missed that.
Watching Pittsburg beat Oakland, I am drawing the conclusion that the officials are trying to turn the game of football into a non-contact sport. Those were a couple of the most ridiculous contact foul calls that I have seen in forty years of watching this game.
Les Miles is still a winning idiot. He has this short yardage play where, after the initial set, the tight end and slot back switch to the other side. The entire universe knows that Ridley is going to carry off-tackle to that side, certainly the opponent does, and the play never gains a single yard. That's why LSU goes for it on 4th down so often; they keep running that silly-ass play on third and one.
The announcers were freaking out over Mississippi having two place kickers with the same number, which I'll admit is pretty silly, and were wondering what would happen if they were on the field at the same time. Really, why would a team have two place kickers on the field at the same time? A punter as a holder for the place kicker, yes, but... How much do they pay those guys?
The Chargers' game is sold out Monday night, which means I'll have to listen to the idiots on ESPN blathering nonsense for three hours. I know those particular morons are paid too much. It will be interesting, though, to see how many of the tickets were sold to Denver fans.
Update: What, me buy a ticket? And pay $200 to sit in the stands freezing my ass off through all of those television timeouts? I don't think so.
Update the second: Well, shit: I completely spaced out the SDSU-Utah game, which Utah won, apparently, with a combination of offensive power and SDSU ineptitude. Maybe I'm glad I missed that.
Watching Pittsburg beat Oakland, I am drawing the conclusion that the officials are trying to turn the game of football into a non-contact sport. Those were a couple of the most ridiculous contact foul calls that I have seen in forty years of watching this game.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
The American Dream
Bob Hebert has a rather powerful op-ed contribution at the New York Times today that I encourage you to read in full. It is elegantly written and emphasizes just how badly our leadership and media are failing us.
He goes on to say that “nothing close to that is happening,” and to that I would add that we are not even trying. We are still enmeshed in this nonsense of trying to rebuild the “consumer spending economy” by replacing the missing consumer spending with government spending. There is this magical thinking that if the government throws money around long enough the public will start spending again, which would rebuild the economy of China, Korea and oil exporters but not America.
What’s notable to me is how he defines “the American dream.” To him it is not becoming a millionaire, or having yachts and airplanes, or becoming President, it’s having “work at pay that enables the workers and their families to enjoy a decent standard of living.” That’s what brought waves of Italians and Germans and Poles and Irish to this nation many years ago to become today’s Americans, the ability to have work that would allow them to support their families with a decent standard of living. I love that definition; that is a worthy dream.
The same thing is bringing today’s Hispanics to this country today to become tomorrow’s Americans. They have the same dream, the same worthy dream.
Obama and his Democrats decry the disaster created by the previous administration, and then continue the same disasterous policy even as they complain about having inherited it. Obama supporters, after years of complaining about Bush fighting wars without paying for them, support Obama for doing precisely the same thing. Under Republicans we spent money, fought wars and cut taxes and under Democrats we are spending money, fighting wars and cutting taxes.
I don’t think the American dream includes fighting endless wars, either.
What this shows is not that we should discriminate against foreign-born workers, but that the U.S. needs to develop a full-employment economy that provides jobs for all who want to work at pay that enables the workers and their families to enjoy a decent standard of living. In other words, a resurrection of the American dream.
He goes on to say that “nothing close to that is happening,” and to that I would add that we are not even trying. We are still enmeshed in this nonsense of trying to rebuild the “consumer spending economy” by replacing the missing consumer spending with government spending. There is this magical thinking that if the government throws money around long enough the public will start spending again, which would rebuild the economy of China, Korea and oil exporters but not America.
What’s notable to me is how he defines “the American dream.” To him it is not becoming a millionaire, or having yachts and airplanes, or becoming President, it’s having “work at pay that enables the workers and their families to enjoy a decent standard of living.” That’s what brought waves of Italians and Germans and Poles and Irish to this nation many years ago to become today’s Americans, the ability to have work that would allow them to support their families with a decent standard of living. I love that definition; that is a worthy dream.
The same thing is bringing today’s Hispanics to this country today to become tomorrow’s Americans. They have the same dream, the same worthy dream.
The wreckage from the recession and the nation’s mindlessly destructive policies in the years leading up to the recession is all around us. We still don’t have the money to pay for the wars that we insist on fighting year after year. We have neither the will nor the common sense to either raise taxes to pay for the wars, or stop fighting them.
Obama and his Democrats decry the disaster created by the previous administration, and then continue the same disasterous policy even as they complain about having inherited it. Obama supporters, after years of complaining about Bush fighting wars without paying for them, support Obama for doing precisely the same thing. Under Republicans we spent money, fought wars and cut taxes and under Democrats we are spending money, fighting wars and cutting taxes.
I don’t think the American dream includes fighting endless wars, either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)