"All of the Above" Obamas done oil production no favors

The Tesoro Refinery at Anacortes, Washington. By Walter Siegmund, license C.C. a.s.a 3.0 unported

Before I continue, I must admit a certain amount of shock in having to write this. Then again, perhaps I shouldn't be shocked. Democrat presidents have a long and proud history of taking credit for things they didn't actually do: Clinton gets credit for balancing the budget, something Newt Gingrich achieved and earned himself "resignation in disgrace" at the hands of the House Ethics committee for doing, perhaps why it hasn't been done since. FDR gets credit for New Deal projects that had already begun under Hoover - the most famous of which is the Hoover Dam. LBJ gets credit for desegregation, which was really an achievement of Eisenhower that continued through the time of LBJ. All throughout this century, Democrats have earned credit for doing things they didn't actually do (to be fair, this also includes bailing out "Government Motors" and the big banks.) I really shouldn't have been shocked to see it happen once more, this time with Obama and oil.

But there's a difference: all those other things that Democrats earned credit for, they either only slightly opposed, or even slightly supported. Never has something been so vehemently and destructively harmed directly by a president, not even through Congress with him only behind it, only to end up to his credit when it works against his plans. "Obamacare" was far more the product of Reid and Pelosi then Obama directly, but Obamas conduct with the Bureau of Land Management, and the abusive EPA that Obama himself presides over, comes from him directly. No one but the Chief Executive of the United States Federal Government is responsible for them before the American people, or should be.

Noting that, lets look over the track record of precisely what he's actually done, pertaining to oil production, as Chief Executive:

• Cancelled oil leases in the largest shale deposit of them all, at the excuse of "we don't understand how much water and energy it would use." The result of such policies is that oil and gas production on BLM lands is down 40%. In most western states, BLM lands make up 30-90% of the states land area.
  
• Purposefully delayed the decision on the Keystone Pipeline for years without any attempt to gather information to make a decision, or any clear rationale for why a decision could not be made in a reasonable time frame.
  
• Issued a moratorium on offshore drilling without any real effort to fix the underlying problems (namely, the lack of proper response networks on the Gulf.)
• Since the moratorium ended, Obama's Department of the Interior has only permitted one offshore lease sale. In other words, the moratorium never truly ended - Obama just made it look like it is over.

In North Dakota, 1574 miles from the Oval Office, oil production doubled from 2008 to 2010. North Dakota is one of only three states west of the Mississippi river to not have any BLM lands, the other two being Texas and Washington state. The section of the same oil shale formation in Montana has not been similarly developed, and the BLM owns that land.

Although North Dakotas unemployment is a boom time 3.3%, Montana remains average for the country, despite containing the western third of the Bakken formation. In Texas, the other non-BLM oil containing state, a much smaller shale deposit has been massively developed, helping to stabilize unemployment there to a reasonable five. Lastly, the largest of all the shale deposits, equivalent to seven Middle Easts, contained in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming and Nevada (all heavily BLM states, with around 40-90% of land area owned by Federal Government as BLM lands) is totally off limits, and even permits issued under Bush are cancelled and replaced with "research leases."

North Dakota, with no BLM lands, would never be directly affected by the Presidents pen, although the pipeline that leads from North Dakota to the Gulf refineries would, and has. In states near North Dakota, especially Wyoming, Iowa, South Dakota and Missouri, manufacturing jobs making the equipment for oil fracking are reasonably abundant, but the amount of equipment coming out of the facilities cannot keep up with demand. Investment to build new fracking equipment factories has been scarce, since with a Federal Government that seems out to get them, and Obama testing the limits of how much a President can do to hurt it, the future of such technology seems uncertain. Just what will Mister President manage to do next? The reality is that the growth of Americas oil industry in spite of Obama proves nothing except that the Presidents powers are, thankfully, limited.

Yet Mr. President has the supreme audacity to claim credit for the doubling in oil in a state he has less authority in, while reducing production by 40% on what he does have authority over and harming the infrastructure. Not directly of course, that would be too obvious, instead he quotes the oil output nationwide, where the progress in North Dakota and Texas outpaces everything else. Than he tells us he wants "all of the above."

A quick note to readers: If you want to know my sources, click on the gray text.

Foxes Gaurding the Hen House

I would like to begin by saying what I am not. I am not an anti-GMO nut, I am not an organics freak, I am not someone who irrationally hates technology, progress and industry. Far from it, I hate those who do. But for once in their sad, miserable lives, they actually have a point about something, and I am an engineer.

Regulation has been a crucial part of our industrial society since around 1900, maybe slightly before. Because of regulation, more soldiers in Iraq have NOT died from their rations then enemy fire, as happened in the Spanish American War. The conditions seen in "The Jungle" are now largely missing. People are living longer. Likewise, because of good Intellectual Property laws, America is the best place in the world to do high-tech and tech-sensitive business.

Even before now, Monsanto has, in various rulings and court cases such as Monsanto vs. Schmeiser, worn down our IP shield with such distasteful injustices as punishing a farmer for seed spreading on to his land by the wind. (Monsanto vs. Schmeiser.) Now, Obama, in his typical Chicago Politics fashion, has appointed a Monsanto man to head of the FDA.

As an engineer, I think GMO is a technology with tremendous potential to make new lands arable, make soil more usable, make pests less of a problem, lessen the load on irrigation systems, heal livestock diseases when used in feed, and even make food more nutritious. It may also help us understand, in its research use, the complex chemical interactions that make up nanotechnology and mechanics on the molecular level. However, none of this will happen if, in retaliation for GMO misused, the American public is forever turned against it. Monsanto wouldn't care - by then, they will have found more profitable sectors of commerce, just as before they were a chemical company. GMO doing well helps their competitors far more then it helps them.

Mr. President, you cannot let this irresponsible and dishonest company, with a known history of exploiting what little influence it has had, gain greater influence.

A much wiser idea, now that technology is, as it should be, accelerating, would be creating a corporate version of the RICO law to break up corporations with a known pattern of subterfuge of the democratic system. Monsanto could be broken up in to many smaller companies, each carrying the function of the larger firm with only the mildest of effects on the economy. The IP laws could be reset with additional legislative action, while the FDA could be seriously reformed to handle its responsibilities better. Mr. President, as a chosen representative of the Progressive movement, I ask you not to let one of its better accomplishments go to ruin. Mr. President, Monsanto Delinda Est.

Pipelines and Spoiled Brats

Obamas decision to reject the Keystone Pipeline was very disturbing in two ways: first, because it was precisely what was not needed right now here in America, and second because it shows our President to have no understanding what he is doing or why. At a time when the number one issue should be jobs, and the Keystone would not only provide these jobs in terms of construction and further development of the new oil shale fields that are Americas fastest growing industry right now, but also provide demand for manufactured goods like steel and foundry items from the suffering East and Midwest, our President, already facing a potentially difficult reelection, has decided that he will give up the last chance he has to make his reelection a cakewalk. If the economy booms, then none of the assorted clowns currently running for GOP candidate will even have a chance against him, but alas for Obama, this is one boat he has missed. His reason for this dismal choice for both himself and his country: the claims of some environmentalists.

Now the ball is in Canadas court. An alternate pipeline could run from the same locations in Alberta westward to a small, undeveloped port on an inlet 70 miles long called Kitimat in British Columbia. Not only would it carry oil to China, but it would also carry oil along the well developed Inside Passage seaway to the Puget Sound for refining at Anacortes, WA and the American market. But here, again, the Greens are not satisfied.

So why, precisely, are they not satisfied? The biggest reason they are not satisfied, though it is not the only reason, is because it will "delay the development of non-carbon energy sources." Now for environmentalists in America today, this means wind and solar. Wind is extremely unreliable, and solar is astronomically expensive. What's more, the fact that solar can operate off-grid gives it a natural niche market outside of the regular electric grid, so if it can't be successful with substantial government subsidies plus a niche market, then you know it really stinks. Wind, of course, is unreliable, and a smart grid that would make it more reliable by sharing power from different geographic points would also be so susceptible to electromagnetic storms from space as to naturally be completely destroyed and take months to rebuild every 8-10 years. The alternative proposition of battery farms would be outlandishly expensive and require constant maintenance. How precisely something that requires constant input of material resources can be "sustainable" is quite beyond me.

Another reason they're not satisfied is because extracting tar sands is energy intensive. This charge is true. However, extracting oil from shale by current methods is not energy intensive, and as shale drilling becomes more and more common (tar sands is slightly older technology) the less expensive energy cost will be a deciding factor in terms of switching away from tar sands production to shale production. Right now, the massive expansion of shale drilling, especially in North Dakota where unemployment is only 3.5% (and lower near Williston) as a result, has driven up the cost of purchasing equipment for shale drilling. This is a good thing in the long run as it means more capacity will be available in the future, but in the short run means that shale is unlikely to replace any existing production until this bottleneck is widened. In the long run, this capital cost will be gone and shale will replace tar sands, especially since just the (much smaller far southern tail) of the Bakken Formation in North Dakota contains at least 3.65 billion barrels of oil, and I suspect that this analysis by the USGS was understated partially by pressure from the Obama administration and paritally by laziness, or as the report puts it: "They also combined their findings with historical exploration and production analyses to determine the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil estimates." The first rule of engineering is if you want to be lazy, always understate your result so that nobody cares.

Then there is simply the old environmentalist hatred of economic development. This is somewhat connected to the very last concern of environmentalists to be listed here, but this really is where I begin doubting the character of environmentalists as people. The reality is that, far from being some Garden of Eden, the third world is a place where illegal loggers destroy rainforests, poachers with machine guns kill off endangered species, massive sprawling cities come up over night and coal plants put mercury and radiation in to the air by the bucket full. It is also a place where in Monrovia, Liberia, the people poop on the beach, allowing untreated human sewage to go straight in to an aquifer while also stinking up the air and despoiling a beautiful 5-mile strip of pristine sand. The problem with environmentalists is they expect the full regulatory ability of a first-world country without the society or, frankly, resources, that made it possible. In short, they are spoiled brats.

And that brings us to our final environmentalist objection: locality. I shall begin by discussing the Canadian pipeline, as it is simply their most egregious abuse. All throughout the internet and journalism, we find various environmentalists and journalists, who know nothing about how development takes place, put up pictures of this pristine, perfect wilderness of tremendous natural beauty (that is, for the record, almost completely contained in an archipelago of Canadian National Parks and Provincial Parks) that supposedly will be completely destroyed by the pipeline and economic development.

To put it bluntly, no it won't. People only think it will because they don't live there. If they did live there, they would know that mountains rise straight out of the sea on both sides of the Kitimat Inlet, making any kind of construction enormously expensive, and that Kitimat is at the eastern end of that inlet and the beginning of a long, and nowhere near as pristine or beautiful, flat typical river valley. It also is located SEVENTY MILES EAST of where most of the wilderness is. In fact, this is why the pipeline is sent so far north instead of simply going to Vancouver - to avoid those eternally annoying in the sense that only an engineer can understand mountains. They would also know that if there's one thing the coastline of British Columbia has an overabundance of, its beautiful, pristine, undeveloped coastline. There are no roads on the coast of British Columbia and Alaska running North-South from the Vancouver Suburbs to Anchorage, Alaska, a distance of 800 miles, the reason why the most common accidental death in Alaska is plane crashes. It also won't because these areas are already protected as parks, both at the provincial and Canadian federal level, and there are far too many flatter, more valuable, riverside pieces of real estate nearer to Kitimat and the pipeline for lobbying by the businesses to even be profitable to them. It is also true that with a tidal range near 20 feet, any oil spill would not last very long but be swept out to sea pretty fast. But environmentalists think their asinine, immature, irrational fears justify the shutting down of an entire part of the world in economic activity, when everything that even can be done to protect that wilderness already is.

The original locality makes somewhat more sense, but only somewhat, to protest. That of course is the lands through the plains that the original Keystone XL would've run through. Of course, unlike BC, there are plenty of roads in the Plains, and even more in Texas. Lots of 2-lane or 4-lane roads going passed corn fields, unused infrastructure, tiny cities and all. This is true. It is also true that the Great Plains aquifer is pretty big, though one could counter that being so big its really not that easy to substantially impurify, and what oil would do is certainly no worse then what farmlands already do with fertilizers and pesticides. Oil also has the advantage over farmlands with their pesticides and fertilizers that it is not generally to the advantage of oil companies for their pipelines to be constantly leaking. It has yet another advantage that increasing land prices may drive the farms with their pesticides and fertilizers out of business. Further, there is the little matter of refining at Wood River, Illinois and Steele, Nebraska, right over the aquifer and the Mississippi River, where oil leaks and all manner of chemical spills are much more likely to happen then at the pipeline, and where the final expansion to Houston and Port Arthur could've eventually replaced those refineries by economies of scale, in the middle of a swamp where bacteria and a chemical-recycling ecosystem already can handle most water purity issues.

Yet even here, the same picture of the environmentalist as a spoiled brat emerges - unshaking, unwilling to compromise, loud, sort of like a toddler. Instead of seeing that some development, even if not constrained by the great mountains of the Kitimat Inlet, is neccesary to finance and safeguard environmental protection, they would rather shout and scream and yell and let everything go to some third world country where no chance exists for proper controls or procedures to prevent what they want to prevent. The result is that for every ton of smog they prevent in Southern California, two tons come across the pacific blown by winds from China, and the prairie starves, and no one even really pays close attention to what they are saying or any way of making a reasonable solution to the problem. There answer is to criticize China, a country doing its best to get out of poverty, who has no special interest in listening to much of anyone who lives on this side of the Pacific. The result also is that eventually, as people become poorer and poorer, the toddler who cried wolf may really get eaten after all.

We'll all be sad that day, just like any parent would be, but it doesn't change the fact that it happened, and that the child is gone forever and not coming back. When you yourself feed on irrationality, don't be too surprised if you eventually get fed to it. Environmentalists with no respect for reason will not be given reasonable attention, and this will be a collective judgement, not an individual one, applied to all environmentalists everywhere, whether they were part of the problem or not. They will not be heard, nor will anyone else about our very real environmental problems.

The EPA versus Arlo Guthrie

It is well understood that pretty much all members of the Guthrie family of musicians are staunch liberals, but when listening to Alices Restaurant tonight, I realized that if Obama wanted to know what is wrong with his whole approach to things, he doesn't even have to talk to a conservative, he just has to talk to ole' Arlo Guthrie:

Now it all started two Thanksgivings ago, was on - two years ago on Thanksgiving,
when my friend and I went up to visit Alice at the restaurant, but Alice doesn't
live in the restaurant, she lives in the church nearby the restaurant, in the
bell-tower, with her husband Ray and Fasha the dog. And livin' in the bell tower
like that, they got a lot of room downstairs where the pews used to be in.  Havin'
all that room, seein' as how they took out all the pews, they decided that they
didn't have to take out their garbage for a long time.

We got up there, we found all the garbage in there, and we decided it'd be a
friendly gesture for us to take the garbage down to the city dump.  So we took the
half a ton of garbage, put it in the back of a red VW microbus, took shovels and
rakes and implements of destruction and headed on toward the city dump.

Well we got there and there was a big sign and a chain across across the dump saying,
"Closed on Thanksgiving."  And we had never heard of a dump closed on Thanksgiving
before, and with tears in our eyes we drove off into the sunset looking for another
place to put the garbage.

Here you have it, a small naive (and the narrator of Alices Restaurant is VERY naive) gesture of friendship on Thanksgiving, and because no one can be at the dump guarding it, the dump is closed.

We didn't find one. Until we came to a side road, and off the side of the side road
there was another fifteen foot cliff and at the bottom of the cliff there was another
pile of garbage. And we decided that one big pile is better than two little piles, and
rather than bring that one up we decided to throw our's down.  That's what we did, and
drove back to the church, had a thanksgiving dinner that couldn't be beat, went to sleep
and didn't get up until the next morning, when we got a phone call from officer Obie.
He said, "Kid, we found your name on an envelope at the bottom of a half a ton of garbage,
and just wanted to know if you had any information about it." And I said, "Yes, sir,
Officer Obie, I cannot tell a lie, I put that envelope under that garbage."

Not finding any available bureaucracy, they use their common sense outside of the bureaucracy, and do something that seems reasonable. The officer, never available to help them sort this out at the beginning of the story, is now suddenly very very available to sort them out.

After speaking to Obie for about fourty-five minutes on the telephone we
finally arrived at the truth of the matter and said that we had to go down
and pick up the garbage, and also had to go down and speak to him at the
police officer's station.  So we got in the red VW microbus with the
shovels and rakes and implements of destruction and headed on toward the
police officer's station.

He's available for fourty-five minutes to talk about the "consequences," after the fact, and schedules an appointment to see them in person, having never been available to prevent the problem to begin with. Why? Because it was Thanksgiving, and he's entitled to not talk on Thanksgiving.

Now friends, there was only one or two things that Obie coulda done at
the police station, and the first was he could have given us a medal for
being so brave and honest on the telephone, which wasn't very likely, and
we didn't expect it, and the other thing was he could have bawled us out
and told us never to be see driving garbage around the vicinity again,
which is what we expected, but when we got to the police officer's station
there was a third possibility that we hadn't even counted upon, and we was
both immediately arrested.  Handcuffed.  And I said "Obie, I don't think I
can pick up the garbage with these handcuffs on."  He said, "Shut up, kid.
Get in the back of the patrol car."

And that's what we did, sat in the back of the patrol car and drove to the
quote Scene of the Crime unquote. I want tell you about the town of
Stockbridge, Massachusets, where this happened here, they got three stop signs,
two police officers, and one police car, but when we got to the Scene of the
Crime there was five police officers and three police cars, being the biggest
crime of the last fifty years, and everybody wanted to get in the newspaper
story about it. And they was using up all kinds of cop equipment that they had
hanging around the police officer's station. They was taking plaster tire tracks,
foot prints, dog smelling prints, and they took twenty seven eight-by-ten colour
glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one
explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.  Took pictures of
the approach, the getaway, the northwest corner the southwest corner and that's not
to mention the aerial photography.

After the ordeal, we went back to the jail.  Obie said he was going to put us in the
cell.  Said, "Kid, I'm going to put you in the cell, I want your wallet and your belt."

Not only has "Officer Obie" encouraged them to, in the future, lie and cheat when he should've known that without their "kindness" he could have not done his "job", instead of simply giving them a good yelling and telling them to pick it all up, he has to make a scene, bring in all the police cars and airplanes and special teams, do massive investigative work wholly unnecessary to the situation at taxpayer expense, and then, when finished, throw them in jail as a reward for their original honesty and with no seemingly good reason.

And I said, "Obie, I can understand you wanting my
wallet so I don't have any money to spend in the cell, but what do you
want my belt for?"  And he said, "Kid, we don't want any hangings."  I
said, "Obie, did you think I was going to hang myself for littering?"
Obie said he was making sure, and friends Obie was, cause he took out the
toilet seat so I couldn't hit myself over the head and drown, and he took
out the toilet paper so I couldn't bend the bars roll out the - roll the
toilet paper out the window, slide down the roll and have an escape.

Undertaking more rash and unneeded steps, and adding additional uncomfort to the individuals life, for no apparent reason except the "Precautionary Principle," better known as cowardice.

Obie was making sure, and it was about four or five hours later that Alice (remember
Alice? It's a song about Alice), Alice came by and with a few nasty words to Obie on
the side, bailed us out of jail, and we went back to the church, had a another
thanksgiving dinner that couldn't be beat, and didn't get up until the next morning,
when we all had to go to court.

After all these herculean efforts and expenditures, for a long time in jail, the fellows are bailed out.

We walked in, sat down, Obie came in with the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy
pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, sat down.  Man
came in said, "All rise."  We all stood up, and Obie stood up with the twenty seven
eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures, and the judge walked in sat down with a seeing eye
dog, and he sat down, we sat down. Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the
twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph
on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog. And then at twenty seven
eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of
each one and began to cry, 'cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case
of American blind justice, and there wasn't nothing he could do about it, and the judge
wasn't going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with the
circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to
be used as evidence against us.  And we was fined $50 and had to pick up the garbage in the
snow, but thats not what I came to tell you about.

Having gone to all this trouble to stack the deck against these young lads for his own personal benefit, his mechanations and manipulations fall apart against a single loose cog in the plan - a blind judge who will not be condescended in to sentencing by fancy pictures and paragraphs, quite a metaphor for our current Academic elites and their tendency to use "settled science" (LOL!) to rule anyone who disagrees with them unfit to speak. Thankfully, the judge can't see, much as the American Redneck was never overtaught to overrespect these dishonest manipulations and crass overreaches. "Blind Justice" indeed. In many ways voters are, when you get right down to it, a judge of elected officials.

They got a building down New York City, it's called Whitehall Street, where you walk in, you get injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and selected.  I went down to get my physical examination one day, and I walked in, I sat down, got good and drunk the night before, so I looked and felt my best when I went in that morning.  `Cause I wanted to look like the all-American kid from New York City, man I wanted, I wanted to feel like the all-, I wanted to be the all American kid from New York, and I walked in, sat down, I was hung down, brung down, hung up, and all kinds o' mean nasty ugly things. And I waked in and sat down and they gave me a piece of paper, said, "Kid, see the phsychiatrist, room 604."

Not caring one bit what they put people through or the pride or dignity of anyone, government agencies poke and prod and inspect, and says "yea or nay" without any regard to the humanity or sensible value of what they're looking at. They have their quota, and if it kills them, or anyone else, they'll fill it.

And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill.  I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill.  Kill.  I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth.  Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL."  And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL."  And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy."

Didn't feel too good about it.

Although his job is to be a Psychiatrist, the shrink at Whitehall Street suspends his duty when he hears what he wants to hear, that being far more important then actually carrying out his job, much like Green Energy and Mass Transit engineers who apply standards and bigotries that would never consider outside of these sectors when analyzing the plans of the environmental left, selling out their professional integrity for the sake of an ideological warpath.

Proceeded on down the hall gettin more injections, inspections, detections, neglections and all kinds of stuff that they was doin' to me at the thing there, and I was there for two hours, three hours, four hours, I was there for a long time going through all kinds of mean nasty ugly things and I was just having a tough time there, and they was inspecting, injecting every single part of me, and they was leaving no part untouched.  Proceeded through, and when I finally came to the see the last man, I walked in, walked in sat down after a whole big thing there, and I walked up and said, "What do you want?"  He said, "Kid, we only got one question. Have you ever been arrested?"

Finally, after having jumped through all the hoops, a single malfeasance is found, a single problem or trouble in something that otherwise fits, much like the Cape Wind project in Massacheuttsets. From the link: "The decision signals further delays for the $2.6 billion project, which was under review for about a decade and which has struggled to find financing."

And I proceeded to tell him the story of the Alice's Restaurant Massacre, with full orchestration and five part harmony and stuff like that and all the phenome... - and he stopped me right there and said, "Kid, did you ever go to court?"  And I proceeded to tell him the story of the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and the paragraph on the back of each one, and he stopped me right there and said, "Kid, I want you to go and sit down on that bench that says Group W .... NOW kid!!"

A couple bad answers and the kid finds himself a virtual pariah, all for the minorest and most senseless of violations.

And I, I walked over to the, to the bench there, and there is, Group W's where they put you if you may not be moral enough to join the army after committing your special crime, and there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly looking people on the bench there.  Mother rapers.  Father stabbers.  Father rapers!  Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me!  And they was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys sitting on the bench next to me.

Having given a bad answer, the organization, or individual, finds itself in a category that it does not fit, associating with those far worse then it is.

"Kids, this-piece-of-paper's-got-47-words-37-sentences-58-words-we-wanna- know-details-of-the-crime-time-of-the-crime-and-any-other-kind-of-thing- you-gotta-say-pertaining-to-and-about-the-crime-I-want-to-know-arresting- officer's-name-and-any-other-kind-of-thing-you-gotta-say", and talked for forty-five minutes and nobody understood a word that he said, but we had fun filling out the forms and playing with the pencils on the bench there, and I filled out the massacre with the four part harmony, and wrote it down there

Doesn't this sound a whole lot like the Healthcare Bill, you know, the one we have to "pass to find out what's in it?" (Madame Pelosi) And then, finally, of all great and horrible humiliations and slanders and acts of true hypocrisy:

("KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED YOURSELF?")

They have the gall to ask have we fixed ourselves, when they were the problem all along, when they have no right to judge, when they have done far worse things to this country then refusing to buy health insurance or keeping the lights on too long. But it's all us, it's never their fault, they're above being at fault, above the law, above manners and procedures, above morality.

Mike Castle and how to win as a Republican in a rural Yankee state

Downtown Dover, Delaware, Photo by Tim Keiser, under license c.c.a.s.a 2.0 generic

His list of priorities, as listed on his website, are as follows: "Fighting for Delaware", "Jobs", "Energy Independence", "Good Governance", "Education", "Supporting Our Troops", and "Healthcare", in that order and stated in that fashion with bullet points, and lengthy, folksy, passionate discourses below. His opponents are not listed in any particular order, but instead can be selected from a drop down menu, and include "Economy", "Education", "Energy", "Environment", "Financial Reform", "Health Care", "National Security," and finally, "Offshore Oil Drilling", which last time I checked is not a major revenue source for the state of Delaware - stated profesionally, technically, scholastically, transactionally, and without any reference to the state he seeks to represent.

Now, to be fair, this is not displayed on a separate page, but directly on a menu on home, and if you click the "issues" button up top instead of viewing the drop down menu (which you will see first), it goes to a page with little boxes surrounding each issue and stereotypical pictures of what people would think of when they consider that issue, but in no picture is Delaware clearly seen, and your eyes go all over the page, and every time that the words "Delaware" or "Delawarean" are used, they are in small print, below the more important "Energy", "Economy" and "Education"s that are many times their size. The picture of Coons, gazing seriously with the eyes of a hawk, could just as easily be used in a newspaper advertisement for a law firm.

For some time now, Harry Reid has been asking local Democrat senators, such as Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Ben Nelson (D-NE), to forsake whatever their constituencies might want for the sake of passing progressive national legislation. When they ask about their own voters, he offers earmarks, and money, to essentially bribe whatever constituency he feels needs to be pulled along. [Source] He points to the use of Republican filibusters as a common enemy, and whips all of them together to march lock step lock step in favor of the agenda that the party as a whole has advanced. Coons mentions Delaware only as a part of the larger whole, like: "Delawareans, as well as the entire country, have felt the effects of the current economic climate." Ad libs off of that phrase could capture the entirety of both Coons', Reids and Pelosis platform.

Like Andrew Jackson before him with his decision to evict a peaceful and economically successful native people, the Cherokees, from the state of Georgia without Georgias consent, Coon sees not 50 individual states, but a larger agenda that he (hopefully) sees Delaware benefiting from, but never the main focus of. Castle has not once taken his eyes off of Delaware, and you can see his very website swelling with state pride.

A full profile of the election from the NY Times seems to show very little optimism on the part of democrats in Delaware, with the appointed replacement to Biden not seeking a full term, nor Bidens relatively popular Attorney General of a son, and RCP shows Castle ahead of Coons by double digits. Castle has been Delawares sole house member for 17 years, and is a moderate Republican used to routinely working with Democrats. More importantly, I suspect, is that he is a true Delawarean, while Coons is the executive of Delawares largest, northernmost and urbane county, essentially an extension of Philadelphia, with nothing in common with the remainder of the state, and no real care for it. The democrats, like Pelosi and like Coons, have lost themselves in the dream, and this will hurt them among rural northeastern townspeople, who clearly believe in representatives representing.

The Gospel of Joseph Stalin, Episode 3: Parable of the Talented Manipulators

Secretary General and Loving Father Stalin, who only sends those who really need it to Siberia to be worked to death. Photo taken by CCCP, public domain for all good comrades. Here

"The federal system is like a slightly violent and paranoid man who travelled to a far away arab nation in need of asskicking, leaving all his various powers to take your money to three servants, assigning it based upon their ability, with the instruction to generate more.

"To Obama he left 10 special interest groups,

"To Reidosi he left 5 special interest groups,

"To Bush, he left only one, the Christian Right.

"Obama came up with 10 more special interest groups, Pelosi used her 5 to get 5 more, but Bush took his and refused to look in to television cameras.

"When the federal system came back, he saw that Obama had generated so much special interest and said, 'Well done my faithful servant, I'm giving you the White House.'

"When he saw how much Reidosi had interested, he said, 'Well done my faithful servant, I'm giving you the Congress.'

"But Bush came to him and said, 'I was afraid, for I knew you were a hard man who reap where other people sow, thus I buried my speical interest group in the ground. Here, take what is yours!'

"But he said, "So you knew I was a hard man who reaps where other people sow! Therefore, you should've used the IRS to pay for other peoples earmarks!"

"'But I did do that!'

"'No you didn't damn it! Everyone loves earmarks!'

"'I honestly did do that! Haven't you talked the budget office lately? Look at how high the debt is! Aren't you proud of me?'

"'NO! I'm never proud of failures! And besides, what kind of idiot uses OTHER PEOPLES interest groups to advance himself?'

"And then they took the worthless servant, and cut him in two, and there was much rejoicing.

"Assuredly, I say unto you, whoever has much in this year will have much in the election to come, and to him who has little, even what he has will be taken away!"

The Gospel of Joseph Stalin, Episode 1: Lazarus and Obama

Secretary General and Loving Father Stalin, who only sends those who really need it to Siberia to be worked to death. Photo taken by CCCP, public domain for all good comrades. Here

"There was once a very succesful politician who feasted sumptuously on the contributions of political lobbyists everyday. Outside his door was a politically hated Leper named the Republican Party. The Leper was very sick, and had nothing to eat in years since he was deemed unclean by the entire population of the world 4 years ago.

"Everyday he waited outside of the succesful politicians doors, asking only for the scraps given to the Europeans and Iranians. Worse, the Europeans and Iranians, after eating said scraps, licked his sores and called him a nitwit. Later that year, he caught a terrible case of Teaitis, and passed away. Teaitis is contagious, and so the succesful politician caught it too, along with a bunch of Illegal Immigrants in Arizona, and was laid to rest in a healthcare plan.

"The Leper was carried to the bosom of Sarah Palin, to a supremely comfortable midterm election with lots of lobbyists to provide them with everything they want, even Learjets! Meanwhile, the succesful poltician was burned over and over again in Political Hell by his own Death Panels. He cried out "Mother Palin, have mercy on me! Come send the Lazarus person with a large batch of Earl Grey to put out these flames all over me and make me think I still have Arugula money!"

"But Mother Palin replied, "Son, you had nothing but good things a couple Novembers ago, while he had nothing but bad, but beyond that, we would love to help you Dem man, but a great Gulf of Mexico has been fixed between us, so that anyone who goes there is considered an asshole, and anyone who comes here is considered a paranoid freak who most assuredly is far too paranoid and radical to do anything irresponsible with free money, I mean, campaign funds."

A Very Special Conversation

Image by Andrew Braithwaite, license cca 2.0 generic

This is a conversation I've been tracking from the Politico community and one other source:

Obama [1]: "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the fainthearted -- for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom."

Then Dodd talks about his "long, rugged path":

Senator Dodd [2]: "My patience is running out, I’ve extended the hand. I’ve written provisions in this bill to accommodate various interests. But I’m not going to continue doing this if all I’m getting the other side is a suggestion somehow that this is a partisan effort." (para. 2)

[They are spreading] "outright falsehoods” [which are] “now being repeated by people who should know better and frankly do know better." (para. 3 end)


Then these comments come flying at Dodd, and at the commenters:

Commenter 1: "Democrats...THE PARTY OF NO." [3]

Commenter 2: "Why not cut them out of the loop entirely on all issues? Their stated intransigence is equalled only by their political ignorance in condemning themselves to a long spell of superminority irrelevance."

Commenter 3: "The American people are sick and tired of the GOP's refusal to GET TO WORK."

Commenter 4: "Dodd is both a crook, and in charge of this bill."

Commenter 5: "D-day (roasted rats) is coming at a poll near you 11/7 !"

Commenter 6: "The Republican Party is not interested in governing unless it calls the shots."

Commenter 7: "How can anyone take the GOP seriously when all they're doing is trying to block reform be rehashing the same stale GOP talking points they used with health care?"

Commenter 8: "SORRY, THE PARTY OF NO LABEL BELONGS TO REPUBLICANS SOLELY!

NO TO AMERICANS BENEFITS

NO TO HEALTH CARE REFORM

NO TO BANKING REFORM"

//Caps make the world a better place.>>

Commenter 9: "REALITY BE DAMNED!"

Commenter 10: "These people aren't interested in facts, WWE. They lie, even to themselves. To recognize what Republicans are doing woudl be, for the Republican minions, the same as recognizing their own gullibility and stupidity. They MUST ignore the facts. If they didn't, they'd lose whatever little self-esttem they have left after lifetimes of being left behind and walked over and ignored because they are too stupid to understand the world."

Okay, this isn't the entire discussion, but you get the idea.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:

Feel free to question the use of any source or context of any quote from source:

[1] Obama Inaugural Speech, paragraphs 7-9, source: CNN.com; http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/20/obama.politics/index.html

[2] Carrie Burdoff Brown, "Chris Dodd threatens to cut GOP out of financial reform talks," http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35800.html, 4/14/2010

[3] Message board for [2], http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35800.html#commentsform, first 20 comments

Who cares?

White House Photo of Bush 43 courtesy of EO-POTUS, public domain

I won't be posting much for a little while, as a major round of exams at GT just came in to study for, but before I head off to glory I wanted to post about something I've noticed in political discussion lately.

A lot of democrats, including at least one commenter on this site, continue to obsess about what Bush 43 did and how it screwed over America. My response is simple: "No one cares!" Bush doesn't have power anymore.

Regardless of who started the fire, there are people out there who believe Obama is pouring gasoline on the flames. I'm not going to say whether he is or he isn't - I'll leave that for you to decide - but what's happened with Bush is over and honestly, it is quite intelligent of the American people to disregard such quibbling in their reasoning. It doesn't matter how bad things were when Obama got them, everyone is asking, is Obama making them better?

Not everyone will answer yes.

Why didn't Boris get it?

Image Courtesy of Executive Office of the President of the United States, Public domain, accessed from Wikimedia Commons

To take one last jab at the end of the Nobel Prize hanogver, I would like to suggest that the next Nobel Peace Prize go to Boris Yeltsin. He should've won it this year. After the fall of the USSR, amidst domestic terrorism, missile threats, a hurt national pride, a collapsed economy, and a nuclear security crisis that shook the spirit of the world to its core, he kept the ship sailing smooth. He even handled himself coolly and effectively when, in 1994, a Norwegian meterological research team stupidly made their weather rocket from Spitzbergen appear on radar in the likeness of an American ICBM headed towards Moscow.

Unfortunately, Yeltsin died 2 years ago, so he would not be alive to accept the prize. It is sad that he was not honored in his lifetime.

Many nations split off from Russia after the fall of the USSR, taking their own political and economic trajectories and sometimes, a little government assets from Mother Russia. Two of these, the Ukraine and Kazakhstan, took with them a part of the USSR's nuclear arsenal. It took years to disarm them. Several others were involved in civil wars, and monstorous levels of inflation.

Yeltsin created the CIS, or Commonwealth of Independent States, to give Russia a remaining feel of empire, and give the new countries a forum to unite for military protection, negotiate trade conditions, coordinate nuclear security and counterterrorism, and allow states like Kazakstan and Kyrgyzstan with important former Soviet government functions to continue their business for Russia, keeping employment in the country and saving Russia from having to build new facilities. Also allowing all millitary forces common training facilities, so that all of them may be measurable millitary powers beyond their size and prosperity. He kept these nations stable, kept his own nation stable, and prevented at least one possible horrifying nuclear action in 1994.

Some people criticize Boris for the instability in Russia's economy, but Russia's economy was ruined long before Boris took the helm and decades of Communist abuse would not be healed overnight. Although I'm no expert on Russia's economy, I do know that Boris did raise hell in the Aluminum markets, bringing home massive profits, exports and employment for Soviet military related aluminum plants at the expense of virtually every developed country with cheap electric power.

Barrack Obama does not live up to names like Theodore Roosevelt, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr in ANY aspect of his sacrifices, efforts, or results achieved. Maybe he will someday, but he has not yet. I don't know about sacrifices, but in terms of results, Boris certainly lives up to them.

But then again, we were too late anyways. Rest in peace Boris. How I regret that no one was there to give you the recognition that you deserve.

The Flaw of Small Ambitions - Obama and Afghanistan

"“I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way—you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration. Until I’m satisfied that we’ve got the right strategy I’m not gonna be sending some young man or woman over there—beyond what we already have.” -President Obama

Sounding reasonable and being reasonable are not the same thing. The problem with this approach to any ambition, but especially a war, is that when your aims are so small and "pragmatic" that they excite no one, you will inspire no loyalty, no commitment, and no resolve. When you can't even give an Afghani the time of day, how can you possibly expect them to support you, possibly to their death? These people have to make life and death decisions; if they side with us, and we ditch on them, they may be killed by the other side. If they don't side with us, and we stay, we may kill them. It's a stark reality, and one that must be remembered and honored. If they cannot trust us to keep our word, Mr. President, and have a little bit of honor, we will be sending many more young men and women to die in many other places because we will find help from no one in Afghanistan. We may even, considering Afghanistan's location, face a world war. Worse, we tarnish our good name, and people remember that. And no, regardless of an "illegitimate war" (whatever that means,) if we stay by the side of those we promised to stay by the side of, yes, people can trust us to keep our word, even if they don't like what we're saying.

Joe Biden made it very clear, according to the Economist, that he favors a "bomb stuff" approach to Afghanistan.

From Dr. Strangelove, redherrings.wordpress.com, Fair Use (Non-profit only)

We will fly around in little drones with rockets smiting whatever we like. In Iraq, we tried a strategy very much like that from 2003 to 2006. We also tried this strategy in Vietnam, a few decades before. Neither time did it turn out any better. In both places, violence got worst, and for every enemy we killed, 2 more were creted to take his place. In Iraq, only the courage and sheer stubborn gall of our president prevented us from ending the war the same way we did in Vietnam, increasing the risk of nuclear holocaust with the Soviets seven fold and wasting every ounce of blood spilled in that jungle.

In Iraq, after 2006, a massive millitary surge took place, but so did something else. A clever, educated, creative young general, General Petreaus, who is as far from the millitary stereotype as could ever be imagined thought up his own method for fighting the insurgents. Before him, a young Colonel with a very softspoken, passive, nonviolent attitude whose name I sadly cannot remember had gathered together a series of Sunni Chiefs in Anbar Province, pointing out to them that Al Qaida was, in fact, a threat to their authority. He won their trust so well that over night, they not only stopped fighting the Coalition, but fought for it. This, among other things, freed up forces and resources for other regions. It also demonstrated an attitude of cooperation that neither the Millitary before the Surge nor Biden after it appear to understand.

See, we are winning in Iraq not because we did such a wonderful job with firepower. We are winning in Iraq because we finally appealed to the people. This is something that both Rumsfeld and Bush spoke of as early as 2003, but did not actually accomplish until after the surge.

General Stanley McChrysthal, photo taken by Scott Davis, Civil Service, public domain

General Stanley McChrystal, commander of Afghanistan, summed it up perfectly on 60 minutes today: "If the people are against us, we cannot be successful. If the people view us as occupiers and the enemy, we can't be successful and our casualties will go up dramatically."No matter how well you do with high-tech gizmos, millitary maneuvering, and plain old riflemanship, if your objective, here the people, won't cooperate, you will lose every time. And here, losing means Afghanistan descending in to chaos and continuing to be a threat to the United States, emboldening Al Qaida and the Taliban, and destabilizing a region with 4, soon 5, nuclear armed nations in it (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and soon, Iran).

Idealism may be costly, and ambition may be a terrifying dragon when looked at head-on, but if you put none together, and stand for nothing, you will achieve nothing, including the bare basics of what you need. If we destroy our own nations mission, no one is going to care if we live or die. We may not even care, at the individual level. Iraq was won not because we had the best weapons or the best people, but because we actually gave them a way forward, a way out of the darkness as a people. If we refuse to do the same in Afghanistan, then every civilian we kill, every bomb we drop, every life we end and destruction of property that can be accredited to us will inspire yet more hatred, yet more animosity towards truly needless violence. When we give them a way forward, they can accept, they can forgive, and they themselves can make sacrifices for their country, for you can have no law if no sacrifices for your own country can be made.

Lehman Brothers Burns in Hell

In honor of the mighty fall of a mighty bank, almost exactly (less one day) a year ago. Dedicated to the way the very fabric of our society has been torn to tatters by these and similar rogue companies. And dedicated to all those who have suffered or will suffer as a result of this tragedy of human hubris and pain intolerance.

Image Courtesy of David Shankbone, cc SA 3.0 & GNU 1.2 Licenses under condition of attributing the artist and share alike.

I read an article in the NYT the other day about how Lehman Brothers had to die for the financial sector to live. The crux of the argument is that without Lehman there would've been no federal bailout. This is certainly true. But, did the federal bailout really help us in the end?

Not long after the federal bailout was authorized, AIG gave huge bonuses to their executives. They apparently did this with the full-hearted agreement of certain not-to-be-named Obama cabinet members (okay, it was the Treasury Secretary), and mystified many, who saw this as rewarding the very people who started the crisis. The companies, under intense pressure from the President, underwent the supremely hypocritical and politically caniving action of demanding that the executives give the bonuses back (?) as if they have the right to ask such a thing when it was the company's own sleaziness that distributed the bonuses to begin with. Notice any trends? Perhaps a little systematic incompetence and corruption? A particular AIG exec, Jack DeSantis, wrote a rather impassioned letter pointing out the supreme level of hypocrisy and irresponsibillity involved in such a transfer of blame, especially when his sector of the company was one of the few strong points, and was derided at by a hyperbolically riduclous American public who could not see beyond the size of his bonus. Which brings us to our next point.

What was the very intention of the bank bail-out? What was the point? What's the big idea? Well, Obama said they were "too big to fail" and that rather then letting nature take it's course on these corrupt, tyrannical, unclean, and generally absurd willfully sinning banks, we should come in and save them, both financially, and from themselves.

And here's the big dilemma: if we don't do interfere in their affairs, the natural corruption and self-congratulating nature of these banks up way past their bedtime will cause this to happen AGAIN. And if we do interfere, these mediocre, socialistically controlled banks will stifle all competition and innovation in the financial sector by way of their immense government investments and protections, removing one entire potential for American growth, stunting the development of financial cities like NYC, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago and Dallas, and making us completely dependent upon London & Frankfurt for the financial side of our growth. In particular, we can kiss the supremacy of the Dollar goodbye - now it'll be the Euro that's the world's chief currency! Just like rent controls pushing the development out of historic Manhattan to the edges, this bailout will, by way of similar controls, push financial innovation and new markets to other continents.

If we had let these banks fail, there would've been no liquidity in our economy and the price of taking a loan or converting assets would shoot through the roof. Ah, but here's the good news: the high price of loans and low price of assets would create a massive incentive, a veritable gold rush, on the part of private investors to build their own banks. It would also stimulate small business, as new companies could still acquire financing (and through it cheap assets) through selling their original stock on the NASDAQ. Just like how San Francisco, within two years of it's great 1908 earthquake, had rebuilt the city completely (though rents did briefly shoot through to three times their original price), our financial sectors own immense price gouging would rebuild Manhattan, both literally and figuratively, and in the end create a more stable, meritocratic, compartmentalized, dynamic, innovative, and small-business geared economy.

New banks, new financial centers, new small business, new great cities, and new organizations that no longer work on the handshake, wink wink, nudge nudge system. That would be America's financial future. But not now - now that Banks are too big to fail, the market is too crowded to succeed! We've got ourselves a corporate traffic jam, and all 12 lanes on this freeway are packed with old clunker cars that are twenty-feet long, weight 100 tons, and crash every five feet, so prepare for a slowdown and eventually being overtaken by Europeans riding horses.

Maybe part of the problem is we don't appreciate Hell enough. Don't get me wrong, Heaven's great, but sometimes you just need a trashcan or a cattleprod, and hell serves both these. Fear can be quite stimulating, and sometimes things just reach their condemnation. Like Pharoah in Exodus, they run out of chances, their heart is too hard, their actions too geared along the track of evil, destruction is the only place they can go, and if we do not put away "the evil from among us," it will corrupt the hearts of us all who are left and put us in a position where we can't be righteous even if we want to (like Jack De Santis). I was thankful to see this happen with Lehman's, and regret that more unrepentant sinners did not find their demise. Even worse, by not punishing or threatening in any credible way bad behavior, those who have already begun to take this road will never fork off of it, but take it straight to it's scarlet conclusion, destruction, for them or all.

It is obvious that the NYT wants to make Lehman Brothers Christ, but these, these banks, they be willful sinners, the unrepentant kind, the rebels without a cause, the apostates. We should've sent these guys to HELL!!!!

Courtesy of The Immaculate Heart, image shown by Our Lady of Fatima in 1917

Teaching Cowardice - The Gruesome Morality of ObamaCare

I had a suicidal thought today. As I lay waiting in the 16th floor lobby of a G-I specialty institute at Emory Atlanta, I looked out the window, saw the great height, and for a moment, longed to run and jump to my death. I cringed at horror at the vileness of my own mind, and in reflection, I realized why.

I've always considered myself a tough, strong person. I've always considered myself a survivor, a child of the frontier and the high north, an adventurer. And on a level I am. But there is something about a condition that had troubled your life for as long as my ulcer that was supposed to go away 2 months ago and now you face the possibility of a much grimmer prognosis. There is something that destroys your very image of yourself, cuts your own roots, salts your own soil, makes you shrivel before the threat in front of you and takes away even those whose faces should be in front of you.

But I withheld myself. I remembered my God, and his will, and certain prophecies I had inherited, and I knew it was not my time, nor would my God ever let me die that way but either through the process of nature, or natural consequences, or the dignity of good martyrdom. I withheld myself and held strong in my seat. And it's good I did, and God was righteous to avise me beyond and teach me once again who I was, a strong young man in his hands, a reasonably okay servant, but still a servant nonetheless, and beyond that, someone who had, one way or another, touched the lives of many people, and would defile the affections and loyalties of many if I were to take my own life. See, I am a human being, a real living person, who has friends, relatives, classmates, churchmates, a cluster of loving people all around me. I don't appreciate them enough, not nearly enough, if I had this horrid thought would've never come to my mind, but God was there for me, even as I was alone there, and pulled me through it through his righteousness and justice.

I also realized that, if I had betrayed God like that, I would not just receive Hell, I would deserve it.

But there are some who would want me to jump. There are some who are worried about cost, and see me as a number, an expense, not a familiar face or a friend or a family member. There are some who, for the sake of the economy, want me to give up.

Of course, then again, this is too narrow of a view, because in general (healthcare cost being, perhaps, the only exception) all sectors of the economy do better with people who don't give up but have iron resolve. Adventurers. Conquerors. Goldminers. Frontiersmen. These are the people who built cities, and, to a point, still build them. Those outcasts who parouse the streets in their cockeyed hats with a stint in their step, a smirk on their face and a dream in their eyes, the people who don't fit all the "roles" that society has for them but forge their own trail. You know, the guys (and Annie Oakleys) who can face the freezing cold and through their own innate toughness, stubbornness and everything not societyness, make it back to camp with their own honor and life in their hand, and can head 1500 miles west from home against the better advice from all their friends and build the Golden State.

But back to the point. So I didn't give up, and my friends couldn't be happier. So what about this VA Death Book we keep on hearing about? I know many consider it to be encouraging the self-destruction of the weak and disabled -how very Spartan- and I will say, while in general the pamphlet does aim to be non-partisan and balanced (maybe,) there are some suggestions in it (like requesting to not be revived with CPR, which causes no harm and has no cost later on) that seem odd and out of place and a few lines of logic (like "Even if you are conscious, you will not be able to talk very well or at all."(35) Ever heard of writing and typing? Worked well for Steven Hawking all these years!) that are just plain stupid and perhaps even manipulative. Perhaps "If you have a terminal illness, a mechanical ventilator will only prolong dying." (35) is the most cynical line of all. How about "prolong living"!

While there is no single quote that you can point to in this book and say "this advocates giving up," the basic attitude of anybody finding simply having to write instead of talk reason to give up wanting to live another few weeks is disgusting. Further, as any good English student knows, putting this phrase, "even if they might not have wanted it" (34), after a comma is an element of irony, telling the reader that this is not a good situation rather then letting him decide for himself. In fact, really, it's not aiming to be non-partisan and balanced, it's aiming to look non-partisan and balanced while, discreetly and quietly, handing them something completely different under the table, "even if they might not have wanted it." (34)

Making Keynesianism Work

The Hoover Dam, whose hydrolectric power arguably built Southern California and whose Irrigation makes fruitful much of the Southwest.

Source: National Parks Service and NARA, public domain.

DC Beltway, courtesy of Wikimedia user Jumpy, public domain.

Perfect example of a worthy, but expensive, Keynesian type construction project.

Obama's "Keynesian" stimulus has been a failure. To see exactly how much of a failure, let us just consider Obama's own statement that "there will be no easy fix" from a few months ago. Keynesian stimulus, is, by it's very definition, an easy fix. It is about "stimluating" the sagging demand instantaneously to put the economy back on level. If long-term is what we were concerned about, we'd have nothing to be concerned about, as currency movements and demand changes, like those we saw last year, cannot destroy the economy permaneantly as prices do (slowly) adjust. Thus, the goal was not met.

When you also consider the cost to the "businesses" we were trying to save through this stimulus, the picture is even bleaker, as they will end up paying nearly every cent towards the debt that was used to give them this "easy fix," and to no positive result. Still, it is not entirely Obama's fault, but the fault of a legislative system whose lengthy regulatory structure and impossible land purchasing requirements do not currently make Keynesian stimulus very hard.

When Eisenhower was facing a severe recession in 1952, he built the Interstate Freeway from city to city to clarify routes, shorten travel, increase capacity and further the city radius of all of America's metropoli. Though the bill was large (trillions in todays dollars,) the vast improvements to every kind of productivity and prosperity paid for the freeway many times over. In between the increased spending relieving the death pressure of America's industrialists and the promise of future returns that these larger cities promised for those same businesses and others, this stimulus worked. Of course, Eisenhower was both extremely popular and extremely capable at arm-wrestling what he wanted out of congress and pretty much anyone else, which is part of why this worked. Also part of how he got schools desegregated.

Similarly, in the 30's Hitler brought Germany out of its depression using the Audobohn and millitary and industrial economic stimulus. Of course, Hitler was a dictator. And FDR provided some relief (though not quite as effective) with his many WPA projects, including the triborough bridge in NYC and the very last subway tunnels to be built in New York, and the hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest, Southwest and Tennessee River areas. Of course, FDR made himself a dictator.

One of the common themes of all these projects is that they promised future returns on the investment today to back the current consumption. Otherwise, business sees that, while they have more customers today, they are the skeleton on the banquet table, as tomorrow they will be taxed in full the bill for their prosperity today. What is there response? Well, continue operating today, and plan to shut down (partially or completely) before tomorrow. Or at the very least don't expand production. Best of both worlds and one of the easiest, cheapest shrewd maneuvers anyone can pull off. This previous article discusses the flaws in greater detail.

Only trouble is, we couldn't build effective projects as the planning would take too long and the regulatory and buying process too complex for the money to be spent when it is needed. As a result, we had to build "shovel ready" bridges to cheap easy to buy wilderness. This is a very common problem, a predictable problem, and one that can be easily solved ahead of time, but only ahead of time.

See, you make a list, a list of all the various projects that should be built in the near future but are too expensive to be built when times are good, like the Alaskan Way Viaduct Tunnel in Seattle, the Second Avenue Subway Line in New York, some new freight rail to handle additional capacity in Chicago, and maybe some new mountain passes or brand new interstates to link more of the countryside in to the metropoli.

First, you get all permits cleared years ahead of time. Have the town hall meetings, have the local voice, but do it while times are still good in the summer of comfort long before the decisions have to be made. Then, if it passes, you buy the land that the project requires, rent it out temporarilly until construction begins (and hold the rent money to pay for the project), and then, when the economy tanks, you evict the tennants within a week (they knew this from the moment they rented, and get a discount for their inconvenience), destroy the properties, and begin construction right away.

Lastly, you use non-traditional Ancient Egyptian style construction methods that exchange the efficiency of gradual construction for the speed of mass-building, erecting your structures in less time with more people employed, distributing the money more quickly and effectively. It is more expensive in accounting terms, but in economic terms is so much more effective as a stimulus that the books likely (though I have not worked out the numbers myself, so please do so before jumping off a cliff) balance. This last aspect was not done by Nazi Germany or Eisenhower, but was to a very mild degree done by FDR with the Hoover Dam, to his credit.

The rental helps with the keynesian process, as it is not the level of consumption but the difference in consumption that creates mayhem, and holding back some currency that tennants pay in rent to pay for the project later on shallows the wound. The speed, of course, also helps with the keynesian process, spending the money more quickly.

This way, the projects can begin within a week of the economy hitting the tank, and they will be the valuable kind that America needs, rather then "shovel-ready" bridges to towns with less then 200 people that spend plenty of money but build little long-term gain.

Uptown Platform, NYC, courtesy of Adam J. Sporka. In the opinion of some, the New York Subway built the city.

The Almighty Dollar -- or Why we SHOULD spend more on Healthcare

From InvestorBizDaily, "The Attack on Doctor's Hippocratic Oath":

Ezekiel Emanuel sees the Hippocratic Oath as one factor driving "overuse" of medical care. He is a policy adviser in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and a brother of Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staff.

Dr. Emanuel argues that "peer recognition goes to the most thorough and aggressive physicians." He has lamented that doctors regard the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the patient to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others."

Of course, that is what patients hope their doctor will do.

But President Barack Obama is pledging to rein in the nation's health care spending. The framework for influencing your doctor's decisions was included in the stimulus package, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Now, I, being a fallible human being like most other Americans, do not understand completely Obama's health care plan. This is very suspicious, especially since, while I may not like the man's policies, I would generally accredit him with being a decent communicator. But, there is one particularly disturbing aspect of Obama's plans, the algorithms.

Although not quite as sinister as the SkyNet from Terminator, it too may terminate you. If your care is found to be too expensive, your cancer too aweful, you not worth it, it will let you die, not even granting you the dignity of a bullet to the head, another blood offering at the altar of balanced budgets in a manner of cruel neglect.

This is being done in the name of economic progress. Although Obama does not even have the certainty that this will work, he has bet his presidency, his country, and the lives and dignity of many vulnerable people on the idea that through reducing health care expenditures, we can save our "economy." But what is an economy anyways? Why is it so sancrosanct? Why are we willing to sacrifice ourselves and our loved ones for the sake of dollars? And why do we even trust this fellows plan?

In fact, why do we even have an economy? Why do we even have wealth? If we're not even going to take care of our own people, why are we even trying? Why don't we just go home?

Look, I know of fewer better spendings of our wealth on this earth as human beings, our petty dollars, then saving peoples lives and keeping them well. Why are we calling medical research and cutting-edged treatments "waste?" Because they don't make us more money? And is that even true...

The really sad thing is how many people seemed to have jumped aboard this bandwagon. I, as an American, have never felt this discouraged at my own people. That my own fellow citizens cannot seem to see what they are creating through their desire for, I don't even know what, is one of the most striking blows I have ever received when looking back at my own country.

And further, even from the practical side, what happens if we face a new threat? What happens if there's a big virus outbreak, like the Spanish flu, and this entire society we have sacrificed so much for crumbles before us, disgracing us and spitting on our name for our own lack of foresight.

For the sake of the fourth most basic human economic need (after clothes, shelter, and food), 20% (about where it lies) is not unreasonable. But I fear many people do not even realize what they've done. I don't think they even see that it could be their loved one, or themselves. I support making coverage more universal, but this is not the right way to do it. We just need to accept that a little more money to cover the remainder of our population is both right and justified, and seek other, more worthy, places to scratch out a balanced budget.

F-22 - An Obituary

Photo courtesy of U.S. Air Force

"The Defense Department plans to end the F-22 Raptor fighter jet program that employs 2,000 workers in Marietta. The move is part of one of the most sweeping makeovers of defense spending in recent history." -Atlanta Journal Constitution, "Pentagon plans to ax F-22 project"

The F-22 is a magnificent aircraft capable of striking the enemy before the enemy can strike back. Carrying six missiles and internal guns for firepower, and a stealth build for avoidance, the F-22 makes up for it's size and cost with a level of survivabillity seldom seen in combat aircraft, along with some of the lightest maintenance requirements ever attained. At 44.5 feet of wingspan and 60 feet of length, it is one of the larger fighters ever built, and although not specifically mentioned, this large size no doubt leads to greater crumple and wound room to take damage. Although the F-22's max speed is only Mach 1.8, it's "supercruise" speed of Mach 1.5 can be sustained for long distances without engine damage or excessive fuel expenditure, as no afterburner is necessary. The only possible complaint one could have with this aircraft is that it can't land on a carrier.

A full report on the aircraft can be found here.



Technical Art courtesy of Wikimedia

Back in 1983, when the economy was at the weakest point it had been since 1942, Ronald Reagan spent massive, deemed unwise by some at the time, amounts of money on racing the Soviets for arms. He not only won the Cold War without firing a shot, but within a year, the economy recovered. Barrack Obama spends a similar amount of money on "Stimulus," and then says "we should not expect miracles." Meanwhile, he is ridding Atlanta of 2,000 jobs at Lockheed Martin Marietta, building one of the most incredible aircraft America has ever designed.

Perhaps saddest of all is that, in true Keynesian fashion, it would actually reduce expenditures for the Air Force in the long-run, especially if it replaced our fleet of F-16's, as it's much sturdier, hardier, more expensive but more reliable parts would make maintenance nearly "Plug and Play" (American Federation of Scientists.) It would also be, by a principle called common sense, safer to fly for this reason, saving money on training and saving the most valuable component of all, a human being.




Proletariat of the World, UNITE!

The Problem with Nuclear Disarmament

Photo: Trinity Test, 1945, US D.O.E. (Mannhattan Project)



In 1945, not long after testing this atomic bomb, America dropped dual nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, bringing to a swift end a war that the Japanese were planning to draw out for years. With these same bombs, it held down an expansionist and empowered Russia through the 40's, and created a culture of meek innocent dependency among all the other powers of the world, even England. When stable-headed Russia acquired it's own atom bomb, however, it was finally able to regain steam and act quickly to advance itself across the globe.

Now, America did not have the worst intentions. For the most part, after 4 long and bloody years of war, we just wanted peace. We were even willing to concede a little to both independence oriented peoples like the Fillipinos and expansionist empires like the Soviets, just so long as they realized we had Mr. Bang-Bang and thus fighting us was worthless; we did not wish to overuse this power, however.

And when the Soviets did acquire their own bomb, they were led by a bloodthirsty but levelheaded and slightly paranoid dictator named Joseph Stalin who realized -or at least agonized- that, even if he won a nuclear shell game against the US, he would be weakened by the fight and risk rebellion or China.

Now, let's switch roles here. Let's say that, instead of the US acquiring an atom bomb, it had been Germany. They would've tested it over Isreal, London, Moscow or New York and then imposed their will on the nations they were fighting. Even if some of the Western powers continued to fight, one of them submitting would have guaranteed a much bloodier, lenghtier conflict at the least, and chances are that the additional length would have made it possible for Hitler to build yet more bombs.

Let's switch another role. The US still made the atom bomb, but instead of cool as gun-steel Stalin at the helm, you had a hot-tempered dick like Ahmnehjahd. The US finds out that they have atom bombs, and instead of standing back and saying, "yeah, they figured us out, it's time for round two," he says, "start the countdown."

The best possible outcome of no nuclear weapons is exactly what happened before, with a single, selfish or desperate nation (preferably desperate) acquiring a nuclear weapon to threaten another nation, and a cool-headed second competitor outrunning them cooly and successfully.

The most likely outcome is global oppression. Nations willingly submit, just as they did to the US, but this nation is not as kind and had intentions far worse then anything in FDR's heart. A kind of globlal slavery ensues. The only separation between this and the best possible outcome is intention.

The worst possible outcome is the competitor acquires their competing weapon, is found out, does not react smoothly, and both nations launch, creating at the very least destruction of innocent life on a level beyond Darfur or Rwanda, at the worst, nuclear ahnillation of our species, all hinging on the effectiveness of production.

Mankind has already cheated nuclear death once. Please, Mr. President, don't put humanity through this again.

Foamy-mouthed taxpayers

Dear AIG, I quit!

Re: Dear AIG, I quit!

Now in the bible, when a rich man does nothing to help the leprosy and starvation suffering beggar Lazarus as he jollily feasts, he loses his name, and all we know about him is "a rich man" and he went to hell. It seems that many taxpayers, seeing VP and AIG in the same sentence, have decided this man is exactly the same, a "rich man" not even worth considering. While I can understand the anger, it seems very misplaced, as a contract is a contract, government legislation is government legislation, and anyways, this VP didn't pick his pay:

Geithner, an Obama crony and public official, did.

He is also helping Lazarus right now with how that pay will be used.

And he didn't partake in the destruction of his company. Those folks are already gone. We are taking away the rights of an innocent man under the excuse of "I have it so hard." We are allowing our morality to be corrupted by the hardship of the world, and are thus ourselves like the seeds that Jesus spreads which fall on vines and are devoured. Reminds me of this old shrapnel of wisdom:

"If you are starving, which will you take first, your vote, or a bag of grain?"

But in a world of "Hope" and "Change" any kind of dilligent study and analysis or even using your common sense is discouraged. See, anger makes you predictable, makes you stupid, makes you like a little cow that can be brought to the stockyard and slaughtered for meat, and by allowing the government to impose penal taxes on a small group of people after the fact, a clever way of getting around the rule of law and the rights of it's citizens, the government has done exactly that. They've served the public hide hot and spiced, with a liberally applied maranade, and a side dish of US constitution.

I'm all for the common man, I know how capable he is and how much he has to offer this world. But that only makes me more angry that 1) our government wants to take away their freedom and thus their abillity, 2) people are allowing themselves to be corrupted and enslaved without even a promise of a better life for themselves. So who are we? Are we the men who built this country, or are we the "Here we are now, entertain us" (Kurt Kobain) crowd?