---by Dave Buhlman
The American economy and spirit are on the decline. This is to be expected after all of the maneuvering in the political and social realms over the past fifty years. Government has grown at a rapid pace and the acknowledged public debt exceeds $9 trillion, a number hard for most of us to fathom. Experts tell us that when unfunded liabilities, such as Social Security, Medicare, and pensions are added in, the debt is more than $60 trillion, a number even more difficult to grasp. Many people are worried about how to pay for gas at the pump, and how they will pay to heat their homes next fall and winter. Thus we are threatened at very basic levels, places where we never thought would be a concern. The stock market is tumbling, and dragging down the retirement plans of many with it. Is life in America about to become, “nasty, brutish and short”, as one philosopher put it?
These times call for innovative ideas, new ways to approach how things are run, but these are sorely lacking in the papers and speeches of the nominees of the two parties. We need to look at how we got to this point, where the tragedy began, and fix the bad things that brought us to this dark place. The candidates hawk a number of ideas, but they all amount to either putting a band aid on a cancerous sore, or building upon the failed past policies that resulted in a shaky America in the summer of 2008. They may want to present other approaches, but are concerned that the power elite will withdraw their support because of them, so they stay quiet in order to continue on their quest for the power of the presidency by “attacking” their adversary. Watching this “gotcha” game has become tedious and tiring after having endured it since I first voted in a presidential election. That was 1972, when Nixon took forty-nine states and McGovern took only one, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Given the dearth of original thinking from those quarters, I humbly offer the following as a way to get us back on track.
First, nationalize the privately-owned Federal Reserve Bank with the aim of eliminating it and turning its functions over to the US Treasury where they belong.. This bank is not federal and there are no reserves, so even the name is a misnomer. As part of this effort, start on the road back to the gold standard to end the killing inflation caused by our current fiat money system, which is backed only by a belief that the dollar has value. Belief can be a fleeting emotion, while gold has intrinsic value in and of itself. Let’s stop the hidden robbery of our pocketbooks caused by deflating the value of the few dollars most of us hold for the ever shortening period between when we get it and when we pay our bills.
Second, repudiate the NAFTA and GATT treaties, and all others like them. Such treaties have benefitted foreigners, and a small cadre of the connected here, while devastating American industries and causing a severe loss of good jobs in America.
On illegal immigration, when politicians recommend giving illegal immigrants amnesty, citizenship and public benefits, they should not be engaged in debate, but arrested for treason or sedition. We would not hesitate to do this is if they suggested giving the Northwest to mainland China. At a minimum, they should be ignored and ushered from the political stage as the dangerous lunatics they are. Both Obama and McCain are for giving it all to illegal immigrants at the expense of ordinary Americans, although McCain has flipped and flopped all over the place on this. But we remember McCain-Kennedy, John. We remember.
Foreign policy has been run by the elites such that it is completely foreign to the well being of regular Americans, especially those called to fight and die in civil/tribal wars of other countries. While remaining wide open to trade and commerce with all nations, tell them they’re on their own when it comes to Americans dying for the nuttiness that plagues too many places in the world. We will, by all means, arm those who are oppressed so that they can defend themselves. For example, had we done this with the Kurds in the early 1980s, Saddam Hussein wouldn’t have gone on his murdering spree in Kurdish areas. Tyrants are cowards at heart, as are they that they send to do their bidding, so shooting back at them really works. Another avenue of semi-intervention is the president issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal, as described in the US Constitution. This was done in the 1800s to tame the Barbary Pirates. With Letters, the president puts a price on the head of a bad guy and private entities, such as retired special forces guys join together to get the bad guy and collect the price on his head. They may die in the effort, but it’s their choice. This is a big difference from being forced to fight, as many have been in my lifetime, God bless them.
In the next installment, the rest of the program will be presented.
Dave Buhlman is a former New Hampshire State Representative.
6.29.2008
Gas, Not Too Expensive to SOME People
---by Micheal
Okay, so gasoline is expensive. What are you going to do? Gripe, but keep guzzling? Or, reduce how much you have to buy?
I've opted to save. Some people obviously don't think gas costs too much. Me? I've been practicing "hypermiling" (see previous post) techniques for just over a year now. I've increased my mileage from 18 to 27%.
Some hypermile techniques are invisible to other drivers -- increase your tire pressure, don't carry around any extra weight, etc. No one cares if you do these things because they don't get in their way. (Heaven forbid!)
Some hypermile techniques, however, do affect other drivers. One hypermile tenet is "Don't Stop at Red Lights." This doesn't mean to run red lights, but rather to avoid braking (which is essentially burning off energy you just consumed gas to create. It's like regulating the heat of your house in winter by opening the windows instead of turning down the thermostat). You adjust your speed such that by the time you get up to the light, it will have changed to green and you can proceed on through at a steady speed. Saves gas. Other drivers don't like it, though. A great many people like to race up to the red light as if their pants were on fire, brake hard to a stop and sit there idling (and fuming about how long the lights are) so they can punch it and roar back up to 10 mph over the speed limit when the light turns green.
For these folks, gas is clearly not too expensive.
Another hypermile tenet is to leave a few minutes earlier so you don't have to drive fast to get there on time. The goal is to drive slower. It takes energy to make your car push air out of its way. How much energy it takes grows exponentially with speed. (Try fanning with a big piece of cardboard for two full minutes. You'll feel how much energy it takes to move air.) At lower speeds, you spend energy to push air out of your way. At higher speeds, you're actually compressing air. That takes a LOT more energy. It takes 10% to 15% more gas to drive 70 instead of 60. It can take 35% more gas to drive 80. Want to save gas? Try driving the speed limit. Want to make people mad? Try driving the speed limit.
For all those angry-eyed people in my rearview mirror, gas is obviously not too expensive. They'd rather leave a few minutes late, drive like scalded bats out of hell and pay whatever it takes to Chavez or Prince Sahud for those precious few minutes.
Me? I've been hypermiling for over a year. I've increased my mileage by roughly 20%, usually more. I'm counterculture. Drivers around me don't want to slow down a little, or float through traffic lights. They have their type-A, get outta-MY-way, gas wasting habits and they don't want to change.
Perhaps this marks me as a social loser. 5 minutes of my time is not worth the extra gas.
But, for all these very important people, gas is apparently not too expensive.
Okay, so gasoline is expensive. What are you going to do? Gripe, but keep guzzling? Or, reduce how much you have to buy?
I've opted to save. Some people obviously don't think gas costs too much. Me? I've been practicing "hypermiling" (see previous post) techniques for just over a year now. I've increased my mileage from 18 to 27%.
Some hypermile techniques are invisible to other drivers -- increase your tire pressure, don't carry around any extra weight, etc. No one cares if you do these things because they don't get in their way. (Heaven forbid!)
Some hypermile techniques, however, do affect other drivers. One hypermile tenet is "Don't Stop at Red Lights." This doesn't mean to run red lights, but rather to avoid braking (which is essentially burning off energy you just consumed gas to create. It's like regulating the heat of your house in winter by opening the windows instead of turning down the thermostat). You adjust your speed such that by the time you get up to the light, it will have changed to green and you can proceed on through at a steady speed. Saves gas. Other drivers don't like it, though. A great many people like to race up to the red light as if their pants were on fire, brake hard to a stop and sit there idling (and fuming about how long the lights are) so they can punch it and roar back up to 10 mph over the speed limit when the light turns green.
For these folks, gas is clearly not too expensive.
Another hypermile tenet is to leave a few minutes earlier so you don't have to drive fast to get there on time. The goal is to drive slower. It takes energy to make your car push air out of its way. How much energy it takes grows exponentially with speed. (Try fanning with a big piece of cardboard for two full minutes. You'll feel how much energy it takes to move air.) At lower speeds, you spend energy to push air out of your way. At higher speeds, you're actually compressing air. That takes a LOT more energy. It takes 10% to 15% more gas to drive 70 instead of 60. It can take 35% more gas to drive 80. Want to save gas? Try driving the speed limit. Want to make people mad? Try driving the speed limit.
For all those angry-eyed people in my rearview mirror, gas is obviously not too expensive. They'd rather leave a few minutes late, drive like scalded bats out of hell and pay whatever it takes to Chavez or Prince Sahud for those precious few minutes.
Me? I've been hypermiling for over a year. I've increased my mileage by roughly 20%, usually more. I'm counterculture. Drivers around me don't want to slow down a little, or float through traffic lights. They have their type-A, get outta-MY-way, gas wasting habits and they don't want to change.
Perhaps this marks me as a social loser. 5 minutes of my time is not worth the extra gas.
But, for all these very important people, gas is apparently not too expensive.
6.24.2008
Not Rich Enough to Be "Green"
-- by Micheal
From the media spin, the thing to do to save gas (and the planet, they tell me), is to downsize my vehicle or buy a hybrid. Greeaaat. This is like Marie Antoinette's dietary advice.
With a mortgage payment up by $500 a month (because the schools simply MUST have more and more and more money), and various other expenses dramatically increased. I don't have a spare $25,000 to buy a hybrid. What I've got (and is paid for, btw), is a Ford Ranger pickup. While I could save on gas if I rode a Vespa scooter, I would have a heck of a time hauling fire wood, or rock or bark mulch, etc. (which I do weekly) on a Vespa.
Even if someone out there comes up with the all-electric "green" pick-up, I don't have the abundant liquidity of the richer liberal set who preach the get-a-hybrid advice. I can't buy a different vehicle. No, I'm stuck with my Ranger. All I can do is tighten my gas consumption belt as tight as I can.
What do I do? (I know you didn't ask) For one, I don't drive make unnecessary trips. I make my daughter angry at me because I won't drive into town that day because she's out of her special shampoo. "It'll wait until tomorrow," I said, "when we'll be driving right by there." (I was right. The world did not end that day for lack of shampoo.)
What I have done is scour the web for gas saving techniques that the rest of us non-Antoinette folk can use. Some are age-old maxims, such as keeping your tire pressure up, and not carrying around unnecessary weight. Others are less obvious and take more constant effort. One of those is to NOT keep a constant speed on hilly roads. Keep a steady throttle position. Let your speed dwindle going up hill and let it increase going down hill -- not to a crawl going up or careening 40 mph over the speed limit on the downside. Safety and legality are still in play. But, don't obsessed with constant speed. Allow that gravity exists.
All these techniques are called hypermiling (hyper-mile-ing) -- trying to get the highest mileage you can. Some hypermile enthusiasts go to extremes, such as installing a full body pan under their car to improve it's aerodynamics, etc. (I can't afford that either. )
Me? I just do what I can because I can't afford Marie's cake.
From the media spin, the thing to do to save gas (and the planet, they tell me), is to downsize my vehicle or buy a hybrid. Greeaaat. This is like Marie Antoinette's dietary advice.
With a mortgage payment up by $500 a month (because the schools simply MUST have more and more and more money), and various other expenses dramatically increased. I don't have a spare $25,000 to buy a hybrid. What I've got (and is paid for, btw), is a Ford Ranger pickup. While I could save on gas if I rode a Vespa scooter, I would have a heck of a time hauling fire wood, or rock or bark mulch, etc. (which I do weekly) on a Vespa.
Even if someone out there comes up with the all-electric "green" pick-up, I don't have the abundant liquidity of the richer liberal set who preach the get-a-hybrid advice. I can't buy a different vehicle. No, I'm stuck with my Ranger. All I can do is tighten my gas consumption belt as tight as I can.
What do I do? (I know you didn't ask) For one, I don't drive make unnecessary trips. I make my daughter angry at me because I won't drive into town that day because she's out of her special shampoo. "It'll wait until tomorrow," I said, "when we'll be driving right by there." (I was right. The world did not end that day for lack of shampoo.)
What I have done is scour the web for gas saving techniques that the rest of us non-Antoinette folk can use. Some are age-old maxims, such as keeping your tire pressure up, and not carrying around unnecessary weight. Others are less obvious and take more constant effort. One of those is to NOT keep a constant speed on hilly roads. Keep a steady throttle position. Let your speed dwindle going up hill and let it increase going down hill -- not to a crawl going up or careening 40 mph over the speed limit on the downside. Safety and legality are still in play. But, don't obsessed with constant speed. Allow that gravity exists.
All these techniques are called hypermiling (hyper-mile-ing) -- trying to get the highest mileage you can. Some hypermile enthusiasts go to extremes, such as installing a full body pan under their car to improve it's aerodynamics, etc. (I can't afford that either. )
Me? I just do what I can because I can't afford Marie's cake.
6.18.2008
Gas does NOT cost too much
---by Micheal
It does for me, but apparently not for the vast majority of folks. Oh sure, they gripe and complain as though they'd been mugged, but actions speak much louder than words. By the actions of drivers I see, gas still doesn't cost too much.
For example, while in the Walmart parking lot, a young mother sat in her minivan-SUV-thing idling for almost 20 minutes. I think she was going through flyers or something. Eventually, she shut off her engine and went in to shop. It was a drizzly day. No need for A/C. She just liked having her engine running, I guess.
For another example, I was in the cell phone lot at Manchester Airport, waiting to pick up my mother-in-law. When I got there, several cars already there awhile, sat idling. I shut mine off for the 10 minutes I was there. The others were still idling when I left. Obviously, gas does not cost too much for those people.
For a bigger example, I commute daily to Boston in a van-pool. We're having trouble getting enough riders to keep it viable. Yet, every day, I-93 is choked with thousands of cars, each with a single occupant. When we get the occasional enquiry, they decline to van-pool because our departure time is a half hour after when they want to leave. So, they drive in. It boggles the mind. All that wasted time behind the wheel, and hundreds of dollars in gas -- all for a half hour? What are they doing with those gold-plated half hours? It must be very VERY important. (though I suspect not).
Clearly, for all those people happily driving alone in to Boston every day, gas is not too expensive. Even at $4.00 a gallon, that precious half hour is worth it.
Gas might not be too expensive for them, but it is for me. I've been engaged in "Hypermiling" (hyper-mile-ing) for about a year now. (more on that in a later post), but I'm still astounded how much people's personal preferences win out over economy. Since people are too fussy to change their driving habits, One can only conclude that gas really is NOT too expensive.
It does for me, but apparently not for the vast majority of folks. Oh sure, they gripe and complain as though they'd been mugged, but actions speak much louder than words. By the actions of drivers I see, gas still doesn't cost too much.
For example, while in the Walmart parking lot, a young mother sat in her minivan-SUV-thing idling for almost 20 minutes. I think she was going through flyers or something. Eventually, she shut off her engine and went in to shop. It was a drizzly day. No need for A/C. She just liked having her engine running, I guess.
For another example, I was in the cell phone lot at Manchester Airport, waiting to pick up my mother-in-law. When I got there, several cars already there awhile, sat idling. I shut mine off for the 10 minutes I was there. The others were still idling when I left. Obviously, gas does not cost too much for those people.
For a bigger example, I commute daily to Boston in a van-pool. We're having trouble getting enough riders to keep it viable. Yet, every day, I-93 is choked with thousands of cars, each with a single occupant. When we get the occasional enquiry, they decline to van-pool because our departure time is a half hour after when they want to leave. So, they drive in. It boggles the mind. All that wasted time behind the wheel, and hundreds of dollars in gas -- all for a half hour? What are they doing with those gold-plated half hours? It must be very VERY important. (though I suspect not).
Clearly, for all those people happily driving alone in to Boston every day, gas is not too expensive. Even at $4.00 a gallon, that precious half hour is worth it.
Gas might not be too expensive for them, but it is for me. I've been engaged in "Hypermiling" (hyper-mile-ing) for about a year now. (more on that in a later post), but I'm still astounded how much people's personal preferences win out over economy. Since people are too fussy to change their driving habits, One can only conclude that gas really is NOT too expensive.
6.15.2008
Is God Knocking?
---by Dave Buhlman
In Matthew Chapter 24, Jesus explains the end times, how things will be before His Second Coming. He mentions earthquakes, famines, war and pestilence. We have always had these afflictions, but they do seem more prevalent lately. Non-believers scoff at the whole concept, while believers argue endlessly about the subtlety of meanings in Matthew 24, and many other places in the Bible. But Jesus was quite clear that things will not be going well just before He returns.
I do not keep statistical tabs on how many earthquakes and other natural disasters there have been in, say, the last ten years. So far as I know, the experts say that there is no special pattern occurring these days, but I wonder. China’s earthquake, the typhoon in Myanmar, and the floods in the Midwest have all happened in the last month or so. These are quite significant events that caused tremendous loss of life, staggering disruptions to regular life, and catastrophic destruction of property. Regarding war and rumors of war (with Iran?), they are constantly with us. Famine and pestilence are also. When all is known at the end of time, we will see that we brought most of the famine and disease on ourselves. Famine is due largely to greed, and much of the disease we see today stems from bizarre sexual practices. Certainly the endless wars are all on mankind’s tab. God has an ordained and a permissive Will, and it can be difficult to draw the line between the two. But there is no question that we bring many of our troubles on ourselves. For one thing, it’s 2008, we have sent men to the moon, and had other worthy accomplishments, but our government is unwilling to allow levees and other flood control structures to be built that, while not simple to design, involve only basic engineering principles that have been practiced for thousands of years. Doing that one thing right would avoid much havoc.
We should be considering whether or not we have gone too far. The United States lies its way into wars that kill hundreds of thousands, homosexuality has been raised above heterosexuality in some quarters (Massachusetts government, for one), the Church built upon the Rock of Peter allowed child-molesting priests to continue their abuse virtually unchallenged, abortions run into the billions worldwide, with the United States accounting for nearly 50 million victims of this staggering horror, and environmentalism, with its tenets aimed at control over all of our activities, is the new religion guiding the world.
Also quite disturbing is that people with bad bodies mounted their bicycles and rode naked through the streets to protest the use of cars. Didn’t public nudity used to be a crime?
Dave Buhlman is a former New Hampshire State Representative.
In Matthew Chapter 24, Jesus explains the end times, how things will be before His Second Coming. He mentions earthquakes, famines, war and pestilence. We have always had these afflictions, but they do seem more prevalent lately. Non-believers scoff at the whole concept, while believers argue endlessly about the subtlety of meanings in Matthew 24, and many other places in the Bible. But Jesus was quite clear that things will not be going well just before He returns.
I do not keep statistical tabs on how many earthquakes and other natural disasters there have been in, say, the last ten years. So far as I know, the experts say that there is no special pattern occurring these days, but I wonder. China’s earthquake, the typhoon in Myanmar, and the floods in the Midwest have all happened in the last month or so. These are quite significant events that caused tremendous loss of life, staggering disruptions to regular life, and catastrophic destruction of property. Regarding war and rumors of war (with Iran?), they are constantly with us. Famine and pestilence are also. When all is known at the end of time, we will see that we brought most of the famine and disease on ourselves. Famine is due largely to greed, and much of the disease we see today stems from bizarre sexual practices. Certainly the endless wars are all on mankind’s tab. God has an ordained and a permissive Will, and it can be difficult to draw the line between the two. But there is no question that we bring many of our troubles on ourselves. For one thing, it’s 2008, we have sent men to the moon, and had other worthy accomplishments, but our government is unwilling to allow levees and other flood control structures to be built that, while not simple to design, involve only basic engineering principles that have been practiced for thousands of years. Doing that one thing right would avoid much havoc.
We should be considering whether or not we have gone too far. The United States lies its way into wars that kill hundreds of thousands, homosexuality has been raised above heterosexuality in some quarters (Massachusetts government, for one), the Church built upon the Rock of Peter allowed child-molesting priests to continue their abuse virtually unchallenged, abortions run into the billions worldwide, with the United States accounting for nearly 50 million victims of this staggering horror, and environmentalism, with its tenets aimed at control over all of our activities, is the new religion guiding the world.
Also quite disturbing is that people with bad bodies mounted their bicycles and rode naked through the streets to protest the use of cars. Didn’t public nudity used to be a crime?
Dave Buhlman is a former New Hampshire State Representative.
6.09.2008
Pondering
---by Dave Buhlman
As we slog through our days, gasping at the rising price of gas, various thoughts occur to us all. Here are several of mine.
When is the last time President Bush paid for a gallon of gas? Maybe for tooling around his ranch in a pickup, or is that tab also picked up by the beleaguered taxpayers? The same likely applies to Senators McCain and Obama, along with many others who have their hands on the controls.
What caused Building 7 at the World Trade Center to collapse on September 11, 2001? The government states that the Twin Towers were brought down by the airplane hits and subsequent fires (very doubtful physics involved with that theory), but nothing except a little debris hit the 44 story Building 7, so what caused this other steel-supported building to collapse? The government doesn’t exactly say. I wonder why.
France gets about ninety percent of its power from nuclear plants. If the French can do it, what are we so afraid of?
With the value of a dollar sliding faster than a roller coaster, when will the government start working its way back to the solidness of a gold-backed money system, as Congressman Ron Paul suggested? Probably never under our current system where whim trumps law. Watch for the introduction of the new North American currency, the Amero.
How much money is Algore making from the three-card monte like global warming scam? Does he have utterly no shame?
It was a great pleasure to see the Texas Children’s “Services” fascists have to return those kids to their parents. Granted, Yearning for Zion is an odd group, but the government can cast any group in that light. Nice to see judges do the right thing for a change. But the government will try to get those kids again.
With same-sex “marriage” approved by the Kaliphonia Supreme Court, the slide into our morally decrepit state continues. Look for a blood brother and sister to give having their “marriage” validated by judicial fiat a whirl; maybe a man and his dog. They will rely on Lawrence v. Texas, and other decisions. Welcome to the monkey house.
Has Governor John Lynch become a complete cardboard cutout? And the Republicans can’t find anyone to beat this guy?
More importantly, when will Ron Dupuis be back on duty? Let’s all keep praying for a complete recovery for our good friend.
Dave Buhlman is a former New Hampshire State Representative.
As we slog through our days, gasping at the rising price of gas, various thoughts occur to us all. Here are several of mine.
When is the last time President Bush paid for a gallon of gas? Maybe for tooling around his ranch in a pickup, or is that tab also picked up by the beleaguered taxpayers? The same likely applies to Senators McCain and Obama, along with many others who have their hands on the controls.
What caused Building 7 at the World Trade Center to collapse on September 11, 2001? The government states that the Twin Towers were brought down by the airplane hits and subsequent fires (very doubtful physics involved with that theory), but nothing except a little debris hit the 44 story Building 7, so what caused this other steel-supported building to collapse? The government doesn’t exactly say. I wonder why.
France gets about ninety percent of its power from nuclear plants. If the French can do it, what are we so afraid of?
With the value of a dollar sliding faster than a roller coaster, when will the government start working its way back to the solidness of a gold-backed money system, as Congressman Ron Paul suggested? Probably never under our current system where whim trumps law. Watch for the introduction of the new North American currency, the Amero.
How much money is Algore making from the three-card monte like global warming scam? Does he have utterly no shame?
It was a great pleasure to see the Texas Children’s “Services” fascists have to return those kids to their parents. Granted, Yearning for Zion is an odd group, but the government can cast any group in that light. Nice to see judges do the right thing for a change. But the government will try to get those kids again.
With same-sex “marriage” approved by the Kaliphonia Supreme Court, the slide into our morally decrepit state continues. Look for a blood brother and sister to give having their “marriage” validated by judicial fiat a whirl; maybe a man and his dog. They will rely on Lawrence v. Texas, and other decisions. Welcome to the monkey house.
Has Governor John Lynch become a complete cardboard cutout? And the Republicans can’t find anyone to beat this guy?
More importantly, when will Ron Dupuis be back on duty? Let’s all keep praying for a complete recovery for our good friend.
Dave Buhlman is a former New Hampshire State Representative.
6.06.2008
Where Did D-Day Go?
---by Micheal
Maybe this is just a sign that the relentless glacier of history has moved us too far from World War 2 to see it anymore. Maybe this is just another proof that I've become an old coot. Where are all the media announcements that today (June 6th) is the 64th anniversary of the landings on the beaches of Normandy? Used to be, that TV and newspapers would talk about D-Day for at least a few days before the 6th, and have ready some photo montages to run on the news, or interview with vets, etc.
Now? Hardly a peep. What was perhaps THE pivotal event of that century, has slipped under the bridge and floated downstream.
Perhaps it's our fruitfly-like attention spans. Perhaps it's our cultural-myopia that can only think about events of the past year or two. Whatever the reason, the symptom is there. We're no longer remembering. At least, we're no longer remembering out loud How will the youth of today (and by youth I mean anyone under 30) ever know that such a huge event took place?
Answer: they won't if we don't tell them. Tonight, I plan to take down a couple of my WW II history books (the ones with pictures) and remind both of my kids what happened on this day, 64 years ago.
No, I wasn't there. I wasn't even born yet. But D-Day is one of those historical forks in the road which leads to the nation we all live in today. How can we forget this? How can we allow ourselves and our kids to forget?
My kids will more than likely roll their eyes at me -- yet another pointless rant from the old man -- but they'll have heard. They may not remember, years from now, but it WON'T be because I didn't tell them.
Maybe this is just a sign that the relentless glacier of history has moved us too far from World War 2 to see it anymore. Maybe this is just another proof that I've become an old coot. Where are all the media announcements that today (June 6th) is the 64th anniversary of the landings on the beaches of Normandy? Used to be, that TV and newspapers would talk about D-Day for at least a few days before the 6th, and have ready some photo montages to run on the news, or interview with vets, etc.
Now? Hardly a peep. What was perhaps THE pivotal event of that century, has slipped under the bridge and floated downstream.
Perhaps it's our fruitfly-like attention spans. Perhaps it's our cultural-myopia that can only think about events of the past year or two. Whatever the reason, the symptom is there. We're no longer remembering. At least, we're no longer remembering out loud How will the youth of today (and by youth I mean anyone under 30) ever know that such a huge event took place?
Answer: they won't if we don't tell them. Tonight, I plan to take down a couple of my WW II history books (the ones with pictures) and remind both of my kids what happened on this day, 64 years ago.
No, I wasn't there. I wasn't even born yet. But D-Day is one of those historical forks in the road which leads to the nation we all live in today. How can we forget this? How can we allow ourselves and our kids to forget?
My kids will more than likely roll their eyes at me -- yet another pointless rant from the old man -- but they'll have heard. They may not remember, years from now, but it WON'T be because I didn't tell them.
Oil Bubble: The New Stupid
---by Micheal
Oil just hit a new high, $138 per barrel. This sudden jump was sparked by anxiety over mideast peace (Israel's statement that it would bomb Iran if its nuke program goes too far). But no one has bombed anyone yet. No supplies have been disrupted yet. This spike in prices is all in the speculative futures market.
Speculation. Not facts. As it said in a New York Times article today: "Prices keep rising despite a lack of shortages in the market, and strong evidence of lower consumption in industrialized countries. But investors seem to be caught in a bullish mood, focusing instead on perceived risks to future oil supplies and continued growth in oil demand from emerging economies that subsidize fuels."
We just experienced (or are still) the effects of a housing speculation bubble that burst. Before we've even had a chance to learn our lessons from that speculation stupidity, we're all getting sucked into another one. Impatient investors are going to plunk down big bucks on potentially expensive future oil -- all assuming that war in the middle east breaks out. There's big bucks to be made quick. Buy oil futures now at $138 on the presumption that it will be $150 in a couple months. Sell quick and reap the profits. Woohoo! Easy money.
But, if no war breaks out, and people (like me) continue to drive less and conserve, there will be an even greater oversupply than demand. Oil might not hit $150. Might even decline. Then we'll have a whole new crop of idiot speculators who will be ruined for lack of windfall. Will I shed a tear for them? No. But, they'll manage to take down a part of our economy with them -- pension funds and people's jobs, etc. that somehow got entangled with them.
Stupid, it seems, knows know bounds -- and learns no lessons
Oil just hit a new high, $138 per barrel. This sudden jump was sparked by anxiety over mideast peace (Israel's statement that it would bomb Iran if its nuke program goes too far). But no one has bombed anyone yet. No supplies have been disrupted yet. This spike in prices is all in the speculative futures market.
Speculation. Not facts. As it said in a New York Times article today: "Prices keep rising despite a lack of shortages in the market, and strong evidence of lower consumption in industrialized countries. But investors seem to be caught in a bullish mood, focusing instead on perceived risks to future oil supplies and continued growth in oil demand from emerging economies that subsidize fuels."
We just experienced (or are still) the effects of a housing speculation bubble that burst. Before we've even had a chance to learn our lessons from that speculation stupidity, we're all getting sucked into another one. Impatient investors are going to plunk down big bucks on potentially expensive future oil -- all assuming that war in the middle east breaks out. There's big bucks to be made quick. Buy oil futures now at $138 on the presumption that it will be $150 in a couple months. Sell quick and reap the profits. Woohoo! Easy money.
But, if no war breaks out, and people (like me) continue to drive less and conserve, there will be an even greater oversupply than demand. Oil might not hit $150. Might even decline. Then we'll have a whole new crop of idiot speculators who will be ruined for lack of windfall. Will I shed a tear for them? No. But, they'll manage to take down a part of our economy with them -- pension funds and people's jobs, etc. that somehow got entangled with them.
Stupid, it seems, knows know bounds -- and learns no lessons
6.05.2008
Green Folly: Billions for Nothin'
---by Micheal
The global warming alarmists try to spook the public lemming herd with tales of dire woe. "If we don't halt global warming, our coastal cities will be inundated." With this as a battle cry, they seek to pry billions of dollars from the lemmings.
First off, they glibly presume that if X Y or Z program to reduce "greenhouse gasses" is funded, that global warming will stop (or reverse). Folly! Here's an example. A study analyzed the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the famed Kyoto protocol (which President Bush is so easily bashed for). The study showed that if all the carbon-based initiatives in the CDM were 100% successful, it would slow the increase of carbon dioxide emissions by 6.5 days. Yes, 6 and a half days.
If nothing were done, the world would achieve a benchmark of accumulated carbon emissions by June 1, 2012. If all of the carbon-based CDM programs were totally successful, the world would achieve that same benchmark on the morning of June 7, 2012. Billions and BILLIONS of dollars to manage carbon emissions and all it buys us is six days? What's the bleepin' point?
And, this all assumes that the globe will continue to warm in proportion to those carbon emissions. This is by no means such a fiat accompli. Resist the green coyotes trying to get you, as a member of the public herd, to stampede. Take a closer look before blindly handing over your money. You can donate all you like, but if it's not going to make any real difference, why do it?
The global warming alarmists try to spook the public lemming herd with tales of dire woe. "If we don't halt global warming, our coastal cities will be inundated." With this as a battle cry, they seek to pry billions of dollars from the lemmings.
First off, they glibly presume that if X Y or Z program to reduce "greenhouse gasses" is funded, that global warming will stop (or reverse). Folly! Here's an example. A study analyzed the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the famed Kyoto protocol (which President Bush is so easily bashed for). The study showed that if all the carbon-based initiatives in the CDM were 100% successful, it would slow the increase of carbon dioxide emissions by 6.5 days. Yes, 6 and a half days.
If nothing were done, the world would achieve a benchmark of accumulated carbon emissions by June 1, 2012. If all of the carbon-based CDM programs were totally successful, the world would achieve that same benchmark on the morning of June 7, 2012. Billions and BILLIONS of dollars to manage carbon emissions and all it buys us is six days? What's the bleepin' point?
And, this all assumes that the globe will continue to warm in proportion to those carbon emissions. This is by no means such a fiat accompli. Resist the green coyotes trying to get you, as a member of the public herd, to stampede. Take a closer look before blindly handing over your money. You can donate all you like, but if it's not going to make any real difference, why do it?
6.03.2008
Green Folly: Trying to Hold Back the Sea
---by Micheal
The last of Spencer Reiss's list of green re-thinks, is that the globe is warming, get used to it.
If the globe continues to warm, and glaciers melt, raising sea levels. Yes, this will pose a problem for cities built along the coasts. The problem is not global warming. The globe has warmed and cooled many times before. The real problem is that our civilization, out of smug hubris, opted to build large expensive cities on coastlines. Coastlines, like riverbanks, are ever-changing. So now, we've built our sandcastles near the waves and demand that everyone DO SOMETHING because the tide is coming in. Sheesh.
Many thousands of years ago, when North America was just past the peak of the last ice age, the ocean levels much were lower. The New England coastline was a hundred miles south of Nantucket. The indigenous folks back then probably dug clams along the beaches, much as the Narragansett or Massachusett indians did a few hundred years ago. They'd make up little shelter settlements near the beach. When the sea levels began to rise, they didn't gnash their teeth and rend their garments over having to build another log hut further inland. They just moved inland. They certainly didn't sit around trying to figure out how they could keep the sea from rising. Or, how they could demand that everyone else had to kick in some wampum to fund a government program that would stop the sea. Only WE are dumb enough to do that.
If the rise in global temperatures is going to raise sea levels, then folks need to plan for how they're going to deal with a higher ocean. All this talk of reducing carbon to prevent the seas from rising, is green folly talk. Instead of spending billions to reduce carbon (which really just puts the billions in certain people's hands and does little, if anything, to reduce warming), put those billions into mega-seawalls for NYC, Boston, etc. The whole carbon-management scheme will only LOOK like it's making a difference. The seas will still rise, and the coastal cities will have only pretty printed government reports with which to hold back the sea. Good luck with that.
Only bureaucrats and enviro-liberals think they're more powerful than nature.
The last of Spencer Reiss's list of green re-thinks, is that the globe is warming, get used to it.
If the globe continues to warm, and glaciers melt, raising sea levels. Yes, this will pose a problem for cities built along the coasts. The problem is not global warming. The globe has warmed and cooled many times before. The real problem is that our civilization, out of smug hubris, opted to build large expensive cities on coastlines. Coastlines, like riverbanks, are ever-changing. So now, we've built our sandcastles near the waves and demand that everyone DO SOMETHING because the tide is coming in. Sheesh.
Many thousands of years ago, when North America was just past the peak of the last ice age, the ocean levels much were lower. The New England coastline was a hundred miles south of Nantucket. The indigenous folks back then probably dug clams along the beaches, much as the Narragansett or Massachusett indians did a few hundred years ago. They'd make up little shelter settlements near the beach. When the sea levels began to rise, they didn't gnash their teeth and rend their garments over having to build another log hut further inland. They just moved inland. They certainly didn't sit around trying to figure out how they could keep the sea from rising. Or, how they could demand that everyone else had to kick in some wampum to fund a government program that would stop the sea. Only WE are dumb enough to do that.
If the rise in global temperatures is going to raise sea levels, then folks need to plan for how they're going to deal with a higher ocean. All this talk of reducing carbon to prevent the seas from rising, is green folly talk. Instead of spending billions to reduce carbon (which really just puts the billions in certain people's hands and does little, if anything, to reduce warming), put those billions into mega-seawalls for NYC, Boston, etc. The whole carbon-management scheme will only LOOK like it's making a difference. The seas will still rise, and the coastal cities will have only pretty printed government reports with which to hold back the sea. Good luck with that.
Only bureaucrats and enviro-liberals think they're more powerful than nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)