---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.
6.06.2008
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)