Uncle Samuel

I used to be of the belief that the Bible was not about politics, but rather a philosophical guide (some would say law book) to how one should live their life. I am happy to be proven wrong in this by Frank Chodorov, who died in 1966, but an essay of his appears over at Mises.org today, What Samuel Said about Solomon, which was published in 1956, but seems rather appropriate today.

Chodorov's essay is a political analysis of the Old Testament history of the development of the Kingdom of Israel, through the kings, to Israel's inevitable fall.

The analysis begins with the time before the kings (following is an edited version of the beginning of Chodorov's essay. Click here for the full essay.):

"In those days," we are told in Judges 17:6, "there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

To be able to do that which is right in one's own eyes is to be free, and freedom was the way of life among the Israelites before the coming of the kings. Yet, they were not without government; they were not lacking in those social controls that are the essence of government...

Tradition supplemented necessity in the orderly arrangement of life, for the tradition grew out of experience by the trial-and-error method and had proved itself beneficial. The laws of custom were sanctified because violation of them carried its own penalties, not only to the individual, but also to the group.

It was a conservative society; adherence to proven principles was the only way by which the pursuit of happiness could be furthered...

Nor was there lack of leadership before the coming of the kings. Someone had to plan strategy and improvise tactics for the wars the tribesmen engaged in during their march to the Promised Land, and someone had to adjudicate disputes so as to prevent the chaos of internecine struggles. So came the judges, men and women esteemed for their wisdom and integrity, the leaders provided by nature for the instruction of the rank and file.

The evidence leads to the conclusion that these judges ruled by natural selection and common consent, much like the chiefs of American Indian tribes. It was agreed that the authority of the judges was sanctified by God, but the proof of their anointment was the manner in which they exercised authority. They were leaders by virtue of their proven gift of leadership.

The important thing about the rule of the judges is that their office was not endowed with the power of coercion. "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes" meant that no man was compelled to do otherwise; and, since "in those days there was no king in Israel," it must be presumed that there was no constabulary to enforce rules of behavior. The sole enforcement agency upon which the authority of the judges rested was public opinion. "So said Yahweh" had the force of "so say we all."

According to one computation, this kind of government lasted about four centuries — a period, incidentally, comparable to the duration of the Roman republic. The manner of its termination is recorded in the First Book of Samuel (chapter eight), where it is told that the elders of the tribes came to the last of the judges and demanded that he set a king over them.

The immediate occasion for the revolutionary demand was what we would today call an emergency. In fact, there were two emergencies. In foreign affairs things were going badly for Israel; the Philistines had not only beaten them roundly in battle, but also made off with the sacred ark of the covenant.

On the domestic front, they had lost faith in their leadership. The two sons of Samuel, whom he had appointed as assistants, did not live up to the high standards of their office; they had "turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment."

Samuel seems to have been a political scientist of the first water, all the more remarkable in that he had no books to go by, but only his wisdom and his observation of kingship in operation. So that, when the elders said "make us a king to judge us like all the nations," he was displeased. The story says that he took the matter up with Yahweh, who assured him that nothing could be done about saving the Israelites from themselves, since they had given up on first principles.

It was because they had forsaken the rigorous tradition of their forefathers, with its insistence on self-reliance and personal integrity, that they had lost the victorious touch that carried them from Egypt to the outskirts of the Promised Land. The breakdown of the judge system could be traced to the same lack of self-discipline. Therefore, said Yahweh, give them what they ask for, but as a parting shot you might "shew them the manner of the king that shall rule over them"; and tell them also that when they realize their mistake, it will be too late to regain freedom: "The Lord will not hear you in that day."

So Samuel outlined the order of things under a king. First, there will be conscription, replacing the system of voluntarism that had served the tribesmen well throughout their peregrinations, and the conscription will not be confined to military service but will include service in the king's household. What's more, women too will be subject to involuntary servitude. Then, "he will appoint his captains over thousands and captains over fifties."

The term "captain" is ambiguous, referring sometimes to men of war, sometimes to what we would call nobles, sometimes (by the kind of work assigned to them) to bureaucrats; it was in the reigns of David and Solomon that "captain" took on many meanings.

And, continued Samuel, the king will take from you the best of your lands "and give them to his servants," thus establishing a landed aristocracy, which the laws of Moses clearly forbade. What's more, for the upkeep of his establishment "he will take a tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards"; apparently, compulsory taxation was new among the Israelites. To top it all off, "ye shall be his servants."

But the elders were obdurate in their demand for political authority. One could go behind the returns and make out a case against these revolutionists; perhaps they constituted a newly risen landowning class, and hoped to solidify their position under a kingship. More likely, fear had entered their hearts, as is usually the case when a people accustomed to success are faced with adversity, and they were quite willing to swap freedom for the promise of security under subservience.

In any event, Samuel anointed Saul. From the very beginning of the royal establishment, the troubles of Israel multiplied. There was the usual spate of wars with the Philistines, with varying degrees of success, and internal dissension, which was rare in the experience of the tribesmen, became common. Some followed Saul, others revolted against his rule; more exactly, they resisted the establishment of those institutions that Samuel had warned them would come with a king.

But, as Samuel said, there was no way of regaining freedom once the state had made its appearance, and the judge was soon on the lookout for a new deliverer. He sought out David, but it is significant that the new king, though anointed by Samuel, had to fight his way to power; he came to the throne on the wings of what we would call a revolution. The struggle for power, embellished with moral platitudes and social-sounding whereases, had seeped into the Israelite way of life.

Sound familiar?

Chodorov continues:

...It is the way of political power to become in itself, regardless of the person who wields it, a shrine for public worship. In modern times, we are quick to "throw the rascals out," but it never occurs to us that rascality is imbedded in the office or that the power invested in it might make a rascal of an honest man.

Though the people of Israel had asked for a king, the spirit of freedom did not depart from them immediately upon the granting of their wish, and Saul never really set the kingship on a solid basis. It takes time for the myth of authority to gain general acceptance. David, the second king, did better, for he had forty years in which to get the tribesmen in line with the new institution; a second generation had come to maturity during his reign and to them the exploits of royalty were "modern," real and vibrant, while the freedom of their forefathers sank into the limbo of a fairy tale.

Even so, something of the past hung on, and David had to contend with frequent insurrections and, at the end, with a war of succession. He did succeed, as we learn from the Second Book of Samuel, in setting up the necessary framework for the functioning of a successful state, that is, in surrounding the kingship with a supporting caste of "mighty men," analogous to what we would today call a privileged class, and with a group of efficient "servants" whose functions correspond with those of latter-day bureaucrats. In that way he facilitated the consolidation of power under Solomon.

The Saul-David-Solomon story is illustrative of the gestation of the state. At first, an aspiring chieftain fights his way to ascendancy as a lone wolf, knocking off rivals, and concentrates in himself all the power he can lay his hands on. This method has merit only in so far as the area of his sovereignty is limited to personal supervision. Beyond that, it proves to be quite inefficacious, even precarious.

As his quest for power reaches beyond his purview, as it always does, he finds it necessary to delegate some of his power to, and share his prerogatives with, a supporting oligarchy — military, ecclesiastical (or intellectual) and, in time, commercial or industrial groups — that lend themselves to his purpose in return for the special privileges he grants them. They serve as a moat to his castle.

In addition to these favored blocs, he must surround his citadel with a class of well-paid "servants" skilled in taking care of the details of his sovereignty, so that it can function with the least amount of friction.

The state is not, as most political scientists would make it, an inanimate thing; it consists of people, human beings, each of whom operates under an inner compulsion to get the most out of life with the least expenditure of labor. They differ from other human beings only in the fact that they have chosen (because they believe it to be easier) the political or predatory means of satisfying their desires, rather than the economic or productive means.

The fiction that the state is an impersonal institution, something society constructs for its own benefit, serves to hide, even from its members, the nature of its composition.

The truth is, we are already there. And our government is about to turn us into slaves of the state. Just like the Israelites, it is too late for us to stop it:

Resistance to the state diminishes in the degree of its confiscations, and ultimately, when the tax load becomes a yoke, subservience to the state becomes the necessary way of life.

The designation of taxation as a yoke is a nice piece of biblical directness. A yoke is worn by an ox, a beast of burden, which by nature is incapable of claiming a property right in the products of its labor.

It follows that when a human being is deprived of that right, his status approximates that of an ox, and if taxation takes all he produces beyond that needed to sustain life (the wages of an ox), it can rightly be called a yoke. The Israelites who pleaded with Rehoboam to lower the tax load that Solomon (the state) had put on them were quite literal.

The story goes on to say that Rehoboam rejected the plea of "all Israel," that he in fact promised them an increase in taxes. Then it tells of a revolt against taxes by the people of Judah, a political subdivision that periodically rejected the suzerainty of Jerusalem: when Hadoram, Rehoboam's chief collector of tribute, made his rounds among them, they so "stoned him with stones, that he died."

Tea parties, anyone?

Suffice it to say, Samuel's prediction of the Israelites "buyer's remorse" were on the money. Eventually, and inevitably, the Kingdom of Israel fell, as will the United States inevitably fall.

I would pray for divine intervention, but as God told Samuel, "The Lord will not hear you in that day."

The Birthers of a Nation

The whole Birther movement, which claims President Obama was not born in the U.S., is ludicrous. Why is anyone wasting their time on this nonsense, when there are plenty of subjects over which to attack Obama?

Even IF Obama wasn't a U.S. citizen, if you want a reason to justify impeachment, his dangerous stupidity in running our country is plenty good enough for me. Consider:

1. His health care plan and Global Warming policies, which are nothing more than a Democratic Party power grab. Even Nixon couldn't have come up with something as devious as these two issues.

2. His Wall Street bailout. The ONLY reason Bush got away with his own bailout plan was because Obama supported it. If Bush had tried something like that in his first year, like Obama did, the Media would have run him out of office, with full American support.

3. He's a foreign policy nightmare. He insults our allies (even I know American DVD's won't work in British DVD players, so giving the British PM a set of American DVD's was just dumb), and cozies up to enemy dictators. Most of the European Media has already turned on Obama.

4. He has more crooked friends than John Gotti. I am just waiting for the news story where one of Obama's buddies gets caught committing a felony. It is coming. Until then, we have Henry Louis Gates.

5. Speaking of Gates, Obama is doing more to hurt race relations in the U.S. with his inept presidency than even the KKK could have hoped. His handling of the Gates situation was more reminiscent of Al Sharpton than Martin Luther King.

While the topics I have mentioned are debatable, the Birther controversy doesn't even merit debate. It has been disproven over and over again, and it is time to look at what IS important about Obama. Quit wasting precious air time and print space on foolish conspiracy theories, and start using them on real and important topics that will affect all of us.

Look at it this way: While you Birthers are talking about your wild goose chase, Obama and the Congress are hard at work trying to take away your access to health care, as well as your hard-earned money. Your distraction makes it so much easier for them to work without the public spotlight.

Voinovich errrrs

A quote from Ohio Republican Senator George Voinovich (from the The Columbusdispatch.com) about "The GOP's biggest problem":

“We got too many Jim DeMints (R-S.C.) and Tom Coburns (R-Ok.). It’s the southerners. They get on TV and go 'errrr, errrrr.' People hear them and say, ‘These people, they’re southerners. The party’s being taken over by southerners. What they[sic] hell they got to do with Ohio?’”

Senator, to use the line from an old Lynyrd Skynyrd song, a Southern man don't need you around, anyhow.

Seriously though, it is easy to tell that Northern elitism has gotten bad when even Republican politicians have no problem with slamming the South.

If you Northerners despise the South so much, here is my message to you: Break up the Union. Frankly, those of us in the South are tired of paying for your idiotically utopian social programs. We are tired of you trying to run our lives while simultaneously taking our money to promote your welfare statist ideals. We are tired of being called "racist" at every turn, while you promote your reverse racism. We are tired of you spending money that neither of us has. We are tired of you saving Wall Street with money from Main Street. We are tired of you trying to save the world from the non-existent threat of Global Warming by adding taxes and regulation to normal and harmless human activities.

In summary, we are tired of YOU. So I beg of you, please break up this Union. And don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Getting the fat out

The CDC reports Americans are too obese. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says the new health care bill monstrosity currently rolling through the Congress has provisions to help prevent obesity.

Exactly WHY do we want to do this?

Obesity prevention is simple: Eat less and/or exercise more. No health care program, public or private, will get someone to do this if they don't want it.

In addition, if someone enjoys food to the extreme of willing to put on tons of weight in order to enjoy food, who are we to stop them? While gluttony is a sin, so is pride. You want to have a government program to make people more humble too?

I know: Obesity creates greater health care costs. So does pregnancy. Condoms for everyone!

But obese people don't live as long, right? Guess what: We are ALL going to die. Deal with it. Personally, I would rather live a shorter life that I enjoyed, rather than suffer through a few extra dull years of life just to reach the same end.

To the obese people of the world, I say: Enjoy!

To the busybodies of the world, I say: Screw off!

Health Care Looting

From Section 2002 of the new Health Care bill in congress (as reported by WSB Radio's Jamie Dupree):

"Amounts appropriated under this section, and outlays flowing from such appropriations, shall not be taken into account for purposes of any budget enforcement procedures including allocations under section 302(a) and (b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act and budget resolutions for fiscal years during which appropriations are made from the Fund"

Yes, that says what you think it does: They will spend the money, but it doesn't get counted in the cost of the bill. So when the Congressional Budget Office reports the cost of the bill, that part of it is excluded.

According to Jamie Dupree, similar wording also appears in Section 164, and it is possible that it might appear elsewhere.

So how much does this bill REALLY cost? Who knows? But like burglary victims, we won't know how much our politicians have stolen until it's gone.

Policing Health Care

In the whole Barack Obama and Henry Louis Gates vs. the Cambridge Police fiasco, the great irony of the situation seems to have been lost in most of the Media firestorm following Obama's press conference.

The original Obama press conference was supposed to be used to promote Obama's vision of health care reform, but the Media coverage following it got derailed by Obama's reference to the police department's actions against Gates as "stupid". The irony here is in the fact that Obama promoted more government involvement into all our lives on one hand, while criticizing government involvement in one specific man's life.

But this disconnect in Obama's words is telling. Obama likes more active national government, and dislikes active local governments.

Even if you assume the police were wrong in the Gates situation, how many people were hurt by their actions? Only Gates himself. On the other hand, if the national government makes a mistake in their takeover of the health care industry, how many people will be hurt? At least millions, if not all 300 million of us.

In this scenario, the only way a government takeover of health care can be justified is on a simple assumption that national bureaucrats are somehow more efficient and effective than local bureaucrats. But are national bureaucrats efficient and effective enough to be able to handle the much larger numbers of people for which they will be responsible? Or will they just be overseeing a bunch of local bureaucrats who will handle the new health care responsibilities, much like how programs like welfare are currently handled?

Either way, Obama just provided another reason NOT to support this "stupid" health care takeover.

Out of the office

Just taking a little break from blogging. I will return to regular posting at the end of July. In the meantime, enjoy your summer folks!

Revenge of the Possum Part 2: A New Hope

(Continued from Part 1)

The second comment I received on the possum story came in April of this year. "Oxankle" started out his comment positively:

I have no sympathy for possums; they are indeed vermin and have killed uncounted numbers of chickens for me. I killed a possum this morning and six within the past three weeks.

Finally, some sympathy, right? Not quite:

However; Anon was right when he said that you, Ed, went about it the wrong way. When we inflict show death, pain, suffering on a living creature we diminish our own humanity. You could very easily have taken the possum by the tail with your gardening gloves, pulled it from the hole and dispatched it quickly.

I do not even have anything against the use of the sword, but you have to know how to use it efficiently. Imagine how you would have suffered had you taken a gut thrust and been left on the field.

Unfortunately there are millions of people who know so little about wildlife that they cannot do what our ancestors did as a matter of routine.

I went from "Ed, you're a horrible inhuman beast" in the first comment, to "Ed, if you're gonna kill a possum, at least learn how to do it right".

In my response, I had to agree with Oxankle:

Admittedly, I'm not a swordsman, nor am I a nature expert. For what it's worth, my intent was to kill the possum quickly. I failed.

At least I can admit when I am wrong.

The "Warm" has turned

Robert Tracinski and Tom Minchin point out how it looks like Australia might have finally come to its' senses regarding the whole Global Warming scam:

As the US Congress considers the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, the Australian Senate is on the verge of rejecting its own version of cap-and-trade. The story of this legislation's collapse offers advance notice for what might happen to similar legislation in the US—and to the whole global warming hysteria.

Since the Australian government first introduced its Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) legislation—the Australian version of cap-and-trade energy rationing—there has been a sharp shift in public opinion and political momentum against the global warming crusade. This is a story that offers hope to defenders of industrial civilization—and a warning to American environmentalists that the climate change they should be afraid of just might be a shift in the intellectual climate.

Tracinski and Minchin continue by pointing to that rarest of events. The conversion of a Global Warming advocate:

One of the most remarkable changes occurred on April 13, when leading global warming hysteric Paul Sheehan—who writes for the main Sydney newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, which has done as much to hype the threat of global warming as any Australian newspaper—reviewed Plimer's book and admitted he was taken aback. He describes Plimer, correctly, as "one of Australia's foremost Earth scientists," and praised the book as "brilliantly argued" and "the product of 40 years' research and breadth of scholarship."

What does Plimer's book say? Here is Sheehan's summary:

Much of what we have read about climate change, [Plimer] argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modeling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive."…

The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable—human-induced CO2—is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly.

I put in bold the part above, which is what I have been saying for years, yet the Religion of Global Warming parishioners cannot seem to refute it.

But I digress. Back to Tracinski and Minchin's story about how cap-and-trade is doing in the Australian Senate:

There are 7 other votes in the Senate: five Greens who say the scheme doesn't go far enough but who could be induced to go along; one independent, Nick Xenophon, who has pledged to vote against the bill unless the government waits till after Copenhagen; and one other, Senator Steve Fielding of the Family First Party, who has decided to investigate the whole thing first hand. Fielding could turn out to be the single deciding vote.

...Fielding went to the US to assess the American evidence for global warming at close quarters. As Melbourne's Age reported on June 4:

Senator Fielding said he was impressed by some of the data presented at the [US Heartland Institute's] climate change skeptics' conference: namely that, although carbon emissions had increased in the last 10 years, global temperature had not.

He said scientists at the conference had advanced other explanations, such as the relationship between solar activity and solar energy hitting the Earth to explain climate change.

Fielding has issued a challenge to the Obama White House to rebut the data. It will be a novel experience for them, as Fielding is an engineer and has an Australian's disregard for self-important government officials. Here is how The Age described his challenge:

Senator Fielding emailed graphs that claim the globe had not warmed for a decade to Joseph Aldy, US President Barack Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, after a meeting on Thursday…. Senator Fielding said he found that Dr. Aldy and other Obama administration officials were not interested in discussing the legitimacy of climate science.

Telling an Australian you're not interested in the legitimacy of your position is a red rag to a bull. So here is what Fielding concluded:

Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive….

As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct.

At least the Australians seem to be smart enough to recognize bull when they hear it, even if it took them awhile. In the meantime, the U.S. is stuck with Obama's Global Warming cultists running the show, who make policy on faith, not science. All we can do is hope the American people come to their senses before the fools in Washington throw another log on the true "warming" problem: the economic meltdown.

Revenge of the Possum Part 1

Back in July of 2006, I wrote my now almost infamous possum post.

While I did not receive any comments on my blog at the time I posted it, I have received a slow trickle of venomous commentary since then, most of it posted anonymously.

The first anonymous comment came in May of 2007:

Google "possums" and learn something about them. I've rescued and had close encounters with a number of them. They are gentle, slow-moving creatures that pose little threat. They almost never carry rabies.

"Almost never carry rabies"? That's good to know with a wife and two kids in the house. On the off chance this is one of those rare possum WITH rabies, I should ignore that possibility because they are "gentle" and "slow-moving"?

You might as well have been stabbing and dismembering a human baby for all the danger that possum posed to you.

Human babies don't have sharp teeth.

You imagine yourself a warrior? Practice the first rule: Know your enemy.

I wasn't planning on having a possum as a house guest. Next time, I will be better prepared. For example, did you know that possum like carrion? Grab an old piece of meat, put it on a large mousetrap, and SNAP! Possum problem solved.

And if you did know your "enemy", you'd realize you slowly tortured the very essence of innocence.

I don't normally associate "innocence" with an animal which has the same dietary habits as buzzards.

...nothing in your story described any behavior remotely threatening to you or your [wife] yet you slowly vivisected this unfortunate, harmless animal that, like you, has lungs, liver, kidneys, a heart....and, like you, experiences fear, trauma,...and pain.

So do rats and bats, but I don't want them in my house either.

The commenter then goes off into a long rant about the difference between foolishness and bravery. My original reply bears repeating:

Anonymous (if that is your real name), you obviously missed the humor in this. Are you familiar with a concept called "irony"?

You are absolutely correct in stating there is nothing brave in killing a possum. A possum is vermin, much like a rat, hence the irony. I added the "bravery" aspect to this post in order to play up the irony of the situation.

I should add there is nothing brave in leaving anonymous comments on the Internet either.

Neda martyr?

The story of an Iranian woman who was allegedly shot and killed during a protest in Iran has me intrigued:

(all quotes from MSNBC.com)
Amateur video of a young Iranian woman lying in the street — blood streaming from her nose and mouth — has quickly become an iconic image of the country's opposition movement and unleashed a flood of outrage at the regime's crackdown.

The footage, less than a minute long, appears to capture the woman's death moments after she was shot at a protest — a powerful example of citizens' ability to document events inside Iran despite government restrictions on foreign media and Internet and phone lines.

The limits imposed amid the unrest over the disputed June 12 election make details of the woman's life and events immediately preceding her apparent death difficult to confirm. She has been identified in the video clips as 'Neda' but it's impossible to confirm her name, or even if the widely distributed video was taken in Tehran during the unrest.

When I first read the story at Foxnews.com, my first thought was "Joan of Arc". Apparently, I was not the only one:

Thousands of people inside and outside Iran have written online tributes to the woman, many condemning the government and praising her as a martyr. Some posted photos of a gently smiling woman they said was Neda, some calling her "Iran's Joan of Arc."

It is hard to say what the reality is behind Neda, since none of the news services seem to be able to confirm the details of this woman's life. For all we know, she may have been a woman who happened to be walking near a protest, and was killed by a stray bullet. Or she might not even be Iranian at all, and the videos were shot somewhere else.

However, the perception of this woman by Iranians is the important factor here. While the protesting Iranians will undoubtedly hold Neda up as a martyr, what will the average Iranian think? Will this enrage them, or will they just go on with their day to day lives?

The Iranians will see what they wish in Neda. If they want a martyr, they have one. If not, then her death is meaningless to them. Either way, the Iranian government hangs in the balance of their perception.

There are no facts, only interpretations. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Africa by Perpetuum Jazzile

This following video from a choir group called Perpetuum Jazzile is just incredible. Enjoy.


(Hat tip to boortz.com)

A Liz by any other name...

If you ever have to call Rep. Jim McDermott's office, and you get his Executive Assistant/Office Manager Elizabeth Becton on the phone, make sure you call her "Liz".

This email exchange (edited to protect the innocent) is why (from Anne Mullins over at Politico.com):

From: XXX
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 11:38 AM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: JPMC Meeting Request

Elizabeth,

Attached is a meeting request for JP Morgan Chase who will be in DC June 3rd-4th and would like to request a brief meeting with the Congressman.

Let me know if you need any additional information.

Thank you!

Best,
XXX
________________________________
From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:05 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Hi Liz,

just checking in on whether the Congressman is available next week. [REDACTED] can confirm a meeting time for you - she is available at [REDACTED].

Thank you!

Best,
XXX
________________________________
From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:07 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Importance: High

Who is Liz?

Elizabeth Becton
Executive Assistant/Office Manager
Office of Congressman Jim McDermott
XXXX Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
XXX phone
XXX fax
________________________________
From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:07 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Hi Elizabeth, I thought you went by Liz - apologies if that is incorrect. Best, XXX

________________________________
From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:08 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

I do not go by Liz. Where did you get your information?
________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:10 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Hi Elizabeth, I'm so sorry if I offended you! I thought you had gone by Liz at Potlatch, this was my mistake. Best, XXX
________________________________
From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:11 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

NEVER. I hate that name.
________________________________
From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:13 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Hi Elizabeth, I'm so sorry if I offended you! I must have mis-heard. My mistake! Best, XX
________________________________
From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:20 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Importance: High

XXX:

If I wanted you to call me by any other name, I would have offered that to you. I think it's rude when people don't even ask permission and take all sorts of liberties with your name. This is a real sore spot with me. My name has a lot of "nicknames" which I don't use. I use either my first name or my last name because I row with a lot of other women who share the same first name. Now, please do not ever call me by a nickname again.

As for your meeting request, who is the point of contact for this meeting? If it's not you, then I need to know who because it's very time-consuming to deal with a lot of people for one meeting.

Thanks,
________________________________
From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:23 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Hi Elizabeth, I'm so sorry I offended you! My mistake!

XXX can confirm a meeting time for you - she is available at XXX XXXX.

Thank you!

Best, XXX
________________________________
[UNRELATED EMAILS REDACTED]
________________________________
From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:33 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Of course! Again, I am sincerely sorry for offending you. I must have mis-heard and it was in no way my intention to make you upset. I always enjoy working with you and seeing you at the WSS events J

Best,
XXX
________________________________
From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:37 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Sounds like you got played by someone who KNOWS I hate that name and that it's a fast way to TICK me off. Who told you that I go by that name? They are not your friend...
________________________________
From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:38 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Hi Elizabeth,

Again, I am sincerely sorry for offending you. I don't want to cause trouble as I clearly must have mis-heard the person at Potlatch. It was in no way my intention to make you upset.

Best,
XXX
________________________________
From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:41 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Importance: High

I REALLY want to know who told you to call me that.
________________________________
From:XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:44 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Hi Elizabeth,
Again, I am sincerely sorry for offending you. I don't recall who I overheard. It was in no way my intention to make you upset.
Best,
XXX
________________________________
From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:04 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Let me put it this way, they don't know me and perhaps they were PRETENDING to know me better than they do and pretended that I go by Liz. They did YOU a disservice.

In the future, you should be VERY careful about such things. People like to brag about their connections in DC. It's a past time for some. It's also dangerous to eaves drop, as you have just found out.

Quit apologizing and never call me anything but Elizabeth again. Also, make sure you correct anyone who attempts to call me by any other name but Elizabeth. Are we clear on this? Like I said, it's a hot button for me.

And please don't call the office and not leave a message. My colleague told me you called while I was away at the Ladies' room. I do sometimes leave my desk.

While I appreciate some people have names they prefer to go by, usually a simple "don't call me that" will suffice.

As an "Executive Assistant/Office Manager" to Rep. McDermott, Liz made $88,344.44 in 2008 (thanks to Legistorm.com). Way to go Liz! That is good taxpayer money for a secretary with an attitude.

Appalling Krugman

As detailed in my post from Tuesday, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman was caught calling for the housing bubble which contributed heavily to our current economic mess. Then he tried to back off what he said by calling it "just economic analysis".

Now PhD economist Mark Thornton calls Krugman out for recommending the interest rate cuts which also contributed to this mess. The following Krugman quote from May 2, 2001, shoots a huge hole in Krugman's excuse (bold formatting added by me):

I've always favored the let-bygones-be-bygones view over the crime-and-punishment view. That is, I've always believed that a speculative bubble need not lead to a recession, as long as interest rates are cut quickly enough to stimulate alternative investments. But I had to face the fact that speculative bubbles usually are followed by recessions. My excuse has been that this was because the policy makers moved too slowly -- that central banks were typically too slow to cut interest rates in the face of a burst bubble, giving the downturn time to build up a lot of momentum. That was why I, like many others, was frustrated at the smallish cut at the last Federal Open Market Committee meeting: I was pretty sure that Alan Greenspan had the tools to prevent a disastrous recession, but worried that he might be getting behind the curve.

However, let's give credit where credit is due: Mr. Greenspan has cut rates since then. And while some of us may have been urging him to move even faster, the Fed's four interest-rate cuts since the slowdown became apparent represent an unusually aggressive response by historical standards. It's still not clear that Mr. Greenspan has caught up with the curve -- let's have at least one more rate cut, please -- but the interest-rate cuts do, cross your fingers, seem to be having an effect.

If we succeed in avoiding recession, this will mark a big win for let- bygones-be-bygones, and a big loss for crime-and-punishment. And that will be very good news not just for this business cycle, but for business cycles to come.

Read the rest of Thornton's post for more "tastes like crow" Krugman quotes.

What I find interesting is the last paragraph from Krugman's quote:

For the big lesson of the late 1990's was that speculative bubbles spring eternal. The signs of irrational exuberance, not to mention sheer silliness, were there for all to see; yet the bubble expanded — and then burst — all the same. Surely there will be other bubbles, and other burstings, in the decades ahead. The best we can hope for is that when the bubbles burst the consequences can be limited. And the faint signs of good news in the U.S. economy are reason to hope that they can.

Contrast that with Krugman's view from his May 27, 2005 column:

The important point to remember is that the bursting of the stock market bubble hurt lots of people - not just those who bought stocks near their peak. By the summer of 2003, private-sector employment was three million below its 2001 peak. And the job losses would have been much worse if the stock bubble hadn't been quickly replaced with a housing bubble.

So what happens if the housing bubble bursts? It will be the same thing all over again, unless the Fed can find something to take its place. And it's hard to imagine what that might be. After all, the Fed's ability to manage the economy mainly comes from its ability to create booms and busts in the housing market. If housing enters a post-bubble slump, what's left?

Mr. Roach believes that the Fed's apparent success after 2001 was an illusion, that it simply piled up trouble for the future. I hope he's wrong. But the Fed does seem to be running out of bubbles.

So after 4 years of pulling for interest rate cuts and housing bubbles, Krugman FINALLY started to see the problem with bubbles?

But the question remains: Was Krugman's "hope" that the bubble was not just an illusion based on his desire for the economy to work, or was it based on the fact that Krugman had spent years advocating the failed policies which were about to lead to disaster?

Fascialism

fascism  
1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

socialism 
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
(from dictionary.reference.com)

If you look at the United States government today, there are elements of both fascism and socialism at work in its' actions.

The latest example is the Obama administration's call for a "a new, strong, independent agency with full authority to protect consumers from unfair practices." This agency will provide (from Foxbusiness.com):

--Strong oversight of financial firms.
--Strengthening the regulation of core markets and infrastructure.
--Strengthen consumer protection.
--Ensure the government has the tools to effectively manage financial crises.
--Ensure high standards, not just in the U.S. but also globally.

The scariest line comes from a CNNMoney.com article on this subject: "The Federal Deposit of Insurance Corp. could get more power to take over and unwind financial companies, beyond banks, that are in deep trouble."

Hello, fascialism, a perfect combination of the regimentation of all industry and commerce (aka fascism), with "the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole" (aka socialism).

While I would like to take credit for the new word, I can't. Thomas J. DiLorenzo beat me by five days. He also wrote a much better column about it (link here).

So let us quit calling Obama a fascist or a socialist. Let us call him a fascialist, and let the Left try to run away from that label.

Nobel Lariat

I have picked on Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman before, but when I read his idea for solving our recession back in 2002, I was floored by the complete idiocy of it.

What could be the worst possible advice anyone could suggest in 2002 to fight the recession? Maybe create a housing bubble? But that is exactly what our Nobel Prize winning economic baboon suggested:

To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that... Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

(from Krugman's August 2, 2002 New York Times column)

So how is that housing bubble working for you?

If Krugman had an ounce of honor, he would give back his Nobel Prize, then go pull a David Carradine somewhere.

(Hat tip to lewrockwell.com)

UPDATE: Krugman's response:

One of the funny aspects of being a somewhat, um, forceful writer is that I’m regularly accused of all sorts of villainy. I was personally responsible for the demise of Enron; my nonexistent son worked for Hillary; etc.. The latest seems to be that I called for the creation of a housing bubble — in fact, the bubble is my fault! The claim seems to be based on this piece.

Guys, read it again. It wasn’t a piece of policy advocacy, it was just economic analysis. What I said was that the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could inflate a housing bubble. And that’s just what happened.

My only problem with Krugman's explanation is that nowhere in the original piece does he suggest that a housing bubble would be a bad idea.

And the little joke about the housing bubble being his fault? Nice touch, but nobody is saying that. We are just calling you on the carpet for being on the wrong side of history yet again.

"Econoblogger" Megan McArdle says it best: "...there's a paragraph I'm sure glad I didn't write."

Economic lunacy

Perhaps the first clue should have been the fact the editorial was at the New York Times website. The dead giveaway that I was reading the work of an economic moron was the following passage:

The tax system in this country is pretty complicated, and nobody knows how well people understand their place in it. David Brooks once claimed that 19 percent of Americans thought they were in the top 1 percent of the income distribution in 2000.

A more accurate interpretation of the polling data he was referring to suggests that 19 percent thought they would benefit from tax cuts to the top 1 percent. This is almost equally implausible.

In the economic worldview of the Left, one can only "benefit" from a tax cut if it is a cut to taxes one pays directly. If the government were to cut, for example, corporate taxes, and corporations passed along the savings to their customers, there is no benefit for the customers from that tax cut, even though the customers were blindly paying for the corporate taxes all along. No, there are no benefits in that situation in the worldview of the Left.

What about taxing the rich? How can we all benefit from taking money from the rich? What could the rich possibly provide to the rest of us by spending their own money, as opposed to having our beloved comrades in government spending it instead?

Would you rather pay for "bridges to nowhere", corporate bailouts for failed companies, and payoffs for large campaign donations? Or would you rather let the rich spend their money on the extravagance they have earned, thereby promoting manufacturing jobs in such sectors as private jets, yachts, expensive cars, and other such "conspicuous consumption"?

Neither option may seem preferable, but consider the second one. Luxury item manufacturing promotes the creation of jobs. Good, steady, well-paying jobs.

But back to the New York Times editorial. It was written by Nancy Folbre. When you click on the link to her name, the following description of her comes up:

Nancy Folbre is professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Her research focuses on the interface between feminist theory and political economy, with a particular focus on the work of caring for others.

Feminist theory. Economics. There are two fields that belong together...if you want to be a bad economist, or a smart feminist.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support women's rights, and I believe most women are actually superior to men in many important ways. That said, "feminist theory" is a joke degree, and an excuse to hold a political grudge. Mix that with economics for a truly special brand of stupid that is not as rare as it should be. The kind of stupid that sounds smart, but is really short-sighted, and fails to think beyond what is in front of it. THAT may arguably be the most dangerously stupid kind of "economic" knowledge possible.

Nancy, I will NOT call you "Dr. Folbre". You frankly are not intelligent enough to be referred to as a "doctor" of anything. If you are an example of what passes for a "professor" at the University of Massachusetts, then I know not to send my kids to your "school" (I use the word school loosely, since it may be more of an indoctrination camp, if you are exemplary of its' staff).

Nancy, go back to school. Read some Sowell, some Friedman, some von Mises. Just do anything to increase your knowledge please.

What you wrote in that New York Times piece was an embarrassment to economists everywhere.

The Healthcare Issue

After reading my 50 millionth editorial on healthcare, I have come to one conclusion.

We already have government healthcare. It is in two programs called Medicare and Medicaid. And they do not work.

Both cost too much. In the case of Medicaid, many doctors will not even accept patients with it.

The only healthcare program which has shown the possibility of working: Medicare Part D. The only reason it works? It utilizes competition among private sector companies in order to achieve price efficiencies.

So President Obama wants to provide public healthcare (read: socialized medicine)? I will gladly go along with his proposal on one condition: He has to fix our current public healthcare programs utilizing whatever idea he has for all of our healthcare.

Is it too much to ask for proof that Obama's ideas will work?

Where my retirement fund is invested now

About 3 weeks ago, I decided to bring my retirement fund out of mothballs (read: cash). Since then, I've done rather well, making about $4,000. However, I fully expect to make MUCH more, based on my own read of the economy.

For the foreseeable future, I expect to see the economy flounder between weakness and inflation. As soon as the economy starts to improve, expect inflation to crank up, effectively squashing economic recovery. Then the weakening economy will cut back on the inflation. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Add in massive unfunded government spending (i.e. funded by "Geithner and Bernanke's Magic Printer"), and you can just multiply those effects (higher inflation and deeper economic recessions).

Here is where my money is now (in order of dollars invested):
1. Vanguard Precious Metals & Mining Fund (VGPMX): This is my "gold" play, and also the largest source of profit for my portfolio so far (accounting for $2,400 of my profit).

Even if you assume a "Paul Krugman"-esque view of the economy (i.e. all the money coming out of the government is only staving off deflation, and will not necessarily cause large amounts of inflation), there are two other factors to consider. All the money being printed will kill the dollar on the currency exchanges, thereby increasing the price of all imported commodities, of which most precious metals are included. Also, there are 2 billion people in China and India, where the cultures value hording commodities like gold and silver.

2. Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM): If you think the price of oil is going up, and I do, then Exxon is the gold standard of blue chip stocks in the oil sector. If the economy turns around, the price of oil will shoot up like a rocket. Even if the economy doesn't turn around, the currency exchange factor affecting precious metals (see #1 above) still applies.

3. Ford Motor Co. (F): I actually didn't have that much invested in Ford, but it has had a nice little run since I started.

My Ford investment is a classic play where you look at how politics will affect business. Specifically, I am looking at the "cash for clunkers" bill rolling through Congress. That bill will most help those auto companies which make good small cars. Right now, Honda (see #8 below) makes the best small cars (i.e. the Fit and the Civic). By later this year/early next year, Ford will join this list with the new Fiesta (based on early reviews of the car).

In addition, the problems with GM and Chrysler have left Ford looking downright solid by comparison. GM is DOA, and Chrysler is hoping they can sell Fiats in America, which is an intriguingly shortsighted strategy since Fiat couldn't sell them the last time they were here.

4. Eni SpA (E): According to the CNNMoney.com profile, Eni "is engaged in the oil and gas, electricity generation, petrochemicals, oilfield services and engineering industries". Eni, an Italian company, is my Euro/oil play. Also, with a current price/earnings ratio (P/E) of 5.3, this is a highly undervalued company in the oil sector.

5. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT): This is my "Warren Buffet" play. As Buffet says, invest in what you know. I know Wal-Mart, because that is where I shop, almost religiously. Wal-Mart gives a solid dividend, and can only profit from a down economy.

6. Petroleo Brasileiro SA (PBR): Another oil play, this time in Brazil. By the way, google "PBR +Tupi". Of all the oil companies, Petroleo Brasileiro has the best prospect for growth in the next five years, thanks to the Tupi oil they discovered.

7. CNOOC Ltd (CEO): A Chinese oil company. P/E ratio of 9.8. 'Nuff said.

8. Honda Motor Co Ltd (HMC): A combo Warren Buffet/"cash for clunkers" play (see Wal-Mart at #5 above and Ford at #2 above). Ever since I bought my wife a Fit, I have been a Honda fan.

9. WisdomTree Dreyfus Brazilian Real Fund (BZF): Did you know Brazil has one of the highest average money market rates, approximately 9%? Did you also know Brazil's central bank JUST lowered their prime interest rate to 9.25% (compared to the Federal Reserve's 0.25% rate)? Did you know that currencies in countries with plentiful natural resources AND tight central banks have done best against the declining U.S. dollar?

So I get to earn 9% interest, AND enjoy improving currency exchange rates on that money? Cha-ching!

Did you know you owe $3,333 for the last 8 months?

You owe $3,333 for the last 8 months. Whether you're Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, black, white, Indian, Chinese, Hispanic, old, young, newborn, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, male, female, rich, poor, middle class, or any of the various other subdivisions in America, it matters not. If you are an American, you owe $3,333.

In the last 8 months, the U.S. government spent $1,000,000,000,000 more than it received in revenue. In a country of 300,000,000 people, that works out to $3,333 per person.

YOU spent that! What the heck were you thinking?

Whether you are a Bush Republican or an Obama Democrat, this is YOUR fault!

Actually, fault is irrelevant, since even the newborns in this country owe this money. They just don't know it yet.

But here is the real question: What did we get for that money? Think about it: $3,000+ will buy a lot of neat stuff.

For example, within the price range of $3-3,333, you could:

-buy one of 1,046 artworks available for immediate sale on eBay.
-put a nice downpayment on a small car.
-buy two(!) Vizio 55" LCD HDTV's from Walmart.
-leave tomorrow for Rome, and come back on July 2nd...with your spouse...stay at a nice hotel near the Colusseum. This includes flight, hotel, and rental car.

I know I'm being frivolous, since it is much more important to bailout banks and failing auto companies. We wouldn't want these people to join the other 9.4% of unemployed Americans. Of course, considering the unemployment rate WAS 6.2% eight months ago, one has to wonder how much these bailouts are really helping. Although I am sure Obama or Bush would probably say something about all the jobs that they have saved, but there sure are a lot of jobs for which they didn't do diddly squat.

Personally, I want my money back.

It's not bias if Obama IS a god...

To read this quote from Newsweek's Evan Thomas is to know the true depth of Media bias:

"Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama's had, really, a different task. We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he - he has a very different job from - Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is 'we are above that now.' We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something - I mean in a way Obama's standing above the country, above - above the world, he's sort of God."

How can ANY human being be "sort of God"? Only in one person's distorted perception could a human being be elevated to such lofty heights of existence.

Of course, the fact that interviewer Chris Matthews let Evan Thomas's comment go unchallenged speaks volumes about Matthews too. But at least Obama's status as a deity would explain Matthews' leg tinglings.


(Hat tip to newsbusters.org)

Reid not reading

I have always been bothered by the fact our legislators can vote on bills without ever having read them. But now we have evidence they are voting on Supreme Court nominees while knowing nothing of importance about them.

Senate Majority Leader Harry "Taxes are voluntary" Reid has this to say about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's:

I understand that during her career, she's written hundreds and hundreds of opinions. I haven't read a single one of them, and if I'm fortunate before we end this, I won't have to read one of them. But -- I'm not familiar with that opinion, but there will be plenty of time for people who are concerned about the Second Amendment -- and there are lots of people on the Judiciary Committee who are concerned about it -- they'll have lots of time to offer her questions and she'll proceed to answer them. But I don't know anything about that.

Harry Reid hasn't read anything Sotomayor has written. Reid doesn't WANT to read anything she's written.

Coming from ANY legislator, that quote is indefensibly deplorable. Coming from a person whom all Democratic senators voted as their leader puts the entire Democratic side of the U.S. Senate in a very bad light.

Having said that, I will add that I doubt the Republican senators are any better about knowing what they are voting for or against.

Personally, I consider it a national disgrace that legislators can openly claim ignorance about knowledge of things for which their job, for which the American people have hired them, requires them to know.

Put this in perspective: If you were hired as a taxi driver, and you later told your boss, "I don't know how to drive, and I don't really want to know", how long do you think you would stay employed?

Yet we keep sending lazy buffoons like Harry Reid back to Washington again and again.


(hat tip to Newsbusters.org)

Obama-Mart

Glenn Hall over at TheStreet.com has an interesting take on the news that Wal-Mart plans to hire 22,000 people:

...Wal-Mart is borrowing from President Obama's playbook on optimism with [Wal-Mart's] Vice Chairman Eduardo Castro-Wright saying things like: "During this difficult economic time, we're proud to be able to create quality jobs for thousands of Americans this year."

Inspirational. Makes you want to shop at Wal-Mart, doesn't it? If a company cares enough about America to create jobs in this dismal economic climate, then by golly we should support it.

This well-timed news from Wal-Mart pushes all the right buttons.

It is genius to announce job creation plans ahead of the government report that showed 6.7 million Americans are collecting unemployment checks.

Wal-Mart also trumped today's retail sales reports, giving everyone something else to talk about instead of the fact that it is no longer reporting monthly sales figures.

From a marketing perspective, I have to agree with Mr. Hall. This is genius on Wal-Mart's part.

Abortion tax?

Frequently, pro-abortionists use the argument that a woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body. If we buy that argument, then shouldn't we also say that drug users have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies? Shouldn't smokers and alcoholics be allowed to decide what to do with their own bodies?

I know, smoking and alcohol are both legal. But they are also heavily taxed. So why can't we heavily tax abortion?

Mind you, I am NOT advocating an abortion tax. Rather, I am pointing out how obscene sin taxes are. We ignore justifications for some activities due to individual rights, but then support taxes on activities where we as a society deem them socially unacceptable, or dangerous (although the danger is strictly to the individual).

What if the Earth is warming?

Let us assume for the moment that Al Gore is right, and the Earth is warming. What potential consequences would that have for human life on this planet?

This is the premise of an insightful article by Vin Suprynowicz (link here). His article reports that cold temperatures are more hazardous to human lives than warm temperatures. He backs this up with references to many studies that prove his point, including the following:

In early 2008, the Department of Health of the UK released “Health Effects of Climate Change in the UK 2008,” an update of previous reports from 2001/2002, edited by Sari Kovats. They used IPCC models that predicted 2.5 C to 3 C mean temperature increases in the U.K. by 2100. They found that there was no increase in heat-related deaths from 1971–2002, despite warming in summers, suggesting that the UK population is adapting to warmer conditions. But cold-related mortality fell by more than a third in all regions. The overall trend in mortality for the warming from 1971–2002 was beneficial. They state, in summary, that “Winter deaths will continue to decline as the climate warms.”

His conclusion is perfect:

Global warming (if it should continue) will save lives – lots of them. Nor is this counterintuitive. Since our early ancestors developed and prospered in warm climates – most likely in equatorial Africa – why shouldn’t it hold true that our species will do best in moderately warmer climates?

Humans are masters of adaptation, but it still takes a lot more work to survive in the cold. The “climate change” we should really worry about is the next Ice Age, which could see everything north of Columbus, Ohio covered by an ice shelf a mile thick.

Do the “global warming” fanatics think we can prevent that by burning lots of coal and putting lots of miles on our SUVs? If so, shouldn’t we start right now, just in case?

Krugman's flawed thinking

Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning and liberal-minded economist, has just enough facts to support his views, but then trips up his own points with his own flawed liberal worldview.

His New York Times editorial today is a good case in point. While he makes some good points against inflation looming on the horizon, he also shows how his own liberal bias influences his thinking:

But it’s hard to escape the sense that the current inflation fear-mongering is partly political, coming largely from economists who had no problem with deficits caused by tax cuts but suddenly became fiscal scolds when the government started spending money to rescue the economy.

I would expect a "respected" economist like Mr. Krugman would realize that federal tax revenues went up during the period of President Bush's tax cuts (once more providing the truth of the Laffer Curve). Assuming Krugman is referring to the economists I think he means, rather than just making a political strawman point, those economists were appropriately, and accurately, deriding the government spending which was creating the deficits.

For a Nobel Prize-winning economist to make such a blatantly political statement, and one which is wrong on top of it, is disturbing, especially in what is essentially a well-argued opinion piece.

Hyphenation hilarity

Occasionally, wives will hyphenate their last names with their new husband's last name, as opposed to just taking their husband's last name or keeping their own last name.

Click here for some examples where the wife should absolutely NOT hyphenate her last name with her husband's.

(hat tip to Sacramento's CBS13.com website)

Heads we warm, tails we cool

From Foxnews.com:

"...Is it getting cooler or warmer?

The answer, according to a new study, is that we need to concentrate on the long-term trend, which points to an overall warming tendency over these past hundred years.

The great majority of climate scientists agree that it's getting warmer in many places around the world. The cause, they also agree, is heat-trapping carbon dioxide produced by human technology.

But how does this square with the observed fact that over the past decade world temperature has actually stayed the same, or even gone down?

Two scientists, Michael F. Wehner and David R. Easterling, show that such decade-long fluctuations are quite common in weather history. From day to day, season to season, and year to year, the weather shows great variability thanks to natural factors like capricious wind patterns and ocean currents.

Changes in climate -- that is, changes in typical weather conditions over long periods of time -- are more difficult to assess."

But if it is difficult to assess, then how can one make an argument for or against Global Warming?

But let us continue:

Wehner, who works at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., says that the long-term trend really is toward a warmer planet, but that a single year, 1998, has temporarily thrown off the overall upward march in temperature.

In that year, an immense transfer of heat from the western to the eastern Pacific occurred: El Nino (Spanish for "Christ Child"), which often coincides with Christmas time. An El Nino event can have a major impact on rainfall patterns and temperatures over several continents.

El Nino and other weather factors can cause a short reversal in the warming trend for a year. A 10-year reversal is less likely, but still possible. Just as in throwing a coin, seven heads in a row is unexpected, but it does happen now and then.

In the journal Geophysical Review Letters, Wehner says that even a period of 20 years of modest cooling -- the equivalent of throwing 20 heads in a row -- would not reverse the scientific finding that long-term world temperature is trending upward; the trend is based on data now stretching back more than a century.

So basically, our understanding of recent climate change comes down to...chance.

Climate scientists can claim the long term trend is toward warming, yet their best explanation for a short term reversal is mere chance?

By the way, do you know the odds of throwing 20 heads in a row? 1 in 1,048,576. The entire Global Warming theory comes down to odds that long?

It is safe to stop calling Global Warming a "theory", and start calling it a "lottery".

The Obama Disconnect

According to CNN:

"...at the end of his first quarterly meeting with the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which was created in February to provide the administration with independent, nonpartisan advice on how to promote economic growth and stability.

...Obama told the board members he's seen "some return to normalcy" in parts of the financial markets."

I would love to hear which part of the financial markets is being referred to by our Dear Leader. According to the Federal Reserve (in a different article from CNN):

"The Federal Reserve's latest forecasts for the U.S. economy are gloomier than the ones released three months earlier, with an expectation for higher unemployment and a steeper drop in economic activity.

The Fed's forecasts, released as part of the minutes from its April meeting, show that its staff now expects the unemployment rate to rise to between 9.2% and 9.6% this year. The central bank had forecast in January that the jobless rate would be in a range of 8.5% to 8.8%, but the unemployment rate topped that in April, hitting 8.9%.

The Fed also now expects the gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economic activity, to post a drop of between 1.3% and 2% this year. It had previously expected only a 0.5% to 1.3% decline."

Or how about this report (also from CNN):

"Welcome to the summer of the furlough. Manufacturing workers have long suffered from these "temporary layoffs," but the white-collar world is feeling them now, too: During this recession, everyone from universities to technology companies are using furloughs as a way to cut payroll without further trimming their staffs.

And while furloughs are already underway around the nation, human resources specialists say that required unpaid days off are only going to heat up as we head into the summer months, when employees are more amenable to time off -- albeit unpaid.

"Companies have done the huge surgery in terms of offering reductions in forced and involuntary ways," says Fred Crandall with consulting firm Watson Wyatt."

Of course, if Bush had said something as incredibly moronic as what Obama said, the Media would have lambasted Bush. But since it comes from the Obamessiah, not a peep is heard.

CAFE Insanity

So I am reading this editorial at the Wall Street Journal website about the new CAFE standards proposed by Obama, "Car Crazy:
Bankrupt companies making 39 mpg autos. Are we nuts?". My first thought is: Is the Wall Street Journal nuts?

If they want to argue that the 39 mpg target is too high, I can buy that. But their argument seems to be centered around "the big three aren't capable of reaching that goal". I don't buy it.

Exhibit A: The Honda Fit. When I bought one for my wife, I was surprised how much fun that little car was, and is. Add in the fact it gets 27 city/33 highway mpg, and it is a tremendous buy. It is proof that a small car can be fun, affordable, and get great gas mileage.

Exhibit B: The Ford Fiesta. It has received rave reviews, and sold 170,000 units in Europe, with over 52,000 sold in March of this year. When released in the U.S. (late this year or early next year), it is expected to get close to 39 mpg. If this car is as fun as the Honda Fit, expect Ford to make a huge comeback.

Ford will already be close to hitting the target CAFE standard next year. Next time, the Wall Street Journal needs to do a little more research on what the car companies have in their pipelines before predicting something can't be done.

Gone fishing!

I am taking a break from blogging for awhile. I may drop in and post something occasionally, but life is pretty busy for me now. Sorry folks, nothing to see here...move along...

My Endorsement

Time once again for my official endorsement in the race for President of the United States.

After reviewing all the candidates thoroughly, I have come to one conclusion: They all stink.

Let us start with the worst of the lot, Barack Obama. As I have never knowingly voted for a Marxist in my life, I see no reason to start now.

Number two has to be Bob Barr. I discounted him in July after he waffled on Global Warming. I don't mind voting for a third party candidate, but he/she better be PERFECT! Barr is far from perfect.

Finally, there is John McCain. If this ticket were reversed, I would happily take a chance on voting for Sarah Palin, even with her inexperience. She seems driven, and ideologically on the money. Unfortunately, I cannot bring myself to endorse someone whom I wish dead, and that would be the only reason to vote for McCain. He lost me during the debates with all his talk of "bipartisanship", and "reaching across the aisle". If I wanted a Democrat, or a Democratic Party solution, I could have voted for the real one!

That left me in a quandary: I have no one for whom to vote. But then, last week, I saw him: The man who would make the perfect president: Mike Singletary, interim head coach of the San Francisco 49ers.

I first arrived at this conclusion while watching his first press conference after his first game as head coach, when the 49ers lost. Singletary was fearless, even sending his starting tight end Vernon Davis to the showers in the middle of the game after Davis mouthed off to him after a penalty.

On top of that, Singletary's raw and honest emotion and integrity was just so refreshing after months of listening to John and Sarah and Barack and Joe:

After watching that, I was ready to throw myself on a grenade for Singletary. Vote for him for president? No problem!

Frankly, all Singletary would have to do is change a few words, and that press conference would make a killer stump speech. He even has the beginnings of a platform in it:

1. We go out and hit people in the mouth.

Good national defense.

2. We are not a charity.

No altruistic government under President Singletary!

3. We execute from the very start...to the very end.

Pro-capital punishment. Good for dealing with terrorists.

On top of this, Mike Singletary is inspirational, in a way that Barack Obama could only dream of being. Note that at no time during that press conference was Singletary using a teleprompter! Truly a man who speaks from the heart.

As for any comparisons to John McCain, Singletary's war record speaks for itself: 10 times sent to the Pro Bowl and won a Super Bowl as a middle linebacker for the Chicago Bears. All while playing under MIKE DITKA! The Vietcong only WISH they had someone who could torture like Ditka!

Singletary even has Bob Barr topped: Singletary has not even been nominated by a party, let alone a third party!

Tough times like we live in now call for tough leadership. We need a president who is not afraid to send Nancy Pelosi to the showers, or hit Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the mouth. This is why I endorse Mike Singletary for President: Change you BETTER believe in!

RIP Levi Stubbs

Levi Stubbs, better known as lead singer of the Four Tops, died today at the age of 72.

While the Four Tops as a group have produced some of the most memorable music in Motown history, Stubbs himself reminds me best of one specific role he did in the movie Little Shop of Horrors:


God rest his soul. But at least dentists everywhere can now breathe a sigh of relief.

NFL Week 6-7 Team Rankings

This NFL season is parity run amok. If the rankings look a little insane, consider that a symptom of this crazy season.

In coming up with these rankings, I had to consider some games as flukes. Frankly, more games than I would want to consider flukes.

Without further ado, here they are, in descending order:

Titans
Steelers
Panthers
Chargers
Jets
Redskins
Cardinals
Bills
Jaguars
Broncos
Buccaneers
Falcons
Bears
Colts
Vikings
Patriots
Saints
Eagles
49ers
Texans
Dolphins
Cowboys
Packers
Ravens
Browns
Giants
Seahawks
Rams
Chiefs
Raiders
Bengals
Lions

NFL Week 5-6 Team Rankings

GOOD

Giants: Still the undefeated world champs. They deserve their own category, especially after the "can o' whoop ass" they laid on the Hawks.

GOOD

Redskins: Ever since their loss to the Giants, the Skins have been a different team.
Cowboys
Broncos
Panthers

AVERAGE

Chargers: Losing to the Broncos and Panthers? Perfectly understandable. But the Dolphins?
Titans: Sure they're undefeated. But the best team the Titans played was the Vikings.
Vikings: A MUCH better team with Gus Frerotte at QB.
Saints
Buccaneers
Bears
Eagles
Steelers
Patriots
Jets
Cardinals: Beating the 49ers and the Bills gets them here. I cannot see them any higher than this.
49ers
Bills
Jaguars
Colts
Falcons: Beating the Lions and Chiefs doesn't say much. Beating the Pack in Green Bay is a statement game.
Packers
Texans
Ravens
Browns
Seahawks
Dolphins: The Wildcat play is a neat gimmick. Emphasis on "gimmick".
Raiders: Enter "Tom the Cable Guy"...
Bengals: Teatering on the brink of "bad".

BAD

Lions
Rams
Chiefs

NFL Week 4 Team Rankings & Al Davis

No time for team comments this week, but I do want to comment on the Raiders firing of Lane Kiffin.

It seems easy for everyone to take shots at Al Davis, whose actions have marked him as clearly past his prime as an owner. However, what I heard in that press conference was a guy with a passion for his team from which many owners could learn. How many times do we see owners fly through the league for a few years then walk away with their profits? Not Davis. NEVER Davis. The Raiders are his passion. Even at his age, that passion shows.

Especially when it involves betrayal like he feels that Kiffin did. Davis would literally die for his team, and he expects nothing less from them. In this day and age of people changing jobs like pants, Davis is a leftover from a long ago era when people worked in jobs for their entire lives.

A lot of people say they would never want to work for Davis. While he is demanding, you would also know that he has your back. I cannot imagine anyone in the world I would rather work for.

GOOD

Giants
Redskins
Cowboys
Broncos
Panthers
Chargers

AVERAGE

Saints
Buccaneers
Bears
Eagles
Steelers
49ers
Patriots
Titans
Bills
Jaguars
Colts
Packers
Vikings
Texans
Ravens
Browns
Seahawks
Jets
Cardinals
Raiders
Bengals
Dolphins

BAD

Lions
Falcons
Rams
Chiefs

NFL Week 3 Team Rankings

EXCELLENT

Cowboys: Got to give the Boys their due. They are not only undefeated, but they won 3 games in convincing fashion.

GOOD

49ers: Granted, beating the Lions is no big deal. But they did beat them the way they were supposed to.
Eagles: They proved they're better than the Steelers.
Steelers: They still have something to prove.
Broncos: The first Cutler's the deepest...
Panthers: The Vikings aren't bad, but the Panthers did not look like the same team out there.
Chargers: Hochulie, no Christmas card...Favre, Christmas card...


AVERAGE

Patriots: When you lose to the Dolphins, you drop in the rankings...a LOT! Sorry folks, but the Pats ain't the same without Brady, and it shows.
Titans
Bills
Jaguars
Colts: This defense is average without Bob Sanders.
Packers: They move up by virtue of their win over the Vikings 2 weeks ago.
Vikings: Nice win over the Panthers. It's still hard to picture Gus Frerotte leading this team to a...nah, couldn't happen.
Texans
Ravens: Harbaugh is a better coach than I gave him credit for.
Browns: Losing to the Cowboys and the Steelers is understandable. The Ravens not so much.
Giants
Redskins
Buccaneers: Nice squeaker over Da Bears.
Bears: Da Losers.
Seahawks: I bet they wish they played the Rams every week.
Jets: How many Jets does it take to screw in a light bulb? Only one, unless they use Favre, who can't seem to get it in the right socket.
Saints: Nice try against Denver.
Cardinals
Raiders: Can you imagine if the Raiders went on a winning streak now? Al Davis wouldn't be able to fire Lane Kiffin, and he'd be furious! Ok, so maybe not...
Bengals
Dolphins: Even though the Patriots were without Brady, it's hard to move the Dolphins too high up. But at least they aren't terrible anymore.

BAD

Lions: When the son's owner says he'd fire the GM if he were in charge, that doesn't bode well.
Falcons: You know what I love about Savannah, GA? It's far enough away from Atlanta that I don't have to watch Falcons games.
Rams: Welcome back Trent Green! Now take your spot on the ground behind the center. We'll be delivering your tombstone later.
Chiefs: When you not only lose to the Falcons, but get blown out, you know you're headed for the first pick in the draft.

Palin vs. Obama: Wisdom

Victor Davis Hanson "gets it" on the Palin vs. Obama question:

"The point is this: I think it is much harder for a mother of three or four in an out-of-the-way Alaskan town to get elected to city council and the mayorship, then take on the entire Republican establishment and get elected governor than it is for a Barack Obama to emerge from Chicago politics into the Illinois state house and later Senate. The qualities that allowed a Palin to succeed without the power spouse, the identity politics, the Ivy-League cachet, the fawning New York editors and DC insider-press will ensure she does not implode on the campaign trail--and won't in office either."

Read the entire editorial.

NFL Week 2 Team Rankings

ELITE

Patriots: Do you see the pattern here? Solid defense, few mistakes offense, with an occasional big play to keep the opposing defense honest. Matt Cassell may not be the greatest quarterback, but he is clearly good enough to run this team. Tom who?

EXCELLENT

Panthers: He's ba-ack! Watch out Vikings, you're in for a long day against a well-rested Steve Smith.

GOOD

Cowboys: I have to give the Cowboys their due after beating the Eagles. But can they keep it up?
Colts: Their game against the Jags this weekend might be a lot tougher than it looks on paper. Regardless, the Colts should win.
49ers: I think the Lions are going to be led to the slaughter this weekend.
Steelers: In the "Pennsylvania Bowl" this weekend, take the boys from western PA. The Eagles won't put up nearly as many points against the Steelers as they did against the Cowboys.
Broncos: Jay Cutler MAY be the best quarterback in the NFL right now. With the exception of that infamous fumble last Sunday, he played a perfect game.
Chargers: They got Hochulied!

AVERAGE

Titans: 2-0 with a quarterback controversy? Jeff Fisher is a master.
Bills: Ok, so their defense is for real.
Jaguars: At 0-2 and sinking.
Texans: I don't think they wanted their bye week this soon. Browns: Too much offense for the Ravens to stop this weekend.
Giants: Bring on the Bungles!
Redskins: BIG win over the Saints. They get a breather with the Cards this week.
Packers: Not enough here to give the Cowboys anything to fear.
Vikings: Exit Jackson, enter Frerotte. Still the same mediocre team. Oh yeah, they beat the Lions. Yawn.
Eagles: They are better than this, but until they can prove it with a strong "W", they stay here.
Bears: Take the Bears to beat the Bucs this weekend.
Seahawks: No brainer over the Lambs on Sunday.
Jets: And they still suck...
Saints: The game between the Saints and the Broncos should be fun to watch, but take the Broncos.
Cardinals: No match for the Skins coming up.
Buccaneers: The Jon Gruden death watch has been postponed until later this season, but it is coming.
Raiders: The Lane Kiffin death watch begins.
Ravens: The Ravens might beat the Browns this week, but don't bet on it.
Bengals: No blocking. No defense. It must be the Bungles!
Lions: The Matt Millen death watch can't start soon enough.

BAD

Falcons: I couldn't believe it when I heard the Falcons sold out their game against the Chiefs. Are you people masochists?
Rams: No hope against the Hawks this week.
Dolphins: The Patriots? This week? This game is proof of the need for euthanasia.
Chiefs: You know you are really bad when you lose to a team whose coach and owner are at odds.

NFL Week 1 Team Rankings

ELITE

Patriots: How can I call the Patriots "elite" without Tom Brady (lost for the season)? Simple: They're undefeated, and they still have the same coach, Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Laurence Maroney, and a solid defense. It will be tougher for them to stay up here, but I won't be surprised if they make it to the playoffs, or even the Super Bowl.

EXCELLENT

Panthers: This team has character, which they showed by not giving up against the Chargers. Considering they did it without their best receiver (Steve Smith) on the field is even more impressive. They are the team to watch.

GOOD

Cowboys: Their game against the Eagles this coming Monday will tell us more about this team than beating the Browns did last weekend.
Chargers: A good team lost to an excellent team this week.
Colts: I would call the loss to the Bears an aberration, but it's still enough to show the Colts are a lot weaker coming into this year.
49ers: The Cardinals were out for blood after losing to the 49ers twice last season. Expect both teams to return to normal this week.
Steelers: If the Steelers keep playing like they did against the Texans, I have them underrated.
AVERAGE

Titans: Even with the Vince Young soap opera this week, Jeff Fisher is a heckuva coach. With Kerry Collins at QB, the Titans might be even better.
Jaguars: When you can't beat a team with a quarterback who quits in the middle of the game, you know you've got problems. With the Jags, those problems are injuries.
Broncos: The Chargers should present a better challenge for the Broncos than the Raiders did.
Texans: This team still has a way to go after that massacre by the Steelers.
Browns: Big game against Pitt this weekend, but I think the Steelers defense will be too much for the Brownies.
Giants: I'm still not sold on the G-men, but it was a solid win over the Skins.
Redskins: On the bright side, they only gave up 16 points. Unfortunately, they only scored 7. Ugly.
Packers: Ok folks, let's not crowd the Aaron Rodgers bandwagon! Seriously, I thought they could win with Rodgers, if he can stay healthy.
Vikings: Can we start laughing at the preseason prognosticators who called for the Vikings in the Super Bowl?
Eagles: Beat the Cowboys, and we'll talk.
Bears: The win over the Colts was a slight fluke, but it did show the Bears defense is for real.
Bills: Beating the Hawks is nice, but I'm not sold.
Seahawks: I may have the Hawks overrated here.
Jets: Bret, don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back for that win. It was the Dolphins after all.
Saints: Ok, calling Reggie Bush a bust was little harsh last week. He makes a perfectly good wideout. Unfortunately, he's a running back. Cardinals: They might even win again this week at Miami. Imagine, Cardinals 2-0. Don't read too much into it though.
Buccaneers: It's going to be a long year for Bucs fans.
Raiders: On the bright side, they get the Chiefs this week. Hey Al Davis! great move picking up DeAngelo Hall! Here's a little hint: If the Falcons don't want him, he must be REALLY bad!
Ravens: How about that Joe Flacco? Go Blue Hens!
Bengals: The Bungles are back.
Lions: How do you lose to a rebuilding team like Atlanta?

BAD

Falcons: Atlanta fans, you're allowed optimism, but don't get overjoyed. It's nice to win 34-21, but two things to remember: First, it was the Lions; and second, Matt Ryan threw the ball 13 times. Let's wait and see if he can win when he puts it up 30 times against a good team.
Rams: Every bit as bad as expected.
Dolphins: When you lose to a mediocre team with a quarterback as old as John McCain, you've got problems.
Chiefs: Amazing how the worst team in the NFL manages to lose by 7 to the best team in the NFL. Don't worry, the Chiefs still suck.