A female cousin proclaimed she wouldn't vote for Hillary because she was too strident!......
Hmmmm... More strident than, for example, Senator Biden who is more than willing to call a spade a spade?
I think that the problem is that women by nature have screechy voices (I know, sister Dee - you don't screech) - especially if they get excited. I'm sure that it served them well when we all lived in caves - but they've had to live with it in modern society due to their physiology and it has been a hard thing for them to control - certainly not instinctive and very effective in handling children -- the alternative to using a club!
Now, I don't think I've ever heard Hillary screech on TV but I've read that she used to screech at Bill on occasion - maybe she should have screeched a bit louder!
But more seriously, as usual, we are now the most backward of the advanced nations on this planet. Our empire has peaked - as all empires have in history - it should be expected. We have become excessively Christian of the more advanced nations of the world which have become more pragmatic and have discarded ideologies and beliefs which are no longer believable nor practical. We've sold out to a rigid economic system which promotes greed at the expense of the welfare of citizens nor compassion for those less advanced in the world - we could bend a little, I think.
Thus even though the world elected a black to run the United Nations and his replacement is a Korean, we in the U.S. have yet to elect a nigger! (I use the term to show why we won't elect one). And we won't elect a woman because she is merely chattel in the Bible and thus no good Christian believes that a woman is capable of leading a ‘great nation'!
This is despite the fact that many women in history have led nations very effectively throughout history! – such as Queen Elizabeth I who, for example, established the first national welfare system and required citizens to establish surnames! Seems she had a civilizing effect on the English barbarians!
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Friday, February 02, 2007
The Holocaust in Perspective...
Hillary presented a speech to a large Jewish group in NY mentioning the Holocaust and problems with Iran.
The speech caused me to wonder a bit about genocide and war - especially the most terrible war in human history, WWII and how it compares with the Jewish genocide.
I am peeved at Jewish politics here in the U.S. and most certainly with the arrogance of Israel toward her only real friend in the world. But, unlike the bombastic President of Iran, I have no doubt that the ‘holocaust' happened and was a terrible thing during a terrible time in a terrible world and I certainly don't hate Jews!
So, not to put down the ‘holocaust' but rather to put it in perspective, I found a well done website containing graphs and statistics on wars the U.S. has participated in since the Revolution. http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/casualties_of_war.htm
OR: http://tinyurl.com/yow8xf
It does not address the ‘holocaust' directly but I'm sure the six million Jews irrationally murdered by Hitler's madness are included in the civilian statistics.
The bottom line is that World War II cost over twenty-three million military lives and thirty-one million civilian lives which comes to fifty-five million human beings for a war which should not have happened and achieved very littl. That number is approximately the entire population of England or France or Italy - take your choice.
Most noteworthy among civilian deaths during WWII, we find that 10 million Chinese civilians were killed in WWII by the Japanese. There were 7.7 million Russian civilians killed by the Germans during that war and 6 million Polish persons, about one in five, were annihilated - probably many of the latter were Jews.
To put those horrible numbers in greater perspective - if possible, ‘only' 62,000 civilians were killed in Great Britain despite the nightly rain of German "V" type rockets on cities during the blitz. And even Japan lost ‘only' 300,000 civilians as a result of our incendiary bombing of Tokyo and the atomic destruction of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!
As my favorite Civil War general, Sherman once said, "War is Hell!" So, I do wish that the Jews would put to rest their gnashing and flailing over something which happened almost seventy years ago over a war which is virtually forgotten by the rest of the world. They certainly weren't alone in misery. ...AG]
The speech caused me to wonder a bit about genocide and war - especially the most terrible war in human history, WWII and how it compares with the Jewish genocide.
I am peeved at Jewish politics here in the U.S. and most certainly with the arrogance of Israel toward her only real friend in the world. But, unlike the bombastic President of Iran, I have no doubt that the ‘holocaust' happened and was a terrible thing during a terrible time in a terrible world and I certainly don't hate Jews!
So, not to put down the ‘holocaust' but rather to put it in perspective, I found a well done website containing graphs and statistics on wars the U.S. has participated in since the Revolution. http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/casualties_of_war.htm
OR: http://tinyurl.com/yow8xf
It does not address the ‘holocaust' directly but I'm sure the six million Jews irrationally murdered by Hitler's madness are included in the civilian statistics.
The bottom line is that World War II cost over twenty-three million military lives and thirty-one million civilian lives which comes to fifty-five million human beings for a war which should not have happened and achieved very littl. That number is approximately the entire population of England or France or Italy - take your choice.
Most noteworthy among civilian deaths during WWII, we find that 10 million Chinese civilians were killed in WWII by the Japanese. There were 7.7 million Russian civilians killed by the Germans during that war and 6 million Polish persons, about one in five, were annihilated - probably many of the latter were Jews.
To put those horrible numbers in greater perspective - if possible, ‘only' 62,000 civilians were killed in Great Britain despite the nightly rain of German "V" type rockets on cities during the blitz. And even Japan lost ‘only' 300,000 civilians as a result of our incendiary bombing of Tokyo and the atomic destruction of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!
As my favorite Civil War general, Sherman once said, "War is Hell!" So, I do wish that the Jews would put to rest their gnashing and flailing over something which happened almost seventy years ago over a war which is virtually forgotten by the rest of the world. They certainly weren't alone in misery. ...AG]
Monday, January 29, 2007
Yosemite National Park's future....
Having visited and even camped at Yosemite a number of times over the years, I have an opinion somewhere in between the government and the plaintifs in the suit reported below.
First we should understand that Yosemite Valley, the shear-walled canyon everyone sees in the photographs with the waterfalls and ‘half-dome', are actually a very small part of Yosemite NP. There are popular areas outside of the valley such as a large conference area where they hold a popular jazz festival every year north of the valley. The popular Badger Pass ski resort lies just south of the canyon. Further south there are several large campgrounds spotted all the way down to the southern entrance at Wawona. Behind the valley in the high country is a wonderful camping area called Tuolumne Meadows located off one of the few highways over the Sierra to relatively remote eastern California and Nevada. Between these features are large areas of wilderness and lakes - it truly is a beautiful park and should be preserved to the extent possible.
Yosemite isn't the only park in the Sierra mountains. The northern most park, Lassen NP with its volcano and cinder cone and lava flows is actually in the Cascade range of mountains, not the Sierra. The reason they are considered different is because the Cascades are of volcanic origin and the Sierra are tectonic plate uplifting as the Pacific plate runs into the Continental plate. That is why there is a short steep climb of perhaps fifteen or twenty miles to the top ridge of the Sierra from the East while the West slope from the foothills is over sixty miles!
South of Yosemite are two more parks, Kings Canyon on the Kings river and Sequoia famous for its grove of Redwoods. Kings Canyon is a wider canyon but otherwise similar to Yosemite. It is much less developed with most accommodations outside of the canyon itself. It is well known in California, but doesn't have the miseries of the international crowd that Yosemite has. Actually there are many groves of Redwoods in the Sierra including all three NP's.
There are large groups of California ‘environmentalists' I consider to be young backpackers, who advocate removing all man-made artifacts from the entire Sierra including roads and access so that they can have the entire five hundred mile long wilderness all to themselves. The other side of the coin are the business people who want to clear-cut, pave and industrialize the mountains just as they have everywhere else.
I find it difficult to side with either extreme. However, regarding Yosemite Valley, I do agree with the extremists that virtually all evidence of urbanization should be removed from the valley including the $1,000 per night hotel and all of the little touristy shopping malls, grocery stores and even the campgrounds. I would allow a few probably high volume restaurants and snackbars to accomodate day visitors but eliminate all overnight accommodations including the workforce which has its own city within the canyon.
Presently access to the dead end valley other than by tour bus is by car - and in the summertime, it is bumper to bumper! I advocate limiting auto access to at best the winter season and requiring automotive traffic to park outside the valley where there are millions of acres of parkland for parking lots and hotels, off any of its three access roads (north, west and south) to say nothing of neighboring communities who would love to care for visitors.
Everyone on Earth should have the opportunity to experience Yosemite Valley which is so unique. So the park should provide that access by greatly expanding and improving the park's free mini-bus services, and other facilities designed primarily for pedestrian and bicycle traffic rather than the congestion, glut and smell of gas and diesel engines!
In other words, get the unnecessary machines and buildings out of the canyon and provide access for many more people - not fewer! Actually, I wish they'd even bring back the free roaming black bears which were ubiquitous when I first visited the place many years ago - the customers would love 'em!
Yellostone NP used to have free roaming black bears also. Today, all you see are bison - it just ain't the same.
So, as you can see when you read the following article, that I don't agree with either extreme - and I'm not certain that Yosemite Valley's problems relate to other parks such as Yellowstone which is open and vast or most certainly the Grand Canyon near where I now live.
Yosemite suit could affect park access
By GARANCE BURKE, Associated Press Writer
First we should understand that Yosemite Valley, the shear-walled canyon everyone sees in the photographs with the waterfalls and ‘half-dome', are actually a very small part of Yosemite NP. There are popular areas outside of the valley such as a large conference area where they hold a popular jazz festival every year north of the valley. The popular Badger Pass ski resort lies just south of the canyon. Further south there are several large campgrounds spotted all the way down to the southern entrance at Wawona. Behind the valley in the high country is a wonderful camping area called Tuolumne Meadows located off one of the few highways over the Sierra to relatively remote eastern California and Nevada. Between these features are large areas of wilderness and lakes - it truly is a beautiful park and should be preserved to the extent possible.
Yosemite isn't the only park in the Sierra mountains. The northern most park, Lassen NP with its volcano and cinder cone and lava flows is actually in the Cascade range of mountains, not the Sierra. The reason they are considered different is because the Cascades are of volcanic origin and the Sierra are tectonic plate uplifting as the Pacific plate runs into the Continental plate. That is why there is a short steep climb of perhaps fifteen or twenty miles to the top ridge of the Sierra from the East while the West slope from the foothills is over sixty miles!
South of Yosemite are two more parks, Kings Canyon on the Kings river and Sequoia famous for its grove of Redwoods. Kings Canyon is a wider canyon but otherwise similar to Yosemite. It is much less developed with most accommodations outside of the canyon itself. It is well known in California, but doesn't have the miseries of the international crowd that Yosemite has. Actually there are many groves of Redwoods in the Sierra including all three NP's.
There are large groups of California ‘environmentalists' I consider to be young backpackers, who advocate removing all man-made artifacts from the entire Sierra including roads and access so that they can have the entire five hundred mile long wilderness all to themselves. The other side of the coin are the business people who want to clear-cut, pave and industrialize the mountains just as they have everywhere else.
I find it difficult to side with either extreme. However, regarding Yosemite Valley, I do agree with the extremists that virtually all evidence of urbanization should be removed from the valley including the $1,000 per night hotel and all of the little touristy shopping malls, grocery stores and even the campgrounds. I would allow a few probably high volume restaurants and snackbars to accomodate day visitors but eliminate all overnight accommodations including the workforce which has its own city within the canyon.
Presently access to the dead end valley other than by tour bus is by car - and in the summertime, it is bumper to bumper! I advocate limiting auto access to at best the winter season and requiring automotive traffic to park outside the valley where there are millions of acres of parkland for parking lots and hotels, off any of its three access roads (north, west and south) to say nothing of neighboring communities who would love to care for visitors.
Everyone on Earth should have the opportunity to experience Yosemite Valley which is so unique. So the park should provide that access by greatly expanding and improving the park's free mini-bus services, and other facilities designed primarily for pedestrian and bicycle traffic rather than the congestion, glut and smell of gas and diesel engines!
In other words, get the unnecessary machines and buildings out of the canyon and provide access for many more people - not fewer! Actually, I wish they'd even bring back the free roaming black bears which were ubiquitous when I first visited the place many years ago - the customers would love 'em!
Yellostone NP used to have free roaming black bears also. Today, all you see are bison - it just ain't the same.
So, as you can see when you read the following article, that I don't agree with either extreme - and I'm not certain that Yosemite Valley's problems relate to other parks such as Yellowstone which is open and vast or most certainly the Grand Canyon near where I now live.
Yosemite suit could affect park access
By GARANCE BURKE, Associated Press Writer
YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, Calif. - The plunging waterfalls and soaring crags chiseled by the Merced River draw millions of visitors each year, but the crowds are precisely what threatens the waterway and the park.
Efforts to safeguard the Merced have spawned a court battle over the future of development in Yosemite National Park's most popular stretch. The case may come down to the challenge facing all of America's parks: Should they remain open to everyone, or should access be limited in the interest of protecting them?
In November, a federal judge barred crews from finishing $60 million in construction projects in Yosemite Valley, siding with a small group of environmentalists who sued the federal government, saying further commercial development would bring greater numbers of visitors, thus threatening the Merced's fragile ecosystem.
"The park's plans for commercialization could damage Yosemite for future generations," said Bridget Kerr, a member of Friends of Yosemite Valley, one of two local environmental groups that filed the suit.
The government is appealing, fearing the ruling could force the National Park Service to limit the number of people allowed into Yosemite each day, a precedent it doesn't want to see echoed in other parks.
"I don't think we've ever had a ruling with these kind of implications," said Kerri Cahill, a Denver-based planner for the park service. "It's going to have a direct influence on the public who care about these places."
The case has Yosemite's most loyal advocates sharply divided over how to balance preservation with access to public lands. Even environmentalists can't agree on how to minimize the human footprint — some believe cars should be kept out entirely; others say visitors should have to make reservations in advance.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Global Warming report.....
Wal heck, it gets warmer than a lil ole five or six degrees down here in Arizona! An besides, I won't even be alive in 2100 so what's the worry?
The last ice age which covered most of Europe and North America with glaciers was less than ten degrees on average colder than now. With the planet covered with ice and snow, the seas were low enough for the Asiatic people (Indians) to cross over to the Americas even as it was warming up.
The fact that the ten warmest years out of the last 150 years occurred since 1994 indicates that the warming is exponential similar to a graph of the stockmarket during that same period of time.
Another nine or ten degrees would most likely eliminate the polar ice cap which means the oceans would rise enough to swamp most islands and seacoasts. Indonesia with its millions of people, for example, would probably be under water along with London, New York, Los Angeles and the San Joaquin and Sacramento valley - and forget the Netherlands and Venice!
By 2100 the world population expected to top out at nine billion people would be squeezed onto much less land, much of which would be desert.
But then, perhaps it won't be that bad. We'll certainly have used up the Earth's supply of oil long before then and a nuclear war or two over dwindling food supplies will certainly cut back on the population. The opulent standard of living we here in the US enjoy will be severely reduced.
Our grandchildren, the ‘old timers' then will remember the good old days....
U.N. climate panel to project wrenching change
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent Tue Jan 23
"The world has warmed about 5C (9F) since the last Ice Age. Temperatures have risen 0.6C (1.1 F) since 1900 and the 10 warmest years since records began in the 1850s have been since 1994."
The last ice age which covered most of Europe and North America with glaciers was less than ten degrees on average colder than now. With the planet covered with ice and snow, the seas were low enough for the Asiatic people (Indians) to cross over to the Americas even as it was warming up.
The fact that the ten warmest years out of the last 150 years occurred since 1994 indicates that the warming is exponential similar to a graph of the stockmarket during that same period of time.
Another nine or ten degrees would most likely eliminate the polar ice cap which means the oceans would rise enough to swamp most islands and seacoasts. Indonesia with its millions of people, for example, would probably be under water along with London, New York, Los Angeles and the San Joaquin and Sacramento valley - and forget the Netherlands and Venice!
By 2100 the world population expected to top out at nine billion people would be squeezed onto much less land, much of which would be desert.
But then, perhaps it won't be that bad. We'll certainly have used up the Earth's supply of oil long before then and a nuclear war or two over dwindling food supplies will certainly cut back on the population. The opulent standard of living we here in the US enjoy will be severely reduced.
Our grandchildren, the ‘old timers' then will remember the good old days....
U.N. climate panel to project wrenching change
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent Tue Jan 23
OSLO (Reuters) - A U.N. climate panel will project wrenching disruptions to nature by 2100 in a report next week blaming human use of fossil fuels more clearly than ever for global warming, scientific sources said.
A draft report based on work by 2,500 scientists and due for release on February 2 in Paris, draws on research showing greenhouse gases at their highest levels for 650,000 years, fuelling a warming likely to bring more droughts, floods and rising seas.
The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may have some good news, however, by toning down chances of the biggest temperature and sea level rises projected in the IPCC's previous 2001 study, the sources said.
But it will also revise up its lowest projections.
"The main good news is that we have a clearer idea of what we are up against," one source said. The report will set the tone for work in extending the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, the main international plan for curbing global warming, beyond 2012.
The IPCC will say it is at least 90 percent sure that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are to blame for a warming over the past 50 years.
The draft conclusion that the link is "very likely" would mark a strengthening from "likely" in the 2001 report -- a probability of 66-90 percent.
"Quite often much of the debate is 'what level of certainty do we have around some of these phrases?'," said Robert Watson, World Bank chief scientist who chaired the previous 2001 report.
Scientists and representatives of governments will meet in Paris from January 29 to review the draft and approve a text. Watson declined to predict any of the 2007 conclusions.
TEMPERATURES UP
But the sources said the new report is likely to foresee a rise in temperatures of 2 to 4.5 Celsius (3.6-8.1 Fahrenheit) this century, with about 3 Celsius (5.4F) most likely.
The 2001 report said temperatures could rise by 1.4 to 5.8C (2.5-10.4F) by 2100 -- but did not say which end of the range was most likely. The IPCC would also narrow the 2001 forecast range of sea level rise of 9-88 cms (3.5-34.7 inches) by 2100.
Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," said the IPCC would discredit "the rhetoric of catastrophe" that he accused some governments of adopting.
"Yes, climate change is a problem but it's not this over-arching, civilization-destroying thing that the rhetoric of today is telling us," he said.
Even so, the European Union says any temperature rise above 2C (3.6F) will cause "dangerous" change, for instance with more heatwaves like in Europe in 2003 that killed 35,000 people.
"Even the minimum predicted shifts in climate for the 21st century are likely to be significant and disruptive," the U.N. Climate Secretariat says of the 2001 projection of a minimum 1.4C rise. It says the top of the range would be "catastrophic."
Temperatures have risen 0.6C (1.1 F) since 1900 and the 10 warmest years since records began in the 1850s have been since 1994. The world has warmed about 5C (9F) since the last Ice Age.
Benjamin Santer, a climate scientist at the U.S. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said research in the last decade had expanded from studying surface temperatures to everything from ocean heat content to glacial retreat.
"The system is telling us an internally consistent story -- you can't explain the observed changes ... in the climate system over the second half of the 20th century by invoking natural causes," he said. He said he did not know the IPCC view.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
An alternative strategy...
OK, if Bush really wants an alternative strategy -- here is one:
From what I've heard and read, the ‘insurgency' will not stop until we leave, but that the Iraqi's will stop as soon as we, their invaders do actually leave and they no longer consider us as various polls have shown, ‘occupiers'.
The most complete alternative proposal was given in a talk to the National Press Club on CSPAN last night by George McGovern (who lost to Nixon during the Vietnam war), and Wm Polk (Middle east expert, author: "The Arab World Today" (Harvard 1991), and descended from Pres. James Polk, 1845-1849).
His book [Amazon, $9.00]: "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now" George McGovern, William R. Polk. In the book McGovern and Polk argue for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. ... McGovern advocating a position of a six-month withdrawal from Iraq.
However, he and Polk stressed that the sectarian (religious) violence will continue until it works itself out between the Shiite's and the Sunni's since it has been building up for years under Saddam Hussein. We can do nothing about that. It has to run its course and be settled by the Iraqi government - whatever that might become.
Seems to me that if we follow a planned withdrawal six months hence, that should give Bush the time he needs to find out whether his ‘new' plan will work. According to the Rice, Gates and Pace testimony I've heard, we should know quite soon - within a couple of months - whether Iraq is capable of holding up its end of the plan. If it works, we can take from there. If Maliki can't or won't do it, then we should leave and end our active participation in Iraq by mid summer.
From what I've heard and read, the ‘insurgency' will not stop until we leave, but that the Iraqi's will stop as soon as we, their invaders do actually leave and they no longer consider us as various polls have shown, ‘occupiers'.
The most complete alternative proposal was given in a talk to the National Press Club on CSPAN last night by George McGovern (who lost to Nixon during the Vietnam war), and Wm Polk (Middle east expert, author: "The Arab World Today" (Harvard 1991), and descended from Pres. James Polk, 1845-1849).
His book [Amazon, $9.00]: "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now" George McGovern, William R. Polk. In the book McGovern and Polk argue for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. ... McGovern advocating a position of a six-month withdrawal from Iraq.
However, he and Polk stressed that the sectarian (religious) violence will continue until it works itself out between the Shiite's and the Sunni's since it has been building up for years under Saddam Hussein. We can do nothing about that. It has to run its course and be settled by the Iraqi government - whatever that might become.
Seems to me that if we follow a planned withdrawal six months hence, that should give Bush the time he needs to find out whether his ‘new' plan will work. According to the Rice, Gates and Pace testimony I've heard, we should know quite soon - within a couple of months - whether Iraq is capable of holding up its end of the plan. If it works, we can take from there. If Maliki can't or won't do it, then we should leave and end our active participation in Iraq by mid summer.
Bush challenges Iraq strategy skeptics
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Saturday challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new
Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad.
"To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," Bush said.
In a pitch to lawmakers and the American people, Bush said the United States will keep the onus on the Iraqi government to take charge of security and reach a political reconciliation. He countered Democrats and his fellow Republicans who argue that Bush is sending 21,500 more U.S. troops into Iraq on the same mission.
"We have a new strategy with a new mission: Helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "Our plan puts Iraqis in the lead."
The president, who hosted an informal, mostly social gathering of Republican leaders at Camp David on Friday night and Saturday, asked for patience from lawmakers from both parties. They had grilled Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, last week when the officials testified before Congress in defense of the president's plan.
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate intend to hold votes within a few weeks on Bush's revised Iraq policy. The nonbinding resolutions would be one way to show their opposition to any troop buildup and force Republicans to make a choice about whether they support the president's plan.
Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., said that he, along with most Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans, believe sending more troops compounds a bad situation. Walz, a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, said diplomatic and political solutions are needed, not more troops.
"Before moving forward with this escalation, we owe it to these troops, to their families, and to all Americans to ask the tough questions and demand honest answers about this policy," Walz said in the Democrats' Saturday radio address.
"Is there a clear strategy that the commanders on the ground believe will succeed?" Walz said. "What are the benchmarks for success, and how long does the president believe it will take to achieve them? Is this a policy that will contribute to the America's security in the larger war on terror, or distract from it?"
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has charged that what Democrats really want to do is cut off funding for the troops. Democrats deny that.
"Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully," Bush said. "But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. "
In his radio broadcast, Bush replayed the highlights of his Wednesday night address to the nation.
He said the 21,500 troops being sent to Baghdad and Anbar province, a base for al-Qaida, have a changed mission.
"This time there will be adequate Iraqi and U.S. forces to hold the areas that have been cleared," Bush said.
Bush said Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has pledged that political sectarian interference with security operations will not be tolerated. "This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter neighborhoods that are home to those fueling sectarian violence," he said.
The president also said the United States will hold the Iraqi government to its pledge to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November, pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis and spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction that will create new jobs.
"The Iraqi government knows that it must meet them, or lose the support of the Iraqi and the American people," Bush said.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Cost of Medicare drugs....
The very fact that Bush would veto the Medicare bill if it passes Congress is reason enough to pass it and let the people know what he thinks about them! Bush has yet to do anything for the American people since his allegiance is to big business and fundamentalist neocons.
NEWS BREAK!: The bill just passed the House on a vote of 255-170, with 24 Republicans joining the Democratic majority in support of it. 60% - not enough to over-ride veto, but certainly enough to make Bush wonder whether a veto is a wise political move!
Following is a Kaiser foundation URL which goes into the matter in greater depth regarding whether the bill would save the government money or not. http://tinyurl.com/yctoms
My own position is that we eventually will have a single payer medical system if for no other reason that big business simply can't support the nation's health care and remain competitive with foreign multinationals who don't. This coupled with the gross inefficiency of one third of our medical care is performed in emergency rooms rather than preventive treatment by general practitioners and nurses who are much less expensive.
Thus oversight of the laisse a faire pharmaceutical companies is a must for the health of the American economy.
For example: "The value of biological drugs indicated for autoimmune diseases, which affect up to 5% (1 in 20) of the total world population, was roughly $11 billion in 2005. Remicade, Enbrel, Humira and Avonex currently lead the autoimmune field." It is interesting to note that the entire population of the U.S. is 5% of the world's population, or 300,000,000.
I give myself one 50 ml shot per week of Enbrel for my psoriatic arthritis to prevent my immune system from destroying my joints. About nine months ago when I started the program, the price was $220 per syringe, ($11,440/year). Since then the price has gone up to $325 per weekly self-administered shot, ($16,900/year). http://tinyurl.com/y6dn27
If I had to pay for the drug myself it would consume my entire Social Security income. Fortunately my company, who self-insures, pays for it. Of course, most of the company's income comes from the U.S. Government or more accurately, the taxpayers. Just part of the cost of doing business.
Unfortunately, most patients, including my son, who has the same genetic problem I have but works for a different company. doesn't have that luxury and can't afford the drug. Instead he takes Methotrexate. http://tinyurl.com/y9lcjm which is vastly less expensive and also much less effective in preventing permanent joint damage. When he takes early retirement in a couple of years he'll be on his own since he will be too young for Medicare.
So, considering that other nations, notably Canada, are known to negotiate quite successfully with the drug companies (which are all multinationals) I fail to see how the CBO or any other political body can say we can't save money on drug costs.
But the White House and many Republicans in Congress say it would limit the availability of drugs while achieving no cost savings. Snow cited a Congressional Budget Office study that said the negotiations would not save money.
NEWS BREAK!: The bill just passed the House on a vote of 255-170, with 24 Republicans joining the Democratic majority in support of it. 60% - not enough to over-ride veto, but certainly enough to make Bush wonder whether a veto is a wise political move!
Following is a Kaiser foundation URL which goes into the matter in greater depth regarding whether the bill would save the government money or not. http://tinyurl.com/yctoms
My own position is that we eventually will have a single payer medical system if for no other reason that big business simply can't support the nation's health care and remain competitive with foreign multinationals who don't. This coupled with the gross inefficiency of one third of our medical care is performed in emergency rooms rather than preventive treatment by general practitioners and nurses who are much less expensive.
Thus oversight of the laisse a faire pharmaceutical companies is a must for the health of the American economy.
For example: "The value of biological drugs indicated for autoimmune diseases, which affect up to 5% (1 in 20) of the total world population, was roughly $11 billion in 2005. Remicade, Enbrel, Humira and Avonex currently lead the autoimmune field." It is interesting to note that the entire population of the U.S. is 5% of the world's population, or 300,000,000.
I give myself one 50 ml shot per week of Enbrel for my psoriatic arthritis to prevent my immune system from destroying my joints. About nine months ago when I started the program, the price was $220 per syringe, ($11,440/year). Since then the price has gone up to $325 per weekly self-administered shot, ($16,900/year). http://tinyurl.com/y6dn27
If I had to pay for the drug myself it would consume my entire Social Security income. Fortunately my company, who self-insures, pays for it. Of course, most of the company's income comes from the U.S. Government or more accurately, the taxpayers. Just part of the cost of doing business.
Unfortunately, most patients, including my son, who has the same genetic problem I have but works for a different company. doesn't have that luxury and can't afford the drug. Instead he takes Methotrexate. http://tinyurl.com/y9lcjm which is vastly less expensive and also much less effective in preventing permanent joint damage. When he takes early retirement in a couple of years he'll be on his own since he will be too young for Medicare.
So, considering that other nations, notably Canada, are known to negotiate quite successfully with the drug companies (which are all multinationals) I fail to see how the CBO or any other political body can say we can't save money on drug costs.
Bush would veto Medicare bill: White House
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday threatened a veto of a bill that would overhaul the Medicare prescription drug law to require the government to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies.
"If this bill is presented to the president, he will veto," White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters.
The Medicare bill is a key priority of the new Democratic Congress. Snow spoke as the U.S. House of Representatives was expected to vote later in the day on the legislation.
Democrats contend that instructing the government to negotiate prices would save money both for the government and for older Americans covered by the Medicare program.
But the White House and many Republicans in Congress say it would limit the availability of drugs while achieving no cost savings. Snow cited a Congressional Budget Office study that said the negotiations would not save money.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Bush's new direction .....
Well, the President made his pitch and aside from confessing to having made some mistakes in Iraq is confident that 21,000 more American troops in the front lines will make a difference.
After watching CSPAN and CNN for three hours after listening to the President with interviews of congress people, military generals, soldiers who have served in Iraq, reporters in Iraq, and even political guru's, I'm not at all excited about our further involvement in Iraq nor am I expectant of any improvement in the outcome of the war.
I'm sure most of you also watched the event and its repercussions so I'm only going to mention a couple of my impressions.
According to most it seems that 50,000 troops two years ago might have made a difference, but now it would take 200,000 troops in Baghdad alone.
The President claimed that his proposal was one from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, but reporters on the ground pointed out that Maliki was put in power by the al-Sadr Shiite militia which is anti-American and one of the factions fighting for control of Iraq. Thus the prime question is whether he would give more than lip service to Bush's plan. Historically, Makiki has not kept any of his promises.
Senator Mitch McConnell from Kentucky maintained that the war in Iraq has kept al Caida from attacking the U.S. for the past four or five years. That has to be pure nonsense! It took a total of nineteen men with very few resources to bring about the 9-11 tragedy. Al Caida could certainly do something similar anytime it wants to.
Al Caida was not involved in Iraq at all before we invaded Iraq because Saddam was not at all friendly or sympathetic with bin Laden! Al Caida is now in Iraq opportunistically in its hatred for America and only because we are there.
The war in Iraq is a full fledged power struggle primarily between the Sunni's and the Shiite's where the majority Shiite's "want the Sunni's to admit defeat" after decades of Sunni domination. That, to me is nothing more than civil war – a war between religious factions.
The President's men say that to leave Iraq would lead to disaster - but would it? Nothing in this life is black and white and most certainly if we de-escalated our active involvement with Iraq but still provided advisors, logistical support, maintained a military presence in the region where we have other national interests, and made a greater effort to negotiate with Iraq's neighbors - especially Syria and Iran, the only result would be that we left the Iraqi people to their own self-determination. And that is what we should have done in the first place!
Actually, it was stated during the Vietnam war that to leave would doom the world to Communism - but it didn't happen! That war cost us 58,000 American lives.
Bottom line: The Bush escalation of the Iraq war will continue the conflict well into the next presidency. If that happens, the Republicans might as well not even run a candidate! And that would not be good for either party.
After watching CSPAN and CNN for three hours after listening to the President with interviews of congress people, military generals, soldiers who have served in Iraq, reporters in Iraq, and even political guru's, I'm not at all excited about our further involvement in Iraq nor am I expectant of any improvement in the outcome of the war.
I'm sure most of you also watched the event and its repercussions so I'm only going to mention a couple of my impressions.
According to most it seems that 50,000 troops two years ago might have made a difference, but now it would take 200,000 troops in Baghdad alone.
The President claimed that his proposal was one from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, but reporters on the ground pointed out that Maliki was put in power by the al-Sadr Shiite militia which is anti-American and one of the factions fighting for control of Iraq. Thus the prime question is whether he would give more than lip service to Bush's plan. Historically, Makiki has not kept any of his promises.
Senator Mitch McConnell from Kentucky maintained that the war in Iraq has kept al Caida from attacking the U.S. for the past four or five years. That has to be pure nonsense! It took a total of nineteen men with very few resources to bring about the 9-11 tragedy. Al Caida could certainly do something similar anytime it wants to.
Al Caida was not involved in Iraq at all before we invaded Iraq because Saddam was not at all friendly or sympathetic with bin Laden! Al Caida is now in Iraq opportunistically in its hatred for America and only because we are there.
The war in Iraq is a full fledged power struggle primarily between the Sunni's and the Shiite's where the majority Shiite's "want the Sunni's to admit defeat" after decades of Sunni domination. That, to me is nothing more than civil war – a war between religious factions.
The President's men say that to leave Iraq would lead to disaster - but would it? Nothing in this life is black and white and most certainly if we de-escalated our active involvement with Iraq but still provided advisors, logistical support, maintained a military presence in the region where we have other national interests, and made a greater effort to negotiate with Iraq's neighbors - especially Syria and Iran, the only result would be that we left the Iraqi people to their own self-determination. And that is what we should have done in the first place!
Actually, it was stated during the Vietnam war that to leave would doom the world to Communism - but it didn't happen! That war cost us 58,000 American lives.
Bottom line: The Bush escalation of the Iraq war will continue the conflict well into the next presidency. If that happens, the Republicans might as well not even run a candidate! And that would not be good for either party.
Monday, December 18, 2006
2008 already?????
Well, it is a little early to begin thinking of the 2008 election but I guess everyone is so anxious to replace Bush (even the Republicans) that they're feverishly busy getting themselves organized.
The Democrats are especially busy because they have so many very good candidates in mind, while the poor Republicans are in a quandary because all they have is the former mayor of New York who is for women's rights of all things, or a fringe senator from Arizona who has never really been accepted in the party because he has always advocated fiscal discipline and reformation of the election process. There really are no good viable candidates in the party who would get the total party vote! But, the Republicans have two years to figure it out and I'm sure they'll come up with someone most of us have never heard of.
The interesting thing regarding the Republicans is the question of whether they'll be able to throw off the albatross of the religious right and present a true libertarian-like fiscal conservative or whether they'll present another anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-birth control, war monger who will assume that God is on our side - or at least should be!
It seems that a certain amount of Democratic self-thinning is being done since Senator Evan Bayh decided not to run last week. I suspect that several others will also decide not to overwhelm the system after they talk to their pollsters.
Now, I was all for Kerry in 2004 - and he had his chance but he isn't smooth enough for many voters. I don't see him running in ‘08 nor will Al Gore who really was involved in the early days of the Internet** and who I respect very much for his stand on global warming. I'm sure that Kerry and Gore will both be active and welcome on the political scene, but in the end, won't run. I would vote for either, but....
Unfortunately, Hillary has been named front runner and best funded for the past year or so. She has two more years to maintain that pace and the public tends to get tired of the same old thing - who wants an old woman? I think she'd make a very good first female president, but I'm worried that the timing is all off. It really isn't her fault either. She's been quiet - and so has Bill, but the media has been promoting her for several years now.
There are a bunch of good Democrats in the field who also unfortunately won't make the grade because of the sheer numbers. It is like being in a candy store - which one to pick - they're all so good!
John Edwards appears to want to throw his hat into the ring again and he has populist appeal - it will be interesting to see what his tactics might be this time beyond being the son of an immigrant textile worker and a spokesman for the other America - I doubt that it would work a second time around.
But there is this one choice morsel named Obama who has caught the fancy of his audiences and the media alike! Being half-black, the non-white racial groups in America should be attracted to him although he has not preached to them as a black. And those who are lukewarm on having a black president can shrug and say, "Well, at least he ain't a Jesse Jackson!"
And the media has already fielded the question of his ‘limited' experience. But he was a civil rights lawyer for five years, served in the Illinois senate for eight years and by the time 2008 rolls around he will have been a US Senator for four years. He certainly is no beginner! He's written two books and has done his homework. Lately, I understand he's been working on foreign policy.
Anyway, it should be an interesting shakeout of Democratic aspirants - and even more interesting who the Republicans might come up with!
-----------------------
**But the real question is what, if anything, did Gore actually do to create the modern Internet? According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."
The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's High Performance Computing Act. The University of Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is today."
Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University, claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the Internet?"
The Democrats are especially busy because they have so many very good candidates in mind, while the poor Republicans are in a quandary because all they have is the former mayor of New York who is for women's rights of all things, or a fringe senator from Arizona who has never really been accepted in the party because he has always advocated fiscal discipline and reformation of the election process. There really are no good viable candidates in the party who would get the total party vote! But, the Republicans have two years to figure it out and I'm sure they'll come up with someone most of us have never heard of.
The interesting thing regarding the Republicans is the question of whether they'll be able to throw off the albatross of the religious right and present a true libertarian-like fiscal conservative or whether they'll present another anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-birth control, war monger who will assume that God is on our side - or at least should be!
It seems that a certain amount of Democratic self-thinning is being done since Senator Evan Bayh decided not to run last week. I suspect that several others will also decide not to overwhelm the system after they talk to their pollsters.
Now, I was all for Kerry in 2004 - and he had his chance but he isn't smooth enough for many voters. I don't see him running in ‘08 nor will Al Gore who really was involved in the early days of the Internet** and who I respect very much for his stand on global warming. I'm sure that Kerry and Gore will both be active and welcome on the political scene, but in the end, won't run. I would vote for either, but....
Unfortunately, Hillary has been named front runner and best funded for the past year or so. She has two more years to maintain that pace and the public tends to get tired of the same old thing - who wants an old woman? I think she'd make a very good first female president, but I'm worried that the timing is all off. It really isn't her fault either. She's been quiet - and so has Bill, but the media has been promoting her for several years now.
There are a bunch of good Democrats in the field who also unfortunately won't make the grade because of the sheer numbers. It is like being in a candy store - which one to pick - they're all so good!
John Edwards appears to want to throw his hat into the ring again and he has populist appeal - it will be interesting to see what his tactics might be this time beyond being the son of an immigrant textile worker and a spokesman for the other America - I doubt that it would work a second time around.
But there is this one choice morsel named Obama who has caught the fancy of his audiences and the media alike! Being half-black, the non-white racial groups in America should be attracted to him although he has not preached to them as a black. And those who are lukewarm on having a black president can shrug and say, "Well, at least he ain't a Jesse Jackson!"
And the media has already fielded the question of his ‘limited' experience. But he was a civil rights lawyer for five years, served in the Illinois senate for eight years and by the time 2008 rolls around he will have been a US Senator for four years. He certainly is no beginner! He's written two books and has done his homework. Lately, I understand he's been working on foreign policy.
Anyway, it should be an interesting shakeout of Democratic aspirants - and even more interesting who the Republicans might come up with!
-----------------------
**But the real question is what, if anything, did Gore actually do to create the modern Internet? According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."
The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's High Performance Computing Act. The University of Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is today."
Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University, claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the Internet?"
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Lots of space to worry about.....
If you want something more to worry about, perhaps this is it. Now, it seems we Americans also own space! And now we are going to have to defend it from others who think otherwise - at least according to those in the know in our state department.
What puzzles me is why we don't consider arms-control pacts to keep space free of offensive weapons requested by other nations. Is this similar to our lack of cooperation regarding global warming and even the international court?
Speaking of the international court, I find it interesting that Rumsfeld is being prosecuted in a court in Germany for war crimes. http://tinyurl.com/ycfzxa
Grnted, we have a lot of hardware out there which produces a lot of public service and convenience. We certainly wouldn't want to have it compromised by rogue nations who are at war with us - or would like to be, but then, we had the same problems in the past with the high seas and the world now operates quite well with maritime laws. What is wrong with having international space laws? ....but I'll bet this administration wouldn't want anything like that!
I hate to make this partisan, but I'm certain that our nation will not be the supreme nation of the world for many more years - the odds are very much against us. It worries me that the nations we are snubbing might have memories of our international behavior and not look kindly on us from their ultimate lofty perches when they're in positions to make the rules...
U.S. cites growing threat to its space assets
By Jim Wolf Wed Dec 13
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A number of countries are developing ways to knock out U.S. space systems, threatening vital national interests, the State Department's point man on international security said on Wednesday.
Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, did not name any such states but served notice Washington was taking steps to head them off. "We will seek the best capabilities to protect our space assets by active or passive means," he said in elaborating for the first time publicly on a recent Bush administration revision of U.S. space policy, the first in nearly 10 years.
He referred to such possibilities as maneuvering out of harm's way, redundancy, system "hardening," encryption and rapid frequency changes.
In reply to a question, he added that nothing in U.S. policy ruled out basing weapons in space to defend space assets.
At issue is everything from the Defense Department-run Global Positioning System used for precision navigation and timing signals to spycraft systems that track missiles and commercial satellites vital for communications.
"The United States is more dependent on space than any other nation," Joseph said. As a result, U.S. space infrastructure could be seen as "a highly lucrative target."
The updated U.S. space policy, released two months ago, rejected a push by China, Russia and others for new arms-control pacts to keep space free of offensive weapons. It outlined a stepped-up drive to guard space assets in light of growing U.S. reliance on them amid reported growing threats.
Joseph declined to comment on published reports citing Donald Kerr, director of the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office, as having said in September a U.S. satellite had been illuminated by a laser in China.
"As a matter of policy, we do not talk about specific threats or vulnerabilities," he told a forum organized by the George C. Marshall Institute, a public policy group.
But he said not all countries could be relied on to pursue exclusively peaceful goals in space. "A number of countries are exploring and acquiring capabilities to counter, attack and defeat U.S. space systems," he said.
"Given the vital importance of our space assets, foreclosing technical options to defend (them) in order to forestall a hypothetical future arms race in space, is not in the national security interest of the United States," Joseph said.
In reply to another question, he appeared to discount international efforts to keep the United States from developing what could become the first known weapons in space designed specifically to apply force.
"What normally one finds when you strip away the veil on the issue of weaponization of space ... is a desire to constrain U.S. options for the development of our missile defense capabilities," he said. "I find this quite odd because it is those missile defense capabilities that are designed to counter offensive ballistic missiles," Joseph added.
What puzzles me is why we don't consider arms-control pacts to keep space free of offensive weapons requested by other nations. Is this similar to our lack of cooperation regarding global warming and even the international court?
Speaking of the international court, I find it interesting that Rumsfeld is being prosecuted in a court in Germany for war crimes. http://tinyurl.com/ycfzxa
Grnted, we have a lot of hardware out there which produces a lot of public service and convenience. We certainly wouldn't want to have it compromised by rogue nations who are at war with us - or would like to be, but then, we had the same problems in the past with the high seas and the world now operates quite well with maritime laws. What is wrong with having international space laws? ....but I'll bet this administration wouldn't want anything like that!
I hate to make this partisan, but I'm certain that our nation will not be the supreme nation of the world for many more years - the odds are very much against us. It worries me that the nations we are snubbing might have memories of our international behavior and not look kindly on us from their ultimate lofty perches when they're in positions to make the rules...
U.S. cites growing threat to its space assets
By Jim Wolf Wed Dec 13
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A number of countries are developing ways to knock out U.S. space systems, threatening vital national interests, the State Department's point man on international security said on Wednesday.
Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, did not name any such states but served notice Washington was taking steps to head them off. "We will seek the best capabilities to protect our space assets by active or passive means," he said in elaborating for the first time publicly on a recent Bush administration revision of U.S. space policy, the first in nearly 10 years.
He referred to such possibilities as maneuvering out of harm's way, redundancy, system "hardening," encryption and rapid frequency changes.
In reply to a question, he added that nothing in U.S. policy ruled out basing weapons in space to defend space assets.
At issue is everything from the Defense Department-run Global Positioning System used for precision navigation and timing signals to spycraft systems that track missiles and commercial satellites vital for communications.
"The United States is more dependent on space than any other nation," Joseph said. As a result, U.S. space infrastructure could be seen as "a highly lucrative target."
The updated U.S. space policy, released two months ago, rejected a push by China, Russia and others for new arms-control pacts to keep space free of offensive weapons. It outlined a stepped-up drive to guard space assets in light of growing U.S. reliance on them amid reported growing threats.
Joseph declined to comment on published reports citing Donald Kerr, director of the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office, as having said in September a U.S. satellite had been illuminated by a laser in China.
"As a matter of policy, we do not talk about specific threats or vulnerabilities," he told a forum organized by the George C. Marshall Institute, a public policy group.
But he said not all countries could be relied on to pursue exclusively peaceful goals in space. "A number of countries are exploring and acquiring capabilities to counter, attack and defeat U.S. space systems," he said.
"Given the vital importance of our space assets, foreclosing technical options to defend (them) in order to forestall a hypothetical future arms race in space, is not in the national security interest of the United States," Joseph said.
In reply to another question, he appeared to discount international efforts to keep the United States from developing what could become the first known weapons in space designed specifically to apply force.
"What normally one finds when you strip away the veil on the issue of weaponization of space ... is a desire to constrain U.S. options for the development of our missile defense capabilities," he said. "I find this quite odd because it is those missile defense capabilities that are designed to counter offensive ballistic missiles," Joseph added.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Laced elderberry wine, perhaps?
This is turning out to be a real live ‘cold war' who-dunnit! Good plot for a James Bond movie!
Radiation poisoning is rather neat because the symptoms happen long after the fact. So, did the master despot, Putin, have it done? Or did Putin's enemies such as the Chechnyans do it? Or perhaps it was done by some of his former co-workers in the East German KGB - either for or against their former boss!
The question in my mind is why Alexander Litvinenko received a lethal dose and his "business associates" only got sick (although severely). Meals served in restaurants are usually individually ordered and served - except for the wine. Hmmm... could it have been homemade elderberry wine served by a couple of sweet elderly ladies?
Illness spreads to third Litvinenko contact: report
By Oleg Shchedrov
Radiation poisoning is rather neat because the symptoms happen long after the fact. So, did the master despot, Putin, have it done? Or did Putin's enemies such as the Chechnyans do it? Or perhaps it was done by some of his former co-workers in the East German KGB - either for or against their former boss!
The question in my mind is why Alexander Litvinenko received a lethal dose and his "business associates" only got sick (although severely). Meals served in restaurants are usually individually ordered and served - except for the wine. Hmmm... could it have been homemade elderberry wine served by a couple of sweet elderly ladies?
Illness spreads to third Litvinenko contact: report
By Oleg Shchedrov
MOSCOW (Reuters) - A second Russian businessman who met murdered ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko on the day he fell ill is now sick from radiation poisoning, local media quoted medical sources as saying on Friday.
Andrei Lugovoy has damage to vital organs consistent with exposure to dangerous levels of radiation, Interfax news agency reported, the same condition that killed Kremlin critic Litvinenko in London on November 23.
Lugovoy's business partner Dmitry Kovtun is also in hospital and Mario Scaramella, an Italian contact of Litvinenko, has undergone treatment in London for the effects of contamination.
Litvinenko, who was buried in London on Thursday, blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin for poisoning him, a charge the Kremlin denied. The case has revived memories of Cold War spying intrigues and strained London-Moscow relations.
Lugovoy was quoted by Itar-Tass news agency as saying in a telephone interview he was "alright." "The doctors have listed my condition as stable. Today I spent the whole day undergoing necessary medical procedures," the agency quoted him as saying.
Interfax said its information on Lugovoy's condition came from his medical notes. "Disruption in the functioning of some organs affected by radiation nuclides has been found (in Lugovoy)," it quoted a source as saying. "Lugovoy's condition is considerably better than that of Kovtun, but he also has symptoms of contamination."
There have been contradictory reports about Kovtun, who met Litvinenko in London along with Lugovoy. Some said he was in critical condition but a lawyer who was in touch with his representatives told Reuters those reports were wrong.
HOTEL MEETING
Health experts are preparing to check for radiation at the Russian Today television studio where Lugovoy gave an interview on November 24, a broadcasting source told Reuters.
Checks have already been made at two other locations where Logovoy has been in Russia - the Ekho Moskvy radio station and the British embassy. A small trace was found at the embassy.
The Kremlin has expressed displeasure at how British media have given intensive coverage to claims from Russian emigres that Putin was to blame for Litvinenko's death.
Lugovoy and Kovtun met Litvinenko at London's Millennium Hotel on November 1 for what Lugovoy described as a business meeting. He has denied any part in Litvinenko's poisoning and offered to help police.
The hospital where they are being treated has not been disclosed and their representatives were not answering their telephones on Friday.
British detectives were working in Moscow for a fourth day on Friday as part of their investigation into the murder of Litvinenko, a British citizen.
They have already questioned Kovtun with Russian investigators. One of many theories about Litvinenko's death is that it could have been the work of rogue elements in Russia's intelligence services, working independently of the Kremlin.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Ugly Starbucks....?
Well, I guess the following article proves that the "Ugly American" is alive and well! Right?
(The Ugly American - First published in 1958, became a runaway national best seller... Eugene Burdick's other books include Fail-Safe.)
I'm afraid that I can't be of much help since I drink at the most, two cups of cheap store brand coffee per day. I've never had nor do I really know what Lattes are - nor have I ever been in a Starbucks shop. (Truth: ....except for the Starbucks counter at our local Safeway>> but I never sat on one of their stools nor did I inhale!)
However, I find (from TV where I learn all of my culture) that urbian's and suburbian's aren't cool if they don't drink Lattes at Starbucks! Seems to me that is not a very progressive group of civic-minded citizens for an impoverished country to place its economic hopes in. But that is my admittedly unfair and snobbish, anti-snob opinion - that such souls can't see far beyond their own often glittering navels.
{Note that the word "urbian" doesn't exist, although I think it should! As we all know, the word "urban" refers to cities as opposed to "rural". Thus it seems to me that one who lives in a city should be called an "urbian" just as those of us who live in rural areas are called "rustics" (meaning non-white or reddish). Just because it ain't in the dictionary and ain't allowed in Scrabble doesn't mean it can't be used! Now, I could have used the legitimate word, "urbanites" - but that word sounds so ugly - even for ugly Americans, that no one should ever use it - not even urbians or weird people who read the NYT!}
One Dollar a Day Vs. Four Dollar Lattes
Aaron Glantz, OneWorld US Sat Dec 2
(The Ugly American - First published in 1958, became a runaway national best seller... Eugene Burdick's other books include Fail-Safe.)
I'm afraid that I can't be of much help since I drink at the most, two cups of cheap store brand coffee per day. I've never had nor do I really know what Lattes are - nor have I ever been in a Starbucks shop. (Truth: ....except for the Starbucks counter at our local Safeway>> but I never sat on one of their stools nor did I inhale!)
However, I find (from TV where I learn all of my culture) that urbian's and suburbian's aren't cool if they don't drink Lattes at Starbucks! Seems to me that is not a very progressive group of civic-minded citizens for an impoverished country to place its economic hopes in. But that is my admittedly unfair and snobbish, anti-snob opinion - that such souls can't see far beyond their own often glittering navels.
{Note that the word "urbian" doesn't exist, although I think it should! As we all know, the word "urban" refers to cities as opposed to "rural". Thus it seems to me that one who lives in a city should be called an "urbian" just as those of us who live in rural areas are called "rustics" (meaning non-white or reddish). Just because it ain't in the dictionary and ain't allowed in Scrabble doesn't mean it can't be used! Now, I could have used the legitimate word, "urbanites" - but that word sounds so ugly - even for ugly Americans, that no one should ever use it - not even urbians or weird people who read the NYT!}
One Dollar a Day Vs. Four Dollar Lattes
Aaron Glantz, OneWorld US Sat Dec 2
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec 2 (OneWorld) - Starbucks CEO Jim McDonald traveled to Addis Ababa to meet with Ethiopia's prime minister Meles Zenawi this week in an effort to head off what's becoming an increasingly public dispute over the Ethiopian government's efforts to trademark the country's best-known coffee blends.
"There was no agreement," said intellectual property lawyer and Ethiopian government adviser Ron Layton, characterizing the tone of the meetings.
Human rights groups accuse Starbucks of trying to stop Ethiopia from trademarking its best-known coffee beans Sidamo and Harar, thereby denying farmers potential income of more than $90 million a year.
"It was clear going into the meeting that there was a distance between the two sides and it would have taken some moves on both sides to reach an agreement," Layton told OneWorld.
So far, Ethiopia has successfully trademarked its beans in over 30 countries; in the United States Starbucks has petitioned to trademark the Ethiopian blends.
"This is a rights issue and we deserve to have our rights recognized. We strongly believe that trademarking is the way to go," Zenawi said in a statement. "The right to own our coffee names is the only way that we can preserve our rich coffee heritage; Ethiopia has an obligation to coffee consumers worldwide to protect and preserve our unique coffees."
"It's important to understand that most Ethiopians live on less than a dollar a day," said Seth Petchers, a fair trade campaigner at the human rights group Oxfam America. "Starbucks sells some of these beans for up to $26 a pound."
Fair trade advocates look at the dispute as a clash between David and Goliath. In Starbucks, they see a $6.4 billion giant with more than 10,000 stores in 37 countries; in Ethiopia, they see the impoverished, hillside farmers of Ethiopia's premium coffee-growing regions.
Ethiopia grows more coffee than any other country in Africa. Approximately 50 percent of its export earnings come from the sale of coffee.
"What Ethiopia is trying to do is capture some of the value that's associated with its reputation the same way a company here in the Untied States would trademark the name of one of its products to make sure it gets a fair share of the value associated with it," Petchers said.
Starbucks refused to be interviewed for this story. The company did send an e-mail saying, "Starbucks fully supports the premise that any protection of specialty coffee names in Ethiopia should benefit Ethiopian coffee farmers."
In a statement on the company's Web site, McDonald characterized his meetings with the Ethiopian prime minister as cooperative and said the Seattle-based company is "committed to working with the Ethiopian government to find a solution that supports the Ethiopian coffee farmer."
"Starbucks likes to paint itself as a socially conscious vanguard within the corporate world because they carry some fair trade coffee on their shelf, but when you look at the numbers and you look at what Starbucks does it's not fair at all," Eric Holt-Gimenez, executive director of the anti-hunger group Food First, told OneWorld.
Because of that, Holt-Gimenez believes the Ethiopian government is in a very good bargaining position. He says Ethiopian student groups inside the United States are set to start a campaign against the coffee giant and Starbucks will likely have to cut a deal if it wants to keep its reputation in tact.
"I think Starbucks is beginning to feel the heat," Holt-Gimenez said. "The fact that McDonald went and came back and nothing changed tells me that the Ethiopian government is playing hardball in trying to get something to help its people."
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Slippery Slope to Perdition?
One would think that the following would be taking the Democrats down the slippery slope to Hell! But that would be only because, in my opinion, the right-wing fundamentalist Christians have stolen the word, ‘evangelical'.
However, there still remain the humanitarian Christians on the left - you know, the people who lived, went to church, did good things for their communities - the good people I grew up with, the ones who didn't try to forge political policy and create a secular nation from a narrow Old Testament mold of Godly wrath, hatred and fear.
So perhaps it is good that we hear from those other Christians once in awhile. However, it would concern me if the Christians on the left also caught the politics bug. They might have better, socially kinder motivations, but our nation can't afford to shift from its secular moorings in either direction.
An excellent book on this subject is "American Gospel" by Jon Meacham which shows how our founders followed their own individual Christian and/or Deistic ideals yet were able to insist that there was room for all religious beliefs in our new nation. The nation doesn't have to be atheistic to maintain diversity. In fact, our nation is and has been guided by a defacto "public religion" - a generic and tolerant form of Christianity.
Democrats tap religious leader for radio talk
However, there still remain the humanitarian Christians on the left - you know, the people who lived, went to church, did good things for their communities - the good people I grew up with, the ones who didn't try to forge political policy and create a secular nation from a narrow Old Testament mold of Godly wrath, hatred and fear.
So perhaps it is good that we hear from those other Christians once in awhile. However, it would concern me if the Christians on the left also caught the politics bug. They might have better, socially kinder motivations, but our nation can't afford to shift from its secular moorings in either direction.
An excellent book on this subject is "American Gospel" by Jon Meacham which shows how our founders followed their own individual Christian and/or Deistic ideals yet were able to insist that there was room for all religious beliefs in our new nation. The nation doesn't have to be atheistic to maintain diversity. In fact, our nation is and has been guided by a defacto "public religion" - a generic and tolerant form of Christianity.
Democrats tap religious leader for radio talk
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats turned to an evangelical Christian to give their weekly radio address on Saturday, citing a desire to avoid partisanship after last month's elections that gave them control of Congress.
"I want to be clear that I am not speaking for the Democratic Party, but as a person of faith who feels the hunger in America for a new vision of our life together, and sees the opportunity to apply our best moral values to the urgent problems we face," the Rev. Jim Wallis said in his remarks.
Wallis, author of 2005's "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It," highlighted issues that he said required a new direction, including U.S. policy in Iraq. He also called for new efforts to combat poverty and protect the environment.
"We need serious solutions, not the scapegoating of others," Wallis said. "The path of partisan division is well worn, but the road of compassionate priorities and social justice will lead us to a new America."
In a statement, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he chose Wallis to give the address, usually reserved for politicians, "in the spirit of bipartisanship."
Wallis heads a ministry in Washington called Sojourners and has been widely viewed as part of the religious left. He rejects that label and preaches the need to bring the nation to "a moral center."
Reid called Wallis nonpartisan.
In recent months, Democrats have been trying to reach out more to the religious community in an effort to build up public support for their priorities.
About a year ago, Wallis was one of more than 100 religious activists arrested on Capitol Hill during a peaceful demonstration against health care and social welfare cuts proposed by Republicans.
Arsenic and Old Lace....
I find this interesting because the story seems so sinister concerning polonium 210 coming from Russian power plants, etc. The implication is that the Putin had his former spy assassinated. All of that may or may not be true, but whether or not polonium 210 is of Russian origin is not very relevant. (reminds me of the comedy play, Arsenic and Old Lace)
The truth is, that polonium 210 is quite commonly available since it is used in many anti-static devices. Over forty years ago we used a polonium devices made by Staticmaster Corp. in our darkroom to expell dust particles from photographic films and plates. These hand-held devices are relatively cheap. The positive charge causes dust and lint to be repelled from the surface.
Polonium 210 emits alpha particles (protons) which are essentially ionized Helium. It is relatively safe because the ions are large and can be stopped by a sheet of paper - as opposed to gamma radiation which can pass through virtually anything and usually requires lead shielding to block it.
My point is that anyone wanting to do someone in could buy one of these devices at a photography store, take it apart and spike the victim's soup. It may be more effective than perhaps rat poison because the latter is potentially treatable! ...
The truth is, that polonium 210 is quite commonly available since it is used in many anti-static devices. Over forty years ago we used a polonium devices made by Staticmaster Corp. in our darkroom to expell dust particles from photographic films and plates. These hand-held devices are relatively cheap. The positive charge causes dust and lint to be repelled from the surface.
Polonium 210 emits alpha particles (protons) which are essentially ionized Helium. It is relatively safe because the ions are large and can be stopped by a sheet of paper - as opposed to gamma radiation which can pass through virtually anything and usually requires lead shielding to block it.
My point is that anyone wanting to do someone in could buy one of these devices at a photography store, take it apart and spike the victim's soup. It may be more effective than perhaps rat poison because the latter is potentially treatable! ...
Britain finds second case of radiation poisoning
By David Clarke and Mark Trevelyan
LONDON (Reuters) - British scientists probing the death of Alexander Litvinenko said on Friday a second man had been poisoned by the same radiation that killed the former Russian spy.
Media reports said the man was Mario Scaramella, an Italian contact whom Litvinenko met at a London sushi restaurant on November 1, the same day he fell ill.
[This should be a lesson to everyone - don't eat sushi because you never know what the fish may have eaten as a result of the dumping of radioactive waste in the ocean! Perhaps ocean fish should be monitored with radiation counters!...AG]
"We are confirming that one further person who was in direct contact with Mr. Litvinenko has been found to have a significant quantity of polonium 210 in their body. This is being investigated further in hospital," a spokesman for the Health Protection Agency said.
"There is likely to be concern for their immediate health."
Police and health authorities declined to confirm the man was Scaramella. Polonium 210 is the same radioactive isotope that poisoned Litvinenko, who died a slow and agonizing death in a London hospital.
The former spy, a British citizen who became an outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin after leaving Russia's secret service, accused the Kremlin chief of ordering his killing.
Moscow rejects the allegation as ridiculous and has promised to help the British probe, although Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said no formal inquiries had yet been received.
The case has triggered a complex police investigation and sparked diplomatic tensions between Britain and Russia.
RADIOACTIVE TRAIL
Britain has also faced a major challenge to reassure the public after traces of radiation were found at 12 sites and aboard planes which have carried more than 33,000 passengers in the past month, many flying between London and Moscow.
Authorities say polonium is not dangerous unless swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through a wound.
Earlier on Friday, three pathologists wearing protective suits to guard against radiation carried out a post-mortem on Litvinenko at the Royal London Hospital.
Scaramella, who describes himself as a security consultant, said last week he had met Litvinenko on November 1 to show him emails from a mutual source warning both their lives may be in danger. He said Litvinenko had told him not to worry.
He has denied poisoning Litvinenko himself.
A lawyer representing Scaramella told Reuters on Friday he was waiting for final test results before making any comments on his state of health.
He declined to explain Scaramella's earlier statements that he was not contaminated, saying the tests were "complex."
EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso voiced concern about the case. "We have a problem with Russia. In fact, we have several problems. Too many people have been killed and we don't know who killed them," he said on Thursday.
British media reported on Friday that scientists at the country's Atomic Weapons Establishment had traced the source of the polonium to a nuclear power plant in Russia.
The AWE, the body that provides warheads for Britain's nuclear arsenal, was not immediately available for comment.
The head of Russia's state atomic energy agency Rosatom, Sergei Kiriyenko, told the government daily Rossiiskaya Gazeta Russia produces only 8 grams of polonium 210 a month. He said all goes to U.S. companies through a single authorized supplier.
Kiriyenko said nuclear reactors like the Russian RMBK or the Canadian CANDU were needed to make it.
However Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), the company that makes CANDU reactors, said Kiriyenko's statement was wrong as the plants could not produce polonium. "It's a totally false statement to suggest that," spokesman Dale Coffin said.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Dying Snakes and Headless Chickens
Well, when I was a kid, I was told that a killed snake won't die until sunset. And I know that chickens with their heads cut off still fly and flop around until they run out of blood. Thus it is with the Republicans.
The past six years has shown the ruling party to be the most arrogant self-serving corrupt group of politicians in American history! Even reasonable moderate Republicans are revolting in disgust because their own party hasn't even tried to live up to its own conservative principles!
This government has lied to us and gotten us into a global mess in Iraq and the rest of the world for the very simple purpose of controlling the 2nd best oil reserves in the world! This is not for the betterment of Americans, but for the wealth of the oil tycoons - our vice president being one of them! That is what all of our problems is about. If it weren't for our aggressiveness to control oil, even bin Laden wouldn't have flown planes into the twin towers on 9/11! We all know that now - the whole thing has become documented fact!
Those of you who actually read Jefferson's state of the union message I posted realize that Jefferson was espousing a fiscal conservatism dreamed of by most true Republicans! Yet the goals of this party now are not only not conservative, they are not even American or of the American tradition wished for by our forefathers! They espouse some new elite economic structure social control by the wealthy and powerful in collusion with a warped hyper-Christianity designed to keep the people under control "In the name of Jesus", no less!
In all honesty, some of this is reminiscent of the 19th century with the various power moguls who dominated the working classes and with virtually no middle class. Everyone but the few were impoverished. It took the labor unions to dismantle the extreme wealth of the barons and create a healthy middle class.
Today, the unions are pretty much a thing of the past - especially with a global economy which they can't (or haven't been able to) control. Thus the pendulum swings back and the evils of poverty, ignorance and loss of personal freedoms are returning.
That is, unless we Democrats, Independents and moderate Republicans force our government to return to fiscal discipline, separation of church and state, and uphold our Constitutional Bill of Rights for all of the people! To do this, we need a Supreme Court with judges who can interpret the Constitution and contradict laws enacted by the legislature which violate Constitutional guarantees.
But just because we had a good midterm election doesn't mean that the snake is dead - far from it! The following post shows that it is still alive - if not well!
The past six years has shown the ruling party to be the most arrogant self-serving corrupt group of politicians in American history! Even reasonable moderate Republicans are revolting in disgust because their own party hasn't even tried to live up to its own conservative principles!
This government has lied to us and gotten us into a global mess in Iraq and the rest of the world for the very simple purpose of controlling the 2nd best oil reserves in the world! This is not for the betterment of Americans, but for the wealth of the oil tycoons - our vice president being one of them! That is what all of our problems is about. If it weren't for our aggressiveness to control oil, even bin Laden wouldn't have flown planes into the twin towers on 9/11! We all know that now - the whole thing has become documented fact!
Those of you who actually read Jefferson's state of the union message I posted realize that Jefferson was espousing a fiscal conservatism dreamed of by most true Republicans! Yet the goals of this party now are not only not conservative, they are not even American or of the American tradition wished for by our forefathers! They espouse some new elite economic structure social control by the wealthy and powerful in collusion with a warped hyper-Christianity designed to keep the people under control "In the name of Jesus", no less!
In all honesty, some of this is reminiscent of the 19th century with the various power moguls who dominated the working classes and with virtually no middle class. Everyone but the few were impoverished. It took the labor unions to dismantle the extreme wealth of the barons and create a healthy middle class.
Today, the unions are pretty much a thing of the past - especially with a global economy which they can't (or haven't been able to) control. Thus the pendulum swings back and the evils of poverty, ignorance and loss of personal freedoms are returning.
That is, unless we Democrats, Independents and moderate Republicans force our government to return to fiscal discipline, separation of church and state, and uphold our Constitutional Bill of Rights for all of the people! To do this, we need a Supreme Court with judges who can interpret the Constitution and contradict laws enacted by the legislature which violate Constitutional guarantees.
But just because we had a good midterm election doesn't mean that the snake is dead - far from it! The following post shows that it is still alive - if not well!
Democrats warned not to block judges
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer Fri Nov 17
WASHINGTON - The Senate's next Republican leader issued a veiled threat to block action on legislation if Democrats refuse to allow confirmation votes on President Bush's troubled judicial nominations.
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who will become minority leader Jan. 4, told the conservative Federalist Society Friday not to feel bad about the Senate election results because Republicans will hold 49 seats in a body that requires 60 votes to end a filibuster and bring legislation or presidential nominees to a final vote.
If the "Democrats want our cooperation, they'll give the president's judicial nominees an up-or-down vote," McConnell said.
Vice President Dick Cheney told the same group Friday that Republicans' loss of Congress in last week's election won't dissuade Bush from continuing to nominate strict-constructionist judges to the federal bench.
Democrats have used filibusters and the threat of them to block several of Bush's more conservative federal appeals court nominees who had the support of a majority of senators but lacked the 60 pledges needed to force a vote.
Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., became so irked that he brought the Senate to the brink of shutting down by threatening to get a parliamentary ruling forbidding filibusters on judicial nominations.
Only a bipartisan "Gang of 14" senators — seven Republicans and seven Democrats — averted the showdown with an agreement to allow some of Bush's nominees to be confirmed. Democrats subsequently rejected the idea of using filibusters to block Bush's two Supreme Court nominees — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice
Samuel Alito.
"Senator McConnell wants bipartisan cooperation but that's a two-way street," his spokesman, Don Stewart, said Friday. "You can't expect easy cooperation on issues of importance to them unless they respect issues of importance to us, including the principle that judges deserve an up-or-down vote."
Democrats chalked up McConnell's comments to posturing and plain math.
"The president should stop picking fights and start working with Democrats to pick nominees who can be confirmed," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
"When we work together on consensus judicial nominees we can make progress," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the incoming Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Bush did the opposite this week, renominating six judges, four of them vehemently opposed by Democrats. Leahy said the renominations amounted to the White House "taking the bait of right-wing partisan groups."
"Advice and consent does not mean giving the president a free pass to pack the courts with ideologues from the right or left," Leahy said. "The American people want the Senate to be more than a rubber stamp."
Associated Press writer Mark Sherman contributed to this report.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Our Nation in 1801 vs today....
For those cousins who are interested in American history and politics, I found the following website, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index which is designed to contain the papers and speeches of all of our presidents.
From the sidebar at this site I chose the subject of "State of the Union Messages" required of all presidents on a yearly basis. Being interested in Thomas Jefferson, I was curious as to what he said in his 1st message to the Congress and his view the State of Our Nation in 1801.
I found it interesting in that, for example, most Republicans would be pleased by his attitudes toward the size of government and taxation even though Jefferson's philosophies are considered the ideals of the Democratic party. Since it was made prior to the attack by the British in the War of 1812, it provides a somewhat naive approach to military preparedness - relying primarily on State militias for our defense (except for the Navy). He also makes strong statements on immigration which is of very divided interest today.
It is not long and tedious compared with the more recent Presidential speeches to Congress which are accompanied by long periods of applause, factional standing and sitting, etc. so it should be fairly easy reading and give you a feeling for how things have changed over the years... and change they have!
From the sidebar at this site I chose the subject of "State of the Union Messages" required of all presidents on a yearly basis. Being interested in Thomas Jefferson, I was curious as to what he said in his 1st message to the Congress and his view the State of Our Nation in 1801.
I found it interesting in that, for example, most Republicans would be pleased by his attitudes toward the size of government and taxation even though Jefferson's philosophies are considered the ideals of the Democratic party. Since it was made prior to the attack by the British in the War of 1812, it provides a somewhat naive approach to military preparedness - relying primarily on State militias for our defense (except for the Navy). He also makes strong statements on immigration which is of very divided interest today.
It is not long and tedious compared with the more recent Presidential speeches to Congress which are accompanied by long periods of applause, factional standing and sitting, etc. so it should be fairly easy reading and give you a feeling for how things have changed over the years... and change they have!
Thomas Jefferson
First Annual Message
December 8th, 1801
Fellow Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:
It is a circumstance of sincere gratification to me that on meeting the great council of our nation I am able to announce to them on grounds of reasonable certainty that the wars and troubles which have for so many years afflicted our sister nations have at length come to an end, and that the communications of peace and commerce are once more opening among them. Whilst we devoutly return thanks to the beneficent Being who has been pleased to breathe into them the spirit of conciliation and forgiveness, we are bound with peculiar gratitude to be thankful to Him that our own peace has been preserved through so perilous a season, and ourselves permitted quietly to cultivate the earth and to practice and improve those arts which tend to increase our comforts. The assurances, indeed, of friendly disposition received from all the powers with whom we have principle relations had inspired a confidence that our peace with them would not have been disturbed. But a cessation of irregularities which had affected the commerce of neutral nations and of the irritations and injuries produced by them can not but add to this confidence, and strengthens at the same time the hope that wrongs committed on unoffending friends under a pressure of circumstances will now be reviewed with candor, and will be considered as founding just claims of retribution for the past and new assurance for the future.
Among our Indian neighbors also a spirit of peace and friendship generally prevails, and I am happy to inform you that the continued efforts to introduce among them the implements and the practice of husbandry and the household arts have not been without success; that they are becoming more and more sensible of the superiority of this dependence for clothing and subsistence over the precarious resources of hunting and fishing, and already we are able to announce that instead of that constant diminution of their numbers produced by their wars and their wants, some of them begin to experience an increase of population.
To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer.
I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean, with assurances to that power of our sincere desire to remain in peace, but with orders to protect our commerce against the threatened attack. The measure was seasonable and salutary. The Bey had already declared war. His cruisers were out. Two had arrived at Gibraltar. Our commerce in the Mediterranean was blockaded and that of the Atlantic in peril.
The arrival of our squadron dispelled the danger. One of the Tripolitan cruisers having fallen in with and engaged the small schooner Enterprise, commanded by Lieutenant Sterret, which had gone as a tender to our larger vessels, was captured, after a heavy slaughter of her men, without the loss of a single 1 on our part. The bravery exhibited by our citizens on that element will, I trust, be a testimony to the world that it is not the want of that virtue which makes us seek their peace, but a conscientious desire to direct the energies of our nation to the multiplication of the human race, and not to its destruction. Unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense, the vessel, being disabled from committing further hostilities, was liberated with its crew.
The Legislature will doubtless consider whether, by authorizing measures of offense also, they will place our force on an equal footing with that of its adversaries. I communicate all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstances of weight.
I wish I could say that our situation with all the other Barbary States was entirely satisfactory. Discovering that some delays had taken place in the performance of certain articles stipulated by us, I thought it my duty, by immediate measures for fulfilling them, to vindicate to ourselves the right of considering the effect of departure from stipulation on their side. From the papers which will be laid before you you will be enabled to judge whether our treaties are regarded by them as fixing at all the measure of their demands or as guarding from the exercise of force our vessels within their power, and to consider how far it will be safe and expedient to leave our affairs with them in their present posture.
I lay before you the result of the census lately taken of our inhabitants, to a conformity with which we are now to reduce the ensuing ration of representation and taxation. You will perceive that the increase of numbers during the last 10 years, proceeding in geometric ratio, promises a duplication in little more than 22 years. We contemplate this rapid growth and the prospect it holds up to us, not with a view to the injuries it may enable us to do others in some future day, but to the settlement of the extensive country still remaining vacant within our limits to the multiplication of men susceptible of happiness, educated in the love of order, habituated to self-government, and valuing its blessings above all price.
Other circumstances, combined with the increase of numbers, have produced an augmentation of revenue arising from consumption in a ratio far beyond that of population alone; and though the changes in foreign relations now taking place so desirably for the whole world may for a season affect this branch of revenue, yet weighing all probabilities of expense as well as of income, there is reasonable ground of confidence that we may now safely dispense with all the internal taxes, comprehending excise, stamps, auctions, licenses, carriages, and refined sugars, to which the postage on news papers may be added to facilitate the progress of information, and that the remaining sources of revenue will be sufficient to provide for the support of Government, to pay the interest of the public debts, and to discharge the principals within shorter periods than the laws or the general expectation had contemplated.
War, indeed, and untoward events may change this prospect of things and call for expenses which imposts could not meet; but sound principles will not justify our taxing the industry of our fellow citizens to accumulate treasure for wars to happen we know not when, and which might not, perhaps, happen but from the temptations offered by that treasure.
These views, however, of reducing our burthens are formed on the expectation that a sensible and at the same time a salutary reduction may take place in our habitual expenditures. For this purpose those of the civil Government, the Army, and Navy will need revisal.
When we consider that this Government is charged with the external and mutual relations only of these States; that the States themselves have principal care of our persons, our property, and our reputation, constituting the great field of human concerns, we may well doubt whether our organization is not too complicated, too expensive; whether offices and officers have not been multiplied unnecessarily and sometimes injuriously to the service they were meant to promote.
I will cause to be laid before you an essay toward a statement of those who, under public employment of various kinds, draw money from the Treasury or from our citizens. Time has not permitted a perfect enumeration, the ramifications of office being too multiplied and remote to be completely traced in a 1st trial.
Among those who are dependent on Executive discretion I have begun the reduction of what was deemed unnecessary. The expenses of diplomatic agency have been considerably diminished. The inspectors of internal revenue who were found to obstruct the accountability of the institution have been discontinued. Several agencies created by Executive authorities, on salaries fixed by that also, have been suppressed, and should suggest the expediency of regulating that power by law, so as to subject its exercises to legislative inspection and sanction.
Other reformations of the same kind will be pursued with that caution which is requisite in removing useless things, not to injure what is retained. But the great mass of public offices is established by law, and therefore by law alone can be abolished. Should the Legislature think it expedient to pass this roll in review and try all its parts by the test of public utility, they may be assured of every aid and light which Executive information can yield.
Considering the general tendency to multiply offices and dependencies and to increase expense to the ultimate term of burthen which the citizen can bear, it behooves us to avail ourselves of every occasion which presents itself for taking off the surcharge, that it never may be seen here that after leaving to labor the smallest portion of its earnings on which it can subsist, Government shall itself consume the whole residue of what it was instituted to guard.
In our care, too, of the public contributions intrusted to our direction it would be prudent to multiply barriers against their dissipation by appropriating specific sums to every specific purpose susceptible of definition; by disallowing all applications of money varying from the appropriation in object or transcending it in amount; by reducing the undefined field of contingencies and thereby circumscribing discretionary powers over money, and by bringing back to a single department all accountabilities for money, where the examinations may be prompt, efficacious, and uniform.
An account of the receipts and expenditures of the last year, as prepared by the Secretary of the Treasury, will, as usual, be laid before you. The success which has attended the late sales of the public lands shews that with attention they may be made an important source of receipt. Among the payments those made in discharge of the principal and interest of the national debt will shew that the public faith has been exactly maintained. To these will be added an estimate of appropriations necessary for the ensuing year. This last will, of course, be affected by such modifications of the system of expense as you shall think proper to adopt.
A statement has been formed by the Secretary of War, on mature consideration, of all the posts and stations where garrisons will be expedient and of the number of men requisite for each garrison. The whole amount is considerably short of the present military establishment. For the surplus no particular use can be pointed out.
For defense against invasion their number is as nothing, nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for that purpose. Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them is the body of the neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient in numbers proportioned to the invading force, it is best to rely not only to meet the 1st attack, but if it threatens to be permanent to maintain the defense until regulars may be engaged to relieve them. These considerations render it important that we should at every session continue to amend the defects which from time to time shew themselves in the laws for regulating the militia until they are sufficiently perfect. Nor should we now or at any time separate until we say we have done everything for the militia which we could do were an enemy at our door.
The provision of military stores on hand will be laid before you, that you may judge of the additions still requisite.
With respect to the extent to which our naval preparations should be expected to appear, but just attention to the circumstances of every part of the Union will doubtless reconcile all. A small force will probably continue to be wanted for actual service in the Mediterranean. Whatever annual sum beyond that you may think proper to appropriate to naval preparations would perhaps be better employed in providing those articles which may be kept without waste or consumption, and be in readiness when any exigence calls them into use. Progress has been made, as will appear by papers now communicated, in providing materials for 74-gun ships as directed by law.
How far the authority given by the Legislature for procuring and establishing sites for naval purposes has been perfectly understood and pursued in the execution admits of some doubt. A statement of the expenses already incurred on that subject is now laid before you. I have in certain cases suspended or slackened these expenditures, that the Legislature might determine whether so many yards are necessary as have been contemplated.
The works at this place are among those permitted to go on, and 5 of the 7 frigates directed to be laid up have been brought and laid up here, where, besides the safety of their position, they are under the eye of the Executive Administration, as well as of its agents, and where yourselves also will be guided by your own view in the legislative provisions respecting them which may from time to time be necessary. They are preserved in such condition, as well the vessels as whatever belongs to them, as to be at all times ready for sea on a short warning. Two others are yet to be laid up so soon as they shall have received the repairs requisite to put them also into sound condition. As a superintending officer will be necessary at each yard, his duties and emoluments, hitherto fixed by the Executive, will be a more proper subject for legislation. A communication will also be made of our progress in the execution of the law respecting the vessels directed to be sold.
The fortifications of our harbors, more of less advanced, present considerations of great difficulty. While some of them are on a scale sufficiently proportioned to the advantages of their position, to the efficacy of their protection, and the importance of the points within it, others are so extensive, will cost so much in their 1st erection, so much in their maintenance, and require such a force to garrison them as to make it questionable what is best now to be done. A statement of those commenced or projected, of the expenses already incurred, and estimates of their future cost, as far as can be foreseen, shall be laid before you, that you may be enabled to judge whether any alteration is necessary in the laws respecting this subject.
Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the 4 pillars of our prosperity, are then most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed. If in the course of your observations or inquiries they should appear to need any aid within the limits of our constitutional powers, your sense of their importance is a sufficient assurance they will occupy your attention. We can not, indeed, but all feel an anxious solicitude for the difficulties under which our carrying trade will soon be placed. How far it can be relieved, otherwise than by time, is a subject of important consideration.
The judiciary system of the United States, and especially that portion of it recently erected, will of course present itself to the contemplation of Congress, and, that they may be able to judge of the proportion which the institution bears on the business it has to perform, I have caused to be procured from the several States and now lay before Congress an exact statement of all the causes decided since the 1st establishment of the courts, and of those which were depending when additional courts and judges were brought in to their aid.
And while on the judiciary organization it will be worthy your consideration whether the protection of the inestimable institution of juries has been extended to all the cases involving the security of our persons and property. Their impartial selection also being essential to their value, we ought further to consider whether that is sufficiently secured in those States where they are named by a marshal depending on Executive will or designated by the court or by officers dependent on them.
I can not omit recommending a revisal of the laws on the subject of naturalization. Considering the ordinary chances of human life, a denial of citizenship under a residence of 14 years is a denial to a great proportion of those who ask it, and controls a policy pursued from their 1st settlement by many of these States, and still believed of consequence to their prosperity; and shall we refuse to the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution indeed has wisely provided that for admission to certain offices of important trust a residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to everyone manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us, with restrictions, perhaps, to guard against the fraudulent usurpation of our flag, an abuse which brings so much embarrassment and loss on the genuine citizen and so much danger to the nation of being involved in war that no endeavor should be spared to detect and suppress it?
These, fellow citizens, are the matters respecting the state of the nation which I have thought of importance to be submitted to your consideration at this time. Some others of less moment or not yet ready for communication will be the subject of separate messages. I am happy in this opportunity of committing the arduous affairs of our Government to the collected wisdom of the Union. Nothing shall be wanting on my part to inform as far as in my power the legislative judgment, nor to carry that judgment into faithful execution.
The prudence and temperance of your discussions will promote within your own walls that conciliation which so much befriends rational conclusion, and by its example will encourage among our constituents that progress of opinion which is tending to unite them in object and in will. That all should be satisfied with any one order of things is not to be expected; but I indulge the pleasing persuasion that the great body of our citizens will cordially concur in honest and disinterested efforts which have for their object to preserve the General and State Governments in their constitutional form and equilibrium; to maintain peace abroad, and order and obedience to the laws at home; to establish principles and practices of administration favorable to the security of liberty and property, and to reduce expenses to what is necessary for the useful purposes of Government.
TH. JEFFERSON
Monday, November 06, 2006
Announcement....
This post is to let you know that my Upstream post of Thursday, October 26, 2006 titled: Trivial Pursuits... was published on Monday, November 6th in the Kingman Daily Miner editorial page - the day before the election!
Scritch-scratch.....
Just to prove what a nit-wit, bleeding heart liberal I am, let me tell the following 'tail'....
For the last month or so, while laying in bed late at night we have heard this rather loud scritch-scratch sound coming from our adjoining bathroom/Jacuzzi tub area. Our manx cat Bunny has been equally interested and has posted herself by the access doors to the tub which are velcroed in place, but most of the sounds have come from the attic above the toilet.
It was a ‘duh' to think that there was nothing up there, but we were somewhat reluctant to try to find out. I did inspect the area outside the house to see if there was any obvious access to the house and there was nothing - except that with a ceramic tile roof with its overlapping tiles, - well, maybe.
Judging by the sounds we determined that they were larger than a mouse but smaller than a racoon (which aren't native around here anyway). I thought it might be a ground squirrel getting ready for a winter nap or maybe - hopefully, it was just the sounds of the hundreds of pigeons who seek refuge on our roof and use our fountain as a toilet.
We feeble, elderly folks mentioned it to son Larry who suggested that we simply take a look to see if there was anything under the Jacuzzi tub. What a brilliant idea!
So our brave son pulled loose the cover to the Jacuzzi area peered inside and proclaimed, "Look!" We did. There was a large nest of insulation material along with a store of cat food between the joists and there were some droppings which certainly looked larger than those of mice!
This revelation certainly set our hearts aflutter as we tried to determine what sort of monster critter could have left such large droppings! And, of course, we worried that our cats were being deprived of their food - the poor uncomplaining kits.
So what do we do now? Obviously mouse traps won't work because the beastie must be larger than that! Larry suggested his 12-gage shotgun and my Betty suggested arsenic but I prevailed and sent them down to the local Tru-Value hardware where they bought a trap (damned thing cost $32!) which would not hurt the poor little beastie whomever he/she was that I knew was only trying to survive the bitter cold winter (after all, life is simply a matter of survival which we all eventually lose) - well, at least those were my sentiments - and being lord of the manor – well....
Larry set and placed the trap with the trip plate smeared with peanut butter under the tub, sealed the door and .....
I was writing an eloquent note to Dennis on the computer suggesting how we together might solve the worlds problems and live in euphoria forever after (in the hands of the Lord, of course) when at about 2AM my Betty pads out and informs me that there is quite a ruckus going on under the tub and that both Bunny and Clementine are standing real serious guard! Perhaps I should come and see for myself!
Reluctantly, I meandered the almost 100 yards from our den to the bedroom area, picking up a flashlight on the way, pulled off the valcroed door and... by golly! - there was a nice plump healthy little rat watching, a bit nervously, through the cage wires!
She? was upset, of course, but I noted she had eaten all of the peanut butter (that is why I know that she is a she and not a he)
Of course, as according to procedure, I took a mug shot and then acting as lord of the manor, banished her forever from living in my home! Thus, I took her, still in her cage, in our car and drove about half a mile away where I opened the cage door and set her free to new adventures in the Mohave desert.
I'm certainly glad that there are very few people awake at 2AM who might have wondered what the hell was going on out in the desert at that time... If and when the police arrived, I was long gone.
For the last month or so, while laying in bed late at night we have heard this rather loud scritch-scratch sound coming from our adjoining bathroom/Jacuzzi tub area. Our manx cat Bunny has been equally interested and has posted herself by the access doors to the tub which are velcroed in place, but most of the sounds have come from the attic above the toilet.
It was a ‘duh' to think that there was nothing up there, but we were somewhat reluctant to try to find out. I did inspect the area outside the house to see if there was any obvious access to the house and there was nothing - except that with a ceramic tile roof with its overlapping tiles, - well, maybe.
Judging by the sounds we determined that they were larger than a mouse but smaller than a racoon (which aren't native around here anyway). I thought it might be a ground squirrel getting ready for a winter nap or maybe - hopefully, it was just the sounds of the hundreds of pigeons who seek refuge on our roof and use our fountain as a toilet.
We feeble, elderly folks mentioned it to son Larry who suggested that we simply take a look to see if there was anything under the Jacuzzi tub. What a brilliant idea!
So our brave son pulled loose the cover to the Jacuzzi area peered inside and proclaimed, "Look!" We did. There was a large nest of insulation material along with a store of cat food between the joists and there were some droppings which certainly looked larger than those of mice!
This revelation certainly set our hearts aflutter as we tried to determine what sort of monster critter could have left such large droppings! And, of course, we worried that our cats were being deprived of their food - the poor uncomplaining kits.
So what do we do now? Obviously mouse traps won't work because the beastie must be larger than that! Larry suggested his 12-gage shotgun and my Betty suggested arsenic but I prevailed and sent them down to the local Tru-Value hardware where they bought a trap (damned thing cost $32!) which would not hurt the poor little beastie whomever he/she was that I knew was only trying to survive the bitter cold winter (after all, life is simply a matter of survival which we all eventually lose) - well, at least those were my sentiments - and being lord of the manor – well....
Larry set and placed the trap with the trip plate smeared with peanut butter under the tub, sealed the door and .....
I was writing an eloquent note to Dennis on the computer suggesting how we together might solve the worlds problems and live in euphoria forever after (in the hands of the Lord, of course) when at about 2AM my Betty pads out and informs me that there is quite a ruckus going on under the tub and that both Bunny and Clementine are standing real serious guard! Perhaps I should come and see for myself!
Reluctantly, I meandered the almost 100 yards from our den to the bedroom area, picking up a flashlight on the way, pulled off the valcroed door and... by golly! - there was a nice plump healthy little rat watching, a bit nervously, through the cage wires!
She? was upset, of course, but I noted she had eaten all of the peanut butter (that is why I know that she is a she and not a he)
Of course, as according to procedure, I took a mug shot and then acting as lord of the manor, banished her forever from living in my home! Thus, I took her, still in her cage, in our car and drove about half a mile away where I opened the cage door and set her free to new adventures in the Mohave desert.
I'm certainly glad that there are very few people awake at 2AM who might have wondered what the hell was going on out in the desert at that time... If and when the police arrived, I was long gone.
The 5th Dimension....
Here we go again! Good thing there are elections because otherwise such information would never get out - right?! (of course the voters in PA have known about it for a long time)
What's with these old geezers!? I hesitate to ask what the two would have in common since Rep. Don Sherwood's over twice her age! Is sex really worth half a million dollars? ...and don't suggest that it is if it is done right - they've written books on that - right?!
It'd be more understandable - in fact, who'd really care? - if he weren't such a strong voice for "family values"! It seems to me that "family values" are the political joke of the century designed to keep the really dumb voters on the straight and narrow!
Wonder if you could change the words to the song, "Age of Aquarius" to "Age of Hypocrisy" has sort of a beat to it, doesn't it? Gives it a New Dimension! (that's a joke folks)...
What's with these old geezers!? I hesitate to ask what the two would have in common since Rep. Don Sherwood's over twice her age! Is sex really worth half a million dollars? ...and don't suggest that it is if it is done right - they've written books on that - right?!
It'd be more understandable - in fact, who'd really care? - if he weren't such a strong voice for "family values"! It seems to me that "family values" are the political joke of the century designed to keep the really dumb voters on the straight and narrow!
Wonder if you could change the words to the song, "Age of Aquarius" to "Age of Hypocrisy" has sort of a beat to it, doesn't it? Gives it a New Dimension! (that's a joke folks)...
REP. PAYING EX-MISTRESS ABOUT $500K
You can buy a Hummer for a lot less than that! Hmmmmmmm....
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM, Associated Press Writer
ALLENTOWN, Pa. - A Republican congressman accused of abusing his ex-mistress agreed to pay her about $500,000 in a settlement last year that contained a powerful incentive for her to keep quiet until after Election Day, a person familiar with the terms of the deal told The Associated Press.
Rep. Don Sherwood is locked in a tight re-election race against a Democratic opponent who has seized on the four-term congressman's relationship with the woman. While Sherwood acknowledged the woman was his mistress, he denied abusing her and said that he had settled her $5.5 million lawsuit on confidential terms.
The settlement, reached in November 2005, called for Cynthia Ore to be paid in installments, according to a person who spoke on condition of anonymity because the deal is confidential. She has received less than half the money so far, and will not get the rest until after the Nov. 7 election, the person said Thursday.
A confidentiality clause requires Ore to forfeit some of the money if she talks publicly about the case, according to this person and two other people familiar with elements of the case.
It is common in settlements for payments to be made in installments and for the parties to be held to confidentiality.
Sherwood admitted no wrongdoing, a standard provision in such agreements, this person said.
Sherwood, a 65-year-old married father of three who is considered a family-values conservative, had one of the safest seats in Congress until Ore sued him in June 2005, alleging he physically abused her throughout their five-year affair.
Reached by telephone Wednesday, the congressman and successful car dealer said: "I can neither confirm nor deny because this was a private settlement. If I'd like to talk to you about it, I can't."
The Associated Press has been trying for months to find out the terms of the settlement.
According to a police report, Ore called 911 on her cell phone from the bathroom of Sherwood's Capitol Hill apartment in 2004 and reported that Sherwood had choked her while giving her a back rub. Sherwood admitted having an affair with the woman, but vehemently denied ever hurting her, and criminal charges were never filed. But Ore, now 30, sued for damages.
Sherwood's challenger, Chris Carney, has hammered the congressman over the affair in TV ads, calling Sherwood a hypocrite who brought "Washington values" to his rural northeastern Pennsylvania district.
Sherwood responded with his own ad, in which he looked directly into the camera and apologized for his conduct. Last month, his wife mailed a letter to voters that accused Carney of "needlessly cruel" campaign tactics.
Although GOP voters greatly outnumber Democrats in his conservative district, many people have said they would not vote for him again because of the affair.
Even before Ore settled, the congressman tried to keep a tight lid on the case. His lawyer asked a judge to prohibit disclosure of materials from the case, warning that Sherwood's opponents might try to use the information to harm him politically.
The lawyer, Bobby Burchfield, was especially adamant that any videotaped deposition of Sherwood not be released, saying the footage could be used against him in negative political ads.
Ore's attorney, Ning Ye of New York, declined to say where she is living now or how she can be reached.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
It is the economy, dammit!
For what it is worth, I'll put my spin on this within the article.
The above ‘news' is the problem with reporting averages without analysis of how those averages are created. see below.
I think this is the key to the perceived problem: I was already aware of the huge aircraft sales by the Boeing company months ago. The fact is that without those sales, the GDP would be very negative - not positive. Of curse, that seems to make the problem even worse.
However, Boeing workers and the workers of Boeing's suppliers all enjoy significantly higher pay multiples than the wages of for example the dying building trades and most certainly immensely more than people plodding along in the retail industry - especially the Wal-Marts and K-Marts.
The end result is that you have a spurt of very high paying jobs and a corresponding loss of medium and low paying jobs. The end result is high incomes coupled with higher unemployment. I don't see the segregated high incomes having much to do with inflation, however, because the incomes are not coming from the production of consumer products. For example, I'd be surprised if the Fed raises interest rates anytime soon - despite some inflation caused by gas prices which have lowered, but not returned to pre-Katrina levels.
Read on to see what I mean.
Not if they don't have jobs! Workers ARE the consumers - certainly not those of us who are economically comfortable. Our money goes in a tin can burried in the back yard.
The argument here is based upon economic generalizations based upon skewed averages. And I think the above assumption is thus wrong despite the textbook logic. One wonders why the present atypical economy is not obvious to these commentators when they report high unemployment at the same time they report high labor costs - it can't be simply the fact that an average CEO receives a 20% annual raise - at the expense of stockholders.
This is already evident in the building trades and their suppliers nationally.
I think they're whistlin' in the dark, here, but we'll see!
Productivity slows, wage pressures mount
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON - The productivity of American workers slowed to a standstill in the summer, while wages were rising at the fastest clip in more than two decades — a combination likely to raise inflation concerns at the Federal Reserve.
The Labor Department reported Thursday that productivity, the amount of output per hour of work, showed no change in the July-September quarter, while labor costs rose by 3.8 percent. For the past year, wages and other labor costs are up by 5.3 percent, the fastest increase since 1982.
While rising wages and benefits are good news for workers, they raise concerns about inflation especially at a time when productivity is slowing. If companies decide to pass on their higher payroll costs by boosting the price of their products, that could translate into increased inflation.
The above ‘news' is the problem with reporting averages without analysis of how those averages are created. see below.
In other economic news, orders to factories for manufactured products rose by 2.1 percent in September, the biggest increase in six months, but virtually all of the strength came in a surge in orders for commercial aircraft. The Commerce Department said that orders for long-lasting durable goods were up 8.3 percent, offsetting a 4.6 percent drop in demand for food, gasoline and other nondurable products.
I think this is the key to the perceived problem: I was already aware of the huge aircraft sales by the Boeing company months ago. The fact is that without those sales, the GDP would be very negative - not positive. Of curse, that seems to make the problem even worse.
However, Boeing workers and the workers of Boeing's suppliers all enjoy significantly higher pay multiples than the wages of for example the dying building trades and most certainly immensely more than people plodding along in the retail industry - especially the Wal-Marts and K-Marts.
The end result is that you have a spurt of very high paying jobs and a corresponding loss of medium and low paying jobs. The end result is high incomes coupled with higher unemployment. I don't see the segregated high incomes having much to do with inflation, however, because the incomes are not coming from the production of consumer products. For example, I'd be surprised if the Fed raises interest rates anytime soon - despite some inflation caused by gas prices which have lowered, but not returned to pre-Katrina levels.
Read on to see what I mean.
The increase in durable goods, which was revised up from an initial estimate last week of a 7.8 percent gain, reflecting a huge 189.7 percent surge in demand for commercial aircraft. Excluding airplanes and other transportation products, factory orders would have fallen by 2.4 percent. The drop in nondurable goods was attributed in part to lower prices for petroleum products.
In a third report, the number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly shot up last week to the highest level in more than three months. A total of 327,000 fired employees filed benefit claims, up by 18,000 from the previous week.
The Labor Department said that the total number of jobless claims, which are adjusted for normal seasonal variations, was the highest since early July, raising concerns about whether the slowing economy is finally beginning to push companies to lay off workers.
Meanwhile, reports from the nation's largest retailers indicate that consumers may have taken a breather in October after going on a shopping spree in September. But analysts said significant declines in gasoline prices should boost retail sales in the upcoming holiday season as consumers will have more to spend on other items.
Not if they don't have jobs! Workers ARE the consumers - certainly not those of us who are economically comfortable. Our money goes in a tin can burried in the back yard.
Merchants beating expectations for October included Limited Brands Inc. and Bebe Stores Inc., while retailers reporting disappointing results included Costco Wholesale Corp.
The flat productivity reading in the third quarter was the poorest showing since a 0.1 percent decline in productivity in the final three months of last year. Over the past four quarters, productivity has risen by 1.3 percent, the weakest showing since a 1.1 percent rise in early 1997.
The 3.8 percent rise in the cost of labor per unit of output followed even bigger gains of 9 percent in the first quarter and 5.4 percent in the second quarter. Those increases pushed labor costs up by 5.3 percent for the year ending in September, the biggest gain since late 1982.
The Federal Reserve raised interest rates 17 consecutive times in an effort to slow the economy enough to bring inflation pressures under control. The Fed has left rates unchanged for three straight meetings, hoping that it has done enough to slow economic growth.
However, the significant slowing in productivity growth and the continued rise in wage pressures, if not reversed in coming quarters, could prompt the Fed to resume raising interest rates to fight inflation.
Since 1995, the country has enjoyed a decade of strong gains in productivity, which is the primary ingredient needed to lift living standards. Increased output means that companies can pay their workers more without having to raise the cost of their products — increases that push inflation higher.
The argument here is based upon economic generalizations based upon skewed averages. And I think the above assumption is thus wrong despite the textbook logic. One wonders why the present atypical economy is not obvious to these commentators when they report high unemployment at the same time they report high labor costs - it can't be simply the fact that an average CEO receives a 20% annual raise - at the expense of stockholders.
The concern is that with productivity gains slowing over the past year and the cost of labor rising, these trends could make the Fed's job of keeping inflation under control more difficult.
The rise of 18,000 in the level of jobless claims was far above the 2,000 increase that analysts had been expecting. So far, the slowing economy has prompted companies to trim their plans to hire new workers, but they have resisted laying off current employees. However, the severity of the slowdown could be prompting them to start laying off existing workers.
This is already evident in the building trades and their suppliers nationally.
The government will report on the October jobs picture on Friday. The expectation is that unemployment will remain at a low of 4.6 percent and hiring will rebound to 125,000 new jobs, up significantly from the anemic 51,000 new jobs created in September.
I think they're whistlin' in the dark, here, but we'll see!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)