The east coast experienced an earthquake on Tues, 8/23 and a hurricane on Sat/Sun, 8/27-28. Quite unusual events for the east coast, DC, Phili, NYC, and New England. Both events came and went quickly, leaving some damage and minimal loss of life. All is well. All was well. And all continues to be well. However, the media coverage of the hurricane was relentless (more so than the hurricane itself!). And the politicians couldn't resist instructing us about every little detail and ensuring us that they were there to 'help us'. The earthquake came without warning, had limited impact, and was actually pretty cool for those who felt it. We didn't have days-upon-days of 24/7 media coverage speculating about what could happen. We didn't have politicians assuring us that they are 'there for us' and will provide everything we need (implication: we are too stupid to take care of ourselves). But after both events, we will have politicians proposing programs and more spending somehow related to 'protecting us'. Enough!
Today's technology is wonderful. Would it have been good to have warning of the earthquake? Maybe. Would it have changed the outcome? No. Was there an overreaction to the hurricane? Yes. Should we have backed off? Probably not. Better to be careful than careless.
A retrospective look at the earthquake informs us that east coast events are different from west coast events for a variety of reasons (see excerpts below). Therefore, our earthquake was felt from NC to NH. Interesting stuff. Let's take the opportunity to learn something new.
Given a choice between experiencing an earthquake or a hurricane again, one might choose the earthquake simply to avoid the overblown media onslaught as well as the political parenting we experienced in the lead up to Hurricane Irene. Thanks, but we're adults, and we can take care of ourselves. Seems pretty logical to me...
Tuesday's quake was felt across a wide swath of the region because the rock formations deep beneath the surface are old and cold, and so transmit seismic waves more efficiently than thick layers of ancient sediment.
While the strength of the quake was unusual, the wide spread of the shock waves was common for the East Coast, according to Peggy Hellweg, a research seismologist at the Berkeley Seismological Laboratory in California. This is largely due to the difference in the terrain, Hellweg said in a telephone interview. "Our ground is all of this chopped-up stuff ... like a pile of marbles," Hellweg said of California's geology, which means that the waves from a quake don't spread out all that far. In the Eastern United States, she said, "What you've got there is gorgeous bedrock and ... the waves propagate beautifully."
Another difference between the East and West U.S. coasts is that the West Coast is over the boundary between two active tectonic plates, the North American and the Pacific, and the force of these plates sliding against each other generates quakes regularly, Fisher said. In the East, she said, "There's no driving engine in terms of the two plates sliding past each other ... so that's why it's much more unusual."
Monday, August 29, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
They STRENUOUSLY object...
OK, now that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the indivicual mandate in Obamacare, the White House issued a brief statement, part of which states: "We strongly disagree with this decision and we are confident it will not stand." Well then...I guess it won't stand. Hardly the case! The decision written by Judge Vinson of the Federal Appeals Court in FL was impeccable and worth the read (see second link below). He lays out the case that the individual mandate is inextricably linked to the rest of the legislation, and therefore one can't move forward without the other. The mandate IS unconstitutional. Let's hope the Supremes keep the two issues linked and overturn the entire mess.
11th CIRCUIT OF APPEALS: “We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers,”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61218.html
JUDGE VINSON: "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."
http://www.lifeandhealthinsurancenews.com/News/2009/1/PublishingImages/vinson-1-31-2011.pdf
11th CIRCUIT OF APPEALS: “We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers,”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61218.html
JUDGE VINSON: "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."
http://www.lifeandhealthinsurancenews.com/News/2009/1/PublishingImages/vinson-1-31-2011.pdf
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Christie is the real deal
Gov Chris Christie proposed and got passed legislation that will save our state $130 billion over 30 yrs by implementing sanity. Public sector workers will contribute to their pension and healthcare like we do in the privat sector (albeit their contributions will still be less as a %....for now). Other Govs have instituted similar legislation (VA, OH, WI), but they had a majoirty of their own party in their legislatures. Christie did it with a Dem majority. Wow. NJ may finally be on the right path!! Can we dare hope to be red by Nov 2012??
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/christie_wins_again_sLgLIMkudd869izxv01icJ
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/christie_wins_again_sLgLIMkudd869izxv01icJ
Incompetent in Chief
Can you imagine if George W. Bush did this??!! Pres Obama presented the Medal of Honor to the FIRST LIVING RECIPIENT of the medal LAST YEAR, but he couldn't remember his name. He confused him with a soldier from Ft Drum, who was indeed killed in the line of duty while speaking to the troops at Ft Drum, and to whom Pres obama presented the Medal of Honor posthumously in 2009. This is unbelievable. It confirms that he cares nothing for the military, except to use them when he gets pushed into military action by the UN and NATO (Libya) because really now, the US isn't actually in charge of its own military decisions, is it?? Or when he can use them as a political tool, i.e. the hasty withdrawl of troops from Afghanistan, just in time for Election Day! Obama is imploding rapidly, but with the state controlled media feeding info to most citizens, it will be a while before people realize it.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/06/obama-flubs-medal-of-honor-winner.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/06/obama-flubs-medal-of-honor-winner.html
Monday, April 25, 2011
Why aren't banks lending?? gee....I wonder...
Mises.org, the world center of the Austrian School of economics and libertarian political and social theory, contains many interesting and in-depth articles. Although many of us are up-to-date on political issues, the nitty-gritty details of the country's economic woes are not well understood. And the government certainly prefers it that way. With banks back on their feet, having paid back TARP bailout 'loans' with interest, why aren't people able to get mortgages? The linked article reveals that there is an incestuous symbiotic relationship between government and the banks, and WE the little people are simply getting screwed. Serfdom, anyone??
(excerpt from the article...)
This chart represents the amount of money our nation's banks keep on deposit with the Federal Reserve. So you see, the newly created money is being held by the banks, who instead of loaning it out to folks who would like to refinance their houses and businesses who might expand and hire (which is what the Fed intended), they (the banks) just redeposit the free money back with the Fed, and earn massive amounts of interest.
(excerpt from the article...)
This chart represents the amount of money our nation's banks keep on deposit with the Federal Reserve. So you see, the newly created money is being held by the banks, who instead of loaning it out to folks who would like to refinance their houses and businesses who might expand and hire (which is what the Fed intended), they (the banks) just redeposit the free money back with the Fed, and earn massive amounts of interest.
What? Are you kidding me? The banks got bailed out from billions of dollars in bad loans that they issued, then they got literally $1.2 trillion (as you can see from the chart above) of free money that they then turned around and invested in Treasuries, the interest on which is one of Obama's biggest line-item budget expenses. Are we living in an Ayn Rand novel? How would you like to get free money to invest, the interest on which is guaranteed by the government's taxation authority (and guns)?
http://mises.org/daily/5223/Charting-the-Course-to-7-Gas
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Snarker in Chief...
Obama is simply not Presidential material. He put on a good show during the 2008 campaign, and the country had high hopes for him. However, he has blown it. He never unifies, he always divides. So much for the post-partisan President. He can't seem to realize that his $800B stimulus, Obamacare, and running $1+ TRILLION deficits PER YEAR are actually the reason our economy has not yet recovered. Never has a President blamed his predecessor as much as Obama; it's getting quite tiresome. ("W" had enough class to bring Obama and McCain to the White House to get their agreement on the TARP Bailout package of $800B, of which W released approximately half and left the rest for his successor.) Get over it Bam; it's your watch now. Better wake up before it's too late. However, leadership and decisiveness are not garnered overnight, and it is likely too late for Obama. He simply doesn't have those qualities. Christie, Ryan, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Trump - wonder why they are seen as viable 2012 candidates? They lead, they succeed, and they provide straight talk to the American people. People gravitate toward decisive leaders, not snarky politicians who stoke flames and constantly place blame on everyone but themselves.
Obama’s Character Defect
Peter Wehner 04.15.2011 - Commentary Online
In his remarks last night, President Obama had this to say: “When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure he’s just being America’s accountant . . . this is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill—but wasn’t paid for. So it’s not on the level.”
What a nice ending to an ugly week.
Put out of your mind the fact that Bush’s tax cuts, especially the ones in 2003, led to economic growth that in 2007 helped to trim the deficit to barely more than one percent of GDP. Set aside the fact that the prescription drug plan Ryan supported was less than half the cost of what Democrats were proposing. Forget too that the free-market reforms helped the new plan beat its cost projections by around 40 percent. The point is that Obama has decided to get down and dirty this week rather than to engage the fiscal debate in a serious and honest fashion. Even Mark Halperin of Time magazine, a fine, fair, but not terribly unsympathetic-to-Obama reporter, agreed that Obama crossed a line in his speech this week by saying, in Halperin’s words, “They’re not American in their proposal.”
It isn’t enough to say Obama is doing what others in the past have done, although Obama seems to do it more often and with more relish. He predicated his 2008 campaign on putting an end to what he called “the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” It is Obama who, upon accepting the nomination of the Democratic Party, declared that “one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and patriotism.” And it was Obama who promised, on the night of his election, “I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.”
It was also President Obama who cautioned earlier this year, in his remarks after the aftermath of the Tucson massacre, “[A]t a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized—at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do—it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.” And it was Obama who told Republicans at a retreat in January 2010, “[W]e’re not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, ‘Well, you know, that’s—the other party’s being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z.’ ”
But now that he finds himself intellectually outmatched by Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, and in a precarious situation when it comes to his reelection, Obama is dropping his past civility sermons down the memory hole. Decency and respect for others has suddenly become passé. Talking about our disagreements without being disagreeable has been overtaken by events. Not impugning the character of the opposition is fine as long as it’s convenient, but it’s to be ignored whenever necessary. Challenging people’s character, their motivations, and their patriotism is back in fashion. And so, in Barack Obama’s world, the Republican vision for America consists of crumbling roads, collapsing bridges, young people unable to go to college, grandparents unable to afford nursing home care, and—this one is particularly classy—autistic and Down’s Syndrome children will have to fend for themselves.
Incompetence in a president is not a character defect, but acting so crudely and cynically is.
Obama’s Character Defect
Peter Wehner 04.15.2011 - Commentary Online
In his remarks last night, President Obama had this to say: “When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure he’s just being America’s accountant . . . this is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill—but wasn’t paid for. So it’s not on the level.”
What a nice ending to an ugly week.
Put out of your mind the fact that Bush’s tax cuts, especially the ones in 2003, led to economic growth that in 2007 helped to trim the deficit to barely more than one percent of GDP. Set aside the fact that the prescription drug plan Ryan supported was less than half the cost of what Democrats were proposing. Forget too that the free-market reforms helped the new plan beat its cost projections by around 40 percent. The point is that Obama has decided to get down and dirty this week rather than to engage the fiscal debate in a serious and honest fashion. Even Mark Halperin of Time magazine, a fine, fair, but not terribly unsympathetic-to-Obama reporter, agreed that Obama crossed a line in his speech this week by saying, in Halperin’s words, “They’re not American in their proposal.”
It isn’t enough to say Obama is doing what others in the past have done, although Obama seems to do it more often and with more relish. He predicated his 2008 campaign on putting an end to what he called “the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” It is Obama who, upon accepting the nomination of the Democratic Party, declared that “one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and patriotism.” And it was Obama who promised, on the night of his election, “I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.”
It was also President Obama who cautioned earlier this year, in his remarks after the aftermath of the Tucson massacre, “[A]t a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized—at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do—it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.” And it was Obama who told Republicans at a retreat in January 2010, “[W]e’re not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, ‘Well, you know, that’s—the other party’s being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z.’ ”
But now that he finds himself intellectually outmatched by Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, and in a precarious situation when it comes to his reelection, Obama is dropping his past civility sermons down the memory hole. Decency and respect for others has suddenly become passé. Talking about our disagreements without being disagreeable has been overtaken by events. Not impugning the character of the opposition is fine as long as it’s convenient, but it’s to be ignored whenever necessary. Challenging people’s character, their motivations, and their patriotism is back in fashion. And so, in Barack Obama’s world, the Republican vision for America consists of crumbling roads, collapsing bridges, young people unable to go to college, grandparents unable to afford nursing home care, and—this one is particularly classy—autistic and Down’s Syndrome children will have to fend for themselves.
Incompetence in a president is not a character defect, but acting so crudely and cynically is.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Oops...Israel was right after all...
Whoops! The JUDGE from the UN Human Rights Council that investigated charges that Israel deliberately targeted civilians in the brief war with Hamas a few years ago has CHANGED HIS MIND. Will the UN do anything with this new information? No, the original report made Israel look bad, and that is just fine with the UN. Can you imagine IF the positions were reversed? A UN Council would never have found that Hamas deliberately targeted civilians (which they actually do). There would have been some kind of 'reason' that would have justified it. THEN, if it was found that Hamas had indeed not deliberately targeted civilians, there would have been news coverage galore.....How could the UN have been so insensitive? What can the world community do to make it up to Hamas? How does this reflect on world values? Is this really the world's fault....aren't we all to blame?? It would go on, and on, and on..... BUT, NO. This revelation about Israel is getting very little coverage. Who cares? It's just a smear against Israel. And that's allowed, right? At the UN it is not only allowed, it is expected.
Mr. Goldstone’s Regrets
By Boston Herald Editorial Staff Wednesday, April 6, 2011
In the midst of the continuing bombardment of southern Israel, the jurist who headed the U.N. uman Rights Council fact-finding mission into the Gaza war of 2008-2009 has now recanted his damning assessment of Israeli conduct. “If I had known then what I know now,” wrote Richard Goldstone on the op-ed page of the Washington Post, “the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.”
Goldstone, a retired chief justice of South Africa’s Constitutional Court who had also prosecuted war criminals from the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, now, he wrote, has the benefit of a subsequent report by another panel named by the U.N. to follow up on his report. That second report found “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operation misconduct in Gaza” while Hamas officials “have not conducted any investigations into the launching of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel.”
The astonishing thing is, of course, that Goldstone found this somehow surprising — that Israel with its long-standing respect for the rule of law would investigate possible military misconduct, while Hamas, which knows only the rule of the gun, would not.
Of course, the government of Israel did itself no favors by announcing ahead of time it had no intention of cooperating with Goldstone’s investigation. That was just plain stupid.
Goldstone for his part conceded the “history of bias against Israel” by the U.N. Human Rights Council might have had something to do with that. Now he calls upon that council to condemn the continuing rocket bombardment of southern Israel permitted by Hamas and, as he put it, “the cold-blooded slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds” on the West Bank.
Frankly, we’re not holding our breath on that one, and neither should Goldstone. And a spokesman for the Council said of the now disputed report, “U.N. reports are not canceled on the basis of an op-ed in a newspaper.”
Mr. Goldstone’s Regrets
By Boston Herald Editorial Staff Wednesday, April 6, 2011
In the midst of the continuing bombardment of southern Israel, the jurist who headed the U.N. uman Rights Council fact-finding mission into the Gaza war of 2008-2009 has now recanted his damning assessment of Israeli conduct. “If I had known then what I know now,” wrote Richard Goldstone on the op-ed page of the Washington Post, “the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.”
Goldstone, a retired chief justice of South Africa’s Constitutional Court who had also prosecuted war criminals from the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, now, he wrote, has the benefit of a subsequent report by another panel named by the U.N. to follow up on his report. That second report found “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operation misconduct in Gaza” while Hamas officials “have not conducted any investigations into the launching of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel.”
The astonishing thing is, of course, that Goldstone found this somehow surprising — that Israel with its long-standing respect for the rule of law would investigate possible military misconduct, while Hamas, which knows only the rule of the gun, would not.
Of course, the government of Israel did itself no favors by announcing ahead of time it had no intention of cooperating with Goldstone’s investigation. That was just plain stupid.
Goldstone for his part conceded the “history of bias against Israel” by the U.N. Human Rights Council might have had something to do with that. Now he calls upon that council to condemn the continuing rocket bombardment of southern Israel permitted by Hamas and, as he put it, “the cold-blooded slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds” on the West Bank.
Frankly, we’re not holding our breath on that one, and neither should Goldstone. And a spokesman for the Council said of the now disputed report, “U.N. reports are not canceled on the basis of an op-ed in a newspaper.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)