 |
What They've Thought
|
||||
|
|
||||
What They Thought February 12, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
On February 7, I received an email from the office of the House Minority Leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, with a headline that read as follows: Pelosi: “It is Long Past Time to Take Action to Prevent Climate Change.” Referencing “a gripping presentation to House Democrats on global warming” by former Vice President Al Gore, Pelosi’s office quotes her as saying “The science is clear. It is long past time to take decisive action to prevent climate change. The energy proposals in the House Democrats’ Innovation Agenda, which will move our nation toward energy independence, will also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And we must do even more.” This is the politics of nonsense. What is needed is common sense. What do you think the Democrats, the Republicans, and the entire U.S. government can do about preventing climate change? Can the government prevent hurricanes? Tornadoes? Blizzards? The next Ice Age? The obvious answer is no. There is nothing any government on the face of the Earth can do about the climate except perhaps to help those affected by it. And, if hurricanes Katrina and Rita are any indicator, it doesn’t do a particularly good job, despite throwing billions at the problem. Then, too, the science about climate is not “clear.” The best climatologists in the world have no really good idea why clouds do what they do. The entire “global warming” theory is based on computer models. Ginned up by the UN’s International Panel for Climate Control, they have been revised and revised until it is quite obvious their creators and interpreters haven’t a clue whether global warming is anything more than a perfectly normal climate cycle. At best, there is no indication of any dramatic change other than whatever the computers calculate. The data they use is, to be nice about it, limited at best. What is truly remarkable is the way satellite and other data do a fairly good job predicting the weather in any region of the U.S. about a day or so in advance. If you are counting on the accuracy of a prediction for next week, you might as well just roll dice for an answer. As for Pelosi’s lament over “energy independence,” someone better explain to her that we are currently importing slightly more than half of the oil necessary to meet our needs and that it comes from sixty different nations. Given the uncertainty of events in the Middle East, any shock to the system will drive up the price, but blame the Islamofascists for that. Meanwhile, the Democrats in Congress have spent the past twenty-five years preventing access to the development of ANWR’s oil reserves. The buzz in the energy industry is something called “peak oil,” the view that the world will be tapping its last barrels by pick-a-date. Rarely is the activation of new oil fields reported, but there are new fields and there are likely to be more in future. If you trust the naysayers, then buy a bicycle. On at least five occasions in the past, the public has been told that the world was running out of oil. The good news is that the U.S. has huge reserves of coal that account for half of the electricity generated. (Previous efforts to begin coal gasification were dropped when the price of a barrel of oil hit $10, rendering it financially unfeasible.) We need more nuclear facilities to generate the electricity we need. And, after we have accessed offshore and other known oil fields, we may well begin to extract oil from the vast shale deposits in U.S. western states if it becomes economically feasible. It is sad to hear the House Minority Leader spouting such nonsense and scary if she really believes what she is saying is true. In fairness, the President, in his State of the Union speech, called for energy independence, saying, “America is addicted to oil.” No, we are not “addicted.” We are, like all industrial societies, dependent. There’s a difference. If our political leaders don’t know the difference, if they continue to blather about “global warming” and “energy independence,” then we all need to worry that our grandchildren could be back to lighting their homes with whale oil or kerosene. And here’s where common sense should kick in. We all need to be more confident that the global energy industry is not going to leave us in the dark. |
|||||
At the moment the Chinese are buying our T-bills like they are solid gold. They have been for quite a while. Some might wonder why they would consider doing something like this when it is somewhat obvious that we’re at odds with each other on just about everything from trade deficits to human rights and Taiwan. This year, 2006, is the year they have to open their banks to outsiders. The fear in China is that the insolvency of their banks will cause their banks to fall dramatically as everyone moves their money over to safer European and American banks. It is but one of the many joys brought to us by the WTO. I remember hearing from the tin foil beanie crowd for quite a while that the UN had been tracking our debts and knew how much each and every one of us Americans owed to everyone else in the world. I usually answered them with one of the few Mao quotes that I like. He said that all politics are ultimately settled down the barrel of a gun. This is quite true, but then even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Got bullets? A few years ago, Jeff Nyquist wrote one about the symbol for danger in China. You probably know what I mean. You’ve seen them on tattoos on all kinds of people, and quite often they don’t even know what they really mean. A good example of not knowing what they mean is this: I was at a dinner with a young lady many years back and the restaurant started to get a little warm. She decided to take her sweater off and I saw one of those nice little Chinese circles on her. I smiled and looked away. She looked across the table and smiled. “I assume that you know how to read this?” I told her I didn’t know what it said and then she told me a little story. She was eating dinner in college and the same situation occurred. When she took her coat off a Chinese student at the table sprayed the table down with his iced tea. It took him about ten minutes to quit laughing. He kept pointing at that tattoo. He asked her if she knew what it said. She said, “Of course I do. It means happiness.” His answer floored her. He said, “It sure does. It says ‘Hot meat.’ You need to talk to the guy that put that on you.” Now back to that article on the symbol for danger. Hidden inside of that symbol is another word. It is quite simply "opportunity." This speaks to the way our adversaries think, and believe me they do think and they think a lot. By buying our T-bills, they are living that old Sun Tzu quote: “Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.” They are doing this to prevent us from collapsing their economy. If they fall so do we. But this is a philosophy that goes back quite some time. A doctor I used to know was telling me about a statue he saw in Rome. It is of two wrestlers. One of them is holding the other one upside down and is about to slam him head first into the ground to break his neck. The wrestler that is upside down however is also an opportunist. He has reached across and grabbed the winning wrestler's genitalia. The message is an obvious one. If you hurt me I’ll hurt you. Or let’s not hurt each other, okay? Isn’t it interesting to see that things play out in the microcosm in the same way they play out in the macrocosm? Or like I said last week when I quoted that old Austrian politician. “It’s just the same old crap. Only the flies have changed.” One thing China needs to remember as it flounders on the world stage is that it doesn’t have to force Taiwan to do anything. All China has to do is get its act together and Taiwan will want to rejoin with them. China will not do that, however. Instead they will attack someone eventually when they think they’re strong enough or when they think we’re weak enough to not be able to stop them. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
A funny thing happened on the way to President Bush’s State of the Union last Tuesday. Actually, a funny thing happened at President Bush’s State of the Union last Tuesday. That night, two very different women were ejected for wearing two very different politically-themed articles of clothing. One was anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, who wore an anti-war-in-Iraq t-shirt which read: “2,245 Dead. How Many More?” The other was Beverly Young, wife of a pro-war Republican congressman, whose own shirt bore the pro-war message: “Support the Troops. Defending Our Freedom.” Both women, it turned out, were wrongly ejected (and in Sheehan’s case arrested), as Capitol police later admitted the ban on politically-themed clothing was a nonexistent rule. Now, personally, I think these women ought to be happy they were kicked out of the building. I think it’s safe to say that anyone who watched the State of the Union from home that evening spent most of their time just wishing somebody would come and drag them out of the room. (I’m not even sure why I watch these things anymore. I always zone out after ten minutes. Next year, I think I’m just going to turn the S.O.T.U. into a drinking game. Every time Hillary Clinton rolls her eyes or Charlie Rangel fails to get up for a standing ovation, I’m going to take a swig of Southern Comfort. I figure that’ll get me good and plastered by the end of the first half hour.) But I understand the First Amendment implications of Ms. Young and Ms. Sheehan being ejected, and I’m willing to say it more or less disgusts me. However, only to a point. Here’s the thing: I’m a fan of the First Amendment. Really, I am. And as a fan of the First Amendment, I believe it’s important to stick up for all kinds of free speech—even the kinds you don’t like. So as far as that goes, I think it’s annoying that these women were kicked out for wearing political clothing. But from a purely pragmatic perspective, I find it hard to get too riled up about this situation. As much as I want to get angry about Ms. Young and Ms. Sheehan’s First Amendment rights being trampled, I’d be lying if I said it truly irks me. And there’s a fairly simple reason for this. Essentially, it’s because I don’t get the feeling their shirts would’ve changed anything. Had they not been ejected, their “messages” wouldn’t’ve swayed anyone on either side of the war debate to second guess their existing opinions, much less change their minds. This goes for those present at the State of the Union, as well as those watching at home. Take Ms. Young’s shirt, for example. As an anti-war person, “Support the Troops” does nothing for me. Why? Well, I could give you the standard anti-war answer and say it’s because supporting the troops has nothing to do with supporting the war. But that’s not why her shirt wouldn’t’ve swayed me. No. It’s because, to be quite honest, I don’t even know what “Support the Troops” means. You probably think I’m just being facetious here. And even if I tell you, “I’m not saying this to be facetious,” you’ll probably only take that as a sign of further facetiousness. But seriously: When you say “Support the Troops,” I honestly don’t know what you want from me. Am I supposed to send them money? Bake them cookies? Hold their feet while they do sit-ups? I mean, I know what you’re getting at when you use this expression. You’re saying you don’t want me to wish for the troops to be killed or injured. But I wasn’t going to wish for that anyway. So what of it? It’s like a bumper sticker I saw a couple of months ago, which featured a picture of Old Glory with the words, “America Is Strong.” I looked at that for a moment, and the only thing I could think to say was, “And?” Obviously, I wasn’t challenging the bumper sticker’s assertion. America is strong. No doubt about it. But that’s like saying, “The Earth Is Bigger Than Pluto.” It may be true, but why is it on a bumper sticker? What am I supposed to take away from this? The second phrase on Ms. Young’s shirt, “Defending Our Freedom,” was equally unconvincing. Not to sound like an ungrateful jerk or anything; I understand that our soldiers are making sacrifices. But I don’t really feel like my freedoms are on the line in Iraq at the moment. Maybe they are. But if so, I’m more concerned with how they got over there in the first place. I mean, they’re my freedoms, aren’t they? Shouldn’t they be over here with the rest of my things? I’m going to need some answers to those questions if “Defending Our Freedom” is going to work as a pro-war argument for me. The bottom line is, Ms. Young’s shirt represented everything the pro-war movement isn’t doing to win me over right now. I believe the president is right when he says we’re living in a dangerous world, and I believe he’s right when he says there are folks in this world who desperately want to kill us. But to date, no one has given me any reason to believe it’s okay that the war in Iraq was based on faulty—or, as the Brits say, “sexed up”—intelligence. I’m just told to support it because I’m supposed to support it. This seems sort of empty to me. Obviously, I see the strategic value in winning Iraq, but until someone reconciles why the heck we’re there to begin with, phrases like “Support the Troops” and “Defending Our Freedom” won’t go very far for me. At the same time, I don’t believe Ms. Sheehan’s anti-war t-shirt would’ve spoken to pro-war Americans any better than Ms. Young’s shirt spoke to the anti-war crowd. That’s because pro-war Americans believe the war is justified. Once you believe that, you’ve accepted that soldiers are going to be killed. And if you accept that, “2,245 Dead” becomes just as abstract as the concepts of troop support and freedom defense. I mean, 2,245 is a lot, but it’s just a single number. For all intents and purposes, it has the same value as 1. Furthermore, you’ve got to remember it’s not just 2,245 dead American soldiers. It’s 2,245 dead American soldiers stretched out over three years. Is it a travesty? Sure. But all things considered, it’s probably not so many. After all, more people than that died in a single day on 9/11. In fact, more people than that die every single day. Which isn’t to say that each human life isn’t precious. Certainly, every life is. But if I support the war, then that’s not what I’m thinking when you tell me America’s lost 2,245 soldiers. I’m thinking: Does that number impress me? And the answer to that question is: A little. But not enough to stop the war. I don’t want this column to come across as an outright condemnation of two women bold enough to exercise their First Amendment rights. I’m not criticizing them for wearing those shirts to the State of the Union (though I do question their fashion sense; both of them looked like they just came from a Dale Jarrett meet-and-greet at a Kmart in North Carolina). But when you consider what those shirts represented, this incident makes one thing clear: Both sides of the war debate seem to want what’s best for our soldiers, yet the sides can’t agree on what’s really “best” for them. One side thinks we just need to thank our soldiers and get behind them; the other thinks we should simply bring them home. To me, this makes what happened at the State of the Union not just an issue of free speech but an issue of two sides speaking totally different languages. I’m not sure if there’s any way around this. But if nothing else, I would guess that’s why both sides see the other as so terribly confused. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
Supreme Court nominations, congressional ethics scandals, and insider politics dominated the Washington headlines in recent weeks. But perhaps the most important story, in terms of its impact on average Americans, has gone virtually unreported. Later this month our Treasury once again will hit the "debt ceiling," a figure based on federal law that limits the amount of money the federal government can borrow. The total amount of federal debt as of this month is a staggering $8.2 trillion, a number that is almost incomprehensible. The effects of this debt, however, will be felt by all of us in the form of inflation, higher interest rates, and a weakened U.S. economy. New Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke faces a difficult dilemma. Our overseas creditors, particularly Asian central banks, already hold billions of U.S. dollars and are losing their appetite for lending us more money. They are wary of our enormous federal deficits and reckless economic policies. Ask yourself a simple question: would you loan the U.S. government money, given its spending habits? It's clear we can't go on borrowing $1.8 billion every day to finance the government! The simplest way for the Fed to overcome these fears and maintain worldwide enthusiasm for the dollar is to raise interest rates and stop putting new dollars into circulation. But the Greenspan "boom" was based on the opposite approach. By cutting interest rates to the bone and vastly increasing the money supply, Greenspan made Americans feel rich-- first with the stock market bubble of the 1990s, and later with the housing bubble that is only now starting to burst. Greenspan was brilliant at making debt feel like wealth, but Mr. Bernanke inherits a very difficult situation. To maintain the value of the dollar, he must put the brakes on the money supply and raise the cost of borrowing. Such tough action is unlikely, however, given Mr. Bernanke's troubling public statements about the benefits of government printing presses. For years the Federal Reserve Bank and Congress have maintained a cozy relationship. The Fed, by pumping more and more money into the economy, has allowed Congress to spend wildly beyond the amount collected each year by the Treasury. Congress loves deficit spending, because new programs are always politically popular and tax hikes are always unpopular. In return, Congress has maintained a completely hands-off approach toward the Fed system, allowing Mr. Greenspan free reign to "run the economy" with tremendous deference from both the public and the press. The results are not pretty. True inflation, correctly measured by the amount of money and credit available, has skyrocketed in the last 15 years. At the same time, federal deficits have exploded. Congress is addicted to spending, and the Fed is happy to supply the fix by providing easy money. As economist Addison Wiggin states, however, "The Grand Experiment with paper money is running its inevitable course. Bernanke's biggest challenge is the challenge of central banking itself: You can control some things, but not everything. In the Fed's case, it can control the quantity of money or the quality of it, but not both at the same time." All of these factors make it likely the U.S. dollar will continue to decline in value, perhaps precipitously, in the coming decade. Will it take an economic depression before the American public finally holds the political class accountable for its reckless borrowing, spending, and counterfeiting? Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
|||||
President Bush time and again proves himself a man of his word, despite the accusations of the radical left. Believing in an idea or principle, he never wavers. His commitment to family, faith, and physical fitness, are a testament to his guiding values. When George Bush took office, he spoke of the need to reform education. Under his administration, The No Child Left Behind Act has been a force for positive change. However, the provisions built into the existing law only partly reflect his vision of education reform. Like the homeowner who mentally plans a house addition to address all the limitations in the original structure, President Bush has been awaiting the opportunity to enact the blueprints for his initial vision of NCLB, and as part of his proposed education budget, wants to begin construction immediately. In order to persuade enough members of Congress to pass the initial version of NCLB, vouchers were dropped from the proposed legislation. The problem with the current law, according to Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, "Without real consequences, accountability is hollow." 1 Nationwide, over the last six years there are about 1,000 schools consistently failing to meet standards. As part of President Bush’s newest education package, students attending failing schools could receive $4,000 scholarships for private school tuition or $3,000 for supplemental tutoring. He has earmarked $100 million federal dollars to achieve this goal. As the current proposal stands, the budget would reduce existing spending levels by about $2.1 billion dollars. Tax payers would not be expected to shoulder an additional burden in order to help students leave failing schools because Bush wants to reduce or eliminate currently earmarked federal dollars used for unproductive or inefficient instructional programs which aren’t as directly related to student achievement; the arts, vocational education, parenting training or special interest agendas such as drug-free schools.2 Spellings’ believes that it is time to give parents real educational options. True, tutoring and other services are available to students stuck in poorly performing neighborhood schools. However, students enduring failing educational institutions have not been given legitimate opportunity to transfer to the best available school, public or private. They’ve often had to settle for additional services to make up for gaps in instruction because under current law the best learning environment is not always an option.3 Of course, the unions will argue that public money belongs in public schools. Yet, it makes much more sense to have the money follow the child because competition for educational dollars will spur poorly performing schools to do better to attract students. To put it simply, they will be forced to sh-- or get off the pot. This has been proven in Florida, where under Governor Jeb Bush, “Vouchers remain available to Floridians in all those schools that received an "F" grade under the state accountability system twice in any four-year period.”4 The stigma of receiving a "D" by itself motivated schools to work harder the next year. They outperformed by a significant margin the "C" schools that just missed getting the worse grade. Still, the "F" schools, faced with the threat of vouchers, did even better, raising scores by an amount roughly equivalent to three to four months of student learning above the performance of students in the "C" schools. They did so despite the fact that these "F" schools had highly disadvantaged, predominantly minority populations.5 If a man cannot be trusted with his word, then what can be entrusted to him? Should it come as any surprise, then, that President Bush persists in trying to get Congress to enact true educational reform? No Child Left Behind was not built to the specifications necessary, to significantly change the status quo. Congress needs to understand the importance of competition in realizing that dream. 2 Education
plan looks to give, take Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
©2004-2006 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
|||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:38 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
|||||
