 |
What They've Thought
|
||||
|
|
||||
What They Thought May 21, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
Why is it that hurricanes are always treated as unexpected events? The news reports always have someone saying, “We haven’t had one around here in such a long time…” or “We never expected it to be this powerful.” Hurricanes have been showing up off the East Coast for millennia. In the last century alone, the earliest in 1900 killed more than 8,000 people in Galveston, Texas. Routinely throughout the first half of the century, hundreds died from hurricanes that hit Florida, Texas, the northeastern States, and — yes — New Orleans in 1915 when 275 died. Even when we put weather satellites in outer space to warn us of hurricanes, in 1992 Hurricane Andrew, a category 4, caused an estimated $26.5 million in damage to parts of Florida and Louisiana. Others like Hugo and Camille have etched their names into history. The ability to accurately predict how many hurricanes are going to show up in any given year is dubious at best. Despite using all manner of computer climate weather models, studying the records, and trying to deduce trends, last year the most esteemed predictor, Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, concluded there would be 13 named storms with 7 becoming hurricanes. In 2005, there were 28 storms and 15 became hurricanes. This year he is predicting 17 storms powerful enough to be named. Of these, he says 9 will become hurricanes. If we use his predictions from last year as a baseline, we are in for 18 hurricanes this year! But it just isn’t that easy. Indeed, forecasting hurricanes is akin to counting cards at the blackjack table. Neither Mother Nature nor Lady Luck is going to cut you a break. There is one thing you can bet on. Environmentalists will declare that the increase in hurricanes this year is the result of the dreaded global warming. Anticipating that, the chief climate control negotiator for the U.S., Harlan Watson, recently told the Associated Press that the Bush administration does not blame global warming or climate change for extreme weather, including the hurricanes that trashed the Gulf States in 2005. Well, that is so nice to know. Why, indeed, does the State Department need a “climate control negotiator?" And why does another government agency, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predict the increase in hurricanes is a trend “likely to continue for years to come?" The answer to the former question is that all the deceptions and manipulations coming out of the United Nations regarding global warming requires the U.S. to have a negotiator. We need someone to explain why, by a unanimous vote, the U.S. Senate wisely refused to sign onto the UN Kyoto Climate Control protocol. We need someone to explain that neither China, nor India, two major contributors to so-called greenhouse gases, are not signatories to the Kyoto protocol or that those European nations that did sign up have always exceeded the limits to which they agreed. The Kyoto protocol is a farce, As to NOAA’s prediction, there’s something called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Man, I love these scientific terms! The AMO cycle, according to meteorologists, run in cycles that last anywhere from 25 to 45 years. They are based on increased or decreased salinity in the Atlantic Ocean, as well as sea-surface temperatures. An increase in salinity and warmth is associated with severe storm activity during a cycle. The last such cycle began in 1926 and ended in 1969. Scientists report that, in 1995, another cycle of increased salinity and warmer sea-surface temperatures began. If the AMO theory holds true, the Gulf and East Coast of the U.S. will continue to be subject to more severe storms. Where does global warming fit into this? Nowhere. This doesn’t stop scientists desperate for a big, fat government or foundation grant from predicting global warming and attributing everything from hurricanes to hangnails for this dread phenomenon. That has never stopped Time or Newsweek from publishing utter rubbish on the subject. What you rarely will read is any scientific study that disputes global warming. However, in April, The Washington Times reported that “Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations, and evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced today that ‘the magnitude of future global warming is likely to fall well short of current predictions.’” Published in the journal, Nature, the report concluded that “Ancient and modern evidence suggests limits to future global warming.” So, while global warming is not going to be all that warming, we are still left with those nasty hurricanes. The hurricane season begins officially on June 1 and goes to November 30. Move over, Dr. Gray, I am going to predict that — yes — there will be hurricanes this year and, further, they will occur somewhere on the East Coast and in the Gulf. Because that’s where they always occur, starting as a nasty bit of weather off the coast of Africa and gaining momentum as they cross the Atlantic and then, despite the best satellite information available, going wherever the hell they want. Impress your friends. Tell them it is all due to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. |
|||||
It is interesting to read some of the polls out of Europe — which we should be grateful for. Let me rephrase that: We in the West (as in the USA) would be very grateful for the EU clowns if we had the capacity to learn something and retain it. A recent poll in Germany came to the conclusion that there will be trouble between the Germans and the new and benighted intelligentsia who have immigrated there from the Mid-East. They have noticed a tendency in their new neighbors to do something called "honor killing." That is where a woman is murdered by her father or her brother for having been so foolish as to be maybe raped or, in some cases, actually a willing participant in an immoral act. I can understand them getting a little upset over the latter, but a rape? Murder the victim? Say what? The girl has been raped, and now she’s to be murdered because she was a temptress or something? And then we have the idiot President of Iran saying he isn’t a four year-old. In regards to the incentives the EU is offering the Iranians in their usual Neville way he said: “They think they are dealing with a four year-old child who can be given nuts and chocolates in exchange for the gold in his hands.” But let’s get back to the rest of the Iranian government before we move on to that wacky president over there. Here is a classic case of their justice called Sharia Law: Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi is a young Iranian woman who defended herself from two rapists, one of whom died from a knife wound she gave to him while defending herself from him. Now she is to be hung to death for the crime of killing in self-defense. If she had allowed the guys to rape her, she would have only gotten one hundred lashes, because the crime would then have only been extramarital sex. The Palestinians have a tendency to get a little harsher. They execute them just for being raped. Through their actions, they continuously elect to not be part of the world in which we live. Now let's get back to that "we’re not a bunch of four year-olds" comment by Ahmadinejad. Yes, you are! You are acting like a bunch of four year-olds, all of you. The way you prosecute this one crime shows that you are incapable of controlling your own urges. You blame that evil source of temptation rather than look at yourself and wonder why you were weak and succumbed to the temptation in the first place. That sounds an awful lot like a four year-old that has been caught stealing something and when asked why they did it the answer is, "Because I wanted it." Then they get mad at those who left it where they could get to it in the first place. Your response to rape is as infantile as you can get. The response by our media to Ahmadinjad however is every bit as infantile as the Iranian and general Mid-Eastern reaction to the crime of rape. They are treating him as though he were a joke. He’s not. He is a dangerous man with a great number of people behind him who, like him, are zealots. Religious radicals should be a rather frightening sight to a culture that believes in nothing, but those who believe in nothing quite often impress upon others their own viewpoint. One would expect our media to recognize the nature of the new beast from the east, if it wasn’t for that tendency to view themselves through only their own eyes. My advice to all of you is to get ready. He has clearly stated that he will remove Israel from the map and exterminate all Jews. He is also looking at the US when he says that. He will be bringing us a fair amount of trouble eventually. The silence from the liberals is quite stunning to me, however. We have women being blamed for the crimes committed against them. Gay rights in the Mid-East is nothing more than the right to get stoned to death. One would think that the liberals over here would begin to recognize that diversity isn’t viewed in the same way over there as it is here. Over here, in many cases, it is a positive thing, even though it is also a great excuse for a lawsuit at times. But it seems to bring out something completely different over there; it’s an opportunity to blow up churches and burn them down, which is completely unacceptable to the liberals unless it’s over there. But in a more fundamental way, diversity over there is viewed more as a target rich environment. Eventually we’ll understand that and possibly see them in the same way. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
In his 2000 book, The O’Reilly Factor, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly wrote: “It is never too late to use the gifts God gave you. Not many things are sadder — or more darned annoying — than someone who says, ‘I wish I had started my own woodworking business’ (written a book, moved to a farm, gone back to nursing school, etc., etc.).” I tend to think O’Reilly was right about this. Which is precisely what makes recent comments by First Lady Laura Bush so troubling. Asked by Chris Wallace on the May 14th episode of Fox News Sunday why President Bush’s approval numbers have been so incredibly low lately, Mrs. Bush told viewers, “Well, I don’t think they are, and I don’t really believe those polls.” While certainly entitled to hold this opinion, I don’t believe Mrs. Bush is doing her husband any favors by denying the evidence that 60 to 70 percent of Americans think he’s an unfortunate failure. In fact, not only isn’t she doing her husband any favors, but I’m here to argue she’s not doing her countrymen any favors, either. The Bushes shouldn’t dispute George W’s low favorability ratings. No. They should embrace them. Why? Well, let me put it this way: In case you haven’t noticed, the 43rd President of the United States of America is currently in a unique and historic position to do something accomplished by few of his predecessors. According to the University of Connecticut’s Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, President Bush holds the record for the highest approval rating ever recorded by a commander-in-chief: that being 92 percent in the wake of September 11th. Today, however, after months and months of seemingly endless scandals — from Dubai Ports World and Hurricane Katrina to NSA wiretapping and that Plamegate story that CNN really seems interested in — Bush’s approval numbers hover in the low to mid 30s. As of last week, Gallup pollsters found that only 31 percent of Americans approve of how he’s doing his job. This means if Bush continues to sink at his current rate, he would be on a pace to surpass the record lows of Harry Truman and Richard Nixon, who registered the lowest approval numbers ever at 22 and 23 percent, respectively. I don’t view this as a bad thing. Far from it. I think Bush should consciously aim for this record. To me, it would be a major accomplishment. I mean, just imagine it. Just imagine a single man — a single president — holding not just the highest approval rating ever, not just the lowest, but both the highest and the lowest. I realize most people would consider this sort of achievement dubious, but why? This is history we’re looking at here. This would be like Mike Tyson unifying the heavyweight titles, or Barry Bonds reuniting the career and single-season homerun records. The last president to hold both the highest and lowest approval ratings ever was Harry Truman, with a high of 87 and a low of 22. Bush has already surpassed the high number. Why not shoot for the low one? It will probably be a long time before we elect another man — or woman! — with a chance to pull this off. We should be rooting for this. In fact, we should be rooting for more than this. We should be rooting for George to go for the Big “One.” That’s right: Single digits. No president has ever scored an approval rating in the single digits before. No president has ever scored an approval rating below the margin of error, either. I say go for these records. Shoot for the stars. We pay him the big bucks; now give us something to cheer for. I’m really not being the least bit facetious here. There’s precious little Bush can do to improve his standing amongst the American people at this point. And if the Democrats happen to win back Congress this fall, the man and his administration could very well be screwed. Now is the time for Bush to take control of his own destiny. Don’t just roll with the punches — decide where they hit you. Tank this presidency. Hard. For us. And for history. Bring the American people together, against a common cause. If it’s true, as Bill O’Reilly put it, that human beings are born with gifts from God, then I don’t think George Bush’s ability to screw things up and squander seemingly limitless potential is a detriment to his character. I think it’s a gift. And I think he should open it. Laura Bush should stop dividing the American people with talk of her husband’s unrecorded popularity. This summer, I’d like to see Bush rally the American people against himself. Learn to stop worrying. Love the bomb. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
A recent article in BusinessWeek magazine by James Mehring paints a stark picture of the ongoing decline of the U.S. dollar. The dollar has lost 5% against a blend of worldwide currencies just since April, falling to a 12-month low against the Euro and an 8-month low against the Japanese yen. Overall, the dollar fell 28% against other currencies between 2002 and 2004. It then rebounded slightly, but even the cheerleaders in the American financial press cannot shrug off this latest decline. Of course the real measure of just how far the dollar has fallen can be found in the price of gold, which has reached a 25-year high of more than $700 per ounce. It’s much more accurate to measure the dollar against a stable store of value like gold, rather than against other fiat currencies. Gold has nearly tripled against the dollar since 2001, when the price was $250 per ounce. By this measure the dollar is losing value at an alarming rate. Remember, gold is static. Gold isn’t going up, the dollar is going down. And it’s going to continue until the American people demand an end to deficit spending by Congress and unrestrained creation of new dollars by the Federal Reserve and Treasury department. A sharply rising gold price is really a vote of “no confidence” in Congress’ ability to control the budget, the Fed’s ability to control the money supply, and the administration’s ability to bring stability to the Middle East. As Mr. Mehring suggests, the Federal Reserve may have no choice but to raise interest rates to maintain foreign enthusiasm for our dollar. It’s a serious problem that new Fed Chair Benjamin Bernanke must address sooner or later: propping up the dollar with higher interest rates without killing the U.S. economy in the process. The world financial markets are betting against the dollar and against Mr. Bernanke’s chances of correcting the imbalances caused by Alan Greenspan. Our creditors, particularly Asian central banks, are losing their appetite for U.S. Treasuries. Our federal government’s huge debt and voracious appetite for deficit spending make our economy dependent on the actions of foreign governments and central bankers. Yet few Americans realize the extent to which their own government has sold out American sovereignty by borrowing money overseas. The consequences of a rapidly declining dollar are not yet fully understood by the American public. The long-term significance has not sunk in, but when it does there will be political hell to pay in Washington. Our relative wealth as a nation is measured in dollars, and the steady erosion of the value of those dollars means we will all be poorer in the future. The artificial stimulation of our economy through cheap money comes with a price. When dollars are abundant, they are worth less. This is the reality facing Americans today, especially older Americans who rely on savings to finance their retirement years. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
|||||
I like President George “W” Bush; always have. This is because I believe him to be forthright and honest. Admittedly, I’ve privately questioned his support of policies now and then (my husband always reminds me not to jump to conclusions because we are not always privy to all the information), and I do wish he had more influence over congressional spending, but all in all, in my estimation he has been a fantastic leader. However, with news this past week about English becoming our “national” language, securing the Mexican-U.S. border and implementing a guest worker program, I became admittedly more and more perplexed about the administration’s reasoning behind being so lenient with “Illegals” currently eking out a living within the United States. ‘"To secure our border we must create a temporary worker program that provides foreign workers a legal and orderly way to enter our country for a limited period of time," Bush said. (Bush Presses for Immigration Legislation) Not quite sure where to find the answer, I had a few leads. First, a female caller on the Michael Medved show took issue with prior discussion on President Vincente Fox, explaining that the Mexican leader had been blamed for much of what he cannot control in the Mexican Congress. In an interview with the Arizona Republic’s Editorial Board, Fox shared that same sentiment, “As you know, we're a minority government. We don't have majority in Congress with our party. We just have to work on building this consensus.” After listening to this caller, I had the impression that Fox has as much influence over his Congress as President Bush has over Helen Thomas — not much. The caller had another valid point: Mexico is very corrupt and Fox is one of the good guys even though he hasn’t been able to make much of an impact. Michael Reagan confirms this notion in his article, The Real Culture of Corruption. As he explained, “Mexico’s officials do not want to change because they would rather sell out to the drug cartels and rake in the bribes.” President Bush and President Fox speak the same language on the immigration issue, even though immigrants used to lose their status in Mexico and Bush has alienated a portion of his base. In that same 2003 interview with Arizona Republic, here is what Fox said. “Specifically what we will be looking for is how we deal with these millions of Mexicans who are here undocumented. How can they integrate into the U.S. society, not necessarily becoming citizens, but doing their work without the pressure and with full respect to their human and labor rights? In working on how we can structure a program that — orderly, with security and legally — can administrate the flows of migration.” (Transcript: Interview with Vincente Fox) Why do President Bush and President Fox both see it the same way, neither looking at the illegal immigrants as lawbreakers, rather, as people simply trying to find a way to survive. Neither condemns them as criminals. Neither wants to see them lose their rights or privileges because of their status. After reading Michael Reagan’s piece, I discovered the answer to that question. … the reason people are fleeing their country is the corruption that saps the very lifeblood of the Mexican economy, making it impossible for the poor to find jobs at wages that allow them to support their families or pay the ever-present mordida — “the bite”, as they call bribes. Like the refugees who fled from behind the Iron Curtain to find freedom, they flee Mexico to find a living wage and escape the bondage of official bribery that condemns them to poverty. The problem is so pervasive and so much a part of Mexican life that the official responsible for eliminating corruption, Minister of Comptrollership and Administrative Development Francisco Barrio, estimates that it will take 30 years to eradicate corruption in Mexico… Clearly, Fox has been unable to influence those in government to change their ways in the short time he has held office, and more and more illegal immigrants are coming into this country to stay. The most reasonable explanation for this, as far as I can tell, is put very succinctly in an article, The US/Mexico Border Ain't Workin'. Because the author provides in plain speak the reason why a guest worker program is a perfectly reasonable and viable solution, I’ll let the following passages speak for themselves.
It has become very obvious that President Bush is trying very hard to come up with a solution that allows President Vincente Fox and PAN to continue trying to clean up their corrupt government, implement free trade, and build up their economy so that Mexico can become a strong ally of the United States. For some people, this solution might seem intolerable but for those like myself, it seems a perfectly reasonable way to help Mexico to grow into a viable democracy that respects human rights, that can provide all of its citizens a stake in their future, and will foster better relations between the United States and Mexico. 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 Thursday, May 18, 2006 3:24 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
|||||
