An article in the
August 6 issue of Chemical and Engineering News says that the Natural Resources
Defense Council is making a play for federal control of chemical compounds used
by drilling companies in the fracking process for production of gas and oil.
Present control is under the jurisdiction of the individual states.
The Natural
Resources Defense Council is a private environmental advocacy group. It's
recommendation would make sense if there were the probability that contamination
at any one point would lead to a broad sustained health and safety effect over
several states. An example, would be sulfur dioxide from power plants being
blown by the wind to other states. However, that seems to not be the
case.
The other
aspect is that even if we can justify some sort of federal control, it need not
involve revealing the identity of fracking chemicals used by a specific company
to the public at large. If federal controls were to be applied, the obvious
controlling agency would be EPA. It could determine what standard fracking
chemicals were in common use and approve those which appear to have no negative
health effects. Many natural thickening agents, such as gums, starches, pectins,
agar-agar and gelatin also have food use and should obviously not cause a safety
and health problem. Guar gum is one substance which is widely used in fracking
and is also used as a constituent of ice cream.
Surface active
agents are also used in fracking. Many of these have application in household
use, such as dishwashing formulations and hand soaps. The EPA could prepare a
list of what they considered satisfactory materials.
If any company proposed to
use a material not on the list, it could petition the EPA for confidential
know-how approval, in which case the EPA might require some special health and
safety data in order to be satisfied that the material would not be a hazard to
the public. This would be a reasonable position, but because of the cost
requirements for supplying such safety and health data for EPA approval, the
identity of the material and especially the submitted safety and health data
must be kept confidential as private know-how and not allowed to drift into the
hands of possible competitors. If competitors want to use the company's health and
safety data for their own product approval by the EPA, they should be able to
obtain the desired information only by commercial negotiation with the original
owner. An alternative would be to develop their own data.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Department of Defense - Expense and Globalization
There is a rather long article in the August 8, 2012 issue
of Chemical and Engineering News on defense spending by the US government. The
US Constitution says that the powers of the Federal Government shall be limited, but it does include a
responsibility to "provide for the common defense". Note that it says defense
rather than offense. The annual expense for the Department of Defense in 2012 is
$74 billion. This Is about $1000 per year for a family of four. Too much? Too
little?
The $74 billion is being used to pay the salaries of 60,000 employees in 67 defense labs, including purchase of equipment and supplies. On the surface that seems excessive, but we should reserve judgment until this is actually analyzed to see what kind of duplication and other inefficiencies there may be and what savings may possibly be obtained. It is the responsibility of Congress to continually investigate this and other details of expenditures in government operations and make appropriate adjustments on fund allocation as necessary.
I also see use of the word "global" in the discussion. This presumably means some sort of sharing of military technology with foreign countries, perceived as friendly. However, we may be extremely reliable at our end, but may may not be able to control the continued reliability of another partner. For example, two years ago Egypt was very friendly to the United States. It is now no longer friendly. The question is whether we have given military technology to Egypt, and whether it will now be used against us
My interpretation of "common defense" means that our defense should be private. While there may be cases where we should be operating abroad in order to forestall some military action against the United States, it does not mean to me that the people with whom we are cooperating should have access to all of our technology. In its present operation, the Department of Defense seems to be operating against the interests of the United States. For example, it has an outreach program which allows university faculty working at Department of Defense labs or at the Pentagon to help with what they say is one of the greatest challenges of the department: the globalization of science. What does that mean? The implication seems to be that our scientific determinations should be spread globally. It doesn't make sense that we should give our military technology to all of our enemies?
The DOD is even going further in considering hiring of noncitizens at sensitive laboratory locations. It is apparent that this whole system is getting out of control, and Congress needs to take a close look at the subject of confidentiality with respect to military know how, in addition to whether the Department of Defense is operating efficiently and within practical limits to justify its expense.
The $74 billion is being used to pay the salaries of 60,000 employees in 67 defense labs, including purchase of equipment and supplies. On the surface that seems excessive, but we should reserve judgment until this is actually analyzed to see what kind of duplication and other inefficiencies there may be and what savings may possibly be obtained. It is the responsibility of Congress to continually investigate this and other details of expenditures in government operations and make appropriate adjustments on fund allocation as necessary.
I also see use of the word "global" in the discussion. This presumably means some sort of sharing of military technology with foreign countries, perceived as friendly. However, we may be extremely reliable at our end, but may may not be able to control the continued reliability of another partner. For example, two years ago Egypt was very friendly to the United States. It is now no longer friendly. The question is whether we have given military technology to Egypt, and whether it will now be used against us
My interpretation of "common defense" means that our defense should be private. While there may be cases where we should be operating abroad in order to forestall some military action against the United States, it does not mean to me that the people with whom we are cooperating should have access to all of our technology. In its present operation, the Department of Defense seems to be operating against the interests of the United States. For example, it has an outreach program which allows university faculty working at Department of Defense labs or at the Pentagon to help with what they say is one of the greatest challenges of the department: the globalization of science. What does that mean? The implication seems to be that our scientific determinations should be spread globally. It doesn't make sense that we should give our military technology to all of our enemies?
The DOD is even going further in considering hiring of noncitizens at sensitive laboratory locations. It is apparent that this whole system is getting out of control, and Congress needs to take a close look at the subject of confidentiality with respect to military know how, in addition to whether the Department of Defense is operating efficiently and within practical limits to justify its expense.
Dangers to US Liberty
I suppose we all know that people's
attitudes and actions are based primarily on their experiences. This was never
more obvious than in the speeches that I heard last evening from the Republican
National Convention.
John McCain spent several years as a prisoner of war. His attitude for the United States is to look at our position through the perspective of our military capability in comparison with other countries. He does this from the point of view that a strong offense is a strong defense. He could be classed as a warmonger. This is an unbalanced view of what the US position should be with respect to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, he had a number of cheering supporters for his speech. This is the culture of John McCain.
Condoleezza Rice remembers how as a child she was restricted from using public toilets and drinking fountains reserved for whites. She grew up under a combination of public racial suppression and parental encouragement. She spent several years as Secretary of State for George Bush. She looks at the United States as having the responsibility to right all wrongs in the international world. She promotes democracy and nation rebuilding at the risk of destroying her home country and in spite of the fact that nationbuilding for Korea was a partial failure, coupled with complete failures for Vietnam, Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, and now an interest in Syria. This also is an unbalanced view of what the US position should be with respect to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, she had a number of cheering supporters for her speech. This is the culture of Condoleezza Rice.
With those two dangerous perspectives aside, we fortunately had a number of speeches from people of what we might call the average backgrounds in the American culture. All of these were typical of the boy or girl next door whose dad and mother were either new immigrants making it in a new country or blue-collar truck drivers or miners building their future and that of their family through hard work. In some instances, the parents were entrepreneurs, developing new businesses which also positively affected their sons and daughters. Who were these people at the convention who represented the "normal "culture of the US? They were all the rest. Rand Paul, Sen. Rob Portman, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Gov. Susana Martinez, Representative Paul Ryan, Gov. Scott Walker, Gov. Chris Christie, and others. This is the culture of America.
Another person, who had no part in the convention, should also be considered in this context. That is Pres. Obama. Without dwelling on the authenticity of a birth certificate and other items related to the legality of his authorization to be President, let us look at his background. He was not born nor raised in the continental United States. In that respect he was never part of the "boy next door" culture involving normal parental control, kids baseball, teenage dating, automobiles, work after school, etc. He had no average American life of being raised in a traditional US environment by normal parents. He was also partially at least subjected to the same biases and restrictions as those of Condoleezza Rice. He spent considerable growing up time in countries outside the United States, including Indonesia and possibly Kenya. With this background, he was by no means an average American boy. With that background, he also had no opportunity to understand typical American culture. He did not sing "America the Beautiful" in grammar school nor recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Similar to John McCain and Condoleezza Rice, Pres. Obama has an unbalanced view of what the US position should be with respect to the rest of the world. He does not look at the US with a feeling of patriotism and "belonging". He looks at the US position in foreign terms, as an outsider looking at the whole picture of how the US "should be in his estimation" with respect to the rest of the world
Many speakers last evening said the US has a uniqueness in being part of an idea, which is essentially freedom. It is the intention of these same speakers not to continue wandering from our basic aspirations such as we have in the last several years of leadership by Pres. Obama. In effect, Pres. Obama is not only a radical danger to the US, he is a destructive force. Almost similarly, Sen. McCain and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are radical dangers to the reconstruction of the US along the basic lines of this country's freedom.
John McCain spent several years as a prisoner of war. His attitude for the United States is to look at our position through the perspective of our military capability in comparison with other countries. He does this from the point of view that a strong offense is a strong defense. He could be classed as a warmonger. This is an unbalanced view of what the US position should be with respect to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, he had a number of cheering supporters for his speech. This is the culture of John McCain.
Condoleezza Rice remembers how as a child she was restricted from using public toilets and drinking fountains reserved for whites. She grew up under a combination of public racial suppression and parental encouragement. She spent several years as Secretary of State for George Bush. She looks at the United States as having the responsibility to right all wrongs in the international world. She promotes democracy and nation rebuilding at the risk of destroying her home country and in spite of the fact that nationbuilding for Korea was a partial failure, coupled with complete failures for Vietnam, Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, and now an interest in Syria. This also is an unbalanced view of what the US position should be with respect to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, she had a number of cheering supporters for her speech. This is the culture of Condoleezza Rice.
With those two dangerous perspectives aside, we fortunately had a number of speeches from people of what we might call the average backgrounds in the American culture. All of these were typical of the boy or girl next door whose dad and mother were either new immigrants making it in a new country or blue-collar truck drivers or miners building their future and that of their family through hard work. In some instances, the parents were entrepreneurs, developing new businesses which also positively affected their sons and daughters. Who were these people at the convention who represented the "normal "culture of the US? They were all the rest. Rand Paul, Sen. Rob Portman, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Gov. Susana Martinez, Representative Paul Ryan, Gov. Scott Walker, Gov. Chris Christie, and others. This is the culture of America.
Another person, who had no part in the convention, should also be considered in this context. That is Pres. Obama. Without dwelling on the authenticity of a birth certificate and other items related to the legality of his authorization to be President, let us look at his background. He was not born nor raised in the continental United States. In that respect he was never part of the "boy next door" culture involving normal parental control, kids baseball, teenage dating, automobiles, work after school, etc. He had no average American life of being raised in a traditional US environment by normal parents. He was also partially at least subjected to the same biases and restrictions as those of Condoleezza Rice. He spent considerable growing up time in countries outside the United States, including Indonesia and possibly Kenya. With this background, he was by no means an average American boy. With that background, he also had no opportunity to understand typical American culture. He did not sing "America the Beautiful" in grammar school nor recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Similar to John McCain and Condoleezza Rice, Pres. Obama has an unbalanced view of what the US position should be with respect to the rest of the world. He does not look at the US with a feeling of patriotism and "belonging". He looks at the US position in foreign terms, as an outsider looking at the whole picture of how the US "should be in his estimation" with respect to the rest of the world
Many speakers last evening said the US has a uniqueness in being part of an idea, which is essentially freedom. It is the intention of these same speakers not to continue wandering from our basic aspirations such as we have in the last several years of leadership by Pres. Obama. In effect, Pres. Obama is not only a radical danger to the US, he is a destructive force. Almost similarly, Sen. McCain and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are radical dangers to the reconstruction of the US along the basic lines of this country's freedom.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Notable Speech
Anonymous CJ says the following, to which I heartily agree: First Lady Ann
Romney's speech was also the best of the evening.
"Perhaps you heard Anne Romney's speech to the Republican convention last night. It was very good. Many political speeches are remembered by one memorable line. With John Kennedy it was his inaugural address and with Ronald Reagan it was his speech before the Berlin Wall. With Anne Romney it will likely be: “Mitt believes that helping people is a privilege not a political talking point”.
It is notable that the pundits in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal missed this point completely."
"Perhaps you heard Anne Romney's speech to the Republican convention last night. It was very good. Many political speeches are remembered by one memorable line. With John Kennedy it was his inaugural address and with Ronald Reagan it was his speech before the Berlin Wall. With Anne Romney it will likely be: “Mitt believes that helping people is a privilege not a political talking point”.
It is notable that the pundits in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal missed this point completely."
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Rep. Neugebauer's Newsletter
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
I have read your latest newsletter.
You cover the following four items:
Neil Armstrong's death
EPA Clean Air Act
Planned parenthood
New school year
While you give an opinion on each of these items, I notice that you had no government leadership involvement in any of them. You have merely stated your opinion, similar to that of a private citizen.
As a Lubbock representative to the Federal House of Representatives, I respectfully expect you to take a more active (leadership) part in government. I could have written the same newsletter you wrote.
Randy,
I have read your latest newsletter.
You cover the following four items:
Neil Armstrong's death
EPA Clean Air Act
Planned parenthood
New school year
While you give an opinion on each of these items, I notice that you had no government leadership involvement in any of them. You have merely stated your opinion, similar to that of a private citizen.
As a Lubbock representative to the Federal House of Representatives, I respectfully expect you to take a more active (leadership) part in government. I could have written the same newsletter you wrote.
Young Single Women Voting in November
I recently put out a series of tweets addressed to young single women concerning voting in the November election. You may be interested in the following:
Young women form a strong voting block to reelect Pres. Obama. Each should ask herself whether an immediate benefit is worth ultimate doom.
No one is completely independent. Should a young woman be dependent on a partner or government? Which will be more reliable?
An educated woman makes a better marriage partner to foster the career of both husband and wife
For what purpose does a young woman want higher education? Freedom? Independence? That's a pursuit for solitary confinement.
A friend of mine once said of an associate that he was educated beyond his intelligence. Are there more such people now?
In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king. In the land of PhD's, the one without a PhD may also be king
Childrearing is a hectic, generally pleasant experience. It's easier with two active partners, rather than one being a passive government
When a career is finally over through age, associates say, ".Ta Ta". A family is durable to the end of life.
How many married women do you know who regret having had children?
Many young single women are embarked on a career and oppose a family.. How many married women do you know who regret their marriage?
Michelle Obama is not a single woman. If being single is so great, why is she married?
If Pres. Obama is so partial to single women, why is he married?
Pres. Obama has had some Muslim teaching. Muslims generally have strict controls on women in their society.
What if Pres. Obama is wrong and he is unable to continually supply benefits, including free birth control medications?
Are young single women so certain that Pres. Obama holds the key to their future, such that they must vote for him in November?
Do young single women have more confidence on continued financial support from Pres. Obama than they do on their own self-reliance?
Will votes by young single women for Pres. Obama in November, guarantee future free benefits?
We have a family dinner every Friday with our now adult children. Will young single women have such dinners in the future with Pres. Obama?
Families have been in existence for thousands of years. Is it certain that Pres. Obama should be the head of each single woman family?
My wife has been married 66 yrs., during which time I have seen that she is well cared for. Will Pres. Obama do that for young single women?
I must now pay through taxes for free birth control meds for single women. I expect to change that so those women or their husbands pay.
Today free birth-control meds is certain for young single women. Will it be next year? Five years?
Do young single women think that free sex from studs without responsibility will also sustain them in their old age?
Do young single women think that Pres. Obama's "pie in the sky" will last forever?
Would young single women prefer to have free benefits and no jobs until government funding runs out?
Young women can get free birth control methods through Obamacare. What will they do when Government funding disappears?
Young pretty women are doing well on the TV news. What happens to all the others without jobs and welfare funds dry up?
Ask a black single woman how difficult is to raise a teenager with only the temporary help of Pres. Obama.
Ask a Greek woman what happened to her when her government ran out of money.
Young women form a strong voting block to reelect Pres. Obama. Each should ask herself whether an immediate benefit is worth ultimate doom.
No one is completely independent. Should a young woman be dependent on a partner or government? Which will be more reliable?
An educated woman makes a better marriage partner to foster the career of both husband and wife
For what purpose does a young woman want higher education? Freedom? Independence? That's a pursuit for solitary confinement.
A friend of mine once said of an associate that he was educated beyond his intelligence. Are there more such people now?
In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king. In the land of PhD's, the one without a PhD may also be king
Childrearing is a hectic, generally pleasant experience. It's easier with two active partners, rather than one being a passive government
When a career is finally over through age, associates say, ".Ta Ta". A family is durable to the end of life.
How many married women do you know who regret having had children?
Many young single women are embarked on a career and oppose a family.. How many married women do you know who regret their marriage?
Michelle Obama is not a single woman. If being single is so great, why is she married?
If Pres. Obama is so partial to single women, why is he married?
Pres. Obama has had some Muslim teaching. Muslims generally have strict controls on women in their society.
What if Pres. Obama is wrong and he is unable to continually supply benefits, including free birth control medications?
Are young single women so certain that Pres. Obama holds the key to their future, such that they must vote for him in November?
Do young single women have more confidence on continued financial support from Pres. Obama than they do on their own self-reliance?
Will votes by young single women for Pres. Obama in November, guarantee future free benefits?
We have a family dinner every Friday with our now adult children. Will young single women have such dinners in the future with Pres. Obama?
Families have been in existence for thousands of years. Is it certain that Pres. Obama should be the head of each single woman family?
My wife has been married 66 yrs., during which time I have seen that she is well cared for. Will Pres. Obama do that for young single women?
I must now pay through taxes for free birth control meds for single women. I expect to change that so those women or their husbands pay.
Today free birth-control meds is certain for young single women. Will it be next year? Five years?
Do young single women think that free sex from studs without responsibility will also sustain them in their old age?
Do young single women think that Pres. Obama's "pie in the sky" will last forever?
Would young single women prefer to have free benefits and no jobs until government funding runs out?
Young women can get free birth control methods through Obamacare. What will they do when Government funding disappears?
Young pretty women are doing well on the TV news. What happens to all the others without jobs and welfare funds dry up?
Ask a black single woman how difficult is to raise a teenager with only the temporary help of Pres. Obama.
Ask a Greek woman what happened to her when her government ran out of money.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
National Security Leaks
A national security leak is a revealing of confidential information, which can be of value to an enemy or potential enemy, by a person or persons, usually in the government. An example is the suspected transmission of technical atomic bomb information to the Soviet Union, which allowed them to quickly develop their own device.
The Espionage Act became law in 1917 and has undergone various modifications. Present application is covered by United States Code, which is a codified collection of federal legislation of the United States.
Within the Code, Title 18 covers Crimes and Criminal Procedure. Sequentially:
Chapter 37 covers Espionage and Censorship.
Paragraph 793 covers Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information.
Parts a through f cover the specifics of which confidential security information can be leaked to an enemy or potential enemy of the US. All of these involve a penalty of fine and/or imprisonment of not more than 10 years.
Federal laws are prosecuted by the Justice Department, of which Eric Holder is the Attorney General. There are so many laws on the books, that is essentially impossible for the Justice Department to prosecute all suspected violators. However, it is obvious that some laws are more important to the well-being of the US than others, and I believe national security can be placed in that category.
While that is my belief, government apparently has a different view. Eric Holder operates at the "pleasure" of Pres. Obama. We've seen a number of situations, where the average person would consider an obvious prosecution, but where the President/Atty. Gen. have decided to take no action.
With that background, let's see what anonymous CJ has to say on the subject of National Security Leaks.
"There have been serious leaks in our national security system. Now, one of the Navy Seals that participated in the killing of Osama bin Laden has taken the unprecedented step of coming forward with his version of what happened. This was certainly prompted by the leakage from somewhere in high places in our federal government of very secret security information.
The first leak revealed many of the details of the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. Perhaps as a result, the physician, who was invaluable in showing our intelligence agencies that the person hiding out was truly bin Laden, is now serving a long sentence in a Pakistani prison.
The second leak was even more serious. In that case, our secret collaboration with the Israelis in developing a virus that invaded the Iran nuclear program and caused their centrifuges to malfunction was revealed. Now that Iran is aware of that program, they have certainly taken steps to remove the virus from their operating systems.
It now appears that there is a carefully guarded cover-up going on with the Justice Department very slowly investigating this leak. One would think that, since the information that was leaked was known to only a few in the federal government, it would be relatively straightforward to identify the several individuals who might have been the leakers.
These are critical security breaches and should be pursued with alacrity. However, the Justice Department appears to be moving extremely slowly. It is now expected that their report will not be available until after the November elections.
It sounds fishy to me. How about you?"
The Espionage Act became law in 1917 and has undergone various modifications. Present application is covered by United States Code, which is a codified collection of federal legislation of the United States.
Within the Code, Title 18 covers Crimes and Criminal Procedure. Sequentially:
Chapter 37 covers Espionage and Censorship.
Paragraph 793 covers Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information.
Parts a through f cover the specifics of which confidential security information can be leaked to an enemy or potential enemy of the US. All of these involve a penalty of fine and/or imprisonment of not more than 10 years.
Federal laws are prosecuted by the Justice Department, of which Eric Holder is the Attorney General. There are so many laws on the books, that is essentially impossible for the Justice Department to prosecute all suspected violators. However, it is obvious that some laws are more important to the well-being of the US than others, and I believe national security can be placed in that category.
While that is my belief, government apparently has a different view. Eric Holder operates at the "pleasure" of Pres. Obama. We've seen a number of situations, where the average person would consider an obvious prosecution, but where the President/Atty. Gen. have decided to take no action.
With that background, let's see what anonymous CJ has to say on the subject of National Security Leaks.
"There have been serious leaks in our national security system. Now, one of the Navy Seals that participated in the killing of Osama bin Laden has taken the unprecedented step of coming forward with his version of what happened. This was certainly prompted by the leakage from somewhere in high places in our federal government of very secret security information.
The first leak revealed many of the details of the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. Perhaps as a result, the physician, who was invaluable in showing our intelligence agencies that the person hiding out was truly bin Laden, is now serving a long sentence in a Pakistani prison.
The second leak was even more serious. In that case, our secret collaboration with the Israelis in developing a virus that invaded the Iran nuclear program and caused their centrifuges to malfunction was revealed. Now that Iran is aware of that program, they have certainly taken steps to remove the virus from their operating systems.
It now appears that there is a carefully guarded cover-up going on with the Justice Department very slowly investigating this leak. One would think that, since the information that was leaked was known to only a few in the federal government, it would be relatively straightforward to identify the several individuals who might have been the leakers.
These are critical security breaches and should be pursued with alacrity. However, the Justice Department appears to be moving extremely slowly. It is now expected that their report will not be available until after the November elections.
It sounds fishy to me. How about you?"
Data-Mining
In an Associated Press article about Aug. 18, 2012, Evan Vucci and Judith Ausuebel criticize Presidential
Candidate Romney, with the following headline. "AP Exclusive: Romney
uses secretive data-mining".
Notice the choice of wording in the above headline. "Exclusive" implies that
this is something special; perhaps unknown by others and possibly dishonest.
"Romney" is the object of disdain. "Uses" implies some sort of abuse. Secretive
conveys the idea that something (possibly objectionable) has been hidden.
"Data-mining" is a newly developed term, which in context with the previous
words, implies that Romney is using some sort of devious
device.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Free Trade and American Jobs
Anonymous CJ and I have had a difference of opinion on free trade versus applying import duties on foreign made goods. The exchange was as follows:
CJ:
We are at opposite poles on free trade. It has been a pillar of
American policy for decades starting with GATT and continuing with
WTO. It is certainly important to police trade agreements to identify
and penalize countries who try to defraud the system. There is a court
for settling such disputes.
ACS:
I don't believe in pillars in general. It may be that GATT and WHO may have had some validity previously, but we are talking about now.
I'm also not talking about defrauding the system. I am merely saying that free trade exports American jobs to countries where labor is cheaper. There's also no question that production in the US would be more costly, because of higher labor costs, but that is offset by the gain in American jobs. Conversely as I said before, exporting jobs, boosts the standard of living in those manufacturing countries at the expense of American jobs. While that also gives the American consumer lower prices, it is an unsustainable situation, because Americans then are consumers rather than producers. This has been going on for several years leading to our present job problems and is no different than various Americans being on general welfare or employed in nonproductive government jobs.
CJ:
Building tariff walls generally leads to protecting national producers who use that protection to raise prices. It was an early form of crony capitalism. You probably remember that most countries in Latin America followed that policy to their regret.
ACS:
Yes. That is the purpose of tariffs. To protect national producers and allow them to make a reasonable profit, as opposed to squeezing them out of business, because they can't compete with free-duty foreign-made goods. It may have been abused previously and could be abused in the future because of "crony capitalism", but we have antitrust laws to handle that, providing we have a government willing to enforce laws.
I don't know about most countries in Latin America using import tariffs to their disadvantage, but I can see that a banana republic dictator would have another source of income from foreigners by using import duties. Perhaps that was the case. However, the US is not a banana republic, even though we are embarked on establishing a dictatorship. Even so, our new dictator would have a reverse opinion; namely, continue free trade so that American wealth will be dissipated to the rest of the world.
CJ:
We are at opposite poles on free trade. It has been a pillar of
American policy for decades starting with GATT and continuing with
WTO. It is certainly important to police trade agreements to identify
and penalize countries who try to defraud the system. There is a court
for settling such disputes.
ACS:
I don't believe in pillars in general. It may be that GATT and WHO may have had some validity previously, but we are talking about now.
I'm also not talking about defrauding the system. I am merely saying that free trade exports American jobs to countries where labor is cheaper. There's also no question that production in the US would be more costly, because of higher labor costs, but that is offset by the gain in American jobs. Conversely as I said before, exporting jobs, boosts the standard of living in those manufacturing countries at the expense of American jobs. While that also gives the American consumer lower prices, it is an unsustainable situation, because Americans then are consumers rather than producers. This has been going on for several years leading to our present job problems and is no different than various Americans being on general welfare or employed in nonproductive government jobs.
CJ:
Building tariff walls generally leads to protecting national producers who use that protection to raise prices. It was an early form of crony capitalism. You probably remember that most countries in Latin America followed that policy to their regret.
ACS:
Yes. That is the purpose of tariffs. To protect national producers and allow them to make a reasonable profit, as opposed to squeezing them out of business, because they can't compete with free-duty foreign-made goods. It may have been abused previously and could be abused in the future because of "crony capitalism", but we have antitrust laws to handle that, providing we have a government willing to enforce laws.
I don't know about most countries in Latin America using import tariffs to their disadvantage, but I can see that a banana republic dictator would have another source of income from foreigners by using import duties. Perhaps that was the case. However, the US is not a banana republic, even though we are embarked on establishing a dictatorship. Even so, our new dictator would have a reverse opinion; namely, continue free trade so that American wealth will be dissipated to the rest of the world.
Voter Distractions
Here's another essay from anonymous CJ on attempts by the Obama administration
to have the voting public ignore previous four-year failures for the
fourth-coming November election.
"Most presidents
running for reelection prefer to run on their accomplishments in office. In the
case of Obama, the opposite is true. His campaign keeps trying to distract and
avoid discussion of his record. This is understandable given the unpopularity
of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) and the massive "stimulus" which was
a colossal failure. These were his "achievements". We could list other
failures.
As a result, we are watching a campaign of distractions. One of the constant distractions is Gov. Romney's income tax filings. We are told that all candidates release at least ten years of records. That is simply not true. John McCain released only two years of tax records as have others. We are reminded that George Romney released ten years of his records during his failed campaign for the Republican presidential nomination many years ago. Somehow that means that his son should do the same. So what? Now Obama has offered Gov. Romney a "deal": you only need to release five years of records. Do you smell a red herring? You certainly should.
CJ"
As a result, we are watching a campaign of distractions. One of the constant distractions is Gov. Romney's income tax filings. We are told that all candidates release at least ten years of records. That is simply not true. John McCain released only two years of tax records as have others. We are reminded that George Romney released ten years of his records during his failed campaign for the Republican presidential nomination many years ago. Somehow that means that his son should do the same. So what? Now Obama has offered Gov. Romney a "deal": you only need to release five years of records. Do you smell a red herring? You certainly should.
CJ"
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Political Opinion Polls
In the following opinion on "Opinion Polls" by
anonymous CJ, he is confining his discussion to political polls. He essentially
finds opinion polls of no value, for the reasons
given.
You decide whether to put any credence in opinion
polls, as continually reported by the news
media.
While I tend to agree with CJ, this leaves me in
the uncomfortable position of assuming there is nothing to predict reasonably
the outcome of an election.
Opinion Polls by
CJ
The media are infatuated with public opinion
polls and talk about them regularly. In
fact, most reporters either do not understand the limitations of opinion polls
or simply do not provide the basic information for their evaluation. Statistical theory clearly shows that a valid
sample of a population will provide a good estimate of outcomes.
In political opinion polls there are three
populations from which to draw a
sample:
a. Those of voting
age
b. Registered
voters
c. Likely
voters
Conclusions drawn from sampling the first
population are generally meaningless in terms of probable
outcomes.
Surveys of registered voters are unlikely to
provide a valid sample since only 55% of registered voters actually vote in
presidential elections.
Likely voters is the population that will provide
a good estimate of outcomes. However,
that population is the most difficult to identify. In personal telephone surveys, the polling
agency tries to define the likely voter population by asking interviewees about
prior voting participation and assuming that the answer is the truth. Just think about the likelihood that an
interviewee will admit that he or she did not exercise the voting franchise.
Surveys done by “robocalls” have even less chance of identifying likely
voters.
Now think about how many times a reporter
identifies the sampled population.
Instead, they trumpet the “margin of error” whatever that
means.
“ Figures can lie and liars can
figure”
Social Justice 101
Here is another from anonymous CJ. I have no comment other than to
say "Amen".
Social Justice I
A day or so ago, Obama told us explicitly what has been obvious
all along. He believes that the main
purpose of government is to enforce social justice. Kindly recall that in his view individual
accomplishment in our country is the direct result of government support. In simple terms, individuals like Steve Jobs,
Sam Walton et al created substantial new business enterprises and became wealthy
because of the federal government. A
direct corollary of that principle is that those individuals who profited from
the government support should now share their wealth by paying higher
taxes. The second corollary is that the
government will decide how to distribute that wealth. This is a socialistic view of government’s
purpose.
Suffice to say that Obama is not the first political leader to
hold this view and will not be the last.
The history of the world is littered with countries who adopted that
policy and failed. Western Europe has
several at this moment that are crumbling.
DO YOU REMEMBER JANUARY 3, 2007?
From: Robert D. Rogers
THIS [is] when
our present problems began!
DO YOU REMEMBER JANUARY 3, 2007? A real eye opener.
This tells the story, why Bush was so bad at the end of his term ...
The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.
At the time:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The growth of GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH
Remember the day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress
So when someone tries to blame Bush.
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
This President and Democratic Congress have spent more money than all previous presidents from George Washington thru George W. Bush combined.
40% of each dollar currently
spent has to be borrowed.
Who got the
money?
Darn those
facts!
Saturday, August 18, 2012
From: Gordon Anderson
[mailto:gnabulaj@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 2:11 PM
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 2:11 PM
From numerous other things I have read over
the last six months…..I think this is exactly what is happening to
America…..while millions prefer to ignore the unpleasant signs and bury their
head in the sand!! I checked this with Snopes and they
verified the author….but didn’t comment on his statements. You
decide. GNA
Subject: FINALLY - A CLASSMATE OF OBAMA'S SPEAKS OUT
|
Obama's Marxist Program
Subject: FINALLY
- A CLASSMATE OF OBAMA'S SPEAKS OUT
From; Gordon Anderson
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
