Not My Mom

Sending this to FailBlog next:

 

An Insider's Update on the Gulf Oil Spill

This just came in over the transom from a trusted source:

---

Subject: An update on the Gulf Am still going back and forth to Dallas keeping my toe in the oil business.  However, fortunately, I am working on a deepwater project in offshore Ghana and will not be sticking my toe into the Gulf of Mexico.  Thus, I will still miss the Thursday luncheons for the foreseeable future. I know many of you are curious as to what is going on in the Gulf, as I am sure you are aware the politicians and press are not well informed and have no interest to be well informed.  I have attached a MS Word file with a sketch of the two relief wells which are being drilled as fast as they can to "kill" the blowout well - Macondo #1.  It is a good status of the two wells, one of which is closing in on the blowout.  When I finish my Dallas gig, I will do a lunch presentation on the incident.  Also, let me share some statistics and personal thoughts which can put this well into perspective. a.  The U.S. has more than 525,000 producing oil wells in the country.  With about 5 million barrels per day produced in the U.S., this means that the average well in the U.S. produces less than 10 barrels per day and included in that average are prolific wells in Alaska and the Gulf which are capable of producing much more.  I would bet the median oil rate of a U.S. well is less than 3 barrels per day.  More than 31% of the oil wells in the U.S. according to the DOE produce less than one barrel per day! b.  With the Macondo well belching an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 barrels per day means the Macondo well is capable of flowing more than 4,000 to 5,000 average wells in the U.S!  Is there no surprise that fields like this one are the prize being sought after by the industry which cannot drill in shallow waters or much of anywhere in the U.S. anymore?  This one well produces about 1% of the entire U.S. production rate and is most likely the most productive well in the country!  And probably one of the most productive wells in the world.  It is too bad that this field will most likely never be produced following shutting and abandoning the Macondo #1 blowout. c.  The only way the Macondo well can be stopped is by intersecting the well with the relief wells being drilled now.  If the "junk shot" or "top kill" method would have stopped the flow or the blowout preventer finally closed, the pressured oil would have just ruptured the shallow geological formations and oil would have been coming up in geysers all over the place for miles and then the only way to stop the flow would have been to allow the reservoir to deplete.  And this could have been years!  Thus, it is a "good" thing that the "top kill" failed. d.  This next statistic is not to bash our president; but to put things into perspective:  When Air Force One is in the air, it consumes jet fuel (which incidentally comes from the Gulf of Mexico) at the rate of 5 gallons per mile as indicated in data released by the govt.  And anywhere the pres goes, there are at least two jets of equal size carrying his cars, golf carts, secret service, guests, press, etc.  If you make the calculations, this means that when the president takes a junket in Air Force One, he and his entourage are consuming the entire oil production of approximate 450 average oil wells in the U.S.! e.  Tony Hayward, the beaten down CEO of BP, is a friend of mine who I worked with on our project in Colombia in 1994-1997.  He was the Exploration Manager for BP's Bogota office.  He has a PhD in geoscience with highest honors and has more 28 years experience in technical and management positions with BP, which is a heck of a lot more applicable to his job than community organizing.  It would be impossible for him to know the level of detail of what happened on that rig; and Rep. Waxman's questioning just revealed the U.S. government's requirement to place personal blame and focus on something other than the administrations failings on a number of fronts.  I contend that the pollution in the Gulf is horrific; but the Gulf will recover.  However, the government's overreach into the oil industry as a result of the incident will do more harm to the country in the long run.  Waxman et. al. will deal more harm to the country which will never be cleaned up.  My advice to Tony Hayward when he met with the congressional panel, and his other public appearances, would have been to have a good speech writer and use a teleprompter.  That way he could have kept his foot out of his mouth and look more like a competent chief executive. f.  The blowout was clearly caused by human error and an unintentional accident and combination of unforeseen failures of protective devises which all have levels of redundancy.  It is very analogous to the loss of the space shuttle Challenger which was destroyed because of seal failure of the solid fuel rocket booster.  When that happened, in spite of engineer in Morton Thiokol (manufacturer of the solid fuel booster) pleading to stop the launch following freezing weather at the launch pad; I did not see the head of NASA butchered in front of Congress and asked to jump on a sword.  BP has assured everybody that all legitimate claims will be honored; but I heard today that a homeowner was asking reimbursement for loss of home value as surely his failure to sell his home is the fault of BP.  Am sure the hookers in New Orleans will charge BP for the loss of income from the rig workers who will be unemployed for six months.  How much of the $20 billion will go to ACORN?  Will be interesting to follow this money trail........ Cheers, [redacted for privacy purposes]

Don't plug it; tap it and put it back into production.  The hell with the appearance of doing that; we can't afford to give up such a productive source of oil.

Jeez….

Sears used to be a great store.  Tools, appliances, crappy clothes, cheap suits.  It was always a sort of slightly upscale K-Mart.  Now, they are both owned by the same company and Sears is selling this:

 

 

Hey Sears!  I make one of these nearly every day.  I don’t need to buy a fake one.

I Fear for Our Country’s Future…

 

…or, “How This Happened”:

 

OK, I am taking an online class through the local community college on computers and the Interwebs.  One of the components of the class is a Discussion Board.  The prof poses an issue and we are to respond, and, she hopes, have a meaningful discussion.  The first prompt from her was this:

PROMPT:  Gossip Sites...
A recent trend on college campuses today is the use of campus gossip sites, where students can post campus related news, rumors, and basic gossip. These sites were originally set up to promote free speech and to allow participants to publish comments anonymously without repercussions from school administrators, professors, and other officials. However, they are now being used to post vicious comments about others.

• What do you think of campus gossip sites?
• Is it ethical to post a rumor about another individual on these sites? How would you feel if you read a posting about yourself on a gossip site?
• School administrators cannot regulate the content since the sites are not sponsored or run by the college, and federal law prohibits Web hosts from being liable for the content posted by its users. Is this ethical?
• What if a posting leads to a criminal act, such as a rape, murder, or suicide? Who, if anyone, should be held responsible

I read the first few posts and my jaw dropped.  I discussed with her the willingness of nearly all of the respondents to simply ignore or repeal the First Amendment and throw offenders in jail.  Her response was that “they’re young”.  And then she told me to “stir things up.”  So I did.  Here is part of the result.  You will be shocked at the complete lack of thought and working knowledge of how this country works.

Discussion begins:

Thread: Free speech
Post: Free speech
Author: DaveyNC

Posted Date: June 3, 2010 1:26 PM
Status: Published

What about free speech? I find it very hard to believe that so many who have posted so far are willing to turn over their right to free speech to the federal government. While malicious gossip is certainly not protected by the 1st Amendment, why would you want to allow the government to decide what is and is not gossip?

Should a government censor punish someone who, for instance, posts that "So-and-so is pregnant!" How would the censor (a horrific notion) decide whether that is gossip or true? Demand a pregnancy test?

There are libel and slander laws to take care of this sort of thing. So long as "gossip sites" remain within those bounds, the government needs to stay out of it. If you fear gossip, then do not engage in it yourself or frequent websites that do not moderate comments.

Reply Quote Mark as Unread

Thread: Free speech
Post: RE: Free speech
Author: Future Voter

Posted Date: June 6, 2010 1:24 AM
Status: Published

There was a big deal a while back where chinese actor Jackie Chan was asked his oppinion on Chinese democracy. He replied that some people can not handle freedom. While his words were taken out of context, he was referring to previous situations where his people were in a state of turmoil and needed much of their god given rights revoked. That's where such strict laws originated in their country. When people hide behind the constitution to defend their less than noble actions, I always feel like the constitution needs a revision. Convicted sex offenders are required to identify themselves as such by law, but neo Nazi webmasters can anonymously preach hate to the masses while protected by the constitution. These days the constitution only protects the corrupt. I for one agree with Jackie, the misuse of anything can lead to turmoil, freedom of speech is no different.

Reply Quote Mark as Unread

Thread: Free speech
Post: RE: Free speech
Author: DaveyNC

Posted Date: June 6, 2010 8:38 AM
Status: Published

But Future Voter, you understand that an over-riding purpose of the Constitution in general and the First Amendment in particular is to protect unpopular speech, right? Isn't the essence of a democracy the ability to speak out against the majority? Turmoil is what a democracy is all about.

And you just violated Godwin's law. http://goo.gl/oDl6

I simply reject the notion that the constitution "only protects the corrupt" nor do I accept that some people can not handle freedom. Who should make the decision about who gets to be free and who doesn't? I don't think you realize it, but you just advocated reinstituting slavery. I'd hate to live in a country where someone else decides how much freedom I get to enjoy.

Reply Quote Mark as Unread

Thread: Free speech
Post: RE: Free speech
Author: DaveyNC

Posted Date: June 6, 2010 2:43 PM
Status: Published

What you are telling me is that slaves had their rights revoked due to their own misuse of them? That's a very interesting take on things. I would be very grateful to find out what exactly they did to deserve such action. Surely you have proof. I understand what the first amendment was meant for, but no one can refute the fact that since it's conception it has been counter productive. You can really only benifit if you're trying to beat a prison sentence or cause harm to others. If you can censor my music and films, why protect slanderers and the like?

The amount of freedom you have is already in question. Try screaming fire in a packed movie theatre. See how well that works out for you. The general consensus is that if your words cause a stampede of frightened people and someone gets hurt, it's your fault. By the way, I laughed out loud at Godwin's Law. If I had a dime for every time I was called a racist in a debate(not saying you did of course, just comparing it to the use of Nazi's in debates), even about something as trivial as the Tiger Woods scandal, I would have enough money to build a time machine and go back in time to have the word Nazi removed from the English language. Wow, I used Nazi three times in two replies...I must be a bad debator according to Godwins Law. I simply gave an example of the double standard, next time I'll use one of the other hate groups that hide behind the constitution.

The constitution only protects the corrupt. I will stand by that until I see otherwise.

Reply Quote Mark as Unread

Thread: Free speech
Post: RE: Free speech
Author: DaveyNC

Posted Date: June 6, 2010 9:08 PM
Status: Published

I am stunned at your assessment of the first amendment as counter-productive.  Speechless.  Without the first amendment, we would have something like Al Jazeera, the Arab TV network that only broadcasts what its leaders tell it to.  The only thing, other than the Constitution itself, that holds the government at bay is our freedom of speech and freedom of the press.  There is no freedom of speech in places like North Korea, Cuba and China and those people live in squalor.

I didn't say that slaves had their rights revoked due to their own misuse.  You did, when you quoted Jackie Chan.  This statement, " He replied that some people can not handle freedom. While his words were taken out of context, he was referring to previous situations where his people were in a state of turmoil and needed much of their god given rights revoked." seems to advocate eliminating rights for those who cannot handle them.  Who decides who should have their rights revoked?  You?  Me?

The rights that the Constitution protect are "inalienable"; that is, we are born with them, they are not given to us by the government.  And since the govt. didn't give them to us, they can't revoke them.  The government, by definition, is the only entity that could be guilty of censorship and it cannot censor your music, your movies, your speech and any protests you may lodge against the government.   That is a right that is nearly unique in all the world and must be preserved at all costs.

I've run too long here, but I remain stunned by your characterization of the First Amendment.  Let me suggest a book for you, and anyone else in here who may be thinking the same: http://goo.gl/seas

Reply Quote Mark as Unread

Thread: Free speech
Post: RE: Free speech
Author: Future Voter

Posted Date: June 7, 2010 7:25 PM
Status: Published

It would in fact be a government matter to decide to revise the constitution. I mean, the complaints of citizens like myself aren't enough to fix anything, and I do mean fix, as many of the amendments are themselves broken.

When you say that it sounds like I'm advocating slavery, that my ideas resemble other countries with very little rights to begin with then it is clear my message was ill recieved. Our "system" allows convicted fellons to have their rights revoked. Not because we are run by bad people, but because these men/women deserved it. There is no freedom of assembly in prison, no right to bear arms, and certainly no freedom. It wouldn't be a stretch to force shock jocs and anyone else making a blatant attempt to cause an uproar to watch their speech closely or prepare to have access to online forums and other means of communication monitored or revoked without reconsideration.

As for who would decide who is punished, yes, you and I would. The people. Let's say you ran a sports fan web page where members of your page constantly bash other teams or make accusations that a certain team cheats. With my law in place citizens could file a complaint and this would be the last online site you ever ran, all because patrons of your site were expressing their "inalienable rights." You can say you don't like a team, but to say that team sucks would be a violation punishable by law.

One more thing, nothing is inalienable, not in this world.

Reply Quote Mark as Unread

Thread: Free speech
Post: RE: Free speech
Author: DaveyNC

Posted Date: June 8, 2010 10:52 PM
Status: Published

I am simply gobsmacked by your response, Future Voter.

I refer to the second paragraph, last sentence in your comment above. You just advocated that the US use the exact same approach to online communications that China, North Korea and Cuba use, as well as nearly every dictatorship on the planet. All of these countries are among the very worst violators of human rights in the world. Why on earth would you want to place the US in such company? One of the things, maybe the main thing, that keeps citizens in the US safe is the ability to speak out against tyranny without fear of being silenced or punished by the government.

And then you go on to advocate, in the third paragraph, the revocation of an individual's right to free speech and ability to earn a living in his chosen field merely because someone filed a complaint. You have completely nullified due process of law over trash talking on a sports site.

It is not a government (if by "government”, you mean the Federal government) matter to revise the Constitution. That can only be done via the passing of amendments by the various States. The amendments can only be passed, or ratified, by the States via a vote or a convention that they hold. This requires the electorate to approve. See here: http://goo.gl/sw0I

I'd like to think that you are simply having a hard time expressing your views. But I don't think so.

 

So that’s it.  That is truly the Future Voter.  We gotta hope that this happens soon:

 

Thanks, Senator Hagan!

Senator Hagan:

Thank you so much for the "Carolina Connection Special Edition: Health Care Facts" newsletter that you sent out earlier this evening.  Since I wrote you several times during the debate over the Health Insurance Reform bill, I appreciate seeing an update from you.  I know that you worked hard to put this together.  Alas, I see that you have called your newsletter "...Health Care Facts" when in fact, it appears to be largely about Health Insurance.  Well, except for the flu shots.

I thought that I would provide you with some additional information that Mssrs. Emanuel and Axelrod may not have provided to you.  In fact, I have reproduced your newsletter below and you will see my responses in blue.

Carolina Connection Special Edition: Health Care Facts newsletter begins:

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act

became law. So much information is circulating about health care reform, and sorting through it can be overwhelming and frustrating. This newsletter will help explain what the law does and what it means for you and your family. Other useful information about health care reform can be found atwww.healthreform.gov

.

Starting in the First Six Months...

• Insurers are prohibited from dropping coverage when you get sick.  Sounds great!  How will that affect premium costs? 
• Children with preexisting conditions will not be barred from coverage.  Excellent, I'm OK with this in principle, but again, how will this affect costs?  My expectation is that the insurers will estimate the added cost of a known condition and have no choice but to price it into their policies.
• Young adults up to age 26 can stay on their parents' plans.  As a father, I appreciate the sentiment, but I would prefer that my daughter learn to provide for herself.
• No more lifetime caps on coverage.  Well, this can only drive costs up.  You just invited the whole country to an all-you-can-eat buffet.  I will make a further projection; costs will rise rapidly to extract as much revenue as possible in as short a time as possible.
• Seniors hitting the "donut hole" will receive a $250 check.  Well, OK, the whole donut hole thing was dumb, anyway.  But why a check?  Why not just close the hole?  Why add the administrative cost of cutting a check for several million people?
• Eligible small business owners can receive a tax credit to help pay for health insurance premiums. I have a better idea:  cut taxes permanently in stead of "allowing" business owners to get a credit.  To a small business, cash flow is king and you are forcing small businesses to flow the cash out up to 16 months before they get the credit back.  That's called negative cash flow.  Why not a tax cut, which would create positive cash flow?

Middle Class Families

For middle class families, reform means:

• Tax credits will be available for almost one million North Carolinians to make health insurance more affordable. Again, I would rather have a permanent tax cut, not a deferred tax credit.  Cash flow is important to families, too.
• As many as 2.3 million children in NC will no longer be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition.  Who pays for that?
• Preventive care services, including well-child visits and annual flu shots, will be available at no extra cost.  OK, I'm calling an intentional foul here.  "At no extra cost"?  How do you provide all that for 2.3 million without incurring extra cost?  Will the doctors and vaccine makers simply donate their goods and services?  Somebody, somewhere will have to pay for that.  Who do you think that will be?  I deem this an intentional foul because I think you know that but you are waiving that phrase in front of less-careful readers.  After all, 24% of Americans think that "the government has money on its own without using taxpayer money".  See column here

  for source.  You are playing those people for suckers by saying "no extra cost".

Click here

to read more about the benefits for North Carolina's hardworking families.

Seniors

For NC seniors, the new law means:

• 247,000 NC seniors in the prescription drug "donut hole" will receive a $250 check this year.  See previous.
• The donut hole will be incrementally closed over the next several years until it is completely closed by 2020.  See previous, though this will also increase cost.  Still, the donut hole was silly to begin with.
• 1.4 million NC Medicare beneficiaries will have annual wellness visits and preventive services at no extra cost.  AAARRRGGGHHHH!  There you go again!

Click here

to learn more about the benefits for North Carolina's seniors.

Small Businesses

• Over 120,235 NC small businesses are eligible for tax credits to make premiums more affordable. Businesses won't have to choose between providing insurance and cutting jobs.  Wrong.  We need permanent tax CUTS, not credits, for cash flow reasons.  Worse, these credits phase out with the 26th employee.  The marginal cost for that 26th employee will be so great, that companies will be very hesitant to get much bigger than 20-24 employees.  Here, look at this short paper

  (PDF) for an excellent summary of this effect.

Click here

to read about how the new law will support small business owners.

Health Care Reform and NC Job Growth

• By slowing the health care cost growth rate and allowing businesses to expand employment, researchers anticipate that NC will benefit from as many as 7,100 - 11,400 new jobs per year over the next ten years.  Well, that isn't very many in a state of nearly 10 million.  No less an expert than Fed chairman Ben Bernanke testifying before Congress on April 14 said that job growth will be "slack"

  for years.  And then there is this, from CNN, headlined "Say Goodbye to Full Time Jobs with Benefits"

  .

For more information about how the law improves care and reduces costs, click here

.

Hagan Accomplishments

Senator Hagan included the following provisions in the new law:

• Rural Physicians Pipeline Act to address the shortage of primary care doctors in rural communities.  Good luck, hope it works.  But since I read that many doctors are choosing to get out of the business, I wonder where we will find the doctors we will need to treat the extra 30 million people that will be put on the plan.
• Catalyst to Better Diabetes Care Act to move toward reducing the diabetes epidemic. Exercise and diet.
• Medication Therapy Management Program (MTM) to save money and help seniors better follow their medication regimens.  Sorry, don't know what this one is.  Are we going to have someone visiting people and checking on their medication regimens?  Really?
• An amendment with Republican Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to create a regulatory pathway for generic biologics.  Token Republican mention here all the way at the very end of the newsletter.

Senator Hagan, going through this little exercise has really clarified for me something that I knew all along and it is this:  Neither you nor the rest of the Democrats in Washington gave any thought at all on how to pay for this thing.  You have unleashed the law of unintended consequences in a very big way on our country and the effects of this will be with us for decades.  Right now, Canada is looking into ways to move to a more market/consumer driven model.  Britain's health care service is spewing red ink faster than the Deepwater oil well.  The Congressional Budget Office now points out that the bill will NOT hold costs down.  I refer you to the blog of the Director of the CBO, found here.

  It would have been nice to know this before you voted for the bill, don't you think?

See you at the ballot box!

DaveyNC

Cow Farts, Carbon and 9th Graders

Here follows an email exchange between my cattle specialist friend and a 9th grader.  The two emails below are self-explanatory.  All names changed to protect identities, otherwise reprinted here verbatim (oh, and while my friend thought he was putting his responses in blue type, he didn’t, so I did.  He knows cow vajajays, but not so hot on a computer keyboard.):

 

My name is Frieda, and I am ninth graders at the Environmental and Adventure School, in Washington state. For our ninth grade project, each student has chosen an environmental issue that they will study in depth for six weeks, and go on to give a thirty minute presentation about the issue. We are in charge of putting out a survey, gathering information on the players involved with the issue, determining past efforts and what else can be done to work on the issue, and collecting an extensive amount of notes to better understand the issue.
The issue that I have chosen is: To what extent should livestock farming be mitigated, due to its' harmful effects on the environment?
I would like to ask you a few questions that will assist me on my research on the topic, and developing an opinion on the issue.

1) What is the side you have taken on the issue, and why have you taken this position? What are your beliefs and values about it? I am on neither side but I would say that livestock production, is an environmentally sustainable process when done properly. Most producers care deeply about their animals and their environment and their families; and are always on the lookout for ways to improve. I say this because I have first hand knowledge and experience in how our food is actually produced. Many people have opinions about food but little knowledge of how it is produced.
2) To what extent do you believe measures should be taken to work with the issue? What do you think should be done, if anything? Again if Carbon is THE ISSUE, then as you can see I think it is entirely unscientific to try and separate wild from domestic animals, and really it makes no difference in the end anyway, because these animals just cycle carbon from vegetation types that are destined to a fairly rapid decay anyway. 
3) Could you suggest any informative websites, or other people I could contact, that either supports the same side as you, or poses a different opinion? If you are interested in learning about what large tracts of ranch land do for wildlife I would suggest contacting Wildlife Biologist Dr. [Wildlife Guy] at Montana State University. He has written and researched extensively on how ranching helps protect habitat from fragmentation by alternative land uses such as development.

I am trying to learn as much as I can about the issue so that I can formulate my own opinion on the issue.
I am looking to get responses back by this Wednesday, if possible. I'm sorry that this is such short notice, but I appreciate your help!
Thank you for your time and assistance!
Sincerely,

Frieda

Hi Frieda. Thank you for your inquiry. Here is a little background on myself before we get started. My job as an Associate Professor and  Extension Livestock Specialist in the [Bigger Cowland State] University System is to help educate people about livestock production and natural resource management. Particular animals I work with are cattle, sheep, goats and horses - these are all "grazing animals". I studied Range Ecology at  [Cow State University] for my B.S. degree and Animal Physiology for my M.S. and PhD degrees from [Bigger Cow State University]. I am located at an Extension and Research Center in Far West [Cowland] in the Western [Cowland] Desert ecosystems.

I might begin by suggesting maybe rephrasing your hypothesis so that it does not seem biased. Maybe something like "Does livestock farming have harmful effects on the environment?" Then, based on what you conclude you might be able to address the regulatory / mitigation side. My answers to your survey questions are at the bottom in blue.

Secondly, I am not sure what environmental effects you are interested in investigating. For example, some think that cattle are responsible for greenhouse gas production. If that is in fact part of your project please see my comments below and maybe you can see how grazing animals work in the environment.

I see you need material by tomorrow so I can't send a lot right now because I have to go now. But if it is not too late I will send you some more resource materials on Friday. Just let me know. Also, it would help me if you could tell me exactly what environmental issues you are interested in knowing more about.

At the bottom, I have attached some agricultural facts put together by a colleague of mine too.

Good luck with your project and I will be in touch.

Cow Masterson, Extension Livestock Specialist

[Information from Cow Masterson’s colleague follows]

           Cattle and other ruminant animals do emit methane -CH₄ but they do not create the carbon in that molecule. The carbon they emit is part of the natural carbon cycle where carbon, as carbon dioxide - C0₂, exists naturally in the atmosphere. As plants "breathe" in C0₂, some carbon is converted into carbohydrates (plants are a natural carbon "sink"). When a ruminant animal (wild or domestic) digests plant carbohydrates, some carbon is released as CH₄ due to anaerobic fermentation. This also happens whenever plants die and decay under anaerobic conditions. Decay under aerobic conditions releases CO₂. That, in a nutshell, is the terrestrial carbon cycle; and what it means is that net carbon emissions from agriculture - that is, what is put into the atmosphere vs. what is taken out - comes from carbon released from fossil fuels (and slight amounts from soil disturbance) The point is cows and wild ruminants merely cycle carbon. They don't release carbon that is some how "tied up" as in fossil fuels.

            I'd ask you to think about this Frieda: Cattle and buffalo (Genus Bos) are but one of 164 other species that zoologists classify in the suborder "ruminantia". Ruminants account for about 75% of all the world's ungulate species. Ungulates are considered to be large hooved herbivores. Other examples of ruminant animals include wildebeest, deer, moose, goats, giraffe, etc. Regardless of specie, they all do the same thing, and that is to digest cellulose, the most abundant organic molecule on earth. Cellulose (a type of plant fiber) makes up about 1/3 of all plant material on earth. It is indigestible by humans and most other monogastric animals. So, what does this have to do with methane? It would be misguided if domestic cattle were potentially singled out as somehow different from wild ruminants in the way they cycle carbon and methane within an ecosystem. Even if the world's population of domesticated ruminants were to decrease, the carbon contained in the world's herbaceous forage would continue to cycle: wild ruminants will continue to eat, and what ever is un-eaten will decay. Decay happens in a relatively short time span for herbaceous plants like grass vs. woody plants like trees.

Manure production from confined livestock operations has also been questioned as a source of methane. Manure accumulates regardless of where it is "dropped". But even so, beef cattle would seem to be on the favorable end of that argument as well because they spend relatively less of their lives in confinement compared to some other types of livestock. Cows and bulls account for about 20% of U.S. beef production, but virtually none will ever see a feedlot. Fed beef, mostly 1- to 2- year-old, steers and heifers, only spend about 4 to 5 months of their lives in a feedlot. That is done in order to enhance the taste and quality of the meat. They live the rest of their lives on a pasture somewhere. The point is, that contrary to some popular beliefs, beef cattle are not "raised" in feedlots. Policy makers should realize this. They should also realize that while animals in feedlots or confined dairies do eat grain, they also eat crop by-products. Many of these are inedible by humans, but can be indirectly converted into human food by cattle. Examples might be corn stalks, wheat bran, cotton seed, etc., and even distillers grain - which is a by-product from the ethanol fuel industry.

Modern agriculture is able to feed the world because it is so productive. It is true that some fossil fuels are used to produce our food, but policy makers should realize that this is true for all food. Crops are planted and harvested, and all food, meat, and vegetables, are moved by freight to cities where consumers live. It is important to know that modern production techniques allow more food to be produced on less land. This means that more unfarmed land can be left for wildlife habitat and other uses.

In summary, ruminant animals are a part of nature. They do a lot to help feed the 6 billion people on earth using plants as part of the natural carbon cycle.

You know, I can’t help but think that somewhere in Washington state a young girl’s whole world view just shattered.  She can no longer avoid the fact that cattle do not add to the planet’s carbon load nor are the people involved in the production of cattle evil people who just want to destroy the environment.  Well done, Cow Masterson and colleague!

Rape Trees

This comes from a friend of mine, reporting to me on his conversation with another friend of mine.  The “reporter” lives in Southern NM and is involved in ranching.  Here it is, word for word (names changed):

 

FYI global warming strikes again. 10 days ago, on the weekend of May 1-2 Ft. Davis, TX received 1-2" of fresh snow.

On a serious and more concerning note, Brad, a good friend called me at 6:05 yesterday to report on a meeting he'd just walked out of. It was at the NM Farm and Ranch Heritage Museum where he works. It was a public forum held to discuss the "bad idea" of creating a 200,000 acre roadless wilderness area in the Portrillo Mts which are South and West of Las Cruces NM on what is public access BLM land, and also ranch land leased from BLM. Wilderness areas are closed to all motorized machinery and travel is only by foot or horseback. A couple of retired Border Patrol agents, from pretty high up, were brought in to tell what is and has been going on and why creating a roadless area where you wouldn't  even be able land a helicopter is a very very bad idea. This area runs exactly from the Mexican border to the south up to I-10 on the north - a perfect North-South "corridor they said. These guys were able to speak freely because they are retired. A lot of what they said evidently is not common knowledge. If you've not been keeping up - the body count in Juarez is up to 8,000 now. But apparently it is worse than even that.  The agents had pictures and a lot of stories. They said they had more pictures but probably shouldn't show them in public.

I knew it happens but I had no idea how badly these drug guys prey on illegal immigrants. The source of much of the heaps and heaps of trash seen is from robbery of illegal immigrant parties. They showed actual pictures of 2 different trees, down in deep arroyos, where womens (and girls) undergarments are displayed. After the women are robbed, the drug guys exact a second "toll" for the right to pass through "their areas". These are called 'rape trees'. The agents warned that if you happened to be out hiking or rabbit hunting or something and stumbled on this going on, you would not leave alive.

Columbus, NM / Purerto Palomas, Chihuahua are south of Deming it is a small border entry point. Polomas on the Mexican side had (until very recently) 4 law enforcement officers. Brad said he'd heard something vaguely in the news last week about some law enforcment guys moving to Columbus. The agents expanded on this for the group: The Mexican officers received an ice chest with 4 heads in it and a note that said to get out or this will be each of your heads.

There was also an incident in Nogales, AZ where body parts were left in the street. This happens all the time in Juarez, but I didn't know it had moved here too.

It has been a very good spring with the promise of a really good quail crop in one of the areas Brad and I grew up hunting together in, about 25 miles west of Columbus   We'd been talking about taking our boys and getting together for a hunt next fall. Brad told me yesterday, there is no way in hell he's setting foot down there now. I think I agree.

If AZ is successful with their new enforcement effort, NM and maybe even West TX have no idea what we are in for.

Anyway, just a little border news most of us never get to hear about.

But, we better not let our cops verify whether or not someone is a US citizen.  Might be a violation of their rights on a scale far worse than the rape trees.

Meet Your Next Supreme Court Justice

You heard it here first:

Already vetted, she gets her payoff from the campaign.  She has as much as said that she is not interested in running for President again.  This is more her style than Secretary of State.  Ugh.

Me and the Dingbats

 

I regularly go to the Huffington Post and comment on various articles. A conservative is guaranteed an exchange of comments there whereas, if you comment on a more conservative site, you may get one or two “True dats”.  Much more engaging to joust with the other side.  It usually results in me being called “uncaring” and other names.

Yesterday, there was a post there about AT&T taking a $1,000,000,000.00 charge to pay for Obamacare and as you would expect, HuffPo readers just think that is awful of that big, evil company to do that and to warn that some cuts in benefits or people would have to happen in order to adjust to this new reality.  (I covered this below.)  I went there and pointed out to them a point that I have made there before:  It’s fine to aspire to European-style healthcare, but they need to be prepared to live with a European-style economy; permanently higher unemployment, social stratification, etc.  My comments begin here.

So I found this nifty little website that nicely summarizes various statistics for any country that publishes stats, www.indexmundi.com .  Here is how the US unemployment rate compares to France, Italy, Canada and that paragon of Liberal pining, Sweden.  I’m using 2007 as my comparison because my argument is based on historic rates of unemployment, not current and because that was the last full year before the global meltdown began.  You know, back in the good ol’ days.

2007 Unemployment Rates, the evil US vs. Socialist Nirvana

US=4.8%.

Sweden=5.6%, 14.3% higher than the US.

Canada=6.4%, 25% higher than the US.

Italy=7%, 31.4% higher than the US.

France=8.7%, 44.8% higher than the US.

The US’s current rate is about 9.7%, my home state of North Carolina is over 11%.  Prior to the meltdown, NC hovered around 4-5%, but the losses in the finance business have really hurt us, particularly Charlotte, our biggest city.  My guess is that if this ever straightens out, the nationwide number will settle somewhere around 6-8% on a permanent basis.  We will become Canada or Italy.

Waxie and Stupie

 

Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak have ordered Randall Stephenson, the Chairman, President and CEO of AT&T to appear before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to explain why AT&T announced that they will take a $1 billion (that’s $1,000,000,000) charge against earnings to pay for their precious baby, Obamacare.

Now, whenever Waxman is involved, you can’t discount the likelihood that this is a veiled threat and an invitation for him to launch invective through his enormous, upturned nostrils at someone. 

 

But if you read the letter Waxie and Stupie sent, it almost reads like they are surprised at AT&T’s action.  Like they never thought this could happen.  It reads to me like they they never heard of the difference between static analysis and dynamic analysis; that is, static assumes that nothing else changes in the data set while dynamic attempts to account for all possibilities.  Or, as it is more commonly known, “The Law of Unintended Consequences”, a term that seems to have first occurred to these two dopes for the very first time in this letter.

Beginning with the third paragraph of this letter, let’s look at just how stupid these two are:

 

• That first sentence in the third paragraph is our first clue of their stupidity.  They talked themselves into believing this turd would lower costs for companies. 
• The second sentence is where they begin to question AT&T’s own analysis, disbelieving that AT&T knows its own numbers and how changes in the law will affect them.  Waxie and Stupie don’t name the independent analyses that they are referring to, but I’m betting none of those looked specifically at AT&T.  Probably just looked at a broad swath of fake numbers. 
• The third sentence points out that the CBO projects a 3% decrease in average premium costs by 2016, conveniently leaving out what will happen in the intervening five years and implying that AT&T should keep their costs artificially high in the interim while awaiting this earth-shattering savings that is headed their way.  I also would be willing to guess that, if the CBO projected a savings, they said that the decrease will be 3% less than it would have been without it.  That is, not 3% less than it is now but 3% less than the normally-expected increase would have been.  Waxie and Stupie aren’t thinking dynamically here, they are assuming that everything else stays the same, nor do they or the CBO have the slightest clue about what other business expenses AT&T anticipates coming their way.  For instance, AT&T is in a notoriously capital-intensive business, requiring a huge annual investment in upgrading their network to accommodate the Jesus Phone for the millions of hipsters who voted for Obama. 
• Finally, the last sentence in this paragraph points out that the Business Roundtable “asserted…that health care reform could reduce predicted health insurance cost trends…”.  Emphasis mine.  Woulda, coulda, shoulda, douchebags.  Ideology, meet the real world.  This statement also suggests that maybe the Business Roundtable was looking at the data dynamically when they used the c-word, but Waxie and Stupie chose to only take into account what they wanted to hear.  Had the Roundtable said that it would reduce costs, that would point to static analysis.  But they didn’t say that; they are business people and are well acquainted with the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The second page of the letter is where the threat is issued.  “Give us a data dump for our accountants to dive into and then send us everybody with a title above Vice President for all of your subsidiaries.”  This, too, displays the idiocy of these two morons.  AT&T has 281,000 employees and who knows how many subsidiaries.  I hope AT&T rounds up the hundreds of VPs that they must have and sends them all to this hearing.  It would be a great display of just how big the economy is and how little Waxie and Stupie understand about what they and the Dems are screwing around with.  But the business cost of doing that would be prohibitive, especially with the Dems yanking cash out of their company as fast as they can.

Powerline speculates that companies didn’t mention these repercussions sooner for fear of being retaliated against.  But companies are thinking dynamically, knowing that whatever Congress does they can adjust.  To a point.  It’s the dumbasses like the Dems who think that whatever they do doesn’t otherwise affect the economy.  When companies unload people over this, the CEOs will be vilified by the Left, but all they are doing is responding rationally, something the Left is entirely unable to do. 

My own opinion?  We will all soon be independent contractors and off the payroll.

Vote ‘em Out

 

Here is your list of Socialists.

Bastards.

I Blame Tom Delay

 

And, to a lesser degree, Newt Gingrich.  And W.  And Trent f’n Lott.  Damn them, it is their fault that we are about to flip socialist. 

Why these guys?  It all started with this, Delay’s “K Street Strategy”.  This is where the fiscal irresponsibilty, corruption and appearances of corruption began.  The K Street Strategy, in a nutshell, consisted of Delay twisting the arms of the K Street lobbying firms to send the vast majority of their money to Republicans and to even remove Left-leaning lobbyists from their positions and replace them with more Right-leaning types.  In return, the lobbyists and their clients got what they wanted.  It was vote-buying in it’s most bald-faced form; a scorched-earth strategy and the earth has been fucking scorched to shit right now.

This strategy led to a surfeit of money in Republican coffers and then to assholes like Ted f’n Stevens and his goddamned Bridge to Nowhere.  And it was this effect that so thoroughly discredited them as fiscal conservatives to the point that we elected a Socialist and allowed the even more Socialist Pelosi, Waxman, Markey and so on to take the reins of government.

The article linked above appeared in the Washington Post, co-written by David Maraniss and Michael Weisskopf in 1995.  They were never more prophetic than when they wrote this, emphasis added:

“Yet money is also the source of increasing tension among House Republicans that could ultimately weaken them, if not tear them apart. The conflict, in essence, is between ideology and populist reform. One wing wants to collect as much corporate money as possible to sustain and expand the revolution. Another wing fears that this will disillusion voters who brought the Republicans to power to change the traditional ways of doing business in Washington. Gingrich stands in the middle aware, people around him say, that his tenure could depend in part on his ability to resolve the conflict.”

Newt, Newt, Newt.  You blew it.  If you saw the tension here and let it go unimpeded, you laid the groundwork for yours and America’s demise.  All those Lefty nutbags back then hated you because they thought that you would ruin the country, and they were right for the wrong reason.  The country is about to take a road that it cannot return from.  The nutbags wouldn’t be orgasming today over Obama had you simply put your foot down on this activity and set the tone then that Republicans should hew to the principles of fiscal conservatism that is so important to conservative voters.  And then along came W with an allergy to the veto pen and here we are.

Folks, it’s gonna be a long, slow descent into European-style malaise.  We get to watch China, Asia and Brazil take center stage on the world now. 

Watch now, once this crap passes on Sunday, as hiring by private companies goes nowhere.  Companies have been waiting to see what would happen with this and other bills and the only conclusion they can come to now is that their costs are going to permanently and unalterably increase.  No CEO in his right mind would take on added costs in this environment.  Get ready for permanent 10 to 12% unemployment.  We won’t have jobs, but we’ll have health care.

I wonder if I can get my congressman to put provisions for nutrient ingestion in the bill?

AP Games

 

Earlier today, I looked at Drudge and saw a headline about Warren Buffett and his comments on the effects of health care on the American economy.  At least that is what the headline on the AP/Yahoo! story said this morning:

 

I no longer have the story as written originally, but I remember that it was generally favorable to the reform that is currently on the table. 

So, later I see this story from Politico:

 

This is from the same interview that was on CNBC this morning.  So, after I see the Politico story, I go looking for the AP story.  I started at Drudge, but the headline was gone.  Then, I dig through the web history of my browser and find it and click through to the story, and here is what I find:

 

Oops!  If you read the Politico story, they really emphasize the harsh comments (well, as harsh as Buffett ever gets) that Buffett had for the current plan.  The AP story, on the other hand, buries the health care comments deep in the story and really limits the amount of reporting on the health care comments that Buffett made.  Again, I wish that I had the original story from this morning from AP; it would be really interesting to compare that story to the newer Politico version.  Regardless, I smell bias.

The Devil IS Prada!

 

High fashion, don’t you know?

 

What Happened on August 28, 2008…

…that might have had something to do with our financial collapse?  Barack Obama accepted the Democrat nomination, that’s what.  That is also when the stock market took a dive and also when unemployment really kicked in to high gear.  Look, I am no statistician or pollster or financial analyst, but when you look at the following charts I have assembled, it gives you pause.  I thought at the time that at least part of the reason that things cratered when they did is that it became clear to Wall Street and businesses in general that we were about to elect an anti-business President and perhaps a Democrat majority in Congress.  And, since businesses can’t afford to wait and see if they are right in these matters, they acted almost immediately in the face of the higher cost of doing business that was coming their way.

From the BBC, here is the timeline of the 2008 election:



I used Rasmussen in the above shot because according to this analysis from Costas Panagopoulos of Fordham University, Rasmussen was the most accurate poll of the 2008 election. Sorry, I know that Rasmussen is evil and all, but he is also mostly correct.

Less than a month later on September 18, Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke were asking Congress for carte blanche to deal with the imminent collapse of the whole damn global financial system and it was on like Donkey Kong.  Here is a very nifty timeline of events back then, from Dipity:

Economic Collapse Timeline on Dipity.

You can probably see it better if you click through to Dipity.  Also, scroll a bit to the left to see the beginning of the events.  Dipity starts with September of 2008.  Things really accelerate after August 28, don't they?

Next, from MSN Money is the Dow Jones, S&P and NASDAQ averages from February 2007 through February 2010.  Note the highlighted points; the market cratered beginning at the end of August 2008.



Clearly, the market was already trending down by August, but right after the nomination everything fell off the cliff.  

Finally, here is the unemployment trend from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:



Again, unemployment was trending upwards from about December 2007 on, but it accelerated dramatically after August 2008, increasing a full 1.3 percentage points from August to December of 2008.  For the math-impaired, that was a 21 percent increase over that period of time, compared to an 8.6 percent increase over the same period in 2007.

I posit that the election of Barack Obama pushed the economy over the edge into panic mode.  Investors wanted out of markets, companies knew they had to cut overhead and they all knew that they had to act quickly, before Obama and the Dems took office and imposed higher costs in the form of higher taxes, health care reform, cap and trade and because of the simple fact that modern Democrats in general and Obama in particular are essentially socialist in philosophy. Couple this with the deteriorating business conditions in general and the collapse was inevitable.

No, Obama’s nomination did not cause the financial deterioration of the economy.  That was already underway.  But it damn sure sped things up and made things worse.  With his nomination and subsequent election, all hopes of a soft landing evaporated.  Elections really do have consequences.

Obama Fail

 

Or it will soon be a fail.  Again, the ego gets in the way. 

“President Obama kicks off what might be called his "Save the Senate" tour this week, heading west to campaign for two embattled Democrats trailing badly against Republican challengers - including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.”

He has this unfailing belief, it seems, that his mere presence assures victory.  It didn’t work in in Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts or for the Chicago Olympic bid.  It won’t work for Harry Reid; Reid is so far down in the polls that he must know that he has little, if any, chance to be re-elected.  Bringing Obama out to the desert isn’t going to change that for the better, at all.

Obama will be able to raise money for Reid and Michael Bennet of Colorado, but it will almost certainly cost them votes, especially Reid.

Obama Win

 

I pretty much hammer on our President here, but I am willing to give him some props when he does something I think is right, and by helping to get a new nuclear power plant built, he is doing something good.  If he really wants to help this project, he will smooth the regulatory process out for the builder.  The red tape these projects must go through add greatly to the cost of the project.

As always, though, with our ever so humble President, it remains to be seen what sort of follow-up he will deploy.  He’s not so great with follow up.

Fall Far, Fall Fast

Look at this snip from tonight’s home page of the Huffington Post:

 

The Alexander McQueen story posted today about three hours ago.  The John Edwards story posted two days ago.  Dude is toast.  Rielle must be holy hell in the sack.

And Herein Lies the Problem

 

When members of his own party begin to make statements like this, I don’t see how anybody should expect Republicans or leaders of other countries can be expected to do business with Obama:

 

 

Link to story and video is here.  (Real Clear Politics doesn’t allow embedding, apparently.)

Maybe Obama is doing some kind of amazingly brilliant counter-intuitive strategy.  Maybe he is doing the old “reverse psychology” trick that works so well on 4 year olds.  But we’re not 4 year olds, though he apparently thinks that we are all a bunch of rabble to be led into the wake of his magnificence. 

And when the New York Times begins to question his credibility and integrity, he is on the downward slide to Cartericity or maybe Nixonism.  Either way, this is a problem for all of us, conservative or liberal.  The US needs a strong, trustworthy, effective President and right now Barry is lacking in all of those things.

The Problem with Familiarity

 

Remember this?  (From the NY Times)

 

 

Now look at this headline from Bloomberg:

 

 

Now look at these two, from The Raleigh News & Observer and the Charlotte Observer, respectively:

 

 

 

In the first two stories, we have a glaring example of lack of consistency and an arrogant display of subjective bias.  He takes the “fat cats” to task on a regular basis and that is the part that people will remember.  The rabble cheers him when he does this.  But these two guys over here, the ones that he knows personally?  Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan?  Hey, they make less than A-Rod, so it’s cool.  He has given a tacit approval to their clear attempts to avoid controversy by taking stock instead of large cash bonuses.  Blankfein clearly reined himself in by taking only $9 million, while Dimon unapologetically took $16 million.  Dimon should have taken double that; JP Morgan is a very profitable company and he has served his shareholders and employees well.  Blankfein took $62 million in 2007 and Goldman is the undisputed king of Wall Street.  He should have taken another $62 million.  The problem with this is that Obama is giving a pass to two CEOs merely because he knows them personally while essentially meddling with the relationship between these two guys and their company and shareholders.  When Obama is calling out the fat cats, he is really saying, “We want our money back from the fat cats…….uh, except for my golfing buddies Lloyd and Jamie.  But all the rest of you are evil and greedy.”  This is arrogant.  This is subjective bias, with the pardon granted merely because he knows these two guys and thinks they are “savvy”.  It shows a lack of rigor in his thought processes in allowing him to grant leniency merely because of personal familiarity.

Then you look at the headlines from the Raleigh and Charlotte papers (they are both McClatchy papers, hence the identical photos) and it adds further to the recognition that Obama doesn’t know the effect his “fat cat” comments or his ongoing disdain for Las Vegas have on the economy.  Charlotte is the 2nd biggest banking center in the country, after New York.  Bank bonuses are important to the economy there and always have been.  My daughter attends a college near Charlotte that has long had a relationship with Wachovia and the donations that came from Wachovia and one of its executives in particular were vital to the school.  That Wachovia fat cat is no longer able to help out as he had done in the past.  New York Mayor Bloomberg is on record as wanting the state of New York and President Obama to soften their stances with regard to the wealthy over taxing the bonuses they receive.  He recognizes that when taxes on the rich become confiscatory, it hurts the New York City’s and Charlotte’s of the world.

Obama has absolutely no understanding of how the economy works in this country.  He wants to punish business and confiscate money from the business world to redistribute according to his whims, hence the healthcare bill and the increased taxes that he is contemplating, not to mention the cap and trade bullshit bill.  That this is done on a whim is the real problem.  He is attempting to reshape the country according to his personal vision.  This is a country of laws and individuals, not the United States of Obama.  Companies aren’t hiring or moving forward right now because Obama’s governance by fiat makes them uneasy and who could blame them? 

A suggestion to all Fortune 500 CEOs; try to get a tee time with Barry some time this year.  Maybe that will settle things down once and for all.