This way it's easy to keep them straight.
HT: Moonbattery
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Just "Supply and Demand" for Oil? Maybe.
From Counterterrorism Blog:
The factors involved in the pricing of oil are both extremely obscure and enormously complex, and few people can truly claim to understand them. I certainly am not one of them. But, broken down into its most basic components it apparently involves a mixture of the following factors: OPEC Oligarchy practices, intensified international competition for secure access to essential commodities, increased reliance on middlemen for oil lifting, profit-motive purchasing policies and upstream practices of major oil companies, the falling dollar, and intense speculative upward bidding of oil futures on the world’s merchantile exchanges. Taken together these factors have driven up the spot price of oil and pumped tens (dare I say hundreds) of billions of dollars into the coffers of countries known to either encourage or tolerate state and/or private funding for terrorism. One may well conclude, as I am beginning to believe, that mercantile speculation, greed, and corporate profit taking are as responsible as OPEC, if not more so, for the windfall profits that help fund terrorism.
It is a simplistic mindset which yammers "supply and demand" as the only answer to oil pricing, and "peak oil" theorists (or scare-mongers) are happy to take advantage of the continuing propaganda of "supply and demand."
Other (highlighted) items all have the faint outline of the signature of George Soros or like-minded people--and no one ever accused oligopolists of being kind-hearted.
Worth mulling over.
The factors involved in the pricing of oil are both extremely obscure and enormously complex, and few people can truly claim to understand them. I certainly am not one of them. But, broken down into its most basic components it apparently involves a mixture of the following factors: OPEC Oligarchy practices, intensified international competition for secure access to essential commodities, increased reliance on middlemen for oil lifting, profit-motive purchasing policies and upstream practices of major oil companies, the falling dollar, and intense speculative upward bidding of oil futures on the world’s merchantile exchanges. Taken together these factors have driven up the spot price of oil and pumped tens (dare I say hundreds) of billions of dollars into the coffers of countries known to either encourage or tolerate state and/or private funding for terrorism. One may well conclude, as I am beginning to believe, that mercantile speculation, greed, and corporate profit taking are as responsible as OPEC, if not more so, for the windfall profits that help fund terrorism.
It is a simplistic mindset which yammers "supply and demand" as the only answer to oil pricing, and "peak oil" theorists (or scare-mongers) are happy to take advantage of the continuing propaganda of "supply and demand."
Other (highlighted) items all have the faint outline of the signature of George Soros or like-minded people--and no one ever accused oligopolists of being kind-hearted.
Worth mulling over.
Bear, Stearns, First Franklin: Lawsuits?
Oh, yah, it can get worse.
...David Wallis, Ambac's chief risk officer noted that their 'losses are heavily concentrated in a small number of deals which they characterized as “striking” and essentially suspicious' (reader Brian's description). The also made some comments on their Alt-A deals - AMBAC has half a dozen deals now projecting cumulative losses of 20-25% vs initial expectations of approximately 6%.
According to Brian, AMBAC hinted that they might pursue legal action against Bear Stearns and First Franklin.
Actually, that's the good news. From reports at Calculated Risk over the last several weeks, it is becoming apparent that the "mortgage crisis" may be much smaller than first indicated--that is, it may be restricted to certain small geographic areas, and (within those areas) concentrated on only the deals which are fraudulent.
Much as Congress won't like this, it may be better to wait for the smoke to clear than to pass unhelpful "rescue" bills.
...David Wallis, Ambac's chief risk officer noted that their 'losses are heavily concentrated in a small number of deals which they characterized as “striking” and essentially suspicious' (reader Brian's description). The also made some comments on their Alt-A deals - AMBAC has half a dozen deals now projecting cumulative losses of 20-25% vs initial expectations of approximately 6%.
According to Brian, AMBAC hinted that they might pursue legal action against Bear Stearns and First Franklin.
Actually, that's the good news. From reports at Calculated Risk over the last several weeks, it is becoming apparent that the "mortgage crisis" may be much smaller than first indicated--that is, it may be restricted to certain small geographic areas, and (within those areas) concentrated on only the deals which are fraudulent.
Much as Congress won't like this, it may be better to wait for the smoke to clear than to pass unhelpful "rescue" bills.
Abstinence Programs Work
No real surprise here, but you can expect that the Pills and Rubbers people will be launching propaganda soon.
Abstinence education is "crucial to the physical and psycho-emotional well-being of the nation's youth," concludes a detailed report released by the Heritage Foundation.
The report, "Abstinence Education: Assessing the Evidence", released yesterday, examines 21 studies of abstinence education programs, and concludes that statistics show that abstinence programs are effective in deterring teens from becoming sexually active, thereby reducing the risk of STDs, teen prengnacy, etc.
...The Heritage Foundation report ... demonstrates that a majority of abstinence programs have reported a statistically significant decrease in levels of sexual activity for students who participate in them.
Of 15 sex-ed programs that primarily taught abstinence, 11 reported positive findings, while of 6 "virginity pledge" programs, 5 reported positive findings.
More important:
Abstinence programs, observes the report, are admirable in that they are not only about sexual behavior, but "also provide youths with valuable life and decision-making skills that lay the foundation for personal responsibility and developing healthy relationships and marriages later in life."
...in other words, the virtues of integrity, responsibility, treating others as people, not objects....
No wonder the Democrat Party objects!
Abstinence education is "crucial to the physical and psycho-emotional well-being of the nation's youth," concludes a detailed report released by the Heritage Foundation.
The report, "Abstinence Education: Assessing the Evidence", released yesterday, examines 21 studies of abstinence education programs, and concludes that statistics show that abstinence programs are effective in deterring teens from becoming sexually active, thereby reducing the risk of STDs, teen prengnacy, etc.
...The Heritage Foundation report ... demonstrates that a majority of abstinence programs have reported a statistically significant decrease in levels of sexual activity for students who participate in them.
Of 15 sex-ed programs that primarily taught abstinence, 11 reported positive findings, while of 6 "virginity pledge" programs, 5 reported positive findings.
More important:
Abstinence programs, observes the report, are admirable in that they are not only about sexual behavior, but "also provide youths with valuable life and decision-making skills that lay the foundation for personal responsibility and developing healthy relationships and marriages later in life."
...in other words, the virtues of integrity, responsibility, treating others as people, not objects....
No wonder the Democrat Party objects!
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
"Warming"?? Wait A Bit
No, not for the upcoming snow-event due in Milwaukee late this weekend.
Wait for REAL cooling. Global cooling.
It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.
This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.
It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.
The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.
Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.
These days, French invasions of ....anybody.... are not a concern. Scratch that off the list of things to worry about.
That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.
(That's how a responsible scientist phrases things...)
It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.
There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.
Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.
There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.
The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. [That will make weather forecasting a helluva lot easier.] This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.
Well, that's an interesting read, no?
HT: Clay Cramer
Wait for REAL cooling. Global cooling.
It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.
This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.
It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.
The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.
Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.
These days, French invasions of ....anybody.... are not a concern. Scratch that off the list of things to worry about.
That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.
(That's how a responsible scientist phrases things...)
It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.
There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.
Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.
There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.
The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. [That will make weather forecasting a helluva lot easier.] This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.
Well, that's an interesting read, no?
HT: Clay Cramer
Are You: 1) Sick or 2) Stupid?
Those are your alternatives, if you are a Conservative.
...That raised a question: How could we account for the fact that some people were not liberal, that some were conservative? Sheer stupidity, of course, was part of the answer. Some people are just so dumb they wouldn't recognize the truth if it came up and shouted at them. But not all conservatives were that dumb. Most knew how to read; many had high school educations; some had even been to college. So how can we account for their conservatism?
The answer was soon found: Conservatives were suffering from a psychopathology...
To help your local fuzzyLiberal, simply purchase a greeting-tag and insert either "sick" or "stupid" in the space.
Place it on your lapel before engaging with a LeftyWonk. It will be most helpful.
HT: ProEcclesia
...That raised a question: How could we account for the fact that some people were not liberal, that some were conservative? Sheer stupidity, of course, was part of the answer. Some people are just so dumb they wouldn't recognize the truth if it came up and shouted at them. But not all conservatives were that dumb. Most knew how to read; many had high school educations; some had even been to college. So how can we account for their conservatism?
The answer was soon found: Conservatives were suffering from a psychopathology...
To help your local fuzzyLiberal, simply purchase a greeting-tag and insert either "sick" or "stupid" in the space.
Place it on your lapel before engaging with a LeftyWonk. It will be most helpful.
HT: ProEcclesia
ABC: It May Not Be Real--But We'll Put It Out There
The Yankee fisks another ABC fabrication. ABC is attempting to blame US citizens (and George Bush, of course) for the guns used by drug-gangs in Mexico (and Central America, and South America.)
The focus of the story, according to ABC News, is that U.S. dealers of civilian firearms are to blame for Mexico's drug cartels and their violence problems... so why do they highlight an M60 general purpose machine gun, a weapons still in use in Mexico's military, but impossible to find in the open U.S. civilian market?
Here's another ABC lie, direct from the story:
Assault weapons made in China and Eastern Europe, resembling the AK-47, have become widely and cheaply available in the U.S. since Congress and the Bush administration refused to extend a ban on such weapons in 2004.
The reality?
AK-pattern rifles were legal to own or import during the entire life of the 1994-2004 "Crime Bill," something that Ross knows for a fact... or should. This claim is a blatant falsehood.
The only effect of the law was to outlaw the importation or manufacture of certain specific firearms by name, and cosmetic features found on other firearms, without banning their manufacture, important, or purchase once these features were removed or replaced. The result was that the same functioning firearms were imported the day after the "ban" went into effect without a bayonet lug or flashhider, and with a thumbhole stock instead of a pistol grip. Functionally, the weapons were identical, with no reduction in firepower, magazine capacity, controllability, or or lethality. The "Crime Bill" outlawed virtually nothing, and was merely a fig-leaf for anti-gun politicians.
Fiction, from ABC:
The drug cartels' weapons of choice include variants of the AK-47, .50-caliber sniper rifles and a Belgian-made pistol called the 'cop killer' or 'mata policia' because of its ability to pierce a bulletproof vest.
"It's in high demand by your violent drug cartels, their assassins in Mexico," said Newell of the ATF. The gun can fire a high-powered round used in a rifle.
Fact:
The FN Five-seveN (their punctuation, not mine) does not fire rifle bullets as the article claims. It fires a tiny 5.7mm personal defense round designed for light carbines, submachine guns and pistols.
It is not any more armor-piercing than many other pistol cartridges, and less powerful than all centerfire rifle cartridges. Furthermore for the 5.7 cartridge to be truly armor-piercing, it must fire special ammunition that is only available to military and law enforcement sources.
A 5.7mm round is approximately a .25 or .257 cal--there's no 'there' there, folks.
Generally speaking, full-auto rifles are VERY difficult to obtain in the USA--you need a very pricey permit, for openers, and to my knowledge there's only 1 dealer in Wisconsin who actually sells them.
ABC is swallowing whole (and then regurgitating) the BS peddled by the Mexican Attorney-General and BATFE--and lying, to boot.
Reminder: it's budget-season and BATFE wants more money.
Reminder 2: Mexico's government(s) are as corrupt as any in the Western Hemisphere.
Reminder 3: Drug cartels have a lot of wherewithal. They can buy weapons anywhere on the planet--including direct from the ChiComs.
The focus of the story, according to ABC News, is that U.S. dealers of civilian firearms are to blame for Mexico's drug cartels and their violence problems... so why do they highlight an M60 general purpose machine gun, a weapons still in use in Mexico's military, but impossible to find in the open U.S. civilian market?
Here's another ABC lie, direct from the story:
Assault weapons made in China and Eastern Europe, resembling the AK-47, have become widely and cheaply available in the U.S. since Congress and the Bush administration refused to extend a ban on such weapons in 2004.
The reality?
AK-pattern rifles were legal to own or import during the entire life of the 1994-2004 "Crime Bill," something that Ross knows for a fact... or should. This claim is a blatant falsehood.
The only effect of the law was to outlaw the importation or manufacture of certain specific firearms by name, and cosmetic features found on other firearms, without banning their manufacture, important, or purchase once these features were removed or replaced. The result was that the same functioning firearms were imported the day after the "ban" went into effect without a bayonet lug or flashhider, and with a thumbhole stock instead of a pistol grip. Functionally, the weapons were identical, with no reduction in firepower, magazine capacity, controllability, or or lethality. The "Crime Bill" outlawed virtually nothing, and was merely a fig-leaf for anti-gun politicians.
Fiction, from ABC:
The drug cartels' weapons of choice include variants of the AK-47, .50-caliber sniper rifles and a Belgian-made pistol called the 'cop killer' or 'mata policia' because of its ability to pierce a bulletproof vest.
"It's in high demand by your violent drug cartels, their assassins in Mexico," said Newell of the ATF. The gun can fire a high-powered round used in a rifle.
Fact:
The FN Five-seveN (their punctuation, not mine) does not fire rifle bullets as the article claims. It fires a tiny 5.7mm personal defense round designed for light carbines, submachine guns and pistols.
It is not any more armor-piercing than many other pistol cartridges, and less powerful than all centerfire rifle cartridges. Furthermore for the 5.7 cartridge to be truly armor-piercing, it must fire special ammunition that is only available to military and law enforcement sources.
A 5.7mm round is approximately a .25 or .257 cal--there's no 'there' there, folks.
Generally speaking, full-auto rifles are VERY difficult to obtain in the USA--you need a very pricey permit, for openers, and to my knowledge there's only 1 dealer in Wisconsin who actually sells them.
ABC is swallowing whole (and then regurgitating) the BS peddled by the Mexican Attorney-General and BATFE--and lying, to boot.
Reminder: it's budget-season and BATFE wants more money.
Reminder 2: Mexico's government(s) are as corrupt as any in the Western Hemisphere.
Reminder 3: Drug cartels have a lot of wherewithal. They can buy weapons anywhere on the planet--including direct from the ChiComs.
Democracy of the Dead
Heh.
Despite Powerline's egregious error in attribution of the quote (it was G K Chesterton, not Burke) regarding 'the democracy of the dead,' this item is worth posting in full.
Edmund Burke venerated tradition as the democracy of the dead.
The late Chicago Mayor Richard Daley famously practiced a literal version of the democracy of the dead, extending the dead the right to vote for favored Democratic candidates.
Andrew Malcolm notes that Barack Obama comes from the Chicago school of politics and is reviving the Daley tradition. Malcolm reports:
The Los Angeles Times' campaign finance expert Dan Morain has found Obama campaign records reporting a $50 donation by Roy Scheider, who lists his occupation as actor and his home as Sag Harbor, N.Y. Remember him from many great movies including "The French Connection" and "Jaws" and the immortal line: "You're gonna need a bigger boat"?
According to the campaign records, Scheider made the donation on March 10 last month.
Trouble is, Scheider died exactly one month before that, on Feb. 10 at the age of 75.
Malcolm adds: "Scheider was unavailable for comment. "
To put the best face on it, Obama could call for "change" in the USPostal Service' delivery routines...
Despite Powerline's egregious error in attribution of the quote (it was G K Chesterton, not Burke) regarding 'the democracy of the dead,' this item is worth posting in full.
Edmund Burke venerated tradition as the democracy of the dead.
The late Chicago Mayor Richard Daley famously practiced a literal version of the democracy of the dead, extending the dead the right to vote for favored Democratic candidates.
Andrew Malcolm notes that Barack Obama comes from the Chicago school of politics and is reviving the Daley tradition. Malcolm reports:
The Los Angeles Times' campaign finance expert Dan Morain has found Obama campaign records reporting a $50 donation by Roy Scheider, who lists his occupation as actor and his home as Sag Harbor, N.Y. Remember him from many great movies including "The French Connection" and "Jaws" and the immortal line: "You're gonna need a bigger boat"?
According to the campaign records, Scheider made the donation on March 10 last month.
Trouble is, Scheider died exactly one month before that, on Feb. 10 at the age of 75.
Malcolm adds: "Scheider was unavailable for comment. "
To put the best face on it, Obama could call for "change" in the USPostal Service' delivery routines...
Why the "Gun" Issue is a Loser
Scarfed up from Arms and the Law, who found it on a DU (!!!) combox:
"THIS IS WHAT IS COSTING US ELECTIONS! Saying that "well, most pro-gun people are Rethug anyway" is EXACTLY why we lose elections! Giving the issue to them means that the Thug leadership has a stick to beat their base with. And as HALF of the DU membership owns guns and as 39% of the gun owners in this country are Dems (source: Gallup), we CANNOT afford to give in to the toxic thinking that "well, guns are a Thug issue." Anyone who promotes this view is at best incompetent and at worst a deliberate plant."
Don't you love internecine warfare?
Applying that statistic to Milwaukee would tell us that about 100K+ residents of the City own guns.
The only question: how many of those voting-Democrat-gun-owners in Milwaukee own them legally?
"THIS IS WHAT IS COSTING US ELECTIONS! Saying that "well, most pro-gun people are Rethug anyway" is EXACTLY why we lose elections! Giving the issue to them means that the Thug leadership has a stick to beat their base with. And as HALF of the DU membership owns guns and as 39% of the gun owners in this country are Dems (source: Gallup), we CANNOT afford to give in to the toxic thinking that "well, guns are a Thug issue." Anyone who promotes this view is at best incompetent and at worst a deliberate plant."
Don't you love internecine warfare?
Applying that statistic to Milwaukee would tell us that about 100K+ residents of the City own guns.
The only question: how many of those voting-Democrat-gun-owners in Milwaukee own them legally?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Where GWB Is Wrong on "Freedom"
We've touched on this a couple of times, but Reilly says it better.
...President Bush is a man of deep faith, and that his understanding of freedom is not morally empty. And there seems little question that it is his faith that leads him to believe that freedom is a universal charter for mankind. However, this is where he goes awry again. He told Arroyo, "You know, I don't think you can disassociate your faith with how you live your life. I mean, I think it's all engrained. And I am optimistic because I happen to believe in certain universal principles, and I do believe that freedom is universal, and if just given a chance, people will live in a -- will self-govern and live in a peaceful, free society."
Here, the president seems to be paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence, and what he says seems as American as apple pie. However, there are some crucial steps missing in this statement that can lead to huge misunderstandings about what is possible in this world and America's place in it. The assumption contained in President Bush's remark is that, were it not for certain constraints upon them, all people would choose democracy. Therefore, it would appear that our job is to remove those constraints. Then the blessings of liberty will naturally appear, along with peace. This is not true.
In the end, this is a religiously-inculcated 'thing,' this 'freedom.' We are in a RELIGIOUS war--yes, a jihad, so to speak--not a political war.
All people are indeed endowed by their Creator with "certain unalienable rights." However, those rights can only be exercised where they are recognized. The roots of that recognition came principally from the Christian religion.
...the reason the democratization of the Middle East has not happened is that its culture is missing either ingredient necessary for it to succeed [the "equals before God" part]
United States anti-colonial policy in the Middle East after World War II did not seem cognizant of the significance of these things. We thought the problems in the Middle East were the result of British and French occupation. Remove the colonizers, and the Arab peoples would naturally assume the blessings of self-government and liberty. With this in mind, we pressured the British and French to withdraw from their mandates. They did. However, the United States soon learned that the problems of the Middle East were not all of colonial origin; they were indigenous.
Winning "the War for Democracy" requires evangelization.
And that ain't part of the State Department's mission.
...President Bush is a man of deep faith, and that his understanding of freedom is not morally empty. And there seems little question that it is his faith that leads him to believe that freedom is a universal charter for mankind. However, this is where he goes awry again. He told Arroyo, "You know, I don't think you can disassociate your faith with how you live your life. I mean, I think it's all engrained. And I am optimistic because I happen to believe in certain universal principles, and I do believe that freedom is universal, and if just given a chance, people will live in a -- will self-govern and live in a peaceful, free society."
Here, the president seems to be paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence, and what he says seems as American as apple pie. However, there are some crucial steps missing in this statement that can lead to huge misunderstandings about what is possible in this world and America's place in it. The assumption contained in President Bush's remark is that, were it not for certain constraints upon them, all people would choose democracy. Therefore, it would appear that our job is to remove those constraints. Then the blessings of liberty will naturally appear, along with peace. This is not true.
In the end, this is a religiously-inculcated 'thing,' this 'freedom.' We are in a RELIGIOUS war--yes, a jihad, so to speak--not a political war.
All people are indeed endowed by their Creator with "certain unalienable rights." However, those rights can only be exercised where they are recognized. The roots of that recognition came principally from the Christian religion.
...the reason the democratization of the Middle East has not happened is that its culture is missing either ingredient necessary for it to succeed [the "equals before God" part]
United States anti-colonial policy in the Middle East after World War II did not seem cognizant of the significance of these things. We thought the problems in the Middle East were the result of British and French occupation. Remove the colonizers, and the Arab peoples would naturally assume the blessings of self-government and liberty. With this in mind, we pressured the British and French to withdraw from their mandates. They did. However, the United States soon learned that the problems of the Middle East were not all of colonial origin; they were indigenous.
Winning "the War for Democracy" requires evangelization.
And that ain't part of the State Department's mission.
What to Say to War Protesters
From the Hat:
"There were protesters on the train platform handing out pamphlets on the evils of America . I politely declined to take one.
"An elderly woman was behind me getting off the escalator and a young (20ish) female protester offered her a pamphlet, which she politely declined.
"The young protester put her hand on the old woman's shoulder as a gesture of friendship and in a very soft voice said, 'Lady, don't you care about the children of Iraq ?'
"The old woman looked up at her and said, 'Honey, my father died in France during World War II, I lost my husband in Korea , and a son in Vietnam. All three died so you could have the right to stand here and badmouth our country. If you touch me again. I'll stick this umbrella up your @ss and open it. ' "
"There were protesters on the train platform handing out pamphlets on the evils of America . I politely declined to take one.
"An elderly woman was behind me getting off the escalator and a young (20ish) female protester offered her a pamphlet, which she politely declined.
"The young protester put her hand on the old woman's shoulder as a gesture of friendship and in a very soft voice said, 'Lady, don't you care about the children of Iraq ?'
"The old woman looked up at her and said, 'Honey, my father died in France during World War II, I lost my husband in Korea , and a son in Vietnam. All three died so you could have the right to stand here and badmouth our country. If you touch me again. I'll stick this umbrella up your @ss and open it. ' "
Wisconsin's Supreme Election: a Prophesy?
Bob Novak comments on November.
Bob Novak, the highly distinguished veteran columnist and author, told the American Spectator New York dinner group last night that John McCain will defeat Barack Obama in November’s election, although the Democrats will enhance their majorities in both the Senate and the House.
...Novak also believes Obama’s gaffes about bitter small-town people who cling to guns and religion will be an absolute killer in the general election. So will the Jeremiah Wright business, and more generally Obama’s extreme, across-the-board, liberal-left positions...
Wisconsin is one of a very few "purple States," and even then hasn't gone Republican in a Presidential election since Reagan II.
But in the last 2 years, Wisconsin voters have selected 'conservative' SCOWI candidates as opposed to the doctrinaire 'liberals.'
I'm willing to go with Novak on this one, and call Wisconsin an (R) victory at the top of the ticket--despite the likely Milwaukee/Madistan/Racine/Kenosha/FoxValley vote fraud of around 25,000.
HT: ProEcclesia
Bob Novak, the highly distinguished veteran columnist and author, told the American Spectator New York dinner group last night that John McCain will defeat Barack Obama in November’s election, although the Democrats will enhance their majorities in both the Senate and the House.
...Novak also believes Obama’s gaffes about bitter small-town people who cling to guns and religion will be an absolute killer in the general election. So will the Jeremiah Wright business, and more generally Obama’s extreme, across-the-board, liberal-left positions...
Wisconsin is one of a very few "purple States," and even then hasn't gone Republican in a Presidential election since Reagan II.
But in the last 2 years, Wisconsin voters have selected 'conservative' SCOWI candidates as opposed to the doctrinaire 'liberals.'
I'm willing to go with Novak on this one, and call Wisconsin an (R) victory at the top of the ticket--despite the likely Milwaukee/Madistan/Racine/Kenosha/FoxValley vote fraud of around 25,000.
HT: ProEcclesia
The WSJ Takes on Tancredo (and Malkin)
The WSJ has long held an "open borders" stance, which means that their slap of Tancredo for his vile and ignorant comments about the Pope's thoughts on immigration are a bit self-serving. (Michelle Malkin also ran an equally shameful blogpost on the topic, ).
But the WSJ's comments are not necessarily wrong.
Pope Benedict XVI called on U.S. bishops last week to "continue to welcome the immigrants who join your ranks today, to share their joys and hopes, to support them in their sorrows and trials and to help them flourish in their new home." Mr. Tancredo's response was to accuse the pontiff of "faith-based marketing" and claim that "the pope's immigration comments may have less to do with spreading the gospel than they do about recruiting new members of the church."
Please note that the Pope did NOT say "....welcome ILLEGAL immigrants..." nor does the Church's teaching endorse ILLEGAL immigration (despite the silly rhetoric from such as Cdl. Mahony of Los Angeles.)
But 'welcoming immigrants' is kinda sorta the right thing to do, no? Particularly if they are LEGAL.
The pope welcomes immigrants because he's Catholic, not because they are. He isn't "marketing" his faith. He's practicing it.
More to the point, here's a quote from John XXIII on the topic which puts the Church's position clearly:
Now, among the rights of a human person there must be included that by which a man may enter a political community where he hopes he can more fittingly provide a future for himself and his dependents. Wherefore, as far as the common good rightly understood permits, it is the duty of that State to accept such immigrants and to help to integrate them into itself as new members. (The red underlines the destination-State's rights vis-a-vis immigrants.)
Wherefore, on this occasion, We publicly approve and commend every undertaking, founded on the principles of human solidarity and Christian charity, which aims at making migration of persons from one country to another less painful...
I don't expect Tancredo to apologize; he's clearly in the "fixation" mode. Malkin hasn't, either--despite an intervention from a Milwaukee-area blogger/fan of hers.
Too bad.
But the WSJ's comments are not necessarily wrong.
Pope Benedict XVI called on U.S. bishops last week to "continue to welcome the immigrants who join your ranks today, to share their joys and hopes, to support them in their sorrows and trials and to help them flourish in their new home." Mr. Tancredo's response was to accuse the pontiff of "faith-based marketing" and claim that "the pope's immigration comments may have less to do with spreading the gospel than they do about recruiting new members of the church."
Please note that the Pope did NOT say "....welcome ILLEGAL immigrants..." nor does the Church's teaching endorse ILLEGAL immigration (despite the silly rhetoric from such as Cdl. Mahony of Los Angeles.)
But 'welcoming immigrants' is kinda sorta the right thing to do, no? Particularly if they are LEGAL.
The pope welcomes immigrants because he's Catholic, not because they are. He isn't "marketing" his faith. He's practicing it.
More to the point, here's a quote from John XXIII on the topic which puts the Church's position clearly:
Now, among the rights of a human person there must be included that by which a man may enter a political community where he hopes he can more fittingly provide a future for himself and his dependents. Wherefore, as far as the common good rightly understood permits, it is the duty of that State to accept such immigrants and to help to integrate them into itself as new members. (The red underlines the destination-State's rights vis-a-vis immigrants.)
Wherefore, on this occasion, We publicly approve and commend every undertaking, founded on the principles of human solidarity and Christian charity, which aims at making migration of persons from one country to another less painful...
I don't expect Tancredo to apologize; he's clearly in the "fixation" mode. Malkin hasn't, either--despite an intervention from a Milwaukee-area blogger/fan of hers.
Too bad.
Limits: Why the Darwinians Are Wrong
Dreher, as some know, is a guy who writes--but since he's a newspaperman at heart, he's also a questioning sorta guy.
He's enamored of Wendell Berry who is a "life small, back-to-the-farm" guy. In the last 90 days or so, that particular mindset has seeped into all the Very Correct Places--the NYTimes, Time Magazine, Harper's (etc.)--because it has a good deal to do with The Agenda (climate-change/warming/save the Earth).
Berry may be right or wrong, but as the MSM adopts his outlook, they will eventually run into a cognitive dissonance problem.
Here's Berry (quoted by Dreher):
The problem with us is not only prodigal extravagance but also an assumed limitlessness. We have obscured the issue by refusing to see that limitlessness is a godly trait. ...Any definition is a limit, which is why the God of Exodus refuses to define Himself: "I am that I am."
Berry reminds us that resources may have limits (e.g., petroleum, minerals, etc.)
But if that is true, it is also true that Science has limits. So the March of Progress, idolized by the Times/Time editors and scriveners--a natural outgrowth of the Darwinian philosophy--will eventually have to collide with the reality. Conveniently, Benedict XVI has mentioned the limits of Science a number of times. Not so conveniently for the Times (etc.,) they have ignored him, or have subtly reminded us that he is just an old European guy in a big hat without particular competence in such things.
Well, folks, either there is, or there is NOT, "unlimited progress" (and its Republican companion, unlimited wealth.)
Common-sense folks live as though there are limits, because there are--to resources as well as to Progress.
He's enamored of Wendell Berry who is a "life small, back-to-the-farm" guy. In the last 90 days or so, that particular mindset has seeped into all the Very Correct Places--the NYTimes, Time Magazine, Harper's (etc.)--because it has a good deal to do with The Agenda (climate-change/warming/save the Earth).
Berry may be right or wrong, but as the MSM adopts his outlook, they will eventually run into a cognitive dissonance problem.
Here's Berry (quoted by Dreher):
The problem with us is not only prodigal extravagance but also an assumed limitlessness. We have obscured the issue by refusing to see that limitlessness is a godly trait. ...Any definition is a limit, which is why the God of Exodus refuses to define Himself: "I am that I am."
Berry reminds us that resources may have limits (e.g., petroleum, minerals, etc.)
But if that is true, it is also true that Science has limits. So the March of Progress, idolized by the Times/Time editors and scriveners--a natural outgrowth of the Darwinian philosophy--will eventually have to collide with the reality. Conveniently, Benedict XVI has mentioned the limits of Science a number of times. Not so conveniently for the Times (etc.,) they have ignored him, or have subtly reminded us that he is just an old European guy in a big hat without particular competence in such things.
Well, folks, either there is, or there is NOT, "unlimited progress" (and its Republican companion, unlimited wealth.)
Common-sense folks live as though there are limits, because there are--to resources as well as to Progress.
What's YOUR Cost-of-Fuel?
Think $100/week for gasoline is a problem?
"American Airlines' annual expenses are increasing at a rate of about $1 million per hour because of out-of-control fuel costs", estimates analyst Kevin Crissey of UBS.
Whooohah, Batman.
HT: Deneen
"American Airlines' annual expenses are increasing at a rate of about $1 million per hour because of out-of-control fuel costs", estimates analyst Kevin Crissey of UBS.
Whooohah, Batman.
HT: Deneen
The Park Police Are Looking Stupider...
Some of you recall that the Park Police were the ones who created a SNAFU on discovering the body of Vince.......ah, well. That's ancient history, right?
So to make up for it, they're making idiots of themselves again!! (Original story here.)
...a uniformed Park Police officer recently paid a visit to the home of Brooke Oberwetter, the Jefferson Memorial dancer arrested last weekend (there were several other people there at the time).
They’re apparently now adding a second charge of “demonstrating without a permit,” and they’re bumping her case from D.C. court to federal court. They’re also expunging the arrest from her record.
The combox sheds a bit of light on the matter:
...no permit can be issued for a demonstration at the Memorial, and it sounds like the Park Police are interpreting this as prohibiting demonstrations under 25 people as well. The “interfering with agency function” charge is basically failure to obey a lawful order. Oberwetter needs to take this to trial and argue that this was either not a demonstration, or that 36 CFR 7.96 doesn’t apply because the gathering was under 25 people.
This is a case of the Park Police jumping the shark, plain and simple.
So to make up for it, they're making idiots of themselves again!! (Original story here.)
...a uniformed Park Police officer recently paid a visit to the home of Brooke Oberwetter, the Jefferson Memorial dancer arrested last weekend (there were several other people there at the time).
They’re apparently now adding a second charge of “demonstrating without a permit,” and they’re bumping her case from D.C. court to federal court. They’re also expunging the arrest from her record.
The combox sheds a bit of light on the matter:
...no permit can be issued for a demonstration at the Memorial, and it sounds like the Park Police are interpreting this as prohibiting demonstrations under 25 people as well. The “interfering with agency function” charge is basically failure to obey a lawful order. Oberwetter needs to take this to trial and argue that this was either not a demonstration, or that 36 CFR 7.96 doesn’t apply because the gathering was under 25 people.
This is a case of the Park Police jumping the shark, plain and simple.
"Global Warming"--Another Lie
So what about that UN 'declaration' on Global Warming?
It really, really, really smells bad.
Lopez: What Denier fact could be characterized as most inconvenient for Al Gore?
Solomon: The claim that there is a consensus on climate change. This claim is based on the media’s often repeated claim that the 2000 to 2500 scientists associated with the UN’s panel endorsed the U.N.’s report.
In fact, as the Secretariat of the UN panel told me, those 2500 scientists are merely reviewers of some of the hundreds of input studies that went into the mix. They endorsed nothing. There is no consensus and there never has been.
Lopez: But still, the U.N.’s work was peer reviewed, even if some of the peer reviewers disagreed.
Solomon: No, the science in the U.N. reports was not peer reviewed, as it is usually understood. As some of my deniers point out in proper scientific peer reviews the identities of the peer reviewers are kept secret, so that they can be free to make critical comments about the science without fear of recrimination. In the U.N.’s peer review, the reviewers must identify themselves to the scientists they are critiquing, discouraging many from expressing themselves frankly. It gets worse than that, though.
In a normal peer-review process, the critiques from the reviewers are public. If a scientist decides to reject a critique, he must justify his refusal. In the U.N. peer-review process, the system is turned on its head. The scientists don’t need to explain themselves. They can ignore the criticisms and no one will be able to assess if the criticism was rejected for a valid reason. The U.N.’s version of peer review does not meet the standard of professional science.
Oh, well. Maybe the faux-Republican candidate will read this and reverse.
Then again, maybe not.
HT: VoxDay
It really, really, really smells bad.
Lopez: What Denier fact could be characterized as most inconvenient for Al Gore?
Solomon: The claim that there is a consensus on climate change. This claim is based on the media’s often repeated claim that the 2000 to 2500 scientists associated with the UN’s panel endorsed the U.N.’s report.
In fact, as the Secretariat of the UN panel told me, those 2500 scientists are merely reviewers of some of the hundreds of input studies that went into the mix. They endorsed nothing. There is no consensus and there never has been.
Lopez: But still, the U.N.’s work was peer reviewed, even if some of the peer reviewers disagreed.
Solomon: No, the science in the U.N. reports was not peer reviewed, as it is usually understood. As some of my deniers point out in proper scientific peer reviews the identities of the peer reviewers are kept secret, so that they can be free to make critical comments about the science without fear of recrimination. In the U.N.’s peer review, the reviewers must identify themselves to the scientists they are critiquing, discouraging many from expressing themselves frankly. It gets worse than that, though.
In a normal peer-review process, the critiques from the reviewers are public. If a scientist decides to reject a critique, he must justify his refusal. In the U.N. peer-review process, the system is turned on its head. The scientists don’t need to explain themselves. They can ignore the criticisms and no one will be able to assess if the criticism was rejected for a valid reason. The U.N.’s version of peer review does not meet the standard of professional science.
Oh, well. Maybe the faux-Republican candidate will read this and reverse.
Then again, maybe not.
HT: VoxDay
EBITDA: A Fraud
Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization: EBITDA.
The hot ticket promoted by the now-dead-and-disgraced Arthur Anderson accounting firm.
After Enron, the acronym became a parody: Earnings Before Indictment, Trial, Disposition and Ass-in-jail...
It was also a great way to earn a bonus--if your bonus was based on EBITDA (which, of course, Arthur recommended.)
Here's how that went down at Enron (but they are merely an icon...)
Conspiracy of Fools chronicles one of the discussions about EBITDA among Enron senior managers. One guy pointed out to Rebecca Mark, a Harvard Business School graduate star of the company, that EBITDA was meaningless because one could improve EBITDA simply by borrowing money at 10 percent and investing it in T-Bills at 5 percent and that was essentially what Mark was doing. She was borrowing money at X% to purchase businesses that would return no more than (X-4)% in a best-case scenario.
IOW, what counted was "earnings," regardless of interest expense to achieve those "earnings." You could literally take the Company into BK while showing an outstanding EBITDA.
Wonder why Arthur Anderson is dead?
Wonder no more.
HT: Tom McMahon
The hot ticket promoted by the now-dead-and-disgraced Arthur Anderson accounting firm.
After Enron, the acronym became a parody: Earnings Before Indictment, Trial, Disposition and Ass-in-jail...
It was also a great way to earn a bonus--if your bonus was based on EBITDA (which, of course, Arthur recommended.)
Here's how that went down at Enron (but they are merely an icon...)
Conspiracy of Fools chronicles one of the discussions about EBITDA among Enron senior managers. One guy pointed out to Rebecca Mark, a Harvard Business School graduate star of the company, that EBITDA was meaningless because one could improve EBITDA simply by borrowing money at 10 percent and investing it in T-Bills at 5 percent and that was essentially what Mark was doing. She was borrowing money at X% to purchase businesses that would return no more than (X-4)% in a best-case scenario.
IOW, what counted was "earnings," regardless of interest expense to achieve those "earnings." You could literally take the Company into BK while showing an outstanding EBITDA.
Wonder why Arthur Anderson is dead?
Wonder no more.
HT: Tom McMahon
Monday, April 21, 2008
B-16's "Church Windows"--the Source
The valuable Fr. Z. knows the work and quotes for us the passages (set in context also worth reading.) This is the reference Benedict XVI made in his sermon at St Patrick's.
These were the painted windows; and as often as he gazed at them the sculptor blessed the medieval time, and its gorgeous contrivances of splendor; for surely the skill of man has never accomplished, nor his mind imagined, any other beauty or glory worthy to be compared with these.
It is the special excellence of pictured glass, that the light, which falls merely on the outside of other pictures, is here interfused throughout the work; it illuminates the design, and invests it with a living radiance; and in requital the unfading colors transmute the common daylight into a miracle of richness and glory in its passage through the heavenly substance of the blessed and angelic shapes which throng the high-arched window.
And, as the Pope mentioned, it's very different when looking from the outside.
The friends left the church, and looking up, from the exterior, at the window which they had just been contemplating within, nothing was visible but the merest outline of dusky shapes. Neither the individual likeness of saint, angel, nor Saviour and far less the combined scheme and purport of the picture, could anywise be made out. That miracle of radiant art, thus viewed, was nothing better than an incomprehensible obscurity, without a gleam of beauty to induce the beholder to attempt unravelling it.
"All this," thought the sculptor, "is a most forcible emblem of the different aspect of religious truth and sacred story, as viewed from the warm interior of belief, or from its cold and dreary outside. Christian faith is a grand cathedral, with divinely pictured windows. Standing without, you see no glory, nor can possibly imagine any; standing within, every ray of light reveals a harmony of unspeakable splendors."
Those passages from Nathaniel Hawthorne's book The Marble Faun, which describes the American author's trip through Italy.
There's a lot more of the pertinent passage at the link, and worth reading--particularly the brief passage on 'darkness.'
These were the painted windows; and as often as he gazed at them the sculptor blessed the medieval time, and its gorgeous contrivances of splendor; for surely the skill of man has never accomplished, nor his mind imagined, any other beauty or glory worthy to be compared with these.
It is the special excellence of pictured glass, that the light, which falls merely on the outside of other pictures, is here interfused throughout the work; it illuminates the design, and invests it with a living radiance; and in requital the unfading colors transmute the common daylight into a miracle of richness and glory in its passage through the heavenly substance of the blessed and angelic shapes which throng the high-arched window.
And, as the Pope mentioned, it's very different when looking from the outside.
The friends left the church, and looking up, from the exterior, at the window which they had just been contemplating within, nothing was visible but the merest outline of dusky shapes. Neither the individual likeness of saint, angel, nor Saviour and far less the combined scheme and purport of the picture, could anywise be made out. That miracle of radiant art, thus viewed, was nothing better than an incomprehensible obscurity, without a gleam of beauty to induce the beholder to attempt unravelling it.
"All this," thought the sculptor, "is a most forcible emblem of the different aspect of religious truth and sacred story, as viewed from the warm interior of belief, or from its cold and dreary outside. Christian faith is a grand cathedral, with divinely pictured windows. Standing without, you see no glory, nor can possibly imagine any; standing within, every ray of light reveals a harmony of unspeakable splendors."
Those passages from Nathaniel Hawthorne's book The Marble Faun, which describes the American author's trip through Italy.
There's a lot more of the pertinent passage at the link, and worth reading--particularly the brief passage on 'darkness.'
The Pope's Ecumenical Address
One of Milwaukee's Bishops was present for this address, but curiously failed to mention exactly what the Pope said.
Well, fortunately, we have a report from Chiesa on the visit.
During this meeting, at the end of the Liturgy of the Word, Benedict XVI addressed to those present a discourse that was absolutely out of the ordinary for such a gathering. Even more, it was highly original with respect to the previous statements by pope Joseph Ratzinger on the topic of the ecumenism.
The thesis of Benedict XVI is that Christianity is so divided both because of a mutual rivalry expressed in "prophetic actions" that tend to distinguish and divide the communities from "communion with the Church in every age," and because of "a relativistic approach to Christian doctrine similar to that found in secular ideologies."
So instead of preaching Jesus Christ "and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2) – meaning the "objective truth" of the apostolic faith – many Christians of the various denominations prefer to urge each one to follow his own conscience and choose the community that best meets his personal tastes.
Hmmmm.
In the judgment of Benedict XVI, this reluctance to assert the centrality of doctrine "for fear that it would only exacerbate rather than heal the wounds of division" is also present within the ecumenical movement.
(That may be the reason for ....reluctance...in relaying the Pope's message....)
On the contrary, this is the appeal of the pope: "Only by 'holding fast' to sound teaching (2 Thess 2:15; cf. Rev 2:12-29) will we be able to respond to the challenges that confront us in an evolving world. Only in this way will we give unambiguous testimony to the truth of the Gospel and its moral teaching. This is the message which the world is waiting to hear from us."
A direct quote from his address:
My dear friends, the power of the kerygma has lost none of its internal dynamism. Yet we must ask ourselves whether its full force has not been attenuated by a relativistic approach to Christian doctrine similar to that found in secular ideologies, which, in alleging that science alone is "objective", relegate religion entirely to the subjective sphere of individual feeling. Scientific discoveries, and their application through human ingenuity, undoubtedly offer new possibilities for the betterment of humankind. This does not mean, however, that the "knowable" is limited to the empirically verifiable, nor religion restricted to the shifting realm of "personal experience". For Christians to accept this faulty line of reasoning would lead to the notion that there is little need to emphasize objective truth in the presentation of the Christian faith, for one need but follow his or her own conscience and choose a community that best suits his or her individual tastes. The result is seen in the continual proliferation of communities which often eschew institutional structures and minimize the importance of doctrinal content for Christian living
Translation: don't pussyfoot around. Either what was revealed IS or is NOT true. There will be no "unity" by departing from the Word...
Well, fortunately, we have a report from Chiesa on the visit.
During this meeting, at the end of the Liturgy of the Word, Benedict XVI addressed to those present a discourse that was absolutely out of the ordinary for such a gathering. Even more, it was highly original with respect to the previous statements by pope Joseph Ratzinger on the topic of the ecumenism.
The thesis of Benedict XVI is that Christianity is so divided both because of a mutual rivalry expressed in "prophetic actions" that tend to distinguish and divide the communities from "communion with the Church in every age," and because of "a relativistic approach to Christian doctrine similar to that found in secular ideologies."
So instead of preaching Jesus Christ "and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2) – meaning the "objective truth" of the apostolic faith – many Christians of the various denominations prefer to urge each one to follow his own conscience and choose the community that best meets his personal tastes.
Hmmmm.
In the judgment of Benedict XVI, this reluctance to assert the centrality of doctrine "for fear that it would only exacerbate rather than heal the wounds of division" is also present within the ecumenical movement.
(That may be the reason for ....reluctance...in relaying the Pope's message....)
On the contrary, this is the appeal of the pope: "Only by 'holding fast' to sound teaching (2 Thess 2:15; cf. Rev 2:12-29) will we be able to respond to the challenges that confront us in an evolving world. Only in this way will we give unambiguous testimony to the truth of the Gospel and its moral teaching. This is the message which the world is waiting to hear from us."
A direct quote from his address:
My dear friends, the power of the kerygma has lost none of its internal dynamism. Yet we must ask ourselves whether its full force has not been attenuated by a relativistic approach to Christian doctrine similar to that found in secular ideologies, which, in alleging that science alone is "objective", relegate religion entirely to the subjective sphere of individual feeling. Scientific discoveries, and their application through human ingenuity, undoubtedly offer new possibilities for the betterment of humankind. This does not mean, however, that the "knowable" is limited to the empirically verifiable, nor religion restricted to the shifting realm of "personal experience". For Christians to accept this faulty line of reasoning would lead to the notion that there is little need to emphasize objective truth in the presentation of the Christian faith, for one need but follow his or her own conscience and choose a community that best suits his or her individual tastes. The result is seen in the continual proliferation of communities which often eschew institutional structures and minimize the importance of doctrinal content for Christian living
Translation: don't pussyfoot around. Either what was revealed IS or is NOT true. There will be no "unity" by departing from the Word...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
