« National Issues - connecting the factors that affect us (Addended) | Main | Spreading the Non-existent Wealth »

14 August 2012

Comments

TomKenworth

Unfortunately, in the fights between the Koolaid Kings, it's the little guy that gets drowned. Now there's an idea for a non functional business... a Koolaid stand outside a polling place.

TomKenworth

Despite the fact that no further advancements will ever be made in solar panel technology, existing such technology is good enough to power up a platform full of devices that keep improving weekly. Here one to keep an eye on, or rather, one that will keep its eyes, and other sensors, on you.

http://endthelie.com/2012/08/13/silent-falcon-the-new-long-distance-solar-powered-electric-surveillance-drone/#ixzz23XeVkD4e

TomKenworth

So if you are serious about taking part in the 2nd American Revolution, it would seem clever to buy only guns that can handle that sized ammo.

Russ Steele

UPDATE, 1:07 p.m.: NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen emailed the following statement, clarifying the ammunition order is for fisheries law enforcement:

Due to a clerical error in the federal business vendor process, a solicitation for ammunition and targets for the NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement mistakenly identified NOAA’s National Weather Service as the requesting office. The error is being fixed and will soon appear correctly in the electronic federal bidding system. The ammunition is standard issue for many law enforcement agencies and it will be used by 63 NOAA enforcement agents in their twice annual target qualifications and training.

==============
Why target practice with hollow point, rather than wad cutters?

George Rebane

RussS 120pm - thanks for that update Russ; I will note it in my post.

"Why target practice with hollow point, rather than wad cutters?" In case the target fights back.

TomKenworth

So they fire of 350 rounds or so, each, twice a year. That sounds reasonable, but I think more frequent practice would make better sense.

TomKenworth

""Why target practice with hollow point, rather than wad cutters?"" These are govmint employees, and God forbid they go back in service with their guns still loaded with wad cutters. Oooops!

Russ Steele

Craig Miller at KQED Climate Watch on the Governor's Climate Change website:


I asked Brown spokeswoman Elizabeth Ashford who actually wrote the copy for the site. She told me that it was authored by “staff” at the Governor’s Office of Planning & Research, in consultation with climate scientists and several state agencies. She said it’s been in the works for about six months.

Asked if there was some precipitating event for the site, Ashford said only that the Governor was, “aware that there continues to be an undercurrent of mistrust of the science,” that he wanted to address. The site breaks no new ground. Portions reflect the writings of social scientists like Naomi Oreskes, who have sought to document efforts by entrenched industrial interests to cast doubt on the science . . .

TomKenworth

Usually both Russ and George provide links, but I guess they got too excited:

http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_climatechangefacts.php

TomKenworth

If you wanted to find a conspiracy on the Fish cops' gun and ammo, further digging might reveal that they actually all go to local ranges, on their own schedule, and are fully reimbursed for all ammo, and that the rounds ordered, are being stockpiled, "just in case."

George Rebane

TomK 219pm - thanks for the link. We note that the publishing of such 'facts' as uncontested and incontrovertible truths is at the center of the skeptical response to AGW which long ago departed science for the more truth-tolerant shores of politics.

billy T

My eyes are still on Japan, the 2nd largest economy in the world. China slipping into a 6% GDP growth rate is akin to a recession there. I still hold to the idea that Germany should bail from the Euro and save itself. 2 months ago, 38% of the Germans polled agreed with me. Today that figure continues to go up. We all know Greece is like the unemployable drug addict brother-in-law sitting on the couch month after month eating up all the food while the adults are at work. Earlier this year Toyota announced raising prices on cars here. You know the Japanese are super competitive SOBs and would rather eat their own than sell one less car. Toyota's reason stated was the first time they ever used for the price increase: The value of the dollar. The USA is still the cleanest shirt in the dirty laundry bin. The Obama 30% cut in the payroll tax (from 6% to 4%) was passed to make up for rising gas prices, per the White House. Great. That will help fund Medicare. I took that 2% and directed the pesos into a Roth. Rather pay now than pay later. German short term bonds dipped below zero% earlier. CDs are a waste of time. So, I was wondering where Buffet was parking money. Ok, no more scattershots from me. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffetts-berkshire-slashes-stock-holdings-204257365.html

George Rebane

billyT 248pm - thanks for the good points, don't put your scatter gun away. I've added a link to The Economist's take on the European crisis and Germany's options. An excellent read.

TomKenworth

Looks like Warren is expecting big things in advertising to the masses, or is that propagandizing to the masses, especially since the USA govmint can legally lie to its own citizens in the name of name of national security. Not at all sure we won't just drop sat tv altogether and work with over the air plus the Internet.

Paul Emery

Yes indeed the Government can lie in the name of security. Many subscribers to this blog granted the Bush Administration the right to do that in the lead up to and conduct of the war in Iraq.

Paul Emery

Yes, the wheels are off the Repubs blaming Obama for our economic state. This is from noted conservative economist Bruce Bartlett

"The Republican economists nevertheless blame the medicine itself for the failure of the economy to respond to President Obama’s prescription.

But it was Republican policies during the Bush administration that brought on the sickness and Republicans in Congress who have denied the economy an adequate dosage of the cure. Now they want to implicitly blame President Obama for causing the recession and the failure of stimulus to fix the problem, asserting that fiscal stimulus is per se ineffective.

There is a word for this: chutzpah."

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/blaming-obama-for-george-w-bushs-policies/

Bruce Bartlett has spent many years in government, including service on the staffs of Representatives Ron Paul and Jack Kemp and Senator Roger Jepsen. He has been executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House, and deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department during the George H.W. Bush administration.

Russ Steele

Paul@06:06

It it the New York Time, not know for dispensing the truth! The root of the problem was the subprime loans and bankers forced by Congress to make them. It was a Democratic controlled congress that made those rule, not the Bush administration. Live with it!

George Rebane

PaulE 551pm - You've maintained for years that Bush2 lied to get us into the Gulf2 War. Yes, the WMD were not there as he and other world leaders had been briefed by their intelligence agencies - i.e. it was supposed to represent the best info we had at the time.

But a lie is a statement deliberately intended to mislead. I don't recall what evidence led you to adopt that longstanding assertion that "Bush lied." Do you happen to remember it?

Paul Emery

It's Bruce Bartlett, senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House who wrote the articles.

Russ, Despite the fact that the Republicans controlled the House and Senate from 1994 to 2008 with the exception of the Senate for two years (06-08) They also controlled the Presidency 20 out of 28 years from 1980-2008 you still blame the Democrats for he economic collapse. With that much control how do you explain your position that it was the Dems fault?

Paul Emery

George
You and I and others on this blog agreed that the real justification for the war in Iraq was to secure strategic resources. That was never mentioned as a primary reason to go to war when
bush made his case to the American people and Congress. Therefore Bush lied as to the real reasons to go to war.

George Rebane

PaulE 837pm - You do recall that ol' Gotta Pass It Before We Read It Pelosi was Speaker from 2006 to 2010. I don't think the Republican members voted for her.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

From your 841pm do I understand that there was no evidence that Bush lied, save your assessment that he did, based on some discussions with local worthies, me included, on their surmising the "real justification for the war"?

Paul Emery

Bush lied about the real reasons for the war. Do you really believe that control of strategic resources was the real reason? Can you show me where he told the Congress and the American people that it was? WMD's were a reasonable excuse not the real reason.

We did have lengthy discussions and you agreed that securing those resources would be a legitimate reason for the invasion.

"OK Paul, you can be left with any conclusion that gives you comfort. I have already stated that if Bush2 would have played according to my rules, then he would have led with the oil argument for invasion, and used any intel he had on WMD as a Lucky Strike extra to abet his decision.

If Libya's oil exports are judged to be in our national interest, I would want Obama to make that case and also lead with that justification for our involvement.

Both presidents seem to have decided to evade what to the world seems/seemed like the real reason for use of military force. And that always gets us blowing smoke about freedom, democracy, human rights, and a lot of other stuff that is ancillary, if that."

Posted by: George Rebane | 28 March 2011 at 12:05 PM

Here's more from George

George, here are a couple of your recent quotes.

"For that reason I would like to think that Bush2's better nature had a secure supply of world's oil in mind, instead of Iraqi freedom when he went after Saddam."

"It is not OK for the President to lie about the reason for going to war. As I have stated, the President should clearly state that our national policy is to promote our national interests, and this may call for us to commit our military."

George Rebane

PaulE 1039pm - You're defending a hill not attacked; I don't dispute my statements and stand by them. But you have to let your journalist's talents back in and return to your allegation - "Bush lied." - and my 741pm question about what evidence led you to that conclusion. All I'm saying is that that your allegation is supported only through your own reasoning using circumstantial items that Bush2 knew or should have known before the invasion after which no WMDs were found. That's OK, but in your continued repetition you make it sound as if there exists impeachable evidence that Bush2 lied. You can be sure that the Dem House of 2006 would have impeached his butt in a heartbeat (like the Repubs did with Holder) if there had been any substance to back that Bush2 lied.

Paul Emery

George

Can I make it any simpler that this. WMD's were not the reason for the war but it was the excuse.

Bush made a case for war based on the existence of WMD's. The real reason was strategic resources. The fact that he intentionally deceived the American Public and Congress makes that a lie. Pretty simple. Just like the Bay Tonkin was the lie that fueled the Viet Nam war.

Gregory

Paul, the WMD issue could have been diffused had Baathist Iraq complied with UN demands for them to help *prove* there were no remaining WMDs. They instead played a cat and mouse game with inspectors to try to keep their neighbors thinking they remained in their inventory while walking a fine line to try to keep the UN (with a number of UN officials and Security Council delegations tainted by the Oil for Palaces bribes) from backing a reinstatement of overt hostilities.

Desert Shield/Storm was the reaction to Iraq's takeover of Kuwait. The mistake the US made was getting involved in that one, not in our decision to stop ignoring Iraqi failures to follow any of the 17 UN mandates made under the authority of the cease fire agreement Iraq signed. Cease fire, not armistice. There was no peace treaty.

We were also in a technical state of war since Iraq continued to take potshots at US and British aircraft enforcing the no fly zone that kept the Baathists from taking out Kurds and Shia.

Paul Emery

Gregory

You are missing the point of my question. I am not referring to whether bush lied about WMD's. The truth is self evident on that. I'm referring as to whether he lied about the reason for the war. As George puts it " A lie is a statement deliberately intended to mislead." Did George Bush intentionally mislead the American people about the reasons for the war in Iraq. If he did then is it a lie?

George Rebane

PaulE 325pm - The disconnect in this thread is symptomatic with a lot of the discussions hereabouts. Gregory's 132pm explains the public information available for justifying Gulf2. What you are missing is the de juris requirements to indict Bush2 for lying to the American people. The analysis you present, no matter how many people agree with it, is not sufficient. Had it been, then Bush2 would have been impeached, and perhaps the post-occupation would have taken a different course.

As icing on my counter to you, Bush2 made the case to Congress which had and took every opportunity to vet the administration's conclusions. This was not a Pearl Harbor type urgency where no one had an opportunity to do due diligence on the presented casus belli.

Iraq was invaded in March 2003, eighteen months after 9/11 and after numberless deliberations, analyses, and resolutions by the UN and the various NATO countries. The preamble to the 2003 invasion of Iraq involves probably the most exhaustive and inclusive set of multi-national deliberations that have preceded any conflict in history. If there were any evidence of perfidy on the part of Bush2 during that period, then no one was able to detect it; and so it rested for the remainder of Bush2's term in office, and does to this day. There is no evidence, not even a smoking gun.

You have to climb down from your Pedestal of Truth, and acknowledge what the world knew when.

Gregory

First, please remember I was against ever getting involved militarily in the Gulf, even after Iraq invaded Kuwait. The fewer fiefdoms the better, and the Kuwaitis remain a nasty bunch.

"I am not referring to whether bush lied about WMD's. The truth is self evident on that."

Not really. Bush even challenged the conclusions given him by the Clinton appointee to head the CIA, George Tenet, who assured Bush "It's a slam dunk, Mr. President".

In short, being wrong is different than lying, and history would never have forgiven Bush had he decided not to fulfill official US policy (the Senate voted for 'regime change' and Clinton signed it). Even Hillary Clinton, in the Senate, spoke with clear conviction that the WMD's existed before Bush & Cheney started to clean house.

And no, I don't think Bush or Cheney mislead anyone on the reasons to restart the war in Iraq, WMDs were one of four reasons (iirc) that arguably met the requirements of international law, and while I personally think they erred greatly in focusing on WMDs and linking to an overall 'war on terror', the actual rhetoric was valid even in retrospect. They didn't start the war in Iraq, the Baathist regime did, in 1990. Bush 1 started it but didn't finish the job, and neither did Clinton.

Paul, I think you've completely forgotten the Oil for Food corruption of the UN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme#Beneficiaries

Paul Emery

What does "food for corruption" have to do with Bush deceiving the American people about the reasons for war? Another Bush justification for the war was to support the UN mandates. The trouble is the UN never asked us to do it.

Gregory

Not to support the UN Mandates, Paul. Because the Baathists did not follow any of them, and that was a condition of the cease fire.

The UN sat on its hands because it was the corruption that had them sitting still. Even Kofi Annan's son was on the take.

Here's one of the better pieces by the late and lamented Hitchens, on the well paid leftist apologist for Baathist Iraq, George Galloway, and Parliament's damning report on his actions:

"The "Oil for Food" program was the means by which the most vulnerable people in Iraq—the children, the sick, and the aged—were supposed to be protected from the effect of sanctions aimed at the regime. To have profited from its abuse or its diversion is therefore somewhat worse than to have accepted a straight-out bribe or inducement from Saddam Hussein. It is to have stolen directly from the neediest and the weakest, in order to finance a propaganda campaign that in turn blamed the West for the avoidable sufferings of Iraqis between 1991 and 2003.

The "anti-war" movement is not blameless in all this. When Galloway came to testify before the Senate and delivered a spittle-fueled harangue instead of answering the direct questions posed to him, he became a populist hero on the Left, was rewarded with a moist profile in the New York Times that praised his general feistiness, and was invited back to the United States to mount a speaking tour in which he repeated his general praise for the heroic "resistance" in Iraq, adding a few well-chosen words in support of the Assad regime in Syria. Praise was showered upon him in the Daily Kos, by columnists in The Nation, and elsewhere. Now we have the sober words of Sir Philip Mawer, the parliamentary commissioner for standards among elected members, who adds to the existing reports and evidence by saying that however much Galloway may have "prevaricated and fudged," the evidence against him is "now undeniable."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2007/07/the_galloway_papers.html

Hussein thought he'd bought off enough public figures to keep the UN from approving military action, and thought the US and Britain wouldn't take action without UN support. He was half right.

Paul Emery

Gregory

Sounds like you are trying to justify the war. I thought you didn't support it. The bottom line is we invaded a sovereign nation halfway around the world from us that posed no threat to our nation. OF course it was for strategic resources. How can you think otherwise? You have aroused the Libertarian in me.

billy T

The reply to all things great and small is Bush lied. Especially effective when backed into a corner and is the proper response to all topics discussed. And all this time I was thinking its all Monica's fault.

TomKenworth

The .01% and their lackeys in govmint have always lied, get used to it.

Set up a Koolaid booth just outside the voting areas this fall, non-denominational. Sell red Koolaid, and blue Koolaid, and predict the elections outcome before noon. For extra $$, I'd add in a shot of rye.

billy T

Tom, screw that red and blue Koolaid. Sell striaght shots of whiskey. Whiskey I tell ya, gimme whiskey.

Gregory

Paul, getting into the fray in 1990 was a bad idea, borne of US Realpolitik honed throughout the 20th century, but by international standards it was considered justified. It was wildly popular at the time with both Democrats and Republicans. Worse than getting into it was not finishing the bloody job, with Bush v.1 deferring to the UN to administer a cease fire that was thought would lead to Iraqis cleaning their own house over time. It didn't happen.

Baathist Iraq was sponsoring terrorism. The most visible was the public payments to 'martyrs' willing to blow themselves up if they'd take out a bunch of Israeli kids at the same time. One of the least reported was that Putin twice publicly declared, after the fact, that Russian intelligence had reported Iraqi plans to sponsor terrorism within the US, and that Russia passed this information to Bush & Cheney.

Imagine Bush's place in history if that had happened. Right now, the US would be much better off had we let the middle eastern states fight it out among themselves long ago, but that didn't happen.

Paul, a very lefty musician friend of mine who was proud to say he got most of his news from KVMR becase Corporations controlled the major media once told me that Bush wanted to invade Iraq because Saddam was for women's rights and universal healthcare. Where do you think people would get such ideas?

Paul Emery

That's a good one Gregory. I edit and select the news and don't recall such a story. Compared to our pals, the Saudi's, Iraq was a bastion of freedom and reform. How many Christian churches were there in Saudi Arabia for example.

Gregory

Paul, I'd heard some far out claims by some of the hosts circa 2002, and there was lots of similar bovine droppings at the hate filled so-called Peace Vigil at the Foundry that wasn't exactly KVMR, while being almost entirely KVMR participants.

Did he get the idea from someone with the VMR microphone, or did he like VMR because it didn't challenge his notions? In short, are VMR members just like their caricature of Fox News zombies, from a different political quadrant?

Paul Emery


Gregory
I can't speak for KVMR members. We are listener supported and have over 5000 members. KVMR has around 150 volunteer broadcasters who are given the highest latitude in their programming decisions. I was not news director in 2002 so I can't speak directly to your question. KVMR does not answer to corporate support so there is no comparison to FOX News. Do we have outspoken broadcasters? Sure. Have a listen sometime or better yet become a member. You can even join the program committee and assist with programming decisions. You won't have that opportunity on FOX for sure.

billy T

I listen to KVMR all the time. Love it, except those times they are messin' things up with their fundraisers. That's when I turn the dial for a couple of weeks. Besides that, KVMR plays some good blues and those lovely Celtic women sure can sing and fiddle. Love them Irish lullabyes, but they sure talk funny when they ain't singing or doing a jig.

TomKenworth

I think this sums up the current situation:

RepublicansNewPlanonAmerica

George Rebane

TomK 1137am - Love the way you are keeping things simple for the simple.

TomKenworth

While the current economic and governmental system form the financial ecology that we are all swimming in, and are probably far less complex than the interlocking ecosystems of the natural planet, they nonetheless supposedly defy understanding at any level much above micro-snatches of its potential workings. Anyone whoever really figures out a particular area within the realms of better than 50:50 probabilities, would be smart enough to keep said knowledge to themselves, for personal gains or political manipulations.

The comments to this entry are closed.