It's been an interesting week. The Gulf oil spill remains staunched and a more permanent fix may be near. In related news, former BP chief Tony Hayward is receiving his wish about getting his life back. He's currently even casting himself as the victim. See the Wall Street Journal on this here.
Ag Department official Shirley Sherrod's image went from racist to lightning rod to wronged party to hero in the span of three days. News now is she is planning to sue right wing blogger Andrew Breitbart for intentionally and falsely maligning her by doctoring that speech of hers to the NAACP many years ago. See Breitbart defending himself on Fox News here. It'd be fun to see the would-be character assassin get what he deserves in court. I wouldn't bet on it, though.
Private First Class Bradley Manning is being held in Quantico, Virginia on charges of leaking classified material. He may well be the primary suspect in the 92,000 pages of Afghanistan War reports recently sent to WikiLeaks. The Washington Post reports evidence this young man was a rather troubled fellow already, having already been busted down in rank. Liberal sources are making much hay over the numerous references to heavy civilian loss of life there as a result US and coalition action and pointing to that and the hushing it up as causative of the ongoing conflict there. Conservatives rage about the leak of classified materials they fear will help insurgents in the war. Both are right to be upset. I'm disturbed that one 22-year-old PFC has access to so much of that kind of information. Who the hell is in charge of security over there?
The performance of GM and Chrysler is vindicating the Obama Administration's decision to extend them stopgap loans over a year ago. Both have returned to profitability and GM has paid its back four years ahead of schedule. If the Republicans had had their way both companies would now be defunct and another 400,000 workers in the two corporations and their suppliers would now almost certainly be unemployed. Good move.
Meanwhile, the slow recovery continues. The second quarter GDP grew at an annualized rate of 2.4%. The pundits are painting this negatively because a higher rate was widely forecast. Still, given where we have come from, another quarter of positive growth is, well, positive. If an economy were to grow at 2.4% every year its overall output would double in less than 30 years. Revised figures also point to a worse recession than previously thought. CBS News reported the economy contracted 2.6% from the last quarter of '08 through the middle of '09. Expect to see better job growth return fairly soon. Soon enough to help the Dems in November's midterms? We'll see. A lot of that depends on whether the media reports the glass half empty or half full.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
July 20, 1969: One Giant Leap
Forty-one years ago my family and I sat transfixed before our television set and watched history being made. On July 20, 1969 we saw Neil Armstrong, garbed in a bulky protective suit, descend a short ladder and become the first human to set foot on an alien world. "That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind," he memorably stated.
Goose bumps caused the hair on my fourteen-year-old arms to stand on end. Even at that age I was clearly aware I was witnessing an event of epochal importance. People had dreamed of such a moment since the dawn of human consciousness. It was potentially every bit as significant as Columbus making landfall in the West Indies.
President Kennedy had electrified and mobilized the nation in 1962 by setting a moon landing as a national goal. "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win." See Kennedy's entire speech here.
Three quarters of a million Americans were involved in the space program at its height. We were inspired because we are adventurers and explorers at heart. Our more distant forebears explored and settled these continents; our more recent ones gave up kin and country to strike out on their own in search of new opportunity. We were inspired because we love a challenge, and the tougher the better. We were inspired because we love competition. The rival superpower, the Soviet Union, had beaten us off the mark into space and we were not to be outdone, not by anyone, and especially not by them. In those days, with triumph over the Great Depression and victory in World War II still fresh in the memories of all Americans over 30 and that can-do attitude imbued into us, their offspring, there was no doubt in anyone's mind we could accomplish anything we set out to do.
America embraced NASA and the space program for a number of reasons: national pride, scientific curiosity, Cold War one-upsmanship and pioneer spirit among them. It made little difference that a prime unnamed reason was to develop heavy-thrust intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear Armageddon on Soviet Russia should that prove necessary.
As a spinoff dividend, the scientific advances needed to reach the moon buttressed America's economy and defense technology and kept them foremost in the world for decades to come. These included the computer revolution and major breakthroughs in communications, avionics, metallurgy, plastics, miniaturization, nutrition, optics, electronics and physics, just to name a few.
Besides being a thrilling human adventure, putting Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon stood also as a supreme national achievement. It showed the kind of relentlessly awesome competence of which a resolute, motivated and unified United States of America is capable. I will remember it with pride for the rest of my life.
Goose bumps caused the hair on my fourteen-year-old arms to stand on end. Even at that age I was clearly aware I was witnessing an event of epochal importance. People had dreamed of such a moment since the dawn of human consciousness. It was potentially every bit as significant as Columbus making landfall in the West Indies.
President Kennedy had electrified and mobilized the nation in 1962 by setting a moon landing as a national goal. "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win." See Kennedy's entire speech here.
Three quarters of a million Americans were involved in the space program at its height. We were inspired because we are adventurers and explorers at heart. Our more distant forebears explored and settled these continents; our more recent ones gave up kin and country to strike out on their own in search of new opportunity. We were inspired because we love a challenge, and the tougher the better. We were inspired because we love competition. The rival superpower, the Soviet Union, had beaten us off the mark into space and we were not to be outdone, not by anyone, and especially not by them. In those days, with triumph over the Great Depression and victory in World War II still fresh in the memories of all Americans over 30 and that can-do attitude imbued into us, their offspring, there was no doubt in anyone's mind we could accomplish anything we set out to do.
America embraced NASA and the space program for a number of reasons: national pride, scientific curiosity, Cold War one-upsmanship and pioneer spirit among them. It made little difference that a prime unnamed reason was to develop heavy-thrust intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear Armageddon on Soviet Russia should that prove necessary.
As a spinoff dividend, the scientific advances needed to reach the moon buttressed America's economy and defense technology and kept them foremost in the world for decades to come. These included the computer revolution and major breakthroughs in communications, avionics, metallurgy, plastics, miniaturization, nutrition, optics, electronics and physics, just to name a few.
Besides being a thrilling human adventure, putting Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon stood also as a supreme national achievement. It showed the kind of relentlessly awesome competence of which a resolute, motivated and unified United States of America is capable. I will remember it with pride for the rest of my life.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Trip to Oregon
My wife and I have been on vacation since the sixth and got back home yesterday. We went north to Oregon to try to avoid some of the San Joaquin Valley heat for ten days. We did run into some temperatures over ninety in Ashland but most of the trip was pretty comfortable.
We started in Ashland, home of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. We actually stayed in a very nice bed and breakfast in Medford called Under the Greenwood Tree, about ten miles up the road. The prices there are a lot lower than in Ashland itself. The first play we saw there was "The Merchant of Venice," Shakespeare's intense study of revenge and intolerance. We next took in a production of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" that was very funny. Our final performance was a musical, "She Loves Me." This entertaining musical debuted on Broadway in 1963. It's based on the story "Parfumerie" from the 1930's by Miklas Laszlo that was remade into the 1940 Jimmy Stewart movie "Little Shop on the Corner" and more recently the Tom Hanks-Meg Ryan film "You've Got Mail."
As a postscript, if you ever go to Ashland you really must spend a little time in Lithia Park. It's right downtown next to the three Festival theaters and has wonderful trails that follow Ashland Creek through the woods. Between plays we kept cool by dangling our feet in the snow fed creek. Also nearby is historic Jacksonville. It's worth a visit for its pioneer buildings and annual musical Britt Festival. If you're interested in a gourmet dinner you might try the Jacksonville Inn. Very good!
We next visited some friends in Albany, just south of the state capital of Salem. While there we all went over to the coast to Newport to see the Yaquina Head Lighthouse and the Oregon Coast Aquarium, which was surprisingly good. Particularly effective was a glass tube you can walk through to see the sharks swimming around you on all sides. Next day we took in the Oregon capitol building. You can see some pictures here. The "Golden Man" on top was so bright up close we could hardly look at it directly. They have a part time legislature that only meets every other year unless called into special session.
We spent the last three days in Oregon at a cabin at the Cedarwood Lodge on the McKenzie River, about 45 miles east of Eugene. This remote location was good for some peace and quiet in the beautiful forest. Mike, the proprietor, is a joy. The McKenzie is a great trout stream and nearby there are good hikes to waterfalls, a hot spring, a nice golf course and the road up to breathtaking views of the Cascades. It is remarkable how volcanic the Cascade Range is. Lava fields and volcanic cones are everywhere evident. At night, far from city lights, thousands of stars glistened like jewels spread across black satin. This was a great getaway.
We started in Ashland, home of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. We actually stayed in a very nice bed and breakfast in Medford called Under the Greenwood Tree, about ten miles up the road. The prices there are a lot lower than in Ashland itself. The first play we saw there was "The Merchant of Venice," Shakespeare's intense study of revenge and intolerance. We next took in a production of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" that was very funny. Our final performance was a musical, "She Loves Me." This entertaining musical debuted on Broadway in 1963. It's based on the story "Parfumerie" from the 1930's by Miklas Laszlo that was remade into the 1940 Jimmy Stewart movie "Little Shop on the Corner" and more recently the Tom Hanks-Meg Ryan film "You've Got Mail."
As a postscript, if you ever go to Ashland you really must spend a little time in Lithia Park. It's right downtown next to the three Festival theaters and has wonderful trails that follow Ashland Creek through the woods. Between plays we kept cool by dangling our feet in the snow fed creek. Also nearby is historic Jacksonville. It's worth a visit for its pioneer buildings and annual musical Britt Festival. If you're interested in a gourmet dinner you might try the Jacksonville Inn. Very good!
We next visited some friends in Albany, just south of the state capital of Salem. While there we all went over to the coast to Newport to see the Yaquina Head Lighthouse and the Oregon Coast Aquarium, which was surprisingly good. Particularly effective was a glass tube you can walk through to see the sharks swimming around you on all sides. Next day we took in the Oregon capitol building. You can see some pictures here. The "Golden Man" on top was so bright up close we could hardly look at it directly. They have a part time legislature that only meets every other year unless called into special session.
We spent the last three days in Oregon at a cabin at the Cedarwood Lodge on the McKenzie River, about 45 miles east of Eugene. This remote location was good for some peace and quiet in the beautiful forest. Mike, the proprietor, is a joy. The McKenzie is a great trout stream and nearby there are good hikes to waterfalls, a hot spring, a nice golf course and the road up to breathtaking views of the Cascades. It is remarkable how volcanic the Cascade Range is. Lava fields and volcanic cones are everywhere evident. At night, far from city lights, thousands of stars glistened like jewels spread across black satin. This was a great getaway.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Why Won't Conservatives Accept Global Warming?
I have been mystified by the resistance of many conservatives to the scientific consensus on global warming. The data is overwhelming that the overall temperature of the earth is rising and the climate scientists are nearly unanimous in concluding that humans' putting so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is the primary cause of it. I've been at a loss to understand why intelligent people who do not argue with the idea that they need to cut down on cholesterol to reduce their chances of heart disease become apoplectic to the point of hostility when the atmospheric facts of life are presented to them.
You see, liberals do not regard this as a political issue but a scientific one. You either accept science and reason or you don't. If you don't that puts you in the same category as witch doctors and astrologists, that is, without any credibility. Yet the numbers indicate something else is at work here. 90% of Democrats believe in human-caused temperature rise but only 30% of Republicans do. Why the difference by ideology?
I suspect the Republican reluctance to accept the findings is indeed based in ideology, and the ideology of limited government. In the cholesterol example I gave earlier, the individual can do something decisive about the problem. But the planetary climate change problem would take massive international action and include requirements and mandates on all kinds of products, processes and activities. And that is precisely the kind of approach modern American conservatives hate. I feel that lies at the heart of conservative resistance to science on this one.
You see, liberals do not regard this as a political issue but a scientific one. You either accept science and reason or you don't. If you don't that puts you in the same category as witch doctors and astrologists, that is, without any credibility. Yet the numbers indicate something else is at work here. 90% of Democrats believe in human-caused temperature rise but only 30% of Republicans do. Why the difference by ideology?
I suspect the Republican reluctance to accept the findings is indeed based in ideology, and the ideology of limited government. In the cholesterol example I gave earlier, the individual can do something decisive about the problem. But the planetary climate change problem would take massive international action and include requirements and mandates on all kinds of products, processes and activities. And that is precisely the kind of approach modern American conservatives hate. I feel that lies at the heart of conservative resistance to science on this one.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Re-Examining Afghanistan
The dismissal of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his replacement by the celebrated Gen. David Petraeus has engendered not only discussion about whether his counterinsurgency efforts will be more effective, but whether our intervention in Afghanistan should be continued at all. There are many persuasive considerations that point to the conclusion that it should not. Let's take a look at the rationales behind our continued presence there.
The first is to fight terrorism, specifically the Al Qaeda organization that masterminded the 9/11 attacks back in 2001. Yet CIA Director Leon Panetta reports there are only an estimated 50-100 Al Qaeda operatives in the country. There are very few terrorists there. 100,000 troops to look for less than 100 enemies? For nine years? It is thought the Al Qaeda leadership is across the border in Pakistan, where they are by the same intelligence estimates thought to number less than 300. The whole cadre is estimated to be fewer than 500 in the entire Middle East. Trying to defeat them with a large army in one country is futile. They simply disperse and set up shop somewhere else. They are in Pakistan, but also Yemen, Somalia and various other places. They are much more a law enforcement than a military problem.
The second is to support the "legitimate" Afghan government. Yet by all accounts President Hamid Karzai stole the 2009 election that kept him in power. His brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is reputed to be one of the biggest opium dealers and influence peddlers in the country. Others in Karzai's ruling coalition circle are similarly unsavory, including the notorious Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum. Are these the kinds of people to win the allegiance of the Afghan people or to send young Americans to die for?
A third justification given is to keep the Taliban out of power. Mindful of what he may need to do to stay in power once his foreign props are gone, Hamid Karzai has been making increasingly explicit overtures to coming to a modus vivendi with those selfsame Taliban. It appears likely they will enter the coalition soon anyway. Fighting to stave that off for a couple of more years hardly seems worth the cost. And speaking of cost, how long can the U.S. continue to spend $100 to $130 billion at a time of economic recession and deficit at home?
In short, the enemy is no longer there, the government is not worth fighting for and we cannot afford the expense. It is time to begin winding down this rather pointless and tragically costly exercise. The July, 2011 target date for beginning a withdrawal is none too soon.
The first is to fight terrorism, specifically the Al Qaeda organization that masterminded the 9/11 attacks back in 2001. Yet CIA Director Leon Panetta reports there are only an estimated 50-100 Al Qaeda operatives in the country. There are very few terrorists there. 100,000 troops to look for less than 100 enemies? For nine years? It is thought the Al Qaeda leadership is across the border in Pakistan, where they are by the same intelligence estimates thought to number less than 300. The whole cadre is estimated to be fewer than 500 in the entire Middle East. Trying to defeat them with a large army in one country is futile. They simply disperse and set up shop somewhere else. They are in Pakistan, but also Yemen, Somalia and various other places. They are much more a law enforcement than a military problem.
The second is to support the "legitimate" Afghan government. Yet by all accounts President Hamid Karzai stole the 2009 election that kept him in power. His brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is reputed to be one of the biggest opium dealers and influence peddlers in the country. Others in Karzai's ruling coalition circle are similarly unsavory, including the notorious Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum. Are these the kinds of people to win the allegiance of the Afghan people or to send young Americans to die for?
A third justification given is to keep the Taliban out of power. Mindful of what he may need to do to stay in power once his foreign props are gone, Hamid Karzai has been making increasingly explicit overtures to coming to a modus vivendi with those selfsame Taliban. It appears likely they will enter the coalition soon anyway. Fighting to stave that off for a couple of more years hardly seems worth the cost. And speaking of cost, how long can the U.S. continue to spend $100 to $130 billion at a time of economic recession and deficit at home?
In short, the enemy is no longer there, the government is not worth fighting for and we cannot afford the expense. It is time to begin winding down this rather pointless and tragically costly exercise. The July, 2011 target date for beginning a withdrawal is none too soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)