"While the Obama administration pushes the US toward the European model of social welfare, the model is falling apart under its own weight.
This excellent New York Times article (from a couple of months ago) mentions that the low birth rate in Europe is one of the reasons the welfare state is crumbling. What it doesn't say is that the welfare state is the principal cause of the low birth rate. Those pessimistic about the future don't produce children. Those who depend on the state to care for them in their senior years don't see a need for children. Those who have been told that life is not about work, but about relaxation and indulgence, don't want to be bothered and burdened by children. All the values of the European welfare state are upside down—no wonder it’s not working.
The US has not yet fallen to the depths that European policies have carried the Continent, but we're on the same path. As our welfare state has expanded, our birth rate has been dropping. The date of our demise is a bit further down that path, but the arithmetic is the same. Just because a politician promises a benefit, it doesn't mean that society can deliver it.
Environmentalists speak wisely of sustainability, but we need to speak much more about economic sustainability. And about the underlying values that lead to a society that is strong and sustainable."
Several years ago I published a report by the CIA pertaining to demographics and also had a speaker here - Peter Liotta - discuss this very topic. (See 1 below.)
---
This from a dear friend, fellow memo reader and superb lawyer. "It's Always That Damn George Bush!" (See 2 below.)
---
Sent to me by a refugee from Castro who understands the insidious nature of terrorism.
I had posted this earlier but perhaps worth re-posting. (See 3 below.)
---
Sent to me by a friend, tennis player, fellow memo reader corporate executive of a major American company and University Trustee.
Supports my previous commentary about our media, press folks and Obama's constant playing of the race card. In the case of firing one among his own race Obama's continuing attitude has boomeranged.
My friend, John Podhoretz chimes in as well. (See 4 and 4a)
As I wrote earlier, Obama is not a 'healer' just another Chicago Ward Heeler divider!(See 4b below.)
---
From a fellow memo reader and neighbor friend. This for the homeowners of America! (See 5 below.)
---
Though my candidate for Governor - Eric Johnson - did not make the Republican run-off I am glad I supported him. Eric ran an issues campaign, did not attack his opponents but remained above the fray and remains, in my opinion, the most qualified to run our state government.
The voters saw otherwise and obviously Palin and Gingrich's influence and Eric's lack of name recognition in the populated areas were against him.
Whether Handel or Deal, I am utterably opposed to Roy Barnes.
---
In my opinion we face one of the most difficult economic periods in the history of our nation and therefore, an equally difficult investment outlook.
Without job improvement government tax receipts will be insufficient to fill the widening spending gap which this president is incurring with his radical economic and legislative policies.
As our nation's debt accelerates, The Fed's ability to defend our currency will continue to erode, therefore, pressures on The Fed to boost employment will mount and this means more debt.
This is why I have written in my memos we face a math problem of enormous proportions. Simply put you just cannot cover a growing body with a shrinking blanket.
The housing market remains in the tank notwithstanding low interest rates. Banks remain reluctant to loan because of the uncertain economic outlook, unrecognized loan losses which they eventually must take and which will impact their capital base and rising costs from increased taxation, rules and regulations.
Corporate balance sheets have improved and their cash is growing but that is more a sign of uncertainty than economic conviction. Why? Because with interest rates around zero returns on capital spending should be compelling but then where do you sell more of what you make even at reduced costs?
The consumer is back to saving but his income is not growing and his own balance sheet remains threatened by declining home prices. Consumer's lack of confidence is further buttressed by fear of job loss, inability to find work and yes, their taxes are going to be raised while their health care costs surge as quality of health care declines. Not a confidence building scenario to get the consumer to spend.
In terms of stock prices, market valuations are not steep and in fact are fairly reasonable but the key to growth, ie. increased sales, is not evident. True, corporate earnings were decent in the second quarter but how much further can corporations cut costs and demand more out of existing employees etc.?
Europe has learned that abusing Keynes has not worked and they are beginning to address their own accumulated deficits and this means slower growth and even maybe retrenchment. China is concerned about rapid growth in its own economy and though China will continue to grow their GDP at far better rates than most of the world they, too, have begun to pull in their horns. I would expect China's growth to be in the 5 - 7% range down from very low teens.
As the world economic pace slows the vast burden of debt becomes more worrisome and stressful.
I know this is a very stark and extreme statement and I may never live to see it but I would not be surprised if the United States ultimately defaults on its debt obligations. It may avoid doing so by taking extreme measures which will reduce our standard of living and extend the period before promised benefits are paid but something has to give. To much mounting pressure (debt) on a thinning balloon (government obligations,entitlements and commitments.)
Do politicians have the fortitude and do Americans have the temperament? Time will tell.
---
Is Israel's back door undefended and the awesome math of The Iron Dome! (See 6 below.)
---
President Edsel continue to blow smoke and not from his cigarettes. (See 7 below.)
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Europeans Fear Crisis Threatens Liberal Benefits
By STEVEN ERLANGER
PARIS — Across Western Europe, the “lifestyle superpower,” the assumptions and gains of a lifetime are suddenly in doubt. The deficit crisis that threatens the euro has also undermined the sustainability of the European standard of social welfare, built by left-leaning governments since the end of World War II.
Europeans have boasted about their social model, with its generous vacations and early retirements, its national health care systems and extensive welfare benefits, contrasting it with the comparative harshness of American capitalism.
Europeans have benefited from low military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella. They have also translated higher taxes into a cradle-to-grave safety net. “The Europe that protects” is a slogan of the European Union.
But all over Europe governments with big budgets, falling tax revenues and aging populations are experiencing rising deficits, with more bad news ahead.
With low growth, low birthrates and longer life expectancies, Europe can no longer afford its comfortable lifestyle, at least not without a period of austerity and significant changes. The countries are trying to reassure investors by cutting salaries, raising legal retirement ages, increasing work hours and reducing health benefits and pensions.
“We’re now in rescue mode,” said Carl Bildt, Sweden’s foreign minister. “But we need to transition to the reform mode very soon. The ‘reform deficit’ is the real problem,” he said, pointing to the need for structural change.
The reaction so far to government efforts to cut spending has been pessimism and anger, with an understanding that the current system is unsustainable.
In Athens, Aris Iordanidis, 25, an economics graduate working in a bookstore, resents paying high taxes to finance Greece’s bloated state sector and its employees. “They sit there for years drinking coffee and chatting on the telephone and then retire at 50 with nice fat pensions,” he said. “As for us, the way things are going we’ll have to work until we’re 70.”
In Rome, Aldo Cimaglia is 52 and teaches photography, and he is deeply pessimistic about his pension. “It’s going to go belly-up because no one will be around to fill the pension coffers,” he said. “It’s not just me; this country has no future.”
Changes have now become urgent. Europe’s population is aging quickly as birthrates decline. Unemployment has risen as traditional industries have shifted to Asia. And the region lacks competitiveness in world markets.
According to the European Commission, by 2050 the percentage of Europeans older than 65 will nearly double. In the 1950s there were seven workers for every retiree in advanced economies. By 2050, the ratio in the European Union will drop to 1.3 to 1.
“The easy days are over for countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain, but for us, too,” said Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, a French lawyer who did a study of Europe in the global economy for the French government. “A lot of Europeans would not like the issue cast in these terms, but that is the storm we’re facing. We can no longer afford the old social model, and there is a real need for structural reform.”
In Paris, Malka Braniste, 88, lives on the pension of her deceased husband. “I’m worried for the next generations,” she said at lunch with her daughter-in-law, Dominique Alcan, 49. “People who don’t put money aside won’t get anything.”
Ms. Alcan expects to have to work longer as a traveling saleswoman. “But I’m afraid I’ll never reach the same level of comfort,” she said. “I won’t be able to do my job at 63; being a saleswoman requires a lot of energy.”
Gustave Brun d’Arre, 18, is still in high school. “The only thing we’re told is that we will have to pay for the others,” he said, sipping a beer at a cafe. The waiter interrupted, discussing plans to alter the French pension system. “It will be a mess,” the waiter said. “We’ll have to work harder and longer in our jobs.”
Figures show the severity of the problem. Gross public social expenditures in the European Union increased from 16 percent of gross domestic product in 1980 to 21 percent in 2005, compared with 15.9 percent in the United States. In France, the figure now is 31 percent, the highest in Europe, with state pensions making up more than 44 percent of the total and health care, 30 percent.
The challenge is particularly daunting in France, which has done less to reduce the state’s obligations than some of its neighbors. In Sweden and Switzerland, 7 of 10 people work past 50. In France, only half do. The legal retirement age in France is 60, while Germany recently raised it to 67 for those born after 1963.
With the retirement of the baby boomers, the number of pensioners will rise 47 percent in France between now and 2050, while the number under 60 will remain stagnant. The French call it “du baby boom au papy boom,” and the costs, if unchanged, are unsustainable. The French state pension system today is running a deficit of 11 billion euros, or about $13.8 billion; by 2050, it will be 103 billion euros, or $129.5 billion, about 2.6 percent of projected economic output.
President Nicolas Sarkozy has vowed to pass major pension reform this year. There have been two contentious overhauls, in 2003 and 2008; the government, afraid to lower pensions, wants to increase taxes on high salaries and increase the years of work.
But the unions are unhappy, and the Socialist Party opposes raising the retirement age. Polls show that while most French see a pension overhaul as necessary, up to 60 percent say working past 60 is not the answer.
Jean-François Copé, the parliamentary leader for Mr. Sarkozy’s center-right party, says that change is painful, but necessary. “The point is to preserve our model and keep it,” he said. “We need to get rid of bad habits. The Germans did it, and we can do the same.”
More broadly, many across Europe say the Continent will have to adapt to fiscal and demographic change, because social peace depends on it. “Europe won’t work without that,” said Joschka Fischer, the former German foreign minister, referring to the state’s protective role. “In Europe we have nationalism and racism in a politicized manner, and those parties would have exploited grievances if not for our welfare state,” he said. “It’s a matter of national security, of our democracy.”
France will ultimately have to follow Sweden and Germany in raising the pension age, he argues. “This will have to be harmonized, Europeanized, or it won’t work — you can’t have a pension at 67 here and 55 in Greece,” Mr. Fischer said.
The problems are even more acute in the “new democracies” of the euro zone — Greece, Portugal and Spain — that embraced European democratic ideals and that Europe embraced for political reasons in the postwar era, perhaps before their economies were ready. They have built lavish state systems on the back of the euro, but now must change.
Under threat of default, Greece has frozen pensions for three years and drafted a bill to raise the legal retirement age to 65. Greece froze public-sector pay and trimmed benefits for state employees, including a bonus two months of salary. Portugal has cut 5 percent from the salaries of senior public employees and politicians and increased taxes, while canceling big projects; Spain is cutting civil service salaries by 5 percent and freezing pay in 2011 while also chopping public projects.
But all three need to do more to bolster their competitiveness and growth, mostly by changing deeply inflexible employment rules, which can make it prohibitively expensive to hire or fire staff members, keeping unemployment high.
Jean-Claude Meunier is 68, a retired French Navy official and headhunter, who plays bridge to “train my memory and avoid Alzheimer’s.” His main worry is pension. “For years, our political leaders acted with very little courage,” he said. “Pensions represent the failure of the leaders and the failure of the system.”
In Athens, Mr. Iordanidis, the graduate who makes 800 euros a month in a bookstore, said he saw one possible upside. “It could be a chance to overhaul the whole rancid system,” he said, “and create a state that actually works.”
Reporting was contributed by Maïa de la Baume and Scott Sayre from Paris, Niki Kitsantonis from Athens, and Elisabetta Povoledo from Rome
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Obama is victim of Bush's failed promises
Greener Pastures Column
Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office. Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever.
Wow! Talk about change.
Just one year ago. fresh from his inauguration celebrations. President Obama was flying high. After one of the nation's most inspiring political campaigns, the election of America 's first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.
Of course, they don't see it as self-imposed. It's all George Bush's fault.
George Bush, who doesn't have a vote in congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all.
He broke Obama's promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.
He broke Obama's promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.
He broke Obama's promise to end earmarks.
He broke Obama's promise to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.
He broke Obama's promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.
He broke Obama's promise to make peace with direct, no precondition talks with America 's most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.
He broke Obama's promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.
He broke Obama's promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.
He broke Obama's promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.
He broke Obama's promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.
He broke Obama's promise to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.
Yes. it's all George Bush's fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending. failed Bush administration.
If only George Bush wasn't still in charge, all of President Obama's problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel . North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.
Oh, and did I mention what it would be like if the Democrats. under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn't have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks? There would be no ear marks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying (Nebraska, Louisiana).
If only George Bush wasn't still in charge, we'd have real change by now.
All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama's fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Congress. It's all George Bush's fault.
Take for example the decision of Eric Holder, the president's attorney general, to hold terrorists' trials in New York City . Or his decision to try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a civilian.
Two disastrous decisions.
Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush.
Need more proof?
You might recall that when Scott Brown won the election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts , capturing "the Ted Kennedy seat," President Obama said that Brown's victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years. and they wanted change.
Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in Massachusetts last month was George Bush's fault.
Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats.
It is all George Bush's fault.
Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?
Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something...“ anything?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Here is a perspective by Dr. Peter Hammond. His doctorate is in Theology. He was born in Capetown in 1960, grew up in Rhodesia and converted to Christianity in 1977. In addition to his academic work, he is a Missionary.
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well..
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0..6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
This is happening in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
nited Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for
Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon --Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace.. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat
Obama Appoints two devout Muslims to homeland security posts.
Obama and Janet Napolitano Appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore-in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim, who was born in Damascus, Syria as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).
NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...? Just wondering.
Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 8 years ago? Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)'Call Them Racists:' How "journolists" tried to suppress the news.
By JAMES TARANTO
The "Journolist" scandal has deepened with new revelations that participants in the now-defunct email list for ideologically approved journalists--no conservatives allowed--engaged in efforts to suppress news damaging to then-candidate Barack Obama.
The Daily Caller reports ABC News's "tough questioning" of Obama at a 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton "left many of [the Journolist participants] outraged":
***** QUOTE *****
"George [Stephanopoulos]," fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is "being a disgusting little rat snake."
Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
***** END QUOTE *****
Most damning is a long quote from a Spencer Ackerman, who worked for something called the Washington Independent:
***** QUOTE *****
I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It's not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright's defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them--Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares--and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.
***** END QUOTE *****
Smashing somebody's [sic] through a plate-glass window seems like an odd way to thread a needle, but atrocious prose is the least of the problems here. The problem here isn't bias, either. Assuming Ackerman was an opinion writer rather than a straight-news reporter, he was entitled not only to hold his opinions but to express them.
But Ackerman was not engaging in a public debate; he was privately strategizing about how to suppress the news. And his fellow journolists, while disagreeing with him, did so "only on strategic grounds":
***** QUOTE *****
"Spencer, you're wrong," wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. "Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn't further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_--Obama's substantive agenda--with this crap." . . .
Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman's strategy. "I think it's worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he's trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he's not going change the way politics works?"
But it was Ackerman who had the last word. "Kevin, I'm not saying OBAMA should do this. I'm saying WE should do this."
***** END QUOTE *****
If anybody on the list objected in principle to Ackerman's idea of slandering people, including a fellow journalist, as racist, the Caller missed that part of the story. (We'll be happy to report it if a Journolist member would care to supply us with the evidence.) What Ackerman proposed was to carry out a political dirty trick in order to suppress the news and thereby aid a candidate for public office. That's about as unethical as journalism can get.
The final product of this debate was a pathetic "open letter," which, as we noted at the time, was signed by 41 self-described "journalists and media analysts," nearly all of whom were affiliated with universities, left-wing publications or left-wing think tanks. The letter does seem to have been more of a collaborative effort than we guessed back then: the Caller lists eight people who contributed to its drafting. Even so, what self-respecting journalist shares a byline with 40 other guys?
"The letter caused a brief splash and won the attention of the New York Times," the Caller reports, but thereafter was deservedly forgotten until now. Obama weathered the Wright revelations, but it seems a stretch to give Journolist the credit (or, if you prefer, the blame) for that. On the other hand, are there other stories they did succeed in suppressing? We cannot know as long as the full Journolist archives are secret.
These revelations also belie Journolist founder (and now Washington Post commentator) Ezra Klein's defense of the enterprise back in March 2009:
***** QUOTE *****
As for sinister implications, is it "secret?" No. Is it off-the-record? Yes. The point is to create a space where experts feel comfortable offering informal analysis and testing out ideas. Is it an ornate temple where liberals get together to work out "talking points?" Of course not. Half the membership would instantly quit if anything like that emerged.
***** END QUOTE *****
This statement is true only if parsed as a denial that an email list is an ornate temple. Plainly the list was a forum where liberals got together to work out talking points, as evidenced by that "open letter." Worse, it was a forum where people employed as journalists conspired to suppress the news--and, by doing so "off the record," used journalistic ethics as cover.
In 2009 Klein wrote that Journolist's policy of excluding conservatives was "not about fostering ideology but preventing a collapse into flame war. The emphasis is on empiricism, not ideology."
"Call them racists." That's empiricism for you!
Equal Opportunity Destroyer
The NAACP's double secret resolution condemning "racist elements" in the Tea Party has led, indirectly, to the firing of a U.S. Department of Agriculture official for expressing allegedly racist views. The twist: The ex-official, Shirley Sherrod, is black and was speaking at an NAACP event.
Sherrod's downfall occurred yesterday, after Andrew Brietbart posted a video excerpt of Sherrod's speech on BigGovernment.com. Acording to the video, Sherrod told this story at an NAACP banquet on March 27:
***** QUOTE *****
The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing. But he had come to me for help. What he didn't know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.
I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he--I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that or the Georgia Department of Agriculture. And he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him.
So I took him to a white lawyer that had attended some of the training that we had provided, because Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farmer. So I figured if I take him to one of them that his own kind would take care of him.
That's when it was revealed to me that it's about the poor versus those who have, and not so much about white--it is about what and black, but it's not--you know, it opened my eyes, because I took him to one of his own.
***** END QUOTE *****
CNN reports what happened next:
***** QUOTE *****
Sherrod, who resigned Monday as the department's director of rural development for Georgia, told CNN she had four calls telling her the White House wanted her to resign.
"They asked me to resign, and in fact they harassed me as I was driving back to the state office from West Point, Georgia, yesterday," she said. The last call "asked me to pull to the side of the road and do it [resign]," she said.
"I don't feel good about it, because I know I didn't do anything wrong," she said. ". . . During my time at USDA, I gave it all I had."
***** END QUOTE *****
The NAACP issued a statement in support of Sherrod's sacking:
***** QUOTE *****
"Racism is about the abuse of power. Sherrod had it in her position at USDA. According to her remarks, she mistreated a white farmer in need of assistance because of his race," said Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the civil rights group. "We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers."
***** END QUOTE *****
It seems to us that Sherrod got a bum deal in all this. While her description of her attitude toward the white farmer is indeed appalling, even in Breitbart's video it is clear by the end that the story was one of having learned the error of her ways. Her evident continuing resentment of "those who have" is to her discredit, but it's not as invidious as racial resentment.
Further, Sherrod tells CNN that the incident occurred in 1986, when she was working for a nonprofit, long before she went to work for the USDA. (This is consistent with the story she tells in the video. Chapter 12 bankruptcy was indeed enacted in 1986.) CNN even tracks down the white farmer's wife, Eloise Spooner, who credits Sherrod with "getting in there and doing all she could do to help us."
It seems clear that both the administration's decision to put her out to pasture and the NAACP's to accuse her of racism were political ones. And in a way it's progress that charges of racism have become an equal-opportunity destroyer. We hope, however, that the lesson the president and his supporters, including the NAACP, take from all this is to be more circumspect about leveling the charge against their opponents.
Suing for Votes
"President Obama and his political aides privately acknowledge that the government's decision to sue Arizona over its new immigration law is helping to fuel an anti-immigration fervor that could benefit some Republicans in elections this fall," the Washington Post reports:
***** QUOTE *****
But White House officials have concluded that, over the long term, the Republicans' get-tough message is a major political miscalculation. They predict it will ultimately alienate millions of Latinos, the fastest-growing minority group in the nation.
West Wing strategists argue that the president's call for legislation that acknowledges the role of immigrants and goes beyond punishing undocumented workers will help cement a permanent political relationship between Democrats and Hispanics -- much as civil rights and voting rights legislation did for the party and African Americans in the 1960s.
As a result, although the president is unlikely to press for comprehensive immigration reform this year, he has urged his allies to keep up the pressure on Republican lawmakers.
***** END QUOTE *****
The Democrats' evaluation of the political effects of all this seem right to us. Most of the country is with Arizona, but Hispanics are not, and they are likelier to have longer memories of what they perceive as a discriminatory effort at their expense.
But the administration's cynicism is also striking. In the Post's telling, Obama is merely giving lip service to comprehensive immigration reform in order to win votes, no matter that the administration's divisive actions have destroyed any prospects for its passage. And one subject the story never takes up is the merit of the Arizona lawsuit. It's hard to escape the suspicion that the Justice Department is being inappropriately politicized.
Administration Hits Reset Button
- "Biden: Expect a November 'Shock' by the Democrats"--headline, USA Today website, July 18
- "Parachuting Donkey Shocks Russian Beachgoers"--headline, Agence France-Presse, July 20
The Two Leaders Agreed to Exercise More and Watch Their Salt Inake
"As Cameron and Obama Meet, BP Will Be Top Issue"--headline, New York Times, July 20
Life Imitates 'South Park'
- "Upon investigation, Kyle and Cartman find that [Magic] Johnson sleeps regularly with huge piles of cash in his bedroom, because he does not trust banks, which eventually prove to have the ability to neutralize HIV. Laboratory scientists experiment with a concentrated dose of 'about $180,000 shot directly into the bloodstream' on the boys, which forces the HIV to disintegrate."--Wikipedia page on "Tonsil Trouble," aired March 12, 2008
- "In another piece of progress against AIDS, a separate, large study in Malawi sponsored by the World Bank, and made public on Sunday, found that if poor schoolgirls and their families received small monthly cash payments, the girls had sex later, less often and with fewer partners. A year and a half after the program started, the girls were less than half as likely to be infected with the AIDS or herpes viruses than were girls whose families got no payments."--New York Times, July 20, 2010
The Lonely Lives of Scientists
"Scientists Develop Mobile Phone That Doesn't Need Reception"--headline, Turkish Weekly, July 20
Where Did They Go?
"California Blacks Split Over Marijuana Measure"--headline, New York Times, July 20
Though It's Even Harder With a Narrow One
"It's Hard to Paint Everyone With a Broad Brush"--headline, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 19
World's Oddest Namesake
"British Teenager Named After Hotel Balcony Fall"--headline, Daily Telegraph (London), July 19
Though Not as Bad as Hotel Balcony Fall
"Sex Pistols Was a Rotten Name: Johnny"--headline, Daily Telegraph (Australia), July 19
What About Trees?
"Law Bans 'Debarking' of Canines and Cats"--headline, Boston Globe, July 20
'Oh,' She Said, 'but They're Such Intelligent, Friendly Creatures!'
"Dolphin Charged With Battery Against Girlfriend"--headline, Associated Press, July 19
Questions Nobody Is Asking
- "Hillary's New Hairstyle: 'Do or Don't? (PHOTOS, POLL)"--headline, Puffington Host, July 19
- "Can a Squirrel Get Heat Stroke?"--headline, Toronto Star, July 16
- "Facebook as Popular as Filing Taxes--What?"--headline, PCWorld.com, July 20
- "No Holds Barred: What's Up With Tom Friedman?"--headline, Jerusalem Post, July 19
- "Want to Join the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?"--headline, Grist.org, July 19
- "Lada Gaga the New Face of Tea?"--headline, ITN website (Britain), July 20
- "Who Is Barack Obama?"--headline, Washington Post, July 20
Answers to Questions Nobody Is Asking
- "How Steve Jobs Turned a Finger Spot Into a Death Grip"--headline, Fortune.CNN.com, July 19
- "Why Fairs Continue to Draw Steady Crowds Across West Michigan"--headline, Grand Rapids Press, July 20
- "Why Lindsay Lohan Should Record in Prison"--headline, Broward/Palm Beach (Fla.) New Times website, July 20
It's Always in the Last Place You Look
"Bowls of Human Fingers and Teeth Found in Mayan Tomb"--headline, LIveScience.com, July 19
News of the Tautological
"CRIME REPORT: Man Tries to Flee After Hit-and-Run Accident"--headline, Commercial Appeal (Memphis, Tenn.), July 19
News of the Scatological
"Islamic Body: Cat Poo Coffee OK"--headline, News24.com (South Africa), July 20
News You Can Use
- "Review: Justin Bieber Fever Not Worth Catching in Oakland"--headline, Oakland Tribune, July 18
- "The Secret to a Good Bee Beard: Queen Bee and Vaseline"--headline, Toronto Star, July 18
- "Rent a Friend for ?6.50 an Hour"--headline, Daily Telegraph (London), July 19
- "Please Remain Calm: The Earth Will Heal Itself"--headline, Globe and Mail (Toronto), July 19
Bottom Stories of the Day
- "Detroit Cops Probe Fatal Nightclub Shooting"--headline, Detroit Free Press, July 19
- "Biden: Pelosi Most Powerful Person in U.S. Politics--Except Obama"--headline, Roll Call, July 19
- "UN Still Corrupt"--headline, Commentary website, July 20
- "Top Judiciary Republican to Oppose Kagan"--headline, Associated Press, July 20
If You Have a Self-Esteem Problem, Vote for Me
Sen. Carte Goodwin will be out of a job come November. The West Virginia Democrat was sworn in today to fill Robert Byrd's empty nest, the same day the Legislature in Charleston passed a law setting an August primary, which means the special election won't have to wait till 2012.
Gov. Joe Manchin, who appointed Goodwin, announced that he'll seek the seat:
***** QUOTE *****
"I only hope I would be able to follow in his footsteps and continue to help the people of West Virginia," Manchin said of Byrd, who died last month at age 92.
"I intend, with the opportunity, to work as hard in Washington as I've worked in West Virginia," he said. "I believe in you more than you believe in yourself."
***** END QUOTE *****
That's an odd message, isn't it? We guess if Virginia is for lovers, West Virginia is for self-loathers.
Follow us on Twitter.
Join Fans of Best of the Web Today on Facebook.
Click here to view or search the Best of the Web Today archives.
http://online.wsj.com/public/search/aggregate.html?article-doc-type={Best+of+the+Web+Today}&mod=djemBestOfTheWeb_t&collections="wsjie/archive"
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Michele Schiesser, Doug Levene, Doug Mooney, Irving Rotter, Ed Lasky, Leonard Peirce, John Bobek, Dan O'Shea, Aaron Davidson, Manny Klausner, Barry Kaplovitz, Curtis Frantz, T. Young, Jared Silverman, Mordecai Bobrowsky, Alan Ridgeway, Radu Aghinii, Gerald Masoudi, Marc Kliewer, Lewis Sckolnick, Tim Willis, Herbert Harjes, Andrew Edelstein, Marion Dreyfus, Don Undis, Bob Walsh, Stuart Creque, Brian Warner, Bill Gately, Dan Rittenreiser, Joey Bedford, Jim Clark, Daniel Sweeney, John Nernoff, Sion Romaine, Daniel Mullen, Paul Vanderslice, Aaron Hall, Brian Azman, Don Stewart, Paul Gross, Nick Kasoff, Chris Green, Hillel Markowitz, Ethel Fenig, Bill Briggs, John Williamson, Bruce Goldman and Anil Adyanthaya. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
4a)Steering the press:Proof that it's a game for the left
By John Podhoretz
For decades the right has used the term "media bias" as shorthand for the way journalists tend to slant to the left -- but in recent years many on the left have taken up the term to account for what is, to them, the inexplicable durability of conservative ideas.
The latest revelation from the database of private e-mails circulated among the left-liberals of JournoList should end once and for all the preposterous fantasy that right-wing forces have great sway over the way the mainstream media do business. They show how these writers, thinkers and activists managed to help prevent the potential 2008 media inferno over Barack Obama's history with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Until disbanding last month, JournoList was an Internet ingathering of several hundred left-of-center intellectuals. The Web site Daily Caller yesterday published a series of JournoList e-mails dating back to the 2008 campaign and Obama's relationship with Wright, his spiritual leader for two decades.
The exposure during the primary season of Wright's disgusting words -- blaming the United States for 9/11; accusing the US government of creating the AIDS virus; declaring "God damn America" -- raised questions about the silent acceptance of Wright's opinions by his most famous congregant.
It was always easy to imagine how the Wright matter could have brought down the Obama candidacy. Candidates have been stymied by far less when the media pressure became relentless -- lead stories day after day on the evening newscasts; dozens of investigative reporters assigned to expose every word and action of the questionable associate; the pounding and hammering of press secretaries and endorsers and others not by political rivals but by prestigious news outlets.
That didn't happen, not really, in this case -- because the media covering Obama were uncomfortable playing that adversary role with him. And in part that was surely due to the efforts made by the JournoListers.
After both George Stephanopoulos (hardly a conservative icon) and Charles Gibson of ABC asked Obama about Wright in an April 16, 2008 debate, JournoListers collaborated on an open letter attacking them -- their crime apparently being in part that Stephanopoulos dared ask Obama whether Wright "loves America as much as you do." (Stephanopolous was, said one charming JournoLister, "a disgusting little rat snake.")
The letter -- whose genesis is well covered in the Daily Caller story -- declared that two ABC men had engaged in "a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world."
The accusation that asking Obama about his association with Wright was nothing more than "tabloid journalism" was intended to strike directly at the deep desire of newspaper and TV reporters and editors to be high-minded and elevated.
The issue wasn't Obama's chances against Hillary Clinton; by this point he had all but won the Democratic race. It was whether Wright was going to bedevil Obama's bid against the Republicans in November. As the columnist Michael Tomasky e-mailed: "We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this."
Although there's no way to prove it directly, it worked. The uneasiness with which the mainstream media approached the Wright story -- given the sensitivities of the racial politics that Obama claimed to be rising above during his bid for the presidency -- increased manifold after the letter.
Challenging Obama on these matters -- not to mention others, like his relationship with his close friend Rashid Khalidi, a one-time spokesman for PLO terrorists in Beirut, and his nonprofit foundation colleague, the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers -- became very nearly the sole province of conservative media outlets.
Indeed, as Election Day approached, The Los Angeles Times sat on a 2003 videotape of Obama praising Khalidi -- with Ayers in attendance -- on the bizarre grounds that the tape was "off the record."
This was nothing more than an electioneering decision. And it was within the Times's right -- just as the JournoListers can say and do whatever they please to get the people they want elected and stand in the way of politicians and thinkers they don't like.
But the game of pretending that the ideologues of the left and the mainstream media aren't on the same team should really be called on account of it just ain't true.
4b)Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News
By Jonathan Strong
If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.
But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio (update: Spitz was a producer for NPR affiliate KCRW for the show Left, Right & Center), that isn’t what you’d do at all.
In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”
Spitz’s hatred for Limbaugh seems intemperate, even imbalanced. On Journolist, where conservatives are regarded not as opponents but as enemies, it barely raised an eyebrow.
In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for President Obama’s health care bill. For most people, the protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.
On Journolist, the question was whether the protestors were garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.
“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”
Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed. “They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state,” Yeselson wrote. “This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency. Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts).”
“I’m not saying these guys are capital F-fascists,” added blogger Lindsay Beyerstein, “but they don’t want limited government. Their desired end looks more like a corporate state than a rugged individualist paradise. The rank and file wants a state that will reach into the intimate of citizens when it comes to sex, reproductive freedom, censorship, and rampant incarceration in the name of law and order.”
On Journolist, there was rarely such thing as an honorable political disagreement between the left and right, though there were many disagreements on the left. In the view of many who’ve posted to the list-serv, conservatives aren’t simply wrong, they are evil. And while journalists are trained never to presume motive, Journolist members tend to assume that the other side is acting out of the darkest and most dishonorable motives.
When the writer Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article about immigration for National Review, for example, blogger Ed Kilgore didn’t even bother to grapple with Hanson’s arguments. Instead Kilgore dismissed Hanson’s piece out of hand as “the kind of Old White Guy cultural reaction that is at the heart of the Tea Party Movement. It’s very close in spirit to the classic 1970s racist tome, The Camp of the Saints, where White Guys struggle to make up their minds whether to go out and murder brown people or just give up.”
The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.
“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.
“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”
Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”
And so a debate ensued. Time’s Scherer, who had seemed to express support for increased regulation of Fox, suddenly appeared to have qualms: “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”
But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”
Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”
John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)A License will be required for your house...no longer just for cars and mobile homes....Thinking about selling your house. Take a look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and Trade bill). This is unbelievable! Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill passed by the House of Representatives, if it is also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.
The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. And Mrs. Middle Class have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else..
But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you won't be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right.
The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.
To get this permission,you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.
Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you don't get a high enough rating, you can't sell.
And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act. The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he/she alone determines to be in the government's best interest.. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.
The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time. Sect. 202 Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America.
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (I.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody!
The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements IF you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as "can't have an income of more than $50K per year", "home selling price can't be more than $125K", or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that's YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants.
Most of us won't get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more "change you can believe in." Sect. 204 Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for "at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act."
This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year...
Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label.. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year.
But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15.
That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program. Sect. 304 Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.
CHECK OUT Just a few of the sites;
Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home
http://www.nachi.org/forum/f14/cap-and-trade-license-required-your-home-44750/
HR2454 American Clean Energy & Security Act:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454
Cap & Trade A license required for your home:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cap-and-trade-a-license-required-for-your-home.html
Cap and trade is a license to cheat and steal:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/oped_contributors/Cap-and-trade-is-a-license-to-cheat-and-steal-45371937.html
Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2393940/posts
Thinking about selling you House? Look at HR 2454:
http://www.federalobserver.com/2009/10/01/thinking-about-selling-your-house-a-look-at-h-r-2454-cap-and-trade-bill/
www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=A+License+required+for+your+home-+Cap+and+Trade&btnG=Google+Search
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Israel's southern border wide open and undefended
Turkey's foreign minister Ahmed Dagutoglu met secretly in Damascus with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal Monday, July 19, as well as getting together with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al Hariri to synchronize their operations against Israel, focusing for now on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.
In Israel, meanwhile, the home-made Iron Dome defense system against short- and medium-range missiles was given a showy press after just-completed successful tests -notwithstanding the admission that it would take months before the new system was able to protect the Israeli communities and towns abutting Gaza.
The Iron Dome proved it could simultaneously intercept volleys of rockets coming in from different directions while computing their trajectories to determine which would hit populated areas.
However,Deputy Defense Minister Mattan Vilnai, who is responsible for homeland security, was enlisted Tuesday for a radio interview to cool the excitement of the 300,000 civilians targeted for Palestinian missile attacks from Gaza for eight years and the communities of northern Israeli who lived in the shadow of Hizballah's rockets up until the 2006 Lebanon war.
The Rafael-produced Iron Dome, while the most advanced of its kind in the world, promises no more than 80 percent effectiveness, Vilnai explained. Furthermore, it would not be permanently deployed at the northern or southern borders - but only as required. Salvation was therefore not yet in sight.
As a cure-all for Israeli border security, Iron Dome has at least four shortcomings, defined by military sources:
1. Its availability. Iron Dome batteries will not be available in the coming months, should a military showdown flare with Iran, Hizballah or Hamas. Most optimistically, it will take another 10 months for Rafael to manufacture the 16-18 batteries required by the two flashpoint border sectors, deploy them and train crews to operate them. Therefore, even if the $1.25 billion can be found for this numbers, Israel will not have the Iron Dome read for the next foreseeable rocket or missile attack.
2. No combat experience. Although a smash hit in tests, the system has never been tried in combat conditions. No army in the world will deploy or place orders for Iron Dome before its first test of fire against the diverse arsenals of Hizballah and Hamas.
For example, it has never shown its paces against simultaneous Hamas and Hizballah missile attacks from several directions from rapidly-moving launching locations with the attackers using electronic devices for jamming and deception. Four years ago, in the Lebanon War, Hizballah had begun to master electronic devices for tracking, eavesdropping and locking in on IDF targets. There is every reason to suppose that the Lebanese Shiite terrorists have enhanced this capability since then.
3. Distinguishing targets. Publicity handouts present Iron Dome as capable of distinguishing between incoming missiles heading for target civilian areas and those that will explode in unpopulated areas.
This description oversimplifies the challenges: Today's battlefield is not a clearly-marked arena between enemy missile launchers and anti-missile systems for intercepting them. For instance, if the Iron Dome were to track one volley of missiles aimed at its own base and another targeting the city of Ashkelon, how would it choose which volley to intercept?
This dilemma could be sorted out with a large enough number of batteries rising to an unrealistic figure.
4. Expensive. Iron Dome is costly - half a million dollars per battery including its launching mechanism, compared with a Hamas Qassam missile which costs $150 to manufacture.
On the working assumption that Hamas is able to fire an average 500 rockets a day and Hamas 300 missiles, Israel would need to lay out a staggering $40 billion per day to maintain this defensive system in working order, a totally disproportionate cost in military terms.
This spiraling dilemma is the consequence of the Netanyahu-Barak administration's innate lack of resolve.
It does not take a political genius to deduce that the Iron Dome hype was drummed up after the weekly cabinet meeting of Sunday, July 18, laid bare the prime minister and defense minister's ineptness in forging a policy to deal with the massive, uncontrolled influx of up to 1,000 job-seekers per month swarming across the unfenced Egyptian-Israel border - mostly from Eritrea and Sudan.
Around 500 a year in 2008, their numbers have expanded to 8,000 in the first seven months of 2010, with some 50,000 camping in Tel Aviv, 8,000 in Eilat (one-tenth of the population) and thousands in Ashdod and Arad. Police say the situation is out of control.
Five months ago, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu ordered frontier fence to be built but nothing was done. Tuesday, July 20, Home Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch touring the long, desert border only to announce that a barrier would take three years to build and it was no substitute for a coherent policy of restrictions
The deputy defense minister's cold reality shower have shocked Israelis into grasping that their government is falling down on the two crucial tasks of controlling the river of illegal migrants and protection against enemy rockets.
No consoling peace hoopla is in sight. When Netanyahu met ailing Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak on Sunday, they went round in circles for the umpteenth time on ways to get direct talks with the Palestinians off the ground and the situation in the Gaza Strip, which Cairo is only too happy to shunt off to Israel. They did not get around to discussing the critical situation along the much-too-open Egyptian-Israeli border.
Military sources report that some weeks ago, the American and French military engineers building the steel wall along the Philadelphi route for sealing the Gaza Strip arms smuggling tunnels off from their Sinai routes dropped tools and gave up on the project.
The project was abandoned after Hamas used heavy-duty machinery to cut through the steel girders forming the wall.
This did not stop al Qaeda's No. 2 Ayman Zawahiri in a new video released on July 19 from slamming Arab rulers, notably Egypt, of building the steel wall.
Having given up on tactics for controlling the constant buildup of Hamas and Hizballah missile arsenals, Israel has also left itself without a current, effective defense for its southern population or Galilee and laid itself open to an unhampered influx of African migrants, among whom al Qaeda elements can easily mingle.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Obama Omits Jobs Killed or Thwarted from Tally
By Caroline Baum
Can you believe they’re still touting that silly metric?
When I heard last week that the White House would be announcing the number of “jobs created or saved” as a result of the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, my first reaction was embarrassment.
Imagine how Christina Romer must feel. The chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors was dressed in a cheery, salmon-colored jacket, a complement to the upbeat news she had to deliver on July 14. The $787 billion stimulus enacted in February 2009, which subsequently grew to $862 billion, increased gross domestic product by 2.7 percent to 3.4 percent relative to where it would have been, and added anywhere from 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs compared with an ex-stimulus baseline.
“By this estimate, the Recovery Act has met the president’s goal of saving or creating 3.5 million jobs -- two quarters earlier than anticipated,” Romer said with a straight face. (More than 2.5 million non-farm jobs have been lost since ARRA was enacted in February 2009, all of them in the private sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)
How does the CEA arrive at these numbers? It uses two methods, Romer said. The first is a standard macroeconomic forecasting model that estimates the multiplier effect of fiscal policy. (The government’s spending is someone else’s income.) The second method is statistical, using previous relationships between GDP and employment to project future behavior.
Model Imperfection
These numbers might just as well have been pulled out of a hat. Recall that it was the same model and method the administration used in January 2009 to predict an unemployment rate of 7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010 with the enactment of the fiscal stimulus and 8.8 percent without. The unemployment rate now stands at 9.5 percent.
This same model convinced policy makers that the subprime crisis was contained, encouraged the rating companies to slap AAA ratings on collateralized garbage, and led banks to believe they had adequately managed their risks and reserved for potential losses.
Econometric models rely on the assumption that $1 of government spending generates more than $1 of GDP, the so-called multiplier effect. There is no allowance for the negative multiplier on the other side.
Sure the government can spend money and generate GDP growth in the short run: Government spending is a component of GDP!
What it giveth it taketh away from the private sector via taxation or borrowing. Every dollar the government spends is a dollar the private sector doesn’t spend, an investment it doesn’t make, a job it doesn’t create. This is what is unseen, as Frederic Bastiat explained in an 1850 essay.
Hiring Disincentives
“If the administration wants to take credit for ‘jobs created or saved,’ it should also accept responsibility for ’jobs destroyed or prevented,’” said Bill Dunkelberg, chief economist at the National Federation of Independent Business.
Ignoring the flaws in the stimulus for the moment, Congress raised the hurdle for hiring entry-level workers when it refused to delay the third step in a three-stage minimum wage increase last year. And the Department of Labor cracked down on unpaid internships, outlining six criteria that businesses had to satisfy in order to hire someone willing and able to work for nothing to get the experience.
For example, the employer must derive “no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees, and on occasion the employer’s operations may actually be impeded.”
You can’t make this stuff up.
Recession’s Advantage
At the White House briefing last week, Romer touted the leveraging of public investment with private funds, with $1 of Recovery Act funds partnering with $3 of outside spending. Romer said this public spending “saved or created 800,000 jobs” in the second quarter alone.
Once again, what would have happened in the absence of the government’s targeted intervention?
According to a June 2009 study by the Kauffman Foundation in Kansas City, Missouri, well over half of the companies on the Fortune 500 list, and almost half of the fastest growing companies in America, were started during a recession or bear market. Dunkelberg calls this phenomenon “negative push starts.” People might not be willing to quit their jobs, but if they get laid off during a recession and were thinking about starting a business, they might seize the day, he said.
“When people ask me when the best time to start a company is, I tell them the day before the recession ends,” Dunkelberg said. “They can do it on the cheap, and the next day you get cash flow.”
Model That!
What’s more, firms less than five years old are responsible for all of the net new jobs created in the U.S., the Kauffman study found. Job creation by start-ups is more stable, less sensitive to the business cycle.
So, if the goal is to create more jobs, and start-ups are the ones that create them, why is the Obama administration partnering up with existing firms?
“Job-creation policies aimed at luring larger, established employers will inevitably fail,” said Tim Kane, Kauffman Foundation senior fellow in research and policy and author of a follow-up study released this month.
Not to worry. The White House has a model that turns failure into success.
(Caroline Baum, author of “Just What I Said,” is a Bloomberg News columnist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment