Since I have been posting on economic issues lately, I figured I would discuss some of my basic economic theories in more depth. So here is my list of principles, in the proud tradition of Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, Milton Friedman and Karl Marx… OK, scratch that last guy.
1. Globalization is good… and inevitable. Like it or not the world is getting smaller (I will avoid using the term flatter as Thomas Friedman has already beaten that analogy to death). While this obviously causes a lot of dislocation in the workplace, it is a net good, both for providing cheaper goods and services to Americans, and spreading the benefits of both the industrial and post-industrial economy to the world. What this means in the short term for Americans is keep on your toes. I would aim for either a high end job, such as a doctor, lawyer, manager, something that is so indispensable that it can’t be outsourced, or some type of skilled laborer such as a carpenter or a plumber. Someone in Bangalore can’t fix your toilet. Whether you like it or not, there is no future in American industry putting together widgets for $5.25 an hour.
2. Corporations will profit. With globalization, efficiencies of scale and increasing productivity due to technology, large corporations will largely benefit. Yes, consumers will also benefit, but not as much as those who control the means of production (how Marxist of me). But this leads into point #3.
3. Capital is becoming democratized. One of the main flaws in Marxist theory is the assumption that classes are immutable, the bourgeoisie and proletariat will never meet. The fact is, in this day and age, the working class and investing class are becoming one and the same. At least they should be. Everyone now has access to cheap home financing (a very beneficial investment for most people), 401(K)’s, on-line brokerages, and mutual funds. The only things keeping them from engaging in these investment activities are education and foresight. As I mentioned previously, the corporations are going to be making more money, the best way for the average person to keep up is to become stockholders in these very corporations. The ultimate Marxist revenge if you ask me.
4. Government will get bigger. Be as libertarian as you like, but with increasing urbanization and population growth, the size of the government will inevitably get bigger. Who else is going to manage our increasingly complex infrastructure? It is up to us to put a check on this, to ensure it grows in the most efficient manner, and with the least intrusion into our rights as possible.
5. Natural resources will get more expensive. I am not one of those pessimists who are saying that in 20 years we will be out of oil in some sort of Mad Max post-apocalyptic wasteland, but the fact is this is the only planet we have. The allocation, use, and conservation of natural resources will become increasingly more important. We will only succeed through increasing innovation in applying knowledge, rather than the brute force of resources to the problem. Also included in this is real estate. They aren’t creating any more land. If you want a 4 bedroom house on a half acre within easy commuting distance of downtown, it is going to cost you, and keep costing you more. Deal with it.
More later, as flashes of brilliance hit me...
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Lies, damn lies, and statistics
I want to say first of all, as a veteran (still on reserve duty though) I believe our veterans deserve all the support they can get. I don't believe, however, that we should lie and distort statistics in order to get it. One thing I have noticed recently is the relentless attack on President Bush accusing him of "cutting veterans benefits". While certain programs may have been cut, on the whole this is not true, in fact it is a blatant lie. One good resource to go to on this is factcheck.org.
Patty Murray recently added to this by her theatrical attempts to get VA benefits increased as part of an "emergency supplemental" bill. Now you might be able to make a case we need to increase benefits, but this is an ongoing cost, not an emergency. In an attempt to make her case Senator Murray makes the following statement.
When adjusted for inflation, the VA is spending 25 percent less per patient than it did in fiscal year 2000. This is having a big impact on patients – and on VA healthcare personnel.
Now this gives the impression that the VA is making massive cuts in patient care. 25% is a huge drop of course. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to the OMB, since 2001 spending on VA benefits has increased 50%, from $45 billion to a projected $68 billion in 2006. So how is Senator Murray coming up with this 25% decrease? Because the number of patients being treated by the VA has increased dramatically! According to the VA themselves, an increase of 22% between 2001 and 2005. The administration has increased the number of benefits, so more veterans are using them, often for minor problems which weren't covered before, thus decreasing the average expenditure per patient. See the aforementioned factcheck.org article for more details. This is per patient mind you, not per veteran. The actual number of veterans has been going down for the last 30 years, as the 16 million veterans of WWII die off.
So incredibly Senator Murray is able to present a massive increase in veterans' benefits as a massive cut. A simply amazing abuse of statistics.
Patty Murray recently added to this by her theatrical attempts to get VA benefits increased as part of an "emergency supplemental" bill. Now you might be able to make a case we need to increase benefits, but this is an ongoing cost, not an emergency. In an attempt to make her case Senator Murray makes the following statement.
When adjusted for inflation, the VA is spending 25 percent less per patient than it did in fiscal year 2000. This is having a big impact on patients – and on VA healthcare personnel.
Now this gives the impression that the VA is making massive cuts in patient care. 25% is a huge drop of course. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to the OMB, since 2001 spending on VA benefits has increased 50%, from $45 billion to a projected $68 billion in 2006. So how is Senator Murray coming up with this 25% decrease? Because the number of patients being treated by the VA has increased dramatically! According to the VA themselves, an increase of 22% between 2001 and 2005. The administration has increased the number of benefits, so more veterans are using them, often for minor problems which weren't covered before, thus decreasing the average expenditure per patient. See the aforementioned factcheck.org article for more details. This is per patient mind you, not per veteran. The actual number of veterans has been going down for the last 30 years, as the 16 million veterans of WWII die off.
So incredibly Senator Murray is able to present a massive increase in veterans' benefits as a massive cut. A simply amazing abuse of statistics.
More Bad Economics in the NY Times
I noticed this Nicholas Kristof article on Economics Unbound, a blog by economist Michael Mandel of Businessweek, in which Kristof makes the following claim:
President Bush has excoriated the "death tax," as he calls the estate tax. But his profligacy will leave every American child facing a "birth tax" of about $150,000.
Mandel takes issue with the fact that this number is misleading, since Kristof is not taking into account the offsetting large income that this future child may earn, a legitimate argument, but I will leave that discussion to him. The problem I have with this claim is, where is he coming up with the "birth tax" of $150,000? The national debt per capita (he spends most of the article talking about the debt) is only about $25,000, a considerable number, but only 1/6 the amount he mentions (and less than half that of the equivilant Japanese baby).
So what accounts for the other $125,000? Is he just making it up? After an extensive Internet search I finally found a Democratic web site which talked about a $124,000 "birth tax". How did they come up with that number though? By adding in possible projected shortfalls in future programs such as social security and medicare!
Is this really the way he came up with this huge number, by adding in possible future liabilities? What a ridiculous leap of logic. By the same absurd logic you could argue that every child is born with a $400,000 debt, because they probably at some point of their life will purchase a home. Or that Bush has given every child in America a $200,000 birthday present, figuring in the benefits of his tax cuts over their lifespan. I don't know what this is, but it ain't economics.
President Bush has excoriated the "death tax," as he calls the estate tax. But his profligacy will leave every American child facing a "birth tax" of about $150,000.
Mandel takes issue with the fact that this number is misleading, since Kristof is not taking into account the offsetting large income that this future child may earn, a legitimate argument, but I will leave that discussion to him. The problem I have with this claim is, where is he coming up with the "birth tax" of $150,000? The national debt per capita (he spends most of the article talking about the debt) is only about $25,000, a considerable number, but only 1/6 the amount he mentions (and less than half that of the equivilant Japanese baby).
So what accounts for the other $125,000? Is he just making it up? After an extensive Internet search I finally found a Democratic web site which talked about a $124,000 "birth tax". How did they come up with that number though? By adding in possible projected shortfalls in future programs such as social security and medicare!
Is this really the way he came up with this huge number, by adding in possible future liabilities? What a ridiculous leap of logic. By the same absurd logic you could argue that every child is born with a $400,000 debt, because they probably at some point of their life will purchase a home. Or that Bush has given every child in America a $200,000 birthday present, figuring in the benefits of his tax cuts over their lifespan. I don't know what this is, but it ain't economics.
CAFTA Roundup
I just find it amazing that neolib anti-globalists and their ultra-right nationalist counterparts are so terrified of the economic threat that Honduras poses to us, that they are opposed to free trade with our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. I have been reading up on the subject, and here are some good places to start.
Cafe Hayek posts a tribute to a Larry "Adam Smith" Kudlow article. I am reading "The Wealth of Nations" right now, so I found this interesting. Only 1100 pages to go, long book...
Thomas Friedman, who has published two prominent books on globalization with "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" and "The World is Flat." adds his column "We Are All French Now?"
Ah, those French. How silly can they be? The European Union wants to consolidate its integration and France, trying to protect its own 35-hour workweek and other welfare benefits, rejects the E.U. constitution. What a bunch of antiglobalist Gaullist Luddites! Yo, Jacques, what world do you think you're livin' in, pal? Get with the program! It's called Anglo-American capitalism, mon ami.
And finally, one of the best pro-globalization articles written, by none other than Paul Krugman (yes, that Paul Krugman) "In Praise of Cheap Labor" is still available out there on the web. This was from the days before he gave into the dark side.
Cafe Hayek posts a tribute to a Larry "Adam Smith" Kudlow article. I am reading "The Wealth of Nations" right now, so I found this interesting. Only 1100 pages to go, long book...
Thomas Friedman, who has published two prominent books on globalization with "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" and "The World is Flat." adds his column "We Are All French Now?"
Ah, those French. How silly can they be? The European Union wants to consolidate its integration and France, trying to protect its own 35-hour workweek and other welfare benefits, rejects the E.U. constitution. What a bunch of antiglobalist Gaullist Luddites! Yo, Jacques, what world do you think you're livin' in, pal? Get with the program! It's called Anglo-American capitalism, mon ami.
And finally, one of the best pro-globalization articles written, by none other than Paul Krugman (yes, that Paul Krugman) "In Praise of Cheap Labor" is still available out there on the web. This was from the days before he gave into the dark side.
John Walton, WalMart heir, dead at 58
Wal*Mart has been getting a lot of criticism lately, some of it deserved, some of it not. Most people don't know anything about the Walton family though. John Walton, who died in a plane crash recently, was actually a Green Beret in Vietnam. Blackfive has a good summary. As he comments, don't tell Charlie Rangel.
Monday, June 27, 2005
National Debt vs GDP
I commented on this subject a while ago. Now Scrivener has a much more in-depth posting. What is with Japan anyway?
Kenny told a funny
Ken Schram now says he was joking when he said that conservatives were genetically inferior, and that conservatives have no sense of humor. Ha-ha-ha-ha, I just couldn't stop laughing. Maybe Ken can find some other great material, perhaps about how Jews are genetically inferior, or even how men and women may have difference in cognitive abilities? This is such a hilarious topic after all...
Stupid Krugmanism of the Day
I will let others deal with the subject of Krugman's latest rantings, Marginal Revolution has a good wrap-up, but I was struck by the pure idiocy of the last paragraph. I can read the words, but what the hell is he trying to say?
If it were up to me, I'd block the Chinese bid for Unocal. But it would be a lot easier to take that position if the United States weren't so dependent on China right now, not just to buy our I.O.U.'s, but to help us deal with North Korea now that our military is bogged down in Iraq.
Is he implying that if our military were not involved in Iraq, then they would be free to invade North Korea? Is that his proposed solution? If we were not in Iraq would we not need to deal with North Korea? What exactly is the connection? One has the feeling that he is just throwing random thoughts on the page hoping to include Iraq in here somewhere. Additionally, is the fact that we are getting China involved in resolving our troubles with North Korea a bad thing. I thought "unilateralism" was a bad thing. Now multilateralism apparently is. Pure drivel...
If it were up to me, I'd block the Chinese bid for Unocal. But it would be a lot easier to take that position if the United States weren't so dependent on China right now, not just to buy our I.O.U.'s, but to help us deal with North Korea now that our military is bogged down in Iraq.
Is he implying that if our military were not involved in Iraq, then they would be free to invade North Korea? Is that his proposed solution? If we were not in Iraq would we not need to deal with North Korea? What exactly is the connection? One has the feeling that he is just throwing random thoughts on the page hoping to include Iraq in here somewhere. Additionally, is the fact that we are getting China involved in resolving our troubles with North Korea a bad thing. I thought "unilateralism" was a bad thing. Now multilateralism apparently is. Pure drivel...
Friday, June 24, 2005
The National Review imitates me
Well, OK, I actually got the Nancy Pelosi part of the story from the Drudgereport, but we won't get into that right now... In any case James S. Robbins has a pretty good piece on the meat of this story. Not the fact that Pelosi said this, but why she said this.
"The war in Afghanistan is over." — Nancy Pelosi.
Thank goodness!
It's over, finally over. I can't believe it. We got through it. The war is over! Drink in the moment. Savor it. Call your friends, break out the champagne, plan the parades. The troops are coming home. The war is over!
Or wait — maybe not...
Read the rest here.
"The war in Afghanistan is over." — Nancy Pelosi.
Thank goodness!
It's over, finally over. I can't believe it. We got through it. The war is over! Drink in the moment. Savor it. Call your friends, break out the champagne, plan the parades. The troops are coming home. The war is over!
Or wait — maybe not...
Read the rest here.
Foreign Minister Krugman Emotes
Military analyst, and part-time economist, Paul Krugman weighs in with another emotion filled essay on Iraq and the evil Bush empire. Once again, things are disastrous, full of lies, arrogance, abuses of power, moral quagmires, and military collapses. You were expecting a denunciation of the Kolo Decision?
VIENNA
In this former imperial capital, every square seems to contain a giant statue of a Habsburg on horseback, posing as a conquering hero.
America's founders knew all too well how war appeals to the vanity of rulers and their thirst for glory. That's why they took care to deny presidents the kingly privilege of making war at their own discretion.
Ooh, what a grand imagery filled entrance. Someone has been reading his Frommer's guide. It is a good thing he wasn't in Srebrenica where every square contains a monument to the cowardice of western democracies to stand up to evil... but that is an aside. I just wonder where Krugman was when Congress passed a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Saddam, as opposed to "the kingly privilege of his own discretion"? He must have been off at lunch with Maureen Dowd or something.
It would have been an unprecedented abuse of power even if the war hadn't turned into a military and moral quagmire. And we won't be able to get out of that quagmire until we face up to the reality of how we got in.
Quagmire is of course the left's second favorite cliche on Iraq, next to "another Vietnam". And even better here we get the two for one quagmire, both a military and moral one. I am not sure how Krugman could claim we are in a moral quagmire though, since he insists there is no moral basis to the war to begin with. By his reasoning the moral imperative should be clear, not the complex predicament that constitutes a quagmire.
The administration has prevented any official inquiry into whether it hyped the case for war. But there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that it did.
Did he miss the nearly 600 page report on WMD intelligence leading up to the war? The distinguished professor must be too busy grading papers at Princeton to watch CNN.
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam," says the memo, "through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It doesn't get much clearer than that.
Actually it does get much clearer than that. For example, if Krugman would bother to explain that "fixed around" in British English means "bolted on", or "attached" not "altered" as an American would commonly understand it.
Then some asserted that it was "old news" that Mr. Bush wanted war in the summer of 2002, and that W.M.D. were just an excuse. No, it isn't. Media insiders may have suspected as much, but they didn't inform their readers, viewers and listeners.
Actually they did, as the National Review pointed out recently, the London Observer used language in a news report on the run up to the war, which was almost identical to that in the memo. And this was 3 years ago. Krugman is out to lunch once again.
On the other, they still have moderates and even liberals intimidated: anyone who suggests that the United States will have to settle for something that falls far short of victory is accused of being unpatriotic.
Ah, that famous rhetorical device, the strawman. Nobody is questioning your patriotism, just your judgment.
UPDATE: Don Luskin has the Krugman Fisk summary, including me. I see his point about being picky dealing with this, but hey, somebody has got to do the dirty work.
VIENNA
In this former imperial capital, every square seems to contain a giant statue of a Habsburg on horseback, posing as a conquering hero.
America's founders knew all too well how war appeals to the vanity of rulers and their thirst for glory. That's why they took care to deny presidents the kingly privilege of making war at their own discretion.
Ooh, what a grand imagery filled entrance. Someone has been reading his Frommer's guide. It is a good thing he wasn't in Srebrenica where every square contains a monument to the cowardice of western democracies to stand up to evil... but that is an aside. I just wonder where Krugman was when Congress passed a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Saddam, as opposed to "the kingly privilege of his own discretion"? He must have been off at lunch with Maureen Dowd or something.
It would have been an unprecedented abuse of power even if the war hadn't turned into a military and moral quagmire. And we won't be able to get out of that quagmire until we face up to the reality of how we got in.
Quagmire is of course the left's second favorite cliche on Iraq, next to "another Vietnam". And even better here we get the two for one quagmire, both a military and moral one. I am not sure how Krugman could claim we are in a moral quagmire though, since he insists there is no moral basis to the war to begin with. By his reasoning the moral imperative should be clear, not the complex predicament that constitutes a quagmire.
The administration has prevented any official inquiry into whether it hyped the case for war. But there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that it did.
Did he miss the nearly 600 page report on WMD intelligence leading up to the war? The distinguished professor must be too busy grading papers at Princeton to watch CNN.
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam," says the memo, "through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It doesn't get much clearer than that.
Actually it does get much clearer than that. For example, if Krugman would bother to explain that "fixed around" in British English means "bolted on", or "attached" not "altered" as an American would commonly understand it.
Then some asserted that it was "old news" that Mr. Bush wanted war in the summer of 2002, and that W.M.D. were just an excuse. No, it isn't. Media insiders may have suspected as much, but they didn't inform their readers, viewers and listeners.
Actually they did, as the National Review pointed out recently, the London Observer used language in a news report on the run up to the war, which was almost identical to that in the memo. And this was 3 years ago. Krugman is out to lunch once again.
On the other, they still have moderates and even liberals intimidated: anyone who suggests that the United States will have to settle for something that falls far short of victory is accused of being unpatriotic.
Ah, that famous rhetorical device, the strawman. Nobody is questioning your patriotism, just your judgment.
UPDATE: Don Luskin has the Krugman Fisk summary, including me. I see his point about being picky dealing with this, but hey, somebody has got to do the dirty work.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Nancy Pelosi loses touch with reality
So the war is over Ms. Pelosi?
On Tuesday, Mrs. Pelosi and three other top Democrats called for a commission to investigate reported abuses of detainees from the war on terror. Mrs. Pelosi said it is past time that the administration established a policy on determining the fates of the detainees at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, arguing that most are from Afghanistan and that the conflict there has ended.
"I assume that the war in Afghanistan is over, or is the contention that you have that it continues?" she said to a reporter. A few moments later, she said: "This isn't about the duration of the war. The war in Afghanistan is over."
Washington Times, June 23rd, 2005
KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghan and U.S.-led coalition forces surrounded a rebel hide-out in southern Afghanistan on Thursday, and the number of insurgents killed from three days of fighting rose to 102, the defense ministry said.
The battle was one of the deadliest since the Taliban's ouster more than three years ago and was sure to add to growing anxiety that an Iraq-style conflict is developing here.
Associated Press, June 23rd, 2005
On Tuesday, Mrs. Pelosi and three other top Democrats called for a commission to investigate reported abuses of detainees from the war on terror. Mrs. Pelosi said it is past time that the administration established a policy on determining the fates of the detainees at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, arguing that most are from Afghanistan and that the conflict there has ended.
"I assume that the war in Afghanistan is over, or is the contention that you have that it continues?" she said to a reporter. A few moments later, she said: "This isn't about the duration of the war. The war in Afghanistan is over."
Washington Times, June 23rd, 2005
KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghan and U.S.-led coalition forces surrounded a rebel hide-out in southern Afghanistan on Thursday, and the number of insurgents killed from three days of fighting rose to 102, the defense ministry said.
The battle was one of the deadliest since the Taliban's ouster more than three years ago and was sure to add to growing anxiety that an Iraq-style conflict is developing here.
Associated Press, June 23rd, 2005
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Durbin was right
An interesting look at this controversy, from Jonah Goldberg.
So how is Dick Durbin partly right? It is true, as Durbin claimed, that if he were to read the allegations about depriving prisoners of food or forcing them to defecate on themselves, many Americans would be reminded of the Nazis. But that’s because vast swaths of the public and their opinion leaders prefer to live in historical and moral ignorance. (As for thinking of Pol Pot’s killing fields or the Gulag, it’s unlikely, as neither gets a fraction of the attention it deserves.) In the circles frequented by the likes of Durbin — where Howard Dean is a statesman and Michael Moore deserves the Nobel Prize — evil must automatically be associated with “Nazi.”
So it goes in our political culture, where Nazi has become so synonymous with “bad” that all bad things must be Nazi-like — particularly if these bad things have been (allegedly) committed by the United States. Durbin could have compared the alleged abuses to the behavior of the French in Algeria or even to the police in Chicago 20 years ago, and he would have been far closer to the truth. But that just wouldn’t have had the oomph he was looking for — and it would have left too many people scratching their heads.
So how is Dick Durbin partly right? It is true, as Durbin claimed, that if he were to read the allegations about depriving prisoners of food or forcing them to defecate on themselves, many Americans would be reminded of the Nazis. But that’s because vast swaths of the public and their opinion leaders prefer to live in historical and moral ignorance. (As for thinking of Pol Pot’s killing fields or the Gulag, it’s unlikely, as neither gets a fraction of the attention it deserves.) In the circles frequented by the likes of Durbin — where Howard Dean is a statesman and Michael Moore deserves the Nobel Prize — evil must automatically be associated with “Nazi.”
So it goes in our political culture, where Nazi has become so synonymous with “bad” that all bad things must be Nazi-like — particularly if these bad things have been (allegedly) committed by the United States. Durbin could have compared the alleged abuses to the behavior of the French in Algeria or even to the police in Chicago 20 years ago, and he would have been far closer to the truth. But that just wouldn’t have had the oomph he was looking for — and it would have left too many people scratching their heads.
Iraq lessons learned
I caught this great post via the Mudville Gazette. If (when?) I get sent to Iraq I am going to make all my soldiers read it.
The Enemy:
The enemy is ANYTHING that prevents us from coming home on our own power and intact.
IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) are the #1 killer of troops.
IEDs are not "incidents", but the primary means of contact. It is an "ambush", and whether a "far ambush" (blow it from a distance and run) or a "near ambush" (blow the shot and have small arms fire with close-quarters marksmanship needed), regardless, it is not a random event. The enemy is patient, plans their attack, goes through all the recon and planning we do, and then targets who they hit.
The #2 killer is TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS!!! Everyone must keep this in mind. The up-armored HUMVEES turn and brake way differently, and are prone to tipping. "COMBAT DRIVING" means know your vehicle, use it as a weapons platform AND a weapon as needed, and be able move and communicate at all times... it does NOT mean "drive like the Dukes of Hazzard". As the CSM of the Army said, "Drive like NASCAR"... know you vehicle, keep the distances and speeds YOU need to be safe, and if needed, get under the opposition and put them into the wall. NOTE TO ALL: It is a * bad* idea to put your most junior people in as drivers and gunners, at least to do it all the time. Train them. We all need to be proficient with driving AND being a gunner AND using all the comms available AND navigating using * MAPS* and GPS
The #3 Killer: Failure to execute proper and FAST first responder duties. The difference between life and death is measured in seconds if someone is bleeding out. As just one example, if you get a tourniquet on someone in time, they live. If not, they die. Again, EVERYONE has to know this... .the designated "combat life saver" may be the one hit. It used to be they barred officers from CLS courses as "if the officer is busy doing this, they aren't doing their primary job". That has changed. Standardize where the vehicle response bag is. Have recovery drills, mounted and dismounted. Have MEDEVAC plans, to include if you have to lay people flat. The time to figure out how to change a tire, how to open a vehicle and clear the people AND sensitive items, how to cross load people is NOT while RPG are criss-crossing your area.
Read on here
The Enemy:
The enemy is ANYTHING that prevents us from coming home on our own power and intact.
IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) are the #1 killer of troops.
IEDs are not "incidents", but the primary means of contact. It is an "ambush", and whether a "far ambush" (blow it from a distance and run) or a "near ambush" (blow the shot and have small arms fire with close-quarters marksmanship needed), regardless, it is not a random event. The enemy is patient, plans their attack, goes through all the recon and planning we do, and then targets who they hit.
The #2 killer is TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS!!! Everyone must keep this in mind. The up-armored HUMVEES turn and brake way differently, and are prone to tipping. "COMBAT DRIVING" means know your vehicle, use it as a weapons platform AND a weapon as needed, and be able move and communicate at all times... it does NOT mean "drive like the Dukes of Hazzard". As the CSM of the Army said, "Drive like NASCAR"... know you vehicle, keep the distances and speeds YOU need to be safe, and if needed, get under the opposition and put them into the wall. NOTE TO ALL: It is a * bad* idea to put your most junior people in as drivers and gunners, at least to do it all the time. Train them. We all need to be proficient with driving AND being a gunner AND using all the comms available AND navigating using * MAPS* and GPS
The #3 Killer: Failure to execute proper and FAST first responder duties. The difference between life and death is measured in seconds if someone is bleeding out. As just one example, if you get a tourniquet on someone in time, they live. If not, they die. Again, EVERYONE has to know this... .the designated "combat life saver" may be the one hit. It used to be they barred officers from CLS courses as "if the officer is busy doing this, they aren't doing their primary job". That has changed. Standardize where the vehicle response bag is. Have recovery drills, mounted and dismounted. Have MEDEVAC plans, to include if you have to lay people flat. The time to figure out how to change a tire, how to open a vehicle and clear the people AND sensitive items, how to cross load people is NOT while RPG are criss-crossing your area.
Read on here
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Ken Schram disproves the theory of evolution
I have heard Ken Schram say some stupid things over the years, but this takes the cake. Hat tip LGF.
SEATTLE - Okay. Now I get it.
And because I do, I now have a better understanding for the likes of President Bush, Pat Robertson - even John Carlson.
They can't help themselves.
According to a new study published in the American Political Science Review, being politically conservative is, in part, a matter or genetics.
I've long wondered how an otherwise seemingly rational person could adhere so strictly to stilted ideologies; how they could be so consistently willing to smother a sense of social well-being.
It's merely a matter of having been dumped in the shallow end of the gene pool.
They're sorta like the puppy who piddles in the middle of the floor: They just don't know any better.
It continues, but I do not wish to waste anymore space on my blog on this drivel. I sent him the following letter in response (his e-mail address is available at the link)
Greetings from the shallow end of the gene pool
Dear Ken,
I am a software engineer from Bellevue. I am also a college graduate, future MBA student, and a National Guard officer who has served 2 overseas tours recently. Yes, I am a also a conservative. This is not the result of some genetic accident. I am proud to be a conservative. I am proud to take responsibility for myself, and not pawn my problems off on the government. I am proud to believe in traditional values, and even go to church without feeling ashamed for being old fashioned and superstitious. And I am proud to give up years of my life, and potentially put my life at risk, so that others may be free. I understand as a liberal you may not understand that, we all mock that which we cannot understand. But I do not hate you, I understand that your arrogance and simplemindedness are not your fault. You were just born that way.
James
PS I am posting a copy of this letter at my blog http://thechiefbrief.blogspot.com/ If you would like to post an apology. Come visit, you might learn something.
SEATTLE - Okay. Now I get it.
And because I do, I now have a better understanding for the likes of President Bush, Pat Robertson - even John Carlson.
They can't help themselves.
According to a new study published in the American Political Science Review, being politically conservative is, in part, a matter or genetics.
I've long wondered how an otherwise seemingly rational person could adhere so strictly to stilted ideologies; how they could be so consistently willing to smother a sense of social well-being.
It's merely a matter of having been dumped in the shallow end of the gene pool.
They're sorta like the puppy who piddles in the middle of the floor: They just don't know any better.
It continues, but I do not wish to waste anymore space on my blog on this drivel. I sent him the following letter in response (his e-mail address is available at the link)
Greetings from the shallow end of the gene pool
Dear Ken,
I am a software engineer from Bellevue. I am also a college graduate, future MBA student, and a National Guard officer who has served 2 overseas tours recently. Yes, I am a also a conservative. This is not the result of some genetic accident. I am proud to be a conservative. I am proud to take responsibility for myself, and not pawn my problems off on the government. I am proud to believe in traditional values, and even go to church without feeling ashamed for being old fashioned and superstitious. And I am proud to give up years of my life, and potentially put my life at risk, so that others may be free. I understand as a liberal you may not understand that, we all mock that which we cannot understand. But I do not hate you, I understand that your arrogance and simplemindedness are not your fault. You were just born that way.
James
PS I am posting a copy of this letter at my blog http://thechiefbrief.blogspot.com/ If you would like to post an apology. Come visit, you might learn something.
Don't let Homer find out about this
Enron was one thing, but now the corporate scandals are reaching into the very heart of America. Is nothing sacred?
Doughnut giant Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. (KKD) Tuesday said six officers have left the company under pressure from a special board committee that is looking into accounting practices and other matters that are the subject of a federal probe.
Of course an optimist could just claim they were cutting the fat out of the company...
Doughnut giant Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. (KKD) Tuesday said six officers have left the company under pressure from a special board committee that is looking into accounting practices and other matters that are the subject of a federal probe.
Of course an optimist could just claim they were cutting the fat out of the company...
Warren Buffett Bankruptcy Watch
The Euro actually closed up slightly, but I still found this an interesting followup to this story.
This did not stop the euro falling 0.9 per cent to Y131.70 against the yen and 0.2 per cent to £0.6640 against sterling, although the shared currency did recover from intra-day lows to sit just 0.1 per cent lighter at $1.2137 against the US dollar.
Paul Chertkow, head of global currency research at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, said a fresh impetus was needed to re-test the downside of the euro’s recent range, at $1.2020.
However, Mr Chertkow believes there are around $1bn worth of options in place below the $1.20 level, which could cause the euro to slide precipitously if triggered. “We would have real panic,” he says.
In this eventuality Mr Chertkow sees scope for the euro to fall as far as $1.10, or potentially, even parity against the dollar, led by euro-selling by US companies. “American corporates have insufficient hedging ratios to protect a move on the downside through $1.20,” he said. “This would cause American corporates to capitulate.”
Goldman Sachs also unveiled a gloomy prognosis for the euro yesterday. Thomas Stolper, global markets economist, calculated that repatriation flows under the US Homeland Investment Act had thus far been worth around $30bn-40bn and accounted for a 3 cent drop in the euro. Mr Stolper saw similar flows still to come, implying 3c more of euro weakness.
This did not stop the euro falling 0.9 per cent to Y131.70 against the yen and 0.2 per cent to £0.6640 against sterling, although the shared currency did recover from intra-day lows to sit just 0.1 per cent lighter at $1.2137 against the US dollar.
Paul Chertkow, head of global currency research at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, said a fresh impetus was needed to re-test the downside of the euro’s recent range, at $1.2020.
However, Mr Chertkow believes there are around $1bn worth of options in place below the $1.20 level, which could cause the euro to slide precipitously if triggered. “We would have real panic,” he says.
In this eventuality Mr Chertkow sees scope for the euro to fall as far as $1.10, or potentially, even parity against the dollar, led by euro-selling by US companies. “American corporates have insufficient hedging ratios to protect a move on the downside through $1.20,” he said. “This would cause American corporates to capitulate.”
Goldman Sachs also unveiled a gloomy prognosis for the euro yesterday. Thomas Stolper, global markets economist, calculated that repatriation flows under the US Homeland Investment Act had thus far been worth around $30bn-40bn and accounted for a 3 cent drop in the euro. Mr Stolper saw similar flows still to come, implying 3c more of euro weakness.
I had better start using my espresso machine
I am surprised this ran in the Seattle Times. Talk like this is heresy around here.
SEATTLE -- At a Starbucks across the street from Seattle University School of Law, Kirsten Daniels crams for the bar exam. She's armed with color-coded pens, a don't-mess-with-me crease in her brow and what she calls "my comfort latte."
She just graduated summa cum laude , after three years of legal training that left her $115,000 in debt. Part of that debt, which she will take a decade to repay with interest, was run up at Starbucks, where she buys her lattes.
The habit costs her nearly $3 a day, and it's one that her law school says she and legions like her cannot afford.
UPDATE: Oxblog has a hilarious Fisking of this story:
It's a sad tale, but true. The thrifty young student comes to campus in pursuit of knowledge, only be to led astray by casual sex, recreational drugs and the sweet aromas of the roasted coffee bean.
SEATTLE -- At a Starbucks across the street from Seattle University School of Law, Kirsten Daniels crams for the bar exam. She's armed with color-coded pens, a don't-mess-with-me crease in her brow and what she calls "my comfort latte."
She just graduated summa cum laude , after three years of legal training that left her $115,000 in debt. Part of that debt, which she will take a decade to repay with interest, was run up at Starbucks, where she buys her lattes.
The habit costs her nearly $3 a day, and it's one that her law school says she and legions like her cannot afford.
UPDATE: Oxblog has a hilarious Fisking of this story:
It's a sad tale, but true. The thrifty young student comes to campus in pursuit of knowledge, only be to led astray by casual sex, recreational drugs and the sweet aromas of the roasted coffee bean.
Hitchens on Conspiracy Theories
The Downing Street memo, should be the Downing Street dud. I am sorry, but the revelation that Bush was trying to force a showdown with Saddam and end the standoff one way or another, it had been going on for over 12 years after all, is hardly new. Christopher Hitchens covers this, as well as some other conspiracy theories, a favorite subject of mine.
But the main Downing Street document does not introduce us to any hidden or arcane or occult knowledge. As Fred Kaplan wrote in Slate last week, it explains no mystery. As protagonist Jim Dixon observes in another context in Lucky Jim, it is remarkable for "its niggling mindlessness, its funereal parade of yawn-enforcing facts, the pseudo-light it threw upon non-problems." On a visit to Washington in the prelude to the Iraq war, some senior British officials formed the strong and correct impression that the Bush administration was bent upon an intervention. Their junior note-taker committed the literary and political solecism of saying that intelligence findings and "facts" were being "fixed" around this policy.
Well, if that doesn't prove it, I don't know what does. We apparently have an administration that can, on the word of a British clerk, "fix" not just findings but also "facts." Never mind for now that the English employ the word "fix" in a slightly different way—a better term might have been "organized."
But the main Downing Street document does not introduce us to any hidden or arcane or occult knowledge. As Fred Kaplan wrote in Slate last week, it explains no mystery. As protagonist Jim Dixon observes in another context in Lucky Jim, it is remarkable for "its niggling mindlessness, its funereal parade of yawn-enforcing facts, the pseudo-light it threw upon non-problems." On a visit to Washington in the prelude to the Iraq war, some senior British officials formed the strong and correct impression that the Bush administration was bent upon an intervention. Their junior note-taker committed the literary and political solecism of saying that intelligence findings and "facts" were being "fixed" around this policy.
Well, if that doesn't prove it, I don't know what does. We apparently have an administration that can, on the word of a British clerk, "fix" not just findings but also "facts." Never mind for now that the English employ the word "fix" in a slightly different way—a better term might have been "organized."
Monday, June 20, 2005
Krugman sycophancy watch
The good professor is interviewed by the Telegraph (a takedown on the facts of the article by Tim Worstall). The correspondent gushed over him like a lustful Berkeley undergrad. Geez guy, get a room.
Paul Krugman, the brilliant US economist...
With his soft voice and bearded smile, Paul Krugman looks just how a Princeton professor should look....
But throw this 52-year-old American a serious question and he clears his throat, looks you straight in the eye and bats back a ferociously intensive answer. For Krugman is no ordinary academic. He is arguably the most brilliant economist of his generation....
Krugman combines the virtues of a great economist - analytical clarity and profound respect for facts - with none of the usual caution. Talking to him is like sitting in an intellectual wind--tunnel....
Since then this shy man has emerged as one of America's most influential pundits. His reputation is based neither on a PhD thesis on flexible exchange rates nor on his well regarded textbook on economic principles. It stems instead from his grit and pellucid writing style....
Whether the economics profession likes it or not, he is now in the process of joining the very small number of economists in history - like John Maynard Keynes or Milton Friedman - who've combined academic brilliance with genuine popular appeal....
Don Luskin adds:
Paul Krugman is in London, mongering scare stories about how the American economy is being propped up by the housing market which is, in turn, being propped up by Chinese investment in T-bonds. What's propping up the Chinese econony? And what's propping up whatever is propping up the Chinese economy, and what's propping up that?
Which leads to a question I had about the Krugman interview where it states:
He keeps a close eye on the UK, so I ask him about our housing market too. An intake of breath. "Prices here are completely out of whack with the fundamentals," he says. "Across the UK as a whole, they look as over--inflated as in south Florida and California, the most bubblicious parts of the US".
Krugman goes for the kill. "Interest rates here are a bit higher, so there is some room for manoeuvre," he says. "But if this bubble bursts, the UK economy is in very deep trouble."
If the Chinese are propping up the US housing market, then who is propping up the UK housing market?
Paul Krugman, the brilliant US economist...
With his soft voice and bearded smile, Paul Krugman looks just how a Princeton professor should look....
But throw this 52-year-old American a serious question and he clears his throat, looks you straight in the eye and bats back a ferociously intensive answer. For Krugman is no ordinary academic. He is arguably the most brilliant economist of his generation....
Krugman combines the virtues of a great economist - analytical clarity and profound respect for facts - with none of the usual caution. Talking to him is like sitting in an intellectual wind--tunnel....
Since then this shy man has emerged as one of America's most influential pundits. His reputation is based neither on a PhD thesis on flexible exchange rates nor on his well regarded textbook on economic principles. It stems instead from his grit and pellucid writing style....
Whether the economics profession likes it or not, he is now in the process of joining the very small number of economists in history - like John Maynard Keynes or Milton Friedman - who've combined academic brilliance with genuine popular appeal....
Don Luskin adds:
Paul Krugman is in London, mongering scare stories about how the American economy is being propped up by the housing market which is, in turn, being propped up by Chinese investment in T-bonds. What's propping up the Chinese econony? And what's propping up whatever is propping up the Chinese economy, and what's propping up that?
Which leads to a question I had about the Krugman interview where it states:
He keeps a close eye on the UK, so I ask him about our housing market too. An intake of breath. "Prices here are completely out of whack with the fundamentals," he says. "Across the UK as a whole, they look as over--inflated as in south Florida and California, the most bubblicious parts of the US".
Krugman goes for the kill. "Interest rates here are a bit higher, so there is some room for manoeuvre," he says. "But if this bubble bursts, the UK economy is in very deep trouble."
If the Chinese are propping up the US housing market, then who is propping up the UK housing market?
This is what good money management can get you
OK, the expired meat might be a bit much, but I might have to show this to the wife...
HOUSTON — A retired public school teacher who was so frugal that he bought expired meat and secondhand clothing left $2.1 million for his alma mater, Prairie View A&M — the school's largest gift from a single donor.
Whitlowe R. Green, 88, died of cancer in 2002. He retired in 1983 from the Houston Independent School District, where he was making $28,000 a year as an economics teacher.
HOUSTON — A retired public school teacher who was so frugal that he bought expired meat and secondhand clothing left $2.1 million for his alma mater, Prairie View A&M — the school's largest gift from a single donor.
Whitlowe R. Green, 88, died of cancer in 2002. He retired in 1983 from the Houston Independent School District, where he was making $28,000 a year as an economics teacher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)