This is my Father's Day present from my wife. I wasn't expecting it. I have to say that this is one of the coolest things I have ever used. I had to find a place way down in south Arlington this morning, and this Garmin Nuvi 205 led me right to it. I feel like I can go anywhere now. I guess I tend to be a little behind the curve when it comes to technology. A person could spend a fortune on this stuff. But I didn't expect the feeling of freedom you get from feeling like you can so easily navigate anywhere in the country, or I guess, the world now. Very Cool.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Father's Day
This is my Father's Day present from my wife. I wasn't expecting it. I have to say that this is one of the coolest things I have ever used. I had to find a place way down in south Arlington this morning, and this Garmin Nuvi 205 led me right to it. I feel like I can go anywhere now. I guess I tend to be a little behind the curve when it comes to technology. A person could spend a fortune on this stuff. But I didn't expect the feeling of freedom you get from feeling like you can so easily navigate anywhere in the country, or I guess, the world now. Very Cool.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Media attempt to mislead the public
With the Fourth of July approaching, it is well worth remembering why the founding fathers gave the press special privileges.
They wanted journalists who were not puppets of the government. They wanted journalists to report honestly—to give the folks accurate, unbiased information so they could make informed decisions about who should hold power.
Many of the founders like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams didn't much like the press, but they well understood that, for a democratic Republic to work, voters need honest information.
Unfortunately, the vision of a free and honest press is fast disappearing in America. Let me give you yet another vivid example. This week a poll by the New York Times asked, "Would you be willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans have health insurance... ?"57% said they were willing, 37% not willing, and 6% said "no opinion."
So, according to the Times, overwhelmingly, Americans want government-financed health care. That's what the poll says, right?
But if you read all the way down to the bottom of the poll, you see another question. "Who did you vote for [in the presidential election]?"48% said Obama; just 25% answered McCain. The rest, 19%, did not vote. Wow, that's almost two to one for Obama.But the popular vote tally in the election last November was 53% for Barack Obama, and 46% for John McCain. Wait a minute. That's a lot closer than two to one. So apparently the New York Times skewed the polling by offering the questions to mostly Obama voters. I'm shocked they supported higher taxes for federal health care, aren't you?
This kind of dishonesty is not uncommon in the media. The Times says its poll is "scientific." Sure it is—scientifically stacking the deck.
I believe very few people read the entire poll before digesting the health care headline. The result is a flawed perception of what the American public really wants. The folks may, indeed, support Uncle Sam paying some heavy medical bills, but this poll is not a reflection of anything other than a New York Times deception.By the way, CBS News also had its name on that poll.
As soon as the pollsters learned most the respondents were Obama people, they should have thrown the results out. But the Times ardently favors national health care and a huge federal government. So the con played out.The most frustrating part about this is that nothing can be done. The Times has an ombudsman, but he's a joke, and no outside agency has any power over the paper. It can pretty much do what it wants, and does.
It is true that the Times and some other media outlets, most on the committed left, are on the brink of bankruptcy. The liberal papers say the Internet is to blame, and that's partly true.
But the folks are beginning to understand that the informational fix is in.
What good is "all the news that's fit to print" if the news is bogus?
They wanted journalists who were not puppets of the government. They wanted journalists to report honestly—to give the folks accurate, unbiased information so they could make informed decisions about who should hold power.
Many of the founders like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams didn't much like the press, but they well understood that, for a democratic Republic to work, voters need honest information.
Unfortunately, the vision of a free and honest press is fast disappearing in America. Let me give you yet another vivid example. This week a poll by the New York Times asked, "Would you be willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans have health insurance... ?"57% said they were willing, 37% not willing, and 6% said "no opinion."
So, according to the Times, overwhelmingly, Americans want government-financed health care. That's what the poll says, right?
But if you read all the way down to the bottom of the poll, you see another question. "Who did you vote for [in the presidential election]?"48% said Obama; just 25% answered McCain. The rest, 19%, did not vote. Wow, that's almost two to one for Obama.But the popular vote tally in the election last November was 53% for Barack Obama, and 46% for John McCain. Wait a minute. That's a lot closer than two to one. So apparently the New York Times skewed the polling by offering the questions to mostly Obama voters. I'm shocked they supported higher taxes for federal health care, aren't you?
This kind of dishonesty is not uncommon in the media. The Times says its poll is "scientific." Sure it is—scientifically stacking the deck.
I believe very few people read the entire poll before digesting the health care headline. The result is a flawed perception of what the American public really wants. The folks may, indeed, support Uncle Sam paying some heavy medical bills, but this poll is not a reflection of anything other than a New York Times deception.By the way, CBS News also had its name on that poll.
As soon as the pollsters learned most the respondents were Obama people, they should have thrown the results out. But the Times ardently favors national health care and a huge federal government. So the con played out.The most frustrating part about this is that nothing can be done. The Times has an ombudsman, but he's a joke, and no outside agency has any power over the paper. It can pretty much do what it wants, and does.
It is true that the Times and some other media outlets, most on the committed left, are on the brink of bankruptcy. The liberal papers say the Internet is to blame, and that's partly true.
But the folks are beginning to understand that the informational fix is in.
What good is "all the news that's fit to print" if the news is bogus?
Monday, June 15, 2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Just a couple of explanations for rising energy prices in the midst of our down market economy:
1. Cap and Trade Legislation, and
2. Hedge fund speculators.
amendments protecting you the consumer were offered during the committee debate: one prevented cap and trade from forcing gas prices above $5. Another suspended the legislation if the average retail electricity rates jumped more than 10% above 2009 numbers. Neither amendment passed.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) wanted to let you know how much Waxman-Markey will cost you each time you fill up their gas tank, pay an electric bill, or buy groceries. If her amendment had passed, the cost of following Waxman-Markey would be visible on every food label, gas pump, utility bill, or other manufactured product label. The so-called "blue dog democrats" voted against this. (Taken from article by Elisabeth Meinecke)
Why would gas prices rise in the midst of a deep recession and high unemployment? It makes no sense! On the supply side, gasoline and oil inventories at historical highs, and on the demand side, fewer goods are being transported by trucks, trains and airplanes. So what gives? Why are energy prices suddenly going back up in the midst of a glut?
There are two important points to be made about the role of the futures markets in determining the pricing of basic commodities.
First, it is true that speculators can push commodities far beyond their fundamental long-term value. We saw that when oil prices rose to $147 a barrel a year ago. That’s when speculators are labeled the bad guys. But don’t forget that it was also speculators who pushed the oil prices down to $34 a barrel in January -- far below their fundamental long-term value.
Second, futures markets are not only for speculators, but for hedgers. These are producers who sell and lock into higher prices in order to protect their profits against the possibility of prices coming back down (and they need those higher profits to find new reserves). And they are customers who buy commodity contracts to protect themselves from the possibility of having to pay higher prices down the road. In reality, blaming the speculators for the high price of energy is really attacking the messenger instead of the ultimate culprit. Speculators are looking into the future, and what they see is a very different supply and demand situation for energy. That is, they see a coming shortage in crude oil and a sharp rise in the dollar demand for energy. Let me explain.
On the supply side, speculators see surpluses turning into shortages. OPEC and major oil producers are cutting production. In the long run, most of the cheap oil deposits have already been found. New oil deposits have been discovered off the coasts of South America, Africa and elsewhere, but the new reserves are in inhospitable and inaccessible places, such as the deep waters off Africa and Brazil, or the frozen oceans of the Arctic. And deep-water exploration is extremely expensive compared to land-based exploration. Deep-water extraction isn’t profitable unless oil prices exceed $75 to $80 a barrel, compared to $25 to $30 a barrel for some land-based deposits. In addition, governments everywhere are over-regulating the oil & gas market, either by outright nationalization (OPEC nations) or restricting drilling in new oil fields for environmental reasons (Alaska). The Obama administration wants to impose huge new taxes on traditional oil & gas markets (cap & trade).
On the demand side, speculators see more consumption of energy products as the global economy recovers and emerging markets expand (China, India, Latin America). They also see a new round of inflation coming, as reflected in a weak dollar. To fight the current depression, governments everywhere have adopted “easy money” policies, pumping trillions of new dollars into the economy, and aggressively running massive deficits -- deficits funded with depreciating dollars. Don’t forget that the price of oil is quoted in dollars, and as the dollar weakens, the price of oil inevitably goes up.
A King Dollar policy -- a stronger dollar -- and deregulating the energy markets, would be the best remedies for stabilizing energy prices. But neither one is going to happen, so you better get used to higher gasoline prices. They are inevitable.
(Taken from "Who's to Blame for Rising Gas Prices" by Mark Skousen 06-15-09)
1. Cap and Trade Legislation, and
2. Hedge fund speculators.
amendments protecting you the consumer were offered during the committee debate: one prevented cap and trade from forcing gas prices above $5. Another suspended the legislation if the average retail electricity rates jumped more than 10% above 2009 numbers. Neither amendment passed.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) wanted to let you know how much Waxman-Markey will cost you each time you fill up their gas tank, pay an electric bill, or buy groceries. If her amendment had passed, the cost of following Waxman-Markey would be visible on every food label, gas pump, utility bill, or other manufactured product label. The so-called "blue dog democrats" voted against this. (Taken from article by Elisabeth Meinecke)
. . . .
Why would gas prices rise in the midst of a deep recession and high unemployment? It makes no sense! On the supply side, gasoline and oil inventories at historical highs, and on the demand side, fewer goods are being transported by trucks, trains and airplanes. So what gives? Why are energy prices suddenly going back up in the midst of a glut?
There are two important points to be made about the role of the futures markets in determining the pricing of basic commodities.
First, it is true that speculators can push commodities far beyond their fundamental long-term value. We saw that when oil prices rose to $147 a barrel a year ago. That’s when speculators are labeled the bad guys. But don’t forget that it was also speculators who pushed the oil prices down to $34 a barrel in January -- far below their fundamental long-term value.
Second, futures markets are not only for speculators, but for hedgers. These are producers who sell and lock into higher prices in order to protect their profits against the possibility of prices coming back down (and they need those higher profits to find new reserves). And they are customers who buy commodity contracts to protect themselves from the possibility of having to pay higher prices down the road. In reality, blaming the speculators for the high price of energy is really attacking the messenger instead of the ultimate culprit. Speculators are looking into the future, and what they see is a very different supply and demand situation for energy. That is, they see a coming shortage in crude oil and a sharp rise in the dollar demand for energy. Let me explain.
On the supply side, speculators see surpluses turning into shortages. OPEC and major oil producers are cutting production. In the long run, most of the cheap oil deposits have already been found. New oil deposits have been discovered off the coasts of South America, Africa and elsewhere, but the new reserves are in inhospitable and inaccessible places, such as the deep waters off Africa and Brazil, or the frozen oceans of the Arctic. And deep-water exploration is extremely expensive compared to land-based exploration. Deep-water extraction isn’t profitable unless oil prices exceed $75 to $80 a barrel, compared to $25 to $30 a barrel for some land-based deposits. In addition, governments everywhere are over-regulating the oil & gas market, either by outright nationalization (OPEC nations) or restricting drilling in new oil fields for environmental reasons (Alaska). The Obama administration wants to impose huge new taxes on traditional oil & gas markets (cap & trade).
On the demand side, speculators see more consumption of energy products as the global economy recovers and emerging markets expand (China, India, Latin America). They also see a new round of inflation coming, as reflected in a weak dollar. To fight the current depression, governments everywhere have adopted “easy money” policies, pumping trillions of new dollars into the economy, and aggressively running massive deficits -- deficits funded with depreciating dollars. Don’t forget that the price of oil is quoted in dollars, and as the dollar weakens, the price of oil inevitably goes up.
A King Dollar policy -- a stronger dollar -- and deregulating the energy markets, would be the best remedies for stabilizing energy prices. But neither one is going to happen, so you better get used to higher gasoline prices. They are inevitable.
(Taken from "Who's to Blame for Rising Gas Prices" by Mark Skousen 06-15-09)
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Please go into the light!
Photo without the flash
Photo with a flashThis is weird, I know, but I had to show you all this. I have described it to some of my friends, but it is even hard for me to believe.
I like to have a cigar in my garage with the door up on nicer evenings. In the summertime, when I turn on the garage light, I am barraged(?) (baraged?) by june bugs. They don't hurt anything, but they just bang into me and the walls generally being a nuisance to a relaxing time.
I got this great bug light at Lowe's in Decatur, mainly to keep the mosquitoes off of me in the evening, but it really seems to keep the june bugs occupied. I usually set it on the driveway outside of the garage door. The spots on the driveway are the june bugs gathered around my light. There were quite a few last night, but this was not biggest gathering of them that I have ever witnessed.
The funny thing is that they will not fly into the light; they simply appear to gather around it and love it. They don't come into the garage to bother me; they just sit around the light in a june bug euphoric stupor.
According to MensHealth magazine, about 75% of men find a bug light to be a good form of entertainment. Well, you can count me among them. With a beer, a good cigar, and my bug light, I am set for an hour or so.
Good stuff.
Friday, June 12, 2009
My Father's Day Gift.
I think I have found my Father's Day present.This is a riot. I think the buttons even make the sounds from the show.
...only $2700.00!
Monday, June 8, 2009
This morning's DRC.
My latest letter appeared in the paper today. Mine was actually first this time. Good stuff.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Gas Prices continue upward
May 29, 2009
June 4, 2009
I had to buy gas today. We are slowly closing in on $3 per gallon. I know the left will say they don't remember this, but I remember numerous attacks on President Bush blaming him for the price of gas when it hit $4 per gallon at the end of his administration. There was much hue and cry over that.
Now we are creeping back up. OPEC has cut the flow of oil to our country when the price went back down. We are not producing more of our own to support our country. The Obamination has put more and more pressure on us to drive smaller cars, and this manipulation of gasoline prices is just another device of the current regime...I mean administration to force us in their direction. They are slowly reducing your freedoms by reducing your choices. Why don't you all see that? Make no mistake, this is an artificial manipulation of oil and gas prices by OPEC, and our government is perfectly happy having us dependent on this.
We need to get this Obama guy out of the Whitehouse in the next election.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Whoops, I did it again.
Okay, I admit it. I read Leonard Pitts' column in the paper yesterday and fired off a letter to the editor. I can't help it. He was so obvious this time.
He was advocating reducing and softening our measures to protect ourselves. He says that another attack on American soil is inevitable, so we shouldn't try so hard to stop it.
It made me wonder how much our enemies pay these pundits to write such nonsense.
He is a current version of "Tokyo Rose". Does he not care that his words are demoralizing to Americans, especially those fighting for our freedom and those who fought for our freedom in the past.
If he didn't want people to recognize his treasonous tendencies, he should have written the column better.
He was advocating reducing and softening our measures to protect ourselves. He says that another attack on American soil is inevitable, so we shouldn't try so hard to stop it.
It made me wonder how much our enemies pay these pundits to write such nonsense.
He is a current version of "Tokyo Rose". Does he not care that his words are demoralizing to Americans, especially those fighting for our freedom and those who fought for our freedom in the past.
If he didn't want people to recognize his treasonous tendencies, he should have written the column better.
Writing Seminar at North Branch Library
Thanks to one of my writing friends for this. I think I will try to make some of this. The book is close to conclusion. Picking an ending from several possible scenarios is tough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
