James Oglesby’s reply to David Skibbins (Ponzi Scheme, The Independent Coast Observer, Gualala, CA 7/18/08) illustrated textbook economic principles. The following may aid Mr. Oglesby to comprehend Mr. Skibbins’ economic understanding: Mr. Skibbins is a mystery writer, and economics are a mystery to him (leading me to coin the term “Skibbinomics” a couple of years ago).
Mr. Skibbins is not alone, since Democrats are equally mystified. Faced with rapidly rising oil prices, Nancy Pelosi led a Democrat charge against…. commodity speculators! Great shades of Harold Wilson and his 1964 condemnation of the Gnomes of Zürich!
Bush hatred coupled with economic ignorance and myopia make Democrats blame high oil prices on Bush, oil companies, and speculators. Apparently they haven’t noticed the strong economic growth of developing nations – China, India, Brazil, and numerous others – causing prices to increase dramatically since 2002 for resources: aluminum, 96%; copper, 360%; corn, 70%; gold, 125 %; nickel, 452%; steel, 117%; zinc, 314%; and, oh yes, oil, 177%. (see "Let's Shoot the Speculators," by Robert J. Samuelson, Newsweek.com)
Oil prices are set in world markets, and demand has risen sharply while production hasn’t. China and India alone account for 70 percent of increased consumption.
While Democrats blame Bush, oil companies, and speculators, they continue banning drilling in ANWR (2200 acres of mosquito-infested tundra and bog, about the size of a small airport) and offshore (out of sight from land). Democrats fan fears of offshore drilling oil spills, which now average only 6500 barrels a year, or less than four days worth of natural daily seepage.
(see "Stop the Energy Insanity," By Mortimer B. Zuckerman, USNews.com)
Democrats argue that drilling now wouldn’t produce more oil for ten years. That’s what they said ten years ago. Had we drilled then, we’d have more oil now from reserves totaling 96 billion barrels (equal to 200 years of Saudi Arabian imports), plus 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Unlike Democrat scapegoating, we would actually be doing something to reduce gas prices.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Unglued Idiot of the Day - Governor Schwarzenegger
It’s sad when the steroids that bulk up your body make your brain muscle-bound too. Today Arnold shows that some of his injections when right to his brain. With no evidence that man-caused global warming exists, but abundant evidence that natural climate change is occurring, the anthropogenic Austrian has criticized President Bush for not believing in something for which there is no evidence of its existence.
Next he will be all over President Bush for not believing in the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny.
It’s too bad that Arnold didn’t have time between injections to study World History and learn of recent periods of greater natural warming: the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago, and the Holocene Optimum of 5,000 years ago. Or he could have learned of the end of the last Ice Age, only 18,000 years ago, or the terrible famines, epidemics, and storms of the recent Little Ice Ages.
Had he but known of these recent natural climate extremes, he wouldn’t have exposed his Mr. World ignorance - unless, of course, it’s just more pandering to the immensely ignorant masses of California Democrats, who have made him what he now is: just another fumbling, bumbling California politician, succeeding only in making things worse with every misguided attempt at improvements.
It’s Grey Davis on steroids with a charisma transplant.
Next he will be all over President Bush for not believing in the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny.
It’s too bad that Arnold didn’t have time between injections to study World History and learn of recent periods of greater natural warming: the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago, and the Holocene Optimum of 5,000 years ago. Or he could have learned of the end of the last Ice Age, only 18,000 years ago, or the terrible famines, epidemics, and storms of the recent Little Ice Ages.
Had he but known of these recent natural climate extremes, he wouldn’t have exposed his Mr. World ignorance - unless, of course, it’s just more pandering to the immensely ignorant masses of California Democrats, who have made him what he now is: just another fumbling, bumbling California politician, succeeding only in making things worse with every misguided attempt at improvements.
It’s Grey Davis on steroids with a charisma transplant.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Unglued Idiot of the Day Award - Paul Krugman of the New York Times
A very upset woman once phoned her bank, outraged that checks she had written were bouncing. “What do you mean, I have to stop? I still have lots of checks left.”
In his article, Mr. Krugman acknowledged that Medicare is broke:
In other words, Medicare is broke.
Mr. Krugman applauds the Democrats for solving the Medicare insolvency problem by ignoring it. According to Mr. Krugman, this is a positive step towards universal rather than privatized health services.
Let’s see if we can sum this up. The government run health system, Medicare, is insolvent and cannot pay its obligations without violating the rules that established its payment methodologies.
The Democrat answer is not to do anything to rescue Medicare from insolvency, like privatization, but instead to increase payment rates beyond legally established levels, and expand the federal budget deficit.
Why do we criticize the woman who wrote checks beyond the funds in her account, when we elect leaders to do the same with our tax money?
For being such a vocal advocate for irresponsible Medicare management, Paul Krugman is today’s honored recipient of the Unglued Idiot of the Day Award. From the evidence of his past articles, Mr. Krugman will consider criticism of his advocacy of irresponsible government spending to be an honor.
In his article, Mr. Krugman acknowledged that Medicare is broke:
This year, the automatic cuts (Medicare expenses far exceed income) would have reduced doctors’ payments by more than 10 percent, a pay reduction so deep that many physicians would probably have stopped taking Medicare patients.
In previous years, payments to doctors were maintained through bipartisan fudging: politicians from both parties got together to waive the rules. In effect, Congress kept Medicare functioning by expanding the federal budget deficit.
In other words, Medicare is broke.
Mr. Krugman applauds the Democrats for solving the Medicare insolvency problem by ignoring it. According to Mr. Krugman, this is a positive step towards universal rather than privatized health services.
Let’s see if we can sum this up. The government run health system, Medicare, is insolvent and cannot pay its obligations without violating the rules that established its payment methodologies.
The Democrat answer is not to do anything to rescue Medicare from insolvency, like privatization, but instead to increase payment rates beyond legally established levels, and expand the federal budget deficit.
Why do we criticize the woman who wrote checks beyond the funds in her account, when we elect leaders to do the same with our tax money?
For being such a vocal advocate for irresponsible Medicare management, Paul Krugman is today’s honored recipient of the Unglued Idiot of the Day Award. From the evidence of his past articles, Mr. Krugman will consider criticism of his advocacy of irresponsible government spending to be an honor.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Unglued Idiot of the Day Award - Barack Obama (2nd Award)
After being a part of the Democrat chorus about President Bush being a “unilateralist” and not working with allies, Obama comes out with a pronouncement on Iran that shows he favors being a unilateralist and not working with our European allies.
This is his pattern: criticize when President Bush does one thing, and criticize again when he does the other.
H's saintly grandmother must have at sometime told him, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.” (To Democrats President Bush is "W", and to me, Senator Obama is "H." Fair's fair.)
Unless you’re an unglued Democrat idiot.
Congratulation, Mr. B. Hussein Obama.
You’re our first repeat “winner.”
This is his pattern: criticize when President Bush does one thing, and criticize again when he does the other.
H's saintly grandmother must have at sometime told him, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.” (To Democrats President Bush is "W", and to me, Senator Obama is "H." Fair's fair.)
Unless you’re an unglued Democrat idiot.
Congratulation, Mr. B. Hussein Obama.
You’re our first repeat “winner.”
Unglued Idiot of the Day - Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
This one is too easy. Australian PM Rudd is a raving fool every day, but when he speaks of Australia’s role in fighting “man-caused” global warming, he reaches the epitome of lunacy.
An able Australian columnist, Andrew Bolt, notes that the draconian measures Australia could inflict on its economy to reduce CO2 emissions would be equal to 28 days of world emissions in the next decade. In other words, following Al Gore’s admonishments would destroy Australia’s economy with no measurable effect on world weather.
Bolt also reports that India has been tracking climate changes in India for many decades, and does not detect any of significance.
It is obvious that fighting global warming is a “solution in search of a problem.”
An able Australian columnist, Andrew Bolt, notes that the draconian measures Australia could inflict on its economy to reduce CO2 emissions would be equal to 28 days of world emissions in the next decade. In other words, following Al Gore’s admonishments would destroy Australia’s economy with no measurable effect on world weather.
Bolt also reports that India has been tracking climate changes in India for many decades, and does not detect any of significance.
It is obvious that fighting global warming is a “solution in search of a problem.”
Friday, July 04, 2008
Unglued Idiot of the Day Award – Barack Obama Wriggling on Troop Withdrawal
The following excerpt is from an International Herald Tribune article, Changing dynamics in Iraq pose challenge for Obama, By Michael Cooper and Jeff Zeleny, Published: July 4, 2008.
So, Mr. Obama, what is confusing you?
Things were too violent, so we didn’t pull the troops out, and now the violence is greatly reduced. So it was a good idea to leave the troops there, wasn’t it? And you were wrong to oppose leaving the troops there to quell the violence, weren’t you?
Now that the violence has subsided, you want to pull the troops out and let the violence increase again? Then what should we do?
I bet your grandmother once told you, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Mr. Obama, you have what appears to me a thoroughly undeserved reputation for intelligence. What sense is it to succeed in reducing the violence, and then set the stage for a recurrence of violence?
Mr. Obama, the United States had and still has bases in countries that haven’t attacked us for over half a century, or more (the UK hasn’t attacked us for almost 200 years, and we still have bases there). While in the Air Force I was stationed in Turkey and England, and had duty at bases in Japan, Korea, Germany, Thailand, and The Philippines. My oldest son was stationed with the Army in Germany for a total of ten years.
Why wouldn’t we maintain troops in Iraq indefinitely, as long as it serves our national purposes, the same as we have in so many other countries?
That Democrat donkey kicked you in the head, right?
That explains why you're "Stuck on Stupid."
Obama said that under his plan, there would still be combat troops in Iraq in 2010, seven years after the war began. And he questioned the premise that the recent gains could complicate the withdrawal.
"Those are the same folks who said that we can't pull troops out because things are too violent," he said. "Now that the violence has subsided, you can't pull troops out because things have improved. It's a Catch-22."
So, Mr. Obama, what is confusing you?
Things were too violent, so we didn’t pull the troops out, and now the violence is greatly reduced. So it was a good idea to leave the troops there, wasn’t it? And you were wrong to oppose leaving the troops there to quell the violence, weren’t you?
Now that the violence has subsided, you want to pull the troops out and let the violence increase again? Then what should we do?
I bet your grandmother once told you, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Mr. Obama, you have what appears to me a thoroughly undeserved reputation for intelligence. What sense is it to succeed in reducing the violence, and then set the stage for a recurrence of violence?
Mr. Obama, the United States had and still has bases in countries that haven’t attacked us for over half a century, or more (the UK hasn’t attacked us for almost 200 years, and we still have bases there). While in the Air Force I was stationed in Turkey and England, and had duty at bases in Japan, Korea, Germany, Thailand, and The Philippines. My oldest son was stationed with the Army in Germany for a total of ten years.
Why wouldn’t we maintain troops in Iraq indefinitely, as long as it serves our national purposes, the same as we have in so many other countries?
That Democrat donkey kicked you in the head, right?
That explains why you're "Stuck on Stupid."
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Unglued Idiot of the Day – Nancy Pelosi and the Fairness Doctrine
Nancy Pelosi, perennial contender, wins the Unglued Idiot of the Day Award for June 25, 2008, for her support of bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was dispatched during President Reagan’s administration.
Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) has written a bill to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” - which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.
Nancy Pelosi supports the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, primarily because conservatives have done such a good job of gaining and holding the interest of radio talk show audiences, and liberals have not. According to Ms. Pelosi, New York Democratic Rep. “Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.”
I have a theory about why Democrats want to revive the moribund “Fairness Doctrine.” It’s a desperate attempt to save Air America. Air America, with its ultra-liberal lineup of hosts, steadily tanked from its opening, which is terminal and is maintained on life support only by the Liberal practice of throwing good money after bad. Theoretically, if stations broadcasting Air America had to also include conservative shows – Rush, Hannity, etc. – then maybe people would listen, and sponsors would sponsor.
Air America is like the host of failed Liberal schemes of the last century. If a dumb Liberal idea isn’t working, then the problem must be that it was underfunded, and instead of mercifully pulling the plug and allowing “death with dignity,” Liberals throw more money (usually other people’s) at it.
Off the top of my head, examples include: busing to integrate schools (which succeeded in increasing school segregation while wasting scarce education resources); refusing over ten years ago to allow oil drilling offshore and in ANWAR “because we won’t get more oil for ten years” (now it’s ten years later, and we would have more oil, except… and now Democrats are again saying we shouldn’t drill because “because we won’t get more oil for ten years”); unilaterally saving the planet from “global warming” by proposing destruction to the United States economy, while China and India feed their burgeoning economies a steady diet of oil and coal; and proposing to lower gas prices by increasing taxes on oil companies (I know Liberals who think this will work, the same ones that believe you can raise taxes to grow the economy).
Actually, I don’t believe reviving the “Fairness Doctrine” is a Liberal attempt to save Air America; it just gave me another way to kick failed Liberal programs around some more.
I actually believe that all Liberals want to do is kill the popular outlet for conservative thought, talk radio, because they tried to compete with Air America and failed miserably. In accordance with the Liberal doctrine of “if you can’t compete with it, kill it!”, Democrat legislators know that if they require radio stations to carry expensive but unpopular Liberal programs, the radio stations will have to drop the popular conservative shows and go back to brain-dead formats like “all news,” of course provided by the Liberal dominated Main Stream Media.
Now there’s a good idea! Why don’t Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats require all news and entertainment media to provide equal time? What makes radio different from television, magazines, and newspapers? Throwing aside irrelevant technicalities, they are all in the entertainment business.
Why are news readers (the appropriate British title for news anchors) Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer paid huge salaries? Why is Rush Limbaugh paid more than four prestigious anchors – according to the New York Times, his new contract calls for $400 million through 2016 – combined!?
While the Liberals in my half-vast audience are fuming about Rush’s high valuation, I’ll answer my own question: Rush is paid exorbitant sums because that is his entertainment value. Anyone can read a news article, but only Rush can comment on that article in such a way that he has a huge daily audience eager to hear his take on daily news items. If a radio station carrying his program was forced to run programming every day that in essence said, “we don’t agree with Rush,” that station would lose audience in droves as soon as Rush signed off each day.
Instead of engaging in such programming stupidity, Rush’s stations follow his show with Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and other popular conservative talk show hosts, building on Rush’s popularity instead of fighting to diminish his effect.
Tiger Woods has a similar effect in golf. There are thousands of professional golfers, and I’m sure that Liberals feels each should be given a chance to appear in a tournament. Therefore, if golf was run the way Democrats want to do radio, each tournament would have to have an equal mix of winners and losers.
Until the Democrats spread their influence wider, golf and most other activities will select participants by ability, not some politicians’ idea of “fairness.”
However, that won’t stop the Democrats from trying to “hush Rush.”
Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) has written a bill to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” - which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.
Nancy Pelosi supports the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, primarily because conservatives have done such a good job of gaining and holding the interest of radio talk show audiences, and liberals have not. According to Ms. Pelosi, New York Democratic Rep. “Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.”
I have a theory about why Democrats want to revive the moribund “Fairness Doctrine.” It’s a desperate attempt to save Air America. Air America, with its ultra-liberal lineup of hosts, steadily tanked from its opening, which is terminal and is maintained on life support only by the Liberal practice of throwing good money after bad. Theoretically, if stations broadcasting Air America had to also include conservative shows – Rush, Hannity, etc. – then maybe people would listen, and sponsors would sponsor.
Air America is like the host of failed Liberal schemes of the last century. If a dumb Liberal idea isn’t working, then the problem must be that it was underfunded, and instead of mercifully pulling the plug and allowing “death with dignity,” Liberals throw more money (usually other people’s) at it.
Off the top of my head, examples include: busing to integrate schools (which succeeded in increasing school segregation while wasting scarce education resources); refusing over ten years ago to allow oil drilling offshore and in ANWAR “because we won’t get more oil for ten years” (now it’s ten years later, and we would have more oil, except… and now Democrats are again saying we shouldn’t drill because “because we won’t get more oil for ten years”); unilaterally saving the planet from “global warming” by proposing destruction to the United States economy, while China and India feed their burgeoning economies a steady diet of oil and coal; and proposing to lower gas prices by increasing taxes on oil companies (I know Liberals who think this will work, the same ones that believe you can raise taxes to grow the economy).
Actually, I don’t believe reviving the “Fairness Doctrine” is a Liberal attempt to save Air America; it just gave me another way to kick failed Liberal programs around some more.
I actually believe that all Liberals want to do is kill the popular outlet for conservative thought, talk radio, because they tried to compete with Air America and failed miserably. In accordance with the Liberal doctrine of “if you can’t compete with it, kill it!”, Democrat legislators know that if they require radio stations to carry expensive but unpopular Liberal programs, the radio stations will have to drop the popular conservative shows and go back to brain-dead formats like “all news,” of course provided by the Liberal dominated Main Stream Media.
Now there’s a good idea! Why don’t Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats require all news and entertainment media to provide equal time? What makes radio different from television, magazines, and newspapers? Throwing aside irrelevant technicalities, they are all in the entertainment business.
Why are news readers (the appropriate British title for news anchors) Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer paid huge salaries? Why is Rush Limbaugh paid more than four prestigious anchors – according to the New York Times, his new contract calls for $400 million through 2016 – combined!?
While the Liberals in my half-vast audience are fuming about Rush’s high valuation, I’ll answer my own question: Rush is paid exorbitant sums because that is his entertainment value. Anyone can read a news article, but only Rush can comment on that article in such a way that he has a huge daily audience eager to hear his take on daily news items. If a radio station carrying his program was forced to run programming every day that in essence said, “we don’t agree with Rush,” that station would lose audience in droves as soon as Rush signed off each day.
Instead of engaging in such programming stupidity, Rush’s stations follow his show with Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and other popular conservative talk show hosts, building on Rush’s popularity instead of fighting to diminish his effect.
Tiger Woods has a similar effect in golf. There are thousands of professional golfers, and I’m sure that Liberals feels each should be given a chance to appear in a tournament. Therefore, if golf was run the way Democrats want to do radio, each tournament would have to have an equal mix of winners and losers.
Until the Democrats spread their influence wider, golf and most other activities will select participants by ability, not some politicians’ idea of “fairness.”
However, that won’t stop the Democrats from trying to “hush Rush.”
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Michael Kinsley Sank by Swift Boat
To Swift-Boat or Not
Time Magazine, Thursday, Jun. 12, 2008 By MICHAEL KINSLEY
Michael Kinsley remarks early in his article that “Swift-boat is shorthand for the brilliant, despicable Republican campaign strategy in 2004 that turned John Kerry's honorable service in Vietnam into a negative factor in his campaign. “
Then Kinsley dismisses any arguments about the merits of Kerry’s service:
I for one remember the Swift-Boat campaign – it is seared, seared in my memory.
Just like John Kerry’s memory of Christmas 1968 in Cambodia.
This was the version of his Swift Boat exploits that John Kerry gave on the floor of the Senate in 1986 in a “carefully prepared 20-minute oration against aid to the Nicaraguan contras.”
(Kerry’s Cambodia Whopper, Washington Post, By Joshua Muravchik, Tuesday, August 24, 2004; Page A17)
The president he referred to, Richard Nixon, would not take office for another month. The Khmer Rouge were a couple of years away. None of Kerry’s supporters corroborated his searing memories of any Cambodian incursions.
I don’t see anything wrong with Swift-Boat veterans or anyone else making an issue of Kerry’s truthfulness about his Christmas in Cambodia claims, do you, Mr. Kinsley?
If you do, Mr. Kinsley, are you opposed to seeking out truth, or only opposed when a Democrat is challenged? Do you think Kerry told the truth about his 1968 Christmas in Cambodia?
We soon learned that there was no way a Swift Boat would have gone unnoticed into Cambodia. One, the border was well marked and patrolled; you just didn’t stumble across it, because the Mekong flows directly out of Cambodia into Vietnam. Two, a Swift Boat is large and extremely noisy; only a fool or a Democrat would even conceive of one being used for clandestine activities.
But enough of beating on a deserved loser for the lies he told repeatedly over a period of three decades.
Is it fair that Michael Kinsley gives Republicans sole credit for a campaign strategy in 2004 that turned a man’s honorable military service into a negative factor in his campaign?
If you think the answer is yes, then I'm not going to waste precious time in this fascinating blog arguing with you.
Like Hell I’m not!
There was an organized effort by Democrats in 2004 – and before – to denigrate George W. Bush’s service as a fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. This effort was despicable at many levels.
The first is that at the time George Bush and John Kerry volunteered for duty, serving as a National Guard fighter pilot, even in peacetime, was far more dangerous than Swift Boat service. George Bush went through hazardous pilot training, and then was assigned to fly aircraft intercept missions, often in all weather conditions and at night.
The critics of his service must not have ever served in the military to be so ignorant of the dangers of flying fighter aircraft intercept missions at night and in foul weather.
In contrast, when Kerry chose Swift Boats, their mission was coastal, and only later were Swift Boats assigned riverine warfare duties. Even then, the threat from the Viet Cong was minimal, since they had no ships or guns that posed credible threats to the fast, armored and well-armed Swift Boats.
The cause célèbre of the Democrat’s attack on George Bush’s military service was the forged Texas Air National Guard (TANG) letters that CBS News and Dan Rather rushed before the American public. Unfortunately for CBS News and Dan Rather, the American viewing public included both computer and military experts. The computer experts immediately identified features in the letters that could not have been produced by the typewriters used by squadron military administrative assistants at the time they were purportedly written, and the military experts identified the use of Army terminology instead of Air Force.
Now only Dan Rather, and probably Michael Kinsley, believe that the TANG letters were genuine. And probably only Mr. Kinsley believes that they were the work of "independent" operatives unconnected to John F. Kerry's campaign.
So, Mr. Kinsley, what’s the score?
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth exposed obvious Kerry lies.
On the other hand, Democrats engaged in a campaign to smear George Bush’s military service that ignored the inherent dangers of flying fighter aircraft, and attempted to pass off forged documents to discredit his service.
Isn’t it odd that you are offended by the one, and not the other?
Are you a seeker of truth, or just another Democrat tool?
Time Magazine, Thursday, Jun. 12, 2008 By MICHAEL KINSLEY
Michael Kinsley remarks early in his article that “Swift-boat is shorthand for the brilliant, despicable Republican campaign strategy in 2004 that turned John Kerry's honorable service in Vietnam into a negative factor in his campaign. “
Then Kinsley dismisses any arguments about the merits of Kerry’s service:
If you remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign and don't see anything wrong with it--or if you believe it was the work of "independent" operatives unconnected to George W. Bush's campaign--I'm not going to waste precious space on the back page of a national newsmagazine arguing with you.
I for one remember the Swift-Boat campaign – it is seared, seared in my memory.
Just like John Kerry’s memory of Christmas 1968 in Cambodia.
"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."
This was the version of his Swift Boat exploits that John Kerry gave on the floor of the Senate in 1986 in a “carefully prepared 20-minute oration against aid to the Nicaraguan contras.”
(Kerry’s Cambodia Whopper, Washington Post, By Joshua Muravchik, Tuesday, August 24, 2004; Page A17)
The president he referred to, Richard Nixon, would not take office for another month. The Khmer Rouge were a couple of years away. None of Kerry’s supporters corroborated his searing memories of any Cambodian incursions.
I don’t see anything wrong with Swift-Boat veterans or anyone else making an issue of Kerry’s truthfulness about his Christmas in Cambodia claims, do you, Mr. Kinsley?
If you do, Mr. Kinsley, are you opposed to seeking out truth, or only opposed when a Democrat is challenged? Do you think Kerry told the truth about his 1968 Christmas in Cambodia?
We soon learned that there was no way a Swift Boat would have gone unnoticed into Cambodia. One, the border was well marked and patrolled; you just didn’t stumble across it, because the Mekong flows directly out of Cambodia into Vietnam. Two, a Swift Boat is large and extremely noisy; only a fool or a Democrat would even conceive of one being used for clandestine activities.
But enough of beating on a deserved loser for the lies he told repeatedly over a period of three decades.
Is it fair that Michael Kinsley gives Republicans sole credit for a campaign strategy in 2004 that turned a man’s honorable military service into a negative factor in his campaign?
If you think the answer is yes, then I'm not going to waste precious time in this fascinating blog arguing with you.
Like Hell I’m not!
There was an organized effort by Democrats in 2004 – and before – to denigrate George W. Bush’s service as a fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. This effort was despicable at many levels.
The first is that at the time George Bush and John Kerry volunteered for duty, serving as a National Guard fighter pilot, even in peacetime, was far more dangerous than Swift Boat service. George Bush went through hazardous pilot training, and then was assigned to fly aircraft intercept missions, often in all weather conditions and at night.
The critics of his service must not have ever served in the military to be so ignorant of the dangers of flying fighter aircraft intercept missions at night and in foul weather.
In contrast, when Kerry chose Swift Boats, their mission was coastal, and only later were Swift Boats assigned riverine warfare duties. Even then, the threat from the Viet Cong was minimal, since they had no ships or guns that posed credible threats to the fast, armored and well-armed Swift Boats.
The cause célèbre of the Democrat’s attack on George Bush’s military service was the forged Texas Air National Guard (TANG) letters that CBS News and Dan Rather rushed before the American public. Unfortunately for CBS News and Dan Rather, the American viewing public included both computer and military experts. The computer experts immediately identified features in the letters that could not have been produced by the typewriters used by squadron military administrative assistants at the time they were purportedly written, and the military experts identified the use of Army terminology instead of Air Force.
Now only Dan Rather, and probably Michael Kinsley, believe that the TANG letters were genuine. And probably only Mr. Kinsley believes that they were the work of "independent" operatives unconnected to John F. Kerry's campaign.
So, Mr. Kinsley, what’s the score?
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth exposed obvious Kerry lies.
On the other hand, Democrats engaged in a campaign to smear George Bush’s military service that ignored the inherent dangers of flying fighter aircraft, and attempted to pass off forged documents to discredit his service.
Isn’t it odd that you are offended by the one, and not the other?
Are you a seeker of truth, or just another Democrat tool?
Monday, June 23, 2008
Unglued Idiot of the Day – James Hansen of NASA
Unglued Idiot of the Day – James Hansen: Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist
According to The Guardian, June 23, 2008:
Having just awarded Lou Dobbs an Unglued Idiot of the Day award for June 19, I now find James Hansen using similar language calling for placing oil company executives on trial as Mr. Dobbs did in calling for President Bush to be impeached for allowing the tomato salmonella outbreak.
As was the case with Mr. Dobbs, Mr. Hansen has not identified a law that was violated by the executives, since in fact none exist, but simply declares that they have committed “high crimes against humanity and nature.”
Mr. Dobbs alleged that President Bush had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the only grounds available to support impeachment (unless a salmonella outbreak falls under treason or bribery).
Once again, liberals show either monumental ignorance or disdain for the rule of law. Mr. Hansen, you cannot make up laws to punish legal acts after the fact.
In fact, Article One, Section 9, of our Constitution specifically prohibits our government to establish ex post facto laws.
Mr. Hansen, not only are there no laws on the books that would provide for prosecution of oil company executives, there are no injuries to serve as a basis for prosecutions. Of course, the only way such laws could exist is if the First Amendment were suspended enabling laws to be passed making disagreement about man-caused global warming a punishable crime.
Mr. Hansen, why single out oil company executives for punishment when there are over 31,000 scientists who also are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming? Isn’t that selective prosecution?
Of course, if it’s being influential that counts, why not prosecute longtime global warming skeptic Sen. James Inhofe, R-Ok.? He stated, "Hansen, (former Vice President) Gore and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it." Then Senator Inhofe cited a recent poll proving his point. (The British don't believe it either.)
Or how about Michael Crichton, whose novel “State of Fear” exposed the fallacies of blaming climate change on mankind’s activities?
Or the Weather Channel founder, John Coleman? He's "highly critical of global warming alarmism."
Or how about prosecuting me? Unlike many of the other skeptics, I and my blog would welcome the publicity.
Quick, before someone shows you a copy of the Constitution, swear out charges against me!
Pretty please.
According to The Guardian, June 23, 2008:
James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.
Having just awarded Lou Dobbs an Unglued Idiot of the Day award for June 19, I now find James Hansen using similar language calling for placing oil company executives on trial as Mr. Dobbs did in calling for President Bush to be impeached for allowing the tomato salmonella outbreak.
As was the case with Mr. Dobbs, Mr. Hansen has not identified a law that was violated by the executives, since in fact none exist, but simply declares that they have committed “high crimes against humanity and nature.”
Mr. Dobbs alleged that President Bush had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the only grounds available to support impeachment (unless a salmonella outbreak falls under treason or bribery).
Once again, liberals show either monumental ignorance or disdain for the rule of law. Mr. Hansen, you cannot make up laws to punish legal acts after the fact.
In fact, Article One, Section 9, of our Constitution specifically prohibits our government to establish ex post facto laws.
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "After The Fact") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted.
Mr. Hansen, not only are there no laws on the books that would provide for prosecution of oil company executives, there are no injuries to serve as a basis for prosecutions. Of course, the only way such laws could exist is if the First Amendment were suspended enabling laws to be passed making disagreement about man-caused global warming a punishable crime.
Mr. Hansen, why single out oil company executives for punishment when there are over 31,000 scientists who also are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming? Isn’t that selective prosecution?
Of course, if it’s being influential that counts, why not prosecute longtime global warming skeptic Sen. James Inhofe, R-Ok.? He stated, "Hansen, (former Vice President) Gore and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it." Then Senator Inhofe cited a recent poll proving his point. (The British don't believe it either.)
Or how about Michael Crichton, whose novel “State of Fear” exposed the fallacies of blaming climate change on mankind’s activities?
Or the Weather Channel founder, John Coleman? He's "highly critical of global warming alarmism."
Or how about prosecuting me? Unlike many of the other skeptics, I and my blog would welcome the publicity.
Quick, before someone shows you a copy of the Constitution, swear out charges against me!
Pretty please.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Unglued Idiot of the Day Award to Lou Dobbs - Impeach President for Salmonella Outbreak
Impeachment for Salmonella Outbreaks?
The Unglued Idiot of the Day Award for June 19, 2008 is given to Lou Dobbs for his statement on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that President Bush should be impeached for the tomato salmonella outbreak.
Thanks to the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky episode, almost all Americans, with the apparent exception of Lou Dobbs, are familiar with our Constitutional grounds for impeachment.
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
According to Mr. Dobbs, the Food and Drug Administration leadership is in a 'sorry condition' and its inability to 'protect the American consumer' is 'sufficient reason to impeach the president.'
Since it does not seem Mr. Dobbs considers the salmonella outbreak to be a result of treason or bribery, that leaves him using the commission of a high crime or misdemeanor as the grounds for impeachment. With Bill Clinton it was very easy to see that laws – perjury and obstruction of justice – were violated, and that crimes were committed. Although Clinton confessed his perjury and obstruction of justice, he was not convicted. However, his violations of law resulted in Clinton ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to Arkansas state's bar officials and his Arkansas law license suspended for five years. In addition, Clinton was suspended by the Supreme Court in October 2001, and, facing disbarment from that court, Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar in November.
Mr. Dobbs, what laws did President Bush violate that resulted in the tomato salmonella outbreak?
Mr. Dobbs, if salmonella outbreaks were grounds for impeachment, there would not be one president spared. A bit of Googling shows that salmonella outbreaks have occurred in many forms for many years during all presidential administrations, and many were far more serious than this recent one.
The worst occurred in 1986 and involved low-fat milk in Chicago. I suppose this would inspire you to call for the impeachment of President Reagan, since 16,284 persons were known victims, and five died, compared to the 383 sickened by tomato-carried salmonella, and the cancer patient who died. However, the problem was the responsibility of the State of Illinois, not the Federal Government.
Contamination of chickens by salmonella was 20 percent during the latter years of the Clinton presidency, and has been reduced steadily since. Of course you know, Mr. Dobbs, that salmonella outbreaks have usually been blamed on chickens and eggs, and that a virulent strain of drug-resistant salmonella developed during the Clinton administration.
Apparently, Mr. Dobbs, the Food and Drug Administration leadership was in a 'sorry condition' then, too, and its inability to 'protect the American consumer' was 'sufficient reason to impeach the president.'
You must agree that this should have been added to Clinton’s impeachment charges. Consistency would require it, don’t you think?
The Unglued Idiot of the Day Award for June 19, 2008 is given to Lou Dobbs for his statement on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that President Bush should be impeached for the tomato salmonella outbreak.
Thanks to the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky episode, almost all Americans, with the apparent exception of Lou Dobbs, are familiar with our Constitutional grounds for impeachment.
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
According to Mr. Dobbs, the Food and Drug Administration leadership is in a 'sorry condition' and its inability to 'protect the American consumer' is 'sufficient reason to impeach the president.'
Since it does not seem Mr. Dobbs considers the salmonella outbreak to be a result of treason or bribery, that leaves him using the commission of a high crime or misdemeanor as the grounds for impeachment. With Bill Clinton it was very easy to see that laws – perjury and obstruction of justice – were violated, and that crimes were committed. Although Clinton confessed his perjury and obstruction of justice, he was not convicted. However, his violations of law resulted in Clinton ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to Arkansas state's bar officials and his Arkansas law license suspended for five years. In addition, Clinton was suspended by the Supreme Court in October 2001, and, facing disbarment from that court, Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar in November.
Mr. Dobbs, what laws did President Bush violate that resulted in the tomato salmonella outbreak?
Mr. Dobbs, if salmonella outbreaks were grounds for impeachment, there would not be one president spared. A bit of Googling shows that salmonella outbreaks have occurred in many forms for many years during all presidential administrations, and many were far more serious than this recent one.
The worst occurred in 1986 and involved low-fat milk in Chicago. I suppose this would inspire you to call for the impeachment of President Reagan, since 16,284 persons were known victims, and five died, compared to the 383 sickened by tomato-carried salmonella, and the cancer patient who died. However, the problem was the responsibility of the State of Illinois, not the Federal Government.
Contamination of chickens by salmonella was 20 percent during the latter years of the Clinton presidency, and has been reduced steadily since. Of course you know, Mr. Dobbs, that salmonella outbreaks have usually been blamed on chickens and eggs, and that a virulent strain of drug-resistant salmonella developed during the Clinton administration.
Apparently, Mr. Dobbs, the Food and Drug Administration leadership was in a 'sorry condition' then, too, and its inability to 'protect the American consumer' was 'sufficient reason to impeach the president.'
You must agree that this should have been added to Clinton’s impeachment charges. Consistency would require it, don’t you think?
Thursday, June 19, 2008
John Murtha, Democrat Tool and Marine Disgrace
John Murtha, the closest thing the Democrats have to a military expert (I noted two years ago that as dumb as he is, Murtha's still the best Democrat military mind), once again makes me wonder how this fat, disloyal, politically opportunistic loudmouth can claim to be a Marine (or to even claim a military background). Marines who served with Murtha in Vietnam have questioned his Purple Heart awards for decades, and noted that his military record has improved over time.
He and Democrats don’t believe in giving military accused the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. Apparently they reserve that for unlawful combatants and fugitives like Marc Rich (who donated lavishly to Democrats’ campaigns and the Clinton Library), but not for the men and women serving our country. (As I noted two years and one week ago, Haditha Marines are Innocent)
Democrats give unlawful combatants captured with weapons while attacking Americans the presumption of innocence and the right to protection under the Geneva Conventions (which unlawful combatants don’t subscribe to or follow), but don’t give the same to United States military members placed in harm's way and operating under lawful orders and rules of engagement.
Soon Murtha will be challenged by another Marine, Lt. Colonel Jeffrey Chessani. Murtha said that Marines at Haditha, had killed civilians “in cold blood.” However, all charges against Lt. Col. Chessani have been dismissed, and the other Marines charged have been exonerated. Now Lt. Col. Chessani is preparing to sue Murtha for his intemperate words and rush to judgment.
It is also painfully obvious that the charges against the Marines at Haditha were politically motivated, and that the Main Stream Media were complicit in smearing the Marines. Fortunately for the Marines involved, a video recording had been made of the firefight at Haditha, and it clearly showed that the Marines had come under attack and were responding to insurgents (terrorists), who used civilians for cover (in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, which mean diddley squat to terrorists because they are not, nor can they ever be, a party to the Geneva Conventions).
However, with Democrat tools like Murtha at their backs, Marines get ambushed in Iraq, and then in the halls of Congress.
When asked if he was going to apologize to the Marines, Murtha answered: "The trial's not over."
Yes it is, and if you had any sense of justice and honor, you would apologize, Congressman Murtha.
But if you had any sense of justice and honor, you would never have slandered these Marines before they had a chance to tell their side of the story.
John Murtha, you make a sad-sack Marine, but you're a perfect fit for a Democrat.
He and Democrats don’t believe in giving military accused the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. Apparently they reserve that for unlawful combatants and fugitives like Marc Rich (who donated lavishly to Democrats’ campaigns and the Clinton Library), but not for the men and women serving our country. (As I noted two years and one week ago, Haditha Marines are Innocent)
Democrats give unlawful combatants captured with weapons while attacking Americans the presumption of innocence and the right to protection under the Geneva Conventions (which unlawful combatants don’t subscribe to or follow), but don’t give the same to United States military members placed in harm's way and operating under lawful orders and rules of engagement.
Soon Murtha will be challenged by another Marine, Lt. Colonel Jeffrey Chessani. Murtha said that Marines at Haditha, had killed civilians “in cold blood.” However, all charges against Lt. Col. Chessani have been dismissed, and the other Marines charged have been exonerated. Now Lt. Col. Chessani is preparing to sue Murtha for his intemperate words and rush to judgment.
It is also painfully obvious that the charges against the Marines at Haditha were politically motivated, and that the Main Stream Media were complicit in smearing the Marines. Fortunately for the Marines involved, a video recording had been made of the firefight at Haditha, and it clearly showed that the Marines had come under attack and were responding to insurgents (terrorists), who used civilians for cover (in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, which mean diddley squat to terrorists because they are not, nor can they ever be, a party to the Geneva Conventions).
However, with Democrat tools like Murtha at their backs, Marines get ambushed in Iraq, and then in the halls of Congress.
When asked if he was going to apologize to the Marines, Murtha answered: "The trial's not over."
Yes it is, and if you had any sense of justice and honor, you would apologize, Congressman Murtha.
But if you had any sense of justice and honor, you would never have slandered these Marines before they had a chance to tell their side of the story.
John Murtha, you make a sad-sack Marine, but you're a perfect fit for a Democrat.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Weather Experts Challenge Al Gore
Here is the latest of many debunkings of man-caused global warming by emminent weather experts, in this case the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman. As he notes, he is not alone, since thousands of scientists (Thirty-one thousand, of which 9,000 are Ph.ds) have been listed who refute man-caused global warming.
I'm still on the road, so I'll do more on this later. However, I note desperation in the Al Gore acolytes, and Al has not accepted any of the many offers of debate on the issue.
Al, debate me, and I'll clean up on you. I will speak with no notes, no slides, and no assistants, and you will be toast.
I'll even tell you what my main points will be: previous periods of natural climate change, in particular the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago, and the 400-foot rise in sea levels since the end of the last Ice Age 18,000 years ago. Vineyands in Merrie Olde England, and all like that.
Bring it on, Al!
I'm still on the road, so I'll do more on this later. However, I note desperation in the Al Gore acolytes, and Al has not accepted any of the many offers of debate on the issue.
Al, debate me, and I'll clean up on you. I will speak with no notes, no slides, and no assistants, and you will be toast.
I'll even tell you what my main points will be: previous periods of natural climate change, in particular the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago, and the 400-foot rise in sea levels since the end of the last Ice Age 18,000 years ago. Vineyands in Merrie Olde England, and all like that.
Bring it on, Al!
Friday, May 23, 2008
SUVs on Jupiter and Mars!
The Earth has climate change - too many SUVs burning gas.
Mars and Jupiter have climate change - do they have too many SUVs too?
As Frank Sinatra sang (Fly me to the Moon): “Let me see what Spring is like on Jupiter and Mars.”
Well, Frank, we know it’s getting hotter.
Same where you are?
Jupiter is an enormous gas bag, like Al Gore. Could this be evidence that Al is an alien, perhaps our first Jupeterian?
Will they be sweltering on the rings of Saturn, with a hot breeze blowing up Uranus?
Mars and Jupiter have climate change - do they have too many SUVs too?
As Frank Sinatra sang (Fly me to the Moon): “Let me see what Spring is like on Jupiter and Mars.”
Well, Frank, we know it’s getting hotter.
Same where you are?
Jupiter is an enormous gas bag, like Al Gore. Could this be evidence that Al is an alien, perhaps our first Jupeterian?
Will they be sweltering on the rings of Saturn, with a hot breeze blowing up Uranus?
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
There Will Always be an England, Always Muddling Through
We showed up for our bus from the Heathrow Holiday Inn at 4:15 AM, and it showed up at 4:45 to take us to Heathrow for a 7:05 departure. Not to worry.
I had double-checked at the Holiday Inn desk that our flight on British Airways to Istanbul at 7:05 would leave from Terminal 1. When we got to Terminal 1, we found a long line of passengers waiting at the locked gate to the British Airways check-in area. At one side was another line, this one of British Airways employees waiting to go to work. No one had the key. Not to worry.
Finally the door was unlocked and we streamed inside, British Airways employees to one side of the check-in counters, passengers to the other. I asked an British Airways agent who appeared to be directing traffic where Alice and I should start. She informed us that we should start in Terminal 5, because British Airways flights to Istanbul no longer leave from Terminal 1 - and hadn’t for a long time. Not to worry.
If we passed back through Terminal 1 we would find a lift - elevator - to take us to the Express Train to Terminal 5. As we and several other distraught passengers wandered down a long corridor to the Express Train to Terminal 5, a Heathrow transportation specialist informed us that the trains were not running at the moment. He suggested we walk back partially through Terminal 1 and take the Underground to Terminal 5. Not to worry.
Fortunately a “wisdom of the crowd” enabled our group of confused and distraught passengers to make the correct turns and reach the Underground - Subway - to take us from Terminal 1 to Terminal 5. It is amazing how a group of people, not one of which knows the way through new territories, finds its way unerringly. Unerringly may not be a good word to use in context of going to the latest airport wonder of wonders, the infamous Heathrow Terminal 5, which commanded banner headlines for weeks after its opening two months ago because of the monumental foul-ups passengers and their baggage suffered in and through it. Not to worry.
We were in Terminal 5, human guinea pigs in the development of a new world being, World Traveler. Among many things, World Traveler will know how to do much travel processing itself. For example, it will know to go to small kiosks, scan in a passport page, and punch in flight information that will cause the production of boarding passes and other apparently necessary and perhaps even useful pieces of paper. From there you take it all to a Fast Bags station, where an attendant examines the papers and places a baggage tag on each piece of checked luggage.
Then we were directed to Security South, apparently because it was much farther away than Security North, where we tried to enter only to be chased away to the South. At this point I became alarmed about not having a gate assigned for our flight, and was told we would get it after Security. Not to worry.
The Security posts were all manned by Indians, Pakistanis, and South Africans, which meant they were all better and clearer speakers of English than our English speaking citizens working in Airport Security stateside, and far more polite.
We quickly exited Security, still without a gate assignment. Our flight number 678, British Airways to Istanbul, was on the board, but with no indicated gate. So with less than an hour to go to takeoff, we went to a snack shop for a light breakfast with a good view of the departure board. Not to worry.
As we finished breakfast, our gate assignment appeared, A20, only a short block equivalent away. I began to not worry.
All went well. Our hotel sent a driver who met us at the Istanbul Airport and whisked us to the Sumengen Hotel, three blocks from the Blue Mosque and only a couple more blocks to Aya Sophia. Suddenly all is easy and relaxed, and that worries me.
I had double-checked at the Holiday Inn desk that our flight on British Airways to Istanbul at 7:05 would leave from Terminal 1. When we got to Terminal 1, we found a long line of passengers waiting at the locked gate to the British Airways check-in area. At one side was another line, this one of British Airways employees waiting to go to work. No one had the key. Not to worry.
Finally the door was unlocked and we streamed inside, British Airways employees to one side of the check-in counters, passengers to the other. I asked an British Airways agent who appeared to be directing traffic where Alice and I should start. She informed us that we should start in Terminal 5, because British Airways flights to Istanbul no longer leave from Terminal 1 - and hadn’t for a long time. Not to worry.
If we passed back through Terminal 1 we would find a lift - elevator - to take us to the Express Train to Terminal 5. As we and several other distraught passengers wandered down a long corridor to the Express Train to Terminal 5, a Heathrow transportation specialist informed us that the trains were not running at the moment. He suggested we walk back partially through Terminal 1 and take the Underground to Terminal 5. Not to worry.
Fortunately a “wisdom of the crowd” enabled our group of confused and distraught passengers to make the correct turns and reach the Underground - Subway - to take us from Terminal 1 to Terminal 5. It is amazing how a group of people, not one of which knows the way through new territories, finds its way unerringly. Unerringly may not be a good word to use in context of going to the latest airport wonder of wonders, the infamous Heathrow Terminal 5, which commanded banner headlines for weeks after its opening two months ago because of the monumental foul-ups passengers and their baggage suffered in and through it. Not to worry.
We were in Terminal 5, human guinea pigs in the development of a new world being, World Traveler. Among many things, World Traveler will know how to do much travel processing itself. For example, it will know to go to small kiosks, scan in a passport page, and punch in flight information that will cause the production of boarding passes and other apparently necessary and perhaps even useful pieces of paper. From there you take it all to a Fast Bags station, where an attendant examines the papers and places a baggage tag on each piece of checked luggage.
Then we were directed to Security South, apparently because it was much farther away than Security North, where we tried to enter only to be chased away to the South. At this point I became alarmed about not having a gate assigned for our flight, and was told we would get it after Security. Not to worry.
The Security posts were all manned by Indians, Pakistanis, and South Africans, which meant they were all better and clearer speakers of English than our English speaking citizens working in Airport Security stateside, and far more polite.
We quickly exited Security, still without a gate assignment. Our flight number 678, British Airways to Istanbul, was on the board, but with no indicated gate. So with less than an hour to go to takeoff, we went to a snack shop for a light breakfast with a good view of the departure board. Not to worry.
As we finished breakfast, our gate assignment appeared, A20, only a short block equivalent away. I began to not worry.
All went well. Our hotel sent a driver who met us at the Istanbul Airport and whisked us to the Sumengen Hotel, three blocks from the Blue Mosque and only a couple more blocks to Aya Sophia. Suddenly all is easy and relaxed, and that worries me.
Friday, May 16, 2008
An Argument I didn't have in Anchor Bay
On my short walk from Banana Belt Properties to buy The San Francisco Chronicle at the Anchor Bay Store, I passed two young men standing on the sidewalk. As I went by the taller – dark haired, tall and thin, with a short scraggly beard and unkempt clothes – asked me: “Are you the guy with the Bush bumper sticker?”
“Yep, that’s me” I replied. I have a Bush/Cheney sticker that I put on the bumper of my 1999 Toyota Rav-4 shortly after I bought it used in 2000.
“How do you justify that?” he asked.
I assumed he meant how could I justify supporting President Bush. Since I was in a hurry to buy my newspaper and get home – I was already very late for lunch, and was sure Alice was very worried (she was) – I answered: “I’m an American. I don’t have to justify anything to you,” and walked on.
“Oh yes you do,” he called after me.
I hurriedly bought my newspaper, and walked out and back towards my car, eager to have a few more words with the impertinent young man. I was going to remind him that over 2.5 million Americans voted for President Bush in a total of two elections than voted for his Democrat opponents, that he had received more votes in 2004 than any president ever, and unlike Bill Clinton, had received over 50 percent of the votes.
My purpose in presenting these facts was to demonstrate I had a lot of company in supporting President Bush. Unfortunately the young man was nowhere to be seen.
Pity. I was eager to be argumentative, and particularly wanted to remind him that we hadn’t been attacked since 9/11. I’m sure I would have been wasting my time and words, and in retrospect it was a good thing he was gone.
Alice would not have appreciated me being any later than I already was.
I saw him again a couple of days later. He was getting into an old car I had noticed earlier when I walked past it. It had been vacant at that time, but it caught my attention because it looked like someone had been living in it. Probably the young man was.
He drove off apparently without noticing me.
“Yep, that’s me” I replied. I have a Bush/Cheney sticker that I put on the bumper of my 1999 Toyota Rav-4 shortly after I bought it used in 2000.
“How do you justify that?” he asked.
I assumed he meant how could I justify supporting President Bush. Since I was in a hurry to buy my newspaper and get home – I was already very late for lunch, and was sure Alice was very worried (she was) – I answered: “I’m an American. I don’t have to justify anything to you,” and walked on.
“Oh yes you do,” he called after me.
I hurriedly bought my newspaper, and walked out and back towards my car, eager to have a few more words with the impertinent young man. I was going to remind him that over 2.5 million Americans voted for President Bush in a total of two elections than voted for his Democrat opponents, that he had received more votes in 2004 than any president ever, and unlike Bill Clinton, had received over 50 percent of the votes.
My purpose in presenting these facts was to demonstrate I had a lot of company in supporting President Bush. Unfortunately the young man was nowhere to be seen.
Pity. I was eager to be argumentative, and particularly wanted to remind him that we hadn’t been attacked since 9/11. I’m sure I would have been wasting my time and words, and in retrospect it was a good thing he was gone.
Alice would not have appreciated me being any later than I already was.
I saw him again a couple of days later. He was getting into an old car I had noticed earlier when I walked past it. It had been vacant at that time, but it caught my attention because it looked like someone had been living in it. Probably the young man was.
He drove off apparently without noticing me.
Farm Bill - The Wrong Bill at the Wrong Time
“With this legislation we will help families facing high food prices,” said Nancy Pelosi about the Farm Bill just passed by the House and Senate, and facing a presidential veto.
Democrats continue their policy of causing problems and then “fixing” them.
Why are food prices high? How about government subsidies and mandates for increased ethanol production? Food costs are also high because of increased fuel costs, and among many good reasons for higher fuel costs are several bad ones, again thanks to government stupidity.
Liberals don’t want the United States to develop proven sources of oil, gas, and energy by drilling in Alaska and off-shore, increasing refining capacity (half of what it was in 1982), increasing nuclear production, and developing our huge reserves of coal and tar sand. Instead they want to develop “renewable” energy sources, such as biofuels and wind and solar power, which are very limited in potential and compete for scarce government and agricultural resources.
Renewable energy: even with the high cost of oil, still requires taxpayer subsidies; competes for land, water, and open space with food-production agriculture, parks, and other recreation needs; and requires 100% conventional stand-by generation up and spinning for times when the Sun doesn’t shine, the wind doesn’t blow, the rains don’t come, the rains do come with devastating storms and floods, and other natural disasters.
Cold, hard facts: fuel from plants needed to replace kerosene as jet fuel at today’s low needs (compared to future demand) would required farming an area twice the size of Germany, and it would take almost a century of greenhouse gas savings to repay the greenhouse gases released by placing the land into production. Of course, all surface transportation would have to be powered by electricity.
Backers of the Farm Bill are quick to point out that it is not just about paying obscene sums to incredibly wealthy farmers for just a few commodity crops, it’s about providing food aid to the most overfed humans in the history of humanity on this planet. Between the crops subsidized, and the food stamps provided, it should be called the Obesity Support Bill, or from the medical side of the issue, Diabetes-R-Us.
Actually, this bill should be called the Buffett Line Bill, because it was loaded up with a lot of something for everyone. Big City legislators get food stamps (and the defrauders of the food stamp program get ten billion dollars more to play with), rural ones get subsidies for crops with recent increases from 45 to 126 percent, environmentalists get some land conservation funds, and on and on – in other words, everyone’s pot was sweetened.
Except the taxpayers. Don’t Democrats always find that there are better uses for government funds when Republicans want to strengthen national defense? Don’t they always suggest it would be better to spend on education, or health care, or any of hundreds of government give-away programs near and dear to Liberal hearts?
So where are the Democrats up in arms about government wastefully subsidizing the obscenely wealthy? It looks like Democrats are still on their extended holiday from their ideals.
Democrats continue their policy of causing problems and then “fixing” them.
Why are food prices high? How about government subsidies and mandates for increased ethanol production? Food costs are also high because of increased fuel costs, and among many good reasons for higher fuel costs are several bad ones, again thanks to government stupidity.
Liberals don’t want the United States to develop proven sources of oil, gas, and energy by drilling in Alaska and off-shore, increasing refining capacity (half of what it was in 1982), increasing nuclear production, and developing our huge reserves of coal and tar sand. Instead they want to develop “renewable” energy sources, such as biofuels and wind and solar power, which are very limited in potential and compete for scarce government and agricultural resources.
Renewable energy: even with the high cost of oil, still requires taxpayer subsidies; competes for land, water, and open space with food-production agriculture, parks, and other recreation needs; and requires 100% conventional stand-by generation up and spinning for times when the Sun doesn’t shine, the wind doesn’t blow, the rains don’t come, the rains do come with devastating storms and floods, and other natural disasters.
Cold, hard facts: fuel from plants needed to replace kerosene as jet fuel at today’s low needs (compared to future demand) would required farming an area twice the size of Germany, and it would take almost a century of greenhouse gas savings to repay the greenhouse gases released by placing the land into production. Of course, all surface transportation would have to be powered by electricity.
Backers of the Farm Bill are quick to point out that it is not just about paying obscene sums to incredibly wealthy farmers for just a few commodity crops, it’s about providing food aid to the most overfed humans in the history of humanity on this planet. Between the crops subsidized, and the food stamps provided, it should be called the Obesity Support Bill, or from the medical side of the issue, Diabetes-R-Us.
Actually, this bill should be called the Buffett Line Bill, because it was loaded up with a lot of something for everyone. Big City legislators get food stamps (and the defrauders of the food stamp program get ten billion dollars more to play with), rural ones get subsidies for crops with recent increases from 45 to 126 percent, environmentalists get some land conservation funds, and on and on – in other words, everyone’s pot was sweetened.
Except the taxpayers. Don’t Democrats always find that there are better uses for government funds when Republicans want to strengthen national defense? Don’t they always suggest it would be better to spend on education, or health care, or any of hundreds of government give-away programs near and dear to Liberal hearts?
So where are the Democrats up in arms about government wastefully subsidizing the obscenely wealthy? It looks like Democrats are still on their extended holiday from their ideals.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
MSM Obsession with Veteran Suicide
Our Main Stream Media (MSM) are obsessed with trying to make stories out of active and veteran military matters, as long as they’re not positive.
CBS News and Perky Katie Couric hyperventilated over a story about an “epidemic of veteran suicides,” in which CBS News unwittingly proved that veterans committed suicide at the same rate as comparably aged American males, and at a far lower rate than the rates for many nations, regardless of age and sex.
Instead of reporting an epidemic of veteran suicides, CBS News would have been much more informative if they reported that Russians committed suicide at a rate of 34 per 100,000 per year, almost double our predominantly male veterans, or that French males regardless of age have a higher suicide rate (27.5).
Or how about reporting that veterans commit suicide at a lower rate than same-aged American males? In an Associated Press article in The San Francisco Chronicle: “VA mental health chief sorry about 'Shh!' on suicidal vets,” by Kimberly Hefling, Associated Press, May 7, 2008, information was buried in the article that demonstrated Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have a lower suicide rate than American civilian males. Of nearly 500,000 veterans who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and then left the military from 2002 to 2005, 144 took their own lives, for a suicide rate of 9.6 per 100,000 per year.
The suicide rate for American males was 17.9 in 2002, or almost double the rate for Afghanistan and Iraq veterans.
Why don’t our Main Stream Media provide a context and perspective on issues like veteran suicides?
Is it because they can’t, or that they don’t want to?
Hint: I can do it, and all I have is an internet connection giving me access to Google.
CBS News and Perky Katie Couric hyperventilated over a story about an “epidemic of veteran suicides,” in which CBS News unwittingly proved that veterans committed suicide at the same rate as comparably aged American males, and at a far lower rate than the rates for many nations, regardless of age and sex.
Instead of reporting an epidemic of veteran suicides, CBS News would have been much more informative if they reported that Russians committed suicide at a rate of 34 per 100,000 per year, almost double our predominantly male veterans, or that French males regardless of age have a higher suicide rate (27.5).
Or how about reporting that veterans commit suicide at a lower rate than same-aged American males? In an Associated Press article in The San Francisco Chronicle: “VA mental health chief sorry about 'Shh!' on suicidal vets,” by Kimberly Hefling, Associated Press, May 7, 2008, information was buried in the article that demonstrated Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have a lower suicide rate than American civilian males. Of nearly 500,000 veterans who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and then left the military from 2002 to 2005, 144 took their own lives, for a suicide rate of 9.6 per 100,000 per year.
The suicide rate for American males was 17.9 in 2002, or almost double the rate for Afghanistan and Iraq veterans.
Why don’t our Main Stream Media provide a context and perspective on issues like veteran suicides?
Is it because they can’t, or that they don’t want to?
Hint: I can do it, and all I have is an internet connection giving me access to Google.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Arab Blood on Arab Hands in Gaza
This is a response to a Letter to the Editor of the San Francisco Chronicle. The text of the letter follows my reply.
The one thing Michael Scott (Letters, May 2) forgot to mention in his snide diatribe against Israel was that Arab nations violently defied United Nations resolutions beginning in 1947 when the UN formed Israel, and have been in defiance ever since. Earlier, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1940 allied Muslims with Nazis to exterminate Jews. Rather than being pious supporters of UN resolutions, as Mr. Scott implies, the Arab Middle East states have been bent on annihilation of Jews.
Prior to the Six Days War in 1967, Egypt expelled the UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai preparatory to launching what Syria’s then defense leader Hafez al-Assad termed a “battle of annihilation.” A week later the Arabs had a new name for it, “The Setback.” However, Arab leaders noted that although Israel won again, Arabs only had to win once.
Mr. Scott calls Israel “morally culpable for the collective punishment being imposed on the Palestinian people in Gaza,” but doesn’t add that Israel is responding to rocket attacks launched against civilians that are condoned by Gaza leaders. If Gazans don’t like what their elected leaders are doing, they can "un-elect" them.
Muslim, Christian and Jew are all People of The Book and should heed the New Testament admonition, “As you sow, so shall you reap.”
This is the letter that inspired my response.
The one thing Michael Scott (Letters, May 2) forgot to mention in his snide diatribe against Israel was that Arab nations violently defied United Nations resolutions beginning in 1947 when the UN formed Israel, and have been in defiance ever since. Earlier, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1940 allied Muslims with Nazis to exterminate Jews. Rather than being pious supporters of UN resolutions, as Mr. Scott implies, the Arab Middle East states have been bent on annihilation of Jews.
Prior to the Six Days War in 1967, Egypt expelled the UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai preparatory to launching what Syria’s then defense leader Hafez al-Assad termed a “battle of annihilation.” A week later the Arabs had a new name for it, “The Setback.” However, Arab leaders noted that although Israel won again, Arabs only had to win once.
Mr. Scott calls Israel “morally culpable for the collective punishment being imposed on the Palestinian people in Gaza,” but doesn’t add that Israel is responding to rocket attacks launched against civilians that are condoned by Gaza leaders. If Gazans don’t like what their elected leaders are doing, they can "un-elect" them.
Muslim, Christian and Jew are all People of The Book and should heed the New Testament admonition, “As you sow, so shall you reap.”
This is the letter that inspired my response.
At least Carter, for all his faults, isn't mindlessly parroting right-wing Israel's talking points when looking for solutions, but then I know people like Mr. Weiner don't have time to think about peace when all his energy is being spent defending a country that not only continues to defy United Nations resolutions, but is morally culpable for the collective punishment being imposed on the Palestinian people in Gaza for having the temerity to vote for a party the West doesn't approve of.
MICHAEL SCOTT
San Francisco
Friday, May 02, 2008
San Francisco Chronicle's Misleading Reporting of Veteran Suicide Trial
Recently I had a frustrating experience trying to correct very poor and biased reporting of a trial in San Francisco on charges brought against the Veterans Administration by two lawyers for two veterans advocate groups concerning veterans' suicides.
(Below is my original letter I sent on April 23, 2008 that The San Francisco Chronicle ignored)
Editor
“More than 120 veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq commit suicide every week,” according to veterans advocates, began a San Francisco Chronicle front-page story: VA stalls on care while 18 veterans a day commit suicide, judge is told, by Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer, Tuesday, April 22, 2008.
That’s terrible. Terrible journalism, that is. The rate of 18 veterans a day committing suicide is for all veterans, not just veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. For comparison purposes, the acknowledged VA veteran suicide rate is 19 per 100,000 per year, which is about the same or lower than the suicide rates for both sexes in entire countries: Japan, Belgium, Finland, Cuba, France, Austria, Korea, and Switzerland.
In US male veterans to all males comparisons, which is the closest I could get to “apples to apples,” the entire male populations of over forty nations have higher or similar suicide rates than our veterans (the rate for all American males is 17.9). Our active duty military suicide rate is 11 per 100,000 per year, about half our civilian rate for same-age males. From an analysis of suicide statistics, it actually shows it is safer from a suicide perspective to be a veteran or serving on active military duty.
True, but you’ll never see that in a Chronicle headline on the front page.
(I e-mailed the following letter after waiting several days and not getting a response to my orignal letter above.)
Editor
I sent a letter to the Chronicle Editor April 22, 2008 about errors in a Chronicle story about a lawsuit by veterans advocates. More recent Chronicle news stories on the trial are bringing out that plaintiffs' lawyer Arturo Gonzalez does not understand that the Veterans Administration suicide numbers are for all 26 million veterans, not just the 1.7 million Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans (whose 144 suicides over a four-year period produce a very low suicide rate of 2 per 100,000 per year, less than one-quarter of the general population rate). I don't understand how Gonzalez's ignorance of such a basic fact could prevent the judge from throwing this case out immediately. As a minimum the Chronicle should correct its previous reporting on this issue and set the record straight.
(A Chronicle columnist informed me that the Chronicle had run a correction on April 26, 2008, the day after the Chronicle had run an article by the columnist containing similar erroneous information from Mr. Erspamer, lawyer for one of the plaintiffs. The San Francisco Chronicle ran the correction two days after I had informed them of the error in their original April 22, 2008 story on veteran suicides.)
Correction:
-- An article on Tuesday about the trial of a lawsuit by veterans' groups over health treatment mischaracterized a government report that 18 veterans a day commit suicide. The report referred to veterans of all wars, not just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(I dashed off an immediate reply.)
I found the correction, but it doesn't tell the story. Both lawyers, Erspamer and Gonzalez, according to quotes that both you (the columnist) and Bob Egelko ran with, said that the 18 suicides a day were Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans.
Don't you think there is a story to be told about how you and the court were given misleading information, information that supposedly formed the major basis for this issue to be brought to court?
The article didn't "mischaracterize" the government report about veteran suicides, the veteran advocates' attorneys did.
(I had copied the Chronicle's Readers Representative on the above message, and at this point he entered the discussion.)
Mike ...
Since you copied me on this, let me jump in. I might be misreading, but I don't see anywhere that Erspamer or Gonzalez asserted 18 suicides per day for Iraq/Afghanistan vets -- at least not in Bob Egelko's stories or Chuck Nevius' column. The lawyers' comments referred to 18 per day for veterans, period. The Iraq/Afghanistan qualifier was the paper's mistake. It mischaracterized, not the lawyers.
In the Egelko story, Erspamer was described this way: "He said veterans are committing suicide at the rate of 18 a day - a number acknowledged by a VA official in a Dec. 15 e-mail - and the agency's backlog of disability claims now exceeds 650,000, an increase of 200,000 since the Iraq war started in 2003."
That line was interpreted in the editing process to mean veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan -- the paper's error. In the Nevius column, the Erspamer quote is: "If you add up the veterans' suicides among those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and compare it to the total combat deaths, the veteran suicides are higher," says Erspamer, who introduced a VA e-mail at the trial that showed an average of 18 vets a day are committing suicide. "The VA doesn't want that out."
There might be a little ambiguity there, but strictly speaking Erspamer's not saying 18 a day attributable to Iraq/Afghanistan. Now as to your point about whether Erspamer is misleading the court, I think the jury's out on that, to steal a phrase. Using rough numbers of five years of war and 4,000 combat deaths, it would take slightly over 2 suicides per day among Iraq/Afghanistan vets to exceed the combat figures. e.g.: 4000/(5*365). My arithmetic might be faulty here, so feel free to critique, but my point is that it would be possible to exceed the combat death toll without ever approaching the 18 suicides per day figure.
Hope I'm not confusing things.
(Again I sent the immediate reply below.)
Thank you for your reply to my concerns. Although I profoundly disagree with your analysis and conclusion, I appreciate you took the time to respond. I hope you will carefully and with an open mind consider what I present below. I gleaned these five items from the Chronicle this week. The last item is courtesy your e-mail.
I begin my comments and analysis after the fifth item. I added the bold highlighting to the items.
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Item 4
Item 5
(My reply to the Readers Representative.)
I guess you don’t read your own paper. In an AP release April 25 covering this trial (my Item 3, first paragraph), the VA states that “144 combat veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed suicide between October 2001 and December 2005.” That’s 36 a year, e.g. 144/4, compared to 4,000 combat deaths in five years.
I can understand why your reporter, Bob Egelko, was confused about the 18 suicides per day being by veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq (my Item 4, second paragraph). That’s what Ronald Maris, a University of South Carolina sociology professor, apparently told U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti in San Francisco, according to Egelko’s April 23 report.
Clearly Gonzalez was misleading the court. When the VA stated the 144 veteran suicides in four years involved Iraq and Afghanistan service, Gonzalez contested that and contended that 18 veterans per day were committing suicide (my Item 3). That was then countered by the VA, but it is obvious that Gonzalez was referring to suicides by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.
Based on information I gleaned from the pages of the Chronicle this past week, is the jury still out, as you say, that Erspamer, Maris, and Gonzalez were providing misleading information? If so, the jury must be deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no nose for news.
By the way, Dick, can’t anyone at the Chronicle critically analyze statistical information? Veterans committing suicide at the rate of 18 per day * 365 days = 6570 per year.
6570 veteran suicides per year divided by 26,000,000 veterans = 0.000253
0.000253 * 100, 000 = 25 veteran suicides per 100,000 per year.
Suicide rates are conventionally expressed as the number of suicides per 100,000 persons per year.
A couple of months ago CBS News did an exhaustive five-month study of veteran suicides and determined rates of 18 to 20 per 100,000 per year. In their ignorance of world suicide rates, Katie Couric and crew trumpeted their finding as an “epidemic of veteran suicides,” even though the rate they found was low by world standards. Suicide Epidemic Among Veterans: A CBS News Investigation Uncovers A Suicide Rate For Veterans Twice That Of Other Americans
(My hint to CBS News – Katie, the suicide rate for veterans is twice that of other Americans, because over half of the other Americans are females, and less than ten percent of veterans are females. Also, Katie, a large percentage of other Americans are sub-teen children, and none of the veterans are.)
This link is to my blog post trying to correct CBS News and Perky Katie Couric for the hash they made of reporting veteran suicides. They did the same thing as the Chronicle, and ignored the facts to preserve the bashing of the Bush administration.
As a basis for comparison, eight nations have suicide rates above 25 per 100,000 per year regardless of gender or age (Russia’s is 34, according to the World Health Organization), and Japan’s at 24 per 100,000 per year is only slightly lower. Use this link to check on my statistics. I Googled it, just as any quasi-competent journalist would.
Using the CBS News veteran suicide rate, roughly twenty nations have higher all population rates. In fact, the suicide rates for all males in thirty-seven nations are as high or higher than the American veteran rate.
Comparing apples to apples, at least twenty-one nations of the world have higher male suicide rates than American veterans, and those rates include the males of those nations of all ages – you know, like babies and sub-teens, and middle-aged men, all who have traditionally low suicide rates.
Even France, with its health system that is lauded by believers in national health systems, has a suicide rate for all French males of 27.5, or ten percent higher than our veterans’ rate which is heavily skewed towards aging Vietnam era men. Older men have relatively high suicide rates because of illness and infirmity.
I’m sure someone at the Chronicle in an editor position must be aware of this sort of information. Or should be.
There is a real news story in all this, but it doesn’t look like the Chronicle is capable of digging it out, no matter how hard I try to assist.
(Below is my original letter I sent on April 23, 2008 that The San Francisco Chronicle ignored)
Editor
“More than 120 veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq commit suicide every week,” according to veterans advocates, began a San Francisco Chronicle front-page story: VA stalls on care while 18 veterans a day commit suicide, judge is told, by Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer, Tuesday, April 22, 2008.
That’s terrible. Terrible journalism, that is. The rate of 18 veterans a day committing suicide is for all veterans, not just veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. For comparison purposes, the acknowledged VA veteran suicide rate is 19 per 100,000 per year, which is about the same or lower than the suicide rates for both sexes in entire countries: Japan, Belgium, Finland, Cuba, France, Austria, Korea, and Switzerland.
In US male veterans to all males comparisons, which is the closest I could get to “apples to apples,” the entire male populations of over forty nations have higher or similar suicide rates than our veterans (the rate for all American males is 17.9). Our active duty military suicide rate is 11 per 100,000 per year, about half our civilian rate for same-age males. From an analysis of suicide statistics, it actually shows it is safer from a suicide perspective to be a veteran or serving on active military duty.
True, but you’ll never see that in a Chronicle headline on the front page.
(I e-mailed the following letter after waiting several days and not getting a response to my orignal letter above.)
Editor
I sent a letter to the Chronicle Editor April 22, 2008 about errors in a Chronicle story about a lawsuit by veterans advocates. More recent Chronicle news stories on the trial are bringing out that plaintiffs' lawyer Arturo Gonzalez does not understand that the Veterans Administration suicide numbers are for all 26 million veterans, not just the 1.7 million Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans (whose 144 suicides over a four-year period produce a very low suicide rate of 2 per 100,000 per year, less than one-quarter of the general population rate). I don't understand how Gonzalez's ignorance of such a basic fact could prevent the judge from throwing this case out immediately. As a minimum the Chronicle should correct its previous reporting on this issue and set the record straight.
(A Chronicle columnist informed me that the Chronicle had run a correction on April 26, 2008, the day after the Chronicle had run an article by the columnist containing similar erroneous information from Mr. Erspamer, lawyer for one of the plaintiffs. The San Francisco Chronicle ran the correction two days after I had informed them of the error in their original April 22, 2008 story on veteran suicides.)
Correction:
-- An article on Tuesday about the trial of a lawsuit by veterans' groups over health treatment mischaracterized a government report that 18 veterans a day commit suicide. The report referred to veterans of all wars, not just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(I dashed off an immediate reply.)
I found the correction, but it doesn't tell the story. Both lawyers, Erspamer and Gonzalez, according to quotes that both you (the columnist) and Bob Egelko ran with, said that the 18 suicides a day were Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans.
Don't you think there is a story to be told about how you and the court were given misleading information, information that supposedly formed the major basis for this issue to be brought to court?
The article didn't "mischaracterize" the government report about veteran suicides, the veteran advocates' attorneys did.
(I had copied the Chronicle's Readers Representative on the above message, and at this point he entered the discussion.)
Mike ...
Since you copied me on this, let me jump in. I might be misreading, but I don't see anywhere that Erspamer or Gonzalez asserted 18 suicides per day for Iraq/Afghanistan vets -- at least not in Bob Egelko's stories or Chuck Nevius' column. The lawyers' comments referred to 18 per day for veterans, period. The Iraq/Afghanistan qualifier was the paper's mistake. It mischaracterized, not the lawyers.
In the Egelko story, Erspamer was described this way: "He said veterans are committing suicide at the rate of 18 a day - a number acknowledged by a VA official in a Dec. 15 e-mail - and the agency's backlog of disability claims now exceeds 650,000, an increase of 200,000 since the Iraq war started in 2003."
That line was interpreted in the editing process to mean veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan -- the paper's error. In the Nevius column, the Erspamer quote is: "If you add up the veterans' suicides among those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and compare it to the total combat deaths, the veteran suicides are higher," says Erspamer, who introduced a VA e-mail at the trial that showed an average of 18 vets a day are committing suicide. "The VA doesn't want that out."
There might be a little ambiguity there, but strictly speaking Erspamer's not saying 18 a day attributable to Iraq/Afghanistan. Now as to your point about whether Erspamer is misleading the court, I think the jury's out on that, to steal a phrase. Using rough numbers of five years of war and 4,000 combat deaths, it would take slightly over 2 suicides per day among Iraq/Afghanistan vets to exceed the combat figures. e.g.: 4000/(5*365). My arithmetic might be faulty here, so feel free to critique, but my point is that it would be possible to exceed the combat death toll without ever approaching the 18 suicides per day figure.
Hope I'm not confusing things.
(Again I sent the immediate reply below.)
Thank you for your reply to my concerns. Although I profoundly disagree with your analysis and conclusion, I appreciate you took the time to respond. I hope you will carefully and with an open mind consider what I present below. I gleaned these five items from the Chronicle this week. The last item is courtesy your e-mail.
I begin my comments and analysis after the fifth item. I added the bold highlighting to the items.
Item 1
More than 120 veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq commit suicide every week while the government stalls in granting returning troops the mental health treatment and benefits to which they are entitled, veterans advocates told a federal judge Monday in San Francisco. VA stalls on care while 18 veterans a day commit suicide, judge is told, by Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer, Tuesday, April 22, 2008.
Item 2
"If you add up the veterans' suicides among those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and compare it to the total combat deaths, the veteran suicides are higher," says Erspamer, who introduced a VA e-mail at the trial that showed an average of 18 vets a day are committing suicide. "The VA doesn't want that out." Attorney leading suit a veteran in battling VA, by C.W. Nevius, Thursday, April 24, 2008
Item 3
For instance, VA Secretary James Peake told Congress in a Feb. 5 letter that 144 combat veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed suicide between October 2001 and December 2005.
But Gonzalez produced internal VA e-mails that contended that 18 veterans a day were committing suicide. Kussman countered that the figure, provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, included all 26 million veterans in the country, including aging Vietnam veterans who are reporting an increased number of health problems. Veterans Affairs official denies cover-up of suicide rates, By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer, Friday, April 25, 2008, published in the Chronicle.
Item 4
During opening statements Monday, a lawyer for the veterans' groups displayed an e-mail that a top VA mental health official, Ira Katz, sent in December in which he said veterans were committing suicide at the rate of 18 a day.
Maris said Tuesday that Katz had been referring primarily to veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In an interview, he said the suicide rate among veterans has been increasing since 2001, according to government reports he has studied. VA faulted in diagnosing suicide candidates, by Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer, Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Item 5
Now as to your point about whether Erspamer is misleading the court, I think the jury's out on that, to steal a phrase. Using rough numbers of five years of war and 4,000 combat deaths, it would take slightly over 2 suicides per day among Iraq/Afghanistan vets to exceed the combat figures. e.g.: 4000/(5*365).
(This is an excerpt from the e-mail sent me by the Chronicle Readers Representative.)
(My reply to the Readers Representative.)
I guess you don’t read your own paper. In an AP release April 25 covering this trial (my Item 3, first paragraph), the VA states that “144 combat veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed suicide between October 2001 and December 2005.” That’s 36 a year, e.g. 144/4, compared to 4,000 combat deaths in five years.
I can understand why your reporter, Bob Egelko, was confused about the 18 suicides per day being by veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq (my Item 4, second paragraph). That’s what Ronald Maris, a University of South Carolina sociology professor, apparently told U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti in San Francisco, according to Egelko’s April 23 report.
Clearly Gonzalez was misleading the court. When the VA stated the 144 veteran suicides in four years involved Iraq and Afghanistan service, Gonzalez contested that and contended that 18 veterans per day were committing suicide (my Item 3). That was then countered by the VA, but it is obvious that Gonzalez was referring to suicides by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.
Based on information I gleaned from the pages of the Chronicle this past week, is the jury still out, as you say, that Erspamer, Maris, and Gonzalez were providing misleading information? If so, the jury must be deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no nose for news.
By the way, Dick, can’t anyone at the Chronicle critically analyze statistical information? Veterans committing suicide at the rate of 18 per day * 365 days = 6570 per year.
6570 veteran suicides per year divided by 26,000,000 veterans = 0.000253
0.000253 * 100, 000 = 25 veteran suicides per 100,000 per year.
Suicide rates are conventionally expressed as the number of suicides per 100,000 persons per year.
A couple of months ago CBS News did an exhaustive five-month study of veteran suicides and determined rates of 18 to 20 per 100,000 per year. In their ignorance of world suicide rates, Katie Couric and crew trumpeted their finding as an “epidemic of veteran suicides,” even though the rate they found was low by world standards. Suicide Epidemic Among Veterans: A CBS News Investigation Uncovers A Suicide Rate For Veterans Twice That Of Other Americans
(My hint to CBS News – Katie, the suicide rate for veterans is twice that of other Americans, because over half of the other Americans are females, and less than ten percent of veterans are females. Also, Katie, a large percentage of other Americans are sub-teen children, and none of the veterans are.)
This link is to my blog post trying to correct CBS News and Perky Katie Couric for the hash they made of reporting veteran suicides. They did the same thing as the Chronicle, and ignored the facts to preserve the bashing of the Bush administration.
As a basis for comparison, eight nations have suicide rates above 25 per 100,000 per year regardless of gender or age (Russia’s is 34, according to the World Health Organization), and Japan’s at 24 per 100,000 per year is only slightly lower. Use this link to check on my statistics. I Googled it, just as any quasi-competent journalist would.
Using the CBS News veteran suicide rate, roughly twenty nations have higher all population rates. In fact, the suicide rates for all males in thirty-seven nations are as high or higher than the American veteran rate.
Comparing apples to apples, at least twenty-one nations of the world have higher male suicide rates than American veterans, and those rates include the males of those nations of all ages – you know, like babies and sub-teens, and middle-aged men, all who have traditionally low suicide rates.
Even France, with its health system that is lauded by believers in national health systems, has a suicide rate for all French males of 27.5, or ten percent higher than our veterans’ rate which is heavily skewed towards aging Vietnam era men. Older men have relatively high suicide rates because of illness and infirmity.
I’m sure someone at the Chronicle in an editor position must be aware of this sort of information. Or should be.
There is a real news story in all this, but it doesn’t look like the Chronicle is capable of digging it out, no matter how hard I try to assist.
McCain Interview on MSNBC - Conservative Bloggers Rebel!
MSNBC trumps Neocons; bloggers rebel, By: Mike Combs May 2, 2008 01:01 PM EST
The nation’s top Republicans are suddenly rushing to appear on the low-rated Liberal news channel MSNBC, which they once had shunned as enemy territory and the nemesis of conservative bloggers.
The détente with this Liberal news channel has provoked a backlash from conservative bloggers, who contend the party’s leaders are turning their backs on the base — and lending credibility and legitimacy to the network conservatives love to hate — in a quest for a few swing votes.
In a span of eight days, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan have all taking their seats with the network that calls itself “fair and balanced sometimes” but is widely viewed as skewing wildly liberal.
With the party’s presidential contest reduced to watching the Democrats slice and dice each other, Republicans are turning to the ratings loser among cable news channels in a clear rebuff to the conservative activists known as the Neocons. Major Mike, founder of the leading conservative site in Gualala Strong as as Ox and Nearly as Smart, told his wife, Alice: "Republicans are being idiotic by going on that network.”
Alice replied: “MSNBC? Are they still on?”
A Net Movement Correspondent (whatever that is) told Strong as an Ox Etc. that conservative activists and the Neocons are “not happy about it.”
“I don’t think that it is tenable to completely neglect or ignore what your base wants,” the Correspondent said.
See Also
The Republican leaders’ new openness to MSNBC reflects the conservative right’s diminishing power, at least at this point in the political cycle. Once feared by the Republican candidate, these activists are now viewed at least in part as an impediment to winning the broad swatch of support needed to clinch the election.
Goaded in part by a taunting “Olbermann Is Watching You” clock displayed by MSNBC’s Countdown host Keith Olbermann, McCain appeared recently after resisting the show’s entreaties throughout the campaign. McCain had a civil interview with occasionally coherent host Keith Olbermann, who has always mocked all things Republican.
Early in this presidential race, John McCain led the Republican candidates in what amounted to a MSNBC boycott.
Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, took McCain’s MSNBC interview in stride, commenting that more Democrats alone watch Fox than the total viewing audience for MSNBC regardless of party affiliation. Ailes further noted that MSNBC was Fox’s news competitor “only in their dreams.”
Recognizing that McCain’s appearance risked incurring blog wrath, a “senior McCain adviser” vowed to Major Mike of Strong as an Ox Etc. before the interview that the senator would “take MSNBC on” during the broadcast. But since no one watched the interview, Major Mike wrote that the pledge had turned out to be “as irrelevant as MSNBC.”
“This actually was good news for conservative bloggers who had worked very hard to get GOP’ers to boycott MSNBC. It was a good demonstration of its irrelevance, and we were wrong to criticize McCain for agreeing to appear in the first place,” Major Mike wrote.
Network records show that since the campaign began in January 2007, no one knows how many interviews McCain has given to MSNBC News anchors and correspondents, because no one gave a rat’s patootie.
(This report was adapted from Fox trumps Netroots; bloggers rebel By MIKE ALLEN 5/1/08 10:30 PM EST , and any copyright infringement, plagarism, or other screw ups are because of my carelessness and lack of scruples, and were not intentional because I have no idea what I'm doing, and I am therefore incapable of forming intent.)
The nation’s top Republicans are suddenly rushing to appear on the low-rated Liberal news channel MSNBC, which they once had shunned as enemy territory and the nemesis of conservative bloggers.
The détente with this Liberal news channel has provoked a backlash from conservative bloggers, who contend the party’s leaders are turning their backs on the base — and lending credibility and legitimacy to the network conservatives love to hate — in a quest for a few swing votes.
In a span of eight days, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan have all taking their seats with the network that calls itself “fair and balanced sometimes” but is widely viewed as skewing wildly liberal.
With the party’s presidential contest reduced to watching the Democrats slice and dice each other, Republicans are turning to the ratings loser among cable news channels in a clear rebuff to the conservative activists known as the Neocons. Major Mike, founder of the leading conservative site in Gualala Strong as as Ox and Nearly as Smart, told his wife, Alice: "Republicans are being idiotic by going on that network.”
Alice replied: “MSNBC? Are they still on?”
A Net Movement Correspondent (whatever that is) told Strong as an Ox Etc. that conservative activists and the Neocons are “not happy about it.”
“I don’t think that it is tenable to completely neglect or ignore what your base wants,” the Correspondent said.
See Also
There goes nutty Jimmy Carter again
Elitist John McCain
Democrats are bitter whiners
The Republican leaders’ new openness to MSNBC reflects the conservative right’s diminishing power, at least at this point in the political cycle. Once feared by the Republican candidate, these activists are now viewed at least in part as an impediment to winning the broad swatch of support needed to clinch the election.
Goaded in part by a taunting “Olbermann Is Watching You” clock displayed by MSNBC’s Countdown host Keith Olbermann, McCain appeared recently after resisting the show’s entreaties throughout the campaign. McCain had a civil interview with occasionally coherent host Keith Olbermann, who has always mocked all things Republican.
Early in this presidential race, John McCain led the Republican candidates in what amounted to a MSNBC boycott.
Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, took McCain’s MSNBC interview in stride, commenting that more Democrats alone watch Fox than the total viewing audience for MSNBC regardless of party affiliation. Ailes further noted that MSNBC was Fox’s news competitor “only in their dreams.”
Recognizing that McCain’s appearance risked incurring blog wrath, a “senior McCain adviser” vowed to Major Mike of Strong as an Ox Etc. before the interview that the senator would “take MSNBC on” during the broadcast. But since no one watched the interview, Major Mike wrote that the pledge had turned out to be “as irrelevant as MSNBC.”
“This actually was good news for conservative bloggers who had worked very hard to get GOP’ers to boycott MSNBC. It was a good demonstration of its irrelevance, and we were wrong to criticize McCain for agreeing to appear in the first place,” Major Mike wrote.
Network records show that since the campaign began in January 2007, no one knows how many interviews McCain has given to MSNBC News anchors and correspondents, because no one gave a rat’s patootie.
(This report was adapted from Fox trumps Netroots; bloggers rebel By MIKE ALLEN 5/1/08 10:30 PM EST , and any copyright infringement, plagarism, or other screw ups are because of my carelessness and lack of scruples, and were not intentional because I have no idea what I'm doing, and I am therefore incapable of forming intent.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)