So. Now even our own intelligence is telling us that Syria has used chemical weapons and has therefor crossed Obama's "red line." They have, supposedly, earned the unspecified "serious consequences" that would be the result of such an action, except that the administration now conveniently disbelieves its own intelligence agencies. Pundits are claiming that Assad only used chemical weapons "a little bit to see what he could get away with," which allows Obama to delay imposing those "serious consequences," whatever they were.
It's sort of embarrasing to have a President thundering about "red lines" and how we "will not tolerate" something, and then when they do it changing his tune to "well, if they do a lot of it or start moving things around."
I'm not suggesting he should go all "Bush ballistic" on us, I'm saying he should not have been making threats and throwing our weight around in the first place. Don't make threats you aren't willing to carry out.
Or, don't let your mouth write checks that your ass can't cash.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Seriously?
Meat labeling: When shopping for pork in the future you will no longer be looking for “pork chops,” you will be choosing between “porterhouse chops, rib-eye chops” and “New York chops.” This is our federal government at work, designing a new labeling system to make things “simpler and less confusing” for consumers.
A cut of meat going by three names instead of one is obviously simpler than using one name, and the “less confusing” part is renaming the “shoulder roast,” which will now be called the “Boston Roast.” Your may think your arm hangs from your shoulder, friends, but according to the government it hangs from your “Boston.”
Or maybe it’s only pigs that have a Boston instead of a shoulder.
More slowly please: CBS Evening News reported last night that it was discovered that the Boston bombs were detonated by remote control. “Investigators say,” they reported, “that using remote detonators would have given the brothers time to plant their bombs and then safely walk away before the device went off.”
Do these guys listen to what they are reading from the teleprompter? That statement is an excellent description of a delayed detonator, but does not even approach that of the use of a remote detonator. With remote control which they claim was used, the perpetrator would place the device, walk away and, once he was in a place of safety, activate the detonator.
Rules, we need rules: California’s medical marijuana law requires that localities set up their own standards for distribution, which most communities have done without much controversy. Supporters of medical pot in San Diego, however, thought our regulations were too strict, so they sued and the judge agreed. He threw out the regulations as “unfair,” which left us with no regulations. That forced the shutdown of all sellers and growers of marijuana in the county and now, more than a year later, we are still arguing over new regulations.
That lawsuit may not be the most constructive thing that San Diego medical marijuana supporters have ever done.
Someone mentioned to Colin Cowherd on ESPN that he lives in California, “…in San Diego,” they added. “That’s not really in California,” he replied. Hmmm. He may have a point. Maybe, Norte Baja California?
It’s not a trend: Unemployment claims are down this week, “signaling that the economy might be improving.” Last week the numbers were up, “indicating that the economic growth might be weakening.” When are these people going to learn?
One cool day does not mean the planet is cooling, nor a warm day that it is heating up, and one week of unemployment claims means nothing. A month might mean something, but a week does not. The numbers by which the claims rate is changing are too small to be meaningful in any case; a few thousand out of a work force of 155 million.
A cut of meat going by three names instead of one is obviously simpler than using one name, and the “less confusing” part is renaming the “shoulder roast,” which will now be called the “Boston Roast.” Your may think your arm hangs from your shoulder, friends, but according to the government it hangs from your “Boston.”
Or maybe it’s only pigs that have a Boston instead of a shoulder.
More slowly please: CBS Evening News reported last night that it was discovered that the Boston bombs were detonated by remote control. “Investigators say,” they reported, “that using remote detonators would have given the brothers time to plant their bombs and then safely walk away before the device went off.”
Do these guys listen to what they are reading from the teleprompter? That statement is an excellent description of a delayed detonator, but does not even approach that of the use of a remote detonator. With remote control which they claim was used, the perpetrator would place the device, walk away and, once he was in a place of safety, activate the detonator.
Rules, we need rules: California’s medical marijuana law requires that localities set up their own standards for distribution, which most communities have done without much controversy. Supporters of medical pot in San Diego, however, thought our regulations were too strict, so they sued and the judge agreed. He threw out the regulations as “unfair,” which left us with no regulations. That forced the shutdown of all sellers and growers of marijuana in the county and now, more than a year later, we are still arguing over new regulations.
That lawsuit may not be the most constructive thing that San Diego medical marijuana supporters have ever done.
Someone mentioned to Colin Cowherd on ESPN that he lives in California, “…in San Diego,” they added. “That’s not really in California,” he replied. Hmmm. He may have a point. Maybe, Norte Baja California?
It’s not a trend: Unemployment claims are down this week, “signaling that the economy might be improving.” Last week the numbers were up, “indicating that the economic growth might be weakening.” When are these people going to learn?
One cool day does not mean the planet is cooling, nor a warm day that it is heating up, and one week of unemployment claims means nothing. A month might mean something, but a week does not. The numbers by which the claims rate is changing are too small to be meaningful in any case; a few thousand out of a work force of 155 million.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Swing And A Miss
I read Glenn Greenwald regularly, admire his writing enormously, and seldom have much if any disagreement with the points which he makes in his columns. In his column yesterday, however, I think he is shooting blanks with his claim that the Boston bombing is being called a “terrorist attack” merely because the perpetrators are Muslim. I do agree with him that use of the term is premature, but I think his claim of Islamic prejudice, while it may be true, is unproven by his argument.
He compares the Boston event, which killed three people, to three other events in this country in the past two years: the Tucson shooting in which six people died, the Aurora movie theater shooting in which twelve people died, and the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in which 26 people were shot and killed. He then adds the Columbine School shooting in 1999, in which 12 people were killed by gunfire. He points out that despite the greater number of people killed, the term “terrorism” was “virtually never” applied to any of these acts.
He says that there is “no basis at all for claiming that this was an act of ‘terrorism’ in a way that would meaningfully distinguish it from Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine,” and goes on to claim that it is the ethnic and religious nature of the perpetrators which is the sole difference and is the basis upon which the “terrorism” label is being applied.
I’m not sure how he can possibly overlook a much more immediate and really glaring difference between the Boston event and the other four which he names. Anyone?
Boston was a bomb attack, which would most certainly “meaningfully distinguish it” from four events consisting of violence with guns. I’m not sure that I would agree that the difference in and of itself justifies application of the term “terrorism” to the Boston event, but I think it is enough of a difference to invalidate Greenwald’s claim that Islamic prejudice is the only possible explanation.
Now, if he wanted a comparison which would bolster his argument, he could have cited the Fort Hood shooting, in which 13 people died by gunfire. That attack did not differ in any significant way from Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine other than it was perpetrated by an Islamist, and it was widely referred to as a “terrorist attack.”
I’m not smarter than Glenn Greenwald, so I can’t believe he missed that.
He compares the Boston event, which killed three people, to three other events in this country in the past two years: the Tucson shooting in which six people died, the Aurora movie theater shooting in which twelve people died, and the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in which 26 people were shot and killed. He then adds the Columbine School shooting in 1999, in which 12 people were killed by gunfire. He points out that despite the greater number of people killed, the term “terrorism” was “virtually never” applied to any of these acts.
He says that there is “no basis at all for claiming that this was an act of ‘terrorism’ in a way that would meaningfully distinguish it from Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine,” and goes on to claim that it is the ethnic and religious nature of the perpetrators which is the sole difference and is the basis upon which the “terrorism” label is being applied.
I’m not sure how he can possibly overlook a much more immediate and really glaring difference between the Boston event and the other four which he names. Anyone?
Boston was a bomb attack, which would most certainly “meaningfully distinguish it” from four events consisting of violence with guns. I’m not sure that I would agree that the difference in and of itself justifies application of the term “terrorism” to the Boston event, but I think it is enough of a difference to invalidate Greenwald’s claim that Islamic prejudice is the only possible explanation.
Now, if he wanted a comparison which would bolster his argument, he could have cited the Fort Hood shooting, in which 13 people died by gunfire. That attack did not differ in any significant way from Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine other than it was perpetrated by an Islamist, and it was widely referred to as a “terrorist attack.”
I’m not smarter than Glenn Greenwald, so I can’t believe he missed that.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Downton Abbey
My wife and I have just finished watching seasons one and two of Downton Abbey on dvd, and have been totally charmed by the series. If nothing else it is a nice change from the “threat from Islamic terrorists” which seems to be the plot line for everything on television, be it news or entertainment. America is becoming distressingly single minded. The show is, in all respects, delightful, and if you have not watched it I recommend it to you.
One character in the story touches a particular chord for me; the Dowager Duchess, played by Maggie Smith. She is the mother of Lord Grantham, his daughters call her “Granny,” and she has a dry and sparkling wit.
She reminds me enormously of my Dad’s mother, who we kids called “Granny.” The facial features are strikingly similar, and my Granny was born with the family name of Featherston, which may account for some of the similarity in mannerisms and the nature of her sense of humor.
Once a month or so, when the parents had an evening out, we kids would spend the evening at Granny’s house. Dinner was always the same thing: hamburger steaks so overcooked that they were crunchy, frozen peas barely thawed, and sticky white rice with margarine on top. It was awful food, but we didn’t care, because an evening with Granny was an event to be looked forward to with eager anticipation. She was an absolute blast.
She was a Christian lady in the best sense of the word. She lived it without talking about it, and it was her influence that gave me the blessing of growing up in a Southern culture and having a father who taught me that it was unconscionable to judge a person by the color of his skin. I will always be grateful to her for that.
One character in the story touches a particular chord for me; the Dowager Duchess, played by Maggie Smith. She is the mother of Lord Grantham, his daughters call her “Granny,” and she has a dry and sparkling wit.
She reminds me enormously of my Dad’s mother, who we kids called “Granny.” The facial features are strikingly similar, and my Granny was born with the family name of Featherston, which may account for some of the similarity in mannerisms and the nature of her sense of humor.
Once a month or so, when the parents had an evening out, we kids would spend the evening at Granny’s house. Dinner was always the same thing: hamburger steaks so overcooked that they were crunchy, frozen peas barely thawed, and sticky white rice with margarine on top. It was awful food, but we didn’t care, because an evening with Granny was an event to be looked forward to with eager anticipation. She was an absolute blast.
She was a Christian lady in the best sense of the word. She lived it without talking about it, and it was her influence that gave me the blessing of growing up in a Southern culture and having a father who taught me that it was unconscionable to judge a person by the color of his skin. I will always be grateful to her for that.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Economics Is Not Business
Again on Saturday columnist Dean Baker illustrates the difference between economics and business by claiming that whenever “employers cannot get the workers they need then they raise the wages they offer to pull workers away from other employers.” Many economists espouse this little piece of sophistry, completely ignoring that even from an economics standpoint it does not make much sense. The shortage is merely shifted from the hiring employer to the employer from whom the employees are “pulled away.”
The concept makes even less sense from a businessman’s standpoint.
For one thing, it apparently never occurs to Dean Baker and his fellow economists that stealing employees from other companies is not really the most ethical way to go about hiring. When I was in the steel business we called that “poaching,” and it was widely frowned upon. It tended to evoke retaliation in a multitude of nefarious ways, up to and including sabotage.
There’s also a little thing called “labor unions,” which dictate in many cases that all companies in a area will pay the same wages for like jobs. The UAW, for instance, negotiates contracts that mandates that all car producers in Michigan pay the same wages. The union contract does not allow paying lower wages, and it does not allow paying higher wages either. Kind of shoots Bakers employee shortage solution down in flames.
Baker also seems to think that producers can raise the prices of their products at will, and to an infinite degree. There was a day when that was the case, the public was in such a spendthrift mood that they would pay any price for anything, but those days are gone, and they are not going to return any time soon. That means that many employers cannot simply raise the prices of their products to cover the increased costs of higher wages plus increases in payroll taxes, worker’s compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, all of which are a percentage of payroll.
Economists need to stick to things like forecasting recessions, not telling employers how much they should pay their workers.
The real issue discussed in the column which Dean Baker is sneering at is the issue of availability of trained workers for today’s technical jobs. There’s plenty to sneer at in that column, but it isn’t in the form of a nonsensical claim to the effect that there is no labor shortage because employers could steal employees if they were just smart enough to do so.
In the past employers would hire untrained workers, called “apprentices,” and train them, at which point they became “journeymen,” but in today's economy they are apparently unwilling to do that. They seem to think someone else, presumably the government, should do the training for them, which I think is rather idiotic. I’m not sure why no one comes up with a suggestion that if employers need trained employees that they should do their own damned training.
The concept makes even less sense from a businessman’s standpoint.
For one thing, it apparently never occurs to Dean Baker and his fellow economists that stealing employees from other companies is not really the most ethical way to go about hiring. When I was in the steel business we called that “poaching,” and it was widely frowned upon. It tended to evoke retaliation in a multitude of nefarious ways, up to and including sabotage.
There’s also a little thing called “labor unions,” which dictate in many cases that all companies in a area will pay the same wages for like jobs. The UAW, for instance, negotiates contracts that mandates that all car producers in Michigan pay the same wages. The union contract does not allow paying lower wages, and it does not allow paying higher wages either. Kind of shoots Bakers employee shortage solution down in flames.
Baker also seems to think that producers can raise the prices of their products at will, and to an infinite degree. There was a day when that was the case, the public was in such a spendthrift mood that they would pay any price for anything, but those days are gone, and they are not going to return any time soon. That means that many employers cannot simply raise the prices of their products to cover the increased costs of higher wages plus increases in payroll taxes, worker’s compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, all of which are a percentage of payroll.
Economists need to stick to things like forecasting recessions, not telling employers how much they should pay their workers.
The real issue discussed in the column which Dean Baker is sneering at is the issue of availability of trained workers for today’s technical jobs. There’s plenty to sneer at in that column, but it isn’t in the form of a nonsensical claim to the effect that there is no labor shortage because employers could steal employees if they were just smart enough to do so.
In the past employers would hire untrained workers, called “apprentices,” and train them, at which point they became “journeymen,” but in today's economy they are apparently unwilling to do that. They seem to think someone else, presumably the government, should do the training for them, which I think is rather idiotic. I’m not sure why no one comes up with a suggestion that if employers need trained employees that they should do their own damned training.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Explosive Fertilizer
Our local news station did a piece on the dangers of “explosive fertilizer” last night, revolving around the story on the explosion on the fertilizer plant in Texas. The anchor kept patting a bag of 21-0-0 Ammonium Sulfate, which is neither flammable or explosive under any circumstances.
He probably was not readily able to buy a bag of 34-0-0 Ammonium Nitrate on short notice, because farm supply stores keep it in the back room and want identification before they will sell it to you. They do that not because it is dangerous per se, but because if someone buys enough of it they could use it to build a bomb. If someone was storing several dozen tons of it and set the building on fire, there could be an explosion.
That being said, one thirty pound bag of it in your garage is about as dangerous as your average house cat. The main danger is that it will absorb water from the air and turn into a liquid, useless and modestly toxic mess. Despite our guy’s warnings about “handling it carefully,” you can jump on it, hammer it, drop things on it… One thirty pound bag is not going to explode under any circumstances. Just keep it sealed up tight, not because, as he warns, it is going to kill you with toxic fumes, but to keep it dry.
Better yet, use the Ammonium Sulfate which he had on his desk, and just use more of it. They both contain nothing but nitrogen, but the supposedly deadly Ammonium Nitrate has more of it in one bag because the nitrogen is more concentrated. Using the lower concentration in larger amounts is just as effective, and you don’t have to worry about it getting damp and self destructing into a useless mess.
And you don’t have to worry about FBI agents asking questions.
He probably was not readily able to buy a bag of 34-0-0 Ammonium Nitrate on short notice, because farm supply stores keep it in the back room and want identification before they will sell it to you. They do that not because it is dangerous per se, but because if someone buys enough of it they could use it to build a bomb. If someone was storing several dozen tons of it and set the building on fire, there could be an explosion.
That being said, one thirty pound bag of it in your garage is about as dangerous as your average house cat. The main danger is that it will absorb water from the air and turn into a liquid, useless and modestly toxic mess. Despite our guy’s warnings about “handling it carefully,” you can jump on it, hammer it, drop things on it… One thirty pound bag is not going to explode under any circumstances. Just keep it sealed up tight, not because, as he warns, it is going to kill you with toxic fumes, but to keep it dry.
Better yet, use the Ammonium Sulfate which he had on his desk, and just use more of it. They both contain nothing but nitrogen, but the supposedly deadly Ammonium Nitrate has more of it in one bag because the nitrogen is more concentrated. Using the lower concentration in larger amounts is just as effective, and you don’t have to worry about it getting damp and self destructing into a useless mess.
And you don’t have to worry about FBI agents asking questions.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Calling For Direct Democracy
President Obama, Democratic leaders, Gabby Giffords, Newton parents, and thousands dozens of bloggers are calling for an end run around the design of our governance and engaging in an exercise in direct democracy. It may or may not happen, and if it does it will probably backfire. Pandering to public emotion usually does, which is why the founders gave us a representative form of government.
When I lived in Tucson we had a water shortage, so Arizona built a canal to bring water from the Colorado River to our fair city. Having traveled across 400 miles of desert and concentrating minerals by evaporation, not to mention the addition of God knows how many drowned animals, it was pretty bad quality water. Not that it started out all that great, since a whole bunch of cities dump their sewage into the Colorado.
We weren’t sure we wanted that stuff, and the original idea was to give it to the cotton farmers and for us to take what farmers had been using. That didn’t work out because the canal water was too salty and the farmers could not use it, so we were stuck with it. Evidently it never occurred to anyone that if it killed plants maybe we should not be drinking it.
So the question arose as to whether we should add it directly to our water system or if we should “recharge” it. The latter would mean that we would dump it into the ground and let it make its way down into the existing ground water pool, where we could pump it out as needed. Experts said that making its way down through the ground would purify it enormously, so treating it would be less expensive when we pumped it out and used it.
Then some nutcase suggested that we could not be sure that our water would stay where we put it, and that once it was in the ground it might drift away. Experts said that, no, that would not happen; that groundwater is not some sort of river and that it would stay until we needed it, but fewer and fewer people believed these experts, especially once the specter was raised that it might go south to where Mexico could get it. Of course, if it had stayed in the Colorado River, Mexico would have gotten it, but…
The city government decided to recharge to water and the result was much the same as the Senate refusing to pass gun background checks yesterday; outrage and calls for a popular vote, which in this case was forthcoming. So many people were freaked out by the prospect of Mexico getting our water that recharge lost by a landslide.
So the canal water was added to our water system and the result was very similar to throwing a handful of fresh horse poop into a high speed fan. It was awesome. No one would drink the water and some would not even bathe in it. Bottled water sales skyrocketed and shortages developed. I never actually documented anyone bathing in bottled water, but I will all but guarantee that some people were doing so. Between the water itself and people not bathing, Tucson smelled like a gymnasium full of dead fish.
Further, the water rapidly degraded our water distribution system. It eroded pipes very quickly, causing them to leak badly and eventually burst, and it chewed up pumps as if they were pumping abrasive sand. After six months the city government said, vote or no vote, this water is going into the ground because we cannot afford the destruction it is wreaking on our water system. Residents were thrilled.
The moral is that sometimes, having elected legislators to represent us, we need to just, well, let them represent us.
When I lived in Tucson we had a water shortage, so Arizona built a canal to bring water from the Colorado River to our fair city. Having traveled across 400 miles of desert and concentrating minerals by evaporation, not to mention the addition of God knows how many drowned animals, it was pretty bad quality water. Not that it started out all that great, since a whole bunch of cities dump their sewage into the Colorado.
We weren’t sure we wanted that stuff, and the original idea was to give it to the cotton farmers and for us to take what farmers had been using. That didn’t work out because the canal water was too salty and the farmers could not use it, so we were stuck with it. Evidently it never occurred to anyone that if it killed plants maybe we should not be drinking it.
So the question arose as to whether we should add it directly to our water system or if we should “recharge” it. The latter would mean that we would dump it into the ground and let it make its way down into the existing ground water pool, where we could pump it out as needed. Experts said that making its way down through the ground would purify it enormously, so treating it would be less expensive when we pumped it out and used it.
Then some nutcase suggested that we could not be sure that our water would stay where we put it, and that once it was in the ground it might drift away. Experts said that, no, that would not happen; that groundwater is not some sort of river and that it would stay until we needed it, but fewer and fewer people believed these experts, especially once the specter was raised that it might go south to where Mexico could get it. Of course, if it had stayed in the Colorado River, Mexico would have gotten it, but…
The city government decided to recharge to water and the result was much the same as the Senate refusing to pass gun background checks yesterday; outrage and calls for a popular vote, which in this case was forthcoming. So many people were freaked out by the prospect of Mexico getting our water that recharge lost by a landslide.
So the canal water was added to our water system and the result was very similar to throwing a handful of fresh horse poop into a high speed fan. It was awesome. No one would drink the water and some would not even bathe in it. Bottled water sales skyrocketed and shortages developed. I never actually documented anyone bathing in bottled water, but I will all but guarantee that some people were doing so. Between the water itself and people not bathing, Tucson smelled like a gymnasium full of dead fish.
Further, the water rapidly degraded our water distribution system. It eroded pipes very quickly, causing them to leak badly and eventually burst, and it chewed up pumps as if they were pumping abrasive sand. After six months the city government said, vote or no vote, this water is going into the ground because we cannot afford the destruction it is wreaking on our water system. Residents were thrilled.
The moral is that sometimes, having elected legislators to represent us, we need to just, well, let them represent us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)