Driver's quick thinking prevents head-on crash on GG Bridge: "Beatty drove up along side the car, saw the woman slumped over the wheel and acted quickly. He maneuvered his Ford F350 pickup in front of her vehicle to block it from moving into the oncoming cars. 'I let her hit me,' Beatty said. Then - with the Jeep still moving - Beatty used his truck to guide it across two lanes of traffic to the right hand curb as other cars passed, he said. "
Did you know there is a Random Act of Kindness Organization? What a nice reminder of the real meaning of the holiday season.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The Oreo Movie
Why does our government need to feed the world's hungry? If feeding the world's hungry is important to Americans, why can't they donate voluntarily?
Why does the government need to pay for middle class children's health care? Again, why can't that be done through voluntary charity?
Why do liberals feel so strongly that they must forcibly take money from taxpayers to do good deed? Why are liberals more willing to lobby the government to fund programs than to go out and raise funds for charitable foundations that use money more efficiently? Why are they afraid of the oversight and contributor involvement of charitable foundations?
Why does anyone think the $500 hammer guys are the best ones to manage charity?
Below is a button for a liberal video, and I don't particularly agree with the impulse to spend taxpayer dollars on, for instance, feeding the world's hungry. I would rather see charity dollars do that good deed. One of the problems I have with all this "but we're the richest nation in the world, we can afford everything" mentality is that these programs get passed in bumper years, and then we still have to pay them in lean years.
However, that said, the video is well done. It is voiced by Ben of Ben & Jerry's, and he uses Oreo cookies to explain the Federal budget. It is a perfect simplification of the budget items he needs to make his point, and it is accessible even for people who don't understand all that figurin'. No real math here - just cookies to visually explain the budget. I don't endorse the recommendations, but I do endorse this as "anything that gets people thinking and talking about the government's budget is good."
Why does the government need to pay for middle class children's health care? Again, why can't that be done through voluntary charity?
Why do liberals feel so strongly that they must forcibly take money from taxpayers to do good deed? Why are liberals more willing to lobby the government to fund programs than to go out and raise funds for charitable foundations that use money more efficiently? Why are they afraid of the oversight and contributor involvement of charitable foundations?
Why does anyone think the $500 hammer guys are the best ones to manage charity?
Below is a button for a liberal video, and I don't particularly agree with the impulse to spend taxpayer dollars on, for instance, feeding the world's hungry. I would rather see charity dollars do that good deed. One of the problems I have with all this "but we're the richest nation in the world, we can afford everything" mentality is that these programs get passed in bumper years, and then we still have to pay them in lean years.
However, that said, the video is well done. It is voiced by Ben of Ben & Jerry's, and he uses Oreo cookies to explain the Federal budget. It is a perfect simplification of the budget items he needs to make his point, and it is accessible even for people who don't understand all that figurin'. No real math here - just cookies to visually explain the budget. I don't endorse the recommendations, but I do endorse this as "anything that gets people thinking and talking about the government's budget is good."
Monday, November 19, 2007
Brazil, the New Oil Superpower
Brazil recently announced the discovery of between 5 billion and 8 billion barrels of oil in a deep offshore oilfiled. Brazil, the New Oil Superpower: "Contrary to the price-hawk position of Venezuelan President Chávez, who recently said oil-producing countries should try to 'stabilize' oil prices near $100 a barrel, Lula said he hopes Brazil's new oil will someday help to bring global oil prices down from their current levels, allowing poor countries to buy more of it. 'Brazilians are right to be euphoric,' says Peter Hakim, president of Washington-based think tank Inter-American Dialogue. Because Brazil has discovered its new oil after the country's economy has been largely diversified and industrialized, 'Brazil can avoid the oil curse, the dependency on one resource that dominates countries like Nigeria and Venezuela.' "
According to the CIA World Factbook, as of 2004 the United States was using 20.73 million barrels a day, of which 13.15 million barrels/day are imported. If the United States 1) held usage/imports steady at 13.15 million barrels/day; 2) bought all of the oil produced from the Tupi field (and let's assume it's 8 billion barrels); and 3) only bought from that field until the field ran dry; Brazil's huge new find would supply enough oil to keep America running for 608 days, or 1.66 years. Now, granted, the U.S. will continue buying oil from the Middle East and all other viable suppliers, and Brazil has other oilfields and will continue looking for more. On the other hand, China and India are growing consumers of oil.
If we crunch the numbers a little differently - if the find is only 5 billion barrels, it would supply the United States total daily consumption (as of 2004) for just 241 days or a bit shy of 8 months. A new oilfield discovery of more than 1 billion barrels is so large that the industry calls it an "elephant".
"Geologist Roberto Fainstein, whose seismic imaging work at oil-field services company Schlumberger helped Brazil to discover its massive new reserves, says the subsalt find will "lead to a rush in this kind of drilling worldwide." Brazil's discovery may quicken subsalt drilling in the Gulf of Mexico by oil majors and Mexico's state-run oil giant Pemex. A salt layer offshore West African countries including Angola, Gabon, and Equatorial Guinea is "virtually identical to Brazil's," Fainstein says, "so companies will race to begin drilling it."
Subsea salt layers are present in all three of the world's biggest offshore oil areas: the Gulf of Mexico, West Africa, and Brazil. So far, subsalt oil production has been executed only in the Gulf of Mexico, near the Texas and Louisiana coast where companies including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Anadarko Petroleum (APC) have all made significant discoveries."
More oil will be discovered. New technologies will be developed to provide power. No matter how much we find, though, it is a finite resource. Let's hope we figure it all out while there's still plenty of petrol left for producing silicon chips, creating pacemakers, and doing all the other things that can only be done with petroleum today.
According to the CIA World Factbook, as of 2004 the United States was using 20.73 million barrels a day, of which 13.15 million barrels/day are imported. If the United States 1) held usage/imports steady at 13.15 million barrels/day; 2) bought all of the oil produced from the Tupi field (and let's assume it's 8 billion barrels); and 3) only bought from that field until the field ran dry; Brazil's huge new find would supply enough oil to keep America running for 608 days, or 1.66 years. Now, granted, the U.S. will continue buying oil from the Middle East and all other viable suppliers, and Brazil has other oilfields and will continue looking for more. On the other hand, China and India are growing consumers of oil.
If we crunch the numbers a little differently - if the find is only 5 billion barrels, it would supply the United States total daily consumption (as of 2004) for just 241 days or a bit shy of 8 months. A new oilfield discovery of more than 1 billion barrels is so large that the industry calls it an "elephant".
"Geologist Roberto Fainstein, whose seismic imaging work at oil-field services company Schlumberger helped Brazil to discover its massive new reserves, says the subsalt find will "lead to a rush in this kind of drilling worldwide." Brazil's discovery may quicken subsalt drilling in the Gulf of Mexico by oil majors and Mexico's state-run oil giant Pemex. A salt layer offshore West African countries including Angola, Gabon, and Equatorial Guinea is "virtually identical to Brazil's," Fainstein says, "so companies will race to begin drilling it."
Subsea salt layers are present in all three of the world's biggest offshore oil areas: the Gulf of Mexico, West Africa, and Brazil. So far, subsalt oil production has been executed only in the Gulf of Mexico, near the Texas and Louisiana coast where companies including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Anadarko Petroleum (APC) have all made significant discoveries."
More oil will be discovered. New technologies will be developed to provide power. No matter how much we find, though, it is a finite resource. Let's hope we figure it all out while there's still plenty of petrol left for producing silicon chips, creating pacemakers, and doing all the other things that can only be done with petroleum today.
Interesting twist on illegal immigration
Leave it to Texas to put a stop to executive overreaching. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine: "Jose Ernesto Medellin is a living argument for the death penalty. In 1993, as part of a gang initiation, he and some friends sodomized and gang-raped two teenage girls in Houston, strangling them with their shoelaces. One victim's Goofy watch was stolen as a prize. Medellin confessed to the crime and was sentenced to death by a jury, a sentence affirmed in the appeals courts. Only later did Medellin learn that, because he is a Mexican citizen, the Vienna Convention of 1963 entitled him to consult with Mexican consular authorities—who might have helped him at his trial. "
Because the guy didn't bother to become a U.S. Citizen, he has a right to help from the Mexican government. Because the police and prosecution didn't tell him he had a right to help from the Mexican government, his sentence can be overturned and the victims' families can be put through hell again.
Yep, illegal immigration is a victimless crime.
A foreigner's right to help from their consulate is kinda predicated on the notion that a foreigner would be visiting a country, not living there. As a visitor, a foreigner might not fully understand the laws of the nation he or she is visiting. He or she might chew gum in a country where that's illegal, or might expect due process in a country where lawyers can be jailed for appealing for a stronger sentence against rapists. I don't think we have any business applying visitor logic to someone who lives here. It's unfair to American criminals, it's unfair to American victims, it's unfair to our taxpayers, it's just plain unfair. Visitors - true visitors who come for two weeks, hire a lorry, rent a flat, complain about the price of petrol, visit a Mosque and go on home - aren't usually a crime problem. Illegal occupiers (undocumented aliens to those of you who have been reading too much of the mainstream media) are a crime problem.
In California, the State can tax my income from out of state if I spend more than a couple months in state; I am presumed to be a citizen for legal (and/or tax) purposes, even if I am technically, personally, physically, and spiritually a citizen of another state. Why are American citizens held to higher standards than illegal immigrants? Why do illegal immigrants get the dual benefit of America's free public defender plus rights to use Mexico's consular help? And why is it our government's responsibility to notify the guy that he has that right? Geneva Convention rights to contact one's consulate are predicated upon the idea that person is in-country temporarily - there has to be some standard for a presumption of having given up that right, like, oh, I don't know, availing oneself of America's public education, welfare, medical care, etc.
Oh, but an illegal immigrant is only a resident of this country until it becomes more convenient to be a citizen of another country, like when he/she wants to appeal a conviction for a brutal and incredibly senseless rape/murder that was committed just to prove that he's a good little gang member. Just doing the jobs that Americans won't do, right?
Because the guy didn't bother to become a U.S. Citizen, he has a right to help from the Mexican government. Because the police and prosecution didn't tell him he had a right to help from the Mexican government, his sentence can be overturned and the victims' families can be put through hell again.
Yep, illegal immigration is a victimless crime.
A foreigner's right to help from their consulate is kinda predicated on the notion that a foreigner would be visiting a country, not living there. As a visitor, a foreigner might not fully understand the laws of the nation he or she is visiting. He or she might chew gum in a country where that's illegal, or might expect due process in a country where lawyers can be jailed for appealing for a stronger sentence against rapists. I don't think we have any business applying visitor logic to someone who lives here. It's unfair to American criminals, it's unfair to American victims, it's unfair to our taxpayers, it's just plain unfair. Visitors - true visitors who come for two weeks, hire a lorry, rent a flat, complain about the price of petrol, visit a Mosque and go on home - aren't usually a crime problem. Illegal occupiers (undocumented aliens to those of you who have been reading too much of the mainstream media) are a crime problem.
In California, the State can tax my income from out of state if I spend more than a couple months in state; I am presumed to be a citizen for legal (and/or tax) purposes, even if I am technically, personally, physically, and spiritually a citizen of another state. Why are American citizens held to higher standards than illegal immigrants? Why do illegal immigrants get the dual benefit of America's free public defender plus rights to use Mexico's consular help? And why is it our government's responsibility to notify the guy that he has that right? Geneva Convention rights to contact one's consulate are predicated upon the idea that person is in-country temporarily - there has to be some standard for a presumption of having given up that right, like, oh, I don't know, availing oneself of America's public education, welfare, medical care, etc.
Oh, but an illegal immigrant is only a resident of this country until it becomes more convenient to be a citizen of another country, like when he/she wants to appeal a conviction for a brutal and incredibly senseless rape/murder that was committed just to prove that he's a good little gang member. Just doing the jobs that Americans won't do, right?
Federalist No 46: The right to keep and bear Arms
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 46: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison
Ah, grade school history, so long ago.
Federalist Papers: "The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution. In total, the Federalist Papers consist of 85 essays outlining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America."
James Madison, if you recall, was the 4th President of the United States, and called the "Father of the Constitution."
Ah, grade school history, so long ago.
Federalist Papers: "The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution. In total, the Federalist Papers consist of 85 essays outlining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America."
James Madison, if you recall, was the 4th President of the United States, and called the "Father of the Constitution."
Starting Tuesday, plastic bags illegal at big S.F. grocery stores
Starting Tuesday, plastic bags illegal at big San Francisco grocery stores: "Starting Tuesday, large grocery stores in the city can no longer use the traditional plastic bags that are a staple of the supermarket checkout line, as a city ordinance passed earlier this year to ban the bags takes effect."
Am I the only person thinking that the socialists should move to existing socialist countries, instead of trying to destroy democracy? I'm all in favor of using cloth bags (and I request paper bags at grocery stores that offer them - if I don't bring my own bags), but why is the government making that choice for consumers?
Our local "upscale" grocer offers a 5 cent discount per reused bag, whether cloth or plastic. The amazing thing about it is that they are really good about actually providing the discount, even in self-checkout, even if the customer doesn't ask for the discount. And I see customers bringing in bags to reuse. Heck, I buy dog treats at the pet store's bulk snack bar, and I reuse the same bag over and over again. Our bathroom trash can is simply a hanger for reusing grocery bags. I prefer paper bags for bagging our paper, plastic, and glass recycling. Our curbside pickup trash can is almost never full - if there is no food waste (that could become stinky), we don't bother putting the bin out, because it would waste the truck's gas stopping to pickup a 3/4 empty bin. My point being: I am not anti-environment, and I do more for the environment than a lot of these enviro-socialists do. But I am a democrat.
Folks, if you don't like what a store is doing, tell them so - talk to a manager, write to corporate headquarters, stop giving them your money. Good citizenship is more than election day; it's the accumulated results of all of your actions, every day, from how you allocate your charitable giving to how you shop. If you don't want to see plastic bags at checkout, shop someplace that doesn't use them.
Note to the San Francisco supervisors: If your problem with grocery bags is litter, then tax the bags at an appropriate level to cover the costs of cleaning them up, and enforce litter laws. If your problem is simply that you don't like your constituents' retail choices, then use your position to encourage different choices or just bugger off; "the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone" (Federalist Paper number 46, Madison).
Am I the only person thinking that the socialists should move to existing socialist countries, instead of trying to destroy democracy? I'm all in favor of using cloth bags (and I request paper bags at grocery stores that offer them - if I don't bring my own bags), but why is the government making that choice for consumers?
Our local "upscale" grocer offers a 5 cent discount per reused bag, whether cloth or plastic. The amazing thing about it is that they are really good about actually providing the discount, even in self-checkout, even if the customer doesn't ask for the discount. And I see customers bringing in bags to reuse. Heck, I buy dog treats at the pet store's bulk snack bar, and I reuse the same bag over and over again. Our bathroom trash can is simply a hanger for reusing grocery bags. I prefer paper bags for bagging our paper, plastic, and glass recycling. Our curbside pickup trash can is almost never full - if there is no food waste (that could become stinky), we don't bother putting the bin out, because it would waste the truck's gas stopping to pickup a 3/4 empty bin. My point being: I am not anti-environment, and I do more for the environment than a lot of these enviro-socialists do. But I am a democrat.
dem·o·crat /ˈdɛməˌkræt/ –noun
1. an advocate of democracy.
Folks, if you don't like what a store is doing, tell them so - talk to a manager, write to corporate headquarters, stop giving them your money. Good citizenship is more than election day; it's the accumulated results of all of your actions, every day, from how you allocate your charitable giving to how you shop. If you don't want to see plastic bags at checkout, shop someplace that doesn't use them.
More from the SF Gate article:
"While the absence of plastic bags may be a radical change in many parts of the city, the Rainbow Grocery Cooperative on Folsom Street has not offered customers plastic bags since it opened in 1975, said Dennis Wagner, one of the store's seven directors.
The store encourages customers to bring their own bags, as well as using their own containers for produce or bulk foods."
Note to the San Francisco supervisors: If your problem with grocery bags is litter, then tax the bags at an appropriate level to cover the costs of cleaning them up, and enforce litter laws. If your problem is simply that you don't like your constituents' retail choices, then use your position to encourage different choices or just bugger off; "the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone" (Federalist Paper number 46, Madison).
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Theodore Roosevelt on Immigration, Reform
Why we should study Theodore Roosevelt - TIME: "TR was President during a period of enormous stress over immigration and the meaning of being an American. He was unequivocally for control of immigration and for encouraging immigrants who wanted to be American while opposing those who would radically change America. As TR put it, 'In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American. . . . There can be no divided allegiance here.' "
The article is a quick, easy read and interesting in reference to both reform and middle ground between conservative and liberal approaches.
With my recent posts about problems with illegal immigration, it might seem as though I oppose immigration or immigrants. Let me set the record straight. We are all immigrants or descendants of immigrants. My great-great grandmother was a native American, and even she was a descendant of immigrants who crossed the great landbridge from Asia a long, long time ago. I love immigrants.
I believe that illegal immigrants are migrants, though. To my mind, an immigrant is someone who wishes to be American, and wouldn't jeopardize that lofty goal by breaking the immigration laws of the nation he wishes to make his own. A migrant plans to move on; an immigrant plans to stay. A migrant keeps his own flag, language, and citizenship; an immigrant takes on the flag, language, and citizenship of his new home country with great pride.
My grandfather immigrated to this country early in the last century. He was almost 80 when I was born, and by then, he spoke English as a native, without a trace of accent. He loved this country. When my father, aunts, and uncles were growing up, they visited family in the old country, and there was a language barrier. The ancestors spoke French; the new generation spoke only English. It was an honor for my grandparents' children to serve in the Armed Forces; it was about as American as you could get, risking your own life in support of the nation. My grandfather came here without an education, but with a formidable work ethic and a drive to learn American ways. He labored - he helped build the Taft School in Connecticut, hauling and lifting boulders that you wouldn't think could be hefted with a team of men. They say he was so strong, he could balance a wheelbarrow on his chin. He worked his way up, gladly learning new technologies as they developed (and many developed in his day - he drove horse carts and then motorized wagons called trucks; by the time he died, we had put a man on the moon and begun putting computers in every home). He was the old school immigrant, without advanced degrees or lots of money. He just had a drive to be an American in every aspect.
I have friends who are immigrants, and they love this country and its freedoms with a vigor that can only come from knowing the alternative. They take deep personal offense when they believe the country is being harmed, and they take great pride when they believe the country has done right. They typically speak English better than American-born citizens, having taken great pains to learn to speak it correctly in both pronounciation and grammar. One friend gets very angry with me when I jokingly speak like a hick, in the broken English of the uneducated South; he is afraid that wrong usage will stick, since English - though his first language in usage, is his second language in learning. Most of my immigrant friends even think in English. Legally, they are immigrants, but I think of them more as Americans born in the wrong country. I'm glad they've come home.
The article is a quick, easy read and interesting in reference to both reform and middle ground between conservative and liberal approaches.
With my recent posts about problems with illegal immigration, it might seem as though I oppose immigration or immigrants. Let me set the record straight. We are all immigrants or descendants of immigrants. My great-great grandmother was a native American, and even she was a descendant of immigrants who crossed the great landbridge from Asia a long, long time ago. I love immigrants.
I believe that illegal immigrants are migrants, though. To my mind, an immigrant is someone who wishes to be American, and wouldn't jeopardize that lofty goal by breaking the immigration laws of the nation he wishes to make his own. A migrant plans to move on; an immigrant plans to stay. A migrant keeps his own flag, language, and citizenship; an immigrant takes on the flag, language, and citizenship of his new home country with great pride.
My grandfather immigrated to this country early in the last century. He was almost 80 when I was born, and by then, he spoke English as a native, without a trace of accent. He loved this country. When my father, aunts, and uncles were growing up, they visited family in the old country, and there was a language barrier. The ancestors spoke French; the new generation spoke only English. It was an honor for my grandparents' children to serve in the Armed Forces; it was about as American as you could get, risking your own life in support of the nation. My grandfather came here without an education, but with a formidable work ethic and a drive to learn American ways. He labored - he helped build the Taft School in Connecticut, hauling and lifting boulders that you wouldn't think could be hefted with a team of men. They say he was so strong, he could balance a wheelbarrow on his chin. He worked his way up, gladly learning new technologies as they developed (and many developed in his day - he drove horse carts and then motorized wagons called trucks; by the time he died, we had put a man on the moon and begun putting computers in every home). He was the old school immigrant, without advanced degrees or lots of money. He just had a drive to be an American in every aspect.
I have friends who are immigrants, and they love this country and its freedoms with a vigor that can only come from knowing the alternative. They take deep personal offense when they believe the country is being harmed, and they take great pride when they believe the country has done right. They typically speak English better than American-born citizens, having taken great pains to learn to speak it correctly in both pronounciation and grammar. One friend gets very angry with me when I jokingly speak like a hick, in the broken English of the uneducated South; he is afraid that wrong usage will stick, since English - though his first language in usage, is his second language in learning. Most of my immigrant friends even think in English. Legally, they are immigrants, but I think of them more as Americans born in the wrong country. I'm glad they've come home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)