Today President Bush was roused from his slumbering slouch to Babylon with the news that Americans are really mad about the price of gasoline for their vehicles. On the same day, the New York Times reported on the Army Corps of Engineers and KBR's astounding failure to build critical oil pipelines from the Iraqi oil fields to the shipyards. It is important to point out that the reason the pipelines had to be re-built is that the Air Force bombed a bridge, and the Army randomly decided not to re-build it. Meanwhile, terrorism is coming home to roost in Egypt, where over 30 people were killed in a bombing attack.
If I were a cynical neo-con, my plan for Iraq would be rebuild the oil pipelines, give all contracts exclusively to US companies, and lock down the US' own private dedicated oil colony for good. Depending on who you ask, Iraq has the second largest or the largest untapped reserves in the world. That could have helped the right wing machine stay in power. As I've pointed out before, this Administration is incompetent to carry out any task which it seeks to undertake. They can't even carry out their own sinister plans to capture a private oil bank. They can't get their own cronies in KBR to do their bidding. As far as I can tell, they can't seem to do anything except make absurd pronouncements about sexual activity and anything that might be scientifically verifiable.
After 9/11, American elected officials ranging from Congress to the White House had an unprecedented mandate to launch a war on terrorism. To those of us who identified petro-dictatorships as the single largest source of terrorist support (Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.) 10 years ago, it is mind boggling, just earth-shatteringly stupid that the opporutnity to remove the stick from the petro-dictator's hand was not taken. Again, as I've pointed out before, if we had spent 500 billion on alternative energy, we could safely cut off all relations with the entirety of OPEC and then some.
Mr. Bush's utterly useless and pathetic offering, withholding government deposits to the strategic oil reserve is, just, well it's hard to find more ways to say stupid and pathetic. I think Sen. Barbara Mikulski said it best: "You said Iraqi oil would pay for the war. Ain't seen no money. Ain't seen no oil."
Chutzpah is the Jewish art of having one's cake and eating it. Mr. Bush has chutzpah in spades -- but not really. It's that awful WASP derivative of chutzpah known as hubris. All the pain and none of the laughs. Even though people are rioting for the wrong reason (gas prices), hopefully the American people will figure out that it is time to THROW THE BUMS OUT!
25 April 2006
09 April 2006
northwest mist
Me and Keebs went whale watching this weekend. No orcas were out, but we saw 3 gray whales (along with a sea lion, many dall's porpoises, eagles, seals, etc.). I recommend this experience, though kayaking is the way to go to get the proper rugged outdoor wildlife experience.
06 April 2006
Nathan Writes back and I discover the difference between Conservatives and everyone else
Stephen,
Thanks for your comments and thoughts. The NYT article and editorial are independent of Tom DeLay, since the NYT employs the same method of criticism (“critics say”) in many of their articles. It is the NYT’s claim of unbiased reporting that irks me. As Bill Bennett pointed out on CNN, the media’s reporting of the “bad news” (the killings in Iraq, the sectarian violence, the kidnappings) is not a problem per se. After all, newspapers report on crimes, not peaceful citizenry. The problem arises when people form their opinions—and politicians, their votes—based on what the media portrays: invariably bad news with not-quite-objective reporting.
The partisan divide in this country seems to be the widest and most extreme we’ve seen in recent history. So, I think it’s important to distinguish conservatives from Republicans. Last October, NR’s cover story tagline was “Sometimes it’s only when you’ve run aground that you realize you needed a rudder.” That was referring to the GOP. I think the Republican Party should be the party of the future, but they have become complacent, counting on the Democrats inability to win elections for their survival. This is not a strategy.
Do I have an axe to grind? I don’t feel like a martyr, and I don’t care what the NYT thinks or says of me. I do care about the person that picks up the NYT and reads Paul Krugman’s faulty assertions, and then walks away with an opinion formed by what they read. In my view that’s the real danger, and why I think it’s almost more important to write about the media than, say, spout my personal opinions about how to run a country, hoping some politician will adopt my ideas. In any event, I hope this gives you an idea of where I personally stand, and also helps you figure out where you stand, too.
Regards,
Nathan Goulding
I didn't send this reply to him, I wrote him something much shorter, but I thought you might be interested in it.
Nathan--
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I sincerely appreciate it. I think that while there may be a large partisan divide, I can tell from your comments that you share my concern about the direction of our country as well. My hope is that if people across the political spectrum can agree to dialog, that will form the critical basis for moving our country forward. Ideally this forward movement will be based on the good ideas that are available from all sides.
I guess from my point of view, it doesn't matter how educated you are or which columnists you read. I think our country is going in the wrong direction because citizens let it. As our country continues to grow, and as the light of our empire fades, we are faced with the most difficult challenge since WWII. The world is changing in a big way, and in a way that threatens the American way of life -- how it threatens us is open to interpretation. You say terrorists, I say oil, but they're just different sides of the same eventuality. I think that most voters are not critically engaged with the issues, and as a result, pork barrel politics continues to hold sway over elected officials. Their mandate is to bring home the bacon, which they consistently do, while the empire sails off into the sunset, like all great empires before it.
At the end of the day, I think most people reading Paul Krugman take it for what it is: a thought provoking inquiry. I suppose some people must take it as gospel or fact, but for most Times readers, it's just entertainment. Ultimately I think citizens need to take personal responsibility for the state of their republic. I don't care if people read Paul Krugman or a National Review columnist, ultimately citizens and tax payers are to blame for how screwed we are, not the news. This is our country and we have both the power and responsibility to do something about it.
I think you could probably help me out here, but my impression of the major difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals really isn't one of differing governing philosophies. I think the real difference is this: Conservatives have a fairly clearly defined set of values and make governing decisions based on these beliefs. Liberals, while prone to a kind of bleeding-heart-ism, don't have a coherent set of values or beliefs. This seems to drive Conservatives up a wall. Liberal governing decisions are made largely based on numbers and analysis rather than principle.
Take some examples. Immigration. For Liberals, while there is the appeal of being nice, the fact is, we recognize that it's simply more practical and cheaper to let Mexicans in. It's also good PR. For Conservatives, there seems to be a very powerful idea that a rule was broken and therefore punishment must ensue. I think both arguments have logic and merit, but I do tend to lean towards pragmatism rather than principle. Besides, the Jews weren't allowed in America at one time (National Origins Act of 1924), and we know how that story ended. For that reason, I think anyone who wants to come to the US should be given a berth. I know it's apples and oranges, but the point for me is that Conservatives care about the principal of the thing, and Liberals care about a practical solution that will be easy and economically beneficial to everyone.
Another example would be suburbs and exurbs. Conservatives feel that people have the (literally) God-given right to live as they please. This is a very strong current in Conservative thought. Liberals feel that the cost that one's life imposes on the group as a whole ought to be a consideration. Again, you have a very solid moral edifice versus an idea whose concern is slanted more towards practicality. Health insurance follows the same lines. Conservatives feel that a man ought to provide for himself; Liberals recognize that it is simply cheaper if everyone has insurance, regardless of moral imperative. It is also nice that starving rural children in trailers and inner city youth will get immunizations, and there are certainly those that are motivated by what to them is a moral imperative. But I think the real drive for Liberals is the cost savings. If everyone is insured, then the insured are no longer paying for the uninsured in their premiums. It's about strategically injecting money in the right places, rather than an overriding moral principle. My complaint with Conservatives is that they don't seem to like spreadsheets or science. If you boil down the numbers, our current insurance system costs taxpayers (through entitlement programs like Medicare) literally billions more dollars than it should or would under a more regulated system.
Anyway, I know you and I aren't going to agree on that sort of thing, apologies for even going there. I hope it illustrates what I think might be a useful point: that the concerns of the different groups are along totally different axes, and that's why dialog is so difficult. I know that I phrased some of my arguments in a way that shows what I think is right, but I hope that it illustrated the idea that Conservatives are worried about moral values and Liberals are concerned about morally neutral topics [based on facts derived from studies, numbers, science, and analysis].
I guess when I look even higher up, I think Liberals are mostly concerned with money. What distresses me about Republicans -- and I understand that many Conservatives are disappointed with the GOP too -- is that they seem to wield the whole moral value argument club to shield tax payers from the unbelievable financial gain they have wrought from their government connections. That's what really gets my goat. You and I can argue about policy, news media, etc., but at the end of the day, the entire Federal Government is laughing all the way to the bank as their shares of stock go ballistic through federal subsidies to companies they own shares in, from pharmaceuticals, oil & energy, to mega-agriculture.
I work for a company that succeeds on the merits, not on our connections to federal policy makers. We don't get any handouts like no-bid contracts or money not to grow crops. We live and die by our own revenue.
Thanks for your comments and thoughts. The NYT article and editorial are independent of Tom DeLay, since the NYT employs the same method of criticism (“critics say”) in many of their articles. It is the NYT’s claim of unbiased reporting that irks me. As Bill Bennett pointed out on CNN, the media’s reporting of the “bad news” (the killings in Iraq, the sectarian violence, the kidnappings) is not a problem per se. After all, newspapers report on crimes, not peaceful citizenry. The problem arises when people form their opinions—and politicians, their votes—based on what the media portrays: invariably bad news with not-quite-objective reporting.
The partisan divide in this country seems to be the widest and most extreme we’ve seen in recent history. So, I think it’s important to distinguish conservatives from Republicans. Last October, NR’s cover story tagline was “Sometimes it’s only when you’ve run aground that you realize you needed a rudder.” That was referring to the GOP. I think the Republican Party should be the party of the future, but they have become complacent, counting on the Democrats inability to win elections for their survival. This is not a strategy.
Do I have an axe to grind? I don’t feel like a martyr, and I don’t care what the NYT thinks or says of me. I do care about the person that picks up the NYT and reads Paul Krugman’s faulty assertions, and then walks away with an opinion formed by what they read. In my view that’s the real danger, and why I think it’s almost more important to write about the media than, say, spout my personal opinions about how to run a country, hoping some politician will adopt my ideas. In any event, I hope this gives you an idea of where I personally stand, and also helps you figure out where you stand, too.
Regards,
Nathan Goulding
I didn't send this reply to him, I wrote him something much shorter, but I thought you might be interested in it.
Nathan--
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I sincerely appreciate it. I think that while there may be a large partisan divide, I can tell from your comments that you share my concern about the direction of our country as well. My hope is that if people across the political spectrum can agree to dialog, that will form the critical basis for moving our country forward. Ideally this forward movement will be based on the good ideas that are available from all sides.
I guess from my point of view, it doesn't matter how educated you are or which columnists you read. I think our country is going in the wrong direction because citizens let it. As our country continues to grow, and as the light of our empire fades, we are faced with the most difficult challenge since WWII. The world is changing in a big way, and in a way that threatens the American way of life -- how it threatens us is open to interpretation. You say terrorists, I say oil, but they're just different sides of the same eventuality. I think that most voters are not critically engaged with the issues, and as a result, pork barrel politics continues to hold sway over elected officials. Their mandate is to bring home the bacon, which they consistently do, while the empire sails off into the sunset, like all great empires before it.
At the end of the day, I think most people reading Paul Krugman take it for what it is: a thought provoking inquiry. I suppose some people must take it as gospel or fact, but for most Times readers, it's just entertainment. Ultimately I think citizens need to take personal responsibility for the state of their republic. I don't care if people read Paul Krugman or a National Review columnist, ultimately citizens and tax payers are to blame for how screwed we are, not the news. This is our country and we have both the power and responsibility to do something about it.
I think you could probably help me out here, but my impression of the major difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals really isn't one of differing governing philosophies. I think the real difference is this: Conservatives have a fairly clearly defined set of values and make governing decisions based on these beliefs. Liberals, while prone to a kind of bleeding-heart-ism, don't have a coherent set of values or beliefs. This seems to drive Conservatives up a wall. Liberal governing decisions are made largely based on numbers and analysis rather than principle.
Take some examples. Immigration. For Liberals, while there is the appeal of being nice, the fact is, we recognize that it's simply more practical and cheaper to let Mexicans in. It's also good PR. For Conservatives, there seems to be a very powerful idea that a rule was broken and therefore punishment must ensue. I think both arguments have logic and merit, but I do tend to lean towards pragmatism rather than principle. Besides, the Jews weren't allowed in America at one time (National Origins Act of 1924), and we know how that story ended. For that reason, I think anyone who wants to come to the US should be given a berth. I know it's apples and oranges, but the point for me is that Conservatives care about the principal of the thing, and Liberals care about a practical solution that will be easy and economically beneficial to everyone.
Another example would be suburbs and exurbs. Conservatives feel that people have the (literally) God-given right to live as they please. This is a very strong current in Conservative thought. Liberals feel that the cost that one's life imposes on the group as a whole ought to be a consideration. Again, you have a very solid moral edifice versus an idea whose concern is slanted more towards practicality. Health insurance follows the same lines. Conservatives feel that a man ought to provide for himself; Liberals recognize that it is simply cheaper if everyone has insurance, regardless of moral imperative. It is also nice that starving rural children in trailers and inner city youth will get immunizations, and there are certainly those that are motivated by what to them is a moral imperative. But I think the real drive for Liberals is the cost savings. If everyone is insured, then the insured are no longer paying for the uninsured in their premiums. It's about strategically injecting money in the right places, rather than an overriding moral principle. My complaint with Conservatives is that they don't seem to like spreadsheets or science. If you boil down the numbers, our current insurance system costs taxpayers (through entitlement programs like Medicare) literally billions more dollars than it should or would under a more regulated system.
Anyway, I know you and I aren't going to agree on that sort of thing, apologies for even going there. I hope it illustrates what I think might be a useful point: that the concerns of the different groups are along totally different axes, and that's why dialog is so difficult. I know that I phrased some of my arguments in a way that shows what I think is right, but I hope that it illustrated the idea that Conservatives are worried about moral values and Liberals are concerned about morally neutral topics [based on facts derived from studies, numbers, science, and analysis].
I guess when I look even higher up, I think Liberals are mostly concerned with money. What distresses me about Republicans -- and I understand that many Conservatives are disappointed with the GOP too -- is that they seem to wield the whole moral value argument club to shield tax payers from the unbelievable financial gain they have wrought from their government connections. That's what really gets my goat. You and I can argue about policy, news media, etc., but at the end of the day, the entire Federal Government is laughing all the way to the bank as their shares of stock go ballistic through federal subsidies to companies they own shares in, from pharmaceuticals, oil & energy, to mega-agriculture.
I work for a company that succeeds on the merits, not on our connections to federal policy makers. We don't get any handouts like no-bid contracts or money not to grow crops. We live and die by our own revenue.
05 April 2006
A letter to the National Review
I read this little blog entry on the National Review website and it got me thinking about why the "right" wing crowd is so obsessed with media coverage and representation. I guess it just occured to me that these people obviously spend a lot of time watching TV! Or something like that. Anyway, here's the letter I wrote, it's got some zingers in it. And yes, I really did send it to the guy. I'm genuinely perplexed.
Dear Mr. Goulding:
Hi. I was just wondering what you have elucidated for me in your blog comment that the unnamed critics in the New York Times are the reporters themselves. Putting aside the possible validity or invalidity of your argument for a moment, I'm genuinely curious as to what this proves. Is it that Mr. DeLay had no critics? Or does it prove that DeLay has been unfairly represented in the nation's leading newspaper? Is the idea that DeLay's downfall is either entirely or largely attributiable to "unfair" media coverage? Do you think that DeLay's policies were beneficial to the country, and if so, his ethical lapses ought to be overlooked?
I ask because the current animosity between the "right" and "left" is payalysing our country. I'm a Jewish, University-educated software engineer -- definitely not a Republican! But I don't like any of the political parties, they all seem more consumed with marketing than with governing our country, as is evidenced by our massive budget imbalances, the botched job in Iraq, the failure to deal effectively with a natural disaster in New Orleans, an economy that only benefits the nose-bleed section of the tax bracket, businesses that are going bankrupt because they can't pay their health insurance premiums for their pensioners (GM), etc. The Republican's failure to deal with their inefficacy and the Democrat's laughable inability to seize the opportunity to govern depresses me.
So I ask you those questions because I get the feeling that many on the right side of the spectrum feel like they have an axe to grind, that somehow they are represented unfavorably to the public. This concern with representation seems to me to be the least of our worries in deeply troubling times. Maybe that's another difference. Maybe you don't think we live in troubling times. Maybe I am just worried over what you think is a mole hill. Help me understand why this sort of thing is important to you. I want more than anything for their to be dialog between people who don't agree so we can coerce our representatives to go back to the job of governing and get off the permanent campaign trail.
Dear Mr. Goulding:
Hi. I was just wondering what you have elucidated for me in your blog comment that the unnamed critics in the New York Times are the reporters themselves. Putting aside the possible validity or invalidity of your argument for a moment, I'm genuinely curious as to what this proves. Is it that Mr. DeLay had no critics? Or does it prove that DeLay has been unfairly represented in the nation's leading newspaper? Is the idea that DeLay's downfall is either entirely or largely attributiable to "unfair" media coverage? Do you think that DeLay's policies were beneficial to the country, and if so, his ethical lapses ought to be overlooked?
I ask because the current animosity between the "right" and "left" is payalysing our country. I'm a Jewish, University-educated software engineer -- definitely not a Republican! But I don't like any of the political parties, they all seem more consumed with marketing than with governing our country, as is evidenced by our massive budget imbalances, the botched job in Iraq, the failure to deal effectively with a natural disaster in New Orleans, an economy that only benefits the nose-bleed section of the tax bracket, businesses that are going bankrupt because they can't pay their health insurance premiums for their pensioners (GM), etc. The Republican's failure to deal with their inefficacy and the Democrat's laughable inability to seize the opportunity to govern depresses me.
So I ask you those questions because I get the feeling that many on the right side of the spectrum feel like they have an axe to grind, that somehow they are represented unfavorably to the public. This concern with representation seems to me to be the least of our worries in deeply troubling times. Maybe that's another difference. Maybe you don't think we live in troubling times. Maybe I am just worried over what you think is a mole hill. Help me understand why this sort of thing is important to you. I want more than anything for their to be dialog between people who don't agree so we can coerce our representatives to go back to the job of governing and get off the permanent campaign trail.
03 April 2006
Riding the Shuksan Arm
This is the gnarliest, scariest back country riding I've done. I was also acting as the guy who picks the line down, and without my riding buddy to discuss with, I felt the weight. You have to really study the terrain on the way up, but you really just don't know what lies beneath you on the way down, making for a scary trip. Not to mention the constant avalanche threat. Don't try this at home kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)