Update: Serbs Ordered to Pay for the Mosques

Bosnian Serb authorities have been ordered to pay Muslims $42 million for the destruction of 16 mosques in the city of Banja-Luka during the 1992-1995 war.

As posted earlier, (Karadzic's Destruction of Bosnia Lasts Long After War), Bosnian Serbs destroyed every mosque in the Serb controlled city of Banja-Luka. Banja-Luka is now the capital of the Republika Srpska autonomous region of Bosnia-i-Hercegovinia.

The Srpska Republika News Agency quoted the Islamic Community's lawyer Esad Hrvacic as saying that "For us, what is far more important than material compensation is that for the first time Republika Srpska has taken complete responsibility for the destruction of the mosques."

The most prominent of the mosques, built in 1579, the Ferhadija Mosque was on the UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites and is being rebuilt.

Against the War in Afghanistan? Are You High?

Afghanistan is NOT Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was a tantrum by a group of megalomaniacs. The invasion of Afghanistan, however, was not by choice. It was necessary to protect the United States and the united nations. This war against the Taliban needs to be concluded even if it means extending the war into Pakistan.

A recent CNN poll showed that a majority of Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan. We’re nearing the isolationist fervor we exhibited between the world wars, which ended in the disaster of the Nazi aggression and genocide in Europe. Afghanistan is not altogether different from Europe of the 1930s.

------

Since we seem to have forgotten, let’s start with a brief history of modern Afghanistan.

Following centuries of possession by foreign powers, Afghanistan finally emerged with a progressive secular, but pro-soviet, government in the 1970s. The United States decided to covertly fund the Mujahidin to annoy the Soviets. In 1979, the Soviets invaded to prop up the Soviet-leaning Afghan government. The United States then funded and trained the Mujahidin to fight a proxy war against the Soviets. After nine years of occupation, the USSR pulled out. Unfortunately, the United States similarly pulled out, leaving behind a horrific civil war. The Taliban came to power in 1996.

The Taliban government created an extreme Wahhabi version of Shariah law where women were to be illiterate baby producing machines. Women who were educated, showed any part of their bodies (even their eyes) in public, or were even found outside of the home without their husbands were publicly executed.

The Taliban supported and were supported by Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden. When Bill Clinton managed to kick Bin Laden out of the Sudan, the Taliban gladly gave him room for his training camps. The ‘9/11’ hijackers were all trained in Bin Laden’s Afghan camps.

Although Al Qaida has been in hiding since the beginning of the Afghan war, the Taliban is reemerging as a power in the Waziristan regions of Pakistan.

-----

The Taliban, one of the worst regimes in modern history, is regrouping; the weak (if not dysfunctional) Pakistani government has the bomb; opium production is at an all-time high; and civil war rages in the Khyber wastelands. The Asian people are as desperate as the people of 1930’s Europe and they have a leader: Bin Laden. Pakistani militants assassinated Benozir Bhutto, seiged Mumbai, and protect Al Qaida. Al Qaida and the Taliban intend to take down western civilization ….

So, how in the hell can you be against the war?

I Love When Professionals Pick Up On My Posts

I Love When Professionals Pick Up On My Posts
This morning's USA Today includes an editorial called "In Defense of Earmarks - 'Pork' in Congress feeds the people," written by Ross K. Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University.

Nice pickup Ross.

There’s Nothing Wrong With Pork

Many rail against ‘pork’ and ‘earmarks’ in government spending, but there’s just nothing wrong with either one. They say pork is wasteful spending and earmarks hide spending. Not true. The problem is in the definitions.

‘Pork’ is nothing more than Federal spending on local projects, or more to the point, spending on projects that have a location. There aren’t many projects that don’t have a location. All spending on bridges and roads, military bases, hospitals, etc. have a location. Even spending for the IRS has a location; they’ve got to put their personnel in an office, after all.

An ‘earmark’ is a directive, instructing a state how to spend congressionally appropriated money. Congress can’t get a bridge repaired unless it tells a state to use money for the project.

What is wrong with pork is when congressmen use undue influence or cave to lobbyist pressure in allocating money for projects. Complaints about earmarks surfaced when congressmen began inserting earmarks into comprehensive spending bills at the last moment, hiding the spending until it’s too late.

Even lobbyists are valuable and necessary when kept in their place. No congressman can actually be an expert on every issue before Congress. Lobbyists inform and educate. How could any person, on his own, understand the complexity of providing our world with energy while protecting it from energy? The problem is when congressmen stop listening to both sides of an issue. But when excessive campaign contributions push a congressman to take direction from a lobbyist or even allow the lobbyist to write legislation, lobbying must be curbed.

Now let’s stop flying off the handle over misused terms. Pork is necessary; earmarks are necessary; and even lobbyists are necessary. We should call congressmen on their misuse of legislative tools, not their necessary use.

Posted on CNN today: Earmarks: Myth and reality

Rational discussion of earmarks from President Obama: Obama calls for overhaul of earmarks

Political Math and the Stimulus

The Media is giving the Republican Party a pass on its arguments against the ‘stimulus’ package. Instead of accepting the Republican arguments, the Media should look at the political math behind the Republican’s apparent push against the stimulus.

The political math shows that the Republican argument against the stimulus is a sham. Republicans have a laser focus on the 2010 elections and their approach to the stimulus is based almost entirely on regaining the majority in the Congress


There are basically two possible votes on the stimulus coupled with two possible outcomes of the package. The package will either succeed or fail. Republicans can either vote for it or against it. Thus, assuming Democrats for the stimulus, there are four possibilities for Republicans:

---

1. Vote for the stimulus : Stimulus succeeds

Result: Status quo. The entire Congress gets credit and the balance of power remains as it is.


2. Vote for the stimulus : Stimulus fails

Result: Status quo. The entire Congress gets blame and the balance of power remains as it is.


3. Vote against the stimulus : Stimulus succeeds

Result: Democrats pick up a few more seats. This is risky, but if it fails, the Republicans merely start campaigning for 2012.


4. Vote against the stimulus : Stimulus fails

Result: Republicans pick up seats. Enough to retake control?

---

Voting for the stimulus package cannot possibly help the Republicans regain control of the Congress. Thus the political math requires Republicans to vote against the package no matter what’s in it.

Please contact your favorite media outlet and ask them to cover the political math.

I Think They Learned ....

It would appear DHS did learn from Katrina. At least, the Administration discovered the political risk of failing during a natural disaster.

DHS and its compatriots, the cities and states, were more proactive as Gustav and Ike approached.

Have they learned the short term lessons? Will the President and the candidates stay away from the disaster areas or will they interrupt the recovery process for political theatre?

Have they learned the long term lessons? Will they actually rebuild the wetlands? Will they build structures to work with the floods instead of just pushing the water off to the next parish?

I guess the long term issues are for the next administration to deal with.

Katrina Review

With Hurricane Gustav bearing down on New Orleans, it's time to review the the government's preparation for Hurricane Katrina

Katrina Debacle Entirely Homeland Security’s Fault

The debacle of the Hurricane Katrina was entirely the fault of the Department of Homeland Security. I’m not referring to the flooding of New Orleans, but to the lack of coordination and planning prior to, during, and following the disaster.

DHS was charged with helping states and cities plan for disasters and developing coordination between federal, state, and local agencies. It failed. No coordination existed in 2005 and no coordination is in place now.

Although the State and the City failed in their own planning, it was still DHS’ responsibility to make sure that the State and City had a plan. Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff did nothing to assure the states and cities of the gulf coast had planned for such disasters.

The true Rovian purpose to creating the behemoth that is DHS, after the President had originally rejected it, was to deprive almost 90,000 federal employees of their right to organize. Only a small oversight body was required to coordinate all of the departments that DHS absorbed, but instead, a monster agency was created where employees have no worker’s protections.

Due to the White House’s misplaced priorities, DHS is a failure. DHS should be turned into an oversight agency and power should be returned to the diverse agencies from which it was taken.

Just Like a Bully --- Tough Talk Without a Fight

George Bush and John McCain have both wallowed in the time honoured tradition of talking tough when there’s no chance for a fight.

At least McCain spoke following the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia, accusing Russia of imperialism and demanding it withdraw from Georgian territory. McCain is not President, however, and cannot effect the war. So, McCain talks tough and balls up his fists knowing his buddies will pretend to hold him back.

Bush actually waited until the war was over. He didn’t speak until significant military operations were already completed. Then, he demanded Russian get out of Georgia, or else. Thanks, in part, to Bush’s foray into Iraq, he has no credibility and cannot make Russian retreat. Tough talk as the fighting parties are being dragged down to the principal’s office.

The Bush Administration has egging Georgia into picking a fight with Russia for years, telling President Saakashvili he can join our gang if he stands up to Russia. Now that Saakashvili has picked his fight, Bush abandons him, just like a bully.

Barrack Obama, on the other hand, spoke with reason and foresight. Following the beginning of the war, he called on both parties to stop fighting and have an independent party get in the middle. The only middleman available in this fight is the European Union.

Now, a cease fire has been negotiated, by Nicholas Sarkozy, representing the EU. Bush and McCain knew from the start (hopefully), that only the EU could broker a cease fire here, so they took the opportunity to look tough to the American voter.

Instead of calling on the EU to step up, Bush and McCain played the bully card. McCain even refused to pronounce President Mededev’s name correctly, a standard and bizarre tactic for the Republican party.

Bush and McCain’s tough talk on the Russian/Georgian war has only one target, the American voter. Yet again, they’re trying to paint the Democrats as weak on defense. It won’t work anymore. We don’t need another bully in the White House.

(Yes, this is an opinion piece)

It’s NOT the surge

Just about everyone claiming "the surge" worked, crediting the surge for the reduced violence in Iraq. However, the surge has been only a minor factor in the calming of Iraq.

Violence in Iraq has lessened primarily due to the number of mercenaries being paid by the US Government, the implementation of Carter policy of paying combatants not to fight, and the near completion of ethnic cleansing in Baghdad.

The surge is an increase of 30,000 American troops, bringing the total to 160,000 troops in Iraq. The surge troops are only twenty percent of the American force in the country. Such a small increase couldn’t possibly have had the effect some claim.

Meanwhile there are 180,000 contractors, many of them mercenaries, like Blackwater. Non-mercenaries contractors, work for the military, doing jobs soldiers would have performed in past wars.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, General Erik Shinseki said we would need over 300,000 troops to stabilize the country. His military career was ended when the White House decided to do the job on the cheap. Now the troops are there, even if over half are simply on the payroll. Apparently Shinseki was right.

More important to the decrease in violence is the Awakening movement. The Sunni Awakening movement started several months before the surge. Peace was already breaking out before the surge began.

The Awakening is an implementation of the Carter policy, developed for the Camp David Peace Accord in 1979. The US Government has poured foreign aid into Egypt since 1979, in exchange for peace between Egypt and Israel.

Now, the United States has implemented a policy of paying Sunni leaders to not fight, at a cost of $500,000 per day. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_the_us_government_paying_factions_in.html. The Sunni leaders tired of fighting and foreign insurgents; they eagerly took the payments in exchange for peace.

In Baghdad, the neighborhoods have been largely cleansed. Sunnis have been removed from Shia neighborhoods and Shia have been cleansed from Sunni neighborhoods. Mixed neighborhoods are now fairly abandoned or undesirable. Shia and Sunni have calmed down in Baghdad mainly because there’s nothing left to fight over.

Yes, the American military is doing everything it can, but it is disingenuous or ignorant to assert that the surge “has worked.”

Calling the surge a success is like giving Barry Bonds credit for winning lopsided baseball game by hitting a home run in the ninth inning.

American Oil Won’t Lower Prices

Some count on the ignorance of the average person, but when the average American’s brain is turned on, he tends to show intelligence and even wisdom. We've been listening to a ridiculous argument for the past several weeks. It's time to clear this up and turn on our brains. So here goes . . .

Drilling for oil in ANWAR and offshore will not lower energy prices

Providing new oil drilling leases in the Alaska wildlife refuge (ANWAR) and offshore will lower oil prices in America . . . or will it?

Let’s do the math. Supply and demand tells us that prices will fall due to significant change in demand or supply. To keep the math simple and conservative, we’ll assume no more increase in demand (not likely) and no problems developing oil fields, like hurricanes and wars (not likely).

Oil is a worldwide commodity market. Commodity prices are based on world markets, not national markets. Oil produced in America does not go just into the American market, but into the worldwide market. Although some want us to believe oil produced in America can be separated from the rest of the world, it can’t.

So, we need to deal with oil prices on a worldwide basis. Experts predict ANWAR holds about 10 billion barrels of oil and offshore there is about 18 billion barrels. World oil reverses top 1,300 billion barrels. www.mz-energy.com.

If America taps ANWAR and the entire American offshore, that would amount to just over two percent of the world oil reserves. Oil prices should go down less than three percent. If the price for oil is $120 per barrel, the price of a barrel would lessen by $2.58 per barrel. The price for Petrol, if going for $4.00 per gallon would go down by only nine cents.

Lowering petrol prices by nine cents certainly will not solve our energy problems.

It’s really a world energy market

Speaking of energy, American oil production is not just part of the world oil market, it’s part of the world energy market. The world energy market consists of oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, hydro, etc.

Oil makes up about 35 percent of the energy market. www.iea.org. The entire world energy market equates to 3,700 billion barrels of oil. Our 28 billion barrels of oil would be less than one percent of the world energy market.

The oil in ANWAR and offshore would have no real effect on the world energy market.

So, why do the oil companies want these leases?

Producing oil does not increase an oil company’s value; assets do. Ownership of these very valuable leases increases an oil company’s bottom line much more than production does. And, remember, the goal of any company is not producing product, but profits. Offshore oil drilling is a sham. It’s really about ownership of assets, not production.

How do we use supply and demand to actually reduce our energy costs?

The United States uses about 25 percent of the world’s energy. If we lower our use by fifty percent (We can do this. We’re Americans, damn it. (See note 1, below.)) we would reduce the world energy demand by over twelve percent.

If the United States were to get twenty percent of our energy demand from renewable sources we would increase the world’s supply of energy by five percent.

A decrease in demand of twelve percent and an increase in supply of five percent would lower energy prices by 17 percent: a good start.

How we use energy is also critical

T. Bone Pickens is right. Please see http://www.scribd.com/doc/4453094/How-Energy-is-Really-Used




Note 1: The highest demand for energy in the United States is from buildings; in particular, air conditioning; not automobiles.

John McCain Controls the Airwaves

The McCain campaign has complained for months that Barack Obama is gets too much coverage on major media outlets. John McCain gets the majority of coverage and its mostly glowingly positive. Meanwhile, coverage of Barack Obama is generally negative. McCain shows, over and over, that he doesn’t understand what’s going on. He says the ‘surge’ in Iraq caused the ‘awakening’, but the awakening started long before the surge. Was McCain questioned about this? Hardly. McCain shows he doesn’t know how social security works. He calls the idea that money workers pay into the system goes directly to retirees a “disgrace.” Well, Mr. McCain, social security was designed as a pay-as-you-go system. Does the media question McCain’s misunderstanding of social security? No. Instead, they spent a week talking about how a comment by Jesse Jackson could hurt Obama’s campaign. Obama meets with Hamad Karzai; rather than covering the substance of the meeting, the media questions Obama’s purpose. Coverage of Obama’s overseas trip started, on CNN.com, with a article on how an Obama presidency could hurt black America. This morning, Daniel Shore, a long time commentator on NPR, talked about Obama’s trip. Weekend Edition’s host pushed him, repeatedly, to condemn Obama purpose and finds mistakes in Obama’s performance. John McCain’s complaints regarding media bias are just a show designed to create even greater bias. This is, after all, a politician who has referred to the press as his "base," and a politician about whom MSNBC's Joe Scarborough has said "every last one of them [reporters] would move to Massachusetts and marry John McCain if they could." As Eric Alterman and George Zornick recently explained in The Nation, "no candidate since John F. Kennedy, and perhaps none since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, has enjoyed such cozy relations with the press." Jamison Foser, Media Matters for America. If the media reported on John McCain’s slips, mistakes, and senior moments the way they attack Obama’s bowling, this election would already be Bob Dole all over again.

Karadzic's Destruction of Bosnia Lasts Long After War

Imagine this is your church. The Ferhadija Mosque, in Banja Luka, Bosnia-Hercegovina (BiH) was built in the 16th century. Until May 7, 1993, the mosque served as a center of faith and community for hundreds of Bosnian Muslims in Banja Luka, the second largest city in BiH.

This is your church now.

This is a photograph of the Ferhadija Mosque I took during the summer of 2001. On May 7, 1993, the mosque was destroyed by Bosnian Serbs who'd been whipped into a frenzy by war criminal Radovan Karadzic. Between April and September of 1993, in an effort to rid their city of Muslims, Bosnian Serbs destroyed every mosque in Banja Luka (16 mosques dating back to medieval Europe). In 1991, there were over 82,000 non-Serbs in Banja Luka. Only 15,000 non-Serbs live there now. During the war, Serbs destroyed numerous mosques and Catholic churches across Bosnia. Even in June, 2001, 400 hundred policemen were needed, as security, at the corner stone laying ceremony to begin rebuilding the Ferhadija Mosque. The corner stone was immediately taken away and stored. Only in 2007 did the actual reconstruction begin.

Six years after the war ended with the Dayton Peace Accords, Sarajevo still smelled of smoke and the Parliament Building still looked like it was about to fall down. Muslims, I talked to Banja Luka were sick of the war and the Serbs were tired of being the bad guys. I worked with Terra, a legal-aid firm helping with property returns thru the Office of the High Representative and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Most of the staff were Bosnian Serbs. I got the sense that many were embarrassed by the actions of their countrymen; that they could be conned into trying to cleanse parts of Bosnia of their Muslim and Croat minorities.

This was the war that coined the term "ethnic cleansing." And, it wasn't just Bosnian Serbs. President Franjo Tuđman tried to eliminate Serbs from the Krajina region of Croatia. He died before he could be indicted. Radovan Karadzic, along with General Ratko Mladic, have been hidden from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia for the past 13 years. In order to 'cleanse' the country, these guys, with their goons, convinced Bosnian Serbs that their Muslim or Croat neighbours had already committed atrocities and were about to attack them. Serbs would then 'defend' themselves by attacking their neighbors, starting a village war, and justifying ethnic cleansing. Karadzic and Mladic opened concentration and rape camps and wiped out entire villages. Just before the end of the war, they executed over 8,000 men and boys in Srebinica, nearly wiping the village off the map. Bosnia is a beautiful country, filled with religious tolerance; one of the few countries where most villages have Catholic and Orthodox spires and Islamic minarets. Sarajevo is an eclectic mix of religious temples:

The arrest of the architect of the of Bosnian war, Radovan Karadzic, is promising signal for the future of this country and its Balkan sisters, Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia, and Kosovo. Serbianna News Post reports that Republika Srpska (the Bosnian Serb autonomous region) Prime Minister Milorad Dodik recently said “Radovan Karadzic is not Republika Srpska. It is not his creation but the creation of its people.” I'm sure the Bosnian Serbs I met are eager to separate themselves from the days of Radovan Karadzic. Hopefully, all of Bosnia is ready to retake its mantel as a home for Muslims, Serbs, and Croats.

Why are conservatives so pessimistic about America?

Yesterday, Al Gore called on America to create 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy sources within ten years. This would take all of our prodigious intellect and ingenuity. But, aren’t we Americans?

So, why did conservatives and republicans respond with their customary pessimism? Yet again, they said we can’t do it, we’re not smart enough. Why can’t we raise the café standards to 50 miles per gallon? We’re not smart enough. Why can’t we get off fossil fuels? We not smart enough. Why can’t we provide health care and pensions for all? We’re simply not smart enough.

When are we going to return to the days of optimism? When the congress would pass “technology forcing legislation” believing we’ll figure it out? In the 1930s and 40s, we helped end a worldwide depression and defeat Hitler’s Nazi armies. We created social security, rebuilt Europe. In the 1960s we overturned a century of American apartheid. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon signed the clean air and clean water acts. Why can’t we get off oil?

If we don’t use our incredible ability to figure things out and get things done, Germany, France, Japan, and even China will do it, reaping all the benefits stemming from such advances

It’s time to call on the republican party to stop whining and help bring American back to its position as undisputed leader of the world.

Why Investment Bubbles? Reagan’s Tax Slaughter.

Occam’s Razor tells us to look simply for answers. So, what basic principal applies to our current economic crisis? Supply and Demand. More than anything else, the basic laws of supply and demand have caused the investment bubbles of the past twenty years.

During the Reagan Administration, aided by a republican congress, Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the rich. In 1980, the income tax rate on the highest bracket was 70 percent (Married, filing jointly - Income over $215,400). By the time Reagan left office, the rate on the same income was only 28 percent ((Married, filing jointly - Income over $155,320). http://www.taxpolicycenter.org. With after-tax incomes soaring, the investment class invested irrationally, causing bubble after bubble. The economic downturn we’re experiencing, now, is the inevitable consequence of Reagan’s policies.

Let’s take the dot.com bubble for instance. The dot.coms started growing in the early 1990s. At that time Reagan’s tax cuts had fully taken hold, giving the investment class much more money to invest than there was equity in which they could invest. The basic laws of supply and demand tell us that when there is excessive demand for something and insufficient supply, prices will soar. Investors had too much money to invest and equity could only be created so fast. So, the demand for equity was extremely high and the supply was limited. Investors bid up the price of stock in dot.coms to levels many times higher than its actual value. In fact, no dot.com made a profit until the late 1990s. Because such prices were unsupportable, eventually the industry collapsed.

We’ve seen the dot.com bubble and the housing bubble. Now we’re entering into the age of the oil bubble. The collapse of the oil bubble could have catastrophic effects around the world. We need to re-graduate the tax system before the investment class causes the next disaster.

Why Won’t John McCain Support Democracy?

John McCain has said he will not talk to Iran or Hamas until they’ve already complied with the demands of the United States. Why is he refusing to support democracy?

If McCain truly believed in promoting democracy, he would be willing to reward people who go to the polls to elect their leaders. Instead, he has said he will punish the people of Gaza and Iran for electing leaders we don’t like.

Regardless of how offensive Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can be, he is the President of Iran, elected in a poll declared to be free and fair. Hamas is the government of Gaza, put in place through a free and fair election; an election demanded by the United States. Even if Hamas threatens Israel, it is the democratically elected leadership. The voters deserve to have their wishes honoured. Speaking with these governments rewards the voters, not the leaders.

John McCain should be calling for the United States to close its embassy in Zimbabwe. It is already apparent the Mugabe government cheated in counting the votes from the general election. Now, in order to steal the runoff, Mugabe’s thugs are withholding food aid from people who may vote for Morgan Tsvangirai, stopping rallies, and even arresting and holding Tsvangirai for hours on end.

Instead, McCain condemns Barack Obama’s willingness to promote democracy, calling it reckless. What’s more reckless? . . . Talking to hostile governments or giving them orders?

Petty Leaders

When national leaders act like petulant children, American political institutions are in deep trouble.

In recent years, one of our political parties, all the way up to our current president, has devolved into childish name calling. Right wing pundits and politicians refuse to call the opposing party by its official and popular name: the Democratic Party.

From Rush Limbaugh to Dick Cheney and George Bush, Republicans and right wing pundits are consistently referring to the opposition as the “Democrat” party. Apparently, calling it the Democratic party makes to close a connection to democracy. Several pundits have even spent the past few years trying to tie Democrats and Progressives to Hitler and Mussolini.

Meanwhile, in Colorado, documents have turned up showing it to be official Republican policy to never refer to Governor Bill Ritter as “Governor.” They are to call him Bill, Mr. Ritter, etc., anything but Governor. To call him Governor would legitimize his victory in the 2006 election, something the Colorado Republican party is apparently not mature enough to handle.

Finally, for the moment, there is the constant use of Barack Obama’s middle name, Hussein. Although meaningless to anyone over twelve years of age, these supposedly mature adults continue to act like small mean children … and unfortunately, “lead” our Nation.

Here Comes the Mindless Tax Cut v. Spending Debate

It has become clear to Congress and the Whitehouse that an economic stimulus package is needed. Now, the ridiculous debate over tax cuts v. spending has begun.

Republicans say that spending will break the budget. Democrats say tax cuts will break the budget. Guys … Get over it. The math is simple. Whether you increase spending by $150 billion or decrease taxes by $150 billion is irrelevant. In one case outlays go up and in the other revenues go down. The National Debt will be increased by $150 billion either way. The economy will see an influx of $150 billion either way.

The real issue is where to put the money. Do we give it to the investment class? Do we spend it on infrastructure projects?

The dot.com bubble showed what happens when the demand for equity exceeds the supply. The bridge collapse in Minneapolis showed what happens when we ignore our infrastructure for decades at a time.

The Dow Jones is fluctuating on investment strategies, rather than the value of equity. So, giving money to the investment class will only lead to more overpriced stock, causing another bubble. Any tax cut should be targeted to the middle and lower classes, not the investment class. Spending by families will increase the value of equity, not just the price.

Spending on infrastructure will largely go to the labor class. These people will spend and the value of equity will grow without bubbling. And … when we’re done … we’ve got repaired bridges and roads, an electrical grid that works, and so on. Spending on infrastructure is a must. It either happens when it will help the economy or when it will be a drag. Let’s be smart this time and invest in our future.

Only the Rich Believe a Flat Tax is Fair

Last night, Republican candidates for President discussed the “fair tax.” To them, fair taxes are some form of flat tax. Nonsense … There is nothing fair about a flat tax.

These fair-taxers should re-open their economics textbooks and read the section on the marginal-value-of-the-dollar. The theory is simply this: Each dollar you have is worth slightly less than the previous dollar. Stated another way … a check for $5,000 means one heck of a lot to someone making $20,000 per year, but is almost meaningless to someone making $1 million per year.

Years ago, our income taxes were fully graduated and fair. The biggest earners paid over 90 percent on the top dollar they made, while the lower middle class paid a fraction of that on every dollar they earned.

As an example, lets look how a flat tax and a graduated tax would effect three families (2 adults, 2 children, and an elderly parent); the Smiths earn $20,000 per year gross, the Jones $100,000, and the Bushes $1 million per year.

Survival spending, for the basic human rights of shelter, nutrition, health care, education, and care for the elderly, can be equated to the poverty level. Even though the poverty level is grossly under calculated, for argument sake, we’ll still use the rounded figure of $20,000 per year.

Flat Tax

A low, and easy to use, flat tax would be 25 percent.

The Smiths would pay $5,000 on their $20,000, leaving them with $15,000. The Smiths come up short. They’re $5,000 short of $20,000 they need to even survive. Assuming they can find a way to get by, they couldn’t handle any emergency. If the car breaks down, they’re done; there’s no way to get to work so they can pay the rent.

The Joneses would pay $25,000, leaving them with $75,000. Less survival spending, they have $55,000 to spend on a better life. The Joneses can afford a new car, a bigger house, and possibly even send their kids to college someday. They can even afford to put the elderly parent in nursing home, if necessary.

The Bushes have $750,000 left over after paying their flat tax. They have enough money to buy a mansion, send the kids to an elite private school and Yale, and have a live-in nurse for the grandparent, with funds left over.

Graduated Tax

Now, let’s look at a simple graduated tax of zero on income up to $20,000, 25 percent up to $100,000, and 50 percent on income above $100,000.

The Bushes would now pay $470,000 in taxes, leaving them $530,000 for ‘expenses’. Perhaps their house would have to be room or two smaller and the kids would have to go to the local elite prep school instead of Exeter. But, the difference in the Bushes’ lifestyle is unrecognizable.

The Joneses would actually pay a little less in taxes, only $20,000. Their lifestyle wouldn’t change at all.

The Smiths, on the other hand, would see a tremendous improvement in their lives. The difference between $20,000 and $15,000 is huge. They now have enough to live on and, with some wily money management, they could protect themselves against an emergency. Maybe the kids could even go to vocational school. And, just as an aside, their children would be more likely to be become tax payers than entitlement recipients.

A Graduated Tax is the only Fair Tax

No measure of fairness can be based on dollar values. Fairness can only be determined by outcome. Our tax system was originally designed so that each American would pay their fair share. Our current system of taxes has already become too flat and now, the rich want to shift even more of the tax burden to those who can’t handle it.

If we allow a flat tax, Karl Marx could turn out to be right … the workers would rise up and smite the leaders.

He who asks the questions … answers the questions.

Libdrone and MadameX asked the question: What’s the biggest obstacle to electing the right presidential candidate? In this age of quick mass media, I believe it’s a lazy and sensationalistic press, eager to be led. Whoever frames an issue wins the debate. The following are a few examples of lazy, sensationalistic reporting.

The SCHIP issue was framed by the Whitehouse as medical care for children in families with incomes 200 percent higher than the poverty level. No media organisation has asked the right question; whether the poverty level is correctly calculated.

In a 1999 interview on CNN Al Gore said “during my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet,” explaining his sponsoring of a bill that provided funding for research that eventually became the internet. His opponents accused him of claiming to have invented the internet. Which story do you suppose the media ran with, the story requiring some research work, or the simple, sensational, and false story? Of course, the media reported, and continues to report, that Gore said he invented the internet, accusing him of being a serial exaggerator.

The easiest story for a lazy media is “here he goes again.” Democrats are supposed to effeminate and dishonest and Republicans are supposed the be tough and moral. Consequently, stories about republicans having affairs and stealing candy from babies get ignored because they don’t fit the mold. Stories about Democrats failing to tip a waitress or getting a hundred dollar haircut become the news feed of the day, month, or even year. The story about Rudy Giuliani fighting terrorists on Sept 11, 2001 is played and replayed every day. Never happened. Rudy gave speech after speech, but any hamster could have done that on “9/11.”

Every election cycle, the most thoughtful presidential candidate falls off the radar early in the process because the media ignores issues in favor of stories about personal habits. I almost feel sorry for Paul Tsongis, Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and George H.W. Bush (Pre-Reagan incarnation, in 1980). Big media coverage went, instead, to Ross Perot who pushed our political debate into the gutter with stupid platitudes like “it doesn’t take a rocket scientist.” Ross …. obviously, it does.

Neocon "Inconvenient Truth" of Bush and Gore Homes Full of Lies

I received an email, which has been whipping around the internet, showing pictures of George Bush’s modest, energy efficient, home in Crawford, Texas and Al Gore’s expansive, power gobbling, home in Tennessee. The basic premise of the email was true, but its creator just couldn’t keep from lying.


Al Gore’s home and business office uses a great deal of electricity. It recently ran a bill for electricity and natural gas of $2,400 in one month. Meanwhile Bush’s “home” is heated and cooled using a geothermal heat pump system. After this, the analysis and truth simply falls apart.





The email had two pictures, the top picture was Gore’s mansion and picture below it was Bush’s “home." Unfortunately, even these photographs were a sham.

Thru a simple google.com search, I found real photos of Al Gore's home and business and George Bush's vaction house. The white house is Al Gore's home and office in Nashville. The ranch struture is George Bush's vacation house in Crawford.








The green house is 4,000 sqft? Not likely. And, notice the large electric air-cooled air conditioner next to it? The green house is actually the original house at the ranch and is only used as a guest house.

The ranch house is only one of several buildings at the Bush "complex." Notice what a lovely day it was when the inner group took a stroll around the ranch house?

Bush has never made this place his home. He had it designed and built, starting in 1998, when he was already living in the governor's mansion in Austin. This "home" is a vacation spot, that's all. This house is NOT the residence of the President of the United States, and it never has been.

Wikipedia says architect David Heymann was hired to design a limestone house for the ranch.
I want to stay in touch with real Americans," said the President to a crowd of Crawford residents shortly after the 2001 inaugural ceremonies. As the locals knew, the President and the First Lady had already put those plans in motion several years earlier by purchasing a spread in the heart of "real America" during his second term as governor of Texas. Flush with a $14.9-million profit from the sale of the Texas Rangers in 1998, the couple had set out in search of a retreat within easy driving distance of the Governor's Mansion in Austin. When the Bushes came across a 1,550-acre tract 20 miles west of Waco just outside the town of Crawford (population 701), they took a second look.

Gore's power use:

Al Gore's home does use a great deal of power, but why?

1. Nashville is fairly cold in the winter and very humid during the summer. A majority of the cost for air-conditioning in the east is dehumidifying, not cooling,

2. Being an international business, Gore's offices have a high computer cooling load, and

3. Gore occupies his home year-round.

Comparing a power bill of $2,400 for a 10,000 sqft office and home to the average single family home is comparing apples and oranges.

Bush's power use:

The email completely fails to address Bush's power use, but (having designed air conditioning systems for 15 years) we can make some simple inferences:

1. While hot, Crawford is not humid during the summer. If Bush's ranch were in the east, a geothermal heat pump would not be sufficient to keep it cool in the summer.

2. Geothermal heat pump systems use inefficient compressors to transfer heat between a building and a heat sink. The compressor is the major energy hog in a heat pump system. All Bush is saving is the cost of running a boiler or cooling tower.

3. Bush is only at the house for a week or two at a time; not even enough time to run up a representative monthly electricity bill. How much electricity does he and his entourage use while at the Crawford ranch?

4. Why is there no mention of the power consumption of the green house?

Despite the lies and misinformation, a more interesting question remains: By allowing his architect to design an eco-friendly vacation house, at great cost, isn't the President agreeing with the Nobel Prize winner that environmentalism makes for good economics?

Text of the email:

Here's some interesting information.

You can check this out on Snopes.com under "The Story of Two Houses"

House #1 A 20 room mansion ( not including 8 bathrooms ) heated by
natural gas. Add on a pool ( and a pool house) and a separate guest
house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more
energy than the average American household does in a year. The
average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In
natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the
national average for an American home. This house is not situated
in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.

House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a
leading national university. This house incorporates every
"green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is
4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on a high prairie in the
American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal
heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the
ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F. ) heats the house in the winter
and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or
natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a
conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected
and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from
showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then
into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land
surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area
enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

~~~~~

HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of
the "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford,
Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States,
George W. Bush.

An "inconvenient truth".