OT but another interesting link

You may have missed the major network TV coverage of this historic event because it was GOOD news that shows that WE are winning! (from a friend in the Special Forces Network)

Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 7:39 PM

Subject: Fwd: Good Things Really Are Happening In Iraq,Believe It Or Not.

As Kelly states here: "People are not given freedom & democracy, they take it for themselves"...... MajGen John Kelly, USMC, Commander MNF-West, comments on the election are copied below:

All Hands: Major General John Kelly sends this Iraq election notice Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

I don't suppose this will get much coverage in the States as the news is so good. No, the news is unbelievable. Something didn't happen in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, today. Once the most violent and most dangerous places on earth, no suicide vest bomber detonated killing dozens of voters. No suicide truck bomber drove into a polling place collapsing the building and killing and injuring over 100. No Marine was in a firefight engaging an Al Qaida terrorist trying to disrupt democracy.

What did happen was Anbar Sunnis came out in their tens of thousands to vote in the first free election of their lives. With the expectation of all of the above (suicide bombers) they walked miles (we shut down all vehicle traffic with the exception of some shuttle busses for the elderly and infirm) to the polling places. I slept under the stars with some Grunts at Combat Outpost Iba on the far side of Karma, and started driving the 200 miles up the Euphrates River Valley through Karma, Fallujah, Habbiniyah, Ramadi, Hit, Baghdad and back here to Al Asad. I stopped here and there to speak with cops, soldiers, Marines, and most importantly, regular Iraqi men and women along the way. It was the same everywhere. A tension with every finger on a trigger that broke at perhaps 3PM when we all began to think what was almost unthinkable a year ago. We might just pull this off without a bombing. No way. By 4PM it seemed like we'd make it to 5PM when the polls closed. At 4:30 the unbelievable happened: the election was extended an hour to 6PM because of the large crowds! What are they kidding? Tempting fate like that is not nice. Six PM and the polls close without a single act of violence or a single accusation of fraud, and nearly by early reports pretty close to 100% voted. Priceless.

Every Anbari walking towards the polling place had these determined and, frankly, concerned looks on their faces. No children with them (here mothers and grandmothers are NEVER without their children or grandchildren) because of the expectation of death. Husbands voted separately from wives, and mothers separately from fathers for the same reason. In and out quickly to be less of a target for the expected suicide murderer. When they came out after voting they also wore the same expression on their faces, but now one of smiling amazement as they held up and stared at ink stained index fingers.

Norman Rockwell could not have captured this wonderment. Even the ladies voted in large numbers and their husbands didn't insist on going into the booths to tell them who to vote for. One of the things I've always said was that we came here to "give" them democracy. Even in the dark days my only consolation was that it was about freedom and democracy. After what I saw today, and having forgotten our own history and revolution, this was arrogance. People are not given freedom and democracy - they take it for themselves. The Anbaris deserve this credit.

Today I step down as the dictator, albeit benevolent, of Anbar Province. Today the Anbaris took it from me. I am ecstatic. It was a privilege to be part of it, to have somehow in a small way to have helped make it happen.

Semper Fi. Kelly "If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."

Bill Clinton 1993-08-12

=======

----------

"What we are trying to do is to get the U.S. Congress out of the state's business," Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon told WND.

----------

More fantasies. More time wasted on B/S resolutions rather than identifying and addressing the problems.

Time for them to make wee-wee in a bottle, and some reservations for rehab....

What it boils do to is that there ain't any more money. The polls and the suits spent it *ALL* and everything they could borrow.

This type of noise will continue until the states need/want the Federal money. They should also be careful to determine where their money is coming from. Oklahoma and many of the other complaining states appear to be net beneficiaries of the existing Federal tax system in that they get more back than they pay.

California is rapidly going belly up and would like more, not less, Federal money. As a point of irony, many of the California counties and large municipalities like Los Angeles, are saying the same thing about the California government.

?eId=18&ecId=23832997&rNum=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sacbee.com%2F101%2Fstory%2F1600441.htmlhttp://localsearch.sacbee.com/sp?eId=18&ecId=23832997&rNum=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sacbee.com%2F101%2Fstory%2F1600656.html Rather than wasting time/money on useless resolutions why aren't plans for the emergency requisitioning and distribution of food and fuel being developed, and even beyond that, the emergency local production/processing of at least minimal food supplies, such as bread. However it is easier to rearrange the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks....

Unka' George [George McDuffee]

------------------------------------------- He that will not apply new remedies, must expect new evils: for Time is the greatest innovator: and if Time, of course, alter things to the worse, and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better, what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman. Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

George....I said before the election, that if the Dems took control....they would likely break up the US as we know it today. And we are seeing the first tentative steps of exactly that.

The states are hurting. Yes indeed. But they know there is NO MO MONEY from the Feds, not on the scale they are accustomed to getting. And they can no longer afford to subsidise every half wit buffoonish unfunded mandate and policy hatched by Sodom on the Potomic.

So its time to cut the umbilical cord, get off the teat and try to survive as best they can.

Oh..it wont break up the Union...but the Feral Government just got an appointment for neutering...or at the least...declawing.

As l said...we are living in interesting times. The Sagebrush Rebellion just went into Phase II

Gunner

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."

Bill Clinton 1993-08-12

Hide and watch George.....the times...and the People... are changing....

turn up your speakers.....

Gunner

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."

Bill Clinton 1993-08-12

Which is why jury nullification is more popular than ever. A valuable tool in the arsonal of freedom designed to thwart the bill clintons of this world.

Best Regards Tom.

.

Unka' George: I'm impressed with your writing skils and the use of the english language. Maybe you can answer a question that I've had: Where does Federal Money come from?

Stu Fields

After tracking down every reference I could find on the subject, and looking at the votes on these bills in the legislatures of several states, I'll venture an opinion: It looks like an expression of frustration from two fronts -- conservative state legislators looking for a reason to live, and state legislators in general who have their backs to the wall, caught in a tax bind and a financial trap.

Note that these "bills" actually are all resolutions -- words with no force, except to blow off some steam:

The New Hampshire bill, HCR6, is in committee. The Arizona bill, HCR 2004, is in the rules committee The Washington state bill, HJM 4009, is in the State Government and Tribal Affairs committee The Oklahoma bill, HJR 1089, passed the House (in early 2008) and is referred to the Senate judiciary committee

There are some more now but that's as far as I thought it was worth going.

You'd have to know the politics in each state to be sure, but my sense of it is that they're telling the feds that they want to get out from under federal mandates in this economic crisis. No doubt there are some ideologues in there but it's unlikely they make up more than a small percentage of the legislators involved. Of course, this is a vote without a downside for any of them, so these resolutions will be passed, in most cases.

Note that Oklahoma, for example, started the process early last year. I didn't track the history of each bill, but the anti-mandate thing has been brewing for years. Whether it has any special meaning now is problematic.

In any case, it ought to stir up the Sagebrush Revulsions a bit, and give WorldNutDaily a semi-exclusive for a while, because it's a non-story that has interest mostly to their readers. Mainstream attention now is on saving the economy. If the Republicans hadn't gutted money for the states from the House version of the stimulus bill, the 10th Amendment issue would die in a hurry.

-- Ed Huntress

Don't be surprised to see those funds restored to the conferenced version of the bill Ed. What I don't understand is why the bill doesn't contain payroll tax abatement provisions. That could be accomplished with the stroke of a pen and would be as quick a stimulous as you could get. Republicans would have been hoist on their own petard, and they'd have been falling all over themselves to get behind the bill.

JC

Oh, you underestimate their creativity. I'm sure they'd find something to bitch about no matter what was or was not in the bill.

To them, this is about trying to score political points, not about helping the country to recover. If you listen to Limbaugh, that's exactly what the hard-core wants: failure.

And I'm thoroughly disgusted with McCain's grandstanding and sleazy manuevering. He had it right the first time, when he said that his understanding of economics is not one of his strong points.

-- Ed Huntress

Ed: I sure didn't vote for McCain but I do share his apparent lack of understanding of economics (I did get a big fat A in engineering economics though) but how does decreasing income (tax breaks) and increasing spending (in spite of an existing and growing large debt) help our economy? If this is a workable method shouldn't people who recently lost their jobs(decreasing income)go buy more with their credit cards(increased spending)? The only difference that I can see is that the Government can print more money and control the value of the debt.

Stu

I'd forgotten what happened Ed but there originally was a payroll tax holiday in the stimulus paseed last year. It was opposed by the Republicans and taken out infavor of tax incentives for corporations. Big Oil as a matter of fact.

I listened to Rush while I drove the Pacheco Pass from I-5 to Gilroy recently. In nearly an hour he really didn't say a single thing. I didn't hear one fact, argument or proposal, just an hour of snarky, high school level blather. Very strange.

That surprised me a little and I haven't given much thought to it. I figured he'd adopt a populist outlook, especially after hearing his initial statements There is a political calculation here that I can't quite fathom. I think the Republican party is blowing the calculus on 2010.

Isn't that, and comic relief, why he brought Palin to the ticket? LMAO

JC

---------------- Several factors:

(1) There appears to be a change in the "laws" of economics as the scale changes, much as occurs when the size of physical objects change, although their relative size may remain the same, i.e. from quantum mechanics to Newtonian physics to Special/General Relativity. For example, savings and ready cash money are very good at the individual level (and required at some stages of economic development) at the macro level (and later stages of economic development) e.g. Japan, these may be counterproductive, when this leads to an internationally appreciating currency and you are an exporting country. [drives your export prices up]

(2) There are different kinds of debt. Even for individuals it can sometimes make sense to spend, for example buying a new suit for interviews after a job loss, if you don't have one. For government, the situation may be that under various entitlement legislation, they are obligated to spend the funds no matter what, and it is common sense to spend for infrastructure improvement rather than simply paying people to sit home and do nothing, if only because "idle hands are the devil's workshop."

(3) While mildly controversial [values estimated seem too high] there is the concept of an "economic" multiplier" for different economic sectors. This is generally assumed to mean that a profit or "value added" is generated by their economic activity, and that a dollar "invested" results in more than a dollar generated. In point of fact, many of the published values IMNSHO are indeed too high, because of [ignored] externalized and/or non-economic costs, such as air pollution, and increases in cancer. Additionally, there appears to exist economic sectors, that when all the input costs are included, have a multiplier of less than 1, indicating a increasing net loss of value with increased investment/activity. Thus it is important, even critical, if stimulus spending is to be effective, that it is targeted on economic sectors with high multipliers. One "fly in the ointment" is that a particular economic sector may have a high multiplier, but be small in relative dollar volume. Another caveat is the law of diminishing returns. Much as you can improve crop yields by the application of fertilizer, too much fertilizer will burn the crop up and you get nothing.

(4) Frequently there is the situation where to do nothing costs more, or is likely to cost more, than doing something, for example putting out a burning building in the middle of town. Unless steps are taken to put the fire out, there is a high likelihood of it spreading to other buildings and causing catastrophic damage. [Lehman Brothers?] It should be noted in this situation that *CONSIDERBLE* money in the aggregate could have been saved and possible loss of life could have been avoided, with a reasonable building code with adequate inspections/enforcement, for example sprinklers, and the prompt demolition of derelict and abandoned structures. The same appears true for the economic community.

==>Heroic measures always mean that somebody screwed up.

That's the question of the hour, Stu. I assume you're not asking for my opinion on it, which is like dust in the wind, anyway, but rather what the administration's thinking is on their stimulus program. The most compact answer I could give, of which it will require your considerable analytical skills to recognize its full implications, is this:

Debt, at the national scale, is a small problem. An inability to PAY for that debt, without destructive messing around with the currency, is a very large problem, especially when you're in a downward-spiraling recession.

The growth rates required to stabilize deficit spending and to reduce it to zero are actually a lot smaller than most people realize. So the bottom line, to mainstream economists, is to get the growth rate up. That's the only thing that will get us out of this mess. And the mess will look less deep and messy if we *do* get growth going again. It doesn't matter how it grows. What matters is that it *does* grow. And if we don't get it growing, and quickly, we can kiss our economic ass goodby.

That's the theory. Something to keep in mind is that a 1% increase in growth of the GDP directly increases tax revenues by roughly $50 billion (at an overall tax rate of 33%, including federal, state, and local). Likewise, a

1% decline directly increases deficits by a like amount. There is a compounding effect from growth because you can tax some things at higher rates when your economy is growing, without slowing down growth, and also because a growing economy reduces the percentage of debt represented by a given dollar amount of previously acquired debt, both of which decrease the debt burden as a percentage of income. It also reduces the interest rates the Fed has to pay.

And there are many other complications and caveats, which can be argued six ways to Sunday. They aren't the point: The point is that deficits are very sensitive to the growth rate of the GDP and to tax rates.

That's what's driving the administrations policies.

-- Ed Huntress

Thanks that makes a bunch of things a bit more understandable. It does bring up a problem that we are having in our valley. The old adage "If you ain't growing your dying". Has some very negative unintended consequences. We are using more water now than is being replenished. Yet the city fathers are actively trying to get more industry into the area as well as more people. This water problem, I believe, is going to become an increasing problem as we continue to "Grow". I can see from the discussion provided by both you and McDuffee how growth has become an economic necessity. We appear to be caught up in a giant Ponzy scheme.

Stu

Well, I wouldn't call it a Ponzi scheme. That would be a case of leaving future generations with large debts AND a weak economy that can't pay for them. That's what we're trying to avoid.

But your water problem is real, and there's a more general point to be made about that, which is that capitalism itself, which structurally and inherently depends on growth, is again being brought into question. And you'll be surprised at who is questioning it. It's intellectual conservatives, not liberals. In certain reaches of intellectual conservatism, it's believed that the conservative enterprise is inherently in conflict with capitalism, which they (rightly) identify as a liberal/progressive enterprise of the 18th century. This has been addressed in a number of articles in the conservative journals recently.

You can have growth in an economy without growth in population; or even without growth in the consumption of non-renewable resources; or resources like your water supply which are renewable, but not at a rate sustainable with increasing rates of consumption. That's the theory, anyway. Evidence pointed to is such things as the growth in the electronics industry, the Internet, and longer-lasting cars. "Green" development of such things as renewable energy, recycling, and so on also are part of that picture. And one school of thought is that nearly everything we manufacture really is just "packaged services," and services have no inherent limits to growth -- at least, until we run out of shoe polish to polish each other's shoes. But services *do* fulfill some functions previously fulfilled by manufactured goods, and it's clear that the opportunities for growth there are much greater than for manufactured goods.

Unfettered development has led to many of our problems, and may be coming to the end of its days. Expect more planning at all levels, with an eye to available resources necessary to sustain specific kinds of growth. This applies more to real estate than to manufacturing. We in the West, even in the US, don't yet have a population-growth problem. But the world as a whole has one on the way. Expect to hear more about that over the coming years.

The times they are a' changin.

-- Ed Huntress

========== This is true, but only if one uses/accepts the current standard socio-economic-political model/assumptions, and even here it is important to differentiate between "growth" and "progress." As a counter example, consider the many of traditional societies that have managed to exist on a static basis for millennia, but they have a very different view of property rights, ownership, entitlement, etc.

This also why a new socio-economic/political is needed.

In your case of a limiting and over exploited resource [water], a very useful and insightful article is "The Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin. For background and overview see

For the actual article see In many cases "growth" is substituted for "progress" as this is considerably easier, generally cheaper in the short run, and most politicians understand the concept of "more of the same only better." Unfortunately, "progress" rather than "growth" is generally required for any sustainable long-term increase in aggregate benefits. "Progress" also has a general tendency to reduce the power and influence of the existing elite, while "growth" tends to increase their power and influence, so it is a "no brainer" to see which one will be preferred/suggested.

While Harden makes a number of valid points, he is a neo-Malthusian and disparages technical solutions. In your particular case of limited water availability, all that may be required is the introduction of industries that don't require much water, encouragement of home owners to use native plantings adapted to semiarid conditions rather than attempting to grow the traditional suburban lawn, minimum lot sizes to limit population density, and possibly the use of gray water from sinks, washing machines, and dish washers to water the garden/trees. Minor adaptations to conditions rather than an absolute ban on growth. One of the least successful approaches is the creation of a water conservation district, complete with licenses, fees, permits, inspectors, and the seizure of individual water rights, with the water then allocated to the "most worthy."

Your use of "Ponzi scheme" seems appropriate. The promoters and the people at the front of the [water] line reap the benefits, while the people at the back of the line get nothing but the bills and water rationing.

Unka' George [George McDuffee]

------------------------------------------- He that will not apply new remedies, must expect new evils: for Time is the greatest innovator: and if Time, of course, alter things to the worse, and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better, what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman. Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

Unka' George. Thank you roundly for the link to the Harden paper. I found some of his "leaps of logic" a bit loose, but in general liked his presentation and firmly agreed with his last paragraph. I have shared this bit of wisdom with some of my more philosophically bent (dented?) friends. You distinguish between "Growth" and "Progress" which stirred my little grey cells. I have a lot of problems when arguments support "Progress" without some agreement as to which goal is being "Progressed" towards. Looking at the web sites for both the Democrats and the Republicans, I can't find out just what they think is a place or goal to "Progress" to. Water issue: In Utah you get your deed to the property with a deeded amount of water. So many acres get so many acre feet of water each year. Here in our valley in California that is not done and the "Commons" is being raped by Alfalfa growers, Pistachio orchards etc. But being good Americans we are waiting for the necessary pressure to build required in the excercising of our normal problem solving technique called Knee Jerk As an editor of a magazine, I enjoy your writing and discussions.

Stuart

While "progress" and "growth" are quite different things, these are frequently confused in political discourse, possibly because the politicians don't [want to] understand the difference. [ I consider "progress" and "development" as generally used to be synonymous.]

for some bullet points see

{and many others google on }

You may also find these sites interesting

Unka' George [George McDuffee]

------------------------------------------- He that will not apply new remedies, must expect new evils: for Time is the greatest innovator: and if Time, of course, alter things to the worse, and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better, what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman. Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).