For those of you who love guitar, Keith Urban is one of the best, but I think is overlooked as one of the best. (And I love guitar).
I'm alive and free...
Or even better:
You Look Good In My Shirt
I live in a land called Mid-America. Here, we want less government involvement in our lives. And we're mostly non-elite, working middle-class. "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson
Friday, November 26, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Al Gore and his ethanol sham
For a couple of years I've been commenting on the problems with ethanol, such as its high-energy-cost of production, the increase in food prices, and the billions going to companies that produce the stuff. Also, when you use ethanol in cars and trucks, you actually get fewer miles to the gallon.
But the truth is emerging. Al Gore supported and pushed ethanol not for his environmental policies, but to get votes.
"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol," Reuters quoted Gore saying of the U.S. policy that is about to come up for congressional review. "First-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.
"One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president," the wire service reported Gore saying.
But of course, the ethanol industry will disagree, because they are getting nearly $8 billion a year of taxpayer-funded subsidies.
Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis has released a statement in response to Gore's regrets regarding his past position on corn-based ethanol:
"The contributions of first generation ethanol to our nation's economy, environment and energy production are not a mistake, but a success story."
But the truth is emerging. Al Gore supported and pushed ethanol not for his environmental policies, but to get votes.
"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol," Reuters quoted Gore saying of the U.S. policy that is about to come up for congressional review. "First-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.
"One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president," the wire service reported Gore saying.
But of course, the ethanol industry will disagree, because they are getting nearly $8 billion a year of taxpayer-funded subsidies.
Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis has released a statement in response to Gore's regrets regarding his past position on corn-based ethanol:
"The contributions of first generation ethanol to our nation's economy, environment and energy production are not a mistake, but a success story."
Monday, November 22, 2010
Warfighting: Not what it used to be?
I don't mean to be an armed-chair general, but I guess this makes me so. But I was a little surprised to learn that after nine years in Afghanistan, we are only now sending heavy armor, or tanks.
In my day, I think we viewed warfighting a little differently, or at least the doctrines we studied were different. I know times and places change, but certain concepts remain valid, I believe. Otherwise, why would military students still study Clausewitz.
The doctrines I mention here I call the Weinberger-Powell doctrines.
The original Weinberger doctrine, created in 1984 by then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, stated:
1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.
Gen. Colin Powell, as Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, later refined and added to Weinberger's doctrine in the run-up to the first Gulf War as a series of questions that needed to be answered before committing U.S. military forces.
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
So would someone tell me what doctrine we're using now? Has the Counter-Insurgency manual replaced this. My one big criticism of Rumsfeld is that he did not follow the two doctrines that were formed over 30-plus years of experience.
The fact that after nine years we are just now using heavy armor lets me think something is wrong here, other than the fact we're still there.
In my day, I think we viewed warfighting a little differently, or at least the doctrines we studied were different. I know times and places change, but certain concepts remain valid, I believe. Otherwise, why would military students still study Clausewitz.
The doctrines I mention here I call the Weinberger-Powell doctrines.
The original Weinberger doctrine, created in 1984 by then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, stated:
1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.
Gen. Colin Powell, as Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, later refined and added to Weinberger's doctrine in the run-up to the first Gulf War as a series of questions that needed to be answered before committing U.S. military forces.
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
So would someone tell me what doctrine we're using now? Has the Counter-Insurgency manual replaced this. My one big criticism of Rumsfeld is that he did not follow the two doctrines that were formed over 30-plus years of experience.
The fact that after nine years we are just now using heavy armor lets me think something is wrong here, other than the fact we're still there.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Ron Paul: Enough is enough
In my opinion, our government is out of control. There are many others who agree.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
I'll screen myself
It just keeps getting better and better. Lynda Mclaughlin is an associate producer and call screener for the Sean Hannity radio program. You gotta have a sense of humor these days...
Test your knowledge of current events
The Pew Research Center has a short on-line quiz, based on a survey they did Nov. 10-11, 2010. It's only 12 questions, and fairly basic, so that you'd think the average person would know most of them. I scored 12 out of 12 correct for 100%, but then I tend to pay more attention than most people, partly to keep this blog going.
But does the average person at least score more than 50 percent? Nope. Only college graduates scored more than 6 correct, with the average being 6.8. Every other demographic group scored less than 50 percent.
Take the test and you can see how you compare to your fellow citizens.
But does the average person at least score more than 50 percent? Nope. Only college graduates scored more than 6 correct, with the average being 6.8. Every other demographic group scored less than 50 percent.
Take the test and you can see how you compare to your fellow citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)