This is puzzling in that why would it happen at all without the teachers union screaming to high heaven that some teachers were being taken advantage of. I wonder as well if some the migration of good teachers has to do with violence related to urban locations?
After all it's the teachers wages from which dues are extracted that support the union and , in turn, their Democrat allies in congress from witch all things bright and beautiful flow.
Poorer Schools Not Getting Fair Share of Funding
Source: Ben Wolfgang, "Poorer Schools Not Getting Fair Share of Funding," Washington Times, November 30, 2011.
Loopholes in federal education law have allowed districts to funnel more state and local money to wealthy schools at the expense of their low-income counterparts, according to a new report released by the Education Department. Districts are required to maintain financial parity between their schools by federal law to prevent such a phenomenon. However, the loophole that is currently being exploited allows districts to exclude teacher salaries from calculations, says the Washington Times.
More than 40 percent of low-income schools don't get their "fair share," the report says, despite federal requirements that districts spend "comparable" amounts of money at poorer schools eligible for Title 1 funding.
Poor schools that are underfunded often attempt to make up the budget gap by reducing programs and benefits for disabled or disadvantaged children. The average district could fix the problem by redirecting about 1 percent of annual spending, the report states, though such a change would mean a reduction in funds for wealthier schools in a district.
Activists who recognize the lack of equality that is currently created by the exploitation of the loophole have called on Congress to redefine the accounting standards. Such a bill has been created in the Senate, and it would force schools to include teacher salary in their financial breakdowns.
The end result, it is hoped, is that the current disparities between wealthy schools and poor ones will be eliminated. Currently, affluent schools are able to pay higher wages for teachers, allowing them to attract high-quality veteran teachers that deliver a superior education for their students.
Meanwhile, younger teachers with less experience are forced to seek employment at the poorer schools that have lower wages. Critics complain that this experience exodus from poor schools to wealthy exacerbates education gaps.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Friday, December 09, 2011
Wisconsin Brought Low : Progrssives Hate Success
Thank you progressive socialist liberal left Democrats for taking success away and leaving in it's wake poverty and destruction. Liberals see this as their legacy.
Liberal left Democrats hate success.
So to make sure this is the story the world will always see as Wisconsin, liberal progressives want to recall the guy who is trying to bring back the greatness that was Wisconsin.
Isn't this the best reason to vote for more Democrats - !
(author unknown)
Downward Wisconsin
We used to make things here in Wisconsin .
We made machine tools in Milwaukee , cars in Kenosha and ships in Sheboygan . We mined iron in the north and lead in the south. We made cheese, we made brats, we made beer, and we even made napkins to clean up what we spilled. And we made money.
The original war on poverty was a private, mercenary affair.
Men like Harnishfeger, Allis, Chalmers, Kohler, Kearney, Trecker, Modine, Case, Mead, Falk, Allen, Bradley, Cutler, Hammer, Bucyrus, Harley, Davidson, Pabst, and Miller lifted millions up from subsistence living to middle class comfort. They did it - not Fighting Bob La Follette or any of the politicians who came along later to take the credit and rake a piece of the action through the steepest progressive scheme in the nation.
Those old geezers with the beards cured poverty by putting people to work. Generations of Wisconsinites learned trades and mastered them in the factories, breweries, mills, foundries, and shipyards those capitalists built with their hands. Thousands of small businesses supplied these industrial giants, and tens of thousands of proprietors and professionals provided all of the services that all those other families needed to live well. The wealth got spread around plenty.
The profits generated by our great industrialists funded charities, the arts, education, libraries, museums, parks, and community development associations. Taxes on their profits, property, and payrolls built our schools, roads, bridges, and the safety net that Wisconsin s progressives are still taking credit for, as if the money came from their council meetings. The offering plates in churches of every denomination were filled with money left over from company paychecks that were made possible because a few bold young men risked it all and got rich. Dont thank God for them; thank them that you learned about God.
Their wealth pales in comparison to the wealth they created for millions and millions of other Wisconsin families. Those with an appreciation for the immeasurable contributions of Wisconsins industrial icons of 1910 will find the list of Wisconsins top ten employers of 2010
appalling: Walmart, University of WisconsinMadison, Milwaukee Public Schools, U.S. Postal Service, Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Menards, Marshfield Clinic, Aurora Health Care, City of Milwaukee, and Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs.
This is what a century of progressivism will get you.
Wisconsin is the birthplace of the progressive movement, the home of the Socialist Party, the first state to allow public sector unions, the cradle of environmental activism, a liberal fortress walled off against common sense for decades. Their motto, Forward Wisconsin, should be changed to Downward Wisconsin if truth in advertising applies to slogans.
There is no shortage of activists, advocates, and agitators in this state. If government were the answer to our problems, we would have no problems. The very same people or people just like them who picketed, struck, sued, taxed, and regulated our great companies out of this state are now complaining about the unemployment and poverty that they have brought upon themselves. They got rid of those old rich white guys and replaced them withnothing.
Wisconsin ranks 47th in the rate of new business formation. We are one of the worst states for native college graduate exodus; our brightest and most ambitious graduates leave to seek their fortunes elsewhere. Why shouldnt they? Our tax rates are among the worst in the nation and our business climate, perpetually in the bottom of the rankings, has only recently moved up thanks to a Governor who now faces a recall for his trouble.
In 1970, the new environmental movement joined unions and socialists in a coordinated effort to demonize industry. When I was in college, the ranting against polluting profiteers was like white noise always there. They won, and here is the price of their victory: in 1970, manufacturers paid 18.2% of Wisconsin s property taxes the major source of school funding - and in 2010 those who remained paid 3.7%.
So who is it that caused the funding crisis in our schools and the skyrocketing tax rates on our homes? It is the same ignoramuses who are sitting on bridges, pooping on things, and passing around recall petitions.
The unemployed 26-year old in the hemp hat looking for sympathy might look instead for some inspiration from Jerome I. Case, who started his agricultural equipment business at the age of 21, miraculously without an iPhone 4s.
Mr. Case got rich by asking people what they want and making it for them. He did not get rich by telling people what he wanted and waiting for them to do something about it. If you want to declare war on your own poverty, memorize that.
In the last decade alone we have lost 150,000 manufacturing jobs in this state over 25%. And its not just jobs that have been lost; the companies that provided them are gone. Those jobs are not coming back, no matter how long we extend unemployment benefits pretending they are. The
450,000 people who still work in manufacturing in Wisconsin are damn good it at, but we are now outnumbered by people who work for government. A significant number of the latter are tasked with taxing, regulating, and generally harassing the former. While it is true that many manufacturers chased low-wage opportunities on their own, many more were driven out of the state by the increasing cost of doing business here.
It is a myth that unions improve wages. If you consider only the 1,000 jobs in a closed shop, you might think an average union wage is, say, $30/hr. But if you add in the zero wages of the 10,000 jobs lost in companies chased out by union harassment, the average of all 11,000 union workers is reduced to $2.72/hr. Do you know the average wage of union iron miners in this state? Zero. And the left is fighting hard to keep it that way in Northern Wisconsin - looking out for the working man, they call it.
It is also a myth that free trade causes job losses. Over the past three years, U.S. manufacturers sold $70 billion more goods to our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) partners than we bought from them. Conversely, we suffered a $1.3 trillion trade deficit with countries where no FTAs exist. I doubt that kids are going to learn that in our government-union monopoly schools it doesnt fit the narrative.
No one wants to see another person suffer in poverty, and liberty is the best economic policy there is. The great industrialists of Wisconsin took less than a generation to lift millions up to a life of dignity, pride, prosperity and good will. When enterprise was free and government was limited, we all prospered.
Those great men of industry were not anointed at birth to be rich; they rose from nothing to great wealth through their own hard work and the value they added to their employees and their customers through choice, competition, and voluntary exchange. That is the only sure path to real prosperity; the debt economy is a temporary illusion.
Look again at the list of our famous industrialists and the list of our current employers. Who would you wish your child or grandchild to grow up to be? Who do you think will do more good on this earth Jerome I Case and his tractors, or the Coordinator of Supplier Diversity at Milwaukee Public Schools?
If you chose MPS, then apply now that job is open, and it pays up to $72,000 plus benefits and early retirement. Go in peace and save the world. Me, I'm going with the tractor guy.
Liberal left Democrats hate success.
So to make sure this is the story the world will always see as Wisconsin, liberal progressives want to recall the guy who is trying to bring back the greatness that was Wisconsin.
Isn't this the best reason to vote for more Democrats - !
(author unknown)
Downward Wisconsin
We used to make things here in Wisconsin .
We made machine tools in Milwaukee , cars in Kenosha and ships in Sheboygan . We mined iron in the north and lead in the south. We made cheese, we made brats, we made beer, and we even made napkins to clean up what we spilled. And we made money.
The original war on poverty was a private, mercenary affair.
Men like Harnishfeger, Allis, Chalmers, Kohler, Kearney, Trecker, Modine, Case, Mead, Falk, Allen, Bradley, Cutler, Hammer, Bucyrus, Harley, Davidson, Pabst, and Miller lifted millions up from subsistence living to middle class comfort. They did it - not Fighting Bob La Follette or any of the politicians who came along later to take the credit and rake a piece of the action through the steepest progressive scheme in the nation.
Those old geezers with the beards cured poverty by putting people to work. Generations of Wisconsinites learned trades and mastered them in the factories, breweries, mills, foundries, and shipyards those capitalists built with their hands. Thousands of small businesses supplied these industrial giants, and tens of thousands of proprietors and professionals provided all of the services that all those other families needed to live well. The wealth got spread around plenty.
The profits generated by our great industrialists funded charities, the arts, education, libraries, museums, parks, and community development associations. Taxes on their profits, property, and payrolls built our schools, roads, bridges, and the safety net that Wisconsin s progressives are still taking credit for, as if the money came from their council meetings. The offering plates in churches of every denomination were filled with money left over from company paychecks that were made possible because a few bold young men risked it all and got rich. Dont thank God for them; thank them that you learned about God.
Their wealth pales in comparison to the wealth they created for millions and millions of other Wisconsin families. Those with an appreciation for the immeasurable contributions of Wisconsins industrial icons of 1910 will find the list of Wisconsins top ten employers of 2010
appalling: Walmart, University of WisconsinMadison, Milwaukee Public Schools, U.S. Postal Service, Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Menards, Marshfield Clinic, Aurora Health Care, City of Milwaukee, and Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs.
This is what a century of progressivism will get you.
Wisconsin is the birthplace of the progressive movement, the home of the Socialist Party, the first state to allow public sector unions, the cradle of environmental activism, a liberal fortress walled off against common sense for decades. Their motto, Forward Wisconsin, should be changed to Downward Wisconsin if truth in advertising applies to slogans.
There is no shortage of activists, advocates, and agitators in this state. If government were the answer to our problems, we would have no problems. The very same people or people just like them who picketed, struck, sued, taxed, and regulated our great companies out of this state are now complaining about the unemployment and poverty that they have brought upon themselves. They got rid of those old rich white guys and replaced them withnothing.
Wisconsin ranks 47th in the rate of new business formation. We are one of the worst states for native college graduate exodus; our brightest and most ambitious graduates leave to seek their fortunes elsewhere. Why shouldnt they? Our tax rates are among the worst in the nation and our business climate, perpetually in the bottom of the rankings, has only recently moved up thanks to a Governor who now faces a recall for his trouble.
In 1970, the new environmental movement joined unions and socialists in a coordinated effort to demonize industry. When I was in college, the ranting against polluting profiteers was like white noise always there. They won, and here is the price of their victory: in 1970, manufacturers paid 18.2% of Wisconsin s property taxes the major source of school funding - and in 2010 those who remained paid 3.7%.
So who is it that caused the funding crisis in our schools and the skyrocketing tax rates on our homes? It is the same ignoramuses who are sitting on bridges, pooping on things, and passing around recall petitions.
The unemployed 26-year old in the hemp hat looking for sympathy might look instead for some inspiration from Jerome I. Case, who started his agricultural equipment business at the age of 21, miraculously without an iPhone 4s.
Mr. Case got rich by asking people what they want and making it for them. He did not get rich by telling people what he wanted and waiting for them to do something about it. If you want to declare war on your own poverty, memorize that.
In the last decade alone we have lost 150,000 manufacturing jobs in this state over 25%. And its not just jobs that have been lost; the companies that provided them are gone. Those jobs are not coming back, no matter how long we extend unemployment benefits pretending they are. The
450,000 people who still work in manufacturing in Wisconsin are damn good it at, but we are now outnumbered by people who work for government. A significant number of the latter are tasked with taxing, regulating, and generally harassing the former. While it is true that many manufacturers chased low-wage opportunities on their own, many more were driven out of the state by the increasing cost of doing business here.
It is a myth that unions improve wages. If you consider only the 1,000 jobs in a closed shop, you might think an average union wage is, say, $30/hr. But if you add in the zero wages of the 10,000 jobs lost in companies chased out by union harassment, the average of all 11,000 union workers is reduced to $2.72/hr. Do you know the average wage of union iron miners in this state? Zero. And the left is fighting hard to keep it that way in Northern Wisconsin - looking out for the working man, they call it.
It is also a myth that free trade causes job losses. Over the past three years, U.S. manufacturers sold $70 billion more goods to our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) partners than we bought from them. Conversely, we suffered a $1.3 trillion trade deficit with countries where no FTAs exist. I doubt that kids are going to learn that in our government-union monopoly schools it doesnt fit the narrative.
No one wants to see another person suffer in poverty, and liberty is the best economic policy there is. The great industrialists of Wisconsin took less than a generation to lift millions up to a life of dignity, pride, prosperity and good will. When enterprise was free and government was limited, we all prospered.
Those great men of industry were not anointed at birth to be rich; they rose from nothing to great wealth through their own hard work and the value they added to their employees and their customers through choice, competition, and voluntary exchange. That is the only sure path to real prosperity; the debt economy is a temporary illusion.
Look again at the list of our famous industrialists and the list of our current employers. Who would you wish your child or grandchild to grow up to be? Who do you think will do more good on this earth Jerome I Case and his tractors, or the Coordinator of Supplier Diversity at Milwaukee Public Schools?
If you chose MPS, then apply now that job is open, and it pays up to $72,000 plus benefits and early retirement. Go in peace and save the world. Me, I'm going with the tractor guy.
Deer Hunting Explained by Ted Nugent
Great Quote!
Deer Hunting Story...even if you don't care about hunting...Gotta Love Ted!
Ted Nugent, rock star and avid bow hunter from Michigan , was being interviewed by a liberal journalist, an animal rights activist. The discussion came around to deer hunting.
The journalist asked, 'What do you think is the last thought in the head of a deer before you shoot him? Is it, 'Are you my friend?' or is it 'Are you the one who killed my brother?
Nugent replied, 'Deer aren't capable of that kind of thinking. All they care about is, what am I going to eat next, who am I going to screw next, and can I run fast enough to get away. They are very much like the Democrats in Congress.'
The interview ended.
Deer Hunting Story...even if you don't care about hunting...Gotta Love Ted!
Ted Nugent, rock star and avid bow hunter from Michigan , was being interviewed by a liberal journalist, an animal rights activist. The discussion came around to deer hunting.
The journalist asked, 'What do you think is the last thought in the head of a deer before you shoot him? Is it, 'Are you my friend?' or is it 'Are you the one who killed my brother?
Nugent replied, 'Deer aren't capable of that kind of thinking. All they care about is, what am I going to eat next, who am I going to screw next, and can I run fast enough to get away. They are very much like the Democrats in Congress.'
The interview ended.
Husbands and Wives : Clash of Titans - Humor
Take a break, okay?
The wife has been missing for a week now. Police said I needed to prepare for the worst. So, I have to rush back to the thrift shop and get all of her clothes back.
The wife has been missing for a week now. Police said I needed to prepare for the worst. So, I have to rush back to the thrift shop and get all of her clothes back.
Thursday, December 08, 2011
Property Taxes Driven by Public Labor Mandates
Interesting - but here is something else that local boards do to stick to the home owner - they send out the tax man to review the property after several years to raise your property values for future estimated taxes. They set the limits very high but don't use that figure for the present mill rate. See how this works?
Okay, here it is, the new valuation will not necessarily raise one's taxes immediately because of the caps that are in place, but local boards will have the option to raise the taxing to the level they set in prior years if they need more money regardless of the caps.
And you guessed it, they always need more money.
How Taxes Drive Down Home Values
Source: Nicole Gelinas, "How Taxes Drive Down Home Values," National Review, December 1, 2011.
In the past five years, house prices have declined to 2003 levels, and the average home declined in price by 3.9 percent over the last year alone. National politicians are scrambling to reverse the trend. But the remedy lies in state houses and town halls, says Nicole Gelinas, a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute's City Journal.
A house is worth what a buyer is willing to pay for it in monthly costs. But when you buy a house, you're not just committing to a mortgage -- you are also promising to pay the future property taxes on that house.
What drives those local property taxes are the future costs of paying state and local workers and retirees, particularly retirees' pensions and health care. These costs are going in one direction: up.
Unless state and local governments take steps now to reduce future costs, or unless they plan on suddenly repudiating their promises to their public-sector work forces one day, every dollar in unfunded pension and health care costs is up to a dollar less in the future value of a house.
Take one example, New York's Westchester County, the highest-taxed county in the nation.
According to the Tax Foundation, property taxes in Westchester average $9,044 annually -- up by $1,707, or 23 percent, in the five years from 2005 to 2009.
What if property taxes in Westchester were to increase by another 23 percent, to $11,124, in the next half decade, or even the next decade? That's an extra $2,080 in annual costs per house, or nearly $175 every month. Even after deducting these levies from his federal tax bill, a homeowner would end up losing $1,456 a year.
Families that considered buying a house would sensibly lop that extra amount off the price they are willing to pay -- and the seller would lose about $23,500 in investment value.
Yes, it's true that New York and New Jersey recently enacted caps on property-tax hikes, and California has long had such a cap. But unless state and local governments rein in costs, local governments will have no choices but to find a way around these caps.
Okay, here it is, the new valuation will not necessarily raise one's taxes immediately because of the caps that are in place, but local boards will have the option to raise the taxing to the level they set in prior years if they need more money regardless of the caps.
And you guessed it, they always need more money.
How Taxes Drive Down Home Values
Source: Nicole Gelinas, "How Taxes Drive Down Home Values," National Review, December 1, 2011.
In the past five years, house prices have declined to 2003 levels, and the average home declined in price by 3.9 percent over the last year alone. National politicians are scrambling to reverse the trend. But the remedy lies in state houses and town halls, says Nicole Gelinas, a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute's City Journal.
A house is worth what a buyer is willing to pay for it in monthly costs. But when you buy a house, you're not just committing to a mortgage -- you are also promising to pay the future property taxes on that house.
What drives those local property taxes are the future costs of paying state and local workers and retirees, particularly retirees' pensions and health care. These costs are going in one direction: up.
Unless state and local governments take steps now to reduce future costs, or unless they plan on suddenly repudiating their promises to their public-sector work forces one day, every dollar in unfunded pension and health care costs is up to a dollar less in the future value of a house.
Take one example, New York's Westchester County, the highest-taxed county in the nation.
According to the Tax Foundation, property taxes in Westchester average $9,044 annually -- up by $1,707, or 23 percent, in the five years from 2005 to 2009.
What if property taxes in Westchester were to increase by another 23 percent, to $11,124, in the next half decade, or even the next decade? That's an extra $2,080 in annual costs per house, or nearly $175 every month. Even after deducting these levies from his federal tax bill, a homeowner would end up losing $1,456 a year.
Families that considered buying a house would sensibly lop that extra amount off the price they are willing to pay -- and the seller would lose about $23,500 in investment value.
Yes, it's true that New York and New Jersey recently enacted caps on property-tax hikes, and California has long had such a cap. But unless state and local governments rein in costs, local governments will have no choices but to find a way around these caps.
Bicyclists Must Be Aware of Road Rules
How true - in fact I am a bike rider, racer, and have been for the last twenty years, and find that I do not stop at stop signs in the suburbs if no one is coming. I do stop for red lights and four way stops.
It makes sense when you can see potential danger to make the right decision. To disregard all rules of the road because you are a bike rider just means you're stupid.
Bikes and Red Lights
Source: Nate Berg, "The Uncomfortable Relationship between Bikes and Red Lights," Atlantic Cities, December 2, 2011. Aaron Cole et al., "Red Light Behavior between Motor Vehicles and Bicycles," Portland State University, November 28, 2011.
It'll come as no surprise to cyclists -- not to mention irritated drivers -- that bike riders tend to have what we might kindly refer to as selective vision when it comes to stop signs and traffic signals. Cyclists regularly run stop signs and signaled intersections when the coast is clear. Momentum is key for the bike rider and coming to a complete stop when nobody's around is hard to justify. But even so, there's an inherent risk in not obeying traffic laws, says Nate Berg of Atlantic Cities.
A recent study by Portland State students monitored intersections around campus to see how well drivers and cyclists adhered to red lights. The report shows that of the 497 cars observed only 36 ran red lights, while 58 of the 99 bicycles observed blew right through.
That's about 7 percent of cars compared to 58 percent of bicycles. Two of the three intersections the students chose to study have a cycle track, or a bicycle lane separated from traffic lanes.
The researchers found that cyclists were more likely to run red lights at the intersections with the cycle track, with about 70 percent of riders running lights compared to less than 40 percent on the shared street intersection.
While it's not likely that cyclists will begin to comply fully with the laws of the road, this study does shed some more light on the potential dangers of the road. More pedestrians are put in danger when other users of the road ignore the rules. And though bike-person accidents aren't incredibly widespread, they do happen.
Even more concerning should be the increasing potential of car-bike accidents that can occur when stop lights are ignored.
It makes sense when you can see potential danger to make the right decision. To disregard all rules of the road because you are a bike rider just means you're stupid.
Bikes and Red Lights
Source: Nate Berg, "The Uncomfortable Relationship between Bikes and Red Lights," Atlantic Cities, December 2, 2011. Aaron Cole et al., "Red Light Behavior between Motor Vehicles and Bicycles," Portland State University, November 28, 2011.
It'll come as no surprise to cyclists -- not to mention irritated drivers -- that bike riders tend to have what we might kindly refer to as selective vision when it comes to stop signs and traffic signals. Cyclists regularly run stop signs and signaled intersections when the coast is clear. Momentum is key for the bike rider and coming to a complete stop when nobody's around is hard to justify. But even so, there's an inherent risk in not obeying traffic laws, says Nate Berg of Atlantic Cities.
A recent study by Portland State students monitored intersections around campus to see how well drivers and cyclists adhered to red lights. The report shows that of the 497 cars observed only 36 ran red lights, while 58 of the 99 bicycles observed blew right through.
That's about 7 percent of cars compared to 58 percent of bicycles. Two of the three intersections the students chose to study have a cycle track, or a bicycle lane separated from traffic lanes.
The researchers found that cyclists were more likely to run red lights at the intersections with the cycle track, with about 70 percent of riders running lights compared to less than 40 percent on the shared street intersection.
While it's not likely that cyclists will begin to comply fully with the laws of the road, this study does shed some more light on the potential dangers of the road. More pedestrians are put in danger when other users of the road ignore the rules. And though bike-person accidents aren't incredibly widespread, they do happen.
Even more concerning should be the increasing potential of car-bike accidents that can occur when stop lights are ignored.
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Remember Dec 7th, 1941 : It Can Happen Again
It's interesting when you hear some of your friends discuss the new enemies of this country on this day of remembrance, December 7th, 1941, like they are some kind of ill tempered, angry children.
'After all this is the United States. We have never had to worry about being attacked.' hmmmm It was minutes before someone said, 'Oh wait, how soon we forget just 10 years ago in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania. We have been attacked but it's not likely it will happen again. We're ready now'. Poor dumb cows.
These people live in fantasy of liberal speak as it was only weeks ago the said we really don't all the military now that we are leaving Iraq and soon Afghanistan. Clinton said the same thing and reduced our military by nearly twenty percent. He called it the 'Peace Dividend. Remember?
The following article lays out some good ideas and possible scenarios for our future engagements with the angry children of the world.
Pearl Harbor, Iran and North Korea
Don't be surprised if one of our underestimated adversaries does the unthinkable.
By WARREN KOZAK WSJ 12-7-2011
Mr. Kozak is the author of "LeMay: The Life and Wars of General Curtis LeMay" (Regnery, 2009).
On Dec. 7, 1941 the United States suffered the worst intelligence failure in its history—before or since—when Japanese planes destroyed much of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.
The most astounding aspect of the Pearl Harbor attack was that the U.S. had already broken the Japanese code and was listening to its communications. The U.S. had hundreds of cryptologists and linguists, mostly from the Navy, listening to Japanese wireless communications. But it wasn't enough.
"We knew something was going to happen on Sunday, December 7th at around noon Washington time," Henry Kissinger said at a speech I attended two years ago in New York City. "The problem is that nobody knew that when it's noon in Washington, it's around 7 a.m. in Hawaii."
In other words, despite being on a war footing with Japan and knowing from intercepted communications that the Japanese were planning for a significant event to affect Japanese-U.S. relations that Sunday, our government couldn't conceive of—and didn't defend against—an attack on its largest Pacific naval facility, Pearl Harbor.
This was a failure to think outside the box, coupled with a strong belief that the Japanese were inferior and incapable of mounting such an attack. Eight U.S. battleships, three cruisers and three destroyers were either damaged or sunk, 188 aircraft were destroyed (almost all on the ground), and 2,402 Americans were killed. All of this was accomplished in 90 minutes with 353 small Japanese planes.
Twenty years earlier in a highly publicized demonstration, Gen. Billy Mitchell had proven the vulnerability of naval vessels to airplanes in the waters off Virginia. In July 1921, Mitchell's planes sank a surplus German destroyer, a light cruiser and the battleship Ostfreisland in full view of hundreds of visitors who were brought to see the exercise.
Associated Press
The destroyer USS Shaw explodes after being hit by bombs during the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.
One of those visitors was Osami Nagano, a Japanese naval captain who was part of Japan's diplomatic corps. Nagano clearly understood the demonstration's implications. But the U.S. wasn't in the mood for military spending after World War I, when a strong sense of isolationism took hold of the country.
Just as the lessons of Vietnam shaped today's U.S. military, the lessons of Pearl Harbor shaped our armed services through the 1960s. In 1942, only months after the attack, then-Colonel Curtis LeMay was forced to take ill-trained troops into combat and watched hundreds of them die. He never wanted to see the U.S. in that position again, a goal that guided his creation of the Strategic Air Command—America's nuclear punch—during the earliest years of the Cold War.
LeMay understood that in a nuclear war the U.S. wouldn't have the luxury of two years to build the Army, Navy and Air Force that it needed in World War II but didn't yet have in December 1941. LeMay drilled into his crews the idea that their first mission might well be their only mission, which is why they had to be constantly prepared. Partly because of that strength, there was never a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and U.S.S.R.
Seventy years after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. finds itself in much the same situation that it was in prior to World War II. There is a great effort to cut military spending, bring troops home from abroad, and scale back our international exposure. The country's critical financial situation is one reason.
Yet a nuclear-obsessed Iran, an emerging China and Russia, along with smaller rogue actors are enough of a threat to justify a vigilant and even aggressive guard. Add to this the weariness of two prolonged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the comparison is complete.
Two weeks ago, National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" examined Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's statement of concern about the possibility of an "EMP" attack on America. That's an electro-magnetic-pulse attack—a huge shock wave of electricity that could come from a nuclear weapon detonated high in the atmosphere above the homeland. Such a wave could destroy the country's electrical grid, stop almost all cars and trucks, cause sewage to back up in every city, and disrupt the food and water supply—essentially sending us back 250 years.
NPR's guest, Wired magazine reporter Noah Shachtman, was skeptical. He called Mr. Gingrich a "charter member" of the "professional EMP, scare-monger, worry-wart crowd," and he wondered if it really made any sense that "Iran or North Korea or some other country is going to be so mad at us" that they would actually do something like this.
The doubters may indeed be right. But 70 years ago similar doubters believed Japan would never be so foolish as to take on the United States of America—until, of course, it did.
'After all this is the United States. We have never had to worry about being attacked.' hmmmm It was minutes before someone said, 'Oh wait, how soon we forget just 10 years ago in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania. We have been attacked but it's not likely it will happen again. We're ready now'. Poor dumb cows.
These people live in fantasy of liberal speak as it was only weeks ago the said we really don't all the military now that we are leaving Iraq and soon Afghanistan. Clinton said the same thing and reduced our military by nearly twenty percent. He called it the 'Peace Dividend. Remember?
The following article lays out some good ideas and possible scenarios for our future engagements with the angry children of the world.
Pearl Harbor, Iran and North Korea
Don't be surprised if one of our underestimated adversaries does the unthinkable.
By WARREN KOZAK WSJ 12-7-2011
Mr. Kozak is the author of "LeMay: The Life and Wars of General Curtis LeMay" (Regnery, 2009).
On Dec. 7, 1941 the United States suffered the worst intelligence failure in its history—before or since—when Japanese planes destroyed much of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.
The most astounding aspect of the Pearl Harbor attack was that the U.S. had already broken the Japanese code and was listening to its communications. The U.S. had hundreds of cryptologists and linguists, mostly from the Navy, listening to Japanese wireless communications. But it wasn't enough.
"We knew something was going to happen on Sunday, December 7th at around noon Washington time," Henry Kissinger said at a speech I attended two years ago in New York City. "The problem is that nobody knew that when it's noon in Washington, it's around 7 a.m. in Hawaii."
In other words, despite being on a war footing with Japan and knowing from intercepted communications that the Japanese were planning for a significant event to affect Japanese-U.S. relations that Sunday, our government couldn't conceive of—and didn't defend against—an attack on its largest Pacific naval facility, Pearl Harbor.
This was a failure to think outside the box, coupled with a strong belief that the Japanese were inferior and incapable of mounting such an attack. Eight U.S. battleships, three cruisers and three destroyers were either damaged or sunk, 188 aircraft were destroyed (almost all on the ground), and 2,402 Americans were killed. All of this was accomplished in 90 minutes with 353 small Japanese planes.
Twenty years earlier in a highly publicized demonstration, Gen. Billy Mitchell had proven the vulnerability of naval vessels to airplanes in the waters off Virginia. In July 1921, Mitchell's planes sank a surplus German destroyer, a light cruiser and the battleship Ostfreisland in full view of hundreds of visitors who were brought to see the exercise.
Associated Press
The destroyer USS Shaw explodes after being hit by bombs during the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.
One of those visitors was Osami Nagano, a Japanese naval captain who was part of Japan's diplomatic corps. Nagano clearly understood the demonstration's implications. But the U.S. wasn't in the mood for military spending after World War I, when a strong sense of isolationism took hold of the country.
Just as the lessons of Vietnam shaped today's U.S. military, the lessons of Pearl Harbor shaped our armed services through the 1960s. In 1942, only months after the attack, then-Colonel Curtis LeMay was forced to take ill-trained troops into combat and watched hundreds of them die. He never wanted to see the U.S. in that position again, a goal that guided his creation of the Strategic Air Command—America's nuclear punch—during the earliest years of the Cold War.
LeMay understood that in a nuclear war the U.S. wouldn't have the luxury of two years to build the Army, Navy and Air Force that it needed in World War II but didn't yet have in December 1941. LeMay drilled into his crews the idea that their first mission might well be their only mission, which is why they had to be constantly prepared. Partly because of that strength, there was never a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and U.S.S.R.
Seventy years after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. finds itself in much the same situation that it was in prior to World War II. There is a great effort to cut military spending, bring troops home from abroad, and scale back our international exposure. The country's critical financial situation is one reason.
Yet a nuclear-obsessed Iran, an emerging China and Russia, along with smaller rogue actors are enough of a threat to justify a vigilant and even aggressive guard. Add to this the weariness of two prolonged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the comparison is complete.
Two weeks ago, National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" examined Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's statement of concern about the possibility of an "EMP" attack on America. That's an electro-magnetic-pulse attack—a huge shock wave of electricity that could come from a nuclear weapon detonated high in the atmosphere above the homeland. Such a wave could destroy the country's electrical grid, stop almost all cars and trucks, cause sewage to back up in every city, and disrupt the food and water supply—essentially sending us back 250 years.
NPR's guest, Wired magazine reporter Noah Shachtman, was skeptical. He called Mr. Gingrich a "charter member" of the "professional EMP, scare-monger, worry-wart crowd," and he wondered if it really made any sense that "Iran or North Korea or some other country is going to be so mad at us" that they would actually do something like this.
The doubters may indeed be right. But 70 years ago similar doubters believed Japan would never be so foolish as to take on the United States of America—until, of course, it did.
Regulation Identified As THE Problem
Holy cow batman, this sounds like common sense! Find out what the problem is and identify it before you write regulation to fix it. The bigger question is here, why do we have to tell governmental bureaucrats they have to identify a problem before they try and fix it?
Can this be happening? Have we just slipped into another parallel universe that is totally inhabited by mindless government regulators?
Regulation: What's the Problem?
Source: Jerry Ellig and James Broughel, "Regulation: What's The Problem?" Mercatus Center, November 2011.
For more than three decades, the president has required executive branch agencies to identify the systemic problems they wish to solve when issuing major regulatory actions. This principle reflects the commonsense notion that before making a decision, decision makers should understand the root cause of the problem the regulation is supposed to solve.
Unfortunately, in practice regulatory agencies often decide what they want to do, write up the proposed regulations, and only then hand the proposals to their economists, relegating problem identification to the late stages of the process, say Jerry Ellig and James Broughel of the Mercatus Center.
A Mercatus Center study rating 87 regulations in 2008 and 2009 for their timely identification of a systematic problem gave the maximum score of five to only one regulation. That same study rated 17 regulations zero out of five, recognizing that the regulatory analysis had little or no content assessing the systemic problem at all.
In each of the four subcategories assessed in the study, regulation averages ranged between zero and two for both 2008 and 2009, with no statistical difference between administrations.
To create more effective regulatory policy that follows the legal directives set down in the aforementioned executive order, agencies must follow four best practices:
Identify a clear market failure or government failure.
Identify a problem and offer a theory to explain how the problem came to exist.
Provide data-driven, empirical evidence that shows the problem exists and the agency's hypothesis about the root cause is true.
Perform a "sensitivity analysis" to assess likely uncertainties about the existence or size of the problem.
Can this be happening? Have we just slipped into another parallel universe that is totally inhabited by mindless government regulators?
Regulation: What's the Problem?
Source: Jerry Ellig and James Broughel, "Regulation: What's The Problem?" Mercatus Center, November 2011.
For more than three decades, the president has required executive branch agencies to identify the systemic problems they wish to solve when issuing major regulatory actions. This principle reflects the commonsense notion that before making a decision, decision makers should understand the root cause of the problem the regulation is supposed to solve.
Unfortunately, in practice regulatory agencies often decide what they want to do, write up the proposed regulations, and only then hand the proposals to their economists, relegating problem identification to the late stages of the process, say Jerry Ellig and James Broughel of the Mercatus Center.
A Mercatus Center study rating 87 regulations in 2008 and 2009 for their timely identification of a systematic problem gave the maximum score of five to only one regulation. That same study rated 17 regulations zero out of five, recognizing that the regulatory analysis had little or no content assessing the systemic problem at all.
In each of the four subcategories assessed in the study, regulation averages ranged between zero and two for both 2008 and 2009, with no statistical difference between administrations.
To create more effective regulatory policy that follows the legal directives set down in the aforementioned executive order, agencies must follow four best practices:
Identify a clear market failure or government failure.
Identify a problem and offer a theory to explain how the problem came to exist.
Provide data-driven, empirical evidence that shows the problem exists and the agency's hypothesis about the root cause is true.
Perform a "sensitivity analysis" to assess likely uncertainties about the existence or size of the problem.
Government Wrong on Salt Intake : Bad Science
This is great - a regulatory agency deciding how and what we should eat. Is there no end to the dynamics of power and control needed by people willing to do and say anything to stay in power?
Federal Effort to Commandeer the Nation's Salt Shakers Is Based on Bad Science
Source: Steve Chapman, "Federal Effort to Commandeer the Nation's Salt Shakers Is Based on Bad Science," Reason Magazine, December 1, 2011.
Last year, the government's Institute of Medicine urged the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to "gradually step down the maximum amount of salt that can be added to foods, beverages, and meals." The FDA is listening. In September, it published a notice concerning issues "associated with the development of targets for sodium reduction in foods to promote reduction of excess sodium intake," says Steve Chapman, a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.
It is currently focusing on voluntary steps to "promote gradual, achievable and sustainable reduction of sodium intake over time." But if it doesn't get its way, it may go beyond gentle encouragement. "Nothing is off the table," a spokesperson declared last year.
Salt has always been prized as a culinary marvel -- perking up flavors, masking bitter elements and preventing spoilage. But many experts and public health organizations see salt as a killer, which in excess amounts causes high blood pressure and heart disease.
But experts' certitude keeps getting clouded by confounding evidence. The Journal of the American Medical Association has reported that people who consume less salt are actually more likely to die of heart disease.
Recently, a study in the American Journal of Hypertension found that reducing dietary sodium can cause a harmful response from the body. Nor is it clear that third parties can get people to reduce their ingestion of sodium. We have been hearing for decades about the alleged hazards of a high-salt diet, and anyone looking for alternatives can easily find them. But today, Americans consume the same amount of salt as they did 50 years ago.
But even if we assume too much salt is a bad thing, federal regulators have no grounds to dictate how much our food may contain. Any consumers who want less sodium, after all, are free to spurn restaurant meals and grocery items laden with heavy doses. Indeed, classifying excess sodium consumption as a "public health" danger mutilates a useful concept, says Chapman.
Federal Effort to Commandeer the Nation's Salt Shakers Is Based on Bad Science
Source: Steve Chapman, "Federal Effort to Commandeer the Nation's Salt Shakers Is Based on Bad Science," Reason Magazine, December 1, 2011.
Last year, the government's Institute of Medicine urged the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to "gradually step down the maximum amount of salt that can be added to foods, beverages, and meals." The FDA is listening. In September, it published a notice concerning issues "associated with the development of targets for sodium reduction in foods to promote reduction of excess sodium intake," says Steve Chapman, a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.
It is currently focusing on voluntary steps to "promote gradual, achievable and sustainable reduction of sodium intake over time." But if it doesn't get its way, it may go beyond gentle encouragement. "Nothing is off the table," a spokesperson declared last year.
Salt has always been prized as a culinary marvel -- perking up flavors, masking bitter elements and preventing spoilage. But many experts and public health organizations see salt as a killer, which in excess amounts causes high blood pressure and heart disease.
But experts' certitude keeps getting clouded by confounding evidence. The Journal of the American Medical Association has reported that people who consume less salt are actually more likely to die of heart disease.
Recently, a study in the American Journal of Hypertension found that reducing dietary sodium can cause a harmful response from the body. Nor is it clear that third parties can get people to reduce their ingestion of sodium. We have been hearing for decades about the alleged hazards of a high-salt diet, and anyone looking for alternatives can easily find them. But today, Americans consume the same amount of salt as they did 50 years ago.
But even if we assume too much salt is a bad thing, federal regulators have no grounds to dictate how much our food may contain. Any consumers who want less sodium, after all, are free to spurn restaurant meals and grocery items laden with heavy doses. Indeed, classifying excess sodium consumption as a "public health" danger mutilates a useful concept, says Chapman.
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
California Socialist Agenda Coming for You?
WoW - here is the face of the Democrat party in California and one has to believe this will be the norm for the rest of country if Obama has another 4 years. This is a clear message from the progressive socialist left Democrats in this country. They aren't hiding out in the shadows any longer - they have come out into the light to show us just who they are.
Believe that this is what they want to do. This is no accident. They believe that the majority of the country is ready to become dependent, slaves, to big brother in Washington so they are going full speed ahead. But it's a risk for them in that a lot of people aren't fooled about progressive socialism and it's end results. Total collapse of country as we knows it.
Wisconsin is in this fight right now with the teachers union as the attacks on teachers that are speaking out for Gov Walker and his budget that saves the state and jobs. Death threats are common!!
Even the governor's wife and children are threatened with rape and death!!!!!
http://webmail.frontier.com/service/home/~/Parasitesaredevouringthehostculture.wmv?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=11600&part=2&disp=a
Believe that this is what they want to do. This is no accident. They believe that the majority of the country is ready to become dependent, slaves, to big brother in Washington so they are going full speed ahead. But it's a risk for them in that a lot of people aren't fooled about progressive socialism and it's end results. Total collapse of country as we knows it.
Wisconsin is in this fight right now with the teachers union as the attacks on teachers that are speaking out for Gov Walker and his budget that saves the state and jobs. Death threats are common!!
Even the governor's wife and children are threatened with rape and death!!!!!
http://webmail.frontier.com/service/home/~/Parasitesaredevouringthehostculture.wmv?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=11600&part=2&disp=a
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
