Here are some good questions that go right to the heart of the debate - no one really cares about green house gases as it's about power; who has it and who doesn't.
If it means the Western economies have to collapse because some bark-eaters demand it as we as Americans have too much of everything anyway, and it isn't fair to the third world becasue, instead of working to build an ecomomy that works, they are killing each off - so be it - they don't care, their agenda has be met.
Global warming Theory Questions
I consider myself, (as one with a modest scientific background), as one with a great curiosity about the "Global Warming " debate. As such I am inclined to read in full most of what becomes available including the text of Mr. Lawson's paper .
I found his perspective refreshing and honest. The purpose of my writing here is not to criticize the Lawson paper but to ask of the climate intelligentsia why 2 certain elements of every discussion are stunningly absent or mentioned in passing from every document I have read on the subject.
To me if these two issues are not answered thoroughly then nothing in the debate is even worth discussing.
One: How can it be that the planet has been warming on average since the last ice age some 20,000 years ago and that is nearly a post script in the discussion.
The experts speak of ocean level changes of 1/2 inch being critical over the next 100 years when in fact the sea level has changed by hundreds of feet in 20,000 years of on average constant warming with intermittent cooling. Nearly all of that warming taking place while human kind as a species held on by a shoestring to existence on the planet.
Only in the last 200 years has significant progress been made in the real quality of life and then most of that taking place in the last 50 years. Human kind had nothing to do with 99% of the time frame in that geologic snap shot and that is all but ignored.
Two: There is NO definitive study that correlates atmospheric carbon dioxide to climate change over millennia much less anthropogenic CO2. The fact that atmospheric CO2 has increased in the last 100 years and simultaneously the planet has warmed does not correlate the two issues.
My hair has grayed in that time period so I suppose I could conclude that anthropogenic CO2 increases caused that as well and thereby begin litigation against GM for my gray hair. Ohhh wait someone in California has as much as done such a stupid thing already to bring litigation against all of the US auto makers.Someone needs to apply real science principles to scientific exploration.
The scientific community needs to examine my queries (I cannot be the only one with such questions) and with peer review call me a nut. I anxiously await being proved wrong with good science.
Craig Nelson
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Iraq below the Fold - Good News
Here is some good news about Iraq and the efforts of the United States is what made it happen -
As usual, the media will not print this as it doesn't fit their agenda of hate for this country - why exactly is that? America is the last great hope for freedom in the world - when it's gone there will be no where to go, even for the media elites.
How can these people live here and hate this country that gives them everything?
Please explain this to me!
Do you know? I didn't know! How could we?
Did you know that 47 countries' have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?
Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?
Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?
Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?
Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?
Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.
Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?
Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion? Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?
Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks? Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.
Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?
Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?
Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?
Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004? Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?
OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW! WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US!
Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades.
Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves two purposes: It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United States thus minimizing consequent support, and it is intended to discourage American citizens. ----
Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.
As usual, the media will not print this as it doesn't fit their agenda of hate for this country - why exactly is that? America is the last great hope for freedom in the world - when it's gone there will be no where to go, even for the media elites.
How can these people live here and hate this country that gives them everything?
Please explain this to me!
Do you know? I didn't know! How could we?
Did you know that 47 countries' have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?
Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?
Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?
Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?
Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?
Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.
Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?
Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion? Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?
Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks? Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.
Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?
Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?
Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?
Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004? Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?
OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW! WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US!
Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades.
Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves two purposes: It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United States thus minimizing consequent support, and it is intended to discourage American citizens. ----
Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Life at the Bare Minimum
I think that life came be boiled down to two things that control most of what we consider to be relevant.
Given that this is the season for extravagance and excess, the two factors can be found in every facet of most of our lives.
The two factors are - COMFORT and SIZE - think about it for a few minutes and I believe you will agree this covers life as we know it.
Given that this is the season for extravagance and excess, the two factors can be found in every facet of most of our lives.
The two factors are - COMFORT and SIZE - think about it for a few minutes and I believe you will agree this covers life as we know it.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Medicare D is a Success - Good News
Here is something, part of an article written by Michael Barone, that most people will find interesting as we all will be depending on Medicare D in the near future. It is doing much better than expected and has an 80% approval rating from seniors.
The Democrats don't like this program as it is showing to be a success, and what's worse, it was a Bush program - Yikes! The liberals want a larger government hand in this as they think the average senior is too stupid to be able to figure out what is the best plan for them selves.
Another problem is the liberals want to pharmaceutical companies to sell the drugs for nothing - the Democrats think the companies are ripping off the public just like Walmart and any other company that is a success. Liberals hate success - it makes them look bad. Capitalism and the free markets don't work. Their usefulness is at an end - more government,socialism, will solve all problems.
What the real plan of the Democrats is to have more control of our lives. Bigger government for everyone and everything.
Medicare Part D (excerpt)
Sunday's Washington Post had an excellent front-page story on Medicare Part D, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Part D, which took effect at the beginning of this year, seems to have been a success. Some 22.5 million seniors have enrolled, and the cost–$26 billion–has turned out to be lower than projected. And "Medicare has received new bids indicating that its average per-person subsidy could drop by 15 percent in 2007, to $79.90 a month." Polls indicate that about 80 percent of enrollees are satisfied with the program.
Democrats have been proposing, as one of their first acts in the majority, to repeal the provision that prevents
Medicare from negotiating directly with drug companies on prescription prices. They want direct negotiations, as in the Veterans Affairs program. VA drug prices are in fact lower, but the VA formularies include many fewer drugs and thus less choice for doctors and patients.
The problem is that repealing the prohibition on direct negotiations can't force the Bush administration into direct negotiations. Under Part D, seniors can choose from insurance policies offering a variety of options; the insurers negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies or with prescription benefit managers who operate as middlemen.
It was an article of faith with Democratic politicians and political consultants that seniors would be dissatisfied with Part D. They would find the array of choices too complicated and hard to figure out. They would be angry at the "doughnut hole"–the fact that out-of-pocket drug costs from $2,250 to $3,600 are not covered. But it turns out that seniors, even if not as Internet-savvy as the rest of the population, were able to deal with the array of choices and were able to find plans they liked. There are even insurance policies available that cover the doughnut hole.
Choice and competition turn out to work better, and more inexpensively, than centralized command and control. Don't take my word for it; the Post quotes a leading Democratic policy analyst:
Urban Institute President Robert D. Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, called that a remarkable record for a new federal program.
Initially, he said, people were worried no private plans would participate.
"Then too many plans came forward," Reischauer said. "Then people said it's going to cost a fortune. And the price came in lower than anybody thought. Then people like me said they're low-balling the prices the first year and they'll jack up the rates down the line. And, lo and behold, the prices fell again. And the reaction was, 'We've got to have the government negotiate lower prices.' At some point you have to ask: What are we looking for here?" - - - -
The Democrats don't like this program as it is showing to be a success, and what's worse, it was a Bush program - Yikes! The liberals want a larger government hand in this as they think the average senior is too stupid to be able to figure out what is the best plan for them selves.
Another problem is the liberals want to pharmaceutical companies to sell the drugs for nothing - the Democrats think the companies are ripping off the public just like Walmart and any other company that is a success. Liberals hate success - it makes them look bad. Capitalism and the free markets don't work. Their usefulness is at an end - more government,socialism, will solve all problems.
What the real plan of the Democrats is to have more control of our lives. Bigger government for everyone and everything.
Medicare Part D (excerpt)
Sunday's Washington Post had an excellent front-page story on Medicare Part D, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Part D, which took effect at the beginning of this year, seems to have been a success. Some 22.5 million seniors have enrolled, and the cost–$26 billion–has turned out to be lower than projected. And "Medicare has received new bids indicating that its average per-person subsidy could drop by 15 percent in 2007, to $79.90 a month." Polls indicate that about 80 percent of enrollees are satisfied with the program.
Democrats have been proposing, as one of their first acts in the majority, to repeal the provision that prevents
Medicare from negotiating directly with drug companies on prescription prices. They want direct negotiations, as in the Veterans Affairs program. VA drug prices are in fact lower, but the VA formularies include many fewer drugs and thus less choice for doctors and patients.
The problem is that repealing the prohibition on direct negotiations can't force the Bush administration into direct negotiations. Under Part D, seniors can choose from insurance policies offering a variety of options; the insurers negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies or with prescription benefit managers who operate as middlemen.
It was an article of faith with Democratic politicians and political consultants that seniors would be dissatisfied with Part D. They would find the array of choices too complicated and hard to figure out. They would be angry at the "doughnut hole"–the fact that out-of-pocket drug costs from $2,250 to $3,600 are not covered. But it turns out that seniors, even if not as Internet-savvy as the rest of the population, were able to deal with the array of choices and were able to find plans they liked. There are even insurance policies available that cover the doughnut hole.
Choice and competition turn out to work better, and more inexpensively, than centralized command and control. Don't take my word for it; the Post quotes a leading Democratic policy analyst:
Urban Institute President Robert D. Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, called that a remarkable record for a new federal program.
Initially, he said, people were worried no private plans would participate.
"Then too many plans came forward," Reischauer said. "Then people said it's going to cost a fortune. And the price came in lower than anybody thought. Then people like me said they're low-balling the prices the first year and they'll jack up the rates down the line. And, lo and behold, the prices fell again. And the reaction was, 'We've got to have the government negotiate lower prices.' At some point you have to ask: What are we looking for here?" - - - -
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Hugo Chavez - Darling of the Democrats
I sure hope that the people of Venezuela have the smarts to bury that Marxist dictator Chavez. He is the darling of the America left and all of the liberal Democrats.
Democrats want to open up Cuba so we can appreciate all of the great advances that Castro has made in the last 47 years. Jimmy Carter lied about the first election of Chavez when he was asked to monitor the election. He knew the election was rigged but he proclaimed it honest. Jimmy loves communists and dictators. He also had a hand in the recount. Now he is at it again. God help us.
I think I have mentioned this on other occasions, like all the time - but if Jimmy and the other leftists liberal shout their ideology from the roof tops, far be it from me to hide their words under a bushel. They are who they are - why pretend we don't know?
Will Venezuela boot Chavez today?
A.M. Mora y Leon
Venezuelans go to the polls today, to choose whether to give Hugo Chavez a third term, or elect his challenger, the democratic non-communist Zulia state governor, Manuel Rosales. No one knows how this will turn out.
All indicators that might signal the outcome are contradictory. Opinion polls vary widely, with Chavista polls showing Chavez with a 30-point lead, and opposition polls showing Rosales about 5% to 10% ahead, in growing momentum. In addition, huge demonstrations of Rosales supporters through Caracas show the commitment of the Chavez opposition, something the Chavistas, with vastly more resources, have been unable to match in numbers.
But even that is hard to draw a judgment on. One of the most curious events embodying this contradiction was the strong stock market rally in Caracas Friday. Market sources told Bloomberg the rally happened because investors believed Chavez was winning. My sources in Caracas said it was because investors believed Rosales was winning.
All of these things show that no one knows what will happen on Sunday. Some projections of what might happen, based on varying factors, can be read at Publius, at Venezuela Today and at the BBO investment bank weekly report. But no one knows for sure.
The only thing left to do is just watch, particularly because Jimmy Carter's Carter Center is down there in Caracas to flatter the dictator. That raises the imperative to watch hard for signs of fraud, because the Carterites won't catch them.
That's what Venezuela's bloggers are doing, and three of them are in the forefront of the news, reporting minute by minute the many developments that will shape events of this election. Be sure to watch the live blogging of Miguel Octavio at Devil's Excrement, Daniel Duquenal at Venezuela News & Views, and Aleksander Boyd at VCrisis for the latest developments as this election progresses. To delve even deeper, check out two blog aggregators. Venezuela Today, for a Drudge-Report-like presentation of many blogs, and an interesting new blog aggregator called To2Blog Venezuela, which is working like an RSS feed of all blogs covering Venezuela.
So much is at stake in this Venezuelan election - not just for the fate of the Americas region in general, but for the U.S., too, given the kind of mischief Chavez may direct at the U.S. if he wins, fairly or not. His alliance with Iran and its nuclear programs, as well as his weapons purchases from Putin's Russia, all point to potential trouble ahead for the U.S. on a Chavez victory. If he is ousted, none of those will be a problem, and we can instead fully focus on winning free trade pacts for the region instead of worrying about what Ahmadinejad is setting up in our own hemisphere.
Posted at 06:00 AM Email Permalink
Democrats want to open up Cuba so we can appreciate all of the great advances that Castro has made in the last 47 years. Jimmy Carter lied about the first election of Chavez when he was asked to monitor the election. He knew the election was rigged but he proclaimed it honest. Jimmy loves communists and dictators. He also had a hand in the recount. Now he is at it again. God help us.
I think I have mentioned this on other occasions, like all the time - but if Jimmy and the other leftists liberal shout their ideology from the roof tops, far be it from me to hide their words under a bushel. They are who they are - why pretend we don't know?
Will Venezuela boot Chavez today?
A.M. Mora y Leon
Venezuelans go to the polls today, to choose whether to give Hugo Chavez a third term, or elect his challenger, the democratic non-communist Zulia state governor, Manuel Rosales. No one knows how this will turn out.
All indicators that might signal the outcome are contradictory. Opinion polls vary widely, with Chavista polls showing Chavez with a 30-point lead, and opposition polls showing Rosales about 5% to 10% ahead, in growing momentum. In addition, huge demonstrations of Rosales supporters through Caracas show the commitment of the Chavez opposition, something the Chavistas, with vastly more resources, have been unable to match in numbers.
But even that is hard to draw a judgment on. One of the most curious events embodying this contradiction was the strong stock market rally in Caracas Friday. Market sources told Bloomberg the rally happened because investors believed Chavez was winning. My sources in Caracas said it was because investors believed Rosales was winning.
All of these things show that no one knows what will happen on Sunday. Some projections of what might happen, based on varying factors, can be read at Publius, at Venezuela Today and at the BBO investment bank weekly report. But no one knows for sure.
The only thing left to do is just watch, particularly because Jimmy Carter's Carter Center is down there in Caracas to flatter the dictator. That raises the imperative to watch hard for signs of fraud, because the Carterites won't catch them.
That's what Venezuela's bloggers are doing, and three of them are in the forefront of the news, reporting minute by minute the many developments that will shape events of this election. Be sure to watch the live blogging of Miguel Octavio at Devil's Excrement, Daniel Duquenal at Venezuela News & Views, and Aleksander Boyd at VCrisis for the latest developments as this election progresses. To delve even deeper, check out two blog aggregators. Venezuela Today, for a Drudge-Report-like presentation of many blogs, and an interesting new blog aggregator called To2Blog Venezuela, which is working like an RSS feed of all blogs covering Venezuela.
So much is at stake in this Venezuelan election - not just for the fate of the Americas region in general, but for the U.S., too, given the kind of mischief Chavez may direct at the U.S. if he wins, fairly or not. His alliance with Iran and its nuclear programs, as well as his weapons purchases from Putin's Russia, all point to potential trouble ahead for the U.S. on a Chavez victory. If he is ousted, none of those will be a problem, and we can instead fully focus on winning free trade pacts for the region instead of worrying about what Ahmadinejad is setting up in our own hemisphere.
Posted at 06:00 AM Email Permalink
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Barney Came and Stayed
There is a neat story that goes with this pigeon
. It all started when my wife and a friend of hers
from Tennessee, decided to meet here in Wisconsin and
train their Golden Retrievers to retrieve birds to hand. The lady from Tennessee said she had a couple of pigeons that she will bring for the dogs to retrieve.
This next part sounds a little cruel but as things go in this sport of field training, this particular story doesn't have a bad ending, well almost.
When training field dogs, it is a must to have live birds and ones that will actively participate by flapping their wings as they are thrown in the air. But to keep the birds over a period of time for training, it is necessary to pull out their flight feather and then tie their legs together so they when they are thrown in the air, wildly flapping their wings, not actually flying, they won't fly away and they can't run when the hit the ground.
The whole idea is to train puppies before they get any bad habits like eating the birds or crushing them. Puppies usually have no idea that this is or could be a meal for them. Their instincts tell them that when they see this bird flying through the air they want to go and get. The trick then is to train them to bring it back to the handler without destroying it, that is killing it in this case. In an actual hunting situation, the bird is already dead, you then want the dog to bring it back without stopping to eat it or crushing it with their jaws.
So, now, after many weeks of training and many hand thrown flights of these birds, and dogs retrieving them, only one survived out of two that made the trip. One got crunched by an adult dog that the handler said he had a soft mouth. Right!
Anyway, when the training was done and the bird was left to grow his flight feather back, we thought it would be a nice reward for him, having survived the riggers training, to be released so he could go his own way.
When the time came to open the cage and release him for the last time so he could fly away forever, he flew around the farm for a few minutes then came back and landed on the roof of the house. He has been here ever since.
Is he stupid or just doesn't care to travel to the next farm where there are other pigeons is anybodies guess. He is welcome to stay as long as he wants even though he poops on our deck every morning. We think maybe he is here for a reason. Maybe not to. Life is strange
. It all started when my wife and a friend of hersfrom Tennessee, decided to meet here in Wisconsin and
train their Golden Retrievers to retrieve birds to hand. The lady from Tennessee said she had a couple of pigeons that she will bring for the dogs to retrieve.
This next part sounds a little cruel but as things go in this sport of field training, this particular story doesn't have a bad ending, well almost.
When training field dogs, it is a must to have live birds and ones that will actively participate by flapping their wings as they are thrown in the air. But to keep the birds over a period of time for training, it is necessary to pull out their flight feather and then tie their legs together so they when they are thrown in the air, wildly flapping their wings, not actually flying, they won't fly away and they can't run when the hit the ground.
The whole idea is to train puppies before they get any bad habits like eating the birds or crushing them. Puppies usually have no idea that this is or could be a meal for them. Their instincts tell them that when they see this bird flying through the air they want to go and get. The trick then is to train them to bring it back to the handler without destroying it, that is killing it in this case. In an actual hunting situation, the bird is already dead, you then want the dog to bring it back without stopping to eat it or crushing it with their jaws.
So, now, after many weeks of training and many hand thrown flights of these birds, and dogs retrieving them, only one survived out of two that made the trip. One got crunched by an adult dog that the handler said he had a soft mouth. Right!
Anyway, when the training was done and the bird was left to grow his flight feather back, we thought it would be a nice reward for him, having survived the riggers training, to be released so he could go his own way.
When the time came to open the cage and release him for the last time so he could fly away forever, he flew around the farm for a few minutes then came back and landed on the roof of the house. He has been here ever since.
Is he stupid or just doesn't care to travel to the next farm where there are other pigeons is anybodies guess. He is welcome to stay as long as he wants even though he poops on our deck every morning. We think maybe he is here for a reason. Maybe not to. Life is strange
Ford Motor Company in a Free Market
This note from MoneyNews on Ford's restructuring plan - it seems that the general consensus among the experts is that Ford has no chance, but just look what they are doing to stay afloat, they are risking everything: it's all or nothing. Unlike Chrysler that went to the Federal government for a bail-out, Ford will go for broke on it's own. This company has guts and a spine.
If they lose a large market share, so what. If they can get rid of most of the union members or the union all together, all the better. They will be a in better shape than most of the other US auto makers in this country.
What is happening to Ford is a natural thing. It's the free market at work. I would hate to see Ford go down the tubes as I like Ford cars and trucks, but if the market is not there for Ford, than it's good bye.
It will be the free market at it's best.
Ford on Collision Course With Bankruptcy?
Ford Motor Company yesterday announced plans to procure $18 billion to finance its "Way Forward" turnaround plan, and details of the financing deal reveal that Ford is putting up nearly all of its domestic assets as collateral. Ford is risking its U plants, office buildings, patents, trademarks, and stakes in its credit division, Ford Credit, and Volvo.
That’s the first time in the company’s 103-year history that it was forced to mortgage parts of its business to obtain financing. Ford said in a statement that it needed the funding "to address near- and medium-term negative operating-related cash flow, to fund its restructuring, and to provide added liquidity to protect against a recession or other unanticipated events." The company arranged the financing with investment banks J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs.
Under the terms, Ford is replacing an existing $6.3 billion unsecured line of credit with a new $8 billion secured, five-year revolving line of credit, and it’s taking out an additional secured loan for $7 billion. There’s also another $3 billion unsecured loan.
Secured debt means that the issuers can seize assets if Ford defaults. That puts Ford bondholders and stockholders, which are unsecured, at a considerable disadvantage should the company file for bankruptcy. That's because in the food chain of bankruptcy, the secured loans get paid first; the unsecured bondholders rank second; and the stockholders, third.
For example, Fitch Ratings tells The Chicago Tribune that unsecured bondholders can expect to recover just 34 percent of their investment if Ford defaults, compared to 68 percent before the new financing deal was made. Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s both lowered Ford’s unsecured debt ratings on Monday. "If management fails to make the ailing company profitable, Ford may be left with little choice but to find a buyer or merger partner or file for bankruptcy protection," explains The New York Times.
The good news is that experts say Ford’s new cash flow could buy it at least two years before being forced into bankruptcy, according to reports. "Ford has bought itself some additional time and money," Shelley Lombard of the bond-analysis firm Gimme Credit tells the Tribune, "but it still has to execute." "Completing this financing would considerably strengthen Ford's ability to fund the large cash requirements it will face through 2008," noted Moody's Investors Service.
And while Ford "still faces daunting competitive and market challenges, this plan would give it some breathing room over the next two years," said Moody’s. But Ford lost about $7 billion in the first nine months of this year. At this pace, the company will have less than two years to stage its turnaround. In addition, the company says it doesn’t expect to turn a profit until 2009 at the earliest, reports the Times. Ford should use this opportunity to get its turnaround plan in gear.
If they lose a large market share, so what. If they can get rid of most of the union members or the union all together, all the better. They will be a in better shape than most of the other US auto makers in this country.
What is happening to Ford is a natural thing. It's the free market at work. I would hate to see Ford go down the tubes as I like Ford cars and trucks, but if the market is not there for Ford, than it's good bye.
It will be the free market at it's best.
Ford on Collision Course With Bankruptcy?
Ford Motor Company yesterday announced plans to procure $18 billion to finance its "Way Forward" turnaround plan, and details of the financing deal reveal that Ford is putting up nearly all of its domestic assets as collateral. Ford is risking its U plants, office buildings, patents, trademarks, and stakes in its credit division, Ford Credit, and Volvo.
That’s the first time in the company’s 103-year history that it was forced to mortgage parts of its business to obtain financing. Ford said in a statement that it needed the funding "to address near- and medium-term negative operating-related cash flow, to fund its restructuring, and to provide added liquidity to protect against a recession or other unanticipated events." The company arranged the financing with investment banks J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs.
Under the terms, Ford is replacing an existing $6.3 billion unsecured line of credit with a new $8 billion secured, five-year revolving line of credit, and it’s taking out an additional secured loan for $7 billion. There’s also another $3 billion unsecured loan.
Secured debt means that the issuers can seize assets if Ford defaults. That puts Ford bondholders and stockholders, which are unsecured, at a considerable disadvantage should the company file for bankruptcy. That's because in the food chain of bankruptcy, the secured loans get paid first; the unsecured bondholders rank second; and the stockholders, third.
For example, Fitch Ratings tells The Chicago Tribune that unsecured bondholders can expect to recover just 34 percent of their investment if Ford defaults, compared to 68 percent before the new financing deal was made. Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s both lowered Ford’s unsecured debt ratings on Monday. "If management fails to make the ailing company profitable, Ford may be left with little choice but to find a buyer or merger partner or file for bankruptcy protection," explains The New York Times.
The good news is that experts say Ford’s new cash flow could buy it at least two years before being forced into bankruptcy, according to reports. "Ford has bought itself some additional time and money," Shelley Lombard of the bond-analysis firm Gimme Credit tells the Tribune, "but it still has to execute." "Completing this financing would considerably strengthen Ford's ability to fund the large cash requirements it will face through 2008," noted Moody's Investors Service.
And while Ford "still faces daunting competitive and market challenges, this plan would give it some breathing room over the next two years," said Moody’s. But Ford lost about $7 billion in the first nine months of this year. At this pace, the company will have less than two years to stage its turnaround. In addition, the company says it doesn’t expect to turn a profit until 2009 at the earliest, reports the Times. Ford should use this opportunity to get its turnaround plan in gear.
Colin Powell Joins liberal losers
It certaintly looks like Powell is just another voice crying in the wilderness. He has joined the ranks of liberals that demanding America become a second rate nation among other second rates.
How foolish to think that America has the right to self determination.
Powell: U.S. Should Talk to Iran, Not Attack
Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell does not believe the United States will attack Iran and says Washington should speak to Tehran and Syria.
Powell, who said Iraq was in a civil war on Wednesday, was speaking to the Leaders in London Business Forum on Thursday.
Answering a question from Reuters, Powell said: "Iran is a regional power and it will have to be dealt with. We should find ways to speak to them and also speak to the Syrians."
Both Iran and Syria have been accused by the U.S. government of sponsoring terrorism and fomenting violence in Iraq. Iran has also been accused of trying to build nuclear weapons. Both countries deny the accusations.
"I hope that over time Iran will play a responsible part in the region," he said. "As you know Iran is doing very well now, they have no particular pressure on their nuclear program."
He said he could not speak for the administration of President Bush but he could not see any circumstances which would cause a military conflict between the United States and Iran.
"We all agree that it's not a good thing for Iran to develop their nuclear program if it could develop nuclear weapons, but the United States is not going to attack Iran," he said.
Powell said the Bush administration would have to work with the United Nations and Russia to keep Iran from evolving its nuclear program beyond power generation.
The Iraq Study Group, a commission of five U.S. Democrats and Republicans, is set to release a report on December 6 which is expected to call for regional talks as the way forward in Iraq, including involvement by Syria and Iran.
(c) 2006 Reuters. All rights reserved.
How foolish to think that America has the right to self determination.
Powell: U.S. Should Talk to Iran, Not Attack
Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell does not believe the United States will attack Iran and says Washington should speak to Tehran and Syria.
Powell, who said Iraq was in a civil war on Wednesday, was speaking to the Leaders in London Business Forum on Thursday.
Answering a question from Reuters, Powell said: "Iran is a regional power and it will have to be dealt with. We should find ways to speak to them and also speak to the Syrians."
Both Iran and Syria have been accused by the U.S. government of sponsoring terrorism and fomenting violence in Iraq. Iran has also been accused of trying to build nuclear weapons. Both countries deny the accusations.
"I hope that over time Iran will play a responsible part in the region," he said. "As you know Iran is doing very well now, they have no particular pressure on their nuclear program."
He said he could not speak for the administration of President Bush but he could not see any circumstances which would cause a military conflict between the United States and Iran.
"We all agree that it's not a good thing for Iran to develop their nuclear program if it could develop nuclear weapons, but the United States is not going to attack Iran," he said.
Powell said the Bush administration would have to work with the United Nations and Russia to keep Iran from evolving its nuclear program beyond power generation.
The Iraq Study Group, a commission of five U.S. Democrats and Republicans, is set to release a report on December 6 which is expected to call for regional talks as the way forward in Iraq, including involvement by Syria and Iran.
(c) 2006 Reuters. All rights reserved.
Israeli Leader Confident on A Iranian War
This is a quick note from Newsmax on how the Israeli government sees the conflict to come with Iran. It is interesting to note how the press in this country is portraying the conflict in the east as unwinable and we must run for cover.
I mentioned yesterday Colin Powell's speech to the Arabs about how we need to talk instead of fight to protect ourselves from annihilation. Look to the next article for the transcript. The contrast is unreal.
Netanyahu: Iran Preparing Another Holocaust
Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu says Iran's nuclear goals, and the fanaticism of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, pose a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire Western world.
The former prime minister compared the growing threat of Iran to the rise of Nazism before World War II, and he wonders why no one seems to be taking the threat seriously.
"It's 1938, and Iran is Germany, Netanyahu said, "and Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs. Haaretz newspaper reports that Netanyahu repeated that line as a chorus during an address Monday to the United Jewish Communities General Assembly.
Netanyahu's address came in response to repeated threats by Ahmadinejad to "eliminate the Zionist regime and "remove Israel from the face of the earth.
Netanyahu says the threat cannot be taken lightly and that Ahmadinejad is "preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state through the force of nuclear weapons.
"Believe him and stop him, Netanyahu said of Ahmadinejad. "This is what we must do. Everything else pales before this.
Iran's nuclear goal, says Netanyahu, "goes way beyond the destruction of Israel it is direct to achieve world-wide range. It's a global program in the service of a mad ideology.
Israel should be joined by the United States in assuring that Iran does not gain the capability to create nuclear weapons, and he supports the Bush administration's goal to isolate the Iranian threat.
" . . . Israel would certainly be the first stop on Iran's tour of destruction, but at the planned production rate of 25 nuclear bombs a year . . . [the arsenal] will be directed against the big Satan, the U.S., and the moderate Satan, Europe, Netanyahu said.
Iran can be stopped, Netanyahu added, but good nations must take action against evil ones to ensure that Jews in Israel and the West will not be subject to another Holocaust.
"No one will defend the Jews if the Jews do not defend themselves, he said. "Iran's nuclear ambitions have to be stopped.
I mentioned yesterday Colin Powell's speech to the Arabs about how we need to talk instead of fight to protect ourselves from annihilation. Look to the next article for the transcript. The contrast is unreal.
Netanyahu: Iran Preparing Another Holocaust
Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu says Iran's nuclear goals, and the fanaticism of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, pose a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire Western world.
The former prime minister compared the growing threat of Iran to the rise of Nazism before World War II, and he wonders why no one seems to be taking the threat seriously.
"It's 1938, and Iran is Germany, Netanyahu said, "and Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs. Haaretz newspaper reports that Netanyahu repeated that line as a chorus during an address Monday to the United Jewish Communities General Assembly.
Netanyahu's address came in response to repeated threats by Ahmadinejad to "eliminate the Zionist regime and "remove Israel from the face of the earth.
Netanyahu says the threat cannot be taken lightly and that Ahmadinejad is "preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state through the force of nuclear weapons.
"Believe him and stop him, Netanyahu said of Ahmadinejad. "This is what we must do. Everything else pales before this.
Iran's nuclear goal, says Netanyahu, "goes way beyond the destruction of Israel it is direct to achieve world-wide range. It's a global program in the service of a mad ideology.
Israel should be joined by the United States in assuring that Iran does not gain the capability to create nuclear weapons, and he supports the Bush administration's goal to isolate the Iranian threat.
" . . . Israel would certainly be the first stop on Iran's tour of destruction, but at the planned production rate of 25 nuclear bombs a year . . . [the arsenal] will be directed against the big Satan, the U.S., and the moderate Satan, Europe, Netanyahu said.
Iran can be stopped, Netanyahu added, but good nations must take action against evil ones to ensure that Jews in Israel and the West will not be subject to another Holocaust.
"No one will defend the Jews if the Jews do not defend themselves, he said. "Iran's nuclear ambitions have to be stopped.
Friday, December 01, 2006
The UN Supports Terror
The United Nations is such a joke and our new congress feels it is absolutely necessary for world peace. Where do these people come from?
The UN and the Credibility of Tom Lantos
Eye on the UN
On Tuesday, November 21, 2006 the New York Times called the "reformed" UN Human Rights Council "a discredit to the United Nations" and commented "...the Human Rights Council [was] born earlier this year of a weak-kneed compromise from which the United States stood honorably apart.
"By contrast, on April 6, 2006 Congressman Tom Lantos, soon to become the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, "expressed outrage at the Bush Administration decision...not [to] seek a seat on the United Nations' new Human Rights Council" because, he claimed, "the new Human Rights Council...is a clear improvement over the existing commission...".
Now Congressman Lantos is faced with the following incontrovertible record - predicted with precision by Ambassador John Bolton. Thirty percent of all the UN Human Rights Commission resolutions adopted over a forty-year period and critical of a specific states' human rights record were directed at Israel alone.
In comparison, in five sessions since it first met in June of this year, the Council has directed one hundred percent of its human rights resolutions condemning a specific state towards Israel.Will Chairman Lantos continue to blame America for UN-driven anti-Zionism and anti-semitism and refuse to recognize hate when it stares him in the face? Or will he encourage the necessary steps to distance the United States from the UN's lead human rights agency now so obviously foreign to everything we (and Congressman Lantos) hold dear?
(11/22/2006)
The UN and the Credibility of Tom Lantos
Eye on the UN
On Tuesday, November 21, 2006 the New York Times called the "reformed" UN Human Rights Council "a discredit to the United Nations" and commented "...the Human Rights Council [was] born earlier this year of a weak-kneed compromise from which the United States stood honorably apart.
"By contrast, on April 6, 2006 Congressman Tom Lantos, soon to become the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, "expressed outrage at the Bush Administration decision...not [to] seek a seat on the United Nations' new Human Rights Council" because, he claimed, "the new Human Rights Council...is a clear improvement over the existing commission...".
Now Congressman Lantos is faced with the following incontrovertible record - predicted with precision by Ambassador John Bolton. Thirty percent of all the UN Human Rights Commission resolutions adopted over a forty-year period and critical of a specific states' human rights record were directed at Israel alone.
In comparison, in five sessions since it first met in June of this year, the Council has directed one hundred percent of its human rights resolutions condemning a specific state towards Israel.Will Chairman Lantos continue to blame America for UN-driven anti-Zionism and anti-semitism and refuse to recognize hate when it stares him in the face? Or will he encourage the necessary steps to distance the United States from the UN's lead human rights agency now so obviously foreign to everything we (and Congressman Lantos) hold dear?
(11/22/2006)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
