I just don't know how so many people can deny reality but willing and completely accepting the premise that man is causing a 1500 year, .07 degree rinse in surface temperature. Even on the face of hard science that the actual temperature this year is showing a decrease from last year.
How is this possible? How can so many people and entire governments be taken in by such insanity? Are we just sheep following the insane piper, Al Gore?
A Heritage Foundation Report
“Seven Western states are joining four Canadian provinces to propose a plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions through use of a ‘cap and trade’ system,” the AP reports. In a time of economic sluggishness, imposing a plan premised on limiting economic activity may not improve matters.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Hydrogen Research Promising for Future Fuel
This new research looks very promising. The article is a little technical but you can get the gist of it without having to understand the science behind the development.
Keep the faith - America is on the field of battle!
New Catalyst Marks Major Step in the March Toward Hydrogen Fuel
/Science/ 1 August 2008:
*Robert F. Service*
Climate change concerns, high gas prices, and a good deal of international friction would fade if scientists could learn a trick every houseplant knows: how to absorb sunlight and store its energy in chemical bonds.
What's needed are catalysts capable of taking electricity and using it to split water to generate hydrogen gas, a clean fuel. Unfortunately, the catalysts discovered so far work under harsh chemical conditions, and the best ones are made from platinum, a rare and expensive metal. No more.
This week, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge led by chemist Daniel Nocera report online in /Science/ a new water-splitting catalyst that works under environmentally friendly conditions. More important, it's made from cobalt and phosphorus, fairly cheap and abundant elements. The new catalyst needs improvements before it can solve the world's energy problems, but several outside researchers say it's a crucial development.
"This is a great result," says John Turner, an electrochemist and water-splitting expert at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. Thomas Moore, a chemist at Arizona State University in Tempe, goes further. "It's a big-to-giant step" in the direction of powering industrial societies with renewable fuels, he says. "I'd say it's a breakthrough."
Meanwhile, other groups report related advances--a cheap plastic fuel cell catalyst that converts hydrogen to electricity, and a solid oxide fuel cell catalyst that operates at lower temperatures--that affect another vital component of any future solar hydrogen system.
English chemists first used electricity to split water more than 200 years ago. The reaction requires two separate catalytic steps. The first, the positively charged electrode, or anode, swipes electrons from hydrogen atoms in water molecules. The result is that protons (hydrogen atoms minus their electrons) break away from their oxygen atoms. The anode catalyst then grabs two oxygen atoms and welds them together to make O_2 . Meanwhile, the free protons drift through the solution to the negatively charged electrode, or cathode, where they hook up with electrons to make molecular hydrogen (H_2 ). Water power.* Cobalt-phosphorus catalyst opens the way to using sunlight to extract hydrogen from water.
CREDIT: JOSEPH SOHM/VISIONS OF AMERICA/CORBIS
The hard part is finding catalysts that can orchestrate this dance of electrons and protons. The anode, which links oxygens together, has been a particularly difficult challenge. Platinum works but is too expensive and rare to be viable on an industrial scale. "If we are going to use solar energy in a direct conversion process, we need to cover large areas," Turner says. "That makes a low-cost catalyst a must." Other metals and metal oxides can do the job but not at a neutral pH--another key to keeping costs down.
In 2004, Nocera's team reported in the /Journal of the American Chemical Society/ a cobalt-based catalyst that did the reverse reaction, catalyzing the production of water from O_2 , protons, and electrons. "That told us cobalt could manage multielectron and proton-coupled reactions," Nocera says.
Unfortunately, cobalt is useless as a standalone water-splitting anode because it dissolves in water. Nocera and his Ph.D. student Matthew Kanan knew they couldn't get over this hurdle. So they went around it instead. For their anode, they started with a stable electrode material known as indium tin oxide (ITO).
They then placed their anode in a beaker of water, which they spiked with cobalt (Co^2+ ) and potassium phosphate. When they flipped on the current, this created a positive charge in the ITO. Kanan and Nocera believe this initially pulls electrons from the Co^2+ , turning it first to Co^3+ , which pairs up with negatively charged phosphate ions and precipitates out of solution, forming a film of rocklike cobalt phosphate atop the ITO. Another electron is yanked from the Co^3+ in the film to make Co^4+ , although the mechanism has not yet been nailed down.
The film forms the critical water-splitting catalyst. As it does so, it swipes electrons from hydrogen atoms in water and then grabs hold of lone oxygen atoms and welds them together. In the process, the Co^4+ returns to Co^2+ and again dissolves into the water, and the cycle is repeated.The catalyst isn't perfect. It still requires excess electricity to start the water-splitting reaction, energy that isn't recovered and stored in the fuel. And for now, the catalyst can accept only low levels of electrical current.
Nocera says he's hopeful that both problems can be solved, and because the catalysts are so easy to make, he expects progress will be swift. Further work is also needed to reduce the cost of cathodes and to link the electrodes to solar cells to provide clean electricity. A final big push will be to see if the catalyst or others like it can operate in seawater.
If so, future societies could use sunlight to generate hydrogen from seawater and then pipe it to large banks of fuel cells on shore that could convert it into electricity and fresh water, thereby using the sun and oceans to fill two of the world's greatest needs
Keep the faith - America is on the field of battle!
New Catalyst Marks Major Step in the March Toward Hydrogen Fuel
/Science/ 1 August 2008:
*Robert F. Service*
Climate change concerns, high gas prices, and a good deal of international friction would fade if scientists could learn a trick every houseplant knows: how to absorb sunlight and store its energy in chemical bonds.
What's needed are catalysts capable of taking electricity and using it to split water to generate hydrogen gas, a clean fuel. Unfortunately, the catalysts discovered so far work under harsh chemical conditions, and the best ones are made from platinum, a rare and expensive metal. No more.
This week, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge led by chemist Daniel Nocera report online in /Science/ a new water-splitting catalyst that works under environmentally friendly conditions. More important, it's made from cobalt and phosphorus, fairly cheap and abundant elements. The new catalyst needs improvements before it can solve the world's energy problems, but several outside researchers say it's a crucial development.
"This is a great result," says John Turner, an electrochemist and water-splitting expert at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. Thomas Moore, a chemist at Arizona State University in Tempe, goes further. "It's a big-to-giant step" in the direction of powering industrial societies with renewable fuels, he says. "I'd say it's a breakthrough."
Meanwhile, other groups report related advances--a cheap plastic fuel cell catalyst that converts hydrogen to electricity, and a solid oxide fuel cell catalyst that operates at lower temperatures--that affect another vital component of any future solar hydrogen system.
English chemists first used electricity to split water more than 200 years ago. The reaction requires two separate catalytic steps. The first, the positively charged electrode, or anode, swipes electrons from hydrogen atoms in water molecules. The result is that protons (hydrogen atoms minus their electrons) break away from their oxygen atoms. The anode catalyst then grabs two oxygen atoms and welds them together to make O_2 . Meanwhile, the free protons drift through the solution to the negatively charged electrode, or cathode, where they hook up with electrons to make molecular hydrogen (H_2 ). Water power.* Cobalt-phosphorus catalyst opens the way to using sunlight to extract hydrogen from water.
CREDIT: JOSEPH SOHM/VISIONS OF AMERICA/CORBIS
The hard part is finding catalysts that can orchestrate this dance of electrons and protons. The anode, which links oxygens together, has been a particularly difficult challenge. Platinum works but is too expensive and rare to be viable on an industrial scale. "If we are going to use solar energy in a direct conversion process, we need to cover large areas," Turner says. "That makes a low-cost catalyst a must." Other metals and metal oxides can do the job but not at a neutral pH--another key to keeping costs down.
In 2004, Nocera's team reported in the /Journal of the American Chemical Society/ a cobalt-based catalyst that did the reverse reaction, catalyzing the production of water from O_2 , protons, and electrons. "That told us cobalt could manage multielectron and proton-coupled reactions," Nocera says.
Unfortunately, cobalt is useless as a standalone water-splitting anode because it dissolves in water. Nocera and his Ph.D. student Matthew Kanan knew they couldn't get over this hurdle. So they went around it instead. For their anode, they started with a stable electrode material known as indium tin oxide (ITO).
They then placed their anode in a beaker of water, which they spiked with cobalt (Co^2+ ) and potassium phosphate. When they flipped on the current, this created a positive charge in the ITO. Kanan and Nocera believe this initially pulls electrons from the Co^2+ , turning it first to Co^3+ , which pairs up with negatively charged phosphate ions and precipitates out of solution, forming a film of rocklike cobalt phosphate atop the ITO. Another electron is yanked from the Co^3+ in the film to make Co^4+ , although the mechanism has not yet been nailed down.
The film forms the critical water-splitting catalyst. As it does so, it swipes electrons from hydrogen atoms in water and then grabs hold of lone oxygen atoms and welds them together. In the process, the Co^4+ returns to Co^2+ and again dissolves into the water, and the cycle is repeated.The catalyst isn't perfect. It still requires excess electricity to start the water-splitting reaction, energy that isn't recovered and stored in the fuel. And for now, the catalyst can accept only low levels of electrical current.
Nocera says he's hopeful that both problems can be solved, and because the catalysts are so easy to make, he expects progress will be swift. Further work is also needed to reduce the cost of cathodes and to link the electrodes to solar cells to provide clean electricity. A final big push will be to see if the catalyst or others like it can operate in seawater.
If so, future societies could use sunlight to generate hydrogen from seawater and then pipe it to large banks of fuel cells on shore that could convert it into electricity and fresh water, thereby using the sun and oceans to fill two of the world's greatest needs
Saturday, August 16, 2008
America Means Freedom for All - But Are We Committed to Freedom for All
What an outrage! America on the side lines again - what happened to our pride? Where is the men and women that will stand up and say " we won't tolerate this attack on one of our allies that is a free nation". But it seems that it is always easier to abandon our friends than to take the responsibility for our own words and philosophies. How did we get to this point?
I don't have the right words to express my disappointment and frustration in how my country is turning it's back on all of the basic fundamentals of freedom and Democracy. How our own government harbors Marxist socialists and pawns them off as senators and representatives of the people - upholders of our sacred constitution. Here again, are the people rising up to protest these monsters in our congress?
Witness the house of representatives refusing to vote on the energy bill - Democrats. socialists, Nancy Pelosi, want the country to disintegrate into kos to gain votes in the fall. Do they care that thousands of jobs that are being lost and savings accounts are running on empty? Hell no! Remember- it's all about gaining power - the people are only puppets to be manipulated.
I never thought we would come to this place in time where, we as Americans, didn't care who or what we stand for. We seem to lost our way.
Ralph Peters does a great job here, as always, pointing out our responsibilities to the country and the free world. We do have these responsibilities as the only real 'super power' in the world. It is imperative the we demonstrate to the world that we are still the best chance for freedom that exists for anyone that wants to be free.
Right now we are a disgrace and it's not all the governments fault. It really falls mostly on the us, the people that supposedly have the power to tell the government what to do. Apparently we just don't care enough or we are just to ignorant of past our history.
Keep the faith, we have to fight the good fight every day to make things happen for our country.
RUSSIA GOES ROGUE
By RALPH PETERS
August 12, 2008 --
IT'S impossible to overstate the importance of what's unfolding as we watch. Russia's invasion of Georgia - a calculated, unprovoked aggression - is a crisis that may have more important strategic implications than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
We're seeing the emergence of a rogue military power with a nuclear arsenal.
The response of our own government has been pathetic - and our media's uncritical acceptance of Moscow's version of events is infuriating.
LATEST NEWS: Russia Calls for Halt in Action
This is the "new" Russia announcing - in blood - that it won't tolerate freedom and self-determination along its borders. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is putting it bluntly: Today, Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine (and the Baltic states had better pay attention).
Georgia's affiliation with the European Union, its status as a would-be NATO member, its working democracy - none of it deterred Putin.
Nor does Putin's ambition stop with the former Soviet territories. His air force has been trying (unsuccessfully) to hit the new gas pipeline running from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean. The Kremlin is telling Europe: We not only have the power to turn off Siberian gas, we can turn off every tap in the region, any time we choose.
Let's be clear: For all that US commentators and diplomats are still chattering about Russia's "response" to Georgia's actions, the Kremlin spent months planning and preparing this operation. Any soldier above the grade of private can tell you that there's absolutely no way Moscow could've launched this huge ground, air and sea offensive in an instantaneous "response" to alleged Georgian actions.
As I pointed out Saturday, even to get one armored brigade over the Caucasus Mountains required extensive preparations. Since then, Russia has sent in the equivalent of almost two divisions - not only in South Ossetia, the scene of the original fighting, but also in separatist Abkhazia on the Black Sea coast.
The Russians also managed to arrange the instant appearance of a squadron of warships to blockade Georgia. And they launched hundreds of air strikes against preplanned targets.
Every one of these things required careful preparations. In the words of one US officer, "Just to line up the airlift sorties would've taken weeks."
Working through their mercenaries in South Ossetia, Russia staged brutal provocations against Georgia from late July onward. Last Thursday, Georgia's president finally had to act to defend his own people.
But when the mouse stirred, the cat pounced.
The Russians know that we know this was a setup. But Moscow's Big Lie propagandists still blame Georgia - even as Russian aircraft bomb Georgian homes and Russian troops seize the vital city of Gori in the country's heart.
And Russian troops also grabbed the Georgian city of Zugdidi to the west - invading from Abkhazia on a second axis.
Make no mistake: Moscow intends to dismember Georgia.
This is the most cynical military operation by a "European" power since Moscow invaded Afghanistan in 1979. (Sad to say, President Bush seems as bewildered now as President Jimmy Carter did then.)
This attack's worse, though. Georgia is an independent, functioning democracy tied to the European Union and striving to join NATO. It also has backed our Iraq efforts with 2,000 troops. (We're airlifting them back home.)
This invasion recalls Hitler's march into Czechoslovakia - to protect ethnic Germans, he claimed, just as Putin claims to be protecting Russian citizens - complete BS.
It also resembles Hitler's invasion of Poland - with the difference that, in September '39, European democracies drew the line. (To France's credit, its leaders abandoned their August vacations to call Putin out - only Sen. Barack Obama remains on the beach.)
Yet our media gave Putin the benefit of the doubt.
Not one major news outlet even bothers to take issue with Putin's wild claim that the Georgians were engaged in genocide.
I lack sufficiently powerful words to express my outrage over Russia's bloody cynicism in attacking a small, free people, or to castigate our media for their inane coverage - or to condemn our own government's shameful flight from responsibility.
Just as Moscow has reverted to its old habit of sending in tanks to snuff out freedom, Washington has defaulted to form by abandoning Georgia to the invasion - after encouraging Georgia to stand up to the Kremlin.
Reminds me of 1956, when we encouraged the Hungarians to defy Moscow - then abandoned them.
And of 1991, when we prodded Iraq's Shia to rise up against Saddam - then abandoned them.
We've called Georgia a "friend and ally." Well, honorable men and states stand by their friends and allies. We haven't.
Oh, we sure are giving those Russians a tongue-lashing. I'll bet Putin's just shaking as he faces the awesome verbal rage of Condi Rice. President Bush? He went to a basketball game.
The only decent thing we've done was to reveal, at the UN, that the Russians tried to cut a deal with us to remove Georgia's president.
Shame on us.
Ralph Peters' latest book, "Looking for Trouble," details his own adventures in Georgia.
I don't have the right words to express my disappointment and frustration in how my country is turning it's back on all of the basic fundamentals of freedom and Democracy. How our own government harbors Marxist socialists and pawns them off as senators and representatives of the people - upholders of our sacred constitution. Here again, are the people rising up to protest these monsters in our congress?
Witness the house of representatives refusing to vote on the energy bill - Democrats. socialists, Nancy Pelosi, want the country to disintegrate into kos to gain votes in the fall. Do they care that thousands of jobs that are being lost and savings accounts are running on empty? Hell no! Remember- it's all about gaining power - the people are only puppets to be manipulated.
I never thought we would come to this place in time where, we as Americans, didn't care who or what we stand for. We seem to lost our way.
Ralph Peters does a great job here, as always, pointing out our responsibilities to the country and the free world. We do have these responsibilities as the only real 'super power' in the world. It is imperative the we demonstrate to the world that we are still the best chance for freedom that exists for anyone that wants to be free.
Right now we are a disgrace and it's not all the governments fault. It really falls mostly on the us, the people that supposedly have the power to tell the government what to do. Apparently we just don't care enough or we are just to ignorant of past our history.
Keep the faith, we have to fight the good fight every day to make things happen for our country.
RUSSIA GOES ROGUE
By RALPH PETERS
August 12, 2008 --
IT'S impossible to overstate the importance of what's unfolding as we watch. Russia's invasion of Georgia - a calculated, unprovoked aggression - is a crisis that may have more important strategic implications than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
We're seeing the emergence of a rogue military power with a nuclear arsenal.
The response of our own government has been pathetic - and our media's uncritical acceptance of Moscow's version of events is infuriating.
LATEST NEWS: Russia Calls for Halt in Action
This is the "new" Russia announcing - in blood - that it won't tolerate freedom and self-determination along its borders. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is putting it bluntly: Today, Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine (and the Baltic states had better pay attention).
Georgia's affiliation with the European Union, its status as a would-be NATO member, its working democracy - none of it deterred Putin.
Nor does Putin's ambition stop with the former Soviet territories. His air force has been trying (unsuccessfully) to hit the new gas pipeline running from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean. The Kremlin is telling Europe: We not only have the power to turn off Siberian gas, we can turn off every tap in the region, any time we choose.
Let's be clear: For all that US commentators and diplomats are still chattering about Russia's "response" to Georgia's actions, the Kremlin spent months planning and preparing this operation. Any soldier above the grade of private can tell you that there's absolutely no way Moscow could've launched this huge ground, air and sea offensive in an instantaneous "response" to alleged Georgian actions.
As I pointed out Saturday, even to get one armored brigade over the Caucasus Mountains required extensive preparations. Since then, Russia has sent in the equivalent of almost two divisions - not only in South Ossetia, the scene of the original fighting, but also in separatist Abkhazia on the Black Sea coast.
The Russians also managed to arrange the instant appearance of a squadron of warships to blockade Georgia. And they launched hundreds of air strikes against preplanned targets.
Every one of these things required careful preparations. In the words of one US officer, "Just to line up the airlift sorties would've taken weeks."
Working through their mercenaries in South Ossetia, Russia staged brutal provocations against Georgia from late July onward. Last Thursday, Georgia's president finally had to act to defend his own people.
But when the mouse stirred, the cat pounced.
The Russians know that we know this was a setup. But Moscow's Big Lie propagandists still blame Georgia - even as Russian aircraft bomb Georgian homes and Russian troops seize the vital city of Gori in the country's heart.
And Russian troops also grabbed the Georgian city of Zugdidi to the west - invading from Abkhazia on a second axis.
Make no mistake: Moscow intends to dismember Georgia.
This is the most cynical military operation by a "European" power since Moscow invaded Afghanistan in 1979. (Sad to say, President Bush seems as bewildered now as President Jimmy Carter did then.)
This attack's worse, though. Georgia is an independent, functioning democracy tied to the European Union and striving to join NATO. It also has backed our Iraq efforts with 2,000 troops. (We're airlifting them back home.)
This invasion recalls Hitler's march into Czechoslovakia - to protect ethnic Germans, he claimed, just as Putin claims to be protecting Russian citizens - complete BS.
It also resembles Hitler's invasion of Poland - with the difference that, in September '39, European democracies drew the line. (To France's credit, its leaders abandoned their August vacations to call Putin out - only Sen. Barack Obama remains on the beach.)
Yet our media gave Putin the benefit of the doubt.
Not one major news outlet even bothers to take issue with Putin's wild claim that the Georgians were engaged in genocide.
I lack sufficiently powerful words to express my outrage over Russia's bloody cynicism in attacking a small, free people, or to castigate our media for their inane coverage - or to condemn our own government's shameful flight from responsibility.
Just as Moscow has reverted to its old habit of sending in tanks to snuff out freedom, Washington has defaulted to form by abandoning Georgia to the invasion - after encouraging Georgia to stand up to the Kremlin.
Reminds me of 1956, when we encouraged the Hungarians to defy Moscow - then abandoned them.
And of 1991, when we prodded Iraq's Shia to rise up against Saddam - then abandoned them.
We've called Georgia a "friend and ally." Well, honorable men and states stand by their friends and allies. We haven't.
Oh, we sure are giving those Russians a tongue-lashing. I'll bet Putin's just shaking as he faces the awesome verbal rage of Condi Rice. President Bush? He went to a basketball game.
The only decent thing we've done was to reveal, at the UN, that the Russians tried to cut a deal with us to remove Georgia's president.
Shame on us.
Ralph Peters' latest book, "Looking for Trouble," details his own adventures in Georgia.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Americans Must Take a Stand Some Place!
What does it mean to us if we sit on our hands and let George fall to Russian aggression? What will it do to harm our way of life? Why should we care what happens to such a small country that is so far away?
It has looked to the West for help ever since it decided to become independent and a Democracy.
They are about to have their faith in the American dream shoved into a dumpster. What will we do? What will we do when Iran attacks Israel?
Keep the faith.
Author Unknown -
*Russian aggression meets "anticipatory capitulation"posted 08/11/08
Why won't the West help Georgia -- say, by immediately admitting the nation to NATO? How to explain the West's impotent tsk-tsking in the face of this latest Russian aggression?
The answer lies in what I call the "anticipatory capitulation" factor. The greatest terror of postmodern Westerners is "confrontation": to be compelled into situations in which they must actually face down a bully. And, of course, taking a moral stand may sometimes lead to such "confrontations."
So, in anticipation of any course of action that could possibly lead to a "confrontation," postmoderns never take a moral stand. They look into the future, at where such a stand might lead them -- and, terrified by the prospect, they back down /pre-emptively/. Often, they seek some sort of "compromise" with thugs that takes the "confrontation" option off the table.
"Compromise" here means: anticipatory capitulation. This is the policy that Border's Books, Comedy Central, and the entire MSM adopted when contemplating even a /hypothetical/ "confrontation" with Islamists who /might/ become angry about their circulation of those Muhammad cartoons: They capitulated and refused to publish the cartoons, in mere /anticipation/ of a possible showdown.
This is the policy that has, in fact, lay beneath much of Western foreign policy -- as in endless, toothless UN resolutions (when they can even agree on one), and in our State Department's anemic practice of tepidly voicing "concern" about this or that international bully's actions, while evading any "provocative" language of condemnation that might "escalate" to a direct confrontation.
And this is the same policy we see in the "international community's" moral, rhetorical, economic, and (of course) military paralysis in the face of naked Russian aggression in Georgia -- including the U.S.'s muted, invertebrate response. President Bush spoke of his "grave concern about the disproportionate response" by the Russians. In fact, we have U.S. diplomats openly acknowledging that we won't do a damned thing about it.
Bullies, of course, can always smell fear: It's their special talent. They accurately perceive the cowardice that underlies responses of whining, pleading, dithering, and mollycoddling, and know that they will confront no barriers on the paths of aggression.
One could make a very good argument that the war in Iraq was the result of the West's long history of accommodating tyrannical bullies generally, and Saddam Hussein in particular. Consider the years and years of empty rhetoric and vacuous UN resolutions that had followed Saddam's flagrant defiance of international demands. Based on that history, Saddam no doubt calculated that, despite tough talk, we would /never/ respond with force. He miscalculated and continued to thumb his nose right up until the invasion -- but who gave him good reason to do so? How has the West responded to the threat of North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons?
With "anticipatory capitulation." The lone exception to this cowardly policy has been -- so far, and somewhat sporadically -- Israel (as Syria learned recently). Now, we're giving Vladimir Putin similar signals that his invasion of a province in neighboring Georgia will have absolutely no downside for him. The West will just sit on its hands, avoiding even the "provocation" of using "inflammatory rhetoric" to condemn him. This collective cowardice gives his tanks a bright green light to thunder down the highways of the rest of Georgia, unopposed , annexing the nation back into a new Russian empire. Where next? The Ukraine? I think you can bank on it -- or count on the Ukraine to engage in its own "anticipatory capitulation," acceding to Russian demands since it now realizes that, as in Georgia, no Western allies will stand by its side. And where after that? Just about anywhere else Putin wants to dispatch them. Who will stand up to him? The French?Doesn't this scenario sound familiar? Remember the international response to Hitler's early aggressions in the run-up to World War II? Europe sat on its collective hands while he annexed first one neighbor, then another. Well, who gave him grounds to believe he could get away with it?I'll have more to say about "the politics of 'anticipatory calculation'" in the future.*UPDATE* -
- Uh oh. Insta-lanche!!! UPDATE #2* -- Hate to say "I told you so," but the electrons of this post had no sooner settled on the Web page than news comes of Russia invading the rest of Georgia. So much for Russia's lame excuse that its invasion was only in response to Georgian "aggression" against its two breakaway provinces. Thanks to the policy of "anticipatory capitulation" in the West, push has come to shove. This is about conquest, folks. The question: What will the West now do about it? (So far, it hasn't dared even to pass a UN resolution.)
*UPDATE #3* -- Even these former Clinton officials have a more realistic perspective, and advocate a tougher position against Russia, than we have seen to date from the current administration. (And believe me, I'm no fan of the Clintonistas.)
*UPDATE #4* -- Refreshingly, John McCain is distinguishing himself by taking a much harder line on the Russian aggression than is the Bush administration or Obama: John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, on Monday upstaged George W. Bush’s administration over the Georgia crisis with his strongest statement so far calling on the US and its allies to come together in "universal condemnation of Russian aggression". . . ."Russia’s aggression against Georgia is both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States," said Mr. McCain. "The implications go beyond their threat to . . . a democratic Georgia. Russia is using violence against Georgia, in part, to intimidate other neighbors such as Ukraine, for choosing to associate with the West.
"Mr. McCain’s statement -- his third since the crisis began -- stood in clear contrast on Monday to the relatively low-key response of the Bush administration and the Obama campaign. . . .Mr. McCain’s response, which included recommended policy actions for the administration, has also enabled his campaign to restate its support for a "league of democracies," which would exclude Russia and include countries such as Georgia. Mr. McCain pointed out at the weekend that Russia’s membership of the United Nations Security Council had prevented that body from taking any "meaningful action.
"Mr. McCain also called on the Bush administration to redouble its efforts to offer Georgia and Ukraine a membership action plan to join NATO.
It has looked to the West for help ever since it decided to become independent and a Democracy.
They are about to have their faith in the American dream shoved into a dumpster. What will we do? What will we do when Iran attacks Israel?
Keep the faith.
Author Unknown -
*Russian aggression meets "anticipatory capitulation"posted 08/11/08
Why won't the West help Georgia -- say, by immediately admitting the nation to NATO? How to explain the West's impotent tsk-tsking in the face of this latest Russian aggression?
The answer lies in what I call the "anticipatory capitulation" factor. The greatest terror of postmodern Westerners is "confrontation": to be compelled into situations in which they must actually face down a bully. And, of course, taking a moral stand may sometimes lead to such "confrontations."
So, in anticipation of any course of action that could possibly lead to a "confrontation," postmoderns never take a moral stand. They look into the future, at where such a stand might lead them -- and, terrified by the prospect, they back down /pre-emptively/. Often, they seek some sort of "compromise" with thugs that takes the "confrontation" option off the table.
"Compromise" here means: anticipatory capitulation. This is the policy that Border's Books, Comedy Central, and the entire MSM adopted when contemplating even a /hypothetical/ "confrontation" with Islamists who /might/ become angry about their circulation of those Muhammad cartoons: They capitulated and refused to publish the cartoons, in mere /anticipation/ of a possible showdown.
This is the policy that has, in fact, lay beneath much of Western foreign policy -- as in endless, toothless UN resolutions (when they can even agree on one), and in our State Department's anemic practice of tepidly voicing "concern" about this or that international bully's actions, while evading any "provocative" language of condemnation that might "escalate" to a direct confrontation.
And this is the same policy we see in the "international community's" moral, rhetorical, economic, and (of course) military paralysis in the face of naked Russian aggression in Georgia -- including the U.S.'s muted, invertebrate response. President Bush spoke of his "grave concern about the disproportionate response" by the Russians. In fact, we have U.S. diplomats openly acknowledging that we won't do a damned thing about it.
Bullies, of course, can always smell fear: It's their special talent. They accurately perceive the cowardice that underlies responses of whining, pleading, dithering, and mollycoddling, and know that they will confront no barriers on the paths of aggression.
One could make a very good argument that the war in Iraq was the result of the West's long history of accommodating tyrannical bullies generally, and Saddam Hussein in particular. Consider the years and years of empty rhetoric and vacuous UN resolutions that had followed Saddam's flagrant defiance of international demands. Based on that history, Saddam no doubt calculated that, despite tough talk, we would /never/ respond with force. He miscalculated and continued to thumb his nose right up until the invasion -- but who gave him good reason to do so? How has the West responded to the threat of North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons?
With "anticipatory capitulation." The lone exception to this cowardly policy has been -- so far, and somewhat sporadically -- Israel (as Syria learned recently). Now, we're giving Vladimir Putin similar signals that his invasion of a province in neighboring Georgia will have absolutely no downside for him. The West will just sit on its hands, avoiding even the "provocation" of using "inflammatory rhetoric" to condemn him. This collective cowardice gives his tanks a bright green light to thunder down the highways of the rest of Georgia, unopposed , annexing the nation back into a new Russian empire. Where next? The Ukraine? I think you can bank on it -- or count on the Ukraine to engage in its own "anticipatory capitulation," acceding to Russian demands since it now realizes that, as in Georgia, no Western allies will stand by its side. And where after that? Just about anywhere else Putin wants to dispatch them. Who will stand up to him? The French?Doesn't this scenario sound familiar? Remember the international response to Hitler's early aggressions in the run-up to World War II? Europe sat on its collective hands while he annexed first one neighbor, then another. Well, who gave him grounds to believe he could get away with it?I'll have more to say about "the politics of 'anticipatory calculation'" in the future.*UPDATE* -
- Uh oh. Insta-lanche!!! UPDATE #2* -- Hate to say "I told you so," but the electrons of this post had no sooner settled on the Web page than news comes of Russia invading the rest of Georgia. So much for Russia's lame excuse that its invasion was only in response to Georgian "aggression" against its two breakaway provinces. Thanks to the policy of "anticipatory capitulation" in the West, push has come to shove. This is about conquest, folks. The question: What will the West now do about it? (So far, it hasn't dared even to pass a UN resolution.)
*UPDATE #3* -- Even these former Clinton officials have a more realistic perspective, and advocate a tougher position against Russia, than we have seen to date from the current administration. (And believe me, I'm no fan of the Clintonistas.)
*UPDATE #4* -- Refreshingly, John McCain is distinguishing himself by taking a much harder line on the Russian aggression than is the Bush administration or Obama: John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, on Monday upstaged George W. Bush’s administration over the Georgia crisis with his strongest statement so far calling on the US and its allies to come together in "universal condemnation of Russian aggression". . . ."Russia’s aggression against Georgia is both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States," said Mr. McCain. "The implications go beyond their threat to . . . a democratic Georgia. Russia is using violence against Georgia, in part, to intimidate other neighbors such as Ukraine, for choosing to associate with the West.
"Mr. McCain’s statement -- his third since the crisis began -- stood in clear contrast on Monday to the relatively low-key response of the Bush administration and the Obama campaign. . . .Mr. McCain’s response, which included recommended policy actions for the administration, has also enabled his campaign to restate its support for a "league of democracies," which would exclude Russia and include countries such as Georgia. Mr. McCain pointed out at the weekend that Russia’s membership of the United Nations Security Council had prevented that body from taking any "meaningful action.
"Mr. McCain also called on the Bush administration to redouble its efforts to offer Georgia and Ukraine a membership action plan to join NATO.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Solar Energy Showing Signs of Success
Here is some good news for the solar industry and for all of us. I believe solar has a better chance to give us some advantages in energy generation than wind turbines - wind turbines have too many moving parts, that is too much maintenance.
Good article. This is just an excerpt of the total article. Keep the faith and enjoy the good news.
First Solar: Quest for the $1 Watt
By Richard Stevenson
SolarBefore First Solar's manufacturing innovations, cadmium-telluride photovoltaic cells were the size of postage stamps; now the company makes them as big as window panesIt’s easy to make a small pile of money off photovoltaic cells but very hard to make a big one. The reason is one of the most fundamental in free-market economics: the larger the market you aim for, the more competitors you’ll have to face.
If you just want to power a billion-dollar space probe, almost any price per watt is acceptable. If you are selling to lonely farmhouses, you just have to charge less than the cost of running a power line to the boondocks. In some parts of the world, competing with grid electricity itself may be an easy game during peak consumption hours. But if you want the off-peak market, you’ll have to price your cells at about US $1 per watt. That price is called grid parity, and it’s the holy grail of the photovoltaic industry.
At least 80 firms around the world, from Austin to Osaka, are in the chase.Surprisingly, at the moment no company is closer to that grail than a little start-up called First Solar, which until very recently had been known only to specialists. It’s located in Tempe, Ariz., and analysts agree that it will very likely meet typical grid-parity prices in developed countries in just two to four years. It’s got a multibillion-dollar order book, it’s selling all the cells it can make, it’s adding production capacity as fast as it can, and its stock price has rocketed from $25 to more than $250 in just 18 months.
The most tantalizing fact about First Solar? The company will not talk to reporters. At all.The company’s coyness seems to be related to the nature of its industrial secrets. These have less to do with First Solar’s device—a decades-old design based on a thin film of cadmium telluride—than with the way the company manufactures it. Somehow, First Solar has scaled up the light-catching area from postage-stamp to traffic-sign dimensions. What the company does reveal is that its product has three massive cost benefits. Its active element is just a hundredth the thickness of the old standby, silicon; it is built on a glass substrate, which enables the production of large panels; and manufacturing takes just two and a half hours—about a tenth the time it takes for silicon equivalents.
Of course, it’s not enough that First Solar match the costs of fossil-fuel generation on the grid; it must also maintain its economic edge over other photovoltaics. There are additional nascent technologies, including cells based on copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS), silicon on glass, and the combination of germanium, gallium arsenide, and gallium indium phosphide. Even conventional silicon technology, which has dominated the market since its commercial launch in the 1950s, seems to have a lot of kick left in it.
Currently, though, it’s suffering from its own success, as an insatiable demand for silicon cells has led to a scarcity of raw material. However, if the silicon shortage disappears by the end of the decade, as expected, the sale price should drop substantially from recent levels, which have fluctuated between $3 and $4 per watt.Right now, First Solar depends mainly on a government-subsidized program in Germany, where it has contracts worth more than $6 billion through 2012. Other markets with the same type of subsidies (known as feed-in tariffs, which spread the cost of alternative energy among all customers) include France, Italy, Spain, South Korea, and Ontario, Canada.
To fill these orders, the company is undergoing a massive expansion of its manufacturing facilities that should boost annual production capacity to just over 1 gigawatt by 2009. This capacity could supply one-sixth of that year’s estimated global solar-cell business, which is currently growing at 50 percent per year.This rapid ramp-up is impressive for a company founded only in 1999, after it acquired its cadmium telluride (CdTe) technology from the purchase of Solar Cells Inc. (SCI). Cash for the launch came from the equity firm JWMA, whose president, Michael Ahearn, became First Solar’s CEO and is still running the company.
Good article. This is just an excerpt of the total article. Keep the faith and enjoy the good news.
First Solar: Quest for the $1 Watt
By Richard Stevenson
SolarBefore First Solar's manufacturing innovations, cadmium-telluride photovoltaic cells were the size of postage stamps; now the company makes them as big as window panesIt’s easy to make a small pile of money off photovoltaic cells but very hard to make a big one. The reason is one of the most fundamental in free-market economics: the larger the market you aim for, the more competitors you’ll have to face.
If you just want to power a billion-dollar space probe, almost any price per watt is acceptable. If you are selling to lonely farmhouses, you just have to charge less than the cost of running a power line to the boondocks. In some parts of the world, competing with grid electricity itself may be an easy game during peak consumption hours. But if you want the off-peak market, you’ll have to price your cells at about US $1 per watt. That price is called grid parity, and it’s the holy grail of the photovoltaic industry.
At least 80 firms around the world, from Austin to Osaka, are in the chase.Surprisingly, at the moment no company is closer to that grail than a little start-up called First Solar, which until very recently had been known only to specialists. It’s located in Tempe, Ariz., and analysts agree that it will very likely meet typical grid-parity prices in developed countries in just two to four years. It’s got a multibillion-dollar order book, it’s selling all the cells it can make, it’s adding production capacity as fast as it can, and its stock price has rocketed from $25 to more than $250 in just 18 months.
The most tantalizing fact about First Solar? The company will not talk to reporters. At all.The company’s coyness seems to be related to the nature of its industrial secrets. These have less to do with First Solar’s device—a decades-old design based on a thin film of cadmium telluride—than with the way the company manufactures it. Somehow, First Solar has scaled up the light-catching area from postage-stamp to traffic-sign dimensions. What the company does reveal is that its product has three massive cost benefits. Its active element is just a hundredth the thickness of the old standby, silicon; it is built on a glass substrate, which enables the production of large panels; and manufacturing takes just two and a half hours—about a tenth the time it takes for silicon equivalents.
Of course, it’s not enough that First Solar match the costs of fossil-fuel generation on the grid; it must also maintain its economic edge over other photovoltaics. There are additional nascent technologies, including cells based on copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS), silicon on glass, and the combination of germanium, gallium arsenide, and gallium indium phosphide. Even conventional silicon technology, which has dominated the market since its commercial launch in the 1950s, seems to have a lot of kick left in it.
Currently, though, it’s suffering from its own success, as an insatiable demand for silicon cells has led to a scarcity of raw material. However, if the silicon shortage disappears by the end of the decade, as expected, the sale price should drop substantially from recent levels, which have fluctuated between $3 and $4 per watt.Right now, First Solar depends mainly on a government-subsidized program in Germany, where it has contracts worth more than $6 billion through 2012. Other markets with the same type of subsidies (known as feed-in tariffs, which spread the cost of alternative energy among all customers) include France, Italy, Spain, South Korea, and Ontario, Canada.
To fill these orders, the company is undergoing a massive expansion of its manufacturing facilities that should boost annual production capacity to just over 1 gigawatt by 2009. This capacity could supply one-sixth of that year’s estimated global solar-cell business, which is currently growing at 50 percent per year.This rapid ramp-up is impressive for a company founded only in 1999, after it acquired its cadmium telluride (CdTe) technology from the purchase of Solar Cells Inc. (SCI). Cash for the launch came from the equity firm JWMA, whose president, Michael Ahearn, became First Solar’s CEO and is still running the company.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Catistrophic Damage : EMP - Electromagnetic Pulse Nuclear Attack
Electromagnetic pulse from a atmospheric detonation of a nuclear weapon would be catastrophic to the citizens of the United States or any other civilized society.
Given most of the western civilizations are mostly digitally based in almost every aspect of our lives from personal computers to all of our transportation and life supporting mechanisms such as furnaces for heat, refrigerators for food and pumps for water supplies, all depend on electricity that are digitally supported.
If you remember what happened on 9/11 to our country from just two buildings getting hit, it doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to see what would happen if that effect was 100 times worse and went country wide due to an EMP attack.
As you must remember our country came to a screeching halt for a period of time on 9/11 as people tried to figure out what happened and then comprehend, or couldn't comprehend, that someone would do this to us. After all, this is America - we are safe from anything that might interfer with our life styles. Our politicians promised, if elected, they would see to it that all of concerns would be taken care of and not to worry about anything. The government is here to protect you. da -
Hello!!! Forget that - it's time to change our thinking, the day of absolute security is over. The reality is we can be hit, and probably will be hit again as soon as our enemies can develop the right bomb to do the job. They will not go away as we try to engage them in meaningful dialogue.
I know it hard to comprehend that we are no longer an island of security where life goes on without any worries of self preservation. The biggest reality that we have to come to grips with is, WE ARE AT WAR.
There are people that want to enslaves us, or barring that, kill us all. No amount of hand wring or promises from politicians will change this fact. The America of yesterday is gone. We now have to fight to defend our land for our selves and our offspring. To deny this will be fatal.
Okay, now, let's keep the faith in the American spirit of freedom that our forefathers fought and died for while we dig in to fight the good fight for our own survival as a nation. Anything less will ensure all those that came before us will have died in vain.
The EMP Threat
August 9, 2008 WSJ
Imagine you're a terrorist with a single nuclear weapon. You could wipe out the U.S. city of your choice, or you could decide to destroy the infrastructure of the entire U.S. economy and leave millions of Americans to die of starvation or want of medical care.The latter scenario is the one envisioned by a long-running commission to assess the threat from electromagnetic pulse, or EMP.
The subject of its latest, and little discussed, report to Congress is the effect an EMP attack could have on civilian infrastructure. If you're prone to nightmares, don't read it before bedtime. An EMP attack occurs when a nuclear bomb explodes high in the Earth's atmosphere. The electromagnetic pulse generated by the blast destroys all the electronics in its line of sight. For a bomb detonated over the Midwest, that includes most of the continental U.S. Few, if any, people die in the blast. It's what comes next that has the potential to be catastrophic. Since an EMP surge wipes out electronics, virtually every aspect of modern American life would come to a standstill.
The commission's list of horribles is 181 pages long. The chapter on food, for instance, catalogs the disruptions up and down the production chain as food spoils or has no way to get to market. Many families have food supplies of several days or more. But after that, and without refrigeration, what?
The U.S. also has 75,000 dams and reservoirs, 168,000 drinking water-treatment facilities, and 19,000 wastewater treatment centers -- all with pumps, valves and filters run by electricity. Getting everything up and running again is not merely a matter of flipping a switch, and the commission estimates that many systems could be out of service for months or a year or more -- far longer than emergency stockpiles or batteries could cover.
The large transformers used in electrical transmission are no longer built in the U.S. and delivery time is typically three years. "Lack of high voltage equipment manufacturing capacity represents a glaring weakness in our survival and recovery," the commission notes. Many industries rely on automated control systems maintained by small work forces. In emergencies -- say, during a blackout -- companies often have arrangements in place to borrow workers from outside the affected area to augment the locals and help with manual repairs. After an EMP attack, those workers would be busy in their home regions -- or foraging for food and water for their families.
The commission offers extensive recommendations for how industry and government can protect against the effects of an EMP attack and ensure a quicker recovery. They include "hardening" more equipment to withstand an electromagnetic pulse; making sure replacement equipment is on hand; training recovery personnel; increasing federal food stockpiles; and many others. If not, our vulnerability "can both invite and reward attack," the commission's chairman, William Graham, told Congress last month.
Iran's military writings "explicitly discuss a nuclear EMP attack that would gravely harm the United States," he said. James Shinn, an assistant secretary of defense, has said that China is developing EMP weapons. The commission calls an EMP attack "one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences."
The threat is real. It's past time to address it.
Given most of the western civilizations are mostly digitally based in almost every aspect of our lives from personal computers to all of our transportation and life supporting mechanisms such as furnaces for heat, refrigerators for food and pumps for water supplies, all depend on electricity that are digitally supported.
If you remember what happened on 9/11 to our country from just two buildings getting hit, it doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to see what would happen if that effect was 100 times worse and went country wide due to an EMP attack.
As you must remember our country came to a screeching halt for a period of time on 9/11 as people tried to figure out what happened and then comprehend, or couldn't comprehend, that someone would do this to us. After all, this is America - we are safe from anything that might interfer with our life styles. Our politicians promised, if elected, they would see to it that all of concerns would be taken care of and not to worry about anything. The government is here to protect you. da -
Hello!!! Forget that - it's time to change our thinking, the day of absolute security is over. The reality is we can be hit, and probably will be hit again as soon as our enemies can develop the right bomb to do the job. They will not go away as we try to engage them in meaningful dialogue.
I know it hard to comprehend that we are no longer an island of security where life goes on without any worries of self preservation. The biggest reality that we have to come to grips with is, WE ARE AT WAR.
There are people that want to enslaves us, or barring that, kill us all. No amount of hand wring or promises from politicians will change this fact. The America of yesterday is gone. We now have to fight to defend our land for our selves and our offspring. To deny this will be fatal.
Okay, now, let's keep the faith in the American spirit of freedom that our forefathers fought and died for while we dig in to fight the good fight for our own survival as a nation. Anything less will ensure all those that came before us will have died in vain.
The EMP Threat
August 9, 2008 WSJ
Imagine you're a terrorist with a single nuclear weapon. You could wipe out the U.S. city of your choice, or you could decide to destroy the infrastructure of the entire U.S. economy and leave millions of Americans to die of starvation or want of medical care.The latter scenario is the one envisioned by a long-running commission to assess the threat from electromagnetic pulse, or EMP.
The subject of its latest, and little discussed, report to Congress is the effect an EMP attack could have on civilian infrastructure. If you're prone to nightmares, don't read it before bedtime. An EMP attack occurs when a nuclear bomb explodes high in the Earth's atmosphere. The electromagnetic pulse generated by the blast destroys all the electronics in its line of sight. For a bomb detonated over the Midwest, that includes most of the continental U.S. Few, if any, people die in the blast. It's what comes next that has the potential to be catastrophic. Since an EMP surge wipes out electronics, virtually every aspect of modern American life would come to a standstill.
The commission's list of horribles is 181 pages long. The chapter on food, for instance, catalogs the disruptions up and down the production chain as food spoils or has no way to get to market. Many families have food supplies of several days or more. But after that, and without refrigeration, what?
The U.S. also has 75,000 dams and reservoirs, 168,000 drinking water-treatment facilities, and 19,000 wastewater treatment centers -- all with pumps, valves and filters run by electricity. Getting everything up and running again is not merely a matter of flipping a switch, and the commission estimates that many systems could be out of service for months or a year or more -- far longer than emergency stockpiles or batteries could cover.
The large transformers used in electrical transmission are no longer built in the U.S. and delivery time is typically three years. "Lack of high voltage equipment manufacturing capacity represents a glaring weakness in our survival and recovery," the commission notes. Many industries rely on automated control systems maintained by small work forces. In emergencies -- say, during a blackout -- companies often have arrangements in place to borrow workers from outside the affected area to augment the locals and help with manual repairs. After an EMP attack, those workers would be busy in their home regions -- or foraging for food and water for their families.
The commission offers extensive recommendations for how industry and government can protect against the effects of an EMP attack and ensure a quicker recovery. They include "hardening" more equipment to withstand an electromagnetic pulse; making sure replacement equipment is on hand; training recovery personnel; increasing federal food stockpiles; and many others. If not, our vulnerability "can both invite and reward attack," the commission's chairman, William Graham, told Congress last month.
Iran's military writings "explicitly discuss a nuclear EMP attack that would gravely harm the United States," he said. James Shinn, an assistant secretary of defense, has said that China is developing EMP weapons. The commission calls an EMP attack "one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences."
The threat is real. It's past time to address it.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Summer Olympics Stages Chinese Duplicity
I like to watch the summer Olympics if it wasn't for all the commercials and the events that NBC has decided to air as the most important or interesting according to them.
I guess it's their network and they can do what the want but that doesn't mean I have to watch it - I have been turning on the Tennis Channel and watching reruns of past Grand Slam finals or the Speed channel for 'what ever' is on. As you might guess, I don't watch much television and never the nightly news. There are occasions when I do watch the Fox News channel.
Ralph Peters has a different take on the games and his point is well taken - I certainly don't like the idea that just about everything I buy is made in China and is other than a quality product. I mean just about everything IS made in china - really - everything.
Peters highlights the bloodier side of the communists here as he or someone should given Chinese history as communists. Remember, a communist by any other name is still a communist no matter what the 'drive by media' in this country says.
Keep the faith while we dig in for the long 'march' for freedom and Democracy.
OLYMPIC BACKFIRE
By RALPH PETERS
I RARELY watch sports on TV. I'm a doer, not a viewer. But I usually make an exception for the Olympics. Not this year. I'm staging my own private boycott. Anyway, I'm more interested in what's going to happen /outside/ of the sports facilities. I'm thrilled to see global spotlights turned on Red Chinese tyranny ("Red" is for the bloodshed in Tibet, Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma and China itself).
The butchers in Beijing thought they could buy a happy-face propaganda image, that they could stage-manage the Olympics the way Stalin's PR boys seduced the New York Times as millions died. Boy, did their ignorance of the suppleness of today's communications networks backfire.
President Hu Jintao and his cadres can keep a lid on most bad news at home - but all their censorship, denied visas, hotel-room-monitoring, dissident detentions, monstrous pollution and general police-state tactics won't be enough to fool the rest of the world. Oh, there'll be glittering pomp and circumstance at the opening ceremony (if anyone can see it through the smog). And our establishment media will make nice - at least until the games are over - to avoid "technical problems with the satellite feed." But I'm counting on the blogosphere to shame "mainstream" journalists into telling /some/ of the truth.
Expecting a red-carpet stroll with flashbulbs popping, Beijing's post-Mao mafiosi dropped their (dirty) drawers in public instead. Spare me the "Olympic spirit" piety. Tell that to the raped and dead of Darfur, to the tortured of Tibet and to all the mom-and-pop stall owners in Africa put out of business by ruthless Chinese exploitation (I've been there: The Chinese are /hated/ with a purple passion).
And don't try to blow me off as a jingoist seeking a confrontation. I just want justice and fairness - including fair trade that doesn't dispossess US workers or poison kids with toys doused with lead. The Chinese aren't going to get away with their attempt to manipulate the Olympics - but a more important issue is their currency manipulation, which allows them to dump junk products on the US market (and others).
My own personal revelation of just how greedy American corporations profiting from the China trade can be came on April 1, 2001 - when a hot-dogging Chinese military pilot collided with a US Navy reconnaissance aircraft (with a 24-sailor crew) in international waters off Hainan Island.
Forced to land on Chinese soil, the crew of the damaged US plane was taken prisoner. But the stunner was this: Capitol Hill /didn't/ rally round our troops.Why? Because the instant the news broke, lobbyists for the unscrupulous minority of US corporations profiting from collusion with Beijing rushed to the Hill to say, /Let's not be hasty and anger the Chinese, let's see/ their/ side of this. (And screw our sailors.)/So we did.
Eventually, the Bush administration won the crew's release with a groveling apology. And the Chinese continued to cheat on trade with the bipartisan blessing of Congress. Right then I began my one-man protest - an effort to avoid subsidizing Beijing. It can be hard. Greedy businesses try to slip goods past you. You have to crack the code: When a product is advertised as "imported," 20-1 it's being dumped by China and its capitalist running dogs. And I /still/ get bamboozled: A work-out bench ordered online recently turned out to be made in China, complete with badly aligned screw holes and flaking paint (I suppose it helps "get the lead out" of your workout).
Isn't it time for all imported products to be /visibly/ labeled with their country of origin? Let's put "made in China" right on the price-tag, in bold letters. Let the consumer decide if he or she wants decomposing clothing and poisoned toys.
Despite a belated spot of criticism of China's human-rights record, President Bush has crawled into Beijing to give a savage regime his public blessing. As I've noted before, it's as if FDR had gone to the Berlin Olympics to hug Hitler.
I wish our athletes well - hope they can breathe. I also hope a few journalists tell the truth about China beyond those fancy stadiums built on the bones of workers and peasants. Over the next two weeks, Chinese athletes will win a lot of medals. But the tyrants in Beijing are going to learn that the $44 billion they've spent to fool the world is only going to make /them/ look like fools.
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Looking For Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World."
I guess it's their network and they can do what the want but that doesn't mean I have to watch it - I have been turning on the Tennis Channel and watching reruns of past Grand Slam finals or the Speed channel for 'what ever' is on. As you might guess, I don't watch much television and never the nightly news. There are occasions when I do watch the Fox News channel.
Ralph Peters has a different take on the games and his point is well taken - I certainly don't like the idea that just about everything I buy is made in China and is other than a quality product. I mean just about everything IS made in china - really - everything.
Peters highlights the bloodier side of the communists here as he or someone should given Chinese history as communists. Remember, a communist by any other name is still a communist no matter what the 'drive by media' in this country says.
Keep the faith while we dig in for the long 'march' for freedom and Democracy.
OLYMPIC BACKFIRE
By RALPH PETERS
I RARELY watch sports on TV. I'm a doer, not a viewer. But I usually make an exception for the Olympics. Not this year. I'm staging my own private boycott. Anyway, I'm more interested in what's going to happen /outside/ of the sports facilities. I'm thrilled to see global spotlights turned on Red Chinese tyranny ("Red" is for the bloodshed in Tibet, Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma and China itself).
The butchers in Beijing thought they could buy a happy-face propaganda image, that they could stage-manage the Olympics the way Stalin's PR boys seduced the New York Times as millions died. Boy, did their ignorance of the suppleness of today's communications networks backfire.
President Hu Jintao and his cadres can keep a lid on most bad news at home - but all their censorship, denied visas, hotel-room-monitoring, dissident detentions, monstrous pollution and general police-state tactics won't be enough to fool the rest of the world. Oh, there'll be glittering pomp and circumstance at the opening ceremony (if anyone can see it through the smog). And our establishment media will make nice - at least until the games are over - to avoid "technical problems with the satellite feed." But I'm counting on the blogosphere to shame "mainstream" journalists into telling /some/ of the truth.
Expecting a red-carpet stroll with flashbulbs popping, Beijing's post-Mao mafiosi dropped their (dirty) drawers in public instead. Spare me the "Olympic spirit" piety. Tell that to the raped and dead of Darfur, to the tortured of Tibet and to all the mom-and-pop stall owners in Africa put out of business by ruthless Chinese exploitation (I've been there: The Chinese are /hated/ with a purple passion).
And don't try to blow me off as a jingoist seeking a confrontation. I just want justice and fairness - including fair trade that doesn't dispossess US workers or poison kids with toys doused with lead. The Chinese aren't going to get away with their attempt to manipulate the Olympics - but a more important issue is their currency manipulation, which allows them to dump junk products on the US market (and others).
My own personal revelation of just how greedy American corporations profiting from the China trade can be came on April 1, 2001 - when a hot-dogging Chinese military pilot collided with a US Navy reconnaissance aircraft (with a 24-sailor crew) in international waters off Hainan Island.
Forced to land on Chinese soil, the crew of the damaged US plane was taken prisoner. But the stunner was this: Capitol Hill /didn't/ rally round our troops.Why? Because the instant the news broke, lobbyists for the unscrupulous minority of US corporations profiting from collusion with Beijing rushed to the Hill to say, /Let's not be hasty and anger the Chinese, let's see/ their/ side of this. (And screw our sailors.)/So we did.
Eventually, the Bush administration won the crew's release with a groveling apology. And the Chinese continued to cheat on trade with the bipartisan blessing of Congress. Right then I began my one-man protest - an effort to avoid subsidizing Beijing. It can be hard. Greedy businesses try to slip goods past you. You have to crack the code: When a product is advertised as "imported," 20-1 it's being dumped by China and its capitalist running dogs. And I /still/ get bamboozled: A work-out bench ordered online recently turned out to be made in China, complete with badly aligned screw holes and flaking paint (I suppose it helps "get the lead out" of your workout).
Isn't it time for all imported products to be /visibly/ labeled with their country of origin? Let's put "made in China" right on the price-tag, in bold letters. Let the consumer decide if he or she wants decomposing clothing and poisoned toys.
Despite a belated spot of criticism of China's human-rights record, President Bush has crawled into Beijing to give a savage regime his public blessing. As I've noted before, it's as if FDR had gone to the Berlin Olympics to hug Hitler.
I wish our athletes well - hope they can breathe. I also hope a few journalists tell the truth about China beyond those fancy stadiums built on the bones of workers and peasants. Over the next two weeks, Chinese athletes will win a lot of medals. But the tyrants in Beijing are going to learn that the $44 billion they've spent to fool the world is only going to make /them/ look like fools.
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Looking For Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World."
Monday, August 11, 2008
A Cancer Update From John Hopkins
This not a subject that doesn't thrills me but I know it is a reality of living or the opposite. I prefer the former. Some of the suggestions are not to my liking and I doubt I will follow them to the letter as to give up chocolate and coffee - hmmm - Not.
Keep the faith, the battle can't be won if we are to sick or tired to fight -
Health alert!
AFTER YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY ('TRY', BEING THE KEY WORD) TO ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHNS HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY.
Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins: >
1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do> not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few> billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more> cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests> are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the> detectable size.>
2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's> lifetime. >
3. When the person's immune system is strong the cancer cells will be> de stroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors. >
4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple> nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental,> food and lifestyle factors.>
5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and> including supplements will strengthen the immune system. >
6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and> also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow,> gastrointestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver,> kidneys, heart, lungs etc. >
7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and> damages healthy cells, tissues and organs. >
8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce> tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction. >
9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and> radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence> the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications. >
10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and> become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause> cancer cells to spread to other sites. >
11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by> not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.> CANCER CELLS FEED ON:
a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important> food supply to the cancer cells. Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, > Equal, Spoonful, etc. are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A > better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses, but only> in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it > white in colour. Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt.>
b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-> intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and> substituting with unsweetened soy milk cancer cells are being> starved.>
c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is > acidic, and it is best to eat fish and a little chicken rather than> beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth> hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people> with cancer.>
d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds,> nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment.> About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh> vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and> reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance> growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy> cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including> bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes> are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).>
e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green> tea is a better alternative and has cancer fighting properties. Water -- > best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and> heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.>
12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive> enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines be come> putrified and leads to more toxic buildup. >
13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining> from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein> walls of cancer cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the> cancer cells. >
14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence,> Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the> body's own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements> like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death,> the body's normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded> cells. >
15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and> positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, unforgiveness> and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn > to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.>
16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Excercising> daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular> level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.>
CANCER UPDATE FROM JOHN HOPKINS HOSPITAL , U.S. - PLEASE READ>
1. No plastic containers in micro.>
2. No water bottles in freezer.>
3. No plastic wrap in microwave.> Johns Hopkins has recently sent this out in its newsletters.
This> information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as> well. Dioxin chemicals causes cancer, especially breast cancer.> Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze> your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from> the plastic.
Recently, Dr. Edward Fujimoto, Wellness Program Manager> at Castle Hospital, was on a TV program to explain this health hazard.> He talked about dioxins and how bad they are for us. He said that we> should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic> containers. This especially applies to foods that contain fat. He> said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases> dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body.>
Instead, he recommends using glass, such as Corning Ware, Pyrex or > ceramic containers for heating food. You get the same results, only> without the dioxin. So, such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and> soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in > something else. Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the> paper. It's just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc.
He> reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food restaurants moved> away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of > the reasons.> Also, he pointed out that plastic wrap, such as Saran, is just as> dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the> food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt> out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food. Cover food with a > paper towel instead. >
Keep the faith, the battle can't be won if we are to sick or tired to fight -
Health alert!
AFTER YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY ('TRY', BEING THE KEY WORD) TO ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHNS HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY.
Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins: >
1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do> not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few> billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more> cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests> are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the> detectable size.>
2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's> lifetime. >
3. When the person's immune system is strong the cancer cells will be> de stroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors. >
4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple> nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental,> food and lifestyle factors.>
5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and> including supplements will strengthen the immune system. >
6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and> also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow,> gastrointestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver,> kidneys, heart, lungs etc. >
7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and> damages healthy cells, tissues and organs. >
8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce> tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction. >
9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and> radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence> the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications. >
10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and> become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause> cancer cells to spread to other sites. >
11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by> not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.> CANCER CELLS FEED ON:
a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important> food supply to the cancer cells. Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, > Equal, Spoonful, etc. are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A > better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses, but only> in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it > white in colour. Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt.>
b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-> intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and> substituting with unsweetened soy milk cancer cells are being> starved.>
c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is > acidic, and it is best to eat fish and a little chicken rather than> beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth> hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people> with cancer.>
d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds,> nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment.> About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh> vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and> reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance> growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy> cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including> bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes> are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).>
e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green> tea is a better alternative and has cancer fighting properties. Water -- > best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and> heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.>
12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive> enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines be come> putrified and leads to more toxic buildup. >
13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining> from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein> walls of cancer cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the> cancer cells. >
14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence,> Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the> body's own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements> like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death,> the body's normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded> cells. >
15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and> positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, unforgiveness> and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn > to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.>
16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Excercising> daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular> level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.>
CANCER UPDATE FROM JOHN HOPKINS HOSPITAL , U.S. - PLEASE READ>
1. No plastic containers in micro.>
2. No water bottles in freezer.>
3. No plastic wrap in microwave.> Johns Hopkins has recently sent this out in its newsletters.
This> information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as> well. Dioxin chemicals causes cancer, especially breast cancer.> Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze> your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from> the plastic.
Recently, Dr. Edward Fujimoto, Wellness Program Manager> at Castle Hospital, was on a TV program to explain this health hazard.> He talked about dioxins and how bad they are for us. He said that we> should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic> containers. This especially applies to foods that contain fat. He> said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases> dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body.>
Instead, he recommends using glass, such as Corning Ware, Pyrex or > ceramic containers for heating food. You get the same results, only> without the dioxin. So, such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and> soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in > something else. Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the> paper. It's just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc.
He> reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food restaurants moved> away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of > the reasons.> Also, he pointed out that plastic wrap, such as Saran, is just as> dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the> food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt> out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food. Cover food with a > paper towel instead. >
American Car Companies On the Rocks
Only time will tell how this will come out, but I know one thing for sure, if the federal government gets involved, the struggle for survival will take a lot longer plus it may do more harm than good.
If the big three can't make it on their own than let the market dictate the outcome. If they have to down size until the general public can see some sense in their products, then so be it. The market has always been the best indicator of how a business should be run. Again, history is the best teacher. Our market economy works.
Keep the faith while you take a long look at our domestic cars, we have some good ones to choose from. The battle field 'Detroit' is on going.
Can America's Auto Makers Survive?
By PAUL INGRASSIA August 7, 2008
The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan used the term "defining deviancy down" to describe the acceptance of behavior that was once deemed intolerable. Now Detroit's car companies are defining disaster down.
In 1991, General Motors posted a then-amazing, full-year loss of $4.45 billion, and 10 months later CEO Robert Stempel was out. Last week, GM reported a $15.5 billion loss for just /one quarter/, and GM's board this week reaffirmed its support for CEO Rick Wagoner. GM's loss easily eclipsed the quarterly loss of $8.7 billion announced by Ford just a week earlier. As for Chrysler, pick a number. The company is owned by private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, and thus its results aren't public.
Whether all, or even any, of the three companies can survive has become a legitimate question. In truth, no one knows for sure. But other questions can be addressed with more certainty:-
Should Detroit have seen this disaster coming?
Yes. Gasoline prices have been climbing steadily for more than three years now. The Bush-Bernanke debasement of the dollar didn't do Detroit any favors, because the dollar's collapse has contributed mightily to the soaring price of crude oil.
But the Detroit Three stuck with a business model based on leasing SUVs for way too long. The two things wrong with that model were, well, leasing and SUVs. The residual values on which SUV lease payments are based turned out to be enormously inflated. With gas around $4 a gallon, the auto makers can't resell leased SUVs, after they are returned by customers, for anywhere near the price that the companies had assumed. Big write-downs to reflect this "impairment" contributed to the recent multibillion-dollar quarterly losses at Ford and GM, prompting the Detroit Three to curtail or cease their leasing programs.
Japanese and European car companies are suffering leasing losses too, but they are much less dependent on SUV leases than Detroit. All this said, let's acknowledge that it's human nature to resist changing behavior that has been successful, as SUVs were for two decades. If Detroit is Exhibit A, then Exhibit B surely must be the newspaper and magazine industry.
It has been equally clear for most of this decade that the business models of print publications, which are based on selling advertising, were becoming as obsolete as big SUVs, because advertising is shifting to the Internet. Not many journalists saw this sea change coming, much less acted on it, in their own business. The stock of McClatchy, one of the nation's largest newspaper chains, has plunged from nearly $75 a share to around $4 a share in the last three years, a 94% collapse that exceeds even the 89% nosedive in GM's stock since the beginning of this decade. The prices of other newspaper stocks have performed much the same.-
Which one of the Detroit Three has the best chance of survival?
My assessment is Ford. Certainly the company's serial abuse of its Lincoln brand contrasts sharply, and most unfavorably, with GM's progress in reviving Cadillac. And Ford, like GM, must revamp its product lineup quickly to emphasize smaller cars instead of trucks and SUVs. But Ford's plan to transfer to the U.S. the fuel-efficient cars it has developed overseas makes sense.
Meanwhile, GM has enormous structural challenges that Ford doesn't face. The tab to assist the bankruptcy restructuring of Delphi, GM's automotive components spinoff, continues to rise. GM added another $2.8 billion in Delphi-related charges in the second quarter, on top of $7.5 billion in Delphi charges taken already.
Meanwhile, GM'S financial services company, GMAC, continues to rack up huge losses -- $1.86 billion in the latest quarter -- from its foray into residential mortgages a few years back. The only silver lining here for GM is that GMAC is now 51% owned by the unfortunate Cerberus, so only about half of the losses hit GM's books.
Ford has moved more quickly to shed its money-losing minor brands, Jaguar and Land Rover. But GM only recently -- and belatedly -- announced plans to explore selling Hummer. And it has a confusing plethora of eight domestic brands, a relic from its glory days. While the company has some very good cars, trying to market everything means effectively marketing nothing.
Meanwhile, GM is burning through $1 billion of cash each month, prompting the company's current scramble to raise $15 billion by cutting more costs, selling assets or attracting new investment. This capital has to be raised within months.
As for much-weakened Chrysler, the only questions are who will buy it, when and how.-
Should the federal government bail out Detroit?
No. The recent commitments of taxpayer dollars to lubricate the sale of Bear Stearns and keep Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae afloat are bad enough -- especially because Freddie and Fannie are being allowed to keep their bumbling boards and management teams intact. But at least it could be argued that a collapse of those companies would pose a broad risk to the entire U.S. financial system. The risk that Americans would be consigned to driving Hondas or Hyundais seems less threatening.
One suspects, though, that if Barack Obama wins the White House, a Detroit bailout plan will get serious consideration. If so, the Chrysler bailout plan of a quarter-century ago provides a useful model. In return for guaranteeing loans to Chrysler by banks and private lenders, the government -- i.e., taxpayers -- got low-priced warrants to buy Chrysler stock.
As events unfolded, Chrysler recovered, no loan-guarantee payments were made, and the government made some $400 million on the warrants. In other words, we taxpayers were rewarded for taking a risk.
Detroit's fight for survival doesn't threaten economic doomsday for America, but it's incredibly sad nonetheless. The three companies, and General Motors especially, once symbolized the bedrock strength of American capitalism. If they can restructure and recover, as must be fervently hoped, they will symbolize the potential for renewal. Meanwhile, Motor City residents must be regretting the message on a T-shirt popular in their town for years -- "Detroit. Where the Weak are Killed and Eaten." Let's hope it wasn't a prophecy about General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.
Mr. Ingrassia, a former Dow Jones executive and Detroit bureau chief
If the big three can't make it on their own than let the market dictate the outcome. If they have to down size until the general public can see some sense in their products, then so be it. The market has always been the best indicator of how a business should be run. Again, history is the best teacher. Our market economy works.
Keep the faith while you take a long look at our domestic cars, we have some good ones to choose from. The battle field 'Detroit' is on going.
Can America's Auto Makers Survive?
By PAUL INGRASSIA August 7, 2008
The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan used the term "defining deviancy down" to describe the acceptance of behavior that was once deemed intolerable. Now Detroit's car companies are defining disaster down.
In 1991, General Motors posted a then-amazing, full-year loss of $4.45 billion, and 10 months later CEO Robert Stempel was out. Last week, GM reported a $15.5 billion loss for just /one quarter/, and GM's board this week reaffirmed its support for CEO Rick Wagoner. GM's loss easily eclipsed the quarterly loss of $8.7 billion announced by Ford just a week earlier. As for Chrysler, pick a number. The company is owned by private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, and thus its results aren't public.
Whether all, or even any, of the three companies can survive has become a legitimate question. In truth, no one knows for sure. But other questions can be addressed with more certainty:-
Should Detroit have seen this disaster coming?
Yes. Gasoline prices have been climbing steadily for more than three years now. The Bush-Bernanke debasement of the dollar didn't do Detroit any favors, because the dollar's collapse has contributed mightily to the soaring price of crude oil.
But the Detroit Three stuck with a business model based on leasing SUVs for way too long. The two things wrong with that model were, well, leasing and SUVs. The residual values on which SUV lease payments are based turned out to be enormously inflated. With gas around $4 a gallon, the auto makers can't resell leased SUVs, after they are returned by customers, for anywhere near the price that the companies had assumed. Big write-downs to reflect this "impairment" contributed to the recent multibillion-dollar quarterly losses at Ford and GM, prompting the Detroit Three to curtail or cease their leasing programs.
Japanese and European car companies are suffering leasing losses too, but they are much less dependent on SUV leases than Detroit. All this said, let's acknowledge that it's human nature to resist changing behavior that has been successful, as SUVs were for two decades. If Detroit is Exhibit A, then Exhibit B surely must be the newspaper and magazine industry.
It has been equally clear for most of this decade that the business models of print publications, which are based on selling advertising, were becoming as obsolete as big SUVs, because advertising is shifting to the Internet. Not many journalists saw this sea change coming, much less acted on it, in their own business. The stock of McClatchy, one of the nation's largest newspaper chains, has plunged from nearly $75 a share to around $4 a share in the last three years, a 94% collapse that exceeds even the 89% nosedive in GM's stock since the beginning of this decade. The prices of other newspaper stocks have performed much the same.-
Which one of the Detroit Three has the best chance of survival?
My assessment is Ford. Certainly the company's serial abuse of its Lincoln brand contrasts sharply, and most unfavorably, with GM's progress in reviving Cadillac. And Ford, like GM, must revamp its product lineup quickly to emphasize smaller cars instead of trucks and SUVs. But Ford's plan to transfer to the U.S. the fuel-efficient cars it has developed overseas makes sense.
Meanwhile, GM has enormous structural challenges that Ford doesn't face. The tab to assist the bankruptcy restructuring of Delphi, GM's automotive components spinoff, continues to rise. GM added another $2.8 billion in Delphi-related charges in the second quarter, on top of $7.5 billion in Delphi charges taken already.
Meanwhile, GM'S financial services company, GMAC, continues to rack up huge losses -- $1.86 billion in the latest quarter -- from its foray into residential mortgages a few years back. The only silver lining here for GM is that GMAC is now 51% owned by the unfortunate Cerberus, so only about half of the losses hit GM's books.
Ford has moved more quickly to shed its money-losing minor brands, Jaguar and Land Rover. But GM only recently -- and belatedly -- announced plans to explore selling Hummer. And it has a confusing plethora of eight domestic brands, a relic from its glory days. While the company has some very good cars, trying to market everything means effectively marketing nothing.
Meanwhile, GM is burning through $1 billion of cash each month, prompting the company's current scramble to raise $15 billion by cutting more costs, selling assets or attracting new investment. This capital has to be raised within months.
As for much-weakened Chrysler, the only questions are who will buy it, when and how.-
Should the federal government bail out Detroit?
No. The recent commitments of taxpayer dollars to lubricate the sale of Bear Stearns and keep Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae afloat are bad enough -- especially because Freddie and Fannie are being allowed to keep their bumbling boards and management teams intact. But at least it could be argued that a collapse of those companies would pose a broad risk to the entire U.S. financial system. The risk that Americans would be consigned to driving Hondas or Hyundais seems less threatening.
One suspects, though, that if Barack Obama wins the White House, a Detroit bailout plan will get serious consideration. If so, the Chrysler bailout plan of a quarter-century ago provides a useful model. In return for guaranteeing loans to Chrysler by banks and private lenders, the government -- i.e., taxpayers -- got low-priced warrants to buy Chrysler stock.
As events unfolded, Chrysler recovered, no loan-guarantee payments were made, and the government made some $400 million on the warrants. In other words, we taxpayers were rewarded for taking a risk.
Detroit's fight for survival doesn't threaten economic doomsday for America, but it's incredibly sad nonetheless. The three companies, and General Motors especially, once symbolized the bedrock strength of American capitalism. If they can restructure and recover, as must be fervently hoped, they will symbolize the potential for renewal. Meanwhile, Motor City residents must be regretting the message on a T-shirt popular in their town for years -- "Detroit. Where the Weak are Killed and Eaten." Let's hope it wasn't a prophecy about General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.
Mr. Ingrassia, a former Dow Jones executive and Detroit bureau chief
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Humor is Good for The Soul
This is cute - so take a load off the loafers and kick back a minute from your busy schedule while you read this political humor from the frozen lands of Minnesota.
The 2008 Presidential election was too close to call. Neither the Republican candidate nor the Democratic candidate had enough votes to win. There was much talk about ballot recounting, court challenges, etc., but a week-long ice fishing competition seemed the most sportsmanlike way to settle things.
Therefore, it was decided that there should be an ice fishing contest between the two candidates to determine the winner. The candidate that caught the most fish at the end of the week would win the election. After much more back and forth discussion it was decided that the contest take place on a remote frozen lake in northern Minnesota.
There were to be no observers present and both men were to be sent out separately on this isolated lake and return at 5 P.M. with their catch for counting and verification by a team of neutral parties.
At the end of the first day John McCain returned to the starting line and he had ten fish. Soon, Obama returned and had no fish. Well, everyone assumed he was just having bad day or something and hopefully he would catch up the next day.
At the end of the second day John McCain came in with 20 fish and Obama came back in again with none. That evening, Harry Reid got together secretly with Obama and said, "Obama, I think John McCain is a low-life, cheatin son-of-a-gun. I want you to go out tomorrow and don't even bother with fishing. Just spy on him and see just how he is cheating."
The next night after John McCain returned with 50 fish, Harry said to Obama, "Well, tell me, how is John McCain cheating?"
Obama replied, "Harry, you're not going to believe this but he's cutting holes in the ice!"
The 2008 Presidential election was too close to call. Neither the Republican candidate nor the Democratic candidate had enough votes to win. There was much talk about ballot recounting, court challenges, etc., but a week-long ice fishing competition seemed the most sportsmanlike way to settle things.
Therefore, it was decided that there should be an ice fishing contest between the two candidates to determine the winner. The candidate that caught the most fish at the end of the week would win the election. After much more back and forth discussion it was decided that the contest take place on a remote frozen lake in northern Minnesota.
There were to be no observers present and both men were to be sent out separately on this isolated lake and return at 5 P.M. with their catch for counting and verification by a team of neutral parties.
At the end of the first day John McCain returned to the starting line and he had ten fish. Soon, Obama returned and had no fish. Well, everyone assumed he was just having bad day or something and hopefully he would catch up the next day.
At the end of the second day John McCain came in with 20 fish and Obama came back in again with none. That evening, Harry Reid got together secretly with Obama and said, "Obama, I think John McCain is a low-life, cheatin son-of-a-gun. I want you to go out tomorrow and don't even bother with fishing. Just spy on him and see just how he is cheating."
The next night after John McCain returned with 50 fish, Harry said to Obama, "Well, tell me, how is John McCain cheating?"
Obama replied, "Harry, you're not going to believe this but he's cutting holes in the ice!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
