On The Road Again

I am heading back out on the road again today.

While on the road, I rarely have access to the internet.

Greenhouse Gas Skepticism

Seems those who are skeptics that greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of global warming are not remaining silent.

(See here) a Telegraph piece written by Christopher Monckton that questions the science that claims human activity is responsible for climate change.

Christopher makes a powerful argument that some of the statistics and history of world temperatures are being skewed in order to hype the threat of global warming. Christopher also makes a strong case that it is increased solar output that is responsible for global warming.

(See here) a follow on piece that also appeared on the Telegraph web site. The author of this second piece is not identified, but it appears to be Christopher Monckton again.

In this second piece, Christopher apologizes for some errors he made and he attempts to rebut some of the economic figures behind Sir Nicholas Stern's report on the economics of climate change. Sir Nicholas Stern's report came out just prior to the November elections held here in the United States and received considerable publicity from the US media.

Christopher also points out a conclusion that I also had arrived at long ago. Even if the developed world completely eliminates greenhouse gas emissions, nothing will have been accomplished unless the developing world signs on. I myself will take Christopher to task for including Brazil in the list of nations that are not doing enough. From what I have seen, Brazil can be credited with leading the world when it comes to shifting vehicle fuels to renewable energy sources.

One quote I wish to lift from this second piece follows:

On Thursday, Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, compared climate sceptics to advocates of Islamic terror. Neither, she said, should have access to the media.

(Margaret Beckett is Foreign Secretary of Great Britain.)

Have you got that? Margaret thinks that, in Britain anyway, the debate is now over and skeptics should be silenced.

In an earlier post I noted how, at the same time Earth's polar ice caps are shrinking, NASA has discovered the same thing is happening to the polar ice caps on Mars. I guess Margaret will blame this occurrence on mankind as well? Perhaps the two solar powered Mars rovers NASA placed on Mars are responsible?

In a previous post I also noted how scientists believe, and have evidence, that as little as 5,000 years ago, much of the United States Great Plains were dessert. While scientists might not be able to accurately solve why this extreme variation in climate happened, one thing I am sure they can rule out is blaming mankind for it.

Now I am not attempting to trash all the experts who blame global warming on green house gases. At least some of the experts have acknowledged the contributions to global warming that might be due to increased solar output. These experts then often state that while the sun might explain much of the increased temperatures experienced by the Earth, greenhouse gases are still a contributing factor.

Seems to me, that the way forward is still pretty clear. At the same time as the world faces the threat of global warming, we are also facing the problem of "peak oil" production. While attempting to combat greenhouse gases, the world will start the shift to alternative fuel sources which would limit the impact of such a strong reliance on fossil fuels as an energy source when production starts to fall.

Since the banner that will be raised will be screaming "combat global warming" the developed world could even force developing nations to join in on the effort. The developed world could use trade tariffs (placed only to "save the world", not as an unfair trade practice) to penalize any developing nation that failed to follow the developed world's lead in shifting to alternative, renewable energy sources.

Seems to me this will not be wasted effort. Even if the vast majority of global warming is due to increased solar output, history will look back on the efforts made as being wise. Instead of waiting for the constricted availability of fossil fuels to strangle the world economy, we will have forced technological research into alternative fuels today and started the adoption of alternative fuel sources.

Worst case scenario would be that the contributions of greenhouse gases to global warming will be discovered to be nearly complete bullshit however mankind will still be enjoying cleaner air in the future as a result of our efforts.

The problems mankind faces include global warming, peak oil production, and an increasingly polluted environment. Shifting to alternative fuel sources might help solve all three of these problems, and certainly will help solve at least two of them. I am still on board for the massive effort that would be required.

However the debate is still not over. I stand against any who, like Margaret Beckett would attempt to throw a gag on skeptics like Christopher Monckton. If Margaret analyzed what Christopher had to say, she might learn a thing or two.

Israeli Settlements

Israeli settlements. Do these settlements amount to theft of Palestinian lands?

Let us put aside "common sense" for a moment and delve into the landscape of lawyers. Lawyers do not ever use "common sense" to decide an issue, they weave elaborate webs of case law to give advantage of one party over another.

(See here) where Peace Now reports that nearly 40% of Israeli settlements are built on land confiscated from private ownership by Palestinians.

(See here) an Israel Insider piece that rebuts the Peace Now claims.

To which side of the argument should the "Scales of Justice" swing?

Well, the right wing Israeli argument is based upon exploitation of a factor of Palestinian society land ownership. Much of this land does not have clear ownership title established even though exploitation of this land, with olive groves and the like, has been allowed by private individuals. Where clear ownership is not established, right wing Israelis think they have the right to confiscate this land.

I'm sorry to whomever this might offend, but the "Scales of Justice" swing towards the Peace Now position. It is not correct that in every case where ownership is in question, Jewish "public" ownership is then supreme. Why not is the Palestinian portion of this "public" ownership represented? Why must it always result in this "public" land being sold to Jewish interests and Jewish dominated subdivisions springing up as a result?

Anyone that seeks to claim that Jewish settlement expansion within the West Bank is not as a result of the illegitimate confiscation of Palestinian lands has their head stuck up those portions of their body where it stinks.

Immigration Reform

(See here) a Los Angeles Times piece written by Nicole Gaouette that addresses the Immigration issue.

Seems some Dems are expecting that, due to the Democrats taking control of both houses in Congress, some type of left wing solution to the Immigration Reform problem is going to be the result.

Cough, cough, please note left wingers, that the Democrat victory was obtained through putting up some moderate candidates in many Congressional Districts. Even if Democrats had enough votes in the House for some type of radical solution, they still have to deal with a filibuster in the Senate from the Republican minority. Heck, Dems probably could not even muster a simple majority within the Senate, let alone the 60 votes needed to end the filibuster.

I think most people are realistic and realize Mexican workers are necessary in some occupations within America. One can trot out the purist argument that if the less desirable jobs paid enough, Americans would line up to fill them. There is some truth to this argument, however when a dose of realism is applied (will it work in the real world) reality slaps us in the face. Mexican workers help our economy flourish.

Problem is, that the illegal workers are starting to crowd out American workers from jobs they are willing to do, jobs that would still be there even if the wages required to attract the American workers went through the roof.

As an example we can look at what is going on in California. California has a real need for Mexican workers in the agricultural field. Without the Mexican workers, California's agricultural sector will find it difficult if not impossible to compete with foreign agricultural production. However, even with the existing flood of illegal immigrants, California's agricultural sector has been having trouble finding enough workers to meet their needs. Why? Because these same workers are finding more favorable employment in the building trades.

There is no reason that Mexican workers (illegals) need to be employed in California (or anywhere else in America) in the building trades. With housing values what they are in California, builders can afford to pay high enough wages to attract American workers and still make a healthy profit.

A guest worker program needs to be introduced that will restrict these "guest workers" to only certain occupations. Which occupations? How many guest workers? All that is yet open to debate.

How would the guest worker program be enforced? Just how hard would it be to put something on the Internet? Plug in the guest worker's ID# and receive back both a picture and thumbprint of the guest worker. Anyone employing undocumented or unauthenticated workers would be penalized. Employers from unauthorized sectors of the economy would be severely penalized whether the worker was documented or not.

Who could become a guest worker? Perhaps some method could be employed that even allows those already within the country to sign up. As they cue up for the jobs in permitted occupations, a streamlined documentation and approval process might be employed.

There is room to make something happen. However the current of public opinion is going to have to be recognized and dealt with.

One thing is certain. If Congress is going to do anything about the "problem", the result is not going to look anything like left wing Nirvana. The Democrat majority that was realized was not done so by electing a majority of liberals. The majority was won through opening up the door to moderates.

Democrats might now have the majority, but that majority does not consist of liberals only.

Global Warming and Energy Independence

Is it possible to meld two concerns of the American Public so that the stalemate/gridlock on the energy independence and global warming issues might actually result in some action?

(See here) a piece written by Robert Bryce that appears on Counterpunch. Please note that I would describe Counterpunch as being almost anarchist in flavor. Nothing done in government by either political party is ever good enough.

Please note that Mr Bryce takes issue that Speaker of the House-elect Nancy Pelosi has stated that her party was going to be pushing for "energy independence and all that means." He then launches into how this will not be possible without opening up the potential of gulf shore oil and gas fields to exploration.

Hang on a second Mr Bryce. What you are asking for might be a little too much. Nancy leads the environmentalist friendly Democrat Party which seems to think the way to cut back on oil usage is not to pump more oil out of the ground. However her party will be motivated to introduce legislation that would bring renewable energy sources into the mix. There was not even a majority of Republicans, while they controlled Congress, that was willing to force opening of these fields to exploration, however now you expect the Democrats to do it? Take a pill and chill, Bob.

However, can Nancy help lead our government to at least some reduction of our dependence on foreign energy sources? The majority of her party is on board. Yes, she will be unable to do anything without compromising with moderate and conservative members of her caucus. However a consensus can be built if she approaches the problem in the manner she is. She will keep the environmentalists behind her by showing some progress in the right direction when it comes to the environment. She might even help our government do that which even Bill Clinton was incapable of doing. By approaching the problem from "breaking our addiction to oil" she might be able to get some legislation through Congress and even signed by the President.

(See here) another article that is interesting. This piece, written by Bill Berkowitz which appears on the Media Transparency website, reports on the Evangelical Climate Initiative. Why this is important is that it witnesses that even amongst the most conservative of our citizens, there is a growing concern about climate change. There is enough support for doing something about greenhouse gas emissions amongst evangelicals, that conservative politicians can now find cover in voting for legislation that might tiptoe into the greenhouse gas emission area and is not solely targeted at reducing our dependence on importing oil from the "evil, Muslim Arabs".

Amongst the reasons I have found myself voting for Democrat candidates for office recently is my concern about Global Warming. I am hopeful that the leadership the elected Democrats selected are up to the job of satisfying the concerns of enough of the general public, and the elected representatives of the general public, that the gridlock can be broken and something can actually be done.

With wise leadership, Nancy might even peel off a few Republican votes to replace any members of her caucus from her slim majority that refuse to go along. Remember, there is now enough Evangelical support for "Saving the World" that a Republican politician need not fear being described as being the Anti-Christ for enlisting in the effort with his/her vote.

What would I suggest? Target a 10% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions which probably would mean an even larger percentage reduction in dependence on imported crude oil. Mandate that within a certain period of time, 10% of liquid fuel sold at gas stations and truckstops must be renewable biofuel. Included in this legislation (all or nothing) will be mandate that 10% of all electricity generated must come from greenhouse gas friendly sources. EVERY generator of electricity will be expected to meet this goal either through their own generating capacity or through carbon trading with those who have excess capacity.

To protect American business interests, include in the legislation that if developing countries such as India and China do not follow our lead, a tariff will be introduced on all imports coming from greenhouse gas unfriendly sources.

Nancy could explain to her environmentalist constituents that this is only the start, that she is not abandoning their goal of 100% elimination of greenhouse gas emissions eventually, but this is what can be done now.

Throwing a bone to Big Oil, which is going to balk at the expense of production and distribution of the 10% biofuel mandate, she can agree to allow exploitation of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) oil fields. If her environmentalist constituents object, she can point out that if nothing is done about global warming, the "pristine" ecology of ANWR is going to be ruined anyway, and facts are this is already happening.

I would suggest they invest in the support of coal miners by endorsing the usage of gasified coal fuel sources as meeting the requirements of greenhouse gas friendly fuel sources through carbon capture. Temporarily, CO2 captured during the gasification process could be stored underground, however sufficient funding would need to be set aside in escrow for eventual removal and storage in the depths of the ocean. Perhaps an insignificant tax could be added to gasified coal to fund further research into ocean depth storage to continue the research into this storage method that is already underway at institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). As a side note, from what I have seen, the brainiacs at MIT are furthest along in research on how to safely do this.

I would suggest that legislators also take into account how the increased usage of food as a fuel source will probably lead towards a hike in food prices. The general public is not going to be real happy with this, especially while they watch farmers suddenly become wealthy on the increased demand for what they grow. Explain to the farmers that we only embark on this solution with the understanding that somewhere along the line a windfall profits tax is going to be introduced so as to protect the lower and middle classes from increasing food prices. We will not take so much that they can not become wealthy, however we ARE going to get our "fair share" of the new wealth that is created.

Hopefully, the leaders of our government that our elected representatives selected will be up to the job that is set in front of them. I hope Nancy Pelosi does not fall flat on her face or else the progress of women in our government might be set back by an order of years if not a generation.

The iron is hot ready to be shaped. Now all our leaders have to do is learn to be a blacksmith.

Israel and Palestine

(See here) a column written by Dr Joel Fishman that appeared on the Arutz Sheva website.

First let me inform anyone reading this, that the Arutz Sheva site is pretty right wing in flavor, sometimes almost intolerantly so.

However not all right wingers are kooks or something, and Dr Fishman makes a pretty strong case for why the "Two State Solution" might never work.

However Dr Fishman does not then point out what Israel and the rest of the world should do instead. My guess is that he does not dare go into that because he knows that if he pointed to any of the right wing "solutions" to the problem, the majority of people in the world community are going to say no way. Some would even scream "But that would be a crime against humanity" to some of what we might hear.

Dr Fishman, you point to the difficulties of making the two state solution work. However as a result, I then reach the conclusion that even this solution is going to be difficult, and the job would not be over once a peace deal is completed. However no solution other then this appears to have any chance of working.

Perhaps if the two state solution is tried and fails, and the failure was not due to being torpedoed by the Israeli right wing, then the world community might be willing to consider some of the solutions you might come up with.

Global Warming and Mars

(See here) a Los Angeles Times piece that I came across that reports the Mars Global Surveyor may have given up the ghost.

What interested me most was this comment about one of the accomplishments of the Surveyor:

It tracked changes in weather for four complete Mars years, the equivalent of eight Earth years. For three consecutive Martian summers, it showed that the polar ice caps were shrinking, suggesting a climate change in progress.

Hmm, there is evidence of climate change on Mars. What type of climate change? It appears to be "Global Warming" with the polar ice caps shrinking.

Perhaps this is evidence that those who blame much or all of the global warming the Earth is experiencing on increased solar output are not full of bull. If Mars is experiencing global warming at the same time as earth, what do the two balls floating in space have in common? The sun, correct? Global warming on Mars can not be blamed on mankind.

I am still open to opinions that Earth's global warming has greenhouse gas emissions as a contributing factor. However here is at least one piece of evidence that the sun is part of the reason, and there is little mankind can do about that.

Kissinger Says Victory In Iraq Impossible

(See here) a Washington Post piece that reports Henry Kissinger says a military victory in Iraq is impossible.

Heh heh, now even the "esteemed" elder statesman Henry Kissinger is jumping on the bandwagon.

Hey Henry, why weren't you taking out your crystal ball and speaking up about this BEFORE we invaded? Don't tell me the mess we created was not foreseeable. I am only a truck driver and I was speaking up about this BEFORE the War in Iraq started. I can even remember, as I spoke up on my CB radio, having at least one invasion advocate threaten to shove an American Flag, flagpole and all, up my backside for daring to question whether the invasion was wise or not. (This happened near Carlisle, PA. I promptly parked my truck at a truckstop and informed the driver I had infuriated where I was sitting. He never showed up.)

You see, one of the reasons I was against the invasion was because of what is going on. First, let me be clear that I feared the results could have been even more disastrous then they turned out to be. However I figured that the American People would not have the stomach for the long grinding effort that would be required to bring about a favorable outcome.

When the invasion started, I hoped my fears where wrong. I am grateful that my worst fears were unfounded, however some of my fears turned out to be genuine.

Reality is that the invasion of Iraq has proven itself to be a foolish endeavor. In time, perhaps it will even be identified as something like "Bush's Folly". I think historians are going to look back at this point, and when they compare Bush 41 to Bush 43, they are going to say that Dubyah (Bush 43) was not half the man his Daddy was.

While Dubyah, when he speaks, still tries to lead America to some version of "Stay the Course", even people like Henry Kissinger are starting to "cut and run" on him.

Give it up Dubyah. Now even the war hawks are abandoning you.

Too bad the new converts did not give wise counsel to Dubyah before the invasion started.

Homosexuality and Polygamy

(See here) a Washington Post article that reports polygamists are fighting to have polygamy decriminalized.

I wish to tie the polygamists efforts into the debate about homosexuality. As the article states, polygamists are using some of the same tactics and arguments to further their cause as homosexual advocates use. The argument goes: We're consenting adults, we're not hurting anyone.

So if you do not draw the line on homosexuality, can you then draw the line on polygamy?

Let us examine these relatively small cults that have sprung up that practice polygamy. Are these mini societies "healthy"? Think about it. These groups are having little baby boys and baby girls at near equal rates, just like the rest of society. However, as they bring their children up, how do they choose from amongst the baby boys that will grow up to have multiple wives and those who will be forced to live a life of celibacy or, if they want some form of intimacy, into homosexuality. Aren't most of these sects highly religious? Aren't homosexuality and masturbation supposed to be sins?

Truth is that I think how these cults deal with the problem is that they force the excessive number of males they give birth to out of their cults. There are not enough women to go around, so they find a means eject the excessive number of males so that the supply of women meets the demand. Is this healthy?

I know what I call it. I call it SICK. The adults raising these young boys are teaching them in Sunday school that to get to heaven you must have multiple wives knowing that there are not going to be enough wives to go around for some of them to even have one. Sick, sick, sick.

Perhaps these cults could lessen the effects of their disease by picking out at birth which baby boys are "special" and will be allowed into heaven because they will be granted multiple wives. These "chosen" young boys can be brought up to have healthy heterosexual appetites. The "unchosen", unworthy young boys can be separated from the "chosen". The "unchosen" can be taught at Sunday School how to masturbate or how to desire having oral sex with each other or something.

Perhaps these cults could lessen the effects of their disease by culling the unchosen, unworthy boys from their families at birth and agree to give them up for adoption so that they can be raised by another family in a healthy environment?

Perhaps these cults can use modern technology to ease the effects of their disease. Nowadays it is possible to determine the sex of a fetus at a rather early stage. Perhaps the excessive number of male fetuses can be aborted so that they are not born into the sickness?

Nah. I think these cults are expecting society at large to agree to too much in order to be tolerant of their disease. These cults are sick, sick, sick and society has the right to attempt to stomp the disease out.

Polygamy is illegal, and there is a good reason for why this is so. If it is allowed to take root in Utah or anywhere else in our society it might spread like any other disease. Society should take firm measures to make life unbearable for anyone who advocates or practices polygamy.

And see what the homosexual advocates have gotten started?

Society has the right to encourage monogamous, heterosexual relationships. Perhaps society can be "tolerant" of homosexuality while not encouraging it, however society should be extremely intolerant of the sickness that is called polygamy.

An Open Letter To My Children

An Open Letter To My Children.

Recently I read on one of my children's blogs that he stated he was a devout atheist. This troubled me some.

I do not wish to condemn this child, for much of my life I was at least an agnostic. But an atheist?

My children are now pretty much "grown up" and I sit back and reflect with pride at how good a job I did of raising them. Of course, I can also point with pride back at how I had figured out how to dump most of the job of raising these kids in my wife's lap. I might still claim some of the credit, but my wife did most of the work!

However, I look back at the way things transpired with some regret. Why did I not introduce my kids to Jesus? I know my kids know about Jesus, but do they really understand who Jesus was/is?

First let me explain my own understanding of Jesus:

1. Once upon this earth tread a man by the name of Jesus.

2. Jesus was a good man who may or who may not have been God.

3. Jesus changed the world, I would describe this change as being for the better.

4. The words that Jesus preached were so powerful that these words continue to ring today. Even if one does not believe Jesus was God, one must sit back while a politician screams "Jesus saves" and changes your laws.

I wish I had done more to teach my kids about Jesus, or enlisted the assistance of someone else to do the teaching. I wish my children understood who Jesus was and how his words impacts upon that which is best about our society.

I wish my kids would open up the Bible and read the Gospels. I would not encourage them to go to church and expect the Gospels to be preached. You see, most preachers avoid preaching the Gospels. Why? Because then they would hear the words "Practice what you preach", so the preachers just avoid preaching about them. Yes, the Gospels are that good.

I encourage my children to start with the Gospel of John. This Gospel is the easiest to digest and does not contain as much of the hocus pocus as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. I will specifically point out to them that there is more then one "Book of John" in the Bible. I am pointing them towards the Gospel of John and not 1st John, 2nd John or 3rd John.

After they have completed the Gospel of John they could/should start on the other Gospels in no particular order, although I would suggest they leave Luke for last. Luke is the Gospel with which I myself have the most problems. When they get to Parable of the Shrewd Manager, Luke Chapter 16 beginning with the first verse, I would recommend they take a black magic marker and blacken that one out. But as they read these three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, I would tell them to be ready to become bored as they read slightly different variations upon the same events.

I encourage my now grown children to complete or continue their education and to include learning about Jesus in this education. You see, I have paid for or I am in the midst of paying for their college education. But while I was so busy doing this, I neglected to teach my kids about Jesus.

Maybe if my child understood Jesus, not just knew about him, he would not be an atheist. An agnostic? That I could swallow. But an atheist? Where did I go wrong in raising my kids? I can engage in self criticism. I forgot to teach my kids about Jesus.

Life is full of regrets. One of my regrets is that I did not teach my children about Jesus.

My child who is an atheist claims to love Christmas. I will point out to him that when he comes home for Christmas, under his parents' Christmas tree he will still see a nativity scene with the baby Jesus sitting in the manger.

BCS

I am not a big fan of College football, but I am intrigued by how the current BCS (Bowl Championship Series) is playing out.

First let me explain, I happened to be in Columbus Ohio at about the time the Ohio State vs Michigan matchup was happening, so I found it almost impossible to ignore.

#1 Ohio State, at home, ended up beating #2 Michigan 42-39.

Can you imagine that they are talking about something other then a rematch of #1 and #2 after such a close outcome for the matchup in the BCS?

Some are predicting that USC will end up in the BCS matched against #1 Ohio State. Why? Because #3 USC is going to play #5 Notre Dame and victory for the Trojans is almost certain. Do you notice how everyone predicts just how obvious victory is going to be for the Trojans? How in the hell did Notre Dame get to be #5 anyway?

What do I want to see? I want to see a rematch of Ohio State and Michigan in the BCS. What happens when they meet on neutral grounds without homefield advantage? With the homefield advantage, the extremely narrow victory of #1 over #2 is not so impressive. Perhaps if the game had been played in Michigan, the outcome would have been different.

I want to see a rematch on neutral territory. What the heck, a victory by Michigan in the BCS could still lead to some claiming Ohio State is still the real champion if Michigan wins by a more narrow margin of victory then 3 points.

If the BCS is not a rematch of Ohio State (which wants uncontested claims to #1) and Michigan, I am going to say the BCS did not really settle things (unless Michigan loses in the Rose Bowl).

Ohio State fans should demand a rematch. They will really enjoy it.

Economic Crystal Ball

In my last post, I pointed to a method whereby Democrats could have a real impact on the level of red ink in the federal budget.

To be fair to the American People, we need to take out our economic crystal ball and start looking at what the effects of a balanced federal budget would mean for the American economy and yes, even the global economy.

Perhaps only someone as wise as Alan Greenspan could accurately forecast all the nuanced effects, but even the average American citizen can predict the obvious implications.

What is obvious? Who is currently financing the federal spending spree? Amongst the investors gobbling up all the federal IOU's is the Chinese government. As the level of promissory notes issued by the Federal government decreases, the Chinese government is going to be looking for new areas within which to invest the huge amounts of money they have from the outrageously large trade imbalance they enjoy.

The American governmental leadership (with input from the American People) need to start thinking about, and debating about, what we will allow the Chinese government to invest in within the American economy.

You see, when the Chinese see that the amount of money available exceeds the supply of Treasury promissory notes, they are going to be forced to come into the American market with a huge fat wallet. They are going to have money to spend and they are going to want to start buying and investing in things. What will we PERMIT them to buy?

Can we restrict what they can buy? Your damn right we can. The Chinese market does not match anything like a free market economy. There are restrictions on foreign investment and they even control the exchange rate of their currency. Fair is fair. We'll restrict what they are allowed to invest in and on what they are allowed to purchase. They will be forced to play by our rules or they will have to build up a mountain of greenbacks in their backyard and allow inflation to whittle it away.

I think the American People have the right to expect our governmental leaders to start thinking about these things. They draw a paycheck to think about this crap. They should allow the American People some input on the debate, but they should be opening up the debate and yes even, gasp, leading the debate.

What I am hoping for is that when the easy investment choice of guaranteed treasury notes are removed there will be a flood of money into riskier investment choices. Look what happened during the Clinton years as the federal deficit narrowed. The economy took off with a flood of venture capital with some losing everything and others becoming fabulously wealthy.

One rather obvious implication of Chinese investment that must be dealt with is that American investors are forced to deal with the Death Tax. The Chinese government will never die. Some method must be brought forward so that the Chinese government will be forced to play on a level playing field when it comes to the Death Tax. Perhaps it would be enough to force them to only invest in things like corporate bonds that have a maturity date or something - but even this has drawbacks. I am open to ideas however I will not accept that elimination of the Death Tax is the solution.

I am hopeful that China can be motivated to purchase some of the bountiful agricultural surplus America currently enjoys. I think China can be motivated to do this even through our own efforts to combat global warming. This step alone would do wonders for the American economy in particular but also for the global economy at large, including many third world developing nations.

Put on your thinking caps people! Balancing the federal budget is a good thing. However balancing the federal budget is going to cause things to happen in the economy. What will we allow to happen? What do we want to happen?

I'll tell you what I want to happen. I want to save the world, and I think I see a way to do it.

Democratic Tsunami

During the runup to election day, often within the media we heard about how a Democratic Tsunami was approaching, that being Democrats taking control of Congress.

OK Dems, "We the People" have handed you control of Congress. Now what are you going to do with that control?

One of the reasons I voted for Democratic candidates was because I was tired of the "borrow and spend" hypocrisy of the Republican Party.

Democratic leaders have announced a new (actually this is an old idea) "pay as you go" strategy. OK Dems, your first real test is going to come this Spring. The current special appropriation for the Iraq war ends about then and you will be asked to "support the troops" with another special appropriation.

First a little history on this "special appropriation". This is one of the things that pissed me off about Republicans. Republicans would pass a budget, and then start to discuss the resulting deficit spending that resulted. They would trot out the figure resulting from general spending, and if it went down a little, point to it saying "See how small it is, only $250 billion." Only problem is that this figure is smoke and mirrors. It does not include the "special appropriations" made to support the War in Iraq.

I would encourage Dems to consider firing a shot across the Republican's bow. Tell them that from now on, the War in Iraq is going to be "Pay as you go". That we are no longer going to support the War in Iraq with a charge card.

How would I go about paying for it? I would roll back the George Dubyah Bush tax cuts, with certain exceptions. I would continue the $2k child tax credit, make permanent the marriage penalty tax relief, and come up with a permanent solution to the problems with the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Now before Lethal Poison starts calling me a hypocrite, I wish to point out that I currently do not receive benefit from any of the above measures and that rolling back the Dubyah tax cuts will probably raise my taxes by a couple thousand a year.

Now some Dems have tried to claim that nothing can be done about the Dubyah tax cuts until they are set to expire in 2010. Senator Schumer (Dem - New York) has been one such leader that I have heard this from. He seems to think that as long as Dubyah is in the Oval Office, and Republicans hold enough seats in the Senate to filibuster, Dems are powerless. So much for expecting wise leadership out of the Democrats, or at least out of Senator Schumer.

If Democrats wish to restore taxes to the levels set by Ronald Reagan, here is how they should go about it. They should hold a gun to Dubyah's head.

When the "special appropriation" comes up, you announce: "We will support the troops, only we are going to support them with hard earned American Tax Dollars instead of money we borrow from the Chinese." Then, in a trick I learned from the Republicans, tie in the repeal of the Dubyah tax cuts with the money to pay for the war. The President does not have a line item veto, so he will have to take all or nothing.

Now this would have to start in the House, where the simple majority held by the Dems will make this possible. The bill could then be sent over to the Senate, where Dems there will have to deal with a filibuster. Let the Republicans filibuster all they want. I would imagine they'll start getting cold feet when the date the money appropriated for the war runs out approaches. House Leadership will just need to stand firm and wait for the opposition to wilt.

As a signal that this measure is only being taken for the sake of fiscal sanity, and not as a measure to punish the troops, I would suggest that Dems also fold into the bill a healthy increase in pay for our underpaid heroes. This could come as an across the board increase, or as a more thoughtful targeted increase. What would I suggest? A robust increase in Imminent Danger Pay (formerly known as Combat Pay) and a significant increase in payments to those of our warriors that return home with disabilities.

When the bill reaches the President, he will be sitting there with a gun to his head. He either allows for his tax cuts to be repealed, or he is going to have to withdraw the troops. His choice.

Perhaps, to be fair to the President, if such a measure is going to be taken it should be announced now so that the President has time to reconsider his "stay the course" strategy in Iraq.

Whichever decision the President comes to, Dems will have won a major victory. They will have forced either a restoration of taxes to Ronald Reagan levels or a reduction in spending to help control the runaway red ink in the federal budget.

If we are going to decrease deficit spending, we either have to increase taxes or decrease spending. Force the President to climb on board. Whichever decision the President comes to, the Dems will have significantly decreased deficit spending.

That will be a real Democratic Tsunami. Nah, not the tsunami. All them tsunamis start with an earthquake. This will be the earthquake, with the tsunami set to wash ashore in 2008.

Homosexuality and Human Instinct

Recently, after hearing a homosexual advocate speaking about homosexuality, I got to thinking about the subject. I asked myself: Is my opposition to homosexual marriage reasonable, or am I just being intolerant?

I wondered why is it that I think homosexuality is wrong. I have reasoned on the subject that homosexuality is unnatural, that homosexuals do not ever use their sexual organs in the way they were intended to be used. I think it is reasonable for a human to oppose homosexuality on this ground alone, however is it possible that there is even more behind my not being able to be "tolerant" of society officially sanctioning homosexual unions?

Ignoring what the Bible has to say about the subject, I attempted to approach this only from a "human reasoning" vantage point. Since I would imagine that most (but certainly not all) homosexual advocates are evolutionists, and I was going to once again see things from their viewpoint, I decided to limit my reasoning to the confines of evolution.

OK, God did not create me. I am only an animal, a product of evolution. I am a mammal. The only difference between me and my pet dogs is that I have a larger brain, the ability to speak etc. Being "only human", only an animal, I almost instinctively recoil at the thought of two men engaging in sex.

I remember back to my grade school science classes where I was taught about human instincts. The teacher drew a large pyramid on the blackboard and at the top of the pyramid she wrote "self preservation". I can not recall exactly what she wrote in the middle, but I do vividly recall at the bottom of the pyramid she filled in "species preservation".

Is it possible that the reason I find it so difficult to overcome my opposition is due to human instinct? No matter how often I take up the subject, I find it impossible to use my power of human reason to rationally overcome my opposition to homosexuality.

Hmmm, perhaps my "unreasonable" opposition to homosexuality can be explained through human instinct. I "know" it is wrong because my instincts tell me this is so. Homosexuality threatens species survival by upsetting natural selection through heterosexual sexual activity.

OK homosexual advocates, have you got that? When you ask me to be "tolerant" of homosexual marriage, you are asking me to go against my instincts. Using my power of human reason, I can overcome my intincts to be somewhat tolerant of homosexuals. I do not want, for example, to see heterosexual toughs beating the hell out of homosexuals. I do not want employers to fire individuals when it is discovered they are homosexual. I do not want to see signs sprouting up in front of apartment complexes with the message "No Gays Allowed". However I can not reason away that it is wrong for homosexuals to expect human society to encourage their activity by granting their unions the official "blessing" of marriage.

I can overcome my instincts when it comes to being tolerant of homosexuals. I think I can learn to overcome my instinctive impulse to recoil when I encounter a "flaming faggot". However when it comes to the subject of marriage, I am going to go with my instinct, I am going to keep on saying no way, that homosexuals are asking for too much.

If this is not enough for homosexuals, if this is upsetting for them, I ask for their forgiveness. I ask them to try to see things from my viewpoint like I have attempted to see things from theirs. And when you try to put yourself in my shoes, try to remember, I am only human.

The "Fair Tax" and Home Ownership

In the recent past, I came to the conclusion, and stated the conclusion, that I could live with the so called "Fair Tax" (a plan for replacing the current tax code with a national sales tax) as long as a progressive income tax was continued for those in higher income levels.

While bumping down the road, I continued to give the "Fair Tax" further thought. What would the impact be on a big part of the American Dream for the middle class, that of home ownership, I asked myself.

I have come to the conclusion that the results will be disastrous. It still might not lead to a collapse of home values, however it might make home ownership a stupid investment for many homeowners. How is this so? Let us examine how the "Fair Tax" would impact a significant portion of middle class home owners today.

Let us say a young family purchases their first starter home. Since they have not yet met anywhere near their peak income, they start off modestly with dreams of a bigger castle for themselves held back until their income increases. They choose a modest home that the seller is asking $100k for (in many, if not most of America's housing markets, $100k will indeed be a modest home). However in addition to what the seller wants, Uncle Sam now demands the 30% Fair Tax and the price increases to $130k.

But what happens when the home buyer walks into the bank asking for a mortgage? The banker is going to ask the buyer if he has a minimum of $30k just to even qualify for a "no money down" loan. If the buyer wishes to escape PMI (mortgage insurance) he will have to have $40k. Why the minimum $30k down? Even if the bank is willing to risk a 100%, no money down mortgage, the amount they will be willing to finance is only $100k since this is the maximum amount that they could be expect to receive if they were forced to repossess and sell the property even if they received exactly the same price the home buyer paid.

Strike one: The first time home purchaser is going to be forced to come up with an unrealistic down payment for his starter home.

Now let us further examine the future for this home buyer. A significant portion of home buyers do not buy their first home and then live in it for the rest of their lives. Due to needing to move to other areas of the nation, family growth, or just increased income and being able to afford a nicer home, they might sell it and move up after only a few years.

Let us examine what happens to investment decision of this first time home purchaser if they choose to sell their starter home after only having lived in it for 5 years. 5 years might not be totally typical, but it is the time period investment advisers typically use when advising whether or not it is wise to refinance when interest rates are dropping.

In five years, using an amortization table with a 6% interest rate, we'll find the homebuyer would have paid down $6945.64 in principal. Now let us assume that appreciation of home values only follows the CPI (Consumer Price Index) which will have risen by about 3.3% for fiscal year 2006. I'll use this figure to compute appreciation. The homebuyer can expect his home will have appreciated in value by $17,625.52 in five years.

$6,945.64 in principal reduction + $17,625.52 in appreciation = $24,571.16 meaning the homebuyer will have LOST $5,428.84 for having owned his own home. This does not factor in any further expenses due to maintenance expenses, or having to pay a realtor the commission (thousands of dollars) for helping to sell the home.

Strike two: This young family loses money on their investment even while they deal with the headaches of home ownership.

Let's say this young family experienced a healthy increase of income and purchased a home marketed for $200k. With the Fair Tax added in, they will pay $60k immediately to Uncle Sam once again before they ask the bank to finance the remainder. This means our not untypical family will have paid $90k to Uncle Sam over a period of 5 years for the right to lose money for daring to own a home.

Strike three: No further explanation required.

For many middle class home purchasers, purchasing a home is going to become downright stupid. It will be financially wise for them to just rent, and what the heck, let the landlord deal with the headaches.

The only thing that will prevent a catastrophic collapse of property values will be all the investors that will be circling like sharks as sellers try to market their properties at fire sale prices. The middle class is still going to need a place to live after all, it is just that they are now going to increasingly become tenants instead of home owners. But investors are not going to be willing to invest unless they see a profit to be made.

Remember, one of the things driving current property values is the significant tax benefits obtained from itemizing due to mortgage interest.

Property values are going to decline significantly, particularly on the types of property the middle class can afford. And the American Dream of home ownership for the middle class is going to frequently be a nightmare.

Solution to Iraq

OK, George Dubyah Bush is stumping the country saying the Democrats do not have a plan for Iraq.

Well, how about this Dubyah?

Senator Joe Biden offered a solution, and I would even suggest that this solution is/was tried. For example, the Iraqi Parliament voted for a federal system but there was no end to the violence.

Well now comes step 2, and we are already starting to hear some of it. We make them scream for mercy, mercy that we will only be all too willing to offer.

Since the militants are unwilling to settle for a three state solution, we hint about the two state solution (part of step 3). We withdraw American forces to the Kurdish region, defending the Kurds from what is about to happen and turn our back on the carnage that is about to ensue. The only steps that we will take is to ensure no outside forces seek to involve themselves in the civil war.

We put the Shiites and the Sunnis in a boxing ring together and let themselves beat each other bloody. One side will emerge victorious (I know which side my money would be on) and then we will offer this victor the two state solution.

Of course one or both sides of the conflict might step up to the line, look at the coming carnage and blink. Hopefully both sides will sober up and step back, but, if they insist, we allow them to go at it.

What happens if only one side blinks? Well, that also is part of step 3. Let's see if we can get to step 2 first.

Election Day Approaches

I have access to the internet today, and I am uncertain if I will have access again between now and election day, so I am going to make one last push for the candidates I support in my state and congressional district.

First let me state that I have already voted. I dropped my absentee ballot in the mail several days ago.

Who did I vote for? Let us go through it race by race.

Jim Webb vs George Allen. My vote - Jim Webb

Jim Webb might not be the perfect candidate, however he will be a definite improvement over George Allen. My vote for Jim Webb is grounded more on who is opponent is then it is what I know about him. You see, I actually supported George Allen last time around. I wanted to see what he could do. Well I have seen enough. George Allen, instead of representing his state, ran to the extreme end of the Republican party. In his attempt to run for President, he grabbed the bull horn, charged to the front, and started being a cheerleader for much of what I dislike about the Republican Party. It is the same Republican Party for which even "born again" Harriet Miers was not conservative enough to serve on the Supreme Court. Well now we have 4 extremely conservative Supreme Court justices, only one vote short of an extremist majority that would end up serving for a long time. I wouldn't mind seeing the court swing a little to the right, however I do not believe I am ready for a mind numbing number of puritanical rulings that we would see if George Allen gets his way. Conservatives only number about a third of our nation's population, and they now are over represented on the court with 4 of 9 seats. I want to see some moderates seated, and I do not see that happening with George Allen serving in the Senate. I want to vote to run George Allen out of office.

Phil Kellam vs Thelma Drake. My vote - Phil Kellam

This was a pretty tough decision, since both candidates' positions are so much alike. Yeah, there are a few differences, but not much. I chose Phil based on his experience working in public finance. Hopefully he can help return some fiscal sanity to Capitol Hill. Meanwhile Thelma is in favor of the "Fair Tax" which is nothing more then a sucker punch aimed at the middle class. Hopefully adding center-right Phil Kellam to the mix in the Democrat Party will help pull the party towards the center. Thelma's 98% party line voting record places her pretty firmly as a staunch conservative and her stance on the "Fair Tax" exposes her as even being an extremist within the Republican Party. No hope that Thelma will help pull the Republican Party to the center since she already is about to fall off the extreme right edge of the Republican Party platform.

Now for some overall Democrat vs Republican in general. I describe myself as a moderate, independent with no allegiance to any party. However if I am honest with myself, over the past 4 to 6 years I have been starting to lean towards the Democrat side. No, I do not like much of what Democrats stand for, however I am extremely worried about Global Warming. Since I am approaching 50 years old, there is a chance I will not even be alive to experience the worst affects of Global Warming. Yeah, I know, it might be caused by increased solar output and there is nothing we can do about it. Well too many experts seem to think that greenhouse gases are at least a contributing factor if not the entire cause. I want to try and do something to save the world. Even if the world remains a tolerable place during my lifetime, I am worried about what kind of world I will be leaving for my children and for future generations. I might have to put up with some bullshit from the Democrats if we give them too much power, but they seem to be motivated to do something about Global Warming.

I have witnessed what happens when you give Republicans too much power, and frankly I was not pleased with what I saw. It's time for a change.

John Kerry Insults Troops

Well, John Kerry stuck his foot in his mouth again.

I am not talking about John Kerry's original statement, how some of our citizens choose to serve in the military because they see a lack of opportunity anywhere else. There was truth in this statement and the statement could be defended.

What is indefensible is John Kerry's explanation that his comment was meant to be a joke. Well, Senator Kerry, how come no one is laughing? How come no one even gives a chuckle after you explain it?

However, while forgiving John Kerry for his stupid explanation of his statement, let us examine the original statement itself.

How many rich kids are serving in Iraq or Afghanistan? I know, we can point to glaring exceptions like Pat Tillman, however just how many Pat Tillman's serve in the military?

Now do not get me wrong. I am not saying everyone, or even a majority, of Americans serving in combat are motivated by monetary considerations. However it is indisputable that at least some are only serving because they see/saw no other opportunities for themselves other then military service.

I'd like to see someone do a study of what background our warriors come from. How much is the warrior's Daddy worth? If such a study is conducted, I am certain that lower and middle class warriors will be over represented in the military as when compared to snotty nosed rich kids serving.

Snotty nosed rich kids, after they grow up, start the wars and then sit back and wait for the kids of the poor and the middle class to fight the battles.

There are exceptions. Pat Tillman is an extremely notable exception. But Pat Tillman was brought up right, he was not brought up as a snotty nosed rich kid.

I do not wish to call into question the patriotism of Americans who choose to serve, even if this service was somewhat motivated by economic considerations. These individuals chose to volunteer while many (most?) of their peers still refused to serve under the same circumstances. However, I will point out to these patriots that while they serve for dogshit wages, the children of the wealthy are sitting back home enjoying their rights to enjoy Daddy's wealth.

But what does John Kerry do? Did he defend the truth behind the words he spoke? No, he tried to brush it off as being a joke.

Well, John Kerry, I ain't laughing. Quit trying to be a comedian and stick to trying to explain the truth. You have your hands full doing only that.