January 29, 2009
Posted by Richard Cochrane on 29th January 2009
“In the anguished days immediately following the first great leak from Union Oil Company’s well in Santa Barbara Channel, scientists warned that animal and plant life in and around the affected waters might be permanently damaged. In retrospect, their dire predictions seem to have been overstated.
A study conducted by a team of University of California researchers discloses that the initial fears were exaggerated,” TIME magazine June 13, 1969.
Yesterday was the 40th anniversary of .the infamous Santa Barbara Oil Spill. Union Oil’s Platform A leaked some 100,000 barrels of crude oil blanketing local beaches and triggering the modern environmental movement.
Locally GOO (Get Oil Out) was formed and remains a robust mantra against the dreaded offshore oil industry. Over a thousand actvists swarmed to Santa Barbara to stop oil.
Oil spill scenes were broadcast and published worldwide.
TIME and others predicted decades of destruction. But, as its June 13, 1969 issue reported “Dr. Carl Hubbs, professor emeritus of marine biology at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, stated flatly at the time that the channel “will never be quite nat ural again.” Now, four months later, the channel’s ecology seems to have been restored to virtually its natural state — although oil seepage continues to smear city beaches.”
Santa Barbara sits over one of the largest natural oil seeps on the Earth and every day tar balls wash up on beaches sticking to feet and paws and engendering continuing ire.
When I moved to Santa Barbara nearly 30-years ago oil rigs were pointed out as the source of the tar with hateful venom. Actually they have nothing to do with it and may even reduce the pressure of the natural seepages.
The 1969 spill was, as noted, rapidly cleared up, and there does not appear to be long term damage that some predicted.
Nevertheless the residue is a widely held conviction that oil is bad and offshore oil production I evil and vile.
In recanting its most dire prediction TIME said, “No one knows what the long-range effects on marine life may be as a result of the continuing oil seepage. In any case, it appears that the offensive derricks will be around for decades to come. Last week a presidential panel recommended that drilling on the Union lease site, which has been halted for four months, be resumed. The panel contended that the best way to stop the leak is to exhaust the oil reservoir un der Union’s platform A — an undertaking that could last 20 years or more.”
Like so any other things hysteria is easy to whip-up but, no amount of logic or facts can offset.
The Postmaster General says multi-billion deficits may mean the end of daily home mail delivery. His announcement avoided discussing that union contracts will mean $100,000 letter carrier costs by 2010.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 53% say that it’s always better to cut taxes rather than spend more. Republicans overwhelmingly say it’s always better to cut taxes, and so do 50% of those not affiliated with either major party. Twenty-three percent (23%) of unaffiliateds take the opposite view and agree with Krugman.
Democrats are evenly divided—38% say tax cuts are always better while 34% disagree.
Paul Krugman, last year’s winner of the Nobel Prize for economics and a regular columnist for the New York Times, recently wrote that you should “write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.” But, the nation disagrees with Krugman.
Krugman was recently named the most influential liberal in the media. In making that selection, Forbes.com noted that Krugman’s “prose is as pungent as his academic credentials are impeccable. Last year’s Nobel in economics was widely seen as a vindication of his politics.”
Clearly, his New York Times column was based on his convictions rather than his sense of public opinion, and his purpose in writing is to persuade, not report. The survey data simply highlights how much persuading he has ahead of him.
It also should be noted that Krugman’s assertions are no more out of synch with public opinion than the Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s assertion last fall that the economy was “fundamentally sound.”
Krugman’s views are a bit more aligned with public opinion when he asserts that “public spending rather than tax cuts should be the core of any stimulus plan.” On this point, the public is evenly divided–34% agree, 34% disagree, and 32% are not sure.
By a 47% to 21% margin, Democrats agree with Krugman on that point. However, Republicans and unaffiliated voters take the opposite view.
While overall public opinion is divided on that question, there is less public support for another Krugman claim. The columnist wrote that “it’s clear that when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi echoed that view on ABC’s This Week on Sunday when she said, “There is more bang for the buck by investing in food stamps and in unemployment insurance than in any tax cut.”
Thirty-one percent (31%) agree with Krugman and Pelosi that “public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts.” Forty-two percent (42%) disagree.
On this point, Democrats once again strongly agree with the columnist—44% share his view and 17% do not. However, unaffiliateds disagree with Krugman by a 45% to 24% margin, and Republicans are even more likely to disagree.
On all the questions surveyed, voters under 30 are more likely than their elders to agree with Krugman.
A separate survey released recently found that 57% of voters nationwide believe tax cuts are good for the economy Only 17% disagree.
Police in Nigeria are holding a goat on suspicion of attempted armed robbery. Vigilantes took the black and white beast to the police saying it was an armed robber who had used black magic to transform himself into a goat to escape arrest after trying to steal a Mazda 323.
Bush Derangement Syndrome Reflected in New Rasmussen Poll.
Forty-four percent (44%) of Democratic voters say President Bush and senior members of his administration are guilty of war crimes. Only 28% of the nation’s Democrats disagree. Overall 54% disagree with the liberals and only 25% says war crimes were committed.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that Republicans and unaffiliated voters have a different view. Just 21% of unaffiliateds say that Bush and his team are guilty of war crimes, a view shared by four percent (4%) of Republicans.
Seventy percent (70%) of the nation’s voters say it would be bad for the United States if the former president and senior administration officials were brought to trial for war crimes. A majority of Democrats (53%) agree with that assessment.
Nineteen percent (19%) of all voters hold the opposite view and believe that bringing Bush Administration officials to trial for war crimes would be good for the nation.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of U.S. voters say Congress should hold hearing to investigate possible government wrongdoing during the Bush years. Democrats, by a 57% to 27% margin, believe such hearings should be held. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of unaffiliated voters agree as do nine percent (9%) of Republicans.
Twenty-eight percent (28%) believe Congress should hold hearings to investigate possible war crimes by the Bush Administration . Sixty-percent (60%) disagree.
MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann recently urged President Obama to investigate potential war crimes and other Democratic pundits have expressed a similar view.
Several top Democrats including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have said there is need to investigate certain aspects of the Bush presidency, including the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba and the alleged “politicization” of the Justice Department. But President Obama has thus far resisted those calls.
On all questions, there are significant differences along ideological lines. By a 50% to 22% margin, liberals believe Bush and his team are guilty of war crimes. By a 42% to 26% margin, political moderates disagree. Conservatives, by an 8-to-1 margin, reject the claim that war crimes were committed.
Ex libris (eks LEE-bris, LI-) MEANING:1. From the library of (a phrase inscribed in a book followed by the name of the book owner). 2. A bookplate. ETYMOLOGY:From Latin ex libris (from the books), from ex- (from) + liber (book).
Hugo CHAVEZ, president of Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) since 1999, seeks to implement his “21st Century Socialism,” which purports to alleviate social ills while at the same time attacking globalization and undermining regional stability.
Current concerns include: a weakening of democratic institutions, political polarization, a politicized military, drug-related violence along the Colombian border, increasing internal drug consumption, overdependence on its nationalized petroleum industry with its price fluctuations, and irresponsible mining operations that are endangering the rain forest and indigenous peoples.
CHAVEZ fancies himself the new SIMON BOLIVAR as he tries to strong together the likeminded in his vision of a Southern Empire.
Venezuela remains highly dependent on oil revenues, which account for roughly 90% of export earnings, about 50% of the federal budget revenues, and around 30% of GDP. A nationwide strike between December 2002 and February 2003 had far-reaching economic consequences - real GDP declined by around 9% in 2002 and 8% in 2003 - but economic output since then has recovered strongly.
Fueled by high oil prices, record government spending helped to boost GDP by about 9% in 2006, 8% in 2007, and nearly 6% in 2008. This spending, combined with recent minimum wage hikes and improved access to domestic credit, has created a consumption boom but has come at the cost of higher inflation-roughly 20% in 2007 and more than 30% in 2008.
Imports also have jumped significantly. Declining oil prices in the latter part of 2008 are expected to undermine the govenment’s ability to continue the high rate of spending. President Hugo CHAVEZ in 2008 continued efforts to increase the government’s contol of the economy by nationalizing firms in the cement and steel sectors. In 2007 he nationalized firms in the petroleum, communications, and electricity sectors. In July 2008, CHAVEZ implemented by decree a number of laws that further consolidate and centralize authority over the economy through his plan for “21st Century Socialism.”
Venezuela is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation and forced labor (slavery); Venezuelan women and girls are trafficked within the country for sexual exploitation, lured from the nation’s interior to urban and tourist areas; child prostitution in urban areas and child sex tourism in resort destinations appear to be growing; Venezuelan women and girls are trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation to Western Europe, Mexico, and Caribbean destinations
Toilet paper sales are the most recent victim of the economy. Roll sales are reportedly down by more than 8%. It is difficult to explain but still a fact.
According to the January 26, 2009 Jerusalem Post newly installed US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice says the new Obama administration will engage in “direct diplomacy” with Iran.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon meets Susan Rice, the new UN Ambassador to theUnited Nations in New York, Monday. She warned, however, of further action unless Teheran meets UN Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment as a prelude to talks on its nuclear program.
Rice spoke to reporters shortly after meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on her first day on the job Monday.
She said the US plan for “vigorous diplomacy that includes direct diplomacy” with Iran “must go hand in hand” with a firm message from the US and international community that Iran must meet it UN Security Council obligations.
Iran’s “continuing refusal to do so will only cause pressure to increase,” she added.
According to a January 25, 2009 article in the Iranian based Persian Journal Iran’s annual inflation rate is expected to fall to 22-23 percent by the end of March compared with a peak of nearly 30 percent in 2008, Iranian media quoted Central Bank officials as saying on Saturday. That rate is still crippling.
Commerce Minister Massoud Mirkazemi separately told producers and importers of goods they would be fined and could also lose their licenses if they did not lower their prices in proportion to international declines, official media reported. Such prices controls are unlikely to have any positive impact on Iran’s domestic economy.
Falling inflation would be welcome news for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is widely expected to run for a second four-year term in a June election, even though it remains well above the rate of around 12 percent when he took office in 2005.
“The inflation rate at the end of the year will definitely be lower than the current inflation rate,” Central Bank governor Mahmoud Bahmani told Mehr News Agency, referring to the Iranian year which ends on March 20.
The central bank said in mid-January that year-on-year inflation declined to 26.4 percent in December from 28.3 percent the previous month and 29.5 percent in October.
Bahmani made clear he expected the downward trend to continue. “In regards to plans aimed at increasing production and supply of products in proportion to demand, the central bank thinks that we would bring the inflation rate back to 22 or 23 percent by the end of the year,” he told Mehr.
But he also stressed the need to control liquidity.
Iran’s economy is marked by an inefficient state sector, reliance on the oil sector (which provides 85% of government revenues), and statist policies that create major distortions throughout. Most economic activity is controlled by the state. Private sector activity is typically small-scale workshops, farming, and services.
President Mahmud AHMADI-NEJAD has proposed reforms to Iran’s system of of price controls and subsidies, particularly on food and energy, but the government’s attempt to impose a Value-Added Tax (VAT) was abandoned after widespread protests.
Administrative controls, widespread corruption, and other rigidities undermine the potential for private-sector-led growth. As a result of these inefficiencies, significant informal market activity flourishes and shortages are common. The recent drop in oil prices will be the most significant impact of the global financial crisis on Iran, but high oil prices in recent years have enabled Iran to amass nearly $70 billion in foreign exchange reserves. Iranians continue to suffer from double-digit unemployment and inflation - inflation climbed to 26% as of June 2008. The economy has seen only moderate growth.
Iran’s educated population, economic inefficiency and insufficient investment - both foreign and domestic - have prompted an increasing number of Iranians to seek employment overseas, resulting in significant “brain drain.”
Iran is a source, transit, and destination country for women trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and involuntary servitude; Iranian women are trafficked internally for the purpose of forced prostitution and for forced marriages to settle debts; Iranian children are trafficked internally and Afghan children are trafficked into Iran for the purpose of forced marriages, commercial sexual exploitation, and involuntary servitude as beggars or laborers tier rating:
Iran did not provide evidence of law enforcement activities against trafficking, and credible reports indicate that Iranian authorities punish victims of trafficking with beatings, imprisonment, and execution; Iran has not ratified the 2000 UN TIP Protocol (2008)
The national unemployment rate is officially over 12% with underemployment said to hover in the mid-to-high 20 percentiles. Per capita income is about $12,000 annually in the nation of about 66 million.
Local hotel occupancy is at a 20-year low with a 40% vacancy rate. Room taxes are correspondingly lower as are sales taxes.
Observers of the beleaguered American auto industry say that taxpayers will pay through the nose due to President Barack Obama issuing new regulations Monday, allowing several states to set tougher car emissions and fuel efficiency standards, US media and congressional officials said. There are worries that more regulation will drive up costs and prices, drive down sales and result in job loses and demand for even more taxpayer bailout money.
The dramatic federal action granting California and 13 other states the right to regulate tailpipe emissions is a sharp departure from former George W. Bush’s environmental policy, and has been sharply opposed by auto companies.
According to The New York Times, Obama is to issue a directive to the US Environmental Protection Agency to immediately begin work on granting the so-called California waiver, which allows the state — long in the vanguard on environmental matters — to set its own standards for automobile emissions.
In his White House announcement, Obama is expected to issue a directive requiring federal agencies to immediately begin work on making all government buildings more energy efficient.
The new US administration hopes to achieve energy savings of up to two billion dollars per year, as well as a reduction of emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming.
The presidential orders will require car manufacturers begin producing and selling cars and trucks that get higher mileage than the national standard, and on a faster phase-in schedule, the media reports said.
Obama also is expected to announce that he is moving forward with nationwide regulations requiring improved fuel efficiency standards.
“If we don’t put a price on carbon,” said Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California, the chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, “we’ll never get these clean energy sources online.”
Obama also will direct the Department of Transportation to immediately begin drafting automobile fuel-economy regulations to comply with a law enacted in December 2007.
Former president George W. Bush delayed implementing the law and left office saying there was not sufficient time to write the rules.
The anticipated greenhouse gas restrictions will be part of a larger effort by the Obama administration to stimulate renewable energy supply.
Obama’s stimulus plan calls for investing heavily in wind and solar power as well as biofuels. The administration also plans to help that power compete with cheaper fossil fuels by raising the coast of fossil fuels to reflect the potential economic damage from a warmed Earth.
However, critics argue those moves will increase energy prices and further weaken the economy.
Peter Orszag, the former head of the Congressional Budget Office who now heads the White House Office of Management and Budget, warned Congress last year that emissions limits would reduce long-term economic risks but “also impose costs on the economy … in the form of higher prices for energy and energy-intensive goods.”
Buried in Obama’s stimulus package is billions for ACORN the outfit under multiple investigation for voter fraud.
Clinton-era Labor Secretary Robert Reich says bank bailouts won’t revive the U.S. economy, but more union membership might, and he says controversial “card-check” legislation should be passed by the Congress now in order to stimulate job growth.
If passed, union organizers would no longer have to conduct a secret ballot election to get employees of a small business represented by a national union.
Rather, unions would be approved through a much faster open petition-signing process.
“The American middle class isn’t looking for a bailout or a handout. Most people just want a chance to share in the success of the companies they help to prosper,” Reich wrote in The Los Angeles Times.
“Making it easier for all Americans to form unions would give the middle class the bargaining power it needs for better wages and benefits. And a strong and prosperous middle class is necessary if our economy is to succeed.”
Go back about 50 years, Reich contends, when America’s middle class was expanding and the economy was soaring. Paychecks were big enough to allow us to buy all the goods and services we produced, he argues.
“It was a virtuous circle. Good pay meant more purchases, and more purchases meant more jobs,” Reich maintains. “At the center of this virtuous circle were unions.”
Statistics from the Department of Labor show that workers in some unions earn 30 percent higher wages — taking home $863 a week compared with $663 for the typical nonunion worker — and are 59 percent more likely to have employer-provided health insurance than their nonunion counterparts.
A recent Hart poll, too, indicates that 57 million workers would be in a union if they could have one.
According to Reich, though, it has become nearly impossible for employees to create a union. Only 8 percent of private U.S. labor is now unionized, down from one in three in the 1950s.
“Those who try to form a union, according to researchers at MIT, have only about a 1 in 5 chance of successfully doing so,” Reich says. “Most of the time, employees who want to form a union are threatened and intimidated by their employers. And all too often, if they don’t heed the warnings, they’re fired, even though that’s illegal.”
“I saw this when I was secretary of Labor over a decade ago. We tried to penalize employers that broke the law, but the fines are minuscule. Too many employers consider them a cost of doing business.”
The plan is quite controversial in public-policy circles and in the business community.
According to the Heritage Foundation, unions spent an estimated $16.5 million of members’ dues to elect Barack Obama and another $85 million for the Democratic Congress and have made it clear that they want the Obama Administration to enact their priorities.
“Organized labor’s highest legislative priority is the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act, which effectively replaces traditional secret ballot organizing elections with publicly signed cards,” writes economist James Sherk on the foundation’s Web site.
“Workers would have to voice their choice in public, in front of union organizers, exposing workers who do not want a union to pressure, threats, and harassment from union organizers.”
“This legislation is popular with union bosses but opposed by large majorities of workers.”
The New York Times Co. says it has retained investment firm Goldman Sachs to help explore a sale of its stake in the company that owns the Boston Red Sox.A week ago the NYT borrowed $250 million from a Mexican billionaire who is charging it 4% interest.
Actor Tom Hanks has apologized for his over-the-top remarks about Mormons in California.
He had criticized members of the Latter-Day Saints Church who had supported the campaign to pass Proposition 8, which outlawed same sex unions in the Golden State.
“The truth is that a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop. 8 happen. There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them,” the actor had said.
As pointed out many times before in this column, freedom of expression is the essence of American citizenship.
Evidently, Hanks was moved to write the following statement and provide it to People magazine: “Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California’s Proposition 8 as ‘un-American.’ I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination. But everyone has a right to vote their conscience — nothing could be more American.
“To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are ‘un-American’ creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use ‘un-American’ lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have,” he stated.
It should be noted that Hanks is an executive producer for the controversial series, “Big Love,” which features a polygamist Mormon splinter group.
Proponents of homosexual marriage have promised to put the issue back on a statewide ballot for a third time. It passed twice but was overturned by the state’s supreme court before being reinstated by voters. Some supporters have figuratively and literally attacked Mormons for supporting and contributing to pass the constitutional ban, and critics of Hanks comments say he fomented such intimidation.
Two New Zealand prisoners who were handcuffed together as they fled a courthouse foiled their own getaway when they ran to opposite sides of a light pole, slammed into each other, fell to the ground and were apprehended by wildy laughing police pursuers.
Congressman. Jose Serrano (D) New York has introduced a bill to abolish the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which limits the occupant of the White House to a maximum number of two presidential terms. The 66-year old Puerto Rican born Serrano’s idea is that Barack Obama should have the opportunity to be “president-for-life” apparently based on watching Obama’s performance for the 32 hours between his Inauguration and when Jose introduced the bill to change the Constitution.
The 22nd Amendment has been the law since 1951 when it was ratified. Franklin Roosevelt is the only U.S. president who served more than two terms dying in the first April of his fourth term..
The mainstream media and Democratic Party members complained incessantly about the increase in presidential power initiated by the Bush administration.
Proposing to remove presidential term limits during week one of Obama’s tenure so the fledgling president can Barack-on and on is another example of the growing delusion and illusion.
Serrano’s district is one of the smallest in the country geographically consisting of a few miles of the heavily urbanized and populated South Bronx in New York City. His district is also one of the most densely populated and one of the few majority Hispanic districts in the country. Yankee Stadium is in his district. His son José Marco is a New York State Senator.
Several other members of Congress, including Rep. Barney Frank (D) Mass. and Sen. Harry Reid, (D) Nevada have introduced legislation to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment, but each resolution died before making it out of its respective committee. The reason then was to allow Bill Clinton to run for another term.
Contrary to popular belief it is possible for a person to serve more than 8-years and in fact up to 10-years under a specific circumstance. The amendment says:
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
A corpulant Ohio firefighter has been given a six-month suspension from his role as drum major in a pipe and drum band because he winked and nodded to President Barack Obama during last week’s inaugural parade in Washington
The Belgiums and Icelanders both dumped their governments in recent days because of sagging economies.. Now analyst are wondering if Russia’s Putin’s number is about to come up. Unemployment and others ills have sparked social unrest there as the global economy unravels.
Recent citizen demonstrations point to a growing discontent in Russia that some say could lead to the unthinkable: a waning of influence from the country’s most powerful and popular leader. The startlingly violent backlash against demonstrators in the Northeastern city of Vladivostok last December involved Russian police clubbing and arresting dozens of people protesting against higher taxes on foreign-made cars, taxes which have hurt a local economy that hinges on servicing and selling those vehicles. Since then, there have been a number of smaller protests around Russia’s disparate regions, and geopolitical think-tank Oxford Analytica has said more are likely.
It’s been hard not to look at Vladimir Putin and see a man who is powerful, and knows it. Yet, things could be about to change for Russia’s commanding prime minister. As it stands though, Putin’s stellar approval ratings have yet to budge, and no one within the country’s political elite has yet to break ranks.
But Dr. Lilia Shevtsova of Chatham House, a think tank, believes that could change over the next two to three months as Russians start to experience the impact of rising unemployment, and stop seeing Russia’s economic troubles as entirely the fault of America’s subprime mortage crisis. “Part of Putin’s popularity has always been the economic situation and high oil prices. The moment that starts to decline, his popularity is doomed.”
Posted in Conservatively Speaking | No Comments »