Wednesday, December 17, 2008
USSR part II?
When President Bush first met, then President, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin early in his first year in office he stated:
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country."Oddly enough I agree with Hillery Clinton - he is former KGB and probably does not have a soul. The minute he took office he started to consolidate political power. I could argue that purging the Kremlin of nearly anyone related to Boris Yeltsin was important house cleaning or that condensing the number of governors and political territories was need to better manage the country - many of the events of the past years point to less benevolent reasons. Let me be clear: this is a man who spent much of his life working his way through the KGB - starting in the Fifth Directorate (irc) which is charged with quelling descent of the government. I do believe that he has the best interests of his country at heart; it just so happens that it is always in the country's best interest to have him near the top of power. Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's current president, has served under Putin since the fall of Communism in the early nineties and it is believed by many that hey his mealy Putin's proxy in office. The political party they share (and Putin is the current leader of) is generally considered a nationalist/center-right (the European definition of right). One of its main planks is to limit "radicalism". Additionally it has been reported (I don't recall where I saw it) that a push is being made to lessen the power of the rich oligarchs that run most of the countries manufacturing, transport, and natural resource concerns - possibly leading to the nationalization these industries. Now the PM and the President are pushing for a constitutional change to allow the president to serve a 6 year term instead of the current four. As a package it looks less than fair for a real Russian Democracy - I hope I'm wrong.
Two articles I've read in the last week spawned this quick reminder of who runs Russia today. The first was this one discussing the heavy handed break up of opposition protests. Many people are extremely unhappy with the current political situation in Russia and this has been exasperated by the lack of foreign investment and the current global financial mess. The investment issue is a major one and worthy of a book or two.
The second article is much more frightening. I thank God they we have the Bill of Rights. Voicing a descending view is treason... that very thought frightens me until I remember the old adage: "the 2nd Amendment protects all of the others." Read the article. This is a basis for a totalitarian state. I pray something occurs to heel Russia's current course or I fear a return of the USSR, though resembling Germany circa 1938 to a degree.
edit: This is what may happen in an extreme, but it is in the back of my head when ever I read someing like this.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
More minor points...
This is the best summary of Islamo-fascist terrorism I have ever seen:
Plexico Burris is a colossal moron. Apparently the thug culture, that apparently urban people perpetuate, ignores basic safety and throws common sense out the window.
Problem one: He carried a gun in NYC illegally. Do I think NY's laws are asinine? Hell yeah, but I obey them just the same. He shouldn't have had it with him in the first place. Hell, clubs/bars and guns don't mix for a myriad of reasons. Guns and alcohol don't mix in any situation or quantity.
Problem two: He stuffed a loaded Glock in the waist band of his sweat pants. I have never found a pair of sweatpants that would support a couple of pounds of stainless steel, plastic, and ammo. In fact, I purchased a heavy duty gun belt to wear when I carry to support the weight of my sidearm - no pair of pants would do it by it self. In addition to this being unsafe and insecure; I have a major problem with pointing a loaded gun at my junk and at my femoral artery when sitting. In the worst case scenario the gun goes off taking my boys off and severing the major artery in my leg. The shame of becoming androgynous will be short lived since I'll probably bleed out in less than minute.
Problem three: He was sans holster. Nearly all holsters cover the trigger guard preventing accidental contact with the trigger and thus helping to prevent a negligent discharge. Most holsters also have belt clip that will prevent the gun from sliding down your pants leg.
Problem four: It should be a rule - don't try and grab a falling gun!
Who wears sweatpants in public anyway? Many people do when it makes sense to do so (jogging for example) - but to a club? Isn't that a sign you've given up on life and plan on spending your days in a recliner, chugging cheap booze, channel surfing and hoping not to wind up like half the people on COPS. I think this was a basis for an episode of Seinfeld.
And again whe turn to Americas best source for news an commentary to help put this in the proper perspective:
Sunday, November 30, 2008
A Journalist gets it!
"I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."
Policemen who will not stop an armed gunman from slaughtering unarmed citizens... It makes my stomach turn.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Happy Thanksgiving
Arrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Somali pirates have been thriving - capturing a Saudi oil tanker and a Russian cargo ship laden with military cargo amongst others. That takes balls by any measure. What is amazing is that they have been allowed to thrive. The reactionary nature of the nations patrolling the Indian Ocean have emboldened the Pirates who live in luxury in a Barbary state. Somalia has not been a truly sovereign nation for sometime. The meddling by foreign groups - including Clinton's abortion of an operation in the '90s - have created a poor, fractured country in a state of perpetual civil war. The international community, sadly, frowns on arming the crews for the defense of their ship. As an American I fins this fundamentally wrong. The pirates have no real fear of loss and this emboldens them. Only one way has been proven to stop piracy: sink their ships, hell their ports, and hang the captains. The US Navy was formed to battle the Barbary Pirates. The Marines Hymn enshrines the "...shores of Tripoli...". You must be more ruthless then them; history prove s this. Sink captured vessels to deny them ransom and cargo - though that gets expensive in a hurry. Shell/bomb safe havens - a perfect job for a BB - if we still used them. If you make piracy have a significant cost you will curtail it.Obama's Appointments and Such...
I just have to laugh. The man worked his way up through the Chicago political machine. Patronage is an important component of that. If anyone really thought he would do things differently they are a diluted fool. Even the Huffington Post is crying about this. You are getting exactly what you voted for. Those of you on the left are only seeing the beginnings of what many on the right had predicted would be the shape of his administration. If you are unwillinhg to take a critical look at your canidate before an election; don't act surpised when he does thinks you don't expect or disagree with.
On a somewhat related note... something that I had noticed during the summer, but never mentioned (I wasn't in a writing mood much of the summer): Doesn't the Oboma 'Hope' graphic look a little like the common Che Guevara image? I think it does, and it is quite telling of his belief system.
Money...
Here is an interesting artical in the Finacial Times. Apparently the Germans get it. It is a real shame that politicas and class warfare have gotten in the way of solving problems.
Friday, November 21, 2008
The Auto Bail-out Plan Pt 3
Finally, the bail-out debate.
It has been said that: “ Nations fall when the population realizes it can vote it self money from the treasury.” This has been proven time and time again (Rome, the various Soviet states). It is being proven again with all of the social programs and pork that exist in the country, at every level (Social Security, California's perpetual budget woes). The first $700 billion dollars as created a clamor for companies, states, and cities to have the fed solve there own fiscal mis-management or just yelling 'gimmie' to anyone who'll listen. If the auto industry gets a bail out, when will the hand outs end? I am fundamentally opposed to a bail out as a solution for any situation. That being said, I do thing that things must happen to prevent a complete collapse of the American auto industry.
Will the auto makers go into bankruptcy? Will they survive? Who knows? What is fairly certain is that even if one fails the number of jobs that will be affected it almost inconceivable. The ripple of even one going down, will hurt suppliers, vendors, the towns that house plants, and so on down to the 7-11 that sells coffee and a paper to the workers in that plant.
"The industry is so interdependent," Mulally said. "We're nearly 10 percent of the US GDP, and if one of the automobile manufacturers gets into serious trouble, it has just tremendous implications for the entire industry."
Will the country survive the loss of so many jobs? Yes. It will hurt for sure, but we'll weather that storm. It will almost certainly cause recession. The ailing auto industry as effected a recession in Michigan that has lasted for some time. As an aside: we know what won't help the economy if the worst happens. Just look!
Will the UAW? Possibly not, but that won't necessarily be a bad thing considering the state of unions in this country today. Even if the UAW survives; it will be severely weakened and hopefully will become a much more reasonable organization to deal with. Unions (the leadership, not necessarily the rank and file) have become a political entity and a bully with a focus on power and not a symbiotic relationship with the companies they work in. Just ask Colt. Unions do do a lot of good but it appears to most people looking in that that the worker is only a secondary concern.
As of Wednesday night the decision on what to be done has been delayed until December 2nd. "Until they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, C-Calif. I think there are a few reasons for the delay. Ostensibly, the (Democratic) leadership in Congress do not believe they have bill that will pass both houses with adequate Republican support or would be acceptable to President Bush. I think there is a certain amount of grand standing – making the auto executives grovel for a couple more weeks. I know that the leadership would love to delay a vote until after the inauguration so that Obama can have a big feather in his cap early in his first term. I'm pretty sure that many in Congress have no idea what to do. Certainly, many (true) conservatives oppose the plan on principle, and that more than a few other congress-critters are reading the tea leaves before making a last minute decision. I am also quite certain that the proposal from Wagner and the other included a major reduction in their retirement and health care liabilities.
The following quote from the AP article is one of the things that frightens me the most:
'Automakers ran into more resistance from House lawmakers, who chastised the executives for fighting tougher fuel-efficiency standards in the past and questioned their use of private jets while at the same time seeking government handouts.
"My fear is that you're going to take this money and continue the same stupid decisions you've made for 25 years," said Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass. '
It is no secret that Pelosi and many on the left have been pushing for higher efficiency standards and other environmentalist regulations for years; some bordering on the absurd. This, despite the lack of consumer wholesale interest or the technological feasibility. As I mentioned before, they are, in part, a cause of the current mess. I, also, distinctly remember a few of these monkeys telling us that high gas prices are a good thing. The mentality of these people places an environmental agenda above the vitality of any American industry. What is really shameful is the disregard of the big three's improvements in this area. GM will have the Volt in 2010, has had cylinder deactivation since the '07 MY, and hybrids before that. Ford and Chrysler have made similar improvements to economy and emissions, but this progress has been over looked in favor of an agenda that is pushed with out regard for American industry or the needs and wants of the consumer.
I feel it incumbent of me to point out: that nearly no congressman or senator has any experience running a business - especially one as large and complex as GM and Ford et el. They have not shown a willingness to contain government spending. The federal government is a case study in mismanagement and always will be. These are the people who gave the Secretary of the Treasury the sole authority to dispense the $700 billion they alloted the to sure up the credit market, without control or oversight, and are now bitching that what money was spent didn't go were they thought it would or should go. I think that Paulson's little 'bait and switch' caused a swing to the other extreme and may lead any bill to have a lot of stings and earmarks attached to it as a result.
It is important to note that Obama has said very little on the issue since he was elected. He and his team may view it as a hot potato and not be willing to put their mark on it in fear of failure.
I do not think that direct government intervention will help. Especially considering the current leadership of Congress. Forcing the trade issue, reducing regulation, lowering taxes, and removing any law that forces the hiring of only union workers will help in the long run. The only way that believe the fed can offer immediate and substitutive assistance is by removing the burden caused by retirees. If congress would take over the pensions and health care of retired workers and allow the auto makers to renegotiate with the unions it would almost immediately put them into, or close to, the black and allow them be more competitive.
I do not like this option either since it make a large number of people a ward of the state and advances socialism a little further, but I see it as the best of a whole mess of bad options.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The Auto Bail-out Plan Pt 2
With all of the mentioned baggage; the big three were still viable and operating with an eye on a more prosperous future. It has been a long road improving their products and corporate cultures to change with the times. Unfortunately the lack loyalty and perception that American cars are over priced junk will take a generation to erase. Toyota and other Asian did not build its reputation overnight and have done a superior job of improving their products over the last twenty years. I also can not overstate the unfair trade practices that have damaged the domestic makers ability to compete in their own markets. Similarly, the $1500-$3000 added to the cost of every car would put any company at a decided disadvantage.
The last two straws should be pretty obvious to anyone, paying attention, to the last year and a half. First the very sudden and very large increase in the price of oil and finished petroleum products (fuel) Their were many factors that caused this sudden shock to the market. I'll simply list them, without too much detail, since this is not the scope of this entry: Weakness in the US dollar limiting our buying power, speculation, production disruption (hurricanes, etc.), instability in the middle east, and a increasing demand that pushed our domestic refining capacity to the limit. As a side note: we haven't built any new refiners in this country for over 20 years.
This sudden increase put a major dent in the domestic's one good and profitable seller: full-sized trucks. Truck buyers are amongst the most loyal customers and only recently have the Japanese come out with a product the can directly compete with a F-series, Silverado, or Ram. The big three have been slow in shifting production to meet the demand for more fuel efficient vehicles. To be fair, they are fairly conservative and were probably waiting to see just how long this price increase would last. Additionally, large companies do not shift gears quickly, especially if they have onerous union obligations. The week dollar and higher transport costs did help the makers buy making it more expensive to import products from over seas – though the climate didn't last long enough to offer lasting aid.
The credit fiasco is what really put Detroit in a bind. All of a sudden people were not buying car at all and the entire new car market tanked over 30%. This was especially bad for Ford, GM, and Chrysler due to all over the overhead and legacy costs they have. They have to sell a much larger number of cars in order meet the obligations. They had been selling enough to barely meet these costs and pay for current costs; treading water for nearly a decade while loosing market share to outside competition.
