Here's an interesting little article that should give you something to think about.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4331026.html
A number of these grow commonly in yards and found all over the US. If you are interested in this stuff, the classic text is "Poisonous Plants of the United States and Canada" by John Kingsbury. It's dated now, but quite complete.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
OMB and CBO
For those of you not into Federal alphabet soup - that's the Office of Management and Budget (part of the Executive Branch - i.e., works for President) and the Congressional Budget Office (part of the Legislative Branch, and set up to be non-partisan). This report (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/26/the-omb-cbo-throwdown/) of the OMB pressuring the CBO is really quite a serious thing. The (relative) independence of the CBO is critical to Congressional budgeting decisions - and, as a part of the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch has little business even being at the meetings, much less "pressing his old CBO colleagues to change past practices".
This could lead to more of an "Imperial Presidency" than anything Bush or even Nixon did.
This could lead to more of an "Imperial Presidency" than anything Bush or even Nixon did.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Federal Health Care
I'm pretty firmly opposed to every options I've heard discussed for expanded health care. Partly because I have fundamental issues with the Federal Government providing health care at all (I know, that's a lost cause) and partly because of the expense. On the expense, specifically, all the plans I've seen assume major savings from increased efficiency. I work for the Federal Government, and have for more than 30 years. I think every Administration I've worked for has claimed they would reduce the cost of something or other by increasing efficiency. I've seen no demonstrated successes. So for proponents of health care - demonstrate the savings in medicare and medicaid first - then we can talk about how much more money would be saved by expanding federal health care programs.
Must be a slow day - 2 posts in one day is a record for me!
Must be a slow day - 2 posts in one day is a record for me!
Afganistan Attacks
In headlines I would have expected more during Pres. Bush's administration (which may reflect my prejudice) most of the major news outlets are talking about the the 7 suicide bombers - but the headlines are about the attacks, not about what seems to me to be more important - the attacks all failed as a result of Afgan security forces taking action. The headlines don't even imply this was a victory, when it obviously was - see, for example:
The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/taliban-afghanistan-khost-attack
CNN International - http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/25/afghanistan.wrap/
and
AP - http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD99LMNAO4
The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/taliban-afghanistan-khost-attack
CNN International - http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/25/afghanistan.wrap/
and
AP - http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD99LMNAO4
Friday, July 24, 2009
Climate Change
One of the more interesting - to me at least - current issues is the debate about climate change. I've expressed my concerns before about the uncertainty in the science, and here's a recent peer-reviewed article that illustrates some basis for the uncertainty: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
The basic conclusion is that the Southern Oscillation (a fancy phrase for the periodic temperature changes in the Pacific Ocean) can explain most the variability we have seen in climate for the last 50 years or so. The Climate change proponents (I almost said fanatics) have immediately raised a number of issues - some appear legitimate, some are more in the line of personal attacks and name-calling. Here are the 3 I found:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/is-our-whole-dissembly-appeared/
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/07/surprising-conclusions-from.html
Note that none of these are peer reviewed - and I'm far from a climate scientist!
One point they make which may have some value is that the Southern Oscillation study did not include trend data. But I 'm not sure that was the point - the point seems to me that climate models have to include the effects of the southern oscillation if they are to represent the what the climate appears to work - and currently they don't.
So, this is another source of uncertainty in the models that make me skeptical on their scenarios (since even they don't call them predictions).
The basic conclusion is that the Southern Oscillation (a fancy phrase for the periodic temperature changes in the Pacific Ocean) can explain most the variability we have seen in climate for the last 50 years or so. The Climate change proponents (I almost said fanatics) have immediately raised a number of issues - some appear legitimate, some are more in the line of personal attacks and name-calling. Here are the 3 I found:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/is-our-whole-dissembly-appeared/
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/07/surprising-conclusions-from.html
Note that none of these are peer reviewed - and I'm far from a climate scientist!
One point they make which may have some value is that the Southern Oscillation study did not include trend data. But I 'm not sure that was the point - the point seems to me that climate models have to include the effects of the southern oscillation if they are to represent the what the climate appears to work - and currently they don't.
So, this is another source of uncertainty in the models that make me skeptical on their scenarios (since even they don't call them predictions).
Friday, May 22, 2009
Senator Benntet's response
Senator Bennet actually appears to have read (or his staff, actually) my original note and responded - here is the response:
"Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you.
Our nation is currently undergoing an economic upheaval, the likes of which we have not seen since the Great Depression. The number of unemployed Americans increased by 563,000 to 13.7 million in April 2009, and the unemployment rate rose to 8.9 percent overall. In Colorado, more than 58,000 workers have lost their jobs, and every day, more and more Coloradans fall behind in their mortgage payments.
It is important to remember that the seeds of the current economic turmoil were planted during the past eight years, when unregulated markets allowed financial institutions to swell and the housing market to balloon to unrealistic proportions. Even traditional advocates of deregulation, and the financial industry itself, have asked Congress to step in and help reform the system of regulation to create more certainty. We have seen a need for smarter regulation given the seriousness of the current financial meltdown. It will take bold action and a willingness to embrace new ideas to get our economy moving again. The work of the current Administration and Congress has been to address this crisis with every tool at our disposal.
Recovery will not happen overnight, but Congress must do more to stave off a prolonged recession and help working families. I believe that vigorous investments we have made are necessary to get our economy moving again. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L.111-5), we have made targeted investments in energy, health care, education, and transportation that will help create jobs and grow our economy. In addition, the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Resolution, which passed the Senate on April 2, 2009, lays the foundation for significant cost saving reforms to our health care system and energy sector.
That said, I certainly share your concerns over the current size of the deficit. As we work to revive the economy, we must do everything we can to put America back on the track toward fiscal responsibility. That is why I supported the Senate Budget Resolution, which went beyond President Obama’s plan by cutting the deficit by two-thirds by 2014, stimulating the economy in the short run and then reducing the deficit in the long run. We must work to reduce the deficit, because economic recovery will be short-lived if we mortgage our children’s future to achieve it.
Some have attempted to reduce these bold efforts to partisan talking points, asserting that, all told, the initiatives represent a return to “big government” or stereotypical “tax and spend” economic plans. I believe these arguments overlook the severity of our situation and mischaracterize the actual policy. For example, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act cuts taxes for 95 percent of American families, and the Making Work Pay tax cut – which covers more Americans than any in history – is putting more than $900 million back into the pockets of more than 1.8 million Colorado families.
Coloradans need help now. As we invest in America and pave the way for long-term economic recovery, rest assured I will keep your thoughts in mind and work to serve as responsible steward of taxpayer funds.
Again, thank you for contacting me."
I still disagree with much of what he says - and he has taken an excessively political tone when discussing the origins of the current financial situation - its been building for much longer than 8 years - that just happens to be the two terms of President Bush - and as a good Democrat (rather than an honest broker and source of information) - he can't say anything that implies President Clinton had anything to do with it. Additionally, of course, the economy is the thing that Presidents have the least control over - even though they are blamed first when things go bad.
Finally, again, like Congressman Perlmutter, he kind of missed the point. He came closer than Congressman Perlmutter, but still focused too much upon the deficit and government as the solution - rather than the ease with which the government can be the problem and the high level of distrust (earned) in Congressional actions. Notice I'm clear that government isn't always the problem, and some actions of the government likely helped. Unfortunately, the actions that likely helped where likely the most unpopular - supporting the banks. In today's society, the availability of credit is vital to the economy of the country. I would like to see a longer term solution based upon restricting the size of an individual institution so it cannot be "too big to fail". And then the system should be able to allow the failure those institutions that are poorly managed, but the expansion of those that are not.
That still leaves the very human problem of the herd mentality. If a bank is making more money - even in the short term - by a particular practice, the odds are that most banks will follow the same path, despite the risks. There is an element of human nature involved that regulation is not going to fix - and if it tried too hard, the regulation becomes the problem.
"Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you.
Our nation is currently undergoing an economic upheaval, the likes of which we have not seen since the Great Depression. The number of unemployed Americans increased by 563,000 to 13.7 million in April 2009, and the unemployment rate rose to 8.9 percent overall. In Colorado, more than 58,000 workers have lost their jobs, and every day, more and more Coloradans fall behind in their mortgage payments.
It is important to remember that the seeds of the current economic turmoil were planted during the past eight years, when unregulated markets allowed financial institutions to swell and the housing market to balloon to unrealistic proportions. Even traditional advocates of deregulation, and the financial industry itself, have asked Congress to step in and help reform the system of regulation to create more certainty. We have seen a need for smarter regulation given the seriousness of the current financial meltdown. It will take bold action and a willingness to embrace new ideas to get our economy moving again. The work of the current Administration and Congress has been to address this crisis with every tool at our disposal.
Recovery will not happen overnight, but Congress must do more to stave off a prolonged recession and help working families. I believe that vigorous investments we have made are necessary to get our economy moving again. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L.111-5), we have made targeted investments in energy, health care, education, and transportation that will help create jobs and grow our economy. In addition, the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Resolution, which passed the Senate on April 2, 2009, lays the foundation for significant cost saving reforms to our health care system and energy sector.
That said, I certainly share your concerns over the current size of the deficit. As we work to revive the economy, we must do everything we can to put America back on the track toward fiscal responsibility. That is why I supported the Senate Budget Resolution, which went beyond President Obama’s plan by cutting the deficit by two-thirds by 2014, stimulating the economy in the short run and then reducing the deficit in the long run. We must work to reduce the deficit, because economic recovery will be short-lived if we mortgage our children’s future to achieve it.
Some have attempted to reduce these bold efforts to partisan talking points, asserting that, all told, the initiatives represent a return to “big government” or stereotypical “tax and spend” economic plans. I believe these arguments overlook the severity of our situation and mischaracterize the actual policy. For example, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act cuts taxes for 95 percent of American families, and the Making Work Pay tax cut – which covers more Americans than any in history – is putting more than $900 million back into the pockets of more than 1.8 million Colorado families.
Coloradans need help now. As we invest in America and pave the way for long-term economic recovery, rest assured I will keep your thoughts in mind and work to serve as responsible steward of taxpayer funds.
Again, thank you for contacting me."
I still disagree with much of what he says - and he has taken an excessively political tone when discussing the origins of the current financial situation - its been building for much longer than 8 years - that just happens to be the two terms of President Bush - and as a good Democrat (rather than an honest broker and source of information) - he can't say anything that implies President Clinton had anything to do with it. Additionally, of course, the economy is the thing that Presidents have the least control over - even though they are blamed first when things go bad.
Finally, again, like Congressman Perlmutter, he kind of missed the point. He came closer than Congressman Perlmutter, but still focused too much upon the deficit and government as the solution - rather than the ease with which the government can be the problem and the high level of distrust (earned) in Congressional actions. Notice I'm clear that government isn't always the problem, and some actions of the government likely helped. Unfortunately, the actions that likely helped where likely the most unpopular - supporting the banks. In today's society, the availability of credit is vital to the economy of the country. I would like to see a longer term solution based upon restricting the size of an individual institution so it cannot be "too big to fail". And then the system should be able to allow the failure those institutions that are poorly managed, but the expansion of those that are not.
That still leaves the very human problem of the herd mentality. If a bank is making more money - even in the short term - by a particular practice, the odds are that most banks will follow the same path, despite the risks. There is an element of human nature involved that regulation is not going to fix - and if it tried too hard, the regulation becomes the problem.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Life Happens
That's as good a reason as any for my lack or recent posting - nothing specific, just life.
I just returned from visiting my daughter in Little Rock and had a very pleasant visit. Did some shooting and visited the Pea Ridge Battlefield.
Arkansas is a beautiful state - not one I know well. It's certainly different from the Western states I am more used to (and like better). The humidity would take some getting used to and the bugs are magnitudes more of a problem than in the Rockies - something I'd have to figure out, because if I lived in Arkansas I would enjoy doing some bushwacking up the streams in the Ozarks. Something I did a lot of as a kid in the Sierras.
I travel quite a bit, and one thing I've learned is that each State has its beauties. I assume that is true even of the more densely populated states (New Jersey comes to mind). There is lots to explore in the 50 states - I've only been in 28 so far.
I just returned from visiting my daughter in Little Rock and had a very pleasant visit. Did some shooting and visited the Pea Ridge Battlefield.
Arkansas is a beautiful state - not one I know well. It's certainly different from the Western states I am more used to (and like better). The humidity would take some getting used to and the bugs are magnitudes more of a problem than in the Rockies - something I'd have to figure out, because if I lived in Arkansas I would enjoy doing some bushwacking up the streams in the Ozarks. Something I did a lot of as a kid in the Sierras.
I travel quite a bit, and one thing I've learned is that each State has its beauties. I assume that is true even of the more densely populated states (New Jersey comes to mind). There is lots to explore in the 50 states - I've only been in 28 so far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
