Today, Memorial Day 2010, let us all pause for at least a few moments to remember just why we are celebrating a holiday.
Remember all the brave men and women, dutifully serving their country, who paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we can have and enjoy the freedoms (and responsibilities) that we have every day simply because we belong to the greatest democracy in the world, The United States of America.
From the War of Independence to the Afghanistan War; from the Minutemen at Concord to the unsung hero's dying in covert missions across the globe;...
We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to all of these brave soldiers of every service!
Thank You for Your Service.
Thank You for Your Sacrifice!
You will never be forgotten!
God Bless The United States of America!
Monday, May 31, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
North Korea: Sabre Rattling Anew
North Korea is at it again.
As per their usual song and dance, the regime of Kim Jong Il is at it again with their thinly veiled threats against South Korea. This time, it was, if we are to believe the claims of the South Korean government, the North that acted first in sinking a South Korean gunboat; supposedly in retaliation for a similar action last year by the South against the North.
No matter the cause, South Korea is on heightened military alert. In response, North Korea has declared that they will defend themselves against unfair and unwarranted aggression by South Korea. Then today US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while visiting Seoul, South Korea as part of a multi-nation political swing through Eastern Asia, denounced the provocative stance of the North and asked for "North Korea to end its policy of threats and take steps to fulfill its denuclearization commitments and comply with international law.
"North Korea can still choose another path. Instead of isolation, poverty conflict and condemnation, North Korea could enjoy integration, prosperity, peace and respect," she said. (NPR report 05/26/10)
This whole thing is far from over. I'm sure, after more tension and increasing threats, that North Korea will capitulate its position after receiving "assurances" of an increase of food supplies and cash in exchange for their cooperation.
If all of this sounds familiar that's because this is the exact same political/military cat and mouse game that North Korea plays every couple of years. They feign offense at something, state they'll retaliate, place their military on alert, then give the US and others time to formulate their response based on economic incentives for the North to back down; which they do.
Here's the basic problem with what North Korea is doing. Their government is the last remaining Stalinist-based body in the world. Their actions over the last 25 years or so have isolated them from even their neighbor to the North, China. Their actions have resulted in unceasing embargoes that deny any humanitarian or economic aid to a country so poor that their "non-elite" citizens are starving.
Any so-called aid from these stand-offs never reaches the people who need it most. It is generally funneled to the government and the military. Everyone else is just seemingly out of luck. Meanwhile reports of starvation, military oppression and inflation so rampant that most citizens can't even buy what food there is, come filtering in from those brave souls who risk life and limb to breach the DMZ in order to escape the growing inhumane conditions from which they fled.
I have heard rumblings that the very elderly Kim Jong Il has multiple health problems, and that his son, Kim Jong un, slated to take control in the event of his father's death, is rumored to have a more favorable, conciliatory regard to South Korea and the US. If this proves to be true, then once Kim Jong Il is dead, there is a possibility of thawing relations between the two enmitic states.
In the mean time, we will continue to see more of the same sabre rattling happening that we are witnessing today. In spite of the vitriolic rhetoric we are hearing, there will be no war, no military action, no invasions. The North will threaten, they will get what they are after, and everything will be all happy on the Korean Peninsula once again...Until, that is, Kim Jong Il finds some new excuse to justify yet another round of his menial, small-minded megalomania that only places his already oppressed citizenry at ever-increasing risk.
As per their usual song and dance, the regime of Kim Jong Il is at it again with their thinly veiled threats against South Korea. This time, it was, if we are to believe the claims of the South Korean government, the North that acted first in sinking a South Korean gunboat; supposedly in retaliation for a similar action last year by the South against the North.
No matter the cause, South Korea is on heightened military alert. In response, North Korea has declared that they will defend themselves against unfair and unwarranted aggression by South Korea. Then today US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while visiting Seoul, South Korea as part of a multi-nation political swing through Eastern Asia, denounced the provocative stance of the North and asked for "North Korea to end its policy of threats and take steps to fulfill its denuclearization commitments and comply with international law.
"North Korea can still choose another path. Instead of isolation, poverty conflict and condemnation, North Korea could enjoy integration, prosperity, peace and respect," she said. (NPR report 05/26/10)
This whole thing is far from over. I'm sure, after more tension and increasing threats, that North Korea will capitulate its position after receiving "assurances" of an increase of food supplies and cash in exchange for their cooperation.
If all of this sounds familiar that's because this is the exact same political/military cat and mouse game that North Korea plays every couple of years. They feign offense at something, state they'll retaliate, place their military on alert, then give the US and others time to formulate their response based on economic incentives for the North to back down; which they do.
Here's the basic problem with what North Korea is doing. Their government is the last remaining Stalinist-based body in the world. Their actions over the last 25 years or so have isolated them from even their neighbor to the North, China. Their actions have resulted in unceasing embargoes that deny any humanitarian or economic aid to a country so poor that their "non-elite" citizens are starving.
Any so-called aid from these stand-offs never reaches the people who need it most. It is generally funneled to the government and the military. Everyone else is just seemingly out of luck. Meanwhile reports of starvation, military oppression and inflation so rampant that most citizens can't even buy what food there is, come filtering in from those brave souls who risk life and limb to breach the DMZ in order to escape the growing inhumane conditions from which they fled.
I have heard rumblings that the very elderly Kim Jong Il has multiple health problems, and that his son, Kim Jong un, slated to take control in the event of his father's death, is rumored to have a more favorable, conciliatory regard to South Korea and the US. If this proves to be true, then once Kim Jong Il is dead, there is a possibility of thawing relations between the two enmitic states.
In the mean time, we will continue to see more of the same sabre rattling happening that we are witnessing today. In spite of the vitriolic rhetoric we are hearing, there will be no war, no military action, no invasions. The North will threaten, they will get what they are after, and everything will be all happy on the Korean Peninsula once again...Until, that is, Kim Jong Il finds some new excuse to justify yet another round of his menial, small-minded megalomania that only places his already oppressed citizenry at ever-increasing risk.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Continuing Consternation with Oil $ vs. Gas $
One of my original posts was about the disparity between a barrel of oil and the cost of a gallon of gas. Specifically, how when oil rises in price, gas quickly follows. Yet, when oil drops in price, gas takes weeks to drop even a few pennies.
Particularly troubling in this equation is that oil is typically purchased 30 days ahead of delivery. Theoretically then, we shouldn't see an increase in gasoline prices until 35-45 days after contract purchase (assuming the price of oil has risen), because the oil already being processed was paid for at a lower price per barrel. Yet, the same day a contract purchase increase occurs, we are seeing prices at the pump jump as well. Why?
I know that gasoline commodity shares are traded separately from oil; but they seem closely tied together whenever oil rises--but then look like two disparate entities when oil drops. Again...Why?
A few months ago, the price of gasoline in my area reached a peak average of about $3.17 per gallon (for regular unleaded). It has gone up to as much as $3.27 and as "low" as $3.09 Right now, the gas in my area is about .25 cents above the national average ($2.92).
Over the last few weeks, with increased uncertainty in Europe and the US, the price of oil has dropped from a high of $87.63 (?) per barrel, to the current price (at today's trading close) of $70.08. That's a 20% drop in the price per barrel. Yet, the gas in my area remains unchanged. Why?
If oil rose 20% you can be damned sure we'd see at least a 20% increase in the cost of our gasoline. Why does the reverse NOT hold true for a commodity so closely tied to oil futures?
I keep hearing all sorts of excuses coming from the oil companies as to why. They state things like Financial unrest in Greece, Uncertainty in China, Economic trouble in Europe due to the ash cloud from Iceland, etc. On Friday, I head another great excuse..."The further a market is from the refinery gasoline pipeline, naturally, the more the gas will cost in your area."
I know this excuse to be a load of poo, because there are four refineries in my area, just 55 miles away. That fact totally blows the oil industry's excuse right out of the water. Further, of the 5 states (in the continental US) with the highest average gas prices, four of them have at least 2 refineries operating in their borders. Makes me wonder what excuses we'll be hearing next...especially in those five states.
Meanwhile, the price per gallon of gasoline remains well above the national average. In the next two weeks, we're supposed to see a drop of about 10% in prices to an average of $2.64. Did I say that right? Yep--a mere 10% price reduction for a 20% drop in oil prices. That just doesn't seem right...probably because it isn't!
Let's look at the cost of gas from another angle. During the terrifying speculator-driven run-up of oil from 2006-2008, the price of oil peaked at about $147 per barrel. Gasoline was selling for about $4.45 average. That's about a 300% increase on both commodities from the pre-run-up prices of both.
Currently, oil prices are about 70% above pre-run-up prices; Yet gasoline is up 153%. (I used $1.15 per gallon gas, and $36 per barrel of oil as my basis for these numbers.) WHY? WHY? WHY? This makes no sense whatsoever. The only explanation that really makes any sense is that of corporate greed. No other reasonable explanation exists...as far as I am aware. In my opinion, the oil companies really like the massive profits they've been rolling in by the ship loads, and really don't want to give up those incredible net profits.
I'm sure there are other factors I'm not aware of; other influences I know nothing about. However, the numerical aspects do not lie. There IS a monstrous disparity between what oil costs, and what we pay at the pump. The gasoline markets are tied extremely closely when oil rises; but are disparate when oil falls. The excuses from oil companies continue to spew out rhetoric that just isn't true. And the American public seems to be the snicker doodles in the proverbial cookie jar that is Big Oil.
Guess who loses?
Particularly troubling in this equation is that oil is typically purchased 30 days ahead of delivery. Theoretically then, we shouldn't see an increase in gasoline prices until 35-45 days after contract purchase (assuming the price of oil has risen), because the oil already being processed was paid for at a lower price per barrel. Yet, the same day a contract purchase increase occurs, we are seeing prices at the pump jump as well. Why?
I know that gasoline commodity shares are traded separately from oil; but they seem closely tied together whenever oil rises--but then look like two disparate entities when oil drops. Again...Why?
A few months ago, the price of gasoline in my area reached a peak average of about $3.17 per gallon (for regular unleaded). It has gone up to as much as $3.27 and as "low" as $3.09 Right now, the gas in my area is about .25 cents above the national average ($2.92).
Over the last few weeks, with increased uncertainty in Europe and the US, the price of oil has dropped from a high of $87.63 (?) per barrel, to the current price (at today's trading close) of $70.08. That's a 20% drop in the price per barrel. Yet, the gas in my area remains unchanged. Why?
If oil rose 20% you can be damned sure we'd see at least a 20% increase in the cost of our gasoline. Why does the reverse NOT hold true for a commodity so closely tied to oil futures?
I keep hearing all sorts of excuses coming from the oil companies as to why. They state things like Financial unrest in Greece, Uncertainty in China, Economic trouble in Europe due to the ash cloud from Iceland, etc. On Friday, I head another great excuse..."The further a market is from the refinery gasoline pipeline, naturally, the more the gas will cost in your area."
I know this excuse to be a load of poo, because there are four refineries in my area, just 55 miles away. That fact totally blows the oil industry's excuse right out of the water. Further, of the 5 states (in the continental US) with the highest average gas prices, four of them have at least 2 refineries operating in their borders. Makes me wonder what excuses we'll be hearing next...especially in those five states.
Meanwhile, the price per gallon of gasoline remains well above the national average. In the next two weeks, we're supposed to see a drop of about 10% in prices to an average of $2.64. Did I say that right? Yep--a mere 10% price reduction for a 20% drop in oil prices. That just doesn't seem right...probably because it isn't!
Let's look at the cost of gas from another angle. During the terrifying speculator-driven run-up of oil from 2006-2008, the price of oil peaked at about $147 per barrel. Gasoline was selling for about $4.45 average. That's about a 300% increase on both commodities from the pre-run-up prices of both.
Currently, oil prices are about 70% above pre-run-up prices; Yet gasoline is up 153%. (I used $1.15 per gallon gas, and $36 per barrel of oil as my basis for these numbers.) WHY? WHY? WHY? This makes no sense whatsoever. The only explanation that really makes any sense is that of corporate greed. No other reasonable explanation exists...as far as I am aware. In my opinion, the oil companies really like the massive profits they've been rolling in by the ship loads, and really don't want to give up those incredible net profits.
I'm sure there are other factors I'm not aware of; other influences I know nothing about. However, the numerical aspects do not lie. There IS a monstrous disparity between what oil costs, and what we pay at the pump. The gasoline markets are tied extremely closely when oil rises; but are disparate when oil falls. The excuses from oil companies continue to spew out rhetoric that just isn't true. And the American public seems to be the snicker doodles in the proverbial cookie jar that is Big Oil.
Guess who loses?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Congressional NON-Pay Raise?
I could hardly believe my eyes when I read the news.
Congress actually turned down their annual pay raise? What is this madness?
Citing concerns over election year pressures by constituents to keep Congressional salaries from rising, last week Congress collectively, and very quietly, decided to forgo their [seemingly permanent] pay increase, thereby [hopefully] garnering political clout in the eyes of the US constituency.
While the motivation behind the vote to status quo their pay is completely politically self-serving , at least they saw some shred of reason in the matter. It was a decent gesture during a time of ongoing financial hardship for many Americans. When the bulk of your constituents are having a tough time making ends meet, giving yourself a raise above the $174,400 you currently make is not only callous, but just plain unconscionable. Voters would be left with a huge distaste for current Congressional representation. This quiet vote was the right move, selfish though the motivation is.
While the warm fuzzy Congress sent out to the rank and files working-class may not last long, I personally welcome the gesture...however hollow it may be.
Congress actually turned down their annual pay raise? What is this madness?
Citing concerns over election year pressures by constituents to keep Congressional salaries from rising, last week Congress collectively, and very quietly, decided to forgo their [seemingly permanent] pay increase, thereby [hopefully] garnering political clout in the eyes of the US constituency.
While the motivation behind the vote to status quo their pay is completely politically self-serving , at least they saw some shred of reason in the matter. It was a decent gesture during a time of ongoing financial hardship for many Americans. When the bulk of your constituents are having a tough time making ends meet, giving yourself a raise above the $174,400 you currently make is not only callous, but just plain unconscionable. Voters would be left with a huge distaste for current Congressional representation. This quiet vote was the right move, selfish though the motivation is.
While the warm fuzzy Congress sent out to the rank and files working-class may not last long, I personally welcome the gesture...however hollow it may be.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Cinco de Mayo--Follow-up
After yesterdays commentary regarding Cinco de Mayo, I've received a few interesting comments.
Although my commentary was in no way inflammatory, some readers took it that way anyhow. (I guess I hit a nerve...) So, first let me assure you that the commentary was not intended to offend. I just don't get the nationwide emphasis regarding a non-US holiday.
Secondly, I guess I'm really not the only non-mexican-American who doesn't get this whole thing. The following news article from California typifies the issue:
Although my commentary was in no way inflammatory, some readers took it that way anyhow. (I guess I hit a nerve...) So, first let me assure you that the commentary was not intended to offend. I just don't get the nationwide emphasis regarding a non-US holiday.
Secondly, I guess I'm really not the only non-mexican-American who doesn't get this whole thing. The following news article from California typifies the issue:
Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees
"On any other day at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Daniel Galli and his four friends would not even be noticed for wearing T-shirts with the American flag. But Cinco de Mayo is not any typical day especially on a campus with a large Mexican American student population.
Galli says he and his friends were sitting at a table during brunch break when the vice principal asked two of the boys to remove American flag bandannas that they wearing on their heads and for the others to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. When they refused, the boys were ordered to go to the Principal's office.
"They said we could wear it on any other day," Daniel Galli said, "but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today."
"They said we could wear it on any other day," Daniel Galli said, "but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today."
The boys said the administrators called their T-shirts "incendiary" that would lead to fights on campus.
"They said if we tried to go back to class with our shirts not taken off, they said it was defiance and we
"They said if we tried to go back to class with our shirts not taken off, they said it was defiance and we
would get suspended," Dominic Maciel, Galli's friend, said.
The boys really had no choice, and went home to avoid suspension. They say they're angry they were not
allowed to express their American pride. Their parents are just as upset, calling what happened to their
children, "total nonsense." "I think it's absolutely ridiculous," Julie Fagerstrom, Maciel's mom, said. "All
they were doing was displaying their patriotic nature. They're expressing their individuality."
But to many Mexican-American students at Live Oak, this was a big deal. They say they were offended by
the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.
"I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day," Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. "We don't deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."
As for an apology, the boys and their families say, 'fat chance.' "I'm not going to apologize.
I did nothing wrong," Galli said. "I went along with my normal day. I might have worn an American flag,
but I'm an American and I'm proud to be an American."
The five boys and their families met with a Morgan Hill Unified School District official Wednesday night.
The district and the school do not see eye-to-eye on the incident and released the following statement:
'The district does not concur with the Live Oak High School administration's interpretation of either board or district policy related to these actions.' The boys will not be suspended and were allowed to return to school Thursday. We spotted one of them when he got to campus -- and, yes, he was sporting an American flag T-shirt."
'The district does not concur with the Live Oak High School administration's interpretation of either board or district policy related to these actions.' The boys will not be suspended and were allowed to return to school Thursday. We spotted one of them when he got to campus -- and, yes, he was sporting an American flag T-shirt."
Additionally, since this story broke, the Internet message boards have been buzzing, with the vast majority of respondents supporting the students who were sent home. One service I came across had around 2250 messages; mostly supportive of the boys from my glancing through a hundred or so. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see a lawsuit emerge from this little whole thing.
So, who is right? Who is wrong? Is anybody really on the correct side here? But I must ask...Why is it offensive for teenage boys to wear patriotic American displays to a school located in the US State of California? Why is it NOT OK to be a proud American on 05 May? What is so wrong with America that proudly displaying American patriotism is inconceivably deemed inappropriate?
This really does boggle the mind. Or maybe, I'm just a Grumpy Gus.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Cinco de Mayo?
Call me a Grumpy Gus if you want, but I just don't get the brouhaha over Cinco de Mayo.
As far as I'm aware, the fifth of May has no special significance in US history. There is no holiday, no sanctioned celebrations, etc. So, why is it that we have to observe the Mexican holiday known as Cinco de Mayo?
This holiday commemorates the 1862 Mexican army victory over the French in the Battle of Puebla. This so-called holiday has absolutely nothing to do with US history.
Now, I understand about heritage, tradition and cultural celebration; but celebrating a Mexican holiday? Why? Does the country of Mexico celebrate the US Independence day? Do Australians recognize Thanksgiving? Of course they don't! These countries (and every other one out there) celebrate their own holidays in their own unique ways. So, what makes the Hispanic community of the United States so special that a foreign holiday is celebrated on US soil?
I just don't get it.
Don't get me wrong if you believe I am being forced to celebrate this holiday. I know that is certainly not the case. Besides, I can't stand mexican food (eewwww!), I don't drink beer or tequila, and have no close mexican friends. So, I have no reason to celebrate, or even recognize, Cinco de Mayo.
However, I have always wondered why the big deal. From what I've read, few places in Mexico even acknowledge the "holiday." Yet here we are--every year the grocery stores push mexican fare in their ads, merchandisers mount sales campaigns, some communities hold parades, etc...all for a Mexican holiday that has nothing whatsoever to do with United States history.
I just don't get it.
As far as I'm aware, the fifth of May has no special significance in US history. There is no holiday, no sanctioned celebrations, etc. So, why is it that we have to observe the Mexican holiday known as Cinco de Mayo?
This holiday commemorates the 1862 Mexican army victory over the French in the Battle of Puebla. This so-called holiday has absolutely nothing to do with US history.
Now, I understand about heritage, tradition and cultural celebration; but celebrating a Mexican holiday? Why? Does the country of Mexico celebrate the US Independence day? Do Australians recognize Thanksgiving? Of course they don't! These countries (and every other one out there) celebrate their own holidays in their own unique ways. So, what makes the Hispanic community of the United States so special that a foreign holiday is celebrated on US soil?
I just don't get it.
Don't get me wrong if you believe I am being forced to celebrate this holiday. I know that is certainly not the case. Besides, I can't stand mexican food (eewwww!), I don't drink beer or tequila, and have no close mexican friends. So, I have no reason to celebrate, or even recognize, Cinco de Mayo.
However, I have always wondered why the big deal. From what I've read, few places in Mexico even acknowledge the "holiday." Yet here we are--every year the grocery stores push mexican fare in their ads, merchandisers mount sales campaigns, some communities hold parades, etc...all for a Mexican holiday that has nothing whatsoever to do with United States history.
I just don't get it.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Internet Advertising Going Overboard
A personal pet peeve of mine here.
I don't know about any of you, but I am getting fed up with the increasing advertising we are seeing all over the internet.
It used to be we'd see a few side boxes with ads on a page. That was fine; they weren't intrusive, and they allowed you to decide if you wanted to see more about the product or service being hawked by clicking on the ad-- or not. Then about twelve years ago, advertisers discovered the power and influence the internet had over millions of households, and they decided to horn in on the action, buying ad space on just about every web page they could find. Seemingly overnight internet advertising exploded from a few unobtrusive ads to an unwelcomed permeation of advertising in every nook and cranny of the world wide web.
I don't know about any of you, but I am getting fed up with the increasing advertising we are seeing all over the internet.
It used to be we'd see a few side boxes with ads on a page. That was fine; they weren't intrusive, and they allowed you to decide if you wanted to see more about the product or service being hawked by clicking on the ad-- or not. Then about twelve years ago, advertisers discovered the power and influence the internet had over millions of households, and they decided to horn in on the action, buying ad space on just about every web page they could find. Seemingly overnight internet advertising exploded from a few unobtrusive ads to an unwelcomed permeation of advertising in every nook and cranny of the world wide web.
Over the last year or so, video commercials are increasingly present on many pages. When they first appeared, most commercials were 7-12 seconds long, and usually not tied in to the viewing of content. Lately, it seems like any game you want to play, or any video you want to watch is being preceded by a commercial of 30-60 seconds that is directly tied to the video.
Usually, when playing an online game (at least on MSN games), as levels are advanced, the player is subjected to a commercial between each level. Videos of any length aren't any better. I watched one news clip [that ended up being just 20 seconds] that had a 45 second commercial in front of it! It feels like I'm watching tv.
So what have I started doing? Well, just like tv, I mute the commercials and pay zero attention to the ads. This is the only way I feel I have any control. Before long, I don't doubt that there will be commercials in front of every click we make. That will be a sad day for a medium that had no ads anywhere when it first began. Kind of like FM radio...you know, all music, no ads. Now, listening to FM is a miserable tromp through the jungle to discover the music between the commercials.
Thank Goodness for Satellite Radio...until it too falls into the hands of advertisers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
